=== HEADLINE === Neighbors warn 1838 stone house at risk as Mount Airy subdivision advances === SUMMARY === The Zoning Board of Appeals grilled the applicant behind a proposed two-lot subdivision at 52 Mount Airy Road over tree removal, steep slope impacts, and driveway safety, while adjacent property owners warned the project could destabilize a historic home. The board will conduct a site visit once snow melts. === EXECUTIVE BRIEF === • ZBA member Doug Olcott recused himself due to a conflict of interest • Board requested updated survey showing existing topography, grades, and recent driveway changes • Board required applicant to flag all 26 proposed tree removals and mark driveway/house footprints before site visit • Applicant directed to provide architectural renderings with height details, landscaping plan, and steep slope analysis • Board identified errors in setback calculations on submitted plans; applicant to correct • Public hearing left open; site visit scheduled for spring after snow melts === ARTICLE === Stuart and Karen Greenbaum have lived at 48 Mount Airy Road for forty years. In that time, they've watched cars lose control on the hairpin turn near their home, crash through their wooden fence, and land in their front yard. So when they learned a new driveway might slice into the hillside right at that blind curve, they fired off a letter to the Zoning Board of Appeals. {{photo:1131:2190:Zoning Board of Appeals meeting}} Their home, built in 1838, sits on a rock formation. "External vibrations cause tremors in the house and sometimes rattle doors and dishes," Claire Hilbert read from the Greenbaums' letter at Tuesday's meeting, standing in for the couple who were out of state. Removing the embedded stone for the proposed driveway, the letter warned, "would adversely affect our stone foundation and destabilize the house." {{quote:2193}} The applicant, Andrew Cortese, is seeking area variances to subdivide the 1.14-acre property at 52 Mount Airy into two lots — both falling short of the 25,000-square-foot minimum by roughly 281 square feet, or about 1 percent. His attorney, Corey Salome, called the deficiency minimal. "It's a benefit to the applicant versus the detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood," Salome said, arguing that nearby lots are even smaller. {{quote:180}} The board wasn't buying the breezy presentation. "You kinda glassed over" the environmental impact, the board chair told Salome, pointing to neighbor letters and concerns about tree removal. When asked how many trees would come down, engineer Mike Mastrojakomo initially said "roughly about twelve." The chair pointed to the application drawings. "Certainly looks like a lot more than twelve." Mastrojakomo revised the number to between 26 and 30. {{quote:427}} The chair pressed on whether alternatives to cutting that many trees had been explored. "To be honest with you, we didn't," Mastrojakomo admitted, though he said he'd been conservative in marking trees for removal and hoped to save some during construction. {{quote:946}} The board also flagged missing information: no steep slope analysis, no geotechnical study, no traffic study, no architectural renderings showing the proposed "modern farmhouse" height, and setback calculations with what Mastrojakomo blamed on AutoCAD glitches. "I think it's pretty obvious we're gonna have to do a site visit here," the chair said. What residents should watch for: The board left the public hearing open and will schedule a site visit once snow melts. Before that visit, the applicant must ribbon all 26 trees slated for removal and flag the proposed driveway and house footprint. The applicant is also expected to submit corrected setback figures, a full topographic survey, renderings with height details, a landscaping plan, and a steep slope analysis. No vote was taken.