Video recording

Stampinado here. Mr. Seno here. Mr. Mascar here. Mr. Oso here. Mr. Miss Corsy here. Mr. DeMarco here. All right. On the agenda this evening, we have one tabled manner matter and three scheduled matters. We do have proof of publication that was in the Webster Herald from last week. I will ask that anyone who's wishing to speak during the public hearing portion will sign in at the podium with your name and address and then if you are wishing to speak you'll be limited to 5 minutes and then we will continue to the next person. Um the board does reserve the right not to start any further applications after 10 p.m.

if need be. And with that, what am I missing? We'll start with the first tabled application at 771 Ridge Road, please. So, property address 77 771 Ridge Road. Applicant Alan Mallet Mallette. Mallette. Um, uh, zoning district is the MC medium intensity commercial. The request is a use variance to allow a service garage um to an existing auto sales business. Uh the proposal is a construction of an approximately 2,856 square foot detached service garage. Relevant sections of the town ordinance uh section 350-1AMC [Music] medium intensity commercial and 350101D2A which is for a use variance. Over to you.

So I uh I put together this uh packet. I hope it's everything you guys are asking for. Uh I hope it's uh um if you have any questions on what uh is inputed into this packet, I'd be more than happy to try to answer to the best of my ability. Um so I mean would you guys like me to go through it or you guys just want to ask me questions on anything on it or Does anyone from the board have any questions on the material that we received both last week and then both last week in the previous meeting? All right. Um I guess I do have a question. I I needed a spreadsheet. So I took all of the numbers that you put together in the document.

Um, so according to the information that you provided, if you're outsourcing the service on I'm going to call it pre-sale and postale warranty. So pre-sale um service when you outsource it, it's approximately $1666 per vehicle. And if you were to insource it, it's about $1,91 per vehicle. Um, and then your warranty would be approximately $900 versus $600 for vehicles based on um, the information that you provided with your labor rates versus outsourced labor rates. Um, and then looking at your sales per year from your 2023 24 sales from April 1 to March 31st were 321 vehicles and then that same period 20242 was 360 vehicles.

Correct. Okay. So, as I'm running through my spreadsheet, it would appear that you're outsourcing service costs are between 6 and $700,000 a year. It Yeah. I mean, mathematically, I mean, all all accounts for accountable for Yeah. Okay. And then in in sourced it would be between 410 and 460 roughly thousand. So which either way it's a it's about a $200,000 savings per year for the applicant to be able to do the service inhouse as opposed to having to farm it out to other people. And that doesn't take into account um potential delays or um delays in either your current customers getting their vehicles back or new customer you being able to get a new car into the fleet in order to sell it.

Um as well as that doesn't take into account if you get um price increases because right now you're getting volume discounts. Correct. Yes. Okay. Right now, the service garage we currently do business with give us give us discounted labor rates because of the volume of business that we do um provide them. Okay. I just seemed like a lot when so when I threw all the all of your numbers into a spreadsheet, I was like, "Oh my gosh, that's it it doesn't look like a lot per vehicle if it's, you know, $1,600 or $1,100, but over the course of every vehicle, it adds up fast. It adds up quickly. Right. So, so in rough figures, right, I I lost the screen that was in front of me, but I think it's it's $600 a vehicle times $360 vehicles.

Is that right? It's which is about $216,000 pre-sale approximately the savings for pre before the cars sold pre-sale is 575 approximately the savings per vehicle, right? So if we just round it to 600 times 350 vehicles, right? Yep. Mhm. That's somewhere around a couple hundred,000 210,000 that you that you put back in your pocket. Okay. So and you know again when when you read what's required of a use variance we asked to I think to give greater context for the board last time that we have an idea of the business savings but the analysis really runs to the property more so than the business but I I still think it is a it's a good thing for the board to work through um for the to get the context of of why uh this is a hardship um was I going to say okay so that $200,000 give or take juxtaposed against the cost to build pay the the mortgage right I was that was that in the the previous chart The building cost was in our application.

In the application. Okay. And so what how does what does that take up? $100,000 and be built in six months. It says in the application. Okay. And uh so obviously that doesn't we don't know what the increase in the taxes is. I'm I'm assuming uh there's some utility costs, but it it's it sounds like uh obviously over a 10-year period, you're you're going to that that $10,000 will be washed into into the $200,000 savings. So certainly sounds like it it's a net positive for the uh the building of the uh the building and then how do we and maybe it's we did public hearing the last time. Do we want to reopen it or probably not not going to harm any All right.

Does anybody else from the board have any questions at this point in time? No. All right. Is there anyone here who would like to speak for or against this application? All right. Seeing no one, returning the discussion back to the board. Um, it was what I don't recall what the proof was in the record from the first meeting regarding the inability to use the property for any of the other permitted uses. Was that covered? I don't know that we covered it because the property is already an auto sales business. He just wants to add the garage to do this extra part for he's not looking to change the business or sell the property, right?

So, that standard's kind of how how do I interpret it for an existing business? He just wants to build the garage, do repair work in the back of his sales. It's essentially addition. No, I I I I I I I understand that, but you're changing the use of the lot. If that's the whole point of the use variance, right? Let me let me say this. There's going to be a difference between what makes logical sense and what the law requires, okay? Which is not unusual, okay? And so the use variance requires that analysis that there the other permitted uses will not allow a um a a reasonable return on the property.

I I I didn't look at what the other uses are there. How could there How could there be any other uses if he's already got a used car lot? What other uses? He's already got the sales department. He just wants to cut his expenses down by offsighting his repairs. Yes, sir. And going from there because across the street you've got a Ford dealership, a Chevy that already have it. He just wants to do this for himself to make make more money. That's the logic part of it. I get that. That's not lost on me. Okay. Okay. To answer your question, what you would do is you'd have to move your business to a location where you can have a mechanics garage.

