Zoning Board Meeting
That's the right color there. Oh. That's how it's supposed to be. It's beautiful. I don't think it was very good.
Donald Webster's Zoning Board of Appeals on May 12th, 2026. As a reminder, public discussion is going to be limited to 5 minutes per person per application. And discussion must pertain to the property being reviewed.
[clears throat]
We have I think it's 1 2 3 4 5 We have five five applications that are on the agenda today and two administrative special use permits as well. We're going to have the special use permits come up first. They are renewals, so we'll have them come up in the beginning. Now that we have a long meeting, the board does have a right to end the meeting by 10:00. I don't anticipate that happening tonight. Again, here's proof of publication of all items on today's docket. Call for attendance. All right, Mr. Short Here. Mrs. Volo. Here. Mr. Spampinato. Here. Mr. Centola. Here. Mr. Emilio. Here. Ms. Corsi. Here. Mr. DeMarco. Present. All right. If we could stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the
republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. First item on the administrative matters, uh 255 Princeton. Just introduce yourself and your property, and then um the board will go through any questions they have. Jessica Tierney, 255 Princeton Road. Um I was approved for housing hens on my property last year. I currently have two, and somebody did come out last week to check. Currently have two hens? Two hens. Okay. Um we we got a letter from uh the town. Uh they haven't received any complaints, any issues. As you mentioned, they came out. Um how are the hens doing? They're good.
I'm definitely planning on getting more this summer. I just wanted to start small, so probably going to add two or three more. Okay. Um I believe the last time uh we spoke about a year ago, uh there was a maximum. Mhm. Uh is it eight eight hens? Okay.
Uh, any questions from the board? No. No. All right. Um Do we have to run through the standards for this? What's that?
Yeah, so I tried to refresh my memory. Was this um, an interim report? This is a renewal. Yes. Is it one one year? One Yeah, I think it was one year. But you can do the maximum is for five, but it was approved for one year, come back to do the review. Follow as well, then you can move forward accordingly. Now, can we extend it for five from tonight or four more from tonight?
think we decided it was four. Cuz the max is five, right? Correct.
Okay. So it's four additional
say through the remainder of the approved five-year period. Right.
Uh, correct? Correct. Okay. Um Yeah, uh, I'd like to make a motion to um, grant uh, the extension of the additional four years for the special use permit of up to eight hens at 255 Princeton Road. Second. All
Mr. Short.
Aye. Mr. Santola.
Aye. Mr. Miss D'Amelio. Aye. [snorts] Mr. Stampanato. Aye. Mrs. Volo. Aye. Mr. Santola, okay. Still aye. Uh, you have an extension for four more years. Uh, original constraints of eight hens uh, remains. Keep good neighbors and keep everybody happy. It won't be There won't be any issues. So Thank you.
Thank you. Keep up the good work.
Thank you. Uh next applicant for administrative matters is 555 Hills Pond Road or sorry, Hills Pond. Good evening. Dave Phelps, 555 Hills Pond. Uh year ago I was approved for up to five hens. Um You're back for the one-year renewal? For the for the ruling. Uh as far as I know, uh we have not received any complaints on this property. Is that correct?
Correct. And um the code enforcement official did provide a letter of support, which should be on your screen. Yep, he was out he was out last week.
Yep. Perfect. Okay. Um how are the hens doing? Had five, got four. So
[laughter]
nature of the beast, right?
That's what it was.
kids taught the kids a good lesson.
[laughter]
They're doing well though. The four are doing well. Good. Thank you for asking. Any [snorts] questions from the board? No. No. I'll make a motion. Please. I'll make a motion to extend the special use permit for the remaining five years to allow the keeping of up to five hens at 555 Hills Pond Road. Second. This is Volo. Hi. Mr. Sentola.
Hi. Mr. Emilio.
Hi. Mr. Spampinato.
Hi. Mr. Short.
Hi. You have uh we granted you the extension of four more years. I'm good. Thank you very much.
Keep up the keep up the good work.
Appreciate it. Thank you. Thanks. Okay. All right. Our first um scheduled matter, uh Blackthorn Lane addition at 518 Blackthorn Lane. If you wouldn't mind coming up. Property address is 518 Blackthorn Lane. The applicant is Kevin Fiore. Is that correct? Yes, ma'am. Um zoning district is an R2 single-family residential. The request is to allow a rear setback of 35 ft where 55 is required. Relevant sections of the code is section 350 11 B 6 C indicates the [clears throat] rear setback of 55 ft. So. If you want to just go through, your application will be on the screen, so you can go through it that way. Um and the floor is yours. Okay. Um we're we are requesting the area variance or setback variance to construct a master bedroom
[cough]
uh bath with a little entry. Unfortunately, uh Mrs. Capone
[clears throat]
and Tom and Michelle are here tonight is uh having some serious mobility issues. So, we'd like to have the variance and build the structure where it is so as they come in the existing driveway she can easily get out of the vehicle, have the little entrance to get in. And we're size-wise we're basically reconstructing the existing master bedroom bath that's on the second floor today with a little uh entry and and sunroom sitting area. We we spent quite We did uh consider other like placements. Basically, the far end of the house, but that would require her to traverse the entire house to to get there. And it's a very It's an unusually shaped lot and it has a fair number of very mature oak trees. So, we really didn't want to take any of those down or uh you know, change the landscape through our three or four very small, I guess,
ornamental instead of have have to be dealt with. Uh we spent actually a lot of time, which will translate to cost in building it, so that when we're done, it looks like it belongs on the house and we actually had a greeny [clears throat] who did the original drawing design the addition so it blends in very well. Um I don't think it it's really going to change the character of the neighborhood. It's kind of a little secluded area with four or five houses on it. I mean, it will impact the neighbor behind them somewhat, okay, but I I don't think that's uh substantial. Um So, I think we we've actually done, you know, a pretty good job. Uh I don't know if you consider uh medical difficulties and age as not, you know, self-created. Uh but um So, that that's kind of the gist of it, I I guess. Questions from the board?
