Video recording

uh that have been um that uh have been published uh in the paper um and call for attendance. >> Okay. >> Mr. Short >> here, >> Mr. Spinada >> here. >> Mr. Senola >> here. >> Miss Dilio >> here. >> Mr. Corso >> here. >> Miss Corsy >> here. Mr. DeMarco >> here. >> Uh, please 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. >> All right. If uh the applicant at 1085 uh Herzent uh view lane can come up and uh go over to the podium. Uh the mic is live and recording, so make sure you speak into the mic.

If you can move it to make it easier for you. Um, so applicant Chris Giri, this is located in R3 single family residential district is requesting to allow us allow a side step back of 3.4. >> Can you guys hear um >> requesting to allow a side setback of 3.4 4 feet where 10 feet is required. And I just want to uh make a statement for all the applicants that the PowerPoint presentation is um really based on your statement of difficulty that was submitted with your application. Um it is your due diligence to go through those five criteria to explain to the board why you are requesting a variance.

So I will have them on the screen for you. Um, so you can read from them as needed. >> Hello everybody. We are requesting an area variance to allow for a 5-ft setback off the property line along the west side of the property where a 15oot setback is required associated with the construction of a 23x40 inground swimming pool. The area concerned already has an existing 5- foot privacy fence installed three-foot off the property line as granted by the zoning board of appeals dated 15th of August in 2018. The proposed edge of the concrete patio attached to the ground pool will be 2 to 3 feet proposed inside that existing fence line.

The proposing ground pool has a dimensions of 23x40 situated north to south lengthwise. This is the only way to position it to be in in compliance with being 10 feet from the overhead power lines. That puts the water's edge 25 ft from the west property line. In chapter 300-4 of the town building code setbacks clearly states that the edge of the pool is from the concrete, not from the water's edge. The existing five-foot fence that surrounds our backyard was installed per the variance that was granted back in 2018 with a three-foot setback, which I believe that requirement no longer exists. We maintained at we maintain a three-foot mulch bed on the outside of the fence line so it is pleasing to our bordering neighbors.

The proposed concrete patio surrounding the pool shall be sloped at at least a 2% grade or a quarter of an inch per foot to allow for proper drainage. The entire surface area of the patio will be surrounded by at least a 5-ft landscape mulch bed to accommodate any rainwater runoff that occurs. The entire scope of this project is obviously in our backyard which is completely surrounded by the existing 5-ft pressuret treated privacy fence. So there will be no changes to the existing character of our neighborhood. That's our proposal. questions from the board. >> Just so I understand it, the fence is already inside the property line and the concrete patio is going to be two feet off the fence.

>> Well, I'm just because your your >> Yeah. >> Your application says it's five feet off the the fence. >> Yeah, because if we do the kind if we stop the concrete two or three feet inside the fence, existing fence, it's already the fence is already three feet. No, no. I just want to make sure I understand that correctly. >> Okay, >> that's all I got. >> Yeah. >> So, just to piggy back off of that, because I think during your presentation, you said you were going to maintain a 5-ft um planting bed all the way around the concrete. >> Yes. >> However, you do have a fence. So, there's only a two-ft planting bed between the fence and the concrete based on what Chris had just mentioned, >> right?

But there's still the three feet on the outside >> that accept. Yeah. >> Okay. >> Did you look at any other uh scenarios where the um the concrete could stay within the 15T setback? >> Not with the 23 foot width that we're hoping to put in. There's just not enough room, especially with the the overhead power lines. It pushes us too far to the east. And we still would like to maintain grass along the back part back half of the house. >> Can you go back to the uh the plan? >> Thank you. So how much so how much space is between the water's edge and the edge of the concrete on the uh west side? >> The water's edge and edge of the concrete >> plus or minus.

I mean it's a >> more or less 10 12 feet. And >> that couldn't have occurred on the other side. >> Uh, not with the overhead power lines >> on the east side. >> No. Well, they the overhead power lines are right with the west corner here. They go back right to the power pool here. So, it it forces us to put the pool over this way. >> I understand where the pool is located. The variance isn't for the pool, it's for the concrete, >> right? >> So, the concrete can move. >> Yes. So, I guess my question is, could the deck, the concrete deck that's on the west side, could that have been placed on the east side instead?

>> Well, the pool has to be here. So, you're saying, can we put this there, this here? >> Yeah, >> we can't because this edge of the pool has to be 10 feet off of the overhead power line. >> Well, >> which is right here in the corner of the house. Michael, if I may, I >> please, because I'm not doing a good job. >> I think what he's saying is not to move the pool, move the concrete, to put the larger portion of the concrete on the east side. Am I correct, Michael? >> Yes. Next to the concrete. Did you consider doing that? >> But if we if we put the concrete bigger here, it would move the pool over here.

>> No, not move. Don't move the pool. Just move the concrete. >> Butt it up to the patio. >> But it up to the patio. >> The existing patio. That's what he's saying >> because right now you have two separate >> Well, we already have existing Lilocks that have been there for 20 years. >> Okay. >> Nope. >> That's what we're trying to get to. So, did you consider >> buddying up the concrete next to the existing patio? >> No, because we wanted to keep the existing landscape >> there. Thank you. >> That's the answer. Thank you. >> That's what we're Yes. Thank you. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Okay. Other questions from the board?

