Zoning Board of Appeals
The legal notice said 11 feet 3 inches. Lancaster's Zoning Board granted 20 feet 3 inches at 228 Maple Drive, after the builder himself asked for more so a neighbour could have ten extra feet of separation. The board noticed the problem, asked its attorney, and the answer is not on the recording. Eight petitions, eight variances granted, no denials.
Dan Jordan came to the podium on Thursday to ask Lancaster's Zoning Board for less than he had advertised, and ended the evening with roughly twice as much. The sequence is worth following closely, because it is the one thing on this docket that a resident could not have learned from the notice in the paper.
Jordan is building two single-family houses on a corner at Wehrle Drive[*] and North Maple. The one fronting Wehrle needs nothing from this board — that lot runs 250 feet deep. The one at 228 Maple Drive is the problem. Chapter 400, §32 of the Town Code sets a special building line on Wehrle Drive west of Harris Hill Road: 90 feet measured from the centre of the street, a rule that supersedes the ordinary front-yard setback. On a lot platted long before that line existed, 90 feet leaves a buildable footprint about 25 feet wide. “Unless you're going to build a home that's 70 or 80 feet long, which would be entirely out of character for that neighbourhood, you really can't build much on it.”[1]
So he applied for an 11-foot 3-inch variance, and the Town Clerk published that number on October 1 for an October 8 hearing. Then a neighbour to the south read it. He signed a letter saying he was fine with the ten feet of separation the plan gave him — and asked Jordan privately whether the house could sit a little further away. Jordan said he would ask.
He did, from the podium, before presenting anything else. “Candidly, he asked me if there was anything I could do about making the houses a little bit further apart… and candidly I think that's a little bit better if the houses are a little bit further apart.” He asked the board for 21 feet 3 inches instead, and asked whether he needed to re-file and start over.[1]
The board saw the issue immediately. “We can do that, even though the legal notice says 11 foot 3,” one member observed. Another noted that the extra relief pushes the house the other way — “closer to the street.” Grant Getzoni[*] offered the rationale the board ultimately used: “The letter from the neighbour would be us meeting in the middle.” Chairman Robert Matthews then put the question to the town's lawyer directly — could the board accept the letter as justification to expand the relief? What the Deputy Town Attorney said in reply is not recoverable from the recording. A member redirected to the board, the chairman added a point about how much closer the lot's old tree line had stood to the road, and the motion followed.[1]
The motion, made by the chairman and seconded by David Zelak[*], recited the standard findings and then added a condition: relief “allowing a variance of 20 feet, three inches.” It carried 6–0. Note the number. The applicant asked for 21 feet 3 inches; the condition as read into the record is 20 feet 3 inches, a foot less, and nothing on the recording explains the difference.
The filed decision has since settled the figure, and added a wrinkle. The board's minutes, posted after this brief first published, record the condition as: “To allow the variance request of 20-feet, 3-inches, as requested by the petitioner.” So 20 feet 3 inches is the operative grant — nine feet more than the published notice, not ten. But the words “as requested by the petitioner” do not match the hearing: what the petitioner requested aloud, twice, was 21 feet 3 inches. The filed document attributes to him a figure he did not ask for, and no part of the resolution records the neighbour's letter, the discussion of exceeding the notice, or any advice from counsel about it. The resolution recites that the hearing was held “pursuant to legal notice duly published and posted” and says nothing about having gone past it.[5]
New York Town Law §267-a requires a zoning board of appeals to publish notice of its hearing in a paper of general circulation at least five days beforehand. This notice went out on October 1 for an October 8 hearing. That published figure is the entire mechanism by which a neighbour decides whether a case is worth an evening — and it is also the reason the chairman stopped to ask his attorney before the board went past it.[2]
Four facts cut the other way, and they belong in the same paragraph. The only abutting owner whose interest the additional relief touched had consented in writing and had asked for it himself. The extra relief moved the house away from him, not toward him. The board put the final number into the decision as an express condition rather than leaving the grant open-ended. And the Code Enforcement Officer confirmed on the record that the 35-foot sight triangle at the intersection holds at either distance — “we're still maintaining the 35-foot sight triangle.”[1]
So this brief is not asserting that the grant was improper. It is recording that the board granted relief substantially larger than the relief it advertised, that it recognised the question and asked counsel about it, and that counsel's answer is not on the public recording of a public meeting. The filed minutes, now posted, do not contain it either: they record the expanded condition without recording the basis for it. A person reading only the official decision would not learn that the relief granted exceeded the relief noticed, or why.[5]
The most consequential sentence of the evening came in its last ten minutes, from a member of the board, about a shed. John Mikoley[*] had no questions for the petitioner at 13 Middlebury Lane[*]. He had something else.[1]
“Middlebury, Tranquility — these streets keep showing up here. Several times, pretty much a month. And I think it's just a little commentary that what the town is allowing per code is also not functional per code. So it seems to me that we've had multiple in this subdivision and other new subdivisions that it seems as if what we're allowing per code is just not always functional, unless we change other restrictions that require people to come all the time for variances.”