But this to me that doesn't make sense. I don't again that's why I preface my comments by saying logic versus what the law requires. Board can do whatever it wants. All right. Well, all right. Go ahead. My my job is just to adise you what what the legal requirements are. So, let me ask the other I'm not saying to deny the application. I'm just saying if the record is complete, it should at least review what the other allowable uses are. um for for the lot. That's all. Okay. Um and what are what are those? Can the staff tell us what those are? There is a number of allowable uses for this zoning district, [Music] which I will pull up for you to review.

So in this zoning district you can have appliance sales, a bar, tavern and cocktail lounge, child and elderly care facilities, a commercial print shop, a commercial recreational facility, A convenience store without gasoline sales. A drugstore, employment agency, floor coverings, a funeral home, a furniture store, a grocery store, an indoor amusement center, lawn and garden supply store, medical and dental clinic, office, machine sales and services, printing and publishing establishment, a restaurant. So what what's section is that? This is section 350-18. Okay. And there are numbers one through what's the last number?

26. Very good. So the this the standard is not I own the property. This is what I want to do and I don't have to uh unincclude because I don't want to sell the property. That's not the standard. Well, and I understand that if if I am the property owner and I'm trying to sell the property and I can't get anybody within any of those uses to purchase it, that's typically when we see this is when it's it's a use variance because I can't find a buyer. That is correct. Within the purview that's permitted. Um, but in this instance, it previously was an automotive sales and service department. Um, I believe Neri was the last one that was in there.

Let me just hold on. Was this a service location? He had service there. There was no previous variances for service, right? Just sales. You were indicating it was a sales and service. It was want to see if that if that's accurate. That's I'm sure helpful. It it was like if you didn't buy your car there, you're certainly not going to take your car there. But they did work on cars that they were selling was was what I was led to believe in trying to buy things from them. Yeah, I I that fact is a fact and it's in the record. So be it. I just didn't I wasn't aware of that. And I don't know how long it sat empty before the current owners owned it.

Um, so and that would have probably been the time to come for service, but at the time you guys came for vehicle sales, not realizing what an impact it would be on your business not to do the service in house. Can the board or how does the board consider that if I leave this driveway and turn left, I've got two automotive sales and service locations that are on the same side of the road. I think that goes to the to the goes within the findings. Well, it goes to the criteria that changing the character. Correct. And it certainly does that. No question about that. So, if I run through the standards, the first one is the applicant cannot either will or will not be deprived of all economic use or benefit from the property.

Now, it's not that he'll be deprived of all economic use, but based on the information provided to us, it would be approximately a cost. All right. Is a reasonable return if I'm losing $200,000 a year by having to send out for service? See, the the reasonable return is is typically measured by the allowable uses on the property. Okay? Which the board is skipping over that part of it or the applicant is skipping over that part of it. What what the board I'm hearing the board say is, hey, look, this is different because he's already operating a business there. No question about that. But there wants there needs to be or the applicant wants an additional component of the business which is not allowed.

So you need a use variance and typically in a use variance the reasonable return is characterized by allowable uses akin to when you sell a piece of property. If you can't sell it and get a reasonable return, that's usually driven by the fact that the allowable uses for that property, no one's interested in buying it because they cannot operate it at a reasonable return. The sale price is too cheap, too cheap for the seller to sell. So, I I have a question. I'm going to change I'm going to change your scenario. Let's say hypothetically, let's say everything gets approved. He built it. Now, he wants to move his business to another town.

Okay. Or closes up, whatever the reason might be. So now he has to go sell it. First of all, if he doesn't find a business or a buy a buyer doesn't want to use like the sales room, they may just tear everything down and then build what they need. How does that now come into effect? Because what if it's like so what you're saying is it's got to be usable for this or it's got to meet the criteria, which I understand, but like let's say, you know, I don't need a showroom. I don't need this. So, I'll buy it, tear everything down, and build something brand new that fits the code. How does that fall into place?

I don't think I understand the question. If you if he sells the property and someone else wants to buy it, but doesn't want to put an auto dealership or anything with sales or automotive, and they said, "I just want the piece of property. I'm going to rip everything down, build my own building." How's it changed? It doesn't. There's nothing. Then there would be no use variance needed. Yeah. But but I'm But you're saying if he goes to sell, it's a hard time for him to sell. That's what I'm saying. You know, you're trying to find someone that meets that criteria, like, you know, because right now it's set up technically for some automotive sales and service.

The the applicant can sell the property anytime he wants, and the person that buys it doesn't have to have a a projection of what they're going to build. Now, most commercial buyers will say, "Hey, I want to buy your property." It's going to be contingent upon the town's approval to put XYZ on the property. So, but would could I take the first standard and look at it in one of two ways? either I'm the owner of the property trying to sell it and I can't for a reasonable price based on there's no none of the current uses are of interest or can I look at it as the operator of the existing business who if I can't add another um portion to that business another function to the business I'm not re realizing a reasonable return with what I have so I have to scope I don't think that's the standard.

However, how do we know? How do I know what I I know what the Well, I I I know I know what the law is in the state of New York is. Listen, let me turn this inside out. The board ultimately can vote whatever way it pleases. And if no one challenges it going forward, it it it becomes a fix. It's law. It's enforceable. When I say turn it inside out is that this board when it creates a precedence, right, and another applicant comes in and says, "Hey, look, I'm don't worry about whether the other approved uses can can function here or not. I want to add a barber shop to my grocery store cuz my kids are barbers and I want everybody on the same plat.

got all the people coming in the store, they can get their haircut. It's just it's a great setup. You're gonna have to treat if that applicant indicates, hey, look, over on um 7771 Ridge Road, you let you let this applicant expand their business to a use that's not allowed there. and you did not make the applicant demonstrate how the current uses that are approved how he can't get a reasonable return on his property. That's what I mean turning it inside out. Well, it makes logical sense what the applicant wants to do. You know, we're all sitting around having a cup of coffee. It it makes perfect sense.

