Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
New Rochelle historic board denies homeowner's request to replace slate roof with asphalt shingles
Summary
The New Rochelle Historical Landmarks Review Board denied Tamara Fredericks’s application to replace an original slate roof with asphalt shingles at 16 Hunter Avenue, citing preservation concerns; the board noted the applicant may pursue a hardship review under the code.
The New Rochelle Historical Landmarks Review Board denied a homeowner’s request to replace an original slate roof with asphalt shingles at 16 Hunter Avenue on May 14, voting 3–1 to approve a motion to deny the certificate of appropriateness application.
The denial affects application HLRB3-2025, filed by homeowner Tamara Fredericks, who asked the board for permission to remove the existing slate roof and install asphalt shingles because the roof is leaking and contractors advised a full replacement. Benito Sejes, senior project manager for the city, opened the item on the agenda and staff encouraged the applicant to pursue the city’s hardship process if the board denied the application.
Fredericks and a family member told the board contractors had found rotted wood beneath the slate and recommended an immediate full replacement. Kyle Frederickson, who identified himself as Fredericks’s brother and a New Rochelle resident, said two contractors told the family the attic was wet in “a couple of different portions” and “we will need to do a full replacement.” Fredericks said neighbor garages already have the asphalt shingle appearance she proposes and that a full slate replacement would be expensive; she reported contractors’ cost estimates ranging from “at least $100,000” to “over $200,000” for new slate.
Neighbors who spoke at public comment urged the board to preserve the house’s original slate. Elena Harrison Cowie, who lives at 17 Hunter Avenue, said there are still several slate roofs in the neighborhood and questioned whether matching nearby houses provided sufficient basis to remove original slate. Margaret Chadwick of 95 Hamilton Avenue, who said she had experience with a slate roof replacement project, told the board a slate roof replacement could be “over $200,000” and said asphalt shingles would blend with the house if the board allowed a change.
Board members asked about alternatives and whether composite or slate-look shingles had been considered. A board member noted the code allows a hardship application and described the usual process: the board may deny the certificate of appropriateness and the applicant may then apply for a hardship determination to the appropriate administrative body. After discussion, a board member moved to deny Fredericks’s application; the motion was seconded and carried by voice vote with three in favor and one opposed.
The board indicated staff — including Kevin Kane, director of planning and sustainability, and Benito Sejes, senior project manager — would assist Fredericks with next steps if she chose to apply for a hardship review under the code. The denial does not prohibit the homeowner from seeking that alternate process.
The application covered a property listed as Block 876, Lot 63 in the R1 Historic Zone District. The board’s action was limited to the certificate of appropriateness request recorded as HLRB3-2025; no other formal approvals or permits were decided at the meeting.
