1
2

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF ROCKLAND
In the Matter of the Application of
CITIZENS UNITED TO PROTECT OUR
NEIGHBORHOOD-HILLCREST and SHARON
DOUCETTE,
Petitioners-Plaintiffs,
For a Judgment Pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice
Law and Rules and a Declaratory Judgment Pursuant to
Section 3001 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules,

AFFIRMATION OF
SUSAN H. SHAPIRO IN
OPPOSITION TO
MOTIONS TO DISMISS
Index No. 2018-506
Assign Judge:
Hon. Sherri L. Eisenpress

-againstTHE TOWN OF RAMAPO, THE TOWN OF RAMAPO
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, CHARLENE
WEAVER, in her capacity as the Chairperson of the Town
of Ramapo Zoning Board of Appeals, BLUEFIELD
EXTENSION, LLC, SUNSHINE GARDENS REALTY,
LLC, LAZERBEAM ACREAGE, LLC, LESSER GROSS,
individually and as Trustee of the Yitzchok and Shifra
Trust, ZISHE BABAD, JOSEPH GROSS, YITZCHOK
ULLMAN as Trustee for the Lazer Beam Trust, JOEL
HOROWITZ, IAN SMITH in his capacity as Building
Inspector for the Town of Ramapo, and ANTHONY
MALLIA, in his capacity as Building Inspector for the
Town of Ramapo and Director of Building, Planning and
Zoning for the Town of Ramapo,
Respondent-Defendants.
STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF ROCKLAND

)
) ss:
)

SUSAN H. SHAPIRO, an attorney duly admitted to practice before the Courts of
the State of New York, affirms pursuant to CPLR Section 2106, as follows:

 1.

I am an attorney with the law firm of Rockland Environmental Group,

LLC, counsel for the Petitioners-Plaintiffs in the above captioned matter.
2.

I submit this Affirmation in opposition to the following three Motions to

Dismiss the above captioned hybrid proceeding:
a) The Motion to Dismiss, dated May 18, 2018, submitted on behalf of
Respondents-Defendants Town of Ramapo, Town of Ramapo Zoning Board
of Appeals (“ZBA”), Charlene Weaver in her capacity as Chairperson of the
Zoning Board of Appeals, Ian Smith, in his official capacity as Building
Inspector and Anthony Mallia in his official capacity as the Building Inspector
and Director of Building, Planning and Zoning for the Town of Ramapo
(collectively the “Town Respondents” or “Town”), and personally served on
May 18, 2018 (“Town Motion to Dismiss”).
b) The “Cross-Motion” to Dismiss dated May 17, 2018 submitted on behalf of
Bluefield Extension LLC and Sunshine Gardens Realty LLC (collectively
“Bluefield Respondents”), served by regular mail on May 18, 2018
(“Bluefield Motion to Dismiss”).
c) The Motion to Dismiss dated May 18, 2018 submitted on behalf of Lazerbeam
Acreage LLC, Lesser Gross, Zishi Babad, Yitchok Ullman, and Joel Horowitz
(collectively the “Prior Owners”), served by regular mail on May 18, 2018
(“Prior Owners Motion to Dismiss”).1
Together the Town, Bluefield Respondents and Prior Owners are referred to as
“Respondents”.
3.

Respondents have made their motions without answering the Petition-

Complaint, or without the Town providing the full administrative record in this case,
1

Prior owner Joseph Gross has not appeared in this action as required, despite being
served via Federal Express overnight mail on April 28, 2018 and signed for on April 30,
2018.

 even though some of the arguments can only be determined by the administrative record
(e.g., whether issues were raised in the administrative proceedings below).
4.

The hybrid proceeding being challenged in the three Motions to Dismiss

seeks:
a) To annul, vacate and set aside a February 1, 2018 Decision by the Town of
Ramapo Zoning Board of Appeals (“ZBA”), XBA-4556, filed with Town
Clerk of the Town of Ramapo (“Town”) on March 28, 2018, granting area
variances (“Area Variances”) for a proposed four lot subdivision (the “Area
Variances Decision” or “2018 ZBA Decision”) on real property located at 122
Union Road, designated on the Ramapo Tax Map as tax lot 50.13-3-30 (“Lot
30”), 126 and 128 Union Road, tax lot 50.13-3-27 (“Lot 27”) and 130 Union
Road, tax lot 50.13-3-30 (“Lot 30”), all in the Hamlet of Hillcrest, Town of
Ramapo, County of Rockland (together, the “Site”), hereinafter referred to as
“Bluefield Extension” or “Project”.,
b) A declaratory judgment, among other things, that a January 30, 2014 Decision
by the ZBA, XBA-4057, filed with the Town Clerk on March 10, 2014,
granting a use variance (“Use Variance”) for the Site (the “Use Variance
Decision” or “2014 ZBA Decision”) is void ab initio as jurisdictionally
defective for failure to properly refer the use variance application to the
Rockland County Department of Planning (“County Planning”), as required
by New York General Municipal Law (“GML”) § 239-m.
5.

The accompanying Memorandum of Law, dated June 7, 2018, responds to

the arguments made in the Motions to Dismiss. This affirmation will provide the Court
with additional documents or facts that are relevant to the Court’s determination of the
Motions to Dismiss. The Exhibits to this Affirmation begin at Exhibit 66, following the
65 exhibits attached to the Munitz Affirmation, dated April 26, 2018, submitted in

 support of the Petition-Complaint. Thus all references to Exhibits 1-65 are references to
the Munitz Affidavit Exhibits.
6.

On June 1, 2018, after the filing the Petition-Complaint, Rockland County

commenced its own lawsuit challenging the ZBA’s issuance of the Use Variance
Decision for lack of GML referral, and for misrepresenting that the County had issued a
GML review when it did not. 2 That action includes other claims such as the “fraudulent
inflation of the purchase prices” of the Site’s lots by owners of the lots “in an attempt to
claim unnecessary financial hardship”; the “fraudulent misrepresentation of ownership
interest in the Site in violation of the Town of Ramapo Subdivision Regulations,” and the
failure to disclose then Town Councilmen Yitzchok Ullman's3 ownership interest in the
Site in direct violation of NY General Municipal Law § 809.
THE CHALLENGE TO 2018 ZBA DECISION IS TIMELY
7.

The Town argues that the Article 78 challenging the 2018 ZBA Area

Variances is untimely even though the Town’s Motion concedes that the Article 78 was
indeed filed on the thirtieth (30th) day. (See Affidavit of Dennis Lynch sworn to on May
16, 2018 (the “Lynch Aff.”) ¶27)
8.

The Town appears to argue that the precise hour of the 30th day when the

action was served on Town Clerk is somehow relevant, when it is not; rather, the
requirement for commencing an action relates to the filing of the action. (See
accompanying Memorandum of Law, Point IIA).

2

See County of Rockland v. Town of Ramapo, et. al, Index No. 033118/2018 filed on
June 1, 2018.
3
Yitzchok Ullman thereafter became Acting Town Supervisor, and is now Town receiver
of Taxes.

 9.

Here, Town Law 267-c (1) allows for this proceeding to “be instituted

within thirty days after the filing of a decision of the board in the office of the town
clerk” and there is no dispute that the ZBA decision was filed on March 28, 2018 (see
Lynch Aff. ¶26).
10.

The Article 78 challenging the 2018 ZBA Decision was instituted on April

27, 2018, as the attached receipt from the County Clerk shows (attached hereto as Exhibit
66), which is within thirty days of the filing of the 2018 ZBA Decision. It is timely.
THE CHALLENGE TO 2014 ZBA DECISION IS TIMELY
11.

Respondent-Defendants provide no case law to refute the fact that this

action is timely under the statute of limitations because a defective GML referral is a
jurisdictional defect, which is not subject to a 30-day statute of limitations (see
accompanying Memorandum of Law, Point IIB).
12.

Although the Town’s response concedes that, “the ZBA was advised of an

incomplete [GML] referral” (Lynch Aff. ¶ 21), it argues that “it was appropriate for the
ZBA at least to conclude” that Applicant “will make sure that the proper materials were
submitted” as promised, (Lynch Aff. ¶¶17 & 18). The Town does not address the fact that
it was the ZBA’s responsibility to ensure that its referral met the statutory requirements
of GML §239-m.
13.

