Text · page 4 of 5
ZBA Mtg. #04 Regular Mtg. #04 May 19, 2026 Page 4 Mr. Mateer made a MOTION, seconded by Ms. Bowers, to APPROVE the AREA VARIANCE, based on the following: 1. Per Section 144-63 (E) (1) All public notices have been filed. 2. There will not be an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood, or a detriment to nearby properties created. 3. The benefit sought cannot be achieved in another way, other than the granting of the Variance. 4. The request is not substantial. 5. There will not be an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the neigh- borhood or district. 6. The difficulty is self-created, however that does not preclude the granting of the Variance. THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING: METZ AYE BOWERS AYE MATEER AYE RODO NAY WILLIAMS NAY The VOTE BEING THREE (3) IN FAVOR, TWO (2) OPPOSED, The MOTION was APPROVED. 3. ZBA File# 11-26, Michael Patrick Shea, 13 Lakewood Drive, Zoned R-3, (Sub Lot 14, Map Cover 2174, SBL # 152.15-1-5). Requests two Area Variances for an existing non-conforming shed. First is to have a 10 foot x 10 foot shed located 2 feet from the rear property line. Second is for a 3 foot side setback. Minimum rear setback for this R-3 lot is 10 feet. Minimum side setback for this R-3 lot is 10 feet. §144-9B Schedule of Height, Lot, Yard, and Bulk Regulations. APPEARANCE: Michael Shea, Applicant The Applicant stated that he is here today to alleviate the stress of his shed situation. The shed has been there since he moved in. It sits in the corner of his yard opposite his neighbor’s shed, which sits in the corner of his neighbor’s property. He was not aware of shed laws. Ms. Bowers established that the Applicant moved into the house in 2012, he put the shed in, and that the neighbors’ sheds are in line with his shed. Mr. Williams stated that if a Variance were granted, it would apply to this shed only. If the shed were re- placed, the Applicant would need to apply for another Variance. Mr. Mateer inquired if the Applicant had spoken to his neighbors about this Variance request. The Applicant replied that this is why he is here today- the matter of his shed is in the courts. Ms. Rodo confirmed that no business will be run out of the shed. The Chair then asked if there was anyone in the audience who would wish to speak in favor of the granting of the Variance. Carmela Davidson 15 Lakewood Drive Ms. Davidson stated that the Applicant’s shed is so close to her property line that it is causing her problems. The Chair stated that this portion of the meeting relates to speaking in favor of granting the Variance. The Chair then asked if there was anyone in the audience who would wish to speak in favor of the granting of the Variance. NO RESPONSE The Chair then asked if there was anyone in the audience who would wish to speak against the granting of the Variance.