You know, it's Sure. well explained. Pretty straightforward. I was I was out there earlier today, walked around. Uh whoever staked it out, thank you. That was very helpful.
yeah, it's not perfect, but it's close. It's close enough. It gives a good idea. Yeah, yeah, it's not not really I mean, where it's it's really a secluded Yeah. can't see it from the road. Yep. Like I said, the the only person that's somewhat impacted is the blue house behind them. Has there Do you know if there's been any communication with the person behind them? Um Yeah, there there seem to be transient, I guess. Okay. Very good. Um I appreciate that you you looked at other opportunities and Yes, having access right off the driveway makes makes a lot of sense. So Yeah, without going into too much detail, I mean that that area is probably going to end up pretty much where she spends most of her time, unfortunately. Understood. Other questions for the from the board? No. No. I'd like to open it up to the public if they want to speak for or against the project. No. Back to the board, any other
last thing comments? No. Um findings? You want to fill me in too? Oh, yes.
[clears throat]
Yes, we do need seeker. Thank you. Thank you. I'd like to make a motion for a type two uh action under seeker pursuit NYCR section 617.5c of the environmental code. Second. Second. All those in favor? I. I. Now the findings. All right. An undesirable change will not be created to nearby properties. The addition is going to look as though it were originally part of the house and blending in. In addition, it's a very treed location where the addition really won't be visible to any of the surrounding neighbors, the adjoining neighbors. Um the request is not out of character with the neighborhood. Um the neighborhood is fairly um um sparse and spread out. So, there will be really no change noticeable and none of the houses are cookie-cutter the same. Right. Um benefit is not achievable by any other method. The applicant has
walked through the different possible locations and the negative impacts of those locations to note that this is really the only logical location. The request is not substantial. It's They're asking for the minimum impact to the setback to allow this to occur with a um reasonable-size addition. No adverse physical or environmental impacts to the site or the neighborhood. The difficulty is semi-self-created, but due to the health concerns of the applicant, I don't think it's a an unreasonable request of the board. Thank you. Anything else anyone would like to add? No. All right. With that, I will make a motion to grant an area variance at 518 Blackthorn Lane to allow a rear setback of 35 ft where 55 ft is required associated with the construction of a 900-sq-ft addition to an existing dwelling on a 1-acre parcel having SPL number 063.07-2-2.6 located in an R2 single-family
residential district. Second.
Second. Mrs. Volo. Hi. Mr. Short.
Hi. Mr. Spampinato. Hi. Mr. Santola.
Hi. Mrs. DeMilio.
Hi. You have uh your variance. Uh you will need to obtain all the permits necessary to build it. You have 1 year year. Yep.
Thank you. Thank you very much for your time. Consideration.
Uh next up uh 256 Birch Lane. 256 Birch Lane applicant Robert Masucci located in R2 single family residential district is requesting a front setback of 48 ft on east side and a front setback of 55 ft on the south side where 60 is required. Um I would also like to mention to the board that this application was approved for a variance 1 year ago. However, it did expire, so the applicant is coming back and applying or I'm pardon me, requesting the same variance that was approved last year. Good evening, board members.
[clears throat]
As indicated, we were here last year and the variance area variance was approved. Plans for the addition have not changed. It was just more of a matter of timing and contracting and getting everything done. Um so, we're still looking at the 35 ft across the front of the property. Uh 12-ft uh wide or off the front of the house. 8 ft which will be uh living space off the kitchen and living room and 4 ft which will be the front porch which will extend the whole length of the uh of the addition. So, the idea was to increase the living space in the living room and kitchen. The house is laid out, that's the only way that we could actually do that. Um you know, the style of the addition pretty much will blend in with the rest of the house. It'll just be an A-frame uh with cathedral ceilings that will carry through to the inside of the residence. Um the residence is on a corner, but based on the current variances, uh, it doesn't impact any sight lines, it doesn't impact any, um, there's no sidewalks or anything like that along the way. So, and again, the only way that we could do the addition is on the front. The back of it, we don't have the lines to do that in the back. And the back has
all the bedrooms and and the bathrooms off the back of the house. Any questions from the board? No. I remember this from last time and, uh, again, drove by it earlier today and it's a tight lot and really one of the only spots you can can add living space to the house. Correct. So. Um, with that, open up to, uh, the public. If anybody wants to speak for or against this project. Nope. Back to the board. Any other comments from the board? No.
No, sir. All right. With that, I'd like to make a, uh, motion for a type two action under seeker pursuant, uh, NY, under NYCRR section 617.5c of the environmental code. Second.
Second. All those in favor? Aye.
