Town of Lancaster Zoning Board of Appeals·September 10, 2026
A garage, a shed and a fence — all granted 6–0 · The code officer wants surveys written into local law · What a variance does to a property, permanently
Six of Lancaster's seven Zoning Board members worked a three-case docket in thirty-three minutes and granted every one of them unanimously — a 594-square-foot garage expansion for Timothy McKillen at 595 Lake Avenue, a 42-foot front-yard variance letting Ryan Swain and Kelly Finch put a shed against the tree line on their corner lot at 1 Nicholas Lane, and three feet of extra fence height for Patrick and Valerie Kirk at 1 Middlebury Lane, who wanted a six-foot privacy fence to keep small children and their newborn away from a busy road. Not one member of the public spoke against any of them. What the board could not settle was the thing that came up twice and never reached a vote: Code Enforcement Officer Matthew Fischione told the board he is drafting legislation to require property owners to produce an updated survey after building what a variance allows — and both an applicant at the podium and members of the board pushed back on the cost, spending roughly twelve minutes on it, longer than any single appeal took.
Timothy McKillen wanted more garage. He came to the Lancaster Town Hall podium on Thursday with the simplest possible case for it: "to store my stuff in — that's all." The Town caps a residential accessory structure at 750 square feet. McKillen proposed adding 768 more to the detached garage already standing behind his house at 595 Lake Avenue, for a total of 1,344 — which meant asking the Zoning Board of Appeals for a 594-square-foot variance, the largest number on the night's docket by a wide margin.
The board's questions were the ordinary ones. Merritt Kreutzer had driven past and wanted to know how much room would be left between the addition and the shed — about thirty feet, McKillen said. John Mikoley asked whether the new section would have a second floor (no; the original has one, used for storage, with electric and nothing else) and where the doors would go: a garage door on the left, an egress door at the back right corner. Grant Getzoni, Mark Nowak and David Zelak had nothing. The shed on the survey was crossed out because it had already been dragged back, to 13 feet off the rear lot line and 11 feet off the side.
Then the chair asked whether anyone in the audience wished to comment, and the evening's actual subject surfaced. McKillen had sold roughly 25 feet off the back of his property to the parcel behind him and had a survey drawn at the time. The Building Department wanted a new one afterward. A board member turned to the code officer and asked the obvious question: "why the new survey now? Because we've done these in the past. What differentiates this?"
Matthew Fischione's answer was that nothing does, and that is the problem. The board grants setback relief, he said, and then "we have individuals that refuse to provide an updated survey to verify those locations." Neither the Town's local law nor the State code requires one when a structure goes up or gets bigger. What is left is "a code official dropping a tape measure on the ground, hopefully identifying the property line." A survey, by contrast, is "a legal document that verifies the fact that those dimensions are accurate and they're certified." He put it to the board and then stepped back from it: "if it pleases the board, if not, that's perfectly fine."
McKillen did not care for it. He had paid a surveyor three months earlier, the boundary had not moved since, the garage sits thirty-odd feet from anything, and the document was already filed downtown. "I have to pay for another survey," he said, "just to please something that I'm already doing." A member observed that the relocated shed is not permanent anyway. "That's on skis," someone said. "It's on rails, yes," McKillen agreed.
The board did not impose a survey condition. Mikoley moved the resolution and read the statutory findings into the record; Nowak seconded; the roll call came back 6–0, with Jill Monacelli absent. "Your request is granted," the chairman told him. "You're going to follow it up with the building department and you're good to go." The question of who proves the line had another seventeen minutes to wait.
Every case on Thursday's docket was an area variance, and the minutes say so in each resolution. An area variance is dimensional relief and nothing more: a setback, a height, a square footage, a fence. The use stays exactly what the zoning district already allows — McKillen's garage is a garage, the Kirks' fence is a fence. A setback, the thing most often at issue, is simply the minimum distance the code insists on between a structure and a property line, an easement, or another building; Lancaster's Chapter 400 sets those distances in schedules, and the ZBA is the only body that may shave them.