It's a great idea. I get it. But the board just has to be wary of the fact that going forward you're you're stretching or diluting or limiting the standard in my legal opinion by taking on that determination. I think the applicant has provided exactly what we asked them to provide from from last week. All right. How do we as a board if and and I guess I don't know what what the other board members feel is the appropriate based on their background and experience. Um but how would we tidily bundle it with respect to a used variance if that is indeed what the board elects to do for this applicant?

Um, how do we do it correctly and legally so that if it were to be challenged, the man next to me that has to defend it would be able to do so appropriately? Is there any any um benefit to the fact that uh there are so many I mean, he's not alone. I I realize the other users there were pre-existing before the the ordinance got changed and I'm not sure the ordinance should have been changed personally uh at least to exclude because you have within walking distance five car dealerships that all have service and I think the biggest difference here in challenging the using the barbershop scenario is there there aren't any other barber shops in that neighborhood.

But look at look over here. There are several car dealers that have repair shops. And in my mind, it fits in in the area. But I guess my concern since you brought it up, uh it's not and I agree with the the barberh shop scenario. I did was a good illustration, but essentially there's the same use going on all around. And I think I'm not trying to speak for the board, but it's kind of hard to tell him no when within a mile away everyone's doing the exact same thing. But since it is specific to this application, um, how much are we opening up the town and someone in your position to someone that wants to put up a drive-in theater in a residential district?

Because they could say, well, you let you let someone in a along Ridge Road do something that wasn't already allowed, so why can't I do it on my property? And I'm going way off board with the illustration, but at some point in time, and I know there's a difference between common sense and what's legal, so I guess my concern was uh well, at least not until you brought it up and made it a clear point. Are we jamming up the town? If we look at this and say, "Yeah, I don't see any issue with it." From a common sense point, I honestly don't know whether or not someone else is going to come by 10 years from now and say, "Hey, let this guy do this so I can do anything I want in my yard." And you have to let it you have to let me do it because you gave this guy.

Except that we do consider each application to stand on its own merit. I I I know that, but that's why he just said that we're opening ourselves up because because I like I said, I think this is a But if we button it up if we button it up tightly and make sure that it's I'm I'm on your side. I'm just I'm just thinking that but yeah, anybody can interpret anything that that that's what I'm saying. But I wasn't concerned about the legal aspects of it until he pointed out. And I don't want to do that. I mean, this is but I also believe that the the property, the existing use with the proposed addition, I don't think first and foremost it's not going to be a detriment to the neighborhood um or the environment or or the environment.

Um, the only question I would have is, and I know it's supposed to be a gray area, what's a hardship? You know, I can't make a million bucks a year on my property isn't necessarily a hardship. And I know he didn't say that, but I don't know where the line is drawn at a hardship. So, but I was, in my opinion, that wasn't as important as look on the other side of him and across the street. That's no different even though there's that zoning line. Right. Well, and that that was my dick guiding until our esteemed uh attorney brought up the legal aspects of it. Well, and if I look at standards 2 through 4, the alleged hardship relating to the property in question is unique and does not apply to a substantial portion of the district or the neighborhood.

Um, I would say in that case, yes, because everybody around him is doing exactly what he would like to do. The requested use variance, if granted, will certainly not alter the essential character of the neighborhood since everybody else is already doing it, which I know if everybody's doing it, it doesn't mean you're still supposed to jump off the bridge. Um, and the alleged hardship has not been self-created in that I I don't know if I were not on the board, I would not necessarily know based on all of the other businesses around that I could do sales at that location without fixing the cars that I'm selling.

And then let me ask I'm going to ask another question and I know I'm talking too much. Um, if I go back to all or one or two through four makes sense. So just number one is the one that has thrown us into the weeds. We had another application in the past before this board that was an existing use on a piece of property um for the gentleman that does the snowblower snow plowing throughout town. and wanted to add another use to his property because based on interest rates went up and cost of equipment went up and the economy and COVID and everything, he couldn't make ends meet and his vis could no longer be viable unless he was able to rent out two bays of that building.

How is this different? Respectfully, I'm asking, not argumentatively. that that that's the whole point. It may not be different and that would be the type of historical fact and approval that the applicant which you just did for him could could point to as a reason why you should approve it. Well, and that's I'm just trying to like what what did we have? I mean, we had a lot of numbers from that gentleman that basically showed his business would not be liquid without being able to pay some. Was was that a special use permit or was that a uh I thought it was a use variance, but maybe it was a special use permit.

And then that was my other question, but Erica realiz helped me realize that it's not possible is could we do a special permit that's only for this applicant at this location, but if you sell it, it's not a permitted use though, right? M is it Mallet? Mallette Mlette. Mr. M, how long do you own the property for? Technically, right now, sir, we don't own the property. We are in under a lease with the property through Norb leasing. The contingencies of us purchasing this property is going to be based upon whether we're going to be permitted to build a service department to continue doing business in Webster.

Are we aware? Were we aware of that fact? No. No. So, it's a it's in the paperwork. It's in the initial agreement that Best Buy Auto Sales. I got the signed agreement from Norb Leasing allowing us to follow through with this with this process knowing that we're not the titled owners to the property. All right. But I guess I didn't realize that your plan was to purchase the property if it's a lease. This use became So it's like a lease to buy type deal. Correct. We have a we have first rate. We have a a set amount. We have a set amount in in a contract that where we can purchase the property for.

Okay. You know what I mean? That that amount set based upon what the property is now. Oh yeah. It's on the application. It is on the application that uh name property owner Norwe Property owner is actually Norb Leasing. How long have they owned it? Do you know? To my understanding, they've owned it 20, 30 years. Was it a car dealership before? A car dealership to my understanding for I I believe like someone mentioned uh Joe Ner was there for a while. I looked that up. Probably 10 years ago, 15 years ago, maybe longer. And how long have you been there? We've been there two years. The the sales has been the two years we've been in that property.

