Zoning Board Meeting

push some things out of my garage into the shed. So, I'm figuring 8 by8 is just about what I 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. Very good. Any questions from the board? Any comments? I had an opportunity to to see your property yesterday. Um, you got, as you said, a a strip of 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?

I would agree with that. There's sideyards are typically deeper than your backyard is. So there's really no real estate other than where the applicant's suggesting.

Okay. Good. Uh I'll open up to the public if anybody wants to speak for or against this project. Come on up. No. Bring it back to the board. Uh one last time. Any other comments or questions at the board?

Nope. All right. I'd like to uh vote on seeker or like to make a motion for a type two action under seeker pursuant to NYCRR section 617.5 of the environmental code.

Second.

All those in favor?

I.

Um anybody want to make a motion for the variance?

Run through findings.

Yep. Um, I don't know that the request is out of character with the neighborhood. There's there's 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 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 arborites 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 22 feet. So in an 8 foot shed squared is quite small on 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. Hannah moved to that parcel. So,

um, anything anyone would like to add to that?

No, I think you covered it.

Okay. Did you want me to do the motion?

I can do the motion. Uh, I'd like to make a a motion for a area variance for a shed located at 217 Birch Lane, uh, to provide to allow a twoft set rear a two-ft rear setback uh, associated with a 64 square ft and 8 foot by 8 foot utility shed uh, on a parcel having SPL 063.14-1-49 located in R2 single family residential district under section 35011 35047 of the code of the town of Webster

second.

Am I doing the vote? I'm sorry.

Where's my list of people?

Mr. Corso.

Hi,

Mr. Short.

Hi,

Mr. Prescott.

Hi,

Mr. Spanado.

Hi,

Mrs. Volo I. Your motion carries.

Uh you've been granted the uh the two foot rear setback for an 8ft by 8t utility shed.

Um

thank you very much.

You have uh you do have to obtain a building permit to be able to do that. You have one year uh for substantial completion.

Right.

All right. Congratulations.

Thank you very much.

You're welcome. Next on our agenda is uh 374 Threshwood Lane.

Applicant Christine Harper is located in the R3 single family residential district requesting to allow 6oot privacy fence in the front yard of her corner lot located home. Um relevant sections of the code is 350-12 R3 single family residential district 350-12B 5C which requires a minimum rear yard of 50 which I'm sorry that should say front and then uh 35079B which no fence in excess of 4T in height shall be erected in the front setback of any residential lot. So,

we there's actually a currently a 4ft fence around the property. So, the variance we're asking for is to put a 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 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, too, which we we had a variance approved for to put on that side. So, we're looking to It's a It's actually a very busy street with the 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 sixoot privacy fence on that side. What is the distance of the 4ft fence from the uh property line?

I apologize. I don't have I did have that with me. I I don't have that with me. I had it in the draw.

20 ft rough. I'm right now I'm guessing just based on the survey map.

Um

20 25

20 25 in that range. Yep.

Josh, there is a um area variance for the 4ft fence setback. Uh 4 foot fences are allowed in the front yard.

They are.

Yeah.

Okay. Thank you.

Um you also I drove by the property. I again it's um

it's the kicker of having a corner lot.

Yeah.

Not your backyard. It's the front. It's you have two front yards unfortunately.

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

A lattice.

A lattice. Um, which was put up

um to to help with uh with privacy, I'm assuming, to the 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 if anybody else from the board, anybody had a chance to drive by it or anything?

The the location of the fence is not going to be an impact on line of sight. It's far far enough back from both the Dit roadside and from Threshwood Lane as you're coming around that corner. And we've had several variances for similar situations within I'll call it the the duet westbar 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 DIT than there was even five or 10 years ago. So,

are you planning on leaving the lattice up when the fence is installed?

The lattice that's on the side of Dit Road is actually in a flower bed. So, we have growing flowers that come up on it. So, that one would There's one on the other side that also has like a clatus. It's more of a the clatus and the roses climb up it. So for vis 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 fl the flowers grow up the lattice.

Okay.

Any other conversations, questions from the board?

No, I'd say it's well maintained. I don't have a problem. It's going in where an existing fence is already anyway.

All right. Um, anybody want to speak for against this uh defense? No. Bring it back to the board. Uh, any other comments from the board? No. Then I'd like to make a motion for a type two action under seeker uh pursuant to NYCRR section 617.5 uh 617 of the environmental code. I have a second.

Second.

All those in favor? I

I

um findings um this request not out of out of uh character of the neighborhood. The uh the fence that is being selected um will fit 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 uh 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. Uh, there's currently a fence there. Uh, it's just going to be a a larger fence. It's further back. It's the same distance back from the road. Uh, so it's not going to cause any sighteline issues uh in the neighborhood. um to provide privacy. There really is no other mean uh no other method uh to be able to provide privacy and provide a usable uh backyard. That is the uh downside of having a corner lot. Um I do not see that this is a substantial uh request as the fence is 4ft fence is

coming down and a sixoot fence is going up in its place. Uh there are no adverse physical or environmental impacts to the site for the neighborhood. Uh difficulties not self-created. It is a a corner lot. Um it's this is uh and the request again is uh not significant. Does anybody else want to add anything?

I think you got it.

Okay. like to make a um motion to for a um area variance for a six-foot fence to be located uh at the same location of the existing 4ft fence at 374 Thrushwood Lane uh uh in the front yard of a corner lot on a 0.41 41 acre parcel having SPL063.14-2-68 located in R3 single family residential district under sections 350-12 350-79 and 350-101 of the code of the town of Webster.

Second.

All right, Mr. Short.

Hi,

Mr. Corso. I

Mr. Prescott

I

Mr. Spanado

I

Mrs. Volo I. Your motion passes.

All right. You have you have to get a uh building permit. You have one year for substantial completion.

Thank you.

Good luck.

Next up, um 1186.

Property address 1186 Ridge Road. Applicant Enzo Aquino. Um, we had the representing agent as Christina Aquino and also Al Laroo. 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 is the requirements of a use variance.

Good evening Al Laroo McMahon Laroo Associates. I'm I'm here tonight with Christina Aino, one of the owners of the property, and Ymani Joran, the present building uh business owner of VIP Motorsports, the the lease. 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 ex existed for about 70 years on that on that parcel. Um, the owners acquired the parcel in 2007. It was granted a use variance in 2016 for sales. They operated on the site uh uh pretty nicely uh until 2018 when they uh decided it was getting too small for them and they didn't want to expand it. So they they uh they uh moved to another location. Since then um four tenants have signed leases. Um the latest being uh Yumani um at VIP Motorsports. Um three previous tenants failed to make lease payments

and so they're they were no longer associated with that with the property. Uh the present tenant Ymani um as indicated the need for sales to make this property v viable. Three others couldn't make it without it. And he thinks um he thinks it's a very important part of of what his business could be and to make this a very uh viable site. Um, we've provided extensive financial analysis for your review that demonstrates our hardship. In summary, history tells us that sales is is necessary to make this site financially viable and we can answer any questions you might have.

Just one small correction for the record. Um, we were not granted a use variance for sales in 2018 2016. We were uh we requested a change of use change of tenant um application. So it was not a formal use variance. Just so

I stand corrected.

And you own that property from 2007 to 2019 without sales?

No. Well, we have owned the property from 2007 until the current day. in 2018. In 2016, we made a change of um tenant change of use application because we re relocated from 941 Ridge Road to 1186. We stayed there for two years successfully. We then purchased a property in Ontario where we relocated our family business.

Okay.

And three other businesses after haven't made it since. Well, it's a little bit more finesse than that. Um, the one the first tenant who went in there was one of our tenants at another property in Ontario and that was Limelight Automotive. And it was the intention when Limelight went in on a 5-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 the use variance that was granted by this board for Pensky 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 know if, 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 PNT Auto and they had an awful time and they left after two months.

Were they startup companies?

No, they were not startup. Not to the best that they assured me. um you know very nice people but they didn't survive and it'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. I mean, you know, over the course of COVID, car sales suffered 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 modeicum of sales, five, six, you know, not a blown out marina, you know, something down the road, but something that helps pay the rent. Pensky helped pay the rent. But then our tenant left with Penske and went across the street. So now we don't have that to offer. I 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 uh and Wayne County. Um so it's my it falls on me and I'm person responsible for compliance with you know the town. Uh and I am having a hell of a time renting this thing because people call and their first question is can we sell cars there? And my 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 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.

How long has he been there with his company? I can't see him. Go ahead.

Sorry, man.

How long have you been there

in the property?

Yes.

Since March in business for five years

and you moved your business to there within

Yeah. Just because it's on the main road. Um, it's a beautiful building and I feel like it will bring uh it will help us grow.

Was your intention moving there um by So you have a automotive repair shop,

correct?

Yes.

Was the intention to um to sell cars there or that's just a kind of a cherry on top type thing? We do need the auto sales um in order to make it there. Um I'm paying a lot more for uh rent and without out of sales it's just a matter of month before we're pretty much have to move because we wouldn't survive there. Um definitely needed at least a few sales here and there a month um in order to make it especially with the amount of employees we have um in the operations. How many vehicles for sale do you anticipate being on the lot at any one time?

Um, mostly right now is just auto repairs that we do, but out of sales, we plan on having, 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.

Uh can you go back to the either the aerial or the um yeah where would you propose that you would be parking the um sale cars? So on the left side usually uh I plan on putting the repair vehicles and on the right side closer to the road have a few there um for auto sales which is close to the road but I sell like higherend 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.

Good.

Your vehicles that you have there now, I drive by there a lot. Um, you got a lot with no plates.

Yeah,

we do service a lot of small dealers in the area.

Well,

we have the inspection machine.

You're supposed to have plates on your vehicles on private property, right?

No. Well, actually, sir, let me, if I may, the um because I've been through this with my husband with the with town of Ontario and

Okay.

