Video recording

captions Language: en of is it six items um on the agenda for tonight um I have the proof of legal publication for all the items here uh call for your attendance Mr short here Mrs Volo here Mr lagner oh I'm sorry gone yeah Mr spanada here Mr Prescott here Mr Canta here these are M Cory here Mr artuso here Mr Taylor here all right if we can all stand for the Pledge of Allegiance Pledge aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all all right um get into our our first item uh 1822 Lake Road uh solar project come on up located at 1822 Lake Road applicant Steve mes Shi meljac meljac sorry about that requested an area variance to allow a front setback of 59.7 Ft or 75 ft is required associated with the installation of a 24.5 76 kwatt AC ground mounted solar PV system on a 5.0 acre parcel having SPL number 08 037.0 3-1 d331 located in an LL large lot single family residential district under section 35-13 of the code of the town of Webster how's it going you were here uh a couple months ago if I remember correctly uh the project was approved the homeowners have since decided they just want to move the location um the number of is the same um the only thing that is changing is it's going to be instead of one long array two shorter ones um but other than that everything's the same okay um how far so previously again it was previously in the front yard um but that was all that you guys were asking for was a variance to have it in the front yard again correct this property is is set back uh how close um is it to the nearest Residence I would say at least 500t okay um any other reasons for moving it or I mean what was their reasoning um it's just a little more hidden where it is now where where they want to put it hidden from their residence yeah gotcha okay other questions that the board may have no it it actually looks like it's more hidden from anybody that's around now it's tucked more within the tree line yeah except I think there's a road or driveway off on the um is at the right side to theast as well yeah to the east um it looks like it'll be with behind the tree line but hard to well you're keeping it what 50 is it 59 ft off of 15t uh the property line is that yeah front edge I had it here somewhere 59.7 59.7 yeah any other questions from the board no no okay all right um with that I guess I'll open up to the public if there's anybody that wants to speak for or against this project no uh we'll bring it back to the board for final discussion from the board being that there really was no discussion before I'm assuming there is no additional all right um vote on uh Seeker I'd like to make a motion for a type two action under Seeker pursuant to nycrr section 61 7.5 of the environmental code second all those in favor I I I okay um so to go through the findings I know Chris or Karen you want to go through the findings on this one sure second since it was was approved previously for the same array just a different location can we adopt the findings from the previous meeting I I would put new findings on the record okay thank you it was it was approved only for the front installation of the solar in the front yard so we are now approving it for the setback within the setbacks okay so different different reason okay um the application uh will present no uh undesirable change in the essential character the of the overall neighborhood uh although it is self-created based on the size of the lot and the configuration of the array I believe it uh is a good remedy to to the uh for a solution to put to install a solar array uh the uh request is not substantial based on the size and location uh the application uh will not have an adverse impact of the physical environmental conditions in the neighborhood or the general area of the town and that was because I went out of order and that's it yeah anybody else want to add anything else me there's no uh the nearest Residence is is quite a bit of distance away there's really no residents that is going to be able to to see this uh solar array uh where where it is going to be placed either so again there's there's really no um no undesirable change or effect any um surrounding properties either right it's 1300 feet from Lake Road and over 500 feet from the nearest Residence so yep and it's heavily wooded okay um see I guess um make a motion um so um like to make a motion for uh the variance of the uh front setback of or was it 59.7 ft uh from the front uh front property line make sure I got got that right 59.7 ft from the front property line for a new solar array um located at um here it is uh located at 1822 Lake Road um where a 75t uh setback is required associated with the installation of a roughly 25 kwatt ground mounted solar PV on a 5 acre parcel having SPL 037.0 3-1 D31 33-1 um located in a large uh lot single family resident uh under code section code second Mr short hi Mrs Volo hi Mr Prescott hi Mr spanin hi Mr CA hi you have uh from the last meeting you have the variance for the front yard for this meeting you have uh the variance for a 49.7 ft um uh offset front property offset uh you have one year to complete the project uh I believe you still need a building permit for this correct Josh no no okay all right so good luck all right thank you thank you uh next up uh 256 Birch Lane if uh we leave uh Robert matusi M masuchi all right located at 256 Birch Lane applicant Robert masuchi is requesting an area variance to allow a 48 foot front setback or 50 ft as required associated with the construction of a 12x 34t proximately 48 ft addition to a single family dwelling on A52 acre parcel having SPL number 41-58 located in an R2 single family residential district under section 350-1 of the code of the town of Webster tell us about your project so we're looking at doing a addition across the front um our address 256 Birch our driveway is on the Shorewood side so the addition would be actually an 8ft addition uh lengthwise 34 1/2 ft and then a 4ft porch added on so a total of 12T coming off the house which goes into the setback approximately 2 feet so we're seeking a variance on the setback across the front long Shorewood Drive where it's supposed to be 50 ft and we're looking for uh for we would be at 48.7 FT okay questions from the board I had an opportunity to to drive by um I mean the end of the day that the the hand sketches that you provided were very helpful to you know understand what you were looking to do um I didn't see any any detriment or anything for surrounding areas uh did you look at other did you look at other opportunities for doing the addition other than just the front the way the house is set up inside that allows us the most lot amount of living space and living room kitchen area the back half of the house is all bedrooms and bathrooms so living wise for living space the front is the only area you could actually uh extend for the addition okay very good other question any question any other questions or anything from the board no it was no okay pretty straightforward anybody want to speak for or against this project from the public no all right um being that the board didn't have any comments I'll bring it back and ask if the board has any additional comments I'm assuming the answer is no okay um I'd like to make a motion for a type two Seeker action under uh or type two action under Seeker pursuant to nycrr section 61 7.5 of the environmental code second all those in favor I um I can run through the findings you'd like there will be no change 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 um shwood Drive side and is not going to look out of place based on location of where the house is and the location um of the addition the benefit cannot be sought by any other feasible method the any other location to add the addition to the house would not give the appropriate addition to the interior living space of the house um the request is relatively insignificant it's slightly over a foot