Minutes

WEBSTER ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES

Michael Short Adam Prescott

James Spampinato

Corrine Volo

Chris Centola

Frank Ciardi, Attorney

Katherine Kolich, Planning & Zoning Secretary

Josh Artuso, Director of Community Development

Erika Corsi, Planner of Community Development

25, 2025.

Call Roll/Pledge of Allegiance

Summary of Application Outcomes

TABLED MATTERS

:

1. CARPORT-438 MCEWEN DRIVE

SCHEDULED MATTERS

:

2. FENCE-524 LAKE ROAD

3. FENCE-637 IRONEWOOD CIRCLE

4. ZONING INTERPRETATION-671 WILLOW LANE

5. ACCESSORY BUILDING-671 WILLOW LANE

Pg. 176 November 25, 2025 Zoning Meeting

6. BELLA TERRA MAINTENANCE GARAGE: TERRA VERDE WAY LOT 209

¢ Maximum height of structure cannot exceed 20 feet.

e Not to be converted unless they return to board for approval.

e Side set back 15 feet.

7. POOL PATIO-1252 ABRUZZI DRIVE

8. GARAGE ADDITION-675 COUNTY LINE ROAD

9. SHED-1140 BROOKTREE LANE

(Erika Corsi, Town Planner presented a PowerPoint Presentation for each application and

read into the record)

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 50ft is required, associated with an existing carport and deck on

a0.41-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 DECEMBER 9, 2025

requesting an AREA VARIANCE to allow the relocation of a 6ft fence along the east boundary

line of the property on a privacy fence on the eastern side in the front yard on a 0.8-acre parcel

having SBL# 048.19-1-79 located in the R-1 Single Family Residential District under Sections

350-10 and 350-79 of the Code of the Town of Webster.

Appearing before the board was Tony Tsymbal. We just need to relocate a 6 foot wood fence on

the east side of the property line. The house was sold next door, and I come to find out it was on

the property line and that is why we are relocating it. We would just like to relocate in on the

property line.

Pg. 177 November 25, 2025 Zoning Meeting

is on the neighbor’s property. Is that correct.

mean the fence has been there. I have driven by that house many of times. It’s a unique shaped

lot being a flag, almost a double flag lot if I remember correctly. Josh, any variances given for

any of the fencing in the flag. If you will, at this point that you know of.

instead of just what’s highlighted on the map in yellow.

well as along Lake and then the west if you... yeah, that would be what I would consider the front

yard. Again, it’s a uniquely shaped lot. Those are the fences that I would look at. If the board has

any questions on those fences, the one along lake and on the west side of that are existing. The

intent is to be existing to remain, and they’ ve been there for a number of years. Any idea of how

long they have been there at this point?

against the project. Okay, seeing none I will bring it back to the board.

RESOLUTION 25-0069 Michael Short made a motion TYPE II

Moscaret.

VOTE:

Mr. Short AYE

Mr. Moscaret AYE

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Spampinato AYE

Mr. Prescott ABSENT

Mr. Centola AYE

Pg. 178 November 25, 2025 Zoning Meeting

[

1. This request is not out of character in the neighborhood: The fence has been there for 50

years, so the character is certainly not going to change. The only difference is it’s being

relocated from being slightly into the next door neighbors yard, actually into the

applicant/property owners yard.

2. There will not be a detriment created to nearby properties: None, we are actually correcting

a detriment that was discovered with the sale of the house to the east.

3. The benefit is not achievable by any other method: Not achievable by any other method in

that we’re just replacing/relocating by mere inches something that’s already been there.

4. This request is not substantial: It’s not substantial, a six foot fence is permitted on the lot

line. It’s just there’s so many different sides of this property that could be considered the

front setback that no matter where you locate the fence, it’s somehow going to be

considered the front.

5. There are no adverse physical or environmental impacts to the site or neighborhood:

6. The difficulty is not self-created: I don’t know if the difficulty is self-created or not because

I’m not sure the fence code existed in 1970. It’s not anything that’s going to change with

respect to the neighborhood. It’s always been there, and no one will notice the difference.

7. This is not an undesirable change:

RESOLUTION 25-0070 Corrine Volo made a motion for AREA

VARIANCE Located at 524 Lake Road.

Applicants Tony Tsymbal and Agatha

Zonneveld are requesting an AREA

VARIANCE to allow the relocation of a 6ft

fence along the east boundary line of the

property on a privacy fence on the eastern

side in the front yard on a 0.8-acre parcel

having SBL# 048.19-1-79 located in the R-1

Single Family Residential District under

Sections 350-10 and 350-79 of the Code of

the Town of Webster which was seconded

by: Chris Centola.

in the front setback.

to....

Pg. 179 November 25, 2025 Zoning Meeting

VOTE:

Mr. Short AYE

Mr. Moscaret AYE

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Spampinato AYE

Mr. Prescott ABSENT

Mr. Centola AYE

CONDITIONS:

e The applicant must obtain all necessary governmental permits, including a Town

Building Permit that you are re-installing.

e That one-year significant construction shall expire November 25, 2026

VARIANCE to allow a 7ft fence along the property line where the minimum setback requirement

is 10ft on a 0.54-acre parcel having SBL# 079. 13-1-70 located in the R-3 Single Family Residential!

