<p>When Andrew Cortese purchased the 1.14-acre property at 52 Mount Airy Road last April for $685,000, neighbors didn't know much about the new owner. The parcel — a circa-1875 farmhouse colonial previously owned by Tony Award-winning lighting designer Donald Holder and his wife, Juilliard Drama dean Evan Yionoulis — had been a quiet part of the wooded hillside for more than a century.</p> <p>Then the trees started coming down.</p> <p>Within months, more than 20 mature trees were felled on the property — a fact that would later become the defining flashpoint of a land-use battle that has consumed three Zoning Board of Appeals hearings and drawn more public comment than any development application in recent memory.</p> <h2>A Familiar Playbook</h2> <p>Cortese, who operates through 52 Mt Airy Rd, LLC, is no stranger to neighborhood opposition. In Dobbs Ferry, his attempt to build four homes on a paper street adjacent to the 76-acre Juhring Estate nature preserve sparked a "Save the Knoll" campaign that collected 273 petition signatures. He ultimately donated those parcels to the village.</p> <p>In Sleepy Hollow, a contractor named Karl Dibble sued Cortese and village officials over alleged bid rigging at the General Motors redevelopment site, claiming a village official shared confidential bid information. The federal antitrust claims were dismissed on procedural grounds.</p> <p>Now in Croton, the plan is to subdivide the Mount Airy property into two lots and build a new single-family home on the second. Both proposed lots would measure approximately 24,718 square feet — falling 281 square feet short of the RA25 zone's 25,000 square-foot minimum. That 1.1 percent shortfall requires area variances from the ZBA.</p> <p>"Wanting to build more houses and maximizing profit is not a hardship," resident Gabriella Mirabelli told the board at the March 17 hearing, cutting to the legal heart of the matter. Under New York's five-factor test for area variances, self-created hardship weighs against approval. Cortese bought the lot knowing its dimensions.</p> <h2>The Creeping Tree Count</h2> <p>The number of trees slated for removal has been a moving target throughout the proceedings, and it has become the most emotionally charged element of the case.</p> <p>At the January 20 hearing, neighbors reported that mature trees had already been cleared. By the February 17 hearing, engineer Michael Mastrogiacomo of Mastrogiacomo Engineering PC initially told the board "roughly about twelve" trees would need to come down for the new construction. ZBA Chair James Tuman looked at the application drawings and challenged him: "Certainly looks like a lot more than twelve." Mastrogiacomo revised his estimate to 26 to 30 trees.</p> <p>By March, resident Vincent Cohan noted the 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."</p> <p>That timing is significant. Croton-on-Hudson enacted Local Law No. 13 of 2025, effective October 2025, requiring permits to remove more than three trees in a year or any single tree above a certain diameter, with penalties up to $3,000 per violation. The bulk of the clearing at 52 Mount Airy appears to have occurred before the law's effective date.</p> <p>Orit Daly, a ceramic artist who lives at 67 Mount Airy Road South directly across from the property, told the board she wasn't planning to speak but felt compelled: "There have already been more than 20 trees taken down." Her property, she said, now receives full sunlight where it never did before.</p> <h2>"Asphalt Is Better for Animals?"</h2> <p>The exchange that crystallized the board's skepticism came when attorney Kory Salomone of the White Plains firm Zarin & Steinmetz — representing Cortese — argued that the development would actually improve the property's habitat. Mastrogiacomo added that replanting would make the site "better for deer, rabbits, any kind of animals."</p> <p>Chair Tuman's reply was immediate: "I appreciate that, but I find it hard to believe that asphalt is better for animals than what's there existing."</p> <p>When Salomone cited his experience to minimize environmental concerns, Tuman pushed back again: "You're a lawyer. You're not environmental."</p> <p>The retaining walls emerged as another concern. Plans showed structures reaching 14 feet in some locations on the steep terrain — walls that several board members noted were far beyond what the original application suggested.</p> <h2>A Neighborhood United</h2> <p>What has distinguished the Mount Airy fight from routine variance applications is the breadth and intensity of community opposition.</p> <p>Deborah Schupack of 16 King Street — an author who runs King Street Creative — organized a petition signed by 45 residents objecting to the variances over stormwater runoff, erosion, downhill flooding, and steep slope impacts.</p> <p>Dan Cayer, a writer who lives at the corner of King Street and Mount Airy Road with his wife and two daughters, submitted video documentation of flooding on King Street during rainstorms — flooding that occurred before any trees were removed. "These rainstorms were before the 29 large trees were taken down," he told the board. "So already, there would be flooding on King Street."</p> <p>David Steele, whose property at 56 Mount Airy Road directly abuts Cortese's lot, submitted a letter and spoke at multiple hearings about the wooded, historic character of the neighborhood. His wife Ashley also addressed the board.</p> <p>Ruben Dahlia, from 67 Mount Airy Road South, delivered what amounted to an ecology lecture: "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."</p> <p>Edward Wohl of Quaker Bridge Road read a detailed legal memo prepared by Stuart and Karen Greenbaum — who live at 48 Mount Airy Road but were unable to attend — arguing that the project was improperly classified as a Type II action under SEQR, the State Environmental Quality Review Act, to avoid a full environmental review.</p> <h2>The Referral</h2> <p>On March 17, the ZBA voted unanimously to refer the application to the Planning Board, which Chair Tuman said was "better equipped" to handle the unresolved technical issues: stormwater management, steep slope analysis, and the retaining walls.</p> <p>Salomone accepted the referral without objection. "When we come back to you guys," he told the board, "it'll be a fully baked plan."</p> <p>The public hearing remains open. The Planning Board's review is expected to produce recommendations by May 2026, after which the ZBA will take up the variance application again.</p> <p>But the question hanging over the proceedings isn't really about 281 square feet. It's about what kind of development Croton's hillside neighborhoods can absorb — and whether the trees that are already gone can ever be replaced by anything the village actually wanted.</p> <h2>What's Next</h2> <p>Cortese also co-owns property at 425 South Riverside Avenue, across from ShopRite, where he plans a 49-unit apartment building. The timeline for that submission remains uncertain.</p> <p>Meanwhile, Croton's new tree protection law will be tested for the first time as the Mount Airy application moves forward. Whether it has any retroactive bearing on trees already removed remains an open legal question.</p>