The East Hampton Town Zoning Board of Appeals voted unanimously at a Feb. 14 work session to reopen a hearing concerning the Shagwong Tavern in Montauk. This a week after the board voted to uphold a Sept. 5 determination by Ann Glennon, the principal building inspector, that it was operating as a nightclub, in violation of the town code.
In reopening the hearing, Hope DeLauter, a town attorney, issued a statement, saying, “The Z.B.A. believed that upon review of the record that additional information was required to make a determination.”
Ms. Glennon made the decision after a summertime sweep of many Montauk eateries, not because of a particular complaint.
The Shagwong appealed the determination with the Z.B.A., and a public hearing was held on Dec. 6.
“The history of the Shagwong is amazing,” Jon Tarbet said, speaking for the restaurant at the hearing. “It was established in the 1920s. It was not until 1938 that the current Montauk village was created. So, actually, Shagwong, as a restaurant, bar, and tavern, pre-existed the village of Montauk.”
Members of the public spoke strongly for the Shagwong, and affidavits attested to the history of dancing at the restaurant since the 1940s. A 1954 article from The Star showed that the Montauk Fire Department held a dinner there, followed by dancing.
“When people came home from Vietnam, they came to the Shagwong to shake off the war,” Jon Krasner said in a phone call. Mr. Krasner has owned the tavern since 2015, when he bought it from James Hewitt, who, in turn, had owned it since 1969. Mr. Hewitt died in 2020.
The zoning board met on Feb. 7 to decide whether to uphold Ms. Glennon’s ruling. They were uncomfortably split, 3-to-2.
“I am upholding the building inspector’s determination on this,” said Theresa Berger, a board member, adding that a nightclub is a special permitted use. “If they want to provide nightclub services, there’s a method for them to do it.”
“We haven’t done anything different,” said Mr. Krasner, who described himself as “surprised and disappointed” by the Feb. 7 vote. “I’ve owned it for eight years. When I bought it from Mr. Hewitt, he told me how to run it. Nothing’s changed.”
“Does a government have the right to tell a business that pre-existed them, that they can’t be doing business the way they’ve been doing it for nearly 100 years?” he asked.
Before 1996, many of the definitions that are in the town code did not exist. For example, nightclub, restaurant, and tavern were all undefined uses for the first 70-plus years of the Shagwong’s existence.
Ms. Berger argued that the town updated the code in 1996 out of “a necessity with the changing times,” and that the terms restaurant, bar, and nightclub were not interchangeable.
In a letter to Ms. Glennon on Friday, Mr. Tarbet wrote, “We are asking that The East Hampton Town Zoning Board of Appeals voted unanimously at a Feb. 14 work session to reopen a hearing concerning the Shagwong Tavern in Montauk. This a week after the board voted to uphold a Sept. 5 determination by Ann Glennon, the principal building inspector, that it was operating as a nightclub, in violation of the town code.
In reopening the hearing, Hope DeLauter, a town attorney, issued a statement, saying, “The Z.B.A. believed that upon review of the record that additional information was required to make a determination.”
Ms. Glennon made the decision after a summertime sweep of many Montauk eateries, not because of a particular complaint.
The Shagwong appealed the determination with the Z.B.A., and a public hearing was held on Dec. 6.
“The history of the Shagwong is amazing,” Jon Tarbet said, speaking for the restaurant at the hearing. “It was established in the 1920s. It was not until 1938 that the current Montauk village was created. So, actually, Shagwong, as a restaurant, bar, and tavern, pre-existed the village of Montauk.”
Members of the public spoke strongly for the Shagwong, and affidavits attested to the history of dancing at the restaurant since the 1940s. A 1954 article from The Star showed that the Montauk Fire Department held a dinner there, followed by dancing.
“When people came home from Vietnam, they came to the Shagwong to shake off the war,” Jon Krasner said in a phone call. Mr. Krasner has owned the tavern since 2015, when he bought it from James Hewitt, who, in turn, had owned it since 1969. Mr. Hewitt died in 2020.
The zoning board met on Feb. 7 to decide whether to uphold Ms. Glennon’s ruling. They were uncomfortably split, 3-to-2.
“I am upholding the building inspector’s determination on this,” said Theresa Berger, a board member, adding that a nightclub is a special permitted use. “If they want to provide nightclub services, there’s a method for them to do it.”
“We haven’t done anything different,” said Mr. Krasner, who described himself as “surprised and disappointed” by the Feb. 7 vote. “I’ve owned it for eight years. When I bought it from Mr. Hewitt, he told me how to run it. Nothing’s changed.”
“Does a government have the right to tell a business that pre-existed them, that they can’t be doing business the way they’ve been doing it for nearly 100 years?” he asked.
Before 1996, many of the definitions that are in the town code did not exist. For example, nightclub, restaurant, and tavern were all undefined uses for the first 70-plus years of the Shagwong’s existence.
Ms. Berger argued that the town updated the code in 1996 out of “a necessity with the changing times,” and that the terms restaurant, bar, and nightclub were not interchangeable.
In a letter to Ms. Glennon on Friday, Mr. Tarbet wrote, “We are asking that you acknowledge that both dancing and music at the Shagwong predate these . . . code changes and are therefore pre-existing nonconforming. Importantly, acknowledging these pre-existing conditions does now allow the Shagwong to become a nightclub, it just allows them to continue to provide music and dancing. . . .”
Ed Johann, the board’s vice chairman, agreed with Ms. Berger. “The argument that the Shagwong does not fit any set definition as a place of business . . . does not satisfy the building inspector’s complaint that Shagwong is currently, or was acting in the summer, as a nightclub.”
“They did demonstrate that there’s a history of dancing and music,” Joan McGivern, a board member, said. She got stuck on the word “substantially” and didn’t think Ms. Glennon had provided enough evidence to indicate that the nightclub was a substantial part of the Shagwong’s business.
“I’m not sure her opinion is sufficient, is what I’m saying. It may be this summer they crossed a line, but there’s not evidence in the record how they crossed that line,” she said. “I’m leaning towards saying they have a constitutionally protected pre-existing nonconforming use.”
Roy Dalene, the board chairman, agreed. “There’s no question in my mind that history shows Shagwong is a restaurant. Primary use.”
“When you talk about 100 years ago, that’s a stretch,” said Denise Savarese, another board member. “A hundred years ago, a lot of things were different. . . . You can’t have it both ways. You can’t have a restaurant and a nightclub. You have to choose.”
Mr. Dalene dug in. “On the town’s side, there’s almost a complete lack of evidence showing there was an issue. While on the appellant’s side there was overwhelming evidence that dancing always existed at the Shagwong . . . if you have a pre-existing use, you have a pre-existing use, and I think this is the case.”
“I will say that Ms. Glennon’s comments were lacking in detail, but we take, I guess, on good faith that she’s done the investigation to back up writing a letter like that,” Mr. Johann said.
“But we don’t have a documentary record that shows that,” Ms. McGivern said. “One of the things that bothers me is that living in East Hampton everybody knows they’ve been trying to crack down on Montauk. But cracking down on Montauk doesn’t necessarily justify taking a particular establishment that at least based on the record evidence shows they have a continuous history of pushing the tables aside and having live music.”
