Zoning Board Meeting

down in the middle of the night and contemplate where it is. Cry

shut the door and begin couple more minutes.

All right,

forget about it.

Hey, it is uh 7:00.

What's that?

It is 7 o'clock.

Oh, you see 7 o'clock.

Oh, I see 7:58.

7. Okay. Are you good on it?

No, it doesn't matter. Go ahead.

It doesn't matter. Okay. Um, welcome to to the uh zoning board of appeals for the town of Webster uh on today, January 13th, two 2026, not 25, right?

Um I don't see a whole lot in the way of uh public comments potentially, but uh if there is any, we will be limiting those to five minutes. We have one item on the agenda. Um uh I have a proof of legal publication here. Um I'm going to call for attendance.

Mr. Short.

Hi.

Mrs. Bolo

here.

Mr. Spanado

here.

Mr. Prescott.

Hi.

Mr. Senola

here.

Mrs. Dilio

here. Mr. Corso

here.

Miss Corsy

here.

Mr. DeMarco

present.

All right. We could all stand for the pledge of allegiance.

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. All right. With that, uh, we'll go on to the the first item, which is, um, area variance for 425 County Line Road. Come on up.

So, property address 425 County Line Road. The applicant is Randy McKay. Representing agent is Ian Kutchman from uh, McMahon Laroo. The zoning district is the large lot single family residential. Uh the request is to allow a front setback of 16.3 feet where 75 ft is required and to allow an accessory building to be located nearer to the front property line than the rear. Um this request is for a proposal for a pre-existing non-conforming accessory structure that is currently located on this vacant lot. So you're up.

Great. Thank you again. My name is Ian Cookman with McMahon Laroo Engineering and Surveying. Uh we're in the process of uh obtaining site plan approval is the the larger picture of this project to subdivide this parcel into two distinct lots uh with um two new uh single family dwellings on each lot. Um, the lot furthest to the south, uh, lot R1A, has a pre-existing non-conforming metal garage as per the application in front of you here today. The applicant would like to leave the garage there uh in in support of the existing character of the district. Um and uh I believe we've gone through the five proofs of the application. I believe we support uh the the um [clears throat] the statements of difficulty central character. Um being that that it's a a pre-existing non-conforming, it preserves the visual characteristics of the neighborhood since the structure exists and has for many years. the

visual characteristics of the structure are pleasing, but could be improved if it were the [clears throat] board's um recommendation with some strategic landscaping. Um alternatives would be to just demolish the structure. Um that would be something that the applicant would consider, but obviously not preferable. Um, and uh, I guess I'd just open it up to the board and see if there were any particular concerns with the request uh, being asked for here tonight.

You made mention that uh, the lot is being subdivided. Is it the is the image that we saw up on the screen a few seconds ago, is that the subdivided lot already?

Yes.

Gotcha. Okay. Thank you. Um, no. Does the board have any questions that Do you know how long that building's been there?

Uh, no, I don't. For many, many decades. At least a couple dec.

Is there power to it and plumbing or any of that? Just just uh

It's a cold structure. Yeah.

The There's a

No, there's

there's power to it. Yeah,

there's a there's a meter right on the side of it. Okay.

So, yes,

I guess there's power to it. There's no there's no water and sewer to it. I guess is that

it um it looks like it's been recently roofed and sided with with steel or it looks fairly new, but the foundation of it is an old stone

stone foundation. It's been there

or well maintained [cough] much longer than I've been at Webster, I think. So Erica, this building never had a [snorts]

variance. Uh it I think earlier we were talking you said that was an old farm structure if I remember correctly. Right.

Uh yes, the building has been there for quite some time. It hasn't been altered since that lot has been vacant. So

Okay. Okay.

Not in our records anyways.

Okay. Very good. Other questions from the board?

I do not the Well, it's the distance is 16.3 ft from the right of way and then I still have another probably 15 feet to road edge.

Yeah, it's about right.

It's definitely correct.

Well, in excess of a car length off of the edge of the street. Line of sight, I don't think is going to be an issue with respect to um entrance and egress from the driveway of the new home that's built once it's built. What should be your concern?

While they're looking at, do you have do you know what the in uh the new applicant's intended use of the building is going to be?