Aye. Findings? My turn. Um, the project will not, uh, result in a undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood and will create no detriments to nearby properties, uh, based on the lot configuration, uh, there is no other real remedy or area to extend living space, uh, based on the distance from the remaining property lines and the, uh, layout of the house. Uh, the requested variance is not substantial. It takes the minimum amount necessary. Uh, it the, uh pro- proposed uh variance will not have an adverse impact on the physical environmental conditions in the neighborhood. And uh while it is self-created, it once again is justified based on the lot configuration and the internal layout of the house. And uh
since it was approved uh prior, I believe uh it makes sense to do it again. Okay. Anyone else want to add anything? All right. I'd like to make a um a motion, an area of variance motion, uh for 256 Birch Lane to allow a front uh setback, front east setback of 48 ft, and a front south setback of 55 ft where 60 ft is required associated with the construction of a 12 by 34 addition to a single-family dwelling on a half-acre parcel having SBL 063.14-1-58 located in an R2 single-family residential district under section 350-11 of the code. Second.
Second. Mr. Short. Aye. Mrs. Volo. Aye.
Mr. Stampanato. Aye. Mr. Santola. Aye. Mrs. D'Emilio. Aye. You have uh your variance. Uh just like last time, you have 1 year uh to to get to get it started. You do have to get all your other permits in place before starting work. Very good. Thank you, members of the board. Thank you. Have a good night.
[cough]
Next up, uh 569 Bending Bow Drive. 569 Bending Bow Drive, applicant Marco Mac- Mattioli.
Mattioli, yep. Mattioli. Uh located in the R2 single family residential zoning district is requesting a side setback of 13.5 ft where 15 ft is required. Um We're we're proposing an addition 18 ft wide off the back cuz it's going to be a master suite for the my clients, a young couple that's a growing family that they need an extra room. So we're proposing to set the setback was 15 ft. We're going 13 ft 5 now. We're shooting the the setback by 1.5 ft. That being said, we could have moved the addition over, but there's in the back of the house or there's a nice big picture window. If we had to move it over that 1.2 ft 4, it would would take out that big picture window. So So we're going this route instead to get that for that 1.5 variance.
Questions from the board? Mhm. Yes. No. So I was out at the site earlier uh this evening. I did see that um big big bay window. Um 15 ft is is uh is the max. You're saying 1 and 1/2 ft. So here's my question cuz the right side of that fairly large, got to be almost 8 ft bay window or not bay window, but um large window. Is that window being replaced as part of this project? Well, what I'm sorry.
Is that large window also being replaced as part of this project? Cuz the way the way it was striped out, it looks like the addition is going right up to that window as well.
It's starting right up to that addition, like 4 inches away from that window. Okay. Okay. And right on the side, that's where the actually the access, that's where the the access of the in the living room, it's right on inside that window, it's going to be the hallway going into the the new room. Right, yeah, cuz there's a a wall to the right of that window, so that would be the door into this addition. Correct.
From the living room into this space. Yep. But on the on the left side on the the side setback, there is a fireplace that's 2.1 feet out, so it's going to be in pretty much in line with that. The masonry fireplace. Okay. Okay. Which that goes into the setback, too. Got it. Other questions from the board? I'm not certain. Single story, double story? I'm sorry. Uh the the addition, single or double story? I'm not Uh single story or double story?
Single story.
Single story. Thank you. Uh open up to the public. Uh anybody want to speak for or against the project? No? Back to the board. Any other questions? Uh do you know if the uh residents have uh communicated their desires with any of their neighbors? Any feedback from any of the neighbors? No, I I Any feedback from any of the neighbors if the residents have communicated No. Okay. Is there any an authorization or anything like that? I'm sorry. Is there authorization from the representative? Yes. Okay. I didn't see it in my packet, but I just want to make sure it's there. Cool. Any other Let's see, I opened it up to the public. Uh any other comments from the board? Nothing? No. Okay. It's not It's not really oversized in width. No. In order to stay within setback, you'd have to make it narrower and that it would just Or you shrink the window. I mean, that's a massive window.
That's Yeah. I mean, that would be the only other option. So. Okay. Uh I'll make a motion for a type two action under seeker pursue it under NYCRR section 617.5 C of the environmental code. Second. Second. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Findings? Your turn. The request is not Excuse me, not out of character with the neighborhood. The request is going to only in- encroach into [clears throat] the setback by approximately 1.5 ft, which comes out in line with the chimney that's already there. Um so, it won't look out of place. It's not a detriment to nearby properties. It's going to be primarily behind the home as opposed to next to the home, so it won't impact the neighbors. Um not achievable by any other method. It really is the only logical place if you're going to add a bedroom. You're not going to put it on the back of the garage. You would want to put it connected to the rest of the living space. No adverse physical or environmental impacts to the site or to the neighborhood. Um Just as stated. Uh the difficulty
is self-created, but it's not an oversized addition. It's um reasonably sized and it's a very small impact into the side setback. And the request is not going to be an undesirable change. Anything Yeah, and it's it's far enough It's on the back side of the house, so it's really not going to affect the the neighborhood in any way, shape, or form. So. Just add that. Other than that, I'd like to make a motion for an area variance at located at 569 Bending Bow Drive to allow a north side setback of 13.5 ft where 15 ft is required in association with the construction of a 504 sq ft addition on a 0.4 acre parcel having SPL 064.11-2-35 located in an R2 single family residential district under section 350-11 of the code. Second. Second. Mr. Short.
