Minutes

WEBSTER ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES

Michael Short

Corrine Volo

James Spampinato

Adam Prescott

Chris Centola

John DeMarco, Attorney

Katherine Kolich, Recording Secretary

Josh Artuso, Director of Community Development

Erika Corsi, Planner of Community Development

2025. We have 6 items on the agenda tonight. I do have proof of publications for all the items

here

Call Roll/Pledge of Allegiance

Summary of Application Outcomes

SCHEDULED MATTERS

:

SOLAR PV-1822 LAKE RD

BIRCH LANE ADDITION-256 BIRCH LANE

SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING-478 LAKEVIEW TERRACE

e Placement of the structure shall be in line with the neighboring dwellings (39’ front setback)

e The residential dwelling shall be no larger than what was identified on the Proposed Dwelling

Plot Plan dated 2/17/2025.

e Arborvitae shall be planted in staggered rows for the length of the dwelling and garage along

the east side of the property; no windows along east side of structure.

Pg. 39 March 11, 2025 Zoning Meeting

COBBLESTONE PLACE PHASE 2 RAVENSIDE LANE

DEMOLITION AND REBUILD-253 LAKE RD

DEMOLITION AND REBUILD-257 LAKE RD

(Corrine Volo read into the record)

VARIANCE to allow a front setback of 59.7’ where 75’ is required on a 5.0-acre lot having

SBL# 037.03-1-33.1 located in the LL Large Lot Single Family Residential District under Section

350-13 of the Code of the Town of Webster.

Appearing before the board was Steve Mikolajczyk. The project was approved and the

homeowners since than decided that they just want to move the location. The number of panels

is the same. The only thing that is changing is that it is going to be, instead of | long array it is

going to be 2 shorter ones but other than that everything is the same.

guys were asking for was a variance to have it in the front yard. Again, this property is set back.

How close is it to the nearest residence.

in more with the tree line.

Pg. 40 March 11, 2025 Zoning Meeting

if there is anyone wishing to speak for or against this project. No, I will bring it back to the board

for final discussion.

RESOLUTION 25-0009 Michael Short made a motion TYPE ITSEQR

which was seconded by: Chris Centola

VOTE:

Mr. Short AYE

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Spampinato AYE

Mr. Prescott AYE

Mr. Centola AYE

location, can we adopt the findings from the previous meeting.

are now approving it for setbacks. So, different reason.

The application will present no undesirable change or essential character of the overall

neighborhood. Although it is self-created based on the size of the lot and the configuration of the

array, I believe that it is a good remedy to ...for the solution to install a solar array. The request

is not substantial based on the size and location. The application wil! not have an adverse impact

physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or general area of the town and that’s

it,

a bit of distance away and there is really no residence that is going to be able to see this solar array

where it is going to be placed either so again, there really is no undesirable change or affect any

surrounding properties.

Pg. 41 March 11, 2025 Zoning Meeting

;

RESOLUTION 25-0010 Michael Short made a motion for AREA

VARIANCE Located at 1822 Lake Rd. Applicant

Steve Mikolajczyk is requesting AREA

VARIANCE to allow a front setback of 59.7

where 75” is required on a 5.0-acre lot having SBL#

037.03-1-33.1 located in the LL Large Lot Single

Family Residential District under Section 350-13 of

the Code of the Town of Webster which was

seconded by: Corrine Volo.

VOTE:

Mr. Short AYE

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Spampinato AYE

Mr. Prescott AYE

Mr. Centola AYE

CONDITIONS:

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

Building Permit.

e That one-year significant construction shall expire March 11, 2026

(Corrine Volo read into the record)

requesting AREA VARIANCE to allow a front setback of 48’ on the easterly portion, and a 55’

front setback on the southernly portion where the 60’ is required on a 0.52-acre lot having SBL#

063.14-1-58 located in the R-2 Single Family Residential District under Section 350-11 of the

Code of the Town of Webster.

Appearing before the board was Robert Masucci. So, we are looking to do an addition across the

front. Our address, well, it’s 256 Birch Lane and our driveway is on Shorewood side so the

addition would actually be an 8 foot addition. Length wise 34 4 feet and then a 4 foot porch

added on so a total of 12 feet coming off the house which goes into the setback approximately 2

feet. So, we are seeking a variance on the setback across the front along Shorewood Drive where

it is supposed to be 50 and we are looking for....we would be at 48.7 feet.

the day and the hand sketches that you provided were very helpful to understand what you were

looking to do. I] didn’t see any detriment or anything for surrounding areas. Did you look at other

opportunities for doing the addition other than just the front.

Pg. 42 March 11, 2025 Zoning Meeting

room and kitchen area. The back half of the house is all bathroom and bedrooms so living wise

for living space the front is the only area you could actually extend the addition. Any questions

from the board. Ok, does anyone want to speak for or against this project from the public. NO,

ok seeing how the board did have any comments I will bring it back and ask the board if they

have any additional comments, but I am assuming the answer is no.

RESOLUTION 25-0011 Michael Short made a motion TYPE IT SEQR

which was seconded by: Chris Centola

VOTE:

Mr. Short AYE

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Spampinato AYE

Mr. Prescott AYE

Mr. Centola AYE

There will be no undesirable change to the essential character of the neighborhood. The location

of the addition is coming off the front of the house on the Shorewood Drive side and is not going

to look out of place based on where the location of the house and the location of the addition. The

benefit can not be sought by any other feasible method. Any other location to add the addition to

the house would not give the appropriate addition to the interior living space of the house. The

request is relatively insignificant. It’s slightly over a foot to the setback that is required and from

driving by in the neighborhood it won’t look like it doesn’t belong. It won’t look like the setback

is in appropriate. No adverse or environmental conditions. It will not have any impact on line of

sight from driving routes and will look in place. I will say it’s not self-created and that the house

was placed previously to this applicant owning the property and it really is the only way that you

can add a porch and also some additional living space to it.

