Introduction

Some of us have lived in Pine Grove Lakes for decades. Others arrived more recently, drawn by the same things — the quiet streets where children ride their bikes without fear, the trees that line every path, the sound of birds in the morning. We came here because this place felt different. Safer. More communal and rural. Surrounded by nature.

Pine Grove Lakes is not just an address. It is where our children take their first steps outside. It is where we have the privilege to step outside our doors and go for a hike with our dogs. It is where we teach our kids that a cul-de-sac is a safe place — a place where you don't have to worry about heavy traffic, where the woods at the end of the road are still wild and alive.

We are here as parents, neighbors, and residents who have read the documents, done the research, and arrived at an unavoidable conclusion: this project, as proposed, raises serious concerns for our families' safety and environment — and the record assembled from the applicant's own submissions supports those concerns.

We are asking this Board to deny this application. Not out of fear of change. But because the evidence — drawn from the applicant's own submissions, their engineers' documents, and the findings of multiple government agencies — indicates that this project cannot be built safely or responsibly as currently proposed, and does not appear to satisfy the standards required for approval under Village law and SEQRA. As well as what appears, based on the record as submitted, to be a failure to demonstrate compliance with mandatory federal environmental regulations and consultation requirements.

 

Here is what is actually at stake:

• The safety of our homes and our children. Aspen Road is a cul-de-sac where children play every single day. A boulder from this slope has previously gone through a neighboring home — documented in the resident petition submitted to this Board. The applicant characterized the incident as "anecdotal." The applicant addresses the risk of boulder movement primarily on the basis that no blasting will occur—a characterization inconsistent with published scientific guidance confirming that non-blasting construction equipment generates ground vibration sufficient to trigger rockfall. No geotechnical study, vibration analysis, or rockfall risk assessment appears anywhere in this record.

On page 2 of the LPC Response to General Comments, dated October 30, 2024, Lange Planning and Consulting stated: "Since the homes and the retaining walls were completed in accordance with the building regulations, the Village has completed its responsibility to safeguard the residents." This statement — placed on the record before any construction begins — documents the applicant's position that responsibility for slope safety lies with the Village based on prior approvals. This Board should weigh carefully what it means to approve a project whose proponent has already placed that burden on the Village in writing.

Our children deserve better than that. So do our homes.

 

• Years — possibly decades — of construction through our entire neighborhood. Every bulldozer, excavator, cement truck, and dump truck servicing this project must travel through Pine Grove Lakes' residential streets to reach Aspen Road. The applicant's own sworn documents list the construction completion date as N/A — no end date given. This is not a temporary inconvenience. It is an open-ended transformation of our neighborhood into a construction corridor with no enforceable timeline.

 

• Road construction may physically enter and regrade the private lots of existing residents — yet the DEIS contains no explanation of whether this is still required, no documentation of neighbor consent, and no record of any agreement with the property owners whose land would be disturbed.

 

• Our drinking water. The applicant's own Environmental Assessment Form confirms, under oath, that this project sits directly over the Ramapo Sole Source Aquifer — the region's primary drinking water supply, federally designated by the EPA. No completed Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan has been submitted for review in the record before this Board — the document required to protect that aquifer from construction runoff on this steep slope. A mandatory NYSDEC permit for the Ramapo River Recreational River corridor — required by Village Code before any approval can be issued — does not exist in this record.

 

• Protected wildlife -The Federally Endangered Northern Long-Eared Bat, the Federally Threatened Bog Turtle, and the NYS Threatened Timber Rattlesnake.— have been officially confirmed at this site by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. The section of the DEIS analyzing their presence was produced by an AI chatbot, not a wildlife biologist — DEIS page 37 carries the heading "source: Google Copilot — edited by LPC" — and the mitigation plans reflect that.

For the Bog Turtle, the proposed protection is a construction silt fence. The developer's own submission claims it would prevent the turtle from "climbing to the site" — a characterization inconsistent with standard wildlife biology as recognized by USFWS and NYSDEC, as Bog Turtles are obligate wetland species that inhabit suitable habitat, not climb to it. A sediment barrier is not species protection. Instead, it fragments critical movement corridors and prevents access to essential habitat, which may constitute an unlawful "take" under the Endangered Species Act.

For the Northern Long-Eared Bat, the developer proposes seasonal construction restrictions—an approach that no longer satisfies federal law since the species was uplisted to Endangered in March 2023. This strategy cannot be properly applied because no acoustic surveys or roost tree identifications appear in the record. Most critically, a mandatory federal consultation has not been initiated. The Army Corps of Engineers contact required by NYSDEC—which creates the federal nexus triggering a mandatory US Fish & Wildlife Service Section 7 consultation—was promised by the applicant in October 2024 but remains unconfirmed in the record. No USFWS consultation exists in this record.

For the Timber Rattlesnake, no mitigation of any kind appears in the record.

• A top 5% forest in NYS- An irreplaceable ecological resource the applicant's DEIS never assessed. The Board's own independent reviewer identified the forest in and around the project area as ranking in the top 5% of all forests in New York State by the NYSDEC Forest Condition Index — a finding that does not appear anywhere in the applicant's DEIS. While the applicant has since argued in subsequent responses that this rating merely reflects the adjacent Harriman State Park, the argument confirms the ecological risk rather than resolving it: if these parcels score this high because they connect directly to Harriman, then developing them permanently severs that connection — which is precisely what the Forest Condition Index is designed to identify and protect against. No independent ecological assessment of the project area exists in this record. Once cleared, that ecological value cannot be restored.

