
The Southampton Village Planning Board on Monday night approved a site plan application that would bring a Citarella gourmet market to the village. While shoppers will have another grocery option, it will not be the full-fledged supermarket that many have longed for in a village that has seen its number of supermarkets dwindle over the years.
Pending approval from the Suffolk County Department of Health and a building permit, the Citarella will join other chain stores—Pottery Barn and BookHampton— on Hampton Road.
Once the applicant, Hampton Road Realty—no longer Elka LLC, the owner listed on the application—is given the green light, the mini-mall will be converted to a gourmet market.
According to Village Attorney Elbert W. “Beau” Robinson Jr., the property switched hands back in March from Elka LLC to Hampton Road Realty. John Bennett, of Bennett and Read of Southampton, who is representing the applicant, confirmed on Tuesday that Hampton Road Realty is indeed affiliated with Citarella.
To transform the buildings into a single use, walls will be removed and reconfigured to accommodate a market. The mini-mall currently has 11,451 square feet of retail space on the first floor and 1,777 square feet of non-medical office space upstairs.
Additionally, an upgraded septic system will be installed behind the China Garden restaurant. Although not required, the applicant has agreed to install rings to collect rainwater at the recommendation of the village.
The Village Hall board room was nearly empty on Monday night when the Planning Board voted on the application, a quiet end to a process that brought a roomful of critics to its first public hearing in March.
Concern surrounded the application early on because the site plan review did not include looking at perceived parking issues since its interior changes do not require a change of use variance. A market is a permitted use under the current zoning of the property—the building housed an A&P grocery store years ago.
Neighbors and residents said the parking lot was already hitting about 80 percent capacity during the winter months and will only get more crowded, especially since some drivers don’t adhere to various parking limits within the lot, and some Southampton School staff members park there during the school day.
Although board members acknowledged parking as a problem, they said on Monday that it was not within their power to address it, and that it was instead up to the Village Board of Trustees to find a solution.
“We are painfully aware of the parking situation, but it’s not within our jurisdiction to rule on it,” said Planning Board Member Steve Lemanski, noting that the application was for a change in occupancy and not a change in use, the latter of which would have indeed required a look at parking.
In the board’s decision, parking was mentioned as a detail that was concerning but one they could not address.
“Parking and delivery access involves more than the subject properties, and because the subject properties are entitled to pre-existing exemptions to off-street parking requirements, the Planning Board lacks jurisdiction to attempt a remedy or amelioration to the issues presented,” it said.
The Planning Board said in the decision that members alerted the Village Board of the issue of parking and the “potential for delay, frustration and disruption of public patronage of the area.”
According to Mayor Mark Epley, parking is something the Village Board is currently working on, and noted that employee parking is an issue that needs to be looked at since many people park right outside their respective businesses.
Otherwise, the application made it through the process with few issues, according to the board’s decision: “Were it not for several issues ancillary to the use of the properties, this application presented few new issues for review.”
Just last week, the board discussed drainage at the property, a concern of some officials who pointed to flooding during rainstorms.
According to Mr. Robinson, there is substantial water runoff at the property and a village engineer suggested that the applicant install recharge basins underneath the village parking lot behind the buildings and asked Citarella if it would do so.
Agreeing to the proposal, Mr. Bennett sent two letters to the Village Trustees requesting their stamp of approval. Mr. Bennett said the trustees had not replied, and so he and his client agreed to keep the offer open until May 1, 2015. If the trustees accept, the owner of the property would have permission to enter village property—the parking lot—and install the basins. Mr. Bennett said the work would not be done during the summer season, but likely during the fall.
When asked when construction is slated to begin, he said it was too early to tell and couldn’t say when doors would open. He said when it does open, it would benefit Southampton Village.
“It’s going to be great foot traffic into Southampton Village,” he said. “I grew up in Southampton and it’s always been the jewel of the Hamptons—that’s what it should be. It will be a great shot in the arm to the village.”
Mayor Epley said he agrees that it should bring a lot of business to surrounding stores, but said a Citarella wouldn’t necessarily fill the village residents’ need for a grocery store.
“It won’t answer the full need—Citarella is a boutique food store,” he said. “The average guy is not going to benefit from them.”
The mayor also said he still supports putting a Fresh Market at the corner of Hampton Road and Flying Point Road—the Glennon family’s parcel—but that the idea didn’t have majority support from the Village Board.
On Tuesday, Walter Glennon said that while he could not comment immediately, he would still like to be in on the on-going dialogue about a supermarket in Southampton Village.
record company's gonna give me lots of money
and everything's gonna be (all right).
~ Reel Big Fish
There appears to be a definitional problem in the Village Code, at a minimum, if the new "use" is not considered a change from the former use.
One hopes that the Board was not just blindly following the lead of the applicant when he or she checked "change in occupancy" as opposed to "change in use," as Mr. Lemanski seems to suggest.
The fact the "use" of market is permitted in this zoning district does NOT alter the clear and overwhelming ...more fact that the ACTUAL use of this space is going to change dramatically. If the Village code does not cover this, it is seriously flawed IMO.
As was asked under the other articles, if the PLANNING Board does not have the authority to consider parking and traffic issues for the VAST ESCALATION of vehicular traffic here, then who does?
If the land in question had been vacant, and this was an application for a new Citarella on the site, would not the traffic and parking be major issues, over which SOME board or department would have authority?
And no one has any jurisdiction here? Preposterous . . .
Whatever definitional (or more devious) blinders channeled this decision, it is clearly wrong, and one hopes that no major pedestrian or vehicular accidents occur.
You want an increase in traffic and pedestrian flow?
You got it!
What would you prefer at the location? Empty stores?
