Text · page 5 of 26
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. 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.