And, nothing in the Town’s motion even attempts to explain how and why

the ZBA expressly falsified the existence of a Rockland County Planning Department
review under New York General Municipal Law (“GML”) § 239-m in the Use Variance
Decision that is the subject of this proceeding.

 THE CLAIM THAT THIS ACTION SHOULD BE DISMISSED DUE TO
PENDING LITIGATION IS NOW MOOT
14.

All Respondents-Defendants argued that the Court “must” dismiss this

entire case because one cause of action related to a case then pending before this Court,
CUPON et. al v. Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ramapo, Index No. 1773-2017.
Plaintiffs made a motion to discontinue that case without prejudice in order to include the
claim in this case. On May 23, 2018, this Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to discontinue
that prior case without prejudice (see Exhibit 67 attached hereto). Accordingly, any claim
to dismiss this action due to pending litigation is now moot.
NECESSARY PARTIES
15.

The Prior Owners Respondents claim they are not proper parties in this

action and “have little, if anything to do with the legal issues regarding the 2014 as well
as 2018 ZBA decisions being challenged.” (Stepanovich Aff. ¶ 4).
16.

This statement could not be further from the truth: with respect to the

ZBA’s 2014 Use Variance Decision, Lazerbeam Acreage was the applicant, and the
Affidavit of Ownership attached to the application was signed by Lazer Gross (a/k/a
Lesser Gross) (Exh. 14). These are two of the Prior Owners. In addition, as alleged in the
Petition (¶36-37, 44 and Second Cause of Action ¶¶210-219), and supported by the deeds
submitted to the Court (Exh. 1-4, 9-10), the Use Variance application was false because
the actual owners of record were Zishe Babad and Joseph Gross, two additional Prior
Owners.
17.

Also contrary to the claim of the Prior Owners, Petitioner-Plaintiffs did

not include them “to poison the proverbial well of justice” (Stepanovich Aff. ¶ 4). Rather,

 the Prior Owners are named herein because the Court’s decision could adversely impact
their rights. Petitioners followed the direct mandate of CPLR §1001(a), which requires
that parties must be brought into an action when the interests of the person might be
adversely affected by a judgment in the action. Here, the interests of the Prior Owners
could be adversely impacted by a judgment in favor of Petitioners declaring the Use
Variance and Area Variances null and void.
18.

To the extent that these parties want to be removed from the case, the

Court should not allow them to re-litigate any of the issues herein or later challenge the
Court’s decision if it adversely impacts them.
LACHES IS NOT APPLICABLE
19.

The Town’s motion to dismiss for laches includes one conclusory sentence

related to laches (Lynch Aff. ¶ 23) and then asks for a hearing on this issue as to “why
Petitioners did not commence any litigation sooner than they did.” (Id. ¶30). Petitioners
do not even understand how the Town, with its unclean hands due to falsification of a
non-existent GML review, can even make such a claim, or how it would in any way
suffer injury or be prejudiced by Petitioners bringing this case at this time, as no site plan
or subdivision approvals exist for the Site.
20.

In any event, Petitioners had valid reasons for not commencing the action

earlier and did not inexcusably or unreasonably delay in bringing its case. Moreover, to
the extent that the Bluefield Respondents are in any way prejudiced, they only have
themselves to blame. The issues raised in this action were steadfastly raised in the
ongoing proceedings before the Town both before and after the Bluefield Respondents
purchased the Property.

 21.

Initially, Petitioners were unaware there was a jurisdictional defect in the

Use Variance Decision relating to a lack of GML referral because the Use Variance
Decision itself explicitly refers to a GML review (even though it didn’t exist), especially
when the Decision actually addresses specific issues allegedly raised by the County in the
non-existent GML review.
22.

Any person reading the 2014 ZBA Decision would have every reason to

believe that there was in fact a GML referral and review by the County, and would not
presume the deceit contained in the Use Variance Decision (i.e., that the Town lied about
the existence of this legally required referral and review).
23.

It wasn’t until the subsequent application for Planning Board subdivision

and site plan approval, that the County realized that a Use Variance approval had already
been issued, and that it had been issued without proper GML referral and review:
“A GML review was never issued for the use variance despite the reference to
such a review in the January 30, 2014 ZBA resolution. The use variance
application must be submitted for our review so we can evaluate the applicant's
demonstration of financial hardship, and the other criteria that must be met to
justify a use variance.” (Exh. 32)
24.

Based on the County’s comments, it was reasonable to assume that the

Town would ensure that the ZBA would fix the jurisdictional defect by properly referring
the Use Variances to the County, as requested by the County and as required by law.
25.

In addition, no extensions for the project’s original subdivision or site plan

approvals were ever filed, and the subdivision approval in fact lapsed 180 days later near
the end of 2014 (as per NY Town Law §276(7)(c)), so the project could not go forward
without a new subdivision approval.
26.

Instead of seeking extensions for the prior subdivision approval, in April

2015, a new subdivision application was filed seeking approval for an even larger project

 (Exh. 35). The reviews of this larger subdivision application continued throughout the
balance of 2015, but only at the Town’s Community Design Review Committee
(“CDRC”) meetings. These CDRC meetings are for Town professionals to review the
applications prior to sending a matter to a Town board for application approval, where
notice is given to the public for review or comments. (Id.)
27.

During this 2015 CDRC review period, the new subdivision application

was referred to County Planning for GML review. During the CDRC review period,
County Attorney Simeti advised the Town Attorney’s office, in no uncertain terms, that
the Town was relying on a Use Variance that had never been referred to the County for
GML review, as required, and that the Use Variance decision erroneously stated that the
County had issued a GML review when in fact it had not. (Exh. 38). Mr. Simeti requested
that the Use Variance Decision be corrected, and the County Planning’s GML review,
dated April 28, 2015, advised the Planning Board that it must refer the matter back to the
ZBA for a new use variance (GML attached hereto as Exhibit 68).
28.

In fact, the 2015 subdivision application for an expanded project never

made it to the Planning Board or was the subject of any public hearing. Instead, on
January 21, 2016, a new application was submitted for final subdivision—this time to
seek a re-approval of the original subdivision plan. (This application is hereto attached as
Exhibit 69.)
29.

When the Bluefield Respondents contracted to purchase some or all of the

Property four days later on January 25, 2016,4 there was still no valid subdivision and, at

4

The contract to purchase Lot 30 is dated January 25, 2016, as reflected in the February
7, 2016 deed (Exh. 11) and the Grunwald Affidavit (¶2), submitted on behalf of the

 this time, even the site plan approval had expired pursuant to Town Law §376-95, which
limits site plan approval to the 18 months following the May 13 site plan approval (i.e.,
November 2015). The County GMLs that had been submitted through 2015 still
highlighted the legal failings of the prior Use Variance Decision and the need for a proper
use variance to be obtained from the ZBA. As conceded by the Bluefield Respondents,
because the subdivision approval had lapsed “pursuant to the terms of the Ramapo
Zoning Law”, it “was required to return to the Planning Board for reapproval.”
(Grunwald Aff. ¶4).
30.

With new applications pending, at the Planning Board meeting of

February 16, 2016, Petitioners raised the defects in the prior Use Variance that the
County had been raising all along. (See Minutes of the Planning Board Meeting of
February 16, 2016 attached hereto as Exhibit 70, and the Letter of Susan Shapiro, dated
February 11, 2016 attached hereto as Exhibit 71). During this proceeding Petitioners
continued to give the Town the opportunity to correct the jurisdictionally defective Use
Variance, which also, as pointed out by the County and Petitioners, did not meet the legal
standards (i.e., Otto test) to support its issuance (see Letter of Susan Shapiro of
September 20, attached hereto as Exhibit 72)
31.

Petitioners also knew that the matter had to be, and was in fact, referred

back to the ZBA for necessary area variances. (Exh 41). Petitioners believed that this was
the appropriate venue to address the legal failings of the prior use variance and, in fact,
raised the issue before the ZBA (see Exh. 57) and fully expected that the issues raised by
the County and Petitioners would be addressed by the ZBA in the normal course of
Bluefield Respondents, affirms that all of the Property was purchased on February 8,
2016.

 processing the new application. Petitioners believed that the use variance approvals
would be reconsidered and vacated, without the necessity of litigation.
32.

