Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves variance to legalize attic and interior work at 93 Glenwood Avenue amid neighbor flooding concerns
Summary
The Zoning Board approved a variance to legalize an existing attic and interior basement work at 93 Glenwood Avenue (FAR 0.54 vs permitted 0.35). Neighbors raised concerns about parking, alleged unpermitted work and potential diversion of stormwater onto adjacent yards; staff said drainage details must be resolved at permitting.
The New Rochelle Zoning Board of Appeals voted 4–1 to grant an area variance that legalizes finished attic space and interior basement alterations at 93 Glenwood Avenue, approving legalization of an existing 0.54 FAR where 0.35 is permitted.
Chair Erica Azner stressed the board's jurisdiction before the vote: “What is before us is a request for a variance on the FAR,” and said drainage and other neighborhood concerns need to be addressed to the building department before any permit is issued. Architect Willie Zambrano told the board the applicant added a stepped planter/bio‑retention and a short wall to divert runoff toward a catch basin at the foot of the driveway, and that civil drawings showing a French‑drain trench and conduit to the basin will be provided for permitting review.
Several neighbors testified during public comment. Eric Cruz (42 Vaughn Avenue) questioned whether the property was being used as a true single‑family dwelling and asked whether neighbors could challenge occupancy if rental units exist. Cruz asked, “Am I allowed to renovate my basement and rent it out?” The applicant’s representative and staff said a basement kitchen would change occupancy status and that complaints about occupancy are handled by the Building Department and inspection/enforcement processes outside the board’s variance decision.
Other neighbors emphasized flooding history and potential impacts. Henriette Mouraux described past floods, saying the area has seen rapid and deep inundation and urged relief for the homeowner: “We flood a lot…we got 3 feet of water, 1 foot of water in 10 minutes.” Board members repeatedly requested civil drainage plans; staff reiterated that a solid retaining wall cannot simply stop natural flow without permit‑level mitigation. The board’s approval was conditioned by the explicit requirement that drainage/diversion issues be satisfied during the permitting process handled by the building department.
The motion to approve was made on the basis that the attic and interior conditions were existing nonconforming features and the requested legalization addresses safety and habitability while not altering the exterior footprint, and it passed on a roll call with Chair Azner dissenting.
