History of Litigation

Two actions are pending against the Village (Article 78 Petition & Regulatory Taking Claim listed below)

First, Hampshire prevailed on an Article 78 action challenging the Planning Board’s denial of the 105-unit subdivision application. In November 2022, the NYS Supreme Court annulled the Planning Board’s denial, directing the Board to continue its project review. The Village subsequently appealed, thereby staying the Planning Board’s review. The Village’s appeal is pending. 

Second, Hampshire is pursuing a regulatory taking claim against the Village. This claim seeks $58 million in compensation from the Village for preventing Hampshire from using its residentially zoned property for residential use. The Village has filed two motions to dismiss, both of which have been DENIED by the NYS’ Supreme Court. The Village is currently appealing both denials. In the meantime, the parties will continue document discovery and depositions before the NYS Supreme Court. 

There have also been two prior actions between the Village and Hampshire. In March 2020, Hampshire obtained an order from the NYS Supreme Court directing the Planning Board to complete the SEQRA process of the residential subdivision application after 5 years of review (a mandamus action). In 2016, the federal court dismissed a lawsuit filed by Hampshire against the Village alleging violations of due process, equal protection and other claims after the Village Board declined to consider a proposal to rezone the property in connection with a previous condominium plan. 

A chronological bullet point summary of each action is below. In addition, the latest decisions from the two pending lawsuits are below. 

Development Application / Litigation History 

Petition to Rezone Clubhouse Property – 2014 

In February and June 2014, Hampshire petitioned the Village Board to create a new “Open Space/Residential Community District” that would permit Hampshire to incorporate condominium units into the existing clubhouse (initially 121 in February, and reduced to 97 in June), as well as preserve the entire 18-hole golf course as recreational/open space in perpetuity through a deed restriction. The Village Board refused to consider both petitions. Instead, it directed Hampshire to file an application before the Planning Board pursuant to the existing zoning. 

  • August 2014 – Hampshire files a lawsuit challenging the rejection of the petitions as arbitrary and capricious, as well as alleging violations of due process, equal protection and first amendment rights under Section 1983 of the US Code. 
  • March 2016 – Federal Court dismisses Hampshire’s federal claims. 

R-20 Planned Residential Development (PRD) – 2015 to 2020 

In June 2015, Hampshire applied to the Planning Board for approvals to develop a 105-unit PRD on the golf course consisting of a mix of single-family homes and townhouses, along with a 9-hole golf course. The Planning Board dragged out the SEQRA review process for 5 years, refusing to adopt a final environmental impact statement. 

  • November 2019 – Hampshire files mandamus action in state court seeking an order compelling the Planning Board to complete SEQRA. 
  • March 2020 – Supreme Court grants Hampshire’s application, ordering PB to complete SEQRA within 90 days.
  • May 2020 – Upon the Supreme Court’s Mandamus Order, Planning Board issues negative SEQRA Findings and associated denial resolutions. The Planning Board concludes in the SEQRA Findings that the Village’s regulations justify denial of any residential development on Hampshire’s Property “regardless of the available alternativeness.”

Article 78 Petition 

  • June 2020 – Hampshire files Article 78 Petition challenging SEQRA Findings and denial resolutions for being arbitrary and capricious.
  • November 2022 – Supreme Court grants Hampshire’s Petition, annuls the Findings, and returns the case to the Planning Board for a new determination.
  • December 2022 – Village files Notice of Appeal thereby staying (halting) – Planning Board proceedings.
  • September 15, 2023 – NINE months later, Village files its appeal and the court’s response is pending.