So, when you're It is zoned for auto body and that's what we're approved for

and there is an exe exemption in the New York State zoning. I know there's a big compendium in New York state zoning rules and laws that when you have an auto body repair shop, you are permitted to have not infinite uh amount of unlicensed vehicles, but you are permitted to have a number of unlicensed vehicles on the lot. So, you know, that's kind of a thing that we reach with the town of Ontario as well. But I want to also bring back a quick question about you. You you said that um correct me if I'm wrong. You said this property was once so zoned. Is that true?

So zoned

car sales.

Here's the thing.

Well, well, let's just start. I don't know if it was zoned per se because the law, if you look at the statute, the statute goes back to if you look in the in the code,

the code says that the H 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 um district in the in the ordinances permit or prohibit car sales. Well, they don't permit it.

They don't. But it's not articulated car sales and HC, car sales and MC.

It's articulated in the fact that um it lists the the uses that are allowed only. It does not list anything other than what is allowed.

Right? So, it's a by omission, I suppose. I mean, it doesn't say it, it doesn't not say it. All 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.

So, and then with with respect to the rental trucks, the Penske

Yes.

was that a permitted use or was there some type of

a use variance was filed by one of our tenants

in 2009?

Yeah. And we were unable to find any record of that um in town hall. We

well my my he went before the he went three or four times before the board and and it was accepted and we've been parking Pensky there for since 2008 and you know we've we've been permitted there for a long time.

So when when Limelight, the tenant that the applicant is speaking of moved across the street to their current location. Uh that is the first time the town became aware of the Pensky 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 uh 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. So I if they had applied in their former location, is it a fair assumption that they would have 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.

You're referring to the subject property or

Yes. In other words, you're saying that that there came a point in time where the Penske rental was approved on the opposite side of the street.

No.

Okay. I misunderstood.

We have no record of an approval of the Pensky truck rental at this location.

That part I get.

And it only came to our attention that that was a component of the business when Limelight approached us for a sign permit.

Right. and they had went through they had just gone through a use variance to get their core business located there. So I said uh 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. And if I recall correctly with the applicant across the street for Limelight, um, one of the 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.

Correct.

That's what I recall, too.

So,

right. Well, he's not a he's not a New York State he's not a licensed dealer or a licensed auto repair uh professional. So, it's a distinction without a difference, I would think. He's not licensed. He has never been. Other questions from the board more? I don't know that it's for the applicant. I think it's more for our attorney. Can we limit the areas in which cars could be parked this property because it seemed like there was one of the neighbors had concern about cars being parked in the back.

Well, certainly, but as a threshold issue, the board has to get by the financial hardship first.

So,

I actually I do. So, you March is when you signed your lease of 2025. Is that I'm sorry. Right. Yeah, it was in March 2025.

So between March and you knew then that it wasn't when you signed your lease, you were aware that you were not allowed at that point in time to sell cars. You can just work on your vehicles, correct?

Yes.

So between March and I do believe it was June was the initial meeting that got pushed back. You realized that covering rent costs and employee costs and everything, it was it was very difficult. So within 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.

Yeah, actually I'm down two guys. I had to let go of two guys just because we couldn't afford to uh the payroll.

Okay. So currently you're just not bringing in enough business for uh like mechanic wise to 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? Um, if I could sell anywhere from four to six cars, I'll be good. Um, I also wholesale a lot out of state. So, most of the time it goes from one auction to the other one, they just at the lot for two or three days between transportation.

Okay.

Um, but for actual retail, four to six will be sufficient for me. Um, and the size of operations we have right now.

Okay. And and when you're wholesaling, you're talking about some of these cars that don't have plates on them for other dealers. Now we we service five other dealers in Webster. So a lot of their cars when they buy from auction, they drop it off. We service them detail inspection and then they go back to their lot.

Okay.

Um sometimes I sit there for quite a bit waiting on parts. Okay.

But yeah, we do service a lot of uh other dealers. So it's it's not our vehicles.

Are you going to lose those accounts now? You're becoming competition.

No. No. I I have my special niche of of vehicles that I sell. Um none of them are are doing what I'm doing. That's really

have

Josh the trying not to make this application somewhat mixed up. So 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 that location without the supplement of auto sales because correct me if I'm wrong a tenant you know 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 you know the landlord is is the is the party that it's got to be annexed to right so

yes

so in in this application typically you would see as we do in all use variances that the building is not capable of a reasonable return from any of the other allow allowable zoning uses. Correct.

That would be a correct statement.

Have we had scenarios where either in a multi-use facility or a single use facility by a 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? Uh we did recently have one uh couple months ago. I believe the Best Buy auto sales,

right? We didn't we found out after the fact that he had a contract to buy the building, right?

Correct, Mr. You know, that that's not the case here. Right. This is just with respect to the teny

and for the reason that you just stated, I thought it, you know, my husband and I thought it was appropriate

to for us to make the application because it runs with the land. 100%. But but my what I'm trying to say here is that and we have this challenge every time we get a use variance. Okay? So this is not unique to to your application. Um so so the 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 veterinarian places the barber shops the restaurants that you've got to demonstrate that the property can provide a reasonable return based upon the allowable uses. So, what we've seen, what we've heard tonight is that its use as an automobile

uh facility, if you will,

can't make the nut, whether it be a repair shop, collision shop, uh unless you can have this adjunct sales component.

Well, I just want to clarify that.

Is that fair statement?

It's half fair.

Okay. Because the half that's not fair.

Um my husband and I put evidence in the record that um we tried on multiple occasions to advertise it. MC District Restaurant Laundromat.

Okay. Where is it? Can you just show me there where that is in the tab?

I know it hasn't

I may have passed over it.

It hasn't been stated tonight, but

it's exhibit 19.

Tab 19.

Yes.

Okay. Hold on. Hold on. One. Let me catch up with you there.

It's not just at 19. It's um So this is a Craigslist posting

several different places actually in tab 15 has other examples

135 and

so so let me let me ask staff again on this issue. Um does the various variance application um can it be strictly applicable to rent as opposed to sale? In other words, have we historically had applicants demonstrate to us both 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 that we should be sitting

and yes,

it would seem to make sense, right?

Yes.

Okay. I can't think of one off hand,

right? But yes, demonstrating efforts to market it for permitted uses and showing

both sale and

for sale and for rent.

Well, I mean e either or or both.

Yeah. Either or.

Okay. So, Miss Quino, let's just concentrate. I I don't want to go any longer than we need to on this on the rental part, right? Because that that's really the thrust. We're you haven't tried to sell the property. You're not interested in selling the property. Correct. We're talking about rent only.

Yeah.

I don't want to I want to be honest here. I mean, there have been opportunities or not opportunities, but times when we have tried 5 years ago to sell the property. So, I'm not going to stand here tonight and tell you we've never tried to sell it.

So, all right.

Yes, we've tried.

I'm not asking this for under deposition. Okay. I'm just saying we're trying to stay in the four corners 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. Correct.

Right. Our ROI is negative9.91%.

The rent again,

right?

Rent only, not sale tonight.

Right.

Okay. And on the rental issue on tab 19, we see a single document that it was on Craigslist at some point in time. I'm not sure if there's a date on here.

Eight months ago.

Okay. Eight months ago. Um,

that was the last advertisement. So, I took you through all the

Yeah. all the times we advertised in the three.

So if tonight this board felt that they didn't have enough information

to say yay or nay,

right?

Would you be able to put together some quantum of proof in terms of historically your inability to rent it at the number you need to rent it at to break even given uh your basis? Well, I I thought that the you know, our statement was clear that our last rent in 2012 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,

so let let me just stop you. So 5,400 let's call it 5500. So that's what's that 50 $60,000 a year, right? Gross receipts.

Well, I think there's a table that

maybe a little more 60 65. And what's and what's the debt service on it?

The annual or

annual

annual is um it's

12,600 and change.

So that's one that's 140, right? So that's a delta of maybe $70,000 a year. They're upside down. Well, I computed that since we purchased the property, our carrying co well, no, since the relevant time period from when we left the property that our carrying costs are about $140,000,

right? You're bringing in about 70.

Um, no. When you say that, I mean, I I'm I'm married to the record here because I computed everything pursuant to the lease.

You said it was 5,500 a month at its peak, right?

Yes. But it depends which which tenant you're talking about because for Limelight it was 5,400 then it was supposed to be 50 5450 then 5500 then all the way up to 5600 and we never got there. Right.

What what are you currently?

So now we're back down to 5500.

Okay. So my my point is it's $60,000 a year against $140,000. That's $80,000 upside down in your debt service.

Yes.

64800 to be precise. Yes. Yes.

Okay. And um if you have car sales on the property, what is your anticipated rent going to be able to reach? Well, you know, I think that's asking me to be hypothetical at this juncture. I'm not even asking a reach point. I'm asking a survival

ask you to provide that information. I'm trying to help you.

Well, no, no, understand that. But I mean, I don't I don't want to speculate. I don't want to 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. I I know what you're looking for, but but the board the board has to meet certain criteria.

Yes.

Okay.

I think what we aleroo I think what we did was we uh we did a quick calculation. It was quick. 7500 a month.

Is that a is that a guess or is that based on something?

It was based on some some information but it

okay that information. Okay. So let let me just put it out there. Okay. If you had some type of 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?

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 that it can vote on,

right?

I'm just I'm trying to narrow it down to the issues.

I guess I misunderstood the assignment. I thought the assignment was for us to show you what we've lost thus far.

Right. That's part of it.

Right.

But but but the other piece is for the board to be able to determine why a new use outside of the allowable uses can get you where you want to go. And respectfully, I want to say to this board that I'm being absolutely transparent with you. I would if you gave us a $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. That they can't survive there. Um and and I can't I can't just fabricate a number. I don't know.

