|
RCBJ-Audible (Listen For Free)
 |
Millers Pond Neighbors Say Ramapo Planning Board Illegally Segmented And Side-Stepped Environmental Review
After two failures at challenging the Town of Ramapo’s changes to its Town Code that enabled Planned Unit Developments in the town’s northeast corridor, neighbors of the proposed Millers Pond development are back in Rockland County Supreme Court. This time, they are challenging the Town of Ramapo’s Planning Board’s site-specific decisions advancing the project.
The Millers Pond Planned Unit Development (PUD), the first of its kind in the Ramapo’s Northeast Corner, is big. It encompasses 637 residential units with 67,000 square feet of non-residential, mixed use commercial space on 143 acres of land on the former Minisceongo Golf Course in Pomona.
The Millers Pond development plan calls for residential units to be clustered, and approximately 39 percent of the property will be preserved as open-space. The plan includes 118 buildings, made up of large manor houses, town houses, and interior roadways, pocket parks, swimming pools, and mixed-use residential and commercial buildings. Primary access will be through Pomona Road. Additional access may be through Camp Hill Road and Station Road.
In creating the zoning for PUDs, the Town sought to create walkable, less-traffic intensive, pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods
In the earlier suit, plaintiffs claimed various procedural errors, mostly centered around whether the Town gave proper notice, and claims of inadequate environmental review, all rejected by the court back in February. Plaintiffs are appealing that decision.
In this suit, Kearsing & Edwards American Legion Post 1600 Inc. and other plaintiffs take a different tack, challenging the planning board’s determination as non-compliant with SEQRA (State Environmental Quality Review Act) and the Open Meetings Law.
In an Amended Complaint filed last week, plaintiffs say the planning board improperly adopted SEQRA findings and improperly granted final site plan approval based on those SEQRA determinations. They also charge that the approval violated SEQRA claiming it was segmented. Segmentation is the illegal practice of breaking down a single project into smaller parts for the purpose of evading mandatory environmental review.
According to the lawsuit, as part of a Phase I development, the planning board reviewed and approved an application for 280 townhomes, a mixed-use building containing 96 apartments, and 12,000 square feet of commercial space. The plan represents the first of several development phases for the project.
Additionally, plaintiffs claim numerous violations of the Open Meetings Law as grounds to set aside the planning board’s determinations.
Plaintiffs also claim that the planning board’s failure to take a “hard look” at the environmental impacts of the project as a whole, rather than just the instant Phase, was arbitrary, capricious, and in violation of the law.
The “hard look” doctrine requires agencies to thoroughly analyze the potential environmental impacts of a proposed action in totality. This involves identifying relevant environmental concerns, analyzing them in detail, and supporting the final determination with clear, reasoned elaboration. It’s a substantive requirement that goes beyond a superficial review, meaning an agency cannot simply promise to mitigate problems later and must consider alternatives and minimize impacts to the maximum extent practicable.
Plaintiffs also charge that the post-approval conditions imposed on the applicant by the planning board are illegal under SEQRA and evidence a failure of compliance.
The suit asks the court to issue an order stopping the planning board from issuing or approving any building permits, grading permits, site disturbance authorizations, or certificates of occupancy for the Millers Pond project. It also asks the court to annul and vacate the findings supporting the planning board’s stie plan approval, and declare the planning board’s actions as violative of both SEQRA and the Open Meetings Law.
Plaintiffs are represented by Amy Lavine of Liberty Street Legal PLLC of Newburgh. Along with the Planning Board, plaintiffs also name the Town of Ramapo, the developers Mount Ivy LLC and Lindifrim Pomona Limited Partnership.