RESOLUTION 25-0012 Michael Short made a motion for AREA

VARIANCE Located at 256 Birch Lane.

Applicant Robert Masucci is requesting AREA

VARIANCE to allow a front setback of 48’ on the

easterly portion, and a 55’ front setback on the

southernly portion where the 60’ is required on a

0.52-acre lot having SBL# 063.14-1-58 located in

the R-2 Single Family Residential District under

Section 350-11 of the Code of the Town of Webster

which was seconded by: Chris Centola.

VOTE:

Mr. Short AYE

Mrs. Volo AYE

Pg. 43 March 11, 2025 Zoning Meeting

Mr. Spampinato AYE

Mr. Prescott AYE

Mr. Centola AYE

CONDITIONS:

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

Building Permit.

e That one-year significant construction shall expire March 11, 2026

(Corrine Volo read into the record)

Ottaviani is requesting AREA VARIANCE to allow front yard setback of 39.70’ where 75” is

required, and s side yard setback of 10’ where 20’ is required on a 0.25 acre lot having SBL#

048.19-2-36 located in the R-1 Single Family Residential District under Section 350-10 of the

Code of the Town of Webster.

Appearing before the board was Bryan White with McMahon LaRue Associates. 1 am here

tonight with Anthony, the applicant and owner of 478 Lakeview Terrace. We are proposing to

construct a 3-bedroom, 2 car garage, and single family dwelling on a parcel that is currently

vacant. This parcel is unique and it’s non-conforming dimensionally with the zoning code . The

code requires...the parcel is currently a %4 acre and provides minimum setback requirements .

The side setbacks required by code are 20 feet and the front setback is 70 feet .

What we have proposed is requesting front setback of 39.5 feet and side setback of 10 feet . |

think this is similar to the character of the neighborhood. This property will be serviced by a

septic system which will be located on the northerly side of the parcel. So, we have moved the

parcel, I am sorry, moved the drawing forward to accommodate the septic system in the rear yard.

We have aligned our front most southerly garage corner with the front house corner of the next

parcel to the east. In reviewing the town code, the minimum coverage requirement is 20%

although the parcel area is non-conforming we do fall at 16.8 % coverage below the 20%

maximum allowed for the parcel and that includes the dwelling; attached garage; and covered

porch. All together the total area for that is 1766 square feet apart approximately.

So, understand that this parcel was non-conforming we have made an effort to minimize our

variance request. Originally, we reviewed and had the garage on the easterly side of the parcel in

line with the dwelling which would be a front load garage, and we have moved the garage forward

to increase our side setback and be sensitive to the easterly-westerly neighbors. I am available to

answer any questions that you may have.

provided that does not indicated where the septic is. Do you have the approval from the

Department of Health for septic at this point.

Pg. 44 March 11, 2025 Zoning Meeting

we are anticipating that they are going to run smoothly and have a conventional system . Our

initial soil data indicated that there is lots of sand so I don’t anticipate any issues with that, but

we will have more information on that tomorrow.

requirements for a raise fill system buy we are anticipating it will be a conventional system with

10 foot setbacks.

to work with the Health Department on that.

as well as overhead electric I believe and then we will have onsite septic.

story dwelling and you’ve outlined kind of the dimensions of the footprint of this. Is there a

design that was created for this by any chance.

we can certainly provide those. Again, we have shifted our garage alignment to increase the side

setback requirement. Originally it would have been 5 feet, and we have now increased that to

10. Corrine Volo: We had another parcel like maybe 2015 or so. Another parcel within this street,

similar size similar size house that also had the 10 foot side setback so it’s consistent with the

most recent new builds in that area.

this project, come on up. Please state your name and address and speak into the mic. As a

reminder there is a 5 minute limit for public speaking.

Sanra Kluth at 480 Lakeview Terrace. (SEE ATTACHED)

concern. This project is the second of our roll out and it’s carbon friendly affordable housing and

our first initial launch was in East Rochester where we had a 1300 sq ft house; all electric;

Pg. 45 March 11, 2025 Zoning Meeting

je | Outlook

[ Online Form Submittal: Planning/Zoning Board Meeting Comment Form

From noreply@civicplus.com <noreply@civicplus.com>

Date Tue 3/4/2025 12:54 PM

To Webster Comminications Dept. <communications@ci.webster.ny.us>; Josh Artuso <jartuso@ci.webster.ny.us>;

Katherine Kolich <kkolich@ci. webster.ny.us>

unknown senders or unexpected emails. Use the Report button if you suspect malicious activity.

Planning/Zoning Board Meeting Comment Form

Residents,

Please use the form below to submit any comments or

questions you have regarding a Planning or Zoning Board

Agenda Item or a Property Under Review.

For Board Meeting comments, please submit them no later

than 3:30 p.m. on the day of the meeting.

Your comments will then be shared with the appropriate

Board Members and included as part of meeting records.

Thank you!

L Agenda Item or Topic you Property under review at 478 Lakeview Terr Webster NY --Zone

are commenting on: Meeting on 3/11/25 @ 7 P.M.

Please type yourcomments __1-Per discussion with Mr. Ottaviani, the owner of this lot, his

in the box below: intention is to construct a 1300-1400 squ ft home with an all

electric service and HVAC system. Per my discussion with a

representative of Rochester Gas & Electric he should have one

of their engineers consider whether the electrical grid in our

area will support this construction. Our neighborhood is at the

"end of the line" on this grid. We already have issues in the

neighborhood with flickering lights etc during higher usage of

electricity. This will be more noticeable with this new home. Has

this been done and is it possible to receive a copy of the

results.

2-There are no elevation drawings on this website. Per

discussion with Mr. Ottaviani last week, he said there would be

no windows on the eastside of this new home or garage.

Please advise.

