May 19, 2026 Minutes (full text)

TOWN OF WALES ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PUBLIC HEARING MEETING MINUTES May 19, 2026 The meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Wales was held on the 19th day of May 2026 at the Wales Community Center, 12345 Big Tree Road, Wales Center, New York. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Edward Wilkolaski called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. EST ROLL CALL Chairman Edward Wilkolaski — present Board Member Mark Gietler - present Board Member Russ Clothier Jr. - present Board Member Kevin Ingraham — absent Board Member James Cornell — absent OTHERS PRESENT Applicants — James and Jennifer Creighton PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ADOPTION OF AGENDA MOTION # __ By Zoning Board of Appeals Member Mark Geitler, second by Zoning Board of Appeals Member Russell Clothier Jr., to accept the Zoning Board of Appeals Agenda of May 19, 2026. Carried ayes-3 nays-0 ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES OF PRIOR MEETING MOTION # __ By Zoning Board of Appeals Member Mark Geitler, second by Zoning Board of Appeals Member Russell Clothier Jr., to accept the Zoning Board of Appeals Workshop meeting minutes of May 6, 2026. Carried ayes-3 nays-0 OLD BUSINESS — none. NEW BUSINESS CASE#1 Applicants: James and Jennifer Creighton SBL# 178.00-1-45.12 and 178.00-1-67 The applicants at 12469 Big Tree Road, Wales Center, New York would like to appeal the allowance for a detached accessory building located in front of the primary building: Wales Code Section 200-22 - Area Variance. Public Hearing: The applicant presented the proposed project. The Board confirmed that there were no significant changes to the proposal since the previous meeting. Discussion noted that the structure would be placed in a location that is largely obscured from public view and consistent with the surrounding area. Board members commented that the proposal appeared aesthetically appropriate and not intrusive.

No additional public comments or questions were raised. Board Deliberation: The Chairman explained the Board deliberation process. He stated that the question asked can be all Aye or Nay and still have an opinion of opposing or granting a variance. He stated the Board will need a few minutes to go over the five questions then we will deliberate. The Board reviewed the application according to the required five factors: 1. Whether undesirable change would be produced in character of neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties: ZBA Chairman Edward Wilkowlaski - No ZBA Board Member Mark Geitler - No ZBA Board Member Russell Clother, Jr. - No ZBA Board Member Kevin Ingraham — absent ZBA Board Member James Cornell ~ absent Reasoning: Chairman stated that the proposed building will match current facade of area. Board member Clothier stated many properties have accessory buildings in front. The property is not very visible from the road. Board member Geitler stated that it fits well with character of neighborhood. 2. Whether benefit sought by applicant can be achieved by a feasible alternative to the variance: ZBA Chairman Edward Wilkowlaski - Yes ZBA Board Member Mark Geitler - Yes ZBA Board Member Russell Clother, Jr. - Yes ZBA Board Member Kevin Ingraham — absent ZBA Board Member James Cornell — absent Reasoning: Board member Geitler stated that while there are alternatives, they are more costly and less desirable for the area. Also, alternatives cause hardships for applicants. Board member Clothier stated that there are other options. Chairman stated that they could place it behind main building, but this would minimize the ROI of the project. 3. Whether the requested variance is substantial: ZBA Chairman Edward Wilkowlaski - No ZBA Board Member Mark Geitler - No ZBA Board Member Russell Clother, Jr. - No ZBA Board Member Kevin Ingraham — absent ZBA Board Member James Cornell — absent

Reasoning: Chairman stated that building proposal in front of house is minimal given the circumstances. Board member Clothier stated that this is very typical in our area. Board member Geitler stated minor, no visual impact. 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 — absent ZBA Board Member James Cornell — absent Reasoning: Board member Clothier stated no increase in traffic or detriment to area. Chairman stated setback behind other properties. No impact expected to environment. Board member Geitler stated that it is well within character. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created: ZBA Chairman Edward Wilkowlaski - Yes ZBA Board Member Mark Geitler - Yes ZBA Board Member Russell Clother, Jr. - Yes ZBA Board Member Kevin Ingraham — absent ZBA Board Member James Cornell — absent Reasoning: Chairman stated that most variances are self-created, Board member Clothier stated same and Board member Geitler stated same. ROLL CALL VOTE ON Case#3-2026: Chairman Edward Wilkowlaski — Aye Board Member Mark Geitler - Aye Board Member Russell Clothier Jr. - Aye Board Member Kevin Ingraham — absent Board Member James Cornell — absent The motion to grant the variance is passed. ADJOURNMENT MOTION#_ by Zoning Board of Appeals Member Mark Geitler and seconded by Zoning Board of Appeals Member Russell Clothier Jr. to adjourn the meeting at 7:28 p.m. Carried ayes-3 nays-0 Respectfully submitted, Michelle Homac, Zoning Board of Appeals Clerk

