Zoning Board of Appeals

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Thursday, July 23, 2026 6:00 pm Council Board Room One Batavia City Centre, Batavia, NY AGENDA I. Roll Call II. Call to order III. Pledge of Allegiance IV. Approval of April 23, 2026 meeting minutes V. Statement about the role of the Zoning Board of Appeals and the procedure it follows VI. Variance Requests A. Request #1 100 Pearl Street Nic Salvador (owner) Area Variance: Place a 10’ x 40’ one-story steel cargo container storage structure / building in the front yard of this corner lot. This property is located within the AE special flood hazard area and is subject to additional requirements of the Batavia Municipal Code that include elevating the floor level to a point at least 2’ above the base flood elevation. Code compliant alternatives have been proposed and are indicated below 1. Review application 2. Public hearing and discussion 3. Action by the board B. Request #2 225 Liberty Street John Fasano (owner) Area Variance: Place a 12’ x 20’ one-story wood-frame shed in a yard other than a rear yard on this parcel having two front lot lines. This property is located within the AH special flood hazard area and is subject to additional requirements of the Batavia Municipal Code that include elevating the floor level to a point at least 2’ above the base flood elevation. Code compliant alternatives have been proposed and are indicated below  1. Review application 2. Public hearing and discussion 3. Action by the board C. Request #3 18 Fairmont Avenue Pamela Deja (owner) Area Variance: Replace an existing 8.1’ x 17.8’ wood-frame deck with a new 8’ x 12’ pressure-treated wood-frame deck in the same location. The replacement deck will be located within the rear yard clear space. The variance requested matches the existing location 1. Review application 2. Public hearing and discussion 3. Action by the board D. Request #4 14 Montclair Avenue Rich Wright (owner) Area Variance: Construct a pressure-treated wood-frame deck that will be located within the required rear yard clear space 1. Review application 2. Public hearing and discussion 3. Action by the board VII. Setting of Next Meeting: August 27, 2026 VIII. Adjournment  ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Draft Minutes Thursday, April 23, 2026 6:00 pm Council Board Room One Batavia City Centre, Batavia, NY Members present: Zeke Lynn, Dave McCarthy, Jessica Reyes, Branden Riggs Members absent: Nick Harris, Jim Russell Others present: Lauren Donovan – Recording Secretary, Jim Sheflin – Planning Coordinator I. Roll Call Roll call of the members was conducted. Four members were present and Chair Dave McCarthy declared a quorum. II. Call to Order Mr. McCarthy called the meeting to order at 6:00 pm. III. Pledge of Allegiance IV. Approval of Minutes There were no corrections to the minutes. Mr. McCarthy assumed the motion and the minutes were approved as written by unanimous consent. RESULT: Approval of October 23, 2025 minutes. V. Zoning Board of Appeals statement Mr. McCarthy explained the role of the Zoning Board of Appeals and the procedures it follows. VI. Variance Requests A. Area Variance: expand an existing 7.5’-wide asphalt driveway to 12’ on the eastern side of this parcel, and expand an existing 8.5’-wide parking space to 14’ on the western side of this parcel. This would create a total of 26’ of paved parking Address: 114 North Street Applicant: Martin MacDonald (owner) Actions: 1. Review proposal 2. Public hearing and discussion 4. Action by the board  Page 2 of 4 1. Review Application Mr. McCarthy read the summary of the proposal. Mr. McCarthy report that the Planning and Development Committee recommended to allow expansion of the driveway on the west side but no expansion on the east side. 2. Public Hearing and Discussion MOTION: Mr. McCarthy moved to open the public hearing; the motion was seconded by Mr. Lynn, and on roll call, was approved 4-0. RESULT: public hearing opened at 6:06 pm. Mr. MacDonald said that the parking on the west side has always been there, though not looking as bad as it does currently. He said that the driveway on the east side is tight because it runs along the property line. Mr. Lynn confirmed which sides are being referenced. Mr. Lynn asked if it is a single-family house and Mr. MacDonald said it is, with three bedrooms. Mr. Riggs asked if Mr. MacDonald has been accessing the rear from the western driveway. Mr. MacDonald explained that it cannot be