into the setback that's required and um from driving by or being Within the neighborhood it won't look like it doesn't belong within the it won't look like the set setb is inappropriate um no inverse environmental or physical conditions um it will not have any impact on line of sight from walking or driving routes and we look in place and um I'll say it's not self-created and that the house was placed previously to this applicant owning the property um and it really is the only way that you can add a porch and also some additional living space to it all right anybody else want to add anything no all right um like to make a a motion to Grant uh Grant the variance for uh a setback a front I guess that would be the front setback of 48.7 Ft for uh 256 Bir Lane um we're calling it 40 48 40 oh we're calling 48 okay we're calling 48 ft uh sorry I'd like to uh make a motion to Grant a 48t setback uh at 256 Birch Lane or Birch Lane uh where 60 is required associated with the construction of a 12x 34 uh addition to a single family dwelling um having SP 0 63.1 41-58 located in an R2 family resident residential district under Section 350-1 second Mr short hi Mr Santa hi Mr Vol hi Mr Prescot Mr span hi you have your uh variance for uh the front setback of your property um you have one year uh to complete the project you do need to obtain uh the building permit as well yes so thank you thank you have a good night you too next up um let's see 478 Lake View Terrace right located at 478 Lake View Terrace applicant Anthony adavani is requesting area variances to allow a front yard setback of 39.7 ft where 75 ft is required and a sidey yard setback of 10 ft where 20 ft is required associated with the construction of a one-story single family dwelling with an attached garage and a25 acre parcel having SPL number 0481 19-2365 d10 of the code of the town of Webster how you doing good good evening my name is Brian White from McMan the r Associates I'm here tonight with Anthony applicant and owner of 478 Lake View Terrace um we're proposing to construct a uh three-bedroom two-car garage single family dwelling on the parcel that's currently vacant um this parcel is unique that it's non-conforming dimensionally with the zoning code code requires uh the the parcel is currently a quarter acre um and provides minimum setback requirements the side setbacks required by code are 20 fet and the front setback 70 um what we have proposed is requesting front setback of 39.5 ft and side setback of 10 um I think that this is uh similar to the character of the neighborhood uh this property will be serviced by a septic system which will be located on the northly side of the parcel so we have moved the parcel or I'm sorry we've moved the dwelling forward to accommodate the septic system in the rear yard we have aligned our front most southernly garage corner with the front house corner of the next parcel to the east um in reviewing the town code uh minimum coverage requirement is 20% although the uh parcel area is non-conforming um we do fall at 16.8% coverage below the 20% maximum allowed on the parcel that includes the dwelling attached garage and covered porch altogether the total area for that is uh 1766 Square ft approximately so understanding that this parcel is you know nonconforming uh we have made an effort to minimize our variance quests originally we reviewed having the garage on the easterly side of the parcel in line with the dwelling which would be a frontload garage we have moved the garage forward to um increase our side setback and be sensitive to the easterly and Westerly neighbors available to answer any questions you may have the uh the plan that you provide you you were mentioning the septic the plan that you provide does not indicate where the septic is do you have approval from Department of Health for septic at this point we do not at this point uh we're actually going to be running tests tomorrow on the site um we anticipate that those are going to run smoothly and have a conventional system um our initial soil data indicates that there's a lot of sand so I don't anticipate um any issues with that but we'll have more information on that tomorrow okay other questions from the board if it didn't pass would you uh go to a raise fill system in the same location we would um our Engineers would work with that I know that there's uh setback requirements for a raise fill system um but we're anticipating that it'll be a conventional system 10 foot setbacks do we have do I mean do we have do you have the required setbacks on this property for a raised Bill system uh In Mono County they're typically 100 fet so that would be something that would be no no we would have to work with the health department on that okay um any discussions with utilities or any of the other um occurred at this point we haven't um Dove too far into the design at this point uh there is uh public water available um as well as overhead electric I believe and then we'll have on-site septic okay uh and as you mentioned you know so as of right now we're you're indicting just a single family sing uh single family one story dwelling you know you've outlined kind of the dimensions of the footprint of this um is there a design that was created for this by any chance there there are architecturals um at this point you know we don't have those available tonight um but we can um certainly provide those um you know again we've shifted our garage alignment to increase the side setback requirement from you know originally it would have been 5T sure we've been able to increase that to 10 okay other questions from the board no we had a um another parcel I can't tell you how many like maybe 2015 or so another parcel within this street similar size similar size house that also had the 10-ft side setback so it's consistent with the most recent new builds in that area um okay um that I guess I'll open up to uh anybody wants speak for against the project come on up please state your name clearly in your in the mic uh when you get up there please state your name clearly and uh your address uh and just as a reminder we have a five minute uh limit for public speaking U my name is Sandra cluth we live at 480 Lake View Terrace which is exactly um next door east of the 478 Lake View Terrace that he that Mr anani wants to build on and I have four different items and I did put them online Forum so I'll just read them in the time um number one for the discussion with the owner his intention is to construct a 1300 to 1400t home with an all electric service and hva system for my discussion with Tom at the Energy Services Department of Rochester Gas and Electric he needs to have one of their Engineers consider whether the electrical Grid in our area will support the construction our neighborhood is at the end of the line on this this grid we already have issues with neighborhood flickering lights dimming lights Etc so this would be more noticeable with the new home has this been done and is it possible to receive a copy of the engineers report as a side note I have a standalone generator um a standby generator rather and since December 1st of 2023 until September 8th of 2024 there have been eight incidences where because of the electrical draw on the grid it is below the tolerances of rg& my standby generator has come on the only way I can resolve it is to shut it off until the peak has changed the second item there are no elevation drawings on the website per discussion again with the owner last week he said there would be no windows on the east side of this new home or garage and um that would be a consideration for privacy so elevation drawings would help because I have no idea what he's going to build number three he also indicated he would plant a number of large shrubs or tall arborite on the Eastern property line to create more Prof privacy for us as well as for the buyers of this home they're not shown on the drawings and what recourse do we have