Applicant seeks RSH overlay, special permit for 105‑unit senior housing at 444 Saddle River Road; trustees keep hearing open

On June 4 the Village of Airmont Board of Trustees heard a presentation from Ira Emanuel, attorney for the applicant, seeking application of the village’s RSH (senior housing) overlay to 444 Saddle River Road and a special permit to build senior housing on the site. Emanuel told trustees the planning board acted as lead agency under SEQRA, prepared an environmental impact statement and issued a finding statement on May 22, and the application is now ripe for the trustees’ review.

The request matters in Airmont because trustees expanded RSH eligibility after finding the village needs more senior housing; the applicant said the proposed project would provide 105 units on a net 16.18 acres and comply with density, coverage and FAR standards even while asking for a limited number of variances.

Emanuel described the site as the former rural day camp on Saddle River Road and said the project "contemplates 105 units on 16.18 acres" after wetland and water areas were deducted. He said the design intentionally connects smaller buildings so the development "does not look like the barracks" of a large apartment block and noted the village code allows up to 20 multifamily units per acre; the applicant's proposal is well under the maximum density for multifamily use. Emanuel also said the planning board directed preparation of an EIS and that the planning board issued a finding statement at the end of that process.

County planning reviewed the application under General Municipal Law (GML) and issued comments and a partial disapproval; Emanuel said the county appears not to have considered the materials in the applicant's final EIS and asked trustees to override the county's disapproval on specific items (identified in county comments as items 1.1, 1.3, 2, 9 and 12). He noted that state law permits the board to grant a special permit even when variances are needed, and that the special permit can be conditioned on the applicant winning required variances.

Trustees questioned parking and neighborhood impacts. Emanuel said the plan provides two parking spaces per unit and additional guest spaces (roughly an additional 50–54 guest spaces were described in the materials), and that the planning board will review and may require additional parking if its analysis shows a need. Trustees asked whether adjacent municipalities had been notified under GML review; the clerk said notices were sent and the village had not received substantive responses from the neighboring jurisdiction mentioned in the county review.

Board members said they want time to study the county comments, the applicant's responses and the draft findings before taking final action. The trustees voted to keep the public hearing open and to consider the application at their July meeting. Emanuel said he had provided a draft findings statement and requested that the board adopt findings, apply the RSH overlay and grant the special permit after appropriate conditions are included.

What’s next: the board instructed staff to circulate the county comments and applicant responses to the village planner for review; the trustees may vote on the overlay, any required GML overrides and a special permit at the July meeting if outstanding issues are resolved.