Moreover, Petitioners believed, that the prior Use Variance Decision was

based on a proposal “to merge 3 lots into one,” and did not relate to the four-lot
subdivision that was being sought in the new (2016) applications. Petitioners argued that
this change should have required the consideration and issuance of a new use variance.
Petitioners’ attorneys raised this issue before the ZBA during the December 7, 2017 ZBA
hearing (Exh. 58: 12/7/17 Tr. 29:22-30:6).
33.

The 2018 ZBA decision is the first Town decision since the subdivision

lapsed in 2014; it is the first decision in connection with the ongoing, almost three-year
administrative process since that time.
34.

In light of these facts, far from being unreasonable or inexcusable, it was

understandable and patently proper for the Petitioners to look to the Town before
applying for relief from the Courts. The time is finally right to bring this matter to the
Court.
35.

If Petitioners prevail, nothing prevents the Bluefield Respondents from

seeking proper use and/or area variances. And, there is simply no prejudice here, where
the Bluefield Respondents have no subdivision approval, no site plan approvals, no
building permits, or have even put any shovel into the ground.
36.

In addition, the Bluefield Respondents were on notice of the defects in the

Use Variance, due to the County GMLs and County Attorney Simeti’s letter, all prior to
the Bluefield Respondents purchase of the Property. Had Bluefield Respondents
conducted due diligence, they would have seen the County’s 2014 and 2015 GML

 reviews, and County Attorney Simeti’s letter highlighting the jurisdictionally defective
Use Variance.
37.

Bluefield Respondents were also on notice (and actually concede) that

Planning Board approvals had expired. (Grunwald Aff. ¶ 4) In fact, the original
subdivision approval expired in 2014. To date there is still no valid subdivision or site
plan approval for the Project
38.

Finally, Mr. Grunwald claims that he was not involved in any of the prior

transactions and has “no knowledge of any the details of the transactions” and does “not
even know most of the people or entities referred to therein” (Grunwald Aff. ¶3). Mr.
Grunwald makes these statements with no details (e.g., as to who he does or does not
know, etc.) as he attempts to of his claim that he purchased the Property in “good faith”
(Id.)
39.

With respect to the “details of the transactions” raised, Petitioners did no

more than go to the Rockland County Clerk website and search for prior transactions
relating to the addresses of the Property and the listed owners on the applications filed
with the Town, resulting in the relevant deeds (which Petitioners included in Exhibits 111). The details of the various real estate transactions were gleaned from these deeds. The
idea that anyone would spend 3 million dollars without doing this bare minimum research
strains credulity.
40.

As to not knowing “most of the people or entities referred to therein,” a

quick search of the Rockland County Clerk records for Sunshine Gardens Realty (Mr.
Grunwald claims he is the 100% owner and the Managing Partner of Sunshine, Grunwald
Aff. ¶ 1), reveals that Mr. Grunwald not only had business dealings with Joel Horowitz

 and Bluefield Extension LLC in this matter, but he also had business dealings with
Lazerbeam Acreage LLC and Lesser Gross, in relation to 24 Memorial Drive Spring
Valley. (See Exhibit 73 attached hereto which is a printout of the search results for 24
Memorial Drive.)
41.

Additionally, Mr. Grunwald apparently knows Mr. Gross and his

Lazerbeam Acreage entity well enough that he received and provided mortgages to
Lazerbeam Acreage LLC—which is the very entity that applied for and obtained the
jurisdictionally defective 2014 Use Variance in this case. (See Exhibit 74 attached hereto
which is a printout of Sunshine Gardens transaction with highlights of the referenced
mortgage transactions.)
42.

Moreover, a similar pattern of flipping properties back and forth between

related owners, as was documented in the Bluefield Extension deeds, is also evident for
the 24 Memorial Park Drive property property: Lesser Gross’s wife sold the property to
Zishe Babad, who then sold it back to Joel Horowitz, who then sold it back to Lesser
Gross through Lazerbeam Acreage, which then sold it to Sunshine Gardens Realty, which
then sold it back to Lazerbeam Acreage/Lesser Gross. (Exh. 73.)
43.

One look at the caption of this case reveals virtually all of the same

44.

While Mr. Grunwald states he “purchased the approved 20-unit in good

actors.

faith”, what he actually purchased were three lots that had no subdivision or site plan
approvals and only had a defective use variance that Rockland County’s Attorney had
already instructed the Town to correct.

 CONCLUSION

45. For all the foregoing reasons, as well as those set forth in the

accompanying Memorandum of Law, it is respectfully submitted that all three Motions to

Dismiss be denied in their entirety.

Dated: June 7, 2018
Nanuet, New York

Susan H. hap'
Attorneys titi3

Respectfully submitted,

ROCKLAND ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP

  
  

 

/fS
10 er P?lain?
75 North Middleto oad

Nanuet, New York 10954
(845) 371-2100

Exhibit 66

 

Rockland County, NY
Paul Piperato County Clerk

1 South Main St, Ste. 100
New City, NY 10956
Phone Number (845) 635?5070

Official Receipt 2018-0002024?
Printed On 04(27/2018 at 12:10:33 PM By 127 on SKAGGSD

Customer 

SHAPIRO
Date Recorded April 27, 2018

Instrument ID Amount

File Number $210.00

Transaction INDEX NO
Name(s) CITIZENS UNITED TO PROTECT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD HILLOREST

T0 TOWN OF

 

 

 

 

 

Instrument ID Amount
$95.00
Transaction: RJI
Itemized Check Listing
Check Number 244 $305.00
Total Due $305.00
Paid by Check $305.00
Change Tendered $0.00
Do NOT DETACH 
- Doc ID: TreeCOU
COMPLETE THIS . .- - - ge??e??iigt??gm
. . $210.00 p.396?; 12:10:00 p"
and COUntv. NY 0

so Ptperato County Clerk


I

VS

JOIN PROPERTY CHECK 
COUNTY CLERK PAUL PIPERATO PROVIDES A FREE SERVICE TO HELP PROTECT YOU FROM IDENTITY THEFT. TO
SIGN UP GO TO OUR WEBSITE CLICK ON THE VIEW RECORDS BUTTON

 

Page 1 of 1

Exhibit 67

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF ROCKLAND


CUPON and SHARON 
Complainants, Index No. l7?3;?2017
- - DECISION ON MOTION

TO DISCONTINUE
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF
RAMAPO, (?Zoning Noard of Appeals"), PLANNING
BOARD OF THE TOWN OF RAMAPO, CHARLENE
WEAVER, Chairperson of the zoning Board of
Appeals, JACOB LEFKOWITZ, JEFFREY BERKOWITZ,
YANALI RAMIREZ, OOVID LEIMAN, SHIMON SINGER,
as Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals,

Defendants,

BLUEFIELD EXTENSION. LLC as an applicant to the
Planning and Zoning Board,

Defendant,

For a Declaratory Judgment pursuant to Section
3001 of Civil Practice Laws and Rules, Annuiling and
Voiding the Resolution of the Zoning Board,. Dated
January 30, 2014 granting a Use Variance and
Declaring Such variance unconstitutional under

the New York Constitution.


Sherri L. Eisenprass, A.J.S.C.,

The following papers, numbered 1 to 8, were considered in connection with

Complainants Notice of Motion for an Order pursuant to CPLR 32170:) to discontinue the

action without prejudice:

PAPERS NUMBERED
DECLARATORY - 1-4
AFFIRMATION IN SUPPORTIAFFIOAVIT OF MICHAEL MILLER
NOTICE OF MOTION TO IN SUPPORT 56

7-8

AFFIRMATION IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS

Upon'the foregoing papers, the Court now rules as follows with respect to the
motionto?discontinue the action, without prejudice:

I

Complainants commenced the above captioned hybrid declaratory
judgment/Article 78 proceeding seeking to annul a variance determination of Respondent ZBA.
In lieu of filing responsive pleadings, Respondents Blue field Extension LLC and the Ramapo
defendants filed motions to dismiss the action on the grounds that complainants lack standing,
that the proceeding is barred by the applicable statute of limitations and/or iaches and that the
petition fails to state a viable cause of action based upon documentary evidence.

