New Rochelle Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting – October 6, 2026

The New Rochelle Zoning Board of Appeals met on October 6, 2026, at 11:00 AM. Chair Erica Eisner presided over the quasi-judicial hearing, with board members Robert Stanziel, Abel Rodriguez, Charlotte Abadier, Ann Zaner, Mark McLean, and staff including Commissioner of Buildings Paul Vaca, Director of Planning Kevin Kane, and Clerk Regina O'Hare. The board heard four variance applications and two administrative extension requests.

Case 26-2026 – 777 & 781 Webster Avenue (Subdivision and Variances)

• Applicant: Sam Achimpong, represented by attorney Jessica Zalin and architect Lanny Lerner. Requested nine variances to subdivide two existing tax lots (13,450 sq ft total, R1‑10A zone) into two buildable lots, correcting a driveway encroachment and allowing future construction of a single‑family home on the currently vacant lot 27. The applicant argued the variances would make the lots consistent with the surrounding neighborhood, where 71 of 89 nearby parcels are non‑compliant with lot area and 78 with lot width/frontage.
• Public Comment: Neighbor Betimir Soufai (785 Webster Ave) opposed, stating the project would disrupt neighborhood character, remove mature trees, increase stormwater runoff, and set a harmful precedent.
• Board Discussion: Members expressed concern about the number and magnitude of variances (e.g., 38% lot area variance on lot 27, 50% frontage variance). Chair Eisner noted recent denial of a similar case (Riesley Place) and that the zoning code was changed to discourage undersized lot development. The board asked whether the applicant could reduce variances, e.g., by using permeable pavers or agreeing to single‑family use on the existing dwelling. The applicant declined to withdraw and requested an adjournment to reconsider.
• Outcome: The board granted an adjournment; the applicant will return at a later meeting.

Case 30-2026 – 42 Cherry Avenue (Garage Addition)

• Applicant: Michael Zakaninu, represented by architect Mike McCann. Requested variances for a new two‑car attached garage: 18.5‑ft rear yard setback (required 30 ft) and 4.5‑ft rear yard setback for a patio on grade (required 10 ft). The garage was originally lost in a 1982 subdivision; the proposed design includes a stone retaining wall and matches the existing house.
• Public Comment: None.
• Board Discussion: Members noted the garage would replace an existing condition and that the variances were minor. The board confirmed no opposition and found the request satisfied the five‑factor balancing test (benefit cannot be achieved by other means, no undesirable neighborhood change, variances not substantial, no adverse environmental effects, difficulty self‑created but not a bar).
• Vote: Motion to approve by Board Member Stanziel, seconded by Rodriguez. Unanimous approval (6 yes).

Case 31-2026 – 1185 Weaver Street (Deck and Patio Legalization)

• Applicant: Richard Sturker, homeowner. Sought variances to legalize an existing two‑level deck and stone paver patio: side yard setback of 4.6–7.8 ft (required 8 ft for deck over 18 inches above grade) and 4.6–5.6 ft for lower deck/patio (required 6 ft). The deck was built 20 years ago based on an older survey; the applicant noted a step added for safety increased the variance by about 1 ft.
• Public Comment: None in opposition. The adjacent neighbor provided a letter of support.
• Board Discussion: Members found the variances minimal and the deck low‑impact (only 18 inches high). The difficulty was self‑created but not a reason to deny. The step removal would create a safety hazard.
• Vote: Motion to approve by Board Member Rodriguez, seconded by Stanziel. Unanimous approval (6 yes).

Case 32-2026 – 76 Kingsbury Road (Two‑Story Addition and Detached Garage)

• Applicant: John Woodruff, architect, representing the owner. Proposed a two‑story addition on the right side and a new two‑car detached garage on the left side, requiring variances: 3‑ft side yard setback (required 6 ft) and 3‑ft rear yard setback (required 10 ft) – a 70% and 50% reduction respectively. The applicant argued the rear‑garage design preserves the historic street character and improves an existing tight driveway.
• Public Comment: Three neighbors spoke:
  • Edward Dudley (71 Woodlawn Ave) objected to the garage placement but said he would accept if moved 5 ft forward (reducing variance to 20%). He also raised fire access concerns.
  • Charles Stevenson (71 Woodlawn Ave) expressed worry about exacerbating existing flooding/drainage issues on the applicant’s lot.
  • Kenneth Bond (72 Kingsbury Rd) requested denial or revision, citing the scale of the project, increased impervious surface (from 19% to 42%), and impacts on privacy, light, and drainage.
  • Liz Capuano (82 Kingsbury Rd) voiced distress over removal of five large trees on the property, unrelated to the variance request.
• Board Discussion: The applicant agreed to move the garage 2 ft forward and 1 ft sideways, but noted further movement would conflict with the addition’s design and the 10‑ft setback from the house. The board indicated they would like to see the adjustment and adjourned the case for revised plans.
• Outcome: The case was adjourned until the November 4, 2026 meeting.

Administrative Items (Extensions)

• Case 18-2025 – 42 Chauncey Avenue: Request for 12‑month extension of a previous resolution to legalize a first‑floor addition and basement finishing. Approved by voice vote.
• Case 31-2025 – 72 Albemarle Avenue: Request for 12‑month extension of a previous resolution to legalize a raised patio and construct new deck/stairs. Approved by voice vote.

Key Outcomes

• Case 30-2026 (Cherry Ave) and Case 31-2026 (Weaver St): Variances granted unanimously.
• Case 26-2026 (Webster Ave): Adjourned; applicant to reconsider variances.
• Case 32-2026 (Kingsbury Rd): Adjourned to November 4, 2026, for revised garage placement.
• Two administrative extensions: Approved without opposition.