• to the zoning board of appeals meeting for Croton And Hudson.
• Today is
• Tuesday, March 17.
• Before we start, just so you know, we're well, we have a lot of people here. We have two exits, one out there
• and one here in case of emergency.
• Before we start,
• public hearing is still open from the last meeting.
• The applicant has presented some additional information, so we're gonna let the applicant
• present the information.
• But before we start, I'd like to, have advice of counsel
• privately
• before we start.
• So if you guys would just hold for five minutes. Do have to take a moment?
• No.
• You just hold wait one five minutes.
• Everyone.
• Let's open it, with the applicant
• to present,
• discuss additional information that was submitted and and some of the questions we had from the last meeting.
Good evening. For the record, Corey Salomon from Zarin and Steinmetz, here tonight on behalf of the applicant. I have Andrew Cortesi, the applicant with me, as well as Michael Mastrojakimo,
• our project engineer, and my colleague Jacqueline Cohen.
• So either you guys are familiar with the application. It's, two variances from the lot area in connection with a two lot subdivision.
• We had been requested to provide some additional information with respect to, tree removal, steep slopes, storm water, traffic,
and a rendering. So we we submitted those subsequent to the meeting, and I'm just gonna pass it over to Mike to to run through those changes for you. I'm more than happy to answer any questions you guys have.
• Good evening, Michael Masjajakpal,
• consulting engineer for the project. As
• you requested, we get we provided the additional topography
• on the the topographic surveys.
• We've provided the rendering now. We just got it today literally. So I was able to print it to bring with us. And, you know, we've provided the landscape drawings for you to see what we're doing and how we're grading the site and how we're planting on the site.
• And, don't know if you have any other questions.
• First question I have is with the house,
• the height of the house.
• And, Ron, maybe you can help me with this. The
• Requirement for the house, two
• and a half stories or 35 feet maximum.
• The 35 feet is measured from the
• grade in front of the house
• to the average height between the eave and the peak.
• I'll also have to look at a story, but that's
• the height calculation right there. So looking at what you have there with the double garage,
• I would have to you know? So you're gonna have to check that number for the height. Sure.
• And there's also restrictions
• on adjusting
• the existing grades.
• You can only go,
raise the grade four feet at that plane in front of the house. Okay. And I think that's roughly where we're at is raising the four feet. Mhmm.
• But the height, does does it go to an average grade? Because the site does slope, you know, like most sites do. The average grade on the front On the front plane. Right. Okay. So the way we I mean, right now, the drawings are
• I don't wanna say schematic. They're they're pretty developed,
• but those those adjustments will be made so then we meet all the height requirements.
• else? Any any questions on the house?
• And what's what's the
• the height of the house
• in absolute
• because it because these these drawings are very helpful with the grades and the elevations,
• but I'm not clear.
• The basement
• or the parking level
• is the Elevation 250.
• above that is roughly
• it's hard to tell
• because you don't your your elevation is off.
• It's 28 feet off the back or 36
• off the front. So that takes you to the top. Top of the building is Elevation
• 286.
• Roughly. Yeah. 285286.
• Well, yeah, roughly 286.
• So where does that so that takes you
• back of the property line is at elevation
• Yeah. It's close to two eighty. Gonna be above the back of the property line. Just a little bit. Yeah. But then it goes on to the existing lot with the existing house where that still continues higher
• in elevation.
• Right. Right. Existing house. So the way the way and and you could see in the rendering
• can I move this? Yeah. Oh, okay. Great. Alright. Perfect. So you can see how the topography comes down. You know, the the rendering that's done is it's somewhat accurate. So as everything the grade does slope down, this is the way it goes. You could see that the house, you know, sits up a little bit, but this this land continues up. This this is only portion of our property. It doesn't show the remaining where the existing house is.
• So it sits nicely in this location.
• Have we move it to a different location that's higher in elevation will be disturbing neighbors, which is not what you wanna do. So we kept within the grading and, you know, we did have to do some grading in order to get the driveway to work. But, you know, we we've set this nicely in. It was like a a nice little pocket where it should sit in.
• And then we're still developing, you know, some of the pitches on the roof, so some of this stuff will will be adjusted. It might come down, you know, two feet or so. So it won't be as
• high as what, you know, what you're mentioning right now.
• Just
• going over that letter that you sent with the discussion of project impacts. The first thing you talk about is tree removal,
• and you say there's no anticipated impact of tree removal on the habitat for wildlife in the area.
• Proposed tree removal here cannot reasonably be considered impactful under the circumstances.
• Can you
• explain how you came to that conclusion?
• Because 30 trees seems like a lot of trees.
• I I guess, you could say it's a lot of trees, but anytime you're gonna develop a piece of property to build a single family home, trees are coming down. So in in the context of a single family home, that's not abnormal from the projects that we're going on to take down the on the property
• What's that? If there's no trees on the property, you're not taking trees. Well, no. There's no trees on the property, but there's very it's infrequent where you find a piece of property that you're building these days. You can't necessarily say that removal tree
• Well, that's my point. What how are you determining there's no impact?
I mean, I think we were just saying that there's other properties. We I mean, if there was a lot of arguments about how we're destroying the environment for for nature, for animals, and there's other large tracks of land.
• And we're not just you know, we're not clear cutting this entire piece of property. It's just this one area where the house is going. And so we just don't believe that there's gonna be large impacts associated with the street from But you're cutting 30 trees, and it's all the way through the site from the street all the way to back. So it's not just where the house is going. It's where the driveway For the driveway to to improve for a single family home is what we're removing, Trace. Any anything that's associated with that of of, you know, improvement.
• But there's you've done no analysis
• on the impact. That's just more or less your opinion that there's no impact. But, I mean, based on twenty five years of doing this.
• But you're a lawyer. You're not environmental. Excuse me. I mean, you you don't know,
you know, the habitat. You're not, you know environmental will get into that. But we're we're also planting a lot of trees. So we are putting back,
• and we're actually
• making the the property better. Forget about development wise, even for deer,
• rabbits,
• any kind of animals.
• Can
• I speak, please?
• So for for any kind of environmental
• stuff like that, we are creating a better area for because right now, the it's it's
• bare land that animals really are not gonna wanna stay there or wanna attract.
• It's not you know, this will be more present for that. I I do a lot of work upstate
• where it's very, very we impacted a lot on the deer and all that. So I I have a lot of experience with this. I do a lot of work in Wyndham where this is a big thing that we look at. And we make sure that we minimize
• whatever we're doing. We're always putting back something that will be beneficial to the environment
• and not just develop it for a pretty house.
• hard to
• believe that asphalt is better for animals
• than what's their existing.
That's We're still working on the hardscape, but that really that's that's not at this
• no disrespect. It's not at this board's,
• you know, really level. And and, again, no disrespect. No. I appreciate more for the variants and all that. We're still developing the hardscape and the softscape still.
• that.
• Does anybody else have any questions on the trees?
• well and lead certified professional
• who also was a nature camp counselor
• is, do you believe that there was no way to take down less than 30 trees on this project?
• stabilize the slopes
• so they don't continue to erode,
• in order to properly
• grade the area and and and develop this,
• not just for the house, but again, for nature and for stability and to protect the neighbors.
• Some of this mitigation needs to be done. This is the reason why we have a very extensive planting plan,
• and there's other things that we're looking at. And we've used a lot of trees that are are
• known to be in this area, part, you know, part of this area, not nothing standing out. So this is something very, very developed properly in in according to environmental characteristics.
For exam and since the nature of the subdivision results in the home being pushed very far back in in this long driveway,
• but it's a
• imposed hardship, the positioning of this home. So I just wonder if further study can't be given to
• shortening the driveway, shortening
• the amount of trees that need to be removed in that regard. And I can think of plenty of examples of projects that have worked around trees to some extent
• both in this village and elsewhere.
• And as you've noted, we have plenty of wildlife,
• including deer,
• chipmunks,
• even bears occasionally on on this area.
Right. So a lot of what you're saying goes into effect when we're when we're designing the whole project. So as somebody has been doing this for thirty five years, we always look at that. Those are the first steps in develop designing development.
• A lot of the location of the house has to do with zoning setbacks
• and how and how that pushes
• where you could place a house and what's the best spot.
• Also, remember, there's an old septic system right in this corner.
• But you're getting rid of that. We're getting rid of it, but we don't know what is done to the soils if this is structurally sound. So if you want me to start digging out even more and creating more of a burden to the neighborhood, which I don't think any of us would wanna do How is it more of a burr? Explain how important If the soil there has a lot of old septic system and stuff like that, a lot of that might have to be excavated out. We don't know what the septic system looks like.
• So I don't wanna create any issues. Mike. Now
• that that the beginning portion of the land is kinda narrow the way we laid it out, and the and the land where it widens up is in the rear. So it would be hard to bring it in because the the elevation in the front is kinda higher on the left hand side.
It's it's if you look at the site plan, it's pretty steep on the first portion on the left as you go in the driveway. But one point I'll make is that you're coming to us for a variance, and I understand that you've engineered this to be the minimal
• you know, respecting as much setbacks as possible, as much of the area as possible.