 

• Wetland presence indicated by multiple independent sources. The applicant's DEIS characterizes the site on page 32 as having no regulated wetlands on the site . The applicant's own engineer acknowledged wetland encroachment in the record. Rockland County required a wetland mitigation plan. Page 38 of the same DEIS indicates the presence of the Bog Turtle — a species that cannot biologically exist without wetland habitat — raising questions about the page 32 characterization. Most critically, NYSDEC's own permit letter required the applicant to contact the Army Corps of Engineers specifically citing the presence of federally regulated wetlands. That referral indicates federal Section 404 jurisdiction — which applies regardless of where any parcel line falls. No Army Corps Section 404 determination appears in this record. No federal wetland permit has been obtained. Based on the record as submitted. 

 

• Emergency access — a road the Fire Chief himself called dangerous. The proposed extension would triple the road's length while maintaining a single way in and out. The Fire Code Analysis (2/23/25) confirms the project creates 31 total units on a single access road, triggering a mandatory sprinkler requirement because the road cannot meet standard two-road access safety standards. Furthermore, the entire safety plan depends on a parking ban that the Village has already confirmed it cannot enforce. The applicant's attorney has characterized this project as making Aspen Road safer for current residents. The residents of Pine Grove Lakes do not share that characterization ; a road does not become safer by tripling its length and doubling its load on a single exit. Finally, the applicant’s reference to other substandard roads in the area is not a legal basis for approval. Under New York law, the existence of prior non-conforming conditions does not create an entitlement to add new ones, and this application must be evaluated on its own merits under today’s safety standards.

 

• A fundamentally incomplete legal process -Rockland County has formally recommended denial of this application due to substantial inconsistencies and a lack of clarity. Furthermore, the Board's own independent reviewer found the DEIS incomplete in nearly every major category. Under Village Law §26, a road waiver can only be granted if the Board finds that the standard is 'not requisite to the interests of public health and safety.' The documented risks regarding rockfall, fire access, and emergency egress establish that these safety standards are essential and requisite to our community. Based on the record before this Board, those conditions do not appear to be met. 

We are asking this Board to do what the law requires and what this community deserves: read the record, apply the standards, and protect the people who live here and the irreplaceable natural environment that surrounds them.

What follows is drawn from the applicant's own words, their engineers' documents, and the determinations of government agencies — placed on the record so that the full picture is clear.

The families of Pine Grove Lakes, and the wildlife that utilizes this critical natural corridor, are counting on this Board.

 

We, the undersigned residents of Pine Grove Lakes and the Village of Sloatsburg, respectfully submit this written petition as formal comment in opposition to the Aspen Road Extension application. Our objections are grounded in the applicant's own submitted documents, government agency findings, and Village law. We request denial of this application and formal consideration of the subject parcel for open space preservation.

 

 

 

 

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------
                                                                  FULL EXPANDED VERSION

WRITTEN COMMENT AND PETITION TO THE VILLAGE OF SLOATSBURG PLANNING BOARD Re: Aspen Road Extension — Draft Environmental Impact Statement Applicant: Michael DeMarco / DeMarco Development Lead Agency: Village of Sloatsburg Planning Board Public Hearing: June 16, 2026 Written Comment Deadline: June 26, 2026 Submitted by: Residents of Pine Grove Lakes and the Village of Sloatsburg 

All quoted material in this petition is drawn directly from the public record for this application as submitted to the Village of Sloatsburg Planning Board.

This petition is submitted by private residents acting in good faith. No signatory is an attorney, and nothing in this petition constitutes legal advice. The interpretations expressed herein are those of the petitioners based on their good-faith review of the public record.

 

PART I — THE WAIVER DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE LEGALLY GRANTABLE
The legal standard for a waiver is set by §26 of the Village Subdivision Regulations, which permits a waiver only when the requirements are "not requisite to the interests of the public health, safety, and general welfare of the village."

The record assembled here — reflecting rockfall concerns, retaining wall removal, single egress, fire access failures, endangered species, sole source aquifer, wetlands, and open-ended construction on a cul-de-sac where children play — indicates that the road length and width requirements are requisite to public health, safety, and general welfare. Based on the record before this Board, the §26 waiver standard does not appear to be satisfied. Accordingly, the application as currently submitted does not appear to meet the requirements for approval under Village law.

Furthermore, §24(B) of the Village Subdivision Regulations states that any variation "shall not have the effect of negating the intent, purpose and policies of the Official Map, the Zoning Ordinance, the Master Plan and these or other applicable regulations." The Village's 2006 Comprehensive Plan calls for preserving open space on the east side of the Thruway, protecting the Sole Source Aquifer, restricting development on steep slopes, and maintaining woodland character. Granting this waiver would directly conflict with every one of those policies — an outcome the Village's own code does not permit.

