The Walworth Zoning Board of Appeals approved one variance request and delayed action on another during a meeting Monday night marked by debate over code interpretation and procedural uncertainty.
Board members first took up an application from June and Leroy LaRose, who sought setback relief at their property on Walworth-Penfield Road to construct an 18-by-18-foot carport and a small porch roof addition.
The request required relief from setback requirements along Route 441, classified as a major road with a 75-foot setback standard. The existing home already sits slightly closer than allowed, and the proposed addition would extend further into that restricted area.
After reviewing the application, the board determined the variance was not substantial and would not negatively impact the neighborhood’s character or environment. Members also agreed there were no feasible alternatives for the applicant. Despite acknowledging the hardship was self-created — a common finding in variance cases — the board voted unanimously to approve the request, allowing the project to move forward.
The second application, from Ryan and Angela LeMay of Plank Road, proved far more complicated.
The LeMays are seeking a side-yard variance to build an approximately 12-by-16-foot addition to convert their three-bedroom home into a four-bedroom residence. The request stems from a growing family and limited space, but the proposal would place the addition extremely close to a property line — in some interpretations, as little as about one foot from the boundary.
That triggered a lengthy discussion among board members about how to interpret the town’s zoning code, particularly whether minimum side-yard setbacks apply per property or cumulatively between neighboring structures.
Some members argued the code requires at least eight feet of clearance on each side of a home, while others interpreted the rule as allowing flexibility as long as combined spacing between homes meets a 16-foot threshold.
The ambiguity raised broader concerns, including emergency access, future property subdivision, and long-term neighborhood impacts.
Board members also weighed whether the variance was “substantial,” with one member calling it “the most substantial variance” they had seen for a residential structure. They ultimately agreed the request was significant, though acknowledged the applicant had limited alternatives due to terrain and cost constraints.
A motion to approve the variance received support from two of the three members present, but the board halted short of a final decision due to uncertainty over voting requirements.
With only three members in attendance on a five-member board, officials were unclear whether approval required a simple majority of those present or a majority of the full board. That distinction could determine whether the motion passes or fails.
Rather than risk an invalid decision, the board opted to table the application pending legal guidance from the town attorney.
No timeline was given for when the matter will return for consideration.
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.