Ditch Plains Association Appeals Certificate of Occupancy For 11 Ditch Motel

Neighbors of a motel on Ditch Plains Road are appealing East Hampton Town’s issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the building, maintaining that it was abandoned for years and no longer is allowed its motel use in a residential zone.

“We have a pile of evidence, exhibited from ‘A’ to ‘U,’ that not only has the building not been used for last 18 months but the last 36 months. The belief is that it hasn’t been used in 10 years,” said attorney Chris Kelley of Twomey, Latham, Shea, Kelley, Dubin & Quartararo LLP., which represents the Ditch Plains neighbors. “There has been no electricity since 2005, no permit from the county in the last 10 years, and they haven’t paid any taxes—so there’s been no inspection and no permit given from the Health Department.”

Hotelier Sean MacPherson bought the property at 11 Ditch Plains Road in 2014 and obtained building permits that allow exterior work, as well as painting and new windows and doors on the motel units. He was issued a certificate of occupancy in April.

The motel is currently operating as “11 Ditch,” according to Mr. MacPherson. He said right now its tenants are seasonal workers who cannot find affordable housing in Montauk. He said he doesn’t have plans to open the motel to tourists.

The 0.46-acre lot has one single-family home and an eight-unit motel, which began operating in the 1950s and was known as “The Rogues Motel” and “The Seacliff Inn” over the years. A tax lien was placed on the property in 2009, when it was owned by the Forsberg family under LaRogue Equities Inc., and it was acquired by Suffolk County in 2013.

The property had been previously zoned for a motel, and when the lot’s zoning was changed to residential in 1984, the hotel was granted preexisting, non-conforming status, allowing it to continue to operate as a motel. However, once abandoned, a property loses that special zoning status.

Mr. MacPherson has said that the structure has remained in limited use, keeping its preexisting, non-conforming status as a motel because someone had been living there when he bought the motel.

“I spent over $1 million in the process of rehabbing the property, and I dotted every ‘i’ and crossed every ‘t’ and did what was asked of me by the town,” Mr. MacPherson said. “I bought the property with tenants in place. I went through every step … and was issued the certificate of occupancy on April 15.”

The neighbors allege, however, that even if someone lived in the motel during the last 36 months, it “would not serve to make the motel an ongoing operation sufficient to avoid an abandonment” and would instead be seen as a single-family residence and not a motel.

According to neighbor Randy Santos, who submitted his testimony for the appeal, during the past 10 years, the structure was never in any condition to be inhabited because it was overgrown and in disrepair. Another neighbor, John Benedict, lived next to the property for almost 10 years and actually shared a home with Winifred Forsberg and her partner, Dorothy Lee Moutin, who owned the motel at 11 Ditch Plains Road. He did maintenance work on the motel building. During that time, from 1992 to 1999, he said, it was generally rented to workers employed in summer businesses in Montauk, and not to tourists.

He said that when Ms. Forsberg got sick in the early 2000s, she turned the electricity off to the motel building and had Mr. Benedict disconnect the water supply from the well there. “I have never seen the motel occupied at any time in the last 10 years and believe that the motel use has been abandoned by the owners, the Forsbergs, who were the principals in LaRogue Equities,” he stated.

Finally, the appeal states that the town did not notify the community 10 days prior to the issue of the certificate of occupancy, as required by law.

The East Hampton Town Zoning Board of Appeals will review the appeal and schedule a public hearing at a future meeting.

“It sounded like the determination was made with full disclosure and response from all parties,” said attorney Richard Hammer, representing Mr. MacPherson. “I think it was the right decision. I can’t imagine this was a ‘seat-of-the-pants’ determination.”