Planning Board Wonders Why Interior Changes To 230 Elm Street Are Being Subjected To Site Plan Approval

An application for site-plan approval for interior alterations to an Elm Street events venue has members of the Southampton Village Planning Board wondering why the matter is even before them, and if they should agree to hear it.

Members questioned why they are being asked to weigh in on changes proposed inside a building, which they said is the purview of the building inspector, not the Planning Board.

But Mayor Jesse Warren said on Tuesday that all building permits, excepting those for interior changes to single-family homes, require site-plan approval from the Planning Board — even if the law has not been interpreted that way in the past.

The catering company Elegant Affairs is moving into 230 Elm Street, the former Southampton Polish Hall that is owned by the American Polish Political Association of Southampton. The application calls for American with Disabilities Act-compliant bathrooms, a nonstructural wall and rebuilding coat closets.

The village has issued a number of stop-work orders at 230 Elm Street. James Carchietta, the husband of Elegant Affairs President Andrea Correale, answered the violations in Village Justice Court last month. He disputed the merits of the stop-work orders and said he wants a trial.

“We keep getting issued violations for work that doesn’t even require a permit,” he said in court, adding, “I’m living a nightmare on Elm Street.”

Getting site-plan approval would resolve the stop-work orders and allow work at 230 Elm Street to resume, though Planning Board members did not find site-plan approval to be necessary.

“So why is this before us?” Chairman Tony Piazza asked Planning Board consultant Kathy Eiseman at the board’s November 29 meeting.

“Actually, I don’t know,” Eiseman said, laughing. She explained that generally speaking, site-plan review criteria includes a change in the use of a property or a change in site conditions, such as parking, access, landscaping and lighting. “But in this case, it’s all interior modifications.”

Alice Cooley, the attorney to the Planning Board, said the board is in a “tricky position” because the village code requires that any application for a building permit for any use, building or structure, except for one-family dwellings, requires site-plan review.

“In the past, it’s my understanding that’s been interpreted for only exterior changes at the site,” she said. “But it looks like we are now getting from the Building Department a stricter interpretation of that section of the code. In my opinion, that doesn’t necessarily line up with the objectives of the site-plan procedure and review, which addresses exterior changes, which is what we normally look at.”

Cooley added that the Planning Board members do not have the ability to say whether the application should be before them. “Because the Planning Board doesn’t determine their own jurisdiction, the Building Department determines the Planning Board’s jurisdiction.”

She said the Planning Board has to hear the application but she would welcome the applicant’s attorney to try to convince her otherwise.

That attorney, David Gilmartin, said he objects to the Planning Board’s jurisdiction and offered his reasons: “In a general sense, your power to regulate land use is something that’s given from the state to the village. … It’s called enabling legislation. Enabling legislation that allows you to review site plans is limited to certain areas, and those areas are to the exterior of the building. It is the Building Department that regulates the interior. My client made an application for interior improvements in March and was given a building permit and was allowed to continue those improvements until very recently.”

He said that in his 25-plus years of experience he has never seen an interior improvement reviewed by the Planning Board. “While the code says exactly what Alice says it says, I’m saying that’s not a power that the state gave to the Planning Board,” he said. “It’s a power that the state gave to the Building Department to regulate it within New York State fire prevention and building code. So I don’t think this application is properly before you.”

He said the change came when Chief Building Inspector Chris Talbot left. After 20 years with Southampton Village, Talbot left in September to lead the Sag Harbor Village Building Department.

Gilmartin said the Building Department told him that the only way to stop violations from being issued to his client was to go before the Planning Board.

He told the board that it would be a disservice to the public for the Planning Board to schedule a public hearing on the application, because residents will think they will be able to come and have influence on what’s being discussed.

“This is a tough one …” Cooley said. “I think it’s really difficult for the board to try to apply the site-plan standards here, but given that the building inspector referred the application to us, I think that’s what we have to do.”

She said if Gilmartin convinces her that the Planning Board has no jurisdiction, she would have to talk to the village attorney to determine what happens next and discuss changing the village code.

Planning Board member Alan McFarland suggested another option: The board passes on hearing the application and throws the ball back to the building inspector and village administration.

Cooley said her problem with that suggestion is she doesn’t want to send the applicant pinballing between the board and the building inspector. She said the board members could just review the elements of the site plan, deem it complete and schedule a public hearing at the board’s next meeting, then analyze the site plan to the best of their ability.

That did not sit well with board member Lisa Cowell. “It sets a precedent that we’ve never had before that doesn’t make sense,” she said.

Piazza said he couldn’t decide that evening how to proceed. “It kind of just hit us in the face right now,” he said.

Gilmartin said the proper way to go is for the board to say that it doesn’t have jurisdiction and can’t review the application because there are no site-plan issues.

Piazza said he would discuss the matter with Cooley and Village Attorney Kenneth Gray.

Mayor Jesse Warren on Tuesday defended the interpretation of the code that requires site-plan approval for interior changes in commercial buildings.

“Just because something was done incorrectly in the past doesn’t mean it should be done incorrectly in the future,” Warren said.

Residents and the village simply want builders to follow the law, he continued, saying, “Before I took office, the Building Department was run in a very haphazard way.” The mayor said the code was not being followed, and he pointed to the specific section concerning building permits. “All you need to do is read this,” he said.

Gilmartin noted that his client will be back before the Planning Board in the future with other proposed changes he agrees require site-plan review. He said it won’t look like any of the plans that were previously submitted to the Board of Architectural Review and Historic Preservation and withdrawn.

A neighbors group that has dubbed itself Elm Street Strong is opposed to Elegant Affairs opening at 230 Elm Street. In a joint letter to the editor last month, group members wrote they do not want “another huge wedding, private and corporate party venue.”

They wrote, “More liquor, music, food, large crowds, increased traffic, constant food and alcohol deliveries, and trash trucks will in no way enhance or benefit our historic Elm Street neighborhood in our historic Southampton Village.”