Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Noise Stage Siting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board pauses Surf Lodge stage approval pending consultant review of sound analysis
Summary
The East Hampton Planning Board left the Surf Lodge stage application incomplete after staff and consultants flagged gaps in the acoustic modeling; the board asked the applicant and the town’s consultant AKRF to meet with SoundSense to resolve technical questions before the board acts.
The East Hampton Town Planning Board on March 25 deferred action on a proposal to build a new 262‑square‑foot stage and acoustic barrier at the Surf Lodge in Montauk, saying the town needs clearer, recent sound‑study data and a direct technical exchange between consultants before the board can find the application complete.
Planning staff told the board the property is preexisting and nonconforming and that the stage reorientation will require two variances — for a reduced wetland setback and a reduced front‑yard setback — and a natural‑resources special permit. Staff also noted the property is subject to a 2016 stipulation of settlement that limits outdoor live music (no outdoor music after 8 p.m.; live music limited seasonally and by duration) and requires implementation of an approved sound‑mitigation plan.
“The additional technical sound review completed by AKRF identified gaps,” planning staff said, noting AKRF asked for on‑axis measurements, octave‑band source levels, loudspeaker specifications, and confirmation about whether unamplified or non‑house‑system instruments would be used. The memo from staff said the available modeling is based on older data and recommended a new study that addresses AKRF’s comments.
Applicant counsel David Kurst said a current music permit is on file and maintained by the town clerk and that code‑enforcement officers can enforce decibel limits at property lines if complaints arise. He told the board the proposal does not change occupancy, parking or permanent lighting and that it seeks only to alter the stage footprint and orientation.
Bonnie Schnida of SoundSense, who prepared the applicant’s acoustic work, told the board she and her team collected detailed readings in 2025 and used those data to calibrate numerical models. “We took both on‑ and off‑axis readings and we calibrated the model with summer 2025 data,” she said, and added that her firm can deliver octave‑band results and other detail AKRF requested.
Board members said they were not in a position to adjudicate technical disputes between engineering firms and asked staff to arrange a meeting between AKRF and SoundSense so consultants can determine whether the 2025 data and the applicant’s modeling fully address AKRF’s technical comments. The board voted unanimously to require that exchange; it did not grant site‑plan approval or the variances that the stage will require.
The board also asked the applicant to provide clearer plans showing any permanent lighting and to confirm whether deck structures observed on site should be added to the survey or removed.
Next steps: the applicant will submit additional documentation and the planning department will refer the consultant responses to AKRF; the board requested a report from AKRF after the consultants confer.