That is a sitting zoning board member saying out loud that the town is approving subdivisions whose lots cannot accommodate the ordinary furniture of suburban life — a shed, a patio roof, somewhere to keep a snowblower — without an appearance before him. Nobody answered him. No motion was made, no referral to the Planning Board or the Town Board was moved, and under New York law this board has no power to touch the code it applies. It can only grant relief from it, one lot at a time. It did that eight times on Thursday.
The docket corroborates him. Two of the eight petitions were on Middlebury Lane, in the same newer subdivision — and this publication's record of the September 10 meeting carries a third, a three-foot fence variance at 1 Middlebury Lane granted to a family with a newborn. Tranquility Trail, the street he named alongside it, is in the town's own index. Three petitions from one street in two consecutive monthly dockets is not a pattern a board can fix by voting on sheds.[4]
Mikoley's complaint has a specific and largely documented answer, and it arrived earlier in the evening from Code Enforcement Officer Matthew Fischione[*], in two separate explanations he gave to two different petitioners.
One: in 2020 the town moved the line it measures from. Chapter 400, §14(D), Schedule B requires 35 feet from a property line — or, where an easement exists, from the edge of the easement, whichever is more restrictive. That was not always so. “When the code was amended in 2020, it incorporated a little bit more restrictive standard than when the house was built, because the back-yard setback was specifically from the property line. The 2020 adoption made it a little bit more stringent, where the measurement needed to be 35 feet from the easement line.” That single change is why Rachael Varga, whose house was built in 2001 with a permitted bump-out that already sits inside 35 feet, needed a 12.68-foot variance to put a gable roof over a concrete patio that is already there. The slab itself is untouched by the rule — “it's a slab on grade… a walking surface is not part of the primary structure.” Roofing it is what requires a variance.[1]
Two: the town now wants a survey before it closes a permit. At 214 Enchanted Forest N., where the Kerners are replacing a rotting deck that sits four feet from a hot tub nobody now living there installed, Fischione[*] volunteered the history: “Way back in the day when that pool was installed, the hot tub was not a part of the project, and it appeared.” Without an accurate as-built layout, a permit gets closed on paper that does not match the yard — and the bill comes due years later, for somebody else. “It would have been a good time then to address the issue… and then saved subsequent owners the grief and the angst and the delay of obtaining the permit to maintain the property.” The Kerners bought the house in 2000 after it had sat foreclosed for three years. They are the subsequent owners.[1]
A related proposal of his is still unfinished. At the September 10 meeting Fischione[*] told this board he was drafting legislation to require an updated survey after an owner builds what a variance allows; members objected on cost grounds and no motion was ever made. That is a different instrument from the permit-closeout practice he described on Thursday, and it has not advanced.[4]
Both changes are defensible on their own terms. Both also generate variance applications — which is the honest reply to Mikoley[*], and the reply nobody in the room gave him.
