Minutes

WEBSTER ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES

Michael Short

Corrine Volo

James Spampinato

Chris Centola

Adam Prescott

John DeMarco, Attommey

Josh Artuso, Director of Community Development

Erika Corsi, Planner of Community Development

9, 2025.

Pledge of A llegiance/Call Roll

Summary of Application Outcomes

TABLED MATTERS

:

1. VIP MOTOR SPORT-1186 RIDGE ROAD

2. SHED-217 BIRCH LANE

-

3. FENCE-374 THRUSHWOOD LANE

SCHEDULED MATTERS

:

4. ROOF-789 DEWITT ROAD

5. DECK & CARPORT-438 MCEWEN DRIVE

Pg. 146 September 9, 2025 Zoning Meeting

6. ACCESSORY BUILDING-485 THYME DR

' Applicant: JIM & TRISH HAROLD

7. GARAGE- 1759 RIDGE RD

8. GARAGE — 512 LAKE RD

9. DECK- 701 SUMMIT DR

(ERIKA CORSI READ ALL APPLICATIONS INTO THE RECORD AND PRESENTED A

POWERPOINT FOR EACH APPLICATION) SEE ATTACHED.

USE VARIANCE to allow motor vehicle sales, which is not permitted, associated with an

existing motor vehicle service station operation on a 1.35-acre parcel having SBL# 080.09-3-7

located in the MC Medium Intensity Commercial District under Sections 350-18, 350-70 and

350-101 of the Code of the Town of Webster.

Appearing before the board is Christina Aquino, and Al LaRue.

agent as Christina Aquino and also al LaRue. It's in the zoning district of the MC medium intensity

commercial district. Their request is a use variance to allow auto sales to an existing vehicle service

business. Relevant sections of the code is section 350-18 and 350-101D2A which j is the requirements of a

use variance. Whenever you’re ready.

Aquino, one of the owners of the property, and Yamani Jordan and Jordan, the present building business

owner of VIP motorsports. The lessee. Um, both are available to answer any questions you might have.

Uh, of them. This parcel is 1.35 acres in the MC zone, as stated. The garage has existed for about 70

years.

On that, on that parcel. Um, the owners who acquired the parcel in 2007. It was granted a used variance in

2016 for sales. They operated on the site. Uh, uh. Pretty nicely until 2018, when they decided that it was

getting too small for him and they didn't want to expand it. So, they moved to another location. Since

’ then, four tenants have signed leases.

Pg. 147 September 9, 2025 Zoning Meeting

5

4

Um, the latest being Yamani um, at VIP motorsports. Um, three previous tenants failed to make lease

payments, and so there they were no longer associated with that with the property. Uh, the present tenant,

Yamani has indicated, the need for sales to make this property viable. But three others couldn't make it

without it. And he thinks he thinks it's a very important part of what his business could be.

And to make this a very viable site. Um, we've provided extensive financial analysis for your review that

demonstrates our hardship. In summary, history tells us that sales is necessary to make this site financially

viable, and we can answer any questions you might have.

sales in 2018, 2016. We were, uh, we requested a change of use change of tenant application. So it was

not a formal use variance. Just so.

2016, we madea change of, um, tenant change of use application. Because we relocated from 941 Ridge

Road to 1186, we stayed there fortwo years successfully. We then purchased a property in Ontario where

’ we relocated our family business.

there was one of our tenants at another property in Ontario that was Limelight Automotive, and it was the

intention when Limelight went in on a five year lease. Um, as history tells us, that they were supposed to

be doing, uh, sales and auto repair, and we helped them prepare their application to New York State for

that, but that never came to fruition.

However, they did stay there successfully. They were able to utilize the use variance that was granted by

this board for Penske as a rental company. So they were able to make rent, but they were not able to pay

the increments per year in the lease over the course of five years. And so now we sit with a $6,000

deficiency on that five-year lease. Now, I don't knowif pardon me, if it's so much that.that coincides his

leaving the property with Covid because everybody suffered at that point.

But we had a terrible time getting the next tenant in. Um, the next tenant who came in was Ridge Road

Auto. Um, and they only stayed there for a year. Um, the next tenant after that was P & T auto, and they

had an awful time and they left after two months.

nice people, but they didn't survive. That's not to say that car sales is a panacea for survival in the

automotive industry. God knows that. You know, I'm married to a mechanic, and I can tell you as an

expert witness in that regard that it isn't. | mean, you know, over the course of Covid, car sales suffered

Pg. 148 September 9, 2025 Zoning Meeting

greatly. But I don't think it can hurt when you're running an automotive service station, like traditionally

has been run there to be able to augment, um, income with some modicum of sales.

Five, six, you know, not a blown out Marina, you know, something down the road, but something that

helps pay the rent. Penske help pay the rent. But then our tenant left with Penske and went across the

street. So now we don't have that to offer. [ don't have that to offer. Um, and I am the person standing

here before you today because I'm the person trying to rent these things. My husband runs a very big

automotive store, a shop rather out in Ontario.

He's super busy. We have 30 properties at this level now between, you know, Monroe and Wayne

County. Um, so it's my it falls on me and I'm personally responsible for compliance with, you know, the

Town. And J am having a hell ofa time renting this thing because people call and their first question is,

can we sell cars there? And my answer is, well, traditionally you have been able to, but you're going to

have to go to the town and people get intimidated by that.

Or they go and they do due diligence. And the right answer from you, I presume, is it's not zoned for that.

But I found one person who was patient enough to say, listen, let's ask them if they would zone it for that

because it's been zoned for that previously. Let's go back and see if we can't ask them again. So now I

have somebody willing to work with me on that.

have you been there?

Uh, it will help us grow.

Yes. Was the intention to, um, to sell cars there or that's just a kind of a cherry on top type thing.

rent and without auto sales in just a matter of months before, we're pretty much have to move because. we

won't survive there. Um, definitely needed at least a few sales here and there a month. Um, in order to

make it, especially with that amount of employees, we have, um, and operations.

you know, five, six. Um, but I don't anticipate having, like, balloons and signs all over the place. Uh, I've

been selling cars before, and I'm well known just to sell on social media. Um, Facebook Marketplace,

stuff like that. Um, very successful with that. I don't I don't plan on going all crazy like a big dealership.

Pg. 149 September 9, 2025 Zoning Meeting

that you would be parking the, um, sail cars?

closer to the road. Have a few there. Um, forauto cells, which is close to the road, but I sell, like, higher

end stuff. Very nice vehicles. Um, most of the cars that come for repair are, you know, not as nice. So I

try to keep them on the side where they're not, like, exposed to the main road. All my high end stuff, I

keep it on the front end, which it looks nice. And we have grown a lot. Um, you know, having nice

vehicles there..

plates? Yeah.

machine, and.

husband. With the with Town of Ontario.

is an exemption in the New York state zoning. I know there's a big compendium of New York state

zoning rules and laws that when you have an auto body repair shop, you are permitted to have not infinite

amount of unlicensed vehicles, but you are permitted to have a number of unlicensed vehicles on the lot.

So, you know, that's a kind ofa thing that we reach with the Town of Ontario as well. But I want to also

bring back.

You said this property was once so zoned. Was that true?

Pg. 150 September 9, 2025 Zoning Meeting

statute goes back to if you look in the in the code, the code says that the, the HC and the MC district

supplement the CA automotive code that was in place in 1969. So I'm assuming at some point, because

neither the HC nor the MC district in the in the ordinances permit or prohibit car sales.

anything other than what is allowed.

I can say is, when we bought the property, we had no idea to know that this property was not zoned for

auto sales because it had been going on there for so many years.

accepted. And we've been parking Penske there for since 2008. And you know, we've been permitted

there for a long time.

their current location. Uh, that is the first time the town became aware of the Penske rental operation. Um,

they approached us for a sign permit indicating truck rentals. and at that time we told them that it would

not be an allowed use without a use variance. Um, so limelight did opt to get a use variance for their, uh,

automotive accessory business for their current location, but Penske was not part of it.

been approved then? They're just simply on the other side of the street, like likewise restricted from that

without the, uh, without the variance or the permit.

rental was approved on the opposite side of the street.

Pg. 151 September 9, 2025 Zoning Meeting

approached us for a sign permit.

business located there. So I said, you know, we indicated that we were unaware of this other component,

and that would also require a use variance. So the applicant at that time opted to get rid of the Penske

truck rental operation rather than pursue a variance.

conditions of them being allowed to have their business across the street with all of the variances that they.

got there, was that there would be no auto sales from that location.

