WEBSTER ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES
Webster Town Board Meeting Building 1002 Ridge Road
May 12, 2026
7:00 pm
ABSENT:
Michael Short Adam Prescott
James Spampinato
Corrine Volo
Chris Centola
Stacie Damelio
John Accorso
John DeMarco, Attorney
Katherine Kolich, Planning & Zoning Secretary
Erika Corsi, Planner of Community Development
Good evening and welcome to the Zoning Board Appeals meeting for the May
12, 2026 meeting. As a reminder, public discussion is going to be limited to five minutes per
person per application. And discussion must pertain to the property being reviewed. We have 5
applications that are on the agenda today and two administrative special 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. Not that we have a long meeting, the board does have the right to end the
meeting by 10:00. I don’t anticipate that happening tonight. Here is proof of publication of all
items on today’s docket.
Call Roll/Pledge of Allegiance
Summary of Application Outcomes
e 255 Princeton Road-Special Use Permit Renewal-Hens
APPROVED-EXTENSION OF 4 YEARS;8 HENS MAXIMUM.
e 555 Hills Pond-Special Use Permit Renewal-Hens
APPROVED-EXTENSION OF 4 YEARS; 5 HENS MAXIMUM.
TABLED MATTERS
:
1. ACCESSORY BUILDING-671 WILLOW LANE
BRYAN BISHOPING
APPLICATION WITHDRAWN
Pg. 44 May 12, 2026 Zoning Meeting
SCHEDULED MATTERS
:
2. ADDITION-518 BLACKTHORNE LANE
KEVIN FEOR
APPROVED AS PRESENTED
3. ADDITION-256 BIRCH LANE
ROBERT MASUCCI
APPROVED AS PRESENTED
4. ADDITION-569 BENDING BOUGH DRIVE
DREAMSPACE RENOVATION & DESIGN
APPROVED AS PRESENTED
5. SECONDARY SHED-872 BAY ROAD
KATHLEEN SCOTT-CORDERO
APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS:
SECONDARY SHED HAS TO BE WITHIN FOUR FEET OF THE EXISTING
SHED.
6. ACCESSORY BUILDING-1052 LAKE ROAD
AMANDA COSTANZA
APPROVED ON CONDITION:
APPLICANT AGREES TO FORFEIT PREVIOUSLY APPROVED VARIANCE
FOR EAST SIDE SETBACK ONCE LOTS ARE COMBINED
7. ZONING INTERPRETATION-CARACUS DRIVE
DEBBIE RICE
APPLICATION TABLED TO JUNE MEETING PER APPLICANT’S
REQUEST.
(Erika Corsi, Town Planner presented a PowerPoint Presentation for each application and
read into the record)
Located at 671 Willow Lane. Applicant Bryan Bischoping is
requesting AREA VARIANCES to allow side and rear yard setbacks less than what is required,
and to locate the building closer to the front wall-plane than the rear wall of the main building
associated with the construction of a 500 SF detached accessory building on a 0.46-acre corner lot
parcel having SBL# 065.13-2-11 located in an R-3 Single Family Residential District under
Sections 350-12 and 350-36 of the Code of the Town of Webster
*ee* APPLICATION WAS WITHDRAWN****
Pg.45 May 12, 2026 Zoning Meeting
e 255 Princeton Road-Special Use Permit Renewal-Hens
Appearing before the board was Jessica Tierney. I was approved for housing hens on my
property last year. I currently have two and somebody did come out last week to check.
You currently have two hens.
Two hens.
We got a letter from the town. They haven’t received any complaints or any
issues. As you mentioned, they came out. 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. I believe the last time we spoke about a year ago there was a maximum.
8 hens.
Okay, any questions from the board.
Is this an interim report?
This is a renewal.
But you can do the maximum is for five but last year it was approved for one year.
Come back to do the review. If all is well, then you can move forward accordingly.
Corrine Volo; Now can we extend it for 5 from tonight or 4 tonight.
I thought we decided it was 4? Because the max is 5, right?
EVERYONE SPEAKING
I don’t have to do SEQR correct?
Correct.
I would like to grant the special use permit of up to 8 hens at 255 Princeton Road.
e (MICHAEL SHORT/CHRIS CENTOLA) APPROVED-EXTENSION OF 4 YEARS;8
HENS MAXIMUM
Pg. 46 May 12, 2026 Zoning Meeting
VOTE:
Mr. Short AYE
Mrs. Volo AYE
Mr. Spampinato AYE
Mr. Prescott ABSENT
Mr. Centola AYE
Mrs. Damelio AYE
@ 555 Hills Pond-Special Use Permit Renewal-Hens
Appearing before the board was David Phelps. A year ago, I was approved for up to 5 hens.
I’m back for the one-year renewal per the ruling.
As far as I know, we have not received any complaints on this property. Is that
correct?
Correct. And the code enforcement official did provide a letter of support which
should be on your screen.
Yes, he was out last week.
Perfect. Okay. How are the hens doing?
Had five, got four. Nature of the beast, right? It taught the kids a good lesson.
The 4 are going well.
Good. Any questions from the board?