3-He also indicated he would plant a number of large shrubs or

tall Arborvitae on his eastern property line to create more

privacy for us as well as for the buyers of this home. Where are

they shown? What recourse do we have if this isn't done.

4-The demographics are such that more empty nesters and

single adults are purchasing homes on our street. Would it

make more sense to build a 2 bedroom, 2 bath single level

bungalow with attached garage and upgraded finishes in the

1100-1200 squ. fi range and make the side setback in the 15-

20 range? He would still succeed in a good RO! and it might

not impact the surrounding neighborhood as much.

Once you have typed your comments, please

click on the SUBMIT button below to

complete the submission process.

Thank you for taking the time to submit

your comments!

Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.

setbacks were 7 feet on each side, and we were able to put the house in without disrupting either

side of our neighbors. When we come into a scenario like we are in right now we make sure that

we speak with our neighbors. We have that initial conversation prior to coming to the board and

we (I) listen to their concerns and when we meet with the engineers, we have that same discussion

so that we are not disrupting or coming in as a bull in a china shop. We want to be a good neighbor.

This project on a whole is all electric but in that all electric vein, it’s all LED; all high efficiency;

it’s cold climate heat pumps. The premise behind the electricity and the portion of this project is

so that we can reduce our energy level, and we are not running a gas line to this property. This

will be a carbon free house that we are building. Our initial lot size that we talked about when |

spoke with the neighbor, we were not sure how big the house was going to be because we wanted

to get a general variance before we went through in the architect drawings. So, we initially said

possibly 1500 sq ft and as we evaluated everything, we are probably in the 1400 sq ft

neighborhood and I did listen to my neighbor and did express that I would put arborvitaes with

no windows on her side because of the setback being so small we want to be a good neighbor so

we said we would do that. I have no problems what so ever and we put that in our permit.

Whatever we have to do. Again, we are trying to work with everyone, and this house will fit the

neighborhood perfectly. It is right in line with everything that is going on.

this home.

usage. We are actually using less than the typical home. So, we really don’t get that calculation,

but we have it once we start building and they come in and start discussing what lines we are

going to run, then we have the calculation to give to RGE but at this point ] can tell you that, our

usage is no more than a standard home.

the electric grid is already, shall we say stress or pierced to be at it’s maximum usage even adding

something very efficient but still drawing more off the grid.

are going to add one house to this neighborhood and it’s insufficient now, we should be having

the conversation maybe with RGE to up the whole area because I know that there are a couple of

houses there that are going down the road that are going to be adding in as well. So, | would say

that I will reach out to RGE, but I find it a little chalienging to say that one house will be the

down fall of the whole neighborhood and that being said, I will investigate and do my diligence

and present anything that is required to facilitate this permit.

your neighbor indicating here in this meeting, no windows on the east side; arborvitaes on the

east. The other concerns that you raised RGE that unfortunately is not this board purview to

determine. That is his engineer and RGE’s purview to make the determination. Would having

Pg.46 March 11, 2025 Zoning Meeting

the arborvitae....would us making a determination and putting those contingencies on and

provide you with some level of comfort. To your point, we don’t have elevations but at the end

of the day I know its going to be a one story ------------------- setback and if we end up indicating

ok no windows and arborvitaes on the east side does that address those issues.

SHOULD BE USING THE MIC.

closed.

RESOLUTION 25-0013 Michael Short made a motion TYPE IT SEQR

which was seconded by: Chris Centola

VOTE:

Mr. Short AYE

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Spampinato AYE

Mr. Prescott AYE

Mr. Centola AYE

Based on existing overali neighborhood characteristics the application will not have an undesirable

change of the essential character of the neighborhood or the area. Based on the existing lot

configuration there is no other remedy other than the variances to get the size house he needs to

put up there within the lot that is existing. The request of the variance is not substantial based on

the setbacks that he is proposing. The application will not have any physical or environmental

adverse effects on any of the existing environment in the neighborhood and based on the lot size

the need to get a house on there the application is not entirely self-created.

RESOLUTION 25-0014 Michael Short made a motion for AREA

VARIANCE Located at 478 Lakeview Terrace.

Applicant Anthony Ottaviani is requesting AREA

VARIANCE to allow front yard setback of 39.70

where 75’ is required, and s side yard setback of 10’

where 20’ is required on a 0.25 acre lot having

SBL# 048.19-2-36 located in the R-1 Single Family

Residential District under Section 350-10 of the

Code of the Town of Webster which was seconded

line of the property.

Pg.47 March 1!, 2025 Zoning Meeting

shown on..........

the property on the east if I remember correctly and the residence itself will not be any larger than

what is shown on the plans dated. ...provided to the Zoning Board February 17" , 2025

the depth of the garage. Staggered row of arborvitae to be equal to the depth or width of the garage

on the east property line.

planting 3 arborvitaes...given it a little more teeth that will force him to do what the neighbor 1s

anticipating.

what you are...

is what you are saying, arborvitaes. In line or do you want staggered.

Pg. 48 March 11, 2025 Zoning Meeting

I make a motion to grant a variance .

VOTE:

Mr. Short AYE

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Spampinato AYE

Mr. Prescott AYE

Mr. Centola AYE

CONDITIONS:

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

Building Permit.

e That one-year significant construction shall expire March 11, 2026

House to be built as listed on the plans dated February 17" , 2025

No windows on the east side and staggered arborvitaes on the east property line along

the garage and home, residence itself .

(Corrine Volo read into the record)

COBBLESTONE PLACE PHASE 2: Located at 1025 Ravenside Lane. Applicant Griffin

Wiegel with is requesting AREA VARIANCE to allow the following;

Lot 1 (079.15-1-8.003/SEN1)

® 20’ buffer area where a minimum of 50’ is required;

© 36’ between buildings where a minimum of 40” is required;

e 20° front setback where a minimum of 75’ is required

Lot 2 (079.15-1-8.003/SEN2)

e 15° buffer area where a minimum of 50” is required;

e 36’ between buildings where a minimum of 40’ is required;

e 15’ front setback where a minimum of 75” is required;

e 1.85 parking spaces per unit where a minimum of 2 parking spaces per unit is required

on a 5.0-acre lot having SBL# 079.15-1-8.003/SEN2 located in the MHR Medium Fligh

Residential District under Section 350-14 of the Code of the Town of Webster.