A use variance is a different animal, and dramatically harder to win. It asks permission to do something the district flatly forbids — a business in a residential zone, apartments where only houses are allowed. New York Town Law §267-b(2) requires the applicant to prove unnecessary hardship on all four prongs with dollars-and-cents evidence, including that the property cannot yield a reasonable return under any use the district permits. Most applicants never get past that first prong. The practical difference is why residential dockets like this one are almost entirely area variances: they are the relief an ordinary homeowner can realistically obtain.
For an area variance the board does not weigh hardship at all. §267-b(3)(b) hands it a five-factor balancing test and nothing else: whether an undesirable change to neighborhood character or a detriment to nearby properties would result; whether the benefit could be achieved some other feasible way; whether the request is substantial; whether it would harm physical or environmental conditions; and whether the difficulty was self-created — which the statute expressly says is not by itself disqualifying. Lancaster's board recites all five aloud, in order, as part of the motion. It is not a checklist to be passed. On the shed at 1 Nicholas Lane, the board found the relief substantial and granted it anyway, because the other four factors pointed the other way. That is what a balancing test looks like when it is actually working.
With the last applicant gone, the chairman asked for new business, and Fischione picked the thread back up. He is researching a proposal, he said, to make updated surveys mandatory — written into local law — after work the Town has permitted. "So that we don't have this banter that we continue to have," he said.
His case rested on a gap. The purpose of a zoning code is to fix standards — "setback, size, location, height, you name it" — and there is no mechanism to confirm afterward that any of it was honored. Anyone with a real-estate background, he said, has seen the results: a neighbor's fence two feet onto the wrong parcel, buildings crowding the line, structures sitting inside easements. He described a plan review he had done that same day on a house built nine years ago. A patio roof, a shed, a fence and a pool had all gone in since. The only document he was handed was the original foundation location from the year the house was framed. "I had to physically go back in time and verify everything was there."
He also produced the sharpest sentence of the night, and it was not about cost at all. When a board grants relief, he explained, the relief attaches to the dirt. "If it says ten feet from the property line and you break the line, that property is permitted to be five feet from the property line forever."
The board was not hostile, but it was not sold. The objection was money and proportion. A member noted that code enforcement already goes out and measures — "pretty specifically, because we have someone here last month for two inch variance" — and asked what a survey would have accomplished for a garage sitting thirty feet from anything, at a cost of "over a thousand dollars." Another followed the logic to its end: if the board cannot trust the survey an applicant brings in, why not require one before the hearing and one after? A third put the objection plainly — a blanket rule "is just giving people a really high additional expense."
Fischione gave ground on the small cases and held it on the principle. Updating an existing survey, he said, costs far less than commissioning one from the deed description, and measured against a forty- or fifty-thousand-dollar improvement it is "minuscule." Asked why the issue has surfaced around a single owner, he declined the invitation to speculate: "There's probably something wrong with the property. I don't want to cast that shadow on that individual." He will draft something, he said, circulate it to each board for support, and take it to public hearings. "It's a common sense thing, but unfortunately, we have to legislate that."
No motion was made and no vote was taken. Nothing changes for an applicant filing next month.
This is the part of zoning that surprises people, and the code officer said it out loud on Thursday. A variance is not a personal permission slip. It is not issued to Timothy McKillen; it is issued to 595 Lake Avenue. In New York the relief runs with the land — it attaches to the parcel, survives the sale of the house, and binds and benefits every future owner, none of whom were in the room and none of whom get a say. The board that grants a ten-foot setback down to five has permanently rewritten the standard for that piece of ground.
That is why Fischione's proposal is more than paperwork. If the record never confirms where the structure actually went, the parcel carries a right that nobody can locate — and the person who finds out is a buyer, a title company or a mortgage underwriter, years later. It is also why the board's five-factor findings get read into the minutes word for word: those findings are the permanent justification for a permanent change.
The number looks alarming and is not. Ryan Swain and Kelly Finch own the corner house at 1 Nicholas Lane, which fronts on William Street[*] as well — and under Lancaster's code a corner lot has two front yards, not one. An accessory building may not protrude into a required front yard at all, so a shed set back against the tree line on the William Street[*] side needed 42 feet of relief to exist.
