clock menu more-arrow no yes mobile

Filed under:

Comment of the Day

One commenter made an interesting point about the challenge to the Montauk Beach House bar zoning ruling: Since there is no indication that the Ronjo Resort Motel at any time ever held a liquor license, and therefore could never lawfully SELL alcohol, how did TMBH skip over the requirement for Planning Board site plan review for the expansion of the Ronjo's pre-existing, non-conforming "motel" use (in Montauk's Central Business zoning district) and open a new "tavern or bar," one which is open to the general public at various times of the week? The referenced newspaper article references the decision in the matter of Gauthier vs. Larchmont, but the only legal question actually decided in that case was whether there had been an abandonment of a licensed nonconforming tavern in a hotel. Here there never was a licensed nonconforming tavern in the Ronjo! Any reading of the caselaw to conclude that a motel or hotel in East Hampton can add a new licensed tavern or bar for on-premises consumption of alcohol by the genral public without Planning Board site plan review is simply erroneous." [Curbed Hamptons]