HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA 2025-12-02
Board Members (*absent) (IP-in person) (Z-Zoom)
Janis Graham, Chairwoman (IP)
Andrew Henry (IP)
Mary Witman (IP)
Mike Gill (Z)
Henry Slater, (Alternate), (IP)
Others Attending
Gina Cassidy, Planner (IP)
Joy Foster, Board Secretary, (Z)
Applicants & Public Attending
Cheryl Richter and Lee Richter, 51 Hollister Rd. applicants
Mike Ward-resident
The Public Hearing was opened at6:04 PM
After determining that all have read the legal notice, J. Graham moves to waive reading the notice of hearing.Motion made by: J. Graham Second: -M. WitmanAll in favor – Yes
NOTICEthattheZoningBoardofAppealsoftheTownofDrydenwillconductaPublic Hearing to consider the application of Cheryl Allen Richter for an area variance at 51 Hollister Road, Tax Parcel
ID 76.-1-20.622. This parcel is in theNeighborhood Residential district, and the Code of the Town of Dryden prohibits accessory structures in the front yard. The requested variance is
to allow a 240 square foot shed in the front yard of a single-family home.
SAIDHEARINGwillbeheldonTuesdayDecember 2,2025at6:05pmatDrydenTownHall, 93 East Main Street, Dryden, NY 13053 at which time all interested persons willbe given an opportunity to be heard.
You can either attend the hearing in person or remotely. To attend remotely you connect to the hearing via internet or telephone.
Details on how to connect will be posted to one day prior to the hearing on the Town website at: www.townofdrydenny.govYou can also submit comments prior to the meeting or requestmeetingdetailsbyemailto:planning@townofdrydenny.govApplicationmaterialsare
available for review at the Office of the Dryden Town Clerk at Town Hall and on the Town’s website at www.townofdrydenny.gov.
IndividualsrequiringassistanceshouldcontacttheTownofDrydenat607-844-8888x 216 at least 48 hours prior to the time of the public hearing.
Applicant – Cheryl Richter is present and has nothing further to add to her application.
With no further comments or discussion from the audience or the Board.
J. Graham motions to close the public part of the hearing and move forward with the Board answering the 5 questions.Second: M. WitmanAll in favor – Yes
The Board discussed and determined
IN CONSIDERING WHETHER AN UNDESIRABLE CHANGE WOULD BE PRODUCED IN THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR DETRIMENT TO NEARBY PROPERTIES WILL BE CREATED BY GRANTING OF THE AREA VARIANCE,
THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS:
The shed will be screened from the road by trees and will be more than 150 feet from the road, so no undesirable change would be produced. There are several accessory structures visible
from the road, similar to the one proposed on nearby properties in the neighborhood.Motion made by: M. Witman Second: J. Graham All in favor – Yes
IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE BENEFITS SOUGHT BY THE APPLICANT CAN BE ACHIEVED BY SOME OTHER METHOD, FEASIBLE FOR THE APPLICANT TO PURSUE, OTHER THAN AN AREA VARIANCE, THE ZONING BOARD
OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS:
The shed’s purpose is to store a snow blower, so proximity to the driveway is important. While other areas behind the home appear viable, the purpose of driveway and garden maintenance
seems to render other locations impractical.
Motion made by: M. Witman
Second: A. HenryAll in favor – Yes
IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE REQUESTED AREA VARIANCE IS SUBSTANTIAL. THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS:
It cannot be determined whether or not this request is substantial, given that the structure is either in or not in the front yard. However, it is not in the required front yard, which
is 50 feet; instead, it is approximately 150 feet from the road edge.Motion made by: H.Slater Second: - J. GrahamAll in favor – Yes
IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE PROPOSED VARIANCE WILL HAVE AN ADVERSE EFFECT OR IMPACT ON THE PHYSICAL OR ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR DISTRICT. THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FINDS AS FOLLOWS:
A garden shed would seem to be a typical rural neighborhood residential zoning district element. As mentioned in A., almost all the other homes on the street contain one visible from
the street. In addition, the applicants' shed will be largely shielded from view by trees.Motion made by: A. HenrySecond: M. WitmanAll in favor – Yes
IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE ALLEGED DIFFICULTY WAS SELF-CREATED. THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS:
Yes, the applicant could place the shed in another location that is less convenient. However, for all the reasons stated above, the choice of location is both logical and thoughtful.
In addition, it bears noting that this Board’s position with these types of relief requests is to grant the request whenever the requested relief exceeds the required setback and has
no negative impact on other factors. Motion made by: M. GillSecond: M. WitmanAll in favor – Yes
Motion made bySlater to classify this as SEQR exempt type II action - 6 CRR-NY 617.5(c)(17), per the recommendation of the Planning Dept.Second: J. Graham - YesAll in favor – YesA motion
was made by H. Slater to grant the Area Variance as submitted with no conditions. Second: J. Graham All in favor – Yes
The minutes from 9-2-25 will be approved at the next meeting.ADJOURNMENT 6:16 PMJ. Graham Motion to adjourn Second: M. GillAll in favor – Yes