New Rochelle Zoning Board of Appeals Summary – December 2, 2025
New Rochelle Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting
The New Rochelle Zoning Board of Appeals met on December 2, 2025, to hear ten cases involving area variances and special permits. The meeting featured extensive public testimony and deliberation on several major applications.
Case 27-2025: 44 Country Ridge Road
- Applicant: Jahaida Colombo. Proposed a one-story rear addition. The plan was modified, reducing the addition's depth by 18 inches to 14.5 feet.
- Discussion & Outcome: No opposition was voiced. The Board approved the variance (5-1), noting the modifications addressed prior concerns.
Case 30-2025: 25 Morris Lane South
- Applicant: Robert Sherwood and homeowner Paris Jane. Sought variances for a pool and retaining wall. Jane cited the Hindu practice of Vastu as the reason for the pool's location.
- Public Comment: Neighbor Manuel Val expressed drainage and privacy concerns but was not opposed if conditions were met.
- Discussion & Outcome: The Board questioned the accuracy of the submitted plans. Outcome: Adjourned to January 6, 2026.
Case 19-2025: Lincoln Avenue and Risley Place
- Applicant: Anthony Carbone and Salvatore Caltabalada. Re-submission of a previously denied application to build a single-family home on a vacant undersized lot (6,104 sq ft / 61 ft width vs. 7,500 sq ft / 75 ft width).
- Public Comment: A realtor spoke in favor, noting only 33 single-family homes were on the market in New Rochelle. A resident raised affordability concerns. The owner stated he hoped the home could house his son.
- Discussion & Outcome: The Board voted 4-3 to deny the variances, with members citing the self-created nature of the difficulty and the potential to set precedent for other non-conforming lots.
Case 32-2025: 91 Cortland Avenue
- Applicant: Fernando Chavez. Requested a special permit to legalize the reconstruction of a structurally unsound sunroom in a historic district.
- Discussion & Outcome: The reconstruction cost ($35,000) was under 50% of the building's value. Outcome: Approved unanimously.
Case 33-2025: 16 Rock Ridge Circle
- Applicant: Kay and Andy Howard. Sought five variances (FAR, impervious coverage, pool terrace, pool equipment).
- Public Comment: Neighbors expressed concerns about drainage and short notice.
- Discussion & Outcome: Approved 6-1, contingent on verifiable drainage plans.
Case 34-2025: 46 Hillary Circle
- Applicant: Lizette Garcia Elias. Proposed a rear addition. The only variance needed was for a combined side yard (24.8 ft required, 27 ft needed).
- Discussion & Outcome: No opposition. Outcome: Approved unanimously.
Case 35-2025: 765 Pelham Road
- Applicant: Jonathan Milani for Maiorano. Sought approval to convert a non-conforming bar to a less intensive restaurant use.
- Public Comment: Neighbors strongly supported the change, citing a need for a family dining option.
- Discussion & Outcome: Outcome: Approved unanimously.
Case 36-2025: 1313 Weaver Street
- Applicant: Diana Kolev (Young Israel of Scarsdale). Sought five variances for a synagogue expansion, including a retaining wall reaching 12.7 feet where 4 feet is permitted.
- Public Comment: The Stratton Hills Neighborhood Association supported the project. Abutting neighbors opposed, citing privacy loss, traffic, and the wall's visual impact. The applicant cited security concerns.
- Discussion & Outcome: The Board requested detailed renderings and landscaping plans. Outcome: Adjourned to January 6, 2026.
Case 37-2025: 255 Wilmot Road
- Applicant: Tony Joffe (Iona Prep). Sought a variance for four 80-foot light poles (10 ft max) to replace temporary diesel generators and lights.
- Public Comment: Neighbors opposed, citing traffic and noise. The applicant argued the variance was solely for lighting and that the new system would reduce spillage (0.04 foot candles at property line).
- Discussion & Outcome: The Board found 80 feet to be the industry standard providing minimal spillage. Outcome: Approved.
Case 38-2025: 121 Caligny Avenue
- Applicant: John Woodriff and Vito Di Mateo. Sought five variances to demolish an existing house and build a new two-family structure with eight bedrooms.
- Public Comment: Neighbors strongly supported demolition but worried about rodents, asbestos, and insufficient parking (three spaces for eight bedrooms).
- Discussion & Outcome: The Board expressed concern over the bedroom-to-parking ratio. Outcome: Adjourned to January 6, 2026.
Key Outcomes
- Approved: Cases 27, 32, 33, 34, 35, 37.
- Denied: Case 19.
- Adjourned: Cases 30, 36, 38 (to the January 6, 2026 meeting).
Meeting Transcript
Good evening, everyone. Try this again. My name is Erica Eisner. I'm the chair of the New Rochelle Zoning Board of Appeals. I'm just going to introduce everybody that's sitting in front of you tonight. We have Kevin Kane, the director of planning, and to his right, Jeffrey Bream, Deputy Corporate Counsel for the City of New Rochelle. To his right is Paul Vaca, the building commissioner for New Rochelle. And to his right is Bob Stanziel, followed by Charlotte Abadier. To my right is Elder Mark McLean, our newest member of the zoning board. Welcome. To his right is Abel Rodriguez and Carla Clapper, Fernando Arias, and then we have Regina O'Hare, who is the clerk of the building department. As Regina said, we have a very full calendar. We're going to hear from each applicant, and then we will hear voices of opposition or in support of the application. Please do not speak from your seat. Everybody will have a chance to speak one at a time. We are going to limit everyone to three minutes, though, and we're going to be strict about that, otherwise we'll never get out of here this evening. We are paperless, so uh you see us up with up here with computers. We're looking at the submissions and the applications. I promise we're not uh shopping for Cyber Monday or giving Tuesday or whatever day of the week it is. So uh with that, I will turn it back over to Regina to call the roll. All right, I'm just calling the roll. Just raise your hand if you're here. Uh first case tonight's gonna be case 27, 2025, 44 Country Ridge Road. The applicants here. Yes. And oppositional voices to be heard on that case. Case 30, 2025, 25 Morris Lane South. Applicant is here. Okay. Opposition of voices to be heard on that case. Yes. Yes. Okay. Case 19, 2025, Lincoln Avenue and Risley Place. Applicant is here. Yes. Opposition of voices to be heard on that case. Yes. It's okay. Case 32, 2025, 91 Cortland Avenue. Applicants here. Yes. Opposition of voices to be heard on that case. Case 33, 2025, 16 Rock Ridge Circle. The applicant is here. Opposition of voices to be heard on that case. Okay. Case 34, 2025, 46 Hillary Circle, applicants here. Opposition of voices to be heard. Case 35, 2025, 765 Pelham Road, applicants here.
openpublica.com