Swain's argument was that the spot he chose is the least intrusive one available. The second frontage is long and tree-lined and, as he put it, "not at all functional" — so putting the shed there keeps it out of the usable backyard and backs it into existing screening that helps "block traffic and noise off of William."[*] The yard is not fenced; there is a short dog fence on the line, enough to contain a pet and nothing more.
Mark Nowak asked the neighborly question — had he spoken to the neighbor? He had. The neighbor could not attend and had offered to write a letter of support, which nobody thought was necessary. David Zelak asked the sharper one: would Swain move the shed toward his own fence line so the variance number came down? Swain said he would if the board wanted it, but that the requested location was the one that made sense, and that a couple of feet either way would not change anything real. Grant Getzoni noted the shed sits behind the tree line, which had been his question. No one from the public spoke.
Merritt Kreutzer moved it, and her findings are worth reading because she did not soften them. The relief, she found, "is substantial, based on the amount of relief being requested" — then explained why she was granting it anyway: the impact is reduced by the corner-lot layout and the small size of the shed, the location has limited visibility and existing screening, and the difficulty is only partly self-created, because "the property having frontage on two streets" is not something the owner chose. Midway through the recital of the statutory language somebody at the table cracked, "Say that ten times fast." Getzoni seconded. Granted 6–0.
There was a postscript. Under new business, Fischione mentioned that this same property already has a fence in the front yard, and that the building permit issued for it — sometime in the 1990s, he said — specifically stated it would sit outside the required front yard. It did not. Nobody proposed to do anything about it. "Were we going to deny an application based on something that happened 25, 30 years ago," he asked, "and the fence has been there ever since?" It was, in miniature, the entire argument he had just made.
Zoning defines a front yard by where the lot meets a street, not by where the front door is. A corner parcel touches two streets, so the code treats both street-facing strips as front yards, each with its own setback and each off-limits to sheds, garages and tall fences. That is how a homeowner ends up with a large, legally unusable side of his own property — and why a shed tucked out of everyone's way can still require a 42-foot variance while a much closer shed on an interior lot requires none at all.
It is also why two of the three cases this month were corner-lot problems in different costumes. The number on the application measures the distance from the code, not the distance from the neighbors.
Patrick and Valerie Kirk asked for the smallest number of the night and got the most practical advice. Lancaster allows a front-yard fence of three feet; they wanted six, along the side of their yard facing what the family called the main road. The reason was not privacy in any decorative sense. "We just got some pretty small kids at home, we have a newborn," one of them told the board, and the worry was balls rolling into a busy street, children going after them, and cars swerving. Eventually, they added, they would like a pool.
Mikoley, Nowak and Zelak had no questions. Getzoni had one, and it had nothing to do with zoning. Plows come down that road, he said, at a considerable rate of speed — and if the fence is stockade and the snow comes off the blade far enough, the Town is not responsible for the damage. He said he had paid claims on that stretch of Pavement Road[*]. The Kirks pointed out the fence is set well back. "Twenty, thirty feet is not hard at 40 miles an hour with two feet of snow," Getzoni replied. Kreutzer's entire contribution was: "That's a good point, but other than that, I have no questions."
Getzoni then moved it himself, lost his place twice in the statutory language, apologized — "you're my second reading" — and got there. Mikoley seconded, beating a colleague to it "by a hair," per the chairman. Granted 6–0. Because fences carry two additional findings under §34, the board also had to conclude the fence would not unduly shut out light or air to adjoining properties and would not create a fire hazard by its construction or location.
The small detail worth keeping is what the clerk wrote down. The official minutes record the board's finding that the benefit could not be achieved another way "because three (3) feet is needed to keep children out of the street." A family's reason for wanting a taller fence is now, verbatim, part of the legal justification permanently attached to 1 Middlebury Lane.
