Amagansett 7-Eleven May Be Inevitable
The question may be when rather than if a 7-Eleven chain store will open in the long moribund Italian restaurant off the Montauk Highway in Amagansett. The answer may hinge on whether the East Hampton Town Zoning Board of Appeals reverses a 2014 decision by Tom Preiato, the town’s former chief building inspector, that denied a building permit for work there. An appeal by the property owners, Richard and Yvonne Principi, was heard Tuesday night at Town Hall, in a continuation of a hearing that began in July. The property is east of the Amagansett I.G.A.
The Principis, who were in attendance Tuesday, signed a lease for a 7-Eleven there last year, and the stakes are high: The 7-Eleven that opened in 2010 in Montauk was reportedly the nation’s busiest in a chain of almost 8,000 stores in 2014.
Mr. Preiato had given the Principis a building permit on Jan. 30, 2014. It would have allowed conversion of the interior of the empty building for the popular convenience store. The permit sparked opposition from neighbors, however, and was a factor in the town’s adopting a law governing so-called formula stores later that year. Two weeks after issuing the permit, Mr. Preiato informed the owners that he had made a mistake. “It is my determination that site plan review by the Town of East Hampton Planning Bzoard is required before a building permit may issue,” he wrote on Feb. 14, 2014.
The July hearing on the Principis’ appeal had been adjourned to allow time for research. Tuesday night’s session was similar, in that it seemed to raise more questions than answers.
The history of the property is murky. Subdivisions were proposed for the land in the 1980s and ’90s, but apparently never fully approved, although paving and clearing was done. Several retail stores had been proposed for the building in the past and a car wash was briefly floated by the Planning Department.
During a presentation on behalf of the Principis, Gregory R. Alvarez of the Amato Law Group offered to clear up the “noncompliant nature” of the property. “Certainly, there are questions regarding the subdivisions that were created,” Mr. Alvarez said. “We are proposing to concede that prior subdivisions are invalid, and turn this back into a single lot.”
However, the board was told by Elizabeth Baldwin, its attorney, that they could, and should, refuse his offer. She warned the board that it should limit itself to determining whether Mr. Preiato had erred when he revoked the building permit. “This isn’t ‘Let’s Make a Deal,’ ” John Whelan, chairman, said later.
Mr. Alvarez covered much ground during his presentation, including whether the town’s formula store law even applied to the proposal. He argued that under the town code there was nothing legal that would have caused Mr. Preiato’s reversal. “Do you agree that the subdivision was not completed?” Mr. Whelan asked. “It’s ambiguous,” Mr. Alvarez responded. Mr. Whelan then pressed the point, saying ambiguity could justify the need for a proper site plan, which would be in the town planning board’s domain.
The formula store law calls for special permits to be issued by the planning board. Mr. Alvarez pointed out that the law was passed by the town board well after the initial application for a building permit.
“There was no tenant in place in January 2014,” David Lys, a member of the board, said. “Any tenant that goes in there would have to be up to the standards of the law.” Mr. Lys also asked how parking calculations had been made. “I would like to know what the survey was when the building permit was issued,” he said.
As for the subdivisions at the site, Cate Rogers said they never received planning board approval. “A building permit would be revoked because it was not a legally created lot,” she said. But Mr. Alvarez said site plan approval was not needed for interior work on an existing structure.
“Wouldn’t it be a lot easier to go back to planning to get this worked out?” Mr. Whelan asked. “There are so many balls in the air. You need a proper site plan.”
Ms. Baldwin encouraged the board to delve into the planning board files as well as files at the Planning and Building Departments. The board agreed to keep the record open until May 10, to allow copies of pertinent documents to be placed in the record, and added another two weeks for the Principis to respond to the new information.