Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Residential Variances topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Henrietta Zoning Board approves multiple residential variances, including shed and 8-foot fence

Henrietta Zoning Board of Appeals · May 8, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Henrietta Zoning Board of Appeals on May 7 approved a series of area variances for residential properties — including a larger backyard shed, an 8-foot privacy fence, and accessory garages — after applicants described storage and safety needs and the board found minimal neighborhood impact.

The Henrietta Zoning Board of Appeals approved several area variances on May 7 for residential properties after applicants described storage, privacy and safety needs.

Among the approvals, the board granted a variance for a larger backyard shed that the applicant said was needed because the home’s garage has long been filled with stored items. The board’s motion stated the requested 49-square-foot increase was not substantial and that similar sheds exist in the neighborhood.

Deborah Rush asked the board for permission to install an 8-foot white vinyl privacy fence to screen bedroom windows and reduce light from nearby motion-activated cameras. Rush told members she and her family have lived at the address for decades and that recent removal of a former shed opened sightlines to her windows; neighbors who submitted comments were listed in the meeting packet in support. The board approved the fence variance, finding the privacy and security benefits outweighed the requested two-foot relief from the code.

The board also approved accessory-structure variances for homeowners seeking larger garages or storage buildings to house multiple vehicles and equipment. Applicants emphasized that the new structures replace failing or undersized existing buildings and that designs would be complementary to the homes. In at least one case the board noted the new construction would improve curb appeal and replace outdoor vehicle storage.

All motions for the residential items were moved and seconded during the public hearing portion of the meeting and carried by the board. No challenges or formal appeals were recorded during the session; neighbors’ written comments in at least one case were noted as supportive in the application packet.

The board closed the discussed residential applications and proceeded to commercial and larger-site items later in the meeting.