• But the net effect of that is a very long deep driveway,
and you're asking for a variance one way or another. But the variance has nothing to do with the driveway nor does it have the any
• to do with the location of the house or the size of the house. We're looking for a 200 able to consider the impact. So has a location of the house. It's a 250
• square foot variance If if you if you did the subdivision of a garage. If you did the subdivision a different way
• and push the house to the front and get more, shorten the driveway It has nothing to do with the lot area. The lot area is the lot area. What do you mean? If if you if you did the subdivision a different way. No. You can't. I'll tell you. Why can't you? The the existing property hold on. The existing property has so many square feet. It's already deficient by roughly 500 square feet. We know that. So what what we did to make it more intact with the with the surrounding lots
• is we made it we split that difference onto each lot. Right. So we have a 1% variance for each talking about this But that has not this the variance for the lot area
• has nothing to do with location of the house. I I don't think you're understanding the question.
• Right? Roughly. Yeah. If you did it if you divided it a different way,
• made the new parcel where you're putting the house wider,
• and the old parcel
• took some of the in the back. And that way, you could push the house up to the front. Oh, where is it? These are the same. These are yeah.
• Oh. So so what
• hold Right.
• But, again, the lot area variance has nothing to do with anything else. So now we have a minimum lot width. We have minimum setbacks that we have to keep from the existing structure. We need 20 feet. We just got over 20 feet. Then we have to go another 20 feet and 30 feet. This little strip in here is skinnier than the size of the house.
• So even if I have to pull it up, I still have setbacks that I have to stick with. That has nothing to do with the shape of the lot.
It's Setbacks have nothing to do with the shape of the lot. Ethan's point is you could come back for variance for that.
• for the minimum relief required. Right. Right. So this was the layout that gives us the minimum request. Right? If we come back in the setbacks, I don't know. The setbacks, we may need four variances as opposed But but but a 1% variance. The impact is a lot more on what you're doing here
than if you propose something where the house was pushed to the front. So I have I have a very simple solution,
and and I'm gonna prove to you it has nothing to do with what you're disc you know, what you're projecting right now. I could take this house. I could squeeze it in, make it smaller. I could shoot pull it forward. No problem. I'll I'll make it work. I still need a 250 square foot area variance here and another one here. It has nothing to do with the location or the size of the house. We know that, but I think our point is it's a lot more palatable
We could do that. I I don't you know? No. We could try to reduce as many trees as possible. I have no problem doing that. Based on the trees. But
• he but for all intents purposes, we're here for the lot variance. Right. As far as that whole thing, I can
• move it around. Not a problem.
• If that if that's what the board wants.
• what you think
• can get approved.
• square foot variance
• in order to continue,
and we'll redesign the house and we'll pull it forward, and we have no problem doing that. We just felt that that was the best place to put it because it felt there was a big slope there and it would fit in there like you were saying.
• You know, we didn't consider maybe as much as you guys are as as the trees, you know. So maybe,
• you know, we could relook at that. We we're not fixated on putting it right. It's the trees and the steep slope and the impact of,
• that there is an impact in the back on the on the trees and on the animals and on
• drainage.
• And anything that can mitigate that is
• is helpful.
• the drainage. Because the way the drainage goes, there's, a drainage divide here,
• and this is a valley that kinda
• everything collects and pushes towards this neighbor. So by developing this, we're trying to route some of the water away from the neighbor Yeah. And to be collected into our drainage system and and try to mitigate, you know, any impacts of runoff going to them. Right. We're capturing kinda like we another reason why we had it a little further back.
• Plus, they try to stay away from people's backyards and try to keep everybody private. You know? We we we Well, I think that's one of the advantages of moving it forward is is No problem. We can pull that forward, shorten the driveway. That's fine. Anyway,
• back to the steep slopes.
• One thing I'm struggling with is these retaining walls
• and,
• particularly the ones more towards the back
• where it looks like they're about 10 feet tall.
• Back here, it's two forty eight, top. Bottom is two thirty eight.
• Might even be more.
• Where are you looking?
• Back by the house.
• Yeah. Right there. Right right there.
Right. No. In order to try to minimize as much bill going on onto that property,
we had to have a little bit of a higher retaining wall there. Yeah. I mean, it's a substantial retaining wall. In some points, it could be up to 14 feet.
Well, again, if we're gonna be falling the house forward, a lot of these retaining walls will go away.
So that's not fun. Okay. I just wanna make a point. We we didn't we didn't we don't prefer it for the back. We were just trying to comply with minimal variances, obviously. That's what we're trying to
• you know, we eat up a lot of land with the driveway going in, so it doesn't benefit us to have it, you know, all that Oh, no. You're right. You're right. And then in the piping and the the sewer pipe, water piping, electrical. Yeah. More hardscape. Paving. You know? Paving.
• And it's and it and it if we pull it forward, we'd probably get a nicer yard in the back to a flat area.
Storm water, we're designing for the hundred year storm Right. Which is what what is required. It's eight
• point almost
• eight and a half inches of rainfall per hour,
• and that's and that's how we designed it. We do our calculations, run it through a hydro CAD, and we come up with the required number of dry walls. And then we try to split it up so it's not all concentrated in one spot. We try to break it up so then the roof leaders and and the drivers are a little separated.
• And then, of course, you know, we put in all the the necessary requirements as far as storm sectors or
• some pits or anything to get you know, to treat the to the pretreatment that's required.
• I'm gonna ask.
• The chambers,
• stormwater
• chambers,
• how often do they have to be cleaned?
• The maintenance schedule on those, the it's maybe, like, once a year or once every two years. They're really not supposed to be
• it's
• not like a manhole that you're opening it up. It's a small inspection port. Right. You go in there and
• that's why you put the storm shutters. Maintain it? Like, what? So there's really no maintenance for it for some and clean it. Well, to clean it, the the whole point is whether you do a storm scepter or a sump pit or whatever, that's what cleans it in order to take all the debris, the leaves, everything gets collected before it even goes into those systems. So that way you have the cleaning spot is before it. Right. You have, like, a a two by two catch basin with a two foot sump where everything collects. That typically, you know, the lanyard skippet goes in every once a month or whatever. Pulls out whatever leaks or whatever. And that that's the continued maintenance.
• The actual units itself, you once a year, you look into the inspection port. Or if we have a very heavy rainfall, maybe it's twice a year, you'll look in there and see if something has to get done.
• Okay. Anybody else have any questions?
• impervious type of pavements other than asphalt just to cut down on runoff?
We haven't really again, we're still developing the hardscapes, so, you know, we're going through to see if we're gonna use it maybe an impervious paver or
We've we've used that on other projects. Impervious pavers where water just goes right through, never puddles. I'm sorry. Pervious pavers. My apologies. Asphalt.
• And where water goes right through and and never puddles,
• so we use it on other projects as well.
if you move the house to the front, would you still need the same number of, storm water catches?
Well, no. Because it's less driveway, so it's the whole system gets reduced. But but I would think that we would have to put some drainage to catch that water. Right? Or we don't have We'd have to see how how that flow goes in the back because the way the code reads, it's
• you're not you can't increase anything going off the site. Okay. The the code asks if there is any kind of relief you could do. We'd have to look into that. Okay.
• My thinking on this right now
• is there's a lot of,
• uncertainty,
• a lot of analysis that you would have to do for the planning board
• that may factor into our decision here,
• and we're and we're not
• typically the board for that.
• So what I would like to do, and I'm gonna make a motion,
• is to refer this to the planning board
• for their,
• to do their due diligence and their
• analysis. Because a lot of the questions I'm asking you typically are planning board questions.
• But we're gonna we'll take a vote on that,
• and then we'll open up the public hearing.
• Rachel? Okay. Okay.
• So I'm gonna make a motion to,
• refer this to the planning board. Does anybody want a second? Second.
• All in favor?
• Aye. Okay.
• So
• what's gonna happen is
• we're gonna this hearing's still open. We're gonna take comments.
• What you said tonight is gonna be going in the record. What everyone says tonight,
• is gonna go into the record. So it's important that everyone's talks tonight.
• The planning board will be doing their analysis,
• and then probably not this month,
• probably May,
• hopefully, they'll come back with
• their recommendations
• of whether this should be approved or not or also,
• alternative
• things that you guys can work out with the planning board.
Yeah. I think that's a great idea. We could work through, the possibility of moving the house forward, reducing the driveway with them, get their input on the subdivision layout, and then when we come back to you guys, it'll be a fully baked plan. Okay. Okay.
• Thank you. K. Thank you.
• anybody who would like to talk, the only thing I request is you say your name, address, and write your name on the paper there.
• I'm at 55 Quaker Bridge Road,
• and I'm about to read a memo prepared by Stuart and Karen Greenbaum who are unavailable.
• This memo will serve to buttress my prior letter to the board objecting to this project.
• I note that the applicant has designated its application for two area variances
• from the minimum lot size requirements of the zoning code
• to enable the applicant to benefit from
• one newly created
• lot for an additional home as a type two action under SECRA,
• which would thereby avoid SECRA review.
• I requestfully request the zoning board consult with a town attorney as to whether this type two designation
• is correct.
• I believe it is incorrect
• and that the project should be designated as an unlisted action,
• thereby requiring
• full SECRA review.
• In this regard, I note that the applicant is apparently relying
• for its type two designation of section six seventeen point five c 17 of the SECRA regulations,
• which provides a type two designation
• for
• granting of an area variance for a single family,
• two family, or three family residence.