I will make a motion to extend the special use permit for the remaining 5 years to
allow the keeping of up to 5 hens at 555 Hills Pond Road.
e (CORRINE VOLO/CHRIS CENTOLA)
APPROVED-EXTENSION OF 4 YARS; 5 HENS MAXIMUM
VOTE:
Mr. Short AYE
Mrs. Volo AYE
Mr. Spampinato AYE
Mr. Prescott ABSENT
Mr. Centola AYE
Mrs. Damelic AYE
Located at 518 Blackthorne Lane. Applicant Kevin Feor
is requesting an AREA VARIANCE to allow a rear setback of 35ft where 55ft is required,
Pg. 47 May 12, 2026 Zoning Meeting
associated with the construction of a 900 SF addition to an existing dwelling on a 1.0-acre parcel
having SBL #063.07-2-2.6 located in an R-2 Single-Family Residential District under Section 350-
11 of the Code of the Town of Webster.
Appearing before the board was Kevin Feor. We are requesting the area variance or setback variance
to construct a master bedroom and bath with a little entry. Unfortunately, Mrs. Capone and Tom
and Michelle are here tonight and is having some serious mobility issues. So, we'd like to have the
variance and build the structure where it is so that 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 entry
and sun room sitting area.
We spent quite......we did consider other like placements basically the far end of the house but that
would require her traverse the entire house to get there and it’s a very 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
you know change the landscape. There are 3 or 4 very small I guess ornamentals that'll have to be
dealt with. 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 who did the original
drawing designed the addition, so it blends in very well. I don’t think it’s really going to change the
character of the neighborhood. It’s kind of a little secluded area with 4 or 5 houses on it. I mean, it
will impact the neighbor behind them somewhat okay, but I don’t think that it’s substantial.
So, I think we’ ve actually done, you know, a pretty good job. I don’t know if you consider medical
difficulties and age is not, you know, self-created, but um, so that’s kind of the gist of it, I guess.
Questions from the board?
No, it’s well explained.
Pretty straightforward. I was out there earlier today, walked around and whoever
staked it out and Thank you, that was very helpful.
It’s not perfect, but...
It’s close enough.
Yeah, it’s not really secluded. You can’t see it from the road. Like I said, the only
person that’s somewhat impacted is the blue house behind them.
Do you know if there’s been any communication with the person behind them?
Yes, they seem to be transient, I guess.
Pg.48 May 12, 2026 Zoning Meeting
Okay, very good. I appreciate that you looked at other opportunities and yes, having
access right off the driveway makes a lot of sense.
Yeah, without going into too much detail, I mean, that area is probably going to end up
pretty much where she spends most of her time, unfortunately.
Understood. Other questions from the board?
No.
I would like to open it up to the public if they want to speak for or against the project.
Seeing none will bring it back to the board. Any other lasting comments? No, findings?
RESOLUTION 26-017 Michael Short made a motion TYPE II
Stacie
Damelio.
VOTE:
Mr. Short AYE
Mrs. Volo AYE
Mr. Spampinato AYE
Mr. Prescott ABSENT
Mr. Centola AYE
Mrs. Damelio AYE
(CORRINE VOLO)
Alright, an undesirable change will not be created to nearby properties. The addition is going to
look as though it was 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. The request is not out of character with the neighborhood. The neighborhood
is fairly sparse and spread out. So, there will be really no change noticeable and none of the houses
are cookie cutter the same. The 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 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 an unreasonable request
of the board. Anything else anyone would like to add?
This request is not out of character in the neighborhood:
There will not be a detriment created to nearby properties:
The benefit is not achievable by any other method:
This request is not substantial:
There are no adverse physical or environmental impacts to the site or neighborhood:
Up WN
Pg. 49 May 12, 2026 Zoning Meeting
6. The difficulty is not self-created:
7. This is not an undesirable change:
RESOLUTION 26-0008 Corrine Volo made a motion for AREA
Located at 518 Blackthorne
Lane. Applicant Kevin Feor is requesting an
AREA VARIANCE to allow a rear setback
of 35ft where 55ft is required, associated with
the construction of a 900 SF addition to an
existing dwelling on a 1.0-acre parcel having
SBL #063.07-2-2.6 located in an R-2 Single-
Family Residential District under Section
350-11 of the Code of the Town of Webster
of which was seconded by Michael Short.
CONDITIONS:
e The applicant must obtain all necessary governmental permits, including a Town
Building Permit.
e That one-year significant construction shall expire May 12, 2027
APPROVED AS PRESENTED.
VOTE:
Mr. Short AYE
Mrs. Volo AYE
Mr. Spampinato AYE
Mr. Prescott ABSENT
Mr. Ceniola AYE
Mrs. Damelio AYE
Located at 256 Birch Lane. Applicant Robert Masucci is requesting
AREA VARIANCES to allow a front (east) setback of 48’, and a front (south) setback of 55’
where 60° is required associated with the construction of a 12 x 34 (approximately 408 SF)
addition to a single family dwelling on a 0.52-acre parcel having SBL# 063.14-1-58 located in the
R-2 Single Family Residential District under Section 350-11 of the Code of the Town of Webster.
I would also like to mention to the board that this application was approved for a
variance one year ago. However, it did expire. So, the applicant is coming back and applying or
pardon me, requesting the same variance that was approved last year.