if this isn't done number four the demographics are such that a more more empty nesters and single adults are purchasing homes on our street would it make more sense to build a two-bedroom two bath single level Bungalow with attached garage and upgraded finishes in the 1100 to 1200 square foot range it would the side setback would then be more in the 15 to 20t range which is the requirement for an R1 residential area he would still succeed seed in a good return on investment and it might not impact the surrounding neighborhood as as much thank you I don't know if you have any other questions one thing I would like to say is that um he's clear cuted the whole lot but um the people that did the tree work not only were they very professional and courteous there was no mess on our property and I appreciate that I Surly do but I also think that the pro the size of the home that proposes is much too large for that little area I thank you kindly thank you is there anybody else that wants to speak for against this property no come on May I say a couple words yeah it's your application yeah I just wanted to uh reiterate um to my neighbors concern this project is the second of our uh roll out and it's carbon friendly affordable housing and we our first initial launch was in East Rochester where we had a 1300t house all electric our setbacks were 7 fet on each side um we were able to put the house in and without disrupting either side of our neighbors we when we come into a scenario like we're 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 uh concerns and when we meet with the engineers we have that same discussion so that we're not disruptive or coming in as a bowl in a china shop we want to be a good neighbor this project on a whole um is all electric but in that all electric vein it's all LED it's all high efficiency it's cold climate heat pumps the premise behind the electricity in the portion of this project is so that we can reduce our energy fill and we're not running a gas line to this property this will be a carbon free house that we're building um our initial lot uh sizeer we talked about when I had spoken with the neighbor we weren't sure how big the fac the house was going to be because we wanted to just get a general variance before we went through an archit text drawing so we initially said possibly 1,500 square ft um as we evaluated everything we're probably in the, 1400 sqare foot near um neighborhood and we did uh I did listen to my neighbor and did Express that I would put arbores with no windows on her side because of the setbacks being so small we want to be a good neighbor so we said we would do that I have no quals whatsoever we put that in our permit uh I whatever we have to do again uh we're trying to uh work with everybody in this house will fit the neighborhood perfectly um it's right in line with everything that's going on that's all I have you spoken with anybody from RG concerning how you're building this home not all doesn't happen all the time well no I haven't spoken with anybody directly for this location because of our electric usage we're actually using less than the typical home so we don't really get that calculation we we have it once we start building when they come in and they start discussing what lines we're going to run then we have the calculations given to our jny but at this point I can tell you that our usage is no more than a standard home right but what can you say to address her concern your neighbor's concerns that uh there the electrical GD is already uh should I say stressed or appears to be at its maximum usage even adding one that's very efficient is still drawing more Off the Grid I I would say that the neighborhood then has a major problem because if we're going to add one house to this neighborhood and it's insufficient now we should be having the conversation maybe with RJ up the whole area because I know that there's a couple of houses that are going down the road that are going to be adding in as well so I would say that I will reach out to rg& um but I find it a little challenging to say that one house will be the downfall of a whole neighborhood and that being said I will investigate I will do my due diligence and present anything that is required to facilitate this permit thank you any other questions comments from the board no Ken no it was just looking at the rest of the neighborhood just to get a feel for it okay um ma'am quick question for you um I I heard your neighbor indicating here in this meeting no windows on the east side arbores on the east side um the other concerns that you raised rg& that thatfor unfortunately is not this board's uh purview to to determine that is uh his engineer and rg's perview to to make the determination um would would having the you know us making making a determination and putting th those contingencies on um it sounded like that left you uh provide you with some level of comfort to your point we don't have elevation but at the end of the day I know it's going to be a one story we know what the set back is and if he ends up you know if we end up indicating okay no windows and ARB provides on the east east side does that does that address at least as many issues I'm sorry andv sure are many sure thank you um with that um any other questions from the board no okay no all right that um like to make a motion for a type two action oh sorry uh public hearing is closed um like to make a motion for a type two action under Seeker pursuant nycrr section 61 7.5 of the environmental code second all those in favor I I um Ken Chris anybody want to make the sure uh based on uh existing overall neighborhood characteristics the application will not have an undesirable change in the essential character of of the neighborhood or the area um based on the existing locked configuration there is no other remedy uh other than the variances to get the size house he feels he needs to put up there within the lot that uh is existing uh the requested variance is not substantial uh based on the uh the setbacks he's proposing uh the uh the application will have uh will not have any physical environmental uh adverse effects on on any uh the existing environment in the neighborhood and uh based on the lot size and the need to get a house on there the uh the application isn't entirely self-created anybody else want to add to that no no all right um with that I'd like to uh make a motion to Grant the uh for for 478 Lake Terrace um an area variance to allow a front yard setback of 39.7 uh and a side yard setback of 10 ft uh associated with the construction of a one-story single family dwelling with an attached garage on 0.25 acre parcel having 0481 9-2 d36 located in R1 single family residential district um with with no windows on the east east side thank you that's what I was trying to remember on the east side uh and arbiv planted along the east uh property line of of the property um under Section 310 uh 350-10 of the code of Webster and do we limit the building box of the house that it cannot be any larger than what is shown actually he said he might even go down to 1400 so so this is is is 1366 well plus the garage right plus the garage so the the um the placement of the house and garage would not be any further forward than the uh I think it's the property on the East if I remember correctly yes right um and the residence itself will not be any larger than what is shown on the plans dated provided to the provided to the zoning board uh where is the date dated February 17th thank you dated February 17th of 2025 can we be a little more specific in for the plantings and just a stagger row to be equal to the depth of the the garage staggered row of Arbor uh to be equal to the depth or width of the of the garage along these property line I'm going to have to start this all over I think um I'm just trying to make sure that she gets the screening that she's envisioning versus planning three Arbor Bings not