done at the moment because of a fence. Mr. Riggs asked if the blacktop will go behind the house on the east side and he answered yes. There were no calls or email concerning the proposal, and no one present who wished to speak. MOTION: Mr. McCarthy moved to close the public hearing; the motion was seconded by Mr. Lynn, and on roll call, was approved 4-0. RESULT: Public hearing closed at 6:13 pm. Mr. McCarthy said that he does not like parking in the front yard. He believes it does not look good in a neighborhood. Mr. McCarthy asked the applicant if he had spoken with the neighbor regarding access to the rear yard. Mr. MacDonald said the neighbors are kind but he does not like to take advantage. Mr. McCarthy asked about the condition of the neighbors’ driveway and Mr. MacDonald said that it is blacktop. He pointed out that there had probably been a garage in the rear because there is a concrete slab. He said that he would like to remove the slab and plant grass. Mr. Riggs noted that the residents have already been using the front and will more than likely continue to do so. He would prefer that it looks neat.  Page 3 of 4 Mr. McCarthy said he would not approve driveways on both sides of the house. The other members agreed. Mr. McCarthy said that he would approve the 12’ the applicant requested on the east side but the west side should be allowed to return to grass. Mr. McCarthy pointed out that the applicant had purchased the property in full awareness of the parking situation. Purchasing property and knowing ahead that you intend to apply for a variance is a self-created hardship. 3. Action by the Board Mr. McCarthy went through the list of supporting criteria for the variance:  Undesirable change in neighborhood character: no  Alternative cure sought: only if the neighbors cooperate  Substantiality: yes, if driveways on both sides are approved; no, with only a driveway on one side approved  Adverse effect or impact on neighborhood/community: no  Self-created: yes, the applicant knew about the parking situation prior to purchasing the property MOTION: Mr. McCarthy moved to approve the variance on the condition only the east side is widened and the west side is returned to grass and there is no parking in the rear of the house, with 30 days to obtain the permit; Mr. Lynn seconded the motion, and on roll call, the proposal was approved as modified 4-0. RESULT: Area Variance approved with modification described above. B. Area Variance: applicant has applied to subdivide this parcel by creating a rear lot line to match the depth of the adjacent lots. This will create a lot size of 40’ x 151.75’ (equal to the two adjacent lots south of this property) having frontage on Madison Avenue only. The separated portion will create a compliant 80’ x 151.75’ buildable residential lot with frontage on Orleans Avenue Address: 5 Madison Avenue Applicant: Matthew Renz (agent for owner) Actions: 1. Review application 2. Public hearing and discussion 4. Action by the board 1. Review Application Mr. McCarthy read the summary of the proposal. 2. Public Hearing and Discussion MOTION: Mr. McCarthy moved to open the public hearing; the motion was seconded by Mr. Lynn, and on roll call, was approved 4-0.  Page 4 of 4 RESULT: Public hearing opened at 6:30 pm. Mr. Renz said that he would like to build a house on the property to be close to his mother as she ages. He noted that the lot lines will be even with the rest of the properties on Madison and Orleans Avenues. There were no calls, letters, or email concerning the proposal, and no one else present who wished to speak. MOTION: Mr. McCarthy moved to close the public hearing; the motion was seconded by Mr. Lynn, and on roll call, was approved 4-0. RESULT: Public hearing closed at 6:31 pm. 3. Action by the Board The board agreed that the parcel will be square and match the other properties in the area. McCarthy went through the list of supporting criteria for the variance:  Undesirable change in neighborhood character: no  Alternative cure sought: yes, it could have been divided differently  Substantiality: no  Adverse effect or impact on neighborhood/community: no  Self-created: no MOTION: Mr. Lynn moved to approve the variance with 30 days to obtain the permit. The motion was seconded by Mr. Riggs, and on roll call, was approved 4-0. RESULT: Area Variance approved. VII. Setting of Next Meeting: May 28, 2026 VIII. Adjournment Mr. McCarthy adjourned the meeting at 6:37 pm. Meg Chilano Recording Secretary