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 lakes just down the road, 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 our 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, and does not appear to demonstrate compliance with mandatory federal environmental regulations and consultation requirements.

 

At a Glance

 

1. Our drinking water — No completed Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan exists in this record for a construction site sitting directly over the Ramapo Sole Source Aquifer, the primary drinking water supply for over 280,000 Rockland County residents and more than one million people in New Jersey.
2. The safety of our homes and our children — A boulder from this slope has previously gone through a neighboring home, as documented in the resident petition submitted to this Board. No geotechnical study, vibration analysis, or rockfall risk assessment exists in this record. The applicant's own document acknowledges retaining walls may be removed — with no analysis of the consequences.
3. Years of open-ended construction through our neighborhood — The applicant's own sworn documents list the construction completion date as N/A. Every construction vehicle servicing this project must travel through Pine Grove Lakes' residential streets with no enforceable end date.
4. Private property impacts — The applicant's own engineer acknowledged in writing that road construction would require regrading the private lots of existing residents. No consent, no agreement, and no explanation appears anywhere in the DEIS.
5. Protected wildlife — The Federally Endangered Northern Long-Eared Bat, the Federally Threatened Bog Turtle, and the NYS Threatened Timber Rattlesnake have been confirmed at this site. The section of the DEIS analyzing their presence was produced by an AI chatbot, not a wildlife biologist.
6. A top 5% forest in New York State — The Board's own independent reviewer identified this forest 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.
7. Unresolved wetlands — Four independent sources in this record indicate wetland presence the DEIS characterizes as absent. No Army Corps Section 404 determination exists in this record. No federal wetlands permit. 
8. A 5,000-year Indigenous history — unassessed — The site sits within a SHPO-designated archaeologically sensitive area. The applicant promised a professional archaeological survey in writing to NYSDEC in October 2024. It does not exist in this record.
9. Emergency access — The Fire Chief called this road dangerous. The proposed extension would triple its length while maintaining a single way in and out, serving 31 homes on one exit with a fire safety plan that depends on a parking ban the Village has confirmed it cannot enforce.
10. A fundamentally incomplete legal process — Rockland County formally recommended denial. The Board's own reviewer found the DEIS incomplete in nearly every major category. A mandatory Village Code permit for the Ramapo River Recreational River corridor does not exist in this record. No federal consultation with US Fish & Wildlife Service has been initiated. 

 

Each issue is documented in full below.

 
Our Drinking Water

The developer's own paperwork — signed under oath — confirms that this construction site sits directly over the Ramapo Sole Source Aquifer — the federally designated primary drinking water supply for over 280,000 Rockland County residents and more than one million people in New Jersey. It is protected by the EPA because losing it or contaminating it would create a significant hazard to public health. Those are not our words. That is the federal law that protects it.

On a steep, rocky slope, with an open-ended construction timeline and heavy equipment — there is no completed Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) in this record showing how that water supply will be protected. What exists is a preliminary concept the developer's own submissions describe as still under development and subject to further modification. This Board is being asked to make an approval decision over a federally protected drinking water supply based not on a finished plan — but on a promise that one is coming.

This Board cannot approve a construction project over our drinking water supply based on a promise.

There is also a second, separate legal requirement that does not exist in this record: a mandatory state permit required by Village Code before any approval can be issued for activity within the Ramapo River Recreational River corridor. Rockland County flagged this requirement two years ago. It appears it still has not been obtained.

Two independent legal bars to approval. Neither satisfied. The water over a million people drink sitting underneath all of it.

 
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 dismissed it as "anecdotal." No geotechnical study, vibration analysis, or rockfall risk assessment appears anywhere in this record.

The applicant's argument is that no blasting will occur. That argument is inconsistent with published scientific guidance confirming that non-blasting construction equipment generates ground vibration sufficient to trigger rockfall. It also ignores two additional risks the DEIS fails to address entirely: the applicant's own document acknowledges that road improvements may require removing the retaining walls currently stabilizing this boulder-covered slope — with no analysis of what that removal does to the homes adjacent to it and at the top of it. And when trees are cleared on steep slopes, published USDA Forest Service guidance documents a 5 to 8-year period of heightened instability as decaying root systems progressively lose their capacity to anchor soil and boulders in place. The danger does not end when construction equipment leaves.

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 a single shovel breaks ground — documents the applicant's position that responsibility for slope safety rests with the Village based on prior approvals. This Board should weigh carefully what it means to approve a project whose proponent has already said so in writing. If a boulder ends up in someone's living room — or worse — that statement will already be on the record. And so will this approval.

