New Rochelle Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting - May 5, 2026
New Rochelle Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting - May 5, 2026
The New Rochelle Zoning Board of Appeals held a meeting on May 5, 2026, chaired by Erica Eisner. The board considered six variance applications, an adjourned case, and an administrative item. Public comments were heard on one case. The meeting resulted in approvals for four applications, adjournments for two, and a granted extension.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Case 13 (21 Circuit Road): Multiple residents and the co-op next door spoke. Supporters (e.g., Anna Maria Zinzi, Curring Cravado) described severe parking shortages, safety concerns, and elderly residents struggling to find parking. Opponents (Evelyn Patron, attorney for the co-op; Samantha Florentino; Leves Zaninovich) raised safety issues including narrow driveways, pedestrian hazards, snow storage, and lack of traffic studies. The board noted the concerns about safety and illegible plans.
Discussion Items
- Case 12 (12 Elm Ridge Drive): Applicant Stephanie Melinski requested a variance for 493 sq ft over the allowable FAR (0.335 vs 0.30) for a house addition. No opposition. Board approved.
- Case 13 (21 Circuit Road): Applicant Aldo Vitaliano and Joseph Scalisi sought variances for a front yard setback (12 ft vs required 25 ft) and a compact car space exception to add 7 parking spaces. Board members found plans illegible and requested a lighting plan, site distance study, and clearer details. The case was adjourned to June 2, 2026.
- Case 15 (106 Pershing Avenue): Applicant Mike McCann and homeowner Anderson Franco requested a variance for a combined side yard of 11.5 ft (required 20 ft) to build a new attached garage replacing an old non-conforming garage. No opposition. Board approved 4-1 (Fernando Arias dissenting).
- Case 16 (40 Earl Place): Jody Lucena Picchardo sought to legalize a 6-ft wood fence on a corner lot where the second front yard limits fences to 4 ft. The fence provides safety for children and a dog. Board approved unanimously.
- Case 17 (109 Fourth Street): Reverend Ricardo Serrano sought a variance for zero parking spaces for a church conversion (previous use as a social club had no parking). Congregation is small (about 100 people) and most walk. Board approved 4-1 (Fernando Arias dissenting).
- Case 18 (132 Sickles Avenue): Engineer Michael Mastraiacomo requested variances for lot area (167 sq ft shy) and FAR (0.46 vs 0.40) to convert a three-story to a two-family. Board requested neighborhood comparables and noted planning board concerns about parking layout. Adjourned.
- Case 19 (40 Green Place): John Woodruff presented for Martha Lopez to legalize one off-street parking space in the front yard (2 ft setback vs 30 ft required) after converting a garage to a bedroom for her ill husband. Support from neighbor. Board approved unanimously.
Key Outcomes
- Case 12: Approved unanimously (5-0).
- Case 13: Adjourned to June 2, 2026.
- Case 15: Approved 4-1 (Fernando Arias opposed).
- Case 16: Approved unanimously (5-0).
- Case 17: Approved 4-1 (Fernando Arias opposed).
- Case 18: Adjourned.
- Case 19: Approved unanimously (5-0).
- Administrative Item (Case 8-2025): Approved a 12-month extension for a prior resolution.
Meeting Transcript
Good evening, everyone, and welcome to this evening's zoning. I always forget that. Let me try that again. Good evening, everyone, and welcome to this evening's zoning board of appeals for New Rochelle on May 5th. My name is Erica Eisner. I'm the chair. That's okay. We okay. Our role is to apply the law to the specific facts presented to us by each applicant, which includes both the submissions that we have received and have reviewed, and the presentation made at this hearing or any prior hearing if you're here on an adjourned matter. Any written opposition that has been submitted in advance of the meeting or presented orally will be considered as well as any support for any application brought before us. In making our determination, we are responsible for applying a five-factor test to each application before us, and to permit only the minimum variants that we deem necessary and adequate while at the same time preserving and protecting the character of the neighborhood and the health, self-safety, and welfare of the community. The format for tonight's meeting will be as follows. Um Regina will call the roll to confirm who's present this evening for each application, both in support and in opposition. Then we will hear each application. The applicant will go first and make their presentation, and the board will then have an opportunity to ask questions of the applicant. Anyone else wishing to be heard on each application will have an opportunity to speak, but your comments will be strictly limited to three minutes. And we ask that you don't repeat anything that anyone else has said before you. Please know that for any uh motion to pass, you need four votes in favor. So, due to the two absences we have, if anyone would like to adjourn their application for this evening and come back next month, um, please let us know. Otherwise, um with that, I will return the mic to uh Regina. Good evening. The first case tonight, okay case number five, 2026 for 120 beautiful place for the audience and the people watching at home that has been adjourned until the June 2nd meeting. Case 12, 2026, 12 Elmage Drive, the applicants here. Oppositional voices to be heard on that. Case 13, 2026, 21 Circuit Road, the applicant is here. Applic um oppositional voices to be heard on that. New cases tonight is case 15, 2026, 106 Persian Avenue, the applicants here. Opposition of voices to be heard. Case 16, 2026, 40 Earl Place, the applicant is here. Opposition of voices to be heard on that. Case 17, 2026, 109 Fourth Street. Uh applicants here. Opposition of voices to be heard on that. Case 18, 2026. 132 Sickles Avenue, applicant here. Opposition of voices to be heard on that. And case 19, 2026, 40 Green Place, applicants here. Opposition of voices to be heard. Okay, so the first case tonight will be case 12, 2026, 12 Elm Ridge Drive. Good evening. I'm Stephanie Melinski with SM Architecture Studio. I'm presenting on behalf of my clients, David and Rona. So I presented the project at the April Zoning Board meeting, and just to summarize, we're proposing an addition to their residents to create functional living space to accommodate the needs of their family of five. But also a primary goal of the project was to enrich the exterior with architectural character and visual interest, thereby elevating the home's curb appeal. Scroll down here. So the addition fully complies with all other zoning requirements. And since the last zoning board meeting, I reduced the addition by 500 square feet, which is about half of the amount that we are over over the allowable at the April meeting. So we are now asking for only 493 square square feet over the allowable. And then I kind of reduced the addition at various other locations to um to achieve that reduction in square footage. And as you can see, there are a few other properties with comparable FARs.
openpublica.com