>> No. >> Have you had any conversations with any of your neighbors? >> Just Rose. Um, just because we're going to be using the construction equipment is going to be a little bit on her grass and I assure her that everything will get restored. >> Okay. All right. Um, does anybody from the public want to speak for against this project? >> No. Back to the board. Any uh any further questions from the board? No. All right. With that, I'd like to uh where am I? I'd like to make a motion for type two action under seeker pursuant uh NYCRR section 617.5 of the environmental code. >> Second. >> All those in favor?

>> I >> Chris, do you want to do the finding? >> Sure. Um, as uh submitted, the granting the variance would uh not impact the essential character of the neighborhood. There's already a fence and well, at least not visually, there might be some times because of the noise a pool may or may not have, but he said he's already talked to his neighbor and they're okay with it. Uh he just now, if not even before, indicated that he did consider some alternates, but the the value of the existing um plant material was greater than the uh convenience of having more paving closer to the uh existing patio and not extending it as close to the property line.

Uh it's well the uh the variance requested isn't significant. Uh especially since it's it's open space, so it doesn't really uh set back or diminish any real setbacks, especially since there's an existing 5-ft privacy fence there. Now, uh it should not affect any of the existing environmental conditions such as drainage uh or traffic. Once again, maybe a little noise here then, but certainly nothing to be concerned about. And uh because of the location of the wires, uh it is self-created, but it does seem to be a good uh alternative to uh to install the pool with the area that he needs around it.

Okay. Um, with that, I'll make a a motion uh to grant an area variance uh to allow uh at located at 1085 Parisent uh view lane to allow a sideyard setback of 5T where 15 ft is required uh for an uh in association with an ingground pool installation on a 0.43 43 acre parcel having SPL064.20-1-65 located in R3 single family resident uh residential district >> second >> Mr. Short >> I >> Mr. Senola >> I >> Mr. Porso >> I >> missio >> I >> Mr. understand >> I >> you have your variance. You have one year uh to to get your uh to get the project complete. You do still need all permits um and meet all applicable codes for the construction of the pool and surrounding areas.

>> Thank you. >> Have a good night. Uh next up, um 1014 Mural Lane. You want to come up to the uh the mic? 1014 Mura Lane. Applicant Igor Corio, is that correct? >> Corio, >> um, located in the R3 single family residential district is requesting a special use permit to allow uh the keeping of no more than eight chickens. >> Hello everyone. I just I want to build a chicken coupe. a simple project for my family, for my kids. I I don't know really how to explain why I need it. Just for family. It's not like a big project or something like that. That's how how it's going to look like. I just print it in last minute.

That's what >> Can you bring that up? >> Yeah, >> I'll share this with the board. It's going to be located on my uh backyard on the rear end and uh I don't think it's going to be very visible from the front or from the sides. It's simple and I I just want to you know uh my kids they that's not project for me that's probably for my kids more because they're growing. They want to see how it looks like how it acts how yeah that's simple. That's it. Really nothing uh to take a say a lot about it because it's simple project. >> Uh the location of the chicken coupe is here in the back portion of the property.

Is that correct? >> Yes. The rear um side is uh there's a trees and you know it's green uh is not visible from the apartments behind my property. Okay. Any questions from the board? >> Have you spoken with any of your neighbors about this? >> No, I didn't. Uh, we are not very close to talk. We're just saying hi and that's it. >> Fair enough. >> Do you uh do you plan on keeping any roosters? >> No, I know it's not uh illegal. So just uh just uh >> one of the reasons I asked is because when you filled out the application you said chicken coupe with nest box. >> No I'm not >> to me a nest implies that you're planning on raising additional chickens.

>> It's nest for >> nest boxes so that they can lay their eggs. >> Okay. >> Yeah it's for eggs not for the chickens. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, are you going to freerange them or are they going to be kept the image you provided uh looks like they they're inside of a chicken run? >> Yeah, it's going to be uh always inside. I don't think it's a good idea to let them go out probably. I saw fox on my property. So, yeah, better to keep it. >> Understood. >> Okay. >> Did Did you have a number of chickens that you were planning on keeping? >> Uh, maximum eight, >> right? >> Yeah. Uh, >> so you're planning on having eight, correct?

>> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Any other questions from the board? >> No. Uh, open it up for public comment. If anybody wants to speak for or against this, uh, project, please come on up. >> Am I supposed to stand? >> Yes. So, please uh state name and and address. And >> hi guys, Kevin Lockart from 1000-2 Kberger Park. The way that this town is going going, it seems like there's a lot of of preference towards big developers and cell towers, engineering contractors. I'm a huge fan of eggs, freerange eggs. I eat it as mo the majority of my diet. And what I would expect to see from the town today is that you treat this gentleman with the same preference that you treat the big developers, not not give them any grief about having chickens even though we're moving away from rural homesteading sort of themes.

