Restaurants Riled as Town Talks Tables

As restaurateurs gear up for Memorial Day weekend and the start of the moneymaking season, some are criticizing a proposed new law that they say would affect patrons waiting to be seated.

Under the present code, restaurants are allowed to move up to 30 percent of their approved indoor seating capacity outdoors, a popular option during the balmy months. Under the proposed regulation, described as “intended to clarify when a restaurant may devote a percentage of its indoor seating capacity to outdoor seating for dining,” restaurants could add even more seats outdoors, beyond the 30-percent limit, without reducing indoor seats by the same amount, provided the planning board approves.

But the new provision, in describing the intent of the code (“Outdoor dining is limited to tables and chairs for the service of restaurant food and beverages incidental to the service of food”), also uses language that makes it, according to a group calling itself the Concerned Businesses of East Hampton and Montauk, “a no-fun code.”

An outdoor dining area, says the draft law, “does not allow for a waiting area, a standing area, or an area for the service of beverages (alcoholic or otherwise) prior to being seated for dining, after dining, or an area only to participate in entertainment (music) provided by the restaurant.”

That, according to an ad placed in today’s Star by the business group, amounts to an “absurd town government power grab” and an “ill-timed and poorly considered change” that will put businesses at risk of failure. 

“The new greeting in East Hampton and Montauk will be, ‘Go back on the street and we will call you when you can come on our property to sit at a table for dinner.’ You are no longer permitted to have a beer in our outdoor area, nor are you allowed to order a soft drink for your child while waiting for your table. This government bill makes no provision for the prospective customer,” says the ad by the group, which is represented by Lawrence Kelly, an attorney who has gone head-to-head with the town on numerous related issues.

“Businesses are being directed by government to eliminate any form of customer ambiance, service or regard for a prospective customer. We are also being directed to manhandle a customer off the property who wants to stay on our property after dinner,” the ad says.

As more restaurants become places not only to dine but to hang out and socialize with drinks and light fare, or listen to music, many have added outdoor lounge furniture, daybeds, and other amenities such as fire pits.

According to Councilwoman Sylvia Overby, who as liaison to the Town Planning Department is a sponsor of the legislation, such amenities push the boundaries of the outdoor dining option, constituting an expansion of business, with accompanying increases in traffic, parking, and demand on sanitary facilities. “We want to open the door for outdoor dining, but don’t start bringing everything outside with it, because it’s going to affect parking, septic, and other things,” Ms. Overby said Tuesday.

The business group charges in its ad that “the town has failed to identify any problem required to be solved by the change.” But Ms. Overby said that the proposed law was drawn up with input from the various town departments involved in code enforcement and quality-of-life complaints.

Problems arise when businesses host more people, for longer periods of time, than had been anticipated, Ms. Overby said, and increase the intensity of use without the benefit of site-plan review, through which the planning board may impose conditions addressing potential problems.

The town board will hold a hearing next Thursday on the proposed changes, beginning at 6:30 p.m. at Town Hall. The board voted earlier this month to schedule the hearing with little discussion of the particulars, and the draft law, which was drawn up by Nancylynn Thiele, a town attorney, was not circulated to the town’s business advisory committee for comment. That group is now examining it, Ms. Overby said, and all comments on the proposal will be taken into account. The town board “will have the decision to delay it, to change it, to go to other boards,” she said.

Meanwhile, the opposition business group charges in its ad that the new provision, “created by government employees with no background in hospitality and virtually no input from local businesses or residents, would doom many East Hampton Town businesses before the July 4th holiday. There are dozens of resorts and restaurants in Montauk alone at risk.”

If enacted, the ad says, “the change will force enormous expenditures by many establishments (both big and small) to fight this absurd legislation.”