Appearing before the board was Jake Calabrese and ] am with Marathon Engineering and to start

off I

will give you more of a background of the entire property. It sounds like a lot of variances,

but it should make a little bit more sense.

Pg. 49 March 11, 2025 Zoning Meeting

In roughly 2014-2015 Passero did a, 1 guess will call it an overall design of 2-60 unit senior

living facilities and they did the full design for what will call phase | which is the existing lot.

That was approved I believe by both variance board and Planning Board roughly around 2015

and then build there soon after. They did not get grant funding or funding for phase 2 so that is

kind of why we are where we are. Where we have the existing facility which would be to the...]

guess will call it north west here (APPLICANT SHOWING PLANS TO BOARD) and then this

is proposed building to the south east. There was a tax parcel line created that kind of divides

each of the properties into 2-5 acre properties and that was completed for a tax line, but it did not

actually be completed to be subdivided so we have been to the Planning Board for a sketch plan

preview and then in our process of what we thought we were going to go to the Planning Board

for more of a detailed design we found out it wasn’t subdivided. So, we submitted it to the

Planning Board for subdivision and then now because of the subdivision we are now going to

have some variances for the existing lot as well as for our lot to complete the project.

So, we are on...if we do get variance approval tonight, we will then go to the Planning Board for

subdivision hopefully by the April meeting and then soon there after we will start our full design

of architectural and design.

developer now of lot

2. Jake Calabrese: Yes. You make a really good point. The building layout is just about the same.

They did full design for phase | which is existing, and they included the stormwater facility, so

all stormwater is already accounted for, designed for. They did not do the site design for phase

2 and that is where we are taking over. We are proposing a 47 unit facility that is not senior living

it is going to be for general.

were within the interior of the two is not required but the same essential layout is what is on here

right now just instead of a 60 apartment...60 unit building it’s now a 47 unit building and

dimensionally I won’t say it’s identical because I don’t remember but it looked similar.

probably shifted a couple feet left or right but generally it is laid out the same. So, kind of to go

back to the variances for the existing lot, those were all I] don’t want to say that they were

variances thal were going to occur when the property was eventually subdivided but that is the

20 foot what was planned per the Passero design for phase | as well as the buffer the one that has

slightly changed is 36 feet to 40 feet and that was just because we started a more detailed design

of the phase 2 architectural plan and that kind of takes care of the existing Jot variances and then

Pg. 50 March 11, 2025 Zoning Meeting

to go to our proposed lot variances the 16 foot is going to be off of the newly create subdivision

line that will be 16 feet of the building corner .

We need them for both lots as well as the 16 foot is also kind of the buffer area to the front. I

know with this property front is a very interesting term of trying to figure out what the front is

and that’s why we went and said kind of the front of the building would be to the front property

line. The variance for parking spaces were going for 1.85 so that is including the parking lot up

here and parking lot back here is 10 garage spaces that are going to be for residences.

77. There is 10 garage spaces and then the final variance would be

the O feet parking set back that is identical to the Passero plans. We haven’t changed where that

parking lot was going to be so if it was a senior facility or what we are proposing there would

still be parking along that what was a tax parcel we need to see as a subdivision line.

site vs the owner of the senior living site then you guys are going to be adjoining.

town helped us out and told us that we should just submit one with the correct way...so again,

thank you. So, Conifer and Brickwood and Brickwood is the ones we are representing, and

Conifer is who owns the same facility. Their in talks and they....yes.

the public if anyone wants to speak for or against this project. No, ok I will bring it back to the

board. Ill ask the board if there are any additional comments from the board.

Pg. 51 March 11, 2025 Zoning Meeting

RESOLUTION 25-0015 Michael Short made a motion TYPE IT SEQR

which was seconded by: Corrine Volo.

VOTE:

Mr. Short AYE

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Spampinato AYE

Mr. Prescott AYE

Mr, Centola AYE

Ok, do we want to make a single variance for each lot or a single motion for each lot or for...

leasing purposes.

(CORRINE VOLO)

There will be no undesirable change to the essential character of the neighborhood. This was

previously approved 2 similarly sized units, similar...just about the same location that they are in

right now, but the variances are needed only because there is now going to be a parcel dividing

line between them. There is no other remedy, there really is no other remedy in that they way that

the parcel is subdivided and the way the plan was originally designed this is the only location for

building 2 and the location of building 2 drives several of the variances that are requested. With

respect to significance, ] will say it is relatively insignificant as far as the individual variances

because they are within the parcel. They really do not apply to the area outside the parcel. It is

just within the development for the 2 apartment dwellings. Physical and environment conditions,

there will be no adverse environmental or physical conditions to the neighborhood or the district

as the construction will take into account any water remediation or run off and it was all previously

approved, I am just putting a dividing line down the center and while the difficulty is self-created

it is really not significant self-creation.

building spacing, any building spacing approved for lot | and for lot 2 but it’s the same singie

Pg. 52 March 11, 2025 Zoning Meeting

[

dimension between the two buildings. There really are not 7 different variances, 7 different

dimensions, it’s just because it’s 2 parcels.

RESOLUTION 25-0016

Corrine Volo made a motion for AREA

VARIANCE Located at 1025 Ravenside Lane.