• First, the applicant is not seeking an area variance
• for only one residence,
• but for two.
• More importantly, in this case, the applicant cannot ignore the related requirements
• of a preceding section of the SECRA regulations
• for type two proposals,
• section six seventeen dash five c 11, which addresses
• what the applicant is actually doing and which provides in pertinent part as follows.
• Construction or expansion of a single family
• or a two family or a three family residence
• on an approved lot.
• The board and its attorneys are respectfully referred to pages thirty, thirty one, and 32
• of the secret handbook fourth addiction two twenty,
• which provides Department Environmental
• Conservation's
• explanation
• of the intent of these two regulations,
• which expressly indicates that they do not apply
• where one or more new lots are being created but are not yet approved,
• in which case, secret review is still warranted in those instances.
• Thus, whereas in this case, the applicant is seeking the variances to create an entirely new lot and to construct a new single family residence,
• it is respectfully submitted that section six seventeen point five c 11 should be applied
• and or section six seventy six seventeen point five c 17 must be interpreted consistently therewith.
• And accordingly,
• it should be determined that the application falls outside the parameters of these sections
• and therefore must be construed as an unlisted action
• subject to full secret review.
• Accordingly,
• the board may not act in the absence of a secret determination.
• Please accept this memorandum as additional comments to my letter to the zoning board of appeals dated 01/20/2026.
• In light of the complexities raised at the hearing and all of the environmental and engineering issues presented to the board,
• I request that the village retain, as it does in some instances, an engineering consultant to evaluate the application
• and advise the board.
• I further ask that in performing the site visit at my property at 48 Boundary Road South,
• that the board particularly take into account the impacts of the project on my home and property,
• which is most affected by this project,
• including the impact from blasting on the foundation
• of my 1830
• 1838
• home for applicants' planned driveway.
• As discussed, the variance criteria of impact on the character of the neighborhood,
• it is insufficient simply to say that because the use will be residential,
• there is no such impact when there is no other lot situated or configured like this in the neighborhood
• and with all its significant impacts
• and to also leave out the part of the same criteria relating to the detriment on nearby properties.
• I would like to point out that this is misleading for the applicant to claim that this is only a 1% variance
• given all of the impacts discussed at the hearing
• and the fact that the applicant sinks a new lot and a new house.
• Also,
• it is somewhat audacious of the applicant to appear before the board under these circumstances without a topographic survey,
• a steep slopes analysis,
• house elevations,
• landscaping plan, or traffic safety analysis,
• among other things.
• It is for all these prior reasons discussed
• at the prior meeting in my submission that the variances should be denied.
• Respectfully,
• Stuart and Karen Greenbaum.
• Thank
• My name is Gabriela Mirabelli.
• The residents here tonight are not the ones who need to make a case. A variance is a legal exception to existing zoning,
• and the burden of justifying that exception rests entirely with the applicant,
• not with the people who bought their homes relying on the rules as they stood.
• The standard is narrow. It requires demonstrating
• hardship that is specific
• to this property,
• not shared by others in the area,
• and not created by the owner's own actions.
• Wanting to build more houses
• and increase the value of a parcel
• is not a hardship.
• It's a business objective.
• The company purchased 52 Mount Airy Road knowing it sits in an RA 25 district, a 25,000
• square foot minimum,
• and knowing that the lot was 49,437
• square feet
• and that it can't create
• two conforming parcels.
• This 563
• square foot gap
• between what they own
• and what the rules require
• is not a hardship that the village created.
• It is a gap they bought.
• The applicant purchased a parcel that cannot be legally subdivided under current zoning
• and is now asking this board to change the rules to make their purchase
• profitable.
• That is not what variances are for.
• Before this application was filed and days before the village's strengthened tree ordinance took effect,
• the applicant removed numerous trees from the property,
• technically
• within the letter of the prior law, but only because the timing was calculated to stay ahead of the new one.
• That is an operating posture,
• not a coincidence.
• Identify the rule, find the edge, and push.
• This board should understand what that approach signals
• about how this developer intends to operate going forward.
• What this board is being asked to do tonight is change the rules for one parcel
• in a way that permanently alters
• what every neighbor around it owns.
• The people objecting to that are not blocking progress.
• They are asking that the rules they relied upon when they bought their homes
• be applied as written.
• There's also a question of basic process.
• The applicant did not speak with any of the surrounding property owners before filing the request.
• The first time these neighbors learned that their street might be fundamentally different
• was upon seeing a notice of public hearing. This is not
• how applications that materially affect adjacent property should work,
• and it is not and it is relevant
• to how this board assesses the applicant's good faith.
• The default here is no.
• That is what zoning
• existing zoning represents.
• The applicant needs to meet a legal standard to overcome that default,
• demonstrating unique hardship.
• No undesirable change to neighborhood character,
• no feasible alternative,
• no self created difficulty.
• On the evidence presented,
• none of these criteria are met. The board should deny the application.
• My name is Ruben Dahlia. I live at 67 Mount Airy Road South directly across from 52 Mount Airy South,
• and I am here to speak on the ecology of the project,
• which the developers don't seem to be interested in.
• So section two zero eight twenty two of local law number 13 requires replacement trees equal to at least 90% of the environmental value of removed trees calculated using I Tree methodology or the national tree benefit calculator,
• predominantly using native species at a minimum of one and a half DBH.
• Not only are most of the large plants provided by the applicant's proposal
• nonnative,
• they have no value ecologically to native species, and they cannot reach one and a half inches DBH.
• Additionally,
• that is not a barren lot.
• Mature
• mature
• canopy in an,
• in a deciduous hardwood forest is not barren.
• There is a lack of understory because we have too many deer, but removing habitat will not help that. And certainly planting azaleas from Japan won't help that either because they can't eat that any more than they can eat raw dirt.
• Another thing is that the,
• addition of of measures to mitigate runoff and storm water prevention and such like would be unnecessary if the property were left as it is because the best water retention methods are mature trees as they prevent soil from running away into the road and do not and just do everything good. I don't understand this. I don't understand how you said what you've said.
• The walnuts, cherries, maples, pines, and oaks provide critical food sources and habitat for a host of animals from sparrows and squirrels to woodchucks and raccoons,
• all of which have their role to play. Removing the photosynthetic base of the food web destabilizes everything else. When you're looking at a piece of habitat as disturbed and fragmented as the Mount Airy Woods, which is not a large contiguous tract of land and is not, in fact, in no danger
• danger. You need every piece of land that you can get.
• Every walnut tree could feed an entire generation of squirrels, can in turn support our local bald eagles, our hawks,
• or the fishers, bobcats, coyotes that have moved through our our specific area of the woods in the past month.
• You will not be able to supplant the use of these trees or
• even the beauty they provide with the atrocities you have suggested in militaristic
• order.
• 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
• with one native plant in the back hidden so that they can follow laws that they clearly did not read.
• It may not seem like the developer's duty to steward the land. It is their duty to sell it and make money off of it. However, we as the people who live here have a duty to protect it because a huge amount of work has gone into making sure that the woods on Mount Airy South have remained beautiful,
• intact, and usable for the public for decades.
• And we will not let that end in a moment because of self imposed hardships
• and because you want another house where a house should not go.
• Save us our beauty, our animals, our storm water absorption, our abs our erosion prevention, our carbon sequestration,
• and our pride in our neighborhood, and leave our trees alone.
• That's it.
• Hello.
• The phrase neighborhood
• character has been, used a lot in these last couple of meetings and in in some of the documentation.
• At last month's meeting, the applicant, made a casual and, I think, rather revealing statement about neighborhood character. It was referred to earlier as well. The the character would not be altered by this project because the project remains low density residential.
• Presumably, meaning, it's not gonna be high density or industrial or retail.
• And I think, frankly, that's an awfully low bar for impact to a neighborhood,
• set by somebody who has no connection to or desire to be a part of this community,
• in the future once this, transaction is complete.
• The character of our neighborhood is much more than low density residential.
• Mount Airy is a historic part of our village with a uniqueness attributable in a great part to its wooded topography and its vintage homes.
• These are features that appeal to us and made us choose to live here.
• The village zoning rules serve as a crucial role to support and protect that special character.
• The applicant asserts that because there are other subsized lots in the area, the division of this property into two noncompliant lots has no appreciable impact on the neighborhood.
• It's important to recognize the homes he's referring to were built a hundred and fifty or two hundred years ago, long before there were zoning rules as there are today.
• The fact is no one is making any new land on Mount Airy.
• The creation of of a noncompliant
• two noncompliant lots from a single lot is irreversible.
• You you lose the the compliant lot forever.
• And so and and so on and so on because we know that these decisions create precedents that are then available to future applicants to, to to to utilize.
• So so I think the bottom line here, the purpose of these rules
• is explicitly to prevent creeping
• urbanization,
• creeping creeping,
• compression of of the environment
• and and not and and densification of the environment and then the building environment and not to mimic construction choices that happened back in the nineteenth century.
• We've heard and read a variety of information about trees. We've talked a lot about trees today. In the last month's board questioning, the first answer I heard was that there would be about six or seven trees that had to be removed. That was somewhat incredulous. I think the board challenged it, and, that the it was changed to around 20, maybe 24.
