Opinion
Submitted September 6, 2001.
October 9, 2001.
Proceeding pursuant to EDPL 207 to review a determination of the respondent Town Board of the Town of East Hampton, dated January 18, 2001, made after a public hearing, to acquire the petitioner's property.
Philip H. Sanderman, East Moriches, N.Y., for petitioner.
Goldstein, Goldstein, Rikon Gottlieb, P.C., New York, N Y (Michael Rikon of counsel), for respondents Town of East Hampton, Jay Schneiderman, Diane Weir, Pat Mansir, Peter Hammerle, and Job Potter.
Before: GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, J.P., LEO F. McGINITY, HOWARD MILLER and SANDRA L. TOWNES, JJ.
DECISION JUDGMENT
ADJUDGED that the petition is denied, with costs, and the proposed acquisition is allowed to proceed.
After a public hearing, the respondent Town Board of the Town of East Hampton (hereinafter the Town Board) adopted a resolution to condemn the petitioner's property. The petitioner had contracted to construct and sell a home on the property. After the petitioner commenced clearing the lot in preparation for construction, it learned that the respondents were seeking to acquire the property in connection with its construction of affordable senior citizen housing rental units.
At the hearing, it was revealed that the petitioner's property was part of a larger proposed acquisition by the respondents upon which senior citizen housing would be built. The petitioner's property was to be acquired for the purposes, inter alia, of creating access between an existing senior citizen rental complex and a proposed rental complex, as well as for buffering and screening a pathway from neighboring property.
Contrary to the petitioner's contentions, it cannot be said that the Town Board acted in bad faith or that its determination to condemn the property was irrational, baseless, or unreasonable (see, Matter of Glen Cove Community Dev. Agency, 259 A.D.2d 750; Matter of Dowling Coll. v. Flacke, 78 A.D.2d 551).
The petitioner's remaining contentions are either improperly raised on appeal or without merit.