Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA 2025-12-02TOWN OF DRYDEN Zoning Board of Appeals 12-2-25 via Hybrid 1 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 at 6:04 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. Witman All in favor – Yes NOTICE that the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Dryden will conduct a Public 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 the Neighborhood 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. SAID HEARING will be held on Tuesday December 2, 2025 at 6:05 pm at Dryden Town Hall, 93 East Main Street, Dryden, NY 13053 at which time all interested persons will be 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.gov You can also submit comments prior to the meeting or request meeting details by email to:planning@townofdrydenny.gov Application materials are available for review at the Office of the Dryden Town Clerk at Town Hall and on the Town’s website at www.townofdrydenny.gov. 2 Individuals requiring assistance should contact the Town of Dryden at 607-844-8888 x 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. Witman All in favor – Yes The Board discussed and determined A. 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 B. 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. Henry All in favor – Yes 3 C. 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. Graham All in favor – Yes D. 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. Henry Second: M. Witman All in favor – Yes E. 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. Gill Second: M. Witman All in favor – Yes Motion made by Slater 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 - Yes All in favor – Yes 4 A 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 PM J. Graham Motion to adjourn Second: M. Gill All in favor – Yes