Town of Clarence — Zoning Board of Appeals
Ten appeals, nine of them granted. The exception was a Greiner Road garage addition whose own proposer voted for it: questioning established the structure would be enclosed on all three new sides, the chairman said he had understood it to be open, and the motion went down 3–2. It is the board's only refusal in two months.
The applicant sought two variances to extend an existing detached garage: 528 square feet to permit a 1,408 square foot accessory structure, and seven feet to allow a three-foot side yard setback. The file cites two code sections and a prior Zoning Board approval dated June 8, 1993.[1]
It began as an approval. Patrick Krey moved to grant it, seconded by Forest Rung, with one condition — that the addition's siding and roof material match the existing garage. Krey then argued the case for it: the neighbouring property to the east sits out of line with the house, smaller and closer to the street, so “encroaching on the setback in this regard is not having any detrimental impact on the neighboring property line.” He added that “in that area of Greiner there are a lot of properties with an attached garage and garages that are a similar size, so it will not be a detriment to the neighborhood.”[1]
Then the questioning changed what the board thought it was looking at.
The Director of Community Development asked for specificity on materials and “asked if there will be any walls associated with the proposed addition.” The chairman confirmed with the applicant “that this proposed structure will be a covered porch type of structure.” The applicant said yes — then described a steel roof, steel siding, six-by-six pressure-treated columns and a poured footer along the edge.[1]
Pressed again on whether it would have walls, the applicant “responded yes; it will be totally enclosed.” The chairman reiterated that it would be totally enclosed. The applicant confirmed. Asked whether all three new sides would have walls, he confirmed again.[1]
The applicant himself supplied the distinction that mattered, recalling a site visit: a board member “pointed out that the proposed structure is an addition to the garage, not a lean-to.”[1]
The chairman's response is the pivot of the meeting: “Chairman Mills stated that he was under the impression that it was an open structure, such as a lean-to, not a fully enclosed structure.” And then, as a question: “this is a full garage addition?” Answer: yes.[1]
The vote was taken immediately afterward:
The minutes do not record anyone saying the application had been misunderstood, and this brief does not assert it. What the record shows is a sequence: a motion to approve, an argument for it, a line of questioning that established the structure was fully enclosed, a statement from the chair that he had understood otherwise, and a vote that failed. That is the clearest illustration in this board's recent record of why questioning applicants in open session matters.
Read ten of this board's decisions in a row and a formula emerges. Almost every approval is justified by a member stating what distinguishes the parcel from others — “what makes this request unique and distinguishes it from other requests…”
That is not throat-clearing. An area variance in New York turns on a balancing test, and one of its five factors is whether the applicant's difficulty is peculiar to the property rather than general to the neighbourhood. A board that recites the distinguishing feature every time is building the record that protects its decision on review.[3]
This board does it consistently, in its own words, appeal by appeal. It is the most striking thing about these minutes.
The last item of the night was an application in the name of Patrick Krey, who sits on this board. It sought a variance to allow an accessory structure — a pole barn — on a parcel at 7700 Salt Road “that currently does not contain a principal structure,” in the Agricultural Flood zone.[1]
It did not go well. Richard McNamara moved to approve it as written. No member seconded, and the motion failed. The chairman then moved to table, seconded by Steven Dale.[1]
The board's stated reasons were about siting and appearance rather than principle. The chairman wanted “more detail in terms of the color and style of the pole barn, and precisely where it would be situated in relation to the proposed pond,” and later suggested that “setting the proposed pole barn further back toward Delaware Road would be the ideal setting,” with landscaping to help screen it. Steven Dale asked the Director of Community Development “to research previous cases where the Zoning Board has had this situation, and how they resolved it.” Forest Rung's concern was subtler — not that it would be an eyesore but “more of a concern of the barn being by itself on the property,” since tucking it close to the boundary “could make it seem as if it is the neighbor's barn.” The Deputy Town Attorney noted that if the pond must be engineered, “it does not make much sense to discuss where the pond should be now.”[1]
The tabling carried. The recorded vote names four members — McNamara, Mills, Dale and Rung. Mr. Krey is not among them, so on the face of the minutes he did not vote on his own application.[1]
One asymmetry in the paperwork is worth noting precisely. Twice that evening the minutes record a formal recusal in a standard form — “Richard McNamara recused himself from this item. The proper paperwork will be filed in the Town Clerk's Office” on one appeal, and “Ryan Mills recused himself from Appeal No. 6. All of the necessary paperwork will be filed with the Town Clerk's Office” on another. No equivalent statement appears for Mr. Krey on Appeal No. 9. The minutes also record him speaking during the discussion, in the same style they use for board members: “Mr. Krey asked about the view from Salt Road.”[1]
This brief draws no conclusion from that. An applicant is entitled to speak to his own application, and not voting is the substantive protection, which the tally shows he observed. But the record of two other recusals that night sets a standard of documentation that this item does not meet, and a resident reading these minutes cannot tell whether a recusal was filed or simply not written down. The Town Clerk's file would resolve it.
Two of the seven approvals carried conditions, and one of them is unusual enough to record in full.[1]
At 8660 Wolcott Road, the applicants sought a package of variances — lot frontage of 145 feet 6 inches, and 135-foot front yard setbacks for two proposed single-family homes — to permit a minor subdivision splitting one lot into two. The board first issued a SEQR negative declaration on the proposal as an Unlisted Action, then approved the variances subject to two conditions:[1]
The second is a genuine safeguard. A variance normally attaches to land, not to a person, so relief granted to a prospective purchaser can otherwise be inherited by whoever ends up owning the parcel. Tying it to this purchase keeps the board's judgement about these applicants from becoming a permanent entitlement for someone it never considered.