Thereafter, Complainants sought to discontinue the action, without prejudice, due
to recent decisions by the Town Zoning Board of Appeals on February 1, 2018, to grant area
variances on the same project site/parcel owned by Defendant Bluefield Extension LLC. They
claim that these variances are directly related to the instant action and they contend that It is
their intention to challenge both actions in a single Article 78 Petition. The Ramapo defendants
consented to a discontinuance but it was opposed by Defendant Bluefieid Extension, LLC,
necessitating the instant motion pursuant to CPLR ?3217(b). The motion is opposed by this
defendant on the ground that its rights would be prejudiced as protracted litigation will have
a negative financial impact on it and because the discontinuance is an apparent effort to
circumvent the consequences of a potentially adverse determination.

CPLR 3217(b) permits an application to the Cou rt for an order to discontinue
an action upon terms and conditions as the Court deems proper. The determination of a motion
for leave to voluntarily discontinue an actions, without prejudice, rests within the sound
discretion of the court. gxoedite Video Conferencing Services, Inc. v. Botelio, 6? 951,
890 B2, 83 (2d Dept. 2009). ?Absent prejudice to a substantial right of the defendant
or some other inequity, a motion for leave to discontinue an action should be granted.?
Brockman 616,515 545, 54s (2d Dept. 1937); 
ALA. v. Fisch, 103 622, 959 260 (2d Dept. 2013}. The Court Is unconvinced
in the instant matter that defendant Bluefield will be substantially prejudiced if the requested
relief is granted and the action is permitted to be discontinued. Any defenses that may have

been interposed in the instant action, such as expiration of the statute of limitations, can be

I.)

interposed in a subsequent action, if or when brought by Complainants.

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, it is hereby

ORDERED that Respondent's motion to discontinue the action, without prejudice,

pursuant to CPLR 3217(b), is hereby GRANTED, and it is further

ORDERED that the above captioned action is hereby discontinued without

prejudice; and it is further

ORDERED that Respondents' motions to dismiss the action are rendered moot.

This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.

Dated: New.City, New York
May 23, 2013

To: (via US mail)

John L. Parker, Esq.
Attorney for Petitioners
7'5 North Middletown Road
Nanuet, New York 10954

Terry Rice, Esq.

Attorney for Defendant Biuefield Extension LLC
Four Executive Boulevard

Suite 100

Suffern, New York 10901

Dennis Esq.
Ramapo Town Attorney
Town of Ramapo

237' Route 59

Suffern, NY 10901





 

Acting Justice of reme Conrt

HOLE: Si?ii?'ri L. :ijge press
2

Exhibit 68

' .. : 'to

r'

(

. '

COUNTY OF 'ROCKLAND
;

..

DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING

'

BuildingT

~ ..

..

. EDWIN J. DAY

; ', '
;

.,....

L

"

j

Pomon!!, NY 1,9970
(845) 364-3434
Fax. (845) 364-3435

"

.

County Executive

DOUGLAS J. SCHUETZ
Acting Commissioner

ARLENE R MILLER .

' ,-

Deputy Commissioner

April 28, 2015
RamC?Po Planning -Board
237 Route 59
Suffern, NY 10901
,-:

"

... ...:....:
'.:.,:.

-, :.'

'. Tax Data: 50.13-3-30

Re: GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW REVIEW: Section 239 N

.;

..

. .

;.

..
"

,

.::

.....
. " :- .
. ......
.
'.
. :: '-."=:',

Date Review Received: 41212015

Map Date: 31712015
Item:

:'

50.13-3-26

, ',

:. ...::.
' :',:

50.13-3-27

BLUEFIELD EXTENSION (R-2421A)

'Four-Iot subdivision of 1.055 acres in the R-15 zoning district. Changes to the subdivision include
alternate lot configurations, one additional unit for two of the lots, and one additional acc.essory
apartment for two of the lots. The final layout would result in four lots, each containing a three-family
dwelling plus three accessory apartments. Additional variances are now required for all of the lots.
East side of Union Road, opposite Bluefield Drive, and 360 feet south of Eckerson Road
Reason for Referral:
Village of Spring Valley, Eckerson Road (CR 74), ViJlage of New Hempstead
The County of Rockland Department of Planning has reviewed the above item. Acting under the terms of the
above GML powers and those vested by the County of Rocklaf!d Charter, I, the Commissioner of Planning,
~re~
,

....

.

.

, ':. ,

, ';,,:.

......

. *Disapprove .

On October 23, 2013, this department received a GML -referral from the Town of Ramapo for a
use variance to permit the proposed multi-family development in the R-15 zoning district. The
Town and the applicant's attorney at that time, Ira Emanuel, were informed that the application
contained conflicting information. As a result, the application was withdrawn from the November
Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) agenda and adjourned to the December meeting. This
department was informed of this decision by Ira Emanuel in a November 20, 2013 email, and
. advised that the proper materials would be submitted to all agencies. This department did not
receive any new information on this proposal until an incomplete and inaccurate subdivision
application was submitted oli March 4, 2014: A GML review was never issued for the use variance
despite the reference to such a review in the January 30,2014 ZBA ~esolution. To date, the
application is still proposing uses which are not permitted iii the R-15 zoning district. The most
recent submission is requesting four more additional residential units on two of the lots, further
exacerbating the non-conformity. The Town of Ramapo ZBA, as reflected in the January 30,2014
minutes, granted a use variance for "ten units of housing, each with one accessory apartmef)t,"
cOntingent that the applicant plant a dense row of six-foot high ~rees across the western property
Page 1 of 5

 BLUEFIELD EXTENSION (R-2421A)

line. This final subdivision application submitted to our department for review, contains twelve
units of housing, each with three accessory apartments. This submission is not in keeping with
. what was granted by the Town of Ramapo Zoning Board of Appeals, and therefore, the applicant
must go back to that board for a new use variance to permit these additional units. At that time,
we requested the opportunity to review and provide comments on the use variance needed for this
proposed project.
The proposed subdivision results in four oddly-configured lots that do not conform to the R-15C
bulk standards used as a reference, orthe actual R-15 zoning designation. According to the bulk
table and project narrative, lot width, street frontage, rear setback, rear deck setback, and
development coverage variances, ranging from 9 to 45 percent, are now required for all four lots.
The bulk standard non-conformities are compounded by the fact that town homes are not a
permitted use in the R-15 or R-15C zoning districts. This type of residential development is only
permitted in Ramapo's multi-family and mixed-use zones. We are not in favor of the proposed
subdivision or the multi-family development.
.
Furthermore, it is unclear why four lots are proposed, except as an attempt to make the proposal
"conform" to the zoning district bulk and use regulations. However, six-family, semi-attached
dwellings are not a permitted use in either the R-15 or R-15C zoning districts. The Jot lines seem
to be drawn with no purpose, criss-crossing the proposed develqpment layout haphazardly, with no
regard for parking or other design factors. To properly create four lots with the proposed layout,
easements must be provided for access, parking, play areas, dumpsters, utilities and th~
stormwater management system. A more logical layout must be configured.
Lastly, access to the site is being provided pya 13.02 foot right-of-way over tax lot 50.13-3-32.
This right-of-way is insufficient for two-way traffic, not only for the 24 residential units, but it is not
wide enough to accommodate residential truck deliveries, garbage trucks, mail delivery, or
emergency response vehicles. Maneuverability on site is insufficient, and the tuming radii is not
large"enough for fire truck equipment to access the site. With the units being constructed as semiattached units, with minimal distances to the property line, access to the site for firematic issues
will be impossible.
As presented, this proposal will result in a gross overutilization of the 1.05-acre site and is
inconsistent with the community character of the surrounding neighborhood. A residential density
of 23 units per acre is proposed with no suitable access provided. Currently, one- and two-family
residences are the predominant land use on Union Road, Ibeck Court, Stetner Street, Jacaruso
Drive and Zuba Lane. While multi-family developments are located to the south and east of the
subject site; and three-family, semi-attached residences make up the Bluefield Gardens
development, this denser residential development is not the predominant land use and this
proposal must not be approved.
If the Town of Ramapo Planning Board overrides our recommendation to disapprove the four-lot
subdivision, we offer the following comments on the subdivision proposal.