Town of Wales Zoning Board of Appeals RESOLUTION NO. 3-2026 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF JAMES & JENNIFER CREIGHTON FOR AN AREA VARIANCE PROPERTY ADDRESS: 12469 Big Tree Road, Wales Center, NY TAX MAP NUMBER OR SBL#: 178.00-1-45.12 and 178.00-1-67 DATE: May 19, 2026 WHEREAS, an application was filed with the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Wales by James and Jennifer Creighton for an area variance for the property located at 12469 Big Tree Road, Wales Center, NY. SBL# 178.00-1-45.12 and 178.00-1-67; and WHEREAS, the application requests an area variance from Section 200-22 of the Town of Wales Zoning Code to appeal the allowance for a detached accessory building located in front of the primary building; and WHEREAS, the Board received a referral from the Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer Dan Whitehead indicating that the project is not in compliance with the zoning law and requires an area variance; and WHEREAS, a public hearing on the application was held on May 19, 2026, at which the Board heard testimony and received comments from the Applicant, neighbors, and other interested parties; and WHEREAS, the Board has reviewed all applicable materials, including a Short Environmental Assessment Form, photos, and deed and has duly considered the standards for an area variance as set forth in New York State Town Law § 267-b, weighing the benefit to the Applicants against any detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the community. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Zoning Board of Appeals, having considered the entire record of the proceedings, made the following findings and hereby approves the application: 1. Undesirable Change or Detriment to Properties: The Board finds that the granting of this variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. Reasoning: The proposed building will match the current facade of the area. It fits well with the character of the neighborhood. There are many properties that have accessory buildings in front. The property is not very visible from the road. 2. Feasible Alternative: The Board finds that the benefit sought by the Applicants can be achieved by some other feasible method. Reasoning: They could place it behind the main dwelling, but this would minimize the ROI of the project. There are other options. While there are alternatives, they are more costly and less desirable for the area. Also, the alternatives cause hardship for the applicants. 3. Substantiality of Variance: The Board finds that the requested area variance is not substantial. Reasoning: The building proposal in front of the house is minimal given the circumstances. The placement is very typical in the area. There is no visual impact. 4. Adverse Environmental/Physical Impact: The Board finds that the proposed variance will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood.

Reasoning: There is no increase in traffic or detriment to area, it is setback behind other properties. No impact expected to environment, and it is well within character. 5. Self-Created Difficulty: The Board finds that the alleged difficulty was self-created. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the variance is granted. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a copy of this resolution shall be filed in the office of the Town of Wales Town Clerk and the Town of Wales Building Department. VOTE: Chairman Edward Wilkolaski voted AYE ZBA Member Mark Geitler voted AYE ZBA Member Russell Clothier Jr voted AYE ZBA Member Kevin Ingraham voted ABSENT ZBA Member James Cornell voted ABSENT Dated: May 19, 2026 By Order of the Zoning Board of Appeals Chairperson: Edward Wilkolaski Clerk: Michelle Homac

TOWN OF WALES - ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AREA VARIANCE FINDINGS & DECISION Applicant: O92 eS hoc Co malrbow OFFICE USE ONLY: Application No. AV-_"4 ~ AC ab Date of Application:___ 4 i Appeal Concerns Property at the following address: (Postmarked or Hand Delivered) Date of Public Hearing: Date Notice Published: VACA BitesOy Date of County Referral:A —_f Date of Final Action: Al Semct Nora Vy Date or Fiting of Decision with the Municipal Clerk: paged County Tax Map (S.B.L.) - Section:\_| O.Cd Block: l j Lot. S12 |¢ Zoning District Classification: Requirements for which Variance is Requested: 2oo-22 Dcesssoey Sethe iv Reacts XR hose “LOD. ee. Applicable Section of Zoning Code(s): TEST: No area variance will be granted without a consideration by the board of the following factors: 1) Whether undesirable change would be produced in character of neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties: (Will this change make the neighborhood look or feel worse, or hurt nearby homes or properties?) Yes No PF Te erepoyes Lea ay ake eA\| match a Seped Reason: Posch2 af are, 2) Whether benefit sought by applicant can be achieved by a feasible alternative to the variance. Page 1 of 4

WWW EW WE WP? ~ ZEEE DALY WE AA EAL AREA VARIANCE FINDINGS & DECISION (Is there a realistic alternative (like changing the design, moving the building, making it smaller, or using a different layout) that would follow the current code?) Yes 57 _No Reason: TVWeey cowl\y pecs .N palnwd eee A oe\| Nea F lobe Abes weclo mwiemita Wee Cet NK ppayeck 3) Whether the requested variance is substantial. (Is the change the applicant is asking for significant? How far are you trying to bend the zoning limits?) Yes No Es Reason: Be Anwy, PRS as sal: A Q roan A las ye 2S Moye Ba W\no ike Onsen OF, 4) Would the variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood? (Will this change negatively impact the environment or damage the physical conditions in the area...such as traffic, drainage, noise, air, or natural features?) Yes No 2S Reason: q-\ log aK Toa \a Qe op ap teas fog va oF \ EN Be tod SS EMI VION | 5) Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created? (Did the applicant cause the issue? The issue is a result of action(s) by the applicant, not a result of something beyond the applicant's control.) Yes No Page 2 of 4

