SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF ORANGE NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT ENVIRONMENTAL CLAINS PART VILLAGE OF SOUTH BLOOMING GROVE, et al., AFFIDAVIT Petitioners, For a Judgment Pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules - against - VILLAGE OF KIRYAS JOEL BOARD OF Ind. No. 2015-7410 TRUSTEES, et al., Proceeding No. 1 Respondents. EMANUEL LEONOROVITZ, et al. Additional Respondents. pee eee x PRESERVE HUDSON VALLEY, et al Petitioners/Plaintiffs, Ind. No. 2015-8118 Proceeding No. 2 - against ~ TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MONROE, et al. Respondents /Defendants. STATE OF NEW YORK ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) HARLEY E. DOLES, III, being duly sworn, deposes and says tha1. I am the Supervisor of the Town of Monroe (the “Town”) and submit this affidavit in opposition to the article 78 Petitions filed on behalf of all Petitioners in the joined Article 78 proceedings.? 2. Petitioners primary argument in both proceedings is that the Town of Monroe Town Board’s (the “Town Board”) determination approving the 164-acre annexation is improper because the Town of Monroe violated the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) by failing to provide an adequate explanation of its simultaneous decision finding the Generic Environmental Impact Statement (“GEIS”) prepared by the Village of Kiryas Joel Village Board (the “Village Board”) deficient as to its review of the proposed 507-acre annexation petition (suggesting the need for a supplemental GEIS) yet adequate as to its review of the 164-acre annexation petition. Both set of Petitioners focus on what they contend is a fatally inconsistent involved agency SEQRA findings statement adopted by the Town Board on September 8, 2015 (the “Town Findings Statement” 3. It is notable that the Town Board was not the SEORA lead agency in this matter and therefore had no control over the content of the GEIS. The Town Board concluded that the SEQRA review carried out by the Village Board as lead agency was inadequate in our judgment for us to make a determination that the 507-acre annexation was in the overall public interest and | The Amended Verified Article 78 Petition under Index No. €118/2015 is zeferred to as the “Preserve Hudson Petition” and the Amended article 78 Petition under Index No.7410/2015 is referred to as the "Municipal Petition”that a supplemental GEIS was required to make a determination with respect to public interest. The Findings Statement, however, also concluded that the GEIS did address the environmental impacts with respect to the 164-acre annexation petition and that any potential impacts had been minimized to the greatest extent possible with respect to the 164 acre annexation. 4. Therefore, despite the recommendation of the Town's consultant, all but one member of the Town Board also concluded that the SEORA review was adequate for both the Town Board and the Village Board to make a determination of overall public interest as to the 164-acre annexation petition. Moreover, it is a fact that deficiencies by both CGR on behalf of Orange County as well as the Town’s consultants, JMC, did not consider numerous other factors in support of the 164 annexation while disapproving the 507 acre annexation. In an email to the town board dated September 4, 2015,"CGR/JMC Deficiencies” the Board noted that other factors approving the 164 annexation needed consideration but were not mentioned by either CHR or JMC. This included an existing federally and state funded transportation system which accounted for KJ’s growth; fruit trees on the subject property which according to Jewish law may not be destroyed, in this instance to make room for housing. The lack of investigation by both CGR/JMC to determine which properties would exempt themselves from high-density housing and the net xeduction would have on environmental and municipal services. Additionally, the reports failed to differentiate betweenresidential and commercial building. Both CGR/JMC estimated build out based on all acres being used for high-density housing. The reports did not mention the commercial areas in the 164 annexation which would be restricted to commercial use is the 164 annexation was approved. Both CGR/JMC failed to mention the traffic flows at the intersection of Route 208 and Schunemunk Rd. Existing traffic delays occur, and as witnessed by both CGR and JMC on spate days with the Town Supervisor with traffic going into the Village of Monroe to Route 17. Congestion occurred not from traffic exiting from KJ nearly a mile away from the intersection but from the on-off traffic generated by vehicles from Highway 17, These omitted facts were well-known by members of the town board and were considered by the Town Board in finding the 164~annexation to be in the overall public interest. (see attached email from Town of Monroe supervisor). 