Applicant Griffin Wiegel with is requesting AREA

VARIANCE to allow the following;

Lot 1 (079.15-1-8.003/SEN1)

20’ buffer area where a minimum of 50° is

required;

36’ between buildings where a minimum of 40” is

required;

20° front setback where a minimum of 75” is

required

Lot 2 (079.15-1-8.003/SEN2)

15’ buffer area where a minimum of 50” is

required;

36’ between buildings where a minimum of 40” is

required;

16’ front setback where a minimum of 75’ is

required;

1.85 parking spaces per unit where a minimum of

2 parking spaces per unit is required

on a 5.0-acre lot having SBL# 079.15-1-

8.003/SEN2 located in the MHR Medium High

Residential District under Section 350-14 of the

Code of the Town of Webster. which was seconded

by: Chris Centola.

application or the previous subdivision plan has approximately | parking spot per unit, so this is

less of an impact with respect to what is required per code in the previous one.

VOTE:

Mr. Short AYE

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Spampinato AYE

Mr. Prescott AYE

Mr. Centola AYE

Pg. 53 March 11, 2025 Zoning Meeting

CONDITIONS:

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

Building Permit.

e That one-year significant construction shall expire March 11, 2026

(Corrine Volo read into the record)

VARIANCES to allow the following:

e 11’ eastern side setback where a minimum of 15’ is required.

e 4’ western side setback where a minimum of 15° is required.

e 0° parking setback on the eastern and western sides of the property where 15’

minimum is required.

e Reconstruction of a nonconforming building as a second primary structure on a

single parcel where only (1) is allowed.

associated with the demolition of a pre-existing single-family dwelling and the

construction of a new cottage style, bay front dwelling on a 0.40-acre parcel having SBL#

063.09-1-39 located in the WD Waterfront Development District under Section 350-25

and 350-94 of the Code of the Town of Webster.

assumption that the majority of comments that we have are going to apply to

257. Kyle is it ok

if we talk about the 2 properties collectively or do we need to...or do we need to read it in together

or look at them....

keeping them separate so that the record ts clear.

253. Appearing before the board was....... Before I go into the application with a little bit of

background with myself Mark Fiore, my wife Angie is here, and my youngest son Matthew is

here and Joe one of our architects and Allen one of our other architects. Our family has lived in

Webster since I moved here from Utica in 1991. We lived over on Longview Drive for a number

of years and Barry Barone built us a beautiful home in 2006 and in 2012 Angie and I were driving

by this area, this sandbar and saw some properties for sale and immediately jumped on 2 of them.

We always felt that it was a unique and beautiful part of Webster that we loved J] mean, our front

yard is Lake Ontario and out backyard is Irondequoit Bay just a unique part of Webster. So, we

built out house down there in 2014 timeframe and I brought some pictures just so you can see the

type of work we done. There are 3 structures, and this is what the front looks like, and we could

pass this around if your interested and then I have a view from what the current view of the back

of the house looks like and what it use to look like as well.

Pg. 54 March 11, 2025 Zoning Meeting

Around 4 years ago, I think it was 3 or 4 years ago some more land...and that is why we are here

tonight for the sale of these 2 lots that we are talking about, and we purchased both of those lots

and then recently we purchased the lot that is next to that with all the white houses if you are

familiar with the area, it’s right across the street from Castaways. Our vision, our plan, is to do

what we came here tonight to do which is to do major overhauls and upgrades of all of the houses

on all of our properties and this project that we are talking about tonight was kind of the start of

that. We love the area, and we want to invest in the area, and we want to do some nice work

down there. So, we wanted to start with those two houses which we are here tonight for, and we

went into both of those houses and started looking at what are options are and quickly realized

that those houses really need a tremendous amount of work and probably need to come down and

we need to start over. So, we understand the challenge for you tonight is that we are asking is that

there will be 2 structures on one parcel on both of the applications of why we are here tonight.

The challenge for us is, we bought these parcels because there are two properties on each. We

still want to invest and we......the choices that we are faced with is we either attempt to fix them

up which we can’t...so we can’t kind of do the vision and then you are going to see the vision.

We actually have renderings of what we want to do. We can’t do them unless we tell them down

and by tearing them down I think it’s a win-win for everybody because we are actually going to

improve all the setbacks and not only that, with the invest that the town just did in the park down

there, if you are familiar with those areas, all those houses that I am talking about are right next

to the park so, you have this big beautiful park and then these structures that really old that need

to come down with new structures. I am going to hand it over to Joe to walk you through of what

we are trying to do as far as the application, but I thought it was important that you understand

our commitment to that area and a little bit of background.

Joe Toone with Architecture. (NEVER SIGNED IN) I am just going to follow up

a little bit on Mark’s description in regard to

253. Again, it is an existing structure. We have

done extensive investigations over the better part of the year. We have done some geotechnical

investigations out there; we have done some test pits to figure out what the structural adequacy

of the buildings are. 253 in particular is lacking a fair amount of footings on the buildings so we

have done multiple renovations in concepts for Mark, Angie, and Matt. They all basically

generated with

257. I know, we are kind of leaning across the lot line.

253 from a cost perspective to try and renovate and upgrade the structural integrity of 253 really

didn’t make cost sense so we tried to duplicated the 2 buildings from a cost perspective from 257

to 253 which is the rendering that you see there. (PLANS SHOWING ON SCREEN)

Our ultimate goal regarding the setback is to try and center the new structure with in the property

and increase the esthetics along the way to the water front. We tried to pull the building a little

further in particular to the other property but pull them away from the town park and leave them

Pg. 55 March 11, 2025 Zoning Meeting

as kind of a one story building from a height perspective and really generate a nice esthetic along

the lake front. In particular to....well, the existing setback on 253 I believe is around 10 feet on

the east side and around 5 feet on west. We are trying to bring them back to about | 1

feet on either side with the new footprint of the building and as Mark said, just trying to maintain

and ask for some relief to maintain the 2 structures on the single parcel.

