June 17, 2026 Minutes (full text)

uN 1 8 2026 TOWN OF WALES ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PUBLIC HEARING MEETING MINUTES June 17, 2026 The meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Wales was held on the 17th day of June 2026 at the Wales Town Courthouse, 11006 Emery Road, South Wales, New York. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Edward Wilkolaski called the meeting to order at 6:11 p.m. EST ROLL CALL Chairman Edward Wilkolaski — present Board Member Mark Gietler - present Board Member Russ Clothier Jr. - present Board Member Kevin Ingraham — present Board Member James Cornell — present OTHERS PRESENT Applicants — Andrew and Loren Pudlewski 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 June 17, 2026. Carried ayes-5 nays-0 ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES OF PRIOR MEETING MOTION # __ By Zoning Board of Appeals Member Mark Geitler, second by Zoning Board of Appeals Member Kevin Ingraham, to accept the Zoning Board of Appeals Workshop meeting minutes of June 2, 2026. Carried ayes-5 nays-0 OLD BUSINESS — none. NEW BUSINESS CASE#! Applicants: Andrew and Loren Pudlewski SBL# 202.00-2-57.1 The applicants at 6113 Vermont Hill Road, South Wales, 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. 4-2026 Public Hearing: The Chairman invited the Applicants to present the proposed project. The Board confirmed that there have been no significant changes to the proposal since the previous workshop meeting. The Applicants stated they sent out all the certified neighbor notification letters were sent out. No objections or negative feedback were received. There was one neighbor that inquired about the project but none that objected to the project. There is landscaping in the plans for the future. It was suggested by the Board that landscaping would better screen the structure from the road.

No additional public comments or questions were raised. Board Discussion: The structure will be approximately 25' x 50'. The placement and orientation were reviewed and the Chairman asked if any of the Board Members drove by and saw the proposed project area which was in the affirmative. It was stated that the location is set back from the road and positioned near existing trees. There were questions raised about the exterior aesthetics of the project. The Applicants explained that the exterior color, which is named clay, will match the house. A future roof plan will also align with the home. Setback from property line confirmed to be approximately 20+ feet. The removal of some trees was discussed, and no major concerns were raised. The proposed structure is consistent with similar accessory buildings in the area. Board Deliberation: The Chairman explained the Board deliberation process. He stated that the questions 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 — No ZBA Board Member James Cornell — No Reasoning: There are many properties with barns in front of the house. In line with the area. It fits the character of the area. The accessory building is far from the road and no neighbors complained. There are many examples of buildings located in front of the main home. Also, size, color all matches the home. 2. Whether benefit sought by applicants can be achieved by a feasible alternative to the variance. ZBA Chairman Edward Wilkowlaski - Yes ZBA Board Member Mark Geitler - No ZBA Board Member Russell Clother, Jr. - No ZBA Board Member Kevin Ingraham — No ZBA Board Member James Cornell — No

Reasoning: Not realistic and would be cost prohibitive, other option would be over septic. The site does not permit. Due to the topography of the land this would be the feasible location. While they could place the building in a different location, this would be very cost prohibitive. 3. Whether the requested variance is substantial: ZBA Chairman Edward Wilkowlaski - No ZBA Board Member Mark Geitler - Yes ZBA Board Member Russell Clother, Jr. - Yes ZBA Board Member Kevin Ingraham — No ZBA Board Member James Cornell — No Reasoning: It is less than 300 feet from the road, but not super close, closer to 100 feet. The only issue is from the road, not from property line. All variances are substantial. This variance will not impact the character of the neighborhood in a substantial way. Yes and no, while the request is straight against code, it is a very well thought out plan and the reasons to support it are in the Applicants favor. 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 — No Reasoning: No traffic impact and inline with area. Did not hear anything from neighbors. Private use. This building and use are common in the area. Project will blend in very well with character at the area. 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 — Yes ZBA Board Member James Cornell ~ Yes Reasoning: Applicants could choose not to build a barn. Majority of variances are self- created. Due to the location, use of desired location by the Applicants, this is self-created. ROLL CALL VOTE ON Case#4-2026: Chairman Edward Wilkowlaski — Aye Board Member Mark Geitler - Aye Board Member Russell Clothier Jr. — Aye