Page 2 of 5

 ."

r

' ,I .'

I
J

i .

) --.; - "

(

.'

.

.

BLUEFIELD EXTENSION (R-2421Al

I
J '

~

•

..

.

, .
~

1 It is not clear if access is being provided only from the existing 13.02' right-of-way to the north,
or if another drive is also proposed from Union Road. As illustrated, it appears that this is the only
access, as a parking easement is proposed for tax lot 50.13-3-31 over tax parcel 50.13-3-27, and
the proposed building layout blocks this through connection. A 13' wide access road serving 24
residential units is insufficient, particularly for two-way traffic. Delivery trucks, garbage collection,
mail service, and emergency vehicles will have difficulty accessing the site, creating dangerous
situations.

.'

~

J

.. . . :....

According to standards from the U.S. Department of Transportation, minimum land widths for local
roads must be between 9 and 12 feet; or a minimum of 18 to 24 feet total. For firematic purposes,
the Fire Code of New York State requires fire apparatus access roads to have a minimum
unobstructed width of 26 feet in the immediate vicinity of any building or portion of building more
.than 30 feet in height. This road width is needed because modern fire apparatus, especially large
Clerial equipment, consume a major part of the driving surface when ladder trucks or aerial towers
have their stabilizing jacks extended. The proposed development must be redesigned so that a
minimum access width of 26' is provided for the multi-family housing compiex.

.

'. ":

'; ::. ,
.:

....

· . . ~:::. '.:

· :<".:'. ...
C
.

. ..

.- .

~

'.

.'

:' ..'

·

. ' :~. . '
.: ' .

......

...... .

'.

"

. , ..:. ' .

2 The Villages of Spring Valley and New Hempstead are two of the reasons this subdivision
application was referred to this department for review. The Spring Valley municipal boundary is
along the southern property line of the site and along Union Road directly adjacent to the site, as
well as 175 feet east ofthe site. The New Hempstead municipal boundary is 410 feet northeast of
the site. New York State General Municipal Law states that the purposes of Sections 239-1, 239-m
and 239-nshall be to bring pertinent inter-community and countywide planning, zoning, site plan
and subdivision considerations to the attention of neighboring municipalities and agencies having
. jurisdiction. Such review may include inter-community and county-wide considerations in respect
to the compatibility of various land uses with one another; traffic generating characteristics of
various land uses in relation to the effect of such traffic on other land uses and to the adequacy of
existing and proposed thoroughfare facilities; and the protection of community character as
regards predominant land uses, population density, and the relation between residential and
nonresidential areas. In addition, Section 239-nn was enacted to encourage the coordination of
land use development and regulation among adjacent municipalities, and as a result development
occurs in a manner that is supportive of the goals and objectives of the general area.
The Villages of Spring Valley and New Hempstead must be given the. opportunity to review the
proposal and its impact on community character, traffic, water quantity and quality, drainage,
stormwater runQff and sanitary sewer service. The areas of countywide concern noted above that
directly impact the Villages of Spring Valley and New Hempstead must be considered and
satisfactorily addressed, as well as any additional concerns about the proposal.
3 Cross easements must be depicted on the subdivision plat for access, parking, play areas,
dumpsters, utilities, and the stormwater management system for all of the lots.
4 A site plan must be submitted showing all features including sidewalks, steps, decks, porches,
etc.

· ..

::-

5 As indicated in the April 16, 2015 letter from the Rockland County Department of Highways, a
work permit is required for the proposed development prior to any construction on site.
~"

:

6 As required by the Rockland County Stream Control Act, the subdivision plan must be reviewed
and signed by the Chairman of the Rockland County Drainage Agency before the County Clerk
can accept the plan to be filed .

Page 3 of 5
('- ~ .. .

 ,.---.
(

BLUEFIELD' EXTENSION (R-2421Al .

7 A review must be completed by the County of Rockland Sewer District #1 and all required
permi~s obtained.
8 As indicated in the April 6, 2015 letter from the .Rockland County Department of Health, an
application must be made to them for sanitary sewer extension approval, including a sewer
capacity analysis; and an application made to them to ensure compliance with the County
Mosquito Code.
9 The proposed residential buildings must comply with all requirements of the New York State
Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code. As shown, the proposed residential building will
require a variance from the New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code since the
proposed decks are all located closer than ten feet to the property line.
10 A review must be completed by the County of Rockland Office of Fire and Emergency'
Services, the Town's fire inspector, and the Monsey Fire District to ensure that there is sufficient
maneuverability on-site for emergency vehicles.
11 Designated parking spaces must be assigned to each residential unit, and clearly identified .in
the field.
.
12 Water is a scarce resource in Rockland County; thus proper planning and phasing of this
project are critical to supplying the current and future residents of the Villages, Towns, and County
with an adequate supply of water. The water system must be evaluated to determine if the
additional water supply demands of the proposed development can be met. Domestic and fire
demands of the project must be determined by a Licensed Professional Engineer and provided to
the supplier of water for analysis. Demand calculations and results of the analysis must be
provided to the Rockland County Department of Health for review.
13 As part of the approval from the Town of Ramapo Zoning Board of Appeals, for the use
variance, the applicant is required to plant a dense row of six-foot high trees across the western
property line. In order to ensure that this condition is met, and to ameliorate the higher density to
the adjacent properties, a landscaping plan must be submitted for review.
14 The long narrow play area that extends from.the flag section of the site to Union Road along
the driveway access must be properly secured to ensure resident children's safety. Its location,
which is close to a heavily traveled road and far from the residential units, raises safety concerns.
15 No handicapped parking spaces are provided on the site plan. Handicapped parking areas
must be clearly designated throughout the site, and adequate access space provided.
16 Map Note # 7 must be corrected to indicate that the plat conforms to Section 239n of the
General Municipal Law as Secticln 239k no longer exists.
17 Map Note # 25 shall be eliminated as it is incorrect and repetitive of Map Note # 7.
18 There shall be no net increase in the peak rate of discharge from the site at all design points .

..

19 Prior to the start of construction or grading, a soil and erosion control plan shall be developed
and in place for the entire site that meets the latest edition of the New York State Guidelines for
Urban Erosion and Sediment Control.
.
20 This parking area must be redesigned so that vehicles can easily turnaround and not have to
back out of the parking spaces.
Page 4 of 5

 BLUEFIELD EXTENSION CR-2421A)
21 The location for the dumpsters must be provided on the site plan. Their placement must not

impede the ability of vehicles to access parking spaces.
. r. . ·..

22 Areas dedicated for snow· piles must be clearly delineated on the site plan so that the plow
drivers will know where to place the snow piles. This will help to protect any landscaping from
being broken from the weight of the snow and from causing salt intrusion to the plants. In addition,
providing specific locations on the site for the snow piles, especially since only a minimum number
of parking spaces is being provided, will eliminate the loss of parking spaces meant for the
residents.
.

23 A stormwater pollution prevention plan (8WPPP) was not provided. The SWPPP, if required,
shall conform to the current regulations, including the New York State Stormwater Management
. and Design Manual (January 2015) and local ordinances.
24 A lighting plan shall be provided that shows fields of illumination. Lighting shall not shi.ne
. ',:

beyond the property line. .

..... ..

25 · We request the opportunity to review any variances and use variances which will be necessary

"

'.','

to implement the proposed site plan.

:.,:'

.

cc: Supervisor Christopher St. Lawrence, Ramapo

. . ..... .

J
. . :.

'

Rockland County Department of Highways
Rockland County Department of Health
Rockland County Sewer District #1
Rockland County Drainage Agency
Anthony R. Celentano P.L.S .
Villages of Spring Valley and New Hempstead

Rockland County Planning Board Members

*NYS General Municipal Law Section 239 requires a vote of a 'majority plus one' of your agency to act contrary to the above findings.
The review undertaken by the Rockland County Planning Department Is pursuant to, and follows the mandates ofArticle 12-8 of the New York General
MunIcipal Law. Under Article 12-8 the County of Rockland does not render opinions, nor does it make determinations, whether the Item reviewed Implicates
the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. The Rock/and County Planning Department defers to the municipality forwarding the Item reviewed
to render such opinions and make such determinations if appropriate under the circumstances.
In this respect, municipalities are ·advised that under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. the preemptive force of any provision of the Act
may be avoided (1) by changing a policy or practice that may result in a substantial burden on religious exercise, (2) by retaining a policy or practice and
exempting the substantially burdened religious exercise, (3) by providing exemptions from a policy or practice for applications that substantially burden
religiOUS exercise, or (4) by any other means that eliminates the substantial burden.
Proponents of projects are advised to apply for variances, special permits or exceptions,·hardship approval or other relief.

