Planning board accepts lead‑agency role and continues hearing on proposed yeshiva and dorms at 2–3 Fosse Court after intense public comment

The Airmont Planning Board declared itself lead agency for State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) and continued the public hearing on a proposed yeshiva and accessory dormitory at 2 and 3 Fosse Court, scheduling the next hearing for March 27.

Applicant presentation and project scope: Attorney/representative Robert Brown (identified in the meeting as the applicant’s presenter) described the project as a religious/educational use consisting of two existing houses reconfigured as a school building and a dormitory with parking and a small outdoor recreation area. The applicant said the school would serve a compact population — “a maximum of 30 students” — with dormitory rooms distributed across the two buildings and limited on‑site outdoor recreation (a basketball court and internal open space).

Directed SEQR and technical review: The Planning Board voted to act as SEQR lead agency for a coordinated review. Board members and staff identified materials still needed for review, including final site and lighting plans, drainage and stormwater maintenance agreements, a lot‑line consolidation, and the Zoning Board of Appeals’ variance decisions (the application requires multiple variances under local code). The village’s consulting engineer and county GML review were referenced in the public discussion.

Public comment: The public comment period produced sharply divided testimony. Supporters — many traveling from outside Airmont — praised the school’s religious and educational mission. Several speakers offered personal endorsements and letters of support; one commenter said the yeshiva’s students helped neighbors with snow shoveling and moving large items. Opponents — primarily immediate neighbors from Fosse Court and Park Avenue — argued the site is too small for an institution with dormitories, described on‑street parking and late‑night activity as nuisances, and raised allegations of intimidation and disorderly conduct attributed to occupants of the existing school properties. A licensed planner retained by neighbors, Carolyn Morstell, told the board she found plan inconsistencies and unlisted variances, and argued the proposal lacks a required lighting plan and understates parking needs (she said the dormitory should add parking required for eight additional spaces beyond the applicant’s count).

Board actions and next steps: The board accepted the applicant’s request to be lead agency for SEQR (motion adopted) and agreed to adjourn the hearing to the March 27 planning board meeting, with materials due two weeks in advance (March 13). Staff and consultants asked the applicant to provide updated plans and to respond to comments raised in writing so the FEIS (final environmental impact statement) and any necessary responses can be prepared for board review. The board noted that allegations of harassment and pending lawsuits are legal matters outside the planning review; however, testimony about noise, parking, traffic, and code compliance are planning‑relevant and will be considered in the environmental and permit review.