District under Section 350-12 and 350-79 of the Code of the Town of Webster.

Appearing before the board was Ronald Strong. Probably the best way to describe this project is

if you have the plat map because I live in a pie shaped lot. So, what if you have that visible to

you. I bought the property in 1975. There was a split rail fence that from the front corner of both

sides of the house on the east and the west side and all the way back to the south property line

and along the south property line there was a green metal post with rolled wire across it and that

was existing when I bought the property. Mu proposal, as I’m getting older, I don’t want if your

familiar with split rail fences, ever single post that is there has been replaced at some point, or

other. Every sing rail has been replaced just because they deteriorate and I’m trying o do this one

last time, so I want to put in a split in a chain length fence. I like the visibility that the split rail

offers. But like I said, they just are constant maintenance. I am told that I can put in a 6 foot chain

link fence on the property line now. I applied for an easement contract for the south property line

that was granted. So, what I’m proposing is rather than just the 6 foot fence, which would go

from not the front corner, but the back corner of the property. So, the....from the front corner to

the back would remain in split rail fence. So, from the circle, you will see split rail fence. So,

this chain link fence is basically invisible to anyone on the circle.

Seven foot as proposed and everything in front of that going to the circle, that would still be split

rail.

forward there’s nothing.

Pg. 180 November 25, 2025 Zoning Meeting

house. The front being as the circle. So, itll be about four fence posts worth of split rail fence.

That will continue to be there simply for the aesthetics. I like the way it looks, and I can maintain

that amount from the back and then when you see it coming across there is currently no gate. So,

the pink that goes towards the house is where there will be a gate on both sides so that, one will

be a 4 foot gate and one will be a 5 foot so if I’m not able to mow my own yard, I ca hire someone

to come and mow my back yard as well.

would be a 5 foot gate.

something needs attention and I’ ve been delaying and trying to figure out what was best. Starting

3 years ago, I began to have a problem with deer discovering my yard and for the last 50 years I

have been landscaping and bringing flowers. So, I had flower gardens that were in bloom from

spring to fall. And not the deer, not because they’re hunger because they like the taste of flower

buds. 1 have beautiful day lily plants and not have a single blossom because they eat just the

buds. Beautiful azalea bushes but no blooms because they just like the bus. So, I did some

research, and this came from the University of Nebraska that that they took white-tailed deer, and

they said they panicked and a six foot fence .A7 foot fence is only 15% that would jump over.

I’m assuming I don’t have panic deer, I have opportunists and if they see a good place to have

lunch they will. So, my proposal is to go another foot above what the current code allows to try

and prevent the majority of deer from hopping over and grazing in my yard. Because of the

change I did talk with every single neighbor all around my property. Every one of them said they

had no opposition. The ones along the south easement said, “Just make sures it’s a fence s we

can continue to enjoy the beauty of your yard, don’t put up a wooden fence so we can’t see it

anymore.” I said, “No, it’s going be. I chose black rather than silver because black sort of I’m

told, silver reflects light and so it’s visible. Black absorbs light and so it’s about the most invisible

transparent fence you can have and so that’s my goal is to keep the visibility which I enjoy and

which my neighbors enjoy too. On the east and west sides plantings were there when I got there

so you really can’t see from one yard into the other because there are bushes all the way along

and so I created a tunnel where the fence installers need a foot of clearance, but it will essentially

be buried by bushes. So again, Steve Ursnick on the west side and Bob Fischer on the right side

said fine and Bob had actually tacked on to my wire fence onto mine because he had dogs and he

said that would help him because his dogs he wants to keep in his yard . And Corrine did stop

and say she wanted to look at the property herself she said, did anybody sign anything to say they

approved? And so, at 1:00 o’clock I was able to get three signatures from Mare Fischer; Nancy

Nesbitt; and Lloyd and Ruth Caves to say yes but I did talk to every single one personally, prior

to that. Those were the only ones today that I was able to get a signature. So, I can offer this to

you as well.

back along the back property line. When your standing in the applicants yard, the property drops

off quite a bit. So, it’s not actually going to appear to be a7 foot fence standing from the ironwood

Pg. 181 November 25, 2025 Zoning Meeting

side yard. From the neighbors to the rear, it will appear full height, but I think with the black

fence against the trees and the bushes, it will be from a point of from a viewpoint insignificant as

this growing season the black will disappear much easier.

up on the east and west side and then comes back into the house, is it going to be attached to the

back corer of the house? Is it forward of the back comer of the house? And if so, by how much?

the generator, but there is stuff on the house itself and so they have to manipulate it, so it misses

all that electrical stuff.

the fence will be forward to that closer to the road.

project. Seeing none will bring it back to the board.

RESOLUTION 25-0071 Michael Short made a motion TYPE II SEQR

which was seconded by: Anthony Moscaret.

