Airmont zoning board approves variances for school expansion at 236 Cherry Lane

The Airmont Zoning Board of Appeals on a 5-0 vote approved variances needed for an amended site plan for a school property at 236 Cherry Lane, including relief for parking, setbacks, building height and lot coverage.

The board acted after a continued public hearing and after the village planning board reaffirmed a negative declaration under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). The project applicant sought variances because the proposal would provide a total of 310 parking spaces (228 constructed plus 83 “land‑banked” spaces) where the zoning table lists 619 spaces as required.

The applicant presented a proposed main building footprint of about 33,500 square feet and described other requested variances including front‑yard fence height (proposed 6 feet vs. required 3.5 feet), side setback reduction (required 30 feet; proposed 16.8 feet), building height (required 35 feet; proposed up to 40 feet on portions), and development coverage (required 20%; proposed 31%). The property was described in the record as about 21.4332 acres and located roughly 500 feet south of East Blossom Road on Cherry Lane.

Neighbors raised site‑specific concerns during public comment. A resident identified as Melanie Phillips of 217 Cherry Lane told the board, “PA system is very, very loud, and it’s just like, god forbid, if I’m home, you know, it just I have to shut all the windows,” and urged the applicant and board to prevent noise from crossing property lines. Mark Mill, who said he works in landscaping and lives on Cherry Lane, asked, “Where are they gonna park? Are they gonna be parking out on Cherry Lane? Are they gonna congest all these side streets?” and expressed concern about lighting and tree removal visible from the road.

Board members and staff said technical issues raised in earlier hearings had been addressed. The planning board met March 27 and reaffirmed its negative SEQRA declaration after the applicant revised the environmental forms to reference changes to existing main buildings shown on the plan. The record also includes agency review letters and a Rockland County Planning GML comment dated April 1, 2025; the board discussed how to incorporate that county recommendation into its resolution.

Engineering and planning staff told the board the project’s wetlands were delineated by a specialist and that portions of the site include Army Corps jurisdictional wetlands. Rockland County Sewer District has an existing trunk line running through the property and the applicant indicated a proposed connection; the applicant also reported a water connection via a hot box on Cherry Lane. The board noted that construction hours would be controlled by village code and that further details such as fire access will be reviewed at the site plan stage and may require redesign or additional approvals.

After comments and agency recitals were placed on the record, a motion to grant the requested variances carried 5 to 0. The board’s public record includes agency review letters from Rockland County Health, Rockland County DPW, Rockland County Sewer, and the county planning office; the board asked that the applicant reflect those comments on final plans submitted for building permits.

The board’s approval does not itself authorize building permits beyond the scope of zoning relief. Staff and board members said outstanding technical matters—fire access redesign, final stormwater and sewer details, and any required site plan changes—must be resolved with the village engineer and building department before construction permits will be issued.