 

 
 

PART II — ROAD SAFETY: SINGLE EGRESS, SUBSTANDARD WIDTH, EXCESSIVE LENGTH
The road at the center of this application already fails every applicable standard:

Existing road length: 825–889 feet — already exceeds the 600-foot maximum
Proposed total length: 1,700–1,903 feet — the applicant's own documents state inconsistent figures — nearly three times the legal maximum
Existing pavement width: 16–20 feet in places — the required minimum is 20 feet with a 40-foot right of way
Single egress: The road has one way in and one way out
The Fire Chief and Planning Board Chairman both characterized the existing road as "dangerous" — documented in the DEIS at page 41. The Fire Code Analysis by Manny Carmona, Certified Code Official (February 23, 2025), confirms there is currently no compliant fire apparatus turnaround on the existing Aspen Road. The applicant proposes a 32-foot pavement area — two 14-foot travel lanes with a 4-foot mountable median — and a T-turnaround as part of the extension. Carmona's analysis concludes this proposed configuration meets fire code requirements, but only through the mandatory sprinkler exception under Section D107.1 of the 2020 NYS Fire Code. That exception exists because the road cannot meet the two-road access requirement that would otherwise apply to 31 units. Sprinklers are not an improvement — they are the code's compensatory mechanism for access that does not meet the standard two-road requirement. While Carmona's analysis concludes the proposed configuration meets fire code requirements, that conclusion is conditioned entirely on the mandatory sprinkler exception and a parking prohibition the Village has confirmed it cannot enforce. Meeting fire code through an exception designed to compensate for inadequate road access is not the same as providing the two-road safety standard the code was designed to achieve.

The applicant has argued that the proposed road work represents an improvement to existing conditions and that residents should welcome it. This characterization is not shared by the residents of Pine Grove Lakes — and the record reflects that clearly. The resident petition, bearing over 100 signatures from across the community, was filed specifically in opposition to this project. The letter submitted by the applicant as a show of resident support describes its signatories as "property owners and taxpayers" — the applicant's own characterization of the people who signed it. The applicant's own DEIS lists Michael DeMarco's address as 18 Upper Depew Avenue, Nyack, New York. The applicant's attorney has stated in these proceedings that road improvements benefit existing residents — a characterization those residents explicitly reject. The residents who actually live here have said otherwise — in writing, with over 100 signatures.

The road is currently substandard. The applicant's solution is to make it longer, busier, and more heavily loaded — while addressing only one of the five safety factors that determine whether emergency vehicles can reach families in time. Length nearly triples. Homes served doubles. The single exit remains. The parking ban the fire safety plan depends on has been confirmed by the Village as legally unenforceable. Carmona's own analysis requires "proper markings and signage...installed on the entire length of Aspen Rd. to prohibit the obstruction thereof by the parking of vehicles" — the same prohibition the applicant's own submissions acknowledge the Village lacks jurisdiction to enforce.

The residents of Pine Grove Lakes do not have an issue with the road as it exists today. We have an issue with what this project would add to it — the stress, the traffic, the construction, the length, the load, and the permanent loss of the safety margin that currently exists. We do not perceive the proposed changes as improvements. We perceive them as compounding an already documented problem.

The Fire Code Analysis confirms that 31 total units on a single access road trigger mandatory sprinkler requirements — sprinklers are not evidence of improvement, they are a mandatory concession that the road access alone cannot safely serve the number of homes this project creates.

If there is a fire, a medical emergency, or a natural disaster on this road after this project is approved, the ability of emergency services to reach families at the end of it in time is not assured.

 

 
 

PART III — CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION, ROCKFALL, AND THE ROOT SYSTEM
A. Non-Blasting Vibration — What the Scientific Record Shows
A boulder from this slope previously went through a neighboring home. This is documented in the resident petition. The applicant's response in the record was to characterize the incident as "anecdotal." No investigation, study, or geotechnical assessment of that incident appears anywhere in the submitted record.

The applicant addresses the risk of boulder movement primarily on the basis that no blasting will occur. This characterization is inconsistent with published scientific guidance from the Federal Highway Administration, the California Department of Transportation, the Norwegian Geotechnical Institute, and peer-reviewed geotechnical literature, all of which document that non-blasting construction equipment — particularly vibratory compactors used in road building — causes rockfall and slope failure.

There is also a geographic distinction in how the applicant frames the construction risk that the DEIS does not clearly draw. The DEIS states on page 30 that the closest proposed new home would be "over 80 feet" from existing rock walls on the east side, and 120 feet on the west side. That distance applies to where future houses may eventually be sited — it does not address the distance between road construction activity and existing homes or their retaining walls. The road construction begins immediately where the existing homes end — directly outside the doors of the families who already live here, on the same boulder-covered slope. The DEIS measures home placement to wall distance. It never measures road construction to existing home distance. The petition does not assert that the DEIS made a claim about road construction distance — it notes that the DEIS is entirely silent on it. A document that addresses one measurement while ignoring the more proximate one does not thereby establish safety from the one it omits. These are two entirely different measurements, and conflating them does not accurately reflect where the actual construction risk is concentrated.

The applicant also points to existing truck traffic on Aspen Road as evidence that the road and surrounding slope can accommodate construction vehicle activity. The trucks that currently use Aspen Road are package delivery vehicles — Amazon vans, UPS trucks, and USPS mail carriers. These are lightweight vehicles making brief, occasional stops. They are not comparable by weight, vibration profile, or duration of operation to the bulldozers, excavators, vibratory compactors, concrete mixers, and loaded dump trucks that road construction requires. The Federal Highway Administration and the California Department of Transportation specifically document heavy construction equipment — not delivery vehicles — as a cause of ground vibration sufficient to trigger rockfall. The comparison does not appear in any engineering or geological guidance as a valid equivalency.

