Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Accessory Structure Barn Babbot topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Neighbors and board spar over proposed 3,200 sq ft barn at 245 Babbot Road; hearing left open

Town of Bedford Zoning Board of Appeals · April 10, 2026
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

Sean Rooney requested variances to build a large pole‑barn accessory structure at 245 Babbot Road. Neighbors objected to scale, proximity, and alleged commercial activity; the board left the public hearing open and referred the application to the planning board for special‑use and height review.

Sean Rooney told the Zoning Board of Appeals on April 9 that he needs an oversized pole‑barn at 245 Babbot Road to shelter a 30‑foot trailer, vehicle collection and storage, and tools. "I am respectfully requesting a zoning variance to allow me to construct a pole barn style building on my property," Rooney said, explaining the structure’s dimensions and his preference for a barn‑style design to better fit the neighborhood than a metal building.

Neighbors, however, said the project is too large and too close to adjacent yards. Alex Kizo, whose parents own the property next door, said the lot is “no longer a residential neighborhood” and alleged the site is being used as a commercial working yard with contractors’ vehicles and equipment. "It's been my view that Bedford Hills is being overrun with contractors and contractor yards," Kizo said, adding that photos submitted to the board show heavy equipment and chippers.

Rooney acknowledged temporary and older structures on site and said he had removed some unpermitted elements; he said he planned to enclose equipment within the proposed building. He described the practical need: his 30‑foot trailer requires a deep bay and winter storage that would be costly to secure off‑site.

Board members probed scale, setbacks and precedent. Members noted the proposal would place the accessory structure as close as roughly six feet to some property lines where a 50‑foot setback is normally required, and that the proposed height (roughly 30 feet, depending on roof treatment) exceeds common accessory‑building norms for the zoning district. The board also flagged unresolved code‑enforcement items on the property (a temporary vinyl tent identified for removal) and asked the building and planning departments to vet special‑use and height questions.

Rather than vote, the ZBA left the public hearing open and directed the applicant to the planning board for a special‑use and height review scheduled for April 13. The ZBA tentatively placed the application on its May 6 agenda for further consideration once planning‑board findings and any required permit changes are available.

What’s next

- Planning‑board special‑use and height review (scheduled April 13); the ZBA will revisit the application after that review. - The ZBA asked that the applicant document removals (the vinyl tent and other temporary structures) and supply updated as‑built figures before the matter returns to the board.