ZBA Grants Front Setback Variance for Irving Avenue Addition and Fence Height Variance for Young Avenue Corner Property
The Croton-on-Hudson Zoning Board of Appeals granted two variances at its May 19 meeting — a 1.5-foot front yard setback variance for a two-story addition at 71 Irving Avenue and an 18-inch fence height variance for a corner property at 40 Young Avenue.
✓ Transcript checked✓ Source documents checked✓ Cross-checked against adopted minutes◯ Not line-by-line human reviewed
Drafted by our AI meeting-coverage pipeline from the official recording and transcript, then checked against the source record by an automated verification gate before publication.
Published under the editorial responsibility of
Matthew Broudy,
who is accountable for every article on this site.
The Croton Zoning Board of Appeals heard and approved two variance requests at its May 19 meeting, both with no public opposition.
ZBA Chairman James Tuman and ZBA Board Member Doug Olcott during discussion of a front setback variance for 71 Irving Avenue at the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting.
Irving Avenue addition
Don Laird and Betsy Laird received a 1.5-foot front yard setback variance for their home at 71 Irving Avenue to build a front mudroom, second-floor closet, and a portico, along with a full second story and attic above the existing one-and-a-half-story house.
The property sits at the end of a dead-end street in the RA-5 zoning district. According to architect Joseph Arnow, the existing house has a 19.4-foot front setback based on a 2016 survey, leaving 4.4 feet of remaining setback after accounting for the 15-foot requirement. The mudroom addition needs five feet of depth, requiring an additional 1.5 feet of relief.
The open portico — eight feet wide and six feet deep — falls within the permitted setback and requires no variance. The board previously granted a two-foot front yard variance in 2019 for an existing deck on the northeast side of the house, which will remain in place.
Arnow presented a second design option with a dormer that the board found stylistically consistent with Sears homes found in the village. Board members described both designs as contextual and an improvement to the property.
The board found that the variance would not change the neighborhood character, could not be achieved by another method — without the additional 1.5 feet, the mudroom would be too narrow to function — was not substantial, would have no adverse environmental impact, and that the difficulty was self-created. No neighbors spoke at the public hearing.
Applicants sit at the presentation table during discussion of a front setback variance for an Irving Avenue addition.
Young Avenue fence
Coleman Clancy received an 18-inch fence height variance for the corner property at 40 Young Avenue and Benedict Boulevard, allowing a 48-inch open metal fence within the corner sight triangle where village code limits fences to 30 inches.
Clancy told the board the fence is needed for safety as his family grows. His daughter is five months old, and the family may get a dog. A 30-inch fence, he said, would not reliably contain either. The previous owners received an identical variance from the ZBA in 2023 — same height, same 25% solid limit — but never built the fence, and the variance expired after one year.
The proposed fence is black aluminum with open construction, approximately 75% open space. Clancy said it would be installed on the property line, several feet back from the sidewalk, not extending into the public right-of-way.
Two neighbors spoke in support. John Farrell of 34 Young Avenue, immediately next door, said his own similar fence created no visibility issues and described how his dog had been hit by a car on Benedict Avenue before a taller fence was installed. Julie Evans, on the other side, said a 60-year-old privet hedge had previously stood at least four feet tall in the same location and was more obtrusive than the proposed open fence.
Steve Krisky noted that the application did not include the same conditions as the 2023 variance and recommended the board impose them again: a four-foot maximum height and 25% or less solid construction. The board agreed and incorporated those conditions.
ZBA Board Member Doug Olcott during discussion of the 71 Irving Avenue variance at the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting.
On the five-factor test, the board found no detriment to neighborhood character, that the benefit could not be achieved by another method given the 25% solid condition, that the variance was substantial but mitigated by the distance between the property line and the street, that there would be no adverse environmental impact, and that the difficulty was self-created.
The board also approved minutes from its March 17 and April 21 meetings.
Share
Community Discussion
0 comments
One email per new comment on this story. You'll confirm by email first; unsubscribe any time. Your address is never shown publicly.
Be the first to comment on this story.
Sent to the editor for review
This is what you asked us to forward to the Village Board:
An editor reads it first. Once it goes, your comment here
will show a ✓ Forwarded to the Village Board mark —
that is your confirmation.
Coverage of the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting on 2026-05-19,
Village of Croton-on-Hudson, NY.
· Read full transcript
●52 Mount Airy Road (52 Mt Airy Rd, LLC): Request for two lot width area variances from Section 230-33A of the Village Zoning Code to subdivide a 49,436.6 sq ft parcel in an RA25 Residence District into two lots. Both proposed lots (24,718 sq ft and 24,718.6 sq ft) fall short of the 25,000 sq ft minimum by approximately 281 sq ft (1%). The applicant proposes constructing a new single-family home on Lot B, removing 26 to 30 trees, and building 4-to-6-foot retaining walls. Board Member Doug Olcott recused himself. The public hearing was opened and remains open.
●Public Comments: Three speakers addressed the Board:
●Claire Hilbert (60 Mount Airy Road): Read a letter from Stuart and Karen Greenbaum (48 Mount Airy Road South) opposing the variances due to substandard lot sizes, tree removal, steep slope disturbance, stormwater flooding, traffic safety, wildlife habitat loss, and property values. Also raised concerns about neighborhood character and wooded habitat loss.
●David Steele (56 Mount Airy Road): Spoke in opposition, citing the neighborhood's wooded, historic character and cumulative tree removal impacts.
●Deborah Schupack (16 King Street): Read a letter signed by 45 residents opposing the variances over stormwater runoff, erosion, downhill flooding, steep slope impacts, and intensified development on constrained land.
●Additionally, a member of the public submitted a car accident incidence report for that section of Mount Airy Road, and multiple written letters of opposition were entered into the record.
●Reports:
●Board Deliberations: The Board requested updated survey information, a steep slope analysis, architectural elevations and renderings, grading and retaining wall clarifications, and marked site features (driveway, house location, trees for removal) ahead of a site visit. The site visit will be scheduled once snow melts.
●Other Business: Minutes of the January 20, 2026 meeting were approved by a vote of 3-0 (Olcott absent, Berger recused).
Zoning Board Grills Mount Airy Subdivision Applicant Over Tree Removal
Experimental project: croton.news uses AI to generate articles from public records. Content may contain errors. Please report any inaccuracies and check our corrections log.AI-assisted experimental site — may contain errors. Corrections
Community Discussion
Be the first to comment on this story.
Sent to the editor for review
This is what you asked us to forward to the Village Board:
An editor reads it first. Once it goes, your comment here will show a ✓ Forwarded to the Village Board mark — that is your confirmation.