/,

/

'-.~ :

Page 5 of 5

 Exhibit 69

 

 

To Hector ofPlanniHBMUHinBAd mimsth

  

 
 
 

    

 

 

ZoningBoardoprpeals

 

 

 

 

 

other 

 

 

   

meeting noticesdemsions, ?tcfrom Ul??f?CErelatlvetothe



     
  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A Construction
Expediting, Inc.

*i?t?i?ii?f {We 5* P.O. Box 690 Monsey. NY 10952 Tel: 845-426-7272 Fax: 845-426-7676

 

  

January 20, 2016 J0 err-3

TO: Planmng Board El: .. - 
frown Of Raln apO EUii-a 'ii 
237 Route 59

Suffern, N.Y. 10901

RE: Bluefield Extension 126, 128, 130 Union Road, Spring Valley, NY 10977
Tax lot: 5013-3?26, 27 30

Narrative

This application is being submitted for a re approval of ?nal for Blue?eld Extension, since it is
more than 18 months of the final approval. The original application was for a four lot subdivision,
lot 1 and 4 contain a two family dwelling with two accessory apartments, and lot 2 and 3 contain a
three family dwelling with three accessory dwelling. No changes has been made to the original
application. We would like to ask the board to grant us a Reapproval for this application. We would
also like to ask the board for a waiver of a public hearing.

Thanks

 

 

 

 

TOWN 0th A 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

before me. this

 

PB ?Form No . 13

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

implication, petf??tmn m: requeSt is hereby submitted for

 

 

 

 

 

 

3. Premises affected are 1n a (zone) aha
from the Ramapo Tax Eap the property 1s known 'as section 5c 13
Lat 3 9073,30 

1. There is no state officer Rockland County Bfficer or
ooployee or Icon of Ramapo officer .or employee nor h1s or her
spouse, brother, s1ster, parent, child or grandchild or a spouse
of any oE theSe relatives who is the applicant or who has- an 
1nterest :-1n the person, partnership or assoc1at1on making this
.applicat1on, petit1on or request or 1s an off1cer d1reotor,
partner or employee of the app11cant or that such officer or
employee 1f th1s app11cant 1s a corporation, legally or beneficially
.oans or controls any took of the applicant 1n excess of 5% oE the
total :oE the corporation 1f 1ts stock 1s l1sted on the New York or
aferican Stock Exchanges, or -1s member or partner of the applicant,
if the applicant is an association or a partnership, nor that such-
Town officer or employee nor any member oE h1 family 1o any oE the

 

foregoing classes is a party to an agreement w1th the. appl1cant, a
express -or 1mplaed whereby s.ueh officer or employee may rece1ve
any payment or other benefit whether or not Eor services rendered
wh1ch is. dependent oE contingent upOn the favorable approval of
this application, petltlon -oE requests

51 That to the extent that the same is known to your 
and to the owner oE the subject premises there is d1solosed herewith
"the 1nterest of the following cEEie-er. or employee oE the State of
New York or the County of Rockland or o:f the Town of Ramapo 1n the
pet1tion, request or application or in the property or subject
matter to which 1t=re1ates* C1_n ?Egg so statec

 

a; .mame and ??deSS'Qf officer'or employee__

 

-hs TNature of 1nterest 1_ 
If: stockholder -numbe-r -o=f shares 
11 .If off1cer or partner, nature of office and name of

partnersh1p . 

as Ifi a spouse or brother slster, parent, ch11d 
or the  spouse of any of these blood relatiVes of such
State, County or Town of Ramapo- officer or employee
state name and address of such relative and- na-ture .5 
relationsh1p-to officer and employee and nature and
extent of office 1nterest or part1c1pation in the
ownerShip or any person, partnersh1p er associat1on
hav1ng -an interest in such ownership or 1n any busineSs
entity sharing in such ownership, -

 

s.2 a
that {hoax



 

 

,1

f. IN THE- Emil? DE 90919911119. WHERE-919: A 1:191..- (if; 911.
duectors officers and stackhaldere :aE each car-.909
ratinn owning more than fiv (51)apereent of any
class of stack 91th be attached, 1E any 19E. these
are officers or employees (If the State of New. Yark
0r 9f the Beauty 0E Rackland or of the Town 9E

. Ramapoa

do hereby 11199959 9:111 Say that 911 the above sta temente. encl- 

 

.ments contalned in the papers Smeltted herewith are true knowing

that a person who and 1ntent10nelly violates this section 

1W

Mailing mam .. .. 
1350?is guilty of a. 

 

't'n ?hiefare: me this

 

 

 

I Nat-M? 1 

MOSHE E. MAUK

blic, Stateof ofNew Yo?c
"ma? Pum? 4951 1919

aIi?ed in Rockland County
Corgrgission Expires Feb. 12,2 20 

BC..-..2 (M73):

 

 

Exhibit 70

TOWN OF RAMAPO PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
Date of Meeting: February 16, 2016 If. [175:3 Li!" 
tor-m area's OFFICE

Application of: Blue?eld Extension JUN *8 3: 3b

Re-approval of Final Subdivision Approval

Property Location: 136, 128, 130 Union Road
Spring Valley, NY 10977

Section-Block-Lot: 50.13-3-26, 27, 30

Individuals who appeared on behalf of the applicant:
Ryan Karben, Esq., 1 1 Tara Drive, Pomona, New York 10970

Micheal Miller, 5 Tioken Road, States that he has a letter from the Rockland County Department
of Planning that they never issued a GML review with respect to the application before the Zoning
Board of Appeals and the Plaming Board cannot re-approve this application without a public
hearing.

MOTION to grant a waiver of the public hearing was made by Yakov Basch and seconded by
Sylvain Klein.

The motion was passed by a vote of 4- 1. Yisroel Eisenbach Opposed.

MOTION to reserve decision to the March 8, 2016 Planning Board Agenda was made by Sylvain
Klein and seconded by Yisroel Eisenbach.

The motion was passed by a vote of 5-0.

MOTION to rescind the motion to grant a waiver of public hearing and adjourn this application
to March 8, 2016 to consider the waiver of the public hearing and to make a decision on the
application for re-approval was made by Sylvain Klein and seconded by Yisroel Eisenbach.

The motion was passed by a vote of 5-0.

Members present: Chairman Sylvain Klein, Yisroel Eisenbach, Yakov Basch, Jose Collazo, and
Leo Moster.

Member(s) absent: Ariel Dalian, Bracha Gobioff, and Juan Pablo Ramirez

Staff Present:

Anthony Mallia, Director of Building, Planning and Zoning
Alan Berman, Deputy Town Attorney

Sarah Brown, Town Planning Consultant

Courtney Gentile, Flaming Board Secretary

Exhibit 71

.1
MILTON B. SHAPIRO
ATTORNEVS AT LAW

SUSAN H. SHAPIRO
75 N. MIOOIJ!TOWN RO.... O • NANUET. NEW YORK 10954

COPIES TO:
/PLANNING BOARD
CONSULTANT

-

IM51371·2100
1840) 371.!l121. . fllX
m~'@Q""OCklsndOfllC6.com

BLDG. DEPT.

2D.P.W. .

Cotq$f.

e:y;P.
DATE 0"2-' \ V' /tp

February 11,20]6
Town of Ramapo Planning Board Members, and
Anthony Malia, D.ircctor of Ruilding, Planning (1.11d Zoning
2:17 Route 59
Suffern, NYI 0901

Via Fax: 845 .1575140
RE: BLUEFIELD EXTENSION (R-242I A)

Dear Board Members and Mr. Mallia:
On behalf of my client, Cit.izen United to Protect. Our Neighborhoods
("CUPON") I am bringing to your attention the problem with the Bluefield
Extension application. At this time the Planning .Board cannot legally
approve, re-appl'ove or extend the subdivision approvals for Bluefield
Extension, for the following reasons:
•

The Original Subdivision Approvnl has expired and was not
extended prior t.o expiration of the approval, therefore a new
application must be made.

