Good evening and welcome to uh this evening's session of the New Rochelle Zoning Board of Appeals.

My name is Erica Eisner, and I'm the chair.

Um, just a little bit about our function.

The Zoning Board of Appeals is a quasi judicial body responsible for hearing and deciding applications for variances and appeals of administrative determinations that have been issued by the city in accordance with the city's zoning ordinance.

Our role is to apply the law to the specific facts presented to us by each applicant, which includes both the submissions that have been made on your behalf, which we have reviewed, and the presentation made at this hearing or any other hearing in the case that this your matter is adjourned.

If written opposition or written support has been submitted in advance of the meeting or presented orally here, we consider that as well.

You should also know that the members of this board have visited each site personally and are aware of the attributes of the site that can only be seen by by actually going there.

Um in making our determination, we're responsible for applying a five-factor test to each application before us and to permit only the minimum variance that we deem necessary and adequate at the time to preserve and protect the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety, and welfare of the community.

The format for tonight's meeting will be as follows.

Our clerk will call the role to confirm who is present here on each application, both in support and in opposition.

Then we'll hear each application.

The applicant will go first with their presentation, and the board will have an opportunity to ask questions of the applicant.

Anyone else wishing to be heard on the application will then have an opportunity to speak for or against the application, but your comments will be strictly limited to three minutes.

At the conclusion of the presentation and the comments, the board will vote on whether or not to approve the application.

In order for a motion to pass, the applicant must have four votes in favor.

Each applicant is entitled to request an adjournment of their hearing, either if we don't have a full board or if they wish to revise or modify their application per before proceeding to a vote.

But once we do go to a vote, our decision is final.

So with that, I'll turn it over to Regina to call the roll.

Good evening.

First case tonight's case 7, 2026, 516 Pelham Road.

The applicant is here.

Opposition of voices to be heard on that.

Just I had I had a few from last month through the mail.

Case 5, 2026, 120 Buffard Place.

That has been adjourned until May 5th.

If anyone's here for that.

Case 12, 2026, 12 Elmridge Drive, the applicant is here.

Opposition of voices to be heard on that.

Case 13, 2026, 21 Circuit Road.

Opposition of voices to be heard.

And case 14, 2026, 73 Abbey Close, the applicant's here.

Opposition of voices to be heard.

And then we have one administrative item, case one, 2025.

For 22 sound view and 22 arcade terrace.

So the first case.

Excuse me, Madam Chair, would you like to refer that one case to the planning board?

Uh 21 Circuit is not being heard.

We have to refer it to the planning board.

Yes, that hasn't already been done.

So we're not going to hear 21 Circuit Road tonight because that uh matter is going to be referred to the planning board for a recommendation.

And then once the planning board issues that recommendation, then it will be placed back on the calendar to be heard.

Which will probably be the May meeting.

Okay.

So case six first case tonight's case seven, twenty twenty-six, five sixteen Pelham Road.

Well, good evening to the board.

Uh good evening, Madam Chairwoman.

Good evening to the city staff.

Um again for the record, my name is Mark Blanchard from the Blanchard Law Group here on behalf of the application.

We this is our third meeting.

Um we have a second resubmission following the original submission.

Uh the last meeting we were here, we heard additional commentary on the submission was turned out to be more of a I would describe it as a technical meeting.

But coming back now to our third meeting, uh, I think that the board can see the effort on behalf of the architect uh Tom Matt Balama.

He is with me this evening if anyone has any technical questions as it relates to the latest iteration of the design.

But I think the board can see we are again revised.

We have uh reduced the FAR, we have reduced the uh GFA, the square footage per dwelling unit variants has been further reduced.

Uh if you recall, we did have a four-unit request at first, and then as per our second meeting last meeting, we were down to three, so that remains unchanged.

We're further reduced in our setback issues.

Uh we do we we have removed some variances.

There was a question brought up last time as it relates to the parking.

We did meet with Soraya again from your building department.

That variance has also been taken off.

So we are uh very pleased, we're grateful to the city staff.

Um Mr.

Vaca's department is always excellent.

We're grateful to them for them their patience for working with us.

We're grateful to this board for your comments, uh, you doing your due diligence protecting the city of New Rochelle.

We appreciate it.

Uh just as sort of a uh brief sort of summary remarks, closing remarks, if you will.

Uh I want to bring us back to the original meeting when we were here, the balancing test, the quality of the neighborhood.

It is a five-part balancing test, but there's an overriding theme to it, which is are we going to change the character?

We do believe firmly that we're fitting in seamlessly.

That part of New Rochelle, we're close to the water.

We retained our beautiful route.

