Zoning Board Meeting
9th, 2025. Um,
we have uh we have one item on the uh on the well, we have two items on the agenda for uh this evening. Uh I have here is the uh legal publication that went out. Um call for attendance.
Mr. Short.
Hi.
Mrs. Bolo.
I
Mr. Spaniard.
Oh, okay. Nobody's sending anything.
Mr. Prescott.
Hi,
Mr. Senola.
Hi,
Mr. Corso. Hi,
Miss Corsy here and Mr. DeMarco
here. Welcome back.
Thank you.
Yay.
Uh 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.
There is um one item that is on the agenda um 438 Mchuan Drive. Uh we are going to table that um application until the uh January meeting. Um make a motion to table 438 Muan Drive.
Second.
All those in favor?
I.
Uh all right, with that move on to our our first and our first item on the agenda. So, first item is 11:40 Brook Tree Lane applicant Brian Weiss. Am I saying that correctly?
Yeah.
You can come up to the podium, too, please. Um, zoning district is an R1 single family residential district. The request is for the location of a shed in a front yard. And this is the proposal is that this is an existing shed that's been located in the front wall plane of the home. So, um, the applicant did not put the shed there. It is pre-existing. So, um,
and can I just say a clarification because I had spoke to Mr. Artuso. I I know there was some delay. The the application fee was in fact finally paid so we're all square to have the meeting this evening. Okay, good. And then um relevant sections of the code are 350-10 which is a single family residential district and 350-36A2 which indicates that no building shall be placed nearer to the front property line uh than the rear line or footprint of the main building or residence upon such lot. So with that, Brian, we just request that you kind of explain what's going on if and and discuss the five criteria that were in the variance application. Um, which are on the screen for you.
I can't read that, but I'll just give you the gist of what's going on. I purchased the house in uh 2021. I've been living there for about 10 years. Um, there's been about five total transactions from the conception of the shed. The shed was built on the property in 1984. It's never been flagged through any of the conveyances of the property or sales. Um, ultimately, it's in a section of the yard that's unused. It's covered by a line of arborite, so it's very tucked away from everything. It's been there since 1984. There's never been an issue with that side of the property at all. Nobody, nobody's ever needed access to it for power line work or anything like that. Um, it's not movable or else this would have been taken care of already. Um, and ultimately it, you know, it houses my children's bikes, our kids toys so that they're not sprawled out, you know, across the yard and everything like that and lawn equipment. Um, so I use it. It's pretty, you know, utilized for my property. It it doesn't seem to be an eyesore bothering anybody. Um, and again, it's it's been there since 1984. Um, so I'm hoping that we can, you know, allow it to stay so I don't have to pay to get it removed. And, uh, yeah, if you guys have any other questions or need
any other information, just let me know. Like I said, I couldn't read that from here. So,
no, that's fine. Thank you. That was that was very good.
Um, what caused I mean, I understand it's out of compliance. What caused this to
Great question. Come up.
Great question. I had a neighbor call the town on me because I had an unregistered vehicle in my driveway. I had my landscape trailer um in my driveway and I have a snow plow for my truck that was parked there. So, they were unhappy with the way that my yard looked. Um and not to get too much into that, but I quickly remedied every issue that I could other than the shed because my only option right now is to tear it down or go through this process. So, you know, we've been going to court for this for, you know, what, DeMarco, two, three months now, something like that. Um, so I was trying to get out of the fiscal responsibility because to me, it should have been caught through the many transactions on the property on both sides of the transactions. As real estate goes, they should have been remedied already. Obviously, I bought the property. So, like uh Dalvo said, I bought the problem. Um, but other than the shed being relocated or tore down, I've remedied anything on the property that was causing an issue for any one of my uh lovely neighbors.
As far as I know, those th those statements are are accurate. I'm not aware that there's any other I didn't recall how the attention was originally brought, but that that makes sense to me. Um, to the extent that that it's relevant, uh, you know, the applicant is accurate. It was either he had to self-remeyd the issue or come before the board and uh we had indicated to him that if the board obviously grants the variance then the prosecution will will be nullified.
Okay.
Erica, can you confirm that? Um I'm assuming the um the code enforcement had went out there initially and they've confirmed that uh the other violations have been remedied.
Yes, that's correct. This is the only remaining. Okay. Thank you. Uh if you don't mind me asking where I'm assuming you have a place that you are storing your uh landscape trailer and plow and other uh items.
