Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Area Variance Pole Barn topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Canandaigua ZBA approves variances for 40x60 pole barn at 101 Leicester Street
Summary
The Zoning Board of Appeals unanimously approved area variances to allow a 40-by-60-foot pole barn at 101 Leicester Street despite short setbacks, citing existing easements and a preexisting noncompliant structure; the vote was 5–0.
The Canandaigua Zoning Board of Appeals voted 5–0 on May 20 to grant area variances that allow a 40-by-60-foot pole barn to be built at 101 Leicester Street closer than otherwise permitted to the front, side and rear lot lines.
Applicant Anthony Tripodi told the board he plans to demolish the existing nonconforming structure and rebuild a larger pole barn to support his expanding construction business. The board noted Schedule I of the city zoning ordinance requires a 40-foot front-yard setback, a 15-foot side-yard setback and a 30-foot rear-yard setback for the property.
During deliberations board members ran through the statutory five‑part variance test. Thomas Falbo said replacing the existing building would be an improvement; Chairman Ryan Wilmer observed the current structure sits “6–7 feet over the property line” and that the new barn would be centered on the lot. Tiffany Tomzak and John Roberts told the board that sewer and other easements on the parcel limit feasible placement options for a structure of that size.
Wilmer raised concerns about potential drainage impacts from an increased impermeable surface area, while Roberts said the hardship was not self‑created because the nonconforming building predated the applicant’s ownership. After discussion Mr. Roberts moved to approve the application and Mr. Falbo seconded; the motion carried by roll call vote, 5–0.
A single written comment of support from neighbor Chris Glattly (103 Leicester Street) was reported to the board. The board’s approval included findings that the variances would not produce an undesirable change to neighborhood character, that alternative solutions were not feasible given easements, and that the variance would not have an adverse environmental impact, subject to standard building‑code review.
The board did not attach additional conditions in the motion as recorded. Construction will proceed subject to code compliance and any required building permits.
