Cover photo: Smithtown Town Hall (Credit – Matt Meduri)
For months, concerned St. James residents have descended upon Town board meeting after board meeting to voice their opposition to a developer’s plan to build an assisted living facility on the historic Bull Run Farm property.
The facility was staunchly opposed by residents who believe that the historic property should be preserved, that such a development would be an unsightly addition to the community, and the road density would not be able to handle the traffic and ancillary services associated with assisted living.
The lawsuit was brought against the Town by Mills Pond Group, LLC, who sought to challenge Smithtown’s zoning process for the proposed facility. The plaintiffs cited the Fair Housing Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA, and the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution, alleging that the Town discriminated against future residents.
The suit was brought when the Town updated the Master Plan to remove a special exemption provision for such facilities. The zoning language was updated to specifically include medical and health services, such as assisted living facilities. The plaintiffs alleged that the change, which was pursuant to massive public input, boxed out the developer for that specific project.
The case was dismissed due to a lack of standing, a reliance on “fictitious plaintiffs,” and a failure to meet legal ripeness requirements.
Fictitious Plaintiffs
The complainant named a nonexistent entity, called “XYC, Inc.,” as the operator of the proposed assisted living facility, despite it being a placeholder. The list of plaintiffs also included eighty-six hypothetical complainants, such as “John” and “Jane Does,” to represent a future community of residents of a facility that does not exist. The court found that these hypothetical complainants made their claims inadmissible.
Standing of Real Plaintiffs
Apart from the eighty-six hypothetical plaintiffs, six real plaintiffs were identified. However, their claims were deemed inadmissible since they were based solely on the plaintiffs’ intentions to reside in a facility that has not yet been built. The court also found that these claims, along with other issues, such as permitting, could prevent the facility from ever being built.
“The real, living plaintiffs named in the complaint fare only slightly better than their fictional counterparts. The six identified individuals do have the advantage of being actual people, but their reasons for being here mirror that of Does No. 9-97,” said the Judge in his ruling. “Those individuals are intended future residents of the Whisper Mills Assisted Living at St James facility proposed to be located on Mills Pond Road.”
Lack of Ripeness and Standing
The suit was also dismissed due to its lack of ripeness for adjudication, in that the Mills Pond Group did not exhaust all administrative remedies. Furthermore, the court found that a federal court has no standing to impose jurisdiction of a local zoning matter, one that would be in the purview of the Town’s Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA).
“This case drew unnecessary public scrutiny, including unfounded criticism of our Town Attorney, Matt Jakubowski, from the leadership of a local civic group. While I hope to see a public apology for the negative analysis, at the very least the Town administration is confident that the civic community and people of St James share in our enthusiasm and acknowledgment for this victory led by Mr. Jakubowski,” said a Town spokesperson. “Sensationalized local media coverage, without fact-checking or including legitimate research, misleads the public and promotes government overreach. It’s a reminder that we all must approach contentious applications with care and respect for both the law and our neighbors.”
The Mills Pond Group was also found to have initially proposed a condominium development but diverted their cause to an assisted living facility to bypass local zoning laws. When the special exemption for such facilities was removed from the Town code, the group filed the lawsuit. The court also found that the group did not take “essential steps,” such as applying for a zoning variance, which it believes undermines their claims of discrimination.
“It can’t be that Mills Pond historically ‘develops Assisted Living residences’ as a regular course of business on behalf of an entity that doesn’t yet exist. Furthermore, a sworn document submitted by plaintiffs on this motion makes clear that Mills Pond has no special affinity for creating assisted living facilities; rather, Mills Pond had an initial plan to build ‘condominium-type residences’ on the parcel but shifted to its current iteration to avoid zoning hurdles,” said the Judge. “After eliminating the silliness what remains of this case is this: plaintiff Mills Pond is a closely held development company that’s attempting to construct an assisted living facility on property zoned for residential use.”
“Never let the facts get in the way of a good story,” the Judge read in his opening statement, a quote misattributed to Mark Twain. “And that’s not all. The complaint provides for another eighty-six invented plaintiffs that are nothing more than wishful thinking: “Joe Doe’ and ‘Jane Doe Nos. 9 – 97.”
“We were, of course, pleased with the court’s decision, though we fully expected Judge Gary Brown to reach this outcome. He followed the law to the letter, as we anticipated from such a respected Federal Judge. The Town of Smithtown and the Town Board must operate strictly within land use regulations and municipal codes,” said Supervisor Ed Wehrheim (R-Kings Park). “Personal opinions—whether from elected officials or the public—do not guide these decisions. Our Building, Environmental, Land Use, and Legal department experts follow a rigorous process to advise the Town Board, and we are proud to stand by their recommendations. We entrust these professionals with critical responsibilities, and their guidance ensures that we govern properly and fairly. Furthermore, public litigation is expensive—these recent legal victories (two in the last week) cost over $110,000 in taxpayer funds. That money could have gone toward preserving open space, matching funds with the county to preserve Trinity AME Church, upgrading athletic fields, or adding stormwater mitigation. There is a real cost to defending Article 78 proceedings, and that cost unfortunately is felt on the taxpayers.”
The court granted the Town’s motion to dismiss the case and denied Mills Pond’s request for a preliminary injunction, which is a temporary court order that prevents a party in a legal case from taking a specific action or continuing an action until a final judgment.
The Town asserts that the decision “underscores the importance of factual accuracy and proper administrative procedures in legal challenges,” and that it “echoes the Town of Smithtown’s commitment to upholding the law, ensuring sound governance, and responsibility managing land use decisions.”