that he would but sure potentially giving giving it a little more teeth that that will force him to do what the neighbor is anticipating say it again what you what you are proposing a d a staggered row of Arbor to be at a minimum the distance of the depth of the garage for what the length of the house from from the back of the house to the garage is that what we well that's what I'm saying Yeah okay or for the length of the property I'm just saying for the at least the garage the house right the Le the house right got okay did you hear that and do you agree I mean would you agree to that yeah we would so so we would plant them from one the garage corner to the end of the house is what we're saying arbores correct Stagg mine or you want stagger okay we're just trying to make it uh a little a little quicker for it to fill in so our our our rites grow pretty quick yeah I mean it's it's okay thank you all right I'll try and remember this and and do it again um sorry mik it's all right any is there anything else before I I I move forward no okay uh I make a motion to Grant a variance uh for 478 Lake Terrace uh for a front yard front yard setback of 39.7 fet and a sidey yard setback of 10 ft uh with the construction of a single story uh no larger than what is identified on the plans dated February 14th was it 17th February 17th of 2025 the plans that were provided to the zoning board um the placement of the house shall not be any further um I guess South uh than it's adjacent uh neighbor um uh where am I um along with uh no windows on the east side and staggered Arbor vies uh on the East property line uh along the the garage and uh home uh residence itself um having a number 048 1 19-2 d36 located in R1 uh single family residents uh District under Section 350-10 second Mr short hi Mrs Volo hi Mr Prescot hi mran hi Mr s hi all right you have uh your variance for uh single story residents uh you have one year for completion you still need to obtain a building permit okay thank you thank you all right uh next up uh Cobblestone Place phase two all right located at 1025 ravenside Lane applicant Griffin Weagle of p p for realy is requesting area variances to allow the following for lot one 20 ft a 20ft buffer area where a minimum of 50 ft is required a 36t distance between buildings where a minimum of 40 ft is required 20ft front setback where a minimum of 75 ft is required and on lot two a 16t buffer area where a minimum of 50 ft is required 36 ft between buildings where a minimum of 40 ft is required 16t front setback where a minimum of 75 ft is required 1.85 parking spaces per unit where a minimum of two parking spaces per unit is required and a zot parking setback for a minimum of 50 ft is required in association with the construction of a 47 unit apartment building and a 5.0 acre parcel having SPL number 0 79.1 15-1 d8.3 dsn2 located in an mhr medium high residential district under section 350-1 14 of the code of the town of Webster all right give us a run down on Project yep uh good evening my name is j keles I'm with uh Marathon engineering and to start off I'll give you more of a background of the entire property it'll hopefully it sounds like a lot of variances but it should make a little bit more sense um in roughly 2014 2015 pasero did a I guess we'll call it an overall design of two um 60 unit uh senior living facilities and they did the full design for what we'll call phase one which is the existing lot that was um approved by I believe both variance uh board and the planning board roughly around 2015 and then built I think soon thereafter um they did not get um grant funding or funding for phase two so that's kind of why we're at where we are where we have the existing facility which would be to the I guess we'll call it Northwest here and then this is our proposed building to the um Southeast there was a tax parcel line created um that kind of divides the two the properties uh into two five Acre Properties and that um that was completed in for a tax line but did not actually be completed to be subdivided so we have been to the planning board for a sketch plan review and then in our process of what we thought we're going to go to the planning board for more of a detailed design we found out it wasn't subdivided so we've submitted to the planning board for subdivision and then now because of the subdivision um we are now going to have some variances for the existing lot as well as for our lot to um complete the the project um and I think yeah so we're on um if if we do get um variance approval tonight we'll then go to planning board um for subdivision uh hopefully by the April meeting and then soon thereafter we'll start our full design of of architectural and site design okay questions from the board yes is this essentially the same plan that was approved in 2015 just a different developer now of lat two yes so I guess yeah you make a really good point so um the building layout is just about the same they did full design for phase one which is existing right and they included the storm water facility so all storm waterers already accounted for designed for they did not do the excuse me the site design for phase two and that's where we're taking over and we're proposing a 47 unit um facility that is not senior Liv living it's going to be um for general for anyone kin you was phase one and Phase 2 approved back in 15 do you recall yes it was approved as a single 10 acre parcel okay um so the setbacks and the buffers within within the interior of the two is not required um but the same essential layout as what's on here right now just instead of a 60 apartment Bill a 60 unit building it's now a 47 unit building yep but but notor dimensionally it's I won't say identical because I don't remember but it looked similar so I'm going to ask you is it identical to the 2015 the uh the footprint uh is identical as they just had a a very similar block on the site plan we've probably shifted a couple feet left or right but generally it is laid out the same and um so kind of the go back to the um the variances for the existing lot those were all I don't want to say variances that were going to occur when the property was eventually subdivided but that is uh the 20 foot was what was planned for the pass row design for phase one right um as well as the uh the buffer the the one that uh has slightly changed is the 36 feet to 40 ft and that was just because we've started a more detailed design of the phase 2 architectural plan okay and that that kind of takes care of the existing lot um variances and then to go to our proposed lot variances um the 16t is going to be off of the newly created um uh subdivision line that will be 16 ft off of the building Corner that's dimension 16.3 on the plans that I have uh yep correct yep and then the 36 is just the mirror of the variances because the two buildings we need them for both Lots yep um as well as the 16t is also kind of the buffer area to the front um I know with this property front is a very interesting term of trying to figure out what the front is so that's why we went and just said kind of the front of the building would be to the front property line um going back here wrong one and and then the variance for parking spaces were um going for 1.85 so that is including the um parking lot up here parking lot back here as well as 10 garage spaces that are going to be for um residents so that includes the the 10 parking the 10 garage spaces correct yep correct so what is it without the garage spaces then o uh so it's it'd be what is it 87 it be 77 there's 10 10 garage spaces and then the final variance uh would be the zero feet parking setback that was that's identical to the passero plans excuse me we haven't changed where that parking lot was going to be so if it was a fac a a senior facility or what we're proposing there would still be parking along that what was a tax pars line which we would we need to see it as a um subdivision line