Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rear Setback Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
ZBA approves rear‑yard deck relocation at 6 Bondwood Road; grants 5.5‑foot rear‑setback variance
Summary
The Zoning Board granted a 5.5‑foot rear‑yard setback variance to permit moving a deck to the side of the yard at 6 Bondwood Road so the patio and deck can be swapped; the board noted lot configuration and that the change reduces overall lot coverage compared with earlier approvals.
The Rye Brook Zoning Board of Appeals on April 1 granted a 5.5‑foot rear‑yard setback variance to Jamie and Tara Billington to permit construction of a relocated rear deck at 6 Bondwood Road.
Architect Evan Secofsky, representing the applicants, said the project swaps the deck and patio locations that were previously approved, and that the revised layout reduces lot coverage compared with the plans granted in an earlier variance. Secofsky explained the lot’s angled rear boundary creates a corner that would be encroached by the relocated deck; the intended deck would sit approximately 29.5 feet from the rear lot line where 35 feet is required, producing the requested 5.5‑foot variance.
The board considered alternatives, including cutting the deck corner to comply with the setback, but agreed that the reduced lot coverage and improved function of the yard supported the request. The board noted the application was self‑created (the need arises from changes to prior permitted plans) but weighed the five statutory variance factors and found no adverse neighborhood impact.
A resolution recorded on the record identified the parcel, the specific code citation (Rye Brook zoning code Section 250‑21, G, item 3) and the requested 5.5‑foot rear‑yard variance. The board concluded the requested variance was not substantial for the purposes of its decision and provisionally granted the variance with the usual condition that no permit or certificate of occupancy be issued until all application and consultant fees are paid.
The vote was three yes, zero no, two excused. The board closed the matter with standard conditions and advised the applicants to proceed with the as‑built submissions required at permit closing.