Appearing before the board was Robert Masucci. Good evening board members, as indicated
we were here last year and the variance, area variance was approved. The plans for the addition
have not changed. It was just more of a matter of timing and contracting and getting everything
done.
Pg. 50 May i2, 2026 Zoning Meeting
So, we’re still looking at the 35 feet across the front of the property, 12 foot wide or off the
front of the house, 8 feet which will be which will be living space off the kitchen and living
room, and 4 feet which will be the front porch, which will extend the whole length of the
addition. So, the idea was to increase the living space in the living room and kitchen. The way
the house is lad out. That’s the only way that we could actually do that.
The style of the addition pretty much will blend in with the rest of the house. It’s just be an
A—frame with cathedral ceilings, it'll carry through to the inside of the residence. The
residence is on a corner, but based on the current variances, it doesn’t impact any sight lines. It
doesn’t impact any, there’s no sidewalks or anything like that along the way. So, and again, the
only way that we could do the addition is one 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 the bathrooms off the back of the
house.
Any questions from the board?
No
I remember this from last time and again, drove by it earlier today and it’s a
tight lot and it’s really one of the only spots you can add living space to the house. So, with
that, open it up to the public if anybody wants to speak for or against this project. Seeing none,
back to the board. Any other comments from the board.
RESOLUTION 26-0009 Michael Short made a motion TYPE II
Chris
Centola.
VOTE:
Mr. Short AYE
Mrs. Volo AYE
Mr. Spampinato AYE
Mr. Prescott ABSENT
Mr. Centola AYE
Mrs. Damelio AYE
(CHRIS CENTOLA)
The project will not result in an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood and will
create no detriments to nearby properties. Based on the lot configuration there is no other remedy
or area to extend living space based on the distance from the remaining property lines and the
layout of the house. The requested variance is not substantial. It takes the minimum amount
necessary. The proposed variance wil] not have an adverse impact on the physical environmental
conditions in the neighborhood. And while it is self-created, it once again is justified based on the
lot configuration and the internal layout of the house and since it was approved prior, I believe it
makes sense to do it again.
Pg. 51 May 12, 2026 Zoning Meeting
SD MEE hb =
This request is not out of character in the neighborhood:
There will not be a detriment created to nearby properties:
The benefit is not achievable by any other method:
This request is not substantial:
There are no adverse physical or environmental impacts to the site or neighborhood:
The difficulty is not self-created:
This is not an undesirable change:
Does anyone else want to add anything?
RESOLUTION 26-0010
CONDITIONS:
Michael Short made a motion for AREA
Located at 256 Birch Lane.
Applicant Robert Masucci is requesting
AREA VARIANCES to allow a front (east)
setback of 48’, and a front (south) setback of
55’ where 60’ is required associated with the
construction of a 12 x 34 (approximately 408
SF) addition to a single family dwelling on a
0.52-acre parcel having SBL# 063.14-1-58
located in the R-2 Single Family Residential
District under Section 350-11 of the Code of
the Town of Webster of which was seconded
by: Corrine Volo.
The applicant must obtain all necessary governmental permits, including a Town
Building Permit.
That one-year significant construction shall expire May 12, 2027
APPROVED AS PRESENTED.
VOTE:
Mr. Short AYE
Mrs. Volo AYE
Mr. Spampinato AYE
Mr. Prescott ABSENT
Mr. Centola AYE
Mrs. Damelio AYE
Located at 569 Bending Bough Drive. Applicant Dreamspace
Renovation & Design is requesting an AREA VARIANCE to allow a north side setback of 13.5ft
where 15-ft is required in association with the construction of a S04SF addition on a 0.40-acre parcel
having SBL #064.11-2-35 located in an R-2 Single-Family Residential District under Section 350-
11 of the Code of the Town of Webster.
Pg. 52 May 12, 2026 Zoning Meeting
Appearing before the board was (NEVER STATED HIS NAME) We are proposing the addition
18 foot wide off the back could be a master suite for my clients. A young couple that has a
growing family that they need an extra room. So, we're proposing to set the set back was 15T
and were going 13.5 now. We’re shooting the set back by 1.5 feet. That being said, we could
have moved the addition over, but there’s in the back of the house there’s a nice big picture
window. If we had to move it over that 2 foot 4, it would take out that big picture window. So,
were going this route instead to get....ask for that 1.5 variance.
Questions from the board? So, I was out at the site earlier this evening and I did
see that big bay window. 15 feet is the max. You’re saying | % foot so I guess my question
because the right side of that fairly large, it’s got to be almost 8 foot bay window or not bay
window but large window. Is that window being replaced as part of this project?
Well, I’m sorry..........
Is that large window also being replace as part of this project? The way that it
was striped out, it looks like the addition is going right up to that window as............
Oh, that is starting right up to the addition, like 4 inches from that window. And
right on the side, that’s where the actual access...that’s where the access of the...in the living
room right on the side of that window is going to be the hallway going into the new room.
Right, yeah. Because there’s a wall to the right of that window. So that would
be the door into this addition from the living room into this space.
