[PAGE 1]
Village of Pelham
Zoning Board of Appeals
February 25, 2026
7:30 PM
Present: Chairman Richard Veith, Marie McIntyre-Tracy, Joseph Zale, Eileen O’Rourke, ZBA Attorney,
Building Inspector Bill Rogel.
Chairman Veith called the meeting to order:
1. Maleeha Sambur
14 Benedict Place
Area variance
Charles Utschig, engineer for the applicant, came before the board for a variance from the provisions of Section
98-16 and 98-122. The applicant proposes to install an air conditioning condenser sixteen feet from the rear lot
line where 30 feet is required. It was noted that all mailings had been sent out to residents within 200 feet of the
property. There were 5 members of the public present. Mr. Utschig went over the plans for the air conditioning
condensers. The board then discussed the matter and the location of the condensers.
The board then reviewed the criteria for an area variance.
1. Would this be an undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood. The board agreed this
was a consistent with the pattern of the neighborhood.
2. Could the benefit be sought another way? The board felt there really was no other way to deal with
this issue.
3. Is the request substantial? The board agreed it was not substantial.
4. Would the proposed variance have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental
condition of the neighborhood? The board felt that it would not.
5. Is this a self-created condition, the board agreed that it was self-created, but this is not a controlling
criterion for area variances.
Mr. Veith asked for a motion to approve the variance as submitted. Marie McIntyre-Tracy made the motion and
Joseph Zale seconded the motion.
Approved 3-0
2. Florian and Nicolette Jaze
304 Cliff Avenue
Area variance
Florian and Nicolette Jaze came before the board for a variance from the provisions of section 98-16 and 98-
122. The applicant proposes to install pergola 4.7 feet from the side lot line where 10 feet is required which
will result in a 14.8-foot aggregate where 25 feet is required. It was noted that all mailings had been sent out
to residents within 200 feet of the property. There were 4 members of the public present. The applicants,
Florian and Nicolette Jaze went over the plans for the pergola. The board then discussed the matter and the
location of the pergola.
2/25/2026

[PAGE 2]
The board then reviewed the criteria for an area variance.
1. Would this be an undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood. The board agreed this
was a consistent with the pattern of the neighborhood.
2. Could the benefit be sought another way? The board felt there really was no other way to deal with
this issue.
3. Is the request substantial? The board agreed it was not substantial.
4. Would the proposed variance have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental
condition of the neighborhood? The board felt that it would not.
5. Is this a self-created condition, the board agreed that it was self-created, but this is not a controlling
criterion for area variances.
Mr. Veith asked for a motion to approve the variance as submitted. Joseph Zale made the motion and Richard
Veith seconded the motion.
Approved 3-0
3. Kathy and Robert Fontanella
214 Highbrook Avenue
Area variance
Herbert Feuerstein, architect, came before the board for a variance from the provisions of section 98-16B(1) and
98-122. The applicant proposes to construct and addition 3.3 feet from the side lot line where 10 feet is
required which will result in a 24-foot aggregate where 25 feet is required. It was noted that all mailings had
been sent out to residents within 200 feet of the property. There were 2 members of the public present. Mr.
Feuerstein went over the plans for the addition. The board then discussed the matter and the location of the
addition.
The board then reviewed the criteria for an area variance.
1. Would this be an undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood. The board agreed this
was a consistent with the pattern of the neighborhood.
2. Could the benefit be sought another way? The board felt there really was no other way to deal with
this issue.
3. Is the request substantial? The board agreed it was not substantial.
4. Would the proposed variance have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental
condition of the neighborhood? The board felt that it would not.
5. Is this a self-created condition, the board agreed that it was self-created, but this is not a controlling
criterion for area variances.
Mr. Veith asked for a motion to approve the variance as submitted. Marie McIntyre-Tracy made the motion and
Joseph Zale seconded the motion.
Approved 3-0
W. Rogel
Building Inspector
2/25/2026