Applicant seeks negative declaration and zoning referrals for school conversion; neighbors raise scale and traffic concerns

An applicant asked the planning board to issue a negative declaration under SEQR and to refer the project to the zoning board of appeals to consider variances for converting two existing houses into a school and related site work.

The applicant told the board the conversion would not add new structures aside from a parking area and a rear basketball court; one existing driveway at 3 Fosse would be removed and restored to lawn. A representative said the houses would serve a school population that does not drive and that a traffic-impact study and a lighting plan had been submitted. “None of them drive,” a project representative said when asked whether students would arrive by car.

Why it matters: the board must decide whether the project raises significant environmental impacts under SEQR and whether the requested variances—lot line/lot size, redevelopment coverage (from 20% to 28%) and a parking variance—are appropriate. Neighbors raised concerns about scale, prior commercial activity on the site, screening and construction impacts.

Key points and public comment

The applicant said a traffic reviewer (Austin Barry) concluded the updated traffic study did not change prior findings and that there were no anticipated negative traffic impacts. The applicant also said they had chosen to install sprinklers in the gym rather than extend a roadway and add impervious surface.

The board and applicants discussed required parking for schools; the applicant stated they planned to provide 31 parking spaces and that the expected student population that would drive was low. One neighbor asked why the site seemed large for the intended number of students, raising concerns about noise, past uses (including prior dormitory activity), and the potential for commercial or event uses on the property. The applicant said new evergreen screening, a six-foot fence along the side lot lines and other landscaping are proposed.

Process and schedule

Board members discussed submission timelines: a May 9 submission for a June 12 CVA deadline, and a likely planning-board agenda on June 26 were mentioned for the applicant's variances and further review. The applicant said they would add the required variances to the plan and return in short order.

No final vote was recorded; a motion to close the public hearing was made during the meeting but the transcript does not record a roll-call or result.

Ending

The application remains under review. The board requested the final traffic study, updated plan sheets showing the sprinklered gym and the added variances, and additional documentation ahead of zoning-board and planning-board hearings.