Video recording

We have a total of three items have the agenda here somewhere. There is we have uh one table matter uh and two schedule matters and one administrative matter. Uh so total of four matters today. Uh here is the proof of publication uh for all items. Do a call for attendance. Let's see. Uh John ASO >> here. >> Anthony Muskrat >> here. >> Chris Senola >> here. >> Adam Prescott. Nope. Uh James uh Spampado >> here. >> Sorry, butchered that for you. >> Yes. All right. >> Uh Kyle Taylor >> here. >> Uh Michael Short here. >> Uh stand for the pledge of allegiance, please. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands.

One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. [Music] >> All right. Um, first item that we have on our agenda is our table matter, VIP motorsports. VIP Motors Sports located at 1186 Ridge Road. Applicant Enzo Aquino representing agent Christina Aquino located in the MC medium intensity commercial district are requesting a use variance to allow auto sales to existing vehicle service business. >> Good evening. Alaroo McMan Laroo Associates. Uh the owner Christina Aquino is uh is here tonight also to answer any questions like we did last time. Uh since our last meeting, the owners provided financial information for three properties that uh validates the need for sales to make the property viable.

Uh and I hope you've had a chance to take a look at that. Um a bit of bad news. Uh the present tenant Manny wasn't able to make it. uh so that the property is now available again. So I think that underscores the uh the need for sales also. So with that I'll turn it over for any questions you might have and and again Chris can answer any questions regarding the ownership. Um any questions from the board that anybody may have? I did have an opportunity to take a look at uh the documents that were sent over. I appreciate you putting uh putting together the additional information. Uh if the board has any questions otherwise I I definitely do.

No. Um so there are four items that and we have to meet all four items right it's um there's the financial aspect which is one of the components that you know you put together uh some documentation for whether this uh this is self-created if it's a unique hardship and uh does it alter the the neighborhood you know I for me I think uh I look at the the location I don't I don't personally see altering the neighborhood uh significantly. Um unique hardship because of what is there. It's a unique location. It it definitely is a unique hardship. However, one of the things that I question and I questioned even the last time was uh an MC the MC district allows I'm looking at right now 25 26 uh 26 different types of businesses.

We've only been talking about one business type here and that is the automotive business. So for me, I'm I'm struggling to see how a use variance is necessary when not having the, you know, have having the owner attempt to utilize the space for any of the other 25 different types of uses. I understand that the owner has provided uh and made updates to the particular facility with lifts, uh doors, etc. to make it a viable automotive uh repair shop. But I'm still I'm still struggling to see, you know, how how this is not self-created. Um the other component and if I'm doing my math correctly and please correct me if I'm if I'm wrong as I look at the expenses that you provided in the first uh first go around on page 10 of your document looks like your total annual expenses is around $12,000 exa exactly $12,12783.

Those are your annual expenses where you're averaging when you have a tenant uh on an annual basis around $65,000. So that's a a profit of roughly $53,000 that you're realizing. So I I mean I am personally struggling with how there is a financial hardship on this property that would warrant a a use variance. I understand the use variance would make this property more attractive and appealing. Um but there are four criteria that we need to meet and those four criteria are you know lack of uh return on on any of the businesses uh that are viable. It's a unique hardship. Does it alter the neighborhood and self-created?

>> Well, may I counter that? >> Yeah. >> Okay. Well, when we talk about self-created, okay, we're not talking about the essence of that is when you bought the property, did you know that you could use it for car sales? And the answer is unequivocally yes. For 70 years, there have been car sales there. That's in the proof. All right. And that's evidenced by our permission granted by the town of Webster in 2016 to sell cars again. And from the New York State Department of Finance, our sales tax records, $300,000 that we demonstrated in a snapshot between 2016 and 2017 to allow a potential tenant to survive.

Now, I've I've got my fifth tenant leaving, and you're going to tell me it's not a hardship. This is this is an exclusively iconic car location. You know, to to to to assume after we demonstrated $900,000 of investments, including the purchase price of the property, how we cleaned up that property for this town, how it was a dump a dump yard, junkyard, what have you, uh, and we gentrified it. All right. a and to say that now we should turn it into a laundromat. You want me to go take everything out of the ground and create a new building and make a laundromat or make a a a a restaurant. I mean, that's crazy.