The plow's on my truck and the landscape trailer is is it's not like a a huge commercial landscape trailer. It's a 5x8 that I I keep my personal mower for my personal property on. So it's it's on my property. I had another trailer that was also parked on the front yard. I tried to tuck it away in the nicest spot that I could. Like I said, there's a line of arborite, so it works as kind of like an outdoor garage, or at least that's what I looked at it as. So, I had everything nice and neat over in the sidey yard pretty much away from everybody's view. Um, I've moved those to a different location to store them. Um, I had a jet ski and a boat back there as well to move those as well. So, the only thing that's on my property are the things that I keep on my truck um or to service my property. Now, all of it is is registered. All of it is legit. Um, so it shouldn't be any issue for the the small trailer that I have there now, but I have it in a in a proper place.
Okay. I appreciate that. Thank you.
Other questions from the board?
No.
And again, to the extent that when he when the applicant bought the property, it should have been identified by council.
Sure.
They should have forced uh the seller to produce a variance. That didn't happen. And uh once it once the deed closes, it merges and it becomes the applicant's problem. Um not a not a pleasant uh situation for the applicant to accept, but from the judge's perspective and and our perspective, he kind of got caught hold in the bag here.
Kind of buyer beware. Unfortunately, you do you do as much due diligence as you can. And unfortunately, as John said, you you got uh caught holding the bag at this point. Uh Erica, there there's also another component that um it's in a uh an easement. Is that correct?
That is correct. The survey that we have on file for the town is from I believe 1980. One moment.
Mr. DeMarco, you have my folder.
I'm sorry.
I want to say it's from like 1982 or something like that. I went to the town to ask for that info as well. It hasn't been updated.
The shed isn't on here. And if it was 84, the shed would have been on.
Yeah. So, this is from uh May of 1988,
which indicates there is a 30foot drainage easement in the front yard, which unfortunately is where the shed is located. Um that would require a license agreement with the highway department because that is their easement. Okay. What? Um, drainage pipes or sanitary or not sanitary, but it's drainage pipes underneath. Is that what it is?
Uh, drainage. Yes. For the uh store.
Mhm.
Okay. Okay. Just in the event that shed has to be disabled in somehow in some way, excuse me, relative to addressing drainage. Is that something that's going to be oppositional for you or if if this thing if it ends up needing to get taken out? I guess my follow-up question would be is where would the fiscal responsibility come in for that project? If I was to be build for the town to have to come in in the very small space that it intercedes, then yeah, I wouldn't be happy about it. Um, but I would probably be notified after the fact as well. Um, again, it hasn't been touched in in since 1984. There's never been a need to get access to that point. So, I would hope that it would never come up, but I'm not emotionally tied to the shed. I I'm emotionally tied to the money that goes to my children. That's
right.
Can Can I ask a question?
Yeah.
The Erica, did you say that the this map was drawn up in 1988?
Correct. And the shed has been there since when?
So on I I don't have a building permit for the shed, but I looked back on the layers of Google Earth and 1984 is the first year that you can see the shed on the property from the satellites of Google Earth.
Doesn't that predate the the easement even?
Yes, sir.
It does.
It's because they put it up with town.
Yeah. I mean,
no one knew that. There's a creek that runs through the property that I'm I'm assuming the waterway goes and and that's what connects to the easement. Um
there is a natural creek that runs through my backyard at that angle. Um I'm wasn't familiar with easements or any of this stuff when I bought the property and uh
Sure.
You know,
so going back to to John's question, right? I mean, a lot of times, again, we're we're in a a little bit of a unique situation. A lot of times, you know, you put something up in an easement, whether it's landscaping, whether it's a a building, and if the agency that needs to do work in that easement, it's their easement, they theoretically have the right to tear it down, do their work, and walk away. And then you'd be stuck holding the the financial cost to rebuild it, right? Is really what it comes down to.
Yeah, I'm not worried about that. if that's what you're wondering. Like I said, I'm not going to sue the town over over the shed getting torn down. Um but yeah, if they came to my house because they needed to to check for a leak or something and tore it down and then handed me a bill, I I wouldn't be happy with that.
Um but no, I'm I'm not going to b over this over that at all.
I can't speak for the I can't speak for the uh
Sure. Yeah. Yeah. We're talking hypothetical
handing you a bill on tearing down.
I'm happy for them if they need access. I'm happy to allow them access if if that answers the question.
I got you.
I guess the Do we know there are pipes there or is it just access?
In speaking with the highway department, there are pipes there. Um and so in the event that they needed to do any work to those pipes, yes, they would be able to come in. If the shed had to come down, they would tear it down and that would be that. So, but I my understanding is there are pipes there.
No, because the only reason they would need that is if they were replacing
or cleaning.
Well, cleaning they don't even need to do it either. Cleaning have access other points.
So,
the only reason they would need to remove the shed would be if they were replacing.
Correct. Yeah.
