A landowner is suing the Village of Sloatsburg, New York, after local officials blocked vehicles from using a 50-foot-wide strip that had provided access to roughly 50 acres of property for more than four decades. Ramapo Fields, LLC, claims the village’s zoning decision effectively cut off the only route to its larger parcel, leaving the land undevelopable and potentially worthless. According to Rockland County Business Journal, the dispute centres on whether vehicle access should be treated as a separate land use under the village’s zoning code. The company is asking the court to overturn the decision, prevent enforcement and award damages for the alleged loss in property value.
Get breaking news anytime, anywhere. Download the TOI app now!
The strip at the centre of the dispute
Ramapo Fields owns three parcels with a combined area of about 50 acres. The larger parcel, measuring approximately 48 acres, lies in the Town of Ramapo near the border with Sloatsburg. The property is landlocked, meaning it does not have an independent route connecting it to a public road.
For more than 40 years, vehicles and commercial trucks reached the larger tract through a 50-foot-wide strip of land connected to Sterling Mine Road. The strip is located within the Village of Sloatsburg and is owned by Ramapo Fields, but it is legally separate from the larger parcel.
That division has become central to the case. The larger property falls under the Town of Ramapo’s zoning framework, while the narrow access parcel is within Sloatsburg and subject to the village’s rules. The lawsuit argues that the village is focusing on the use of the smaller parcel without properly considering what its decision means for the larger property.
How the zoning conflict began
The dispute reportedly began after a complaint led the Sloatsburg building inspector to issue a code violation. The citation stated that allowing commercial trucks and other vehicles to cross the 50-foot strip for access to other properties was not a permitted use in the village’s Industrial Park, or IP, zoning district. The village’s Zoning Board of Appeals later upheld that interpretation. Officials treated the strip as a stand-alone parcel and concluded that truck traffic was not among the uses permitted under the local zoning code.
The IP district permits several forms of nonresidential activity. These include light manufacturing, research, assembly, processing, packing and warehousing of goods and products, provided that storage of materials and equipment takes place inside fully enclosed buildings. The district also allows offices, garden nurseries, landscape contractor yards and masonry suppliers.
Ramapo Fields argues that the village’s approach creates an unreasonable result. The company says the strip’s function is to provide access to the larger property, not to operate as an independent commercial facility. If vehicles cannot cross it, the larger parcel has no practical entrance.
Why the owner says the land became worthless
The lawsuit claims that Sloatsburg’s interpretation of its zoning code effectively makes the larger tract impossible to use or develop. Ramapo Fields says the property had access for decades and that the sudden restriction removed the only route for trucks, equipment and other vehicles.
The company is asking the court to declare that vehicular ingress and egress, meaning entering and leaving a property, is not an independent land use requiring separate permission under the village code. Its position is that access should be treated as a necessary function of reaching the land, rather than as a standalone use of the strip.
The owner also alleges that the village is applying the rule selectively. According to the lawsuit, other landowners in the Industrial Park district are permitted to have trucks travel across their properties. Ramapo Fields claims that treating its access route differently is unfair and unsupported by the zoning law.
The company is seeking damages based on the alleged taking of the larger parcel’s value. In legal terms, a taking claim can arise when government action is alleged to deprive a property owner of the practical or economic use of land, although the court will have to determine whether that argument applies in this case.
Earlier court battle over property rights
The current lawsuit follows an earlier legal dispute over ownership and easements involving the same Sloatsburg parcel. In January 2025, Rockland County Supreme Court Justice David Fried ruled that Ramapo Fields owned the 50-foot strip in fee simple, according to the report.
Fee simple generally refers to full ownership of real property, subject to applicable laws, restrictions and easements. The court’s decision also recognised access rights held by two neighbouring property owners.
That earlier litigation involved allegations that the neighbouring easement holders had gone beyond the rights granted to them. One neighbour was required to remove part of a building constructed within the easement area. Another had to remove a parking pad that had allegedly been installed improperly.
The ownership ruling did not resolve the separate question of whether Ramapo Fields could use the strip for vehicle access to its larger parcel. That issue is now before the court in the new case against Sloatsburg.
What Ramapo Fields is asking the court to do
Ramapo Fields has requested both temporary and permanent injunctions against enforcement of the zoning interpretation used by the building inspector and the Zoning Board of Appeals. A temporary injunction could prevent the village from enforcing the disputed restriction while the case continues.
The company is also asking the court to nullify the ZBA decision and declare that the village acted irrationally in treating vehicle access as an independent use. Its claims include alleged denial of due process, selective enforcement and the loss of the larger parcel’s value.
The court signed an Order to Show Cause on March 27, directing the village to respond by April 7. An Order to Show Cause is a court directive requiring the opposing party to explain why the requested relief should not be granted.
The filing does not mean that Ramapo Fields has already won its case. The village will have an opportunity to defend its zoning interpretation and explain why it believes the restriction is valid.
A dispute with wider property implications
At the heart of the case is a question that affects many landowners: how should zoning rules apply when one parcel provides the only access to another? Sloatsburg appears to be treating the access strip as a separate lot, while Ramapo Fields says that approach ignores the strip’s essential connection to the larger property.
The case also highlights the difference between owning land and being able to use it. A property may remain legally owned by an individual or company, but restrictions on access can make construction, maintenance, commercial activity and even basic land management extremely difficult.
For now, the 50-acre property remains at the centre of a dispute involving zoning authority, property rights and the practical meaning of access. The court’s decision could determine whether Sloatsburg can restrict vehicle use of the strip, or whether doing so improperly leaves Ramapo Fields with land it owns but cannot realistically reach or develop.