00:29:01 :27 - 00:29:03:18

repair professional, so it's a distinction without a difference, I would think. It's not licensed, He has never

been.

‘Michael Short: Other questions from the board.

areas in which cars could be. Parked in this property? Because it seemed like there was one of the

neighbors had concerned about cars being parked in the back.

first.

sorry. Right.

Pg. 152 September 9, 2025 Zoning Meeting

Y

a)

were aware that you were not allowed at that point in time to sell cars. You could just work on your

vehicle. Correct?

pushed back. You realize that covering rent costs and employee costs or anything, it was it was very

difficult. So then what is that four months time? You realized pretty much right away that it wasn't going

to work unless you're able to sell cars.

afford to, uh, the payroll.

wise to work on the vehicles. So you're trying to offset the downtime of not being able to work on cars

with some potential car sales because there's no guarantee you'll sell a car. You're obviously anticipating

that you will, but there's nothing stopping people from looking elsewhere. I mean, hypothetically,

obviously. So how many cars do you plan on? And and I forgive me for. Not if it's in here. How many

cars are you anticipating turning over in a month for sale?

state, so most of the time it goes from one auction to the other one. They just on the lot for 2 or 3 days

between transportation. Um, but for actual retail, 4 to 6 will be sufficient for me. Um, and, uh, size of

operations we have right now.

plates on them for other dealers.

auction, they drop it off, we service them, detail inspection, and then they go back to their lot. Um,

sometimes they sit there for quite a bit, waiting on parts. But, yeah, we do service a lot of, uh, all the

dealers. So it's not our vehicles.

what I'm doing.

The nuts and bolts of this is, is that the owner of the property is the applicant for the use variance. The

tenant is really merely here as a demonstrative piece of evidence as to the difficulty in making the rent at

Pg. 153 September 9, 2025 Zoning Meeting

that location without the supplement of auto sales, because correct me if I'm wrong, a tenant in in a

building is not the appropriate party to make an applicant application for a use variance, because then that

would run with the land. And of course the tenant could leave and the landlord is the is the party that it's

got to be annexed to. Right so in this application typically you would see as we do it all use variances

that the building is not capable of a reasonable return from any of the other allowable zoning uses.

Correct?

tenant who's not acting as an agent for the owner? Someone that is going to be buying the building per se.

Make an application for a use variance.

it was appropriate for us to make the application because it is it runs with the land, right?

use variance okay. So this is not unique to your application. Um, so so the statute in the case law basically

says, hey, look, you have to be able to demonstrate. And sometimes, you know, there's everything from

You know. Veterinarian places, the barber shops, the restaurants that you've got to demonstrate that the

property can't provide a reasonable return based upon the allowable uses. So what we've seen, what we've

heard tonight is that it's used as an automobile uh, Facility, if you will cant make the not whether it be a

repair shop, collision shop, uh, unless you can have this adjunct sales component.

occasions to advertise it. MC district. Restaurant. Laundromat.

Pg. 154 September 9, 2025 Zoning Meeting

,

19. John DeMarco: Tab 19?

19. It's.

Can it be strictly applicable to rent as. Opposed to sale? In other words, have we historically had

applicants demonstrate to us both? We can't sell it for what they need to get a reasonable return, which

we've seen in almost every single application. But is the inability to rent for an allowable use? Also

evidence that we would that we should be seen.

Pg. 155 September 9, 2025 Zoning Meeting

on the rental part. Right? Because that's really the thrust. You haven't tried to sell the property. You're not

interested in selling the property. We're talking about rent only.

opportunities, but times when we have tried five years ago to sell the property. So I'm not going to stand

here tonight and tell you we've never tried to sell.

the four comers of the application tonight, and it sounds like tonight it's based upon rent. That's where

you're saying the financial hardship exists. You can't rent it.

Craigslist at some point in time. I'm not sure if there's a date on here.

advertised in the three.

inability to rent it at the number you need to rent it at to break even, given your basis?

when we rented it to a company called My Mechanic, was $5,400. Since that time. Since 2012. Here we

are in 2025. We haven't been able to get up above $100 beyond that. Okay. All right. Now.

400. Let's call it $5,

500. So that's sick with set 50 $60,000 a

year, right. Gross receipts.

Pg. 156 September 9, 2025 Zoning Meeting

John DeMarco:

40. Right. So that's a delta of maybe $70,000 a year that you're upside down.

the relevant time period from when we left the property that our carrying costs are about $140,000.

70. Christina Aquino: Um, no. When you say that, I mean, I'm, I'm married to the record here because I

computed everything pursuant to the lease.

$5,400. Then it was supposed to be $5,000, $5,400, $5,500, then all the way up to $5,600. And we never

got there. Right.

your debt service. You said yes.

be able to reach?

even asking a reach point I'm asking a survival.

sit here and say $10,000. That's not what I'm looking for. I'm looking to have a solid tenant survive so that

we can increase the rent. It's the market. Rate.

Pg. 157 September 9, 2025 Zoning Meeting

$7,500 a month.

market analysis okay. That says look this many square feet with a auto mechanic shop and the sales of car

can mandate X amount per square foot or $10,000, whatever that is. Right? Right. So let's say it ends up

being $9,000. So the difference between $100,000 and $140,000 in debt service is a $40,000 hardship.

Now, now the board has a number right that it can vote on.

you what we've lost thus far.

outside of the allowable uses can get you where you want to go.

you. I would if you gave us $100 more than what we're earning now, so that I don't have to keep

searching for a tenant to solidify and stay. That's where we're at. They can't survive there. Um, and I can't,

I can't just fabricate a number. I don't know.

Pg. 158 September 9, 2025 Zoning Meeting

or operating a business, and they want to go to something else that isn't allowed.

this, this and this, and you gave it to her, right? Why are you making. Uh, so I'm just trying to make sure

that the board can see the level of hardship and they can make a decision.

your sales could be per month. And I think that's the best metric of the other, an increase.

share valuation of. You know, the building is X amount of square feet. It has 2 or 3 lifts. If, um, just a

repair shop rents for $5,500, but a repair shop with sales is able to rent for, again, you know, using the

previous example, $9,000, that ends up showing us that level of hardship, right as well.

to come back and say, look, you know, here's these three automotive shops within the town of Webster

that, you know, that are renting it out for X. And this is what they're getting, because the other side of it is

if it's a if it's a bad investment, why should we change the use if it is? I'm not saying it is, but if it is, why

should we change the use to to make it solvent?

it establishes that hardship, then the board can determine whether it's, you know, significant enough to

change to change the use.

you that we've showna loss. We've shown a loss on one side. Right. What you're looking for is to show

you how we can improve. On the flip side, I'm presuming right?

losses have been right since you started leasing the property. But there's nothing that tells us so. So even if

we allow the use of sales, you're still bringing in the same amount of income. So you're still losing

something, but you've gota tenant that's staying all the time. So that what we're missing is the piece that

says that sales increases the cash in your pocket based on. What the applicant or what.

Pg. 159 September 9, 2025 Zoning Meeting

situated auto repair, uh, vehicle sale place rents for down the street or wherever they're allowed.

similar size Ice of building and land that operate. Selling and doing auto repair and say, okay, doing what

we do now they get $5,500. But these people over here that I found that are similar size, like you're not

going to go to compare what Marina Dodge and I'm making that up. Right. You got to find little, you

know, smaller car sale places like that and show us that they're getting $10,000 a month. Therefore, like

he said that you're losing out on $4,500 a month. Just on the basic fact that you can't do both at your

location.

of registry. And was thinking, you know, we were thinking, shouldn't we show them what we earned

here selling cars? Shouldn't we show them what we did per month selling cars? And our our conclusion

was that we didn't want this tonight to be about us making more money.

the money.

somebody like him. It's going to make a boatload of money and say, I'm never leaving here. I can sell

cars, make a boatload of money. She's making a boatload of money, and we're making a boatload of

money together. But you can't do that by showing us just the fact that you got to sell cars. We got to know

what your rent is going to be or projected at. If you're able to do that. Because if you're not, your rent is

$5,400 bucks based on what you're able to do.

