The Walworth Zoning Board of Appeals approved two residential setback variances Monday night, clearing the way for a garage expansion on Waterford Road and a home addition on County Line Road after its first meeting in several months.
Board members said the last time they met was in December 2025, and with only two public hearing items on the April 6 agenda, the night was focused entirely on whether each project met the legal test for area relief and whether either would create problems for surrounding properties.
In the end, both applications were approved without additional conditions. But the board’s discussion made clear the two requests were not viewed the same way. Members treated the Waterford Road proposal as a relatively minor extension of an already-established building line, while the County Line Road request drew more scrutiny because of how much closer the addition would sit to the road than current zoning allows.
Garage expansion approved on Waterford Road
The first application came from Robert Gotschall of 1731 Waterford Road, who sought an area variance for a garage addition at a property in the town’s planned development district.
A representative for the project told the board the plan was to extend the garage forward so it would line up with an existing porch that had previously been approved. The addition would project 8 feet farther out than the current garage, but would not extend any farther toward the road than the porch already does.
Board members said that mattered. One member who drove by the property before the meeting said the project appeared to simply bring the garage out to the same frontage as the porch, rather than pushing a new section of the house beyond the line already established on the lot.
The board said the required setback under the planned development subdivision map is 36 feet. Members discussed that the house already sits slightly behind that point, and that extending the garage forward would place that portion of the structure closer to the road, at roughly 28 feet.
Even so, the board concluded the request was not substantial in context. Members pointed repeatedly to the fact that the porch already occupies the same general front line and said matching the garage to that frontage would not create a major visual change.
The representative said there had been no known objections from neighbors, and one board member noted that if nearby property owners had concerns, the public hearing was their chance to raise them. No one appeared to oppose the project.
The board also found there was no realistic alternative. Members said the garage could not practically be expanded sideways and that the lot offered limited options. The homeowner told the board he wanted enough room not only for two vehicles, but also for a small workshop space so he would not have to work outside in winter or bad weather.
On the other required factors, the board found the project would not have a negative physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood and would not result in an undesirable change to neighborhood character or a detriment to nearby properties.
Members did find the hardship was self-created, which they noted is often the case in residential variance applications because the owner is choosing to enlarge or alter the property. Still, the board said the overall balance favored approval.
The variance was approved, and board members told the applicant he could move ahead, with a formal determination letter to follow from the town.
County Line Road addition gets closer review before approval
The second application came from Yuri Zdunek of 4345 County Line Road, who sought an area variance for setback relief on a property zoned rural residential.
Zdunek told the board he wanted to build an addition off the master bedroom to create a closet and master bath, while also adding full basement storage beneath that area. He said the home dates to 1868, was originally a one-room schoolhouse and has been expanded several times over the years.
That history shaped the request. Zdunek said most of the house sits over crawl space, and only one section has a full basement. Because the project required a full foundation to create usable storage, he said the addition had to be placed on that part of the house.
He also told the board the property is constrained on other sides by a pool and a septic system, leaving few practical options for expansion elsewhere.
Board members noted the home sits on a corner lot, which creates a front-yard setback issue along both road frontages. The applicant said the house is currently 45 feet from the road where the setback requirement is 60 feet, and the proposed addition would bring that portion of the structure closer still, to about 33.7 feet from the right-of-way.
That made this a more substantial request, and at least one board member said plainly that 33 feet is close when the code calls for 60. But the board’s discussion turned repeatedly to the specific setting of the property.
Members described the site as rural, with few nearby homes and limited visibility from surrounding properties. They also discussed the tree line along the road, with Zdunek saying one pine tree would likely need to come down near the new addition, but the rest of the row would remain in place.
The board also referenced an older condition tied to a prior variance for the property’s garage. During that earlier approval, the board had imposed a condition that nothing could be built closer than 45 feet to the road. On Monday, members openly questioned why that condition had been imposed in the first place and suggested that decisions from more than two decades ago do not always reflect present-day circumstances.
The board chair said she had looked into the issue and believed a condition from a prior variance could be changed. Members discussed the fact that the house is already legally nonconforming because it predates current setback standards, and several suggested the old condition was both dated and unusually restrictive.
Zdunek also told the board the addition would be designed to match the existing home. One member said that was important in evaluating whether the project would alter neighborhood character, and the board agreed the finished work should look as though it had always been part of the house.
When it came time to weigh the statutory factors, the board found the request was substantial. But members also found the purpose of the variance could not feasibly be achieved another way because of the septic system, the pool, the existing house layout and the need for a full foundation under the new space.
They further concluded the project would not have a negative environmental impact and would not create an undesirable change in neighborhood character or harm nearby properties. Like the first application, the board found the hardship was self-created.
With that, the board voted to approve the variance without adding new conditions, allowing the project to proceed with the requested 12 feet of relief.
Board applies same legal test, reaches two similar outcomes
Though the two cases were different in scale, the board approached them through the same framework: whether the relief was substantial, whether a reasonable alternative existed, whether the proposal would affect the neighborhood and whether the hardship was self-created.
For Gotschall, that led to approval of a garage addition the board saw as a modest extension that would align with an already approved porch. For Zdunek, it led to approval of a larger variance that members said was justified by the age of the house, the layout of the lot and the rural setting.
In both cases, the board found the requested relief was the minimum necessary to allow the projects to move forward.
FingerLakes1.com is the region’s leading all-digital news publication. The company was founded in 1998 and has been keeping residents informed for more than two decades. Have a lead? Send it to news@fingerlakes1.com.