a rendering of the proposed Recycling Plant on Route 6 in Yorktown
Attempts to stop construction of a recycling plant alleged; Town Board members and 20 “John Doe” Employees Also Named in Suit
By Dan Murphy
The owners of 76 ROUTE 6 HOLDINGS INC., whose affiliate company is AAA Carting, have filed a 12 Million dollar lawsuit against the Town of Yorktown for what they claim “have been subject to a pattern of harassment and discrimination, and has been subject to unlawful actions by Defendants in its efforts to obtain a site plan and commence construction and development of a of a recycling facility (the “Recycling Facility”). The Property is located on Route 6 in the Town’s I-1 (Light Industrial) District, which has long permitted recycling facilities as a principal use.
The suit makes serious allegations against town employees and officials, although none are specifically named. Plaintiff 76 Route 6 Holdings, Inc. is suing the Town of Yorktown and all five members of the Yorktown Town Board, the Planning Board, and the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Also named are 20 John and Jane Doe’s, “are unidentified persons who are employees, board members, agents, and attorneys or others who may have participated in or conspired with the named Defendants regarding the actions set forth in this Complaint and will be appropriately added as named Defendants later.”
The suit also alleges that “Defendants needlessly and unlawfully delayed Plaintiff’s Land Use Application while racing to enact zoning code legislation aimed at effectively barring Plaintiff’s development of the Property altogether. Plaintiff endured a myriad of artificial and pretextual concerns and a stream of extra-procedural requirements by Defendants, only to be advised that its Property would now be subject to a newly enacted zoning code—legislation that was specifically targeted at Plaintiff to ensure Plaintiff could not utilize the Property for the use that was “as of right” at the time Plaintiff purchased the Property and filed its Land Use.
On July 28, 2023, 76 ROUTE 6 HOLDINGS INC purchased the Property located one mile north of the JV Mall “with the expectation that Defendants would lawfully act pursuant to the law on the Land Use Application and with such reasonable investment backed expectations that the Property could be profitably developed as a recycling facility so Plaintiff could realize a reasonable return on its investment.”
76 Route 6 Holdings submitted its plans for a Land Use Application to build a Recycling Facility at the Property, consisting of a forty thousand (40,000) square foot indoor processing building, entranceway and weight station, outdoor storage, and parking areas.
In Jan. 2024, 76 Route 6 Holdings Inc., after submitting a Land Use Application, received a determination from the Yorktown Building Inspector’s office that the Building could be constructed as-of-right as proposed in the Application and did not raise any objection to the proposed location of the Building.
After that, according to the lawsuit, “Town officials attempted to compel the Building Inspector to change his Determination so that a larger setback was required on the easterly property line that would result in the need for Plaintiff to obtain a variance and not permit the Recycling Facility to be expeditiously approved in an “as-of-right” land use context.
But The Town Building Inspector, in a profile of lawful courage, refused to change his Determination that would have violated the rights of the Plaintiff. This unlawful attempt by Defendants to change the official act of a public official violated the law.
After a series of Planning Board meetings and Zoning Board meetings in the summer, the Determination for approval of the Land Use Application was delayed until the Town Board, according to the suit, “Given the reasonable likelihood that Plaintiff’s Application to build the Recycling Facility would be approved, Defendants undertook the unlawful steps to repeal Chapter 300 of the Town Code regarding recycling facilities such as the one for which Plaintiff had been seeking approval.
Prior to purchasing this Property on July 28, 2023, Plaintiff engaged in a thorough due diligence process to determine if this Property and the Project was properly zoned and otherwise situated for construction of its proposed Recycling Facility.
On October 1, 2024, the Town Board unanimously passed a resolution amending the Zoning Code to eliminate recycling facilities as a primary use. The Town Board then referred the matter to the Planning Board, who ruled that the Land Use Application was denied based on the change to the zoning ordinance.
Town Supervisor Ed Lachterman wrote to the Town Board about the project: “I do not feel that the new proposed transfer station is what was intended in the law. Our hearing today is to remove it as an allowed use so it could be looked at later down the line.”
In December 2024, the Town Board again placed the same zoning amendment in question back on the agenda for a second vote. “At that December 10, 2024 meeting, the Town Board attempted to retroactively correct the October 1, 2024, unlawful vote by making references to certain SEQRA documents and other considerations that were not actually before the Town Board at its October 1, 2024, aforesaid vote.
“Plaintiff acquired the Property in excess of $2,000,000 and incurred substantial costs and expenses for, among other things, engineering and professional fees, in preparation of the Application and traffic studies, amongst other items.
Upon information and belief, the reason for the Town’s actions was because Plaintiff was owned by the same owners as AAA Carting, against whom certain members of the Town harbored animus as a result of the prior litigation and public expression.
The lawsuit also reviews the troubles between the Town and AAA Carting. “AAA Carting submitted competitive bids to obtain Town municipal contracts regarding refuse and recycling services. In late 2022, the Town did not award the municipal contract to AAA Carting, and AAA Carting was required to seek redress of grievances by means of New York State Court litigation regarding the Town’s conduct in awarding the contract to another party, which lacked the experience, resources, and assets to service the contract.
“The Town’s decision to award the contract to the other entity turned out to be ill-advised in that less than a year after awarding the contract to the other party, the Town had to declare an “emergency” and re-bid the contract because, according to the Town, the hauler that was awarded the contract had its trucks repossessed, was not paying employees, and was otherwise breaching the contract such that the party could not properly and adequately service the contract.
“Defendant’s unlawful animus towards AAA Carting and its principals was evident and confirmed when the Town later awarded the “emergency” contract to another entity despite AAA Carting being the lowest responsible bidder for that second contract.”
“Those Town Representatives, including but not limited to the named Defendants herein, have acted in a punitive and illegal manner to violate Plaintiff’s rights as a result of its rights of free expression and to seek redress of grievances or otherwise interact with the Town,” states the lawsuit.
Several questions stem from the lawsuit: Who orchestrated the roadblocking of 76 Route 6 Holdings and AAA and their recycling plant proposal in the Yorktown government? While Supervisor Lachterman is the leader of the town government, nobody knows who made this call. And who is one of the 20 John and Jan Does in town government who orchestrated the roadblocks to be put before the recycling plant plan?
