Town of Clarence — Zoning Board of Appeals
Six appeals, no refusals. The board finally disposed of a frontage variance that had been pending since November 2025, granted two approvals with conditions attached, and tabled a third so an applicant could go back to his neighbour with a smaller request. On a pool application sharing the chairman's surname, the chairman recused and the remaining three granted it.
Read the five findings this board recorded on October 13 and a pattern is unmistakable. In every single one, the reason given for granting relief is a fact about who or what is next door.[1]
On a 6-inch variance for an ornamental fence at 8931 Country Club Drive, the chairman's ground was continuity: the fence “will fit in with the character and aesthetic of the neighborhood. The nearby adjacent parcel has an existing similar type of fence that this fence will connect to. It will not have any adverse impact on the character or environmental conditions of the neighborhood.”[1]
On a secondary detached garage, the distinguishing fact was that the neighbour already has one: “what makes this request unique from other requests, is that the neighbor has a pole barn in their backyard, within close proximity to where this proposed structure will go. For that reason… this structure will [not] be out of character for the neighborhood.” Plus a long, deep lot, so “he does not feel that it will be visible from the street.”[1]
On a front yard setback at 20 feet fronting Marguerites Way, the cleanest reasoning of the night — there is no neighbour to harm: the lot “is irregularly shaped with unique circumstances. In terms of encroaching on the setback to the north, that is permanent greenspace, there is no neighbor at that property.”[1]
And on the swimming pool, two findings in sequence: the pool's oblong shape puts “the shallow end and steps… closer to the house, leading people to assume nobody will be enticed to jump in to the pool from the house”; and on neighbourhood impact, that it replaces an awning — “Aesthetically, this will look much better and be an improvement.”[1]
This is the five-factor balancing test being done out loud. New York asks a zoning board weighing an area variance to consider, among other things, whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighbourhood or a detriment created to nearby properties, and whether the difficulty is peculiar to the property. A board that answers those questions by naming the specific adjacent parcel, every time, is building a defensible record rather than reciting a formula.[3]
It also means something practical for residents: in Clarence, what your immediate neighbour already has, and whether your request can be seen from the road, carry real weight.
Old Business Appeal No. 8 is docketed “From the November 2025 Meeting.” It sought a variance of 1 foot 8 inches to allow a lot frontage of 148 feet 4 inches along Salt Road, at 10725 Keller Road.
It was granted 4–0 on a single finding: the item “has previously been reviewed, and this 1' 8" change is very small, and will most likely not have any noticeable impact on the layout of the lots.”
The published minutes do not say what kept it pending for eleven months, and this brief does not guess. But a twenty-inch frontage variance described on disposal as having no noticeable impact is a long time to leave a property owner waiting.
The fourth appeal sought a variance of 3 feet 10 inches to allow a swimming pool six feet two inches from a principal structure addition at 8340 Royal Ascot Circle. The applicants are named in the town's minutes as Joseph & Christina Mills.[1]
The minutes record, in the board's standard form: “Ryan Mills recused himself from Appeal No. 4. The proper paperwork will be filed with the Town Clerk's Office.” The applicants share the chairman's surname; the minutes do not state any relationship, and this brief does not assert one. What they do record is that he removed himself and documented it.[1]
The appeal was then moved by Forest Rung, seconded by Steven Dale, and granted on a vote naming three members — Krey, Dale and Rung. The chairman does not appear in the tally.[1]
This is the second documented recusal by the chairman in two months, the other being a fence variance at 4520 Shimerville Road in September. Together with a third by another member, that makes three formally recorded recusals across two meetings — an active practice, consistently papered.[4]
It is worth stating plainly because the contrast is instructive: this publication's September brief on the same board noted an application in a sitting member's own name for which no recusal statement was recorded, even though the tally shows he did not vote. The board clearly knows how to document a recusal — it did so here, and twice in September. That is what makes the one omission conspicuous rather than routine.
The one item not decided was Appeal No. 2, a request for a 6-foot variance to permit a principal structure addition resulting in a side yard setback of 6 feet 6 inches at 9722 Longleaf Trail.[1]
The chairman moved to table it, seconded by Patrick Krey, and the recorded reasoning is a negotiation in progress rather than a problem with the application. The applicant and his representative “have received feedback from some of the board members regarding setbacks,” and “will possibly explore further dialogue with the neighbor in regard to positioning of the new garage” — weighing where the neighbour wants it set back against “what will work well architecturally.”[1]
And then a concrete concession on the record: Mr. Krey noted that the applicant's representative “has mentioned reducing the size of the variance request of 4' 6" which would result in an 8' setback,” which “should be discussed with the neighbor.”[1]
So the applicant arrived asking for six feet of relief and left having floated four feet six inches, with the board's encouragement to settle it with the person next door before coming back. Tabling here is doing work, not deferring it.