‘That's what you're getting for what you've got. But if you're able to sell cars, your rent's $10,000. But you

got to show us, I don't know, I'll make it up five places. Right? Like when I go to do comps for my

clients, for houses, I say, oh, you're buying 2,600 square foot house. At least 2,600 square foot houses

over here are selling for this, but they put $40,000 kitchens in. That's why they sold for $500,000. And

these ones are selling for $450,000. So that's what we're looking for. We already know what you're

getting for rent as this. Show us what you could get for rent if he's able to sell cars.

uniquely positioned in this town here. Because who else amI going to compare with? Limelight is not a

car dealer Limelight is a.

what’s he pay for rent? He's a he would be a car. What's he pay for? Right. I mean, those are things you

Pg. 160 September 9, 2025 Zoning Meeting

got to look at and look around and see what people are getting there. We rent over in the village. We own

a hair salon. Suites. There was a gentleman that was selling car, doing exactly what he's doing, but he was

able to sell some cars. You know, I don't know what his rent was, but, you know, that would be

something To just at least come to us and say, this guy over here is paying $10,000 a month. This guy is

paying, you know, eight. This one's paying, you know, $13,000. And there's a discrepancy when you're

up in these numbers compared to the $5,400. So now like they're saying, we have something to go about.

People that are selling cars are paying a substantial amount of rent, which is your only concern. You want

rent money.

You can't you can't afford that. Just stay here and be good and don't give me a problem. You know, and

that's a modicum of it as well. We cross our fingers as investors that people aren't going to leave.

question about how much they're going to make in profit. But what I heard from the very beginning is

they couldn't rent the space, and they want a tenant that's going to be able to stay there. And in order to

enable them to stay there, and they're still making money even at $5,400. There may not be making as

much as they could, could be, but they're making a hell ofa lot more that way than they would be if the

place was empty. And I think that that's what they're looking for is stability.

location, he can't afford to stay there as well.

of other, um, uses. Um, the three ads that you have, uh, posted in Craigslist, um, you know, and the oldest

one was three years, the most recent one was eight months ago, and the other one was kind of in the

middle of those two. Um, the most recent one was for an automotive repair shop. Uh, listed the number of

lifts. ET cetera. Um, the other two were, uh, one was multi-use commercial. Um, so I guess my other

question. Have you attempted to market it? I mean, this might be just a bad location for automotive repair.

Well, I'm not saying it is or not, but it just might be.

the problem that inherently that you have when you go back to whether it's a bad investment. No, I mean,

there's seven bays, there's lifts, there's very expensive equipment in there. Any car person who goes in

there, uh, knows the value of what it is. We're just trying to amplify that.

comparators of similarly situated.

Pg. 161 September 9, 2025 Zoning Meeting

What are they paying for in rent? In order to be able to work on cars and sell cars. That's the real

difference, to provea hardship. Because again, and I mean not disrespect, but we're landlords, right? So

our only concern is that he can cover the ground if he makes $300,000 in the month of November selling

cars. You're only getting ten grand still or whatever. You're charging him for rent. It makes no difference

how much money he's making.

a point, right? Like she's missing out on a five grand a month.

appropriate?

approved and we sold there for two years. It's in the record. And um.

the code.

comparable that we talked about, the other component that, um, I know for me that I need to see is and I

don't know how you're going to show it is that this property doesn't work as, uh, as the other uses are the

other uses that are allowed within, within the property. Um, those are the two things that we need to be

able to, you know, in addition to what you've already provided, which, is substantial. Those are the other

things that we need to understand as well.

tried to market it as automotive space. So how do you how do you prove that any of the allowable uses

won't work there? Um, looking. Do you look at...

Pg. 162 September 9, 2025 Zoning Meeting

restaurants. I've worked with them. Right. So I mean, it's done. I don't do the I don't I don't know how

they went and did their market research to determine that. Hey, you know, instead of a church or instead

of an automotive shop, we're going to convert it into, you know, a restaurant or a appliance sales or, you

know, whatever the other lists are in there. If you don't know what the....

we bought the property, we had no idea to think that we could never use it for repair or sales. It's what it

is. It's always been that. I mean, it's since 1950, it's been automotive. It's what it is. It's not we're not going

to turn itand spend $1 million and turn it into a restaurant. That's for the investor. The person who wants

to rent it can do that, you know.

yes is what we're trying to do.

know, can be auto repair or retail restaurants two story. You know I've, I've fished it out as that

opportunity.

out on a substantial amount of rent that you could be charging him if he is allowed based on the building

right to sell cars. J think how many cars you sell to, in my opinion, is irrelevant because you're not selling

the cars. Whoever rents from you is right. So it's just a marketing ploy for you to get a tenant in there that

is hopefully going to stay longer because they are allowed to sell cars.

So I think the main concern that if I, if I would do, I would come back here saying I, | am missing out on

$70,000 a year in income just because my tenants are not allowed to sell cars. That's really at the end of

the day, the number of cars that come and go out of their eye, in my opinion, is a little irrelevant. It's more

what you're missing out on as the owner of that property not being able to market such property with, um,

being able to sell cars because you're clearly having an issue trying to do it any other way. And anybody

that comes in there doing it with this gentleman is doing is clearly having a hard time making ends meet.

over and over again. What we're asking what the board is looking for is essentially an a just a market

analysis of the money you're that is not coming in due to not having sales. That's what they're asking you

to show. Is that correct from the board?

Pg. 163 September 9, 2025 Zoning Meeting

that is not able to sell cars. So that's one component. And then also a. The other Uses.

hardship. This is why we're moving forward.

rent?

want this to be about us. I wanted to be about the loss.

them vacant either. Right? I want again, that's why we have a standard we have to maintain. We're asking

you to help us maintain that information.

Pg. 164 September 9, 2025 Zoning Meeting

you have the date for?

for them or. No, just in case they're here and they came on here.

_ David Hoffman: How are you guys doing? So I run two successful business, 1.8 miles away

about this location back in March for a third location. Uh, I have a auto sales dealership and a repair

facility in two different spots, and J inquired about this. I called the Town and they told me it could not be

used for auto sales, so therefore we did not pursue with it. Um, as far as rent, I pay a substantial amount

more than what she is charging at my facility for auto sales and auto repair. Um, so when they told me the

price, that's when I inquired about sales, and they told me it could not be done because it was not zoned

for that.

been empty for some time, and I have inquired about it multiple times. And we've been told no multiple

times.

some of that information together. I appreciate it. Thank you.

make a motion to table VIP motorsports, located at 1186 until our October 14th zoning board meeting.

Pg. 165 September 9, 2025 Zoning Meeting

;

RESOLUTION 25-0049 Michael Short made a motion to TABLE

APPLICATION TO OCTOBER 14, 2025

MEETING which was seconded by

Corrine Volo.

VOTE:

Mr. Short AYE

Mr. Moscaret AYE

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Spampinato AYE

Mr. Prescott AYE

Mr. Centola ABSENT

Mr. Accorso AYE

VARIANCE to allow a rear setback of 2’ where 5’ is required, associated with the construction

of a 64SF utility shed on a 0.51-acre parcel having SBL#063.14-1-49 located in the R-2 Single-

Family Residential District under Sections 350-11 and 350-47 of the Code of the Town of

Webster.

Appearing before the board was Patrick Hanna.

need, but I'd like to push it back so that I don't have this thing virtually sitting in the middle of that strip of

property that's called my backyard.

land, a very short strip of land across the back. Um, you put anything back there? It's going to be close.

And then, uh, blocking windows and everything else that are back there. So, um. Yeah, I mean, I don't see

any issues. Any other comments?

there's really no real estate other than where the applicant is suggesting. Good.

come on up. Oh, bring it back to the board one last time. Any other comments or questions at the board?

Nope. All right. I'd like to, uh, vote on. SEQR, I would like to make a motion for a type two action under

SEQR pursuant to NYC RR, section 617.5 of the Environmental Code.

Pg. 166 September 9, 2025 Zoning Meeting

a very few, but there are a couple of houses that seem to be positioned in the lot in this orientation, such

that the house is set back far, far from the road and right up against the rear property line, and also a

corner lot, which limits the real estate where you can put anything within that parcel.

Um, there's not a detriment to be created to nearby properties. The location that the applicant has

requested is actually, probably the most invisible to the rest of the neighborhood. It's going to be shielded

by a fence along the roadside and then there's arborvitae to the rear of it so it's not going to be seen by

anybody that's not within the backyard of the home.

