Westchester fair housing settlement: Developer asks court to force North Salem to approve affordable housing

3

Kearney Realty and Development has filed a motion to intervene in the fair housing case between the federal government and Westchester County and asked the judge to force the town of North Salem to approve its affordable housing project.

Kenneth Kearney of Kearney Realty, based in Putnam County, is accusing North Salem of changing zoning requirements to block its proposal for 108 units of affordable housing on Route 22. Though North Salem is not a direct party to the county’s fair housing lawsuit, Kearney is asking the court to declare that the town is impeding the consent decree ending the lawsuit in 2009 and to order the town to approve the development.

The land is zoned for senior housing but, Kearney says, several months into the approval process the town interpreted its zoning to mean that an assisted living facility was required as part of the development. Then, early this year, the town passed a law to clarify that an assisted living facility was required. Kearney says assisted living is not economically feasible on the site.

“Local Law No. 1 of 2013 effectively prevents the development of affordable housing on the Seven Springs property,” Kearney said in his declaration. “It is simply not economically possible to build any meaningful amount of affordable housing and an economically-viable assisted living facility on that parcel.”

Kearney accuses North Salem of a long history of blocking affordable housing.

Share.

About Author

3 Comments

  1. You ask, “Does Kearney have the legal standing under theory of law?” I would say that Kearney has the right to sue as all persons or corporations do. What makes this lawsuit interesting is the fact that town had its zoning interpreted to eliminate the Kearney’s project. The real question is, “Prior to the town having the law changed was Kearney’s project on legal standing with the zoning?” If the courts rule that Kearney’s project was within the zoning laws prior to the town having it interpreted with the obvious intention of stopping the Kearney’s project, then the town will lose and Kearney will be granted to right to move forward with his project.

    The real question is the intent and reasoning for the request for interpretation and who were the players and what motivated their decision? This is not an open and closed case, the town will have to answer questions regarding their process and they will be asked if this is standard operating procedure for developments or only for projects that do not want in their town.

    I say the Kearney company has legal standing to proceed with a lawsuit.

  2. “F”! The Developer! I mean “THE FAIL GRADE”. . . !

    What good is a Say from a Developer ” asking to Force” The People of The United States?

    Are, the Developers more ” Powerful and Authority” over The said Westchester County than The Federal Statutes?

    I don’t think so! Have some shame. Westchester is not the Developers Estate! . . .