Frequently Asked Questions

No. While the school district has signed a Memorandum of Understanding (“MoU”) that would allow it to receive a gift of land if the condo project is approved, the district has explicitly stated that “it is the purview of the Village of Mamaroneck, not of the Board of Education, to determine whether Hampshire will be permitted to move forward with the proposed project”.

As Board of Education Member Athena Belsito-Maikish said before the approval of the MoU: “I don’t want a large development in my backyard…I’m in favor of accepting the agreement, but not in favor of the development. I trust the village board to decide.”

No. Hampshire’s plan to turn the golf course into a 105 unit housing development was rejected in May 2020 by the Village Planning Board. Although the developers appealed the decision, asking the court to overturn the Planning Board’s Decision, the court declined to do so and instead merely asked the Planning Board to revisit a small subset of specific reasons for the rejection. The Village has appealed this decision, but, because the decision was based on solid review and analysis of many issues, and was not “arbitrary and capricious” (the standard necessary to be proved by the developers), the Village will likely win this appeal. In addition, most of the key reasons cited for rejection by the Planning Board, including health and safety risks from flooding, major multi-year construction disturbance and environmental damage from the project, will continue to exist. So, even if the Village’s appeal is unsuccessful, and the Planning Board were to revisit the small number of issues noted, the Village Planning Board would in all likelihood again reject the housing development.

Moreover, with c. 500 members, the Hampshire Country Club is currently thriving and profitable under its current configuration. Given the demonstrated inability to develop the land for residential purposes, the golf course will most likely remain as is once the current owners accept that the housing development and the luxury condo complex will not happen.

Unclear. It is unlikely that Hampshire Country Club could continue to be a full size 18-hole golf course under the current plans. According to the American Society of Golf Architects, a full-size par 72 course requires 120-200 acres. Hampshire is already a small course with only 116.4 acres of total land for the club (including 6 acres for the clubhouse, tennis, and pool). The condo plan would reduce this further by using 8 additional acres for the condo development, and if the transfer of land to the School District were to occur, another 7 acres would be shaved off the course. This would mean Hampshire have only approximately 95 acres remaining for its golf course – over 20% smaller than the minimum required size for an 18-hole course. Continuation as an 18-hole golf course would be virtually impossible, and most members would not pay for a reduced hole golf experience. With the resulting departure of significant numbers of member, like that seen in financial crisis of 2008, the club would no longer be financially viable. Since Hampshire’s developer-owners intend to sell out of their position, it is unclear who would pay to maintain the current course, with its significant maintenance expenses, including for flood mitigation and water control.

Nothing will happen until Hampshire files with the Village of Mamaroneck Board of Trustees a petition asking that the Board consider rezoning the property by the clubhouse from Marine Recreation to a new zone allowing high-rise condominium development.  It is expected that Hampshire will file this petition in the near future.

Once Hampshire files the petition, the Board of Trustees has two choices:  It can vote to either (1) accept the petition and then kick off a process to fully consider rezoning or (2) reject the petition and not move forward with consideration of rezoning.

Prior to voting on whether or not to accept the petition, the Board will be required to address the petition at one or more public meetings. The public should be able to speak on the issue at these meetings. Concerned residents must show up in person to convey our opposition and to provide support to the Board for a decision to reject the petition.  It is very important that the petition be rejected at this point. That rejection would be a legislative action in the full discretion of the Board.

When Hampshire submitted its initial petitions for consideration of rezoning over 10 years ago, the Board addressed the petitions at several public meetings that were very well attended by concerned residents who articulated the many serious concerns presented. After listening to all public comment, the Board voted to reject the petitions and not move forward with consideration of rezoning. Even though this type of legislative action is clearly within the authority of the Board, in order to put pressure on the Board to change its position, Hampshire brought a lawsuit against the Village at the time, claiming the decision was arbitrary and should be overturned under state law and also claiming $55 million in damages for an alleged federal constitutional violation that the failure to consider rezoning was the equivalent of a taking of property. The litigation was accompanied by a big PR campaign, raising the specter of large legal bills and huge potential liability.

We are thankful that the Board at the time recognized the ploy and held its ground, successfully defending against both the state and federal cases, with Hampshire losing both claims.

The Village needs to be prepared for a similar ploy to use threatened or actual lawsuits (as they brought again after the Planning Board decision to reject its application for the 105-home housing development) to put pressure on the Board and the community.