5. When one examines the 164-acre annexation territory, those conclusions are quite rational and supported by the Record. I direct the Court's attention to the aerial photograph which highlights the 164-acre annexation territory in red. i ). The existing outer boundary of the Village of Kiryas Joel (the “Village”) is marked in black. The Town is located in the lower half of the photograph, below Route 17 horizontally crossing the lower third of the photograph (a portion of the unincorporated portion of the town is located above Route 17). To the right of the Village is the adjoining municipality of Woodbury. To the left and above the Village is the adjoining municipality of Blooming Grove.6. When the Village was incorporated in 1977, all of the land out of which it was formed was then part of the Town of Monroe. Because the Village’s incorporators did not own or control the 164 acres of land now sought to be annexed, that land did not become part of the Village and remained part of the unincorporated portion of the Town. However, the 164 acre territory that is the subject of the annexation petition has no physical connection to the Town and is located at the far end of the Village, cordoned off from the remainder of the Town by odd, irregular, baroque boundaries, creating a series of unfortunate fingers extending from Woodbury into the Village. 7. The 164 acres that is the subject of the annexation petition has no business being part of the Town. Road maintenance, snow removal and general oversight are nearly impossible, requiring highway crews to travel great distances in and out of the series of fingers to deliver Town services. Indeed, so difficult is the task of roadway maintenance that, as a solution, the Village and Town have, for many years, agreed to have the Town provide maintenance and snow removal throughout the entire Village (at village expense), rather than force the Town to deal with the patchwork approach that would otherwise be required for it to maintain its roads only. 8.Nor is it feasible for the Town to provide the residents of these finger areas with the services they seek: central water and sewer, sidewalks and streetlights. As difficult as roadway maintenance is, the logistics of supply these services to that distant area are nearly insurmountable.9. Within the 164 acres is a large cemetery, a lake of significant size, as well as some steep slope and wetland areas. This land cannot be developed and there was no basis for the Town or Village to consider the future impacts from the development of much of the 164 acres. In addition, much of the land within the 164 acre property is already developed or, based upon approvals granted by the Town of Monroe Planning Board already slated for defined development. Only 25% of the developable land within the 164 acres remains undeveloped 10. The GEIS acknowledged that development would nevertheless occur within this area. While such development will likely occur at a higher density after annexation than if the land remained outside of the Village, there is a significant benefit - in the judgment of the Town Board - to all of the surrounding municipalities if that development occurs at a higher density since higher density development avoids sprawl. 11. While sprawl has been defined in a number of ways, sprawl, simply defined, is the poorly organized dispersal of development beyond urban and village centers into the rural countryside. It results from people seeking housing (for any number of reasons) outside of those same urban and village centers. The result of this growth march, however, can vary widely in its look and feel - it can be contained within village limits (at higher density levels) or it can spread out eating up ever larger areas of land. When it spreads out, sprawl results. Sprawl is always used in the pejorative sense; sprawl is always ugly and it is never desired.12. The Town cannot stop growth of the population within the Village or those who want to be part of the Village, but it can, in the case of the 164-acre annexation, have a voice in restraining the boundaries within which that growth will occur. If we accept as a given that a predictable number of people will settle in areas immediately outside existing urban and Village centers, it follows that the larger the minimum lot size that a municipality sets the more land will be consumed by that inexorable growth march. Growth is already occurring in the form of grants of area and use variances near the border between KI and the unincorporated part of the Town of Monroe. There are already two approved and built multi-family unit dwellings to accommodate the housing needs of the KJ community. Many more of these “KJ lifestyle” projects plus the addition of accessory apartments are being planned and some are already before the town