All right, let me ask you a question. So, basically, you said lease to buy if you can get this to go through, right? If you can't, it sounded like for a minute you would have to move business out of Webster. I mean, we'd have to definitely take that in consideration. Okay. Absolutely. We have the option in the lease agreement with it. We have the the amount to buy the property as it sits now is ironed out. Um we do have uh an extension, okay, um in place. So, it would give us time if if it would give us time if we had to go that route. I mean, hopefully we don't have to. Um you know, we like the area.

We've been, you know, we wanted to make sure that uh the area was going to work for us as well, you know. Okay, I understand that help it. It makes sense that it would be permitted based on what else is currently in use in the neighborhood. And it sounds like both those parties are in agreement with each other, too. And we can show with the applicants costs that they're on average $210,000 a year out of pocket more by not being able to do their own internal service. I think that also speaks it's not necessarily strictly profit. It's also competitiveness with other used car dealersh, you know, what your overhead cost determines what you're going to sell the cars for.

I'd like to move the question if we can. I think I don't think we're going to go around a circles person. I it just my concern is making sure that that it's only this property, right? and that our position is as bulletproof as we could make it, which doesn't mean it's absolutely bulletproof, but if someone says you did this here, we could show every single reasons why we said yes. Yeah. And I think the distinguishing factor here, if the board was inclined to approve it, is the proximity of the other service uh the other mechanics um locations, you know, immediately adjacent to this one. I mean, that's a significant factor.

I mean, all all of the auto sales within Webster that I'm aware of, right? Are between Hatch Road and Five Mile. No, both the five mile liners at used car dealership too on the corner five mile. But but then if I go further east road Yes. But that that stretch on Ridge Road, that's it. Well, there's one guy on Five Mile Line Road just north of Ridge who's adjacent to the frontage properties that also is a used car lot. Yeah. Across from the Synokco station next to the American Legion. That was the one I was talking that's within but that's the only area within town that permits vehicle sales and all of those vehicle sales with the exception of the two that are around five mile do their own service and I guess I don't know what happens at property on five mile ridge I'm not sure if they do service or not I've never I've only ever driven past But there's not enough land for them to even build anything because the Allegian parking lots behind them.

So, they're landlocked. Well, I think we've kind of beat it as much as we can. Um, do we want to move forward? Do you want to Oh, what is my seeker? Is it unlisted? Did we do seeker? We did not yet originally. No, we we had tabled the whole thing because we were talking in circles but with less information before. So, I think now we at least have the right information. I'd rather depend on your notes than my memory. Yeah, I have a crib sheet I typed up. All right. I'll make a motion for a under New York CR section 617 of the environmental code for secret to be an unlisted action. Second. All those in favor?

I. Um. Does anyone want to run through findings of fact? I've talked too much. That's my notes. Right. I think we've covered we've covered most of them. Um, as far as unique circumstances, the alleged hardship relating to the property is unique and does not apply to a substantial portion of the district because everyone else in the district that's doing this use is already that is doing auto sales already has the ability to do auto service. um the essential character of the neighborhood will not be altered if this use variance is granted because again two doors to the left, two doors to the right within that section on the south side of Ridge Road, there are several other businesses already doing exactly what this applicant would like to do and they've been there for years.

Um, the I'll say it's not self-created again because the code is limiting this applicant to not be able to do what I don't even know if they're your competitors, but your competitors and other similar businesses are doing right along the same stretch. Um the the other remedy is that the applicant can continue to outsource, but if they continue to outsource, then they're going to be an additional $210 or more,000 out of pocket annually to not do this. But then the reasonable return, can we apply that to the reasonable return of the existing business without the additional function or does it have to be upon the sale of the property?

And I guess I don't I don't know the right answer to that. I didn't hear the last president. I I don't know how to if if I look at reasonable return two-pronged either because I'm trying to sell it and I can't or I'm trying to make a go of it with an allowable use and within that allowable use unless I don't have a little bit more of a use I can't make a reasonable return which is kind of how I had read that but isn't a question being competitive to as part of the reasonable return. You have to you can't sell a car for well I'm just throwing numbers out there $1,000 that somebody else can afford to sell for 800.

Well, and I guess let me ask the applicant that question. Does that then impact your pricing? And I know every car sale there's some negotiation, but if currently right now you're paying an extra $1,600. All right. What was the delta between them? So about $600 more to service it than say your competitor next door who's able to fix his own vehicles. Are you eating that $600 or do you have to add that to the price of the car in order to continue to break even, which then impacts your sales? Yeah, we gota in order to stay competitive with our pricing, we got to be able to afford to make the the vehicle to New York standards service-wise and with increasing of parts and everything else, it's it's it's it would be hard to continue.

I mean, it would these figures are just going to get worse as time goes. In order for us to price our cars competitively to to sell them, you know what I mean? It's a it it's if we're having to put more and more into the cars, we obviously have to sell them for for more and more money to try to not lose money, right? To sell a car. So in theory because of this your fixed car is six your fixed cost is $600 higher per vehicle than the next door dealership for the same car. Correct. We have to take that in accountability when pricing our vehicles as well. Yes. Same thing with like the call back forms like it was further into the thing.

We have to take that stuff kind of stuff into accountability as well. You know, we don't have a crystal ball to say whether something may or may not go wrong within the grace period of what New York State requires dealers to stand behind their vehicles for, right? That as well also takes initial cost into into effect that we have to account for. You know, it's uh you know, there's um it's I mean, it's Well, and it's risk that you're taking on. Correct. Because I'm assuming I'm assuming all of your vehicles are used vehicles. They're not pre-owned vehicles. They're not new from They're all pre-owned.

Yeah. Okay. So, it's not like the Chevy dealer across the street. If I bring a warranty issue in, eventually Chevy pays that dealer. This is it's cost out of our pocket. Yeah. Okay. It's which adds another another potential level of loss. I mean, transporting the vehicles were where we're were where We're where We're where We're where We're where We're where We're where We're less drivers on the road. You guys ever try to turn left out of a ridge road on a Friday night at 5:30? Mhm. No more than necessary. 300 vehicles selling a year. That's they got to they got to get transported somewhere up and down turning in and out of there.

