Angry board members. That was the theme last week at meetings of both the East Hampton Town Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals.
At the planning board, it was Rita Cantina, the Mexican eatery near Maidstone Park, that drew the ire of Ed Krug, the board chairman, when its representative failed to even show up for the meeting.
“Should we do this? Should we table it?” asked Mr. Krug, bothered by the affront.
“This is the second time we’ve looked at this particular application, but this enterprise has been in front of us many times over the course of the years,” he said, “and we continue to not make any progress. There is nothing new in this submission whatsoever.”
The restaurant was last in front of the board in May and was supposed to answer questions and update its application. That did not happen.
For years, Rita Cantina has been locked in litigation with the town over whether a catering business run out of the small restaurant, on its very constrained lot in a residential neighborhood, constitutes a second use. In 2022, Ann Glennon, then the town’s principal building inspector, ruled that it did. While the matter has been in the courts and subject to delay after delay, the businesses continue to operate, angering neighbors.
One, Martin Drew, whose family lives nearby, typically peppers the town board with complaints both during the public portion of town board meetings or again in emails.
However, the restaurant is currently in front of the board for lesser matters.
A septic system, previously approved, was installed slightly off-plan. Landscaping was proposed in large pots, which might tip; the restaurant then proposed to move the plants directly over a propane tank. A stairwell, previously in the town right-of-way, was moved closer to the restaurant; now it’s a fire hazard. Lighting is out of code.
Finally, according to Christopher Stoecker, a planner, the restaurant had not re-applied for its outdoor dining permit.
“As of today, there’s no approved outdoor dining on the property,” Mr. Stoecker said at the July 8 meeting.
“I very much feel as though this is a re-review of the same exact stuff that we looked at the last time,” said Jenn Fowkes, the vice chairwoman of the board.
“Unfortunately, the applicant has not provided the Planning Department with many substantive answers, and this leaves us in the position of being unable to conduct a meaningful review,” she said. “I have to point out that the applicant is not here. That’s one more reason that this application seems to be taking so long. I think it’s a waste of everybody’s time, frankly.”
“There is nothing new, nothing that we asked for is in this response, which is very concerning,” said Mr. Krug. “It makes us doubt the sincerity and the intentions of the applicant.”
“I think it’s disrespectful, is the right word,” said Reed Jones, a board member.
At the Z.B.A., the story was the old “ask for forgiveness and not permission.”
Bob McEntee, owner of 22 Shore Road in Amagansett, sought a modification of the original July 26, 2023, approval for his house. He purchased the undeveloped parcel in 2024 and then went outside the bounds of what the Z.B.A. said was allowed.
Now he wants retroactive approval.
The project included removing 20 truckloads of dune sand. Before receiving approval from the board in 2023 (in a controversial 3-2 decision after years of denials), the parcel was a pristine dune.
“As a result, natural characteristics have been destroyed,” said Denise Savarese, chairwoman of the Z.B.A, at the board’s July 7 meeting, noting that she voted against the project originally. “They did not follow the revegetation plan outlined in the decision.”
In short, Mr. McEntee doubled the size of the permitted driveway, “drastically reduced” a revegetation plan, and built a larger than agreed upon staircase out of stone, which Ms. Savarese said would “create a stream flowing down to the street, creating runoff problems.”
“The factors to consider for a natural resources special permit have been blown to bits,” she said. “Clearly this modification would not have been approved if this project came before the board. I will be denying this modification in its entirety.”
Neighbors expressed their displeasure in submitted comments for a public hearing in June. One letter, signed by 11 neighbors led by Nicolas Gregory, who owns the adjacent property at 23 Shore Road, showed a before-and-after picture of the parcel that told the whole story.
“This house has an entrance that belongs in the estate section of Further Lane,” it read. “It is not recreating the natural environment that existed before and the natural environment of the beach community we all live in.”
Indeed, in the front yard, the dune has been largely hardscaped, and a stairwell expanded. The roofline was changed, maxing out the building’s pyramid limit. Instead of revegetating in a natural way, Mr. McEntee had planted a row of evergreens in the town right of way, effectively increasing the size of his property.
At the June 2 public hearing, Mr. McEntee’s lawyer, Michael Sendlenski, said that Stephen Lynch, the highway superintendent, had said it was okay.
“There is nothing in the code that gives our highway superintendent jurisdiction over approving or objecting to a driveway apron or right-of-way restrictions,” Ms. Savarese said a month later.
Mr. Sendlenski hinted that the difficulty of dealing with the town’s Building Department was partly to blame.
“With all that’s going on in our building community right now, I think this is one of the things, there’s nothing major here that provides any sort of ecological damage or anything,” he said. In fact, he argued the modifications would “benefit the ecology” of the parcel “by holding those sands back and holding those topographical sands back and maintaining those elevations.”
The idea was laughed off by Mr. Gregory, the neighbor, at the public hearing. “Mr. McEntee’s letter to the zoning board requests the planter and stair structure as a stabilization measure to help control erosion. A dune is properly stabilized with properly planted grasses, trees, and bushes.”
Another neighbor, Lee Satinsky, regarding the driveway apron, simply deadpanned, “I’d love to be able to build in the street, if that’s possible.”
In the backyard, a fence was pushed out onto the dune. A wood deck had morphed into impervious stone. An area that was supposed to be revegetated instead had grown four lounge chairs, two umbrellas, and a table and chairs.
“This area was meant for revegetation, but is now being used recreationally,” said Ed Johann, the vice chairman of the Z.B.A.
Then there were questions over whether the house was built with breakaway walls, which is part of town code given its location in a flood zone.
“This built structure, the stairs, the planter, sits in front of the area designated for the breakaway wall in the approved plan,” said Mr. Gregory, the neighbor. “This cement landing stairway structure blocks and makes any possibility of the wall functioning during a storm impossible. It would be reassuring to know if a breakaway wall even exists in the basement.”
The Z.B.A., while telegraphing a denial, has yet to vote and file one. The town attorney’s office would not comment on how Mr. McEntee could rectify the situation until that formality was completed.
