Contentious Hampshire Vs. Mamaroneck Case Moves Forward

MAMARONECK, NY — A Westchester County golf course that claims local officials unjustly stymied a permitted residential development will have their day in court after months of delays and legal wrangling.

In Hampshire Recreation, LLC's lawsuit against the Village of Mamaroneck and the Village of Mamaroneck Planning Board, a NYS Supreme Court judge last week denied the village's attempt to dismiss Hampshire's taking claim. This means that Hampshire will be able to move forward with its $58.1 million lawsuit against the village for what it contends is an unfair denial of Hampshire's residential subdivision proposal.

In May of last year, Hampshire filed a summons and complaint alleging the village's regulatory taking of Hampshire's property without compensation.

Hampshire purchased 1107 Cove Road in Mamaroneck, a 106-acre property, in 2010 for $12 million with the intention of developing it according to the single-family zoning that applied to the property at the time it was purchased. According to court records, in 2012, the village's Comprehensive Plan included future planning goals for Hampshire's property, including consideration for future zoning changed from residential to recreation/open space zoning and/or reducing the allowable residential density from R-20 to R-30.

In 2015, Hampshire submitted an application to the village to construct a 105-unit residential development in a tidal flood plain along the Long Island Sound within a designated "critical environmental area" for approval of a "planned residential development." After a five-year review process, the planning board prohibited any residential development on the property due to unmitigated impacts and environmental constraints on the property.

The complaint, however, claims that the planning board's refusal to permit development on the property was "arbitrary, capricious and contradicted by or not supported by substantial evidence, will erase nearly all of the property's economic value, and will interfere with the plaintiff's distinct investment-backed expectation of significant profits from developing a residential project on the property consistent with the permitted uses under the Village Code."

The village moved to dismiss the complaint based upon documentary evidence and for failure to state a cause of action. The village claims that Hampshire purchased the property subject to numerous regulatory restrictions and cannot now base a regulatory taking claim on the grounds that it has unrestricted rights to develop the property for residential use. Mamaroneck contends that developing the property required five separate discretionary approvals from the planning board, including a special permit pursuant to the planned residential development regulations, site development plan approval, subdivision approval, a floodplain development permit and a freshwater wetlands permit after completion of a NYS-required environmental impact review.

The village argues that Hampshire automatically added a sixth discretionary approval the moment it applied to develop the property as a "planned residential development."

The village argues that the planning board did not deny approval for all uses that would allow Hampshire to derive economic benefits from the property as required for a taking claim. Mamaroneck also claims that Hampshire can still build on its property, although the planning board determined this particular project can't be built. The village argues that the plaintiff still has the same rights to develop on its property as it did when first purchased, but that Hampshire has no right to the approvals required, and therefore the planning board's denial of approvals is not a "taking."

According to Mamaroneck, the planning board disallowing the project was to advance legitimate state interest, and its determination did not deny Hampshire economically viable use of its land. The village claimed that the planning board required Hampshire to study 25-unit, 50-unit and 75-unit alternatives, but Hampshire took the position that none of these alternatives were economically feasible, without presenting any financial information necessary for evaluation of that position.

Hampshire contends that its complaint provides verifiable details to establish a regulatory taking claim. Hampshire said the planning board's findings have denied them the ability to use the property for residential purposes, according to R-20 zoning, and "effectuated a de facto rezoning of the property to a conservation zone, precluding any residential use and reducing the value of the property by tens of millions of dollars."

Judge William J. Giacomo ordered that the Village of Mamaroneck's motion to dismiss the complaint be denied and that they would have to serve their answer within 10 days. Both parties were also directed to file a proposed preliminary conference stipulation to the NYS court electronic filing system by June 10.

SEE ALSO:

• Goldstein Loses Latest Challenge To Ethics Violations Finding
• Hampshire Country Club Names Well-Seasoned New Executive Chef
• Hampshire Country Club Honored By Legislature for Pandemic Work
• 'COVID Hero' Hampshire Club Honored For Helping Students
• Village of Mamaroneck Rejects Plan For Residences at Hampshire
• Hampshire Country Club Receives Award For Community Service
• Developer Sues Mamaroneck Village Over Application Denial
• Letter To The Editor: Developer's Lawsuit Is Frivolous
• Letter To The Editor: Follow Law, Science, Facts About Hampshire
• Hampshire Country Club Presents its Development Plans
• Hampshire Country Club Plans Move To Final Environment Study
• Mamaroneck's Hampshire Country Club Wins Lawsuit to Host Nonmember Events
• Developers Seek Approvals for New Housing Complex at Hampshire Country Club
• Hampshire Country Club Becomes Official Course for Mamaroneck High School Golf Team
• Local Teens Hired at Hampshire Country Club for Summer
• Proposed Development in Mamaroneck Draws Ire From Community
• Mamaroneck Village Freezes Major New Building