you said it's 45 units is that right uh 47 47 units um any discussions with the I mean I don't know what the relation of the developer of this site versus the owner of the um the senior living site to you know that you guys are going to be joining yeah so uh Conifer has actually we initially submitted two separate applications and the town helped us out and told us that we should just submit one with the correct way so thank you again for that for that help but um yes there uh Conifer and Brickwood um Brickwood is who we're representing Conifer is who owns a existing facility they're in talks and they um that yes so there's no objection from n from them at this point okay other questions from the board oh we're quiet we're quiet today um all right uh um I'll open it up to uh the public if anybody wants to speak for or against this project no all right bring it back to the board since uh I'll ask the board if there's any additional comments from the board I'm assuming it's no I have none okay uh I'd like to make a motion for a type two action under Seeker pursuant to uh nycrr section 61 7.5 of the environmental code second all those in favor I I um findings your turn let me find [Applause] your officially reach the two on my desk um all right I do we want to make a single variance for each lot or for or a single motion for each lot or for I for the entire application is the way I would do for the entire application of the way two different tax Parcels I don't know what will be easier for you to find in the future when someone asks um technically it is still a singular tax parcel that just has a different identification at the end for leasing purposes okay so we'll keep it iing recommend keeping it together all right um there will be no un no undesirable change to the essential character of the neighborhood um this was previously approved as two two similarly sized units um similar just about the same location that they're in right now um but the the variances are needed only because there's now going to be a a paral dividing line between them um no other remedy there is really no other remedy in that the way the parcel is subdivided and the way the plan was originally designed um this is the only location for building two and the location of building two drives several of the variances that are requested um with respect to significance I'll say It's relatively insignificant as far as the individual variances because they are within the parcel they do not really apply to the area outside of the parcel it's just within the development of the two apartment dwellings um physical and environmental conditions there will be no adverse environmental or physical conditions to the neighborhood or the district is the construction has taken into account or will take into account um any um water remediation or runoff um and it was all previously approved it's just now I'm just putting a dividing line down the center and um while the difficulty is self-created um it's really not as significant self- creation anything else I think you covered it all I'll ask anybody else if anybody else wants to add anything um I will note that the variances requested um they're essentially the same I need like building spacing I need building spacing approved for lot one and for lot two but it's the same single Dimension between the two buildings it's not there really are not seven different variances seven different dimensions it's just because it's two Parcels if that makes all right so with that I will make a motion to Grant area variances for phase two of cobblestone Place located at 1025 ravenside Lane variances for lot one shall be a 20ft buffer area where a minimum of 50 is required a 36t distance between buildings where a minimum of 40 is required in a 20ft front setback where a minimum of 75 ft is required for lot two the variances shall be a 16t buffer area or a minimum of 15 ft is required a 36t between buildings Dimension where a minimum of 40 ft is required a 16t front set back where a minimum of 75 ft is required 1.85 parking spaces per unit where a minimum of two parking spaces are required and a zero foot parking set back where a minimum of 50 ft is required um I will make a note just maybe it should have gone into the findings the previous application or the previous subdivision plan had approximately one parking spot per um per unit so this is less of an impact with respect to what's required for code than the previous one and all of that is associated with the construction of a 47 unit apartment building on a 5 acre parcel 0791 15-1 d8.3 scn2 second Mrs bolo hi Mr Santa hi Mr spado hi Mr Prescott hi Mr short hi you have your variance uh you have one year uh for uh completion you need to I believe you still need to go to planning board and you still have to obtain all the permits yep have a good evening awesome thank you have a good thank you uh next up um Yori uh Cottages okay Cottages located at 253 Lake Road applicant Matt fiori is requesting area variances to allow the fing an 11t Eastern side setback where a minimum of 15 ft is required a 4ft western side setback where a minimum of 15 ft is required Zer foot parking setback on the eastern and western sides of the property where a 15t minimum is required reconstruction of conforming building is a secondary primary structure on a single parcel where only one is allowed associated with the Demolition of a pre-existing single family dwelling and the construction of a new cottage style Bayfront dwelling on A4 acre parcel having SPL number 063.0 n-1 d39 located in the WD Waterfront development District under Section 350-2 5 and 35- 94 of the code of the town of Webster how's it going good how are you good um right now we're looking at 253 Lake Road although I'm going to make the assumption that the majority of comments that we have are going to apply to uh 257 that is correct well absolutely um Kyle is it okay if we talk about the two properties collectively or do we need to do we need to read it in together or do we need to look at them I I would advise I don't know where the board stands on this but I would advise keeping them separate okay so that the record is clear okay very good uh we'll try and do our best to keep it separate um so right now we're looking at 253 okay um just uh before I go right into the application a little bit of background about my myself I'm here mark fiori my wife Andrew is here with me my youngest son Matthew's here this is Joe one of our Architects and Ellen one of our other Architects um our family has lived in web your name your name oh mark fiori thank you sorry um our family's lived in Webster since I moved here from udica in uh 1991 we lived over on Longview Drive for a number of years Barry Baron built us a beautiful house in 2006 and in 2012 Andre and I were driving by this area this uh sandb bar and um saw some properties for sale and uh immediately jumped on two of them uh we always felt it was just such a unique beautiful part of Webster that we loved I mean our front yard is Lake Ontario and our backyard is ricoy Bay it's just a very unique part of Webster um so we built uh our house uh down there in around the 2014 time frame I brought some pictures just so you you can see the type of work we've done um there is three structures this is what the front looks like and we could pass these around if you're interested and then I have a view from what the back of our current house looks like and what it used to look like as well um around uh four uh years ago I think it was three or four years ago uh some more land and that's why we're here tonight came for sale these two lots that we're talking about uh and we purchased both of those lots um and then just recently we purchased a lot that's next to that with all the white houses if you're familiar with the area that's right across the street from Castaways our vision our plan uh 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 property and