An attorney for the applicant told the Airmont Planning Board on May 22 that the proposal at Cherry Lane and Blossom Road would convert an existing single-family house and detached garage into a freestanding place of worship of just over 4,000 square feet, with the total combined residence and worship space just over 6,000 square feet.

Paul Mount, attorney for the applicant, said the project would be in the R-40 zone and asked the board to accept agency reviews and coordinate a CEPA/SEQR review. He said the application will seek parking and setback variances and a development-coverage waiver.

The board learned the proposal would be short of the code-required parking. Mount said the zoning code calls for 30 spaces total (28 for the house of worship plus two for the residence) but the applicant is proposing 24 spaces (22 for the house of worship, two for the residence), leaving a deficit of six. He said the applicant will seek a waiver from the planning board and a variance from the zoning board of appeals.

The applicant also plans to seek a setback variance: Mount said parking is proposed roughly 23.4 feet from the front property line rather than the required 50 feet. He said the applicant would request that development coverage be increased from 20% to 30%.

“There’s been agency review,” Mount told the board, citing a GML letter dated May 19, 2025, and reviews from the Rockland County Department of Health and Rockland County Sewer District No. 1. He said the Tolman Fire Department requested a maneuverability plan for its largest truck and the project team would add that to the next plan submission.

Mount said the Rockland County Highway Department’s letter raised the largest outstanding issue and requested a traffic study. “The highway department wants the traffic study, and of course we’re going to give you the traffic study. It should be ready within the next few weeks,” he said.

Board members and staff discussed how losing an existing curb cut that currently serves the residence would force all traffic through a single curb cut and make it harder to provide two resident spaces near the dwelling. Mount said the rear of the lot rises about 12 feet in elevation (from about elevation 483 near the parking to about 495 at the rear), meaning any additional parking toward the back would require a roughly 12-foot retaining wall.

Planning staff advised the board that, because the project is an unlisted action under CEPA/SEQR, the board should circulate a notice of intent to be lead agency and proceed with coordinated review with the Zoning Board of Appeals on the variances. Chair Friedman moved to direct counsel to prepare and circulate the notice of intent; the motion carried on a voice vote.

The board did not take final action on the application; the applicant will return with a traffic study, revised plans to show fire-truck maneuverability, and updated parking/layout options. The board’s direction was limited to initiating the CEPA/SEQR lead‑agency process so other agencies can comment before further submissions.

Mount and Rhonda Smith, the project engineer from Civiltech Engineering, were present for the applicant’s presentation. Board members and staff repeatedly emphasized the parking shortfall and the highway department’s request for a traffic study as the primary outstanding items.