submitted by Giles Communications
A $58 million lawsuit is moving forward following a filing in New York Supreme Court of a takings claim of Hampshire’s property.
(editor: Takings claims are claims by property owners against government entities for depriving an owner of property without compensation.)
Hampshire served the Village with a notice of claim in June in advance of seeking damages— for the Village’s alleged denial of any residential development at Hampshire Country Club in the Orienta section of the Village. Hampshire claims that the Village Planning Board’s conclusion that absolutely no residential development can occur on its property constituted a regulatory taking.
“The Village of Mamaroneck has declared that no residential development may occur on Hampshire’s property, despite the fact that it is zoned for residential use.” said David Cooper, a partner at Zarin & Steinmetz, the law firm representing Hampshire. “The Village’s declaration reduces the value of the property by tens of millions of dollars. Under the New York State Constitution, the Village is obligated to provide just compensation to the property owner.”
The Village Planning Board denied Hampshire’s requested approvals for The Residences last May. The Board rejected an application to build the proposed 105-home planned residential development on the Hampshire golf course property.
I don’t understand the article. If Hampshire served the Village with a notice of claim in June 2020, what has happened now to warrant an article saying a lawsuit is moving forward?
They haven’t been denied a legal development. They have been denied what they have said they want to do which wasn’t zoning compliant. David Cooper of Zarin and Steinmetz is a smart guy and knows his client has a loser of a case. He is peddling for his client in the media because he know what he said in the article would be proved false in court.
John Hofstetter, it is people like you that get the village in trouble all the time. Why would a prominent lawyer falsify a complaint? did you even read the complaint? they are not asking for a zoning change! I am concerned us taxpayers are the on the hook for $58 million!
“Why would a prominent lawyer falsify” ? For $ and in order to push a client’s agenda forward. Not novel.
can someone tell me why a project, that isn’t requiring a rezone, would be denied in the first place? looks like our village is about to lose $58 million dollars!!
If my memory is correct when the locals rallied against the developers’ first proposal, which was a zoning change, years ago, it was estimated they could build around 26 homes (?) on the site under the current zoning, which is for 20,000 ft lots, and environmental / flooding rules.
Much of the site was formerly a wet land so can’t be built on without some significant environmental alterations, which of course would have flow on effects. That water that pools in Hampshire every time it rains heavily has to go somewhere. The developers want to build 44 houses and 61 carriage houses.
The Planning Board’s report said, “The proposal would result in significant unmitigated environmental impacts…It is inconsistent with the goals of the village’s planned residential development zoning and it is inconsistent with the village’s flood damage prevention laws.”
So it seems to be a fight over the environmental impact of building these 70-odd extra dwellings. The developer says they have satisfied the requirements and the Village says they haven’t.
I’m thinking it would be mighty difficult for them to justify the need for such a big ask as that many dwellings. Not to mention, properties that are relieved of their wetlands status very often continue to behave in the same manner they always have, without the benefit of protected status. That must be taken into account. How much future flooding is acceptable in an already flood prone area? How much impervious surface is being added? Imho, the Village of Mamaroneck is spot on. They should hold firm. Why should a neighborhood suffer to line a builders pockets with more profits? If approval for building is granted it should be “as of right” and not involve a variance.