The applicant's own EAF Part 1 explicitly lists "rock chipping and hammering" as construction noise sources — percussive activity on a boulder-covered slope directly adjacent to existing homes. No vibration analysis, no rockfall risk assessment, and no geotechnical study exists anywhere in this record.

B. Retaining Wall Removal — A Directly Confirmed Risk
The DEIS acknowledges on page 25 that improving the existing section of Aspen Road to meet minimum pavement standards "may entail removing some stone or timber retaining walls with some moderate regrading." These retaining walls currently stabilize the boulder-covered slope along the existing road corridor. To the extent such walls are removed, their absence may create conditions of slope destabilization adjacent to existing homes — an impact that is not geotechnically assessed, modeled, or mitigated anywhere in this record. The applicant's own environmental document describes removing slope-stabilizing walls as a component of road improvement, and then provides no analysis of what that removal would do to the stability of the boulder-covered slope immediately adjacent to homes where families live.

C. The Root System Issue Has Not Been Addressed
The DEIS proposes clearing of trees across the project site. What the DEIS does not address — and what the USDA Forest Service and Washington State DNR document — is that tree removal on steep slopes creates a 5 to 8-year period of increased vulnerability. After trees are cut, root decay progressively affects the stability of soil and the boulders those roots anchor. The risk to existing homes at the base of this slope extends not only during construction but for years afterward. This has not been assessed, modeled, or addressed in any submitted document.

D. The Applicant Has Placed Liability on the Village — In Writing
The LPC Response to General Comments (October 30, 2024, page 2) states:

"Since the homes and the retaining walls were completed in accordance with the building regulations, the Village has completed its responsibility to safeguard the residents."

The applicant's own language is on the record. On its face, this statement documents the applicant's position that responsibility for slope safety lies with the Village based on prior approvals. If construction vibration from this project — or the removal of existing retaining walls — destabilizes a boulder and it damages a home, or injures a child, or causes a fatality, the applicant's documented position, stated before a single shovel breaks ground, is that the Village assumed that liability when it approved the original construction decades ago.

If this Board approves this project, it does so with that statement already on the record — and with full awareness of what the applicant has said about where the responsibility lies.

 

 
 

PART IV — SAFETY OF CHILDREN AND COMMUNITY-WIDE IMPACT
A. Children Play on This Street Daily
Aspen Road is a cul-de-sac. Children ride bicycles, play, and walk on it every day. The DEIS contains no construction safety plan, no pedestrian safety protocol, and no child safety zones. The applicant's proposed solution for school bus access is for children to walk — down an active construction corridor, past heavy equipment — for an open-ended construction period. Standard walking distance guidelines apply to safe residential streets. They do not apply to active construction zones.

B. This Is Not an Aspen Road Problem — It Is a Pine Grove Lakes Problem
Every construction vehicle servicing this project must travel through Pine Grove Lakes' narrow residential streets to reach Aspen Road. This affects children and residents throughout the entire community, not only on Aspen Road. The DEIS does not address construction traffic management for any street beyond Aspen Road itself.

C. Pine Grove Lakes Becomes a Permanent Construction Corridor
The EAF Part 1, signed under oath, lists the anticipated completion date of the final construction phase as N/A — no year given. The DEIS confirms at page 22 that homes will be built "upon receipt of individual building permits" with no defined endpoint. This community faces years — potentially decades — of heavy construction traffic with no enforceable end date. The DEIS does not adequately address this impact.

 

 
 

PART V — CRITICAL DEIS DEFICIENCIES
The applicant's own planner, Lange Planning and Consulting, stated in writing on March 24, 2026:

"It is clear to the applicant that many elements of the submitted DEIS document were missing."

The Board's own independent reviewer, Nelson, Pope and Voorhis (NPV), found the DEIS incomplete in nearly every major category. Under SEQRA (6 NYCRR Part 617), a Lead Agency cannot accept an incomplete DEIS as adequate for public comment. The following specific deficiencies and internal inconsistencies raise questions about the document's reliability as a basis for findings:

No geological, geotechnical, or vibration study of any kind. This project proposes road construction on a steep, boulder-covered slope with a documented prior boulder incident. The DEIS contains no geological assessment, no vibration analysis, no slope stability study, and no rockfall risk assessment. The applicant addresses the risk of boulder movement primarily on the basis that no blasting will occur — a characterization inconsistent with published guidance from the Federal Highway Administration, the California Department of Transportation, and the Norwegian Geotechnical Institute, all of which document that non-blasting construction equipment causes rockfall and slope failure. Critically, the DEIS acknowledges on page 25 that road improvements may require removing existing retaining walls — and provides no geotechnical analysis of what that removal would do to slope stability. Village Subdivision Regulations §13(2)(a) require mandatory submission of subsurface conditions including soil, rock, and groundwater data. Krypton Engineering's response dated August 7, 2024 stated this information "will be added once on-site testing and exploration have been performed." No such results appear anywhere in this record. The application appears procedurally incomplete under the Village's own subdivision code.