Ridge Road 104. Like I said, we're serving. We have to drive all the way out of Wayne out to Wayne County to find affordable labor rates that allows us to even stay in business. Does I guess I'll ask the question. Does anybody believe that we have enough information with which to make a v to to grant a variance or make a motion? And then would someone like to be the one to make that motion, please? I'll make the motion. What do I have to say? I move to approve the I move to approve the applicants application as as submitted. move to approve the uh the use variance for Best Buy Auto Sales located at 771 Ridge Road.

applicant at Alan Mallette to allow construction of a motor vehicle service station edition associated with an existing used car sales business on a 1.73 acre parcel having located in the MC medium in intensity commercial district under sections 350-18 350-70 and 350-101 of the code of the town of Webster. Second Mr. Corso. Hi Mr. Senola. Hi Mr. Mascar. I Mr. Spantonado nay. Mrs. Ola I um I guess I would like to include within the comments of the motion um that the motion is granted based on the financial information that was submitted by this applicant. And I don't really need an um [Music] Erica, would I condition this?

And you you do need to obtain all necessary governmental permits. Um one year significant construction typically applies to an area variance. Would that also apply in this case or one year to begin? You can add that in. um to your approvals and your motion. Okay. Make that part. That's up to the board. Um but a use variance runs with the land. So once it's granted Okay. But if if the applicant were not to fulfill the use within some period of time, does it expire? Correct. Yes. It's okay. So I guess I would condition it that if within one year from this evening's approval, if the applicant has not begun this secondary use at this facility, then the variance expires and we can come back and talk about it all over again.

Correct. And I wouldn't think it would take a year to get the permits and whatnot and a building built. That's That's not part of the motion. So have Okay. Does the board agree to that condition, please? Yeah. Okay. And all the board members have agreed by noting yes. All right. One more thing. What is it? I don't know. Just in case it comes back to Okay. So, you're approved. Sound good. John said to hang on for one moment. Okay. Sorry. What what are we waiting on? So h how are you defining uh and getting that started by construction building? I would say the use itself has to begin within one year of this meeting.

So if they're out in the parking lot and they got a hood open and they're changing oil, does that count? No. So you what you want to do is be specific. Okay. All right. You've approved a 2,800 foot building. We have approved a 2,800 ft² building and within one year of this meeting, you need to be within that building, not just in a tent in the back parking lot or working in the side parking lot. The building has to be assembled. Is that what's kind of look you're looking for? Yes. Okay. Yes. Which I think is doable within 12 months. Absolutely. And you'll probably want to get that done soon as possible.

As soon as possible, correct? to start saving something. Correct. So, all right. And the board is in agreement with that then that it will be within that 2800 square foot for the addition because that will need planning board approval. I don't know will it? No, that building is okay. Okay. Well, just just building just get your permits building from the town quickly. This for so I'm clear understanding from here forward. I just need to get the building permits in. You need to get your building permit planning board and um according to Miss Corsy, you do not need to go to planning board for approval.

Okay. But you can come to the town later this week, I would think, and get whatever paperwork you need and start your permitting process for the permits. Correct. You can do that through the building department. They'll work with you on all of your building drawings and all that good stuff. Correct. Okay. No problem. All right. Is that Are we good? Yep. Thank you. Should I wait? So, you're saying I should wait like a week before I apply for it? No, you can go in tomorrow. Go tomorrow and apply for it? Yes. Okay, sounds good. Thank you. Appreciate your time. Thank you. You're welcome. Was there a uh was there an agency agreement in the application?

Okay. Next on the agenda, we have a privacy fence at 457 Threshwood Lane. Applicant James Samuelson is requesting to allow a six-foot fence in the front yard of a corner lot. Um the proposal is to construct a 6ft fence in the front yard of a corner lot. Um is Mr. Samuelson here if you want to come up to the podium. Relevant sections of the code. Section 350-12. R3 single family residential district and 35079B. No fence in excess of 4 feet in height shall be erected in the front setback of any residential lot. The one that just walked down. Hold on. You're up, sir. You want to just explain your project, where it's going, etc.

So, hopefully this is an easy layup for you guys. Make sure I didn't give you this off the document. It's a corner lot. Um, and they're just looking to extend the fence out to the I think there's a map and everything in there and all your documents. Mhm. Out to the right away. And there are actually two other similar lots within eye distance of the uh said parcel. That's it. They're 438 Murwood and 446 Merwood almost are very similar. Again, corner lots with very small backyards. There's a swimming pool in the backyard currently, which was there when the property was purchased. Um, I'm guessing this is probably I don't know, but I assume this is probably a pretty standard request with corner lots like this with such small backyards.

separate from the pool area and that sort of thing. Makes sense. Do any of the board members have any other You're going to keep the existing fence around the pool and just add the new one along the rightway and then back to the house. I believe I believe that yeah, the fence is going to the old fence is going to go down so we're going to add new fence. Okay. Um any side openings where the new fence is going to be there, you know? There'll be a gate on there'll be a gate probably be the fence is going to slide forward a little bit on the end of the house and the gate would be there by the side door.

And then what type of fence? I know it's stockade right now. Another wood type fence. Okay, that's fine. Can I I understand what the corner lots I've lived in a corner house many times. Um it just as I drove down the street and and looking at the fence, it looks like you're going to build a wall there with a sixoot fence. And that's and I understand why you want it, but I'm just wondering if you could set it back a couple feet more and put some plantings in to kind of break up the view of the of the uh wooden fence so that it's not a solid wall that it looks more inviting in a residential area.

