Tiina Shop Seeks to Grow

Tiina Laakkonen and Jonathan Rosen face an uncertain future in their effort to expand Tiina the Store, their Amagansett Main Street retail shop, after the site plan, reviewed by the East Hampton Town Planning Board on June 14, seemed to raise more questions than it answered.

The meeting was particularly lively, with an unusual discussion of the relationship between the planning board and the town’s architectural review board, which had already ruled on the matter. In addition, the restaurant at the Montauk Manor was allowed to expand in a decision made somewhat on the fly. There had been considerable review of that proposal and objections heard at the board’s recent meetings.

The owners of the retail building at 216 Main Street that houses Tiina the Store want to increase its size by 1,605 square feet after taking down 765 square feet of it, and also to demolish a separate 937-square-foot building on the lot.

The obstacles are several, according to Eric Schantz, a senior planner for the town. First, he told the board, the property is in a historic district zoned for residential and limited business use. Limited business does not include retail, but Christopher Kelley, an attorney representing the owners, told the board the retail use went back to before the town code was adopted, making it legally grandfathered. However, it was pointed out that in 2007 the use changed from retail to office, suggesting that the owner at the time, Marie Hayden, may have abandoned the right for retail use. The board asked the applicants to seek clarification from the town’s head building inspector.

The Amagansett Historic District comprises 32 sites, along with a cemetery. Robert Strada of Strada Baxter Design, a firm working with the owners, explained the project to the board. He first quoted a 1989 document written by Robert Hefner of East Hampton, a historic preservationist, who said what was known as the Charles Canfield house was a “non-contributing factor in the historic district.”

Mr. Strada said asphalt-asbestos shingles on the building would be replaced by cedar shingles and that existing windows added in the past that clash with the building’s Greek Revival style would be replaced to be more appropriate.

“It is very massive,” Patti Leber, a board member, said of the proposed new look. Kathleen Cunningham said, “My main concern is that if we don’t support L.B.O. requirements, we are creating a really big structure.” She asked what would happen when it eventually changed hands. “It’s not what we need.”

The biggest question, however, was whether the removal of the back building was in keeping with the historical nature of the neighborhood, where barns or sheds, or even stores, would often be at the rear. Board members agreed there is distance between the back and front buildings. Mr. Schantz had recommended that they bring in an outside historian to assess the proposal. Mr. Kelley suggested Mr. Hefner, but Job Potter, the planning board chairman, said Mr. Hefner was not interested in filling that role.

An unusual aspect of the planning board’s review is that the applicants have already obtained approval for the design from the East Hampton Town Architectural Review Board. Ian Calder-Piedmonte, a planning board member, was critical of the process, with other board members agreeing. Diana Weir was concerned that they might not be able to contradict the A.R.B., but the board’s attorney, John Jilnicki, said that if the planning board approved a site plan that deviated from what the A.R.B. had signed off on, the applicants could go back to the architectural panel.

The board agreed to explore the idea of bringing in an expert consultant.

In agreeing to allow the restaurant at Montauk Manor, La Fine, to expand, the board noted that it was contingent upon approval of the septic system already in place by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services.

Several residents of the Manor had spoken out against the proposal at a public hearing last month. Marc H. Schneider of Schneider Buchel, representing the Manor, said in response at the time that opponents of the expansion, from 35 seats to 83, were “disgruntled.” He also had told the board that the septic treatment system would be able to handle the additional flow.

The board had indicated its willingness to approve the site plan from La Fine, which will place additional tables in the lobby of the Carl Fisher-era building, as well as on a patio that is replacing a bocce court on the eastern side of the building.

As for the septic situation, the board had asked Mr. Schantz to get a copy of the permit for the system. This week, Mr. Schantz told the board the Manor had a septic permit from the state, which is different from the county’s, and that it was good through 2025. However, on Monday, Mr. Schantz said in an interview that final county approval of the expanded restaurant’s flow into the septic system had yet to be obtained.

The language approving the restaurant’s site plan states that food and beverage service is “limited to the interior areas of the restaurant as well as to the areas designated for seating on the patio, and the approved lobby areas, as illustrated in the approved seating chart with the exception of during special events specifically allowed by a mass gathering permit.” Such permits would cover events in tents, and a La Fine brochure promises to hold such events to between 400 and 600 patrons.

While the board worked on the language, Mr. Schneider, who was on hand, tried to interject another location in the Manor where food and beverages could be consumed: around the indoor and outdoor swimming pools. “This should have come up before now,” Nancy Keeshan, a board member said, shooting his suggestion down. The rest of the board agreed and nixed adding the pools as approved areas for customers of La Fine.