VOTE:

Mr. Short AYE

Mr. Moscaret AYE

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Spampinato AYE

Mr. Prescott ABSENT

Mr. Centola AYE

Pg. 182 November 25, 2025 Zoning Meeting

[

l.

An» wb

7. This request is not out of character in the neighborhood: The fence is going to be back

behind ad because of the way the vegetation is on the east and west sides, the fence will

not be visible. The south side will be visible to the neighbors to the south. The applicant

has identified a fence with minimal visual impact, and the neighbors are aware of it, so it

is a minimal impact. Additionally, to the south side the fence is down inside or down lower

because of a drainage easement. So, from the street side again, it will not be out of character

of the neighborhood itself.

There will not be a detriment created to nearby properties: None, in any shape

The benefit is not achievable by any other method:

There are no adverse physical! or environmental impacts to the site or neighborhood: None,

trying to keep them out I can understand so not necessarily self-created. The desire to have

the deer out is a personal choice .

This is not an undesirable change: None

of the fence have signed their agreement or their lack of disagreement and the applicant has spoken

to all thee neighbors.

RESOLUTION 25-0072 Michael Short made a motion for AREA

VARIANCE Requesting an AREA VARIANCE to

allow a 7ft fence along the property line where the

minimum setback requirement is 10ft on a 0.54-acre

parcel having SBL# 079.13-1-70 located in the R-3

Single Family Residential District under Section

350-12 and 350-79 of the Code of the Town of

Webster which was seconded by Corrine Volo.

VOTE:

Mr. Short AYE

Mr. Moscaret AYE

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Spampinato AYE

Mr. Prescott ABSENT

Mr. Centola AYE

Pg. 183 November 25, 2025 Zoning Meeting

CONDITIONS:

¢ The applicant must obtain all necessary governmental permits, including a Town

Building Permit.

e That one-year significant construction shall expire November 25, 2026

interpretation from the Zoning Board of Appeais to determine the locations of the side and rear

yards associated with an application for a proposed accessory building in accordance with Sections

350-3, 350-36, and 350-101D(1) of the Town of Webster Code.

packets that you received for item 5 accessory building for

671. The last page is the applicants

interpretation that he is pursuing for the front and rear side set...side yards for his property at

671 Willow Lane. I guess with that, Bryan, if you just want to talk a little bit about what you are

seeking from an interpretation and why you are looking for and how you have come to that

conclusion.

Appearing before the board was Bryan Bishoping. This was not my application for an

interpretation. This was stemmed from last year for an area variances that were requested in the

process of asking for a building permit, getting sent here. Pretty much we pulled up an old survey

map that the town had on file and in talking to Josh, he iooked at the survey and was surprised

that the side and rear...the side yard was the rear wall of my house, and the rear yard was the

side of my garage. Som on that meeting he flipped them and that’s where I was directed by the

town to request two variances last year.

I have learned a lot in a year. Last year was actually a bigger waste of time because I actually

needed three variances. So, I am not really changing anything to change. I just want it to go back

to the way it was. I have a copy of that survey that the town had on file prior to me getting the

survey done. I believe last year or either a year or I believe it was December 23 or January of 24

if went and actually I can tell you this right now. It was actually March of 24 when I had the

survey done. But I still have a copy of the old one that the town had on file when I started the

whole process for the accessory structure. I do have a reason of why the side, and the rear are the

way they are. And that’s because in 94 when my grandparents put the three season room on the

back of the garage, they just went and requested a building permit and they were probably advised

by whoever was in Josh’s position at that time that if they made this the side yard, they wouldn’t

need to come and get a variance for a setback. So, last year when things got flipped, it got all!

mixed up and now I’m just trying to get it put back the way it should be.

671 Willow Brook......sorry, Willow Lane. Your driveway is on Willow Lane. Would you mind

giving me a street view as well. And we are now on Willow Lane at the front of your house.

Front door facing Willow Lane. I’m one person on the board as I look at this, this is your front

yard is how I see this. You are on a corner lot, so you do have two fronts. I look at this as being

Pg. 184 November 25, 2025 Zoning Meeting

the front. If I were to interpret where your side is, I would interpret where the airstream is, is

where the side is. And then opposite of where your front door is where I would interpret the rear

property to be. I guess I’m going to open that up to discussion with the board if anybody has

questions or comments to discuss.

A parcel of land at the junction of and fronting on two or more intersecting streets or

within an interior angle of less than 135° on a single street. For purposes of determining

dimensional requirements for buildings and structures located on comer lots, the yards

included between a right-of-way and any building line shall be considered front yards,

and the yard between one of the remaining boundary lines and any building line shall be

considered a rear yard, and the other remaining yard shall be considered a side yard.

[Amended 8-3-2006 by L.L. No. 2-2006]

So, they’re...you can switch them around until something sets them.

flop because I want to say, I want to do this over and I want a 15 foot setback , not a

50. I can’t

interchange them back and forth once they’re set. So, in 94, they were set.

was not at the applicant’s request because there is a distinct difference in the town’s official

interpretation of the code versus the applicant’s. But nowhere in town code does it state what the

applicant just stated, that once it’s set, it’s set. That is not anywhere in the town code.

