Williamsville ZBA approves accessory apartment and two variances for 22 Hillside Drive

The Williamsville Zoning Board of Appeals approved a special use permit for an accessory (in‑law) apartment at 22 Hillside Drive and granted two area variances that allow conversion of part of the home's garage and a front entryway, board members said at their meeting (date not specified).

The permit covers an apartment the applicant described as about 482 square feet; the applicant and contractor said roughly 300 square feet of that area would be converted from garage space. The board voted unanimously to grant two variances needed to meet the village code's accessory-apartment criteria and then approved the special use permit, after conditions and design changes were discussed.

The application was presented by Ben Clifton Humphreys, the applicant and resident at 22 Hillside Drive, who said the apartment would let him live with his daughter and grandchildren and avoid nursing-home placement as he ages. “We're trying to make this a home for all of us,” Humphreys said, describing plans to add a small bedroom, bathroom and galley kitchen in the converted area.

Village staff had flagged three of the zoning code's 10 accessory-apartment criteria that might not be met without variances: (1) the rule that accessory apartments “may be created only through conversion of the dwelling unit” and that garage space not be converted; (2) a criterion limiting exterior changes that alter the visual character of the neighborhood; and (3) a rule requiring any new apartment entrance to be on the side or rear of the dwelling. The zoning officer’s materials and a staff report were included in the meeting file.

Humphreys and his contractor, James Terhar, told the board the house contains a family‑room area that was finished at the time the 1963 addition was built and that original drawings show the space predates the accessory-apartment application. Terhar said some of the former garage area was finished decades ago and that the slab and foundation remain in place.

To improve accessibility, the applicants had proposed removing the overhead garage door and installing a single entry door on the front face where the garage door now sits; board members and the contractor discussed alternate layouts that would provide handicap access while minimizing the impact on the house façade. “If you center it there … it takes away from the look,” said James Terhar, the contractor, during discussion about door placement and appearance. The applicant agreed to work with the architect and staff to provide a single, centered front entrance and a compatible elevation treatment.

Board members emphasized parking and safety requirements: the applicant said at least three off‑street parking spaces would remain available in the driveway. The board also discussed follow-up and enforcement: a member noted the village currently lacks routine revalidation for accessory permits and suggested that purchasers be required to confirm continued compliance when ownership changes.

After deliberation the board took three formal votes. First it granted an area variance allowing conversion of approximately 300 square feet of garage space (motion moved by Miss Fulweiler, seconded by Miss Elphys; roll call: Elphys — yes; Andrews — yes; Fulweiler — yes; Petrie — yes; Alphys/Elphys recorded as voting yes). The board then granted a variance to allow the apartment entrance on the front façade in place of the existing garage door, conditioned on replacing the existing garage door and man door with one single entry; the motion was made by Miss Petrie and seconded by Miss Fulweiler and passed by roll call. Given those variances, the board voted to find the accessory-apartment criteria met and issued the special use permit (motion moved by Miss Fulweiler and seconded by Miss Petrie; roll call votes recorded as unanimous among voting members).

Next steps noted at the meeting: the architect must provide final drawings and exact square-foot calculations for the building department to confirm the apartment remains at or under the 500-square-foot limit set in the village code; the applicant agreed to coordinate required fire separation for any remaining storage space and to revise elevations so the new front entry matches the house character. The board discussed, but did not adopt at this hearing, a regular revalidation process for accessory permits; members suggested staff could require a simple written affirmation on a change of ownership or periodic check.

The board closed the public hearing after receiving a written note of support from a neighbor and comments from the contractor and applicant. The formal votes and staff follow-up were entered on the record at the meeting.

Ending: The applicant and his architect will supply revised plans and final measurements to village staff; the building department will determine the final measured square footage for code compliance and inspect required firewalls and accessibility work before a certificate of occupancy is issued.