What will become of the former Joey Wolffer boutique on Sag Harbor’s Washington Street? The property owner and the tenants of the property can’t agree and the village zoning board of appeals has been dragged into the fight.
What appeared to at first be a benign application for a building permit in Sag Harbor Village turned into anything but last week at the zoning board of appeals — with the applicants accusing board members of privately opposing their project and the owner of the property accusing the applicants of forgery.
Joseph Licata and Samantha Raynor leased the storefront at 23 and 25 Washington Street last year hoping to open a market they call ici, which, according to their website, would be “a blend of hospitality and art in a distinctive all day experience. Cafe by day, wine bar at night with a world-class gastronomy program.”
The couple applied to the planning board for site plan approval and a change of use from retail to restaurant. But, they said, knowing that the process could take some time, they simultaneously applied for a building permit for alterations to the existing retail use — something the Building Department says it does not allow.
According to Mr. Licata and Ms. Raynor, the village’s then-building inspector Tien Ho So, issued a building permit but then revoked it when he discovered that it had been issued in error since under village law an inspector cannot issue a building permit while a site plan application is pending. (Mr. So resigned from the village in December of last year.)
That brought Mr. Licata and Ms. Raynor to the zoning board on April 21 to appeal the building inspector’s revocation of the building permit. But the appeal was only the tip of the iceberg, it seemed.
Mr. Licata and Ms. Raynor say that at the heart of their problems is Clifton Murdock, an owner of the property. Mr. Murdock, they said, had changed his mind about permitting the two to apply for the restaurant site plan and had therefore rescinded his endorsement — something the village requires for all applications to move forward.
But Mr. Murdock has a different story. He claimed at the meeting that Mr. Licata and Ms. Raynor essentially forged his signature on all their applications to the village by photocopying his signature from a request to connect to the sewer system — a request he had approved.
Mr. Licata and Ms. Raynor called the accusations false. They said Mr. Murdock had authorized everything they had requested and that they used Mr. Murdock’s own carpenter in the alterations.
They claim they have a paper trail that would exonerate them. All parties are currently involved in litigation, they told the zoning board.
“It’s a technical thing,” Scott Baker, the board’s chairman, said — seeming to reject the weight of the outside allegations. He said the question before the board was cut and dry — can a building permit be issued when there is a pending application to the planning board?
Elizabeth Vail, the board’s attorney, read from the code saying no building permit shall be issued if site plan review is pending.
“I am appalled at the lack of understanding of the code,” Mr. Licata said to the board, claiming that since the planning board had not yet reviewed — much less approved — the restaurant site plan application, it is essentially a moot issue.
Mr. Licata said the board was acting on “outside influence” and that he had overheard an “off-camera exchange” between zoning board members in which he claimed they called the application “crazy.”
He went on to say that the board seemed to be trying to “piece together a narrative to reject this.”
All members of the board vociferously rejected the allegations.
Ms. Vail asked each board member to publicly state that they have no interest in the outcome of any of the applications, to which they all complied.
Further paring down the matter, Val Florio, a board member, said that once the owner rescinds approval of a project, those applications “should be voided. Period. End of story.” But he added the caveat that the board is not tasked with determining that aspect of the matter.
“At some point, both those applications required an owner’s endorsement.” That endorsement “was rescinded,” Ms. Vail confirmed.
Adding to the confusion, Mr. Licata and Ms. Raynor may have to seek site plan approval for the retail use, Ms. Vail said. She referred to the existing certificate of occupancy, which permits a yoga studio and retail space. Ms. Vail called the renovations an expansion of that retail use, which could trigger the site plan requirement.
“Both [the restaurant and expanded retail uses] require site plan approval,” Ms. Vail said.
Mr. Licata did not deny that the certificate of occupancy lists both retail and yoga on it, but claims that the retail use is a “lesser use” in terms of parking and sewerage requirements.
As it stands now, the renovation on the Washington Street building are near complete but at a standstill. The board will meet again to discuss the appeal on May 19.