• Now I see it's 30 trees that that are gonna need to be removed from the steep slope. In addition to the trees that have already been removed, and I've never gotten a clear answer how many, but I would guess there's probably another 30 that were removed as part of the original project.
• So you this is all on the same original plot of land where you've got now perhaps 60 trees, mature trees that have been, removed.
• I would ask that the board evaluate this application in the context of what the overall project has already done to the property and the cumulative incremental
• effects on the surrounding community.
• My wife, Susanna, and I bought our house on King Street in 1994.
• Since then, we have seen multiple flooding events that have impacted us and our neighbors. We know well established mature trees are essential to drainage and erosion control, especially on steep slopes.
• Given the increased frequency of heavy rainfall events and every expectation and more of worse of these to come, it seems a singularly bad idea to be removing many dozens of mature trees immediately upslope from neighboring residences.
• The applicant faces very much a self inflicted hardship here as has been say stated by others.
• The applicant recently purchased this property as a developer and must have understood the zoning restrictions at that time. The hardship goes away quite simply if he limits his ambition to the one legal residence that existed on the property he purchased.
• Thank you all for the important service you provide to the village and for the opportunity for me and my neighbors to share our views here. We're passionate about this issue because this place is special and it's our home.
• Thank you. I respectfully
• and
• just for the record, I respectfully but firmly ask that this application be denied. Thank you.
Hello. My name is Ori Daily. I live at 67 Mount Airy Road South right across the street from 52 Mount Airy.
• And I do have to say, I wasn't going to speak tonight, but, a couple things came up that I just wanted to reiterate and,
• and repeat
• that,
• there have already been
• more than 20 trees taken down in this initial project.
• So much so that
• our the whole area in front of our house was shaded before this project started, and now there is full sun.
• So many of the neighbors who had plants that were in shaded gardens
• are now in full sun gardens.
• Also, I mean, like, it's it's it also caused
• in fact, almost caused little traffic jams because everyone who drove by and you know it's a very busy road. Everyone who drove by stopped to see, like, the what was going on because
• it was scarred.
• Like, it was it it you could see visibly from the road even though it is such a hairpin turn,
• that those trees were taken down.
• Okay?
• My son spoke earlier, Ruben Daly, about,
• the impact on the trees.
• And I do wanna point out that there's a reason why my 17 year old son is so involved in nature
• and why he is going to study animal and plant science next year. It's because he grew up in this corner of Mount Airy
• that as you can walk out his front door and see all the animals go by and all the frogs go by and all the fishers and the groundhogs and everything
• and
• the hawks that live across the street in those trees and the bald eagles who now live in a nest right by our house in that in that wild area.
• So to take down those trees, which would now be a total
• of 60
• 50 to 60 trees total for this project
• scars the land in a way that cannot be
• brought back,
• and the shrubs that they plan on putting in would not
• would not replace those trees. And those trees have been growing there for
• eighty to a hundred years.
• So
• and I've lived there for twenty years,
• and it's pretty much untouched.
• And I I was a history teacher for twenty years. I wanted to live in a historic beautiful place like that. No house on that corner was built after the year 1900,
• and that was a unique
• character. That's a unique character to that part of town.
• And this would
• not destroy, but it would alter it in a way that was not what we signed up for when we bought the house in 2005.
• Thank you very much. Thank you.
• My name is Ashley Steele.
• I live at 56 Mount Airy Road, is right next door to what's going on here.
• I live there with my husband David Steele and my children,
• Tallulah and Nico, and we moved to Mount Airy
• thirteen years ago.
• And
• my kids were two and five at the time.
• I love living in the village of Crotenhund,
• and
• I love our neighborhood.
• And I love,
• you know, what we affectionately call affectionately
• call the bend in the road.
• And,
• it's out of that love that I came down here to speak tonight.
• So,
• thank you zoning board members for, you know, being here and listening to us.
• I am gonna reiterate some of the things that have points have already been made, but I plan on saying them, so I'm gonna say them again.
• Our neighborhood has a very deep and significant history.
• All of these books, mostly of which my husband has collected,
• all have something about
• our area in them.
• And
• partially and to re reiterate what my neighbor and friend, Orit just said,
• it was what drew us to the neighborhood in the first place.
• All the houses, like this has been said, were all built mostly around the eighteen hundreds.
• And our home, the original footprint,
• dates back to a shepherd's cottage that was originally
• a part of the property to the Van Cortland Manor
• and was supposedly built in 1790.
• So it is not easy to have an old home,
• and we had made the choice
• to live in a place that has that kind of character.
• And we love that character in our neighborhood.
• The history is fascinating,
• and I, like, obviously can't go into it tonight. But some of the
• beginnings of the
• progressive
• ideas
• and human rights movements
• were started in our neighborhood.
• And
• so,
• it is,
• to it's it's just not a place to just throw in a new house.
• Right? It's it has significant character. And
• like Reid said, we we cherish it, and I think that we all feel
• a level of protection of it because we live there.
• Yeah.
• In terms of the trees,
• as was so eloquently stated earlier,
• there was the law, the local law number 13 that went into effect,
• yes, last year in October
• 2025.
• And,
• I stood on the edge of my property and systematically watched
• 29,
• a 150 year old trees be taken down branch by branch and listened to days,
• at least a week's worth of wood chipping.
• Trees that I have I'm a birder.
• Trees that I have witnessed
• over at one given time,
• a 150 to 200
• black vultures
• that would roost in the night in those trees.
• The the area
• where the proposed
• driveway is,
• I witnessed and I have video, and I think I sent it to you guys
• in
• on the on the
• on the yeah.
• Sent it to you through the the web page.
• A bobcat
• that was walking through there,
• that
• to me
• is
• thrilling.
• And to
• be able to still have
• something
• wild
• that lives close to where I live
• is a quality of life.
• And,
• that I
• chose I when I came up, I moved up from Brooklyn.
• I I I went further north, further north, further north because I wanted to have that.
• And that was why,
• why we, you know, moved to this town.
• So
• I,
• constantly have
• lots of birds that
• we witness
• all the time. There's a
• pair of red red tailed hawks.
• Yeah. There's so many so many
• different kinds of wildlife that we get to experience.
• So I think that's basically my point.
• But
• and I I hope that you guys
• say no.
Hi. My name is doctor Sherry Truin. I live at 25 Mountain Trail. I've lived in the trails for twenty years.
• I don't really plan to speak today, but,
• I
• I do really want to urge you to deny this request for a variance,
• speaking as somebody whose own property
• has been impacted by a variance that was granted
• to a nearby property of mine that then
• built something that really changed the character of where I live permanently,
• it seems. It's been quite a while now anyway.
• Yeah. I live nearby
• this property. I walk by there. I drive by there nearly every day. And I feel strongly that the rules are there to protect
• this kind of area.
• And,
• I just wanna echo what Gabriela said about
• that there is no hardship here,
• and people
• knew what they bought
• and they knew what the rules were.
• And we knew what we bought and we thought we knew what the rules were.
• And I would just like to ask for the rules to be respected.
• which is on the corner of King Street and Mount Airy.
• And I live with my wife and my two daughters. And
• I submitted some videos to the board
• that showed video videos of flooding on King Street during rainstorms,
• and these rainstorms were before the 29 large trees were taken down. So already, there would be flooding on King Street,
• this kind of, like, river of this water going across
• my lawn, kind of across the lawn back to Mount Airy.
• And so it one is I I don't know what it's gonna be like even now just with the huge
• number of trees that were cut down, but also with this suggestion now to cut another 30.
• I just don't know why we would take that risk.
• Like, they're gonna have a a model for storm water, and they're claiming that it would, you know, protect against a hundred year floods.
• But I just checked. We've had two one thousand year floods since 2021.
• And so
• what would the one hundred year flood do? And I understand that there's will probably be, you know, a a computer model thing. But, again,
• why are we taking that risk
• on something that he knew what he was buying?
• And so to risk all these other homes around us, not to mention, which I completely back all of the really eloquent things people have been saying about the change to our character,
• the change to nature, the to wildlife.
• But I I I just can't understand why
• we have to take on the risk
• for him to increase his profit from the sale. He he's a developer. He knows what he's doing. He bought this a single family lot.
• And,
• also, I guess, I I have to say too,
• just a couple comments that were said here tonight by the people working on this project.
• There'll be no impact to nature.
• The nature will be better or the wildlife will be better or something like that, the engineer was saying.
• I mean, if they're willing to be so disingenuous
• to your faces, to our faces,
• why would you make them a a partner in a variance? Take them on as partners in the variance. How can we trust what they're saying?
• Thank you. Thanks for listening, and thanks for your service. Thank you.
Hi. My name is David Steele. I'm at 56 Mount Airy Road, which abuts the 52 Property.
• I submitted a letter to the board,
• and I spoke at the last meeting. And I wasn't intending on speaking again, but I just wanted to,
• respond to a few things that were said earlier.
• Mainly, the no impact on nature or the neighbors.
• I can say that we're next to the property. It's been an enormous impact already.
• Our property was I don't wanna repeat
• what's been said over and over again, but I can talk my firsthand experience.
• The sound of birds in the morning was like a rainforest
• prior
• to
• the amount of trees that have already been cut down. It's just a construction site now, and it looks like it'll remain looking like one for a very long time. It these trees will not be replaced.
• And I urge the board to consider the totality of this project.
