Orangetown residents press developers over 342-unit Palisades plan at town board meeting

At a June town board meeting, Atlantic Realty representatives presented a preliminary redevelopment proposal for the former IBM/HNA Palisades property and faced sustained public concern over the scale of the plan and potential impacts to the hamlet of Palisades.

Jeremy Halpern, vice president of Atlantic Realty, said the company’s concept covers roughly 106 acres and proposes 342 residential units — described in his presentation as 288 townhouses and 54 two-bedroom flats — alongside an event venue and extensive landscaping. “We want to come in here and be a good resident, a good neighbor, a good taxpayer,” Halpern said, adding the plan is not final and that Atlantic had revised concepts based on town feedback.

Why it matters: the plan would require a change to the property’s OP zoning to allow the residential uses proposed, and it was described by the applicant’s attorney as a Type I action under the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), meaning the project would likely require a positive declaration and a full environmental impact statement with multiple public hearings.

“Because we know it’s a type one project… the applicant will be asking for a positive declaration,” attorney Ira Emanuel told the board, saying the applicant would propose text changes to the OP zone and a mechanism allowing bulk requirements to apply to the parcel as a whole.

Public commenters pressed the board and the developer on several fronts. Carol Baxter, who said she has followed the property since 2017, reminded the board that earlier memoranda of understanding that referenced 342 units were non-binding and urged the town and Atlantic to scale back the plan and collaborate with residents. “Packing 342 residential townhouses and [a] event venue for 600 guests on this beautiful and special property does not really match with our community,” she said.

Neighbors and longtime residents raised similar concerns about traffic safety on Route 9W, stormwater and drainage impacts on abutting properties, the adequacy of buffer zones and the scale of the proposed event venue. David Mart, past commander of the nearby John M. Perry American Legion Post 1044, said renderings omitted the Legion Post and that traffic circulation, drainage and buffering for abutters were not yet addressed. “I just think there are too many buildings, too many residents, way too many cars, a terrible traffic plan, and no significant border area set aside as buffers and screens,” he said.

Environmental and technical questions were also prominent. Multiple speakers urged that the development preserve natural features along local tributaries and that any zoning change include clear cluster- or buffer-related protections so the project does not increase flood risk downstream. “The requirement should be to make it better,” said Larry Vale, who identified himself with watershed interests.

Some attendees supported redevelopment that brings tax-paying residents. Stacy Maher said local school enrollment has declined and that new families and an event venue could help the tax base. Several commenters asked whether the project would seek tax incentives; a resident said she had seen information indicating the IDA sought over $8 million in tax exemptions for a $270 million residential project and asked what public benefits would justify such assistance. Halpern responded that Atlantic was not seeking tax reductions or PILOTs for the residential portion and called the IDA information “old information” that should have been removed.

What the board did: there was no vote on the Palisades zoning tonight. Supervisor Teresa Kenny and board members emphasized this was an informational presentation; the developer has not filed a formal petition for a zone change. The next formal steps described by the board and the applicant would include: the filing of a zone-change petition (if the applicant chooses to file), referral to Rockland County Planning, review by the Orangetown planning board, a SEQRA process led by a designated lead agency (including potential public hearings on an EIS), and later planning-board site-plan review and Architectural Community Appearance Board of Review (ACABOR) consideration.

What’s next: the applicant said it will continue to work with town staff; the board said residents would have multiple opportunities to comment if and when a formal petition and SEQRA filings are submitted. No formal votes or commitments were made tonight regarding zoning text changes, PILOTs, or approvals.