Hi. Mrs. Bolla. Hi. Mr. Stampanato. Hi. Mr. Santola. Hi. Mrs. D'Emilio. Hi. You have your variance for 1 year Well, you have your variance. You have It takes 1 year to to have meaningful mo- movement on the project. You still have to make obtain all the appropriate permits for the project. Thank you so much.
Thank you. Have a good night. You too. Next up, 872 Bay Road. 872 Bay Road, applicant Kathleen Scott Cordero, located in an R2 single family residential district, is requesting to allow a second utility shed where only one is permitted and to allow the utility shed to be located in the front yard of a corner lot. Hi everybody. My name's Kathleen Scott Cordero and I live at 872 Bay Road with my wonderful husband, Christopher. Um so, when I moved into my house in the year 2000, um it was just my myself and my two daughters and I raised them and we used the shed that's on the property and I just recently got married in 2024. And my wonderful husband's been collecting tools.
[clears throat]
So, um we were hoping to uh get we're requesting an area variance for a smaller shed um 64 square foot uh if you will a she shed um for my stuff. So, I can put my gardening tools and things like that for me. And um it it's a it's uh smaller than the present shed that we have right now. So, I don't think it it doesn't impact you know the area of the neighborhood and um
[sighs]
and I think that's it. Very good. So, so you're you're kicking your wife out of her shed.
[laughter]
Nice. Nice job.
[laughter]
It's usually the other way around, huh?
[laughter]
So, God bless you. Uh you have a very unique property. You you essentially have three front yards.
Yes. So, uh very unique. It doesn't really afford you any place to to put anything that's not in a front yard. Exactly. So, uh drove by yes uh this morning and yeah, I mean I I It's pretty much the only spot you can put it. Well, and if you look at the the homes along Brookwood Yes. the rear of their yards is along Woodland. So, it will be essentially the rear location of their yards. So, it would kind of look like it belongs there. Yeah. Um but yeah, there's when I visited the property there's really There's no other place for it.
Yeah, you could put it on the roof.
[laughter]
Any other questions, comments from the board? Do we want to limit the uh or set the maximum incursion into the setback? What do you mean? Well, it has to be 5 ft.
Right. I'm saying but I'm just saying I'm
as as far as off of Woodland or do we want a certain distance off the existing shed? I'm just going based on the drawing. Where are you proposing to put the new shed? Um adjacent to the shed present shed. Yep. And um the doors will be facing Bay Road. Okay. Yeah. And it's a 64 square foot. Now, how far away from the uh What do you anticipate how far away from the existing shed are you anticipating it going? I don't know. What would you say? Four 4 ft maybe? Okay. Yeah, very close. Close by.
Very good. Uh no, that that and you you understand what I'm saying.
Yep. Okay. Um I think what Chris is trying to to get to uh is to try and avoid having the shed um essentially on Woodland Lane. So, trying to keep it back as far from Woodland Lane as possible. So, Okay. uh within 4 ft of of the existing shed. Don't see an issue with that.
Would be fine. Okay. Uh It'll be less of an impact that they show on their drawing to be honest. Yep. [clears throat] Uh open up to the public. Anybody want to [snorts] speak for or against this project? Nice. Um okay. I'll bring it back to the board. Any other comments from the board? I can't. It's so small. Uh all right. So, with that I'll uh make a motion for a type two action under secret pursuit under NYCR section 617.5c of the environmental code. Second.
Second. All those in favor? I. I. Uh, I'll I'll do findings. Um, the request is not out of character with the neighborhood. The location will actually look like it's along the backyard of Woodland like the other sheds that are there. Um, certainly not a detriment to nearby properties. It's going to be a small shed. It's going to be in the least intrusive location within that lot. Cannot achieve the land any other method. That lot has three front yards and all of them are fairly small. So, um, there is no space behind the house that really is the only location. Um, the request is not substantial. It's kind of a coin toss. You're allowed one shed. This is a second shed, but it's it's small. It's only 64 square feet. It's not an out of char- or not um, an unusually large shed. No adverse physical or environmental impacts to the site or the neighborhood. Um, I don't even know that self-created that yard was that way when you bought it and I don't know how you'll put anything else on that lot. Um, and not undesirable. It pre- provides indoor storage so that the tools are not outside where it would look
uncamped if they were not stored within a shed. Yeah, right. Um, anything else anyone wants to add? I want to see a she shed. I am a she.
[laughter]
All right, then I will make a motion to grant. Can I make a motion for a variance for a she shed? Yeah, go for it. But it has to be a she and never change. [laughter] I'm not kidding.
never use it. Okay, it's right. I make a motion to grant an area variance at 872 Bay Road um, for the applicant to allow a second utility shed where only one is permitted and to allow the utility shed to be located in the front corner lot up in the front yard of a corner lot and associated with the installation of a 64 square foot prefabricated shed on a 0.4 acre parcel with SPL number 078.10-2-1 located in an R3 single family residential district.
Within 4 ft of the existing shed.
And within 4 ft of the existing shed and meeting the 5 ft side setback of the remaining lot line. Okay. Second. This is Vola. Hi. Mr. Short.
