Text · page 10 of 11
4. Would the variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood: ZBA Chairman Edward Wilkowlaski – No ZBA Board Member Mark Geitler – No ZBA Board Member Russell Clother, Jr. – No ZBA Board Member Kevin Ingraham – No ZBA Board Member James Cornell – absent Reasoning: Little to no impact on neighbors. Not as storage shed, but as a dwelling it could. Use does not vary from rest of area. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created: ZBA Chairman Edward Wilkowlaski – Yes ZBA Board Member Mark Geitler – Yes ZBA Board Member James Cornell – Yes ZBA Board Member Russell Clother, Jr. – Yes ZBA Board Member Kevin Ingraham – Yes ZBA Board Member James Cornell – absent Reasoning: Always the case. This could have been avoided by getting a permit. All variances are substantial and self created. Determination of ZBA based on the above factors: The ZBA, after taking into consideration the above five factors, finds that the Benefit to the Applicant does not outweigh the Detriment to the neighborhood or community and therefore the variance request is denied. Reasons: This could have been avoided by getting a permit. Chairman Wilkolaski – voted Aye, the benefit to the applicant does outweigh the detriment to the neighborhood or Community. Reason: I do not see any specific issues or concerns with these area variances. The Vote on the Motion: Chairman Edward Wilkolaski – Aye ZBA Board Member Russel Clothier, Jr. - Nay ZBA Board Member Mark Geitler - Nay ZBA Board Member Kevin Ingraham – Nay ZBA Board Member James Cornell – absent. The motion to grant the Area variance is denied for Case #2-2026. Comments The Chairman stated I had a struggle because I have no problem with the sheds being on the property but it’s the habitable portion I struggled with. Board Member Clothier stated I struggle with, what’s to stop anyone from doing something and then saying it’s here what are you going to do about it now. It’s also for people going forward and they just build anything and do anything and having the Town to call their bluff. Board Member Geitler stated that he agreed with Russ that this is the cart before the horse. He heard in the past people putting an accessory building up, started sleeping in it at night and they died of carbon monoxide poisoning and that’s the basis for the codes and to prevent stuff like that. Board Member Geitler stated the Town has no obligation to approve a noncompliant project, those are business decisions and not a matter that overrides zoning or procedural requirements. Board Member Clothier stated that the Board can’t set that type of president going against the codes, zoning and the building permit process. The Applicant asked what exactly is against code so it’s clear in my head? Board Member Clothier stated first you build the buildings without permits, you need a permit to put in a shed. Board Member Ingraham stated if you would have applied for a permit the first thing would have been stated is you couldn’t build these because you don’t have frontage, that is probably where they would have started or even the physical address would have been an issue. Then the next thing would have been we want to build this and we want to sleep in it, then they would have walked you through the process, so you don’t end up in this situation where now you have the code violations, accessory building before the main structure, not enough frontage. That’s the stuff the Building Inspector would go through with you. Board Suggestions Talk to the Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer. The Applicant stated that would be a problem because he doesn’t work with us. He keeps telling us to go to the website. We have talked to everyone, including the guy who wrote the code. My next question is are we officially denied for all of this? The Chairman stated correct. Applicant asked what’s the next step now? Board Member Clothier stated that’s why we are having 10