Mineola Residents Continue to Voice Opposition to Proposed 7-Eleven

Mineola residents continued to express their disapproval of a , evidenced by a strong turnout at a recent meeting of the at the . Resident John Plunket addressed the board during the June 6 meeting, saying that the petition from the 7-Eleven group “must be rejected” since “it challenges the prerogative of local boards.”

The board had previously  to build a 24-hour, 2,500 sq. ft. convenience store located at 400 East Jericho Turnpike at the northeast corner of Jericho Turnpike and Jay Court, focusing its decision primarily on safety, entrance and exits, stacking of cars, traffic crossing lanes to get to the business and the potential for accidents resulting. The decision also referenced that the office to the east exits its vehicles through the proposed store parking lot.

“They principally float safety issues and pedestrian passerby vehicles as well as vehicles on the site, how they maneuver,” village attorney John Spellman said of the 7-Eleven proposal. “There are good places for this stuff and bad places; that’s a bad place.”

Plunkett, reading from prepared remarks, said that residents were “relieved and gratified” that the board  and was critical that 7-Eleven says that the neighborhood and board “failed to submit experts” in its decision, receiving applause from the audience, many of whom were Jay Court residents.

“I sometimes wonder whether a judge should be involved. If you made a decision, why is the judicial branch interfering with your prerogatives?” he remarked.

7-Eleven has since  attempting to overturn the decision, filing what is known as an “article 78,” which is part of the civil code which states that a petitioner may seek judicial review of an administrative procedure.

The last time the village had an article 78 filed against it was in 2006 regarding a store on Emory Road and Jericho Turnpike, which is now an . The case went to federal court with the village winning on all levels. The entire record, consisting of transcripts, exhibits, etc. from the hearing are submitted to the court for decision. The village has submitted their papers to the while 7-Eleven has asked for an adjournment, which was granted.

The village also had a case against the , which was originally the site of a “Busy Bee” convenience store and gas station.

“They were turned down but because they had a certificate of occupancy previously the court said you couldn’t revoke that.” Spellman said.

Spellman explained that if the state supreme court rules against the village in this case, it would send the case back to the village with he instructions to make a determination with conditions not inconsistent with the court’s decision. An appeal to the appellate court is also an available option. Spellman said the initial decision should be rendered in 6 months, but that the timeline would be longer with an appeal.

He also noted that the village is evaluating the “substantive” issues of the village code, specifically some uses which “are not compatible anywhere in the village or whether the permissive zone should be more carefully tailored.”

“We’re going to defend that lawsuit as best we possibly can,” Mayor Scott Strauss said.