Pg. 185 November 25, 2025 Zoning Meeting

and that’s what’s under review for this particular request. So, if you read the definitions...

think from 93, do you have a copy that you can bring up.

process we’re going through because it is going to be recorded moving forward. Is there any

record of determination of where the rear and side yard was from 93?

porch was added to what we believe is the rear of the home, at the time it did not require a

variance. The town processed that as a side yard to make it easier for the applicant at the time.

That’s all we can surmise from the records that we have.

Josh Artuso; There is no official determination on file.

on record or at least let me rephrase it, we don’t have that on record if a variance was given is the

best way for me to put that.

was issued.

they’re probably looking at if from the other road saying, ‘Well, this is the front. This is why

they considered the back and side.

Pg. 186 November 25, 2025 Zoning Meeting

appears to be. Again, are there any questions or comments from the board.

on the board for 18 years but there’s two front yards based on the corner, but I'll say primary and

secondary. The primary front yard has always been the face that has the entrance door and the

address. And then the rear would be the face that is on the other side of the dwelling from what

we’ re considering the entrance, front door, street side. We also granted a variance last October or

November maybe for the wraparound porch with a front setback of I think it was 40 or 44 feet

based on that being the front of the house.

back wall that’s not across from the front door of the house then the building permit that was

issued for the porch, it goes into that 50 foot setback. So, I would need another variance for the

porch.

AT THE SAME TIME

is preexisting; non-conforming; and non-compliant. My shed is preexisting; non-conforming

BUT the porch that I already have a building permit for and that I’m working on...... BOARD

MEMBER SPEAKING AT THE SAME TIME. But it wraps ali the way around to the side.

wraparound porch does go all the way around to the rear of the home as we see. It was issued in

error by the building inspector. Who’s no longer with us. So, just to clarify that.

BOARD MEMBERS EACH SPEAKING AND HAVING CONVERSATIONS

but it does not project any further than the existing porch on that side.

actually had this is a rear yard written on it. So, I think that’s what confused our staff. So, that’s

why the building permit was issued.

Pg. 187 November 25, 2025 Zoning Meeting

and the other front I didn’t need to go into those setbacks. That’s why nothing was requested for

the porch other than the additional to be able to wrap it.

front, what is the side, and what is the rear for this particular matter, item number 4, I’m asking

the board to make an interpretation of where the front is; what road the front yard is on; and where

is the rear of the house and where the side of the house is. Corrine, I heard kind of your 18 years

of experience on the board and what the precedent has been which kind of falls in line with what

I had indicated earlier with my understanding of the front of the building and the side of the

building. You know, I like the comment of primary and secondary front yards. Are there other

comments or questions or discussions from the board.

make a motion to interpret the front yard of 671 Willow Lane to be the front and facing 671

Willow Lane. The side yard would be north, the north side of the property. The rear of the yard

would be the west side of the property. While the secondary front yard would be the south side

of the property.

not going per town code.

anything about primary secondary.

Pg. 188 November 25, 2025 Zoning Meeting

corner lots in the past. And that’s where like I’m not looking at this as an interpretation of just

this location. I’m looking at it as a corner lot interpretation for the address that is Willow Lane.

The house faces the actual entrance and front facade of the house faces Willow Lane. There rear

lot would be behind that.

I’m reading in the town code.

I think it'll clarify everything for everybody. Go to yards.

A yatd situated between the side line, building line and adjacent side line of the lot and

extending from the rear line of the front yard to the front line of the rear yard.

[Added 5-16-1996]

They’re all defined. Side yard; rear yard; not just corner lot, but there’s specific definitions for

each yard.

their rear. So, regardless meaning it could be either one.

permit that that rear wall was going to be side or sorry, the rear wall was going to be side, and the

side of the garage was going to be rear. And that’s why no variances were necessary and the

shed’s located where it is.

Pg. 189 November 25, 2025 Zoning Meeting

change the definition of the side yard and the rear yard of your property based on what it’s been

considered for the past year and half that you’ve been coming before us?

something that wasted a lot of my time and your time as well.

any of these members were on the board so that they didn’t have to get a variance....

consider this side and this rear, no variance needed. Here’s your building permit.

does not meet code.

moot point whether it needed a variance back then or not. It’s built; it’s existing; non-conforming.

I think, and I’m not trying to speak for you Corrine, I think what we’re all wondering is how does

switching it back to the way you want it make you believe your...

to the applicant multiple times.

come back like the guy did for the fence and say it was....it’s been there forever. And you know,

let’s keep it, I need a variance so that now it’s conforming.

Pg. 190 November 25, 2025 Zoning Meeting

and the side yard. I believe I got a second, correct Chris. I am going to hold that moving forward.

Bryan, I understand your frustration, and you indicated you want to get an attorney involved, I

understand that and this board is going to, at this point, vote on the motion that has been set in

motion.

the secondary is at Mill Creek; the side is north; and the rear is west side.

primary and secondary, but the side would be on the north, and the rear would be on the west.