Um, achievable by any other method? I would say no, just given the unique orientation of the house on

this lot. Um, the request is substantial, but as the applicant has stated, the entire depth of his rear yard is

22ft. so an eight foot shed squared is quite small and by shed standards.

So I would call that one a tie. No adverse physical or environmental impacts to the neighborhood or to the

site. Um, the shed is just going to be sitting on top of the ground. It's not really going to interfere with

anything. Um, and in this case, I would say the difficulty is not self-created. The house was placed there

many years before Mr. Hanna moved to that parcel. So, um, anything anyone would like to add to that?

217 Birch Lane. Uh, to provide to allow a two foot set rear, uh, two two foot rear setback, uh, associated

- with a 64ft, an eight foot by eight foot utility shed are ona parcel having SBL 063.14149. Located R-2

single family residential district under section 350-11, 350-47 of the code of the Town of Webster.

utility shed.

year, uh, for substantial completion. Right. All right. Congratulations.

Pg. 167 September 9, 2025 Zoning Meeting

\

| Patrick Hanna: Thank you very much.

RESOLUTION 25-0050 Michael Short made a motion TYPE I

Volo.

VOTE:

Mr. Short AYE

Mr. Moscaret AYE

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Spampinato AYE

Mr. Prescott AYE

Mr. Centola ABSENT

Mr. Accorso AYE

This request is not out of character in the neighborhood:

There will not be a detriment created to nearby properties:

The benefit is not achievable by any other method:

This request is not substantial:

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

The difficulty is not self-created:

This is not an undesirable change:

a

NIAMS WN SE

RESOLUTION 25-0051

Michael short made a motion for AREA

VARIANCE Located at 217 Birch Lane.

Applicant Patrick Hanna is requesting an

AREA VARIANCE to allow arear setback

of 2’ where 5’ is required, associated with

the construction of a 64SF utility shed on a

0.51-acre parcel having SBL# 063.14-1-49

located in the R-2 Single-Family

Residential District under Sections 350-11

and 350-47 of the Code of the Town of

Volo.

VOTE:

Mr. Short AYE

Mr. Moscaret AYE

Mrs. Volo AYE

| Pg. 168 September 9, 2025 Zoning Meeting

Mr. Spampinato AYE

Mr. Prescott AYE

Mr. Centola ABSENT

Mr. Accorso AYE

CONDITIONS:

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

Building Permit.

e That one-year significant construction shall expire September 9, 2026

VARIANCE to allow a 6-foot privacy fence in the front yard of a corner lot, which is not

permitted, on a 0.41-acre parcel having SBL# 063.14-2-68 located in the R-3 Single-Family

Residential District Under Sections 350-12, 350-79, and 350-101 of the Code of the Town of

Webster.

Appearing before the board was Christine Harper.

to allow a six foot privacy fence in the front yard of her comer lot located home. Um, relevant sections of

the code is 350-12, R3 single family residential district 350-12 B5C, which requires a minimum Rear

yard of 50ft. Which I'm sorry, I should say front. And then uh, 350-79 B which no fence in excess of four

feet in height shall be erected in the front setback of any residential lot. So.

Christine Harper:.We there's actually a currently a four foot fence around the property. So the variance

we're asking for is to puta six foot fence, replace the fence that's currently there with a six foot privacy

fence. We're on the corner lot. So although it's states according to the town zoning laws that that's a front

yard. It's actually our backyard that we're asking to fence in. Our pool is actually on that side to which we

had a variance approved for it to put on that side.

So we're looking to it's a it's actually a very busy street with a school that's on the other side. Um, all of

our neighbors will be grateful for it. We have three dogs. My grandsons over all the time, and there's just

a lot of traffic and there's really no privacy in the backyard. So although it's considered a front yard, it is

indeed our backyard. So I'm actually we're asking for a variance to replace the current fence or replace it

with a six foot privacy fence on that side.

drawing.

range?

Pg. 169 September 9, 2025 Zoning Meeting

having a corner lot.

Um. You did you put up a, I don't know, a vine screen, for lack of a better term.

pool and whatnot. I mean. I don't. I get it, I don't have any. I don't have any over overly big concerns of it

I don't know anybody else from the board. Anybody had a chance to drive by it or anything.

from both the DeWitt Road side and from Thrushwood Lane as you're coming around that corner. And

we've had several variances for similar situations within, I'll call it the DeWitt West Webster area of town.

Um, the lots are not incredibly large. And when there's a corner lot, your backyard is open to everybody

that drives by. And there's a lot more traffic on DeWitt than there was even 5 or 10 years ago. So.

growing flowers that come up on it so that one would there's one on the other side that also has like the

clematis. It's more of a the clematis and the roses climb up it. So for I mean it's yeah it's, it looks nice. But

if you, if you wanted me to take it down, I would. But it's because we have flower beds there and the, the

flowers grow up the lattice.

fences already anyway.

back to the board. Uh, any other comments from the board?

Pg. 170 September 9, 2025 Zoning Meeting

sameamaa)

Then I'd like to make a motion for a type two action under SEQR pursuant to NYC section 617.56.7 of

the Environmental Code. Do J have a second?:

the fence that is being selected. Um, well, within the neighborhood itself. Uh, looking at the property. The

fence is not really going to be, um, it is further forward than the front of the house, but it's not further

forward than its neighboring houses or vegetation. Um, it's not going to be it's not going to create a

detriment to nearby properties in any way.

There's currently a fence there. It's just going to be a larger fence. It's further back. It's the same distance

back from the road. So it's not going to cause any sightline issues in the neighborhood. Um, to provide

privacy, there really is no other mean, no other method, uh, to be able to provide privacy and provide a

usable backyard. That is the downside of having a corner lot. Um, ~

I do not see that this is a substantial request, as the fence is 4-foot fences coming down anda 6- foot fence

is going up in its place. Uh, there are no adverse physical or environmental impacts to the site or the

neighborhood. Uh, difficulties not self-created is a corner lot. Um, it's this is, uh. Um, and the request

again is, uh, not significant. Does anybody else want to add anything?

same location of the existing four foot fence at three, seven, four Brushwood Lane. Uh, in the front yard

of a corner lot on a 0.41 acre parcel having SBL 063.14268 located in R-3 single family residential

district under sections 350-12, 350-79 and 350-101 of the code of the Town of Webster

substantial completion.

RESOLUTION 25-0052 Michael Short made a motion TYPE IT SEQR

which was seconded by: Jim Spampinato

VOTE:

Pg. 171 September 9, 2025 Zoning Meeting

om)

Mr. Short AYE

Mr. Moscaret AYE

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Spampinato AYE

Mr. Prescott AYE

Mr. Centola ABSENT

Mr. Accorso AYE

This request is not out of character in the neighborhood:

There will not be a detriment created to nearby properties:

The benefit is not achievable by any other method:

This request is not substantial:

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

The difficulty is not self-created:

This is not an undesirable change:

NAYS YLNS

RESOLUTION 25-0053

Michael Short made a motion for AREA

VARIANCE Located at 374 Thrushwood

Lane. Applicant Christine Harper is

requesting an AREA VARIANCE to allow

a 6-foot privacy fence in the front yard of a

corner lot, which is not permitted, on a 0.41-

acre parcel having SBL# 063.14-2-68

located in the R-3 Single-Family

Residential District Under Sections 350-12,

350-79, and 350-101 of the Code of the

Town of Webster. Which was seconded by

John Accorso.

Mr. Short AYE

Mr. Moscaret AYE

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Spampinato AYE

Mr. Prescott AYE

Mr. Centola ABSENT

Mr. Accorso AYE

CONDITIONS:

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

Building Permit.

Pg. 172 September 9, 2025 Zoning Meeting

a]

e That one-year significant construction shall expire September 9, 2026

VARIANCE to allow a side setback of 7ft where 15ft is required, associated with the

construction of a 8’ x 24’ roof over an existing deck on a 0.51-acre parcel having SBL# 063.14-

1-49 located in the R-3 Single-Family Residential District under Sections 350-12 and 350-47 of

the Code of the Town of Webster.

Appearing before the board was Sharon Arena and Kip Finley of Victory Hill Land Company.

proposed construction ofan 8 by 24 roof over an existing deck in an R-3 single family residential district.

Mrs. arena. Are you here? Yeah. We'd like to come up to the podium. Um, representing agents are, uh,

Sharon, Marina and Kip Finley.

roof over the existing deck. My customer here is Sharon Arena her son Jones here for moral support. Um,

I'd like her to tell you why she would like the roof over it.

over the entrance door. Um, it sheets over with ice and water and that, and it freezes. And I actually got,

um, buried in or barged into my home this past winter.