It's crazy. I um you know, I I think that we met every every element of proof that you requested and then some. you know, we we entered the we purchased this property. You know, that actually gets to that to the to the heart of what a use variance is. A use variance contemplates that when you bought the property, the use was permitted, >> which it was not >> and that at a subsequent point it was outlawed, >> which the use was not ma'am ma'am, the use was not permitted by our code at that point in time >> when it was purchased. >> It was never been unpermitted. >> It has always been unpitted. Hey, it's not >> it's not permitted to this day.

>> Your list that you rely on, that's not an exclusive list. It is not. >> It is. >> It says here are the here are the things that are are their examples. I I it really it it's incredible that after demonstrating over 70 years worth of sales at that location from the New York State DMV licensed uh sales that somehow you're going to say that it's not permitted after your own town people signed and exceeded permission when we ask for it. We've never done anything that we were not supposed to do. We always asked for permission. You granted it. You're bound by that. It hasn't been outlawed. It never has been.

And that's the problem. >> I'm going to read the code for you. Permitted uses shall include. >> Shall include. >> Those are the permitted uses. >> Not must. Shall >> those are the uses allowed, >> ma'am. So, >> it's not an exclusive list. Not I I it doesn't matter. >> If that's the case, then you can do whatever you want for that for that property, right? I mean, by by your by your logic, >> you want us to go and spend another $500,000 and and turn it into something that hasn't been used for it. You already admitted in your opening statement that it's an iconic unique property and then you want to turn that around and tell us that create another hardship for us.

So that >> the board is not asking the board's not asking you to convert the use. What they're simply saying is that one of the elements of a use variance requires that you demonstrate there's no reasonable rate of return for any of the permitted uses. So that would require competent evidence that these other uses that you're highlighting. There's no reasonable rate of return. That's what the board >> is borne out by the uniqueness of the property per se. It's a car place. You can't turn a car place. >> Use varian standard requires dollars and cents proof of that fact. the investment you did was during when you could get have sales in >> well no I mean when we when we bought again I'm going to just state this for the record because this will go up to an article 78 for sure um and and just to say quite quite clearly that when we bought the property I had no idea no envisionment that car sales were not permitted there the guy who had the property for 50 50 years was doing it there the subsequent person who came in there had their dealer bond there.

My husband went in there, asked permission from the town, granted. We sold cars there for 3 years and now to come back in. I think you guys need more proof than Well, >> you need a you need a statute that says we prohibit car sales. >> So, ma'am, >> and that two may I please, the two cars that the two examples that I gave you are in the MC district. There were our property 941 Ridge Road, the leases that I gave you, those were our tenants. We were in the MC district selling cars as well at 941 Ridge Road. It's two miles away. >> So the the other uh >> I'll ask the board if they have any other questions.

>> Yeah. Regarding regarding 941 because they've come to us, right, Mike? Okay. >> Their lease is set up lease to own meaning they would lease to purchase. Is your lease >> you're comparable 941? >> We owned that building. No, currently right now you're using that as the example. I'm going off of present day, not past. >> I'm not my my leases are from 10 years ago. >> The leases are from 10. Look at the >> But the current one is like you don't own 941 anymore. >> No, we don't. But we had two leases where the and I gave you proof of the of the dealer and the repair shop licenses from the state of New York.

That's what they that's what this board requested of us. But I'm looking at it now is 941 is going to be a lease to own under new ownership whole nine yards. Are is your lease going to be similar to something like that? I have no idea what you're asking me. You asked this board asked me to demonstrate a shop like our shop where you did repairs and you sold. Tell us what they were paying in rent to demonstrate that our rents are lower. And I did that. We're getting 50. We've been I haven't been able to raise the rent since since 2008. Over $100. I've been getting the same $5,300 since 2008. >> So, and I appreciate that.

Um, actually, the dates that she's providing from 10 years ago >> 10 years ago, but I'm looking at it from present day, too. >> Understood. Um, >> and we so we're going back we're going back to uh I go back to even the fact that there is based on the documents you provided me there's a $53,000 annual profit u based on annual expenditures as well as um annual uh income on that particular property. >> That might very well be but there's no ROI. We showed you negative 9 >> 9.1 ROI. that's, you know, my 53,000. So what? You know, you could be a major corporation and if one of your properties gives you 53,000, you might go bankrupt.