We it's Mr.

Abalama's design, but I'll take credit for it.

We retain the rooftop amenity, uh, you know, to get to look out and see the water.

Um we do absorb all of our off street parking.

I know it's parking is a little tight in the neighborhood down there.

Um so we we still have it absorbed.

There were great suggestion to have the turnaround on site for us, so we're not backing on De Pellham Road, able to execute that as well.

So, in terms of what's existing, an abandoned service station, uh and what we propose, we think what we're coming in as an asset to um to that dense neighborhood.

A lot of condominiums are around us, right adjacent to us.

So you know, we're happy with the design, we're happy with um how we are fitting into the neighborhood.

We do stand here confidently saying that we believe would be an asset to the neighborhood.

And um, when you come back in summary to the five part tests, uh the only vulnerability that remains is the self-created vulnerability, of course, that's with pretty much every zoning board application.

But in terms of detriment to the neighborhood, we we don't believe we we are a detriment um environmentally, we handle our site very well.

We believe that we are an asset.

And we thank the board's consideration of this application, your meaningful comp comments throughout this process.

Um if you have any technical questions for us, we're happy to answer.

But you know, kind of the the this second resubmission sort of speaks for itself.

And um I think we have arrived at a great place in a great a great project.

Thank you.

Does anybody have any questions for the applicant?

Uh Mark uh and Tom, I guess.

I just uh I guess a question I had last month was that uh parking space that was in the front yard, but I guess it's a parking space that I guess it was described last month that you didn't need, but I guess you do need it now.

We're looking at the calculations that you do need three spaces per unit, basically.

So that's why you have that space in front.

So you've also created that hammerhead uh backup for the turnaround in the front yard.

So exactly.

Great.

Okay.

Thank you.

That's my other question.

Um in just in looking at the original submission versus the current one, which I do want to thank you very much.

You definitely have gone back and reduced it from seven down to four, is it?

I think five.

Um the initial front yard setback was 17 feet.

And now we're down to three.

How can you just remind me how we how that change came about?

So now if if you're talking about good evening, my name is Tom Abidlama.

Thank you.

Uh so the driveway itself is required to have so many feet, and provided 22 feet of it.

Uh or 21 foot eleven.

Uh and then but the RMF uh uh 10 uh RMF uh five that we have, that requires to have another 20 feet beyond the 18 feet that we have.

So this is what uh what the required.

So that's the one of the zoning variants that we have in this right.

But what was the change in the design that took the front yard set back from 17 feet in some places and 11 and others down to three?

Uh so then uh we we we we haven't changed anything since the last time.

We we just kept the same situation.

The only thing that we did were reduced the width of the lot by three feet, and then the depth by another foot.

So then we ended up with uh 0.65 of FAR.

I think I'm if I could add to that, I think I'm understanding your question differently, and I think there was that 17 feet, I think what might have been an error because the footprint of the building itself hasn't changed to that dramatic of a difference.

Okay.

I think that's what you're picking up, Mr.

Chairman, Madam Chairwoman, is that the 17 versus three, I think somehow got lost in the numbers just in the narratives, but in design, it's not a 14-foot change in the design.

Okay.

Okay.

I can confirm that's correct.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

Would anyone like to make a motion?

I'll make a motion, manager.

Okay, thank you.

The case of uh case number seven, uh 2026, uh Musa Walu, uh forgive me, sorry, uh, for permission to demolish the existing abandoned building for construction of three attached dwelling units, three stories high with two garage and one outdoor parking space each, uh, whereas the proposed three attached dwelling units within one building is more than the maximum permitted of two units per building.

Whereas the proposed, and I think this is incorrect, the FAR is 0.65 now, if I'm correct, right?

Um GFA exceeds the maximum permitted of 0.5.

If you think is also changed, it's corrected on here.

Whereas the proposed three thousand forty square foot lot area per dwelling unit is less than the minimum required of 3,500 square feet.

And whereas the proposed uh plus or minus four-foot front yard setback of outdoor parking spaces is less than the minimum required of 20 feet, and whereas the proposed 20-foot, 10-foot rear yard setback is less than the minimum required of 30 feet in an RMF 0.5 zone district at the premises 516 Pelham Road, block 463, and lot 14, and this is uh foreign area variance.

Um I make a motion that this application the variances be uh granted uh based on the following.

Uh whether the benefit can be achieved by uh other means feasible to the applicant.

Um the applicant originally had uh proposed uh four units on this site and has reduced it to three and has also reduced the overall uh square footage and a couple different iterations that we have seen now.

And uh I believe this structure is probably the smallest that could be economically feasible for the developer.