ZBA and Planning Board. All of the affected areas are zoned RR-1 [single-family homes on one-acre] and are part of the 507- acre annexation territory, not the 164-acre annexation petition approved by the Town of Monroe. Unlike the 164-acre annexation, none of these proposed projects are served by central sewer or municipal water. These housing alternatives to annexation are not “granny flats” for additional income for seniors and those living on fixed income as intended by existing Town of Monroe zoning but rather demonstrate a circuitous route to allow exponential growth where sewer and water series do not exist. These concerns about uncontrollable growth and the impact on the Monroe Woodbury School District in the 507-acre annexation werediscussed between myself and both CGR and JMC but were not included in their reports to the Monroe Town Board 13. It was the Town Board’s conclusion that the GEIS was adequate for us to conclude that it was in the overall public interest to allow as much of the 164-acre baroquely cabined, non-contiguous land as possible to be annexed into the Village. 14, While the Town consultant found that issues still existed as to the ultimate environmental impacts that development might have on the surrounding area, such analysis and study was appropriately contemplated to be done at the time site specific development was proposed. This was confirmed by the Village of Kiryas Joel as Lead Agency under SEORA which acknowledged that impacts relating to site specific plans, to the extent any proposal would result in a substantial adverse impacts, would be addressed through a further SEQRA review at that time. It simply was not possible to contemplate all possible impacts from the different site specific development proposals that could occur within the annexation territory. 15. The Town Board also recognized that development would eceur whether or not the 164-acre annexation is approved; it will just eat up more land without the approved annexation than with it to accommodate the anticipated expansion without the denser zoning. Whereas it has been stated repeatedly that sewer, water and other municipal services exist in the village of KJ to accommodate the 164-are annexation, the 507-acre annexation territory generally lacks such services. This raises collateral concerns that high-density housing masquerading in the form ofarea and use variances and 3000-sq ft “granny flats” will bring an even more pernicious misuse of land than previously anticipated. 16. It is unfair to say that the Town Board made a determination that the GEIS was “seriously deficient” or “inadequate” as the petitioners’ claim. (Preserve Hudson Petition, {4 261 - 263 and Municipal Petition, 11 74 - 76). While the Town Board’s consultant retained advised us that in his view the GEIS was grossly deficient with respect to both petitions, that was his view, not ours. While we appreciate the advice of our consultant and found his specific findings helpful in our decision-making, we do not share his personal views or ultimate conclusions, at least not to the extent he has expressed them. 17. The members of the Town Board found the GEIS to be inadequate for us to make a determination that the 507-acre annexation was in the overall public interest, but all but one of us was quite comfortable with its adequacy regarding the 164- acre annexation allowing us to determine that annexation of that. land into the village was in the overall public interest. Moreover, the effect of the 164-acre on the Monroe-Woodbury School District would allow the redrawing of school boundaries. It is well-known that the residents of Monroe are frightened that their school system will change because there will, if annexation occurs, be an imbalance of membership on the Monroe Woodbury School Board. Parents point to Bast Ramapo as symptomatic of what happens when a perceived imbalance occurs.The 164-acre annexation would effectively prevent that from occurring (with or without redrawn school district boundaries)by having balanced representation on the school board. The 507-acre annexation might have just the opposite effect (unless the school district boundaries were redrawn). It would authorize a huge new voting bloc, which would have the potential to create an East Ramapo problem. Consequently the expansion march in building occurring even before the annexation applications were filed will jeopardize the makeup of the Monroe School Board within a few years. These facts were also not addressed adequately by CGR or JMC. Concerns about the welfare of the quality of education of all students in the Town of Monroe decided in great part its decision to support the 164-acre annexation and oppose the 507 annexation. We simply felt that we had enough information to make an overall public interest determination concerning the 164-acre annexation but not to make an overall public interest determination as to the 507-acre annexation. 