I mean, it doesn't means it's nothing for nothing. >> Doesn't mean anything. >> Um, anything any other comments from the board? >> No. Does anybody from the public want to speak for or against this project? >> No. Uh, I'll take it back to the board. Any other comments from the board? Does anybody want to make a motion uh for this property for this use variance? >> No. No. >> All right. Um I am going to make a um motion to deny the use variance to allow uh motor vehicle sales uh at 1186 Ridge Road. um on a let's see on a 1.35 acre parcel having SPL080.09-3-7 lo located in the MC mediumintensity commercial district under sections 350-18 350-70 and 350-101 of the code of town of Webster.

Do I need to >> as part of if that is going to be your motion? Uh you would need to address any of the four criteria that you believe have not been met. Okay. >> Um because all four are required to be demonstrated to grant a use variance. You don't have to demonstrate in the alternative. All four have not been met. Just any of them that you find, but you will need to put those on the record as well. >> Okay. Thank you. Um let's see. So of the four use variances um we have a self-created where the owner uh the property has always maintained uh the current MC designation and has uh always maintained the uses uh of the uh of the zoning code since uh purchase of uh of the property.

Um so the the owner uh should have uh if not was uh aware of uh the said uses. Um the owner had provided uh renovations to the property to create an automotive um repair shop. Um, so that ends up becoming a a hardship as the owner is not uh willing to utilize the property for one of the other 25 other uses uh on the property. Um, yeah. Does anybody else have any other comments or >> you may wish to address if in the board's opinion they have not met the the criteria to demonstrate financial >> the financial reasonable rate return for the permitted uses. >> In fact, I'd go through all four just this way.

It's on the record. >> It means only be another couple minutes. >> That's fine. Uh so that was uh self uh >> self-re self-created. Um the uh the applicant cannot realize reasonable uh return as shown by uh competent financial evidence. Um the evidence provided does identify um both for the property both the uh income and expenses uh with an income annual income of $53,000 uh when tenants are there. Um no additional um the the applicant has provided uh information for an automotive repair and sales use only and has not uh demonstrated any other reasons. uh the property would not have a uh reasonable return uh on investment for any of the other 25 uh uses uh provided um within the documentations that uh uh the applicant has has provided.

Uh the property is a unique property uh located just outside the village of Webster in uh just inside the uh the town of Webster. It is a unique property uh has been utilized for uh automotive repairs uh extensively for uh an extensive period of time. Uh so it is a unique u property uh with a unique hardship uh in that particular location. Um and due to the location it would the change would not affect the essential character uh of the surrounding neighborhood. That hits all four topics as far as I can tell. Any other comments or points the board wants to make? No. Okay. Anything else I got to touch on?

No. All right. Uh let's see. So, don't need to do seeker. Uh findings we've done. There are no conditions. All right. Um, I made the motion. Do I have a a second? >> Second. >> All right. Um, Michael Short. I um James Spampedo, sorry. >> Hi. >> Um, Chris Santo. >> Hi. Uh, Anthony. >> Uh, let's see. Uh, John Carso. >> Hi. >> What was that? >> Hi. >> All right. Uh, your, uh, request for use variance has been denied. Uh, thank you. >> Thank you. >> Next up, uh, we have a garage edition located at 523 Lake Road. >> Property address, 523 Lake Road. Applicants Matthew and Darla Lacy located in R1 single family residential district are requesting a 32.3 front setback where 65 ft is required with the construction of a 720 ft attached garage addition.

>> Good evening Darla Lacy here with my husband Matt Lacy. >> Can you speak to the mic? >> All right. We are looking to attach a garage to the existing house. Um, currently the existing house location is a non-conformance as well. From the setback, we're a corner lot. So, the setback on the the side um would be 65 ft. We're looking at attaching the garage in line with the house, which will come out to about 32 ft of the setback. The garage will be bumped out about 4T past where the existing house is. The intent there is to break up the roof line and then also add a door for entrance into the garage.