The other condition was simpler: the Greiner Road motion that failed had proposed matching siding and roof materials, and at 9380 Greiner that condition died with the motion.
The board has six members. Present: Chairman Ryan Mills, Patrick Krey, Richard McNamara, Steven Dale and Forest Rung. Absent: Gerald Drinkard. Town officials present: Director of Community Development Jonathan Bleuer, Deputy Town Attorney David Donohue, and Councilman Paul Shear. The minutes of the July 14, 2026 meeting were approved 5–0. All names and spellings here come from the town's own typed minutes, not from audio.
Two variances sought: 528 square feet to allow a 1,408 square foot detached accessory structure, and 7 feet to allow a 3-foot side yard setback, for an addition to an existing detached garage. Code references §229-55(D) together with a ZBA approval of 6/8/1993, and §229-55(E)(1).
Moved by Krey, seconded by Rung, to approve with a materials-matching condition. Denied after questioning established the addition would be fully enclosed on all three new sides. Nay: McNamara, Mills, Dale. Aye: Krey, Rung.
Agricultural Flood zone, §229-34(D). McNamara's motion to approve drew no second. Mills moved to table, seconded by Dale; carried on a vote naming McNamara, Mills, Dale and Rung.
The board asked for colour and style detail, precise siting relative to a proposed pond, and research by staff into how it had handled comparable cases before. No recusal statement is recorded for the applicant-member, who is recorded taking part in the discussion; see above.
A package of variances to allow one lot to be split into two lots of record in the Agricultural Flood zone, including lot frontage of 145 feet 6 inches and 135-foot front yard setbacks for two proposed single-family homes.
Conditions: a minimum 40-foot setback from the pond edges on all three sides of the cutout; and that the named applicants must purchase the property, or the variance fails.
§229-52(A). Richard McNamara recused himself, with paperwork to be filed in the Town Clerk's Office. Moved by Krey, seconded by Dale, to table.
The chairman explained to the applicant that the sentiment of the board, and of neighbours, was that there were concerns about how the setback would affect them — the only appeal of the night where neighbour objection is recorded as shaping the outcome.
Moved by Krey, seconded by Mills. Krey's stated ground: a very unique lot, unlike others that have come before the board needing a setback of that kind, and a benefit to the applicant that the record describes but which the published minutes cut short.
Two separate applications by the same developer for unusually deep principal structure front yard setbacks, one in Agricultural Rural Residential (§229-41(B)(1)) and one in the Agricultural Flood zone.
On the Lapp Road parcel the chairman described a somewhat undeveloped area at the corner of Lapp and Kenfield Roads with a home already under construction at a comparable setback. On the second, he noted a parcel that starts off narrower, then opens up, such that strict compliance would put the house 75 feet off the road.
Appeal 1: a 2-foot variance for a 6-foot fence within the front yard setback in Agricultural Rural Residential. Granted; the stated distinguishing features were a very large house set far back from the street on a curve.
Appeal 6: a 2-foot variance for a 6-foot fence at 4520 Shimerville Road, §101-3(C)(2). Ryan Mills recused himself, paperwork to be filed. Granted; Rung found no sight-line or safety issue given the fence's position relative to the road.
Appeal 7: a 2-foot variance for a 6-foot fence, granted expressly because it conforms with the approval just given on Appeal 6 — in line with that fence, and the same material. Two neighbouring applications decided on the same reasoning minutes apart.
Granted on the ground that the board had heard testimony and seen evidence that the applicant also owns the lot to the south — the parcel that would be most affected by the reduced setback. A neat illustration of the balancing test: the detriment falls on land the applicant controls.
This board is not recorded, and that is by design. The Clarence Zoning Board of Appeals is not live-streamed; its agendas say meetings will be recorded but never that they are streamed, and this pipeline's audio capture for it was switched off in June 2026 as a result. Every brief on this board is therefore a documents-only brief built from the town's own minutes — which, for this board, is a better source than audio would be. The minutes are clean typed text, they record every vote member by member, and they name applicants, addresses and code sections precisely. There are no transcription homophones to correct here, and nothing in this brief rests on a machine hearing a name.
What is missing, and it matters. These minutes are an interim document. In 35 separate places the text reads “(transcription in progress)” — chiefly where the DISCUSSION, Public Participation and Other Interested Parties sections would be. So this brief can tell you what every applicant asked for, what the board decided, and the findings each member gave in support. It cannot tell you what applicants presented, what neighbours said, or whether anyone spoke in opposition — except where a member's own recorded remarks refer to it, as on Stahley Road. A fuller set of minutes may be published later; if it adds material, we will update this brief.
A dating error in the source document. The minutes' header reads “Tuesday, September 8, 2025.” That year is wrong: the same document approves the minutes of July 14, 2026, and September 8 fell on a Tuesday in 2026 but on a Monday in 2025. We have treated the meeting as September 8, 2026 throughout, which is also how the town files it. The error is the document's, not ours.
Names. The board roster is human-verified in this pipeline against official ZBA minutes of January, February and March 2026. Applicants are named here because the town names them in a public document and because a variance attaches to identified land — neighbours are entitled to know whose parcel is affected. We have not printed the residential addresses of board members or officials, and where an appeal concerns a board member's own property we have reported the matter without further detail about him.
On the denial. This brief reports a sequence of recorded events and the chairman's own statement about what he had understood. It does not assert that the board was misled, that the application was inaccurate, or that the applicant did anything improper — none of which the minutes support. The applicant answered every question put to him directly and volunteered the distinction himself.