"We have a light evening, only three cases," the chairman said at the top, and by this board's standards he was right. The August 13 docket ran to seven petitions and took until 7:56; this one was gavel to gavel in thirty-three minutes. Three cases also meant three unanimous grants — a cleaner sheet than last month, when the board denied a ground-sign variance sought on behalf of NextEra Energy for 700 Eastport Drive. That roll call came in at 3–2 in favor, with two of the seven seats empty; three yes votes on a seven-member board did not carry it, and the minutes record the resolution as denied. On Thursday six members sat, and every vote was 6–0.
The board's next regular meeting is Thursday, October 8, at 7:00 PM in the same chambers. Lancaster's ZBA meets the second Thursday of each month; the legal notice for each docket runs in the local paper two weeks ahead, which is why the September agenda was signed and published on September 3.
Those three names are the complete list of persons addressing the board on September 10, per the official minutes. Not one neighbor, objector or supporter came to the microphone all evening.
Lancaster is currently operating under Local Law No. 2 of 2026, adopted February 17, which temporarily suspends land-use applications and approvals in the Bowmansville hamlet and in the Lancaster portion of the Town Line hamlet. It was triggered by a proposed 122-room hotel about a thousand feet east of Transit Road, and a Town moratorium committee has been meeting through the summer on hamlet boundaries, an historical overlay district, buffer zones along Transit Road, lighting and signage.
A moratorium of that kind is a pause button on a defined map, not on the whole town. All three properties heard on Thursday sit in the Lancaster 14086 core, well outside both hamlets, so the freeze had no bearing on the docket and was never mentioned. The reason to say so plainly: a resident who has read about the moratorium could reasonably assume the Town has stopped approving construction. It has not. Outside those two hamlet boundaries the ZBA is granting garages, sheds and fences on its ordinary monthly schedule.
Six of the seven ZBA members sat — Chairman Robert Matthews and members Grant Getzoni, Merritt Kreutzer, John Mikoley, Mark Nowak and David Zelak — with Jill Monacelli absent. No recusals were announced and none appear in the official minutes. Every variance was decided by roll call and the minutes record each member's vote by name; the adjournment was a voice vote with no tally taken, and the row below says so. Movers, seconders, tallies, conditions and spellings in this section are taken from the Town Clerk's official September 10 minutes, not from the audio.
Petition of Timothy McKillen for one variance from Chapter 400, Zoning, §14(D), Schedule B, which caps a residential accessory structure at 750 square feet. The request adds 768 square feet to an existing detached garage for a total of 1,344 square feet — a 594-square-foot variance. Property in the Residential (R) district. The Erie County Department of Environment and Planning reviewed the action, found it a matter of local concern and made no recommendation. Public hearing held; the petitioner was the only person to address the board. Resolution offered by Mr. Mikoley, seconded by Mr. Nowak, reciting the §267-b(3)(b) findings including that the relief is not substantial and the difficulty self-created but not disqualifying. No conditions were attached — notably, the board did not require the updated survey the code officer had raised minutes earlier.
Petition of Ryan Swain & Kelly Finch for one variance from Chapter 400, Zoning, §14(D), Schedule B, which bars an accessory building from protruding into a required front yard. The parcel is a corner lot with frontage on two streets, so both street-facing strips are required front yards; the shed as sited needs 42 feet of relief. Property in the Residential (R) district. Public hearing held; the petitioner Ryan Swain was the only person to address the board. Resolution offered by Ms. Kreutzer, seconded by Mr. Getzoni. The findings expressly state the relief is substantial based on the amount requested, while concluding the actual impact is reduced by the corner-lot layout, the shed's small size, limited visibility and existing screening, and conditioned in the findings on the shed not interfering with sightlines or easements.
Petition of Patrick & Valerie Kirk for one variance from Chapter 400, Zoning, §34(C), which bars any fence or wall over three feet in height — other than a necessary retaining wall — from extending into the front yard of a lot in a nonindustrial district. The request is a six-foot privacy fence, a three-foot variance. Property in the Residential (R) district. Public hearing held; both petitioners addressed the board. Resolution offered by Mr. Getzoni, seconded by Mr. Mikoley. The findings include the two fence-specific conclusions required under §34 — that the fence will not unduly shut out light or air to adjoining properties and will not create a fire hazard by its construction or location — and record that the benefit could not be achieved another way "because three (3) feet is needed to keep children out of the street."
