Zoning board denies variance for 253 Cliff Avenue after neighbors cite safety, notice and character concerns

The Pelham Zoning Board on June 26 denied an application for multiple variances at 253 Cliff Avenue after neighbors and board members raised safety, notice and neighborhood-character concerns.

The board considered requests for four setback variances and an increase in floor-area ratio that the applicant said were necessary because the lot is triangular, nonconforming and has steep grade changes. Karen, the project architect, told the board the site’s topography and a buildable 'hatch' area limited options and that the design aimed to add a two-car garage, improve the front entrance and place livable space above the garage.

Why it matters: Neighbors and several board members said the scale of the requested front-yard intrusion and the proposed increase in floor area would change the character of the Heights and create environmental and safety problems. The applicant’s owner, Christina Slidoji, said the existing driveway is steep and unsafe in winter and that the proposed changes would improve pedestrian safety and reduce runoff compared with the current configuration.

Board members pressed the applicant on alternatives. Marie, the board member who moved to deny, said the application represents an 'undesirable change' in the neighborhood and noted the variance request would substantially increase lot coverage and floor-area ratio above the district standard. Karen explained that the lot is 8,886 square feet, the house currently yields a 27.85% FAR, the maximum allowable based on lot size is about 31.10% and the proposal would raise the FAR into the low 40s (the board and applicant discussed the requested additional square footage as roughly 750 square feet). She also read a local code provision presented in the materials (identified as 'special condition lot 98116 E') that can allow accessory garages under narrow, steep-front conditions but said those rules did not resolve all site constraints.

Neighbors emphasized safety and runoff. Christina Slidoji described difficulty getting vehicles up the existing driveway during winter, saying the slope causes cars to bottom out and creates a 'waterfall' of runoff that discharges toward Highbrook. Jeff Butcherite, identified in the record as the applicant’s husband, warned that a sliding vehicle could cross the sidewalk and enter the street, calling it a 'major risk to the neighborhood.' A nearby resident questioned whether moving the garage higher on the lot would increase impermeable surface and asked about drainage mitigation; the applicant replied that planting and eliminating the existing driveway would be part of a drainage solution but that final drainage details would depend on construction plans and permitting.

Notice and procedure questions also surfaced. A board member flagged apparent discrepancies in the applicant’s mailed-notice list and asked staff how the list is generated; the architect said the list came from the municipality’s online property portal using a 250-foot radius, and the applicant said return receipts had arrived slowly but could be supplemented if needed.

Vote and next steps: Marie moved to deny the application, and another board member (Richard) seconded. The board recorded three votes in favor of denying the application and one abstention; the Chair said the lot is 'very problematic' and urged the applicants to revise their design and return. The applicants said they would do further work and probably come back with revised plans.

Authorities and clarifications: The presentation cited a local code section described in the application materials as 'special condition lot 98116 E' regarding accessory garages on steep frontages; the board also reminded the applicants that any drainage or demolition work must comply with state and local rules. The applicant stated the existing lot area (8,886 sq ft), current FAR (27.85%), the maximum buildable FAR figure cited (31.10%), and a requested additional square footage of roughly 750 sq ft; those figures were discussed during the hearing and may be subject to refinement in revised plans.

The board did not adopt the requested variances tonight; applicants were invited to revise plans addressing neighborhood character, drainage and alternative site layouts before returning for further consideration.