I'm not ask you to fabricate,

right? But what what we got to try to protect against and again we do this with every use variance,

right,

is two months from now someone else is having terrible luck with selling their property or operating a business and they want to go to something else that isn't allowed.

Right?

And the first thing they're going to say, "Hey, Miss Aquino was here last week. She didn't show you this, this, and this. And you gave it to her, right?

Why are you making us?" So, I'm just trying to make sure that the board can see the level of hardship and they can make a decision.

And I think um in your statement that you gave to the board, you estimated what your sales could be per month. And I think that's the best metric of

the other piece of it. I think um what was being relayed is if you if if you were able to present market um market share valuation of the you know the building is x amount of square feet. It has two or three 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 the previous example, $9,000. That ends up showing us that level of hardship,

right?

As well, right,

which we don't have here, right? I mean, the onus is on you to be able to do that analysis 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 uh solvent?

Mhm.

Okay. So to let us help you, if you give us the best objective evidence that you have on that and it establishes that hardship, then the board can

determine whether it's, you know, significant enough to change to change the views,

right? As long as you can tell us tonight that we've satisfied, at least demonstrating to you that we we've shown a 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.

I think there's also Oh, sorry.

No. Um, the information that you've provided gives us an excellent synopsis of of what your losses have been,

right,

since you started leasing the property.

But there's nothing that tells 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 got a 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 or what the

the ability to charge a higher rent.

Right. Right.

Right. And so for that proof, you would need us to demonstrate what a similarly situated auto repair uh vehicle sale place rents were down the street or wherever they're allowed. find comps of places that are just like what you have right now and what they rent

and then similar size

of building and land that operate selling and doing auto repair and say okay doing what we do now they get 5500 too but these people over here that I found that are similar size like you're not going to go to comparable Marina Dodge 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 you're losing out on $4,500 a month just on the basic fact that you can't do both at your location.

Well, I hes I hesitated to use ourselves as a comparator because I have my husband's book of registry and I 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.

It's not about how many you could sell 7,000 that thing a month. It's about the fact that you are missing out on getting 10,000. He's selling the cars. He's going to make the money.

No, I understand.

I'm just cuz I own property. So, I get it. So, like what you're missing out on is getting somebody like him that'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 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 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 my clients for houses, I say, "Oh, you're buying 2600 foot house." Well, these 2600T 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. So, that's what we're looking for. We already know what you're getting for rent is this. show us what you could get for rent if he's able to sell cars.

And that's also part of though respectfully of this application is that we feel like we're uniquely positioned in this town here because who else am I going to compare with? Limelight's not a car dealer. Limelight

a bunch of little like the what's the place on the corner region five mile?

He's a he would be a cop. What's he pay for rent? I mean those are things you got to ask and look around and see what people are getting. They're we rent Over in the village, we own a hair salon. Sweets. 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's paying, you know, eight. This one's paying, you know, 13,000." and and there's a discrepancy when you're up in these numbers compared to 5,400. So now like they're saying we have something to go by.

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

I want stability. You know I sometimes I say to my tenants you know what okay 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 modeicum of it as well. We cross our fingers as investors that people aren't going to leave.

I think that's where I'm missing something here too in terms I can understand the 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. They may not may be making as much as they could could be, but they're making a hell of a lot more that way than they would be if the place was empty.

Right.

And I think that that's what they're looking for is stability

unless she's getting a percentage of it.

Well, and it sounds like the applicant has stated that unless he's able to sell cars at that location, he can't afford to stay there as well. I think that's been true of the last three

which you do have that historical basis that the last three you've had have

guessed our house. So the other question that that I would have right I mean MC district allows a plethora 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 etc. Um the other two were uh one was multi-use commercial. Um so I I guess my other question have you attempted to market it? I mean this might be just a bad location for automotive repair. I'm not saying it is or not but it just might be.

I think it's an iconic it's been there since 1950. I mean it's an iconic and you know the problem that inherently that you have when you go back to whether it's a bad investment. No. I mean that 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. So my homework I have a homework assignment then. Yes, I I have to give you comp comparators of similarly situated.

I'd like to know what they're renting for. People that work that are similar size and stature. What are they paying for rent in order to be able to work on cars and sell cars?

That's the real difference to prove a hardship. Again, and I mean it not in a disrespectful, we're landlords, right? So, our only concern is that he can cover rent. If he makes $300,000 in the month of November selling cars, you're only getting 10 grand still or whatever you're charging him for rent. It makes no difference how much money he's making.

No, understood. But to get to that point, it has to be.

But we got to know what those places are renting for in order to say, "All right, she's got a point, right?" Like, she's missing out on five grand a month.

But I'm also wondering if if I could also use our own sales experience there. Is that

appropriate? How long was that?

Um, it ended in 2018.

I don't know.

Were you you were selling cars on this property,

right? We h pursuant to a change of use, change of tenant, we applied for sales. It was approved um and and we sold there for two years. It's in the record. And um

Josh, do we have does the town have record of that?

We do. Um it was an administrative uh change of use that was issued in error or against the code.

Gotcha. Okay.

But it was issued.

Okay. Very good. So yes, I think you have uh two two homework items. One is the comparables 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 with on 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 uh is substantial. Those are the other things that we need to understand as well.

So how do you show that they they have tried to market it as retail space unsuccessfully and 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

I've worked with developers that have taken churches and converted them into restaurants. I've worked with developer, right? So, I mean,

it's done. Uh 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 appliance sales or, you know, whatever the other lists are in there.

Look at other like empty retail shops in that area

respectively. I mean, we've already put 800,000 or more almost $900,000 into when we bought the property. 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 it spend a million dollars and turn it into a restaurant. That's for the investor. The person who wants to rent it can do that. You know,

please, we're we're not here saying no. We're trying to get the the documentation so we can say yes is what we're trying to do.

No, I I and I appreciate that. But and when you I mean I've got a dozen ads here, you know, can be auto repair or retail, restaurants, twostory, you know, I've I've fished it out as that opportunity. Yes,

I think your best bet honestly is the hardship of showing the fact that you're missing out on

substantial amount of rent that you could be charging him if he is allowed based on the building, right? Yeah.

To sell cars. I think how many cars you sell to in my opinion is irrelevant because if 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 was I would come back here saying I 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 the number of cars that come and go out of there I in my opinion is a little irrelevant. It's more what you're missing out on to as as the owner of that property not being able to market said 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 what this gentleman is doing is clearly having a hard time

making ends meet.

Right. And I I can do that for this board. I can do that easily.

I can do it. So I would just like to clarify for the applicants here.

So we're not just saying the same thing over and over again. What we're ask what the board is looking for is essentially an an just a market analysis of the money you are 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?

That's that that's half of it.

And the comparison between what a leasable space comparable leasable space

that's permitted in the district

a comparable leasable or rentable space that is able to sell cars versus this this property that is not able to sell cars. So that's one component. And then also a a uh

permitted uses

the other uses.

The permitted uses. Correct.

Correct. And what about since he's taken over

since March?

What do you mean?

Since he's leasing that since March of

to show what I mean numbers that for a hardship this is why we're moving forward.

Yeah. I mean I for me I got I think this biker here shows

well is he not being able I think you're asking like is he having a hard time covering the rent

right now is only given her three like since then you know I think that's what you're asking

like that'll show a hardship right

yep yeah

well thank you I've taken enough of your time tonight

is it clear the the assignment the homework

I get it okay

you will also receive some of the information that I wanted to give you, but I was hesitant because I don't want this to be about us. I wanted it to be about the loss.

I will say this a as a a town member, I I want our properties to be, you know, used. I don't want them vacant either, right? I mean, I want

again, that's why we have a standard we have to maintain. Y

we're asking you to help us maintain that information.

You don't have to ask. I get

appreciate it. Um, okay.

So, I guess we're going to um table this matter. I mean,

till next month. Um,

October.

Yeah. Do you have the date for

October 14th? It looks like.

Okay. Just one thing. Are is there anybody here that came to speak tonight? Should we open it up for them or No, just in case they're here and they came out here.

That's fine. Um, that's it. At one.

How you guys doing?

Good.

So, I run two successful businesses 4.8 miles away.

Your name, address,

David Hoffman, and I'm at uh 6260 Lincoln Road and 6378 Dean Parkway. I inquired 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 I 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 substantially amount more than what he 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 uh because it was not zoned for that.

You're the per perfect person for the applicant to get an affidavit from,

right? And I did give him a letter, you know, because uh, you know, I I did inquire about it. It's been empty for some time and I've inquired about it multiple times and we've been told no multiple times.

I think you you and the applicant should uh get together and uh have that prepared to be able to pull some of that information together. I appreciate it. Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there anybody else that wants to speak for against the project?

No. Um then uh make a motion to table VIP uh motorsports located at 1186 until our October 14th zoning board meeting.

Second.

All those in favor?

I.

Next up, uh

Thank you. uh roof located at 789 Dwit.

Applicant Sharon Arena is requesting a 7 foot side setback where 15 is required with the proposed construction of an 8x 24 roof over an existing deck in an R3 single family residential district. Mrs. Arena, are you here? Yeah. If you'd like to come up to the podium. Um, representing agents are uh Sharon Marina and Kip Finley.

Hello, I'm Kip Finley with Victory Hill Land Company. I'm the engineer that designed the roof over the existing deck. My customer here is Sharon Arena. Her son Joe is here for moral support. Um, I'd like her to tell you why she would like the roof over it. Um, I have an existing deck and basically during the winter time, um, because there's no roof over the entrance door, um, it sheets over with ice and water and that and it freezes and I actually got um, bared into or barred 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 leftand side has lots of oak trees and catalaba trees and the debris just comes down over my deck. So, I every day I have to go out and clean that up before I could sit down and use it. So, the intent is to have the roof

extend and follow the um the footprint of the existing deck. Is that correct?

Yes.

It won't extend any further beyond.

