Airmont, NY – A federal judge has ruled against Airmont in its bid to undo the settlement of a lawsuit over construction of a yeshiva with housing for students and faculty on Hillside Avenue.
Join our WhatsApp groupSubscribe to our Daily Roundup Email
U.S. District Judge Stephen Robinson in White Plains found that Airmont shouldn't be allowed to back out of the agreement, even if an election spawned a change in the voting majority of the village Board of Trustees.
"To hold otherwise would render settlement of litigation with governmental entities impracticable," Robinson wrote in his decision. "Opposing parties would always run the risk that, after the next election, a new government would simply move to vacant an existing settlement."
Mayor Dennis Kay said that his board wasn't necessarily prepared to surrender a fight that began several years ago and ultimately plunged Airmont into another lawsuit with the U.S. Department of Justice.
"We are in the process of reviewing this with our special counsel," Kay said. "We have 30 days to appeal."
The court ruling, was praised by John Stepanovich, a Virginia Beach, Va., attorney representing Congregation Mischknois Lavier Yakov.
"My client, after being on hold for 10 months, is now ready to move to get the yeshiva built," Stepanovich said.
As proposed, the congregation would build the yeshiva, plus a 170-student dormitory and 30 apartments for faculty and married students, on 19 acres.
Residents have raised numerous environmental issues such as the project's effect on traffic, sewer capacities and well water supplies.
The Planning Board is waiting for the congregation's response to those concerns. [Journal News]
In November 2005, after the village began efforts to terminate the January 2005 settlement of a discrimination lawsuit brought by the congregation, Stepanovich accused the board of trying to “avoid its responsibilities.”
The congregation’s lawsuit came after the village refused to consider the project because it did not have zoning to accommodate it.
After settling, Airmont argued in part that the agreement by the Board of Trustees sidestepped the authority of the Zoning Board of Appeals, which would rule on variances to local laws needed for the project.
State law provides that village boards are legislative bodies that can change zoning codes, but variances to those regulations are decided by zoning boards.
It seemed to Stepanovich, though, that the village had to stand by its agreement, which automatically sent the matter to the Planning Board.
“The village board had the authority to enter the settlement agreement,” Stepanovich said, “and there was no basis to stop it.”