The Village of Mamaroneck planning board failed to take a “hard look” at the evidence, a judge has ruled, when it rejected plans by Hampshire Recreation LLC to build homes at Hampshire County Club.
Westchester Supreme Court Justice Linda S. Jamieson ordered the planning board to reconsider the issues, in a decision issued on Nov. 15. She also remarked that she was troubled by the appearance of impropriety by a member of the planning board.
Hampshire has been trying to get land use approvals to build homes on the 106-acre property for more than a decade, over the objections of several residents in the wealthy Orienta neighborhood on Long Island Sound.
After the village rejected a 125-unit condominium plan, the developer proposed building 105 homes and downsizing the 18-hole golf course to 9 holes.
The revised project underwent nearly five years of environmental studies, hearings and deliberations.
The planning board rejected the plans in May 2020, finding that the development would create significant environmental impacts and was inconsistent with the village’s zoning and flood damage prevention laws.
Hampshire petitioned Westchester Supreme Court to annul the decision, arguing that it was predetermined and the result of a “decade-long attempt by the village to prevent any residential development at the club property.”
Jamieson noted that state law requires her to ascertain only whether there was a rational basis for the planning board decision or whether the ruling was arbitrary and capricious — and not substitute her own judgment.
She focused on three issues: a flood modeling standard, a flood prevention regulation, and green space.
Hampshire had submitted plans to combat flooding on Cooper Avenue for 50 years of rising sea levels. When it realized the village wanted a 60-year plan it submitted more data. The planning board declined to consider the “eleventh hour submission,” contending that it had always expected a 60-year plan.
Jamieson found that the planning board never explicitly asked for 60 years of data. In contrast, Hampshire showed that the village’s own engineering consultant repeatedly cited the 50-year standard.
When the planning board made it clear that it was using a 60-year standard, Hampshire “rapidly re-analyzed the data and presented a solution” to the flooding issue, Jamieson found. “The planning board, however, determined that it was too late and rejected (Hampshire’s) rejiggered plan.”
The planning board had violated Hampshire’s right to due process, she ruled, and thus failed to take a hard look at the developer’s “last-minute solution to a last-minute change in the parameters.”
She ordered the planning board to consider Hampshire’s 60-year flood plan.
The planning board also rejected Hampshire’s plan to truck in 80,000 cubic yards of fill, despite acknowledging that “no impact was shown on the project site or adjacent properties.”
Judge Jamieson directed the planning board to make clear whether any excavation is required, and if so, allow Hampshire to address the issue.
The planning board also had concluded that the plans did not provide meaningful recreational opportunities because portions of the open spaces were isolated or inaccessible.
Judge Jamieson found that the open space “is not as scant or tainted” as the planning board makes it out to be, and there is no support for the conclusion that it would not provide meaningful recreation opportunities.
The only evidence cited by the board was based on comments from a law firm hired by an opposition group and neighbors, she noted, rather than from an expert or persuasive authority.
A conclusion “must be based upon factual evidence in the record,” she said in citing an appellate court opinion, “and not generalized, speculative community objections.”
She ordered the board to take a hard look at the open space issue.
Finally, Jamieson remarked on the “issue of the conflicted planning board member,” without naming the individual.
Hampshire accused board member Cynthia Goldstein, who lives near the proposed development, of bias.
Jamieson said she was troubled by Goldstein’s comments, such as an email stating, “I think it’s past time to wrestle control of this from the consultant,” which she said appears to exhibit a desire for a preordained result.
Even though she was only one vote, Jamieson said, “her active vocal participation in the deliberations may well have influenced other members.”
Jamieson directed all planning board members to disclose where they live.