Via repair or just because it was time to put a new one in.
Yes. So you you probably got a good normal wear tear at least 15 or 20 years
from from an everyday issuance uh occurrence versus an emergency one.
I'm just trying to figure out the likelihood of them needing to do that. Then it doesn't seem like it's
Do you guys have the probability?
Are there are there like notable plans to be replacing any of the pipes in that area in the foreseeable future?
Not that I'm aware. That would be something you'd have to discuss with the highway department. They're in charge of the drainage easements,
so um the board can't speak to that. I can't speak to that.
Um
I was just
It's just it's really, you know,
a formality for those so that the the homeowner is aware, you know, this portion unfortunately of your property belongs to the town so they can go in there when they need to. So, yeah.
Well, and we see this situation with corner lots all the time.
Um, a you've got two easements going through your property, one through the sideyard, one through the rear yard. So, even if we were to encourage you to relocate it behind the house, you're in the middle of a drainage eman. So, there's no
right
there's really no good location. And while it's in the front yard or in front of the rear line of the house, um I'm going to say it isn't, it isn't. As I look at the front of the house, it's behind it, but because you have such a spot,
it's in the front yard. So, it's
Yeah, it's significant screening
and and there's that's really the most logical location because of all of the hedro around it.
So, I remember driving by and you don't really see it. Yeah.
Other questions, comments from the board?
No, I was actually going to second that. If he was coming here to build a shed, I would have to think that logically we would be discussing somewhere in that corner anyways for him to, you know, possibly put it up. Honestly, looking at the yard.
Yep. Um, there's no other questions from
No, as long as he he seems to be aware that if DPW needs to access or replace or repair the pipe, the shed may not be long,
right?
Kind of like buyer beware. Now you're aware that but now he's aware
it's coming down.
Um, open up to the public if anybody wants to speak for or against uh this project, please come on up. No. Okay. Back to the board. Any other comments from the
I have a question. Legal question.
Just you may sell the property at some point. I don't know what your plans are,
but some new owner comes in and is not aware. He's got a variance at this point if we approve it.
Correct.
He's not aware that there's a uh that the town might come in and or they'd have to. I mean, they wouldn't do it arbitrarily, but if they have to go in for to correct the the sewer sewer issue, um, is there any way we can put any kind of caveat on the approval that says that if if the town is forced to tear down the shed, they won't be responsible for replacing it.
So, I can speak to that. If the board approves the variance this evening, the applicant has to get a license agreement with the town highway department, which would indicate that in the event of repair or replacement, the the applicant recognizes that the town is able to go into this area of the property and replace what's underneath the ground as it is within their easement. So, this is kind of step one. Step two is to is to get the signing from the highway department indicating we're aware that this is in our easement and this is how we're going to proceed forward.
Thank you.
It's funny. I was originally one of the comments I was going to make was um when the shed is no longer viable that it no doesn't get placed in that location. But to your point, Karina, there is no other place on this property to place a shed realistically without it being in an easement
or without it being much closer to the street.
An eyesore on the other side.
So, um, any other comments or questions from the board at this point?
No. All right. I'd like to 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 I um findings. Chris, you want to do them?
Let Karine I came from an appointment so fair enough.
I'll say that the request is not out of character with the neighborhood. Excuse me. In that the shed has been there for 40 years.
Yes, ma'am.
Is so um that it that's part of the character of the neighborhood and there's a lot of sheds in that area. Um given that it is a corner lot, there's really not any other substantial really no other method of placing a shed based on the location of the drainage easements and also the configuration of the house within the lot. Um that kind of is the only place it's going to be able to go. Um so the benefits not achievable by any other method. Um, I'll say it's semi-substantial in that yes, it's in the front yard, but the house has two front yards. And it's if you draw the line, the rear line of the house, it's behind the front sort of kind of behind the house, but considered the front yard. So, it's it's the logical location. Um, the difficulty is not self-created in that it's been this shed was installed many many years ago, long before this applicant was in this house. and probably before you were born. Um, and there's no adverse physical environmental impacts to the site or the neighborhood with the understanding that
it is currently over a drainage easement. And if that easement needed to be torn up for some reason, the applicant is aware of that and the shed would have to leave. Um, anything else anyone wants to add? I just want to reiterate that this is a existing non-conforming condition that the uh the owner um inherited if you will uh when he purchased the house. Um and you know any any motion here will either uh rectify that pre-existing condition or or not. Uh and the fact that the shed is hidden well behind um mature vegetation. So, all right. Um,
I'll let you make a motion because we don't have
Do we typically have the um approvals conditioned upon the execution of the licensing agreement?
That can be a condition of approval if the board chooses to do so.