I had to call my son from work. He, you know, he came after work to chip me out. Um, I have a back

door, but it goes into the backyard, which was full of snow, and I wouldn't have been able to open the

fence getting out that way.

And then, um, the neighbor on the left hand side has lots of oak trees and catalpa trees, and the debris just

comes down over my deck. So I every day I have to go out and clean it up before I could sit down and use

deck. Is that correct?

Very economically, there's no room for the door to swing in. So normally a door would swing in and the

storm boards swing out, but, um, she gets stuck in there. She did submit a couple of letters of support that

had some pictures of ice and snow with them. I don't know if you have them or not.

Pg. 173 September 9, 2025 Zoning Meeting

issue. You have a very narrow, uh, property on being that the edge of the gutter is not going to be

extending any further than the deck itself. Yeah. I don't personally have any additional questions or

concems. Anybody else?

NYCRR section 617.5 of the Environmental Code.

neighborhood. The house is set back. It's really not going to affect the neighborhood in any way, shape or

form. It's actually, you know, my opinion will end up enhancing the, uh, the character of, of the House

moving forward. Um, being that the property is, is set back, it's really not a detriment to any nearby

properties. Um, the properties that it is nearby to the applicant has submitted um, letters of, um,

acceptance, approval of the of the changes.

Um, because of how narrow this property is, this really is not achievable by any other, uh, feasible uh,

means, um, really to be able to keep ice from shedding on to, uh, unto the door and, uh, keep debris off of

the, uh, the deck, uh, a roof is is necessary to be able to do that. Um, see, the request is, uh, it's not

substantial, um, as it's it's set back and other neighbors are in acceptance of it.

Pg. 174 September 9, 2025 Zoning Meeting

Uh, difficulties not self-created. This is a, uh, it's a shotgun house on a very narrow, uh, plot of land, not

really providing for any other opportunities other than, um, the proposed approach. Um, I think that

covers it. Anybody else want to add anything else?

respect to encroaching on the neighbor next door, the the landing area is already there. It's just covering

~ the landing area, which makes egress into the house a little bit better.

on the, uh, subject property. Correct?

allow a side setback of 7- feet. Uh, where 1 5ft is required, and I'm saying 7- feet. Uh, it will align with the

deck below, which is 7- feet off the property line. Uh, where a 15 foot is required associated with the

construction of an 8 foot x 24 foot roof over an existing deck ona 0.51 acre parcel, having SBL 063.14-1-

49. Located in R3 single family residential district under sections three, five, zero, 12 three five, 047 of

the Code of Town of Webster.

RESOLUTION 25-0054 Michael Short made a motion TYPE Hf SEQR

which was seconded by: John Accorso.

VOTE:

- Mr. Short “AYE

Mr. Moscaret AYE

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Spampinato AYE

Mr. Prescott AYE

Mr. Centola ABSENT

Mr. Accorso AYE

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

2. There will not be a detriment created to nearby properties:

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

Pg. 175 September 9, 2025 Zoning Meeting

This request is not substantial:

The difficulty is not self-created:

This is not an undesirable change:

MIAME

RESOLUTION 25-0055

VOTE:

CONDITIONS:

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

Michael Short made a motion for AREA

VARIANCE Located at 789 DeWitt Road.

Applicant Sharon Arena is requesting an AREA

VARIANCE to allow a side setback of 7ft where

15ft is required, associated with the construction of

a 8’ x 24’ roof over an existing deck on a 0.51-acre

parcel having SBL#063.14-1-49 located in the R-3

Single-Family Residential District under Sections

350-12 and 350-47 of the Code of the Town of

Webster. Which was seconded by Corrine Volo.

Mr. Short AYE

Mr. Moscaret AYE

Mts. Volo AYE

Mr. Spampinato AYE

Mr. Prescott AYE

Mr. Centola ABSENT

Mr. Accorso AYE

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

Building Permit.

e That one-year significant construction shall expire September 9, 2026.

DECK & CARPORT: Located at 438 McEwen Drive. Applicant Lisa McBride is requesting an

AREA VARIANCE to allow a front setback of Oft for a carport where 50ft is required and a

front setback of 20ft for a deck where SOft is required, associated with an already existing carport

and deck on a 0.41-acre parcel having SBL# 093.06-1-27 located in the R-3 Single-Family

Residential under Section 350-12 and 350-38 of the Code of the Town of Webster.

Appearing before the board was Lisa McBride.

the carport and to allow 20ft front setback, where 50ft is required for a deck that is existing on an

accessory structure. They are located in the R-3 single family residential district. Relevant sections of the

code is three 350-12 and 350-38.

Pg. 176 September 9, 2025 Zoning Meeting

of the board. Um, we're here to get a variance for, uh, deck that's in front of a storage shed, which was

inaccessible. Really. Because we're on a very large hill that was mostly gravel covered in front of the

shed. So, um, we had during Covid put the deck in. So now we're asking for a variance. And along with

that, we're asking for a variance for a carport that is erected and that's in front of the deck because the

driveway. Um, okay. I'll go on.

Um, our driveway, like I said, is very steep and we've had trouble with our cars before being parked even

halfway up when there was just like two inches of snow. Um, one time our, our Tahoe slid down the

driveway and almost into the woods. Except that a tree stopped it. Um, there's just woods across from our .

house, and we're kind of on a corner. We're ona private drive, um, where there's only one house at the

very end of the road.

And other than that, during the summer, really, nobody can see the deck or the carport. But besides it

being a danger to the driveway so steep, the deck helped us get into our storage shed, which is quite large

and that's, you know, been permitted by the previous owners. But there was really no way to go in and out

of the car, I mean, the shed because of this. gravelly hill that's right in front of it.

And then where the carport was, they had the previous owners had made a flat and sort of dirt area for

two cars that had some big rocks around it and sort of, uh, boulders. But they were all disintegrating, and

the whole hill was sort of coming down and making another gravelly kind of mess. Um, so basically we

wanted to use the front not only because we border the Bay, but the woods are in front of us, um, to see.

We wanted to see the beauty of our front yard. Since it's so private and, um, the carport was basically to

shelter our cars so they weren't covered in snow, and we would have a flat spot to keep our cars and to

park on just to work on them or, you know, whatever. Just that's how steep our driveway is.

didn't know what a variance was. I didn't know that I had to obtain one. So. And I certainly didn't think

that a carport needed that permit. I thought it was just something people put up. I didn't know it was a

building of.

work shed. I didn't know you had to get a variance to put things up.

asking for the variance for the deck in the carport basically.

Pg. 177 September 9, 2025 Zoning Meeting

Covid. The deck and then the carport was after. The decks. Been there for five years.

count it as being in a.

For, um, after they told us to cease work on the deck. We waited, like, two years. Never heard anything

else. Um, I went to the town to ask him what would should happen next, and they said that I think it was

Mr. Potter. Um, had retired and that we should just fill out an existing structure form. So we thought the

deck was okay at that point.

my wrist. And we also had damage to the windshields of one of our cars while it was parked in the flat

part. So we wanted to be able to cover. And we also have an antique 1959 wood lineman that I had been

storing for years, but it was getting kind of expensive for the winter storage, so we thought if we had the

carport, I could put the boat under there to keep it protected also.

house, so getting out of my driveway on a winter day is difficult. Like you getting in. But I did some

French drains and whatnot because during heavy rains and things, obviously the water pulls towards my

house. The water is obviously going towards your carport here. Do you have any drainage or where does

the water go to? Because my only concern their.

Pg. 178 September 9, 2025 Zoning Meeting

pressure building up over time.

under our driveway.

private road. I guess it's only one person at the end of our street. So we didn't have. And I also submitted

letters from our neighbors, and nobody has a concern about it. And J think I had eight, 7 or 8 letters.

strip. That's an easement. But in that 10-foot strip, there's a sailboat that's been there before. We moved in

like a decorative small sailboat, and then a huge tree is right in the middle of the 10-foot right of way for

RG&E. So we had, um, met with RG&E. They came out and looked at all of it and researched whether

we were over any linesin the ground, and they said that we were not and that it was fine if we would

have, um, we could maintain that wall and the carport that borders RG&E easement or right of way and

so they wrote a letter which is in the packet.

way.

setback because...

show the carport and the deck. So we had spoken with the applicants about having an updated survey,

which was a recommendation from staff.