Board Member Kevin Ingraham ~— Aye Board Member James Cornell — Aye 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 Kevin Ingraham to adjourn the meeting at 7:29 p.m. Carried ayes-5 nays-0 Respectfully submitted, Michelle Homac, Zoning Board of Appeals Clerk

Town of Wales Zoning Board of Appeals RESOLUTION NO. 4-2026 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF ANDREW & LOREN PUDLEWSKI FOR AN AREA VARIANCE PROPERTY ADDRESS: , NY TAX MAP NUMBER OR SBL#: 202.00-2-57.1 DATE: June 17, 2026 WHEREAS, an application was filed with the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Wales by Andrew and Loren Pudlewski for an area variance for the property located at 6113 Vermont Hill Road, South Wales, NY. SBL# 202.00-2-57.1; 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 June 17, 2026, at which the Board heard testimony and received comments from the Applicants, 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: There are many properties with barns in front of the house. In line with the area. It fits the character of the area. The accessory building is far from the road and no neighbors complained. There are many examples of buildings located in front of the main home. Also, size, color all matches the home. 2. Feasible Alternative: The Board finds that the benefit sought by the Applicants cannot be achieved by some other feasible method. Reasoning: Not realistic and would be cost prohibitive, other option would be over septic. The site does not permit. Due to the topography of the land this would be the feasible location. While they could place the building in a different location, this would be very cost prohibitive. 3. Substantiality of Variance: The Board finds that the requested area variance is not substantial. Reasoning: It is less than 300 feet from the road, but not super close, closer to 100 feet. The only issue is from the road, not from property line. All variances are substantial. This variance will not impact the character of the neighborhood in a substantial way. Yes and no, while the request is straight against code, it is a very well thought out plan and the reasons to support it are in the Applicants favor.

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: No traffic impact and in line with the area. Did not hear anything from neighbors. Private use. This building and use are common in the area. Project will blend in very well with character at the area. 5. Self-Created Difficulty: The Board finds that the alleged difficulty was self-created. Reasoning: Applicants could choose not to build a barn. Majority of variances are self-created. Due to the location, use of desired location by the Applicants, this is 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 AYE ZBA Member James Cornell voted AYE Dated: June 17, 2026 By Order of the Zoning Board of Appeals Chairperson: Edward Wilkolaski Clerk: Michelle Homac

TOWN OF WALES - ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS \Ee Li @Mal NN) AREA VARIANCE FINDINGS & DECISION Applicant: A SYS eo) Podsls wks OFFICE USE ONLY: Application No. on fT. ¥ _ . Date of Application: ‘ Appeal Concerns Property at the following address: (Postmarked or Hahd Delivered) GNA VUszenwot . Wil. Cowon Date of Publ eral Date of Public Hearing:_ eye_ S eosxV\ we) alos nv ¥ \A ‘Ss a Date of County Referral: Date of Final Action:___-"~ Date or Filing of Decision with the Municipal Clerk:__{e 2 County Tax Map (S.B.L.) - Section: SO.c% Block Z-—2o.te Lot: Zoning District Classification: Requirements for which Variance is Requested: COO-Ze Pccosseey So lowy AMAL ao) bs fa aaah 2 Aare Wy Applicable Section of Zoning Code(s); “@-@@ - 22 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 4 Reason: WA ey op-sp ses we) DARDS axXeows & heouge. Za Lute “4 agan. 2) Whether benefit sought by applicant can be achieved by a feasible alternative to the variance. Page 10f4