• We're what we're talking about here is kind of parsling this thing out or now we're talking about this little variance. It's not a little variance. It's a variance on top of a massive construction project that is already
• completely out of character with this area of Mount Airy Road.
• You can go from 52 Mount Airy, go all the way up South
• Mount Airy, go through the trails, go to east, west. There's not a single property that looks like this proposal.
• Nothing like it. There's there's no architectural
• ornamental shrubbery. There's no paved driveways. There's not I mean, front lawns. There's nothing like that. We live in the woods.
• And I know we people have been talking about the trees quite a bit and going on and on about it, but that's you know, it's it's a wild neighborhood. That's why we all live there. It's we live among
• animals,
• and
• the trees were full of eagles,
• hawks. They're gone now.
• And the remaining trees left on the property are being proposed to be removed. So,
• you know, we don't we didn't choose to live in Las Vegas. We live in Croton On Hudson. We live on Mount Airy Road. We you know, it's it's it's
• just doesn't it doesn't fit aesthetically,
• and the impact,
• the people bearing the brunt of it are the neighbors.
• This is a this is a for profit business project, and that's fine. If he's a businessman, you can do that, but they're gonna leave, flip it, make money. We all are going to own it.
• We we've lost the canopy. We've lost the buffer,
• and we're going to lose more
• among among all the other things that people have said. I just wanted to put that out there. Thank you very much. Thank you. Appreciate it.
• And just
• you all are volunteers, and I appreciate the time you put in this and you're caring for the the town.
• Though I don't see the solution of moving the house forward,
• it tells me you haven't been to the location
• because
• there's quite a big hill there. They would have to decimate
• that area.
• And most of the larger trees are towards the front, which they'd have to clear out.
• So I think they would have I think it probably aesthetically would look better if they pushed it back.
• Like, it doesn't make any
• sense. They're already gonna have to destroy that area.
• So it's saying he hasn't been there
• to see it.
• And what else it's telling me is I've had in my try to follow the rules,
• applied for removal of a of a dying tree.
• So I had to plant another tree
• because it wasn't quite dead yet.
• Had someone come out,
• check on my property if it was okay, the variance, my measurement of the tree, how far away was it from a neighbor.
• It's quite detailed.
• I I don't see any of that detail
• here,
• and I don't see any of the detail put into the
• some little I know about planting trees, putting in they're not putting in the same trees. They're not putting in trees that are indigenous to the area. They're not putting in trees that would suck up water. If I was down
• south from this location,
• I would be talking to my lawyers because I think my property would be flooded.
• So I'm just asking. I know you're volunteers, but I I just not seeing the
• the commitment
• and what I had to go through first
• excuse me. I see the commitment, but I'm not seeing people pursuing this in a serious manner
• and following the rules that I have to been having to follow just to clearing one one tree.
• Yes. My name is Claire Hilbert. I live at 60 Mount Airy. And,
• I just want to
• say that
• last year, my house turned a 100 years old and I got interested
• more than ever before, we've there for
• over twenty years. I got interested in
• the details about the history of our of our bend in the road
• and
• there are,
• I don't even know where to begin. There's,
• that stretch of Mount Airy
• when I heard
• talk
• this evening earlier
• about,
• oh, I do this thirty something years. This is this is not a standard lot we're talking about in a standard town.
• This is,
• okay. So
• going back to Greenwich Village in the nineteen tens
• is because I I would hear these names bandied about of the people who lived on our my the neighbors to my house all around up and down the hill and and further up the hill, Red Hill as it's sometimes known.
• But
• I I I never really knew what the names meant. Why you know, I I didn't really ever dig quite deep enough to know, well, why is he so famous for this? Or why did they what was made them so famous?
• Now,
• after researching
• in the last few months,
• it's interesting the timing that this is happening because I have come to believe
• that,
• certain houses on that stretch ought to really be made into museums.
• The people who made the changes that we know in this country for social change,
• for for women, for the getting the right to vote, for the, labor laws, for civil rights even, and, all of that, which was taking place
• in a nesting ground in the Greenwich Village back then. They would come up to a place like Croton to to vacate in the summertime and and cool down and that's and they ended up living here. It's such a historic area. I've been reading even today, nowhere else in the world
• was what was concentrated in Greenwich Village, which came to Croton. Only two places, Croton and Provincetown, Massachusetts were the places that they often gathered on their off time and as they aged
• and settled down.
• And to just treat a neighbor property to that
• as just another property that we're gonna just put in another driveway and we're just gonna cut down a bunch of trees. I just think it's,
• it's such uninformed,
• and lack of caring
• on the part of the the
• the idea to have to to even wanna do that in that area. It's a lack of, previous research to know that that is very historic area, and I,
• I know that they haven't made some even landmark,
• plaques, for example, for these homes because of the which we've already discussed, the dangerous nature of that curve.
• People don't walk along Mount Airy, so it doesn't make sense so far for them to have created,
• like,
• landmark plaques. But I'm telling you that
• I feel so strongly and the evidence shows that that is what this area
• ought to be. It just hasn't been done yet.
• And to go ahead and start ripping it down and
• for one person's
• benefit really, because obviously nobody else in the area sees it as a benefit. So for one person's benefit
• to,
• to do such drastic change,
• I don't need to repeat about the habitat which is so dear to all of us,
• I just find it unconscionable and uninformed if if it were to ever go through. It was it's an un uninformed. I think we are we live in a in a very historic town in this nation in the world because of our connection to those early days and the people who chose to live here. And the reason they picked it, probably like Ashley, they and like all of us, they like the nature. So that's all I'm gonna say, but, I really hope this does not go through. Thank you.
• Okay. Thank you all for your comments.
• It will all be recorded in the record.
• And as I said,
• you know, a lot of the things we talked about tonight, we talked about, and you talked about,
• really require
• some more analysis,
• and that's why,
• you know, the planning board is the body that's more equipped to do that than we are.
• That's why we're referring it to the planning board.
• No. What what will happen is the planning board will,
• issue a recommendation
• to the zoning board,
• and we will still vote on it.
• So it could just like if we voted first, if we voted yes, the planning board could vote no.
• If the planning vote board votes yes, we can vote no.
• It's a it's a two step process.
• They the applicant always has the
• opportunity to go first to the planning board or to us,
• but
• this seems to be a way to streamline
• the
• review process between the two bodies.
• And, also, you brought up,
• the comment about an unlisted action.
• The planning board will be the lead agency on environmental review.
• And so that's,
• you know, we'll we'll
• ensure that, a thorough job is done and and and they're more qualified than we are on things like
• planting requirements,
• what's being destroyed, what's,
• you know, the impacts.
• So we wanna be careful that we
• do a thorough analysis of this.
• ask because
• I'm sorry. I don't know your name, but I'm sitting here and overhearing what you're saying.
• And
• how can we be sure that as, like, a certified arborist or somebody who will really look at these angles and really look at the storm runoff,
• somebody who is certified
• and report this. Like,
• how do we know that this is gonna happen?
• I don't know if
• Ron, can you speak to how they determine what what consultants
• to hire and
• We do have our village engineer, and and I will be assisting him in in matters like storm water and and such.
• The
• plantings,
• I am not quite sure 100%
• how to speak to that, but things like stormwater, I can, and and they could It's all written in the village of Proton
• Mhmm. So We will review that. Looked at. Right? Yes. That will be looked at. Yes. As part of the planning board review.
• Yes. The planning board will is is the body to do the thorough analysis of all the comments we
• we've we've brought up tonight and you've brought up tonight.
Yes? The question I don't know if you have the answer to, but if there's ends up being flooding
• is
• can be proven is from changes to property, who's liable today? Is the town?
• That is the I don't I don't know if that answer. Homeowner? I mean, this would be a question to figure out. You know, like
• Thank you. Mark? Is there any chance of site visits with the planning board? Yeah. That's I I was gonna bring that up. I think we'll do a joint site visit with the planning board.
• Mhmm. Engineer's office.
Now that it's You would just go to the site and not any surrounding properties?
• but it's been wet and snowy and muddy, so we really haven't had the chance. We had one scheduled for for the ninth, but we canceled that. I'd like to point out the value of standing in someone else's property looking at that property,
• Planning
• board be looking at things like they said they're hooking it up to a sewer, and I just know we don't have sewer there. So I don't know what sewer line they're hooking it up to. So if they are hooking it up, like, can't we all hook it up to the sewer?
• Yeah. I
the application shows a connection to a sewer line extending this they're connecting it because there's no sewer out there. So, like, that's something you guys should check out.
• like I mean, recently, son just got hit by a car walking across the street in a crosswalk,
• which was he's fine, but it was very unsettling.
• And children walk up that road all the time, that
• have another driveway on that van, which is very dangerous already.
• I feel like it's something that needs to be addressed, and I don't see how I can make sure that that would be addressed.
• Who does that?
• I don't I don't wanna just push everything off in a planning board, but it's the planning board who'll do that. And you But I don't think we can that should come to the meeting and and just like you did to us,
• you can submit comments of what you would like,
• you know, your issues and what you think the planning board should do a detailed analysis on. That's what we should Excuse me? Yeah.
There'll be a public hearing. Will the planning board get everything that's been presented here? Will they already have that, or will we have to resubmit all those?