Hi. Mr. Spampinato.
Hi. Mr. Santola. Hi. Mrs. D'Emilio. Hi. You have your variance. You get to kick your wife out of out of the shed [laughter] and you get a shed for yourself. You have 1 year to get the the shed installed. You still I believe there's still some additional permits that you have to get so make sure you get whatever else is necessary. Okay. All right. All right. Thank you very much.
a wonderful night. Thank you. You too. Thank you. Next up Yeah, 1052 Lake Road. So 1052 Lake Road applicant Amanda Costanza. This property is located in R1 single family residential district. The request is to allow a minimum lot size of 23,857 square feet where 35,000 square feet is required in association with the future consolidation of 150 and 152 Lake Road. The second request is to allow the accessory building to be located nearer to the front property line. The third request is to allow a front setback of 53.9 ft where 75 ft is required in association with the consolidation of lots 1050 and 1052. Here are the relevant sections of the town code. And we'll give the floor to you folks. Hi, I'm Amanda Costanza. This is Chris Costanza. We're the architects for Kim and Wayne Gandy who are here at the homeowners. Um Kim and Wayne live at 1050 Lake Road and they last year purchased 1052 Lake Road. It's a pretty
run-down single family house and needs a lot of work. Um when they purchased it, they were hoping to avoid what seemed like the people looking at purchasing it were interested in flipping it, turning into an Airbnb, short-term rentals, that sort of thing and so it concerned them that that use would be happening so close to their house. The lots are very small for this district um and so they looked to combine them. When they'll they still won't be conforming to the 35,000 sq ft requirement, they will conform in width and become 125 ft wide as they should be. Um they will just still be under the area required. Um after they're combined, they are looking to convert or deconstruct, basically remove that single family home um from the foundation up um and create a smaller accessory structure that will service their existing primary residence. Um we're looking to reuse the existing basement foundation. It will disturb the site less. We have approvals from the DEC for this project as well as the Army Corps of Engineers. And um the new structure will be of course shorter in height, only one story
versus two, shallower pitched roofs. Um it will be set back from the street further than the existing houses. Um we'll be reducing impervious surfaces by 50% on the site. It's currently like completely paved, covered in building, decks, pavers, the entire thing. So 50% of that will be removed and replaced with landscaping and open space. Um So we feel that this is a good use for the property. It's bringing it closer to conformity for the district. The neighborhood is pretty varying. There's some houses that have um you know larger and smaller lots and some with accessory structures closer to the road than their primary residence. Um we have good neighbor support. We have three letters of support you should have received. Um the neighbors are all in favor. It will help their views. It will help, you know, open space, um decrease traffic on the street, decrease the loads on the utility grid. Um What else? I think that's all I can think of at the moment.
Quick question I should have asked uh earlier today, Erica. Mhm. There is no variances for these properties as of right now, right? I mean cuz they are non-conforming as they stand. Um I believe that's correct. Yes.
Thank you. Questions from
like to just to provide some context. We did have conversations with the applicants about um the procedure because as they mentioned, 1052 is going to be demoed. So um after conversation with town staff, we identified that it would be best practice to have them come to get the variances while the lots are still separate. So, when they are combined, they have everything that they need. So, will the variance follow the consumption of the or the the combining of the lots?
Yes. Okay. So, do we Are we doing a variance for 1050 as well? No. No. No, cuz 1050 also does not 1050's not is not in question this evening. 1052
Under- understood, but when they are combining the lots, so I more of a technicality.
Yeah, I mean, if you're combining the lots, these are going to be the This is going to be now 1052 when the lots are combined, correct? No, it's No, it'll be 1050. Sorry, 10 It'll be 1050. Uh Now, the house, if I'm not mistaken, the house at 1050 was redone I'm going to say within the past 10 years. Correct.
But it has been redone and there were variances granted for what's on that property currently.
So, there So, there is va- variances for that prop- for that For the the smaller lot, it's 1050. Yes. Where the house Where the house that's remaining Yes. Okay. Not 1052, which is the property discussed this evening.
Got you. But your question is once you are now on a single lot, Right. It's It's a new lot. Right. It's a new lot. And with this structure, where it's going to be proposed where it's proposed to be located is still going to require a variance. The remaining structure, you mean?
No, the new structure on the new lot. Well, would could I use the foundation as pre-existing non-conforming because I'm not changing the footprint? Correct. Sorry, we're talking about a lot of technicality and trying to figure out the the logistics on on our end.
To make it clean for you when
Yeah. And the the goal for going to get the variance first was, you know, to make sure that this was going to be allowed before the lots were combined. Right. But makes sense. Yeah, I mean it
[cough] [clears throat]
makes sense. Um in the whole process of things, when is the when is the when are the lots going to be combined versus the construction? Um well, it's our understanding that the house needs to be torn down first because you can't have two single-family homes on one lot. So, we'd have to do the demo first, then go for the legal lot combination, and then construct the accessory structure. Or you do the demo, the construction, and then the combination considered a an accessory, but Right.
I'm assuming that the Eric, the town provided that direction on that process, correct? Okay.
