New Rochelle Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting – April 7, 2026
New Rochelle Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting – April 7, 2026
The New Rochelle Zoning Board of Appeals held a regular meeting on April 7, 2026, chaired by Erica Eisner, to hear applications for area variances and an administrative extension request. The board considered four cases and one administrative item, approving two variances, adjourning one application, referring one case to the planning board, and granting a 12-month extension. All votes required four affirmative votes to pass.
Consent Calendar
- No consent calendar items were presented.
Public Comments & Testimony
- No public comments were made during the meeting.
Discussion Items
- Case 7-2026 – 516 Pelham Road – Applicant Mark Blanchard (Blanchard Law Group) presented on behalf of the project for demolition of an abandoned service station and construction of three attached dwelling units (reduced from four) with six parking spaces. This was the third hearing; the applicant noted reductions in floor area ratio (FAR) from 0.5 to 0.65? (transcript states FAR 0.65, which exceeds the 0.5 maximum), gross floor area, and unit count. The board discussed the front yard parking space setback of 4 feet (required 20 feet) and the use of a hammerhead turnaround. The applicant argued the project would be an asset to the neighborhood, replacing an eyesore, and that the self-created hardship was standard.
- Case 12-2026 – 12 Elmridge Drive – Stephanie Melinski (SM Architecture Studio) presented for homeowners David and Rona Abish to renovate a single-family home, removing the second floor and adding approximately 460 square feet (including double-height family room) to improve layout. The requested variance was for FAR, with the proposed FAR exceeding the allowed 0.5. Board members expressed concern that the variance was substantial and questioned whether the benefit could be achieved with less expansion. The board requested comparative FAR data for surrounding homes and suggested the applicant consider reducing the scope. The applicant requested an adjournment to revise the proposal, which was granted until the May 5, 2026 meeting.
- Case 14-2026 – 73 Abbey Close – Jacqueline Tyler (Tyler Architecture and Planning) presented for homeowners Coco and Castacata to construct a new deck (14.5 ft x 10 ft) and legalize an existing 50 sq. ft. shed that had been in place for 15 years. The deck rear yard setback of 18.5 ft is less than the required 27 ft; the shed setback of 0.3 ft is less than the required 3 ft. The applicant noted the deck was minimized to 10 ft width to reduce impact, and the shed location screens the adjacent shopping center. One letter of support was submitted. A board member noted the deck would be screened from neighbors and the shed is non-conforming but serves a purpose. The board confirmed that the variance for the shed would apply only to the current shed location.
- Administrative Item – Case 1-2025 (22 Acacia Terrace & 22 Soundview Street) – Applicant Casimo Trippy requested a 12-month extension of resolution number 7-25 for a subdivision of two lots into four lots, with two new dwellings not yet included. The board moved and voted unanimously to grant the extension.
Key Outcomes
- Case 7-2026 (516 Pelham Road) – APPROVED with a 6–1 vote (Mark McLean dissented). Variances granted for: three units instead of two (density); FAR (0.65 vs. 0.5 max); lot area per dwelling unit (3,040 sq. ft. vs. 3,500 minimum); front yard parking setback (4 ft vs. 20 ft); rear yard setback (10 ft vs. 30 ft). The motion found the benefit could not be achieved feasibly otherwise, the project would not change neighborhood character, the rear yard variance was not obtrusive, and the self-created hardship was not a reason to deny.
- Case 12-2026 (12 Elmridge Drive) – ADJOURNED to May 5, 2026, at the applicant’s request to revise the proposal and provide comparative FAR data for neighboring properties.
- Case 14-2026 (73 Abbey Close) – APPROVED unanimously. Variances granted for deck rear yard setback (18.5 ft vs. 27 ft) and shed rear yard setback (0.3 ft vs. 3 ft). The motion cited minimal impact, screening, and the shed’s long-standing presence without complaints.
- Case 1-2025 (Extension) – APPROVED unanimously. 12-month extension granted for the subdivision resolution.
- Case 13-2026 (21 Circuit Road) – REFERRED to the planning board for a recommendation; will be placed on the calendar for the May 2026 meeting.
Meeting Transcript
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.
openpublica.com