Minoa ZBA approves variance allowing Higgins family to install 34-by-16-foot pool at 112 Beresford Lane

The Village of Minoa Zoning Board of Appeals voted on Feb. 12, 2026 to approve an area variance permitting Christina and Brian Higgins to install a 34-foot-by-16-foot in-ground swimming pool at 112 Beresford Lane, the board's minutes show.

Chairman Chris Beers opened the public hearing at 6:30 p.m. and explained the five-factor balancing test the board must apply under Village Code §160-25.1(A), which governs accessory-structure placement relative to the shadow of the principal building. The applicants submitted a written response (Schedule "1") and a letter stating that eight mature trees within the home's shadow make excavation impractical and that removing them would be environmentally disruptive and costly. "The proposed pool location has been intentionally selected to minimize any effect on surrounding properties," the Higginses wrote in the submitted letter (filed with the application and included in the record).

Board members discussed each of the five statutory factors. They concluded the pool would not produce an undesirable neighborhood change, noting that a six-foot fence would screen the pool and that other nearby properties have pools outside the home's shadow. The board found alternatives such as tree removal to be environmentally harmful or economically infeasible, characterized the requested variance as substantial, but said the proposed placement would not produce adverse environmental effects compared with the tree-removal alternative. The ZBA also determined the difficulty was self-created but emphasized that self-creation alone does not automatically bar relief.

The ZBA designated itself lead agency under the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act and, after completing the Short EAF review, unanimously issued a Negative Declaration, finding no significant adverse environmental impact from the proposed pool installation.

Member Gary Stoddard moved to approve the variance as submitted; Member Jeremiah Butchko seconded. The minutes record the motion as carried with affirmative votes from the members present. The minutes nevertheless contain a contradictory sentence stating, "The Benefit to the Applicant DOES NOT outweigh the detriment to the Neighborhood or Community and therefore the variance request is denied." That sentence conflicts with the recorded motion, the "all in favor" notation, and the accompanying recorded-vote checkboxes; the board's roll-call entries and the motion language indicate approval. The minutes do not explain the contradiction.

Next steps: the minutes do not specify any conditions of approval, building-permit timing, or required follow-up; applicants and contractors should consult village building and permitting staff for permit requirements and timing.

(Reporting note: this article quotes language that appears in the submitted application letter and verbatim sentences that appear in the board minutes. The minutes include a contradictory statement about denial; that contradiction is reported here rather than resolved by the reporter.)