The process might be a 12-month process from start to finish. Absolutely, yeah. So, I I yeah, I guess I I Is this a new lot? So, because this is now you're combining two lots, does this become a new lot? Does that then void all variances that were granted on 1050 and is my question, and then do new variances need to be provided? I don't think it's a new lot. I I'm ex- I'm extending the size of 1050, but anything that's been approved already on 1050, that doesn't change. Okay. But it improves a condition where 1050 was originally approved as a smaller lot size. Now, I'm just improving that condition. It's still going to be smaller, but but less small. I think it makes all it makes sense. I just want to make sure from a legal standpoint. That's all. I want to double-check that. That just be So, the question is if if you are expanding
an existing lot, which is going to be the net result here. Whether the variances that have been already provided, whether those are voided in in any way. Because the lot is now changing, so you don't I guess an argument can be made that the variances aren't running with the land, so to speak, because Well, they are, though. But that land is no longer there. No, it is. The configuration has changed, but the the house variances are on the west side of the property. House variances are on the SPL number, which is no longer there.
[clears throat]
Right?
Well, I changed The issue is an assessment. Okay. They they will handle you know, when those are combined, the SPL and how it will change. We I can't speak to that here tonight. I don't know if that SPL will remain what is 1050 or if it will have an entirely new SPL because of the changes in the lot lines. But what I had heard is that we are combining the lots to create what We are not combining the lots. We're not combining the lots. This board is not combining the lots. You're here to approve Only 1052. a new lot size, which is not conforming with the 35,000 square feet. With the assumption that the lots are being combined. Correct. And then the setback requirements for 1052 as a single parcel. Understood.
Right. Which doesn't exist as of today. It does exist.
exist. The lots are not combined. They're separate. 1052 is just a smaller lot right now. And we've we've asked other applicants in the past when they go to do a variance to see if they can obtain additional property. So this to me is no different than you obtaining additional property. 1050 is still the address. 1050 was still granted area variances for the home. We may need setback variances for the accessory building. But the home itself doesn't change and the variances were granted at 1050 on the address. So where are the variances being granted today? 1050 or 1052?
1050. 1052 will no longer exist. Okay. So in 1050 for the house doesn't change. But we may have side setback issues with with the accessory structure of the new of the larger 1050. Or or can we consider the foundations pre-existing because it's already there? They're using the existing foundation. Yes. And our town code indicates that if you're if you keep the foundation and you build on it, then you can rebuild that foundation. It doesn't it will still remain, you know, pre-existing non-conforming. So they're utilizing the same foundation from 1052. Yep. Does that make sense for the board? Yeah. I'm going to repeat what I what I think I heard. Okay. So, the variances that we are considering tonight are for 1050, not 1052. Um with the understanding that 1050 and 1052 will be combined as part of the project. Um Is that that That's my understanding?
That's correct.
Okay. All right. I I misunderstood it. I thought we were considering the variances for 1052. And if that was combined and 1052 goes away, so that was my misunderstanding. Okay. I'm somewhat more confused than Alan we started. Oh, just trust us.
[laughter]
Right, but we we've done similar things like this in the past. No, I appreciate that. I'm looking at the map. 1050 is the existing structure and that's not going to change 1050 to is the proposed map now.
Correct. Right?
Yes. Okay. And you would indicated um or it's been indicated that 1050 has already received variances.
Yes. Okay. So, that house is legal in its configuration right now.
Okay. So, the 1050 has variances that are pending. And those variances are predicated on the lot lines that existed when 1050 was just a stand alone as we're looking at it right now. Correct. So, I think the chair was raising the question and what I'm trying to understand is that when we expand the lot lines of 1050, right? To now encompass the entirety of 1052. Do the variances previously um provided to 1050 remain because we are changing the lot lines. One of them in theory goes away because it wouldn't
a very The need for a very
for the variance would go away. On on the east side because of the expansion Right, because of the expansion. Anything on the west or south side would I would say it doesn't go away, but that becomes a moot issue. Okay? All right. It's no longer out of conformance.
Correct. It's automatic It will be in. It's in conformance because it's now within And is there another variance for that lot? Pre-existing this application today for 1050, or is that was just the only one? Yep. For for today?
lot size. Yeah, we have a total lot size issue. So, uh per R1, it's got to be a Is it 35,000 sq ft? They're um currently well below that. With the combined lots, I think [clears throat] it's around 23 or 24,000 sq ft if I recall correctly. But but but I I was saying other than the variance for I guess what what is was the side setback at the time, which I I can't tell if that's the east The That'd be the east side. The right The right-hand side of your If you're looking at the lake, it's the right side. Yeah, correct. The The east side setback And my my question was simply any Were there any other previously awarded variances other than the east side setback? For what 1050. For 1050. The front setback and a west side setback were granted, but those don't change.
those aren't being affected by the expansion. Correct. Okay. So, I I I don't know what the ultimate answer is to my question, but I'm less concerned about it now. So, let me ask this question. Um you The variance the side setback for is there, right? And let's say it's 5 ft. I mean, that's a tight area. They combine the They combine the two. Does that new 1050 have a side setback that is of a variance that is now 5 ft that follows it because of the old variance? I'm Which is now not not it's not applicable because they've combined the lots.
Right. It would have been approved per the plans provided. Okay.