•

The Original approv31 wa~ invalid and can.lot be relied upon
because no GI\1L WflS ever issued. Tbe Planlling Board approvals
claims to have overridden a Rockland County GML, however that was
impossible, since el, "GMT. was never issued by the county for the
usc variance despite the reference to such a review in the .January
30, 2014 ZBA, and therefore the ZUA. approval which states it
overrode the GM.t. is wrong, and invalidate the entire approv.lI."

Therefore, the January 31, 2014 subdivision a.pproval is null and void.
desired by the Applicant, a new application must be commenced .

If

 The increa.sed density being proposed by the Applicant cannot be approved
without a complete new application for ALL the proposed subdivision lots .
The Planning Board must consi.der the impact of increasing density from 20
units to 24 uni.ts . If the Planning Board approves this revised expired
subdivision it will result in improper segmentation.
For all of these reasons the P.Ianning Board C8.1111ot legally approve this
subdivision .

Cc :

Ed Day, County Executive

Rockl and County Legi sl ators
Ellen Jaffe, Assemblywoman
Ken Zebrowski, Assemblyman
Da.vid Caducci , State Senator

 Exhibit 72

SUSAN

H.

SHAPIRO

ATTORNEY AT LAW

75 NORTH MIDDLETOWN ROAD

TEL

NANUET, NEW YORK 10954

FAX

(845) 371 - 2100
(845) 371-3721

SUSAN@HITOSHAPIROLAW.COM
MBS@OUHROCKLANDOFFICE.COM

September 20, 2016
Christopher St. Lawrence, Supervisor
Mr. Sylvain Klein, Chairman, Planning Board
Ms.charlene Weaver, Chairwoman, Zoning Board of Appeals
Town of Ramapo
237 Route 59
Suffern, New York 10901
RE:
Bluefield Extension
Tax Map Sections 50.13-3-26; 50.13-3-27; 50.13-3-30
Owner of Record - Bluefield Extension LLC, LLC
Dear Supervisor Christopher St. Lawrence, Chairman Klein and Chairwoman Weaver:
I am submitting this letter on behalf of my clients, Sharon
Doucette; a directly adjacent neighbor, Michael Miller; a resident of the Town of
Ramapo; and, Citizen's United to Protect our Neighborhood ("CUPON"), (Collectively
referred to as "Petitioners") who demand that the Planning Board deny the revised
proposal made by Bluefield Extension LLC. The Applicants ' proposal includes a 20 unit
multi-family development, consisting of semi-attached, two-family residence with two
accessory apartments on Lot 1 and 4, and a semi-attached three-family residence with
three accessory apartments on lots 2 and 3 all within a 1.04 acre lot, as it is in violation of
New York State Town Law.
At this time this matter is not properly before the Planning Board, as the recently
arrested and suspended Mr. Anthony Mallia, Director of Building, Planning and Zoning
for the Town of Ramapo and the Town Attorney Alan Berman improperly allowed
consideration of an application which contains misleading and false information, as the
property is located in R-15 zone not R-lSC zone and contains the maps identify the
wrong fire district in which the site is located. Instead of requiring the application to be
resubmitted prior to the ZBA's illegal approval of a use variance, it is incomprehensible
why Mr. Mallia has allowed this application to be considered based on the illegal use
vanance.
The ZBA's override of a non-existent GML and attempt to change the zone of this
lot makes a mockery of New York State Town Law and therefore the Planning Board
must deny this application based on this illegal ZBA decision.

1

 The ZBA did not have the authority to grant a use variance and the Planning
Board cannot now rely on this illegal variance for the following reasons:

• The ZBA failed to have a procedurally necessary Gl\1L pursuant to Town

Law§239-n. A Gl\1L review was never requested or obtained from Rockland
County Planning Department prior to ZBA override of a non-existent GML as a
basis for the use variance it improperly granted;

• No evidence of financial evidence of hardship exists in Town records;
• No evidence that claimed hardship was not self-created exists in Town records.

The fact that the topography of the site is hilly does not constitute a hardship, as
single-family homes were built and can be built on the site. An applicants desire
to make a larger profit by increasing density on a lot is not a hardship and is
clearly self-created

• The ZBA lacks authority and jurisdiction to change the zoning of a parcel of land
from R-IS to R-ISC. Zone changes are the sole juri sdiction of the Town Board.
And, even the Town Board cannot change the zoning, spot zone, or one parcel of
land for the sole benefit of one applicant;

•

The current application contains misleading and fal se information identifying the
property as being in theR-15C zone wken it is in R- lS zone. The application for
Final Subdivision Approval and narrative mischaracterizes the zone as R-ISC.
This mischaracterization is a blatant, repeated attempt by the applicant and its
attorney to confuse the Planning Board.

• The current application contains and prior appli cations contained misleading and

false information regarding the fire district in which the site is located. Mr.
Mallia improperly allowed this application to be submitted to the Planning Board
containing this false and misleading information.

•

The Planning Board cannot approve an application containing misleading and
false information which endangers public health and safety. Not only must the
Planning Board deny an application based on false information, but should also
sanction and/or fine the applicant and its attorney for wasting Town resources.

•

The current application did not include a required new Short Environmental
Assessment Form (SEAF);

• The Planning Board has no authority to grant a variance from New York State

Town Law for use of a shared driveway without the Town Boards' adoption of an
Open Development Area ("ODA") plan for the Town. N o such aDA exists in the
Town of Ramapo. Even if the Town Board does adopt such ODA, the Martin Act
requires that an application for a "private road" be submitted by the applicant to

2

 the State Attorney General for permission to create a private road. No application
to the Attorney General has been made.
Neither The Planning Board, Town board or the Zoning Board of Appeals have a
right to grant use variances from the NYS Town law. Horne Rule allows the Town to
enact building and zoning codes that are more restrictive than State Town Law, not less
restrictive.
The CDRC improperly forwarded this application for consideration by this
Planning Board under the direction of the recently arrested and suspended Mr. Mallia.
The Town of Ramapo's legal opinion incorrectly has allowed this current application
process to be restarted after, not before the illegal ZBA approval. This is without logical
reason or rationality and has the appearance of favoritism.
For all of the above reasons, the the Planning Board cannot grant approval for
Bluefield extensions based on non-existent GML override illegal, a zone change from RIS to R-lSC, no evidence of financial hardship, no Open Development Area ("ODA") in
Town of Ramapo, nor approval by the New York State Attorney General allowing for a
private driveway.
Petitioners demand, pursuant to New York State Town Law §268(2) for the Town
Boards to rescind and revoke the ZBA's illegal use variance within ten days.
lfthe Planning Board irrationally and unreasonably approves the proposed
subdivision it will be doing so with full knowledge of Petitioners objections and
Petitioners reserved the right to any and all legal recourse.