Ew VEE WS Fak tr ~ Se KEW EE ESS LIANE BE OPA OT be PE AREA VARIANCE FINDINGS & DECISION Reason: acon Messy VSRAMaS cre <.\4 ceactod DETERMINATION OF ZBA BASED ON THE ABOVE FACTORS: The ZBA, after taking into consideration the above five factors, finds that: C] the Benefit to the Applicant DOES NOT Outweigh the Detriment to the Neighborhood or Community and therefore the variance request is denied. “bt the Benefit to the Applicant DOES outweigh the Detriment to the Neighborhood or Community. Reasons: mamered A. Oa pes) Ae K Ags Ge pusy Eo The ZBA further finds that a variance of L©S _ from Section_“@2— of the Zoning Code is the minimum variance that should be granted in order to preserve and protect the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community because: CONDITIONS: The ZBA finds that the following conditions are necessary in order to minimize adverse impacts upon the neighborhood or community, for the reasons following: Condition No. 1: -~ NS )A- Page 3 of 4

TOWN OF WALES - ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AREA VARIANCE FINDINGS & DECISION Adverse impact to be minimized: Condition No. 2: ~ py) d- Adverse impact to be minimized: Zoning Board of Appeals Chairman: Ze) U.Meolsi Date: \ “Wy -~G ee eee eee eee re cere reer errr rere e rer reer reece rece r errr er eer rr errrrrerr rrr rere errr errr irr reer r errr errr reer re reer errr Terre yy RECORD OF VOTE MEMBER NAME AYE NAY SIGNATURE ZBA Chair Ss WI MKe as > Nye =] 7BA Member_(YYxeK Gertbe a Mpus2~ 7BA Member CoS Cla) how as fut 1 hb. ZBA Member ~ _ ZBA Member _ ~ - Page 4 of 4

TOWN OF WALES - ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AREA VARIANCE FINDINGS & DECISION — a € | * . | Applicant: dam2> % Je. y w- Cre, 4) bn OFFICE USE ONLY: a Application No. AV — . Date of Application: Appeal Concerns Property at the following address: (Postmarked or Hand Delivered) : , Gj ce Fe a j Date of Public Hearing: 2464 2. y fae Rook Date Notice Published: We le > Ce Ala _ Date of County Referral: Date of Final Action: Date or Filing of Decision with the Municipal Clerk: County Tax Map (S.B.L.) - Section:_/79-/~ YSBlock: Lot: ~ 176.00 ~(- 69 Zoning District Classification: Requirements for which Variance is Requested:_4-<a Applicable Section of Zoning Code(s); 2OC- 2 Q TEST: No area variance will be granted without a consideration by the board of the following factors: 1) Whether undesirable change would be produced in character of neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties: (Will this change make the neighborhood look or fee! worse, or hurt nearby homes or properties?) Yes No _-~ , { ; «ot Reason:_£:75 we | with tharnte— of mébiigh be cheoeh KZ) , a 2) Whether benefit sought by applicant can be achieved by a feasible alternative to the variance. Page 1 of 4

CUI wt VIN WII WY Vw AT Lb AREA VARIANCE FINDINGS & DECISION (Is there a realistic alternative (like changing the design, moving the building, making it smaller, or using a different layout) that would follow the current code?) Yes > No Reason:_whle thee are Alternatives __ th Sy _ ee mere Ce Hy aad Less Aes edb le. sur the Are, / fils e Alte ag fever cau eo ha-dsh.'n s Gor Ap bu 3) Whether the requested variance is substantial. (Is the change the applicant is asking for significant? How far are you trying to bend the Zoning limits?) Yes No_ x Reason: Daag ~ pa Visa al i om poct. 4) Would the variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood? (Will this change negatively impact the environment or damage the physical conditions in the area...such as traffic, drainage, noise, air, or natural features?) Yes No * Reason: well wither é Na-i fe “: 5) Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created? (Did the applicant cause the issue? The issue is a result of action(s) by the applicant, not a result of something beyond the applicant's control.) Yes ke No Page 2 of 4

ewwwes we eee eee re Br ee Wd ie AREA VARIANCE FINDINGS & DECISION f Reason: Fail Vans Hace Liegue ts FRE. DETERMINATION OF ZBA BASED ON THE ABOVE FACTORS: The ZBA, after taking into consideration the above five factors, finds that: 0 the Benefit to the Applicant DOES NOT Outweigh the Detriment to the Neighborhood or Community and therefore the variance request is denied. QO the Benefit to the Applicant DOES outweigh the Detriment to the Neighborhood or Community. Reasons: The ZBA further finds that a variance of from Section of the Zoning Code is the minimum variance that should be granted in order to preserve and protect the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community because: CONDITIONS: The ZBA finds that the following conditions are necessary in order to minimize adverse impacts upon the neighborhood or community, for the reasons following: Condition No. 1: Page 3 of 4