this project that we're talking you about tonight was kind of the start of that um we we we love the area we want to invest in the area and we want to do some some nice work down there um so we we wanted to start with those back two houses which we're here tonight for and we went into both those houses and started looking at what our options are and quickly realized um that those houses really need a tremendous amount of work and probably not probably they need to come down and we need to start over uh and so we understand the challenge for you tonight is that we are asking uh that there'll be two uh structures on one parcel on both of the applications of why we're here tonight uh the challenge for us is we bought the these Parcels because there is two properties on each we still want to invest we want to do you know the the choices we're faced with is we either attempt to fix them up which we can't so we can't kind of do the vision and you're going to see the vision we actually have uh renderings of what we want to do um we we can't do that unless we tear them down and by tearing them down I think it's a win-win for everybody because we're going to actually improve all the setbacks uh and not only that you know with the investment the town just did in the park down there if you're familiar with the Zer is all the houses I'm talking about are right next to the park so you got this big beautiful Park and then these these structures that really are are are old and and and need to come down with with new structures so I'm going to hand it over to Joe to kind of walk you through what we're trying to do uh as far as application but I just thought it was important you understand our commitment to that area and a little bit of background of Andre and my family oh thanks again my name is Joe Tumi with Ed architecture um I'm just going to follow up a little bit on on Mark's description in regards to uh 253 um again it's an existing structure um the we've done extensive um investigations over the better part of a year we've done some geotechnical Investigations out there we've done some test pits to figure out what the stru structural adequacy of of the buildings are um 253 in particular is uh lacking a fair amount of um footings on the buildings so we've done multiple renovation concepts for Mark and Andrea and Matt um they uh basically it all generated with 257 I know we're kind of leaning across the the lot line but try not to the uh the footprint um that the owner liked really propelled us to bring that footprint onto 253 from a cost perspective um to try to renovate and upgrade the structural Integrity of 253 really didn't make cost sense um so we tried to duplicate the two buildings from a cost perspective um from 257 to 253 which is the rendering that you see there um our ultimate goal regarding the setbacks is to try to Center the the new structures within the setback within the property um and increase the Aesthetics along the Waterfront um we tried to pull the buildings a little further in particular to the other property but pull them away from the Town Park um in and leave them as kind of a one-story building uh from a height perspective um and really generate a nice aesthetic along the lakefront um in particular to the well the existing setback on 253 I believe is around 10 ft on the east side and around 5et on the west uh we're trying to bring them back to about 11 ft on either side with the new footprint of the building um and as Mark said just trying to maintain and ask for some relief to maintain the two structures on the single parcel thank you um I definitely have some questions um something that came to our attention this week um with the new DEC regulations um have you obtained uh jurisdictional uh determination from DC for these par or for 253 yeah so going through the new process with the dec yeah yeah uh we have submitted in January um trying to get through their process um 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 Seeker um we did receive a review letter from the dec and one of their points is to get Seeker uh to get the board to be lead agent in order to get that DEC process moving um um so I mean Josh can possibly uh elaborate on their process but um before we get their approval they would like the board to become lead agent okay uh as part of their new process apparently I don't know I I don't have a real Comfort level of that right now I don't know Josh or yeah that um that was a request to us by the dec it's it's a bit of a a switch up from how we're used to doing it yeah typically the dec evaluates from their perspective and once they've given the okay it usually goes through the local approval process so yeah they're usually more qualified yes so we're in a bit of a conundrum and that the dec is asking this board to take on lead agency however in order for you to come to an ultimate conclusion they have to go through the dec's process so it yeah there's some working out to do yeah UMAS so I mean from my standpoint I'm not comfortable uh taking that on at this point in time um until again myself I I don't want to speak for all the board members here but you know DEC is definitely more qualified on on what lands and and uh that side of things um so how do how do we navigate that process with them and trying to in trying to close the loop with the dec approval understood right and and that's what that's one item that we're talking about here because there's there's others as well right sure um I know Josh is trying to navigate that with them at this point in time um so I from my perspective I'm not willing to take that on today right if we get guidance from DEC and and we get you know I I not going to say we're never going to be able to I just I'm not comfortable doing that today uh Kyle I don't know if you Josh just clarify that DEC is asking that this board declare themselves declare their intent to be lead agent correct correct okay which is something that we typically this board doesn't typically does not do correct correct um but there are no other boards within the town that are interested in other words the planning board is not involved in this application correct because these are single family dwellings they are exempt from site plan review with the planning board okay so the this board at some point whether you decide to tonight or not can declare itself the intent to be lead Agent M uh that does not mean that you are making a determination on Seeker simply making yourself the lead agency uh and then you would presumably wait until the dec till the determination issues their jurisdictional determination until they issue that JD um I would imagine this board would not act on or make a secet determination U when they get that information back and you feel if you feel you're 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 in time gotcha so I'm just going to repeat what you just said to me hopefully I got it um we can uh declare ourselves we can declare the intent to become lead agencies that should theoretically allow DEC to make a determination tonight we would not make any type of determination until we get the letter from thec is that that is correct okay Josh um this is just kind of catch me off guard because I didn't have a chance to look into it do you know if it's a type one or unlisted I believe it's an unlisted action okay I but I'd have to confirm that okay okay thank you um so there there's that one item there um item two for me is um well I guess I have a question uh why two why two buildings on why two residences on a single property mean I know there's I know it's existing um from my understanding there is no variances that have granted to uh residences on a single property uh for the for the for this parcel uh why do you need two residences on a single property yeah so I would I would answer in the following you know when we bought it all of the properties all four of the current properties were being rented