So, I would think that that would negate the applicant being now allowed to extend the house another whatever the width of the lot is to be 5 ft from the new east lot line because it was predicated on a set of plans presented. And the building department would certainly not approve that addition without Right, I don't think Well, I wouldn't I wouldn't know, but if I don't think it'd be a reasonable person would expect them to be able to extend whatever the side setback was all the way to the eastern edge of 1052. But we could include verbiage in the motion that would indicate that any side setback that east side setback
setback house line would not change without approval by whatever powers of the town of Webster that would dictate that that that that the variance granted was to the smaller lot and now that the It's a combined lot.
combined lot. There is no longer a variance needed. Are you going to ask a question?
This you're referring to this western portion of the house. No. east
east east portion cuz the west isn't going to move.
Right, but east lot line is You're saying that previously in years prior they received a variance for this setback here. I believe so. Or was it for the western portion? The whole the whole Or both? The whole house was redone. I don't remember what the what the actual variances were. You'd have to pull that from the record. But I know it would have been at least a front and at least a west side setback. Right. Um In either event, as a practical matter, it's moved because it's not affecting the west side. It's affecting the east side of the property line is now gone or will be gone. So
Right. What's moving further east is what the property line is doing. Yep. That's what I didn't mean gone. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. But yeah. Okay. I just I want to avoid We haven't accomplished anything, but we all agree.
[laughter]
I just want to avoid future owners and I I I don't suspect the current owners will try and and utilize it. I just want to avoid future owners from utilizing that and expanding all the way to 5 ft of the new. That no modification to the footprint of the current home at 1050 can take place without approval of Yeah. Yeah. appropriate to get the town agency.
Yep. Okay. If you're if you're worried about that remaining the the owner could agree consent to remove the variance. Is that a thing? Is that a thing? But on the east side. What? Upon what? Upon the approval Upon the approval of the new lot. He establishment of the new lot. Okay. If that if that's a legal thing, yeah. Okay. Now you just made Mike more confused. No. No, that actually I didn't realize I could do that. Would the Would the owners be open to We believe that there is a variance on 1050 Lake Road on the east side of 1050 Lake Road. If if following, um, would you guys be open to removing that variance once the lots are combined? Um, knowing that you can maintain the existing 1052 foundation. Code allows the 1052 foundation to stay as is as a pre-existing non-conforming. Uh, your intent is to build on top of that existing foundation. Um, it what it would prevent you and I'm
making an assumption cuz I don't have what the old variances for 1050 were. It would prevent you from building, uh, within 5 ft, let's say, if that's what the variance was, of the new eastern property line, essentially what 1052 is. Would you be able willing to remove that when the lots are combined? Yes. Oh, yeah. Okay. Thank you.
is that we had a variance for the lot size and we had variances for the front and east and west side. That It makes sense the way that the house is situated. So, I mean, it it does make sense. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Um, now that we got that all squared away and clear as mud, um, questions from the board on on the actual application itself. What are you going to be using the basement of 1052 for? That would be storage. Yeah, it's just because it was already there, so um, it's it's good storage space. So, we needed a stair to get down to it, but there won't be vehicular access into it anymore like a garage. Okay. Will there be living space within the accessory structure? No, it's just mainly meant for like an outdoor entertainment space. So, I'd consider it kind of like a pool house, you know, without the pool right there. Um, you have the lake. But, um, so it's just meant, you know, it's basically a large kitchen, you know, with some covered outdoor areas for eating and lounging. Okay. And the foundation was chosen to retain because it's in really good condition. No, no, again, I just wanted to make
sure that there wasn't any plans to put bedrooms or anything down there. Yeah, there's no windows or egress or daylight.
Yeah, we know we're not adding any No, I [laughter] know, a dungeon. It's a very dark garage basement and we're not adding any windows or anything. They can sleep on the cabana side and look overlooking the lake anyhow. I suspect based on one of your earlier comments, there is no intent of renting the space whether it be long-term or short-term as a rental. Can ask them, but I And I apologize, I'm going to need you to come up and speak into the mic. Yes, that is correct. We would not We have no plans for renting. Okay. That was one of the reasons why we actually purchased it. That's what I heard. I just I want want you guys to be on record as essentially. So, I appreciate that. Thank you. Of course. I did get an opportunity to to walk by. I mean, the the founda- the foundation of 1052 is in is in good condition. The upstairs is is questionable. As I walked across the deck, I I was concerned I might fall through the deck.
It was solid, but it's definitely I understand why why you're looking to knock it down. I do appreciate that you are ultimately are taking two parcels, making it one. You're reducing the size of the lot coverage uh by by quite a bit. You're reducing the height of 1052 down to a lower to a lower height. So you you are though it's still not conforming, it is significantly better than what the parcels the the two individual parcels are on their own. So I I do appreciate what you guys are doing there. So other questions comments from the board? I'm good. Well, in their meeting they're not meeting the approved lot size, but the combination of the two allows them now to meet the lot width. Yep. So that's That's a win. It's significant.
Yep. All right, open up to the public. If anybody wants to speak for or against the project, come on up. If you name and address, please, when when you get up here. My name is David Power. I live at 1046 Lake Road directly across from 1050. They're residents now and I fully approve any building of that additional area. It'll be an enhancement to the neighborhood, definitely. All right, thank you. We can definitely understand. Thank you and thank you for coming. Thanks. Yep. Anybody else want to speak for or against the project? No. Bring back to the board. Any additional comments, concerns from the board? No, sir. No? All right. I'd like to make a motion for a type two action under seeker pursuing NYCR section 617.5C of the environmental code. Second. All those in favor? Aye.