Trying to make the garage blend with the house. It's already a long roof line, so we're thinking bumping it just that little bit will help make it look like it belongs there. Um, currently this will be off of MacArthur Road. There are four driveways off of MacArthur. Three of the four houses, the properties are already non-conforming. So, we don't think this will have any negative impact on the area. >> Any questions, >> only being pushed out four feet >> from where the current house is? Yes. Just mostly so that there's a man door on the side to get in. >> Okay. Looking at the graphics, it it felt like more.

>> Okay. I was trying to understand how far it was being pul p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p pulled out. So the existing >> I don't know what can you go back two slides now? >> No. Oh, >> sorry. >> One more. Stop. >> The uh the one in the hatch the the diagonal hatch that is being Am I looking at is that being removed? >> No. Currently the house has off of the back a onestory. We're really not sure what it originally was, but a one-story building uh part of the house. So, we're attaching this to what's already existing there. >> Okay. >> You can see it a little bit if you go upper right there.

That's where it's right there. >> I I was looking at some other documents. I was getting a little >> confused. So, looking at your house, I was there earlier tonight. Um that I'm going to call a little addition off on the right side of the house. That is staying. >> Yes. >> Correct. >> Gotcha. Okay. Thank you. >> Yeah, cuz the garage is >> Yeah, there was another graphic I was looking at. It It looked like it was being removed. Uh does the board have any questions? Have you talked to any of your neighbors? >> No, we have not. >> Okay. >> And the reason it's being pushed forward 4T is to have a man door into the garage itself from the front.

Is that correct? >> That's correct. Okay. >> I have one question. it based on the graphic I mean it looks architecturally it looks very nice but is it um is there a use above the garage is it looks high enough for another room yeah the intent is eventually we'll be able to finish that once we get through the hurdle of actually creating the structure so down the road we're thinking about possibly having a a home workshop or a gym up there but for right now it'll just be unfinished space >> electrical plumbing anything There will be electrical, no plumbing. >> Will be accessible from the main structure.

You have to enter the garage to use the second floor. >> You have to access it from the garage. There'll be a staircase inside. >> Okay. So, you'd have to leave the house, enter the garage to to access anything you do up there. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Any other questions from the board? >> Anybody uh from the public want to speak for or against this project? Oh, okay. Let's bring it back to the board. Any uh any additional questions from the board? >> No. >> Okay. [Music] >> Yep. All right. I'd like to make a motion for a take two action under seeker pursuant to NYCRR section 617.5 of the environmental code.

>> I have a second. >> Second. >> Second. All those in favor? >> I >> Okay. Um findings. >> Yeah. You want to do the findings? >> Sure. >> Um the project as presented uh will not impact the essential character of their neighborhood. uh the houses that are close to them uh have similar existing setbacks and it appears that the architecturals uh the garage will be uh very similar to the house uh the existing house as it is. Uh the uh the area where the garage needs to be makes sense and then uh it does make sense that you would need a you would want a man door uh from the front of the from the house to access it.

So the only way to get that would be the variance that they've requested. Um the variance they're asking for is not significant especially when you consider the existing house is already uh pre-existing non-conforming as far as the uh the front setback. Uh the proposed project would not have uh would have very limited or no potential impacts on the physical or existing environmental conditions of not only the site but the neighborhood and the um the project is not really self-created and that the only way to get the garage they need to work with what they have is where it's located. uh because the rest of the house the area behind the house isn't necessarily useful for garage location.

>> Anybody else want to add anything? >> Yeah, I mean the only thing I will add is that all of the setback the the entire um existing house um minus I think the rear porch is outside of the existing setback. though it is uh complete uh existing non-conforming um the setbacks on the both the east and south side uh are of similar uh setbacks as well. So with that, um, you'll make sure Sure. Make a motion that, uh, we approve the garage edition located at 523 Lake Road, uh, uh, to, uh, approve an area variance to allow front setback of 32.3 ft where 60 ft is required associated with the construction of a 700 square foot, I'm sorry, 720 square foot attached garage addition on a 0.64 64 acre parcel having SPL number 048.19-2-69 located in the R1 single family residential district under section 350-10 and section 350-95 of the code of the town of Webster.