Okay.
Do you mind if I ask a question about that?
Yeah. So, if the board approves this and then my next step is to get a licensing agreement from the town, right? So, let's just say that they they don't agree to it and then I'm responsible, right, to to remove the shed
that it would be correct.
Then what's the point of the contingency?
It it's it is there we're this board here only has the vote to give you a variance. um this this board will vote on that variance either yes or no. If we say yes, there's there's another component that we don't control. So we want to put that contingency on saying you you have to go to the next step, right? I mean and if you don't one if you don't go to the next step then it gets revoked or it never gets applied and two if um the DPW doesn't give then it gets um it never gets applied as well. Um it's my understanding that conversations have occurred um kind of at least initial conversations is my understanding.
Yes. Um, we've spoken with the highway department based on the vote here tonight. They'll come to your property to review the easement. Um, and then go forward from there. So, uh,
so do I need to contact them to initiate that or to start the application process for the licensing agreement?
Based on the based on the decision here tonight, you'll get an email from me tomorrow or later this week with the next steps and how to move forward. It it's not an application process.
No, it's not an application. There's going to be a licensing licensing agreement produced for you which you can take a look at and decide whether or not to agree
which is essentially now that you're aware and the town's going to allow it that you're also aware of the fact that the town has rights at that location of your shed and that you're you're acknowledging the town has those rights. I don't think that the uh license agreement has within it that if in fact that shed had to be removed or destroyed that it is at your cost. Um but you'll be working with with my office and and we'll we'll take a deeper dive into that. Uh what we don't want to do here is if the board approves it then kind of allow you to stall that process because you you've already obtained the variance. So we make it a condition so you continue in good faith like you are now. We'll get this last piece of the puzzle resolved and put the matter to bed. It's also going to be better for you if there comes a point in time when you sell the property that the records complete so that when your lawyer turns to you and say we got to produce these
documents or he won't say that to you because they will go on to the town file and it'll all be there.
So just just to like cover my my axis if if my approval here is contingent upon DP what is it W the water authority or whatever
highway department.
Okay. the highway department. If if my approval here is denied is denied through the highway department. It's an agreement.
Okay.
It's not an approval process.
Okay.
And and and it it is highly unlikely that there's anything in that agreement that you're not going to agree to.
Yeah. No, I'm I I I thought I agreed to that here at the podium when you guys asked if I agreed to that or not. So, I just thought that was done. I just kind of like it it is it is a licensing agreement where it's going to lay out the rights of the town if they got to come in. Okay.
And you're just going to acknowledge, yep, I'm aware of it, sign off on it, and it may not ever come to fruition unless there's a problem with those pipes.
Cool.
And yeah, I mean, you agreed to it with this board, but the licensing agreement is a a legal document that uh outlines it, right? I mean, and is signed. that that's what that ends up being.
So, I appreciate that. You know, the likelihood is
Yeah, I think at
that point slim to none.
The the confusion may have been we use the word approval versus just him accepting the agreement.
Yes, sir.
So, that mean that's I think just looking for definitive answers here. I'm assuming there's a fee associated with the licensing agreement.
I don't I don't think so. Yeah,
I hope not.
I'd have to double check that and get back to you with a short answer.
Cool. Then, yeah. I'm I'm cool to move forward and we'll do so in good faith.
All right. I'd like to uh make a motion um for a Bear with me. I'm trying to read this off my phone here for an area variance located at 1140 Brookree Lane um to allow a shed in the front yard of a corner lot um which is not permitted located on a 0.4 4 acre parcel having SPL number 065.05-1-99 05-1-99 located in the R1 single family residential district under sections 350-10 350-47 of the C code of the town of Webster uh with the condition that um the applicant seeks a licensing agreement with the highway department for um use of the drainage easement of where the uh shed is existingly uh is is located currently.
Second
Mr. Short.
I
Mrs. Volo
I
Mr. Stampin
Mr. Spampen not here
Mr. Prescott.
Hi
Mr. Senola.
Hi
Mr. Corso.
Hi.
All right. So you do have your variance. Um, we would like you to move forward as quickly as possible and obviously Erica will be uh reaching out to you for uh that licensing agreement, getting the highway department out to do what they need to do and get that agreement over uh to you. Um, but with that, I don't I don't expect to to have you need to come back here again. So, um, sorry it's been a long process, but I'm glad uh this portion is is uh move forward positively for you.
Me too. And so now just just for my own recollection, this is going to be in the property's file now on the abstract for the for the variance agreement.
This will go in the town records.
Yeah.
That we have in our system indicating that you've received a variance approval today 12925 for the location of your shed and that will continue to be in our system.
