Text · page 4 of 6
ZBA Mtg. #01 Regular Mtg. #01 February 17, 2026 Page 4 The Chair instructed the Applicant that there will be less than a full Board voting and he is able to adjourn the matter to a later date if the Applicant wishes. The Applicant confirmed that the sign setback Variance will re- quire four (4) votes to pass and the sign size Variance will require three (3) votes to pass. The Applicant stated he would like to continue. The Applicant stated that he was required to keep the tree line on the property and that meant there was no- where else to place the sign. The sign needed to be 32 square feet because it needed to display the names of the tenants at the site. Ms. Bowers inquired if the sign would be illuminated. The Applicant stated he would not be illuminating it and he was unsure if the owner would be doing that. The Chair stated that the Sign Permit Application stated that the sign will be illuminated internally. There was discussion regarding the Planning Board approving the project in 2023 but mandating that the treeline had to stay. The Chair then asked if there was anyone in the audience who would wish to speak in favor of the granting of the setback Variance. (Twice) NO RESPONSE The Chair then asked if there was anyone in the audience who would wish to speak against the granting of the setback Variance. Nancy Ernst 3993 California Road Orchard Park, NY 14127 Ms. Ernst stated that she is against the granting of the Variance. She lives across from this property. She stated that she had to fight with the owners about lights shining in her house, garbage and fallen trees on the lot, and the wind blowing refuse into her yard. She stated that owners cut down ¾ of the trees and they allow people to park there for the Buffalo Bills games, resulting in garbage left everywhere. Ms. Ernst has lived there for 47 years and feels the owners are not trustworthy. The Chair then asked if there was anyone in the audience who would wish to speak against the granting of the Setback Variance. The Chair closed the Public Hearing. The Chair then asked if the Secretary had received any additional communication either for, or against, granting the Variance. The Secretary stated no additional communications had been received. Mr. Mateer made a MOTION, seconded by Ms. Bowers, to DENY the AREA VARIANCE FOR a 0’-0’’ setback from the right-of-way line based on the following: 1. Per Section 144-63 (E) (1) All public notices have been filed. 2. There will be an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood, or a detriment to nearby properties created. 3. The benefit sought can be achieved in another way, other than the granting of the Variance. 4. The request is substantial. 5. There will be an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood 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