And uh so I'm fully in support of the chickens. We need more chickens. We need to increase the allotted number of chickens. The the government has no business telling us how many chickens we should have in our yard. We need more chicken eggs. Store eggs are poison. All right. Thanks. >> Thank you. >> Back to the uh board. Any other comments, questions you may have? >> All good. >> Okay. Um, with that, I'm going to uh make a motion for a type two action under seeker pursuant uh NYCR section 617.5 of the environmental code. >> Second. >> All those in favor? >> I um >> you sure? >> Sure. >> I got it.

You want >> take it then. >> All right. So, I I had the opportunity to come out come out to the site uh today. Um the site is uh does have uh a level of uh exclusion to it, which is is nice. The location of the the chicken coupe is going to be uh far enough back that it's really not going to be visible. Uh so therefore, it won't impact the uh the surrounding neighborhood. Um it's not a detriment to nearby uh properties. Again, especially since you're going to be maintaining them inside of a chicken run, they're not going to be free range. So, uh there's not going to be an issue uh there. Um to have kid uh to have chickens for your kids to use, they're uh to use and to to learn about, it's really not achievable by any means any other means.

So, it's really the only way uh to be done. Uh it's not a substantial um request. When the chickens are when you're done with the chickens, the coupe can go away and uh everything can go back uh to the way it needs to be. So really not substantial. Uh there's no adverse uh effect on the environmental uh area. The area you're proposing to put it is back in the back kind of in the uh uninhabited area. I'm not going to call it woods, but you do have uh a decent amount of trees back there. Um, so it's not going to have any any environmental impact and you're also keeping the uh the chickens down to uh limiting it to to eight chickens.

Um, difficulties uh not self-created uh other than you wanting chickens and you're want your family to learn about uh taking care of animals and and allowing them to know where their food is coming from. Um, any anybody else want to add anything to to that? Just no hands, right? >> All All hands. No roosters. Rooers roosters. That could be a good go the other way around. >> I'm a I'm a city kid. Sorry. Uh if nobody else wants to add anything uh further to that, then I'm going to make a motion um for uh 1014 Mural Lane for a special use permit um to allow an 8 by8 chicken coupe with no more than eight uh hens um on a 1.3 acre parcel having SBL078.16-1-21 located in an R3 residential uh district.

>> I will say um I guess one year is that. So um because this is your first goound at this, this is a special use permit. The town um we we are allowed to limit um how long that special use permit is viable for. So we're going to limit it for one year. In one year, you would have to come back to this board to seek uh a renewal of that special use permit. Um in that time, the town has the opportunity to come check uh check the area, make sure there's no adverse effects. They'll talk to your neighbors as well. So, uh, with this, um, with this application, if if every if the board approves, you'll have, um, it'll be a one-year um, >> okay, >> period.

Okay. Um, so with that, I I make that that motion. >> Second, >> Mr. Short. >> Hi, >> Mr. Santo. >> Hi, >> Mr. Corso. >> Hi, >> Miss Deio. I Mr. Spenado >> I >> you have uh your variance for eight hens um with the chicken coupe as as shown to the board um with that any other permits or anything else that you need. You will have to go to the town for any of that additional uh stuff. You have one year to complete that and you have one year uh this special use permit is only good for one year. >> All right. Thank you. >> Good luck. >> Good luck. Have a good night. Thank you. >> Uh if uh the applicant for 534 Forest uh lawn uh can come up, please.

>> Applicant Rebecca Baron um located in an R1 single family residential district. The request is to allow an east side setback of 11.41 fort and a westside setback of 6.99 ft where 20 ft is required and to allow total lot coverage of 25.3% where the maximum allowed is 20%. >> Hello, this is um the Forest Lawn neighborhood and I am uh representing the owner here. Um, we're looking to put a 727 square foot edition out front, which is a a first floor bedroom addition for aging in place. And we'd like relief from the side setbacks of the R1 zoning. Uh, we'd like to just maintain the existing side setbacks that the home um has.

Currently, the site is very narrow. It's only 45. So, as you see, 20 foots epic on each side would um be a hardship and not allow for any addition. Um this is a special neighborhood and I believe that most of the homes in the neighborhood are non-conforming to the R1 district. Um also, we'd like relief on the um uh lot coverage due to the small size of the site. Um I don't believe this has any adverse effect um on the neighboring community. In fact, it'll be an improvement to the home, which is one of the last in the neighborhood, I think, to be upgraded. I think a lot of people are sort of upgrading their homes, and it's important for the owner to kind of have this first floor um master bedroom on that level.

Um I have a signatures from u both neighbors on either side um in approval of the project. >> Bring those up, please. Thank you. as as stated um I think the request just comes from the existing configuration and the size limitations of the site as well as the um zoning for that area. It's a very sort of specific lakefront which used to be a cottage area. So most homes are non-conforming. questions from the board. >> So, one question I do have, um, it is definitely a cottage community. Um, the portion of the house that you are proposing to align with, um, you are actually demoing. So, you're actually aligning with something that doesn't won't exist if this project takes place.