Correct. Yep. But on the left side on the side setback, there is a fireplace that’s 2.1
feet out. So, it’s going to be pretty much in line with that, the masonry fireplace. Which that
goes into the setback, too.
Got it. Other questions from the board. Single story or double story?
I’m sorry......
The addition, single or double story?
(still could not hear)
Single story or double story?
Single story.
Thank you. Open it up to the public. Anybody want to speak for or against the
project?
Pg.53 May 12, 2026 Zoning Meeting
No.
Any other questions? Do you know if the residents have communicated their
desires with any of their neighbors? Any feedback from any of the neighbors?
No
Is there an authorization, Erika, in the file?
I’m sorry.
Is there authorization from the representative?
Yes
I didn’t see it in my packet, but I just want to make sure it’s clear.
Okay, I opened to the public. Any other comments from the board? Nothing.
Its not...it’s not really oversized in width. In order to stay within setback, you’d
have to make it narrower, and it would just....
Or you shrink the window. That’s a massive window. Yeah, I mean that would
be the only other option.
RESOLUTION 26-0011 Michael Short made a motion TYPE II
Chris
Centola.
VOTE:
Mr. Short AYE
Mrs. Volo AYE
Mr. Spampinato AYE
Mr. Prescott ABSENT
Mr. Centola AYE
Mrs. Damelio AYE
(CORRINE VOLO)
1. This request is not out of character in the neighborhood: The request is going to only
encroach into the setback by approximately 1.5 feet, which comes out in line with the
chimney that’s already there. So, it won’t look out of place.
2. There will not be a detriment created 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.
Pg. 54 May 12, 2026 Zoning Meeting
6.
7. The benefit is 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.
This request is not substantial:
There are no adverse physical or environmental impacts to the site or neighborhood: Just
as stated,
It self- created, but it’s not an oversized addition. It’s
reasonably sized and it’s a very small impact into the side setback.
This is not an undesirable change: It is not an undesirable change.
Yeah, I mean, it’s far enough...it’s on the back side of the house, so it’s really not
going to affect the neighborhood in any way, shape, or form. So, just add that.
RESOLUTION 26-0012
CONDITIONS:
Michael Short made a motion for AREA
Located at 569 Bending Bough
Drive. Applicant Dreamspace Renovation &
Design is requesting an AREA VARIANCE
to allow a north side setback of 13.5ft where
15-ft is required in association with the
construction of a 504SF addition on a 0.40-
acre parcel having SBL #064.11-2-35 located
in an R-2 Single-Family Residential District
under Section 350-11 of the Code of the Town
of Webster of which was seconded by
Corrine Volo.
The applicant must obtain all necessary governmental permits, including a Town
Building Permit.
That one-year significant construction shall expire May 12, 2027
APPROVED AS PRESENTED.
VOTE:
Mr. Short AYE
Mrs. Volo AYE
Mr. Spampinato AYE
Mr. Prescott ABSENT
Mr. Centola AYE
Mrs. Damelio AYE
Located at 872 Bay Road. Applicant Kathleen Scott-Cordero is requesting
an AREA VARIANCE 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 in association with the installation of a 64-
SF pre-fabricated shed on a 0.40-acre parcel having SBL #078.10-2-1 located in the R-3 Single-
Pg. 55 May 12, 2026 Zoning Meeting
Family Residential District under Section 350-12 and 350-47 of the Code of the Town of Webster.
Appearing before the board was Kathleen Scott-Cordero. I live at 872 Bay Road with my
wonderful husband Christopher. So, when I moved into my house in the 2000, it was just 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. So, we were
hoping to request an area variance for a smaller shed, 64 square foot, if you will, a she shed,
for my stuff, so I can put my gardening tools and things like that for me. And it’s 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 I think that’s it.
Very good. So, you’re kicking your wife out of her shed...(LAUGHTER) Nice.
Nice job. (LAUGHTER) You have a very unique property. You essentially have three front
yards. So, very unique. It doesn’t really afford you any place to put anything that’s not in the
front yard. So, I drive by it this morning and yeah, I mean, it’s pretty much the only spot you
can put it.
Well, and if you look at the homes along Brookwood, the rear of their yards is
along Woodland. So, it will be essentially the rear location of their yard so it would kind of
look like it belongs there. But yeah, there’s....when I visited the property, there’s really no
other place. You could put it on the roof, but really.
Any other questions or comments from the board?
Do we want to limit the or set the maximum incursion into the setback?
What do you mean?
It has to be five feet.
Right. I’m saying, but ’'m saying 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?
Adjacent to the shed, present shed. And the doors will be facing Bay
Road. And it’s 64 square foot.
About how far away from the...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 feet maybe. Yeah, very
close.
Pg. 56 May 12, 2026 Zoning Meeting
Okay. Very good.
You understand what I was asking?
Yep. Okay. I think what Chris is trying to get to is trying to avoid having the
shed essentially on Woodland Lane. So, trying to keep it back as far from Woodland Land as
possible, so with in 4 feet of the existing shed, don’t see an issue with that.
It'll be less of an impact that they show on their drawing, to be honest with you.
Okay, I will open it up to the public; does anyone want to speak for you against
this project.
No
Okay, I'll bring it back to the board. Does anyone have any comments.