>> Sorry. >> All right. Um, >> second it. Second. >> So, yep. Uh, Chris Santo. >> Hi, >> Anthony Muskerette. >> Hi, >> Janna Corso. >> Hi, >> uh, Adam Prescott. Uh, James Spampano. Did I get it? >> Hi. >> You're there. >> U Michael Short. I uh you have your um area variance. uh you still have to get a building uh permit. Um you have one year of uh for substantial completion. So good luck. >> Thank you. >> Good luck. >> Next up, uh Vision Mishabishi locate, excuse me, located at 765 Ridge Road. Um, applicant Robert Sanders Consulting representing agent Andrew Spencer from BME Associates. This property is located in the MC Medium Intensity Commercial District.

Their request is to allow a front buffer of 42 feet where 50 feet is required and a side buffer of 3 feet where 20 feet is required. Um with the proposal of the construction of an approximately 1,200 square ft service entry building addition. >> Good evening. My name is Andrew Spencer with BME Associates here representing uh Vision Mitsubishi. I do have representation from mid uh vision Mitsubishi as well if I cannot answer some of the questions that they may have. Um but what we are looking at is the proposal of that 1,200 square ft building addition for a interior service drop off location uh at this existing car dealership at 765 Ridge Road.

Uh this dealership has been here for many many many years and under different uh names and uh um uh different manufacturers. Um the site is located to the south of Ridge Road. Ridge Road right here to the north. Uh please note the southern portion of the site is encumbered by a New York State DEEC wetland uh along with a 100 ft buffer and that takes about 1.3 acres of the site and makes that unusable uh for any type of development. Please also note that there is a zoning line zoning limit line here between the medium intensity commercial and the low to medium residential district. Uh we were in front of the planning board a few months ago uh with the proposal at that time to have parking that expanded back and reduced the uh the impact to the buffers to the side.

However, that would require a town board approval and a special permit to allow for parking within that low to medium uh density residential. So we have revised the plan and the site plan that you see in front of you today uh takes all of the parking out of that residential district. What we are looking for is a reduction of the side setbacks to approximately 3.3 ft and that exists on the eastern portion of the site and on the western portion of the site we have a buffer of approximately 14 ft to the south and 15 feet to the north. Um the front buffer reduction from 50 feet to that 43 feet is really to allow for a more regular parking layout in the front yard.

Right now existing today there is angled parking uh at the front. The parking does meet that 50 foot buffer. Uh but what we'd like to propose is to have a standard perpendicular style parking at that front row. um and to allow for a 25 foot wide access aisle uh along that frontage space. Um right now to the south of the existing building there are portions of the parking area that are gravel. Uh and what is being proposed is paving that entire site in asphalt and that will decrease some of the uh environmental concerns if you will with dust coming up off of that gravel uh siltation uh that during rainfall events the siltation going into the wetland uh and it will clean up the site.

Any of the gravel areas will be removed and will become under pavement. Um, we did provide the board with our assessment of the five uh uh five conditions that the board must take a look at. I can go through each one of those if necessary, but we did provide a I think a pretty um extensive explanation of why we feel um this variant should be approved. I do also however want to direct the board to there were two exhibits that were provided in your packet. Um and they are it is an exhibit showing other properties in the generalized area which also have reduced setbacks. um some of which have zero foot setbacks, front setbacks ranging from uh 28 feet, 11 foot uh front buffer area.

These are sites to the east of this particular site and to the west we have very very similar conditions where we have zero foot buffers uh on sides. We have uh front buffers of 27 ft, front buffers of 20 ft, front buffers of 10 ft. So we feel that this is in keeping with the general area of general uh condition of the area and will not cause any um change to the character of the neighborhood. With that, I give it back to the board for any questions. >> Thank you. >> Board have any questions? I I'm still having a hard time with u the addition being on the side as opposed to the rear. I I know you said you can't go back, but as I look at it, you're losing spaces along the side because you're putting the addition there.

So, if you lost an equal number of spaces in the back because you put the addition in the back, you wouldn't have you wouldn't need the the setback. So I can you go give me any more detail or any more reason why I I should think that this is good. >> Sure I can. Um let's say you are bringing your vehicle in for service to an establishment you've never been to before. You're going to Vision Mitsubishi up on Ridge Road and you need to get to the service department. Okay. Um this would be visible from the road. There will be a sign that says service entry and you will have direct access into that building addition to drop off your vehicle in the interior of the space and then go back out to somebody that hopefully is either following you or you're waiting in the waiting room.