with new DEC regulations. Have you obtained jurisdictional determination for DEC for these

parcels or

253. Joe Toone: We are going through the new process with the DEC. We have submitted it in

January. We are trying to get through their process and as part of this application one of the big

points is trying to get or asking the board to become lead agent as part of the SEQR . We did

receive a review letter from the DEC and one of their points ts to get SEQR and to get the board

to be lead agent to get DEC process moving and if Josh can possibly elaborate on their process

but before we get their approval, we would like the board to become lead agent. It’s part of their

new process.

doing it. Typically, the DEC evaluates from their perspective and once they have given the ok it

usually goes through the local approval process....

agency however for you to come to an ultimate conclusion, they have to go through the DEC’s

process... yeah, there is some working out to do.

until...again, myself and I don’t want to speak for all the board members here, but you know

DEC is definitely more qualified on wetlands and that side of things so...

approval.

are others as well, right. ] know Josh is trying to navigate that with them at this point and time so

from my perspective I am not willing to take that on today right, if we had guidance from DEC

and 1 am not going to say we are never going to be able to, I’m just not comfortable doing that

today.

Pg. 56 March 11, 2025 Zoning Meeting

be lead agent.

the Planning Board is not involved in this application correct.

with the Planning Board.

the intent to be lead agent. That does not mean you are making a determination on SEQR, you

are simply making yourself the lead agent and they you would presumably wait tll the DEC

issues there jurisdiction determination and until then issue that JD I would imagine that this board

would not act on or make a SEQR determination. When you get that information back and if you

feel that you are in a position to make a determination you could do so, but you would be unable

to grant any approvals on this application until that point and time.

can declare ourselves ...we can declare ourselves to become lead agencies, and that should

theatrically allow DEC to make a determination. Tonight, we would not make any type of

determination until we get the letter from DEC.

look into it. Do you know if it’s a TYPE J or UNLISTED.

2 residents on a single property. I know it’s existing. From my understanding there is no variances

that have been granted to residents on a single property for this parcel . Why do you need two

residents on a single property.

all 4 of the current properties are being rented out so il’s generating revenue. Are vision of that

is to and I would put it in three different categories. One is lo continue long time rentals and

generated revenue and number two is that we have a lot of family and friends that visit us and we

would love to create a location where we can have them stay and number three, Matt and his

older brother Coz get married and have family, our vision is this becomes a place and cottage

where they bring their families for the summer or different things and the multiple properties and

they way that they are structured really works well for that type of environment, for that type of

situation I should say and also I feel it kind of fits in with the area and with the designs that we

Pg. 57 March 11, 2025 Zoning Meeting

are going with. It kind of fits in to the whole look and feel of where the park is and how these

lots are laid out. If you look at the sandbar in general, there are huge houses going up right now

on tiny, tiny lots. So, if you look at the total square footage that what we are requesting on the

two lots...we actually did....did we submit that. Actually, as part of our application, submitted

like what are two lots to our square footage to the land it’s taking up compared to some of the

large houses on very small lots. So, we feel all of that, lke our vision and what we want and

invest and make it all look good for future use for family, all of that lends itself nicely to keeping

both structures on....you know, if we were faced with the fact that we couldn’t do that, we

couldn’t do the project to the level we want than we would probably just have to keep the

structures the way that they are.

type rentals.

on a single parcel either and you’ve lucked out. You own parcels that have multiple residents on

it and as soon as you tear it down, we go back to what the original code was. I don’t know if any

other parcels in that area that have multiple residents on it, ] guess is what it comes down to.

but it’s 3 unit family house and it’s right next door.

Chris Centolas (NOT CLOSE ENOUGH TO THE MIC AND SITTING WAY BACK IN

CHAIR...NOT VIEWING APPLICANT) My only concern is since they are tearing it down and

building a new one what’s to stop anyone else with lake front access.

multiple dwellings on your property since we already....if we allowed it how could you say no

to anyone else with the same situation.

building to be torn down and rebuilt and that is in the event of a fire in the dwelling, but it has to

be on the exact same footprint as the building that it is replacing and the one building you are

essentially doubling the square footage of the other one. It not quite as big but...

Pg. 58 March 11, 2025 Zoning Meeting

which really pretty similar to the existing foot print of that building with the exception of a little

(COULD NOT HEAR) on that side and it really came down to the economics of reconstructing

both buildings and having the cost efficiency of building 2 of the same. One on each parcel.

set but the only thing I would say in regards to that is when you talk about precedent, I have

looked in Webster and especially in that area and 1 don’t know of many situations that is like the

one were in where we purchased and there are 2 lots...2 residents sitting there and we are trying

to improve it (NOT CLOSE ENOUGH TO MIC) to my point, if you are familiar with the area

you know what all those houses down there look like and what we are faced with. If someone

like me who wants to invest in all of them and improve all the looks and the area; all the setbacks;

and ultimately it would be an improvement to that entire area and improvement to Webster.

in as well right...that’s what it comes down to. To Chris’s point it’s a precedent for lake front

and I can list off more than a dozen properties that are large enough that if they wanted to, they

could use this as a precedent to start putting multiple houses on their parcel. Take it away from

lake front area and you can start getting into areas within the town itself and they could start doing

it as well, Again, you lucked out that you have a parcel of an existing non-conforming condition

with buildings on it and I get the economics side of it. It’s easier and it’s cheaper and you are

going to end up with something that is significantly better but for us it sets a precedent.

there and what you have submitted I think looks great but the minute that you tear something

down, but saying we are rebuilding it close to it, you are kind of starting from square one. You

are also advantage you currently have by tearing it down and starting over. Like ]

said, if someone else and maybe they wouldn’t but if we do allow it there is nothing really we

can legally stand behind and say, well they had a special situation kind of deal because I don’t

know legally but it makes it a lot more difficult for us to say no even if it’s a bad project which ]

don’t think your is but I don’t know how we could put the breaks on having everyone think that

this is a good idea for you to do just because they have lake front property.

Michael! Short: Other questions | have for you. Utilities of these other....of these new builds.

