Monsey Controls Planning and Zoning Boards in Ramapo
St. Lawrence Appointees Kept Anonymous

May 3, 2013 The names of the seven members of the Ramapo Planning and Zoning Boards do not appear anywhere on the Town’s website. Clarkstown, Orangetown, Stony Point—they list their boards. You might ask the Supervisor. After all, he appointed the members to terms as long as seven years. More important though is the question why does one sector which has the most irresponsible and out-of-control development have control over the planning and zoning for all of Ramapo?


Since St. Lawrence has chosen to keep the names out of site on his website, we will start with the members and then look at the various liabilities for giving Monsey majority control on these two panels.

Town of Ramapo Planning Board

 

 

 

 

Yakov Basch
7-yr term

MONSEY

Sylvain Klein
7-yr term

MONSEY

Dora Green
7-yr term

MONSEY

Bracha Gobioff
7-yr term

MONSEY

 

 

 

 

Yakov Buxbaum
Alternate

MONSEY

Yisroel Eisenbach
3-yr term

SPRING VALLEY

Timothy D. Scott
6-month term

SPRING VALLEY

 

 

Town of Ramapo Zoning Board of Appeals

 

 

 

 

Israel Bier
5-yr term

MONSEY

Jacob Lefkowitz
Alternate

MONSEY

Shmuel B. Tress
6-yr term

MONSEY

Jeffrey Berkowitz
5-yr term

MONSEY

 

http://bandofartists.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/photo_not_available.jpg

 

http://bandofartists.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/photo_not_available.jpg

 

 

F.Charlene Weaver
5-yr term

SPRING VALLEY

Tonette Earl
1-yr term

SPRING VALLEY

Ephraim Shapiro
3-yr term

MONSEY

 

NOTES: The members on these two boards are not elected. They were hand selected by Christopher St. Lawrence and approved by his board in official resolutions.

Most of the villages in the Town of Ramapo don’t have a voice on either of these boards. These include Airmont, Chestnut Ridge, Hillburn, New Hempstead, Montebello, Sloatsburg, Suffern, and Wesley Hills. On the other hand, Monsey has a better than 70% majority/super majority voice on planning and zoning decisions that affect all the villages throughout the town. Spring Valley has a presence, although it’s a 2 against 5 on both boards. And keep in mind, Spring Valley is hardly a model for reasonable, or even legitimate development. The federal agents at the present time are still sorting through housing records in Spring Valley to make a final list of charges for the Mayor, Deputy Mayor, the Monsey developer, and whomever else catches their attention.

A ZBA Horror Show

 St. Lawrence and his Town Board have rewritten the zoning in Monsey to accommodate a quadrupling of density in housing development, and that still has not been enough for developers like Jacob Wagschal. In one of the most outrageous applications heard by the Ramapo Zoning Board of Appeals, Wagschal showed up at a meeting asking for 50 variances.

On two side-by-side lots on West Central Ave in Monsey, lots which had one house on each property, Wagschal came in with plans for much more. He wanted to build 7 houses. Each would be a three-family house and each would have three accessory apartments for a total of 42 living units on what originally were two lots for two homes. Recent downzoning measures by Supervisor St. Lawrence and his board had changed the single-house lot in parts of Monsey to an R15C zoning. First St. Lawrence changed the zoning to allow a three-family house on the single-family lots, and then he added three accessory apartments for each house. Six families where once there would be one lot, one family. JW Development wanted to explode its two lots from 2 to 42 families in the same space.

So you might expect an uproar, maybe even some derisive laughter during the reading of all 50 requested dispensations from existing zoning law, and contentious discourse among the board members. Well, not in Ramapo, and not with this ZBA. The vote was 5-0 in favor of the developer. The Board explained: "Be it resolved by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ramapo that we find that:

An undesirable change will not be produced in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the variances; (there’s apparently, in the Board’s view, little difference between 2 families and 42 families occupying the same space)

That the proposed variance is not substantial; (If 50 violations are not substantial, would 100 be substantial?)

That the proposed variance(s) will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood; and

That the benefit sought by the Applicant can not be achieved by some method, feasible for the Applicant to pursue, other than an area variance; and

That the alleged hardship was not self-created."

We asked a preeminent expert at the state level about this number of variances. Patricia E. Salkin is Dean of Touro College Jacob D Fuchsberg Law Center in Central Islip, NY. She has served as Chair of the American Planning Association’s Amicus Curiae Committee, is an officer of the Executive Committee of the Municipal Law Section of the NY State Bar Association, and is the author of the four-volume New York Zoning Law and Practice. When presented with the details of the 50 variances requested of the ZBA, Dean Salkin’s reaction was, "I think I am speechless."

Click on the image of the Public Hearing poster above for still another side of the story—Wagschal’s political connections to Christopher St. Lawrence.

Planning Board—The Next Meeting

Click here for a copy of the agenda for next Tuesday’s (May 7) Plannning Board meeting. Two of the applications are from existing religious schools with requests for additions that will include an accessory catering facility and a pool. Two local houses of worship are asking for an addition with an accessory local convenience store and additional parking spaces, and a change in zoning from R-25 to an MR-8 zone (from single- to multiple-family zoning). Two applicants want permission to subdivide small lots into smaller lots on which the developer wants to plant three-family dwellings each with 3 accessory apartments.

Besides the unsustainable density, there’s a second serious problem with the explosive growth in Ramapo. Consider the following chart.

 

This chart is from data collected by the TaxExemptWorld.com site. You can get a comprehensive list of those properties listed as exempt in these different villages and towns by visiting the site www.taxexemptworld.com.

Here’s a more complete picture of the collapsing tax base that accompanies the accelerating growth in Monsey (ranked first in tax exempt properties and second in overall population) and Spring Valley (first in population and second in tax exempts).

 

As Monsey and Spring Valley continue to match growth with decreasing tax bases, the burden to cover the necessary infrastructure and services will be picked up by all the others that appear on this list.

Michael Castelluccio
Preserve Ramapo
www.PreserveRamapo.org
If you would like to be added to our email list and receive updates on the articles posted on the site, send your email address to
pr.webmaster@gmail.com