TOWN OF WALES - ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 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 EF No Reason: Naot Qentishe AND Wa ato lan <oet Qtea\nlo bu Oro g op Such wsogily pa aet Sa phe: 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. “& 3G Yeam Cad --- Yous| NsU Syn clase KR- \co', Oidy Sy rz is pe an hewy ..- Ash d poor prope pty Li AHe 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: Mo yerk Qe wp Aes S haze sj) ae. Do mot hoa any YWwisy Aron hs Zasvbe ks, 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 2s No Page 2 of 4

TOWN OF WALES - ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AREA VARIANCE FINDINGS & DECISION Reason: Vogl ast CoD Mmacst = not ato orto A. oxen: DETERMINATION OF ZBA BASED ON THE ABOVE FACTORS: The ZBA, after taking into consideration the above five factors, finds that: C1 the Benefit to the Applicant DOES NOT Outweigh the Detriment to the Neighborhood or Community and therefore the variance request is denied. [ek the Benefit to the Applicant DOES outweigh the Detriment to the Neighborhood or Community. Reasons: Moy < wilor ni Syo sP VR a@tad... KIB SSH . The ZBA further finds that a variance of___ “2-2 from Section_Z©s 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: ONE aa Ve Shs costes & QS not a Aste —— ns SCP a isa@Anuy pat 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: S aa a re a Page 3 of 4

TOWN OF WALES - ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AREA VARIANCE FINDINGS & DECISION Adverse impact to be minimized: Condition No. 2: IN Zo ‘7 bs V4 Adverse impact to be minimized: Zoning Board of Appeals Chairman: Eotty UNWMelssMpate v7 SYd 26 Oe ere eRe Ce ee ere rere re eee e ee eee reer revere sec errr rr rrr rr rere errr rrr rv i rere rere er rere reer rrr rrr rrr errr err rer rr eer errr rrr Ty eer eer reer etre Te RECORD OF VOTE MEMBER NAME AYE NAY SIGNATURE ZBA Chair <2owo9 J Sey ZBA Member YS) i foo! / mz ZBA Member_VW2v.> ve _ Mia ZBA Member Niven Aa _ (lnm ZBA Member~ 2,0 vO A |) L a0 gat : a Page 4 of 4

CURE WHT UNA ~ SESE te TRELie hd FNS 8 i PND AREA VARIANCE FINDINGS & DECISION = KuSS Clo mie (% Applicant: ANDREW + LoREna PUDLEWSK\ OFFICE USE ONLY: Application No. AV- Appeal Concerns Property at the following address:__ mate °(Postmarked or Hand Delivered) Date of Public Hearing: Date Notice Published: Date of County Referral: Date of Final Action: Date or Filing of Decision with the Municipat 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): 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 Xx Reason:__ FITS THE CHAeAcTEe OF THE AREA 2) Whether benefit sought by applicant can be achieved by a feasible alternative to the variance. Page 1 of 4

nm mn ae ee ee eed 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 x Reason:__S'TE DokS wor Preemie 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 xq No Reason:__ ALL VAeances Aee Sugstancar 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. PRIVATE Use 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 Y) No Page 2 of 4

Se ee ee On ee AREA VARIANCE FINDINGS & DECISION Reason: MAW@RITY of VARIAVCES Alt SELF CeEmEeD DETERMINATION OF ZBA BASED ON THE ABOVE FACTORS: The ZBA, after taking into consideration the above five factors, finds that: QO) the Benefit to the Applicant DOES NOT Outweigh the Detriment to the Neighborhood or Community and therefore the variance request is denied. KJ) the Benefit to the Applicant DOES outweigh the Detriment to the Neighborhood or Community. Reasons: MVNOR To NO Des menT 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

