Sept. 2, 2008 The notice for the public hearing first appeared on West Central Avenue on a cold, rainy Thursday in February. In fact, it was February 14, Valentine’s Day. The laminated 12 by 18-inch signs were bound to trees with blue tape. What was unusual about these notices was the middle section below the heading: VARIANCE REQUESTED OR OTHER REASONS FOR HEARING. A large block of text, 27 lines, followed, itemizing not just a single variance, but a list of 50 variances. The list was too long for anyone to stand in the cold rain and read all the way through, in fact, it was almost too long to fit on the large poster. Fifty variances—there was no way any board would allow that many violations of the zoning rules, no way.
 

A zoning variance is "a deviation from the zoning ordinance that is supposedly granted because strict enforcement would result in undue hardship on a property owner." Variances are granted as a special permission by a town board after a discussion in public session. For a builder to request, say, six, or eight, or ten variances would be very unusual. To request 50 in one application is incredible.

In fact, almost everything about this project is bizarre. The property that JW (Jacob Wagschal) Developers, of 1 Sunrise Drive, Monsey, wants to build on is actually two side-by-side lots that today have single houses—a white house at 501 and a blue one at 497 West Central. (Note--another partner, Jacob Weiss, might also have loaned his initials to the JW, but the address for JW Developers on the public notice is Wagschal’s address in Monsey.)

First, there’s the price JW Developers paid for the two lots. West Central Avenue is a narrow through-street in Monsey, a few hundred yards outside of Spring Valley. The builder paid $1,300,000 on Oct. 24, 2006 for .77 acre at 501 W. Central Avenue. Then on Jan. 12, 2007, he bought 497 W. Central Avenue for $1,900,000--almost two million dollars for 1.12 acres with a 1937 "old style" house on it that was listed in fair condition. Total for the two lots rang up at $3.2 million for 1.89 acres on a side street in Monsey. How could any builder possibly expect to get his investment back working in such a limited space?

As a stark contrast, Supervisor St. Lawrence and his board just sold a 65-acre Open Space piece of property in Suffern to a developer for $4.4 million. The St. Lawrence sale came to about $68,000 an acre. JW Developers paid about $1.6 million per acre for its two lots in the Monsey/Spring Valley area. Actually, both numbers are way out of whack, and, frankly, somewhat suspicious. St. Lawrence gave away the Open Space property, and Jacob Wagschal looks like the guy who just bought the Brooklyn Bridge. That is, until you take a closer look at the list of 50 variances.

Today, where the blue and white houses sit, Wagschal wants to build 7 houses. Each will be a three-family house and each will have three accessory apartments for a total of 42 living units on what originally were two lots for two houses. Recent downzoning measures by Supervisor St. Lawrence and his board have changed the single-house lot in parts of Monsey to an R15C zoning (see bottom of the poster above). 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 wants to explode its two lots from 2 to 42 families in the same space.

At the Town of Ramapo Planning Board the following was listed as item 1) on the agenda for the evening: West Central Gardens—Public Hearing for a determination of potential environmental impacts . . . with respect to a drawing entitled West Central Gardens, consisting of eight lots from 1.9 acres. The hearing was adjourned to Nov. 20, 2007, and then again to Dec. 11.

The project comes up again before the Planning Board looking for a Negative SEQR declaration (an OK for the project on environmental grounds), and a Sketch Plat approval.

Attorney Terry Rice made his presentation. He explained that the applicant had modified the plans and that there would be a 7-lot subdivision with "21 units each to have an accessory apartment." The public hearing was opened. There were no speakers, for or against, so the public hearing was closed.

When Board Member "Mr. Stone moved to adopt a Positive Declaration [in other words, to reject the application], explaining that in his opinion, the applicant is requesting too many variances, which would have an impact on the quality of life. [The builder’s attorney] Mr. Rice stated that the Planning Board is not here to base any of their decisions on the amount of variances."

