Tonight – 11/12/14 – there is a Public Hearing at the Town of Ramapo at 8:00pm regarding a proposed change to the comprehensive plan of the Town of Ramapo to facilitate the rezoning of at least two properties along Pascack Brook. This area of Ramapo was identified for Medium Density housing (3-4 units per acre) because of environmental concerns and the need to transition between the lower density areas and the higher density areas of Ramapo. The proposed rezoning is to lower the zoning to 12 units/acre.

After reading about this development in the papers a number of people contacted ROSA volunteers to find out what is actually going on.

Information has been gathered but not reviewed and digested. This posting is meant to make the information available to anyone who is interested in attending the public hearing tonight.

I was able to get to Town Hall today where I was able to review the folders of the two proposed projects that led the Town to consider a comprehensive plan change. While I was not able to get most of the files in the planning/development folders I did get enough to get a sense of what is going on. 

This is  a link to a scan – hot off the press so to speak – of the materials that I understand were prepared for tonight. Even I have not had time to review these materials.

Here are two photos taken with my iPhone of the maps:

• Collinshaw/171 N. Pascack Site Plan
• Monsey Lumber/Pascack Ridge Site Plan

There are two projects which are requesting a zone change. Folders are labeled Monsey Lumber and 171 N. Pascack. Monsey Lumber includes lots:

• 50.19-1-44
• 50.19-1-46
• 50.19-1-47
• 50.19-1-55 through 67
• 50.19-1-70
• 50.19-1-71
• 57.07-1-2
• 57.07-1-2

See:

• 50.19: https://geopower.jws.com/rockland/MapDownload.jsp?id=182982 and
• 57.07: https://geopower.jws.com/rockland/MapDownload.jsp?id=182988

 

Collinshaw/171 N. Pascack Lot:

• 50.19-1-72

Both are R-15 and are requesting a shift to MR12; 3 homes/acre to 12 units/acre.

These two requests would necessitate a change to the comprehensive plan to allow this zone change. Rather than deal with just these two properties, Alan Berman explained that the comprehensive plan would change the zoning on these two properties as well as an additional two smaller properties in that area. I do not know what those other small properties entail. The most fleeting of glances seem to suggest that the town’s strategy to avoid accusations of spot zoning is to consider this area as a whole. In my mind it is still spot zoning for a number of reasons which I will try to pull together for tonight. An actual comprehensive review/updating of the comprehensive plan is way overdue.

It would seem that the materials being given to the Town Board are very summary and do not reflect much of the feedback in the planning/building department. I consider that to actually be a huge problem. What little information there is goes to planning board, planning board says to Town Board, “we recommend” and the Town Board makes a decision without independently evaluating the situation. At least that what it seems to me.

Because of the last minute nature of the request I could not get a copy of the folder with the builder’s narrative but I was able to get copies of the feedback on the Monsey Lumber proposal from the Town Planner, the Town DPW department, and the RC Drainage Agency.

The Rockland County GML also just arrived. Their recommendation was No. I have not been able to review their comments yet.

The Monsey Lumber application was far better organized and complete than the Collinshaw application. The name of the Monsey Lumber development is “Pascack Ridge”. Owner is Monsey Lumber. Applicant is Alex Goldberg.  Best to read the file with the town professional comments for more details.  Of note is that there are wetlands on the Collinshaw drawings that would imply wetlands on the Monsey Lumber properties but they are not shown. These properties are being proposed on reasonably steep slopes on either side of a regulated waterway and it should be expected that there would be riparian buffers (being proposed to be eliminated) and possibly wetland areas – which is seems that there may be.

So there is the whole concept of the zone change itself which I would argue is inappropriate in this area surrounding one of the more substantial (and already polluted waterways) in Rockland. The key argument seems to be that there are little clusters of slightly more dense development in the area so why not here. The answer in my mind is obvious.

Hope this information helps those who plan to come tonight. I plan to ask for an adjournment to get time to receive all the documents under FOIL and to be able to make further comments.

It is time to revisit the comprehensive plan. Just not this piecemeal fashion.