You're not aligning with the house proper. You're actually aligning with an old porch that's been enclosed. >> Correct. And the reason for that request and want to be transparent with that is that there's no crawl space under that. So, it's most likely a slab on grade, but we don't know until we um really get in. So, we'd like to maintain that line, but we'd like to put a crawl space so that we can um you know get heating and utilities through from one the new portion to the old portion. So, I wanted to be fully transparent that, you know, while we might we might be able to save that one wall, most likely it would just be easier to remove that whole front onetory piece and and excavate.

It's just simpler. But if you're telling me that I can't get the variance, then I would try and save that wall somehow. >> I'm just trying to understand the >> the reasoning. the reason. Yeah. The reasoning, right? As I'm looking at the floor plan, 12 by 14 bedroom, that that's a a good size bedroom. The uh front hallway looks like it's uh six maybe 7 feet wide. Uh might be some space there to to save to bring that in if if necessary. I'm just trying to understand. That's all it comes down to. >> Yeah. The owner is also requesting to take the um stair out of the center of the home and we're pulling that into the addition.

So that it's also increasing the square footage as well as allowing for like you like like I said the aging in place a little bit more room. You know that's sort of what we're doing these days for wheelchair accessibility if needed. >> Gotcha. >> So the existing stair was I don't think I have the existing floor plan. It's kind of in the in the dining room kitchen area where it is. >> Right in that center of dividing the um new dining room in that little utility space. >> Gotcha. Okay. Other questions from the board. >> There should be some exterior renderings in your package. >> Yeah. Yeah. Looks very nice.

>> And you'll be doing the whole whole house, not just the >> Yes. New siding on the whole house, new roof. So, a plenty of upgrades. >> Good. Makes a lot lot stronger street face than it does now. >> Yeah. >> Anybody from the public want to speak for or against this project? Hi, Kevin Locker from 10-2 KDberger. Again, I'm strongly in support of this. I expect this to go through without any issues. I feel like the people in Webster need more adv advocacy. The way that you folks at this zoning board treat big developers versus the way that you treat regular towns folk. It's clear, it's becoming evidently, abundantly clear that you have a separate set of standards that's far more restrictive for average taxpayers, residents, the lifeblood of Webster than you do for developers.

You don't give developers any time for restrictions yet. You got to hassle these folks about their siding, their chickens. Good grief. Give these folks what they want. Thank you. I would just like to remind anybody that is speaking for or against a project to please keep it within the parameters of what the request is asking terms of setback requirements and the like um because that is what this board is reviewing. So if the if the public could please keep it within what is being discussed that would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Thank you. Uh, bring it back to the board. Any other questions from the board?

>> No. All right. I'd like to make a motion for a type two action under seeker pursuant NYCR section 617.5 of the environmental code. >> Second. >> All those in favor? >> I. >> Uh, you want to do the findings for this one, Chris? >> Sure. >> Or if anybody else wants to. Uh, a second. >> I was assuming you were going to again. >> I got it. No, that's fine. So, um, the request for for this house is uh not out of character. It is an old uh non-conforming neighborhood. A lot of the houses are on the property line uh or very close to the property line. um the existing house uh the applicant is not asking for any additional um any additional uh to be any closer to the property line itself.

Um many of the many of the properties do exceed the um the area uh coverage area of their properties as well because a lot of these properties are are very small. So it is not out of character for this this particular uh neighborhood. uh it it's not going to be a detriment to any of the nearby properties. Uh the the applicant was able to provide um uh notice from both the neighbors on either side that they don't have they don't have any objections to uh to this project. So again, not going to be a detriment to to any of the nearby properties. Um because of the size of the the lot, the non-conform conformance of the lot, and the need to um age in place, there really is no other achievable method uh to to achieve uh what is being proposed for this particular site while while maintaining the property and and uh keeping in in the current location.

Uh there's no adverse physical or environmental impacts to the site uh or the neighborhood uh other than during the construction. Um difficulty though self-created because of the the the desire for the addition uh and the desire to age in place. It's uh something that should be allowed uh in this day and age. Um >> yeah. Is the board want to add anything else to that? >> No. Covered everything. >> All right. Uh, with that, I'd like to make a motion uh for uh an area variance for 534 Forest uh Lawn Road to allow an eastside setback of 11.41 ft at uh and a westside setback of 6.99 feet where 20 feet is required.

and to allow a total lot coverage of 25.3 F feet uh 25.3% where the maximum allowed is 20% in association with the construction of a 727 ft addition to an existing two-story home on a 0.25 acre parcel having SPL048.19-1-11 located in R1 uh single family residential district. >> Second. Thank you. >> No, we're not done. >> Mr. Short. >> Hi, >> Mr. Senola. >> Hi, >> Mr. Porso. >> Hi, >> Miss Deilio. >> Hi, >> Mr. Spinado. >> Hi. >> Now you have your variance. >> Uh, one year to complete the project. You still have to get the permits and everything else. I know you're well familiar with that. So, um, can an applicant for 985 Danby Drive, uh, come up, please?

