Planning board reaffirms negative declaration as debate continues over proposed Cherry Lane school expansion

The Airmont Planning Board voted to reaffirm a prior negative environmental declaration for a proposed school expansion on Cherry Lane, allowing the applicant to proceed to zoning and variance hearings while leaving several policy and technical issues unresolved.

Rabbi Sam, identified in the record as the school’s dean, and Rabbi Moshe Friedman, principal of the school, told the board the project aims to create dedicated space for therapeutic and specialized programs the school currently runs off-site. “My mission… has been to create spaces for children… who are struggling,” Rabbi Sam said, describing programs including music, gym and vocational training and saying the school’s current rented spaces require frequent off-site trips.

Neighbors and other speakers raised concerns about the scale of the project and traffic impacts. Resident Melanie Phillips said the building’s current occupant stores buses and vans on-site overnight and expressed worries about lighting, parking, sewage connections and pedestrian safety near Cherry Lane. Mark Meldentry, another nearby resident, said existing site lighting spills onto neighboring properties and asked for a detailed landscape and lighting plan. Several speakers said they believe the current on-site operations already generate noise, parked buses and safety issues during arrival and dismissal.

The applicant and its consultants disputed high-end enrollment estimates put forward during the hearing and emphasized the traffic study was prepared using a working enrollment number of about 1,800 students. The board’s traffic consultant and the applicant’s traffic engineer presented a study that used 1,800 students as the basis for peak-hour trip generation. Applicant counsel and the applicant said the school’s operational plan would phase enrollment increases over years; school leaders said they expect growth to full build-out over roughly a decade.

Fire-safety and occupancy counting proved a central point of contention. The building inspector (referred to in the record by his first name, Lou) and the applicant’s team discussed how the fire and building code’s occupancy calculation and a court stipulation interact with the site-plan numbers. Several speakers noted that gross floor-area calculations including specialty rooms (cafeteria, multipurpose, sewing or remedial rooms) can yield a higher maximum fire-code capacity than the practical classroom-based enrollment the school intends to operate with. The applicant said typical classrooms will be small (12–15 students) and that the school intends staffing and programming that will not fill rooms to theoretical maxima.

Traffic was another focal point. The applicant’s traffic expert, Austin Barry, told the board that the study found the project would add a small share of trips to Route 59 — roughly under 1 percent at the busiest driveway point — and recommended continued monitoring of the failing intersection geometry at Route 59 and Devon Avenue. Several residents and counsel cited police accident records and argued the corridor already experiences frequent crashes; a public commenter called for the village or county to examine opening a paper street (North Devon) or other route improvements to relieve Route 59 congestion. Barry’s written note recommended monitoring and said the intersection should be considered for a future traffic signal if conditions persist.

After extended public comment and technical discussion — including requests from the board that the applicant provide a clear, plan-based maximum fire-code occupancy number on the plans and updated agency responses for stormwater, wetlands, county health and DPW — the board voted to reaffirm the board’s earlier negative declaration for environmental review and to continue procedural review steps. A roll call shows the board approved the reaffirmation; staff and counsel indicated the reaffirmation allows the applicant to proceed with variance applications to the Zoning Board of Appeals and additional planning steps. The board also agreed to continue the item to a future agenda so outstanding consultant and agency comments (traffic review, wetlands delineation, Rockland County health, DPW, stormwater maintenance agreement, bond and lighting details) can be resolved.

Planning staff listed outstanding items the applicant must supply or address before final plan approval: updated wetland delineation, infiltration testing and stormwater maintenance agreement and bond, revised lighting and landscaping plans, sign detail, updated traffic engineer responses and county health and DPW approvals. Several neighbors asked the board to seek a village-level review of roadway connections in the corridor (including whether a dedicated north–south connection on a paper street could be pursued) to reduce future dependence on Route 59.

The board’s action does not grant variances or building permits; it affirms that, based on existing project materials and the updated FEAF information presented, the board’s prior negative environmental determination remains valid. The applicant and the board will return with updated materials and agency responses for continued procedural review and any zoning-variance hearings.