Chautauqua OKs $70M project at former golf course

Pictured is a rendering of the $70 million development proposed at the former Chautauqua Point Golf Course. Developers hope to start work later this year.
- Pictured is a rendering of the $70 million development proposed at the former Chautauqua Point Golf Course. Developers hope to start work later this year.
- OBSERVER Photo by Gregory Bacon The Chautauqua Town Board voted in favor for a Special Use Permit for Sunset View, a mixed-use high end development project on Route 430, Dewittville.
It appears the decision will be challenged in court.
On Wednesday, all five town board members voted in favor to give Ellicott Development a Special Use Permit for their project called “Sunset View.”
In July, 2023, 1200 Group, LLC purchased the former golf course property on Route 430 in the hamlet of Dewittville for $2.2 million. There were additional properties purchased by them as well. The golf course had been closed since 2021.
In August of 2024, Ellicott Development, which owns 1200 Group, LLC, revealed its plans for the property, which it described as a resort style community experience.

OBSERVER Photo by Gregory Bacon The Chautauqua Town Board voted in favor for a Special Use Permit for Sunset View, a mixed-use high end development project on Route 430, Dewittville.
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.
The development would be managed by a Home Owners Association.
The town board has had multiple hearings on the project and it has been backed by the Chautauqua County Planning Board and the town zoning/planning board.
On Wednesday, no public comment was made before the vote. The public hearing was closed last month.
After the vote Tom Fox with Ellicott Development said the next step for them is to get approval from the state Attorney General to form a Home Owners Association. He suspects that will take six months or so.
They will also need to get a building permit from the town before they can begin construction. “We’re hoping to see work on site this year. There’s a lot of unknown time frames as we seek the other approvals,” Fox said.
Ellicott Development attorney Sean Hopkins thanked officials for the vote. “We appreciate the effort that’s been made by the town board and the town departments, working with us on this project,” he said in an interview.
Select residents from Chautauqua Lake Estates, Point Chautauqua, and the Villas at Chautauqua Point, all which border the former golf course, have regularly opposed the project. Some have argued the development allows for too many people to live there, while others have continually called on town officials to halt the project, saying the property should be donated to a non-profit organization that protects the lake.
Attorney Joe Calimeri, who was hired by some Point Chautauqua residents, was in attendance Wednesday night but did not speak. After the vote, he declined to say if he would file an appeal in court regarding the town board’s approval of a Special Use Permit.
Another attorney, Steven Daly, is representing a group called “Chautauqua Protect.” The members of the group include some residents of Point Chautauqua and surrounding communities.
Daly was not in attendance Wednesday night, however earlier that day court documents were filed in State Supreme Court by Point Chautauqua Association, Inc. and Chautauqua Protect by its President Garrett Hicks against the Chautauqua Town Board and 1200 Group, LLC. The paperwork was signed by Daly.
They filed all the exhibits and notices and summonses, but not the actual complaint itself.
It appears they are preparing to file an Article 78, which alleges a government body failed to perform a duty required by law; made a decision in violation of lawful procedure, was arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion; made a determination unsupported by substantial evidence (after a hearing); or acted outside its legal authority.