Pg. 179 September 9, 2025 Zoning Meeting

;

line.

could do it by October, but they needed like at least four weeks. That was McMahon and LaRue. Um.

Right. So, um.

exactly the same survey. I don't know if you'd want to look at that.

approve, um, this they indicated that they are aware of, um, that the carport is built within the easement.

Uh, they've put any onus of damage, any issues is all on you. It's not an approval of. It's not it. You made

them... they're aware of and they're saying, fine, we're aware of, um, the other component and I

understand where you're coming from, or I can understand where you're coming from.

Butat the end of the day, if you're speeding on a road and you say, I didn't know what the speed limit

was, you should have found out. So having a deck built without a permit, having a carport built without a

permit or without even asking, um, becomes problematic. Um, but that being said, uh, you do have a

number of, uh, neighbors that were that identified that they didn't have an issue with it.

Uh, there is one neighbor That, uh, we received documentation, uh, that they were not able to be here this

evening. They asked us to, uh, take it into consideration that, um, this neighbor does share the driveway

with you. So they are located at 400 McEwen Drive. They do have a concer, uh, with this, uh,

construction project, uh, carport and deck, uh, is detrimental. So I'm, I'm going to paraphrase. I'm not

going to read verbatim:

Um, it's detrimental to the character of the neighborhood, both in appearance and in quality. Um.

Pg. 180 September 9, 2025 Zoning Meeting

,

—

Uh, current, uh, the storage room in the drawings was originally permitted as a workshop by, uh, built by

the prior owners. The current owner has upgraded electric and refurbished the building as additional

living space. Um, The proposed deck currently holds a already constructed, holds a picnic table. They're

concerned about the quality of the construction of the deck and the carport um. Front yard, uh, deck is

unsightly. Has becomea collection spot for, um, for junk. Uh, it's consistent with, um, the management of

the property. Uh, deck and carport drastically violate the, uh, the town code for setbacks. Um, neighbor

did not take town code into account and just constructed the structures on the on their own.

It goes on. I mean, there's more here, but that that ultimately, uh, kind of sums it up. So you do have, like

I said, there's a number of, uh, applicants for there is one, uh, against this information will be part of, um,

the application. Correct and available. So, um, other questions, comments from the board.

precedents. I mean, they built a deck and they built a carport without permits, and now we're expected to

approve it. Does that mean that betterto ask forgiveness than approval? I mean, I have a problem with

that. And I also, when I viewed it, it looked pretty unsightly. The whole yard did. So I, [just have a lot of

issues with it. And the fact that it's not even on their property even makes it worse.

title would be, you know, come up and then, Two you know, who knows what was used orhow far those

are buried. So there's a lot of questions that remain unanswered.

stuff is out there because he's gone through cancer for the past year. So some of that is easily cleaned up.

If we were able to get a variance for the deck and hopefully the carport, I mean, we can definitely make it

unsightly so that that neighbor would be happier. I mean, we're willing to remedy the situation in any way

and hopefully mitigate any expensive fixes. You know I’m willing to do whatever it takes.

some boards. Maybe that's what they're talking about.

paperwork.

existing structure.

Pg. 181 September 9, 2025 Zoning Meeting

building inspector.

deck.

end of the driveway.

them. But, you know..

town's next actions? Is it?

personally, I was looking at the structure and the wall, and in my profession, J would be concerned with

how and how it was constructed. So what if the board was to approve it? What is the next step? Does the

Town...

for these structures. That would be reviewed by the building department, building inspector and code

enforcement officers.

doesn't match. ,

Pg. 182 September 9, 2025 Zoning Meeting

not straight in any way, shape or form. Right. So, um, building inspectors, even if they were to get

drawings from, uh, an engineer or whatnot, they're going to show a straight wall. My guess is the building

inspector would say that's not straight.

wrong about that. And with a permit and structurally sound. But I don't I in good conscience, I can't

approve that carport on another person's property.

constructed?

Um, okay. One of the things I look at is if the structures weren't there already in, the applicant came to the

board asking to place them in that location. Is that something that a board would grant?

Um. The deck. I can't speak for the rest of the board, but a deck in that location does not seem out of sorts

with respect to the topography of that lot and access to that structure. Um, the carport in that location,

especially beyond the lot line. Um, in, in in a way. I know it's not a temporary structure, but it has that

look of a temporary structure, I don't know. I don't know that the board would grant that in its current

location.

Pg. 183 September 9, 2025 Zoning Meeting

could get a survey, but I'm not sure if it would be.

would be on our line.

and, and I think I would do the same. As I mentioned, we would separate out the the deck from the

carport. Um, we don't have enough information to make a... let me rephrase it. I don't have enough

information to make a positive, uh, recommendation for the carport. Having a survey would be very

helpful. Uh, however, building on somebody else's property is. It's not good, right?

somebody else, is what you're doing. So, um, we can vote now on the two separate components. Um,

there are additional elements that you would need. I don't know if it would change anybody's decision, to

be honest. Um, knowing that it's not on your property. Um, the other option is, are you willing to

withdraw your application at this point to come back?

would they would have to withdraw. I'm assuming. Right. They would be the one to withdraw.

carport separate. We're talking about the carport. If they if we tabled that tonight. Could they come back

next month with an amended application that moves the carport back to their own property, and then ask

for the variance in that respect?

Pg. 184 September 9, 2025 Zoning Meeting

pick it up and move it.

going to say 60 days, because it's going to take time for you to get the information that you need. Would

you be willing to table the matter, to be able to get the information necessary to come back to this board?

INAUDIBLE

INAUDIBLE

faster.

to look at the structure of both of the deck and the carport, uh, to provide you with a determination you're

going to need. Um, drawings, sign and seal. I'm assuming sign and seal drawings for these components,

which at that point you're going to need an architect or an engineer if they're able to provide, um, a letter

of review, because I don't suspect we're going to want the town to go out there until this is fully resolved.

So if you can havea third party do that, that would also help me at least, I don't know. Uh, I don't want to

speak for the rest of the board members.

a client.

Pg. 185 September 9, 2025 Zoning Meeting

to code properly, right? Because they would know the. Closely they would be able to tell you exactly, and

even probably let you be aware that you are not in code. Right. Or youare. And this is what you're going

to need to do in order to fix it. That would also help coming back saying we were recommended that we

need XYZ done in order to comply with current decking codes, okay.

about almost what it was.

know, you can't tell me right now. You can't tell me that the vertical steel pylons are on your property or

not at this point. Right. The concrete wall might be the pylons. I have no idea. And you can't tell me what

is or what isn't.

but right now, we don't have enough information.

the November, uh, zoning board meeting. I have a second.

Pg. 186 September 9, 2025 Zoning Meeting

'

RESOLUTION 25-0057 Michael Short made a motion to TABLE

APPLICATION TO NOVEMBER 25,

2025 MEETING which was seconded by

Corrine Volo.

VOTE:

Mr. Short AYE

Mr. Moscaret AYE

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Spampinato AYE

Mr. Prescott AYE

Mr. Centola ABSENT

Mr. Accorso AYE

requesting an AREA VARIANCE to allow a rear setback 15ft where 5Oft is required associated

with the construction of a 432 SF shed on a 0.62-acre parcel having SBL# 050.03-8-14 located

in the R-1 Single-Family Residential District under Sections 350-10 and 350-36 of the Code of

the Town of Webster.

Appearing before the board was Jim Harold.

required. And an R1 single family residential district, with the proposed construction of 432 square foot

shed. I would like to point out to the board that this property is in a cluster division, so it does have

_ different rear setback requirements than the R-1 in our code.

updated survey at your computer.

variance to put my shed within my fenced area of the backyard. Um, one of the main reasons is because

my yard has a good slope to it going away from the house toward the back. As it gets closer to the fence,

Pg. 187 September 9, 2025 Zoning Meeting

it levels out. So that would make it a lot better. Also, if I yeah. So if I have to move it closer to closer 50ft

away, I'll actually be almost on my pool.