I guess if you would consider that I think I mean it sounds like a good idea. I mean, it wasn't it wasn't requested of other others in the neighborhood. It sounds like kind of there's been precedence on it. I mean, they don't seem to have plannings at the other places. Although, I apologize for that, but I wasn't on the board. Well, I guess my question for Erica, because I don't know. Um, I know we do have other corner lots in the neighborhood that have fences in both front yards or in the side front yard. Um, were they all the way up to the right of way? The ones that I can remember have been set back five or 10 feet from the right of way, but I don't I don't know everybody that's been approved in that neighborhood.

is there have been examples of both right to the property line and set back five or so feet. Um again in this neighborhood I would have to look in our records exactly to see what was approved so I can't speak to this neighborhood specifically. Um, but in the past, yes, there has been ones right up to the property line and ones that have been set back five or so feet. Okay, this is James. I was speaking for him. I'm going to let him answer a few questions. They asked about moving the fence forward a little bit and putting some plings in in front of it. So, Mr. Sam. Sir, can I just have you state your name for the record just so that we Yep.

My name is James Samson. Do you understand what the board is saying to to instead of it going all the way to the right of way, bring it in five or 10 feet just so that it there's a little bit of Yes. In a little bit more space. I think I have it proposed at 10 feet off the right of way already. Oh, it's 10 feet off the right of way. It's not all the way up to the right way. That is correct. Yep. Oh, okay. That's actually a utility easement that it's drawn on the right of way, which is Okay. So, you're already My apologies. That's okay. So, is it going up to It's going right up to the utility ement.

There was a um I don't remember what kind of tree, but some type of an evergreen that was along that area. Is it going to be roughly in line with that? Yeah. So, it's actually um it won't even be to that last evergreen tree. Okay. Um there's a fire hydrant that sits kind of underneath the edge of that evergreen tree. Is that what you're referring to? That the in the at the corner? That's actually a pear tree. Um no, the the neighbors ever in the back. Those correct? Yeah, that's a blue spruce. So, it's not going to it's not going to be as far out as those. No, it'll actually not even probably come to the last tree.

It'll be inside the last tree. because I believe that that yellow line that appears on the screen is the right of way. I'm going to be 10 foot inside of that. Yeah. So, he's he's coming up to the end of the rightway. The No, he's going up to the utility right away. Right up to the utility easement. And quite frankly, I think um I know shrubs do not have an extensive root system, but I I'm opposed to planting anything major. over any type of utility. Yeah. Because quite frankly, even if we put in beautiful shrubs, they come up and whatever utilities underneath there gets dug up, they're under no obligation to replace anything because it's their easement.

So, they would be very hesitant to put a condition on him that may cost him more money and had don't and won't guarantee the results that you're looking for. Right. for example, that's why I asked if you could set it back a couple of feet more and do some planning. That that would be acceptable to me. If it was like three, four feet tops, I can still shoehorn in some plants. Yeah. Because for example, if green light comes in, they're going to directional drill under that and they'll run what everything underground. So they don't have to replace anything since they're right in the ement utility easement.

That easement is RG&D specifically. Yeah. I'm just using green light because I know they directional drill because I used to be on a fiber optic screw that did it for them. I think they've already been through the neighborhood luckily. So, what I think I'm hearing is that you're willing to um bring the fence 4 feet inside of the utility easement so that there's room to put just a little something to break break up the wall of the fence if that's a requirement. Yes. Is that what you're looking for, Jen? It's It's definitely not what they did across the street. All right. Yeah, I'm trying to 393 has go.

It's actually Merwood. So if you if you head southwood, it's 446 MW. What's the address? 446 Mwood. Right there on the corner. Yep. Corner lot right there. Okay. That's that's that's a prime example of what I'm looking to do. Okay. And and you see Okay. So it's and they're about 10 foot inside the right of way as well. probably ran into a similar similar situation where there I don't know if there's utilities easement over there or not but so just to clarify you are looking to do essentially exactly what 446 has you're not going right up to the property line you're going to be 10 ft within your property line which is also away from the utility easement correct okay thank you for that clarification um one slight difference You said exactly like that.

Not quite exact. Um I don't intend to come to the front of the garage. Correct. In terms of placement to the property line. Yes. Okay. Thank you. They not going to be a line of sight issue. No, shouldn't be because it's back far enough. It's back far enough. Back far enough. All right, let me open it for public hearing. Um, this meeting is a public hearing and anyone wishing to speak for against this application can come forward at this time. Seeing no one, I will return the discussion back to the board and close the public hearing. Any comments? My own personal opinion, as much as I appreciate landscaping, if you have them set it off a couple feet off it, it gives them the option of doing it instead of making it okay.

And a requirement you can do if you want because I having a corner lot myself, you you want at least some sort of low strip or gravel bed just to make it easier to mow. Right. Right. So, I I get that. But, you know, and then if you're going to tell me he needs to plant it and we don't force a planting plan upon him, he could put one shrub in and say, "I met your requirements." Well, and I Yeah, I'm And that's what I'm trying to avoid is that he met our requirement. I I added I put an arborite in there and he's met our requirements. If we tell him to set it back a couple feet, so if he wants to at a later date, do it himself, he has the ability to do so.

And unless we're going to tell him he needs to plant, you know, junipers five, you 24 inch diameter installed 5T on center for the entire 60 feet or so. I I I don't think we necessarily want to design it for him. No. And I A wooden a wooden fence to me is much more or much less in your face than a white vinyl fence and that it just kind of blends in better. I just that's my opinion. I mean a tr the finished side of the fence is going to be on the outside anyway. Um and to clarify this was not a white vinyl fence. This is this is a pine fence, right? already. Yeah. Okay. I don't like I don't know how the rest of the board feels.

I don't want to force plantings that may or may not No. No. But I mean, no. There's your wife is going to have an idea of what she wants along the outside of that fence. And and I wasn't trying to I think your suggestion is great, but unless we have a planting plan that we can enforce, but it's it's it's it's kind of toothless that, you know, then we have to carry over that. Technically, ground cover is a plan. So, he could just put ground cover on the back of it and say he did it and he'd legally be correct. So, um but normally I agree with 100% with you. My only my only concern is it is a long stretch of fence.