Okay, cool.
So we will have that indefinitely. Perfect.
In theory, if you were to sell the house or what uh the uh the your attorney or the buyer's attorney would look at those records and place that Eastman on an instrument survey.
Okay.
Along with the location of the shed and any other outbuildings or fences you might have on the property.
Okay. Great. But um in doing their due diligence, which obviously wasn't done when you purchased the property, but if they're doing it correctly, the easement along with any other structure of this site should show up on the instrument survey.
Okay. Thank you.
Thank you. Have a happy holiday.
You guys as well. Everybody safe. All right.
Uh the next item that we have on uh the agenda is an administrative item. Um 478 Lake View Terrace.
Um just a quick question. You had made a a motion to table 438. Did you want to do the same thing for 671?
Oh, on the
on the agenda.
Oh, I thought it said it was tabled. I thought it said tabled matter. My apologies. Um, I'd like to make a motion to table um 671 Willow Lane uh an accessory building until the January meeting.
Second.
All those in favor?
I.
All right.
Thank you. So, the administrative matter on the agenda tonight is for 478 Lake View Terrace. This is a single family home. Um, it received variance approvals back in March of 2025. And that approval was for a front yard setback of 39.70 ft where 75 is required and a sideyard setback of 10 ft where 20 ft is required uh in association with the construction of a single a one-story single family dwelling and attached garage um in the R1 single family district. Now, we are here this evening to amend the conditions of the approval. Uh the conditions are listed on your screen that were given in March of 2025. The proposed changes are on the right side of the screen for the board members. Um, additionally, I have
their plans pulled up. So, if you'd like to see the changes visually and ask questions regarding, we can go that route as well.
I I I would definitely appreciate that.
Okay.
Um
I'll be honest, I'm I'm a little frustrated that this is coming back to the board. Um there's definitely been changes. This board agreed to um conditions. uh one of those conditions being a window, another condition being the uh the square footage. Now I this board um as we made that condition actually made a uh something non-conforming because the u minimum square footage of a uh family in an R1 district is 1,440 square ft. Uh, and we made the condition that this would be right around 1300 square ft. If I remember correctly,
1366 is what was on the original plan.
Thank you.
Um, so we were making it uh 80 square ft smaller than what was uh what is actually permitted per the zoning. Um, so
one more thing, Michael, to that point. Um, it is the recommendation to remove that condition because it does create a nonconforming parcel or I'm sorry, a non-conforming dwelling.
Understood.
So, I'd like to let the board know that.
Yep. I appreciate that. Um, so I mean on one hand, shame on the board for putting that condition on. Um but the other condition uh of the window is something that um could easily be rectified um with a with the design of the house. Um I did recently find out that permits went in prior to coming to the zoning board. Um this board did not was not privy to the um floor plans of the house. Um so you know on one hand we have a house that um conditions were put on and uh the applicant decided to one market the house at a at a larger size um and disregarded with this board um what the condition that this board put on. So again I for me I I have a level of frustration uh with that. Now, one of the other conditions, um, the applicant and the homeowner have agreed to, uh, the the neighbor have agreed to
change the vegetation. I believe we've called for evergreens or arborite to be installed. Um, the the neighbor and the applicant have uh have discussed and agreed to put plantocks if I recall correctly. Um, so I'm glad that there were discussions for that uh component, but I don't know if the anybody on the board has any other questions or comments or
what what brought the matter up?
Thank you,
Erica. It's my understanding the
So, the changes came up uh as the applicant indicated they had found a buyer for the home. um and they wanted to make some alterations to the house to suit their needs as a family. Um at that point I indicated to the applicant that because his approvals were conditioned he had to come back to the board to get those amended. Um this began I believe at the end of October. So once we received the updated plans, we put it on the agenda as an administrative matter. So it it arose from some from a buyer indicating they needed changes to the home
and there was never a home. We never ordered or did anything other than showing the 1500 so that you could see it. That's there's nothing ordered. We haven't built ordered. We haven't done anything. Understood. And
go on.
I guess that's one of my questions. This home, proposed home lot has been on Zillow for like three months now. Is a 1500 square foot threebedroom, two-b home. So, even as advertised,
it it's actually been on Zillow for seven months now. Okay. Or so. It it's it's something we've uh my realtor and I have discussed and we just left it up because we haven't we haven't sold the house.
Okay.
We haven't sold it.
