The first two attempts by a group of residents opposed to a condominium near Dewittville have been declined by the state Supreme Court.

Chautauqua town officials approved the project in January. The $70 million development will include condominiums, townhouses, single family homes, and a restaurant/tap house. The original plan has been modified and scaled back a few times. The development now calls for 174 residential units among the condos, townhouses and single houses. The restaurant/tap house would be open to the general public. New roads would be constructed. There would be walking trails, tennis courts, and 40 seasonal boat docks open to the public.

In the first of three challenges filed by the residents – Point Chautauqua Association Inc. and Chautauqua Protect v. Town Board of the Town of Chautauqua and 1200 Group LLC – the residents asked state Supreme Court Justice Grace Hanlon to annul Local Law 2 and the State Environmental Quality Review Act that supported the law as well as to require any future State Environmental Quality Review act for Local Law 2 consider the environmental impacts of the project. That motion is referred to in the online court docket information as Motion 1.

After reams of paperwork were submitted as well as oral arguments in Mayville were held in April, Hanlon ruled against Chautauqua Protects.

“The court does not agree with the petitioners that the local laws are unlawful because of the amendment being enacted as a necessary predicate to the project’s approval, instead of being abstract or hypothetical,” Hanlon said in her ruling. “It’s not atypical for amendments, or a special use permit for specific projects such as the one before the court. The court would argue this is the normal course of practice.”

Hanlon noted in her decision that the SUnset View project preserves 71.5% of the project site as green space and at least 40% as permanent open space while generating tax revenue and redevelopment the former golf course in a way that enhances rather than fragments the lakeshore area.

“Here, the town board’s adoption of (Local Law 2) did not authorize any type of development of any property in the town and did not commit the board to a future course of action, since any limited commercial development in a mixed use building within a PUD district still requires the issuance of a separate Special Use Permit by the town board,” Hanlon wrote before saying the town’s action does not qualify as spot zoning. “(Local Law 2) does the opposite: it is a uniform amendment that applies equally to every PUD district that may be established anywhere in the town. The amendment does not rezone any specific property or grant special privileges to a single property owner. The amendment allows for any applicant seeking to establish a PUD, to include limited commercial space in a mixed-use building, subject to the same 15,000-square-foot cap and design standards. The petitioner’s requests are denied, and the respondents request for a dismissal of the complaint is granted.”

Hanlon also ruled in a second legal challenge filed by Chautauqua Protects that had been filed in February.

Among the issues Chautauqua Protect raises in its filing is that the project exceeds the maximum density requirement under town laws by including 20 more dwelling units than the minimum lot size under town codes allow; that the subdivision style housing is subject to the town’s standard zoning rules and can’t be part of a Planned Unit Development; and that the development violates “anti-funneling” regulations intended to prevent developments with small areas of Chautauqua Lake frontage to offer lake access to a large number of people. The project has 190 feet of lake frontage but would offer lake access on a first-come, first-serve basis to more than 170 residential units, their guests and the general public.

The lawsuit also argues that town’s approval relies on incorrect legal conclusions, that the project has the potential to create financial burdens on the community and that it will create adverse impacts on adjacent property owners – particularly while Sunset View is under construction – and from part of the project’s use as an AirBnB.

Chautauqua Protects was asking Hanlon to annul, void and vacate the approval of the special use permit for the development and to stay any site work, permits or construction until the case is decided.

Hanlon ruled that the town’s exhibits, the town board’s interpretation of the ordinance and the interpretation by Frank Watson, code enforcement officer, were not in error when interpreting the ordinance in regard to density or interpretation of the project as a mixed district with common amenities, open spaces and mixed residential types. Hanlon also ruled the town’s ordinance prohibits funneling where non-lakefront owners are granted exclusive lake rights by deed, easement or contract by granting access to the 40 seasonal boat slips on a first-come, first-served basis to residents, guests and patrols of the restaurant and taproom with no ownership interests, easements or legal rights conveyed. The judge also ruled that the town’s lengthy process from when the development process began to the approval of the project in January is proof the Chautauqua Town Board’s approval was not arbitrary and capricious.

“The Town Board ‘grappled with’ the substantial evidence it received from all interested parties, made specific findings as required and reached a rational conclusion,” Hanlon wrote.

A third lawsuit is still active.

Filed in May by Attorney Stephen Daly, Chautauqua Protects alleges that the Chautauqua town Zoning Board acted in violation of lawful procedure with the way it handled its April 21, 2026, decisions regarding the maximum density requirement for Planned Unit Developments, that the zoning code’s subdivision regulations were not applied to Sunset View and the board’s ruling concerning Sunset View’s public dock and the anti-funneling requirements included in Hanlon’s second ruling.

The board issued one bulk determination, while Daly argues the Zoning Board of Appeals should have issued three separate and distinct decisions on each of the challenges Chautauqua Protect raised during the April 26 meeting.

Chautauqua Protect is asking the state Supreme Court to vacate the April 21 decision denying Chautauqua Protect’s interpretive appeal, declare the three Zoning Board interpretations as unlawful and to send the decisions back to the Zoning Board of Appeals for further proceedings; and to direct the Zoning Board to issue specific decisions of each interpretive ruling or render determinations supported by reasoned elaborations.