Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Votes topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Zoning board approves two residential setback variances and extends daycare application
Summary
The New Rochelle Zoning Board granted area variances for two residential deck projects — Cindy Waxman (case 22025) and Dominic Starpoli (case 32025) — and approved a six‑month extension for a daycare conversion application (case 282023).
The New Rochelle Zoning Board voted to approve two area‑variance requests for residential decks and granted a six‑month extension for a previously approved daycare conversion.
Case 22025 (85 Bello Ave.): The board approved a requested 4.5‑foot reduction to the 30‑foot rear setback so homeowner Cindy Waxman can rebuild an existing deck pushed six feet back as part of a rear addition. Architect Jacob Goldberg said the deck’s rebuilt footprint will match the existing deck and that privacy screening and a fence are already in place. The board found the variance non‑substantial and noted screening and the low deck height; the roll call was recorded as unanimous in favor (Fernando Arias — yes; Abel Rodriguez — yes; Bob Sanziel — yes; Carla Clappa — yes; David Fernandez — yes; Erica Azner — yes).
Case 32025 (47 Ashland St.): The board granted a variance to legalize an existing rear deck with a setback of about 23.6 feet where 30 feet is required. Architect John Nojin said the deck is partially obscured by shrubbery and fencing, will have gravel underdeck for drainage, and would have limited environmental impact. The motion passed unanimously on roll call (Bob Sanziel — yes; Fernando Arias — yes; Abel Rodriguez — yes; Carla Clappa — yes; David Fernandez — yes; Erica Azner — yes).
Administrative item (case 282023, 524 North Ave.): The board approved a six‑month extension for a conversion and combination of two ground‑floor tenant spaces into a new day care at an existing five‑story building. The extension passed on a recorded vote with one dissenting vote (Bob Sanziel — no; Fernando Arias — yes; Abel Rodriguez — yes; Carla Clappa — yes; David Fernandez — yes; Erica Azner — yes).
The board’s motions cited the standard balance‑of‑criteria for area variances — whether the benefit could be achieved by other means, neighborhood character impacts, the substantiality of the request, environmental effects, and whether the difficulty was self‑created — and concluded the two deck requests met the standards for relief in these cases.