So, the town has interpreted where the front or where the side and rear yard is for your property,

which honestly sets precedent and precedent has been set over the last, at least 18 years for

Corrine on corner lots for where the front and side rear yards are on corner lots moving forward.

RESOLUTION 25-0073 Michael Short made a motion for ZONING

INTERPRERTATION OF Located at 671

Willow Lane. The applicant is seeking an

interpretation from the Zoning Board of Appeals to

determine the locations of the side and rear yards

associated with an application for a proposed

accessory building in accordance with Sections

350-3, 350-36, and 350-101D(1) of the Town of

Webster Code. which was seconded by: Chris

Centola.

VOTE:

Mr. Short AYE

Mr. Moscaret AYE

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Spampinato AYE

Mr. Prescott ABSENT

Mr. Centola AYE

requesting AREA VARIANCES to allow a side yard setback of 5ft where 15ft is required and to

locate the building closer to the front wall-plane than the rear wal! of the main building in

association with the construction of a 500 SF accessory building on a 0.46-acre parcel having

SBL# 065.13-2-11 located in the R-3 Single Family Residential District under Sections 350-12

and 350-36 of the Code of the Town of Webster.

Pg. 191 November 25, 2025 Zoning Meeting

Appearing before the board was Bryan Bishoping. I don’t think we can go through this now.

correct and it can move forward,

two.

Frank Ciardi, We can’t give you legal advice on it, but if you’d like to table it, you can table it

to determine what you need.

need front wall of the structure ahead of the rear wall of the house; I would need side setback and

I need rear setback because the depth of it. It goes within 50 feet. So, there’s three.

SPEAKING OVER

RESOLUTION 25-0074 Michael Short made a motion to TABLED TO

DECEMBER 9, 2025 which was seconded by:

Chris Centola.

Pg. 192 November 25, 2025 Zoning Meeting

VOTE:

Mr. Short AYE

Mr. Moscaret AYE

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Spampinato AYE

Mr. Prescott ABSENT

Mr. Centola AYE

209. Applicant

Tom Thomas of Bella Terra Group is requesting AREA VARIANCES to allow a front setback

of 15ft where 35ft is required, a side setback of 10ft where 15ft is required, to allow an accessory

structure to be located nearer to the front property line than the rear wall of the main building, and

to allow an accessory structure to be 69% of the square footage of the main building where the

code allows a maximum of 25% on a 0.40-acre parcel having SBL# 065.02-6-20 located in the

LMR Low-Medium Residential District under Sections 350-15 and 350-36 of the Code of the

Town of Webster.

Appearing before the board was Mike Ritchie from Costich Engineering representing the Bella

Terra group. So, this board may be familiar with the Bella Terra subdivision at the corners of

Salt and Schlegal. It’s a four rental duplex community and the developer is looking to put in a

maintenance garage, two bay maintenance garage to hold lawn mowing equipment, plow trucks,

anything related to maintenance of the entire subdivision so that they don’t have to, you know,

sub it out to a separate contractor, they can do it all in house.

So, we are proposing to put this 1600 square foot maintenance garage on I believe it’s, I don’t

have the lot number exactly right here... LOT

209. And we looked around and tried to find one

of the larger lots, maybe one of the lots that were more tucked away. Played around with different

sizes and ultimately the size that came back which they felt would house all of their equipment

was this building. We did go to the Planning Board last week and they granted preliminary

approval and did SEQR and weren’t able to take any action until we met with this board. One

point of clarification on our application that was submitted. I know it says 10 foot side setback,

and I think we did submit a revised one that is 15 feet so I think that one, the side setback variance

wouldn’t be needed. So, we did upon town staff request, we did slide that over. We are looking

to put this kind of tucked away in the corner of that property. You know, we potentially could

have shifted this further in and maybe avoided one more variance, but the intent was to kind of

keep it as far away from the primary structure as we could. And again, I think we prepared an

exhibit that showed this in relation to the rest of the development, Salt and Schlegal, and really

tried to tuck back, you know, in a corner there. It does have access off the private drive that

connect the Meadows 2 subdivision. We don’t expect that to be a very heavy volume road and

again, only people using this are going to be Bella Terra employees. It’s probably going to be

one or two gentleman. You know, maybe they...if it’s a lawn mowing day, they’ll come park in

the driveway and then take the equipment and leave the truck at the end of the day. Same thing

if they have to come and plow. They’ll come bring their vehicle, park it in the driveway and take

Pg. 193 November 25, 2025 Zoning Meeting

the plow truck out and then leave. So, there won’t be a lot of coming and going. There’s not

going to be a shop. There’s not going to be an office or anything like that. It’s strictly to the store

the equipment.

water service and connect it into the existing sanitary lateral that serves the main unit. Electric

and gas, if they can, for a heater but again, this is just, 1 can come in and use the bathroom and

go back out instead of having to use the model unit for the restroom, so it’s not intended to be a

shop, not intended to be constantly staffed or anything like that. So, we do understand that a

couple variances are needed but this is the request that they are looking for.