It's like 60 feet. That's a long stretch and all you're going to look at is a wood wall. And I just thought if somehow it could be broken up. I don't disagree, but I I question whether we're the proper authority to enforce the visual uh viewshed there. Well, my only concern is that we haven't forced other applicants to do it, right? Um, but we can certainly suggest it. I I see what you mean though because it will be 60 ft. I don't think the one that they just showed on Merwood is that long, but that's okay. I mean, if you haven't done it before, but 50, right? So, it's coming right here, too. I'm just talking about right away.

All right, let me do seeker. Um, pursuant to New York CR section 617 of the environmental code, I'll make a motion for a type two seeker. Second. All those in favor? I All right. Does anyone want to run through findings? I'll do the findings. Um, if approved, the uh application would not have an undesirable effect on the existing character of the neighborhood. Uh, wouldn't be a detriment to his or any other properties. Uh, there is no other remedy to get some privacy in your backyard than um than fencing it in because it especially since it is a corner lot. So, there is no other re no realistic remedy.

Uh, the request is not significant. In fact, it's 10 feet a minimum of 10 feet in more than uh it needs to or that it could be and that um it will not have any adverse impact on the physical environmental conditions of the neighborhood. And um it really isn't self-created because it's a corner lot and um it's difficult to get in a usable private area on a corner lot. All right, I am going to add in um the granite because it's a corner lot, it has two front yards, but if it were a traditional sideyard setback, the sixoot fence could be permitted right on the lot line. So, in this case, it will be better than that because it's going to be in by the 10-ft easement and then another four feet.

I I accept that. Yes. Okay. With the option to landscape Yes. But make it attractive. A wooden fence. And it it is going to be a wooden fence is what you are agreeing to. Um would anyone like to make a motion? Sure. I make a motion that um we approve uh an area variance for a privacy fence located at 457 Rushwood Lane. um to allow uh to grant a area variance to allow a six-foot private privacy fence in the front yard of a corner lot on a 0.45 acre parcel having SPL number 063.14-3-16 [Music] located in the R3 single family residential district under sections 350-12 350-79 and 350-101 of the code of the town of Webster.

Okay. included in that will be that it will be four feet off of the utility ement. Go ahead. No, that the fence will be 4 feet off the existing utility easement. Second. Okay. Mr. Senola, I Mrs. Volo I. Mr. Spampton, I. Mr. Garrett, I. Mr. Corsa, I All right. You have your variance um conditioned upon one year of meaningful construction to erect your fence and the receipt of all proper permits from the town of Webster, which you can begin getting tomorrow. Thank you. I think that's it. Congratulations. Thank you. Uh next application is a three seasons room at 918 Letharo Circle. Lethario Circle applicant Joseph Swick uh R3 single family residential district is requesting a rear yard setback of 50.5 ft where 50 ft is required uh with the proposed construction of a 329.8 square foot three seasons room.

This is in the R3 single family residential district. relevant town code sections is 350-12B5C which is the minimum rear yard setback requirement. Do you mind if I approach signatures for neighboring properties? Thank you. are aware what your plan is and zigzag. certification. So on the on the left side on the top people on the right side. Okay. behind. Uh so what was what I had been there before I used uh 11 years ago I built a U 17 by 24 deck uh which uh was I think at that time it was a 50 foot setback uh that was acceptable for the deck. Uh I kind of want to take up the same uh same amount of area.

It's actually a smaller uh so instead of a 17 by 24, I want to reduce it to a 17 by 19 in a few inches. Uh but with enclosing it, uh I found out later on that I have uh an additional 10 ft that I uh of a setback that I wasn't aware of before. uh which would not be really functional for this kind of a setting or for a building because that would reduce me down from a 17 ft room to a 7 ft deep room. Uh so you know again I'm coming in front of the board. I'm asking for a variance for an additional 10 ft uh so that I can have an actual reasonable living space um threeseason room of a size of 17 by 19 and a few inches.

So And the reason the deck is gone is because me and my neighbor both put up decks at the same time 11 years ago and they both rotted out uh even though they had air flow and everything and I wasn't about to reinvest into another deck and have the same thing happen again. So we decided to step it up a little bit to go for a threeseason room. So makes sense. Makes sense. Yeah. And it gives you a little bit more use throughout the year as opposed to just the three months of nice weather that we have. Right. And my, you know, my daughter is 14 and uh she's only going to be in the house another four years and and she's been asking for this.

So I'd kind of like to give it to her. So all right. Any comments or questions from the board members? I did notice when I was driving through the area um this this lots especially in the Theo Circle are very short rear yards which I don't know but I'm suspecting this was probably developed as a cluster subdivision in order to make the houses closer together and then have some preserved space elsewhere in the subdivision. um which is helpful except when any of the homeowners want to come put some type of a structure onto the back of the house. U most of the houses along at least that side of the street are lined up within the 50 ft of the rear lot line.

Um, and there's also behind most of the houses a I'll call it a hedger of sorts so that most of them are really not within view from the neighbors on the street behind them which is John Leo Drive. Um, it there are a couple of other threeseason rooms that have gone up in that subdivision with some encroachment into the setback for the same reason because the 50 foot the house is at the 50oot line in most instances. Um, I will open this up for public comment. If anyone would like to speak for or against this application, please come to the podium and identify yourself. Sure. All right. Seeing no one, I will return the discussion back to the board.

Um, in pursuant to NYCR section 617 of the environmental code, I'll make a motion for a type two seeker. Second. All those in favor? I opposed. Okay. If I can find my findings, I'll run through them if you'd like. an undesirable change will not be produced in the character of the neighborhood um in no detriment to nearby properties. There are a couple of other similar additions within I'll call it the larger neighborhood of Lethario and John Leo Drive and the rear yards are fairly short. Um, the benefit really cannot be achieved by any other method. As the applicant noted, by bringing this into compliance, the depth of the room is only 7 ft and it is replacing a deck that was actually deeper than this addition will be at the end.