WWW EN OW WIMLESG ~ WINE OMAN Vr Are CALS AREA VARIANCE FINDINGS & DECISION Adverse impact to be minimized: Condition No. 2: Adverse impact to be minimized: Zoning Board of Appeals Chairman: Date: eee i ere eee sree re seer erererrirr siti rr rer rei Trrrirrererer cere rere rier rrrerrreey RECORD OF VOTE MEMBER NAME AYE NAY SIGNATURE ZBA Chair ZBA Member ZBA Member ZBA Member ZBA Member Page 4 of 4

PWT Fe WF COs — BP OTTER ERs 8d FAL 2 bee AREAVARIANCEFINDINGS& DECISION = [Ae VA Oa he. ; ss > J aa) ~ "Sy Applicant: Addren Pudlawsts USE ONLY: OFFICE Application No. AV- ‘ Date of Application:. Appeal Concerns Property at the following address: (Postmarked or Hand Delivered) (li 5 Uecemonk 1 MW) Date of Public Hearing: Date Notice Published: Date of County Referral: Date of FinatAction;x__- Date or Filing of Decision with the Municipal Clerk: County Tax Map (S.B.L.) - Section: =O Block: = Lot. 20112 Zoning District Classification: Requirements for which Variance is Requested: 200 22. ACCeSSOryy_ uted nx Tn freon} Of mer, Stowe hace Applicable Section of Zoning Code(s); 200 - 22. 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 _% Reason: Lh~ ACC &S400 y 7 bu} [a tne 16 fo~ Fog the ~~, h id 2 ’ (how BS oN a AS Arc wibher §$ ( (ier EN dl . / 4 ai 2) Whether benefit sought by applicant can be achieved by a feasible alternative to the variance. Page 1 of 4

a ee eeee es cee 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 K Reason: wees Dive, yey re Forpoag oe phi, CK Th Len Al K, 6 Wan \a fon \A La & +\.« Ce oS { b\e I sg 4 vic = 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 Xx Reason: 1 hiS \angance Wel Ao Dra Pae\ he Cliente CH dnc Deve hber bpd 3 A SS tad al \puny 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 — . “ ~ nse AR CO pre A The ay Reason: k.¢ Rut dn, Cael \ GNI t64, 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 x a) No Page 2 of 4

ewe ee we ee coe me ee ee ee eo ee ee AREA VARIANCE FINDINGS & DECISION Reason: Jax +o Yr Lenodion Se OF dered by yy Aw Velen \C ~\ Pee c. ats Clr Cire n> (a XRd 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. & the Benefit to the Applicant DOES outweigh the Detriment to the Neighborhood or Community. Reasons S25 OU Lite beng rbk+ to The 4fPrany Cond Cr__\ nant xi Piparnc- Xe ao Yeo htpr Koo The ZBA further finds that a variance of “2. 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: "tT Wn. f Shov el NO : Q f fs ct ae he ( batap cs don Of the : (ye te re Nc fie 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

IVYVWIN UP WALCO ~ CUNNING DUAN UP APPEALS AREA VARIANCE FINDINGS & DECISION Adverse impact to be minimized: Condition No. 2: Adverse impact to be minimized: Zoning Board of Appeals Chairman: Date: A PEREE COREE ODO HOSES EOE SUERTE SH OH ESTED EUPHOORER HES OED EER ER ODODE SESE DESO TESEUAEOEDEER ARNO EEDHOSEOREEEACEORE ADESSO ERED HOM DORO SERED EHERESROESOD RECORD OF VOTE MEMBER NAME AYE NAY SIGNATURE ZBA Chair ZBA Member ZBA Member ZBA Member. ZBA Member Page 4 of 4