So I don't believe that um uh the benefit could be achieved by any other means and still be feasible uh to the developer at this point.

Um I don't believe that uh a two-family dwelling, which is permitted by zoning, could be BT built here feasibly.

Um will there be an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or nearby properties?

I don't believe there will be an undesirable change in the neighborhood character.

Well, the applicant is requesting a rear yard setback of two-thirds of the requirement.

Um I don't think the structure will be obtrusive to that neighbor, nor the neighbor's surrounding.

And I feel that this is an attractive structure that will enhance the property.

Uh and this has been an eyesore as mentioned, as we well known for many a long time uh in the neighborhood.

Um whether the request is substantial, the rear yard variance of 20 feet um could be considered substantial, but as I mentioned, I don't think it is obtrusive to the adjoining neighbor, uh which is their side yard behind them.

I don't think the structure will be obtrusive.

Uh the FAR variance, I don't think at this point is substantial.

This brought down uh quite a bit.

Uh and uh the other density variances thus have been brought down as well and are not substantial as well.

Um the front yard setback that the parking space may be considered substantial, but there is a benefit to having that extra parking space with that uh backup area as well in the front yard, uh, as we all know off-street parking here is is uh pretty sparse.

Whether the request will have adverse physical or environmental effects, uh I do not believe there will be any physical or environmental environmental effects created through this development.

Uh and as mentioned previously, uh it's going to remove an eyesore uh that's been long standing in this neighborhood, and uh it'll be just it'll be a benefit to this part of uh Pelham Road and to the surrounding neighborhood uh and waterfront area, I believe.

And whether it is self-created, it is self-created uh, but is not uh reason to deny an area variance, and for these reasons I recommend uh the variances be granted.

Second.

Fernando Arias.

Yes.

Abel Rodriguez.

Yes.

Mark McLean.

No.

Charlotte Abadier.

Yes.

Bob Sanziel.

Yes.

Erica Eisner.

Yes.

The motion has been approved.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Next case tonight is case 12, 2026, 12 Elm Midge Drive.

Good evening.

I'm Stephanie Melinski with SM Architecture Studio, presenting on behalf of my clients, David and Rona Abish at 12 Elm Ridge Drive in our three single family zoning district.

So we're proposing in addition to their residence to create functional living spaces that accommodate the needs of their family of five while also enhancing the curb appeal of the house.

These are some existing photos, just so you have the sense of what it currently looks like.

And then we're essentially removing the entire second floor of the house in order to rearrange the space to make each of the four bedrooms larger and to add a bathroom and walk in closet to each as well as a laundry room.

So the variance we're requesting is for the gross floor area, uh FAR.

The proposed increase in square footage is necessary to support the intended use of the space and to provide a practical cohesive interior layout.

The additional 400, well, about 460 square feet of the additional area is attributed to the two-story interior volume of the family room I mentioned.

This space is intended to create an open inviting family gathering space and does not represent additional lot coverage or encroachment.

I would also like to highlight the addition fully complies with all other zoning requirements, setbacks, building coverage, height, and impervious surface square footage.

The scale and the massing of the house have been designed to be consistent with other homes in the neighborhood, ensuring compatibility with the surrounding context.

Anyone have any questions to ask?

Yes, excuse me.

Stephanie, uh you the existing house, a couple of questions actually.

The existing house uh has a circular drive there.

Are you eliminating that?

Yes, we're removing the circular drive, so now the drivewheel just come in straight to the garage there.

Back to the floor plan, I mean the site plan.

And did you do any sort of comparison of what um what your proposed FAR, how that compares to the other FARs of the surrounding houses?

Um, it did not.

Uh I'll just speak for myself.

Um it's a beautiful design.

Um, no doubt will increase the curb appeal of the house, but it's a very large variance, in my opinion, that you're asking for.

Um you know, it's it's a corner lot.

It you're gonna see it from you know two sides.

Um it just seems you're adding over a thousand square feet to the house.

Um we're charged with granting the minimum minimum variance necessary, and I I just don't see any necessity really for such an extremely large variance.

Just my opinion.

I would like to um second my colleague uh Mr.

Sanzial's comments about requesting additional information about other single family homes in the area and if those FARs of those single family homes surrounding this are similar to what's being proposed here.

On on similar lots.

I would qualify that, right?

Yeah.

Yeah.

So one of my observations was that um when you are sort of like going into the house, uh there's one area where it's completely open.

Um, and I don't know if in your proposal I was trying to see if you are proposing to put any screening there.

I'm sorry, inside the house?

No, it's on the outside of the house.

