New Rochelle Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting - June 2, 2026

The New Rochelle Zoning Board of Appeals met on June 2, 2026, at 11:15 AM (the meeting was held in the evening per the transcript, but the provided timestamp is used) to consider several applications for area variances. The meeting was chaired by Erica Eisner. The board reviewed three returning cases, four new cases, and two administrative extension requests. Below is a summary of each agenda item, including public comments, discussions, and votes.

Returning Cases

Case 5-2026: 120 Buford Place – Ralph Florentine

• Applicant: Ralph Florentine, property owner. Presented his case to legalize a six-foot pool fence (vs. four-foot maximum), a 6.6-foot masonry wall (vs. four-foot maximum), and impervious surface coverage of 47.2% (vs. 45% maximum). The pillars previously encroaching on city property were moved back onto the applicant’s land.
• Public Comments: None.
• Discussion: The board noted the fence is well-screened by bushes, the impervious area exceeded by only 2.2%, and the wall matches existing pillars. The self-created difficulty was not considered grounds for denial.
• Key Outcome: Motion to grant all variances. Unanimously approved (6-0).

Case 13-2026: 21 Circuit Road – Joseph Scalesi

• Applicant: Represented by Aldo Vitaliano and architect Ralph Tedesco. Sought to legalize a parking lot extension with seven additional spaces (including one compact and one handicapped) and a 12-foot front yard setback variance (required 25 feet). The driveway would be widened from 18 to 20 feet at the entry.
• Public Comments: Several neighbors spoke in opposition. Samantha Florentino (board member, neighboring property) raised concerns about pedestrian safety, turning radii for larger vehicles, and emergency access. Neves Saninovich (5 Circuit Road) questioned drainage, snow storage, and visibility at the driveway exit. Evelyn Patron (attorney for Shore Road Apartment Owners) argued the plan would exacerbate congestion on a shared easement. One speaker, Anna Maria Zindy (23 Circuit Road), supported the application, noting the need for off-street parking and that no accidents had occurred in 26 years.
• Discussion: The applicant presented a traffic engineer’s rebuttal letter (late submission). Board members asked about enforcement of the compact car space and snow storage. The board noted that further design details (drainage, fire access) would be reviewed by the Planning Board.
• Key Outcome: Motion to approve the variances. Unanimously approved (6-0).

Case 18-2026: 132 Sickles Avenue – Eric Romero Solar

• Applicant: Engineer Michael Mastrogiacomo. Sought variances for conversion of a single-family to two-family dwelling: FAR of 0.46 (vs. 0.4), lot area per dwelling unit of 332.5 sq ft (vs. 3,500 sq ft), and a 2.8-foot side yard setback for a parking space (vs. 6 feet). The applicant provided an analysis of three neighboring properties with similar deficiencies.
• Public Comments: None.
• Discussion: The board discussed whether to modify the driveway layout to avoid a long backup. The applicant preferred to keep the current plan. The motion included a recommendation to turn one parking space perpendicular to the house (to be finalized at Planning Board).
• Key Outcome: Motion to approve with a modification. Unanimously approved (6-0).

New Cases

Case 20-2026: 40 Beach Road – Jason Hammond

• Applicant: Architect Jim Fleming. Proposed demolishing an existing nonconforming single-story garage and building a two-story addition with a grandmother suite, requiring a 10-foot rear yard setback (vs. 30 feet required). The addition would be 1,500 sq ft vs. the existing 300 sq ft.
• Public Comments: Hillary J. (27 Springdale Road) objected strongly, citing obstruction of sight lines, light, and air; a 66% setback variance; potential structural damage from rock removal; and diminution of property value. She argued the code should be upheld.
• Discussion: The applicant acknowledged the need for a variance but noted that any addition in that yard would require one. The board suggested adjourning to allow the applicant to negotiate with the neighbor to reduce bulk.
• Key Outcome: The matter was adjourned to the next meeting to allow further discussion between the applicant and the neighbor. No vote was taken.

Case 21-2026: 103 Gale Drive – Elliot Krakow

• Applicant: Architect John Woodruff. Proposed a new 14×20 ft wood deck to replace a structurally deficient deck, requiring an 18-foot rear yard setback (vs. 27 feet). The lot has a shallow rear yard; the deck is 42 inches high and screened by fencing.
• Public Comments: None.
• Discussion: The board noted the deck is a replacement in the same location, and the neighbor directly behind is the applicant’s son-in-law and supports the project.
• Key Outcome: Motion to approve the variance. Unanimously approved (6-0).

Case 22-2026: 236 Clinton Avenue – James Mum

• Applicant: Architect John Woodruff. Proposed to partially enclose an existing front porch (130 sq ft) to expand the dining room, requiring a FAR variance from 0.35 to 0.45 (5% increase). The footprint remains unchanged. The applicant provided a study of 17 neighboring houses, several with higher FARs.
• Public Comments: None.
• Discussion: The board considered the minimal increase and the commonality of such enclosures on the street.
• Key Outcome: Motion to approve the variance. Unanimously approved (6-0).

Administrative Items

Case 10-2025: 7 Shuler Street – Su Yen Taylor

• Request: 12-month extension of a previously granted resolution for a two-story addition and detached garage.
• Key Outcome: Unanimously approved (6-0).

Case 4-2025: 89 Devonshire – Venita Segal

• Request: 12-month extension of a previously granted resolution for a rear deck.
• Key Outcome: Unanimously approved (6-0).

Key Outcomes

• Votes: All cases except 40 Beach Road were approved unanimously (6-0). The 40 Beach Road case was adjourned without a vote.
• Next Steps: The 40 Beach Road matter will be brought back to a future meeting. The approved cases will proceed to the Planning Board for site plan review.