Le Chocolatte hearing continued after residents cite flawed notices, parking and flood concerns
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
The Suffern Planning Board carried over a public hearing on Le Chocolatte’s plan at 1 Ramapo Avenue to May 21 after residents said notice posters omitted the meeting date and raised concerns about parking, truck traffic, tree removal and flooding; the board asked the applicant to repost signs and send additional notices.
The Suffern Planning Board continued the public hearing on a proposal at 1 Ramapo Avenue for Le Chocolatte to May 21 after multiple residents said neighborhood notification was inadequate and raised concerns about parking, truck traffic and flood risk.
The applicant, Sam Rotenberg, described plans to raise an existing one‑story building (keeping the same footprint), provide basement and at‑grade parking, and modernize manufacturing space so more operations move above the ground floor to mitigate flood exposure. The applicant’s architect and engineers attended; attorney Pat Loftus also appeared for the applicant.
Resident Beth Coppell of 30 West Maltby Avenue argued the public had not been properly notified, saying a posted notice “didn’t have the date” and that some posters were knocked over. The board agreed to carry the hearing and ordered the applicant to repost the required signs and send additional notices to improve public awareness.
Other residents raised operational concerns. Mike Buffarty of 55 Meadow Avenue asked why the project needed dozens of parking spaces and whether the spots would be leased to commuters. Neighbors also worried that removing trees and increasing on‑site storage could increase truck traffic, noise and odor and further burden local sewer capacity.
Applicant representatives said the design keeps the original footprint and that planned screening (a row of trees/shrubbery) will shield neighboring yards from view of new garage entrances. The applicant’s attorney said the proposal consolidates storage now off‑site and that reducing off‑site shuttle trips should lower truck traffic; the team also reduced proposed loading docks from the originally calculated nine to five based on expected need.
A board member reminded the applicant that a negative environmental determination must be completed before the board can forward the matter to the Zoning Board of Appeals for any variances. The board voted to continue the public hearing to May 21, require reposting of notices in the area, and ask the applicant to send additional mail/email notices to people in the neighborhood.