>> 985 Danby Drive applicant, Chris D is requesting to allow an above ground pool in the front yard of a corner lot located in an R3 single family residential district. >> Good evening. My name is Jennifer Drees and this is my husband, Christopher Drees. Is it okay that I speak as well? >> Okay. >> Um, basically we're looking to in have a pool installed on being that we have a corner lot, it's technically considered two front yards and we don't have the backyard space. So that is why we are looking to put a 54 inch high 21 inch round um above >> 21 foot I'm sorry above ground pool. >> Okay. Um, installing a pool is not going to impact the character of the neighborhood and won't be it and won't cause any detriment to nearby properties because all aspects of the pool will meet code and um, including the proper distance from nearby properties, no drainage to any nearby properties as well.

We just simply do not have the backyard space to accommodate for our kids a pool and that's just what you know that's why we need to put it on that location. We have um had an Intex pool unknown that it does require a permit. So upon establishing that we tried in the backyard to obtain 15 feet from the fence line and we just couldn't do it. questions from the board. >> Were you planning on screening in this at all? When I drove by the house, it seems like there really not a lot of room there, even on your sideyard, which is technically your front yard also, but it didn't appear to be a lot of room.

And I'm wondering, it almost seems like the pool is going to be on top of the street. I hate to say that to you. Um, so the pool will sit back from the road 40T and then 15 feet from the adjacent property line and then roughly 8 feet or so from our side part of our garage and then the 21 Yeah, 21 foot round. >> But we >> Is it going to be just the pool or we going to put up some trees or any kind of planting or a fence or anything? Um, we have talked as far as um maintaining some kind of like privacy, but the reason that's not included in the variance is because we are unsure yet of what our plans are.

So that's why strictly right now it's just for the pool, >> but later on we may consider whether that be trees, privacy fence, something along those lines. >> Plan on adding a a raised deck to the pool as well at some point in time or >> I would I' ideally, honestly, yes, I would like to. not part of this. But that's why I was saying that was >> yes, just not part of this current application. >> So, um had I've had above ground pools. Uh having them in the front yard is unique. You have a very unique property. I drove by today. Um very little yard in the back. Um and this this sideyard is your yard.

So, I I I understand the ask. Um, my question, 54 in is not high. Having a pool in your front yard, um, opens up the entire neighborhood of kids to utilize your pool, um, and safety and everything else. So, how I know what the code says is required for a pool, a special ladder that lifts up so people can't get into it. >> Yes, sir. >> My my daughters who are now grown, but when they were little, they could climb over a 54 inch wall and get right into a pool and so have you given thought to that and how are you going to address that? >> Yes, absolutely. As I have three children myself and various ages, I absolutely understand that.

Um, >> so the ladder, yes, it is a safety ladder. Um, can also be removed. There is going to be a pool alarm installed, so anything that touches the water, it will sound off into the home. Um, we do have cameras. Um, one will be also installed on that side, too. Um, and then like I said, I would like to add whether that be a fence or a deck pro most likely a deck with a um like a gated latch >> locked so that nobody can just go up and down to get to the ladder. The only reason that's just not in this variance is just because of the details and the time frame to get it done. >> Okay. >> Other questions from the board?

>> Have you had any conversations with any of your neighbors? >> Several. >> Yes. >> Okay. They're all all thumbs up. >> Yes, there was. >> Yes, I did. And I did provide um neighborhood support that a few have signed. Um, most of my neighbors have told me that as far back as they can remember, there always has been a pool there. >> Okay. >> That for unknown reasons has been removed, but since the neighbors have gone, but yes. >> Okay. Very good. Uh, I'd like to open it up to the public. Anybody want to speak for or against? Uh, please remind the public to please keep it in in line with the setbacks of this property.

>> Hi, Kevin Lockart-2 KDberger Park. Good grief. You guys are total control freaks. You're having them plead their case for an above ground pool that was previously there and you're concerned about the neighborhood kids and how it would look from the field of view from the public. This board is going too far. We need to reel things back. You guys are getting out of control and give for goodness gracious. Calm down. Let them have a pool. Let Webster have a pool. Why do we have laws against pools? You guys are out of control. All right. Thanks. >> Back to the board. Any other comments? >> There's another person that speak.

>> Yep. Come on up, please. >> State your name and uh your address, please. >> Hi, my name is James. I live at 66 66. >> Can you Sorry, I can't hear you. Can you speak into the mic? You can move that if necessary. >> My name is James. I live at 666 Adeline Drive, just to the left of this house in question. Um, I've tried to prepare a few notes that I'd like to read. So, my concerns, >> um, this corner property already includes recreational features, including a swing set and trampoline that draw in group activity on a daily basis. From my personal experience as a man who's home all day, this has brought frequent noise that affects normal daily living, including evenings.

I believe adding a pool would increase the intensity and duration of this pattern and further expand the property's role as a neighborhood gathering point. Um, also like to site in Webster Town Code 209-1 states, "People have a right to and should be insured an environment free from excessive sound." Now, therefore, it is a policy of the town of Webster to prevent excessive sound that may jeopardize the health, wealth, or safety of the citizens or degrade the quality of life. Also, this pool would be highly visible from the street on a hightra corner where I have seen vehicles having to slow down to stop due to activities occurring on the street in front of this corner property.