Jason Durys[*] came for a ten-foot side-line variance at 5609 William Street so that a lean-to could sit beside an existing shed five feet from the property line. He spoke instead for about ninety seconds and withdrew. “I spoke with my neighbour, and the variance is really not too much of an issue for me. I'm going to plan on keeping the building to the 15 feet that's on there. I just want to have that on record… I'm going to respect my neighbour's wishes.” The 30-by-40 pole barn goes ahead at the required setback, and he believes it needs no relief at all.[1]
The board had that neighbour's letter of opposition in front of it. With the case withdrawn, the chairman checked with the Deputy Town Attorney whether the man could still be heard, was told he could, and the objector from 5613 William Street came to the microphone — to say thank you. “I totally appreciate him having his opinion changed… We want to stay neighbours and be good neighbours to each other.” The chairman: “I love when neighbours can work together and figure that out. Some of these disputes can get kind of nasty.”[1]
One small piece of municipal plumbing is worth keeping. A member asked whether Durys[*] could get his application fee back. The answer was no. Someone asked whether the board could recommend a refund to the Town Board. The thought was not pursued and no motion was made. A resident who settles his own dispute before it costs the town a vote pays exactly what a resident who fights one pays.[1]
The longest item of the night was a 10-by-14 shed. Christopher Bona[*] wants it in the back corner of his lot, which turns out to sit inside a town drainage easement — “I actually didn't know there was an easement there until we filed for it” — and, in part, inside a federal jurisdictional area as well. Chapter 400 bars any structure other than fencing in a drainage easement, full stop; there is no dimensional relief to ask for, only permission.[1][2]
His case was practical. The shed goes on skids with no pad poured, so it can be moved at his expense if the easement ever needs work, exactly as he would have to take down the fence he was already permitted to build there. Moving it elsewhere runs into the easement again, or crowds the pool, or lands it in the middle of the yard — and that last option he rejected for a reason the board accepted without argument: “It becomes a bit of a hazard for my family, because I have three small children… I have lost visibility of them in the backyard behind another structure.” As for the federal strip, he has what he called “a pseudo approval” to build there, having obtained federal permission for the fence; what stops him is that the ground floods, so a pad and imported fill would be needed, at an expense he put bluntly — “very expensive” — and the standing water would recreate the visibility problem.[1]
The paperwork did not help. Two layout options had been submitted and narrowed to one; a rough sketch in the packet was one the applicant said he never submitted; members left their seats to crowd around the drawing, and the Code Enforcement Officer ended up marking the easement on the map for them. “It's very confusing,” the chairman said, and he was describing the documents.[1]
One tension in this item should not be smoothed over. Asked whether any similar structures in the neighbourhood encroach into the easement, Fischione[*] answered: “Not that we've permitted, no.” Minutes later Zelak[*] said that two houses down, at 41 and 39, sheds are “clearly… up in that easement area.” And the motion's own finding of no detriment then rests on precisely that fact: relief was granted “as similar sheds in the neighbourhood are close to the pond.” The board's stated reason for granting is the existence of structures its own code officer says the town never permitted. Nobody put the two statements side by side in the room. This brief does not resolve them; it records that both are in the same seventeen minutes.[1]
Chairman Matthews placed a reservation on the record and then voted for the shed. “I typically have concerns with structures in drainage ditches. I'm concerned with the amount of heavy rains — we seem to be having more and more heavy rain events here, and I have some concerns with the flooding issues that are going on in town. So that's just a personal opinion.” Granted 6–0, with a condition: that the owner file with the Erie County Clerk's Office — recording against the deed the obligation to remove the structure at his own expense if the easement needs work, so that the obligation binds whoever owns the property next. The condition was first stated as a filing with Erie County Water, corrected on the floor, and confirmed with the attorney before the second.[1]
At 21 Grace Way[*], James and Jill Formato[*] want a roof over their patio. The building inspector asked them the obvious question — why not simply attach it to the house? The answer is the clearest piece of code economics on the recording. An attached cover was quoted two and a half years ago at $65,000. Freestanding, with Mrs. Formato's brothers doing the work, it comes in at about $15,000 in materials. “She has brothers that are very talented builders, and basically just pay for the supplies and get it done for probably about $15,000 — but it wouldn't be attached to the house.”[1]
So they asked to build it six inches from the house, which the code treats as an entirely different thing. Attached, it is part of the primary structure. Detached — by any distance, including half a foot — it is an accessory structure, and Chapter 400, §14(D), Schedule B requires accessory structures to stand ten feet from another structure. Hence a 9-foot 6-inch variance for a gap of six inches. Granted 6–0.[2]
Mr. Formato[*] told the board at the outset that his hearing is poor and asked that questions be directed to his wife. They were.
