|
$150M condo suit may target Putnam By MICHAEL RISINIT KENT — Efforts to settle a $150 million lawsuit brought by two developers against Kent and New York City died earlier this month, says one of the plaintiffs' lawyers, and Putnam County may become a target of the suit. The developers — Joseph Cioccolanti of Kent Acres Development Co. and Harold Wolland of Lexington Realty Development Corp. — accused the municipalities of extortion for not approving the construction of a 300-unit condominium project. Negotiations, said Kevin Young, Wolland's attorney, broke down about two weeks ago. At that point, he said, the city had offered $3 million to settle the suit and Kent was offering between $400,000 and $500,000. Ed Heelan, a local real estate agent who opposes the watershed regulations, estimated the land's worth at roughly $4 million last year. "We worked and worked and worked on a settlement," Young said yesterday. "We just couldn't agree on a price (for the 113 acres off Nichols Road)." Wolland and Kent Acres, the property's owner, have been negotiating with the town and the city about the project's size and whether the town would recommend it for a special sewage-treatment plant. The property is in the city's watershed. Kent Acres began construction soon after receiving approvals from the Kent Planning Board in 1988 but stopped after financing for the project collapsed. Wolland wants to buy the land from Kent Acres and continue development. Yesterday, Young and County Executive Robert Bondi disagreed over the county's role. Young contended that Putnam could have recommended the project for the city's sewage plant pilot program and didn't, which is why it would be named in the suit. "There's no requirement," Bondi said. "As a result, we've never recommended a project (in any of the watershed towns). We've left it to the town supervisors." The developers filed suit in December 1999 in state Supreme Court in Carmel. The lawsuit contends that town approvals granted in 1988 and the project's acceptance into the city's pilot program in 1997 should allow construction to start. Both companies maintain that earlier approvals give Wolland the right to continue construction. Participation in the program requires city approval and a recommendation from Kent, which the town isn't required to give. Susan Amron, an environmental attorney with the city's Law Department, has said the city withdrew its conceptual approval because it became apparent that the town wasn't going to recommend the project. During public hearings, residents worried that the townhouses would bring more cars to the neighborhood's narrow roads, pollute a nearby lake and overburden an already crowded school district. Amron didn't return telephone calls yesterday, and Kent Supervisor Annmarie Baisley said she didn't know the status of the lawsuit. Young said he planned to file an amended complaint by the end of the year naming Putnam as a defendant. Thomas Singleton, attorney for Kent Acres, said the discovery process would continue after Jan. 1. Kent Acres owes Putnam County about $2 million in back taxes, Bondi said. The county, he said, is not involved in any development issues, regulatory matters concerning the city's watershed or the assessment process. "There are no grounds to sue the county," Bondi said. "The county's interest is $1.9 million in back taxes, interest and penalties." The county wants the money or will take the property, Bondi said. The former farm is on Bondi's list of acquisitions for open- space preservation throughout Putnam. Young acknowledged the outstanding taxes but said a lot of taxes had also been paid. The county, he said, has taken money but denied the developers' right to use the land. In August, a lightning fire destroyed several unfinished townhouses on the land, and the Town Board has ordered the damaged structures to be torn down. |