Nope. Actually, the uh the sophet and the gutter will line up with the face of the deck.

Okay. The the pro biggest problem is that the door swings out because the building was built in the 1930s very economically. There's no room for the door to swing in. So, normally a door would swing in and the storm door would swing out. But, um, she gets stuck in there. She did submit a couple letters of support that had some pictures of ice and snow with them. I don't know if you passed them or not.

Yes, we have. Yeah, we have them.

Okay. Well, then I think it if there's no questions, we could just go on to the other parts of it. Any other questions from the board?

No.

I had an opportunity to come out and take a look. Um I mean, I I definitely don't see any any issue. you have a very narrow uh property and being that the edge of the gutter is not going to be extending any further than the deck itself. I don't personally have any any additional questions or concerns. Anybody else?

No.

Anybody want to anybody from the uh public want to speak for or against this project?

I would.

Okay.

Can we approve this so I don't have to leave work and ship out to Very good. Uh, I'll bring it I'll bring it back to the board. Any other questions from the board?

No.

No, it it makes sense.

Yeah. I'd like to make a motion for a type two uh action under seeker pursuant to NYCRR section 617.5 of the environmental code.

Second.

All those in favor? I

um let's see findings. Um you know, this request is not not out of character for the neighborhood. The house is set back. It's really not going to affect the neighborhood in any way, shape, or form. Uh 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 uh the applicant has submitted um letters of um acceptance approval of the uh 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 onto uh onto the door and uh

keep debris off of the uh the deck. A roof is is necessary to be able to do that. Um request is uh it's not substantial um as it's it's set back and other neighbors are in acceptance of it. Uh difficulties not self uh 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. Uh I think that covers it. Anybody else want to add anything else?

It's it's not going to encroach any further out than the deck that's already there. Um so with respect to encroaching on the neighbor next door, the the landing area is already there. It's just covering the landing area which makes eress into the house a little bit better.

Yeah. And there was a variance granted in 1993 to build the deck.

Okay.

So, it's this high. So, it's just going to be this high. It's not that much of a change.

Um,

and there's really no change. Just

Right. The gutters are going to uh keep gutters and downspouts are going to keep the water on the uh subject property. Correct.

Yeah. We're going to route them to the front of the house and out into the front yard.

Perfect. Okay. Um All right. With that, uh I make a motion for uh an area variance to allow a side setback of 7 ft uh where 15 ft 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 by 24 foot roof over an existing deck on a 0.51 acre parcel having SPL063.14-1-49 located in R3 single family residential district under sections 350-12 350-47 of the code town of Webster

second

Mr. Short

I

Mrs. Folo I Mr. Corso

I

Mr. Prescott

I

Mr. Spanado.

Hi.

You have your area variance. Uh you will have to get a building permit. You have to um you have one year for uh substantial completion.

You'll probably be starting within a couple weeks.

Sounds good.

All right. Thank you.

Now you don't have to dig her out of the out of the house anymore.

Thank you so much.

Thank you guys.

Have a good night.

You too.

Uh next up, carport at 438 Mchuan Drive. Applicant Lisa McBride is requesting to allow zero foot front setback where 50 feet is required for the carport and to allow 20 ft front setback where 50 is required for a deck that is existing on an accessory structure. They're located in the R3 single family residential district. relevant sections of the code is 350-12 and 350-38. Um, hi, my name is Lisa McBride. I live at 438 Mchuan Drive. Good evening, members of the board. Um, we're here to get a variance for a 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 um, 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 um is erected and that's um in front of the deck.

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 on a 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. Um, but besides it being a danger, the the driveway is so steep, the deck helped us ma get into our storage shed, um, which is quite large and and that's, you know, been permitted by the previous owners, but there was really no way to go in and out of the the car, I mean the shed because of this grally hill that's

right in front of it. And then where the carport was, they had um the previous owners had made a flattened sort of dirt area for two cars that had some big rocks around it and sort of a boulders, but they were all disintegrating and the whole hill was sort of coming down and making another grally 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 the deck 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

to park on

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

I had no idea what a variance is.

Yes. And so, um, we apologize for not applying for the variance beforehand, but I really 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 a

floating deck.

Yeah. I thought it was like a floating deck. And this is You can say who you are.

Hi, I'm Tim Hillbrand, 438 Human Drive. The deck is not attached to the guest to the workshed. I didn't know you had to give a variance to put things up.

So, we're asking um I'm not sure my measurements were accurate, but um we're asking for the variance for the deck in the carport. Basically,

some approval

approval for that. Any questions from the board?

How long has the current port been there?

Um, well,

three years.

Three years. The um it started with the deck during COVID, the summer of COVID. The deck and then the carport was after

the deck been there.

Five years. Yeah, the deck's been there for five years.

And we went to the to the town and asked about the deck and they said they're going to count it as being in a

as existing structure. We filled out a form

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 um structure form. So, we thought the deck was okay at that point.

Otherwise, we never would have started building. So, and then the carport was just after our truck slid down the hill. I fell and broke 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 Lyman that I had been storing for years, but it was getting kind of expensive um for the winter storage. So, we thought if we had the carport, I could put the boat under there to keep it protected also.

And you have permission from Renie.

Yeah, I'll bring that up. That's in the folder.

Other other questions from the board?

I I just have one. So, I actually have the opposite problem. My driveway slopes down to my 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 car port here. Any do you have any drainage or where does the water go to? Cuz my only concern

their carport is actually still higher than

higher up so the water doesn't get it goes past. There's a drain at the bottom of the driveway, too.

Yeah, we have two drainage spots at the end.

Drain underneath the roof.

Okay. I was just concerned maybe the wall giving out at some point with too much water pressure building up over time.

Yeah. Well, there's also a drain inside the carport that goes down to meet up with the drain under our driveway.

Okay.

That go then goes down a hill, I think, to the bay across the the private um driveway. It's a 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. Um, and nobody has a concern about it. And I think I had eight, seven or eight letters.

You have permission from RG.

Oh, and also I did reach out to RG& since that um in front of the carport is a 10-ft strip. That's a RG& easement. But in that 10-ft 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-ft right away for our genie. So we had um met with our genie. They came out and looked at all of it and researched whether we were over any lines in the ground and they said that um we were not. and that it was fine if we could have um we could maintain that wall and the carport that borders the RGI easement or right away and so they wrote a letter which is in the packet.

Other questions from the board? I would um just like to clarify the right of way conversation that was with the applicants. Um the concern from town staff is that the carport is over the property line in the right of way. Oh

was the concern that came also in in the the code

that

so the report is not fully on correct the property line

that is the main concern staff which is why they're requesting a zero foot setback because

but even a zero set foot back

it's beyond and the survey that was provided

was from years prior which doesn't properly show the carport and the deck. So, we had spoken with the applicants about having an updated survey, which is was a recommendation from staff. So,

the main concern is the physical location of the carport on the property.

They're not sure how far on the line.

Thank you for that clarification. And I did not realize that it was beyond the property less.

I had tried to get a survey, but they could not do it by tonight. Um, they had said they could do it by October, but they needed like at least four weeks. That was McMahon and Laroo. Um,

it might they don't know if was 3 in over the line or what.

Doesn't matter if if you're on somebody else's property, you're on somebody else's property, right? So, um, we have,

but I do have an updated survey from when I bought the house in 2018, but it looks to be exactly the same survey.

I don't know if you'd want to look at that.

The 2018 survey would not provide

accuracy of where the carport is.

Oh, okay.

An updated survey for 2025 would show everything that's within your property,

right? That's was the concern was

Okay.

Yes. So, um I guess I'm going to make a statement and um a clarification. So, RG& did not 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 a an approval of it's not it you made them they're aware of and they're saying fine we're we're aware of um the other component and I understand where you're coming from or I I can understand where you're coming from but at the end of the day if if you're speeding on a road and you say I didn't know what the speed limit was you should have found out.

Yes. 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 uh 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 uh 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 Mchuan uh drive. They do have a a concern uh with 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 uh read verbatim. Um is detrimental to the character of the neighborhood both in appearance and in quality. Um uh current uh this the the storage room in the drawings was originally permitted as a workshop by uh built by the prior

owners. Current owners upgraded electric and refurbished the building as additional living space. Um the proposed deck currently holds a um already constructed holds a a picnic table. Uh they're concerned about quality of the construction of the deck in the carport. Um front yard uh deck is unsightly has become a a collection spot for um for junk. Uh it's consistent with um the management of the property. Uh deck and carport drastically violate the count uh the town code for setbacks. Um neighbor did not take count town code into account and just constructed the structures on the on their own. Uh and it it goes on. I mean there 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

I have a comment. Yeah,

I I think going along with what our counselor has told us on many occasions, we set precedents. I mean, they've built a deck and they've built a carport without permits and now we're expected to approve it. Does that mean that better to ask for forgiveness than approval? I I mean, I have a problem with it and I also when I viewed it, it looked pretty unsightly. the whole yard did. So, I I just have a lot of issues with it and the fact that it's not even on their property even makes it worse.

Anybody else?

No, I agree. Becomes an issue at closing for any other property owner as the transfer of title and you know come up and then two who knows what was used how are buried. So, there's a lot of questions that remain unanswered. Um,

I'll open up to the public if anybody wants to speak for or against this um project.

No.

Well, some of um the issues with maybe the deck was it didn't quite get finished and a lot of 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 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

and yeah,

you know, I'm willing to do whatever it takes.

So, the deck was not completed. It you stopped it when the town said stop. was completed, but there's still some lumber next to it that he wasn't able to lift. There's some boards. Maybe that's what they're talking about.

They're going to consider it existing structure at when we went to the town hall

and then they lost the paperwork.

We do not have on file the paperwork that would have been submitted to state that this is an existing structure.

We don't have any of that.

We don't have that on file. We do have the notice of a stop work order from a previous building inspector.

