69.0°,
A Few Clouds Council votes to vacate Haberman agreement
Developer to continue with $50 million lawsuit against the city
A $50 million lawsuit against the city will continue to move forward, after the City Council voted unanimously last week on a measure to “vacate” an agreement with the developer Sinclair Haberman that would have allowed them to go before the Zoning Board of Appeals and seek approval to build two 19-story beachfront apartment buildings.
According to the agreement — approved last December, and signed again in March as part of an amended stipulation — Haberman would have agreed to drop its lawsuit against the city, zoning board and several city officials if the zoning board approved the development. If denied, Haberman could move forward with its lawsuit.
According to court documents, under the terms of the agreement, Haberman could seek the zoning board’s approval for a revised project on Shore Road, between Monroe and Lincoln boulevards, that would include the two 19-story apartment buildings instead of a previously proposed trio of 10-story structures, a project that dates back to the 1980s but has become mired in litigation against the city.
In 2012, a ruling by the Appellate Division of the State Supreme Court in Nassau County paved the way for Haberman to move forward with its suit, alleging that the zoning board bowed to political pressure from unit owners at the adjacent Sea Pointe Towers, at 360 Shore Road, when it revoked Haberman’s building permits in 2003, after tenants claimed that their views would be obstructed by the buildings and raised concerns about parking.
Though the city attempted to resolve the lawsuit and entered into mediation talks last year, the city told the Herald in July that it was no longer pursuing the agreement. City Manager Jack Schnirman said that the city is not in agreement with the terms of the 44-page stipulation with conditions, and brought in outside counsel as a result.
That month, the council hired two law firms — each at a rate of $250 per hour — to defend the city, the zoning board and city officials, and to assess the status of the suit.
