The Mineola Village Board will make a motion to appeal in the New York State Court of Appeals a April 29 reversal of a October 2012 decision by an appellate court that denied 7-Eleven’s plan to build a storefront at 400 East Jericho Tpke. in Mineola.
“Unfortunately we were overturned and it was sent back to us,” Mayor Scott Strauss said. “I’m sure the board feels as strongly as I do that we should make the motion.”
Garden City-based Amato Law Group represents 7-Eleven. They did not return calls for comment.
“I stand by our decision and the rationale behind our original decision,” Deputy Mayor Paul Pereira said. “I hope [the Court of Appeals] will follow suit from the Supreme Court [in March 2012] and get it right.”
The reversal of the 2012 village board by the Appellate Division of the Second Judicial Department rejection dismayed nearby residents.
“The arrogance of the courts is out of control,” Jim Plunkett said. “[The village board] as I understand, is a viable, political entity. You make a decision. You’re there to represent Mineola and a court says ‘no, you have no standing.’ The issue here is local control and these courts keep telling us what to do.”
In March 2012, the village board struck down the plan based on potential traffic hazards, lackluster delivery space and impact to Jay Court residents. This preceded a October 2011 public hearing, where local homeowners were out in full force to oppose the project. In October 2012, 7-Eleven lost a battle in court attempting to upend.
The April decision suggests the village board opposed the plan “based on their belief that the convenience store’s clientele would be unsavory, and that the presence of the proposed store would exacerbate existing traffic congestion. No expert evidence was provided in opposition to the petitioners’ expert evidence.” The order said Mineola should grant the plan, with negotiated restrictions.
Furthermore, since 7-Eleven was seeking a special use permit, which allows property owners to use land consistent with zoning laws and not a variance, which is the exact opposite, the Big Gulp gargantuan shows “the claims of board members and nearby property owners that the granting of the special use permit application would, among other things, exacerbate existing traffic congestion were unsupported by empirical data.”