Michael] Short: So, I know the location. This is a...you said it’s a for rental community.

development so and working through town staff, they’re actually the subdivision immediately to

the west. We worked with town staff so that the town plows will actually be turning around

interior in that development and not going in at all to the Bella Terra Subdivision.

construction and those are separate from this. They’ll be for sale lots, not rented.

a public road on that side.

of see where ....this actually ....the map may not show it well enough, but essentially where the

road keys off. It doesn’t show the future section yet, but there’s a turn around right there. There’s

a hammerhead right there and a right away basically at the intersection.

project?

Pg. 194 November 25, 2025 Zoning Meeting

I drive down Salt Road.

They were all subdivided out individual lots. COVID happened, the economy and the market in

which he does business changed. He changed the model. I know there’s been some strife with

he town how that worked out. But I don believe he’s done it in a way that is still a fairly nice

development. So, I think initially under preliminary phases, it wasn’t the intent to need this and

then we did talk to town staff last year when this idea for a maintenance garage was put out by

the owner and it was directed to us that we couldn’t even make application for an accessory

structure until the primary structure was constructed. So, [ had to wait until 209 has been built to

even make application.

in lot 209 and I’m in my patio, am I going to be able to see the back wall of your structure?

I’m an owner, want to look at a storage building you know, renting.

go to the Planning Board, we’re going to propose some landscaping around probably the two

comers most directly facing that. It’s going to have architectural siding that’s going to match the

building. So, it shouldn’t be completely out of context. It won’t be like a standing seam meta

building. It should look architecturally similar to the duplexes.

rest of the buildings other than it’s a garage. What happened to the windows?

for the drainage?

Chris Cento]: Wil! you planting that or are you just keeping it open?

obstruct if any access needed to it and I think we were probably proposing around that maybe

Pg. 195 November 25, 2025 Zoning Meeting

some arborvitae something.

physical buffer, but you could us it to help create a visual buffer in there too vs just the physical

separation, right.

potentially maybe putting some landscaping up along the property line. Obviously outside of any

storm water features to help kind of buffer that view that they’li see. We can certainly incorporate

that.

as we speak, in addition to the windows, I’d suggest that you continue the artificial stone veneer

along the side that fronts along the other street. So, essentially you have two fronts, and you make

that look just as good as you did with the front of that.

power line easement, I think...... If I recall, correct?

because I know Richard, Richardson line utility was in there doing work.

power poles run through along that line and then further north.

I know they bring tread trucks to get in there because it’s soft land and everything.

high voltage line utility family. So, ] understand this.

other subdivision is that we need to provide a 100 foot separation from the power lines for the

single family residential structure so that they do have full access to their easement.

the building. I see the 14 feet to the Sophat. I don’t know what the height is to the mid-point.

Pg. 196 November 25, 2025 Zoning Meeting

exact height.

to make a motion to make sure it is 20 feet or less.

it makes sense to put in a bathroom so you’re not using the model that it won’t be converted to

an office or any other commercial.

town for approval of the change of use.

none, I will bring it back to the board.

RESOLUTION 25-0075 Michael Short made a motion TYPE II SEQR

which was seconded by: Anthony Moscaret.

VOTE:

Mr. Short AYE

Mr. Moscaret AYE

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Spampinato AYE

Mr. Prescott ABSENT

Mr. Centola AYE

Mr. Accorso AYE

Because it’s not an entirely developed community, I don’t believe that based on the applicant’s

presentation that it will create an undesirable change of essential character of what the believe their

neighborhood will be based on the renderings or based on the architectural drawings they

submitted.

Pg. 197 November 25, 2025 Zoning Meeting

I don’t think there’ll be a detriment to the nearby properties. Especially right now since there are

none, While there may have been other remedies, this particular one makes sense based on the size

of the lots that are available. I don’t believe the requested variance I substantial. It’s based on. . .it’s

located based on one on the larger lots and based on the applicant’s agreement to make the sides

of the proposed garage that face streets do have the same architectural treatment including the

stone veneer.

The proposed variance will not have an adverse effect on the environmental conditions and well,

I believe the difficulty is self-created based on current conditions it ends up being the best place

for the garage and this point and time for the proposed development.

RESOLUTION 25-0076

VOTE:

Chris Centola made a motion for AREA

VARIANCE Located at Terra Verde Way

Lot

209. Applicant Tom Thomas of Bella

Terra Group is requesting AREA

VARIANCES to allow a front setback of

15ft where 35ft is required, a side setback of

10ft where 15ft is required, to allow an

accessory structure to be located nearer to the

front property line than the rear wall of the

main building, and to allow an accessory

structure to be 69% of the square footage of

the main building where the code allows a

maximum of 25% on a 0.40-acre parcel

having SBL# 065.02-6-20 located in the

LMR Low-Medium Residential District

under Sections 350-15 and 350-36 of the

Code of the Town of Webster which was

seconded by Corrine Volo.

