Five applicants came before the Town of Clay Zoning Board of Appeals on June 9, and five of them told the board, in one form or another, that the reason they needed a variance was their own doing. Only one left with a denial. That was Alexa Dickson, of 7783 Tirrell Hill Circle, who was seeking permission to keep chickens as pets on a lot zoned R-7.5. Town code classifies chickens as farm animals, which require a minimum of five acres to raise; Dickson's property, roughly 62 by 209 feet, was described in the case as about 0.30 acres. Board member Ryan Frantzis read findings into the record calling the request substantial and warning that granting it would let the applicant raise farm animals in what the board described as a thickly settled residential area, an activity it said could bring added odor and noise. The board also noted Dickson could relocate to a larger property, even if doing so would be financially difficult. Frantzis moved to deny; Porter seconded; Chairperson Vivian Mason, Frantzis and Porter all voted in favor of the denial, and the application was rejected. The four cases that followed ran through the same five-part legal test — undesirable neighborhood change, feasibility of alternatives, whether the ask is substantial, adverse effects, and self-created hardship — and each applicant answered the same way on that last point: yes, self-created. Each was approved anyway, unanimously, because the board's own findings on the other four questions came out differently than they had for Dickson. Jennifer Dunbar, of 7392 Henry Clay Blvd., sought reduced front and side yard setbacks for an addition to her main house and garage; her mother, Maryann Dennis, presented the case, telling the board it was meant to add storage and privacy for herself as the applicant's aging mother. Code Enforcement Commissioner Joseph Grispino, asked for comment, characterized the project as an "in-law suite" — a description Dennis confirmed. The board approved the variance with the condition that construction match the submitted site exhibit. Deborah Magaro-Dolan, of 207 Riverdale Road, and her husband Steven Dolan asked to replace an existing 8-by-10 shed with a 10-by-16 shed in the same location, needing tighter side and rear setbacks to do it. Steven Dolan told the board the new shed would take up only 2 percent of the property and would "blend in better" than the one it replaces. Approved. Robert Seniecle, of 8867 Canter Drive, asked to build a new 16-by-26 attached garage requiring a front setback reduced from 25 feet to 7.5 feet, saying a smaller structure would not meet his storage needs. Approved. Neil Warner, of 11 Mallard Path, sought a rear setback reduction to replace an existing shed with a new 10-by-14 structure. His was the only hearing to draw any audience reaction all night — two people in attendance raised their hands in support when Mason asked if anyone favored the variance. Approved. In each of the four approved cases, the record shows the board asking Grispino and the audience for objections and receiving none, then accepting the applicant's own answers on undesirable change, feasibility, substantiality and adverse effects at face value. In the Dickson case, by contrast, it was Frantzis and the board that supplied the answers to those same four questions — and answered them the opposite way. The meeting also disposed of routine business: the board accepted minutes from its April 14 and May 12 sessions and, as it does at the start of most meetings, classified all new applications as Type II actions under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, a designation that exempts them from further environmental review. Chairperson Mason opened the meeting at 6 p.m. and closed it 20 minutes later, having heard five cases with no case taking more than a few minutes of board discussion. Member Karen Liebi and the board's regular attorney, Robert Germain, were both absent; attorney Neil Germain sat in.