RESOLUTION 26-0013 Michael Short made a motion TYPE II
Chris
Centola.
VOTE:
Mr. Short AYE
Mrs. Volo AYE
Mr. Spampinato AYE
Mr. Prescott ABSENT
Mr. Centola AYE
Mrs. Damelio AYE
(CORRINE VOLO)
l.
2.
va
This request is not out of character in the neighborhood: The location looks like it’s along
the backyard of Woodland like the other sheds that are there.
There will not be a detriment created to nearby properties: Certainly not a detriment to
nearby properties. It’s going to be small shed. It’s going to be in the least intrusive location
within that lot.
The benefit is not achievable by any other method: That lot has three front yards and all of
them are fairly small. So, there is no space behind the house. That really is the only
location.
It’s kind of a coin toss. You’re allowed one shed. This is a
second shed, but it’s small. It’s only 64 square feet. It’s not an out of character or not an
unusually large shed.
There are no adverse physical or environmental impacts to the site or neighborhood: None
That yard was that way when you bought it. I don’t know
how you'll put anything else on that lot.
Pg. 57 May 12, 2026 Zoning Meeting
7. This is not an undesirable change: It provides indoor storage so that the tools are not outside
where it would look unkept if they were not stored within a shed. Anything else anyone
RESOLUTION 26-0014
wants to add?
CONDITIONS:
The applicant must obtain all necessary governmental permits, including a Town
Building Permit.
Corrine Volo made a motion for AREA
Located at 872 Bay Road.
Applicant Kathleen Scott-Cordero is
requesting an AREA VARIANCE 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 in
association with the installation of a 64-SF
pre-fabricated shed on a 0.40-acre parcel
having SBL #078.10-2-1 located in the R-3
Single-Family Residential District under
Section 350-12 and 350-47 of the Code of the
Town of Webster of which was seconded by
Michael Short.
That one-year significant construction shall expire May 12, 2027
TO BE PLACED 4 FEET OF EXISTING
SHED; SHOULD BE 5 FEET OF PROPERTY LINE.
VOTE:
Mr. Short AYE
Mrs. Volo AYE
Mr. Spampinato AYE
Mr. Prescott ABSENT
Mr. Centola AYE
Mrs. Damelio AYE
Located at 1052 Lake Road. Amanda Costanza is requesting an
AREA VARIANCES to ailow a minimum lot size of 23,857-SF where 35,000-SF 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 nearer to the front property line, and to allow for a front setback of
53.9-ft where 75-ft 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-SF
accessory building on a 0.20-acre parcel having SBL #049.11-1-15 located in the R-1 Single-Family
Residential District under Section 350-10 of the Code of the Town of Webster.
Pg. 58 May 12, 2026 Zoning Meeting
Appearing before the board was Amanda Costanza and this is Chris Costanza. We are the
architects for Kim and Wayne Gandandy, who are here, the homeowners. Kim and Wayne live at
1050 Lake Road and they last year purchased 1052 Lake Road. It’s a pretty rundown single family
house and needs a lot of work. When they purchased it, they were hoping to avoid what seemed
like the people looking at purchasing it or interested in flipping it, turning it into an Airbnb, short-
term rentals, that short 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 and so they look to combine them.
They still won’t be conforming to the 35,000 foot requirement. They will conform in width and
become 125 feet wide as they should be. They will still be under the area required.
After they are combined, they are looking to convert or deconstruct, basically remove that single
family home from the foundation up and create a smaller accessory structure that will service their
existing primary residence. We are looking t reuse the existing basement foundation. And that will
disturb the site less. We have approvals from the DEC site for this project as well as the Army
Corps of Engineers, And the new structure will be of course shorter in height. Only one story vs
two, shallower pitched roofs. It will be set back from the street further than the existing houses.
We'll be reducing impervious surfaces by 50% on the site. It’s currently like completely paved,
covered in building, decks, pavers, he entire thing. So, 50% of that will be removed and replaced
with landscaping and open space.
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 smaller lots and some
with accessory structures closer to the road than their primary residents. We have good neighbor
support, and we have three letters of support you should have received. The neighbors are all in
favor. It will help their views. It will help, you know, open space. Decrease traffic on the street,
decrease the loads on the utility grid. What else. ...I think that’s all I can think of at the moment.
Quick question, I should have asked earlier today, Erika. There is no variances for
these properties as of right now, right? I mean, because they are non-conforming as they stand.
I believe that’s correct. I would also like to provide some context. We did have
conversations with the applicants about the procedure because as they mentioned, 1052 is going to
be demoed. So, 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 combining of the lots?
Yes.
Okay. So, do we....are we doing a variance for 1050 as well?
No
Pg. 59 May 12, 2026 Zoning Meeting
Because 1050 also does not..........
1050 is not in question this evening. 1052 is.
Understood but when they are combining the lot....So, Yeah, I mean, if you’re
combining the lots, these are going to. be now !052 when the lots are combined. Correct?
No 1050.
It'll be 1050
Now, if I’m not mistaken, the house at 1050 was redone. I am going to say within
the past 10 years, but it has been redone and there were variances granted for what’s on that
property currently.
