Montauk business owners and local musicians told the East Hampton Town Board last Thursday that proposed code changes covering music entertainment permits are far less objectionable than those debated at a contentious public hearing 10 months ago, but that some unreasonable provisions still remain.
Last year, after some 40 musicians and owners of music venues attacked proposed changes regarding the issuance and revocation of permits as draconian, meanspirited, and even cruel and unusual, the board conceded that while their concerns may have been overblown, the changes should be rethought, with input from the town’s business committee.
By contrast, speakers last week were mostly measured, homing in on details of the proposal that they said were unreasonable or unnecessary.
Changes to the law are seen as a means to address a small number of “problem” venues, an effort the board has emphasized in recent years since Montauk’s summer nightlife has come under greater scrutiny. Residents have complained loudly about noise, crowds, and an out-of-control atmosphere that they say affects their quality of life.
Restaurant, bar, and resort owners told the board last year that added regulations, and the specter of running afoul of them, would discourage them from even applying for a music entertainment permit, thus denying them a means of attracting patrons. Musicians, in turn, feared there would be fewer gigs and a lot less income.
According to the latest amendments, a restaurant, bar, or tavern must still obtain a music entertainment permit to host live music or a D.J., with such entertainment allowed outdoors until 9 p.m. But the latest proposal considerably softens most of the changes.
It eliminates, for one, allowing the town clerk to deny approval of a permit based on two or more prior convictions within the past three years or relating to any section of the town code involving music entertainment, fire prevention, special events, noise, or zoning. Instead, denial is now based on three or more convictions, within a single permit year, pertaining to music entertainment, noise, or certain chapters of the New York State fire code.
Where permits now automatically renew, the latest proposal renders them valid for one calendar year unless suspended or revoked. Following the summer season, the town clerk is to send a letter to permit holders to verify that information provided in their application is still accurate. If it is returned, the permit is renewed; if it is not, the permit holder must reapply. If a venue changes ownership, its new owners would have to apply for a permit. Permits will remain free, but standard language is to be inserted stipulating that the board can set a fee.
Language in the code was modified to clarify that commercial establishments that are not restaurants or bars are allowed to play recorded “background music” for ambience without obtaining a permit.
A remaining sticking point concerns a hearing within 30 days of a permit’s denial or revocation due to three or more convictions in the same year. The town clerk “shall refer the matter for a hearing before the town board or its designee,” according to the proposed legislation.
“We reiterate our recommendation that the licensing review board should be the designated review body” for appeals, and not a review board of the town’s choosing, said Paul Monte, chairman of the town’s business committee. “The town board should take any actions necessary to expand that licensing review board and its mission, to include this duty,” he said. Laraine Creegan, executive director of the Montauk Chamber of Commerce, agreed.
Supervisor Peter Van Scoyoc had maintained from the outset that the board did not seek to eliminate or even reduce live entertainment. Those speaking at last Thursday’s hearing mostly agreed. Mr. Monte said that the business committee was “very happy to see many of our initial suggestions incorporated into the draft,” and that the proposed legislation is “very close to being good and acceptable.” However, he said, any specific fire code violations should apply only toward revocation or denial of a music-entertainment permit if directly related to a music permit-related activity at the site.
Ms. Creegan also complained about the inclusion of chapters in the town’s fire code. “In my opinion, this is much too broad, and can result in permits revoked, or not approved, for minor violations that would otherwise not be an issue,” she said.
Nancy Atlas, a musician who lives in Montauk, also cheered the evolution of the proposed changes but added that “I do find the fire code being applied to the music permit is inappropriate, because it is already something handled through certificate of occupancy and the fire marshal,” whom she described as “the most revered and feared person when he enters a bar.”
Likewise, said Sarah Conway of Montauk, overcrowding violations are already covered in other parts of the code. Adding them to the music-permit legislation is unnecessary, she said.
Larry Siedlick, an owner of the Montauk Beach House, sounded the conciliatory note that was absent from the hearing last year, thanking the board “for being open to the community and taking our feelings into consideration.”
He did say, however, that “I feel like a good portion of the community is asking that the board pass the least restrictive legislation that assures and actually encourages music and arts to remain an integral part of the community. That’s why you’re hearing so much feedback about including the fire code, where we don’t think it’s right.”
A vote on the modified language in the code has not been scheduled, but the board could vote at any future meeting, barring significant changes that would require another public hearing.