When was that? From

2022.

Another would have started on the carport is they didn't give us the existing structure on the deck.

And we're willing to clean up anything that might be upsetting that neighbors.

We don't have our neighbors a pump house.

Well, they're at the end of the drive. The people I think you're referring to are at the very end of the driveway. I'm assuming

so the only time they would see it is when they're driving by. Yes. I mean that isn't fair to them.

Two two times at least, right?

Um

we're willing to remedy it in any way in any way we can.

If this board was to let's go both scenarios. If this board was to deny it, what is the town's next actions?

The structures would have to be removed.

Okay. uh if the board was to approve it. I mean, we don't have a building permit. Um me personally, I was looking at the structure and the wall and in my profession, I would be concerned with how and how it was constructed. So, what if this board was to approve it? What is the next step? Does the tower

they would have to apply for building permits for both structures providing plans of construction for these structures,

right?

That would be reviewed by the building department, building inspector and code enforcement officers.

Okay. So, the building inspectors could potentially go out there, look at it, and say

it doesn't match.

What's that?

New survey.

Survey. Right.

Right. Correct. Yeah. and

and a survey survey.

Yeah.

Building inspector could go out there, for example, the foundation wall is not straight in any way, shape or form. Right.

So, um, building inspector, even if they were to get drawings from an engineer or whatnot, they're going to show a straight wall. I guess as the building inspector would say, that's not straight. And

the structure would have to match the plans that were provided. Yes.

Okay. All right.

Okay. Um, other questions from the board?

Yeah, I have one. Is

it would it be possible to separate the two structures?

Absolutely.

Because I think

from a vote standpoint,

yes. because I wouldn't I I want the deck to be built properly,

don't get me 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.

Yeah. Is there is there a variance needed for the deck or is it just because it was previously constructed?

It needs a variance for location to the front property to the front. I got the front. Thank you. Okay. Very good. Okay.

I I guess I would agree with John that I would handle each structure as a separate

separate variance. Um, okay.

One of the things I look at is

if the structures weren't there already and 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 and access to that structure. Um the carport in that location, especially beyond the lot line, um and and in a 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. No other location for it,

right? Because it's the only flat spot on the whole property in the front park in the front yard. They like that better.

Understood. Um, and I think that's

we truly need to know exactly where it is. Um,

I'm willing to get a survey if we could ta if you wanted to or we we were able to table it. I could get a survey, but I'm not sure if it would be able

Oh, no. I Yeah,

if we could get to zero variance, I could maybe move the carport over two feet. Then it'd be on the line on our on our

on our line.

So So I guess this is the the board can do a couple different things. We can vote on it. Um and and I think I would do the same as 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, uh, survey would be very helpful. Uh, however, building on somebody else's property is it it's not good, right? Um,

I thought it was our property.

It's not permitted, right? It's illegal, right? you're essentially stealing property from 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?

Well, withdraw or table to get the survey.

Well, they would be a we, right? We would be the ones tableabling it, right? But they would they would have to withdraw, I'm assuming, right? They would be the ones with

could they could they amend if they came back next take keeping the uh 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?

You have to have the survey.

Well, they need the survey. They need all of all of that. Yes,

they would need plans all the way around. Now you're taking it down.

Can I don't know if it could be the way the way it's structures. I don't know if you could pick it up and move it.

Yeah, you can.

Just spiked it. Sorry. get the get everything necessary.

I'd say

so

November,

would you be willing to table I'm saying I'm going to say table the matter? Um I'm 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?

Absolutely.

November. the November meeting within days.

And then what information exactly?

So we will need a survey.

Okay. Survey

our port.

Right. Well, for the whole property.

For the whole property.

And the right for the whole property. Absolutely. A revise for the entire property.

And and you may

if if the original survey company is still in existence, they may be a little bit faster.

Yeah, they're not. I called I tried to find out. Yeah.

The other thing,

never mind. thing I would recommend is find an engineer or an architect that would be able to look at the structure uh 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 a fully resolved. So, if you can have a a 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 decking company be all right well I mean they would have to submit plans for a client

right

that would and they would also be able to verify what's used and what's to code properly

right because they would know the

honestly they would be able to tell you exactly and even probably let you be aware that you are not in code right or you are 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. And that would be from the engineer or architect

decking company. I've seen some decks built that

I wouldn't even stand on.

So depending on who you get

reputable,

right?

If I took the wall down and just threw a bunch of big stones down next to it, it' be just about almost what it was. The biggest component right now is I need a survey. You there's an overhang. There's I don't know.

You can't tell me if 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 what is. So, um, getting the survey, you come back, we can have that conversation at that point, but right now, we don't have enough information.

Okay.

Is there anything else the board would like?

That I think that's it.

All right. Um,

so I'm not putting in a new application.

No, I'm here to separate

and I will send you an email tomorrow with additional information for you.

Okay. And then so it's still one application for the deck and carport.

We we'll make we'll make separate motions when we do our votes.

Okay. So it's all right.

All right.

Yep.

I'd like to make a motion to uh table um where is it? Uh 438 Mchuan Drive until uh the November uh zoning board meeting.

November.

Have a second.

Second.

All those in favor.

Are we in favor

in November? Yeah.

I think we're coming back. So that'll be November 11th.

November 11th.

November 18th. Actually

it's a holiday.

Gotcha. November 18th.

Oh, November 18th. Okay.

Yep.

You looking zoning board says November.

Oh,

which I thought

What is it?

It's the 25th.

On the zoning board side, it says the 25th for some reason. On the planning board, it says 18th. I just assumed we were

of November. there. All of the meetings in November have shifted later in the month. So

So we are the 25th.

Okay.

Wow. That's really late.

So November 18th.

25th.

Okay.

25th.

Look on the website. The the dates are on the website.

Okay. I'll look.

We need to know now.

No, we can. She's going to send me.

Next up, we have

Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Uh garage located at uh 1759 Ridge Road. Uh applicant John Hayes.

So applicant is requesting a side setback of 12 ft where 15 is required and then um a variance for the height of the pole barn. Um total height would be 23 feet where 20 feet maximum is allowed. And this is a with the proposed construction of a 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. So,

hi, my name is John Hayes, 1759 Ridge Road. Um, we're looking to put up a 24x 32x 12 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 um the side setback east side is where we need 12 ft where 15 ft is. Um that's so the po 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 at weird angles. And I 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 it's 23t 10 in. We're doing the attic trusses so we have extra storage up top. Um the garage will match the color of the house and that's about it. So it's not a 12t high structure. It is

12 foot high ceiling.

Okay.

And the overall height and

23.

What's that?

The overall height is 23t 10 in.

Correct.

And the house the one picture I got of the house the actually our house is actually the basement is showing on one side on the driveway side. So that dimensions 21 ft to the driveway and where the garage will be 21 ft back that's another 17 ft drop. So basically the height from line of sight from the road it will be about the same as the height of the house. So, I I have one question because I don't think

and Josh, I'm gonna ask um you I don't think we need a height variance because the height is to the the mean of the gable roof height. The peak is 23 foot 10. Correct.

Right.

The mean is going to be quite a bit less than that. It's going to be I'm trying to calculate it out on here. Unfortunately, it's not

do because it's taller than the house.

Okay.

Even though it's going to be set down, so from the road, it's going to look like it's the same height.

Okay.

What about all this?

No circumstance 20. Oh, okay.

In no circumstance exceed 20 ft.

However, that but that's the average.

That's the mean, right?

Um or the main home.

Okay. Gotcha. Thank you. I had that written down, too, but

No, that's because it took me a minute. It's like that. But that Yeah.

Right.

Is there's going to be up and down stairs?

Yep. There's going to be stairs. Going to have a loft up there.

What is the loft going to be used for?

Um extra storage and um we're thinking about moving the treadmill and the bike out of the basement to up there.

Plumbing. Yeah, I was just going to ask.

No, no plumbing,

just electric.

Just electric.

Space will be inhabitable or I guess it'll be inhabitable if you're putting treadmill and a bike up there.

What's that?

The space will be habitable. So, it will be able to be used to

Yeah.

live live into

No, not live in

power, but no water.

Are you heating it?

Yes, we're going to have probably have heat in it.

I'm assuming electric heater. Are you going to run gas lines to it or

um probably do a a mini split?

Okay.

Be quite a bit shorter than the barn right next door.

Um shorter or taller?

Shorter.

It'll it'll it'll be taller. It will

than the barn.

It'll be

the one right next to it. Yeah, it'll be

That one's 16 feet, I think.

Okay. taller.

Yeah, that's what I thought too.

Looks like it's

okay. Any other questions from the board?

I don't know how that works.

Open up to the public. Anybody want to speak for or against this project?

Right back to the board. Any other questions from the board?

No.

No. I there there's really no other location. Yeah.

On that property.

Um and with respect to the setback,

it's going to be significantly further from the lot line than the barn next door is to

Yep.

the lot line.

And it is the face of this is going to be behind the rear line of the house.

Yep.

So that's not an issue. the uh the barn or the the structure will it your driveway goes down, right? So, right. Am I correct? Or is it like the actual property drops?

Yeah, there's a Yeah, there's a hill in the back.

The finished floor of your house will be higher than the finished floor of the pole barn. Is that correct?

Finished floor.

Yeah. Yeah. Where you're the the ground that you're parking the car at is lower than the

house.

House.

Yeah.

First floor.

Yeah.

By how much would you say?

Are you talking the basement or

No, I'm talking the first floor.

Um I think it's a 12 course basement. So probably 10 ft.

Okay. So the point the reason I was asking that is the peak of this structure probably is I don't think is actually going to be higher because of the elevation changes

of the main house.

Agreed.

So all right. Um any other comments, questions from the board?

No, sir.

Nope. All right. I'd like to make a motion for a type two action under seeker pursuant to NYCRR section 617.5 of the environmental code.