[snorts]
It's your turn. My turn?
[clears throat]
Go ahead, Chris. You got it? Yeah, I got it. Um Let's see there. Well, actually an undesirable change will not be produced. In fact, quite the opposite uh tearing down the existing structure and building what will probably be a really attractive uh uh outdoor living space for 1050 will be an improvement to the neighborhood. Uh I don't believe the benefit sought by the applicant is achievable by any other methods. Um the requested variances are not substantial. In fact, they're they're actually uh mitigating one of the original variances for 1050. Uh and the proposed variance will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical environmental conditions of the neighborhood. Like I said, they will improve both the aesthetics and the uh the legal aspects of it. And uh the difficulty is not self-created. They're They're taking a uh a small lot and making it a little larger. Well, while you said, still not minimum lot
size, but they will have the minimum lot width, so they're making the uh the lot a little better from a legal standpoint. Okay. I'll I'll also note that they have already received the approval from the DEC and the Army Corps of Engineers, which is usually the most difficult part to get. Uh Well, that's Go ahead. No, no. I Does anybody else want to add anything to the findings? No. Uh make a motion. I'll like to make make a motion that uh we approve the area variances uh for 1052 Lake Avenue to allow minimum lot size Hold on. These area variances are going to 1050, correct? Not 1052.
1050. Correct.
Correct. My bad.
No, no. Well, I All right, let me I just want to make sure that we have the right SBL number and Do we want to Never mind. I was going to say, do we want to do two separate variances, one for the lot size and then one for everything else, but That's one. We should be doing it as advertised. That's what I was going to say. As advertised is 1052. Can you put that back up on the screen again, that is Which?
yeah, right. So, but oops, go back. Here we go. Okay. So, these are for 1052, correct? Yep.
Correct. Okay. Minimum lot size. But the variance is going to go to 10
[snorts]
50. But it says in association with the consolidation of 1050. That's That's That's where it covers itself. It's for 1052, but it's in consideration with the consolidation of 1050 and 1052. So, I don't know if I think that
I'm not writing on this thing. Yeah. Yes, we put in the language about the consolidation of the lots for that reason. Okay. So, which was supposed to negate confusion? Can we make It is written that will be clear to generations down the road, okay.
Correct. Can we add to it that the variances Does it make sense to add to it that the variances for 1052 are to follow the commodity I mean it To me, it just makes it a little more
[snorts]
I think the way that it was advertised in association with the consolidation of those two lots is answer enough for what I think you're asking in terms of Okay. adding additional language. Okay. Okay. Sorry to stop you, Chris. No, it's Would you like to continue? Please do. No, I [laughter] said would you like to continue? Sure. No, uh I make a motion that uh we uh approve the uh area variances for a property located at 1052 Lake Road uh to allow a minimum lot size of 23,857 square feet where 35,000 square feet is required in association with the future consolidation of 1050 Lake Road and 1052 Lake Road and to allow the accessory building to be located near to the front property line
and to allow for a front setback 53.9 feet where 75 feet is required in association with the consolidation of 1050 and 1052 Lake Road and the demolition of the primary residence at 1052 Lake Road and the construction of a 1,217 square foot accessory building on a 0.2 acre parcel having SP number 049.11-1-15 [clears throat] located in the R1 single family residential district under section 350-10 of the code of the town of Webster. With the condition With of Are we going to condition it with when the lots are are consolidated?
going to say, did we want to still add that, right?
Yep. Yeah. With the condition that when the lots are legally consolidated that the owner waives his right of the setbacks along the eastern side of 1050 Lake Road. Previously? Previously Previously approved. And I would just add that the new address the remaining address of the combined parcel will be 1050. Okay.
So that when somebody's looking it up 30 years from I don't know if we have the authority to to dictate the address number, but No. No, okay. Yeah. Like I think Erica said that someone else in the town will decide the SBL number. Correct. And if they wanted to change it, they could.
Correct. Okay. So of the new All right, of the new lot. I second. Okay, whatever.
[laughter]
Mr. Santola? Aye. Mr. Short?
Aye. Mrs. Volo? Aye.
Mr. Spatanaro? Aye. Mrs. D'Emilio?
Aye. You have your variance after a lot of debate. So thank you for sticking it out. Um you have 1 year for uh substantial start. Obviously you'd need permits and everything else to go along with this. So good luck. It based on what I've seen it it'll be it'll be excellent looking. So good luck. Thank you.
[laughter]
Excellent. Well, thank you guys. All right. Um Um there's one other administrative matter, the approval of minutes. Erica, 571 that's been tabled. Last time we spoke I think you 5671?
6 Sorry, 671 Willow. I believe last time we spoke Correct. That application has been formally withdrawn by the applicant. It has. Okay. All right. Okay, thank you. Yeah, I have the I dealt with the Okay. Now now it's 4671. Which is 4671 has been formally withdrawn. There is still one administrative matter about closing [clears throat] the minutes. Yep. So Yeah, I wasn't on yet.
We could go through that. I will make a if everyone has reviewed them, I will make a motion to approve the minutes of the April 14th, 2026 meeting. Second. All those in favor? Aye. With that, that concludes our May 12th zoning board meeting. Thank you everybody.