Disturbed acreage: EAF says 4.75 acres; DEIS says 1.6 acres; engineering drawings show 3.97 acres — three different figures in the same application
Floodplain: EAF Part 1 (E.2.j) confirms the site is in the 100-year floodplain; the DEIS argues the proposed construction area sits above the flood elevation. These representations may not be technically incompatible — but the DEIS provides no independent analysis reconciling them, and the EAF confirmation triggers review obligations the DEIS does not adequately address.
Road length: The DEIS states 1,700 feet total; the October 2024 Response Letter states 1,903 feet — a 203-foot discrepancy between the applicant's own filings
Wetlands: DEIS page 32 claims no DEC regulated wetlands; DEIS page 38 confirms Bog Turtle presence — a species biologically incapable of existing without wetland habitat. These two representations within the same document are not reconcilable
Endangered species analysis produced by artificial intelligence: DEIS page 37 carries the heading "source: Google Copilot — edited by LPC" — an AI chatbot, not a qualified wildlife biologist, produced the environmental analysis for three federally listed species. Whether or not AI tools are appropriate for environmental drafting is a separate question — the more fundamental problem is that the section contains no field surveys, no site visits by a qualified biologist, and no species-specific methodology. The tool is context; the absence of qualified professional assessment is the deficiency. NYSDEC's Natural Heritage records (GID-000736) formally confirm all three species within the site's screening distances. The proposed mitigations raise additional concerns:

For the Bog Turtle — the applicant's proposed mitigation is a standard construction silt fence. The LPC Response to NYSDEC (October 16, 2024) states: "silt fencing would prevent a bog turtle from climbing to the site." Bog Turtles are obligate wetland species that inhabit suitable habitat — they do not need to climb to sites. Using a sediment control device as species mitigation is not consistent with standard professional wildlife survey methodology as recognized by USFWS and NYSDEC. Under the Endangered Species Act, restricting a listed species from its habitat may constitute a take — a determination within USFWS's authority to make and that has not been sought in this record.

For the Northern Long-Eared Bat — the DEIS refers to the Indiana Bat throughout its bat analysis. The Indiana Bat and the Northern Long-Eared Bat are two distinct federally listed species. NYSDEC confirmed the Northern Long-Eared Bat at this site. That species was uplisted to federally Endangered on March 31, 2023. The proposed seasonal construction restrictions may have been sufficient under the prior Threatened listing. Under the current Endangered listing, incidental take requires formal USFWS authorization regardless of timing. Additionally, no acoustic surveys and no roost tree identification appear anywhere in the record submitted to this Board — distance-based restrictions cannot be applied around locations that have not been found.

For the Timber Rattlesnake — no site-specific mitigation of any kind appears in the record.

Community recreation use: The applicant checked NO on EAF E.1.c — stating no community members use the site for recreation — while the resident petition documenting hiking, mountain biking, bird watching, and wildlife observation is listed in the applicant's own DEIS appendix at page 9. These two representations, both from the applicant's own submissions, cannot both be accurate.

Archaeological survey committed to but not delivered. The applicant's own sworn EAF (E.3.f ☑ Yes) confirmed this site is in a SHPO-designated archaeologically sensitive area. In October 2024, the applicant responded to NYSDEC in writing: "We will engage a cultural resource consultant to review the site in preparation of a Phase 1A and B report." That report does not appear anywhere in this record. The DEIS addresses archaeological sensitivity through an online mapping tool rather than the field-based assessment that was committed to in correspondence with NYSDEC. The Village's own 2006 Comprehensive Plan documents a 5,000-year Indigenous presence in this corridor.

Construction impacts on neighboring private properties — undisclosed and unresolved. The applicant's own engineer acknowledged in August 2024 that road construction would require regrading adjoining lots belonging to existing residents, and committed to obtaining permission from those property owners. The DEIS filed sixteen months later contains no explanation of whether this requirement remains, was eliminated through design changes, or was addressed through agreements with neighboring property owners. If regrading is no longer required, the DEIS does not explain what changed or how. If it is still required, the DEIS fails to disclose it. Either way, the record before this Board is silent on a construction impact that the applicant's own engineer identified as requiring neighbor consent — and that silence is itself a deficiency.

 

 
 

PART VI — SOLE SOURCE AQUIFER AND RAMAPO RIVER RECREATIONAL CORRIDOR
These are two separate regulatory matters — each independently bearing on whether approval may be issued.

A. Ramapo Sole Source Aquifer
The applicant's own EAF Part 1 (E.2.l), signed under oath on March 6, 2025, confirms: "Principal Aquifer, Primary Aquifer, Sole Source Aquifer — Ramapo SSA — Yes."

The federal Safe Drinking Water Act, quoted directly in the Village's 2006 Comprehensive Plan §3.2, states that contamination of a sole source aquifer "would create significant hazard to public health." The Village's own Comprehensive Plan (§2.3.3) lists aquifer protection as a primary natural resources goal and recommends acquiring land in this exact area for open space to protect aquifer recharge.

No completed Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan has been submitted for review in the record before this Board — the primary regulatory tool for preventing construction runoff from reaching the aquifer. Multiple applicant submissions confirm only: "A SWPPP is being developed." Construction on a steep slope over a federally designated sole source drinking water supply without a finalized SWPPP represents an unaddressed public health concern in this record.

B. Ramapo River Recreational River Corridor — Mandatory Permit Not in Record
Village Code §54-51 is explicit: no site plan approval shall be issued until the applicant obtains a permit from or receives approval from the NYSDEC for activities within the Ramapo River Recreational River corridor, designated under Article 15, Title 27 of the Environmental Conservation Law.