I have a second. Second.

All those in favor?

I I um findings. Um this request is not out of character for the neighborhood. Um having a pole barn on this street. There are a number of um older barns there. So it is not out of character for the neighborhood itself. Uh it does not create a detriment to nearby properties. uh in any way, shape. Um again, there's a there is a barn directly u next to where this this uh uh pole barn will be located. So again, it does not create a detriment to nearby properties. Um due to the topography of the the property uh this this uh benefit is not achievable by placing it in any other locations.

This is uh directly off of the driveway um next to the house. It's not achievable in any other means. Um not this is not a a substantial request though putting a pole barn on uh any property is is substantial. Uh having other barn structures uh in the area uh makes this uh non nonsubstantial. Uh there's no adverse physical or environmental impacts to the site of the neighborhood. Um the difficulty is not self-created because of the orientation of the uh the property um and where the house is and the topography of the land. Um it's not an undesirable change and yeah I think that covers it. Anybody want to add anything else?

No, I think you got it.

Okay.

Do you want me to make a motion? I can find it.

I got you.

Okay. I'd like to make a motion um for an area variance to allow a side setback of 12 ft where a 15 foot is required. Um and a height variance for 23 ft where 20 ft is the maximum associated uh with the construction of a 784 square foot garage on a 0.57 acre parcel having SPL081.01-1-20 01-1-20 located in in the LL large lot residential district under sections 350-13 and 350-36 of the code of the town of Webster.

Second,

Mr. Short.

I

Mrs. Volo I,

Mr. Corso, I

Mr. Prescott, I

Mr. Stampinado.

Hi, You have uh your variance for both height and um side setback for the garage. You will need a uh building permit. You have one year for substantial completion.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up, we have a garage located at 512 Road. Uh Jay Polarmo.

Applicant J. Polarmo is requesting a side setback of 5.9 ft where 20 is required and then a 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 twocar garage. Also would like to note that this applicant received planning board approvals last week dependent upon approvals this evening.

Thank you. Good evening board. My name is Jay Pl with JC Concepts. It's nice to see some familiar faces and you guys from last week. Uh I just want to note that last week on the uh provided survey map there was not an existing secondary structure which was a shed. Uh that was part of the uh planning approval last week was the removal of that shed along with the application for zoning. Uh just wanted to note that there was a certificate of compliance uh issued on 46 of 2022. So the actual previous owner did have a permit for that secondary building. Uh 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 going to do is uh clean up the property a little bit. We're going to build a nice little twocar garage, increasing the size of the existing garage by 10 ft to the uh east and another four feet to the lakeside. And it's one of those situations where it's uh lakeside, front side, backside. 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 the proposed new

building. Uh it's one of those fun gray areas that we've all seen on the lakes. So uh just ready to get rid of the uh existing building that is currently has a foundation issues and some settling and some cracked concrete and that's just all going to be brought to life with a new poleb barn style building but no steel. Uh 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 um French drain uh to collect all the rain water that's going to come off the roof of the structure tying into the new uh existing driveway.

And this is going in the exact same location as the barn that or the garage that's there now. Correct.

Just a larger footprint.

Yep. Correct.

Heightwise, uh how much taller is it going to be than what is there now?

So, we are at 14 ft. Uh for my building, off average grade, we're at 14 ft. Uh the existing building is just a little bit smaller at 11'6 and the current home is at 19T plus or minus off average grade.

Thank you.

So, it is going to be lower than the existing home lakeside.

Very good. Thank you.

Yep.

Other questions from the board? I had the opportunity to see the property and I mean a variance that we we see frequently on houses at at the lake. So

since there's already a garage in that location, would we just consider this an alteration to a pre-existing non-conforming or because it's replacing it, it would be considered new?

We're enlarging it though too and we're getting closer to the side treated as

Yeah. And the setbacks are getting closer. I think so.

From what I understand, Mr. Donald Brown, the previous owner, did obtain a permit for a carport previously, and there's actually footers in the ground, actually landing right where our new footers are going to be uh going. So, that that side setback was already approved. I'm not sure when. Uh I did not pull a foil request on the property. Okay. Any other questions from the board? Anybody want to speak for or against this project? Okay. bring it back to the board. Any other questions from the board?

No, it's it's the only logical location.

Y' like to make a motion for a type two action under secret pursuant to NYCRR section 617.5 of the environmental code.

Have a second.

Second.

Second. Yep.

All those in favor?

I

Anybody want to do the findings? Sure.

Thank you. I appreciate it.

This request is not out of character with the neighborhood. We have had several requests along any stretch of Lake Road to build the accessory structures and the garages in the front yard between the house and the road because lake front property considers the lake the front. Um and you don't want to put it in your view. The detriment will not be created to nearby properties. There is currently a structure there and there's going to be a structure there. So, it's really not going to change the impact to any of the homes surrounding this. It's not going to change anybody's line of sight. Um benefit is not achievable by any other method. In this instance, it really wouldn't fit in the rear of the house and because it's going to be a garage, it would make much more sense to be closer to the road. Um the request is really not substantial. The building is going to be slightly larger than it is currently, but it's not going to be significantly larger. The the setback is going to be um outlandish. Additionally, that's a very odd shaped lot and it's

quite narrow at the road. Um so it would be difficult, I think, to meet the side setback without being smack dab in the middle of the lot. Um the difficulty is really not self-created in that the house and the existing garage structure were laid out um before this owner. I don't know when they were changed, but they were they've already been in that position. Um this is just an improvement to the structure and the lot. Um it's not an undesirable change and um while the request is significant, it's not um it's really not significant. Anything else?

What what is the dimension of the side step back that's required?

Uh asking for 5.9 uh feet.

5.9 ft. Okay. I just

And right now it's a

Right now it's I think it's a 20 What is it? 20 foot 9 or no it's 15 foot 9 from the southeast corner of the side setback and we're asking for 10 ft uh which the current garage is uh 14 ft wide. We're going to go 24 ft wide.

So you're asking for a 10 foot side setback, not a five foot side setback. You're asking for five feet deviation from the code.

Yes. Okay. I'm

I'm hearing you the other way, but the picture is telling me that no, it's a 10 foot setback. Okay.

So then it really is not significant.

No.

Uh okay.

What else am I missing? Anybody have anything else to add to that?

Oh, I think you covered it. N

All right. Um, with that I can make a motion to grant an area variance at 512 Lake Road to allow

So there's a side setback of

So it's technically a side setback of

10 ft

before before we make this motion

because the allowables some of the application site were 15 some applications were in my In my in the notes here it says uh where 20 foot is required. Um so some clarification on that would be nice of uh even the existing garage that's currently located there wouldn't meet that 20 foot

agreed and it's a

we just want to get it right for the motion.

Yes.

Right. We we say it wrong it can cause other issues. Right. So we just want to get it right.

Yep. Um because the plan that you are provide that you provided us with the red outline of the new barn. Um it I think you're saying it's only about 5t u on the I guess that would be the east side. It's 5t wider on the east side.

It's actually going to be the the current southwest corner of the barn

on that map is our pivot point. So, we're going to be going an additional 10 feet to the right of the structure that's there. So, making the structure 24 feet wide, not 14t wide.

So, then the

So, then the side setback truly is going to be 5 ft.

Yes, I believe yes, that I'm sorry I don't have that survey map in front of me right now, but yes, that that does make more sense that mathematically as we if we shift the barn to the left at all, which we could. So then this is this is graphically shown incorrectly.

D our barn is that the survey map with the red on it?

Yes.

And that outer line is the red. So my application has always been from the right having it pivot from the left hand side the west south corner of the existing barn going 10 ft further to the east.

So is your west wall going to remain roughly in the same location but the east wall is going to move 10 ft.

Correct. Because if we move the west wall over it takes away that sidewalk that'll be going down through the Thank you. It'll take that'll be encroaching on the sidewalk that goes to the center of the house and then

Okay. And that's not on the survey.

That picture that's up there isn't what I have here from my application.

So,

it's the same survey. It's in black and white on the screen rather than the red in that. No, but Jay, what you're saying is what's up on the screen doesn't match what you are looking at.

Yes, correct.

Okay.

Cuz I have there's just that little bubble over the existing garage. I have the ability to go two feet to the west getting that 7 ft off that east line. Um, but then it get into a hedge row on the west side of the property that is on the other side of the uh sidewalk that currently goes from the driveway to the house and that's their egress to the house. So, we could essentially from what I'm looking at in my picture,

we're not we're not asking to change. We're we're asking to clarify

where it is. That's all we're that's all we want to understand is again when we make our motion we're going to identify a setback. We want to make sure it's the right setback. Um, graphically this is only showing this is showing a 10-ft side setback on the uh it looks like on the east side. Um, where the application is for a 3.1 foot setback and you just indicated that this graphic here doesn't match

what I'm looking at here.

What you're looking at there.

Yeah.

Okay. I need to know what is the setback from the east property line.

So the 5.9 in in the agenda is actually the correct dimension.

Correct.

So it is currently at 15.7. It's moving 10 ft. So it's going to be 5.9.

Okay.

Thought I was going crazy.

All right. Let me start that again.

Sorry.

Let me get right back to where I started from. All right. I will make a motion to grant an area variance at 512 Lake Road allowing a side an east side setback of 5.9 ft where 20 ft is required to locate an accessory build and and to locate an accessory building in the front yard which is not permitted associated with the construction of a 672 ft detached twocar garage on a49 acre parcel having SPL number 048.19-18 82.1 located in an R1 single family residential district under sections 350-10 and 350-36 of the code of the town of Webster.

Second.

Oh, where's my list? Mrs. Vololo, I Mr. Short.

Hi,

Mr. Corso.

Hi,

Mr. Prescott.

Hi,

Mr. Spanado.

Hi.

You have your variance for the garage. Uh, you have to obtain a building permit to be able to construct it. You have one year for substantial completions.