Um it's put onto the side of the structure as well because the portion to the rear is the service bay themselves. And from an interior perspective, I don't have the building plan in front of me to show you, but the routing of how we get vehicles from that service drop off to go back outside to come back into the rear bay doors, which then enter into the service bay itself. And putting and positioning this structure on the side of the building allows for direct access to the visitor area within the building, the customer service area in the building and the showroom. Right? Putting it on the rear, then you're putting people out into the work zone itself.

>> Thank you. Other questions from the board? >> Got a couple that have almost nothing to do with the uh application, but do you have access agreements with your uh your neighbor to the uh to the west? Because I it wouldn't even come up if you didn't include the turning um plan that you have. I'm just curious >> uh that the access uh it may not be in writing right now, but we will be facilitating an access agreement between those two properties. >> Yeah. No, because like I said, it wouldn't even come up if you hadn't submitted the plan that says you're using it for for truck access. So, if you didn't get that, would that change anything in your design?

Uh, no, it would not change anything under the design because we can get truck maneuvering to occur in the rear the rear parking area. >> Just asking because >> but to your to your point, the idea is to get vehicles off of Ridge Road onto the site so that they can unload on the site, make their maneuvers on site. And what would alleviate some of that is getting that access uh cross uh easement between those properties. >> Thank you. I appreciate that. that. And although the parking up front doesn't appear to be any um visually closer than it is now, would you consider adding additional buffer between the parking and the uh the rightway line?

>> Uh buffer as >> landscape. >> Buffer in the form of form some form of landscape. said something >> uh the front to the roadway if we were to provide for maybe some low shrubs or decorative shrubs now. So >> just say just >> our client is amendable to putting up some landscaping. >> I just I mean I I acknowledge that you have stuff out there but >> as a as a landscape architect you you want to see more go in. So >> Sure. uh the the exhibits that you provided with the uh the other properties buffers, those dimensions came from where were they Josh? Did did we provide those and those are uh area variances that have been provided or >> I believe they prepared this exhibit.

I'm just measuring using aerial photography. We have not gone through to check how those buffers came to be. >> Okay. The only reason I ask that is I I understand they're there. I'm not disputing that. But are those variances that have been provided by the town or like like so many other variances the land owners have taken um without asking because it's a pre-existing or whatnot. >> Right. Well, I think it's also important to note that the north side of Ridge Road is a different zoning district and has different regulations >> regulations. >> Yeah. >> However, it has the same buffer requirements.

The 50-ft front buffer and the 20 foot side buffer is the exact same within that district as well as the medium intensity commercial district. There's no difference of that buffer criteria. Did you andor your client uh look at, you know, instead of the 14 ft being on the west side, the 14 ft being on the east side, further away from uh the housing, the proposed parking on the south end of the property is consistent with what exists today. >> Understood. But you are going to be doing a lot of construction. You're going to be putting gravel down and you're going to be paving that per per your comment.

Right. So, >> instead of me having a 14oot buffer on the Yeah. on the west side, having that 14t buffer on the east side. Has that been considered? Again, the the intent is moving it still further. I mean, granted, I understand that there's woods and forest between this property and um the housing, but was that considered? And if so, what was the reason that it was um the the east and west offsets were placed? >> Uh it was not considered because we actually took a look at what was existing today and we're taking the existing gravel area and literally putting it into pavement. We did not look at shifting anything further to leave the buffers in essence similar on both sides.

Uh we could potentially move the eastern side and this eastern portion of the parking could that be shifted over by a few feet potentially. Yes. >> So we did not go into great detail in looking at that >> and I and I apologize for cutting you off. So, the graphic that we have up on the on the screen here, um, it looks like the cars are parked actually outside of where the pavement is. So, I'm assuming, again, I I've been on the property before. I I understand kind of what's back there. Once you put lines, it's it's hard to understand where everything is, but it looks like the cars are outside of where the parking is shown, which I would assume is where gravel also is.

And I could be wrong, but >> the proposal is to remove those vehicles. The proposal is to just have the parking area where you see that little bit more of a dense gray area. >> And I think you can see in this in this exhibit, you can see the vehicles underneath uh that exist today. >> Yeah. And that's that's why I was talking about the vehicles on the west side where the cursor is up on the screen. those vehicles. Um, again, I'm just making an assumption that that area has gravel. I'm I'm getting back to can the whole parking lot shift essentially 10 ft to the west. >> And I think the answer to that is yes.