out so it's generating Revenue you know our vision of that is to uh I I would put it in three different categories one is to continue long-term rentals and generate Revenue number two is that we have a lot of family and friends that visit us and we love to create a location where we can have them stay and number three as Matt and his older brother CA uh get married and have families our vision is like this becomes a place in a cottage where they bring their families maybe for the summer or different things and the multiple properties and the way that were structured really works well for that type of environment uh for that type of situation I should say and it also I feel kind of fits in with the area and with the designs that we're going with it kind of fits into 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're requesting of the two lots we actually did did we submit that um yeah we put that we actually as part of our application submitted like what are two lots as far as square footage to land is taking up compared to some of the new very large houses on very small losses going up so we feel all of that like kind of what our vision and what our want and how we want to invest and and make it all look good and for future use for our family all of that lends itself nicely to keeping both structures on both houses you know if we were faced with the fact that we couldn't do that we just wouldn't be able to do this project to the level we want and we'd probably have to just keep the structures as they are so you've indicated this is for long-term rental yeah not for shortterm Airbnb corre type rentals we understand that that's not allowed in Webster okay um the reason I bring bring a lot of this up is the code also doesn't allow multiple residents on a single parcel either right and you've locked out you own Parcels that have multiple residents on it um as soon as you tear it down we go back to what the original code is um so I you know and I don't know of any other Parcels in that area that have multiple residents on it I guess is what it comes down to uh I'm sorry I can't you know if I don't know what you're saying you gotta come up and say it right next to the into the mic right next to the Castaways parking lot there is one house that they ask for four uh units but it's a three unit family house and it's right next door to the parking lot which is next door to the new property saying it's one structure though not one structure with three units in it yeah and it's it's one structure though you're saying two structures why you need two structures correct yeah right um okay uh let's see other comments from the board at this point my only concern is since they're tearing it down and building a new one whats to stop anyone else with Lakefront access from doing the same exactly absolutely preced if we do this we're basically telling you it's okay to put up at least one more if not multiple right dwellings on your property since we've already if we allowed it right we it's where do you how can you say no to anybody else with the same situation right absolutely and in the condition that the there is a condition where the code does allow a building to be torn down and rebuilt and that's in the event of a fire in the dwelling M but it has to be on the exact same footprint as the building that it's replacing right and the one building you're essentially doubling the square footage of the other one it's not quite as big but yeah I think we we based our our floor plan design off of the 257 parcel um just because of the layout which really was pretty similar to the existing footprint of that building um with the exception of a little uh pump out um on that side and it really came down to the economics of reconstructing both buildings and the um having the cost efficiency of building two of the same uh one on each parcel and and and to your point I I understand the challenge in in the precedent that that we're trying to set but the only thing I would say in regard to that is that when you talk about President like I have looked around Webster and especially in that area and I don't know of many situations like the one we're in where we purchased and there's two lots there there's two residents sitting there and we're trying to improve it and to my point you know if if you're familiar with that area you know what those houses all down there look like and what we're faced with if you you have someone like me who wants to invest in all of them and and improve the looks of all the the areas and improve all the setbacks and um you know I I I ultimately it will be an improvement to that entire area and Improvement to to Webster I can appreciate that and um I can appreciate that you uh you see the conundrum that that we are in as well right is what it comes down to and you know to Chris's point you know it's a precedent for lakefront and I can I can list off more than a dozen properties that are 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 Lakefront area and you can start getting into areas within the town itself uh and they could start doing it as well again you you've lucked out that you have a parcel of an existing non-conforming condition with with uh buildings on it and I I get the E economic side of it it's just it's easier and it's cheaper and you're going to end up with something that's significantly better um yeah for us it sends sets a precedent like I said I I I agree with you 100% that it would be an improvement over what's there and what you've um submitted I think looks great but the minute you tear something down and say we're rebuilding it close to it you're kind of starting from square one you're you're almost eliminating the advantage you currently have by tearing it down and starting over okay just because that's like I said if someone else and maybe they won't but if if we do allow it it there's really nothing that we can legally stand behind that say well they had a special situation kind of deal because it I I don't know legally but I don't want to makes a lot more difficult it makes it a lot more difficult for us to say no even if if it's a bad project which I don't necessarily think yours is but I don't know how we could put the brakes on having almost everyone think that this is a good idea to do just because they have U lakefront property other questions I have for you um utilities of these other uh uh of these new the new builds would they be submetered from the main building or are they going to have separate meters separ meters we're try yeah separ so separate separate utilities water I'm assuming this is septic out here sanitary is a grinder Force main right now so that goes out to the street y gotcha okay other questions from the board no okay um yeah and I think you you know you touched on the the economics it's one of those like you mentioned it's a crazy scenario um you know anything that we touch on on these existing buildings requires us to come back here and talk for the in front of this board as well if we needed to renovate being a non-conforming lot um uh is that putting putting a deck or putting a small addition on it requires us to come back here for sure yeah if you go outside of the footprint yes by all means so going going to that economic standpoint of you know you you're putting all of that money into a building that you know for instance is leaning six Ines to the right and has no foundations underneath it um putting that new structure on there has economic benefit for sure for the owner so that was the the kind of the direction we were heading I I know several several people that uh have have been in similar situations single house um but they could not expand their house because of setbacks because of other Regulatory and you know foundations were not there they jacked up the the build right I mean there's ways around it um 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 okay good I guess real quick if this project