So, there is variances for that property.
For the smaller lot at 1050.
Where the house that’s remaining.
Yes. Not 1052 which is the property discussed this evening.
Gotcha.
But your question is once you are now on a single lot...
It’s a new lot.
It’s a new lot and with this structure where it’s going to be proposed....where it’s
proposed to be located it’s still going to require a variance.
The remaining structure you mean?
No, the new structure on the new lot.
Well would. ...could I used the new 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 logistics
on our end....
Pg. 60 May 12, 2026 Zoning Meeting
To make it clean for you when...
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.
Makes sense. Yeah, I mean, it makes sense. In the whole process of things, when
is the....are the lots going to be combined versus the construction?
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.
Where you do the demo, the construction, then the combination and consider it an
accessory but Pm assuming that....Erika, the town provided that direction on that process, correct?
That’s correct.
Okay.
The process might be a 12-month process from start to finish.
Absolutely, yeah. So, again, I guess 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 1052 is my question. And then, do new variances need to be provided?
I don’t think it’s a new lot. I’m extending the size of 1050, but anything that’s been
approved already on 1050 that doesn’t change but it improves a condition where 105 was originally
approved as a smaller lot size. Now I’m just improving that condition. It’s still going to smaller
but less small.
I think it makes. ...all makes sense. I just want to make sure from a legal standpoint
that’s all....... BOTH PARTIES (Corrine Volo) SPEAKING AT THE SAME TIME.
I want to double check that. So, the question is whether you are expanding an
existing lot, which is going to be the net result here, whether the variances that have been already
provided or those are voided 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 lands no longer there.
EVERYONE SPEAKING AT THE SAME TIME.
The configuration has changed but the house variances are on the west side of the
Pg. 61 May 12, 2026 Zoning Meeting
property.
House variances are on the SBL number which is no longer there.
(BOTH PARTIES SPEAKING AT ONCE)
Will I change that lot number or will I just eliminate one?
The SPL issue is an assessment. They will handle, you know, when those are
combined, the SPL and how it will change. I can’t speak to that here tonight. I don’t know if that
SBL will remain what is 1050 or if it will have an entirely new SBL because of the changes in the
lot lines.
But what I had heard is that we are combining the lots to create what....
(BOTH PARTIES SPEAKING AT THE SAME TIME)
We’re not combing the lots. This board is not combing 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. The lots are not combined. They’ re separate.
1052 is just a smaller lot. Right now, 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. So, in 1050 for the house doesn’t change but we
may have side setback issues with 1050 with the accessory structure of the new larger 1050 or can
we consider the foundations pre existing because it’s already there.
They’re using the existing foundation.
Our town code indicates that 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 preexisting non-conforming.
Pg. 62 May 12, 2026 Zoning Meeting
So, they’ re utilizing the same foundation from 1052. Doesn’t that make sense for the board?
I am going to repeat what I....what I think I heard. So, the variances that we are
considering tonight are for 1050 NOT 1052. With the understanding that 1050 and 1052 will be
combined as part of the project. Is that...that’s my understanding?
That’s correct.
All right. I misunderstood it. I thought we were considering the variances for 1052
and if that was combined then 1052 goes away. So, that was my misunderstanding.
I’m somewhat more confused than when we started.
Oh, just trust us. (LAUGHTER) I mean, we we’ ve done similar thing like this in the
past.
No, I appreciate that. I’m looking at the map and 1050 is the existing structure and
it’s not going to change 1052 to is the proposed knockdown.
Correct.
And you'd indicated or it’s been indicated that 1050 has already received variances.
So, that house is legal in it’s configuration right now.
So, 1050 has variances that are pending and those variances are predicated on the
lot lines that existed when 1050 was just a standalone 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 provided the 1050 remain because we are changing the lot lines.
One of them in theory goes away because............ (BOTH PARTIES SPEAKING
AT THE SAME TIME)
The need....
The need for the variance would go......
(ONCE AGAIN, EVERYONE SPEAKING AT THE SAME TIME)
Pg. 63 May 12, 2026 Zoning Meeting
Would go away on the east side....
The expansion...
Anything on the west or south side....
I would say it doesn’t go away but that becomes a moot issue right...
It’s no longer out of conformance...
Correct, it will be in. Is there another variance for that lot? Pre-existing, this
application for 1050 or is that the only one.
EVERYONE SPEAKING AT ONCE.
Yeah, we have a total lot size issue. So, per R1, it’s got to be at 35,000 square feet.
They’re currently well below that with the combine lots. I think it’s around 23 or 24,000 square
feet if I recall correctly.
But I was saying other than the variance for I guess what was a side setback at the
time which I can’t tell is that the east side. If you are looking at the lake, it’s the right side. My
question is simply, were there any other previously awarded variances other than the east side
setback?
For?
For 1050.
The front setback and the westside setback were granted but those don’t change.
Right, those aren’t being affected by the expansion?
Correct.
I don’t know what the ultimate answers to my question, but I’m less concerned
about it now.
So, let me ask this question, the variance, the side setback for 1050 is there, right?
And let’s say it’s 5 feet. I mean, that’s a tight area. They combine the two does that new 1050 have
a side setback that is...of a variance that is now five feet that follows it because of the old variance?
