Text · page 4 of 17
This document was a scan. Its text was produced by character recognition and may contain errors; check the original for exact wording.
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.