TOWN OF WALES - ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AREA VARIANCE FINDINGS & DECISION Adverse impact to be minimized: Condition No. 2: Adverse impact to be minimized: Zoning Board of Appeals Chairman: Date: S-/4-2¢ RECORD OF VOTE MEMBER NAME AYE NAY SIGNATURE ZBA Chair -EA_ WwW. ZBAMember_Mer& © W//5p ZBA Member Ruse CL. ZBA Member ZBA Member Page 4 of 4

CT tale ale El th a ee kk el id i ee ee Led AREA VARIANCE FINDINGS & DECISION Applicant: SAMES + SENNIFER CREIGH Ten] OFFICE USE ONLY: Application No. AV - Date of Application: Appeal Concerns Property at the following address: (Postmarked or Hand Delivered) 12464 BIG TREE Rp. Date of Public Hearing: Date Notice Published: EAst AvReRA WY Date of County Referrat: Date of Final Action: Date or Filing of Decision with the Municipal Clerk: County Tax Map (S.B.L.) - Section: Block: Lot: Zoning District Classification: Requirements for which Variance is Requested: Applicable Section of Zoning Code(s):_ 200° 22 AREA VARIANCE TEST: No area variance will be granted without a consideration by the board of the following factors: 1) Whether undesirable change would be produced in character of neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties: (Will this change make the neighborhood look or feel worse, or hurt nearby homes or properties?) Yes No X Reason: MAN’ fRerEe@mnes HAVE Alte ssery BUItAMGS 1h FRONT, THE PROPER IS PoT VERY Visheie Fan THE RoAR 2) Whether benefit sought by applicant can be achieved by a feasible alternative to the variance. Page 1 of 4

Ce ee NE RN OU ee AREA VARIANCE FINDINGS & DECISION (Is there a realistic alternative (like changing the design, moving the building, making it smaller, or using a different layout) that would follow the current code?) Yes xX No Reason:___ THERE ARE OTrnge ef Ter S 3) Whether the requested variance is substantial. (Is the change the applicant is asking for significant? How far are you trying to bend the zoning limits?) Yes No Xe Reason: Td) (tS VERN Tufkdge |N evi here 4) Would the variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood? (Will this change negatively impact the environment or damage the physical conditions in the area...such as traffic, drainage, noise, air, or natural features?) Yes No x Reason: No lwcptase tr HAF ce on DETRIMENT To AED 5) Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created? (Did the applicant cause the issue? The issue is a result of action(s) by the applicant, not a result of something beyond the applicant's control.) Yes . No Page 2 of 4

BWW EW WL Wekee ~ KREWEEN LIZA 87E PSE bP AREA VARIANCE FINDINGS & DECISION Reason: ALL VARAMCE CEagsTs DETERMINATION OF ZBA BASED ON THE ABOVE FACTORS: The ZBA, after taking into consideration the above five factors, finds that: O the Benefit to the Applicant DOES NOT Outweigh the Detriment to the Neighborhood or Community and therefore the variance request is denied. 3% the Benefit to the Applicant DOES outweigh the Detriment to the Neighborhood or Community. Reasons: 2 @@lwt Hé@e (5 No PErRimEewer weret Case The ZBA further finds that a variance of from Section of the Zoning Code is the minimum variance that should be granted in order to preserve and protect the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community because: CONDITIONS: The ZBA finds that the following conditions are necessary in order to minimize adverse impacts upon the neighborhood or community, for the reasons following: Condition No. 1: Page 3 of 4

TOWN OF WALES - ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AREA VARIANCE FINDINGS & DECISION Adverse impact to be minimized: Condition No. 2: Adverse impact to be minimized: Zoning Board of Appeals Chairman: Date: PR ORE EHR HOE OHO EE SERENE HES OERRECEEURE ESE SORREDSODOOHOTSERESRERSERHESSU USHER DREOHHEONES EEE OE OPE ER HESS SHES EERE RESO EEOEDH SHEET ADRES ELAS OHSS OESCE RECORD OF VOTE MEMBER NAME AYE NAY SIGNATURE ZBA Chair ZBA Member _RvSSEW CLeTHIER, vo fot F WA ZBA Member ZBA Member ZBA Member Page 4 of 4