Hello everyone, 

We wanted to send a quick update regarding Rav Tov/Pine Grove's appearance at the 4/27 Planning Board meeting. The applicant was present and represented by their two attorney's (Jeffrey Kaplan & Eric Treene) as well as their Engineer, Andrew M. Millspaugh from Sterling Engineering.

It's hard to fully articulate everything that happened in the 2+hrs that was spent discussing this project. But here's what we feel are the most pertinent take-aways.

1. True Definition of the Size and Scope of the Project. Especially the Population Discrepancy (570 vs. 770 people) The original Rav Tov 30 Cherrytown application stated the facility accommodates 570 people across 126 rooms. The number 770 surfaced later, which blindsided the PB. During the meeting, the applicant (Heshy) clarified that the 570 figure referred only to campers, an additional ~220 family/staff who use a separate secondary dining room, a distinction that had not been clearly communicated before. The board was understandably frustrated by this as they are a year into reviewing this project and only now receiving full clarification.

2. Water & Septic Use. The biggest technical dispute is over gallons per person per day:

• The camp's engineer argued 36 gallons/day is appropriate, citing the Ulster County Department of Health and comparable camps.
• The board's engineer countered with 55–75 gallons/day, based on New York State standards for boarding school-type uses
• Notably, the same county health official had cited 55 gallons/day for a nearly identical project just a year earlier (we're assuming this was the Villa Veritas project), which the board found hard to reconcile
• The camp argued lower usage is justified because campers bring their own linens (so less washing is occurring), sessions are only 3 weeks at a time, and meals use disposable plates/cups.
  It is important to remember that a Planning Board gives permitting for a use to the land, not to the applicant.  One could argue that, given this legal fact, "bringing in linens" and "using disposable cutlery" are irrelevant to the ultimate decision as enforcement in perpetuity would be virtually impossible.
• The board wants a full hydrogeological study with drawdown tests to assess aquifer impact. The applicant was resistant to this, arguing their new building won't increase water use

3. SEQR Process & Legal Sparring The applicant's attorney argued the board should only look at the delta, meaning the environmental change caused by the new building specifically and not the camp's overall operations. The board's attorney disagreed, arguing the Planning Board is obliged under SEQRA to look at the cumulative impacts over time of a proposed land use, especially since this is a Type 1 action  as the proposed project has a higher likelihood of causing significant adverse environmental impacts compared to other projects, requiring a more thorough review.

The applicant also raised RLUIPA (federal religious land use law), suggesting delays and a Positive Declaration could constitute a burden on religious exercise. The board's attorney pushed back, noting RLUIPA cases typically involve outright denial, not environmental review.

Outcome: The board voted 5–0 to issue a Positive Declaration, meaning they've formally determined the project may have significant adverse environmental impacts, triggering a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process. This doesn't stop the project, but it requires a much more rigorous and expensive review going forward, including public scoping sessions. 

The overall tone of the meeting was definitely one of mutual frustration. The board feels it has been getting inconsistent, piecemeal information for over a year, while the applicant feels the board has overreached by scrutinizing the entire camp operation rather than just the proposed building.

We would encourage you to watch the recording which can be accessed HERE. The link should take you right to the start of the applicant's time with the PB but if not the timestamps are 1:24:14 - 3:36:55.

We are unsure of when the applicant will be appearing before the Planning Board again as they have quite a bit to do. We will keep you posted when more information is released!

With deep appreciation,
The Town of Rochester Alliance