So one of my observations was that um when you are sort of like going into the house um there's one area where is completely open um and I don't know if in your proposal I was trying to see if you are proposing to put any screening there I'm sorry inside the house no it's on the outside of the house so let's say as you're driving toward the house before you get to the all to the garage there's an open area in that area there you could see everything through the I mean through the backyard are you proposing to put any screenings on that um so I am calling out for a fence um you know next to the garage um because there is a pool proposed in the backyard um and there are some existing trees to the left of the garage area and then there's also some shrubs and stuff to the right side of the driveway that we could yeah we could put some more landscaping in try to you know make the volumes um small so that you know it doesn't feel like one big mass so you kind of have it's broken up into these smaller volumes so it doesn't feel you know I don't think it feels as big as it as it is yeah also agree with some of my colleagues about the size of the variance is very substantial do you want to perhaps ask for an adjournment and speak with your clients who aren't here and see if maybe they want to take a look at where they might be able to cut this back a bit and then we come back next month is that how it works yeah I mean if you if you get another submission in in time then yes you would be back next month I think we'd we'd also definitely like to hear about the comparative FARs for the lots around it of similar size um that would be very helpful to our analysis.

Okay you have to ask for the adjournment though I would like an adjournment please that's fine granted okay thank you Stephanie also one more thing if you could um that open area that you have there if you could just uh and understand it counts as your FAR but you could just come up with the number that um that you know that the FAR would be without that space just so we could see what you mean the double height space yes correct all right thank you thank you next case evening is case 14 2026 73 Abbey close hi good evening my name is Jacqueline Tyler with Tyler Architecture and Planning um thank you to the Madam Chair and the board members and staff tonight um for your time uh tonight we are here for um a project that has from my plate been on it for five years um for a very small project but unfortunately the homeowners um experienced some some issues with some break ins and some other things that um they now have solved with their security system and they're comfortable um applying for the deck um prior to that they weren't sure if they were going to proceed um because they were worried about the deck being accessed at their first floor level um which ironically is where we started with this project um the whole notion of the homeowners who are here tonight with me um we have both Coco and Castacata um the notion was that they would be able to enjoy their backyard basically from their first floor level um and being able to age in place but from a deck level so we went to introduce the deck to this project um which you can see here on the screen we have highlighted the setback areas in orange and obviously you can see from as the irregular shape in the back comes to a point um pretty much any deck along that back would have been in violation.

So we did look at um a couple different options but this was the configuration we came up with that we felt was the least impact.

So we kept the deck at only a 10 foot width realistically we would have loved to go larger but we're trying to be mindful of creating a variance that's the least um variance possible.

So our current proposal is including um the deck structure will now be at 18 point five feet where the existing house is 19.2 so our encroachment is less than a foot of what the existing residence is currently we did keep um the area located you can see from here we have um very steep stairs and we kept the um location to the deck the access to the deck off of the existing kitchen um because that makes the most sense from a planning program perspective for them to be able to access it from the kitchen if they're dining um and carrying food in and out uh so right here on the on the screen now you can see the demolition it it does include some steep stairs they are not code compliant so even if we were looking to create a a smaller just stair area still going to be noncompliant with the um with the existing area that we have to work with back in this area so the existing ones are noncompliant the existing steps so unless we relocated them to the den which doesn't make a lot of sense um we were we we believe we would be looking for a variant um when we applied so I think um well to back up we think it's in character with the neighborhood there's other decks in the area that are similar in size um there's not a lot of public view of this um so we did reach out to the neighbors um we do have one letter of support that we did um submit but

of the existing kitchen um because that makes the most sense from a planning program perspective for them to be able to access it from the kitchen if they're dining um and carrying food in and out uh so right here on the on the screen now you can see the demolition it it does include some steep stairs they are not code compliant so even if we were looking to create a a smaller just stair area still going to be noncompliant with the um with the existing area that we have to work with back in this area so the existing ones are noncompliant the existing steps so unless we relocated them to the den which doesn't make a lot of sense um we were we believe we would be looking for a variance um when we applied so I think um well to back up we think it's in character with the neighborhood there's other decks in the area that are similar in size um there's not a lot of public view of this um so we did reach out to the neighbors um we do have one letter of support that we did um submit but um really you have the shopping area on the one side that might be that isn't impacted um and the other neighbors have been notified when we submitted um when we received the um the updated survey because when we went to submit I advised them to get their updated survey from the surveyor and um at that point um when we submitted we realized the existing shed was noncompliant.