And a record-keeping note, because it is the kind of thing that only matters if a decision is ever challenged. The motion as first read found the relief “not substantial, as it is only six inches.” A member corrected it from the floor: the relief sought is nine feet six inches; six inches is the resulting separation. The maker restated the finding and the roll was called.[1]
Shailesh Tailor[*] asked for two variances so that a shed with doors on both sides could sit five feet from his garage and three feet from the side line, instead of the ten and five the code requires. The reason was entirely domestic: “Just easily I can get the snowblower to the driveway, rather than dragging it all the way from the back of the yard… When I travel in the winter time, when my wife needs to snowblow, she doesn't have to drag it from the back.” He had spoken with his neighbour; the shed sits inside an existing fence. Granted 6–0.[1]
The motion, however, contains the evening's most interesting sentence. Merritt Kreutzer[*] read the third of the five area-variance factors affirmatively — that the benefit sought can be achieved by another feasible method — and then explained why: “because it can, it can be placed somewhere else on the property.” It carried 6–0 with no comment.[1]
That is not the error it may look like, and the distinction is worth getting right. Under Town Law §267-b(3)(b) an area variance is not a four-part test that an applicant must pass; it is a balancing exercise in which the board must consider five factors and weigh the benefit to the applicant against the detriment to the neighbourhood. A finding against the applicant on one factor does not bar a grant — which is also why every motion on this docket freely conceded that the difficulty was self-created. What makes this one notable is that it is the only motion all night to concede that factor out loud, and that the board recorded a reason for relief which, taken alone, argues against it.[2]
And it is not a transcription artefact. The filed minutes, posted after this brief first published, carry the finding in exactly that form: “That the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some other method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than the area variance relief sought, because it can be placed elsewhere on the property.” The clerk wrote down what the board said. The official decision granting two variances at 13 Middlebury Lane[*] states on its face that the applicant did not need them.[5]
4811 William Street — a fence on a 35-foot-wide lot. Earl Malone petitioned for a three-foot variance to put a 35-foot run of privacy fence — 27 feet at six feet tall, the last eight sloping to four — behind his sister's house. The lot is an existing non-conforming corner parcel only 35 feet wide, and because the Penora Street[*] right-of-way runs along it, the 35-foot front-yard setback “encompasses the entire length of the property” — so a fence at the back of the house is legally in a front yard. Their mother owned the property from 1959 until her death at 91; Malone has lived on the street 63 years and is one of four heirs to the estate that owns the lot behind, which is the parcel most affected. Asked why a fence if the family owns what is behind it, he said it is for his sister's privacy and that he cannot speak for what the estate does later. Granted 6–0, with the additional fence findings the code requires: that it will not unduly shut out light to adjoining properties and will not create a fire hazard by its construction or location.[1][2]
40 Trentwood Trail — a roof for a grandson. A 12.68-foot variance for a gable roof over an existing concrete patio behind the garage, in the easement setback the 2020 amendment created. “Both our kids moved out… but I do have a new three-month-old grandson, so again we're just trying to have space for family.” The board established that the roof will not extend past the existing slab. Granted 6–0; the finding of no undesirable change rests on the roof extending “not much more than the existing bump-out.”[1]
214 Enchanted Forest N. — a deck, same footprint, same height. A six-foot variance to replace a decaying deck four feet from a hot tub, with no change to the footprint or the elevation and “wood that doesn't rot.” Two members made the identical point: as long as the elevation is identical, they had no questions. Granted 6–0.[1]
And a continuity note. The Town of Lancaster has been operating since February 17 under Local Law No. 2 of 2026, a temporary suspension of certain development approvals. It was not mentioned once on Thursday — not on the shed cases, and not on the two new single-family houses at the corner of Wehrle Drive[*]. This publication's September 10 brief sets out why the law does not reach the kind of relief this board grants; its application to new single-family construction was not addressed on this record, and this brief does not supply an answer the meeting did not give.[4]
The board's minutes of this meeting were posted after this brief first appeared and have been read against it. They confirm the roster, the attendance, the Type II classification and every variance figure. They also carry four things worth reporting, noted rather than smoothed over.[5]
One: the 45 Middlebury Lane[*] decision resolves two contradictory things. Between its opening recital and its findings, the Bona[*] resolution contains the sentence “NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that this hearing be adjourned to allow for further testimony and evidence to be presented” — and then, after the findings, the operative clause granting the variance. Nothing of the sort happened: the hearing was not adjourned, and the board granted the shed 6–0. It is a leftover template paragraph from an adjournment resolution left inside a granting one, and it is the only case on the docket carrying it. The grant and its condition are unambiguous; the document is not.