Taken after the new-business discussion of survey requirements, which produced no motion and no vote. Motion by Chairman Matthews, seconded by Ms. Kreutzer. The chair called for ayes and then for opposition; the minutes record "ALL IN FAVOR, MOTION CARRIED." No tally was announced or recorded, and none is invented here — six members were seated and no opposition was audible.
Audio and the official minutes, for the same night. This meeting was live-streamed on the Town of Lancaster's YouTube channel and captured from the start, and the Town Clerk's official September 10 minutes were already posted when this brief was written. That is an unusually complete record, and where the two disagree the minutes govern. Every mover, seconder, roll-call vote, zoning district, code citation and finding quoted above is taken from the minutes; the narrative, the questions members asked and every spoken quotation come from the audio. The minutes also settled a question the audio could not: they list the persons who addressed the board, and on all three cases that list contains only petitioners. An exchange during the first case that sounded on tape like a comment from the audience was in fact the petitioner answering, and is reported that way here.
Proper nouns corrected against the agenda and minutes. The open-room microphone in the Town Board Chambers mangles surnames badly. Corrected here, with the official spelling first and the transcript's renderings after: Grant Getzoni ("Gattoni," "Gazzoni," "Gazzone," "Cazzoni"); Merritt Kreutzer ("Kurtzer," "Gritzer," "Grutzer," "Kruitzer," "Kripser"); John Mikoley ("Michaeli," "Mike Lee," "Michael," "Eichlein"); Mark Nowak ("Nolik," "Noah," "Dillard"); David Zelak ("Zilak," "Zielek"); and Town Clerk Andrea Crage, whom the chairman welcomed aboard on tape as "Andrea Craig." Most consequentially, the third petition is Patrick & Valerie Kirk — the transcript renders the surname as "Clerk," which the agenda and minutes both correct. The audio's "secret review" throughout is SEQRA review (the State Environmental Quality Review Act); all three cases are Type II actions under 6 NYCRR §617.5(c)(17) and required no environmental review.
Names are verified, so the [*] flag is nearly unused this month. Ordinarily applicants and residents heard only on tape carry a [*] until an official source confirms them. Here every person named above appears in the official agenda, the minutes, or both — petitioners Timothy McKillen, Ryan Swain, Kelly Finch, Patrick Kirk and Valerie Kirk included — so no petitioner name is flagged. Two street names are: William Street[*] and Pavement Road[*] were spoken only in the audio and appear in no document for this meeting.
Street validation — what was and was not possible. The Town of Lancaster has no street-inventory file in this pipeline yet (there is no config/lancaster_streets.txt), so the usual automated street check was not run for this brief. Instead, every street name was cross-checked against the legal notice and the minutes: Lake Avenue, Nicholas Lane, Middlebury Lane and Central Avenue are all confirmed in the official documents. For the two streets named only on tape, this publication's own address database of validated Lancaster addresses contains multiple Pavement Road entries in the Town, which supports the hearing; William Street is not corroborated there and remains flagged. Building the Lancaster street list is an open item.
Two clerical oddities in the official documents, noted rather than silently smoothed. The final finding in the McKillen resolution cites "Chapter 406" of the Town Code where the audio and every other citation in the packet say Chapter 400; this brief uses Chapter 400 and flags the discrepancy for the Clerk. Both the agenda and the minutes spell the schedule reference "Scheule B" in the body while spelling it "Schedule B" in the citation immediately following; this brief uses Schedule B.
Attribution limits. During each public hearing the chairman calls on members by name in rotation, so the questions attributed to individual members above are reliable. The open new-business discussion has no such structure and a single room microphone, so the board-side objections to the survey proposal are attributed to "a member" rather than guessed at. The code officer's remarks are unambiguous throughout. A cross-reference of all three subject properties against this publication's scanner address database returned no dispatch history for any of them, so none is reported.
The [*] convention. [*] marks a proper noun heard only in the audio and not confirmed by any official record for this meeting. Verify against the Town Clerk's record before quoting in any formal communication.