• Yeah. But but, hey, certain issues. Yeah. Yeah. I yeah. We don't wanna waste people's time resubmitting
• stuff that that you've done it and and,
• you know, there is a public record here that the planning board will get. They they will need to have their own.
• Right. They'll have their own, but but but this will be this is part of the
• information.
So going forward then, while that's happening with the planning board, should we be sending any further things?
• Is there a similar way to send it to them like we did to you so that we know we can get things to them?
• would be submitted through
• building engineer's office similar to, like, you've submitted them here. The same process.
Sorry. One thing. How how would we know how will we know what the next steps are? Like, is there a planning board
meeting that we can attend? Like, we we have to stay very abreast on time. It's just that we don't even know when these things are happening. When when does when does the
applicant need to submit to the planning board, and and and how far advanced is the meeting? So the meetings are the
Tuesdays of the month, I believe. Yeah. They meet twice a month. We only meet once a month.
• days before the meeting. So if they have meetings twice a week, they they need to
• get their submittal in before one meeting to make it to the next meeting. So
applicant, do you have any thoughts on how quickly you could get to an application together to the planning board? We really haven't looked at it yet. I haven't looked at the submission deadline, but I would guess within a week or so. I mean, a lot of stuff's gonna be similar, obviously. Right. Yes. We'll just look at the submission deadline and get it for the appropriate meeting.
So, you know, within within roughly within a month, maybe less than that. Maybe less than that. You'll end up on on a board on a meeting. Right.
• you said,
• I don't know how people find out typically about
• the meetings. Will they be noticed? Will the neighbors be noticed about the planning board meeting?
• They're Right.
• And
• when there's a posting, it'll blast out Friday before the meeting, the agenda, and all the materials that are submitted.
• So I would suggest going on the billing website to do that.
So the materials will be there too? I I believe. Yes. Right. So so you'll be able to look at the materials that are sent. And the notification that they're on the agenda. Yes.
• that some
• folks here have mentioned that you need a certain amount of area to build in this zone.
• Grinding a variance, isn't that just simply
• throwing the rules
• in the dustbin?
• And isn't that allowing everybody to do that?
• maybe correct me if I'm wrong, but there's a process to approve anything changing from the from the zone from the zoning.
• There's there's reasons,
• and there's the five factors that we've talked about.
• And if you look at those, you can
• understand what
• latitude
• or
• decisions that have to get made by the board to allow a zoning variance.
• Simply someone wanting it,
• is typically they they need to satisfy
• a lot of those five factors.
• Right. Yeah.
• I don't know if you wanna add anything on that.
• what's built into the typical zoning code is the concept of variances.
• It's it's in every community that has a zoning code.
• All have variances
• in this in order to allow community to have some flexibility
• that
• zoning doesn't become so rigid that
• it's deemed unfair. And then there are the five factors,
• whether
• it's a hardship
• character and things like that that must be considered by the zoning board in any community
• variances.
• But it's built into
• concept of zoning that a variance available.
• One may apply for it, and it's up to the board
• to determine whether the factors matter, whether the variance should be granted or not.
• Part of the whole package.
• just just two observations with response to to counsel. One, I mean, the Croton
• code
• with respect to area variances
• is public. It's known. It's detailed.
• And it tasks
• this
• zoning appeals board
• with making a determination on those five factors. Right?
• It pushes the
• the burden
• to make a at least prove that there is a viable variation request before the board
• to the applicant. Right? So you've now had two meetings,
• and I think where we are is you've pushed
• your responsibility
• to the planning board, which is an advisory body and a coding coordinating body.
• So the best case is they're gonna come back to you in May or thereabouts. In the meantime, we have to resubmit
• to the planning board. Right?
• But the the legal obligation
• to deal with the impact of things like the character of the neighborhood sits with you and you alone.
• Right?
• And, ultimately,
• the burden to show
• the impact or the mitigants to the to the impact sits with the applicant.
• And after two hearings,
• we've had we've heard no hard evidence other than outside counsel's personal opinion based on thirty five years of seeing these applications
• that there is no environmental impact. Right?
• Why can't you can't you bring a motion now,
• deny the application,
• let them come back if they think
• that once they've got their ducks in a row, we actually know what is before the board.
• Right? But rather than put the community in the neighborhood
• for several months of uncertainty and anguish,
• we've had two goes at this. Just deny the application.
• They've not met the burden of proof for this to go ahead if everything they've said so far is accurate. Well,
• there's a lot of
• there's a lot of factors that go into this,
• and
• I I don't think
• we're we don't wanna be premature on making a decision
• that,
• we are not a 100%
• confident in.
• And
• the additional,
• reviews
• that the planning board are gonna have to do
• they have to go before the planning board even if this gets approved.
• They'd have to do the same thing. There's there's no there's no application
before you or the planning board that needs even comes close to meeting the legal standard. But that's your that's your opinion.
• That that that's to prove it to you, but there's no evidence so far. We don't even know what they're building. It keeps on moving. Right?
• We we hear numbers about trees that are patently false
• with ill informed. Right?
• This is not you
• in the meantime, the community is going through this and people are living there.
• And at some point, you've got to say, you've had two, three bites at this.
• You don't come with a, you know, a traffic study, environmental study,
• an impact on the neighborhood study with experts in those fields that can talk about it rather than
• respectfully lawyers
• and other people speculating
• that, well, animals actually like asphalt.
• under
• the an environmental review needs to be conducted
• in order to
• fully consider a subdivision
• application,
• which is not yet before the planning board. So it's a matter of giving the opportunity to the applicant. He has not they have not yet done that.
• If this were strictly to stay with the zoning board, the environmental review
• would be limited to a type two determination that no further review is necessary
• because
• a
• moving of a line on a map is considered under the seeker rules to be
• a type two determination,
• which is
• not subject to environmental review. So the zoning board
• wishes to conduct a coordinated review
• with the planning board
• because the planning board
• will not its determination is not
• type two under the SECRET regulations.
• Its determination is an unlisted action
• under the SECRET regulations, and it has the jurisdiction and the authority to conduct a full environmental review.
• So the zoning board wishes to see a full environmental review before making its determination
• in order to have coordinated
• review, to have the whole package
• seen.
• This board has
• determined that it is appropriate to refer it to the planning board to give the applicant a fair opportunity
• to make its case before the board that's going to conduct the environmental review, at which point
• and the community will have perhaps,
• unfortunately, for all of you who have spent the evening here, you may have to spend another evening or two at the planning board, but you will have the opportunity to make these points before another board that has greater authority over subdivision authority and and
They're advisory only. You the authority sits with you. Both both boards kick it back to you. No. Both both boards have authority to make determinations.
and if the applicant's attorney wants to speak to this, you know But I the one thing I have not heard is what is the hardship?
• What is the hardship other than profit? What I I'm not I'm not advising I'm just saying that I'm not gonna get into the merits. I can't. I I understand. I just as a resident,
• I don't think anybody's heard the hardship. We've seen the plans,
• but the default is no.
• I mean, if if we bought something
• and it was too small to do something,
• we ask if we can change it.
• has to defend.
• It doesn't feel like if you buy something,
• it's a risk. It's a gamble.
• I don't feel the hardship
• other than the profit.
Just to be clear, for a proposal to go through, do more than zero of the five factors have to be met?
• Like, how many of the five factors have to be met? I don't think there's a specific number.
Okay. Because I'd advise that when zero are met, the proposal should maybe be rejected on principle alone.
• Anything else? Okay.
• Thank you.
Okay. So we're still the sound is still And we're still in we're still meeting. Right?
• Just wait for Matt to get back, and then we'll start.
• Do we have the sheet, Stephanie, for the
• voting for this one? We have the I've got it. Okay. You got it? We have one. Oh, that was left on that was left on the
• Yeah. Yeah.
• Mine? Here. Oh, sorry. Keep yours.
• I guess we could start. Right? Yeah.
• Okay. Sec second item tonight.
• You wanna come up and
• state your name, address,
• and who you are? Yeah. And you probably want this.
• Joseph Arnold, the architect for Meredith and Eric Korn, who live at 59
• Sunset Drive.
• We're hoping to build a second a a two and a half story extension on the backside of the house along with the replacement deck,
• both of which would match the width of the existing building and not encroach any further than the existing side setbacks.
• The original building was built in 1929 and predates the village zoning code. It was located in District C, which is now R A 5.
• Per the latest survey from 2021,
• there are existing legal nonconforming conditions,
• including the existing side yard setback on the west side,
• the total side yard setback,
• and the lot width.
• The existing west side setback is 2.3 feet short of the eight foot requirement,
• and the total side yard setback is 3.3 feet short of the 20 foot requirement.
• That was before zoning. It was.
As mentioned, the new addition and deck will match the existing setbacks to integrate with the existing building.
• The neighboring property on that side, 57 Sunset Drive, has a wide side setback of over 12 feet, so the impact of a side variance would be lessened. Which which slide is that? So that's,
• on the west on the west side.
• On the drawings?
• It's the side where it's where we have a near where we have the
• close,
• encroachment.
• So it is as you're looking at the building, it's on the left side of that building. Okay.
