Serving the Towns of Wawarsing, Crawford, Mamakating, Rochester and Shawangunk, and everything in between
(none)   
SJ FB page   
 

Gutter
Hearing On Bloomingburg Permits Adjourned
Developer's Response Hints At Major Legal Complexities

MAMAKATING – The Mamakating planning board held a special meeting on June 16 to consider rescinding the site plan approval for the controversial Chestnut Ridge development in the Village of Bloomingburg. The village planning board granted the approval in 2009, but the town planning board has since assumed the jurisdiction of the now defunct village planning board. In a statement dated May 24, the town board put forth its reasons to consider the rescission, based on facts that have recently come to light in unsealed documents. These include "apparent material false statements and material misrepresentations contained in the DEIS (draft environmental impact statement), the FEIS (final environmental impact statement), and Findings Statement, upon which the [village] planning board relied in granting approvals to the Chestnut Ridge project."

The above-mentioned documents were recently made public in the federal civil rights case brought by the Chestnut Ridge developers against the town of Mamakating, the town planning board, the Village of Bloomingburg, and others. The federal court judge re-designated these documents as public, because, in her words, "the public's interest in disclosure substantially outweighs the plaintiff's interest in keeping this material from public view."

One of the four documents released was titled: "The Villages of Chestnut Ridge Executive Summary — Very Highly Confidential," dated January 14, 2013. According to the interpretation of the town board, it reveals that, since at least as early as 2006, the developers worked "in complete secrecy" with the apparent intent to develop Chestnut Ridge for exclusive occupancy by families with an average of eight children each; sell or rent 20 to 40 percent of the units to occupants who qualify for section 8 housing assistance; and develop contiguous lands for the construction of 5,000 units over a 10- to 15-year period.

However, the developer repeatedly stated in the EIS's that the maximum number of occupants for the 396 units would be 810, and misrepresented, according to town officials, the type of occupants, saying that they would be higher income young childless professionals, empty nesters or retirees seeking a second home.

"Those material false statements and material misrepresentations directly effect the evaluation and findings regarding water supply, wastewater treatment, traffic and transportation services, schools impact, community and governmental services, and fiscal impact, and therefore may directly affect the integrity and lawful validity of the planning board's grant of approvals," concludes the statement issued by the town planning board.

About 100 people gathered at town hall for the due process hearing on this matter. Town attorney Ben Gailey opened the meeting by asking if there was anyone present representing Sullivan Farms II, Inc., the developers of Chestnut Ridge. When no one stepped forward, Gailey announced that just hours before, the board had received a 20-page letter with a 20-page attachment from the developers, authored by John J. Henry and Terresa M. Balmer of Whiteman, Osterman & Hanna in Albany law firm, in which they stated that they would not appear personally, and that the letter would be the extent of their submission to the board.

Gailey said his impression of the letter, which questioned matters of due process among other charges, was that it contained many false statements and reiterated allegations of anti-Semitism. However, the hearing was adjourned, to the anger and dismay of many present, until the planning board's next regularly scheduled planning board meeting on June 28 so everyone would have a chance to read the submitted materials.

Questions needing to be resolved before any action can be taken include the matter of whether Mamakating has the legal authority to rescind the approvals for Chestnut Ridge, almost six years after they were granted by the village.

"Every permit for the approval was obtained openly and legally," said the development's spokesman, Michael Fragin. "Nothing has changed in the project. The development remains open for sale to anyone. It is therefore discriminatory for the town planning board to claim that because several Hasidic Jewish families have moved in, that the development now requires a different standard of review based on the religion of the occupants of some of the units."

The town, however, seems to be more concerned about misrepresentations by the developers, rather than the religious orientation of the occupants. Involved with this are concerns regarding the adequacy of the village's water supply and wastewater treatment system, as well as traffic. After the meeting, Gailey was asked what would happen with the units at Chestnut Ridge that are already occupied should the site plan approval be rescinded.

"The families would remain living there," he said. "I don't see the town trying to evict anyone."

Planning board chairman Stosh Zamonsky acknowledged that the task ahead is a difficult one. None of the issues are likely to be easily resolved, but hopefully some understanding can be reached on both sides, and the two antagonistic camps can begin to cooperate towards the benefit of all concerned.



Gutter Gutter
 
 


Gutter