Hampshire’s $58 Million Takings Claim Represents a Real Threat to The Village of Mamaroneck
Hampshire Recreation is focused entirely on its $58 million takings claim, which is a real threat to the Village of Mamaroneck. The Village filed two motions to dismiss the lawsuit, which were denied, so now the parties are headed to trial.
And in yet another litigation loss for the Village this year, the New York State Supreme Court issued an order in November directing Former VOM Mayor Thomas Murphy to appear for a deposition in Hampshire’s taking lawsuit by the end of 2023. 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. The Village applied to the Appellate Division for a Stay of Judge Giacomo’s Order pending its appeal. On 2/12, the Appellate Division granted a temporary stay to allow the parties to brief the question of whether a full stay pending appeal should be issued.
This may seem like a small procedural matter at first glance. Still, the fact that Hampshire had to obtain a Court order compelling the Village to participate in normal discovery begs the question: why has the Village refused to provide Hampshire with the documents they requested, and why have the Former Mayor and Planning Board Members refused to appear for depositions? WHAT IS THE VILLAGE HIDING?
How we got here
Hampshire Recreation purchased Hampshire Country Club in 2010 with the full intention of developing a residential component on its property to create a sustainable long-term fiscal path. Hampshire’s property is currently zoned for residential housing: 20,000 square-foot lots allowable as of right under current R-20 zoning resulting in approximately 206 lots.
In June 2015, Hampshire submitted a proposal to the Village for a Planned Residential Development project, which would result in the construction of a 105-unit residential development on the site—far fewer than the 205 units permitted by R-20 zoning regulations.
Unfortunately, the Village of Mamaroneck, at the behest of MCEC, has forced Hampshire to engage in a 10-year legal battle and declared in 2020 that no residential development, in any configuration, may occur on its property, even though it is zoned for residential use.
Legally speaking, this is considered a taking of Hampshire’s property and is the basis of its $58 million takings claim against the Village.
New York State’s Supreme Court rejected the Village of Mamaroneck’s first and second motions to dismiss Hampshire’s $58 million takings claim, agreeing with Hampshire’s position that further proceedings before the Planning Board would be futile since the evidence demonstrates the VOM Planning Board is predetermined to deny any residential development.
The Village has now consistently lost the last several rounds of litigation, and now, the New York State Supreme Court ordered Former Mayor Murphy to appear for a deposition by the end of 2023. The Court also ordered the Village to turn over many documents it has been withholding from Hampshire. The Village did not comply with the court order.
Local officials keep kicking the can down the road, all the while Village taxpayers remain on the hook for a lot of money spent on the Village’s legal fees—more than $800,000 at this point.
Hampshire has a constitutional right to defend itself against the Village, which is hellbent on denying Hampshire the right to develop property it owns, and that is zoned for residential development. This is pure NIMBYism.
Discovery on the $58 million taking claim has recommenced, and we suspect that most Village taxpayers are unaware of the huge financial risk to which the Village is exposing them. Prior to his election loss, former Mayor claimed it is “ridiculous to think we would now reconsider that decision” and that “the Village of Mamaroneck Board of Trustees has NO appetite for considering a rezoning of this property.” The newly elected mayor, Sharon Torres, has not weighed in on this subject.
What it means to Village taxpayers
Village of Mamaroneck taxpayers ultimately bear the cost of litigation, which the Village keeps losing.
Hampshire continues to prevail in two lawsuits against the Village: Arbitrarily and capriciously denying its 105-unit single-family PRD proposal, and Hampshire’s $58 million takings claim for taking its development rights without compensation. While all appeals are still pending, the Village is intent on kicking the legal can down the road, possibly facing a real threat of bankruptcy.
Litigation costs to the Village already exceed $800,000, including litigation involving a conflicted Planning Board member found GUILTY OF ETHICS VIOLATIONS regarding the Hampshire Planned Residential Development application.
In November of 2019, following a year-long investigation, the Village of Mamaroneck’s Ethics Board unanimously found that this person’s participation as a member of the Planning Board constituted multiple violations of the Code of Ethics, and recommended she be removed from the Village of Mamaroneck Planning Board. As noted in the recommendation of Disciplinary Action, she violated her disclosure and recusal obligations regarding a sewer hookup to her multimillion-dollar home, as well as the proposed “The Residences at Hampshire” development where, as the owner of property that abuts Hampshire, she stood to benefit by voting against that project.
Former Mayor Murphy was met with considerable pressure from Village residents to make a final decision on her fate on the Planning Board. However, Mr. Murphy waited 6 months before calling a public hearing on whether to remove her—only after she and the Planning Board unanimously voted against the Hampshire project.
Meanwhile, she sued the Village and the Ethics Board to set aside the Ethics Board recommendation. Her lawyer told the Village Attorney that if the Mayor removed her from the Planning Board, she would amend her lawsuit to challenge that action, as well.
Ultimately, the Village reinstated her to the Planning Board, and the Village got stuck with the cost of her defense. When her term expired at the end of 2023, she was retained on the Planning Board due to a lack of other applicants for the position.