Would they be sub metered from the main building or are they going to have separate meters. So,

separate utilities, water, and I am assuming this is septic.

crazy scenario. You know, anything that we touch on these existing buildings requires us to come

Pg. 59 March 11, 2025 Zoning Meeting

back here in front of this board if we needed to renovate being a nonconforming law. Putting a

deck or small addition requires us to come back here.

all that money into a building that ...for instance, that’s leaning 6 inches to the right and has no

foundations underneath it...putting that new structure on there has economic benefit for the

owner. That was kind of the direction that we were heading.

could not expand their house because of setbacks because of regulatory; foundations were not

there, they jacked up the building...I mean, there are ways around it is really what it comes down

to. Again, it comes down to cost is really what it comes down to. Um. Other questions from the

board.

go through for you, you did basically say that you were going to keep the 4 structures that are on

there and call it a day.

Since there is no one who would like to speak I will bring it back to the board.

for. So, I think that is part of our application

a copy of it.

jurisdiction determination, so it is this board comfortable declaring it’s intent to become lead

agency for this. This is a discussion.

so it’s up to us. We don’t want to be part of the loop that is going to continue if we don’t make

that decision so as long as we are not putting ourselves in any type of legal holding pattern where

we declare our intent without actually voting on SEQR.

Pg.60 March 11, 2025 Zoning Meeting

SPEAKING LOUD ENOUGH) If this board decides to classify the action and then declare your

intent for lead agency at that point the review of this application would end until the DEC issues

there’s jurisdictional determination and that would come back to the board to complete the SEQR

analysis.

which I am not really concerned about the offsets. It’s about the double residents on one lot so

what is the feeling of this board for double residents. Do we even want to go down the discussion

of declaring intent.

rebuilt it’s been at little cottage or a little shack and then it becomes a much larger version of

something um, and the board has always accommodated anything down there needs setback;

height accommodations and there are no basements and then it ends up being tall but as soon as

one YES is given then there is a series that come in afterward. I know there is 2 there now but if

we allow the 2 to be torn down and rebuilt...esthetically they will look better but once we do.......

that happened either before this board, not the people on the board but before this board was

really granting anything or it was just built without you know, proper variances at the time right,

so right now is a pre-existing. I think what you are saying is as soon as this board grants it, IF we

were to grant it then it sets that precedent even though there are additional residents on that parcel.

Is that correct.

intent is to drive everything to conform where it makes sense. I don’t know the right answer, but

I have sat in this chair long enough to understand that as soon as you tip your toe in the water you

end up falling in.

approve that. We can bul we can’t cause of precedent.

gales do we eventually open up. So, you kind of hear what the board is saying, we can go through

Pg.61 March 11, 2025 Zoning Meeting

the formal vote on it, and I am not speaking for the board but based on what I am hearing, it’s not

going to go in your favor. That would require you, that basically stops this application and then

you wouldn’t be able to reapply 6 months without meaningful changes. Is it 6 months or | year.

the application. I don’t know how at the end of day, I look at it and say renovation is properly

the only was holding the option. Again, I get the financials, I get all that side of things but than

you would have the opportunity to come back to us with a renovation with a deck or other things

that this board may consider at that point and time. I will leave it up to you if you would prefer

to rescind it or prefer for this board to vote on it.

quandre not only of the 2 dwelling units the DEC has also been the quadrium so even if we were

ask to table it and make the revision and come back to this board with the renovations that we

want to do, I still need this DEC thing.

intent of becoming lead agency for this project.

bring a renovation scenario to you.

application as presented and I don’t know if there is a conceivable way in which the application

would change that would change the classification but that is theoretically a possibility,

discussing 2 dwelling units and a conditional approval for a pre-existing non-conforming

condition in that scenario as well because I don’t think we have that answer.

on it which we have to come here anyways, am [ having the same discussion with this board to

have approval to have the 2 dwellings units on a single property.

Pg. 62 March 11, 2025 Zoning Meeting

it is the same conversation. Any of the parcels along there that have added decks, encroached

into the setback or added an entrance way or whatever. Yes, you still have to come to the board

for that.

(EVERYONE TALKING AT THE SAME TIME)

it’s removing them and putting up 2 brand new ones. I know you have it but...and it’s really not

your application as much as what happens down the road everybody else see’s it....Oh, I can put

up another dwelling because they did it. I think as a board we really don’t want to set that

precedent for what you really have is a unique situation.

what I’ve heard and Josh and Kyle correct me if I’m wrong, those residents that are currently

there they are pre-existing non-conforming residents per our code. If you are renovating them,

we will not be having a discussion of hey you have 2 residents on that property. We will be

discussing, oh you want to put a deck and then we are going to go through the whole process of

you know, how does it affect the neighborhood so that discussion will occur but not, hey there

are 2 residents on the property do we even allow a deck.

up and stick a foundation under it, does the applicant need to come before this board or is that

strictly the building department or do they still have to come before this board because the DEC

has now added a little extra drama into it.

lifting it up with no changes to the footprint. (DIDN’T HEAR WHAT CORRINE SAID

BECAUE THEY WERE SPEAKING AT THE SAME TIME) but because it is within proximity

of the bay, and it is under jurisdiction of the DEC they would need to be involved in it.