• it is on the bottom portion of the survey. So on G 101, it's on the lower portion of that survey. But it's not showing, like, the one that's on the north and Right. The other side. Right. They I'd whatever the survey, they decided to show the top. They didn't show the bottom. Is it roughly from from the property line? So the 12 feet from the property line is the adjacent
• is is that house. Is what? Is that Is that house. That house. The edge of that house is 12 feet from their property line. Right. And then from thence is
• is the 5.7
• feet
• to
• this property line. Okay. It's a setback.
• The existing lot width is five feet short of the 50 foot requirement.
• While narrow in width, the lot exceeds the minimum depth by 48 feet.
• It's my understanding the property lines were established in Clifford Harmon's original 1907,
• subdivision
• as of the layouts for the various plots.
• There are other houses in the neighborhood similar to 59 Sunset Drive, which predate the 1931
• zoning code and have legally nonconforming lot widths, including nearby 68 Sunset Drive and 70 Sunset Drive.
• One's 45, one's around 48,
• under under the 50.
• We've reviewed the surrounding area for consistency
• with our proposed changes. The proposed addition would be in keeping with the houses on the neighborhood.
• Since the addition is in the back of the house and the existing side setbacks would be maintained,
• it is in, the there would there would be no impact from the street view.
• The five foot deficiency in lot width is consistent with other such narrow lots in the neighborhood.
• The proposed design intent can only be achieved with the variance as the existing building is legally not in conformance.
• A zoning variance would be needing for this change to build an addition.
• The requested area variance is not substantial.
• As discussed, the impact of the side yard variance would be mitigated by the fact that the adjacent house on the west side is 12 feet from its from its property line. Since there are other houses with narrow lots, the impact of a lot with variance would be minimum.
• There'll be no adverse impact or impact, adverse effect or impact on the environmental conditions,
• in the neighborhood or district,
• and the difficulty is not self created. Those sides
• were always
• not noncompliance.
• And
• it was before the zoning. So
• Yes. Behind us. And behind you. Yes. Mhmm.
• But on sunset, you don't see it? You don't see it on sunset. It's, deep. You'd have to go because it's lower. The roof roof line is lower than The roof line is lower. Correct.
• That's correct. And what about the lots behind it?
• There's a good distance between it.
• So what would you do
• what could you do as of right here?
You'd you'd make the you'd step the building, the back, the added portion in. Well, still the side of the building would not be the side of the existing building would not be in compliance. Doesn't matter. Existing, the matter. Yes. Right. We would go we go to go in, we'd go in three,
• about three three point three feet to be able to do that, but it wouldn't match with the existing building. It would look
• it would look odd to have that offset
• when it would be, consistent with the existing building.
• And then the design, we're trying to, integrate
• the, the side the
• side view to make it so it feels like a very integrated,
• integrated building.
• But
when the Lemmels split the property We know the history between the house that got built next to us. That's We do. So we know the neighbors. They actually built we bought our house from our neighbors,
• the Lemmels.
• So when they
• they had owned both pieces of property,
• and they subdivided
• again back to the old property line. And when they built their house,
• they came before the zoning board and agreed to move their house further away from their property line to create the distance
• that would have normally been required between two houses in the property line so that it still maintained the proper distance between the house even though ours was closer to the property line and theirs was further away. They still own their house,
• and they are on board with us doing this. So they do not have a problem or an objection. They're not they have no objection to us doing this addition. They've seen the plans. They've reviewed everything,
and they don't have any problems. Do you have any idea when this, variance was granted?
Anybody have comments on the board? Any question on questions for the applicant?
• in the back, you're making it into a kitchen area, fig bigger kitchen.
• Upstairs. Bedroom upstairs. The reconfiguration
• allows for having,
• the bedroom upstairs.
• understand
• the application. I don't have any other questions. Anyone else have any questions for the applicants?
• And we can open the public hearing.
• Oh,
sorry. Go do you have question? Go ahead. Just did you mention the total change in square footage?
• 28 by 11 times two. I don't have it right here,
• but we can do that.
• livable square foot. Do we need to add the basement?
The basement's not, that storage in the basement. It's like a garage. Yep. So 600.
• And we,
• takes we'll take public. Anyone who wants to speak?
• Why don't you guys step back? And we have a couple,
• people who want to,
• provide comments from the public.
• Just state your name and your address when you come up, please.
• I'm at 64 Sunset Drive. We're right across the street kinda catty corner
• from, Meredith and Eric.
• We also used to live at 61
• Sunset Drive,
• which is the house to their
• right
• on the East side.
• We came in front of the board
• twenty years ago
• to add on to our little Sears house that was built in 1928.
• And because of those same side
• variances,
• we had a a neighbor to our right who made a big protest about it, and we ended up losing at the board here. We subsequently moved across the street, and we're at 64 Sunset now.
• The architect made the point that there is no impact
• from Sunset Drive looking at it.
• I went out on my front porch. I mean, we just got this notification the other day. We had no idea that,
• they were contemplating adding on to their house.
• I'm sympathetic to the fact that
• building out the back is really the only option they have. I'm sympathetic to the fact that they have children
• that are
• starting to sweat and have gone into you know, the kids the little kids are no longer little anymore. We
• were in the same boat twenty years ago as well too.
• But
• when I look at the
• three d renderings that are on drawing a one zero three,
• specifically
• the one that is,
• on the upper right,
• the view from the Southeast, that's pretty much the view from our house looking at it.
• And,
• I took a photo here that I'll submit to you guys. But when I look out,
• from my house toward their house, I can see the Hudson
• in between their house
• and
• the house on 61 Sunset to their
• on the right side. There is a viewpoint there.
• When this addition gets built there,
• that'll just
• that'll go away.
• That'll be massive.
• So,
• I was looking at these plans. I'm a I'm an engineer. I'm not a
• fanatic,
• I don't think.
• So I was wondering whether the,
• I think the architect mentioned that the width of the house,
• that they're building, the addition, is gonna go
• to the width of the existing house.
• And I and I was wondering whether that could be narrowed
• so that
• it doesn't appear as a massive,
• double height
• from the back, and it would be more akin to
• what the front of the house looks like.
• I was also wondering whether
• the slant of the roofs in the back instead of being at what looks to be like a 45,
• degree pitch
• could be
• of a higher slant.
• I don't know what's what to match more of what the existing house is doing.
• And that would have an effect of narrowing the top of the house
• and maybe making that 2nd Floor
• one of those ones where you have the bedroom and you have a slanted roof have a slanted wall,
• slanted ceiling on one side or the other.
• I was wondering whether any trees were going to be removed
• for the construction.
• I know there are hemlocks
• between
• this house
• and the one at 61 Sunset that are, you know,
• 50 or 60 feet tall.
• I
• also know that I believe their existing house today
• on the back
• was
• a
• garage area,
• and they used to park their car. The car was the area was changed from a a garage into a a mother in law's or mother apartment on the base.
• So the cars are you know, usually, they park a car in their driveway and park another one on the street.
• And that corner,
• where Lexington hits sunset,
• there's cars that will come down sunset,
• and they need to go around the cars that are parked on the street to make the turn into Lexington.
• And coming
• westward on sunset,
• they're forced because of the cars parked on the street to come into the middle of the intersection where somebody at the stop sign on Lexington
• could be turning into them.
• So I would ask that the parking
• of the cars on the street,
• you know, they
• somehow utilize the drive
• to mitigate
• the traffic issue there.
• So I have a photo from my house. Should I send it to you?
• Or do you wanna see it? Yeah.
• wanna do a site visit.
• I don't know what people were thinking on this.
• But I'd like to hear the applicant's
• responses
• to your
• comments about
• trees, the parking, whether they can make the building a little the house a little smaller. Sure. So there's no because I think they're they're Yeah.
• It'll be new wood for the woodpeckers to back up. What? Can you
• There there's no trees coming down.
• So that that's an easy one. Yeah. Those aren't those aren't our that's not our property.
• Okay.
• As far as parking,
• I mean, it is a tough corner.
• There was no garage there ever,
• at least in our time.
• It's a pretty steep driveway.
• We park two cars in the driveway when there's snow. We park on the street like we're allowed to,
• and everybody else does when there's not.
• I don't think that changes.
But there's no way to make the driveway different Yeah. Or the parking because there's a deck built Yeah. In the back. Right. So we can
yeah. So, you know, we park on the road like everybody else in the neighborhood,
• you know, in front of our house. Does the fact that you're
• way lengthening the driveway help mitigate the problem?
No. We're not we're not lengthening the driveway at all. It's the same. Exactly. Same. Existing
• goes all the way back there now? Yes. Okay. But you can't you can park one car behind another car,
• but when we're running out to work,
• we don't do that because it makes things challenging
• just like everybody else in our neighborhood.
• Yeah. We could fit two cars, but there's no way to widen our red light because of the house is
• arrangement,
• the
• The ability to create a hall bet a hall bath
• and a bedroom up there,
• We tried to come in as close as we could to try to make the program work.
• on the east side bringing
• the whole
• addition back in so it doesn't
So we could keep the mass of it. We could take the roof of the gable and make that a slice down of the roof so that it is
• sloped on all sides
• and
• that we could we could do that so that the gable doesn't come up as high.
• That would be something that wouldn't affect the layout
• of the did did that make does that make sense? No. That you take this you take this front
• Yeah. And you would and you would you would make it like this
• so that it's tapered.
