Appeals court upholds Hudson Ridge zoning judgment, rejects group’s intervention bid

A state appeals court on April 8, 2026, upheld a judgment requiring Cortlandt’s Zoning Board of Appeals to classify Hudson Ridge’s proposed residential treatment program as a hospital under the Town Code. The court also rejected a community group’s bid to intervene in the case, explaining that the proceeding concerned a narrow zoning question. [Official opinion]

The proposal involved converting seven existing buildings in a residential zoning district into a short-term residential treatment program for people with a substance use disorder. The decision describes a proposed use; it does not establish whether the facility later opened or whether other approvals were obtained. [Official opinion]

Town code-enforcement determinations in March and May 2019 had concluded that the project was not a hospital for zoning purposes. According to the opinion, that classification would require a use variance or zoning amendment, rather than an area variance, to develop the facility. The zoning board effectively upheld those determinations after a hearing in January 2020. [Official opinion]

The developers challenged the zoning board’s determination in an Article 78 proceeding, the court process used here to seek review of that local decision. In September 2020, Supreme Court in Westchester County annulled the determination and sent the matter back to the zoning board for a determination that the project qualified as a hospital under the Town Code. [Official opinion]

Citizens for Responsible Hudson Institute Site Development, Inc., sought to join that proceeding as a respondent. The trial court denied intervention in May 2020 and adhered to that denial after reconsidering it in July. The group, described in the appellate caption as a nonparty appellant, appealed the September judgment. [Official opinion]

The group’s asserted interests concerned environmental, aesthetic and quality-of-life effects of the intended use. The appellate panel explained that the sole issue before the court was whether the zoning board’s hospital-classification determination was arbitrary and capricious. It concluded that the group had not shown a real and substantial interest in the outcome of that proceeding. [Official opinion]

The panel also said intervention at that stage would cause undue delay and prejudice to the petitioners. Its conclusion was direct: “CRHISD failed to demonstrate its entitlement to intervene in the proceeding.” The judgment was affirmed with costs. That leaves the hospital-classification judgment intact; it is not a statement that every aspect of the development received approval. [Official opinion]

A separate procedural question had a different answer. The petitioners had asked to dismiss the appeal on the ground that it had become academic. The appellate court denied that branch of their motion; it did not dismiss the appeal on that basis. [Official opinion]

This account concerns the verified April 8 ruling, as published in the official reports and corrected through June 10, 2026. It does not establish the case’s present posture, subsequent zoning proceedings, construction or operating status. Later orders and agency records would be needed to report those developments. [Official opinion]