Two: the condition is tighter than the discussion suggested. As filed it reads: “The Petitioner must file an easement agreement with the Erie County Clerk's office and agree to move the shed if required by the town.” That is a recorded easement agreement running with the land, not merely a promise from the present owner — which is what the board was reaching for when it corrected “Erie County Water” on the floor.
Three: a member of the public who filed a written objection and then addressed the board appears nowhere in the record of the meeting. The minutes dispose of the fourth case in a single sentence — “The petitioner requested that this case be withdrawn” — with no Persons Addressing the Board entry, no mention of the letter of opposition the neighbour from 5613 William Street dropped off with the Town Clerk, and no mention of his remarks from the podium. The word “opposition” does not appear anywhere in the document. By this board's own convention the Persons Addressing the Board list is the complete record of who spoke, which makes the omission a substantive one: the only objector of the evening, and the reason the case resolved, is invisible in the official file.
Four: one attribution in this brief has to change. The audio has the chairman resolving two competing offers to second the first case — “I think he beat you by a hair there” — and naming Mr. Nowak[*]. The minutes record the second as Ms. Kreutzer[*]. Both are in the official and audio records respectively and this brief cannot reconcile them; the filed minutes govern and the row below has been changed to follow them, with the discrepancy disclosed. The minutes also supply what the recording could not: the motion to adjourn, at 8:14 p.m., was made by Chairman Matthews and seconded by Mr. Mikoley[*].
One further point the minutes add, which is a credit rather than a catch. Two of the eight petitions — the fence at 4811 William Street and the house at 228 Maple Drive — were referred to the Erie County Department of Environment and Planning, and the first carries that department's determination that the action is “of local concern” with no recommendation made. Those are the two cases on through-roads. New York's General Municipal Law requires a municipality to refer certain zoning actions near a county or state highway to the county planning agency before acting; the interior subdivision lots that made up the rest of the docket do not trigger it. The variation between cases is the statute working, not the clerk slipping.[5]
Six of seven members sat — Chairman Robert Matthews with Grant Getzoni, Merritt Kreutzer, John Mikoley, Mark Nowak and David Zelak; Jill Monacelli was absent. This board roll-calls every decision, so positions are individually attributable: all six members voted yes on all seven recorded votes. Rows 4, 5 and 8 are flagged — a withdrawal, a grant larger than the published notice, and a finding recited against the applicant's own interest.
Petition of Earl Malone of 4807 William Street, Depew, for premises owned by Michelle Takacs[*] at 4811 William Street. Relief from Chapter 400, §34(C), which bars any fence or wall over three feet — other than a necessary retaining wall — from extending into the front yard of a lot in a non-industrial district. The proposal is a 35-foot run: 27 feet at six feet tall, the remaining eight sloping from six feet to four. The lot is an existing non-conforming corner parcel 35 feet wide, and the Penora Street[*] right-of-way setback covers its full length, which is why a fence behind the house needs front-yard relief.
The findings include the two fence-specific recitals: no undue shutting out of light to adjoining properties, and no fire hazard by construction or location. Self-created difficulty conceded, as in every motion on this docket.
Also recorded in the minutes but not stated aloud: the applicant is the duly authorised agent of the owner, the property is in the Residential (R) district, and the matter was referred to the Erie County Department of Environment and Planning, which found it of local concern and made no recommendation.
Petition of Rachael Varga for premises owned by David & Rachael Varga. Relief from Chapter 400, §14(D), Schedule B, which requires 35 feet from a property line or from the edge of an easement, whichever is more restrictive. The roof covers an existing concrete pad and will not extend past it; the house, built in 2001, already has a permitted bump-out inside the 35 feet. The Code Enforcement Officer explained that the easement-line measurement dates from a 2020 code amendment and is stricter than the rule in force when the house was built, and that the slab itself is unaffected because a walking surface is not part of the primary structure.
