Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Meeting Schedule topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Airmont zoning board moves April meeting to April 8, continues several hearings
Summary
The Airmont Zoning Board of Appeals rescheduled its next meeting to Tuesday, April 8, after members flagged a Passover scheduling conflict and agreed to carry over or process requests for continuances or withdrawals for multiple applications, including 35 Twin Lakes Drive and 236 Central Lane.
Get email alerts on the Zoning Meeting Schedule topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Airmont Zoning Board of Appeals agreed to move its next meeting to Tuesday, April 8, and to carry over multiple pending applications after board members discovered a scheduling conflict with the start of Passover.
Board Secretary (staff) read a series of requests for adjournment and withdrawal at the start of the meeting. The board noted a request to continue the public hearing for the application of Usher, Maryland, at 35 Twin Lakes Drive to Thursday, April 10, based on an email dated Feb. 24, 2025. The board also recorded an application withdrawal request from broker Talber for 8 Amanda Court, a floor-area-ratio variance for a three-story single-family home, based on a letter dated March 4, 2025. Separately, the board noted a request from Central ETA for an adjournment to April 10 for an amended site plan and special-permit review for a three-story classroom building with a basement; that request was documented in a letter dated March 11, 2025.
Board members discussed agenda order; staff suggested placing the Central ETA matter first and grouping related continuances so representatives could appear in sequence. The staff member said the 35 Twin Lakes matter was awaiting review of a drainage study by the village engineer before final consideration. After board members raised that April 10 would conflict with the start of Passover observances, the board agreed to hold the next meeting on Tuesday, April 8, and the staff member said she would notify applicants of the revised date. No formal vote to accept any of the continuance requests was recorded beyond scheduling the next meeting.
The meeting concluded with a motion to adjourn that the board approved unanimously; the transcript did not record individual vote tallies. The board indicated it would post the updated agenda and advise applicants of the new meeting date and agenda order.