I feel this could possibly increase safety hazard for pedestrians and drivers. This pool would also be highly visible right outside my first floor bedroom window along with their existing swing set and sandbox. It will also be in plain view from my front porch and for all those across the street as well. This pool will magnify gatherings and noise and ultimately lead to further disruptions affecting myself and others in proximity. I'm also worried that the pool may lead to more people trespassing on my property and invading my privacy by continuing to cut through my front lawn to access this corner lot.

I'm also naturally concerned about any possible drainage or water runoff issues that may impact my property, particularly because last summer I contacted Webster Sewage Department about water seepage I've been having in my basement and they informed me about a rising water table affecting this area. Um, and lastly, I'll say in Webster, front yard swimming pools have never been a common site. This reflects a character that values a certain residential standard around here. I believe this corner lot is not suitable for this project. Being a corner lot, it's especially accessible and visible, and it attracts unsupervised neighborhood children that bring high activity levels and excessive noise.

Lastly, this is not about children or families. It's about maintaining the residential character of the neighborhood and considering how this project may further impact noise levels, activity, and overall livability for the nearby residents. Allowing a variance for a front yard pool in this location could set a precedent that disrupts residential aesthetics and invites ongoing disturbances. Therefore, I believe it's a reasonable request to ask the board to deny this variance. Thank you for your time. >> Thank you very much. Uh any other questions, additional questions from the board? >> I do have a couple of follow-up questions.

Um the swing set, uh what what are you proposing to do with the existing swing set because that is not shown on here and that it's kind of the same spot where this pool is. >> Um the swing set's going to be moved >> moved or removed. >> Removed. Um, no. I moved. Um, >> okay. >> Probably further down from the pool. We were attempting to try to put it into our backyard. I just don't know if that's going to >> When you say down, what is >> I'm sorry. Yes. So, on the in relevance to where we are attempting to put our pool, it would either move more towards the front um >> closer to closer to the road.

>> So, closer to Adeline. >> Yes. >> Okay. Um, actually, no sir. More closer to DNB. >> Okay. >> More closer to DNB. Um, >> but we we would like to do first is try to keep it in our backyard. >> So, kind of where the int pool is shown on this. >> Yes. Yes, sir. >> Okay. Um, the pool you're putting in is not going to be a community pool. Is that correct? >> Oh, correct. >> Okay. >> Yes, sir. um noise. Um I drove by I saw two young girls if I remember correctly. I'm assuming they're yours. Um because they were playing on the swing set and everything else. Um my guess is they're in bed by the time 8:00 by the time noise uh the noise.

>> Yes, sir. My children have always been inside, especially school nights, well before any noise ordinance. They are not outside super early in the morning. >> Okay. I just lost the screen. >> Okay. Um, other questions from the board? >> Anybody? Okay. Um, with that, I'd like to make a motion for a type two action under seeker pursuant NYCRR section 617.5C of the environmental code. >> Second. >> All those in favor? >> Um, findings. You want me to do it, Chris, or >> You're doing such a good job. >> Thanks. >> All right. So, um, this request is is out of character for the neighborhood. Um, it's out of character for, uh, most neighborhoods, but it is it's not uh it's not a detriment.

Um, let's see. It's not a detriment to most nearby properties. Uh we did hear from one resident uh where there are concerns for uh his near for the property uh adjacent. Uh the benefit due to this particular property is not achievable by any other means uh possible uh due to the the size of the lot the corner um and the way the the lot itself is is uh set up. Uh the request is also uh not substantial uh in in any way. Um it is a what size that >> 21T >> 21T Thank you. 21 ft diameter pool uh that is only going to be approximately 8 ft off of the u the house itself. So again, not not a substantial uh request, especially uh since we have granted um other uh area variances for other uses um throughout this throughout the town.

Uh difficulty other than wanting a pool is not self-created because of the way the property is set up. Um let's see. With that, anybody want to add anything additional? >> It won't impact >> the environment, >> vehicular traffic or environment. It may, as suggested by a resident, increase some pedestrian traffic during times of usage. >> The pool is not a it's not a public pool. Will not be used as a public pool. Um, it is for friends and family. So, >> can before we take a vote, can I make another comment? >> Yeah. >> I I'm having a real hard time with this because of the lack of any kind of offense.

I understand the difficulty with your backyard. I There's no way you could put it in your backyard. I understand that. But the lack of fence bothers me for a couple reason. One is just plain screening and the other as Michael as you said with just you're not going to be home all the time. The alarm goes off in the house and you're not home that's when the neighborhood kids are going to run over there and jump in the pool. I'm I had a swimming pool at one point and I know the minute I left the house everybody in the neighborhood's there and I had a fence around it and I just I have a problem with that and I unless it's screened in some fashion and with a fence I I can't support it.

Okay. Uh any other um findings want to uh discuss or add? Anybody? No. Okay. Uh, I'd like to make a a motion for an area variance located at 985 Dan B Drive to allow an above ground pool in the front yard of a corner lot in association with the installation of a 54 in by 21 ft above ground pool on a 0.33 acre parcel having SPL079.13-1-43 located in in the R3 single family residential district. >> Second, Mr. Short. >> Hi, >> M. >> Hi, >> Mr. ASO. >> Nay, >> Mr. Senola. >> I >> Mr. Spamp. >> Hi. >> You have your approval for the pool. Uh, you still need all other permits and applications to be able to put that up.