Rockland County's GML review (Comment 21, June 2024) formally flagged this requirement. The applicant's response was: "We will pursue the appropriate approvals." No NYSDEC Recreational River corridor permit or approval appears anywhere in this record — twenty-four months after the County identified this requirement. Village Code §54-51 establishes this as a condition precedent to approval. Based on the record, that condition has not been satisfied.

 

 
 

PART VII — WETLANDS
The applicant's DEIS claims on page 32 that there are no DEC regulated wetlands on the site. Four independent sources in the record indicate otherwise:

Krypton Engineering (August 7, 2024): acknowledges wetland encroachment in response to Mancuso Engineering comments
NYSDEC Letter GID-000736 (October 2024): required the applicant to contact the Army Corps of Engineers "with regards to the presence of federally regulated wetlands"
DEIS page 38: confirms Bog Turtle presence — a species biologically incapable of existing without wetland habitat, inconsistent with the page 32 claim
Rockland County GML Comment 10: required submission of a wetland mitigation plan
The applicant invoked the §54-57(F) grandfathering provision to address wetland encroachment. Grandfathering protects existing conditions predating a regulation — it does not authorize new construction creating new encroachments. New York law is consistent on this point: grandfathering protects continuation, not expansion. Furthermore, no local grandfathering provision operates to override the federal Endangered Species Act. Construction in the wetland buffer area that may affect a federally Threatened Bog Turtle confirmed by DEC Natural Heritage records raises ESA concerns independent of any Village code provision — concerns that fall within USFWS's authority to resolve.

No Army Corps Section 404 jurisdictional determination exists in this record. The applicant committed to contacting the Army Corps in October 2024. No confirmation of that contact or its outcome appears in any subsequent submission.

 

 
 

PART VIII — ROCKLAND COUNTY RECOMMENDED DENIAL
Rockland County's Department of Planning reviewed this application at its June 13, 2024 meeting and formally recommended:

Disapproval of the application
Denial with mandatory resubmission
The County's own language: "Due to the substantial inconsistencies and lack of clarity in what is being proposed and where, this Department recommends that this application be denied, and the application materials be clarified and resubmitted to the Village and the County."

The applicant requested this Board override that recommendation. The deficiencies the County identified — inconsistent scope, missing information, vague development planning — do not appear to have been resolved in the record before this Board.

 

 
 

PART IX — LOSS OF RECREATIONAL SPACE AND WILDLIFE CORRIDOR
A. The DEIS Addresses Recreational Loss Without Reference to Actual Community Use
The DEIS (page 43) rates the loss of recreational space as "NOT SIGNIFICANT" on the sole basis that the land is privately owned. SEQRA does not evaluate community impacts through a property deed — it evaluates the actual, documented experience of the people affected.

The resident petition — listed in the applicant's own DEIS at page 9 — documents six specific recreational activities conducted on this land: hiking, mountain biking, bird watching, wildlife observation, photography, and recreational vehicle use. No resident survey was conducted. No field observation was performed. No community interviews took place. Characterizing a documented pattern of community use as "not significant" without any investigation does not appear to meet the standard of thorough environmental review under SEQRA.

B. The Applicant's Submissions Contain Irreconcilable Statements About Recreational Use
On EAF Part 1, Question E.1.c — "Is the project site presently used by members of the community for public recreation?" — the applicant answered No, under oath.

In the LPC Response to General Comments (October 30, 2024), the applicant's consultant characterized the residents' documented recreational activities as "a gross misrepresentation" (page 2) and "a gross exaggeration of the petitioners" (page 3). The same document, on page 2, also states:

"Although the applicant as owner of these properties has not chosen to stop neighbors from trespassing on these lands, the lots have always been shown as residential lots..."

The characterization of residents' access as trespassing is itself an acknowledgment that residents have been accessing this land. The sworn EAF states no such access exists. Characterizing as a gross exaggeration the use that the same document acknowledges has been occurring is an irreconcilable internal inconsistency — and this Board is asked to make findings on a record that contains it.

C. The 1930 Plat, the 2006 Comprehensive Plan, and What Actually Governs
The developer will argue that the lots at the end of Aspen Road have been designated residential since 1930 — and that this designation proves they were always intended for development. That argument is accurate as far as it goes. It does not go far enough.

A residential zoning designation tells you what category of use is permitted. It does not tell you that any specific application proposing that use will be approved. Every application — regardless of how the land has been designated since 1930 — must independently satisfy all regulations in effect at the time of filing. SEQRA was enacted in 1975. The Endangered Species Act in 1973. Federal wetland protections under the Clean Water Act in 1972. The Village's own Subdivision Regulations in 1966. None of these existed when those lots were platted. A 1930 residential designation does not create an exemption from laws enacted in the decades that followed. Every regulatory requirement cited in this petition was in full effect before this application was ever filed.

It would be inconsistent for the developer to invoke the 1930 plat selectively. That same document — submitted as the applicant's own exhibit C-500 — does not show only residential lots. It shows The Grove, The Green, The Lake, and The Park as the deliberate open space and recreational framework around which this community was built. Citing the plat for one purpose and not the other is a partial reading of a document that tells a fuller story.