Mr. Short AYE

Mr. Moscaret AYE

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Spampinato AYE

Mr. Prescott ABSENT

Mr. Centola AYE

be used for commercial use unless you come back to the board and getting prior approval.

Board already... you’re putting in the additional windows for the....

Pg. 198 November 25, 2025 Zoning Meeting

CONDITIONS:

e The applicant must obtain all necessary governmental permits, including a Town

Building Permit.

e That one-year significant construction shall expire November 25, 2026

VARIANCE to allow a side yard setback of 1ft where 15ft is required in association with the

construction of a pool patio for a 512 SF inground swimming pool on a 0.50-acre parcel having

SBL #050.03-1-70 located in the R-1 Single Family Residential District under Sections 350-10

and 350-46 of the Code of the Town of Webster.

Appearing before the board was Bryan Boehlert: We moved into our new Barone home in

September. We hired Northeastern Pool and Spa to put in a pool for us. Northeastern preferred

concreate supplier is Lake Side out of Buffalo. A gentleman named Chuck came to the house.

The first thing I did was hand him my instrument survey. When we closed on the house, we did

not have lot markers and so immediately after closing, I contacted the surveyor and requested

them. The surveyor said he would have to check his contract with Barry to see if the lot markers

were included. I said, “It doesn’t matter. I will pay for them. I need lot markers to see where my

lot lines are. He called me back a few weeks tater and said it is in the contract but you’re going

to have to wait because I’m very busy and I will get them on your property when I get thern to

them.

So, the pool went in; the concrete was poured and the lot markers went in, after all that. So, the

night that I came home from work after the lot marker was installed that day, I lined things up

and said, oh goodness, I have a big problem on my hands. So, unfortunately, paid Lakeside

$22,000 doliars to pour that concrete forme. They said that their staff was laid off for the season

and they couldn’t come remedy it and they wanted me to cail this guy named Bob and slip him

350.00 in cash and he would come cut the corner off my patio and we'd all keep our mouths shut

and that would be the end of it. I saved 350.00 dollars and my choice was to immediately go to

town code and figure out what the town code was. I was a little bit confused by the town card

because there are two references to pool patios. One talks about being 12 inches or les above

grade and I thought oh great. I can go right up to the lot line now because it’s less than 12 inches,

it's graded right up to...level with the concrete but the other one does talk about the extension.

The setback applies. I don’t know the exact terminology, but it’s 15 feet from the edge of the

concrete if the concrete is contiguous to the pool.

So, that’s when I realized I had a problem. I called Erika and put in my application. So, I was

hoping to request a one-foot setback. I still have to put my permanent fence in. I’m very anxious

to get that put in, but I put everything on hold until we came to this meeting and got resolution.

Pg. 199 November 25, 2025 Zoning Meeting

and I included that in my application.

this pop up afterwards was just.............

happen. [ called the owner of Northeastern and he’s a great guy. He said, don’t worry about

Lakeside, we will manage this. We will cut it back where you tell us to. It has to be cut and then

they are going to take the stone out.

room for the fence in.

maintaining that narrow strip of grass or stone or whatever it is that ends up there. Um, being

only a foot wide, your not going to get a mower through there, I’m assuming you have some tool

that will do that.

In the past, we’ ve always had mulch, and it’s a nightmare. I plan to put in stone there, so it won’t

require any maintenance.

the road are very unique. So, without those markers, I would have assumed that the lots...the side

yards were more parallel than they are.

ALL BOARD MEMBERS SPEAKING AT ONCE

the same week and when he got together with them, he took out spray paint. He knew about the

Pg. 200 November 25, 2025 Zoning Meeting

15 foot setbacks. He went through a thorough explanation with them. He didn’t do any of that

with me. That is the part that has me so distressed.

ALL BOARD MEMBERS SPEAKING AT ONCE

public. Would anyone from the public like to speak for or against this project. NO one from the

audience. I mean, normally, with this situation, I don’t have anything.

permit says we’ll need to apply for a separate fence permit.

right on the lot line because it’s within the height.

RESOLUTION 25-0077 Michael Short made a motion TYPE II SEQR

which was seconded by: Chris Centola.

VOTE:

Mr. Short AYE

Mr. Moscaret AYE

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Spampinato AYE

Mr. Prescott ABSENT

Mr. Centola AYE

Because it’s flat, like no one would see it until.

1. This request is not out of character in the neighborhood: The neighborhood is new so not

really out of character of the neighborhood and we’re going in a foot from the lot line,

correct? So, it’s really not out of character. Not in this neighborhood, but there’s another

fairly new neighborhood off of I think Salt where everybody has a pool and all of the edges

Pg. 201 November 25, 2025 Zoning Meeting

of the pool seem to end up closer to the lot line than is permitted. So, it’s not we, the board

has seen this before.

2. There will not be a detriment created to nearby properties: It is not. The applicant is making

it right by moving it off the neighboring property and as it’s at grade level, it’s really not

going to be a visual eye sore at all to the other neighbor.

3. The benefit is not achieved by any other method: No, it’s already there in error so this is

the method that corrects the error.