The the the home and I understand the home on Zillow is just a faximile of an example house that would be on that on that particular lot. Um but so this the the changes precipitated from a potential buyer who is not quite in favor of the layout that was originally brought before the
the future buyer asked if we could increase the square footage. I in turn then said I will find out. I went and met with Erica, talked to Erica, and we said without getting
outside of our approved variance, you can go to 30 ft is the maximum. We then went to Brian at McMahon um and got everything situated to the map, the current map that you have, just to make sure we stayed within the variance that's precipitated everything that you see to date. There has been nothing ordered or we don't even have a signed contract yet because everything is picipant on this being approved and the future homeowner is in the gallery today for this purpose because I had stated, you know, come we're we're within our guidelines. We I did my due diligence way before this meeting and I did everything that was asked. Okay.
Other questions, comments from the board.
So, could you put those um side to side?
The right the requested modifications.
You want to see them in the PowerPoint or in the actual drawings? Oh,
I think you just enlarge that.
Yeah, enlarge that. And we can put a arrow on them. And
there's four total.
No, just these two. Show the changes to the
How many changes are there? There's a
We moved the driveway from going into the side to go forward. We put a front porch and we just extended the house from 274 to 30.
Right. It's just deeper. That's
it's not any wider.
No, it's not any wider. Everything is the same. It's from the original variance. We did not
exceed the variance.
The amendments that are needed are based on the square footage of the total uh habit livable floor area. The fact that the applicant and the neighborh had have a written agreement which is supplied to the board indicating that they will plant. Um I believe there was five different options that they had agreed upon.
And then the final one was the condition that the house had to be could be no larger than the size on the plans dated February 17th.
And the window
and the window. Correct. On the east side of the house.
On the east side of the house. Yes.
Yeah. And the window is for safety. We You have to have a exterior window for a bedroom for fire code,
right? But your layout doesn't have to be the layout it is.
Well, and I'm trying to remember because it was it was a while ago. Why did we condition it that there be no window? Um,
it was a with neighbor.
With the neighbor.
Okay. But it's on the garage side of the house of the neighbor.
You're right. It was a compromise.
Okay.
And that was just to, you know, appease our neighbor and and she and I have had numerous conversations and she was opposed to the arborites. That's what spurred all of this on on the arbor vites. She didn't want them.
Oh, okay.
Cuz you could put the window where you could put it on
and she didn't mind the window, but we were just whatever we needed to do to make it, you know, obbeatable for everybody. This is not public. This is an administrative matter.
Okay.
So, I don't have to open up to the public.
I mean,
is anybody here?
Does anybody want to speak for or I mean, I guess I can open it up. Does anybody want to speak for or against? Um
well, I'm sure he wants to provide any any insight into project.
Oh, okay.
That's fine.
This window right here in bedroom two,
you go to the floor plan.
No, look, we we we didn't have to, but if there was opposition, which there isn't from the community, I think it's a mood point. I'm assuming as a prospective buyer, you're in support of the of the application. So, we we're good there.
That's the new window in bedroom 2 that was not there.
30410. The one Yeah, the one that Erica is circling there. That's the window there. and and the the neighbor that wants
and a window on the garage.
Uh the plantings is the same neighbor that's on the side of the window or they're on
correct. Correct.
That's it's the same neighbor.
Okay.
Now, did the we because that lot has been been a vacant lot for so long. Um her concern was privacy in her backyard, right? because we had to provide a variance for side setbacks if I remember correctly. So
right
part of this was providing a level of privacy um and part of the condition of not having the window there was so that nobody would be overlooking her her yard if you will. So that in combination with the vegetation, now we picked our provide, but that in combination with the uh vegetation was the compromise um that the applicant agreed to for um for the pro for this and parcel
and the representation is now that the neighbor is accepting of the window as long as the ever is there.
She never had a problem with the window.
Okay. She never had a problem with the window. We we extruded the window from the original plan just just to be accepting of her not wanting anything on that side.
Did you you don't have anything recently from the neighbor confirming what you're representating
representing? Excuse me. Um Okay. We Yes, we we submitted a letter from the neighbor.
Okay. That she was aware that the board more or less at its own valition made sure that there was no window. She that she's aware of that, but she's okay with a window.
She is okay. Verbally, we have a letter stating the vegetation. That was already that's in writing. Verbally, we discussed the window. She doesn't care about the window because the window is actually against her garage. Where the window's placement, that's her garage,
right? And the back bedroom, that would be the one that would infringe upon her backyard privacy. That window's out to the rear. So, it's not going to be an issue.
And it's it's a it's a ranch, so it's not like you got to
you're looking down up and down,
right,
into into the house.
Circumstantially, that makes sense. It
does.
Yes. Yes. Well, more importantly, we the board made a decision that
well, if we were presented with this, we would
presented with this right the other day, right? Okay. And that's so
that's what I'm trying to
layout would be completely changed to accommodate the board's uh
other than the you know other than the uh minimum square footage that we also um implemented but we we could you know they could easily rearrange the layout of this.