Which is now. ..it’s not applicable because they’ ve combined the lots, right?
It would have been approved per the plans provided. So, I would think that would
negate the applicant being now allowed to extend the house another whatever the width of the lot
Pg. 64 May 12, 2026 Zoning Meeting
is to be 5 feet 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............
I don’t think......well, I wouldn’t...1 would know it ...I don’t think it would 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, house line would not change without approval by whatever powers
of the Town of Webster that dictate that...that the variance granted was to the smaller lot and now
that it’s a combined lot there is no longer a variance needed.
Erika, are you going to ask a question?
This, you’ re referring to this western portion of the house.
No, this eastern side portion because the west isn’t going to move. The 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 house was redone. I don’t remember 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 set back, um....
In either event, as a practical matter, it’s moot because it’s not affecting the west
side. It’s affecting the east side, but the property line is now gone or will be gone.
So, right, it’s moving further east is what the property line is going.
I didn’t mean gone.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. I just want to avoid...
...... we’ ve accomplished anything but we all fear
I just want to avoid future owners, and I don’t suspect the current owners will try
and utilize it. I just want to avoid further owners from utilizing that and expanding all the way to 5
Pg.65 May 12, 2026 Zoning Meeting
feet of the new.
That no modification to the footprint of the current home at 1050 can take place
without approval of ............ EVERYONE SPEAKING AT THE SAME TIME. ...town agency.
If you are worried about that remaining, the owner could agree consent to remove
the variance on the east side....upon approval of the new lot. Establishment of the new lot.
If that’s a legal thing.
No, actually I didn’t realize....EWERYONE SPEAKING AT THE SAME TIME.
I thought would the owners be opened to....we believe that there is a variance on
1050 Lake Road on the east side of 1050 Lake Road. If you were following, would you guys be
open to removing that variance once the lots are combined. Knowing that you can maintain the
existing 1052 foundation, code allows the 1052 foundation to stay as is, as pre-existing, non-
conforming. Your intent is to build on top of that existing foundation. Um it...what it would
prevent you and I’m making assumptions because I don’t have what the old variance for 1050 were.
It would prevent you from building within 5 feet, lets say if that’s what the variance was of the new
eastern property line essentially of what 1052 is. Would you be willing to remove that when the
lots are combined?
YES.
Okay.
CAN NOT HEAR TOO WELL.... Understanding is that we
had a variance for the lot size and we had the front and east and west side..........
It makes sense the way that the house is situated. So, I mean, it does make sense.
I CAN NOT HEAR.
Yeah, okay, thank you. Now that we got that all squared away and clear as mud,
questions from the board on the actual application itself.
What are you going to be using the basement of 1052 for?
Yes, that would be storage. Yeah, it’s just because it was already there. So, it’s
good storage space. We needed a stair to get down to it, but there won’t be vehicular access into
it anymore like a garage.
Will there be living space within the accessory structure.
Pg. 66 May 12, 2026 Zoning Meeting
No, it’s just mainly meant for like an outdoor entertainment space. So, I'd
consider it like a pool house, you know, without the pool right there. You have the lake but um, so
it’s basically a large kitchen, you know, with some covered outdoor areas for eating and lounging.
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.
There’s no windows or egress or daylight.
Yeah, we’re not adding any.
CAN NOT HEAR HER SPEAKING............ No body want
to sleep down there. It’s a dungeon.
It’s a very dark garage basement and we’ re not adding any windows or anything.
Sure, they’d better sleep on the cabana side and overlooking Lake Kenny.
Michae} Short: 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. And I apologize, I’m going to need you to
come up and speak into the mic.
Applicant came up to podium...DID NOT STATE THEIR NAME: Mrs.: Yes, that is correct. We
could not and have no plans for renting. Mr.: That was one of the reasons why we actually purchased
it.
That’s what I heard. I want you guys to be on record essentially, so I appreciate
that. Thank you, I did get an opportunity to walk by, I mean the foundation of 1052 is in good
condition. The upstairs is questionable. As I walked across the deck, I was concerned I might fall
through the deck. It was solid, but it’s definitely, I understand why you’re looking to knock it
down. I do appreciate that you are ultimately taking two parcels, making it one. You’ re reducing
the size of the lot coverage by quite a bit. You’re reducing the height of 1052 down to a lower
height. So you are, though it’s still not conforming, it is significantly better than what the
parcels...the two individual parcels are on their own. So, I do appreciate what you guys are doing
there. So....other questions, comments from the board.
Well, and they’re meeting....NOT meeting the approved lot size but the combination
of the tow allows them now to meet the lot width. So, that’s significant.
All right. I will open up to the public if anybody wants to speak for or against the
project. Come on up. Please give your name and address when you get up here.
Pg. 67 May 12, 2026 Zoning Meeting
David Power at 1046 Lake Road: Directly across from 1050. They’re residents now and I fully
approve any building of that additional area. It will be an enhancement to the neighborhood.
Definitely.
Thank you for coming. Does anyone else want to speak for or against this project?
Seeing none will bring it back to the board.
RESOLUTION 26-0015 Michael Short made a motion TYPE II
Chris
Centola.
