The Airmont Planning Board opened public comment May 22 on a proposal for a school at 51 Church Road and adjourned the hearing to June 26 after prolonged resident testimony voicing traffic, parking, environmental and neighborhood‑character concerns.

Attorney Emmanuel Love and project engineer Rhonda Smith presented the project as an unlisted action under CEPA/SEQR and described site layout elements: a single primary curb cut on Church Road, a bus drop area in front of the building, circulation for cars around the building, play area in the rear and proposed drainage beneath the play area. The applicant confirmed it expects to need multiple variances, including a reduced front setback for parking, a development‑coverage variance, and FAR relief.

Rhonda Smith said the zoning code’s parking formulas produce widely different requirements: by floor area the calculation yields approximately 156 spaces; by student seats the consultant’s model yields about 32 spaces; other referenced rates led to totals the project team described as roughly 186 spaces. The applicant reported providing 45 parking spaces on the drawn plan.

Residents who live adjacent to the site responded with consistent concerns. Theresa Bell of 57 Church Road said the proposal would “represent a significant overbuilt of this 2.2‑acre lot” and said the plan is “completely out of scale” with neighborhood houses. She and other neighbors said the Smith Hill–Church Road intersection already has safety problems and will become more dangerous with buses and additional traffic.

John Barker of 50 Church Road said he was told the project would host 200 students at a prior meeting but that the project cover sheet shows 375; he described the inconsistency as “false information.” Several residents said the village stormwater and sewer infrastructure and the local groundwater table could be adversely affected by clearing and paving the wooded lot.

Other comments included worries about loss of privacy from parking and building proximity to yards, lighting and amplified sound crossing property lines, and increased overnight vehicle presence. A number of speakers asked about the number of students, enforcement of noise and lighting, and who would maintain sidewalks should the county require them. A resident representing the neighboring properties requested that, if the school proceeds, neighbors be allowed access to playground space; the applicant did not commit to that request during the meeting.

Planning staff told the board that the 30‑day lead‑agency window for SEQR had not yet run, which limits board action; nonetheless the board accepted public comment and scheduled the application’s continued hearing for the June 26 meeting to allow the applicant to provide additional materials. Chair Friedman made the motion to adjourn the application to the June 26 meeting; the motion carried by voice vote.

Attorney Emmanuel told the board staff that the project team would provide the requested traffic and parking materials and other clarifications in advance of the next meeting. No votes on variances or site plan approval were taken at the May 22 session.