Chester's '180' will cost taxpayers millions to defend

To the citizens of the Village of Chester,

As you may know, my family is suing the village board for refusing to abide by the terms of our previous agreements. The board’s actions will cost the village hundreds of thousands in legal fees at the very least, and quite likely millions of dollars in damages. Regardless of what you feel about development, you should be aware of what is at stake. Please take a moment to understand how we got here and how we can avoid this colossal waste of money, both mine and yours.

Twelve years ago, the 60-acre property my family has owned since 1984 was specifically zoned by the Town of Chester for multifamily and senior housing. That zoning allowed up to six townhomes per acre and 18 senior apartments per acre. However, the town had no water system available to service its own zoning, so we were going to have to drill for water on site. As we bordered the village and its water system, we asked the village board if they would be open to providing us water in an "out-of-district" agreement. The board, recognizing that development on the property would primarily impact the village, instead offered us water if we agreed to annex the property into its borders, where it would gain the benefit of the property taxes on our future homes. I agreed to do this on one condition — that the village allow us to build the upscale townhouse/affordable senior housing that we were proposing in the town. To do this, the village would need to amend its existing zoning slightly, as current zoning effectively prohibits such homes from being built. The village agreed but suggested that instead of amending its existing multifamily zoning, a new zoning district (later named RM-N) be proposed to specifically allow the project. Everything that followed came from these agreements from the village — had the village declined the use of its water or refused to allow the project, we would have simply built what we could in the town, drilling for water.

Following the village’s four-year environmental review, during which the project and the RM-N zoning were the subject of countless hearings and workshops, the board concluded in its findings that the specific townhouse/senior project would result in substantial benefits to the village and voted in favor of annexation. The town voted against and so the matter was sent to the courts with the town on one side and the village and my family together on the other. Ultimately, the lawsuit was settled when all parties signed two stipulations of settlement to end the litigation. These stipulations are binding, legal contracts with all parties obligated to fulfill their terms.

The settlement terms were very specific. The project would be reduced in maximum size from 458 to 340 homes, of which 100 were required to be for seniors, with “Construction (to) be undertaken in the manner described and set forth in the Final Environmental Impact Statement and the Village’s SEQRA Findings for the BT Holdings annexation and residential development project...subject to review and approval by the Village of Chester Planning Board during the planning process.”

The FEIS and findings examined only our specific upscale townhome and affordable senior housing project and the RM-N zoning. There is no other project and there is no other zoning. The village cannot simply pretend that the project and zoning never existed.

Following annexation, we looked forward to putting the project in front of the planning board for site plan approval. But the village board reneged on the agreement, refusing to adopt the RM-N zoning or assign it to our property, leaving our property without zoning for any development, nearly two years after annexation. Without this zoning, we are unable to follow through on the settlement terms and build the specific project that we all had examined and agreed to.

In plain terms, the board got the annexation it wanted — our property is now in the Village — and then decided that it would no longer allow us to build the project it promised us in return. That is illegal — literally, it is against the law — and it has left us no alternative but to sue the village for breach of contract and seizure of our property. Common sense alone should tell you that we have a great case with a record that strongly supports our claims. Indeed, in the very first hearing, the judge stated that “it seems like the Village has kind of done a 180 here” and cautioned the village’s attorney that the board would be wise to try to work things out because “the jury might think it was dirty pool for the Village to have joined in that stipulation and then said, ‘oh, time out, we didn't say that, you know, you could build what's in the stipulation.’”

Our only goal for the past decade has been to build the beautiful community we’ve long worked on with the village; the same community that the village board itself determined would be a benefit to the village and its citizens, providing some of the nicest homes in Chester as well as affordable homes for its seniors, while generating a financial windfall in taxes. Instead, the village has chosen to waste hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars on legal fees and risk millions of taxpayer dollars in an eventual judgment. I don’t think that makes sense, and I hope you don’t either.

Last week I extended an olive branch to the village board in the hopes of ending this dispute, offering to sit down to discuss a settlement. I’ve received no response.

To be clear, if there is no settlement, we will have no other choice than to press this lawsuit until final judgement, where we will seek not only full reimbursement for expenses to date, including all of our legal fees, but damages from the reduction in our property’s value. This will amount to millions of dollars payable by you, the taxpayers. And while it may take a year or two and cost hundreds of thousands in legal fees (for both sides), we have the time and resources to follow through. But again, this is not what we want, as it benefits no one.

We hope the village board will do what is best for its community and sit down with us to come quickly to a mutually agreeable resolution. I don’t know how it can justify otherwise, especially to you, its citizens.

Frank Nussbaum
BT Holdings