But I would have to also dig down probably two feet from the front end to match the back end, so then

water could flow into it. Or if I built the front up, I'd havea two foot drop going off the back. And it's all

within my yard. It's a beautiful structure. It's going to be sited to match the property. It's going to be

within my inside of my six foot privacy fence. Um, my neighbor on the left loves the idea he's okay with

it from the street. ,

I don't know if the the pictures I sent Erika fills are in the packet. Um, but we sit by back of my property,

sits pretty far back, and then I, I back to

250. So there's actually, like 20 yards of trees behind my yard

between my back of my house in

250. So that's all covered. It's, it's empty area just full of trees. And then

from the right side I'm on the corner lot and it's quite a distance from that road. It would hardly even be

seen from there.

with those windows going across the front, but so it's probably like maybe 1 Sft to the top or less. I have a

picture of it actually. It's this shed right here. Just a standard shed. It's just going to be longer 36ft. Do you

want me to show it to you?

going to take two panels out so that I could drive my tractor in out of the yard to mow the outside and

then drive back into the inside.

Pg. 188 September 9, 2025 Zoning Meeting

;

speak for or against this project? Nope. All right. Back to the board. Any other questions? Comments

from the board? Nope.

section 617.5 of the Environmental Code. I have a second.

RESOLUTION 25-0058 Michael Short made a motion TYPE Il SEQR

which was seconded by: Jim Spampinato.

VOTE:

Mr. Short AYE

Mr. Moscaret AYE

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Spampinato AYE

Mr. Prescott AYE

Mr. Centola ABSENT

Mr. Accorso AYE

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

2. There will not be a detriment created to nearby properties:

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

4. This request is not substantial:

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

6. The difficulty is not self-created:

7. This is not an undesirable change:

RESOLUTION 25-0059 Michael Short: made a motion for AREA

VARIANCE Located at 485 Thyme Drive.

Applicant Jim & Trish Harold is requesting an

AREA VARIANCE to allow a rear setback 15ft

where SOft is required associated with the

Pg. 189 September 9, 2025 Zoning Meeting

construction of a 432 SF shed on a 0.62-acre parcel

having SBL# 050.03-8-14 located in the R-1

Single-Family Residential District under Sections

350-10 and 350-36 of the Code of the Town of

Webster which was seconded by John Accorso.

VOTE:

Mr. Short AYE

Mr. Moscaret AYE

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Spampinato AYE

Mr. Prescott AYE

Mr. Centola ABSENT

Mr. Accorso AYE

CONDITIONS:

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

Building Permit.

e That one-year significant construction shall expire September 9, 2026

VARIANCE to allow a side setback of 12ft where 15ft is required, and a height variance for 23ft

where 20ft is the maximum, associated with the construction of a 784ft garage on a 0.57-acre

parcel having SBL# 081.01-1-20 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 John Hayes.

for the height of the whole bam. Um, total height would be 23ft, where 20ft maximum is allowed. And

this is, uh, with the proposed construction of 784 square foot garage. I would also like to note that the

-applicant received conditional Planning Board approval last week, based on their variances presentation

here tonight.

pole barn to be used for a garage for our boat and put the wife's car in for the winter. Um, we're looking

for a variance of the side setback. East side is where we need 12ft. where 15ft is required. That's so the

garage isn't behind the house. It'll be lined up with the house. If you look at the survey map, our house

and driveway are weird angles and J just want it, I think it'd look better if it was in line with the house.

And then the, um. The height we need is actually 23ft, 10-inches. We're doing the attic trusses, so we

have extra storage up top. Um, the garage will match the color of the house mhm. That's about it.

Pg. 190 September 9, 2025 Zoning Meeting

INAUDIBLE

basement is showing on one side. On the driveway side. So that dimensions 21 ft to the driveway and

where the garage will be 21ft back. That's another 17ft drop. So basically the height from line of sight

from the road, it would be about the same as the height of the house.

think we need a height variance because the height is to the, the mean of the gable roof height. The peak

is 23 x 10 ten. Correct?

out on here. Unfortunately, it's not.

height.

INAUDIBLE

INAUDIBLE

down too.

Pg. 191 September 9, 2025 Zoning Meeting

the basement up there.

treadmill and a bike up there.

Pg. 192 September 9, 2025 Zoning Meeting

the board. Any other questions from the board?

the setback, it's going to be significantly further from the lot line than the barn next door is t the lot line

And it is the face of this is going to be behind the rear line of the house so that's not an issue.

correct or is it like the actual property drops?

Is that correct?

don't think is actually going to be higher because of the elevation changes of the main house. So all right.

Um, any other comments? Questions from the board?

RR section 617.5 of the Environmental Code. I have a. Second.

Pg. 193 September 9, 2025 Zoning Meeting

'

RESOLUTION 25-0060

VOTE:

Michael Short made a motion TYPE I SEQR

which was seconded by: Jim Spampinato.

This request is not substantial:

The difficulty is not self-created:

This is not an undesirable change:

NAWAWN SE

RESOLUTION 25-0061

VOTE:

Mr. Short AYE |.

Mr. Moscaret AYE

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Spampinato AYE

Mr. Prescott AYE

Mr. Centola ABSENT

Mr. Accorso AYE

This request is not out of character in the neighborhood:

There will not be a detriment created to nearby properties:

The benefit is not achievable by any other method:

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

Michael Short made a motion for AREA

VARIANCE = Located at 1759 Ridge Road.

Applicant John Hayes is requesting an AREA

VARIANCE to allow a side setback of 12ft where

15ft is required, and a height variance for 23ft

where 20ft is the maximum, associated with the .

construction of a 784ft garage on a 0.57-acre parcel

having SBL# 081.01-1-20 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 Corrine Volo.

Mr. Short AYE

Mr. Moscaret AYE

Mrs. Volo. AYE

Mr. Spampinato AYE

Mr. Prescott AYE

Pg. 194 September 9, 2025 Zoning Meeting

Mr. Centola ABSENT

Mr. Accorso AYE

CONDITIONS:

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

Building Permit.

e That one-year significant construction shall expire September 9, 2026

VARIANCE to allow a side setback of 5.9ft where 20ft is required, and to locate an accessory

building in the front yard, which is not permitted, associated with the construction of a 672 SF

detached 2-car garage on a 0.49-acre parcel having SBL# 048.19-1-82.1 located in the R-1 Single-

Family Residential under Sections 350-10 and 350-36 of the Code of the Town of Webster.

Appearing before the board was Jay Palermo.

variance for the location of an accessory building in the front yard of the property. Um, this is with the

. proposed construction of a 672 square foot detached two car garage. Also would like to note that this

applicant received Planning Board approvals last week, dependent upon approvals this evening.

familiar faces. And you guys from last week. I just want to note that last week on the, uh, provided survey

map, there was not an existing secondary structure, which wasa shed. Uh, that was part of the planning

approval last week, was the removal of that shed along with the application for zoning. I just wanted to

note that there was a certificate of compliance issued on 04/06/2022.

So the actual previous owner did have a permit for that secondary building. But it is going to a good

home. It's coming to my property in Bristol for my goats. So we've remediated that. Um, but what we're

trying to do is clean up the property a little bit. We're going to build a nice little two car garage, increasing

the size of the existing garage by ten feet to the east and another four feet to the lake side. And it's one of

those situations where it's, uh, lakeside front side, back side. We don't really know what the front is on the

lake.

Uh, so it is in the technical backyard because it's a lake, a lake view property. Uh, so that's why there's

that variance for the location of the proposed new building. Uh, it's one of those fun grey areas that we've

all seen on the lakes. So, uh, just ready to get rid of the, uh. Existing building that is currently as a

foundation issues and some settling and some cracked concrete. And that's just all going to be brought to

life with a new pole barn style building, but no steel.

It is going to be sided to match the existing character of the neighbors, and it's going to match the existing

color of the house. It's also going to be a shingled roof that is not going to be steel as well. Um, we also

have, uh, remediation of the water with a drain tile in the front side of the building going to a French drain

Pg. 195 September 9, 2025 Zoning Meeting

to collect all the rainwater that's going to come off the roof of the structure, tying into the new, uh,

existing driveway.

larger footprint?

‘Jay Palermo: So we are at 14ft, Uh, for my building off average grade, about 14ft. Uh, the existing

building is just a little bit smaller and 11 foot six. And the current home is at 19 foot plus or minus off

avetage grade. Thank you. So it is going to be lower than the existing home lakeside.

frequently on houses at the lake.

to a pre-existing nonconforming or because it's replacing it, it would be considered new.

01:53:29:09 - 01:53:48:19

carport previously, and there's actually footers in the ground actually landing right where our new footers

are going to be going, so that that side setback was already approved. I'm not sure when I did not pulla

Foil request on the property.