ABFA ANCE FINDINGS & DECISIO Ande. OF - we S Applicant: (y : OFFICE USE ONLY: PP / : Application No. AV- Date of Application: Appeal Concerns Property at the following address: (Postmarked or Hand Delivered) Date of Public Hearing: or 4 , 21 >AESZ Date Notice Published: a g MA e co me ay Date of CountyReferra:__ ‘ Dateate ofof Final FinatAction Acti So th lA/ et le 2 Abe / on wi Y Date or Filing of Decision with the Municipat ib ZO %- Uoly if 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): 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 Y y Reason: J 2) Whether benefit sought by applicant can be achieved by a feasible alternative to the variance. Page 1 of 4

i ee ee eC en er er ir rd AREA VARIANCE FINDINGS & DECISION (is there a realistic alternative (like changing the design, moving the building, making it smaller, or using a eo layout) that would follow the current code?) Yes No Reason: 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 / 4 Reason: 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 drainage, noise, air, or natural features?) Yes No Reason: 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

ad ee ee eeer od AREA VARIANCE FINDINGS & DECISION Reason: 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. i the Benefit to the Applicant DOES outweigh the Detriment to the Neighborhood r 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: Wig Page 3 of 4

EN OVE WE UN tke de EMEREL DPW WE PAD PAL AREA VARIANCE FINDINGS & DECISION Adverse impact to be minimized: Lo Zo { Condition No. 2: Ta Adverse impact to be minimized: Zo “ 7 Zoning Board of Appeals Chairman: Date: MEMBER NAME ZBA Chair ZBA Member_2/f Lprale lt ZBA Member ZBA Member ZBA Member Page 4 of 4

POO ER OR WR te Re EMER We RRP et OE NE hn fhe AREA VARIANCE FINDINGS & DECISION Applicant: [en Kt And-« faflehtApplication No.OFFICE AV ~ USE ONLY: Appeal Concerns Property at the following address: nae * postmarked a Hand Delivered) asl weprerelel . rer ee —oc ie +B Date Notice Published Date of County Referral: — Gel | 3 Ye “ng wh bt -[ [ a a Olle G-—?2 Date or Fling of Decision with the Municipat Uh 208- olf —— [se County Tax Map (S.B.L.) - Section: Block: Lot: Zoning District Classification: Requirements for which Variance is Requested: 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 ox+ Reason: there Or & Wary ex Bg? fe > od Building 3 Lécatech intro wal [ii the. TVG VN home. Also 56 2¢. + cole 7 ct aff Mat, L Awe. 2) Whether benefit sought by applicant can be achieved by a feasible alternative to the variance. Page 1 of 4

re i en ee err a rt 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 ox Reason: wh.le. the, could Place bacldb re — fF - 7 newt ick hfve in A idobe-e aq Lec ion, tA ul would bh 2. very 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 x<__No Reason: ves Para RE = w h. Ie the LEG u est & , 4 + ; / wi ¢ t 2 Streyh Alt 29: Cope s L a) A aaa well thesghf a ea pl “7 a ad pth € Be G2 Er) Te BA PF oot a Or & at om + k &. Appl-t wal) Au he. Lions 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 Nox” Reason: fa2,e.T will pbleraf ta Lets ute tl will charu tir es the a-€4 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 ca No Page 2 of 4

Oe ee ee ey = me ome AREA VARIANCE FINDINGS & DECISION Reason: 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. A¥ the Benefit to the Applicant DOES outweigh the Detriment to the Neighborhood or Community. Reasons:___ f+ om et ods Very well wth the A tA 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: fer € Page 3 of 4

AREA VARIANCE FINDINGS & DECISION Adverse impact to be minimized: Lo Condition No. 2: 4 Lo v4 “oo Adverse impact to be minimized: Lo / Zoning Board of Appeals Chairman: Date:_ 6-/ 7--26 HORNE SSO O ERE HE EEOEH DESO D ERD DEH OE NESE RHO ED EOR ESOS EOL ES DY EESAEOE HEMET ESTOS OEROESHESOH EON DEDERESEOEUEEDEONSHOORE Pee en oe renee sevasaeaseneasannas RECORD OF VOTE MEMBER NAME AYE NAY SIGNATURE ZBA Chair ZBA Member eek Giethe ae ZBA Member ZBA Member ZBA Member Page 4 of 4