In a case that has been seemingly riddled with errors, omissions, and accusations, the Sag Harbor Village Zoning Board of Appeals closed the books on the latest chapter of 23 and 25 Washington Street by denying a request to undo the revocation of a building permit that was said to have been issued in error by a former building inspector.
On May 19, Samantha Raynor and Joseph Licata, the couple renting the space, formerly the Joey Wolffer boutique, with their lawyer Steven Altman, vowed they would file an Article 78 petition with the New York State Supreme Court.
Mr. Altman pressed the board that night to make a determination as quickly as possible so he could get the paperwork filed on the litigation against the village. Moments later, the board decided unanimously to uphold the revocation.
Mr. Licata and Ms. Raynor planned to open what 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.”
They applied to the planning board to change the use in the building from retail to a 56-seat restaurant in 2024. While they waited for that review, they applied for a building permit to make interior changes.
The building permit was approved by the village’s then-building inspector, Tien Ho So, but subsequently revoked when he discovered he had issued it in error. A building permit cannot be issued for work on a property where a site plan application is pending, nor can it be issued without the property owner’s authorization.
But Mr. Licata and Ms. Raynor say that at the heart of their problems are Clifton Murdock and Paris Fields, the owners of the property. They say the owners changed their minds about permitting the two to apply for the restaurant site plan and had therefore rescinded their endorsement — something the village requires for all applications to move forward.
Mr. Murdock told the board in April that the couple had used an authorization he had signed to permit them to hook up to the public sewer to additionally apply to the planning board for a restaurant use — an application he did not approve of.
That authorization took center stage this month at the zoning board meeting, with many of the board members saying that without the approval of Mr. Murdock and Mr. Fields, the application could not be made in the first place.
Although Mr. Licata and Ms. Raynor said they did have the approval of the owners, the owners say they added the ”planning board” notation to the document after it was signed for the sewer application.
”Someone took it upon themselves to write the word ‘planning,’ ” said Dennis Downes, an attorney representing Mr. Murdock and Mr. Fields. ”That was an illegal act.”
He showed the two documents side by side to illustrate his point.
Members of the board maintained that each application requires its own separate owner’s authorization.
”Then what did the building inspector rely on?” Mr. Licata asked the zoning board.
”He made a mistake,” Scott Baker, a board member, said of Mr. So’s granting of the building permit. Once he recognized the errors, he revoked the permit.
”Errors were made on all sides, including the building inspector,” Thomas McGuire, a board member, said.
During last month’s meeting, Mr. Licata said the board was acting on ”outside influence” and that he had overhead an ”off-camera exchange” between zoning board members in which he claimed they called the application ”crazy.”
All members of the board vociferously rejected the allegations then.
On May 19, Mr. Fields, one of the owners, pressed the board to make its rejections even more unambiguous, saying he has never met any of the board members, let alone discussed his grievances with Mr. Licata and Ms. Raynor with any of them.
”We have never discussed this because we’ve never met,” he said to the board.
Mr. Licata and Ms. Raynor took to social media this week to address their public fight, saying in a lengthy Instagram post, ”we are continuing to fight for Ici because we believe in what Ici will contribute to Sag Harbor, and we hope that soon we’ll be able to open our doors and welcome you in.”
In addition to the promised Article 78 lawsuit, there is ongoing litigation between the couple and the property owners.
