New Rochelle Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting – September 1, 2026
New Rochelle Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting – September 1, 2026
The New Rochelle Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) met on Tuesday, September 1, 2026, at 7:00 PM to hear applications for area variances and administrative extensions. Chair Erica Aisner presided, with Clerk Regina O’Hara calling the roll. The board considered five variance cases and two 12-month extension requests.
Consent Calendar
- Case 17-2025 (33 Ferdinand Place): Approved a 12-month extension for the demolition of an existing one-car garage and construction of a new two-car garage. (Unanimous)
- Case 16-2025 (27 Balu Avenue): Approved a 12-month extension for a one-story kitchen addition. (Unanimous)
Public Comments & Testimony
Case 20-2026 – 40 Beach Road
- Opposition: Joseph Ariel (attorney for 27 Springdale) argued the variance was for increased living space, not a garage rebuild, and that the applicant had not met the five-factor test. Jacob Yanovia (resident at 27 Springdale) stated neighbor support was not well-informed and that the proposed addition would negatively impact his property.
- Support: Ed Akerzall (architect) noted that the neighborhood’s fabric includes many non‑conforming setbacks, and that the requested 12-foot rear setback is consistent with surrounding properties. Applicant Devin Hammonds emphasized the need to accommodate her mother and expressed frustration that opposition only arose after months of engagement.
No public comments were made on cases 24-2026, 27-2026, 28-2026, or 29-2026.
Discussion Items
Case 20-2026 – 40 Beach Road (Variance Denied) The applicants sought to demolish a dilapidated detached garage and construct a two-story attached garage addition, requiring a rear-yard variance from 30 feet to 12 feet (a 60% reduction). Architect James Fleming presented revised plans that moved the addition closer to the house and further from Springdale. Opposition attorney Joseph Ariel argued the variance was for living space, not a garage, and that the applicant could rebuild the garage at one level without increasing nonconformity. Board members questioned the size and impact; the motion to deny passed unanimously.
Case 24-2026 – 22 Dearborn Street (Variance Approved) Architect John Woodruff presented a revised plan reducing the number of requested variances from four to three. The applicant sought to demolish a dilapidated garage and build a new two-car detached garage, along with an exterior stair and door. The board found the variances feasible, not detrimental, and approved the application unanimously.
Case 26-2026 – 777 Webster Avenue (Referred to Planning Board) The board referred this application to the planning board without hearing, deferring presentation until after the planning board’s review.
Case 27-2026 – 31 Clover Place (Variance Approved) Architect John Woodruff requested a floor-area-ratio (FAR) variance to convert a two-story loft into a second-floor bedroom within the existing building envelope. The existing house already exceeded the permitted FAR due to a prior 1989 expansion. The board found the 6% FAR increase minor, with no external changes, and approved unanimously.
Case 28-2026 – 25 Walnut Street (Variance Approved) Architect JC Calderon sought two area variances for exterior stairs and a landing that deviated from previously approved plans. The board noted the existing non‑conforming setbacks and found the variances necessary for access, with no adverse neighborhood impact. Approved unanimously.
Case 29-2026 – 287 Beachmont Drive (Variance Approved) Architect Paige Lewis presented a two-story rear addition that increased the FAR from 0.322 to 0.336 (a 4.3% increase). The existing house was already non‑conforming. The board considered the increase minimal and consistent with neighborhood character, and approved the variance unanimously.
Key Outcomes
- Case 20-2026: Variance denied (unanimous).
- Case 24-2026: Variances approved (unanimous).
- Case 26-2026: Referred to planning board.
- Case 27-2026: Variance approved (unanimous).
- Case 28-2026: Variances approved (unanimous).
- Case 29-2026: Variance approved (unanimous).
- Administrative extensions: Both approved unanimously.
The meeting adjourned at approximately 8:45 PM.
Meeting Transcript
Please keep it down. We're going to start the meeting. Thank you. Good evening, everyone. I'm Erica Aisner, the chair of the zoning board, and I welcome everyone to tonight's meeting. Just for a couple of ground rules before we get started. For everyone's information, 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 already been issued by the city in accordance with the city's zoning ordinance. And um, or any previous meeting if this is an adjourned matter. Any written opposition that has been submitted or um writings in support of an application have been reviewed by this board, um, but we also will consider any oral opposition or supportive statements uh that are made today. In making our determination, we're responsible to apply a five-factor test to each application before us and to permit only the minimum uh variants that we deem necessary and adequate um while at the same time preserving and protecting the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety, and welfare of the community. The format for tonight's meeting will be as follows. Um Regina O'Hara, our clerk will c will call a roll to confirm who is present this evening on 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 have an initial opportunity to ask questions of the applicant. At that time, we will then turn it over to anyone who'd like to speak in support or in opposition of that application. We recognize that there are many people here who want to speak on applications, and we're happy to hear what you have to say. We ask that you limit your comments to three minutes, and we will cut you off at the three-minute mark. So please be brief and to the point. We also ask that you don't repeat anything that anyone has said before you. At the conclusion of the presentation and comments, the board will the board will vote on whether to approve or reject the application. In order for a motion to pass, the applicant must have four votes in favor. The applicants will also be entitled to request an adjournment of their hearing if they wish to revise or modify their application before proceeding. So with that tonight, I'm going to turn it back over to Regina to call the roll. Good evening. The cases tonight are the adjourned cases, case 20, 26, 40 Beach Road, the applicant is here. Yes. Opposition of voices to be heard. Yes. Case 24, 2026, 22 Dearborn Street. The applicant is here. Opposition of voices to be heard on that. New cases, case 26, 2026. 777 Webster Avenue, the applicant is here. Yes. An opposition of voices to be heard on that. Case 27, 2026, 31 Clover Place, the applicant is here. Opposition of voices to be heard on that. Case 28, 2026, 25 Walnut, the applicant is here. Opposition of voices to be heard on that. And case 29, 2026, 287 Beachmont Drive, the applicant is here. Opposition of voices to be heard on that. We have a couple of administrative items, which are 12-month extensions for case 17, 2025, and case 16, 2025, 27 Balu. So the first case this evening will be case 20, 2026, 40 Beach Road. May I proceed? Um you may, but before you do, um the board has had a request by counsel for the opposition for an adjournment of tonight's hearing. He had a conflict and for personal reasons couldn't attend. So you are welcome to make your presentation, but I am prepared to make a motion uh for the board's consideration to adjourn this application to next month. If if I if I may, the only opposite please state your name for the record first. I'm sorry, Jacob Amir of the law firm of Zaren Stein's here on behalf of the applicants, Devin and Jason Hammonds. Um Madam Chair, the only opposition I'm aware of is one neighbor, I believe at 27 Springsdale, and their attorney is here this evening.
openpublica.com