The Village of Tarrytown has not yet appealed the county court’s decision to dismiss their case against Sleepy Hollow’s GM development, but they did submit a request to the judge in the interim to reconsider.
News came to both villages – by way of a three-page letter – on Feb. 15 that Acting Supreme Court Justice James Hubert stands by his decision.
“The court denies the Petitioner’s motion and adheres to its original decision in all respects,” the letter states.
Hubert explains in the document that a motion to renew or reargue the court’s decision would require:
- that the court “overlooked or misapprehended relevant facts” or “misapplied” the law
- or proof that “new facts” have come to light.
Tarrytown had presented as evidence of “new facts” an open letter Sleepy Hollow Trustee Bruce Campbell had posted both on Facebook and on Patch arguing, wrote the court, that the “court’s decision does not require Sleepy Hollow to use funds to mitigate traffic impacts in Tarrytown.”
The court found this open letter not to qualify as new fact, and said the court did not overlook or misapprehend facts, nor did it misapply the law.
An appeal could still come and take the matter to higher court than the county’s highest court, though Tarrytown has not decided, or at least disclosed, if this in the cards for them or not.
They have until April to appeal, said Mayor Drew Fixell, adding that the board “would love to” make a decision before that deadline.
“We’re not done yet,” said Sleepy Hollow Village Administrator Anthony Giaccio.
No word has come from GM on any prospective bidders for the proposed development, a delay which Sleepy Hollow officials have attributed to a lawsuit standing in the way.
"It is my hope that Tarrytown will choose not to appeal," Sleepy Hollow Mayor Ken Wray said. "I believe that GM is waiting for the legal matters to be settled before it moves forward with naming a developer."
Fixell talked at length with Patch recently on the lawsuit and other matters – coinciding with his announcement to rerun for his seat. He expressed hope that the villages could work this out, trumped only by his concern over the ignored issue of traffic mitigation.
“Our primary goal is to have the impact reduced,” he said, noting that at first he argued for a less dense and impactful project. Having been denied that, he demands more details about the mitigation measures as promised in the approvals – what would they be exactly and who would pay?
“What would [mitigation] look like?” Fixell asked. “How would it be paid for? We think it won’t be adequate and we want to know what we have to consider. Our position is we need to know. We haven’t gotten that yet from either the Judge or Sleepy Hollow or GM… It’s still up in the air. We would like this to be resolved, that’s for sure.”