The Village of Suffern Planning Board declared its intent on Wednesday to serve as lead agency under SEQRA for a proposed five‑story, 121‑unit apartment development at 37 Washington Avenue and agreed to circulate the environmental review for comment.

The applicant, represented by Nathan Swiatitsky and project attorney Rob Stout of Whiteman, Osterman & Hanna, said the project would convert a former Avon warehouse into a mixed apartment building with 48 one‑bedroom units, 65 two‑bedroom units and 8 three‑bedroom units (121 units total) and a total of 242 parking spaces, including about 60 spaces beneath the building and roughly 10 on‑street spaces on Suffern Place. The developer said the project includes amenity space and a rooftop/terrace pool, and that landscaping and stormwater planters are proposed to reduce impervious surface compared with the current industrial site.

The project team told the board it seeks a zoning change to expand the village’s Transit Development District (TDD) to include the parcel; the change is necessary because the current Central Business (CB) zoning would not permit the proposed use without a use variance. "The village board has the authority to change the zone and that’s what their petition is," the applicant’s representative said.

Before the board proceeds to substantive review, members asked the applicant to provide copies of the long-form environmental assessment form (EAF), a refreshed traffic study, and responses to comments from village planning consultants (including Nelson Pope and Bonnie Franzen). The planning board noted it had 60 days under the zoning code to provide its recommendation on the zone change once the referral and SEQRA materials are complete.

After hearing the presentation and confirming that Rockland County Drainage Agency had issued a letter saying the site is not in its jurisdiction, the board voted to declare its intention to serve as SEQRA lead agency and to circulate the notice for comment. The board also agreed to hold a placeholder for the application at the June 18 meeting at 7 p.m.; the applicant was told that if required comments are not received in time the matter could be held to July or otherwise continued. "If you could send me that also," a board member told counsel, referring to the traffic study and long-form EAF.