Well that's what I'm saying. You could
sure
play around with it.
I I I want to clarify though there was no malicious intent here at all.
Okay. The only reason the first plan that you saw was was a plan that was just one of our initial plans. It it wasn't it wasn't anything outside of that.
I appreciate that. The issue is we review documents. We assume those documents are the documents that are going to be moved forward with. And when when there is a I mean I'm saying significant change, right? square footage changed, the garage size changed, the uh the location of the driveway changed, the location of or the size of the uh front porch changed, the fact that there's now a window where this board said don't put a window. Put yourself in my shoes. You can kind of see where where all this goes, right? So, um I appreciate that there's no malicious intent. It we we voted on what we saw. you agreed on what we I mean we had a discussion at that point. You agreed to those conditions and now we're seeing something different. Um it's just for me it's a little frustrating. Again I I think for me I have all the information that I need. Um I don't know if
well and frustrating but understandable.
No I I get it but I also
we see this with a lot of lots um Beaver Beaver Creek Bear Creek. We had a couple of lots where every time somebody looked at the lot, a different plan came back and then different setbacks and
but it also would make sense and I understand if you're not a huge developer that you'd put what you think is the most likely to sell versus the largest that I could possibly fit on the lot. I as a designer I would I would normally just put the largest I could get knowing that anything else would probably be smaller, but That's just my way of thinking.
Yeah.
But like I said, I um I don't really see anything nefarious about anything that assuming that this is a legitimate offer and six to eight months from now he comes back with something else.
I'm going to ask the uh the buyer in the in the audience uh is this a legitimate offer if this all moves forward? Nodding the head. Yes. Thank you. Appreciate it. Um, any other comments from the board?
No. Was this a I wasn't here for the original. Was this proposed to put up a spec house like this or was this just like why come on a what if and then because if I'm a buyer and I do want to change he came in here on a a what if not like I'm building the speck house and then now he's got to deal with the original plan. I just I guess I'm just confused.
I don't remember it being presented as a speck house or either. Right. I mean so I'll be honest. I don't know. The plans were presented to us and
we reviewed it. We heard uh there were public comments that were made. We did hear those public comments and
and we and we conditioned and move forward with it is what it comes down to.
So,
well, and one of the issues we discussed at the meeting was that based on the size of the lots of Lake View, I think Lake View used to be like a cottage community. So, the lots are all quite small and no matter what was going on, that lot was going to require a variance unless you built
right
a tunnel house.
That's right.
900 square foot small house.
Yep.
All right. Um because it's an administrative matter and we've already done seeker, I'm assuming we don't have to do seeker again.
What do we do?
No, I don't believe so.
No,
the these are all
conditions. if you will, and not material
variances that would have needed to be renoticed, if you will.
Correct.
Um,
so we're just amending the conditions
of the per the variance was for the side setbacks which are not changing.
Correct. Correct.
Correct.
None of the setbacks or the variance is changing.
It's all the conditions of the approval.
Okay. make a motion to accept the proposed changes.
I would make a a motion to if there is a motion to amend and then state what the amendments consist of and then vote on
what is the square footage of the of the new plan as as presented to the U building department.
It's 1500 square feet
even. Even
okay,
somebody want to make a motion
for for just just because I want to be clear. Okay. What's not being seen in that drawing right now and what Erica and I have talked about is a deck on the back and a shed. So that's you're not seeing that right now because we said don't put it in right now because we're not applying for the permit. But I want to different purpose.
But I just want you may not need any
I want to be clear. I just don't want to have any problems, you know.
Okay.
That's all. I want to be very crystal clear.
I don't I mean
I haven't reviewed the zoning code for that particularly. Uh and obviously we have no idea what the size of it is and I don't want to know. I don't want to know.
12 by 20. It's already approved. I let the applicant know that when the when they submit their full application to the building department, the building department will review those plans um as as they do and if an additional variance is needed, they will have to come back to this board for that.
Okay. Um again, I it's been a while since I've looked at the property. Try and make sure that there's no variance required for it if you wouldn't mind. I do I need a variance for the deck or the it's it
you'll have to go back and look look it over.
Well, that would depend on deck size shed size and location.
Right.
So, until you figure those out, you have no idea whether you're going to need any additional variances.
Correct.
So,
I'd like to shift back to what we're focusing on. Do
you mind do you mind pulling up the other screen with the u the changes? Thank you.
Um Let's see. So, realistically the proposed changes is to change the um the arborite uh the condition of the arborites to uh to fortify mature flowering or fruit bearing.
Sorry,
you want to make the motion to amend bushes. um minimum three.
