Zoning board opens public hearing on application to convert 2–3 Fossey Court to yeshiva with dormitory amid neighbor opposition

The Airmont Zoning Board opened a public hearing on an application to convert two existing single‑family properties at 2 and 3 Fossey Court into an educational institution with accessory housing (a yeshiva and dormitory). The applicant is seeking numerous area variances from the village zoning code, including relief from a 10‑acre minimum for institutional dormitory use and several setback, lot‑coverage and parking requirements. The board did not make a final decision; public comment was extensive and the board requested additional technical reviews before acting.

Why it matters

The application would change the use of two parcels (combined about 1.76 acres) from single‑family residential to an educational institution with on‑site housing for up to 30 students. Airmont zoning requires a 10‑acre minimum for educational institutions with accessory housing; the applicant asks the board to grant multiple variances and a special permit. Neighbors raised concerns about intensity of use, parking, visibility, safety and alleged off‑site conduct; the applicant and supporters said the use has operated for years in different locations and is an important cultural and religious resource for the Sephardic community.

Applicant presentation and technical points

Applicant counsel Paul Baum and project engineer Rachel Barice presented the application and supporting materials. Barice described two existing houses that the applicant proposes to use with minimal exterior change, plus a new parking area and a rear basketball court. She said the combined building footprints are about 6.7% of lot area (under the 10% maximum for building coverage under the code for a school use), and the application includes a landscape and screening plan and a stormwater submission. Baum said students would live on campus and would be prohibited from owning or parking vehicles on site; he said the dormitory would house 30 students and the school would staff roughly 10 employees with staggered schedules.

Technical and zoning constraints

The application requests many variances: the code requires a minimum 10‑acre lot for an educational institution with accessory housing, a 250‑foot front setback, 100‑foot side and rear setbacks and a maximum development coverage of 25 percent; the applicant’s site is 1.76 acres with proposed coverage of about 35 percent, front and side setbacks well under the code minimums, and 20 parking spaces provided versus a 32‑space requirement determined by the village (the applicant and village inspector disagreed with a neighbor consultant’s claim that 40 spaces were required). Barice said the required usable open recreational area (about 11,506 square feet) would be satisfied; she said the application provides approximately 15,000 square feet of usable open space including a basketball court.

Basement/below‑grade issue and building code

Village staff (inspector referenced as Mr. Zumo) flagged an open question about whether portions of the lower level meet the code definition of basement (which affects other requirements). Barice said a recent engineering analysis shows almost 8 feet of the lower level is above average grade, and she submitted that analysis but asked the inspector for final confirmation. The board asked staff to review that analysis before determining whether an additional height/basement variance is required. The applicants and fire inspectors have discussed egress and fire‑safety measures; the record indicates certain window egress upgrades already were made and that sprinkler requirements will be resolved under building code review if triggered by final story/height calculations.

Public comment and neighborhood concerns

Public comment was substantial and divided. Supporters described the yeshiva as a small, long‑running institution important to the Sephardic community; supporters said students are well supervised, quiet and that the site improvements would be modest. Neighbors and a planner and attorney representing adjacent residents urged denial or careful scrutiny, highlighting:

- The lot is substantially undersized for the intended use (1.76 acres vs the 10‑acre code minimum). - Multiple major variances would be required (front/side/rear setbacks, lot area, development coverage, parking). Neighbor planner Carolyn Wurzel told the board there is “substantial evidence to support reasonable grounds for denial.” - Concerns about traffic, parking spillover and the intensity of a use where students live on campus seven days a week. - Allegations by some neighbors of intimidation and ongoing litigation; the applicant disputed those assertions and invited inspection and review of security footage and other materials. An attorney for neighbors stated a Supreme Court action was pending regarding alleged illegal operation; the applicant said the pending matters are separate and asked the zoning board to focus on zoning criteria.

Board actions and next steps

The board voted to open the public hearing to allow public comment; no final variances or permits were granted at the meeting. The board asked the applicant to provide engineering backup already prepared (the basement/grade analysis) and asked village staff and the building inspector to review the submission and advise whether the additional variance (maximum number of stories / basement definition) will be required. The board scheduled follow‑up and left the record open for materials; the board also set a next meeting date for continued consideration.

What remains undecided

No variances or special permits were granted at this meeting. The key outstanding items the board identified are the inspector’s determination on the below‑grade calculation and final review of parking and stormwater details; the board also noted the volume of public comment and requested time to digest materials and expert memos from both the applicant and neighbors before voting.

Attribution

Project details, technical claims and direct quotes in this article are taken from the applicant presentation (Paul Baum, Rachel Barice, Rabbi Hekikian) and from public commenters and professional witnesses including neighbor counsel Steven Mobile and planner Carolyn Wurzel as recorded in the Airmont Zoning Board public hearing.