Um, the requested area variance is not substantial. the applicant's deck was further into the setback than this room is going to be. So, it will be an improvement to the setback with respect to having a structure there. Um, it will not have any adverse physical or environmental or adverse impacts on the environment um or the neighborhood or the district. The um backyards do have some greenery in between the yards, so it'll be shielded somewhat from the neighbor to the rear. I do also want to make note that we do have signatures both from the surrounding homes on Lethario Circle and the homes behind this addition on John Leo Drive that have signed that they are in agreement of this addition.

And most variances are self-created, but given the placement of the house on the lot, there's really not anything that can be added to the rear of the structure without permission being granted from the zoning board. Anything anyone would like to add to that? Nothing. All right. I'll make a motion to grant an area variance for a threeseason room at 918 Lethario Circle to allow a rear setback of 40.5 ft or 50 ft is required for the construction of a 329.8 square ft 3season room on a42 acre parcel. the dimensions of that to be 17. All right. This is tiny print. 19 17 by 194 17 ft deep by 19.3 feet wide and that is in a single family residential district and it is falling under sections 350-12 and 350-101 of Webster town code.

Second Mrs. Bolo I Mr. Sanada. I Mr. Senola. Hi, Mr. Mascar. I Mr. Corso. Hi. You have your variance. You have one year to start meaningful construction and you must obtain all necessary governmental permits. And good luck. I appreciate it. Thank you very much. The only question I have is uh when I was up at the office uh signing up to come down here to meet with you, um they told me it was going to take a couple days before I could come in and get the permit. Is that accurate or can I come in tomorrow and get it? You can fill out the permit tomorrow and start that process. It will take about 5 to seven days for the building inspector to actually issue that permit to you.

Appreciate it. Thank you. All right. Good luck. Thank you. Okay, final application for the evening is 860 Buttermilk Circle. Michael H Houseer Houseer uh located in R3 single family residential district uh is looking to allow a 13T side yard setback where 15 is required in the construction of a 30 square foot second story bumpout over the garage. Um relevant sections of the town code is 350-12 R3 single family residential district and 350B sorry pardon me 350-12B 5B1 side setbacks of a structure is 15 ft. Um you're up sir. All right. Thank you for uh reviewing my application. Just looking to have a bonus room essentially added on top of the garage.

Um, the bumpout will only be on the second story. Uh, I think it's two and a half feet. So, that brings me to 13 ft within the property line when I when the ordinance is 15 ft. Um, so that's it. And it's not running across the entire length of the home. It's only like uh Miss Corsy said, it's only about 30 square feet of actual bumpout. It's 2 and 12 by 12 something or 15 feet something for that matter. Um, and that and that's it. Uh, as far as the neighbor on that side, uh, it's our backyard. They have trees planted on our on our property lines, so I they're not going to notice, I would imagine, either way.

Um, but that's the scope of our project. My goodness, that's a very true. All right. And as Erica had explained to me, um that it's not the whole footprint that's going to be exceeding the setback, but it's going to be a portion of the upstairs, which 2 feet of the second floor is allowed to hang over into the setback, but this will actually be 3 feet, but it won't be for the entire addition as well. Is that Did I explain that correctly? Correct. Uh we our code allows a canal lever to be two feet within the side setback. So um Mr. Houser is looking for essentially an additional foot. An additional foot.

Correct. Yep. Just on the just on the second and on it looks like from the rendering the back corner of it too. Um I believe so. So is just this part in red here. Right. Yeah. The back corner of it. But based on where the lot line is, it's not even the whole thing. So it's okay. Correct. Any other questions or comments from the rest of the board? It's very straightforward. All right. I will open the discussion up to the public. Is there anyone here who would like to speak for or against this application? Not a complaint. Seeing no one, we will return the discussion back to the board. And pursuant to NYCRR section 617 of the environmental environmental code, I will make a motion for a type two seeker.

Second. All those in favor? I. Okay. Would anyone like to run through the findings? Sure. Uh there will be no desirable change in the character of the neighborhood, nor will uh the application be a detriment to nearby properties if uh the variance were to be granted. Uh the uh there is no other remedy uh based on the existing house layout and what they need to do. It seems to me that's the best option for expanding the area that they they need to go into. And the fact that as the as it's a bumpout, it really only exceeds the um the allowable canal lever by one foot. Uh it's not a because it's only a two and a half to three foot bumpout.

It's not a significant uh request. And the um if we're granted the area of variance would not have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions on the neighborhood or district and uh basically because it's existing house. It's really not a entirely self-created uh situation. In fact, it it seems to be a really good solution to u obtaining more room. So, say that's it. Anyone like to add anything to that? Would you like to make a motion? Sure. You're doing so well. I'd like to make a motion that uh we approve an area variance located at 860 Buttermilk Circle uh to allow a side set back of um 12 feet where 15 ft is required.

uh with the associated with the construction of a 30 square foot second story bumpout over the garage on a 0.43 acre parcel having SPL number 094.06.1.10 in the R3 single family residential district under sections 350-12 and 350-101 of the code of the town of Webster. Second. Second, Mr. Santo. I Mrs. Vol. I Mr. Spanada I Mr. Mscar I Mr. Corso I you have your variance granted um you have one year of meaningful construction to start this addition and you must obtain all necessary governmental permits and you can start the process tomorrow with the town building department. We'll do. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Thanks. All right, with that that is the end of the official business of the zoning board of appeals with respect to applications. We do have two administrative matters. The first of which is the approval oh my goodness of the April minutes. Um, I will make a motion to approve the April minutes, the minutes of the April 8th, 2005 zoning board meeting. Second. All those in favor? I. All right. And then recorded right now. Yes. And this one is I will make a motion. I do have enough people. Okay. I will make a motion to grant to approve the May 13, 2025 minutes for the zoning board of appeals meeting.

Second. All those in favor? I. All right. Those are now approved as well. And the June is still with you. Okay. All right. And with that, good evening and we will close the zoning board meeting at 8:27. Are we off?