• Yeah. I was thinking like this. Taper like that. But, no, we would not be able to get the program to work
• having
Yeah. So be any lower because we just the the rooms are already are already tight. The bathroom is very tight. It's it was you know? Okay. I I just That that was the challenge that was the challenge of that. I I I again, I'm I went through the same process. I'm
just saying that this view from here is the view from my house where I can see the Hudson. So what we could do is we could slice the front of the roof
to make that so that that is tapered in the front as well. That's something that we that we could
Right. I Can you show the can you show us what you mean by that? I should not follow-up.
• Sorry. So
• May I see here? May I?
• Let me see.
• it's.
• Slow funk. It slows in all directions.
so you would oh, you'd be cutting it there. I would just cut it slow. I I got the front I had the front slope on it as well. Got it. I see that. Yeah. Can we see this as well? Alright. Alright. So so having having a front slope on it as well.
• So
• yeah.
• Instead of this peak, it goes back. Back. Back.
• It slows. Because I'm we all this is storage in the attic, so I couldn't I could slope it towards the front and then to maybe.
• angles.
• These
I see those angles, but I can't achieve that I can't achieve that same angle Okay. To be able to make the program work.
• Yeah. I have a Go
ahead. I have a clarifying question. So the view we're talking about is looking this way towards where the home has an 11 foot setback.
• Right? Yes. Yes. So the variance is for the other side. The variance is for the other side. The variance is for the other side.
Mhmm. Yeah. So it's looking this way. Yes. But they're asking for a variance over here.
• Right. Mhmm. And I'm just saying that.
• But why is that going to
• Right? The same
• wall.
• They can still build that facade of the home as it is. Right? If we reject it, they have to pinch it in the other direction.
• as
• if we don't if we don't approve the variance. Right.
• But there's nothing stopping them from building up to this line because it's already an 11 foot setback.
• Go ahead.
Okay. So the view That's that's the view. And then they're asking for a variance on this side. And a total variance. And a total variance. And a total variance. It'd be the total variance that we're talking at. It's prob yeah. Yeah.
• could get the total variance. Right? The total variance is for 20 feet.
• feet
• then
• ultimately, but I don't wanna speak to it.
• you're looking for three variances here. I'm looking for three variances. Correct. Right.
• Side yard, required side yard, you're looking for a two foot three variance.
• Correct. Total side yard is 3.3.
And those are those are for the, for the addition and also the existing building had that,
• so that we, as we're making the change, we have
Proposing to keep the continue the existing side setbacks. Have the existing side setbacks of the building continue with the addition. Right. That's what that's what you're proposing. But what what did you just say about Just if we went in 3.3 feet in,
• if you reduce so so we we'd still have the two variances. Right. Right. So We still have the the the 2.3
• variance on the side yard and the lot width variance. Correct.
• We'd still have because a lot width if we cut it back 3.3, the lot width
• we're just down to a lot with.
• You're
• saying because of the 2.3?
Well, I didn't intend to do it because it was it would be consistent with the, existing building, and it would,
• it would match. If it if jogged over, it would be a hardship on being able to establish the the bedrooms and the bathroom. Everything,
• Many of these buildings are small, and it's very it's very, very, very, very tight matter of inches to try to be able to make it work.
• And so that's why to be consistent with the existing setback
• seemed to make sense. And by following that,
• we would be able to achieve the program of getting the additional bedroom, bathroom to be able to, suit the family. Right. Okay.
Any do you have any other thoughts on this? Is there anyone else who wants to talk Doug?
• Come on up.
• Thank you.
• I'm Steve Krisky. I live at 49 Sunset Drive,
• approximately,
• four houses down
• from the Quarrens,
• and from Bernie and Theresa as well.
• I have a bunch of comments for you. First of all, this is a very, very reasonable application.
• It's very typical,
• of, trying to push out the back of the house,
• and not and remember, the
• the zoning district we're in is the smallest, narrowest zoning district in Croton,
• which means that it's not uncommon
• for somebody to have to
• ask for a variance,
• for a side yard variance.
• In fact, my house at 49 Sunset Drive had a very similar situation.
• We needed we had a
• house that was up toward both sides, and we wanted to extend out the back.
• And because of
• setback codes, we came to this board and requested a very small zoning variance, which is what they're requesting, a rather small variance.
• I mean, you're considering much larger variances in other parts of town. This is a very minimal request.
• We had the same situation. We wanted to follow,
• the architectural line
• of the side of the house pushing out the back.
• A neighbor of mine, this is probably
• gotta be fifteen years ago at least,
• came and objected because
• on a very corner of her property,
• she standing with a camera, she was able to identify that a smidgen of what view she had across the street would be lost. It made no sense from an architectural standpoint, Ethan, you should know this better than anybody up there, to go back and then jog in so as to conform
• with
• a rather arbitrary setback.
• This board
• told the neighbor,
• no. This is not a problem. In fact, they can not only build back, they can build up.
• We didn't choose to build up even though we would have blocked their view. We built back.
• When Bernie and Teresa lived across the street from where they do now,
• they came to this board for zoning variance.
• What Bernie represented isn't completely true. The reason that he was turned down for zoning variance was because their plan had a lot of the construction
• changes happening on the front of their house building straight up.
• And what the board told them is this would be a much better plan if you simply
• went out the back and and add it onto the back of your house. That was a perfectly elegant
• architectural solution for what he wanted to do, which was build a bigger house.
• I'm suggesting to you now that
• there's precedent
• for this board for granting this type of variance
• or for denying a minor objection from a neighbor. And as far as traffic is concerned, by the way, when you're coming from around Lexington and you're about to make a right turn onto Sunset Drive, The reason that sometimes people have to swing out and to turn north on Sunset Drive is because of the hedges that are on the corner of Bernie's property.
• The fact that they park a car on the street occasionally
• is a no brainer. I do that in front of my house, and I live on the same street.
• So they have a growing family.
• They are following the guidelines,
• and the precedent that's been established by this zoning board. I think it's a perfectly reasonable request to push out the back
• and grant them what is a relatively small variance. You've done it before, and you should do it again here. Thank you very much. Thank you.
• So, let's close public hearing. And, what does the board think?
• Can you You have to a motion to close the public hearing.
• You
• have to vote to close your public hearing. You can't just go on to your vote.
• Well, normally, you just close it. Well, I'm telling you what procedure you should is appropriate.
• Alright. Okay.
• Okay.
• What are people's thoughts? Can can you can we make a decision?
• Do you wanna do a site visit?
• Do you have any other thoughts? What do you we'll go around the table and see what people think.
• think, ultimately,
• the thing that gets me is that
• the the
• overall,
• the two of the three variances
• are based on what is essentially being driven by the plan
• south building line.
• But the
• discussion
• the concern here was about the plan north building line.
• But if we granted the 45 foot variance
• versus the 50 foot setback,
• they could build, like, a narrow rectilinear
• addition to the rear of their home as of right, and we'd still have the view blockage issue. And that's really a I mean, this still goes before the planning board
• Not sure.
• Okay?
• I think that that
• that would be good, and we'll do something in the next two weeks. And then,
• be able to vote on that at the next
• meeting.
• Okay?
• So we're gonna schedule a site meeting
• site visit. We'll we'll coordinate with Ron.
• Usually, we try to do it on a Saturday morning or
• Ken.
• Right.
• Okay.
• And then we should be good.
• Excuse me? You and Ethan are here for the evening. Right.
• But Doug will be here, and Bill will be here.
• into the roof just in terms of
Yeah. Yeah. Could you do a quick sketch on on your your alternate proposal of the Blue Fruit? Let's wait. Let's wait until you we don't need to spend more money on because there's more more time and more money on our You can come look at the house, and then we can talk about it. This is ridiculous. It's not ridiculous. It is. It's in it's in the levels. Okay. Thank you. Board's thoughts. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. View that he's talking about is only visible during
Any view, and then once the trees grow in with the leaves, you can't anymore because they built a house
• on Cleveland that blocks the river view.
• So that we all had,
• just so we're off.
• be opposed to this.
You guys can come out. We can look at it. And then if you appeal that we need to redraw them,
• come up with another solution.
• Because I'm just saying from If we adjust the roof height and change things, it won't all
• we'll have to we go go back to the drawing board. So
• I'm not gonna spend more time and money
I think They see the view. I think the architect mentioned that it won't change
• actual layout of that. So
• what I it may be structurally more costly to do it. Also, I don't know whether the view
• is impacted in any
• beneficial way by having Right. I don't know. If their view was to the water and you still can't see
• that
• tiny view of the water,
• if it was in one
slope or another slope, then it probably doesn't make that much of a difference. We can build a six foot wide going back 10 feet on that side without having to come to that and
• Right? We could. We could.
• Okay. We could. So the view,
Okay. So we'll schedule a site visit in the next When will we be scheduling that? Who are we talking to?
• Thank you. K. Anything else? We don't have any oh, we have to Prove the minutes? Minutes from last last meeting.
• We have to approve those.
• You weren't here. Someone were here.
• I've gone through I didn't have any comments. I thought they were very good stuff.
I didn't have any comments either, though I would love to be able to find things. I'm counting in paperwork They want to on it at this desk.
• Someone wanna make a motion? Motion.
• Approve the minutes? Approved.
• Aye.
• K. Thank you.
• We make a motion to end the meeting. End
• you.