18. While there are many who disagree with the conclusions that the Town Board reached and with the judgment that we exercised, we are the officials elected to make those judgments and to reach those conclusions. 19. The voters within the annexation territory have determined that the 164-acre annexation should be allowed to occur. There is no basis for the Court to overturn the petition based on the alleged inadequacy of the SEQRA review by the Town Board or based upon any of the other arguments raised byPetitioners. WHEREFORE, the relief requested in the Article 78 Petitions should be denied and the Article 78 Petitions and the Preserve Hudson Valley Complaint should be dismissed in their entirety. farley E. Doles, III Sworly to before me this dayof January, 20 7 MICHAEL H. DONNELLY Notary Public, State of New Yr Qualified in Orango Cos ‘Commission Expires on July 12, 2018From: Harley Doles suse-vsormontoe Bicioud.com es ‘Subject: FYI PLEASE OPEN ... PLESEE OPEN Es Date: August 28, 2015 at 1155 PM oe To: Dan Burke daniourkeSootonline net, Gary MeCuade cincauadet oper Dennis McWatters omcveterssmonroeny org Co: Hatley Doies supervisor lovd.com 12. ealonricksolonoptontne net Todd Jennings Gotta love and respect Rick for very diplomatically caling Harley out, Maybe |am missing something, How cc “oallme out, We 1) could not seta date because as ne and! discussed in meeting with Mayor ‘Weider at is home that we would speak tothe board about seting a meoting at Kd . THERE WAS NO OBJECTION TO THE Last TWO VENUES OTHER THAN THE OBVIOUS snow event, which we al agree should have been addressed by both the vilege as well as Steve Neunasus who id not cal fora state of emergency. Fic and | spoke st length atthe mayors home about various issues, Fic cull not nave called me out because we clscussad this between ourselves and members af the Bozrd prior tothe meeting, | G0 nottane te conversations of my board members and | hope that there i a discussion that i there is & miscommunication or misunderstanding, (Le, sating @ meeting ) tis discussed before the meeting, Rie mantonedit to me and | appreciate that he cid before the ‘meting bu the guble misunderstood er heer what they want ‘Any way wil be up for a while rating my questions forthe atiomey's 1am tying to ere RLUIPA outino and narrative, ike Donnelly di @ splendid jab at a recent Pianing Board meeting, ‘Also, ave text message from a Joseph Nekderman which | am requesting is mad avaliable to the b word under atornoy cen. il not become nor alow the boards) to become entangle in sues which are cutside the scope of ha towns authority tld you this was going to get very messy , very son ‘There are so many issues which are not part the FEIS, DGEIS< County planning CGR, and s0.0n. There is no mention about everyone ‘somehow suing the town of Monroe for milions. 507 acres n 164 and allegros 300 pus all have financial cnsequneves which have not baen adorrissed on all these “stuies” Flease., remember, it was oly 2 few months ago that Jake frencz spoke ate planning bnard meeting to remind the boerds of religious protections, "thas been esked tothe Vilage that not o pursue itgaton for any pat ofthe annexation i tis not epproved. The vilage could conceivably '2y yes. Sounds good> Fests good. But who cares ? the owners . and this is Monday night question can brég cut aganet the town for damages 7 irue, exactly to what extent? Also, can tne Allegro petiton , since is ettscted by apolical purpose and by a chiro! he Drganization, be held responsibie for bringing an annexation which intrudes onthe religious rights oF those Inthe overlapping two annexston Pains? 30, and again, Monday may give us @ beter idee, who can be hele lata, forinkingement or diminiahed value of ther propery ot thoes inthe frst annexation? This isnot going to be a simple yes, no , or we are nat voting process. | hope thal on Monday that counsal tls us - what ae we personally hele for? How much dogs the town protect us? Wil we need hire counsel on our own we get sued individually’? I we vote one wy how ‘088 that tec those with desp peckets and perhaps oven deeper logal arguments ts hold the town and offcer lable? "Unites Monroe onthe other hand brings an action against te town wnat are the damages they are seeking and what are our financial burdens which we the town would incur eut each of us as wel By now you areal ating tha noone ave a dam aout the board doing “the right hig”. each group ballaves what they are doing le ght ‘cach group has the ability to sue and sue anc sue. tis only now thal we are among the question of what al his means to Monroe. financially, ‘andto each board member personally. Fie suggestion that we vole 2 up 2 down and me abstaining dogs not adcress the problem either because isl asves us in the same position, Whe is acine to