Historic Landmarks board pauses New Rochelle pool application after neighbors raise screening and safety concerns

The City of New Rochelle Historical Landmarks Review Working Board on June 11 adjourned consideration of Application HLRB 52025, a certificate-of-appropriateness request to install a 20-by-40-foot in‑ground pool, perimeter paving, and associated fencing and plantings at 10 Manhattan Avenue in the city’s R‑1 Historic Zone District. The applicant and the board agreed the proposal needs revised drawings and clarification of how the pool enclosure will meet state safety code and the district’s screening expectations.

Board members and neighbors pressed the applicant for detail on where the required fence would be located, whether screening plantings would surround the yard or only one side, and whether an existing six‑foot stockade fence on parts of the lot is approved or must be replaced. Walter Nesbitt, the project’s landscape architect, described the plan as “a 20 by 40 foot in ground swimming pool with retractable pool cover and Bluestone paving terrace” and said the design includes a four‑foot aluminum picket pool‑enclosure fence with “self closing, self latching gates” and evergreen screen plantings on the outside of the fence as required by city code.

Neighbors said they were concerned about where the fence would be placed and whether the pool would be enclosed closely around the pool or would instead enclose much of the property. Joe Perazio, who said he lives at 12 Manhattan Avenue, told the board he was not opposed to a pool but said maintenance and safety were concerns: “My concern is the safety of my house and the community,” he said, adding worries that children at the neighboring property had been unsupervised in the past. Carol Perazio asked how far off the lot line the pool would be and whether the existing stockade fence shown on the plans actually exists along the property line.

Board members repeatedly asked the applicant to verify whether the existing stockade fence is present and approved by the building department. Board member Leanne Merchant asked that the building department’s interpretation about when planting is required — specifically whether an opaque stockade fence meets the screening requirement, as opposed to a see‑through picket fence that would require plantings on the outside — be confirmed and incorporated into the board’s resolution or the permit process.

Nesbitt told the board the design intends the picket fence to sit on the yard side with evergreen screening on the outside, and that where a six‑foot stockade fence exists the screening requirement may already be met. He also said two large dead trees on the property would be removed. He described the proposed evergreen plantings as hemlocks planted at roughly 4½ to 5 feet that can be trimmed as a hedge and noted they can reach 20 to 30 feet at maturity.

Several speakers raised the district’s general preference against visible fences. Kevin Kane, Director of Planning and Sustainability, reminded the meeting that the historic district’s design standard “is to discourage fences” but said the pool requirement for a safety fence makes this situation different. The board’s chair, Benito Cejas, Senior Project Manager, and other members suggested the applicant return with a revised plan that addresses (1) where the pool enclosure will be located relative to the pool and property lines; (2) how screening plantings and fence materials will meet both state pool‑safety code and New Rochelle’s historic‑district design expectations; and (3) documentation on whether portions of a stockade fence shown on the plans are already in place and approved by the building department.

The applicant requested and the board accepted an adjournment to allow a revised submission. Nesbitt said the applicant would resubmit with “a revised pool enclosure as required by state code with the proper screening as required by the village” and would consult with staff before returning. The board closed public comment and directed the applicant to work with city staff so the next submission could address the items discussed.

Votes at a glance: The board approved a separate procedural item earlier in the meeting — a motion to approve the January and February 2025 meeting minutes — which carried on a voice vote (“All in favor,” recorded as aye). After the public hearing the board agreed to adjourn the application for revision; the application was not voted on. The board later moved to close the meeting; that motion carried on a voice vote.

What remains unresolved: The application remains open pending a resubmission. The board asked the applicant to (1) confirm whether the existing six‑foot stockade fence shown on parts of the plan is present and whether it is an approved, property‑owner fence or otherwise subject to building‑department enforcement; (2) clarify exact pool setbacks and whether the enclosure will be placed directly around the pool or along the property line; (3) confirm materials and whether a picket/aluminum fence plus exterior plantings or a stockade enclosure is the preferred solution for compliance with both state safety requirements and historic‑district standards; and (4) provide plant‑establishment or irrigation plans given neighbors’ concerns about prior plantings failing and general property maintenance.

The board encouraged neighbors with site‑specific maintenance or safety complaints to contact the building department or other appropriate city agencies, as the Historical Landmarks board’s jurisdiction is limited to the design and appropriateness of visible changes in the historic district. The applicant indicated they will resubmit and coordinate with staff before returning to the working board for a final decision.