So that is a shed um in full disclosure when they moved here um after they moved here they put it there um and were not aware um until they had involvement with me of the process of going to the town uh to the city and finding out um now that they will need a variance for it because they weren't aware of it at the time so the required is three feet um I believe we are at zero point three um we did look at other options to see what we could do um but also when I looked at it from a grading perspective it does make the most sense where it is currently um and it's pushed up against that shopping center side so um again I think most of the you know the deck is a minimal the shed isn't uh is has been there for 15 years um nobody has said anything about it to date um no complaints from the neighbors um and again we think as far as it's 50 square feet so we thought that it was um appropriately positioned happy to answer any questions or if you want any other information from the homeowner so you mentioned that the deck um was um down you guys made it 10 feet um what is the exact dimension of the deck yep so we are um 10 feet sorry let me pull this up for you it's 10 by 14 is the main portion of the deck I think right yeah I was gonna say we have the we have the um I wanted to show you we had the steps that make the one corner um so from that portion it's six by seven and then the main port is yeah fourteen and a half by ten so this is this is the main area here okay thank you I I just have a question for council um if we were to approve the variance with respect to the shed does that mean any shed in this spot or is it just this one?

Is it going forward once they demolish the shed if they were to move the shed then the variance is no more.

Okay.

Thank you.

Does anyone else have any questions?

I don't have any questions Map Chairman No.

Would anyone like to make a motion thank you.

That's all that's good then.

I like it.

Yeah good I make a motion to approve um case number 14-2026 um I'm sorry Hirokazu Takara for permission to construct a new deck and stairs in the rear of the system dwelling legalize is existing 50 square feet front shit where the 18 point five rear yard setback of proposed deck is less than the minimum required of 27 feet equal to 30 feet minus 10% for a regular lot shape.

16 non-conforming 19 point two where the point three rear yard setback of the shit is to be legalized is less than the minimum required of three feet in a R1-10A zone district are the premises of 73 closed block number 3440 lot number one zero one and this is for an area variance.

And implementing the balancing test that we are required to implement and whether the benefit can be achieved by all the mean feasible to the applicant.

In reference to the shit, um when I visit the property, I actually noticed that the shed was sort of like serving a purpose of blocking you know all that view from those uh shopping centers in the back.

Um also the the shed has been in the same spot for over 15 years, and there has not been any issue from any other neighbors uh in reference to the to the shed.

Um and then um looking at the deck, um there's a lot of screening behind their property, so most of the houses there, they actually will have very little view of the deck, and the property next door, the house will be actually blocking the entire view of the deck.

Um the cyber changes in neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties.

Um the new deck will be at a at the back of the property away from the from the neighborhoods, as I mentioned before.

There's a lot of screening, so I don't think that would be a detriment to any of the neighbors uh nearby.

Whether the request is substantial.

Um I mean, in a way, I mean you guys um try to make the deck as small as possible, um, making it to 14 and a half by 10 on trying to minimize the variance size.

Um I don't think is a substantial as um for this variance.

Uh whether request would have adverse or physical uh environmental effect, uh my opinion, I don't believe so.

Uh whether um difficult to is self-created, um it is self-created, both on the shed that was placed by the homeowner uh without um getting the proper permits, and also um when they decided to um make the deck, uh, but in my opinion, I don't think this is a reason for denial.

Um and I actually noticed that you know the stairs and everything there was in pretty bad shape, so the work really needs to be done.

So with all those considerations, I request the variance to be granted.

Second Bob Sanzio, yes, Fernando Arias, yes, Abel Rodriguez, yes, Mark McLean.

Yes.

Charlotte Abadier, yes.

Erica Eisner, yes.

Motion has been approved.

Thank you.

Have a good evening.

Thank you.

Now we have just the administrative item.

Yes.

Just pulling it up.

Okay.

This is for case number one-2025, Casimo Trippy for a subdivision of two existing lots, one lot with two existing one-family dwellings, one of which is to be demolished, and the other with an existing two-family dwelling into four lots, one lot for each existing dwelling and two lots for one new dwelling, each to be filed under separate applications, new dwellings not included in the proposal, and zoning review shown for location on new lots only at 22 Acacia Terrace and 22 Soundview Street, block 210, lot twenty-eight, and twenty-nine.

The owner is requesting a 12-month extension on resolution number seven-25.

I move that we uh grant the request and uh give them the 12-month extension.

Second Fernando Arias.

Yes.

Abel Varriguez?

Yes.

Bob San Ziel?

Yes.

Mark McLean?

Yes.

Charlotte Abadier.

Yes.

And Eric Eisner.

Yes.

The motion's been approved.

And the meeting.

And I move that we close the meeting.

Second.

The meeting is ended.

Have a good night.

Good night.

Thank you.