Planning board approves small mausoleum at Airmont Coptic Orthodox Cemetery; classifies action Type II
Loading...
Summary
The board approved a 1,438-square-foot mausoleum at the Airmont Coptic Orthodox Cemetery (51A South Airmont Road). The project, intended to provide above‑ground crypts, was classified as a SEQR Type II action and the board voted to override a GML comment requesting an EAF because the submission qualifies as a Type II.
The Airmont Planning Board voted to approve construction of a small mausoleum at the Airmont Coptic Orthodox Cemetery (51A South Airmont Road). The board classified the project as a SEQR Type II action and approved the applicant’s request to override a GML item that suggested additional EAF material, reasoning that the proposed structure is a Type II activity under SEQR.
Project details: The applicant’s representative, attorney Ira Emmanuel (Emmanuel Hall PC), described the structure as a modest mausoleum with a gross floor area of 1,438 square feet and an overall height of approximately 16 feet 10 inches. The design provides above‑ground crypt niches accessible from the outside; the applicant reported the mausoleum’s capacity at about 330 crypts and said the building will be constructed of concrete and granite finishes. The applicant said the unit will be accessed from the outside and will not require plumbing or interior lighting beyond minimal safety lighting (photovoltaic lighting was proposed).
Agency and staff reviews: Planning staff circulated typical outside reviews (Rockland County GML referral, DPW, fire memorandum, and county health) and requested minor clarifications. The county GML review had no objection; DPW and the fire department provided administrative reviews and the board asked the applicant to submit standard grading, erosion‑control and landscaping details and a cost estimate for site improvements.
Action: The board confirmed the Type II SEQR determination, approved the mausoleum site plan subject to standard engineering and building conditions (grading/erosion control, final site plan showing planting and a construction detail), and adopted an override response to the GML comment that asked for an EAF (the applicant provided justification that the action is Type II and does not require an EAF). The approval included the usual condition that the applicant obtain all required building permits and inspections.