VOTE:
Mr. Short AYE
Mrs. Volo AYE
Mr. Spampinato AYE
Mr. Prescott ABSENT
Mr. Centola AYE
Mrs. Damelio AYE
(CHRIS CENTOLA)
Actually, an undesirable change will not be produced. In fact, quite the opposite. Tearing down
the existing structure and building what will probably be a really attractive outdoor living space
for 1050 will be an improvement to the neighborhood. I don’t believe the benefit sought by the
applicant is achievable by any other methods. The requested variances are not substantial. In fact,
they’re actually mitigating one of the original variances for 1050. And the proposed variance will
not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical environmental conditions in the neighborhood.
Like I said, they will improve the aesthetics and the legal aspects of it. And the difficulty is not
self-created. They’re taking a small lot and making it a little larger. Well, and while you said still!
not minimum lot size, but they will have the minimum lot width, so they’re making the lot a little
better from a legal standpoint.
I'll also note that they already received the approval from the DEC and the Army
Corps of Engineering, which is usually the most difficult part to get.
This request is not out of character in the neighborhood:
There will not be a detriment created to nearby properties:
The benefit is not achievable by any other method:
This request is not substantial:
There are no adverse physical or environmental impacts to the site or neighborhood:
The difficulty is not self-created:
This is not an undesirable change:
BAA rd oe
RESOLUTION 26-0016 Chris Centola made a motion for AREA
Located at 1052 Lake Road.
Pg. 68 May 12, 2026 Zoning Meeting
Amanda Costanza is requesting an AREA
VARIANCES
Hold on. These variances are going to 1050, correct? Not 1052.
Correct.
I just want to make sure that we have the right SBL number.
Do we want to do two separate variances? One for the lot size and then one for every
thing else.
You should be doing it as advertised.
As advertised as 1052.
Can you put that back up on the screen again? So, these are for 1052 correct.
Correct.
Minimum lot size...
But the variance is going to go to 1050.
But it says in association with the consolidation of 1050. 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
T think that....
Yes, we put in the language about the consolidation of the lots for that reason. So, which
Was supposed to...
EVERYONE SPEAKING AT THE SAME TIME
Confusion....is written that will be clear to generations down the road.
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 accommodate? I mean it to me it just makes it a little more.......
I think the way that it was advertised in association with the consolidation of those two
lots answers, enough for what I think you’re asking in terms of adding additional language.
Pg. 69 May 12, 2026 Zoning Meeting
to allow a minimum lot size of 23,857-SF
where 35,000-SF 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 nearer to the
front property line, and to allow for a front
setback of 53.9-ft where 75-ft 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-SF accessory building
on a 0.20-acre parcel having SBL #049. 1] 1-1-
15 located in the R-1 Single-Family
Residential District under Section 350-10 of
the Code of the Town of Webster of which
was seconded by Michael Short.
Are we going to condition it when the lots are consolidated?
I was going to say, we want to still add that right. When the lots are legally
consolidated that the owner waves his right of the setbacks along the eastern side of 1050 Lake
Road that was previously approved.
And I would just add that the address the remaining address of the combine parcel
will be 1050. So that when somebody is looking it up 30 years from now.
I don’t know if we have the authority to dictate the address number but...
No, okay.
Like Erika said, someone else in the town will decide the SBL number.
CONDITIONS:
The applicant must obtain all necessary governmental permits, including a Town
Building Permit.
That one-year significant construction shall expire May 12, 2027
VARIENCES TO FOLLOW THE COMBING
OF LOTS WHEN CONSOLIDATED; APPLICANT WILL FORFEIT ALL
PREVIOUS VARIENCES.
Pg. 70 May 12, 2026 Zoning Meeting
VOTE:
Mr. Short AYE
Mrs. Volo AYE
Mr. Spampinato AYE
Mr. Prescott ABSENT
Mr. Centola AYE
Mrs. Damelio AYE
Erika, 571 that’s been tabled. Last time we spoke I think you said...
671?
I believe you said...
That application has been formally withdrawn by the applicant.
Located at 139 Caracus Drive (AKA 750 Phillips Road, AKA
1460 Caracus Drive) SBL #065 .02-1-40.11. Applicant Debbie Rice is seeking an interpretation from
the Zoning Board of Appeals to determine whether the Xerox Solar Farm should have been reviewed
under an Industrial Use Permit or a Special Use Permit in accordance with Sections 155-6, Section
350-22, and Section 350-101D (1) of the Code of the Town of Webster.
**e** APPLICANT REQUESTED TO TABLE APPLICATION*#**
e Approval of minutes for April 14, 2026 (VOLO/SHORT)
VOTE:
Mr. Short AYE
Mrs. Volo AYE
Mr. Spampinato AYE
Mr. Prescott ABSENT
Mr. Centola AYE
Mrs. Damelio AYE
Since there are no further applications before the Board, Michael Short adjourned tonight’s
meeting at 8:10 p.m.
Corrine Volo, Secretary
Katherine Kolich, Recording Secretary
Pg. 71 May 12, 2026 Zoning Meeting
JUN 10 96 9Md1:33
_-EILED WEBSTER THN CLK
Ceiirea AN