WEBSTER ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES
Webster Town Board Meeting Building 1002 Ridge Road
January 13, 2026
7:00 pm
ABSENT:
Michael Short
Adam Prescott
Corrine Volo
James Spampinato
Chris Centola
Stacie Damelio; John Accorso
John DeMarco, Attorney
Katherine Kolich, Planning & Zoning Secretary
Josh Artuso, Director of Community Development
Erika Corsi, Planner of Community Development
Good evening and welcome to the Zoning Board Appeals meeting for the January
13, 2026 meeting. I don’t see a whole lot in the way of public comments potentially, but if there
is any, we will be limiting those to 5 minutes. We have one item on the agenda. I have proof of
legal publication here.
Call Roll/Pledge of Allegiance
Summary of Application Outcomes
TABLED MATTERS
:
1. CARPORT-438 MCEWEN DRIVE
Lisa McBride
TABLED TO 3.10.26
2. ACCESSORY BUILDING-671 WILLOW TREE LANE
Bryan Bischoping
TABLED TO 2.10.26
SCHEDULED MATTERS
:
3. ACCESSORY BUILDING-425 COUNTY LINE ROAD
Randy McKay
APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS
(Erika Corsi, Town Planner presented a PowerPoint Presentation for each application and
read into the record)
Pg. | January 13, 2026 Zoning Meeting
Located at 438 McEwen Drive. Applicant Lisa McBride is requesting AREA
VARIANCES to allow a front setback of Oft for a carport where 5Oft is required and a front
setback of 20ft for a deck where SOft is required, associated with an existing carport and deck on
a().41-acre parcel having SBL# 093.06-1-27 located in the R-3 Single-Family Residential District
under Sections 350-12 and 350-38 of the Code of the Town of Webster
APPLICATION WAS TABLED TO March 10, 2026
Located at 67! 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.
APPLICATION WAS TABLED TO February 10, 2026
VARIANCE Located at 425 County Line Road. Applicant Randy McKay is requesting AREA
VARIANCE to allow a front setback of 16.3-feet where 75-feet 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 SBL# 051.03-1-43.1 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.
Appearing before the board was Ian Kutchman from McMahon LaRue Engineering and
Surveying. We are in the process of obtaining site plan approval . In the larger picture of this
project to subdivide this parcel into distinct lots with 2 new single family dwellings on each lot.
The lot furthest to the south, R-| has a pre-existing non-conforming meta! garage as per the
application in front of you today. The applicant would like to leave garage there in support of
the existing character of the district. I believe we’ve gone through the five proofs of the
application. I believe we support the statements of difficulty central character. Being that it’s 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 boards recommendation with some strategic landscaping.
Alternatives would be to just demolish the structure. That would be something that the applicant
would consider, but obviously not preferable. ] guess I’d just open it up to the board and see if
there were any particular concerns with the request being asked for here tonight.
You made mention that the lot is being subdivided. Is it the image that we saw up
on the screen seconds ago, is that the subdivided lot already.
Yes.
Pg.2 January 13, 2026 Zoning Meeting
Gotcha. Okay, thank you. Does the board have any questions...Do you know
how long that building has been there.
No, I don’t. For many, many decades.
Is there power to it? Plumbing or is it cold structure.
There’s power to it. There’s a meter right on the side of it.
lan Kutchman: So yes, I guess there’s power to it. There’s no water and sewer to it.
It looks like it’s been recently roofed and sided with steel, or it looks fairly new,
but the foundation of it is an old stone foundation. It’s been there or well maintained much longer
than I’ve been at Webster.
So, Erika, this building never had a variance, and I think earlier we were talking,
and you said that was an old farm structure, If 1 remember correctly. Right?
Yes, the building has ben there for quite some time. It hasn’t been altered since that
lot has been vacant but not in our records anyways.
Any other questions from the board.
(Not speaking loud enough or into the mic) Well, it’s the distance is 16.3 feet from
the right of way and then I still have another...15 feet to the road edge. It’s definitely correct.
Well, in excess of a car length off the edge of the street. Line of sight. I don’t think it is going to
be an issue with respect to entrance and egress from the driveway of the new home that’s built
once it’s built.
While they’re looking at, do you have do you know what new applicants intended
use of the building is going to be?
It is going to be an accessory structure to the house that they build there. So, it
would be for whatever use the future resident has for that structure.
So, you don’t know what they’re going to use that.
lan Kutchman: They’re going to build it and then they’re going to sell it in the market, so it is
eventually going to go to a buyer.
I got you. So, this is a speck house that’ being built.
That is correct.
Pg.3 January 13, 2026 Zoning Meeting
Okay, thank you. So, the builder has no use for it, but whoever it is beyond that.
Correct.
Thank you. 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 etc. Right, I mean those are the concerns and things
that we would be asking an owner if you will.
lan Kutchman: And it’s going to be a higher end home, you know, north of 2,000 square feet, 3
car garage, so it will be a higher end buyer.
Understood.
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.
lan Kutchman: I don’t imagine that it’]l match.
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?
If you are a building a 2,000 plus square foot house, you’re and you’ re putting that
siding on it.
I understand. It’s now
You can see there’s an existing mature tree. We could potentially spruce up the
landscaping around it to make it less visually of a standout to the curb side.
