Ramapo, NY – A state appeals court has upheld villages' rights to sue the town over environmental concerns about zoning for multifamily housing connected to religious schools.
Join our WhatsApp groupSubscribe to our Daily Roundup Email
The unanimous decision by a four-judge panel of the Appellate Division of the state Supreme Court is the most recent development in a three-year legal battle launched after Ramapo created specific zones for the housing.
"I think the zoning did not take into consideration the people living near these properties," said Milton Shapiro, whose home overlooks one of the zoned areas. "The zoning could drastically change the character of our neighborhoods," Shapiro said.
Shapiro and his wife, Sonya, joined Chestnut Ridge, Montebello, Pomona and Wesley Hills in a 2004 lawsuit in which most of their arguments were dismissed a year later by state Supreme Court Justice Francis Nicolai.
In reversing Nicolai, the appeals court found in part that "the villages have a demonstrated interest in the potential environmental impacts of the adult student housing law, and they therefore have standing to seek judicial review of the process that resulted in its adoption."
In the state appeals court's decision, it took notice that the county's sewer district was concerned that Chofetz Chaim's development could lead to overflows, and that the project would have a "significant" impact on the single-family neighborhood near it.
Doris Ulman, attorney for Wesley Hills, said that if the town ultimately lost its case, a court could order Chofetz Chaim's construction dismantled. But the developer's attorney, Dennis Lynch of South Nyack, said that would happen "over my dead body."
Lynch said the appeals court decision "is a lawyer's delight because everyone can sue everybody." [Journal News]
i guess the chofetz chaiam yeshiva forgot about dina demalchusa dina
stop the building
7:28 Am, that is because laws you are referring to were grandfathered in…
Doris Ulman, attorney for Wesley >Hills, said that if the town >ultimately lost its case, a court >could order Chofetz Chaim’s >construction dismantled.
Not to be technical but I believe one of our constitutional rights, is protection from ex-post-facto legislation. If the construction was legal when it was built, even a constitutional amendment would not help to make it illegal unless you invalidated the bill of rights first. I don’t know who Ulman is, but she is clueless as to what the law can and can’t do. A judge cannot order you to comply with a law that did not exizt when you built. If it did, every building with Astbestos would be required to immendiatley remove it and every wood structure more than two stories would need an immediate fire sprinklerinstallation.
What Chofetz Chaim building are they talking about? Is it a shul, yeshiva, or what?