WURTSBORO — A public hearing on proposed changes to the Town of Mamakating’s zoning laws drew a large crowd to Town Hall Tuesday night, where dozens of residents voiced their concerns over potential shifts in the Town’s development landscape.

At the heart of the discussion were amendments aimed at supporting a commercial project near Exit 112 off Route 17. 

The proposed changes, explained by Town Supervisor Michael Robbins, are a response to a letter from the Mamakating Local Development Corporation (MLDC) to modify zoning rules in hopes of attracting businesses and fostering economic growth.

The proposed amendments would update both the Interchange Commercial (IC) Zone and the Overlay Zone.

Key changes include loosening lot size requirements and expanding the types of businesses allowed, including fast food restaurants in the IC Zone and self-storage facilities in both zones. The changes would also reduce the minimum lot size in the Overlay Zone from 25 acres to just 3 acres.

“We see this as an opportunity to bring in jobs and increase the tax base,” said Robbins.

Robbins added that the existing 25-acre requirement, which was enacted in 2019 to accommodate larger projects, had been too restrictive for smaller developments.

“Nobody wants to buy 25 acres to put a small business on the side of a mountain,” Robbins explained. “[And] I’d hate to see the whole mountainside clear-cutted for something that doesn’t need that much space.”

Councilman Peter Goodman also stressed the need for change. “This...is about attracting smaller businesses that can help offset taxes for everyone,” he said.

Residents express concerns

Despite the Town’s optimism, the proposal was met with a mixed response from residents at the hearing. Many expressed worries about the potential environmental impact, loss of the Town’s rural character, and a perceived rush in the approval process.

“Ask yourselves ‘why the rush?’” encouraged Mamakating resident Cathy Dawkins. “Why only have one evening for public consideration? This feels unseemly.”

Environmental concerns were a major point of contention, with several residents calling for a full environmental review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA).  

They argued that the changes—particularly those affecting the Mountain Greenbelt—merited a deeper analysis through a Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS).

Robert Rogers raised concerns over the nature of the proposed businesses.

“Storage facilities are usually national chains with either franchise or they’re a large group that’s building those things,” Rogers said. “Fast food restaurants, same thing. To put a McDonald’s in you need five to 10 million dollars just to buy the franchise? That’s not small business.”

Some residents feared the changes could set a dangerous precedent for overdevelopment in the area.

“I saw Rockland County start with little moves like this,” said Mamakating resident Patricia Marasa. “Then I saw Orange County turn into Rockland County. Now I’m living in Sullivan County and I’m seeing it happen all over again. Please, you’re signing your death warrant Sullivan County if you agree to these changes.”

Town responds to criticism

In defense of the process, Robbins reiterated that the proposal had been discussed in prior meetings, and that the MLDC’s request had been publicly available online since mid-April.

“We’re not trying to sneak anything by anyone,” Robbins stated. “We’re doing what’s best for Mamakating [and working to support local businesses.]”

However, some residents remained unsatisfied with the pace of the process. “Even the Planning Board ... has said there’s some aspects of the Law that need clarification,” stated Mamakating Resident Monique Lipton. “I think that we definitely need more time to look at it. I think everybody here wants the same thing:   We want to see business who want to preserve the area but we don’t want to put a law that could be then used by businesses or other folks coming here to do things that the public does not want just because the law was poorly written and kind of pushed into enactment without being considered.”

In response to the concerns and suggestions, the Town Board agreed to leave the hearing open until June 3,  allowing additional time for public comment and further review.