cus us. Who is aoina to sue the town andor how much. Yes. know. we ae demmad ifwe do . and dammed if weont. Fanny n0.0n8 nt our planners, our atamay’, nr anyone else discussed this wth us unt just he other day. Aanoxaton tho isue, We ge bite anyofus ever expect ALL THIS WOULD take ona fe way bayond anexalon. thal is what cares me. Doss itcancern you Best Harley E Doles“Type here to search Tile Fotaar_ _.2 (8) BA Adcress Book | Ghosts @ Sees la eo] [mete fom] +> Deleted ttems (6:0) CB Drafts (209 Inbox (457) a Gy Sever Fatires a 2 Sonage Ftd | 79! eskiomat com Gerard cquade; Dani Buk Riek Cotn; Denis NeNaers; michael donnety dip can CGR JMC DEFICIENCIES IN 164 REPORT???? Hariey Doles ‘You forwarded this message on 1/22/2016 2:36 Pw. Sent Fidy,Seoterber 0s, 2015 10:33 Diloniaierandcampbel.com Dear Board menbers and KJ Administrator: ‘There appears to be sone concerns left out county and local stuaies £ everybody's reports. that includes For instance: Kiryas Joel has in fact a transit systen award by the State of New York. there is very Little said ebout the origins of the sraneit system. My concern is chat since i: not completely addressed as a functioning part of present and future expansion based on the avards of the State DOF why not? Why would the State of New York fund @ erenci= system if it did not expect the growth of Kyras Joel to benefit iron the award There axe in the annexation area of 164 vhere fruit trees are present and which are included in possible buildout analysis. If T understand correctly, way is this acreage included i according to ny understanding of Ki culture and tradicion , land which have fruit trees on them cannot be cut down. If correct should the area where shese fruit groves are present be reduced or not? In analyzing buildout, the analysis appears to be based on maximum buildout of acreage and assures that all property owners will seek to maximize the amount of hone built on their property. 1s this a correct assumption. For instance, iso Friend 5 acre +/~ lot also provides @ residency for his rebbe and not subject to any convdrion in to high density housing. Did any of the analyisi in the buildout reports take instances Like ‘this into consideration or only maximum attainable build able units per parcel? he reports fail to disclose thet the toun roads which are part of the 164 acre annexation would be part of the villages responsibility. Curently the omership of the road, Acres for instance elternate ounership repeatedly between the Town and £0. What is the benefit to maintain this type of road variation or is it in che public Anterest to have ownership of these roads provided by one mnicipalizy. How does this alternating ownership impact state and federal transportation funds? Toe buildout analysis calle for maxima high-density building. Given the fact that some of these properties are positioned for comercial development, i.e.) beings she poultry plant, whet changes to the final nunbert should he adjusted for comercial building es opposed to residential housing? We acsune that some of he parcels the 164 annexation vill romain forever green. This includes the lake and other non-developable parcels. How are they computed in the overall buildout analysis Theze are 2 large parcels already permitted for both sewer and vater. How are they computed in overall usage given the existing housing ( Vantage Vista) or planned development ( Forest Edge). Is the density of these parcels which is far iene shen ‘that which 4s the maxisum allowance possible per acre adequaveiy adjusted and reflected in the reporta. Street Lighting and maintenance would be the responsible by whon? here are @ number of single family hones in the 164 annexation. who hae or did they speak with the owners about selling or requesting they build high-denssry nosing. or was this assuned? Tf not , how does that change the overall maximum build able oaite What is the actual net of guidable acres if any of these factors above are not part the CGR or JMC analysis . Less , yes. But how much less will give us a more clea: understanding in evaluating some of the data which may not be complete by sicher CGR‘From: Gedalye Szegedin [gek3kjégmail cony Sent: Friday, Septonber 04, 2015 7:08 2M. Jo: Harley Doles; Gerard NcQuade; Daniel Burke; Rick Colon; Dennis Mchatters Subject: KJ Residents Letters In Favor Bi all ‘Aa you ere preparing Zor the vote on the pending annexations 1 am sure you are reading the cfficial annexation zecord, all the Village official records are posted on ous dedicated website at kj-seqgra.con, included on this website is 4 full set copy of the thousands of letters sent to the Town of Monroe Supervisor by Kizyas Joel residents gupressing their desires on the annexation, see # link below, please give it all your fui consideration, Gedaiye bits //ki-seqra.con/307acres/ResidentistersinPavor/ ae WY Cannas eat Bahia