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

The applicant's own engineer acknowledged in writing in August 2024 that road construction would require regrading adjoining lots belonging to 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.

 
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 Northern Long-Eared Bat, the developer proposes seasonal construction restrictions — an approach that no longer appears to satisfy 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 Bog Turtle, the proposed protection is a construction silt fence — which the applicant's own submission claims would prevent the turtle from "climbing to the site." Bog Turtles are obligate wetland species. They do not climb to sites. A sediment barrier placed across a wetland species' movement corridor does not protect it — it blocks it, which may constitute an unlawful take under the Endangered Species Act.

For the Timber Rattlesnake, no mitigation of any kind appears in this record. The applicant's sole basis for dismissal is that no known dens exist nearby — a conclusion drawn without field surveys. "No known dens" is not the same as "no dens." Absence of data is not evidence of absence, and NYSDEC's own records confirm the species within this site's screening distances.

 
A Top 5% Forest in New York State

An irreplaceable ecological resource the applicant's DEIS never assessed. This is no generic woodland. 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 appears to confirm the ecological risk rather than resolve 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.

 
A 5,000-Year Indigenous History — Unassessed and Unprotected

The applicant's own Environmental Assessment Form, signed under oath, confirms this site sits within a SHPO-designated archaeologically sensitive area — a corridor the Village's own 2006 Comprehensive Plan documents as having over 5,000 years of Indigenous presence. New York State law and federal NAGPRA protections exist precisely because archaeologically sensitive sites with documented Indigenous histories may contain burial sites or sacred objects. No professional field assessment has been conducted here to determine what this slope contains. That determination cannot be made from an online mapping tool.

In October 2024, the applicant promised in writing to engage a cultural resource consultant and produce a Phase 1A and 1B archaeological survey. That report does not exist anywhere in this record. What the DEIS offers in its place is a review conducted through online tools including the NYS EAF Mapper and Rockland County GIS — neither of which constitutes a field-based professional assessment. A Phase 1A and 1B survey is not an archaeological formality. It is the only way to know what lies beneath this slope before construction makes that question permanently unanswerable. The archaeological record here, once disturbed, cannot be recovered.

 
Unresolved Wetlands

The applicant's DEIS claims on page 32 that there are no DEC-regulated wetlands on the parcel — a determination that addresses only state jurisdiction and says nothing about federal jurisdiction. Four independent sources in this record indicate otherwise: the applicant's own engineer acknowledged wetland encroachment in writing; Rockland County required a wetland mitigation plan; DEIS page 38 confirms Bog Turtle presence — a species that cannot biologically exist without wetland habitat, directly contradicting the page 32 characterization; and 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 establishes a federal question this record has never resolved. Army Corps Section 404 jurisdiction applies independently of any state determination and regardless of where any parcel line falls. No Section 404 jurisdictional determination appears in this record. No federal wetland permit has been obtained. The applicant committed to contacting the Army Corps in October 2024. No confirmation of that contact, or of any outcome resulting from it, appears anywhere in the record before this Board. Based on the record as submitted, that federal question remains open and unresolved.

 
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.

The applicant points to the proposed turnaround as evidence that Aspen Road will be safer. A turnaround allows a fire truck to reposition at the end of a road. It does not create a second exit for 31 families during an emergency. The fire code's mandatory sprinkler requirement exists specifically because a turnaround alone cannot substitute for the two-road access standard this road cannot meet. Sprinklers are not evidence that the road is safe — they are a compensatory measure the code requires precisely because it is not.

Furthermore, the entire safety plan depends on a parking ban that the Village has already confirmed it cannot enforce. A fire safety plan that depends on an unenforceable condition is not a fire safety plan. 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 formally recommended denial of this application due to substantial inconsistencies and a lack of clarity. The Board's own independent reviewer found the DEIS incomplete in nearly every major category. The applicant's own planner acknowledged in writing that "many elements of the submitted DEIS document were missing."

Village Law §26 permits a waiver only when the road length requirement is "not requisite to the interests of the public health, safety, and general welfare of the village." The record before this Board — documenting rockfall risk, single egress, fire access failures, an unenforceable parking ban, a sole source aquifer, endangered species, and unresolved wetlands — establishes that these standards are not technical preferences. They are essential to this community's safety.

Where that finding cannot be made, the waiver cannot be granted. Where the waiver cannot be granted, this application cannot be approved.

 
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.

 

 

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