Airmont ZBA continues hearing on Cherry Lane school expansion, requests traffic and design materials

The Airmont Zoning Board of Appeals on Tuesday continued the public hearing on an application by Central UTA (site address given as 20236 Cherry Lane, Airmont, New York) to build a new three‑story classroom building and seek multiple variances, and set the continuation for Tuesday, March 11, 2025.

The applicant is seeking variances from the R40 residential district rules and from yard, setback and parking requirements to allow a three‑story classroom building (a reported floor area of 25,190 square feet and a footprint quoted in filings) and other changes that would add roughly 1,000 students to the campus, plus associated parking and drainage work. Attorney Ira Emmanuel, representing the applicant, told the board: “We are not asking for any overrides, of the GML,” and said the project would comply with conditions the board imposes.

The application, as described at the hearing, proposes 228 new parking spaces plus 82 land‑banked spaces (the applicant and engineer cited a proposed total of 310 spaces in filings) while the zoning code calculation cited by staff shows 619 spaces would be required under one measurement in the code. The applicant’s civil engineer, Rhonda Smith (Civiltech Engineering), told the board the project now shown in the plans uses a floor‑area ratio of about 0.216 where 0.4 is allowed by code.

Why it matters: neighbors raised traffic and neighborhood‑character concerns during public comment. Multiple residents said Cherry Lane already experiences significant congestion during arrival and dismissal, and urged the applicant and board to consider impacts on traffic and neighborhood quality. Ruben Weinstein, a resident who spoke during public comment, urged the board to use existing on‑site acreage: “UTA has over 19 acres to fulfill the building requirements. Let them use it.”

What the board asked for and decided: the ZBA voted to continue the hearing to March 11, 2025, and directed the applicant to provide a full traffic report, the parking study referenced by the planning board, and architectural floor plans for the additional floor on Building 1 prior to the next hearing. The board also directed that the application be re‑advertised to reflect a development‑coverage request of 31% (the applicant had noted filings and plans show 31% even though earlier public notice stated 30%).

Project details discussed at the hearing included: - Lot size and site features: speakers described the property as roughly 21.4 acres gross, with about 19.79 acres after environmental deductions; a wetland and a stream run through the site and the applicant said the wetland area would remain undisturbed. (Applicant representative) - Buildings and variances: the applicant seeks side‑yard setback relief (example cited: required 30 feet, proposed ~16.8 feet for a stairwell), building‑height relief for a new Building 5 (35 feet allowed; 43 feet proposed was cited), and an increase in development coverage from the 20% standard to about 31% as shown in plans. (Applicant representative and civil engineer) - Parking and land‑banked spaces: the applicant is proposing 310 spaces (including land‑banked stalls) while the zoning code parking calculation produces a larger required number; the applicant said the 310 number reflects anticipated needs for after‑school events and avoidance of on‑street parking. Rhonda Smith said the design intentionally includes land‑banked spaces so the full infrastructure (drainage, paving) is pre‑designed and can be built if triggered. (Rhonda Smith) - Student capacity: the applicant said the planned expansion would allow roughly 1,000 additional students; the applicant indicated about 800 of those would be served in the new building and about 200 in an added floor on Building 1. (Applicant representative)

Public comments and board concerns: multiple residents objected, citing current traffic backups, the prospect of additional buses and cars, and the scale of the proposed enrollment increase. Residents asked whether the school could use a different portion of its acreage to reduce impacts; the applicant said portions of the site are undisturbed and the proposal seeks to concentrate development on already disturbed, western portions of the parcel.

Technical reviews: board members and counsel noted that traffic and certain environmental and planning issues were addressed to the planning board earlier in the process; the planning board issued a negative declaration in November 2024 and the applicant’s traffic report was reviewed by the village’s traffic consultant, the applicant said. Board members nonetheless asked the applicant to submit the traffic report and parking study copies to the ZBA prior to the March 11 continuation so the board can review them in the context of the variance requests.

Next steps: the ZBA will reconvene the public hearing at a continued session on Tuesday, March 11, 2025. The applicant will provide the traffic report, parking study and architectural floor plans for Building 1; the application will be re‑advertised to reflect a 31% development coverage request. The board may then schedule deliberation and a vote after reviewing the additional materials.