So I've I've laid out this slide. So the proposed changes, the first three bullets go with the arborite.
Okay.
The no window along the east side would go with the fire prevention um requiring bedrooms. And then the last bullet and the dwelling size, those go together. They're not exactly aligned, but that's how it is laid out for you.
Okay. Thank you. Um,
all right. So,
so with respect to the variance that was approved on March 13th of 2025,
make a motion to amend.
Make a motion to amend the following conditions.
Are you making the motion or you just talking?
Would you like me to or Okay,
I will keep on going.
I will keep on going. Okay. So with respect to the first condition where the board specified that arborites shall be planted, they will be replaced with um four to five mature fl mature flowering and or fruit bearing
bushes. Um I'm not going to even specify the type of bush. They can determine it. Um a minimum of 3 to four feet in diameter and four to five feet high. Suggested bushes would be red twig, dog wood, dog wood, elderberry, service berry or lilac. Um but those are just suggestions. Um no windows along the east side. That condition shall be replaced with um having a window on the garage and also another bedroom window. Um in order to comply, windows will be permitted on that side because we need to comply with New York State Building and Fire Prevention Code. Um, and then the residential dwelling was conditioned not to be any larger than the plan that was proposed at the March board meeting, and that dwelling size shall now be increased to,500 square ft, which does now bring that into compliance with the square footage size that is required for the R1 zoning district.
Second.
Okay, Mrs. Oolo. M
I.
Mr. Senah,
hi.
Mr. Corso.
All right,
Mr. P.
Hi,
Mrs. Mr. Short.
Nay,
you have your um the uh conditions have been changed. Uh so you can move forward with the um with the uh project as planned. Um the timing still goes from the original variance. Uh obviously you have to get your um your permit and everything else. Uh you have a happy holiday.
Can I ask a question because it's imperative while the potential owner is here
because honestly one of the deals part of this is a deck. I mean if he can't get a deck they the deal is done.
We didn't do
I I know but if I have a variance if I have to come back here for a variance on that if it if it should
if you have to come back for a variance you have to submit another application. and you have to go through the process again. The board cannot give you a yes or no answer on something that is not presented in front of them when you have your building plan submitted. The code indicates you can be within 20% of the rear setback. So that's what you have to abide by in order to not need a variance.
Okay. So yeah, as Erica indicated, we're not going to give you any determination one way or the other without seeing something and Ideally, you'll be able to figure out how to put that deck in without needing it,
right?
That's the ideal situation,
right? A deck is permitted. It's just the size of the deck is based on the size of the lot and where your setback is.
And and I'm well aware. I'm just saying I can tell the temperature of this room right now coming back for another variance is not going to be a good thing. So, I just wanted to because I know when we walk out of this room, the potential buyer, that's the first thing he's going to say. I can tell you I greatly appreciated uh all the conversations and I greatly appreciated your honesty about uh the goal of putting a deck on uh on the back of it, but we're not going to give you a determination or an indication one way or the other.
No, I and I wouldn't expect that. I'm just letting you know that you may see me again.
That's fair. I appreciate it. But if we're But if if you're lucky, you'll get the deck with
No, that's what I'm shooting for. But I just
Good luck.
I just feel, you know.
Yep. Understood.
You have a happy holiday.
Thank you. You, too.
Thank you. Good luck.
Happy holiday and good luck to you as well.
All right. Eric needs those back.
Uh, minutes.
We have minutes for the October 14th, 2025 meeting. Um, all right. We technically can't approve these.
We don't have enough
because we don't have We need James here.
Do we have
because Adam and I were missing at that meeting? So, I need Mike, James, and Chris.
Okay. So, hold on to that until
No, you still have four.
Do No,
no, we don't.
No.
Well, but no, the al the alternate should have been at the meeting.
Yes. Okay. Yep. Okay.
I'm sorry. Scratch that brain. I Christmas brain cramp.
All right. I make a motion to approve the October 14th, 2025 minutes.
Second.
All those in favor?
Right.
Okay. You're right because we have alternates.
I just got done preaching. What a good thing that was. Okay. Wait a minute. There's two in here. What's the other one?
Make sure to hang there.
N I believe.
Got it. All right. And then the next one is the November 25th, 2025 minutes. And I do have enough people. Um they came out today. I don't know if everyone had an opportunity to look at them. I went through them um
quickly
and they should be okay. So, I would make a motion, if you're in favor, to approve the minutes of the November 25th, 2025 zoning board meeting.
I second.
All those in favor?
I
Okay, we're almost caught up.
All right. Is anything else? I think that's it, right?
All right. I make a motion to close the meeting. Second. All those in favor?