Petition of Marlon & Nicole Kerner. Relief from Chapter 400, §14(D), Schedule B, requiring an accessory to stand at least ten feet from another structure. Same footprint, same elevation, replacement material only. The hot tub predates the petitioners, who bought the house in 2000 after three years of foreclosure; the Code Enforcement Officer used the case to explain the town's practice of requiring as-built surveys to close out permits.
Petition of Jason Durys[*], withdrawn at the podium before any board questions. The applicant said he had spoken with his neighbour and would keep the 30-by-40 pole barn at the required 15-foot setback; he asked that his decision be on the record. The board held a letter of opposition from the abutting owner at 5613 William Street, who — after the chairman confirmed with the Deputy Town Attorney that he could be heard on a withdrawn item — spoke only to thank the petitioner and the board.
No vote was taken. A member asked whether the application fee could be refunded and was told it could not; a suggestion that the board recommend a refund to the Town Board was not pursued and no motion was made.
Petition of Dan Jordan for a single-family dwelling at 228 Maple Drive. Relief from Chapter 400, §32, under which the minimum building line measured from the centre of the street supersedes the front-yard requirement on listed streets — Wehrle Drive[*] west of Harris Hill Road requiring 90 feet. The published notice sought an 11-foot 3-inch variance. At the hearing the petitioner asked instead for 21 feet 3 inches, at the written request of the abutting owner to the south, who wanted ten more feet between the two houses and had already consented to ten.
The board discussed whether it could exceed its own notice, observed aloud that the legal notice read 11 foot 3, and the chairman asked the Deputy Town Attorney whether the neighbour's letter could serve as justification. Counsel's reply is not intelligible on the recording. The motion then recited the standard findings, resting no-detriment on the maintained 35-foot sight triangle and no-undesirable-change on similar homes in the area, and added a condition allowing a variance of 20 feet 3 inches — one foot less than requested, with no explanation of the difference on the record.
Also established: the companion house fronting Wehrle Drive[*] needs no variance, that lot being 250 feet deep; the applicant presented all five area-variance factors himself, putting the relief at about three-quarters of the code standard; the project includes clearing fallen trees and brush that neighbours had complained of to the previous owner, and addressing a drainage complaint; and a member advised the applicant that Wehrle Drive[*] is expected to be widened to four lanes, with traffic at 45 mph today.
Petition of Christopher & Holly Bona[*] for a 10-by-14 shed in the rear corner of the lot. Chapter 400, §14(D), Schedule B allows no structure other than fencing within a drainage easement, so the request is for permission rather than a dimension. Part of the area also falls within a federal jurisdictional area; the applicant has federal permission for his existing fence and what he described as a “pseudo approval” for more, but says that ground floods and would require fill and a poured pad.
Granted on a motion by Mr. Nowak[*] with findings resting on the shed being inside the existing fence line, not a permanent structure, and similar sheds in the neighbourhood sitting close to the pond — the last of which sits uneasily beside the Code Enforcement Officer's statement that no such encroachments have been permitted by the town. Condition added on the floor and recorded in the filed minutes as: “The Petitioner must file an easement agreement with the Erie County Clerk's office and agree to move the shed if required by the town.” It was first stated aloud as a filing with Erie County Water and corrected before the second. The filed resolution also carries a stray adjournment clause that contradicts its own grant — see the reconciliation above.
The chairman stated a personal reservation about structures in drainage easements and about increasing heavy-rain events and flooding in the town, then voted in favour.
Petition of James & Jill Formato[*] for a free-standing pavilion over an existing patio, six inches from the primary structure, against the ten feet Chapter 400, §14(D), Schedule B requires between structures. The petitioners told the board that attaching the cover to the house had been quoted at $65,000 two and a half years ago, while building it detached costs roughly $15,000 in materials with family labour. Posts set in the ground outside the pad; a gable roof.
The finding on substantiality was first read as “only six inches,” corrected from the floor to the nine feet six inches actually sought, and restated before the roll was called.
Petition of Shailesh Tailor[*] for (A) a five-foot variance to place a shed five feet from the primary structure where ten feet is required, and (B) a two-foot variance to place it three feet from the side lot line where five feet is required — both from Chapter 400, §14(C), Schedule B. Purpose: a shed with doors on both sides, so a snowblower and mower reach the driveway without being dragged the length of the yard. Neighbour spoken to; shed inside an existing fence.