01:53:51:00 - 01:53:51:21

Okay, bring it back to the board. Any other questions from the board?

617.5 of the Environmental Code.

Pg. 196 September 9, 2025 Zoning Meeting

;

RESOLUTION 25-0062

VOTE:

This request is not substantial:

The difficulty is not self-created:

This is not an undesirable change:

NAY SYWN DS

RESOLUTION 25-0063

VOTE:

Michael Short made a motion TYPE Ii SEQR

which was seconded by: Jim Spampinato

Mr. Short AYE

Mr. Moscaret AYE

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Spampinato AYE

Mr. Prescott AYE

Mr. Centola ABSENT

Mr. Accorso AYE

This request is not out of character in the neighborhood:

There will not be a detriment created to nearby properties:

The benefit is not achievable by any other method:

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

Corrine Volo made a motion for AREA

VARIANCE Located at 512 Lake Road. Applicant

Jay Palermo is requesting an AREA VARIANCE

to allow a side setback of 5.9ft where 20ft is

required, and to locate an accessory building in the

front yard, which is not permitted, associated with

the construction of a 672 SF detached 2-car garage

on a 0.49-acre. parcel having SBL# 048.19-1-82.1

located in the R-1 Single-Family Residential under

Sections 350-10 and 350-36 of the Code of the

Town of Webster. Which was seconded by Michael

Short.

Mr. Short AYE

Mr. Moscaret AYE

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Spampinato AYE

Mr. Prescott AYE

Mr. Centola ABSENT

Pg. 197 September 9, 2025 Zoning Meeting

,

Mr. Accorso AYE

VARIANCE to allow a side setback of 3.1ft where 15ft is required, associated with a recently

constructed deck on a 0.95-acre parcel having SBL# 063.17-1-31 located in the R-2 Single-

Family Residential District under Section 350-11 of the Code of the Town of Webster.

Appearing before the board was Bryan White.

side setback of 3.9ft where 15 is required in association with the recently constructed deck. This property

is in the R-2 single family residential district. And, uh. You're up.

patience tonight and hearing your application. Uh, we are here tonight, uh, seeking approvals. This is our

first step in compliance. There is an existing deck on the structure, which was constructed without

permits. So we are pursuing the pathway for permitting for this structure. Um, we're requesting a side

setback variance of 3.1ft or 15in required by code. If any of you had the opportunity to visit the property

and see the deck.

stands, is terraced in two different elevations. I just want to clarify. We're here tonight seeking approvals

on the upper portion of the deck. Another component of our approvals. We're working with the deck.

We're going to remove the lower portion of that deck. It's located in a coastal erosion hazard zone. So

there's limited developments in that area. So I just want to clarify our request tonight is just for the upper

portion of the deck with that this property historically we did provide a survey.

When Eric purchased the property, there was an existing deck that was in disrepair. So that deck was

removed and this new deck was constructed. I'd like to point out, utilizing the previous survey map, to the

former deck, although there wasn't a tie distance specifically to the deck. There is a perimeter chain link

fence in place, and we're proposing to place this deck similar distance off the lot line, so we're proposing —

3.1ft in perspective.

The former tied distance to the fence on that property was 3.2ft. So it's generally in the same location as

what it was before. With respect to the side lot line, this deck as it exists today is larger than what was

historically there. But we're maintaining our buffer as it was previous to the side setback and also to the

bay. Um, it's not further to the bay than what it was historically. So with that, this is again our first step to

seek these variances tonight and this variance tonight.

Following that, we're going to pursue an EPOD permit with the Town. Um, and then you know, there's

_ future plans here for this property. But we want to resolve this issue first and then move forward from

there.

Pg. 198 September 9, 2025 Zoning Meeting

02:15:05:24 - 02:15:06:19

off of the property line. Is that correct?

02:15:26:02 - 02:15:26:19

survey map that was provided by another firm.

we're within inches of where it was before.

02:15:42:19 - 02:15:48:03

deck?

02:15:48:18 - 02:15:50:19

02:15:50:21 - 02:15:53:17

02:15:53:25 - 02:16:04:29

line. There's a lift that goes down to the bay.

02:16:05:23 - 02:16:08:18

02:16:08:20 - 02:16:09:05

02:16:13:23 - 02:16:26:26

deck is 3.1ft off the property line.

Pg. 199 September 9, 2025 Zoning Meeting

02:16:28:07 - 02:16:40:07

is on the property line? That's why that's what I'm trying to understand.

02:16:40:26 - 02:16:46:29

02:16:47:01 - 02:16:47:22

02:16:47:24 - 02:16:49:15

02:16:53:12 - 02:16:54:05

02:17:00:25 - 02:17:08:22

similar location within inches of the original deck.

02:17:09:07 - 02:17:13:00

02:17:13 :02 - 02:17:13:19

02:17:14:03 -~ 02:17:22:27

‘. Michael Short: Um, the West side. How much further did the West, uh, edge of the deck expand?

Roughly.

02:17:23:16 - 02:17:52:15

the two maps together, it's generally on the same line. We are limited. There's a coastal erosion hazard

area there.

is very similar to the original survey map. So I would say for all intents and purposes, we haven't

Pg. 200 September 9, 2025 Zoning Meeting

extended further towards the bay. In that regard, we have extended further south than what was originally

there. But that's well within the limits of the property.

02:17:53:05 - 02:17:53:22

02:17:54:19 - 02:17:57:19

02:17:58:00 - 02:18:01:16

02:18:04:14 - 02:18:05:28

02:18:06:10 - 02:18:06:25

02:18:07:25 - 02:18:38:19

aware of billing without a permit, obviously. Uh, no. No. Um, I appreciate, um, appreciate that the, um,

owner is going to be removing the lower portion of the deck. Uh, and I can appreciate that. Ultimately,

the new deck was put in the same spot, essentially, as the old deck, so I can appreciate that.

Um, I don't have any other questions. Um, nobody else on the board. I'll open it up to the public. Uh,

anybody want to speak for or against? No. Uh, I'll bring it back to the board. Any more comments from

the board?

02:18:54:16 - 02:19:02:15

of the Environmental Code.

02:19:02:17 - 02:19:03:02

02:19:03 :04 - 02:19:03:19

02:19:03:21 - 02:19:04:09

RESOLUTION 25-0063 Michael Short made a motion TYPE II SEQR

Pg. 201 September 9, 2025 Zoning Meeting

which was seconded by: Corrine Volo

VOTE:

Mr. Short AYE

Mr. Moscaret AYE

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Spampinato AYE

Mr. Prescott AYE

Mr. Centola ABSENT

Mr. Accorso AYE

This request is not out of character in the neighborhood:

There will not be a detriment created to nearby properties:

The benefit is not achievable by any other method:

This request is not substantial:

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

without permits.

7. This is not an undesirable change:

AW BwWN >

RESOLUTION 25-0063 Corrine Volo made a motion for AREA

VARIANCE = Located at 701 Summit Drive.

Applicant Eric Elwell is requesting an AREA

VARIANCE to allow a side setback of 3.1ft where

15ft is required, associated with a recently

constructed deck on a 0.95-acre parcel having SBL#

063.17-1-31 located in the R-2 Single-Family

Residential District under Section 350-11 of the

Codeof 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 AYE

Mr. Centola ABSENT

Mr. Accorso AYE

‘Pg. 202 September 9, 2025 Zoning Meeting

Nee rn

CONDITIONS:

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

Building Permit.

e That one-year significant construction shall expire September 9, 2026

e The deck dimensions cannot exceed 19.7’ length at 3.1’ from the property line.

e The deck extension to the west must be removed.

ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM:

e 1-year extension request of Use Variance 23-ZB-0033, 1013 Ridge Road- Splash Car Wash.

e APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS

o Grant the extension of the approval for one (1) year upon the condition that the town

has the right to rescind the extension upon 60 days’ notice to the applicant allowing

the applicant to have an opportunity to appear before the Board.

o Inno event is the extension longer than one (1) year.

e Approval of June 10, 2025, July 8, 2025 minutes APPROVED

Since there are no further applications before the Board, Corrine Volo adjourned tonight’s

meeting at = =p.m.

Corrine Volo, Secretary

_JAN 14°26 au10:15

FILED WEBSTER THN CLK

(a) WE Warn

Pg. 203 September 9, 2025 Zoning Meeting