Mt. Kisco, Officials Sued Over Senior Housing Project Delays
The developer of a proposed 129-unit senior housing complex has followed through on threats of a lawsuit against Mount Kisco and the Village Attorney claiming the approval process has been wrongfully stalled.
The suit was filed Nov. 6 in U.S. District Court in White Plains by Town and Country Adult Living, the Westchester Residence and Club LLC, Robert Mishkin, one of the development partners, and 129 “John Does.” The 129 unknown plaintiffs “were either the residents of the now-demolished senior enriched/assisted living residence for older seniors with disabilities previously located at 53 Mountain Ave.” or would be the future residents of the proposed senior housing facility, according to the complaint.
The plaintiffs are seeking a jury trial. The litigation names the Village of Mount Kisco, the Village Board, the Planning Board and Village Attorney Whitney Singleton as defendants.
The lawsuit alleges that “(t)he delays for the 270 Kisco Avenue site plan were designed to enrich Whitney Singleton as he collected legal fees during the environmental review of 270 Kisco Avenue and to allow Whitney Singleton’s friend to pursue competing site plan approval at the 2 Morgan Drive property (notwithstanding that this property used to house a New York City sewage waste treatment facility located in a Research and Development Zone and would require substantial remediation before being eligible to use the property).”
Singleton said the village would not comment on the lawsuit.
In March, the Village Board unanimously voted to allow Mayor Michael Cindrich to negotiate with the applicant for the sale of 17.7 acres of municipal property at 270 Kisco Ave. to allow the project to proceed. The originally proposed sale price was about $4 million, but Cindrich revealed this fall that the developer had increased the offer to $5 million.
Despite the vote by the Village Board last March, the sale has been on hold since shortly after the board heard complaints from several residents who do not want Kisco Mountain developed.
In the spring, the developers submitted a notice of claim threatening a $50 million lawsuit against the village for reneging on their intentions following the vote. There are no specific damages sought in the complaint.
According to the litigation, village officials sought to use their positions and offices to inflict “unlawful delays” on the site plan review.
The complaint states that the deal reached by developers and the village in a 2006 Stipulation of Settlement called for the plaintiffs to demolish an existing 44-unit senior adult assisted living facility at 53 Mountain Ave. and deed that property to the village. In return, the village was obligated to sell 270 Kisco Ave. to the plaintiffs for $3.5 million.
“The defendants continued their puzzling display of bad faith in pursuing a tax foreclosure of 53 Mountain Avenue, through which the village gained ownership of 53 Mountain Avenue for the unpaid (but accruing) taxes the village specifically agreed in writing would not constitute a tax deficiency,” the litigation stated.
Village officials must sell 270 Kisco Ave. to the plaintiffs, the suit argues, “and must account for the damages their conduct has caused plaintiffs to incur.”
If not, then the village must return the plaintiffs to the same position they found themselves in at the time of the 2006 Stipulation of Settlement, then answer for the village’s ongoing Fair Housing Act and Americans With Disabilities Act violations “for a knowing lack of housing for disabled senior citizens.”
The complaint states the developer had given the village a $1.5 million down payment in January 2007, which has been held by the village ever since.
“From their inexplicable (and) inexcusable delays, (the) defendants have also extracted from (the) plaintiffs additional payments and promises beyond the existing consideration for the sale of 270 Kisco Avenue,” the complaint states.
The complaint further charges that the Planning Board exercised delay tactics regarding the approval process.
Messages left last week for Brian Brick, an attorney representing the plaintiffs, were not returned.