Why NO jurisdiction here?
Perhaps the Code has a flaw here, but if so, you could drive a Citarella truck thought it IMO!
You don't want to understand the difference between a change of use and a change of use variance.
It's not that they don't have jurisdiction over parking - it's that the action before the board does not allow for review of parking. The previous use was in compliance, this use (being allowable in the subject zoning category) therefore, is ...more in compliance.
Additionally, the fact that you believe it will result in a parking nightmare is speculation based on your personal beliefs. It's not based on facts, traffic studies, parking calculations for the subject use or anything like that. It's pure speculation. Citeralla's are popular, therefore parking will be a problem (that's essentially your statement). The Planning Board cannot legally make that statement.
Don't like the code? Petition for it to be changed PBR.
A change of ACTUAL use (even within a permitted use) triggers Board jurisdiction to review all details of the changes proposed, including traffic and parking increases.
The INTENT of the code is eviscerated here, as has happened in many other instances of the Village selling out to real estate and development interests.
A real shame in my opinion.
PS I am not suggesting that this use should have been denied, only ...more that the Board get its hands dirty looking at the details.
The NYS Dept. of State, Division of Corporations, lists such an LLC with a filing date of March 4, 2013 and a NYC address. Details are available by mail only.
Did the new owner disclose the general partners behind this LLC at any recent meetings?
Failing to see your point... what's surprising about this and why is it relevant?
parking allowance has expired. I think the Southampton Village Police could easily handle this not too taxing job. Why don't they?
Add a few Citarella trucks, and all the new shoppers, into the equation, plus more and more summer pedestrians eager to try the new Citarella, and . . . . well, you can finish painting ...more this picture . . .
How did we become so blessed with such visionaries?
More later .......
The existing building is pre-existing non-conforming, right? (Its lot coverage is way over the 70% allowed in VB zoning.)
For a major overhaul of a non-conforming building, should not the Board have the authority to look more closely at the details, especially the off-street parking aspects of the Village Code?
And especially the delivery truck details regarding ...more off-street parking?
Is "no jurisdiction" really the correct textbook answer here?
The various articles do not say much about the role of the Village Attorney in this case. Hmmmm . . .
It's not a matter of "should the board" have the authority over something or not. It's a matter of, "do they". The answer, is no. Since the building is pre-existing non-conforming, it doesn't matter that they are conducting a "major overhaul" of the interior space. It's an interior renovation and it's a change of use to another allowable use within the zoning district. If additions were proposed - then yes, it would ...more trigger additional review but thta's not the case. Additionally, they are offering updates to the sanitary system as mitigation.
Truck deliveries are almost certain to come during evening or early morning hours. The goods they bring will be coming from the city (think fresh flowers, "fresh" baked goods/sandwhiches and fish). Citeralla has locations in EH and BH as well. What makes more sense to the company. Send trucks from NYC through Long Island Traffic and into Hamptons traffic during daylight hours to make deliveries (and deal with congested parking lots?), or send your trucks out at 2 AM to make deliveries at all your locations without traffic? You won't be seeing delivery trucks there during operation hours - I can pretty much guarentee that.
You have to remember that it's not so much a matter of "jurisdiction" as much as it's a matter of what regulations are opened up for specific review.
I don't really understand your question about the applicant's attorney... they're not representing the village. So it's moot - it's not something that you or I could speculate on. The Village has an attorney - if you think they don't do their job, well write a letter and try to get something changed.
RE: building dept. No, they don't have jurisdiction. They only have the authority to issue building permits. The Building Dept. must ensure compliance with any and all approvals by the Planning Board, but it's not their position to usurp approvals and hold up permits (even if they believe the PB has failed to do their job). If the applicant is not within compliance of their PB approvals, the building dept. can issue a stop work order - but that's about it. The Planning Board has total authority in ensuring compliance with the code. If someone thinks they are in error, well that's what Article 78 is for.
A blind child could see the potential problems especially with all the recent changes to the parking lot.
While you may be concerned about the effect on other businesses - the fact of ...more the matter is all of those businesses share that public parking lot. There are no spaces designated for specific businesses and this extremely common procedure in true villages. Look at Patchogue village - there's a serious dearth of parking - but the businesses see that as a positive because it means they are always busy. There's bound to be a spillover effect from citeralla's into other businesses (blue duck, shawn's deli, sip 'n soda, la parmagiana). Additionally, many people are happy to walk around the village. You can't tell me that the handful of parking spots in front of the Golden Pear is responsible for all of their customers.
The real issue is a lack of parking within the village itself (which is really an obligation of the village - not the businesses) and a lack of enforcement (which we can probably all attest to).
Perhaps his bust should augment the Roman line-up of suspects east of the old Parrish?
Fiddle Fiddle Fiddle!
A Trojan Horse -- in my personal opinion.
The general point is that Citarella's prices in the new Water Mill store many years ago seriously undercut the Village Cheese Shop's cheese business. They were so low that people from Southampton did actually go there to check it out, drawn in part by the good selection and very low prices.
Moreover, lots of folks from outside Southampton Village, who used to make a special trip to the Village Cheese Shop for their ...more (also) great selection, albeit at prices much higher than Citarella, switched to Citarella as a permanent cheese shop because of the prices and terrible parking in the Village.
Yes, competition is good, but PREDATORY NYC-financed pricing is NOT good.
TBD for sure, but the cheerleaders may want to re-think their enthusiasm after The Trojan Horse enters the city.
"I welcome predatory pricing . . . "
"Groan Henge is all about capitalism."
You might want to read an article Paul Farrell wrote recently at a major financial online publication entitled "Capitalism is killing our morals, our future."
As I said above, the Citarella situation is a TBD indeed.