(BOARD MEMBERS HAVING THEIR OWN DISCUSSIONS AND IT’S HARD TO HEAR

WHAT IS BEING SAID)

we built the house, we showed you (BOARD MEMBERS HAVING CONVERSATION WHILE

APPLICANT IS SPEAKING) DEC and received all the proper approvals and we came to you

and we built our house and now it’s changed in January and [ am not understanding like....what

my concern is we go back to the drawing board; we look at enhancements and we come back

Pg. 63 March 11, 2025 Zoning Meeting

before you with modifications we want to do with current structures that are there but than after

that, I] spend all this money to do this all over again and we go to the DEC and the DEC has a

problem with something. Like how do I get approval! or know the next steps I should take so that

I am not just spinning my wheels.

component of it right and I understand your quadrium right so. This is all brand new. It started

in January so your going through it....we are going through it....the town is going through it. We

are all trying to figure it out but Kyle to your point, the determination would be for the application

as is. We could do an amendment after the fact, right. To be able to get the determination for

DEC. I don’t know, would DEC’s determination... DEC’s determination doesn’t matter if it’s a

10 X 10 or if it’s a 5,000 sq ft.

10 or 50 X 50 it’s within that wetland they are probably not going to sign off on it.

definition but if there is a wetland with the required buffer ..........

parcels are within the buffer.

actually on the towns Sandbar Park parcel, so if it is deemed to ultimately be a wetland then there

would be a 100 foot buffer that would apply and that would likely affect

257. Corrine Volo: Actually, both of them. (CORRINE AND CHRIS SPEAKING AT THE SAME

TIME)

make them move it because it’s already there.

Irondequoit’s Bay classification and the entire bay is classified as a Class I wetland so anything

along the waterfront requires permitting from the DEC anyway it’s jut this additional question

Pg. 64 March 11, 2025 Zoning Meeting

that has now come up with new maps and the new regulations and a different process.

the whole lot had to be elevated by 2 or 3 feet based on the new calculated new safe level. How

does that impact....especially if you are going to jack it up and put a foundation under it how

does that impact it elevation wise.

flood level of Irondequoit Bay so neither of these properties are within the floodplain. So,

elevation is not a factor in this case.

for the DEC work related to the properties maybe. That would be the amendment I would say.

That you might be able to issue without taking action on.

type of SEQR and then we have to...and that’s based on the current application. So. the one way

around that is we do that and move forward with it as it is currently and then at a later time, we

make an amendment to that SEQR to look at a different determination. I have done that on my

larger projects.

the determination on being unlisted, based on the current application and as soon as the

application changes, there needs to be an amendment to the SEQR.

are al the first stage with the DEC, so you apply for a parcel JD not a project.

amend it later on that would at least....they have no idea whether the DEC is going to kill their

project or not. So, at least we can let them proceed with knowing whether or not they can do it

and if they can’t come back and say we have amended the project can you amend that. I was

assuming that would still be legal.

date if they are going to make wholesale changes.

ACTION does it require a coordinated review and if so, how would we be sending off plans that

we don’t have that don’t reflect that.

Pg. 65 March 1!, 2025 Zoning Meeting

already have them to the DEC that would be one of the interested agency’s and it wouldn’t truly

reflect what I think ultimately would be proposed. So, I think that is another potential issue with

moving forward or with the SEQR at this point when the board...... we don’t physically have the

plans that would be associated with the ultimate end goal.

on architects and trying to get stuff done and the plans that you have are very nice plans. To help

us along, you know, if we lose the renderings or lose the floor plans, you have the existing

footprint of the buildings....... If we could get essentially the site plan with the existing buildings

and if your doing a deck or if you are doing something along those lines identify that on there

and then at the next meeting, we would be able to then move forward with that determination in

hopes of keeping the cost down for you is what I am trying to get to. The SEQR process....Josh

is right. We would then theoretically have to take the plans that we have here and send them over

and if the plans are wrong, I guess we could theoretically send them but now the coordinated

review is also wrong and then....we are either delaying it now or delaying it later right...... It’s

really what it comes down to because then we would be delaying getting DEC’s approval because

then we’d have to send them an amendment for that as well. 1 don’t....1 mean, my

preference....that would be my preference is to have you make minor, you know not minor

adjustments but make the adjustments to the site plan take off the renderings and take off a lot of

the other stuff. Get us that so that at the next meeting we can declare our intent and we then can

do the coordinated review for the unlisted and then we can move forward from that point. E know

your going to lose 4 weeks if I get that. That is my perspective. That is the best way I see us

moving forward.

coordinated review at that point.

tremendous amounts of thought. The way those houses are it’s not just a deck.

to raise the house, what is it going to cost to put in the foundation without even knowing if the

DEC is going to have a problem with this. I’ve been through this, and this is my second set of

designs already and this was supposed to be the start of a much bigger investment in that whole

area and now that I understand kind of the town’s position, we need to rethink this as a family.

So, I understand what you want from us, I just don’t know if that is the direction I want to go.

Pg. 66 March 11, 2025 Zoning Meeting

regardless moving forward with much of anything that you are going to do there so...

understand the new law.

it was January 14" and they didn’t have anyone at the division 8 location that could take my

submissions, so I have to resubmit.

RESOLUTION 25-0013 Michael Short made a motion APPLICANT

REQUESTED TO RESCIND BOTH

APPLICATION OF 253 & 257 LAKE ROAD.

which was seconded by: Chris Centola

VOTE:

Mr. Short AYE

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Spampinato AYE

Mr. Prescott AYE

Mr. Centola AYE

VARIANCE to allow the following:

© 11? eastern side setback where a minimum of 15” is required

e 4’ western side setback where a minimum of 15' is required

e 0’ parking setback on the eastern and western sides of the property where 15’

minimum is required

e Reconstruction of a nonconforming building as a second primary structure on a

single parcel where only (1) is permitted.

associated with the demolition of a pre-existing single-family dwelling and construction

of a new cottage style, bay front dwelling on a 0.25-acre parcel having SBL# 063.09-1-

38 located in the WD Waterfront Development District under Section 350-25 and 350-94

of the Code of the Town of Webster.

Pg. 67 March 11, 2025 Zoning Meeting

ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM:

e Approve meeting minutes for January 14, 2025 (Volo/Centola) February 11, 2025

(Volo/Short)

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

meeting at 9:00 p.m,

a i NES

Corrine Volo, Secretary

Katherine Kolich, Recording Secretary epee ee

V@wunoIl. Maw

Pg. 68 March 11, 2025 Zoning Meeting