More importantly, the 1930 plat is not the governing planning document for this Board. The Village's 2006 Comprehensive Plan is. That document — the current, legally operative expression of this Village's planning policies — explicitly calls for:

Preserving open space on the east side of the Thruway
Protecting the Sole Source Aquifer
Restricting development on steep slopes
Maintaining the woodland character of this community
The land at the end of Aspen Road sits squarely within every one of those policy areas. The 1930 plat established what this community was designed to be. The 2006 Comprehensive Plan confirms what this Village's current policy requires. Both point in the same direction — and neither supports approval of this application as currently submitted.

D. An Irreplaceable Natural Resource — What the Record Shows
The Board's own independent reviewer, Nelson, Pope and Voorhis, identified the forested area on and adjacent to the project site as ranking in the top 5% of all forests in New York State by the NYSDEC Forest Condition Index. This finding does not appear anywhere in the applicant's DEIS. It was identified independently by the Board's own reviewer — meaning the applicant's environmental document omitted a finding significant enough that the Village's own consultant flagged it.

This is not generic woodland. This is a forest corridor in the top tier of ecological quality in the entire state of New York, directly adjacent to Harriman State Park. Residents who bird watch, photograph wildlife, and observe animals here do so because this land remains undeveloped and connected to that protected corridor. Once it is cleared for road construction, utilities, and homes, that ecological quality is gone permanently.

E. On Property Rights, Taxes, Zoning — and Why This Is Not a Taking
We anticipate the argument that the property owner has paid taxes on these lots for decades, that the lots are zoned residential, and that the owner therefore has the right to develop them. These facts are not disputed. They do not, however, establish entitlement to approval of this particular application based on this record — and our request for denial is not, in any sense, a request for a taking of private property.

A regulatory taking generally requires that government action substantially deprive a property owner of all economic value of their land. Denial of this application does not do that. The owner retains full title to every lot. The land retains economic value. The owner may continue to hold it, sell it, or apply again with a compliant application at any time. No building permit has been issued. No substantial construction expenditures have been made. No vested rights have been established under New York law. Denial is the regulatory process working as designed — not a constitutional injury.

Being zoned residential means an owner may apply for development approval. It does not guarantee that any application will be approved. Every application must independently satisfy all applicable regulations at the time it is filed — regardless of how long the lots have existed or how many years taxes have been paid on them.

These lots were platted in 1930. SEQRA was enacted in 1975. The Endangered Species Act in 1973. Federal wetland protections under the Clean Water Act in 1972. The Village's current Subdivision Regulations were adopted in 1966. The age of the lots does not exempt this application from the laws that govern it today. Every regulatory requirement cited in this petition — road standards, SEQRA, the Endangered Species Act, federal wetland protections — was enacted and in full effect years before this application was ever filed. No applicant is exempt from satisfying requirements that predate their application, regardless of when the land was acquired. Any investment-backed expectation of development was subject to the full regulatory framework in effect at the time of filing — including the road standards, SEQRA requirements, and species protections that this application has not satisfied.

Our request that conservation agencies be invited to evaluate this parcel for potential acquisition is a request for a voluntary, willing-seller process — nothing more. If the owner chooses to engage, that is their decision. If they do not, that too is their right. The denial of a development application that does not appear to meet the applicable legal standards does not constitute a compensable taking of property value under settled New York and federal constitutional law.

 

 
 

PART X — FEDERAL ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT: BRINGING A FEDERAL REQUIREMENT TO THIS BOARD'S ATTENTION
We raise this section not to place additional burden on this Board, but because we believe the Board deserves to have the full picture — including a federal legal requirement that falls outside the Village's control, and that we respectfully ask this Board to help ensure is addressed appropriately.

The Legal Chain
The NYSDEC permit letter GID-000736 (October 2024) confirmed all three species and required the applicant to contact the United States Army Corps of Engineers regarding federally regulated wetlands. The applicant responded: "We will contact USACOE to obtain any other requirements for approval."

No Army Corps Section 404 jurisdictional determination appears in this record. Whether a Section 404 permit is ultimately required is itself a determination that has not been made — and cannot be made without the Army Corps contact the applicant promised but has not confirmed. Until that threshold question is resolved, the federal consultation chain cannot be evaluated. Under the Endangered Species Act, once a federal permit is involved, the following chain applies:

Army Corps Section 404 permit required → federal nexus established → ESA Section 7 consultation with US Fish & Wildlife Service becomes mandatory

No USFWS correspondence, no biological opinion, no incidental take statement, and no consultation of any kind appears in this record. We note for the record that the absence of this consultation is an additional basis supporting denial — not a condition that, if later satisfied, would resolve the fundamental deficiencies documented throughout this petition. The Board's clearest path forward in our opinion is denial on the grounds already established in this record.

The Species Was Analyzed Under a Different Name and an Earlier Listing Status
The DEIS refers to the Indiana Bat throughout its bat analysis. NYSDEC's Natural Heritage records confirmed the Northern Long-Eared Bat — a distinct species — at this site. That bat was uplisted to federally Endangered on March 31, 2023. The DEIS, produced after that date, addresses a different species under an earlier and less protective listing status. The legal obligations that attach to a federally Endangered species are significantly more stringent, and the record does not reflect the current legal standard.

