Clinton board gives positive recommendations to ZBA on two variance requests for 109 Road and a 24-acre parcel

The Clinton Town Board voted to send positive recommendations to the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) on two variance applications: one for property on 109 Road and another for a 24-acre parcel where the owner seeks retroactive relief for multiple small structures and permission to add a new shed.

At the 109 Road presentation, Sal Triano, principal of Crossland Engineering PLLC, said the owners want to add a porch, rebalance the house, and replace a deteriorating garage. He explained the lot was subdivided historically and that the proposed work would reduce required setbacks: one sideyard reduction (from 50 feet to 31 feet in one case) and a rear-yard reduction (from 75 feet to 49 feet). Triano said the existing garage is nonconforming and the proposed garage relocation and porch would require ZBA relief.

Board members asked whether recombining the subdivided parcels would eliminate the need for a variance; presenters said the owners prefer to keep the parcels separate as a legacy property. One member suggested the ZBA should consider whether minimum relief is required given the garage location. A board member moved to approve a positive recommendation on the variance and the board agreed to forward the draft resolution to the ZBA ahead of its public hearing next Thursday.

On the 24-acre parcel (referred to in materials as the 601 property), the owner said the application is to move a small storage shed near a barn and construct a new building in the shed’s former spot. Zoning enforcement officer Jeff reported the property contains four structures—two of them three-sided running sheds that lacked building permits—and said the applicant has filed for permits but remains in violation. Jeff described a practical problem in which curing permit violations may require simultaneous relief: "it's like a catch-22," the discussion noted. The variance request, as discussed, would allow an increase from three permitted structures to five so the owner can regularize the existing buildings and add a new one.

Board members debated whether three-sided run-in sheds should be treated equivalently to larger permitted structures; some said the sheds are incidental on a 24-acre rural parcel and do not create a clutter issue. A motion to accept the draft resolution recommending relief was made and the board approved a positive recommendation; staff will send neighbor notices and ZBA materials (the ZBA public hearing is scheduled for next week at the Masonic Hall).

The board’s recommendations to the ZBA are advisory; the ZBA holds the public hearing and issues final determinations. The board did not record individual vote tallies in the meeting transcript; staff said they would circulate the draft resolutions to the ZBA and notify neighbors of the upcoming hearings.