(I think someone from the board is speaking, but I can not hear them or see them) Everyone
needs to be speaking into the mic and speak loud enough.
In ail fairness, it is not the cost if tearing that down. I mean, if we’re putting a
high...
If the developer is putting a high-end house there, he’s going to try and turn it and
sell it for upwards of a half a million plus dollar thousands of dollars is the intent to....?’m just
trying to think if I’m a buyer and I have that kind of look out your front, it’s just 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. (Not using the mic or speaking loud
enough)
Pg. 4 January 13, 2026 Zoning Meeting
Well, as I’m building the house, I would be storing the materials in it.
But you can knock it down before the C of O is issued. So sure, it’s usable up
until that point. But
Board member speaking, not loud enough: If the board decides to grant it thata we put our usual...
For sure.
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, 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
front wall plan of the home. So, thank you.
Other questions from the board.
My only concern is it’s been there 40 + years 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 were to be demolished and they wanted to rebuild it, it would have
to be in compliance with out current code, no matter what.
Both board members speaking over one another. If they tore down the walls, would they be able
to rebuild in the same location.
If it is torn down completely then it has to be................ board member speaking
over.
(not speaking loud enough) If they keep the foundation intact and just tear down
the walls and rebuild it.
If the foundation is there, it can be rebuilt, yes.
You made mention that your client is......would not prefer 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 prefer not to, but they will if they have to.
lan Kutchman: If they absolutely have to per your decision tonight, then they will for the...in
spirit of moving the project forward. J think they just want to keep the optionality open to the
market in case that were a draw for buyers.
Pg.5 January 13, 2026 Zoning Meeting
Understood. I am just going to put it out there 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
rural road, There are plenty of houses down this road now but there is no other building that I’m
aware of close to the road until we get much further north, if 1 remember correctly. So, that
building, every time I drive by it, it stands out like a sore thumb as it is. It is a pre-existing
condition. I’m not denying that. We can go through the proceedings and go from there, but that’s
my only thought and....
Well, if I’m driving north, I am not seeing it because of the hedge row, 1 am only
seeing it when I head south.
I see it north and south every single time I go by, and it might be because I know
it’s there and it pops out at me, but either way. Any other questions from the board. Okay, if you
guys are good with it, I’m going to open it up to the public. Does anyone from the public was to
speak for or against this project.
1065 Shoecraft Road. I would say, let the builder do what they want with it. It’s not
that much of an eye sore if it’s been 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 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 know
wanting an extra domicile for storage and whatnot, but also not wanting it right up against the
road. Thank you.
RESOLUTION 26-001 Michael Short made a motion TYPE It
Chris
Centola
VOTE:
Mr. Short AYE
Mrs. Volo AYE
Mr. Spampinato AYE
Mr. Prescott AYE
Mr. Centola AYE
(CHRIS CENTOLA )
The application... keeping the existing building there will not impact the essential character of the
neighborhood since its been there for 40 years. And although it’s old, it seems without actually
inspecting it to be in really, you know, decent condition. It...alternates were considered, but
because it’s a spec 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. As far as significance the variance
requested are substantial but because il’s existing it is existing non-conforming. So, it really...it’s
Pg.6 January 13, 2026 Zoning Meeting
significant but it really, it’s existing so there’s really not too much the applicant or any future
owners can do except either demolish it or get a variance. There are no potential impacts on the
physical environmental conditions with leaving it in place and the alleged difficulty was not self-
created because the property was purchased with the existing structure already in place. So, it’s an
existing non-conforming that they purchased or that they inherited when they purchased the
property.
Does anyone have anything they would like to add to it.
RESOLUTION 26-062
VOTE:
CONDITIONS:
Chris Centola made a motion for AREA
VARIANCE Located at 425 County Line Road.
Applicant Randy McKay is requesting AREA
VARIANCE to allow a front setback of 16.3-feet
where 75-feet 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
parce] having SBL# 051.03-1-43.1 located in an LL
Large-Lot Single Family Residential District under
Section 350-13 and 350-36 of the Code of the Town
of which was seconded by Corrine Volo.
Mr. Short NAY
Mrs. Volo AYE
Mr. Spampinato AYE
Mr. Prescott AYE
Mr. Centola AYE
e The applicant must obtain all necessary governmental permits, including a Town
Building Permit that you are re-installing.
That one-year significant construction shall expire January 13, 2027
Granting this variance it’s for the existing building as is; not to be occupied as a
dwelling or a business until...untess they bring it back for or before the board.
And can we condition it not be made any larger either.
If they were to enlarge it, they would have to come into compliance with the code.
So, that wouldn't really apply. Board member speaking at the same time.
[’d add that no changes would be allow to the size of the structure.
Pg. 7 January 13, 2026 Zoning Meeting
;
e Approval of minutes for September 9, 2025; VOLO/CENTOLA; December 9, 2025
VOLO/SHORT.
Since there are no further applications before the Board, Michael Short adjourned tonight's
meeting at 7:30 p.m.
Corrine Volo, Secretary
Katherine Kolich, Recording Secretary
MAR 12 '26 aM11:23
-ILED WEBSTER TWN CLK
Wem QA
Pg.8 January 13, 2026 Zoning Meeting