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. 5-2026 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF CHRIS AND CHRISTINE KRAFT FOR AN AREA VARIANCE PROPERTY ADDRESS: 12110 Goodleberg Road, South Wales, NY TAX MAP NUMBER OR SBL#: 202.00-2-34.2 DATE: July 1, 2026 WHEREAS, an application was filed with the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Wales by Chris and Christine Kraft for an area variance for the property located at 12110 Goodleberg Road, South Wales, NY. SBL# 202.00-2-34.2; 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 on the side 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 July 1, 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: In line with neighborhood fagade. Such a small distance, very minor request. Neighbors are all ok with the request. 2. Feasible Alternative: The Board finds that the benefit sought by the Applicants cannot be achieved by some other feasible method. Reasoning: In theory, yes, but project was initiated prior to permit. Pad was poured. Moving the building would cause frontage variance. 3. Substantiality of Variance: The Board finds that the requested area variance is not substantial. Reasoning: Very small distance. One foot and a few inches. Only 1’3” of 20’ setback. 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: Not even noticeable. Immediate neighbor is in approval. Little to no concerns. 5. Self-Created Difficulty: The Board finds that the alleged difficulty was self-created. Reasoning: Most all variances are self-created. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the variance is granted.