=== HEADLINE === ZBA pushes subdivision plan to planning board after tree removal clash === SUMMARY === The Zoning Board of Appeals referred a controversial two-lot subdivision at 52 Mount Airy Road to the Planning Board after residents and board members challenged the applicant's claim that removing 30 trees would have no environmental impact. Neighbors argued the variances represent a self-created hardship. === EXECUTIVE BRIEF === • ZBA voted to refer the 52 Mount Airy Road subdivision application to the Planning Board for further environmental and engineering analysis • Public hearing remains open; all testimony from the March 17 session enters the official record • Planning Board review expected to return recommendations by May === ARTICLE === "I find it hard to believe that asphalt is better for animals than what's there existing." That blunt assessment from a Zoning Board of Appeals member summed up the tension at Tuesday night's hearing, where the team behind a proposed two-lot subdivision at 52 Mount Airy Road struggled to defend cutting roughly 30 trees along a steep slope and long driveway. The applicant's attorney, Corey Salomon, told the board that removing the trees "cannot reasonably be considered impactful under the circumstances." When pressed on how that conclusion was reached, Salomon pointed to his 25 years of experience. "You're a lawyer. You're not environmental," the board chair replied. Project engineer Michael Mastrojakimo then stepped in, arguing the replanting plan would actually improve the habitat for deer and rabbits. "Right now, it's bare land that animals really are not gonna wanna stay there," he said — a claim that drew visible skepticism in a room full of Mount Airy residents who live among those trees. The exchange set the tone for an evening where neighbors systematically dismantled the applicant's case. Gabriela Mirabelli called the 563-square-foot lot deficiency "a gap they bought," not a village-created hardship. Vincent Cohan noted the tree removal count had crept from six or seven at a prior meeting to 20, then to 30 — with potentially 30 more already cleared before the new tree ordinance took effect. Ruben Dahlia, a resident across the street, delivered a pointed ecological critique of the replacement landscaping: "Nature is chaotic, and once destroyed, it takes forever to rebuild. And what it does not look like is a lawn surrounded by Japanese azaleas." Edward Wohl read a memo from neighbors Stuart and Karen Greenbaum arguing the project was improperly classified as a Type II action under SEQR to avoid environmental review — a legal question the board will need to address. By the meeting's end, the ZBA concluded that many of the unresolved questions — stormwater management, steep slope analysis, retaining walls up to 14 feet tall — properly belonged before the Planning Board. The board voted unanimously to refer the application, keeping the public hearing open. Salomon acknowledged the move was reasonable, saying the team would work with the Planning Board on potentially pulling the house forward to shorten the driveway and reduce tree loss. "When we come back to you guys, it'll be a fully baked plan," he said. **What to watch for:** The Planning Board is expected to take up the application next, with recommendations likely returning to the ZBA by May. The public hearing remains open, and residents can still submit written comments to the ZBA. A site visit to the property and neighboring 48 Boundary Road South has been requested.