If if that would be a condition that the zoning board would put on uh for granting of this variance, we can definitely take a look at shifting that further away from the residential. >> That's what I believe that is what I'm Yes. Thank you. >> Yeah. >> Uh and the last question I have, um the drive access to the rear of the building, uh is currently showing 25 ft. Um 20 ft is more of a residential um neighborhood roadway. What was the reason for 25 ft versus uh a 20 foot um roadway? More than anything, it was the interior movements of any type of emergency vehicle that is to get to the rear of that property, as well as any car carriers that come through.

We need a little bit of of width in that area to allow for trucks to make turns for the emergency vehicles to make those turns. Um, and it will be signed as a fire lane only in this area. So, there will be no parking in this zone here. But that's the major uh major reason for that width is the turning movements the vehicles. >> Okay. >> I'm going to piggyback off that. Your entrance to get into the property, will that be widening at all or is that going to stay the same? >> There is no intent of doing anything for the existing entrance point. >> Okay. >> Other questions from the board? >> No. Anybody uh from the public want to speak for or against?

Come on up. Good evening. Uh Pat Matroniano, 746 Eastwood Circle and we are I'm part of the residents that are just south of the LMR zone. So I just have a question on clarification from what the gentleman said. Um, we were involved with the planning board and we were involved a little bit with the original proposal and we realized that they have rescended the part of the proposal that would extend into the LMR zone to the south. But the the statement he made said he said if they wanted to go to the south, they would have to go to I believe it was the town board or the town to do that. So my question is at this point can you verify that there is no intention whatsoever for this gentleman or the owner to go to the town board after this has all been either accepted or denied and try to extend into that.

This is something they may want to know as well. Can you verify that there's no intention whatsoever to go to the town board to extend into the LMR zone? Yeah, the questions need to be directed to to the board. >> Okay. >> So, >> can he can he can he verify that? That would be important to the the residents to the south. Uh because this was a contention at the planning board and uh I think this board would like to know that as well. >> I appreciate it. Thank you. Piggybacking off of that, can you confirm that there is at this point no intent of expanding south of the um identified pavement plan?

>> That is correct. We do not intend on crossing that zoning limit line. >> Thank you. Um does anybody else want to uh was there anybody else that wants to speak uh for against the um this proposal? Nope. Back to the board. Any other questions or comments from the board? No. Um, what I heard you say earlier is that um you and your client would be immutable to moving the um essentially the the the rear parking lot to the west 10 ft um is is what I had heard. I just want to confirm that before we move uh we move forward. Yes, we can shift that parking lot. Um the 10 ft, but we're still going to be looking at if we take 10 ft off of the west side, we're still be looking at a plus or minus 4 foot buffer on the west side.

>> Yes. It' be a 4ft buffer on the west side. It' be a 14t buffer on the uh or 13t on the east side. >> Okay. >> Yep. >> Yes. We would we we would we would take a look at that and yes we would we would do that. >> Okay. Thank you. All right. Uh if there's no other questions from uh from the board like to make a motion for a type two uh action under secret pursuant to NYCRR section 617.5 of the environmental code. >> Second. Second. >> All those in favor? I >> um bindings. >> Bindings. Yeah. >> Um unless you want to do it. >> Yeah, that's fine. I got it. Um this request is is not out of character uh for the neighborhood as as the applicant has demonstrated.

um properties both on on the north and south side of Ridge Road uh have all very similar um offsets um for their properties. They're all um you know, all similar type type of businesses. So, not out of character um for Ridge Road. Um it's not it's not going to create a detriment to nearby properties. Um you know the uh the applicant is going to provide proper um storm water uh retention for the building per his application. Uh yep. Um thank you. uh benefit is not achievable by any other uh method really to provide a uh a hardcape for the cars as well as a uh visible um entrance uh customer entrance for their vehicles.