Present: Chairman Ryan Mills, Patrick Krey, Steven Dale and Forest Rung. Recorded absent: Richard McNamara. Town officials present: Director of Community Development Jonathan Bleuer and Councilman Paul Shear. The minutes of the August 11, 2026 meeting were approved 4–0. All names and spellings come from the town's own typed minutes, not from audio. Note: this board has six members, and the sixth — Gerald Drinkard, recorded absent in September — does not appear in the October attendance list at all, as either present or absent; see the Editor's Note.
Agricultural Rural Residential, §229-40(A). Moved by Krey, seconded by Dale. Granted on the finding that the item had previously been reviewed and that a 1 foot 8 inch change is very small and unlikely to affect the layout of the lots.
Eleven months between the meeting it is docketed from and its disposal. The minutes offer no explanation.
Residential Single-Family, §196-3(C). Ryan Mills recused himself, with paperwork to be filed at the Town Clerk's Office. Moved by Rung, seconded by Dale; granted on a tally naming Krey, Dale and Rung.
Findings: the pool's oblong shape places the shallow end and steps nearest the house, so nobody would be enticed to jump in from it; and the structure replaces an awning, which the board considered an aesthetic improvement rather than an undesirable change.
Residential Single-Family, Map Cover 3882. Moved by Mills, seconded by Krey, to table. The applicant and his representative had already taken board feedback on setbacks and were to pursue dialogue with the neighbour on the garage's positioning.
A reduced request of 4 feet 6 inches — yielding an 8-foot setback — was floated on the record, to be discussed with the neighbour before the matter returns.
Residential Single-Family, §229-55(H). Moved by Dale, seconded by Krey. Condition: no business is to be conducted from the structure.
Granted because the neighbour already has a pole barn in close proximity to the proposed location, so the structure would not be out of character, and because the lot's length and depth mean it would not be visible from the street.
The condition is the interesting part: a secondary garage on a long residential lot invites commercial use, and the board foreclosed it on the face of the approval rather than leaving it to enforcement later.
Residential Single-Family, Map Cover 3693. Moved by Krey, seconded by Dale. Condition: the applicant must use the foundation footprint of the home as submitted in Exhibit A-SP1 — a condition the Director of Community Development confirmed on the record, so the Building Department knows what to expect.
Granted on an irregularly shaped lot where the encroachment runs toward permanent greenspace with no neighbouring property to affect.
Residential Single-Family, §101-3(C)(2). Moved by Dale, seconded by Mills. Granted because the fence is ornamental, fits the neighbourhood's character, and connects to an existing similar fence on the adjacent parcel.
The smallest variance of the night — six inches — and a reminder that this board's docket is mostly fences, garages, pools and setbacks rather than development.
This board is not recorded, by design, and these minutes are better than audio would be. The Clarence Zoning Board of Appeals is not live-streamed, and this pipeline's audio capture for it was disabled in June 2026 on that basis. Every ZBA brief is therefore a documents-only brief — and for this board that is a strength: the town publishes clean typed minutes that record every vote member by member and name applicants, addresses and code sections exactly. Nothing here depends on a machine hearing a name.
What the minutes withhold. This document is explicitly headed “ACTIONS ONLY” on every page, and in 19 places reads “(transcription in progress)” — the DISCUSSION, Public Participation, Neighbor Notifications and Other Interested Parties sections. So this brief can report what was sought, what was decided, every condition, every named vote, and each finding the board gave in support. It cannot report what applicants presented, whether neighbours attended, or whether anyone objected — except where a member's own recorded remarks refer to it, as on Longleaf Trail. If fuller minutes are published and add material, we will update this brief.
In defence of the board's publication speed. It is worth saying, since this board has a reputation for slowness: these minutes were published and retrieved thirteen days after the meeting, and September's within thirteen days likewise. The actions come out promptly. What is slow — indefinitely so — is the narrative record of what was said.
An attendance question. The board has six members. September's minutes list five present and Gerald Drinkard absent. October's list four present and Richard McNamara absent — and do not mention Mr. Drinkard at all, in either column. Whether the seat is now vacant, or whether this is an omission, the published minutes do not say. We report four members sitting, which the tallies support, and raise the question rather than answering it.
Names. The roster is human-verified in this pipeline against official ZBA minutes of January, February and March 2026. Applicants are named 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. On Appeal No. 4 the applicants share the chairman's surname; the minutes state no relationship and neither do we. The recusal is the reportable fact.