The Town of Clay Zoning Board of Appeals spent barely 19 minutes on its April 14 agenda, but the shortest item on it carried the most candid admission of the night: the applicant seeking permission to build two oversized security fences at Crossroads Park told the board, through its own attorney's questioning, that the variances were substantial. The board approved them anyway, unanimously. The requests came from Donald Shay for two adjoining Crossroads Park Drive properties, Lot 1 at 4611 and Lot 2 at 4615, both in the town's I-1 Industrial 1 Zoning District. Each needed two variances: a reduction in front yard setback from the required 25 feet to 10 feet, and an increase in allowable front-yard fence height from 2 1/2 feet to 7 feet. Pat Reynolds of Ianuzi & Romans, appearing on the applicant's behalf, told the board a temporary fence is already up at the site and the owner wants a permanent one to deter break-ins and secure the property. He compared the plan to the fencing at the old Rite-Aid warehouse and noted the industrial zoning of the area. New York's variance process requires applicants to address five standards of proof, and on four of them Reynolds gave the board the answers it typically hears: no undesirable change to the neighborhood's character, no feasible alternative to a variance, no adverse effect on the area, and yes, the need was self-created. On the third standard, whether the variance itself is substantial, Reynolds said yes. That is the answer applicants elsewhere in the same meeting, and in Clay's zoning cases generally, tend to argue against. The board did not press the point further and moved directly to questions. Deputy Chairperson Karen Liebi asked whether the fence would be electrified; the applicant said no, they don't believe they need to go that far. She also asked about poles visible on the ground at the site, which the applicant described as material for other jobs. Interim Planning Commissioner David Tessier asked what type of fence was planned, and Reynolds said chain link. From the audience, Mrs. Rathburn asked whether the Onondaga County Planning Board had weighed in; Chairperson Vivian Mason said the town had not received comment from the county on either application. With no one else speaking for or against, the board closed both hearings and voted. Deputy Chairperson Liebi made the motion in each case, seconded by Ryan Frantzis, to approve the variances as requested on the condition that construction match Exhibit A and that the fence be chain link. Both passed 3-0, with Frantzis, Liebi and Mason voting in favor. Member David Porter was absent for the meeting. Earlier in the session, the board took up Case #1968, a request from Sign Pro Inc. on behalf of Community Bank at 7379 Oswego Road to add two wall signs to the two already permitted there, for a total of four, so the building would be visible to traffic from the southwest and northwest. Kristine Braccidiferro of Sign Pro presented the request and, addressing the standards of proof, called the additional signage reasonable in scale and not substantial, while acknowledging the need was self-created. Attorney Robert Germain confirmed the property owner had signed the application. The board approved the variance 3-0, conditioned on compliance with Exhibit A. The board also opened Case #1967, a request from Northern Credit Union to build a bank and credit union with drive-in service at 3584 State Route 31, which would need reduced setbacks for both the principal structure and the parking area. The applicant asked by email on April 10 to adjourn the case while it revises the plan based on recommendations from the Onondaga County Planning Board. The board granted the adjournment, pushing the case to its May 12 meeting. The session opened at 6:00 p.m. with a unanimous vote to accept the March 10 minutes and a standing motion, proposed by Chairperson Mason, treating all new actions that night as Type II for purposes of the New York State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) and eligible for a negative declaration unless otherwise advised by the board's attorney. It adjourned at 6:19 p.m.