Uh it's going to be an accessory structure to the the house that they build there. So it would be for um whatever use the the future resident has for that that structure was

so no

what's that?

So you don't know what they're going to use that for? I mean I

uh they're going to they're going to build it and then they're going to sell it in the market. So it's eventually going to go to a buyer.

I got you. So this is a this is a speck house that's being built.

That is correct. Yes.

Okay. Thank you. So the the builder has has no use for it, but what whoever it is beyond that.

Correct. Yep.

Okay. Thank you. Um the reason I'm asking is they're not going to again we don't know at this point but running a business out of it or etc. Right. I mean those are those are the concerns and things that we would be asking a uh an owner if you will.

Yeah. And it's going to be a higherend home, you know, north of 2,000 square feet, threec car garage.

Okay.

So, it'll be a higherend buyer.

Understood.

Okay. Other questions from the uh from the board.

Is do you know if the siding of the house will match the existing siding of that structure or they're just plan on just leaving it built? You don't know?

I would hope not. No, I don't imagine it'll match.

Well, I didn't. There's got to be a reason other than it's pain to knock it down that you know he's leaving it.

What is that? Red.

Yeah. Yeah. Standing in. [laughter]

Yeah. If you're building a 2,000 plus square foot house, you're and you're putting that siding on it.

Hey, listen.

No, no. I I understand.

It's in now. You can see there's a there's an existing mature tree. We could um potentially spruce up the landscaping around it to make it less visually of a you know of a standout to the curb side.

I say the tree is more likely to interfere with this visual.

So in all frankness I mean is it the cost of tearing that down? I mean, if we're putting a high if if the developer is putting a high-end house there, he's going to try and turn it and sell it for upwards of half a million plus dollar thousands thousand dollars is the intent to I'm just trying to think if I'm if I'm a buyer and I have that

kind of look out your front.

Yeah. It's just it's odd to me. I'm trying to figure out what the intent is of saving that structure is

because it's a ready to use office or

Well, as I'm building the house, I would be storing the materials in it.

Sure.

Right. But

but you can knock it down before before the the CFO is issued.

So, sure, it's it's usable up until that point. But

no, I I just think if if the board decides to grant it that we put our usual

Oh, for sure.

That it does. [clears throat]

I would just like to remind the board that

if and when this property is sold that whoever purchases it, if they want to do anything out of that structure, they will have to work with the town. So,

for sure,

I understand your concerns about future uses of this, but I would like to keep in the realm of what the variance is requesting tonight, which is the setbacks and in front of the the front wall plan of the home. So,

thank you.

Yep.

Other questions from the board. [snorts]

My only concern I mean it's it's been there 40 plus years. Um, but is there a way to condition it that the existing building can stay there, but if that building comes down, it does not get replaced in that location?

If that building if that building were to be demolished and they wanted to rebuild it, it would have to be in compliance with our current code, okay?

No matter what. So, they couldn't replace it. It's not like if they kept the foundation but just tore down the walls they would be able to rebuild in the same location.

If it is torn down completely then it has to be and

if they keep the foundation intact and just tear down the walls and rebuilt it.

If the foundation is there, it can be rebuilt. Yes. You made mention that your client is would prefer not to tear it down, but they're open to tearing it down. They have a spec build. They're doing a spec build. So, I mean, they're they prefer not to, but they will if they have to.

If they absolutely have to per per your um decision tonight, then they will for the in spirit of moving the project forward. Sure. I think they want to just keep the optionality open to the market in case that were a draw for buyers.

Understood. Yeah. But I'm just going to put it out there to to the board. You drive down county line, there is no other building that is this close to the road at all. Right. I mean, it is a um [clears throat] a rural road. Uh there are there's plenty of houses down this road now. Um, but there is no other building that I'm aware of that is that close to the road until you get f much further north, if I remember correctly. Um, [snorts] so that building, every time I drive by, it stands out like a sore thumb as it is. Um, it is a pre-existing condition. I'm not denying that. Um, we can go through the rest of the proceedings and and go from there, but that's that's my only thought. And

well, go ahead.

Go. I'm good.

If if I'm driving north, I'm not seeing it because of the hedro. I only see it when I'm heading south.

