New Rochelle Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting – February 3, 2026

The New Rochelle Zoning Board of Appeals held its regular meeting on February 3, 2026, with six members present (one absent). The board heard four applications: two were adjourned for additional information, and two were approved. The meeting was conducted with a strict three-minute public comment limitation, though no public speakers appeared.

Cases Adjourned from Prior Agenda

• Case 38, 2025 – 121 Caligny: Adjourned to the March meeting.
• Case 28, 2025 – 93 Glenwood Avenue: Adjourned to the March 3, 2026 meeting.

Case 5, 2026 – 120 Buford Place (Adjourned)

Owner Ralph Launtine and architect Seabert Dayer presented a request for variances related to a recently constructed pool and landscape features. The variances sought included: two entrance pillars partially on city property, a PVC pool fence 6 feet high instead of the permitted 4 feet, impermeable surface exceedance of about 2%, and a masonry wall 2.6 feet higher than allowed. The board noted that pillars on city property are not within its jurisdiction and advised the applicant to first seek approval from the City’s public works department. The applicant was unprepared to address the statutory five-factor test for variances. The board recommended adjournment to allow the applicant to clarify the scope of variances and prepare a proper argument. The owner requested and was granted an adjournment to the next meeting.

Case 30, 2025 – 25 Morris Lane South (Approved)

Owner Paris Jane (contract vendee, with Peter Sabignano as owner) and landscape architect Rob Sherwood presented revised plans for an in-ground swimming pool. The project required variances for: rear yard setback (12.6–17.1 ft vs. required 20 ft), side yard setback (16.1–17.1 ft vs. 20 ft), and a retaining wall height of 5 ft (maximum permitted 4 ft). The applicant explained that the pool location was dictated by the Hindu practice of Vasusastra, which restricts pool placement to the east or northeast portions of the property. The pool size was reduced from 12x38 ft to a 13x35 ft fiberglass modular pool, which increased the side yard setback by 3 ft. The retaining wall height was lowered from 5.5–6 ft to 5 ft. The board found that the benefit could not be achieved by other feasible means, the variances would not adversely affect neighborhood character or the environment, and the self-created difficulty was not a basis for denial. A motion to approve the requested area variances was seconded and passed unanimously (6–0).

Case 6, 2026 – 4 Clover Place (Approved)

Architect John Woodruff presented an application to legalize two existing parking spaces that were constructed in the wrong location during a 2013 renovation. The spaces are set back 1 foot from the front yard line (required 25 ft) on a corner lot. The applicant argued that the current location is more functional than the originally approved rear-yard parking, as it provides convenient access to the kitchen entrance and preserves backyard green space. Similar parking configurations exist on neighboring properties. The board noted a substantial 12–15 ft right-of-way buffer from the curb, which mitigates the visual impact. Under the five-factor test, the board determined that no alternative feasible location exists, the variance would not cause undesirable changes, the request is substantial but mitigated by the buffer and neighborhood context, and the self-created difficulty is not grounds for denial. A motion to approve was seconded and passed unanimously (6–0).

Case 7, 2026 – 516 Pelham Road (Adjourned)

Attorney Mark Blanchard, architect Tom Abilama, and owner Lucky Okodwa presented a proposal to replace an abandoned commercial auto repair station with a four-unit residential condominium. The project required seven area variances, including a 100% increase in dwelling units from the permitted two to four, as well as variances for front yard setback, rear yard setback, floor area ratio (FAR), gross floor area (GFA), and maximum curb cut. The applicant emphasized that the project would eliminate an eyesore, comply with parking and height regulations, and include a rooftop amenity with potential water views. Board members expressed significant concerns about the number and magnitude of the variances, particularly the unit count. They noted a negative referral from the Planning Board and questioned the environmental impacts, including potential school impacts. Some members stated that the economic feasibility argument does not justify granting such substantial variances. The applicant requested an adjournment to the March meeting to submit a SEQRA analysis and supplemental materials addressing the board’s concerns. The adjournment was granted.

Key Outcomes

• Case 30, 2025 (25 Morris Lane South): Approved unanimously (6–0) for three area variances (rear yard, side yard, retaining wall height).
• Case 6, 2026 (4 Clover Place): Approved unanimously (6–0) for a front yard setback variance to legalize existing parking.
• Case 5, 2026 (120 Buford Place): Adjourned; applicant to return with clarified variance requests and city approval for pillars on public property.
• Case 7, 2026 (516 Pelham Road): Adjourned; applicant to provide a SEQRA analysis and additional justification for the seven requested variances at the March meeting.

The meeting was adjourned after the final case.