Um, you have one year to complete the project. If not, you'll have to come back to this board. >> Thank you so much for your time. >> Yep. Thank you. >> Uh, next up is 891 Clem Road. >> 8 891 Clem Road. Applicant Eric Thorne from RGen Corporation. Uh, this property is located in R2 single family residential district and the They are requesting the following. A front setback of 29.5 ft where 60 is required for their GIS building. A rear setback of 40.6 ft where 55 is required for the control room. A 9 foot fence within the front yard which will be located um 13.7 ft from the property line. That was a typo, but it is indicated on the plans as 13.7.

So, I just like to clarify that. Uh, where 15t is required, a 9 foot fence in the rear yard located 9.1 ft from the property line where 15 ft is required, and then a 9 foot fence within the sideyard located 5.8T from the property line where 15t is required. Additionally, I would like the board to note that there is an additional request on here um under letter F for the minimum lot size requirement. Because this is not a new substation, they are doing upgrades. Um we are not requiring the applicants to receive a variance for the minimum lot size of this parcel. Does the board have any questions for me before the applicant takes over?

>> Does Okay, >> it is. I do have one quick question and you may have already answered it. The existing substation and the lot that is there is existing non-conforming. Did does the lot have a variance already for the size of the lot. >> I would have to check our record for that. Um, but >> to keep in want to say uniformity of previous requests that have come through to this board. Um, we want to maintain that. >> That's right. >> So, okay. >> That's why we're not required. >> Appreciate it. Thank you. >> Yep. >> All right. You're all set. >> Thank you. >> Good evening, Mary Stubline. Sorry, allergies are really causing a problem with my voice tonight.

Um, with LeBella Associates and I'm here tonight with um, Eric Thorne of RGen. Um, we're here in support of RGD station 73 modernization program. Um, we appeared at the planning board uh, last week to start our site plan um, review process and have preliminary approval. So now we have come here to seek uh, variances associated with this application. So, station 73 is an existing electrical substation um with a yard, fence, transformer, and a small building um and some grass lawn. The proposed u modernization and expansion will help support upgrades to transmission and distribution lines in the region, provide uh backup circuits, which will reduce customer outages and support the growing electrical demand in the Penfield and Webster areas.

Um so the proposed substation would include two um gas insulated switch gear buildings, one uh control building, a transformer, um a new substation yard, high security steel palisade fence um with vehicle gate and man gate uh screening and uh new access to the yard. And all of these things are designed in accordance with the National Electrical Safety Code and uh associated um clearance requirements between equipment and buildings. So that's really what's dictating the layout of this um proposed expansion. I don't know if you want me to go in uh go into the review criteria. Um it is an existing electrical substation and the um so the character of the neighborhood should not really change since we do not um suggest any land use changes for this.

Uh we considered alternatives such as building a brand new substation, but um we think that expanding the existing property is more desirable than developing a brand new property and building a substation and then having to reconnect everything together. Um it allows us to continue to use the existing network infrastructure so it helps avoid larger impacts. Uh in terms of significance of the uh requested variances, they may appear significant, but we want to take that into context. This is not your standard use. It's an electrical substation. Um therefore, maintaining health and safety and welfare of the public is um paramount and we want to keep the public out of this yard, which is the justification for the fence.

uh the dimensional variances are necessary um for this construction in order to uh keep the existing substation online during construction. So we have to build around it. Um and that will help reduce um any outages in the area during construction. In terms of physical and environmental conditions, um we will be replacing what is now lawn grass lawn with um the stone substation yard. But uh as the town engineer weighed in last week, um the substation section will allow some rainwater to uh infiltrate through the stone. Uh there may be some minor increase in traffic and noise during construction, but um following the construction, the substation will be unmanned, so there will not regularly be people there.

Um and the substation does not require any additional public services, doesn't need, you know, water, sewer, anything like that. Uh as to the difficulty uh being self-created, it is self-created. The we have no choice though but to put in a relatively tall fence. Um the National Electrical Safety Code requires at least a 7 foot minimum. Um so it would always be uh contrary to uh the zoning code. And then we want to be able to keep people out of the substation yard uh for their safety. Uh in the dimensional variances are also self-created. Um but again continue allow the continuous use of the operation while the new um substation improvements are being constructed.

>> Questions from the board? >> Yeah. Um probably more for the uh switch gears or the switch house and the other buildings are they considered out buildings? Do you mean in the sense of number of >> Yeah. >> No. >> Okay. Or or even set back requirements. >> No. >> Right. As I'm saying, they're they're considered utility feature, not a not a building. >> Correct. And then two the first two requests are for front and rear setbacks from those. >> Well, that's what I was wondering if >> understood they would be >> they're out of the building for that one but not for the other. >> No, >> yes, >> I do have a question.

What color is the >> black? >> Black. Okay. is um how far off the road edge is the fence? I know it is from the property line, but the property line is also set back almost 5 or 10 feet if I remember correctly. It's more from the road edge because that's really what people are going to notice. >> It looks like you're about 13.7 ft from >> I guess that's the that's the property. Is that the property line at 13.7? >> Yeah. So, the the front um the front fence is uh 27 and about 78 off of the edge of the roadside. 27 feet I should >> 27 >> feet from the edge of the road from the gutter basically.