Awesome. Thank you, board. I appreciate it.

Yeah.

You guys have a nice night.

Good luck, guys.

Good night.

Thank you.

Next up, uh, accessory building located at 485 Tine uh, Drive. Jim Harold.

All right. Uh applicant Jim Harold is requesting to allow a rear setback of 20 ft where 50 ft is required in an R1 single family residential district um with the proposed construction of a 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 R1 in our code.

Thank you. I was confused about that when I was going through it.

Yep.

So, is 50 ft actually what's required or is 50 ft

50 ft is required

based on the cluster.

Based on the cluster. Yes.

And you should all have a hard copy of the updated survey. Yes.

At your computer.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Jim Herald. I live at 485 Time Drive. I'm looking to get a variance to put um 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, it's 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 50 feet 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 have a twoft drop going off the back. And it's all within my yard. It's a beautiful structure. It's going to be sided 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, it I don't know if the the pictures I sent, Erica, those are in the packet. Um, but we sit my 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 and 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. Okay, any questions from the board? How tall a building is it?

What's that?

How high is the building going to be built?

Oh, it's just a standard shed. So, it's probably like 10 ft. Uh, it's a New England style with the with those windows going across the front, but so it's probably like maybe 15 feet 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, 36 feet. Do you want me to show it to you?

No, it's all right.

No, I think we

No, it's in our packet.

It's in here.

Any other questions from the board?

And it's going right up against the fence or are you leaving a gap to maintain?

No, it's it's going to go as close to the fence as possible. And then in the center of the fence, I'm going to take two panels out so that I could drive my tractor in out to the yard to mow the outside and then drive back into the inside. Okay.

They'll have opposing doors.

So, it will be back of the fence. The shed will be inside part of the fence. Right up to the fence. Yeah. Okay.

Um any utilities? It's I'm assuming no utilities. No, no utilities. Other questions from the board?

Anybody want to uh open up to the public? Anybody want to speak for or against this project?

Nope. All right. Back to the board. Any other questions, comments from the board?

Nope.

None.

All right. I'd like to make a motion for a type two action under secret pursuant to NYCR section 617.5 of the environmental code. I have a second.

Second. All those in favor?

I have my findings. Um,

yeah. Over here. Uh, this request is um not out of character uh in the neighborhood because the the shed is going to be located uh in the rear property. This is a corner lot and this will be located in the rear property um within a 6ft privacy fence. Um the construction is um is a believe it's a wood construction um made to look uh residential in nature. Um it's not going to create a detriment to any nearby properties. To the east are woods. Uh to the uh south is a uh is the corner uh corner of the corner lot. Uh to the uh to the west is the house and then to the north is um is one neighbor. Um again with a sixoot fence going all the way around the the shed will be essentially hidden within that space. uh due to the uh due to the topography of the property this uh the construction of this really is not achievable without significant uh

additional uh modifications and means. Uh client is or the applicant is asking for uh a shed. This is not a substantial request in any residential uh area. Uh there are no adverse physical or environmental impacts to the site or the neighborhood. Um the difficulty is not self-created because of the topography because it being a corner lot um to be able to place a shed. Uh this really is the best location. Uh it's not an undesirable change. Again, it's going to be hidden uh in the back and the request is not uh significant. Anybody want to add anything else?

Well, and is it it technically looks like a shed. It needs the accessory structure set back just based on the square footage of it because it's long,

right?

But for all intents and purposes, it's it's a shed.

Yep.

Just a long skinny shed.

I have a lot of junk.

Oh, I get it.

Don't we all?

All right. Anybody else?

No. All right. Where am I? Over here. Uh, I'd like to make a a motion uh for an area variance to allow a rear setback of Hold on. Am I in the right one? Uh, rear setback of 15 ft where 50 ft is required associated with the construction of a 432 ft shed on a 0.62 acre parcel having SPL 050.03-8-14 03-8-14 located in the R1 single family residential district under sections 350-10 350-36 of the uh code of the town of Webster.

Have a second.

Second.

All right. Mr. Short

I

Mr. Corso

I

Mr. Prescott

I

Mr. Stampinado

I

Mrs. Solo I

you have your uh area variance um you have to obtain a building permit for uh for this structure um and you have one year to complete your project.

Awesome. Thank you all.

Thank you.

Appreciate it. Have a good night.

You too.

Um next up is 701 Summit Drive applicant Eric Elwell.

All right. Uh applicant Eric Elwell representing agent Brian White uh is uh requesting a side setback of 3.9 ft where 15 is required in association with a recently constructed deck. This property is in the R2 single family residential district and uh you're up.

Good evening. My name is Brian White from McMahon Associates. Thank you for your patience tonight and hearing our application. Uh we are here tonight uh seeking approvals. This is our first step in compliance. Uh there is an existing deck on the structure which was constructed without permits. So we are uh pursuing the pathway for permitting for this structure. Um we're requesting a side setback variance of 3.1 ft where 15 is required by code. Have any of you had the opportunity to visit the property and see the deck?

I did.

So currently I did provide a couple photos in our application. Uh this deck as it currently stands is terrace 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 DEEC. We're going to remove the lower portion of that deck. It's located in a coastal erosion hazard zone. So there's limited develop within that area. So I just want to clarify our request tonight is just for the upper portion of the deck. with that. Um, this property, um, historically, we did provide a 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 um, utilizing the previous survey map that 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 3.1 feet in perspective. The former tie distance to the fence on that property was 3.2 ft. 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 uh to seek these variances tonight and this variance tonight. Uh following that, we're going to pursue an EPOD format 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.

Eric, uh, actually, can you leave that?

Oh, yeah.

So, um, this deck here, the new the new deck is 3.1 ft off of the property line. Is that correct?

That's correct.

Okay. The previous deck, I think you said, was 3.2 two feet off the property line.

Um the previous deck is within proximity to that. There wasn't a tie distance on the former survey map that was provided by another firm.

Okay.

Um but we do have a reference point of a chain link fence which was noted at 3.2 ft. So we're within

okay

inches of where it was before.

And that chain link fence. So what is our distance from the chain link fence to the new deck?

It's it right up against the

So the chain link fence is the property line. The chain length fence is where our variance is. It's where the existing deck is. The property line, there's um a lift that goes down to the bay. Yep.

So that is on the property line for perspective.

Is it on the other side of the fence? The lift

that's Yes, it is.

And that's shared with the neighbor to the north.

Sorry, I'm just I saw it. I I get I'm just trying to understand the the the dimensions. So, the new deck is 3.1 ft off the property line,

correct?

I understand the old deck we didn't there wasn't a um

tight distance

tight. Yeah.

Um that was roughly 3.2 ft off of the chain link fence. The chain link fence is on the property line. That's what I'm That's what I'm trying to understand. Roughly

the chain link fence is 3.2 3.1 ft in from the property line.

That's correct. And the deck is

okay.

So then this deck here

is up against the chain link fence.

I got Okay,

that's correct.

So So looking at this, the north side is about 3 ft closer to the property line.

Looking at at this, yes, the north deck is 3.1 ft from the property line placed in a very similar location within inches of the original deck.

Within Okay, that's what I was trying to get to. And All right,

I knew that. Um the west side, how much further did the west uh edge of the deck

expand roughly?

Again, I don't have an exact distance because we didn't survey, but looking at comparing the two maps together, it's generally on the same line. We are limited. There's a coastal erosion hazard area there. I got

so

I would say it hasn't and there's also a chain link fence on the westerly boundary which is very similar to the original survey map. Okay. So, I would say for all intents and purposes, we haven't extended further towards the bay on that regard. We have extended further south than what was originally there. Uh, but that's well within the limits of property.

Very good.

Did you say the DC is going to make you remove the lower deck?

That's correct. Yes. It's in a a regulated area.

Other questions from the board? Um, I'll make a similar comment to what I made before, which I know I'm sure you're well aware of building 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 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?

Nope.

No, sir. Uh like to make a motion for a type two action under seeker pursuant to NYCRR section 617.5 of the environmental code.

Second.

All those in favor.

I I

Okay. Um see

do you want me to find

please? My my brain is not functioning right now.

All right. I will say that this request is not out of character with the neighborhood. If I stand on the deck and I look to the north, there's similar platform. Um it's it's along the bay and platforms are placed there so that you can enjoy the views. Um there will be not be a detriment created to nearby properties with the deck that's remaining. It replaced a deck that is there. So there is no change to the detriment there. There is no detriment because there's really no change in the fact that there was a deck there. There still is a deck there. Um not achievable by any other method. Again, it is on the footprint of the existing deck. It goes a little bit further to the south, but it's well within the bounds of the property and won't impact the neighbor to the south. The request in this instance I will say while it is substantial with respect to the side side setback it is no more substantial than the structure that was existing there. So in this case I will

say not substantial and no adverse environmental or physical impacts to the site or to the neighborhood. Um given that the additional deck um that is beyond this one is being removed. there is no longer any adverse physical or environmental impacts. Um the difficulty was self-created and that you probably should have gotten a permit before you did it, but we're here now. We're going to fix it. Um it's certainly not an undesirable change. The old deck that was there was aged and and in need of repair, and this is a very nice looking structure that certainly is an improvement from the original. Um, anything else to add or argue?

All right. Uh, with that, I will make a motion to grant an area variance for 701 Summit Drive to allow a north side setback of 3.1 ft where 15 ft is required associated with a recently constructed deck on a 0.95 acre parcel with SPL number 063.17-1-31 located in an R2 single family residential district under section 35. 50-11 of the code of the town of Webster.

Um, and I guess I would condition that the length of that setback is not going to encroach any closer to the bay than it is right now. So, it's a 19.7 foot length of the deck that is at the 3.1 ft. Second it.

A minute. Lost my paper.

Mrs. Vololo. I

Mr. Short.

I

Mr. ASO.