4. This request is not substantial: The request is but not in that it’s a flat. It’s just a flat piece

of concrete. There’s nothing built up on it so its not going to be a line of sight issue to any

of the neighbors around it.

3. There are no adverse physical or environmental impacts to the site or neighborhood: None

6. The difficulty is not self-created: In this case, it is not self-created. You caught the problem

that was created by your subcontractor.

7. This is not an undesirable change:

RESOLUTION 25-0078 Corrine Volo made a motion for AREA

VARIANCE Located at 1252 Abruzzi

Drive. Applicant Bryan Boehlert is

requesting an AREA VARIANCE to allow

a side yard setback of lft where 15ft is

required in association with the construction

of a pool patio for a 512 SF inground

swimming pool on a 0.50-acre parcel having

SBL #050.03-1-70 located in the R-1 Single

Family Residential District under Sections

350-10 and 350-46 of the Code of the Town

of Webster which was seconded by Michael

Short.

VOTE:

Mr. Short AYE

Mr. Moscaret AYE

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Spampinato AYE

Mr. Prescott ABSENT

Mr. Centola AYE

CONDITIONS:

The applicant must obtain all necessary governmental permits, including a Town

Building Permit.

That one-year significant construction shall expire November 25, 2026

Pg. 202 November 25, 2025 Zoning Meeting

requesting an AREA VARIANCE to allow a 700 SF addition to an existing 2,500 SF garage on

a 3.2-acre parcel having SBL# 066.03-1-36.2 located in the LL Large-Lot Residential District

under Sections 350-13 and 350-36 of the Code of the Town of Webster.

Appearing before the board was Ryan Kuchman. One quick correction, to that, the total proposed

structure of 3200 square feet is correct. The existing structure is 40 x 48 which is 1920 square

feet. ] just wanted to clarify that. No changes to the overall structure of the existing building.

The roof line will remain the same; the siding all the characteristics of the building would be the

same. It’s just an extension off the back towards the lot line that I share with the Fairlife

construction plan.

the time. So, P've know that it’s there, but you can barely see if from street and going further

back, you’re not really going to see it at all either. What is the intent of the additional square

footage.

higher or anything else.

is there today.

TWO BOARD MEMBERS SPEAKING AT THE SAME TIME.

Ryan Kuchman:; OH yes, there is. Sorry

Pg. 203 November 25, 2025 Zoning Meeting

for business purposes.

this project. NONE. Ok, I will bring it back to the board.

RESOLUTION 25-0079 Michael Short made a motion TYPE II SEQR

which was seconded by: Chris Centola.

VOTE:

Mr. Short AYE

Mr. Moscaret AYE

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Spampinato AYE

Mr. Prescott ABSENT

Mr. Centola AYE

L.

6.

7. This request is not out of character in the neighborhood: No. In the large lot district, there

are plenty of people with pole barns and large pole barns with in their properties. The

structure itself is set far enough back behind the residence that it’s very difficult to see that

it is there.

There will not be a detriment created to nearby properties: It is not. Because of it’s location

and because of the distance from the neighbors.

The benefit is not achievable by any other method:

lot and the area and the precedent elsewhere, it is not significant.

There are no adverse physical or environmental impacts to the site or neighborhood: None.

not a detriment to anything.

This is not an undesirable change:

already there.

RESOLUTION 25-0080 Michael Short made a motion for AREA

VARIANCE Located at 675 County Line Road.

Applicant Ryan Kuchman is requesting an AREA

VARIANCE to allow a 700 SF addition to an

existing 1920 SF garage for a total square footage of

Pg. 204 November 25, 2025 Zoning Meeting

3,200 square feet pole barn on a 3.2-acre parcel

having SBL# 066.03-1-36.2 located in the LL Large-

Lot Residential District under Sections 350-13 and

350-36 of the Code of the Town of Webster which

was seconded by Chris Centola

VOTE:

Mr. Short AYE

Mr. Moscaret AYE

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Spampinato AYE

Mr. Prescott ABSENT

Mr. Centola AYE

CONDITIONS:

e The applicant must obtain all necessary governmental permits, including a Town

Building Permit.

e That one-year significant construction shall expire November 25, 2026

This would be what I would refer to as a grey area. It is not explicitly stated in our code whether

or not it does. But, since they provided material showing that it’s going to be consistent with the

existing, I don’t necessarily feel that it would need Planning Board approval.

VARIANCE to allow a shed in the front yard of a corner lot on a 0.4-acre parcel having SBL#

065.05-1-99 located in the R-1 Single Family Residential District under Section 350-10 of the

Code of the Town of Webster.

APPLICATION WAS TABLED TO DECEMBER 9, 2025

ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM:

® No Minutes were approved.

Since there are no further applications before the Board, Michael Short adjourned tonight’s

meeting at 9:00 p.m.

Rann ONG RI

Corrine Volo, Secretary

Katherine Kolich, Recording Secretary

Pg. 205 November 25, 2025 Zoning Meeting

DEG 10°25 an9:15

FILED WEBSTER TWN CLK