Zoning Board of Appeals
Village of Tarrytown
November 14, 2011 8:00 p.m.
Present: Members Jolly, Brown and Weisel; Counsel Shumejda, Secretary
Bellantoni
Absent: Chairperson Lawrence, Member Maloney, Assistant Village
Engineer Pennella
NEW PUBLIC HEARING - Lickel and Letourneau - 104 Van Wart Avenue
The certified mailing receipts were received, the sign was posted and Board members visited the site.
Mr. Jolly read the following Public Hearing Notice:
"PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Tarrytown will hold a public hearing at 8:00 p.m. on Monday, November 14, 2011 in the Municipal Building, One Depot Plaza, Tarrytown, New York to hear and consider an application by
Charles Lickel and Ray Letourneau
104 Van Wart Avenue
Tarrytown, NY 10591
for a variance from the Zoning Code of the Village of Tarrytown for property located at the above address to construct a roof over an existing non-conforming deck in the rear of the house. The structure will require a variance to encroach into the rear yard setback as follows:
• Minimum Rear Yard (FT): Required: 28
Existing: 21.8
Proposed: Existing to Remain
Documents are available for inspection in the Planning and Zoning Office at Tarrytown Village Hall. The property is shown on the Tax Maps of the Village of Tarrytown as Sheet 23, Block 62, Lot 14 and is located in an R-10 (Residential) zone.
All interested parties are invited to attend and be heard. Access to the meeting room is available to the elderly and the handicapped. Signing is available for the hearing impaired; request must be made to the Village Clerk at least one week in advance of the meeting.
By Order of the Zoning Board of Appeals”
Mr. Lickel, one of the homeowners, introduced himself and Mr. Sergio Diaz of Suburban Sunrooms. Mrs. Diaz explained that Mr. Lickel and Mr. Letourneau have and existing non-conforming deck in their rear yard. They would like to install a wood frame canopy to cover the deck. The canopy would be the same dimension of the existing deck.
Mr. Shumejda asked if there was ever a variance for the existing deck. Mr. Shumejda said the reason he is asking is because the zoning chart said a 28' setback is required and 21.8' exists; so if there was a building permit and a CO was issued, by definition there must have been a variance granted for the deck.
Mr. Diaz said that there are variance papers in the file for the house to build the deck.
Mr. Shumejda said that we should confirm that and asked the secretary to look in the files for that confirmation. If there is no indication of a variance to build the deck, they would have to come back before the Zoning Board.
Ms. Brown asked if a variance was granted to build the deck, would it change anything regarding this variance.
Mr. Shumejda said no that it would only be increasing the impact of the variance.
Mr. Lickel said he did not know, but at the time they bought the house they received a Certificate of Occupancy and the deck was built when the house was built.
Ms. Brown asked if the canopy would go beyond the existing deck. Mr. Lickel said it would come to the edge of the existing deck.
Ms. Brown stated that when she went on the site visit, she felt the covering would not affect any of the neighbors. She asked if they were covering the deck just for shade because they took trees down or because they fell down..
Mr. Lickel explained that when the RiverWalk was put in, which runs directly next to their property, the County removed all of the trees between their property and the RiverWalk. He said that they were doing it for the shade because Mr. Letourneau has cancer and is unable to come out onto the deck because of the sun. He also said they hoped it would provide them some privacy from the RiverWalk.
Mr. Jolly asked if anyone else had any questions. No one responded.
Mr. Jolly read the following Environmental Review from Michael Blau, Environmental Review Officer, dated November 14, 2011:
"I have reviewed this application to construct a roof over an existing non-conforming deck which will cause the structure to encroach into a rear yard setback and determined the proposal appears to pose no significant adverse environmental impact."
Mr. Jolly moved, seconded by Ms. Brown and all in favor to close the hearing.
Mr. Jolly moved, seconded by Ms. Weisel, and all in favor, that the Board determines there will be no significant adverse environmental impact as a result of granting the requested variance for 104 Van Wart Avenue.
Mr. Jolly moved, seconded by Ms. Brown and all in favor that the Board, having arrived at the Findings required by the ordinance:
1. That no undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood nor will a detriment to nearby properties be created by the gr anting of the area variance;
2. That the benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance;
3. That the requested area variance is not substantial;
4. That the proposed variance will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district; and
5. That the alleged difficulty was not self-created which consideration shall be relevant to the decision of the Board of Appeals but shall not necessarily preclude the granting of the area variance.
Grants the requested variance provided that proof is produced showing that the existing deck was granted a variance at the time it was built*.
Motion Carried.
Adjournment: 8:25 p.m.
Submitted by Dale Bellantoni
Secretary to the Zoning Board
*See attached note regarding previous variance.
Note regarding previous variance - 104 Van Wart Avenue:
After researching the previous files for the above-referenced property and speaking with Michael McGarvey, we discovered that a variance was granted for the house (now known as 104 Van Wart Avenue) to be built on a sub-standard lot. This lot was part of a 2-lot subdivision. The lot next door measures 10,000 s.f. and the 104 Van Wart Avenue lot measures 9,892 s.f. I checked with Michael and a 6’ encroachment is allowed for a deck in the back of the house. This particular deck encroaches 6’- 3” +/-. Michael said it is such an insignificant amount over (an amount which is actually difficult to determine) that it was allowed without a variance. Now that they are covering the deck, it becomes a structure and the 6’ encroachment is no long valid, thus their reason for seeking a variance
at the November 14, 2011 Zoning Board Meeting.
Submitted by Dale Bellantoni, Secretary to the Zoning Board
| 