I

Mr. Prescott.

I.

Mr. Spanado.

I.

All right. You have your approval. Uh your u your area variance approval. Uh you have one year to complete the project. um building permit. Does does any

I'll send you an email tomorrow with next steps.

Very good.

Thank you for your time. I appreciate it.

We have a timetable with respect to when the other deck needs to be removed or you guys will handle all of that as part of the finish of the Okay.

Town staff will take care of the following requirements.

Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Have a good night. You too. All right, we have uh

two administrative matters.

Um

one administrative matter and then

the minutes. Yeah.

Oh, well, yes, that would be administrative as well. Sorry.

Yep.

Oh, because it's right there. So, this is the administrative matter this evening is for a one-year extension request of use variance uh number 23 ZB0033 uh at 1013 Ridge Road uh also known as Splash Car Wash.

Was there a request for the planning board to extend this as well or just our board?

Just this board, I believe.

Yeah. Um,

this is the third.

This would be the third. Yes.

Third. Yes. The planning board last year uh granted a one-year extension but indicated that they that would be the last from their perspective.

And I believe this is still in litigation.

Yes.

My understanding.

We we do have a representative here tonight that can speak to

the current status if he would like to. Good evening. Mike Montalto with Kes Engineering here on behalf of uh Charlie Fox and uh Annne Riley and had a conflict so she couldn't be here this evening. So asked us to attend. Yes, there is ongoing litigation. We are of the opinion or we've been notified that it should be coming up for a summary judgement motion hopefully uh this fall. Um continues to have some delays. It is ongoing litigation with you know associated with the the purchaser of the property. However, Charlie Fox is trying to maintain or fulfill his obligations as the seller to provide the property with, you know, the use associated with it, especially since it's in litigation. So, that he's not the party at default relative to his

obligations for parts. So that and yes, you know, we've had two extensions uh already. It was the area the use variance was granted in August of 2022 and two subsequent extensions.

So the summary judgement can go on a long time. Um And just because the motions are going to be made in the fall, of course, there could be additional depositions, discovery produced, you got um the movement, you got a response, you got the judge's decision,

and then ultimately you end up with an appeal.

So to say that it's imminent

is is probably not not a fair characterization.

Well, we didn't say that.

Okay. for the edification of this board it is not imminent.

Yeah.

Okay.

So from from the applicant's viewpoint in trying to handicap the likelihood that all things remaining equal that you would not be able to get this approved in the future. How do you see that? In other words, what circumstances would be changing if it wasn't extended and so the variance goes away and you had to come back before the board again. I I I recognize inherently that, you know, anytime you go before the board, you're rolling the dice, so nothing's a guarantee. But but just objectively, is is there the potential of of change of facts that this board would not more than likely grant the same variance?

No. I mean, there's no substantive change to the to the application. you know, if you look at the burden of proof requirements relative to, you know, the the use, there's no substantial change. Um, you know, what again, what we're trying to really accomplish with the extension is more from a contractual obligation.

You know, to demonstrate that we didn't just go, okay, use variance is gone. So that now the purchaser can look at their attorney and go, you didn't fulfill your obligation.

Yeah. I'm Yeah, I think it's it's debatable whether this after the fact that the uh

that the buyer would be able to do that, but then I think the board should look at the other side of the coin.

Yep.

So, it's rare that we would extend this many times

fully understand

prejudice to the town in doing so.

Yep. We're simply asking your consideration. We

trul we we we truly we truly understand that this third, you know, that this is a third application, you know, a request for an extension. And

I I was trying to

asking the board to think about that. Expecting you to give an answer. Well,

we're acknowledging that

nothing changes. the the var the use variance permits a car wash to be there which is probably unlikely at this point in time but but that's what that's what's permitted and that's what we're continuing to extend that nothing is changing and that we would still permit that to be built there should the purchaser continue. So the relevancy of the expiration is what is it? this they've got to begin meaningful construction on a use variance right that's still required right

okay

yes

can we extend it for more than a year

I don't know if there's any statutoily that says that you can't but I'm just I would say would anybody on the board see prejudice to the town uh if the extension was to be granted I don't know.

Yeah. I mean, other than since since this was granted, a car wash has been built within the I think that roughly right around the same time a new car wash has been built um in the town, right? So I um

So you think

that Well, this one was granted after

was it after

the the one over by Canada Bank

Jackson Road? Yeah, this is now car wash,

right?

Okay.

It It's changed ownership, but but that one was built prior to this.

Okay.

Um the one on Empire Boulevard was built after this, but that's Penfield.

What about this? What about this

uh applicant representative? How would you feel if the board granted the extension? However, upon 60 days notice from the town, the town has the right to retract the extension upon notice to you, giving you a right to be heard.

I don't follow that.

I don't understand. And then extending it indefinitely.

No.

Oh,

no.

We're going to grant it for one year. Yep.

On the condition that upon 60 days notice to the applicant, meaning you

giving you a right to be heard, the town, this board, ZBA reserves the right to terminate the extension. However, the extension could be for no greater than a year, which would require you to come back before the board again. So, you're saying that we could uh the town could retract the extension three months from now,

right? As long as we give the applicants 60 days notice and give them an opportunity to be heard,

right? Okay.

As long as they have the, you know, with the opportunity to be heard,

why would the town do that?

Why would the town grant?

I'm just trying to understand.

Well, because it's covering both bases. On the one hand, you're giving the applicant the benefit of the fact that there's been an approval. There's apparently been no change of circumstances and other than the town just not wanting to carry it that long, I haven't heard any other reason why we shouldn't grant it. Right. On the other hand, because it's been so long, if something comes up, the town reserves the right to extract the extension. I'm not extract resend the extension on 60 days notice. The applicant has an opportunity to be heard to convince the board otherwise. Okay. And that would be the it would come back before this board.

Yes.

Okay.

Any any thoughts as to what that what that trigger might be?

Well, I'm going to tell you something that they told me a long time ago in law school. When you win a case,

Yep.

you want to get out of the courtroom as fast as you can. And you just won. You really want that question answered?

No.

All right. Is that agreeable? Is that agreeable with you? Yeah, I believe with the clause that with with the 60-day not with the notification to us certainly.

Okay.

I if the board agrees, you can move on that. I think it it gives both sides something and um otherwise you can just say no or you can say yes.

Yeah, me too.

Discussion from the board.

Makes sense. said it covers both sides.

I mean, the owner is not doing anything more with the property at this point. Um, if he was to come back, would we granted if he had all the proper documentation? Probably. Um, we have the comprehensive plan that is in swing right now. So, there there is potential changes. Don't know what those may or may not be, but there there are potential changes. Um, I guess I I don't see an issue with it, but at the same time, three times is is a lot. And, you know, I don't want to see it back here for a fourth extension, you know, or, you know, a fourth time. That much I can also say. I don't see any substantial changes coming down the pipe for this particular property as it is anyway. So, I don't have an issue with it. But again, I don't want to see it again for another extension.

Agree.

All right. I'm going to need you to write that down because I try and try and restate what you said is going to be. Okay. So, if if someone was to make a motion, the motion would be to grant an extension of the approval for one year upon the condition that the town has the right to resend the condition, I'm sorry, to resend the extension upon 60 days. Would I say 90 or

60? 60 days notice to the applicant

allowing the applicant to have an opportunity to be heard.

Um and parenthetically meaning that we would place this on our docket on our agenda. uh with respect to the retraction of the uh of the extension. In no event can the extension is the extension longer than one year? Should we do we need to add no further extensions granted or

I think that's last sentence just does that in no event is the extension to be longer than

Okay.

All right. Does someone want to make a motion to exactly what John just said?

You wrote it down.

I I scrolled it.

Uh do we need to do seeker for this?

No existing approval. All right, I'll give it a shot. All right, I will make a motion that this board will grant the extension of the use variance approval for one year from this from the state. Um, but the town reserves the right to terminate such extension with 60 days notice allowing the applicant to be heard with with respect

to the retraction of the extension and in no event is the extension to be longer than one year from this evening.

Second. Who seconded it? Fight over it.

I did, too.

All right. CV J. All right.

Mrs. Vololo. I Mr. Spamponado.

I

Mr. Corso.

Hi.

Mr. Short.

I.

Mr. Prescott.

I.

You have your one-year extension.

Perfect. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Thank you. And just so that we're clear, the notification relative to the recision or retraction of the extension

should go to whom?

Uh Annne Riley and made the application, I believe, right?

And

y

All right.

And and Riley Riley

and Riley, attorney

attorney law. Yeah.

And the alternative would be if for some reason she's not available,

Charlie Fox.

To Charlie Fox. Do you have an email for Mr. Fox?

We would have we have very provided

and then they get what they want.

Thank you.

Have a great night.

You too.

Uhhuh.

Any minutes?

Please hold.

Need some elevator music?

Yes. I bet you don't.

Got to approve the minutes, right?

All right. First

before you do the meet meeting minutes, you know what? I think we should state on the record.

I think we should at least I would like to state on the record and recognize Katherine's long service and dedication to this board

who

yes

who fulfilled this role. She did a she did a great job. She was uh always pleasant and um you know served the town and the residents extremely well. And I think she's a great loss

and I miss her already

to the town. So, uh, we wish her well and and thank her for for all she did.

Yes. Yes.

Yeah.

Thank you.

All right. Who is here?

I will make a motion to approve the minutes of the June 10th zoning board of appeals meeting. All those in favor

I find that to sign up

and

I will make a motion to approve the minutes to the July 8th, 2025 meeting. All those

Let me make sure I have enough people.

Yes, Anthony, I will need you to vote for this as well. All those in favor?

I

All right.

Maybe a few more of these comments.

Those are now approved to be filed.

Okay, with that, make a motion to end our zoning board meeting.

Thank you everybody.

Thank you. I'm not.

Do you do you need something?

Okay.