Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Deck Expansion topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Rye Brook ZBA grants 0.5% lot-coverage variance for Magnolia Drive deck expansion
Summary
The Rye Brook Zoning Board of Appeals unanimously approved a provisional variance (3-0) allowing Bradley and June Scharf to expand an existing rear deck at 8 Magnolia Drive, increasing deck coverage from 4% to 4.5% (about 70 square feet).
The Rye Brook Zoning Board of Appeals voted 3-0 Feb. 4 to provisionally grant Bradley and June Scharf a variance to expand a rear deck at 8 Magnolia Drive.
The board approved a 0.5 percentage-point increase in permitted deck coverage — from 4% to 4.5% of the lot — after a public hearing in which the applicants’ architect and a nearby neighbor spoke in favor. The board recorded three affirmative votes and two members excused.
Architect John G. Scarlato Jr., representing the Scharfs, told the board the proposal would extend the existing deck by roughly 5 feet to create a combined seating and dining area on the upper deck. He said the current deck measures about 12 by 28 feet and the proposed deck would be approximately 16 by 28 feet, and that the requested increase is “a .5% increase, which is 70 square feet.”
Neighbor Christopher Higgins, of 16 Magnolia Drive, spoke in favor and said he could not see the property from his house and supported the project provided it does not disrupt natural water flow.
The board’s written resolution, read into the record, identifies the application as seeking relief from Rye Brook Zoning Code Section 250-37, Part B (maximum allowable deck coverage). The resolution classifies the action as a Type II action under the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act and states that the board, after reviewing the five variance factors, found the requested variance would not create adverse neighborhood impacts. The resolution describes the requested variance as substantial and self-created and requires the applicants to pay all application and consultant fees before any permanent certificate of occupancy may be issued.
Board members discussed privacy and potential sightlines for the house directly behind the property and confirmed the site has some shrubs and trees but not a continuous privacy hedge. No members of the public opposed the application at the hearing.
By roll call the board recorded three affirmative votes and two members excused. The board’s approval is provisional and conditioned on payment of application and consultant fees as stated in the resolution.