Oh, I I it's I see it north and south every single time I go.

Okay. See, and I

Yeah.

Yeah. And it might be because I know it's there and it pops out at me, but

either way. Okay. Uh, other questions from the board? If not, if you guys are good with it, I'm going to open up to the public. Uh, anybody from the public want to speak for or against this project?

Nope. Yes.

I would say do what they want to do?

Can you come up to the podium, please? Thank you.

Chris Naka, 1065 Shoecraft Road. I would say let the builder do what they want with it. It's not that much of an eyesore. If it's been there 40 plus years, it hasn't hurt anybody in those 40 years. It's not going to hurt anybody in the next year of development. And then the property owner can decide what they want to do with it. And again, like she said, come up and talk to you guys about what they are and are not allowed to do with that structure or if they get rid of that structure, what they are or are not allowed to do if they were to build a new structure. They might not want to build a new structure right up against the road. Maybe they share the same viewpoints on it as you as you know wanting a extra doicile for storage and whatnot, but also not wanting it right up against the road. Thank you.

Thank you.

Anybody else want to speak for or against? No. I'll bring it back to the board. Any other comments, questions from the board? No. Um, with that, uh, make a motion for a type two action under seeker pursuant to NYCRR section 617.5 of the environmental code.

Second.

All those in favor?

I Chris, you guys want to do the findings or the [clears throat and cough]

Sure.

Yeah. Uh the application um keeping the existing building there will not uh impact the essential character of the neighborhood since it's been there for 40 years. And uh although it's old, it uh seems without actually inspecting it to be in really, you know, decent um condition. Um it uh alternates were considered, but because it's a spec uh lot, it seems to make sense to give the new owner the ability to decide what they want to do with it or how they want to use it in the future.

[clears throat and cough]

Um as far as significance uh the variance requested are substantial but uh because it's existing it uh it's existing non-conforming. So it really it's significant but it's existing so there's really not too much the uh the applicant or any future owners can do except either demolish it or get a variance. Um there are no uh potential impacts on the physical environmental conditions with leaving it in place and um the alleged difficulty is um was not self-created because uh the property was purchased with the existing structure uh already in place. So it's an existing non-conforming that they purchased or they inherited when they purchased the property. Anybody else have anything else to add to it?

No. I'll make a motion, [clears throat] Chris.

Sure. I don't have my

Yeah, I'm looking for the agenda real

agenda.

Thanks. Sorry, I I need the cheat sheet.

Okay. May I uh make a motion to approve um a area variance to allow a front setback of 16.3 ft where 75 ft is required and to allow an accessory building to be located nearer to the front property line than the rear line or footprint of the main building or residence associated with a pre-existing non-conforming accessory structure on a 3.109 acre parcel having SPL number 051.03-1-43. 03-1-43.1 located in an LL large lot single family residential district under section 350-13 and 350-36 of the code of the town of Webster. Oh, and um any uh uh that the uh granted the variance it's for the existing building as is not to be occupied as a dwelling or business. um

until unless they bring it back forward before the board

and not can we condition it not to be made any larger either.

So it's the existing building is

if they were to enlarge it, they would have to come into compliance with the code. So it that wouldn't [clears throat] really apply.

I'd add that that no changes would be allowed to the size of the structure.

Okay.

Second. Thank you, [clears throat]

Mr. Senola.

Hi,

Mrs. Bolo.

Hi,

Mr. Short.

No,

Mr. Spanada.

Hi,

Mr. Presca.

Hi.

All right. You have your um your approval. Uh once [clears throat] you're um well, it's already constructed, so at this point, you're you're all good. But um still have to go through the planning board and everything else for the rest of this lot. Uh good luck with the project.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Um that concludes uh today's board meeting. Is there any minutes?

We have two sets of minutes.

Okay.

Under administrative um I will let me make sure I have the right people. I will make a motion to approve the minutes from the September 9th, 2025 meeting.

Second. All those in favor?

I

And I will make a motion to approve the minutes from the September I'm sorry, the December 9th, 2025 meeting.

Second.

All those in favor?

I.

All right, we're caught up.

All right.

Thank you.

Thank you everybody. Um, meeting is adjourned. Um, something I want to mention