Regulatory Taking Claim 

  • May 2021 – Hampshire files Regulatory Taking Claim seeking $58 million in compensation due to Planning Board’s Finding that property cannot be used for residential purposes “regardless of the available alternatives”.
  • August 2021 – Village files first motion to dismiss. 
  • May 2022 – Supreme Court denies Village’s first motion to dismiss (Village files notice of appeal, which remains pending).
  • December 2022 – Village files second motion to dismiss.
  • May 2023 – Supreme Court denies second motion to dismiss (deadline to appeal still pending).
  • The Village applied to the Appellate Division for a Stay of Judge Giacomo’s Order pending its appeal.
  • November 2023 – Supreme Court directs Former VOM Mayor Thomas Murphy to appear for a deposition in this lawsuit by the end of the year. The Court also ordered the Village to turn over many documents it has been withholding from Hampshire, including private communications between Planning Board Members and neighborhood opponents leading up to the denial of Hampshire’s residential subdivision proposal. The Village had until December 22nd, 2023 to comply with the Court’s Order.
  • On January 30, 2024, the Supreme Court issued a Discovery Compliance Order, directing the Village to turn over documents and produce the former Mayor for deposition within 20 days or face sanctions. The Village subsequently applied to the Second Department for a permanent stay of the January 2024 Compliance Order and a previous November 2023 Order directing the Village to produce documents and witnesses, pending its appeal of both orders. 
  • On February 12, 2024, the Second Department issued an order granting temporary stays to give it time to consider the Village’s request for a permanent stay pending appeal. The Second Department gave Hampshire until February 23, 2024, to file responsive papers objecting to the Village’s request. Hampshire filed a cross-motion to vacate the stays on February 20, 2024, because under the Court’s rules, cross-motions have to be filed 3 days in advance. Further, under the Court’s rules, the Village had until February 23, 2024, to file a reply to Hampshire’s cross-motion.     The Village failed to file a reply on February 23rd.  
  • Instead, the Village attempted several weeks later to file a motion seeking leave to file a late reply. The Second Department rejected this motion and, instead, directed the Village to send a letter request to the Court. Accordingly, on March 21st, the Village submitted a letter request to file a late reply over a month after it was due, citing a “calendaring error”. Hampshire quickly objected to this request, pointing out that the Village was well aware that a cross-motion would be filed before the February 23rd deadline. The Village then submitted a second letter to the Court, blaming “new administrative staff” for the failure to submit a reply.   The Court continues to consider both the cross-motion as well as the question of whether to accept a late reply from the Village.

Side note – during the above time, the Village Ethics Board conducted a confidential investigation which found that a Planning Board Member had been hiding the fact that she lived adjacent to the Club. The Ethics Board ultimately recommended removing her from the Planning Board due to her failure to disclose her interest in the outcome of the PRD Application. Former Mayor Murphy had the authority to remove her from the Planning Board and elected not to.  Yet, the Planning Board Member subsequently sued the Village for defamation. The Village had to pay for both her attorney and their own attorney during the investigation, as well for their attorneys to defend the subsequent lawsuit. This litigation is ongoing and has already cost the Village taxpayers in excess of $265,000.  

Two other misrepresentations to the School Board during the June 6, 2023 meeting should also be dispelled: 

Soil Conditions 

First, at no time has a federal, state or Village environmental review ever designated Hampshire’s golf course as a hazardous waste site. As a longstanding golf course, there are materials in the soil associated with landscaping and maintenance, similar to those frequently used by community residents in their backyards. The levels of materials found in the soil after numerous years of study were not alarming to any regulatory agency or otherwise deemed to be a risk to human health or safety. To the contrary, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation determined in a letter, dated August 7, 2018, that the soil could be kept on-site in connection with the residential redevelopment.

The DEC only reached this determination after reviewing a comprehensive evaluation of soil conditions obtained during the 5-year long SEQRA process. This included Phase I and II environmental site assessments, which collected 21 surface, subsurface and sediment samples throughout the golf course. The only substances found at elevated levels were minimal amounts of chemicals associated with the longstanding golf course, specifically arsenic, lead and several pesticides. The existence of these materials in the soil was deemed not to be significant, particularly since DEC regulations allow reusing the soils on site as a layer underneath a “cap” of clean soil. 

Village Board’s Discretion to Revisit Zoning

Second, the Village of Mamaroneck Board of Trustees continues to have broad legislative discretion to rezone the property to accommodate the condominium plan. The fact that the Board of Trustees decided in 2014 not to entertain a zoning petition does not preclude it from reconsidering the proposal now. As the State Appeals Court recognized when it dismissed Hampshire’s challenge to the Village Board’s refusal to entertain the 2014 rezoning petition: 

“The Village Board is vested with discretion to amend its zoning ordinance and is not required to consider and vote upon every application for a zoning change.” 

Matter of Hampshire Recreation, LLC v. Village of Mamaroneck, 181 A.D.3d 904, 905 (2d Dep’t 2020) 

As this quote illustrates, the Court merely decided that the Village Board did not have to entertain the 2014 zoning petition. The Court did not preclude the Village Board from deciding a decade later to amend its zoning ordinance to facilitate a School expansion and Hampshire’s condominium project if it wanted to.