The Seasonal Restriction Argument May Not Satisfy Federal Law Under the Current Listing
The applicant proposes seasonal construction restrictions as mitigation for the Northern Long-Eared Bat. That approach had legal support when the bat was listed as Threatened. Under the current Endangered listing, incidental take requires formal USFWS authorization regardless of timing. Additionally, no acoustic surveys and no roost tree identification appear anywhere in the record submitted to this Board — distance-based restrictions cannot be applied around locations that have not been found. Permanent habitat loss of this nature may constitute a prohibited take under the Endangered Species Act — a determination within USFWS's exclusive authority to make, and one that has not been sought in this record.

The developer's seasonal restriction proposal satisfies the appearance of compliance. Under the current Endangered listing, it may not satisfy the applicable federal legal standard without formal USFWS authorization.

What We Are Asking This Board to Do
We understand this Board does not control the federal regulatory process. What we respectfully ask is that this Board require the applicant to document — with evidence — whether the Army Corps of Engineers was ever formally contacted and whether a Section 404 determination was ever obtained, and that this Board be aware that any approval issued without that federal chain being resolved carries risk of conflict with subsequent federal determinations.

A Note of Appreciation
We recognize that navigating an application of this complexity places significant demands on a volunteer Planning Board. We are grateful for this Board's careful attention to this record. It is precisely because we believe this Board takes its responsibilities seriously that we are bringing this federal dimension to your attention directly.

 

 
 

OUR REQUESTS
We respectfully request that the Village of Sloatsburg Planning Board:

1. Deny this application on the basis that the record as submitted indicates:

The §26 waiver standard does not appear to be satisfied given the documented safety, environmental, and legal concerns in this record
The mandatory NYSDEC Recreational River corridor permit required by Village Code §54-51 has not been obtained
The DEIS contains internal inconsistencies, admitted deficiencies, and procedural gaps that do not appear to meet SEQRA standards
Rockland County formally recommended denial
A mandatory federal USFWS Section 7 consultation has never been initiated

2. Require — before any further consideration:

An independent geotechnical study, vibration analysis, and rockfall risk assessment, including evaluation of the impact of retaining wall removal and root system effects from tree clearing on this slope
NYSDEC Recreational River corridor permit (Village Code §54-51)
Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 jurisdictional determination
Completed and independently reviewed SWPPP
Phase 1A/B archaeological survey by a qualified cultural resource professional
Independent biological assessment by a qualified ecologist for all three confirmed listed species
Formal USFWS Section 7 consultation
Verified subsurface investigation per §13(2)(a) of the Subdivision Regulations
Documentation of any permission or license agreements obtained from neighboring property owners whose lots would be disturbed by road construction

3. Formally refer this parcel to conservation agencies for evaluation.

We state clearly for the record: we are not requesting a taking of private property. We are asking government agencies to consider exercising their voluntary acquisition authority. The owner retains full rights unless and until they freely choose to engage. Denial of this application does not constitute a regulatory taking under settled New York and federal constitutional law.

Agencies we respectfully suggest this Board contact:

Palisades Interstate Park Commission
Open Space Institute
Rockland Land Trust
NYS Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation
 

 
 

 

CONCLUSION
"Mr. Chairman, Members of the Board — the applicant is requesting a waiver from this Village's subdivision regulations. Section 26 is clear: this Board may only grant a waiver if the requirements are 'not requisite to the interests of the public health, safety, and general welfare of the village.'The record reflects scientifically supported concerns about rockfall risk from construction vibration and retaining wall removal on this steep slope — directly adjacent to homes where children live. The applicant's own DEIS acknowledges that road improvements may require removing the very retaining walls currently stabilizing this slope. The applicant's own consultant has placed liability for slope safety on this Village in writing, before construction begins. The Fire Chief called this road dangerous. The fire code compliance path depends on a parking ban the Village cannot enforce. Over 100 residents — not investors, not property owners in Nyack, but families who live here — signed a petition saying they do not welcome this project. A mandatory Village code permit does not exist in this record. The applicant's own engineer acknowledged wetland encroachment. The applicant's own EAF confirms the site sits over a federally designated sole source aquifer. Rockland County recommended denial. A mandatory federal consultation with the US Fish & Wildlife Service has never been initiated. And the forest proposed for clearing ranks in the top 5% of all forests in New York State.

Based on the record before this Board, the legal standard for the requested waiver does not appear to be satisfied, and this project, as currently submitted, does not appear to meet the requirements for approval under applicable Village law and SEQRA.

We are not asking this Board to act against any individual. We are asking it to act for us — the families, children, and residents of Pine Grove Lakes who live on this road, depend on this drinking water, and have built our lives in this community."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
 

Petition Organized By: Aline Juchem & Cian Juchem Pine Grove Lakes, Sloatsburg, New York

Written Comments Accepted Until: June 26, 2026 Submit to: Village of Sloatsburg Planning Board, 96 Orange Turnpike, Sloatsburg, NY 10974

By signing this petition, each signatory affirms they are exercising their constitutional right to petition their government regarding a matter of public concern under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article 1, §9 of the New York State Constitution.

By signing below, I affirm that I am a resident of the Village of Sloatsburg or the surrounding community and I support the requests set forth in this petition.

     #
Name

 

Additional signature pages may be attached. This petition will be submitted as a formal written comment to the Village of Sloatsburg Planning Board in connection with the Aspen Road Extension DEIS public comment period ending June 26, 2026.