"There was no second to Mr. Stone’s motion. [Board Member] Mrs. Dora Green moved to adopt a Negative Declaration and Mrs.Bracha Gobioff seconded the motion. The vote carried 4-3, with Mr. Stone, Mrs. Logan, and Rev. Brightman, Jr. opposing" (Quoted text from the draft minutes of the meeting.)

JW Developers had gotten past the Ramapo Planning Board, but now they had to explain away the 50 variances to the Zoning Board of Appeals, the last stumbling block.

You can click here for an actual scan of the listing that appeared on the public notice or you can skim the list at the end of this article.

To grant a variance, the Zoning Board of Appeals is required to apply legal tests and to make findings of fact for each of the variances whether granted or denied. "This forms the basis of the record that courts will use to determine whether the board exceeded its authority and/or whether their decision was arbitrary or capricious (and hence will be overturned)." In other words, these variances require serious scrutiny and individual consideration. With 50 variances to consider, this meeting had the look of a possible marathon.

Actually, there was nothing like this. After Terry Rice made his presentation, the public hearing was opened. There were no speakers. The public hearing was closed. Board member Tzirel Friedman made a motion to approve the variances as requested. It was seconded by Shmuel Tress, and the motion passed 5-0.

While there had been discussion and opposition at the Planning board meeting, the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA), which was responsible for deciding whether to grant permission to allow violations of the building code, seemed to have no trouble at all with the variances—all 50 of them.

They had no objections and the following amazing prose appears in the notes to the meeting:

"Be it resolved by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ramapo that we find that:

The final reason for the approval is a striking measure of the contempt this board has both for common sense and the public. JW Development created an 8-lot subdivision, drew up plans for 42 units, knowing that these were in violation of the zoning code, and this board claims the hardship for which they are seeking relief (50 variances) was not their doing? It would seem the hardships were created by those who dared to put together a zoning code in the first place.

From the builder’s side of things, there’s this question: How much capital investment would you be willing to risk on what might require an historic decision of the Zoning Board? Second, there’s the decision itself. A 5-0 vote approving 50 variations is stunning. We asked members from other village and town boards, as well as local politicians, current and past officeholders about the 50 variances and the responses we got were unanimous. First there was the shock over the number of variances and the decision. And then there was often the same last comment that kind of summed it all up: Oh, this was in Ramapo.

There is one last reaction, a view from the top that is noteworthy. We asked a preeminent expert at the state level about the number of variances. Patricia E. Salkin is Associate Dean and Director of the Government Law Center of Albany Law School. She is serving her sixth term 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."

And then, after a brief discussion and a question about the types of variances, Professor Salkin wrote, "I guess, given the location and the politics I shouldn't be surprised that this went off without a hitch...Ramapo is truly a case study."

Speechless, then disbelief, and then finally the realization that this could actually happen because of where it happened—in Ramapo.

What remains for JW Developers is the final site plan approval from the Ramapo Planning Board at their Oct. 28^th meeting (8pm at Town Hall on Route 59). The hard part, the 50 variances, has been circumvented.

November 5, 2007

On Sunday night, two days before the election, Preserve Ramapo received information that there was a truck loaded with 500 two-foot by four-foot green and yellow signs. These signs were made to look exactly like duplicates of our large campaign signs. These, however, directed voters to vote Preserve Ramapo on Row A. The Preserve Ramapo line was Row G. The signs directed people to vote on St. Lawrence’s line.

Then Monday, the night before the election, the fraudulent signs were appearing in locations throughout Ramapo. They were placed adjacent to or they covered our signs. Before the night was over, several hundred of these forgeries were up.