3

 Exhibit 73

5/30/2018

eSearch   Property Search

Rockland County, NY County Clerk ­ PAUL PIPERATO

Deborah Seidman

SEARCH CRITERIA   Street MEMORIAL    Number MEMORIAL24    
Property Search    

Displaying records 1 ­ 6 of 6 at 3:20 PM ET on 5/30/2018
Instr
  Index File Date
Date

Kind

GRANTORS

GRANTEES

Description

1 LAN 10/17/2013  

DEED

GROSS, FAIGE

BABAD, ZISHE

392003 ­ SPRING VALLEY (CLA)

   

 

 

 

Address: 24 MEMORIAL DRIVE
SPRING VALLEY, NEW YORK 10977

2 LAN 01/14/2015  

DEED

BABAD, ZISHE

HOROWITZ, JOEL 392003 ­ SPRING VALLEY (CLA)

   

 

 

 

3 LAN 07/22/2015  

DEED

HOROWITZ, JOEL

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Instr
Book/Page
Number
2013­
 
 
00038206
 

Ref

Amount

Images

$139,500.00

5

 

 

 

 

2015­
 
00001160

 

$139,500.00

5

Address: 24 MEMORIAL PARK DR
SPRING VALLEY, NEW YORK 10977

 

 

 

 

 

LEZERBEAM
ACREAGE LLC

392003 ­ SPRING VALLEY (CLA)

2015­
 
00020844

 

$139,500.00

5

 

Address: 24 MEMORIAL PARK DR
SPRING VALLEY, NEW YORK 10977

 

 

 

 

2015­
 
00022308

2015­
 
00020844

5

 

 

 

 

2015­
 
00030402

 

$1,780,000.00 5

 

4 LAN 08/04/2015  

CORRECTION
LAZERBEAM
HOROWITZ, JOEL
DEED
ACREAGE LLC

392003 ­ SPRING VALLEY (CLA)

   

 

 

 

Address: 24 MEMORIAL PARK DRIVE
 
SPRING VALLEY, NEW YORK 10977

5 LAN 10/20/2015  

DEED

LAZERBEAM
ACREAGE LLC

SUNSHINE
GARDENS
REALTY LLC

392003 ­ SPRING VALLEY (CLA)

   

 

 

 

 

 

Address: 24 MEMORIAL DR SPRING
 
VALLEY, NEW YORK 10977

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

4/12/16 ­ DATA CHANGE TO
CORRECT NAME OF GRANTEE PM

 

 

 

 

 

6 LAN 05/03/2016  

DEED

SUNSHINE
GARDENS
REALTY LLC

LAZERBEAM
ACREAGE LLC

392003 ­ SPRING VALLEY (CLA)

2016­
 
00012878

 

$997,500.00

5

   

 

 

 

Address: 24 MEMORIAL PARK DRIVE
 
SPRING VALLEY, NEW YORK 10977

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

© 2007 ­ 2018 Cott Systems, Inc. 
Version 1.6.38.3

https://cotthosting.com/NYRocklandExternal/LandRecords/protected/SrchQuickProperty.aspx

1/1

 Exhibit 74

6/5/2018

eSearch   Name Search

Rockland County, NY County Clerk ­ PAUL PIPERATO

Deborah Seidman

SEARCH CRITERIA   Selected Names SUNSHINE GARDENS LLC, SUNSHINE GARDENS REALTY LLC, SUNSHINE GARDENS REALTY,
LLC    Firm/Last Name SUNSHINE GARDENS LLC, SUNSHINE GARDENS REALTY LLC, SUNSHINE GARDENS REALTY, LLCSUNSHINE GARDEN
(BEGINS WITH)    
Name Search    

Instr
  Index Date Filed
Date
1 LAN 08/10/2015  

2 LAN 10/20/2015  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3 LAN 10/27/2015  

4 LAN 02/16/2016  

Displaying records 1 ­ 15 of 15 at 12:36 PM ET on 6/5/2018
File
Party Ones
Party Twos
Description
Book/Page
Number

Kind
MEMORANDUM
OF CONTRACT

LAZERBEAM
ACREAGE LLC

SUNSHINE
CLA
GARDENS LLC

DEED

LAZERBEAM
ACREAGE LLC

SUNSHINE
GARDENS
REALTY LLC

392003 ­
SPRING
VALLEY
(CLA)

 

Address: 24
MEMORIAL
DR
SPRING
 
VALLEY,
NEW
YORK
10977
4/12/16 ­
DATA
CHANGE
TO
 
CORRECT
NAME OF
GRANTEE
PM

 

 

 

 

 

MORTGAGE

SUNSHINE
GARDENS LLC

LAZERBEAM
CLA
ACREAGE LLC

DEED

HOROWITZ,
JOEL

SUNSHINE
GARDENS
REALTY LLC

392605 ­
SPRING
VALLEY
(RAM)

Ref

Amount

Images

2015­
 
00022819

 

 

2015­
 
00030402

 

$1,780,000.00 5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2015­
 
00031261

 

$780,000.00

20

2016­
 
00004073

 

$850,000.00

5

 

 

 

 

2016­
 
00008551

 

$200,000.00

10

5

 

 

 

Address:
122 UNION
RD
SPRING
 
VALLEY,
NEW
YORK
10977

5 LAN 03/23/2016  

MORTGAGE

SUNSHINE
GARDENS
REALTY LLC

PARK
NATIONAL
CAPITAL
FUNDING LLC

RAM

6 LAN 04/19/2016  

SATISFACTION
OF MORTGAGE

LAZERBEAM
ACREAGE LLC

SUNSHINE
 
GARDENS LLC

2016­
 
00011451

2015­
 
00031261

3

DEED

SUNSHINE
GARDENS
REALTY LLC

392003 ­
LAZERBEAM
SPRING
ACREAGE LLC VALLEY
(CLA)

2016­
 
00012878

 

$997,500.00

5

 

 

 

 

2016­
 
00012879

 

$200,000.00

10

 

 

 

 

7 LAN 05/03/2016  

 

 

 

 

8 LAN 05/03/2016  

 

 

 

Address: 24
MEMORIAL
PARK
DRIVE
SPRING
 
VALLEY,
NEW
YORK
10977

MORTGAGE

LAZERBEAM
ACREAGE LLC

SUNSHINE
GARDENS
REALTY LLC

CLA

https://cotthosting.com/NYRocklandExternal/LandRecords/protected/SrchQuickName.aspx

1/3

 6/5/2018

eSearch   Name Search

  Index Date Filed

Instr
Date

Kind

Party Ones

Party Twos

9 LAN 05/16/2016  

MORTGAGE

LAZERBEAM
ACREAGE LLC

SUNSHINE
GARDENS
REALTY LLC

10 LAN 12/06/2016  

SATISFACTION
OF MORTGAGE

SUNSHINE
GARDENS
REALTY LLC

File
Book/Page
Number

Description

Ref

Amount

Images

2016­
 
00014311

 

LAZERBEAM
 
ACREAGE LLC

2016­
 
00036794

2016­
 
00012879

2

2017­
 
00002766

 

$850,000.00

8

RAM

$200,000.00

10

11 LAN 01/24/2017  

MORTGAGE

SUNSHINE
GARDENS
REALTY LLC

LOUIS
GALPERN
RETIREMENT
PLAN AND
TRUST
DEFINED
BENEFIT

 

 

 

 

 

BLUEFIELD
EXTENSION LLC

VEGA
IRREVOCABLE  
TRUST

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

GALPERN,
NATALIE ­TR

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

GALPERN,
NICOLE ­TR

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PARK
NATIONAL
CAPITAL
FUNDING LLC

 

 

 

 

 

 

LOUIS
GALPERN
RETIREMENT
PLAN AND
TRUST
DEFINED
BENEFIT

 

2017­
 
00002767

2016­
 
00008551

2

RAM

12 LAN 01/24/2017  

SUNSHINE
SUBORDINATION
GARDENS
AGREEMENT
REALTY LLC

 

 

 

 

 

PARK NATIONAL
CAPITAL
FUNDING LLC

VEGA
IRREVOCABLE  
TRUST

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

GALPERN,
NATALIE ­TR

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

GALPERN,
NICOLE ­TR

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PARK
NATIONAL
CAPITAL
FUNDING LLC

 

 

 

 

 

 

SATISFACTION
OF MORTGAGE

SUNSHINE
GARDENS
REALTY LLC

LAZERBEAM
 
ACREAGE LLC

2017­
 
00003619

2016­
 
00014311

2

14 COU 04/27/2018  

ARTICLE 78

CITIZENS
UNITED TO
SUNSHINE
PROTECT OUR
GARDENS
NEIGHBORHOOD REALTY LLC
HILLCREST

 

SU­2018­
 
000506

 

$0.00

 

 

 

DOUCETTE,
SHARON

RAMAPO
TOWN OF

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RAMAPO
TOWN OF
ZONING
BOARD OF
APPEALS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

13 LAN 01/31/2017  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RAMAPO
TOWN OF
ZONING
 
BOARD OF
APPEALS­
CHAIRPERSON

 

 

 

 

 

 

BLUEFIELD
EXTENSION
LLC

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[+]

 

 

 

 

 

 

https://cotthosting.com/NYRocklandExternal/LandRecords/protected/SrchQuickName.aspx

2/3