The motion read the third area-variance factor affirmatively — that the benefit can be achieved by another feasible method, “because it can be placed somewhere else on the property” — and carried without comment. An area variance under Town Law §267-b(3)(b) is a balancing of five factors rather than a test each of which must be met, so a finding on one factor against the applicant does not bar a grant; this was nonetheless the only motion of the evening to make that concession aloud.
This case also prompted the evening's only general criticism from the board: that newer subdivisions keep returning to the ZBA because what the town permits per code is not functional per code.
The chairman asked for new business from members and then from the Code Enforcement Officer, the Deputy Town Attorney and the Town Clerk by name. There was none. The motion to adjourn carried on a voice vote — the only item of the night not roll-called. The recording renders the second as a surname belonging to nobody on this board; the filed minutes supply it, and the hour: moved by Chairman Matthews, seconded by Mr. Mikoley[*], all in favour, adjourned at 8:14 p.m.
Capture. Built from an automated transcription of the town's meeting stream — 77.2 minutes, faster-whisper “large-v3,” 1,251 segments of which 1,111 are distinct, language confidence p=0.988, content running to 4,613.8 of 4,631.3 recorded seconds. The recording was captured on the night of the meeting and transcribed the same evening. The reason this brief appears nine days later is a fault in this publication's own tooling: the pipeline completed the capture but never finalised its record of having done so, leaving the meeting in a queue that looked unworked until the entry was repaired by hand. Nothing was lost from the audio, and the delay is ours, not the town's.
The open microphone. The stream begins roughly two minutes before the gavel and carries ordinary pre-meeting conversation among members and staff. It is used in this brief for one purpose only — it establishes which member was absent — and is otherwise not reported.
Names. The roster is the human-verified Lancaster Zoning Board roster held in this pipeline, taken from the present/absent block of the September 10, 2026 minutes. The transcription renders these surnames many different ways across the evening — Getzoni variously as Gazzoni, Godoni, Gattoni, Guzzoni and Katone; Kreutzer as Kruitzer, Gritzer and Grutzer; Mikoley as Mike Lee, Michaelie and Mikeley; Nowak as Noah, Noat and Novak; Zelak as Zilak, Zielek and Dweck; Monacelli as Monticelli. Each is corrected against the verified roster and marked [*], as are the petitioner names Takacs, Durys, Tailor, Formato and Bona, which are corrected against the published legal notice. The second to the motion to adjourn is rendered as a surname belonging to nobody on this board and is left unattributed rather than guessed.
SEQRA. Every motion on this docket recites what the transcription hears as “a secret review.” It is SEQRA — the State Environmental Quality Review Act. Each case was classified a Type II action under 6 NYCRR 617.5(c)(17), which covers the granting of individual setback and lot-line variances; a Type II action requires no environmental review, which is why no board member discussed one.
Streets. Validated against the Town of Lancaster street index. Exact matches: Harris Hill Road, Maple Drive, Trentwood Trail, William Street. Wehrle Drive is spoken throughout as “Worley” and is corrected to the spelling on the legal notice. The chairman reads case seven as “21 Grace Lane”; the legal notice and the town index both say Grace Way, which is used here. Two documents disagree on one street: the legal notice spells it Middlebury Lane and the town's own street index spells it Middleburry Lane. The notice spelling is used, and the discrepancy is disclosed rather than silently resolved. Tranquility Trail, named by a member, is confirmed in the index. “Penora Street” is rendered as the index has it; the recording also carries “South Penora,” which the index does not list, and that form is not used here.
Reconciled against the official record. This brief first published from the audio and the legal notice alone, flagging three things to check once the minutes appeared. They have appeared, and all three are now answered in the body above: the operative condition at 228 Maple Drive is 20 feet 3 inches, described in the decision as the petitioner's request although he asked aloud for 21 feet 3 inches; the affirmative third finding at 13 Middlebury Lane[*] is in the filed decision verbatim and was not a transcription artefact; and the Deputy Town Attorney's advice on exceeding the published notice is absent from the minutes as well as from the recording. Reading the minutes also changed one attribution in this brief — the seconder of the first case — and surfaced a contradictory clause in the 45 Middlebury Lane[*] resolution and the complete absence of the evening's only objector from the official file. All of that is set out in its own section rather than buried here.