>> Yes. >> Perfect. Thank you. >> I questions. I mean, the town's growing. We need more power. And instead of building a new spot and taking up more space, use the space that we already have that you're already using. So, I don't have other questions. >> And it's an improvement. >> And it's an improvement. Yeah. With that chain link fence that's there. And >> yeah. So, >> and you don't notice it any when you're in the hojack. Anyhow, >> right. Okay. Um, with that I'll open up to the public if anybody wants to speak for or against the project. Again, please keep it to uh the variances being requested.

>> Hi, Kevin Locker from 10-2 KDER Park. Today, RG& is here to ask for area variances and to build a fence so they they can expand their substation wherever that map indicates. And I would like to present a question to the board. Um, first of all, you already know my grievance with you, which is that you give big utilities developers special discretion. you fill in the blanks for them, you know, and it's just awful to watch the strong bias toward the big developers and the big corporations and then how scrupless you are about irrelevant things like pools and chickens. If there were ever a corporation that we should not allow any easement of ever or any variance and I really want to emphasize how strictly my pol how strict my personal policy is on this RG issue.

RG& wants to come into Webster. Here's my position. Absolutely not. If they ask for anything, I will never give it to them. RG& is ruining people's lives. people cannot afford RG& with all of the rate hikes and the regulators and all these extra charges, the smart meters, etc., etc., etc., and now they're coming in here asking us for more. Well, my response to that is there's nothing left to give. But of course, this planning, this zoning board is going to fill in the blanks and find something that they haven't yet given on behalf of the taxpayers to RG& who has already taken so much from so many people.

I already know how you folks feel about this subject. you're going to advocate for RGI over the citizens, but I want to make it clear on the record at this zoning board meeting that I am absolutely intolerant of RG& and I will never forfeit any space, any variances or special use permits to RG& until they start to negotiate with us and get the rate hikes lowered so that people can live without the grief from RG&. That's all I want to say. Thanks. >> Uh back to the board. Any other uh comments, questions that you may have? >> No. All right. Uh with that, I'd like to make a motion for a type two action under seeant seeker pursuant NYCRR section 617.5 of the environmental code.

>> Second. >> All those in favor? Hi. >> Uh uh I'd like to make a any Let's see. Yeah. Like to make a motion for an area variance for >> You want to go through the findings? >> Yeah. Thank you, Chris. Appreciate it. Why don't you go through the findings? >> Okay. uh the uh granting the uh variances will not impact the essential character of the neighborhood. There's an existing substation there. They're expanding it and the expansion will include uh some buildings that will make it fit in more with the residential character along uh Clem Road. They did consider an alternative building a new one that would have to be somewhere in the same area and they found that uh it was probably better to expand and improve what they have versus trying to uh develop a whole new site.

The requested variance is not substantial uh based on what's there now and what they're asking for. Uh there aren't uh any detrimental physical or environmental conditions at least that as were uh described or presented this evening based on the uh construction or the uh the improving of the uh the substation. And while it is self-created uh it's it's necessary and it's it becomes a public safety issue in this particular case for the use of the site. Yeah, I think I'd like to also add it's actually a uh a better use. Uh as the town continues to grow, more power is required. um which means the substations have to be increased or more substations have to be uh included which uh instead of taking up additional green space within the town uh that RG& has opted to utilize an existing substation property to uh make those make those improvements.

Anybody else want to add anything to the findings? No. Okay. Um, with that, now I'll make a motion for an area variance for 891 Clem Road. Uh, RG&E Gas and Electric Corporation is requesting an area variance for the uh for the GIS uh building to have a front setback of 29.5 ft where 60 ft is required. Um, the control room rear setback of 40 foot.6 6 feet where 55 ft is required. A 9 ft fence within the front yard located 13.7 ft from the property line where a 15t setback is required. A 9- ft fence within the rear yard located 9.1 ft from the property line where a 15t setback is required. And a 9 ft fence within the sideyard located 5.8 ft from the property line where a 15t setback is required.

uh lo uh on an existing RG& substation on a 0.77 acre parcel having SPL064.14-2-7 uh webb located in the R2 single family residential district >> second >> Mr. Short >> I >> Mr. Senola >> I >> Mr. Hi >> Miss Dio. >> Hi >> Mr. Spanada. >> I >> you have your variance uh one year for completion you know all the uh all permits and everything else that you have to do. So >> the one year for completion like the project will not be complete within one year. Okay. Just wanted to make sure. >> Well at least start. >> And Erica is that I mean I'm assuming that's acceptable. project be started >> one year for substantial construction which I assuming you folks will be >> well on your way with so >> yes thank you thank you >> March do we have people were here.

Chris Yeah. So we do. Okay. >> Oh, sorry. >> Um, yeah. I'll make a motion for acceptance of the uh March uh 310 meeting minutes. >> Second. All those in favor I do need to go through the names. >> All right. Um with that I make a motion to to end the meeting. >> Second. All right. Thank you everybody. Uh see you back next next uh month.