Uh the only location for the addition which is causing all all the offsets uh is the location that is identified. The request is not substantial because all a lot of the uh surrounding properties are of very similar offsets. Uh there really there is not going to be any adverse uh physical or environmental impacts to the site or the neighborhood. Uh the the spaces already exist. The parking is already uh being utilized uh as gravel in in some instances. Um there is some additional offset um of green space being taken back uh for the car car usage uh which really actually provides a benefit to uh patrons of the of the property for use for um for vehicle um driving on the property.

uh due to the width of the property and the pre-existing condition or uh location of the of the building. This really is not a self-created um problem as this to to continue to enhance their business uh and meet current standards of interior um customer drop off. the the applicant needs to provide uh similar service uh to be able to maintain uh business. So, it's really not a self-created um issue. Uh it's not an undesirable change. Uh again, very similar uh throughout the area. Uh the request is um not significant um in that most of the other uh properties have have similar. >> Anybody else want to add anything?

>> Do you want to put put in that part that you want to move >> the parking lot the 10th? >> That's not that's not the findings. >> That will be in the um >> next section. Yeah. >> The next uh >> in the motion >> in the motion. Sorry. >> Okay. >> Yep. Any anybody any other findings from anybody? >> Nope. All right. [Music] Um, I'd like to make a uh motion uh for an area variance located at 765 Ridge Road to allow a front buffer of 42 feet where 50 ft is required and a side buffer on let's see a side buffer on the >> west side of 13 ft where 20 ft is required and a side buffer on the east uh West.

Hold on. I'm >> East side. >> East side >> of of four >> of >> four. No, I'm saying it's backwards. Yeah. Nope. >> A side buffer on the west side of 4T where 20 ft is required and a buffer of 13 ft on the east side where 20 ft is required. associated with the construction of a 1,200 ft service entry building addition and parking lot expansion on 3.1 acre parcel having SPL079.17-1-22 located in uh MC medium intensity commercial district under section 350-18 of the code of the town of Webster and you want to um you were talking about some additional >> just he's agreed to put in some additional landscape buffer planning things along the front to beef up that >> the existing uh landscaping.

>> Right. I I'd leave it as loose as possible to give them the ability to >> Sounds good. >> Actually design it. >> Okay. >> Second. >> Okay. Uh let's see. John Corso. >> Hi. >> Anthony Muscarat. >> Hi. >> Chris Santo. >> Hi. >> Uh James Spampanado. Hi, >> Michael Short. I you have your variance. Um, you have uh 12 months to uh have substantial completion. I'm assuming you will need a a building permit to get all done. Um, and I believe we had already provided the uh the other components. So, thank you very much. >> Thank you very much. Appreciate it. >> Guys have a good night. >> Thank you. Uh we have one last item, an administrative item on our uh on our agenda, 747 Herman Road.

>> Um so this is the six-month review of the special use permit for 747 Herman Road for the chickens. Um applicant is Mary Zindle and uh provided to the board was a letter from the town of Webster code enforcement officer Hustto Santiago went out to the property to look at it um and provided a letter based on his findings. So >> hello. >> Hi. >> How you doing? >> I'm well, thank you. >> Uh can you remind me how many chickens? Yes, I have seven. >> Seven. >> All hens. >> Yes. Yes. >> No intention of having roosters. >> No. >> Okay. Any intention of growing uh your hen population? >> No. >> No. Okay.

>> I have enough eggs. >> Very good. Um any issues that you've noticed so far? >> Um no. >> Good. >> No, no different. >> Okay. Any questions from the board? >> No. >> No. Um we can go longer than six months I guess. Okay. Um board okay with going one year. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Sure. >> Okay. Uh because it is a special use variance, we'd have to put a time limit to it uh one year from now uh to come back for hopefully another extension. >> Excellent. Thank you so much. >> Um all right. So I have we have to vote on that, don't we? Um, I don't even know where is it. Um, I guess we are doing a uh I make a motion for a one-year extension for um a special use permit to to keep seven chickens at 747 Herman Road.

Uh, chickens being hens only. >> Second. >> Okay. Uh, okay. Um, Jonah Corso, >> hi >> Anthony Muskeret. >> I >> Chris Senola. >> Hi. >> James Spampedo. >> Sorry I butchered you that time. >> Michael Short. I >> You have your extension. >> Thank you. >> I'm sorry. >> You're all right, man. >> Uh, there's no there's no stop button on that. Okay. >> Right. And that concludes our uh board meeting. Thank you everybody.