Before Dent arrived, a black 2007 Cadillac Escalade pulled up, and the driver said he was a friend of Orliansky. This was Jacob Wagschal, the Monsey developer, and he had received a cell phone call. He asked the officer what was wrong with the signs, and Whitmore told him they weren’t Preserve Ramapo signs, and they needed a permit. His response is quoted here exactly as it appeared on Whitmore’s report: "Wagschal stated to myself and Ptl. Paolucci that he was involved in all elections and that he was a close friend of Christopher St. Lawrence and that he asked him to put up signs and that they were covered under the Christopher St. Lawrence permit. He also went on to tell us that it was a trick because it says PreserveRamapo.us instead of Preserve Ramapo.org and that they hope some people will end up voting that way. He went on to tell me that someone in California lent them the PreserveRamapo.us site." When Whitmore insisted that they needed a permit for these signs, even though Wagschal was working for St. Lawrence who had a permit for his signs, Wagschal backed away from his story and "now denied saying that he worked for St. Lawrence and that he didn’t ask him to put up the signs."

At this point, Rudy Dent arrived and verified that neither Orliansky or Lipshitz were affiliated with Preserve Ramapo. A police photographer arrived and documented the signs that were put up by the two.

There are eight more pages in the report including Paolucci’s Supplemental Report. In his report, Paolucci adds a few details. He had arrived before Wagschal pulled up. When the builder did get there, he asked him why he came there, "Wagschal stated that he was called by the two subjects being interviewed by PO Whitmore, and to come and help them. Wagschal stated he could help and that he was good with the police. Wagschal then asked what sergeant was working."

As Wagschal spoke to Paolucci, the following exchange took place: (again, full quotes from the report) "This officer asked Wagschal if he knew what was happening here. Mr. Wagschal stated that he knew all about the signs and that they were intentionally made to deceive the Preserve Ramapo voters. Wagschal then advised this officer that he was good friends with Supervisor St. Lawrence and that he was hired to place these particular signs up. Wagschal then immediately recanted his last statement and clarified that he was putting up the signs in question as requested by the community, and that the signs were manufactured by the community. Wagschal then stated that he was hired by Supervisor St. Lawrence to put up other Vote for St. Lawrence signs."

The next line in the report reads: "A short time later Wagschal stated to PO Whitmore and myself that he was a very close friend of Supervisor St. Lawrence and that he was hired by St. Lawrence to place these political signs throughout the Town of Ramapo." You’ve already read the rest of the description of this conversation in Whitmore’s notes above.

So, first Wagschal says he’s good with the police and he wanted to know who was on that night. Then he tells one officer that this was all approved by Supervisor St. Lawrence. When the officer (Paolucci) doesn’t appear to be buying it, he recants and says it was the community that is behind it. Then a short time later he tries the same story that St. Lawrence approved and paid for this, with both officers. Same refusal by the officers to back down, and Wagschal recants again and offers the second story, blaming the community, again.

What would have helped clear up this situation would have been some public expression of indignation on the part of Supervisor St. Lawrence that Wagschal would have so blatantly lied about him. There was no comment, one way or another on this from Town Hall. No denials, no distancing, nothing.

The Rockland District Attorney’s Office has referred this matter to the New York State Board of Elections. We are waiting for their revue and judgment.

Appearing immediately to the left of Town Board Member Ed Friedman is Jacob Wagschal. The election victory speech was given at Crown Millwork on Melnick Drive in Monsey. Click on the image for the video—transcript of text appears below.

We have a developer who actively campaigns for Town Supervisor St. Lawrence by placing fraudulent signs on the eve of the election, telling Ramapo Officer Paolucci that "they were intentionally made to deceive the Preserve Ramapo voters. . . [and that] he (Wagschal) was hired to place these particular signs up." And he was perfectly comfortable with his attempt to subvert the most fundamental and important right a citizen has in a democracy.

And we have a Supervisor who has developed an alliance with a special interest to the exclusion of the rest of Ramapo’s residents.

Ramapo desperately needs change on quite a number of levels.

Michael Castelluccio
(We would like to thank those who collected the documentary sources for this report, and also the Ramapo Police Dept. for their cooperation.)