doesn't go through for you you did say you were just basically going to keep the four structures that are on there call it a day and it is what it is that's okay okay uh I'll open it up to public if anybody wants to speak for or against the project um since there is nobody wants to speak for or against I'll bring it back to the board uh if there's we had a letter for the four I'm sorry what's that we had a we have a letter uh just in case you're interested from the the neighbors all around that were for um so it's part of our application I think I I didn't see it I don't know I think she got it yeah we we we could submit that to you if you could if you have a copy of it you can leave it with us now if you have a copy of it no okay if you can provide that I can send it along to Josh that'd be great thank you um I guess I'll I'll ask the board um you know we have we have a couple things right we have the dec um jurisdiction determination so uh is this board comfortable um declaring its intent to become lead Agency for this there's no there's a discussion I mean there's no other board to declare itself so I think it's up to us right I mean we don't want to be part of the the loop that's going to continue if we if we don't make that decision so I as long as we're not putting ourselves in any type of legal holding pattern where we declare our intent without actually voting on Seeker no that that's the appropriate process is to if this board decides you would classify the action and then declare your intent to be lead agency at that point um the meeting or review of this application would end until the DC's issues their jurisdictional determination and then it would come back to the board to complete the Seeker analysis we uh we would have to determine the uh the classification of it though correct and I I did have an opportunity to review I agree with you Josh on that issue that' be unlisted unlisted I believe it's unlisted okay yeah I as long as you feel comfortable okay chairman I mean so so there's that one piece and then I guess the other piece uh is um I mean we have the offsets which I'm not really concerned more about the offsets it's about the double residence uh on a single on a one lot um so I mean what is the feeling of this board uh for for double residents do we even want to go down the the discussion of declaring intent I think it's a dangerous dangerous precedent okay I mean every home along there that's been rebuilt it's [Music] been a little cottage or a little Shack and then it becomes a much larger version of something um and and the board is always accommodated anything down there needs setb accommodations and height accommodations and there's no B so then it ends up being tall um but as soon as one as soon as one yes is given there's series that come in afterwards um but you're saying I know there's two there now right but if if we allow the two to be torn down and rebuilt aesthetically they'll look better but but once do there's two now that don't have a variance at this point in time so they it it's something that happened either before this you know this board not the people on this board but before this board was really granting anything or it was just built without uh you know proper uh you know proper uh variances at the time right so right now it is a pre-existing right so as soon as this board I think what you're saying as soon as this board grants if we were to Grant it then it sets that precedent even though that there are additional residences on that parcel is that correct yes yeah well in the intent of the pre-existing nonconforming situations within town the intent is to try and drive everything to conformance where it makes sense so I'm I'm just you got your concerns I don't know the right answer but I I I have sat in this chair long enough to understand that as soon as you dip your toe in the water you end up falling in yep that make make sense I I mean to cut you off no that's that's okay I was just trying to understand so two houses mhm right single par parcel what it is what it is we can't approve that well we but we can't because of precedent correct that's that's the conundrum that we run into right mean is what what kind of floodgates potentially do we open up especially down there right so um you kind of hear what the the board is is saying um you know we can go through the formal vote on it um which I'm I'm not speaking for the board but based on what I'm hearing it's not going to go in your favor um that would require you you know that basically stops this application um and then you don't you wouldn't be able to reapply as it six months without uh without meaningful change I think it's six months or is it one year one year it's one year it's one year so you wouldn't be able do anything for one year um you have the option to resend the application um I don't know how you know at the end of the day I look at and say renovation is probably the only only option again I get the financials I get all that side of things um but then you would have uh the opportunity to come back to us with a renovation with a deck or other things that you know this board may consider at that point in time um um I will leave it up to you if you would prefer to resend it or if you would prefer this board to vote on it resend what do you think I mean I it's it's if it if we're wasting our time then I don't it's just res it go back hi I'm Alan rosol the architect with Edge architecture so we're in this quandry not only of the two two dwelling units the decs also been the quandry so even if we were to ask to table it and re make the revisions and come back to this board with the renovations that we want to do I still need this DEC thing So based on what I heard from this board we are willing to um move forward with intent of becoming lead Agency for this project um so my question is yep is can we still move that forward and revise our application and bring a renovation scenario to you okay do do they have to revise it and then we move forward or can we no because the this board would be classifying the action based on the application as presented um and if I I don't know if there's a conceivable way in which the application would change that would change the classification but that is theoretically possibility in this application is demolition come back and amend I think the clarity that we all don't have is if I come back to you with a renovation of my discussing two 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 can you ask that again if I come back with the renovation option and let's say I want to put a deck on it yep which we have to come here anyways am I having the same discussion with this board to have approval to have the two dwelling units on a single property no if you're not removing the dwelling and you're just fixing it up I don't believe it's the same conversation okay any of the parcels along there that have added that have encroached into the setback or added an entrance way or whatever yes you still have to come to the board for that but yeah if they're not fully removing the structure then that the removal of the structures that at least I'm not trying to speak for the board but for me it's removing them and then putting up two brand new ones even though I know you have't but it's and it's really not your application as much as what happens down the road when everybody else sees it like oh I can put up another dwelling because they did it yeah so I think as a board we really don't want to set that precedent for what you really have as a unique situation so Allan I though we can't make a determination without a without an application um you know what I've heard and Josh or Kyle correct me if I'm wrong those residences that are currently there those are pre-existing non-conforming residents es per our code uh if you are renovating them um we are we will not be having a discussion of hey you have two residences on that property um we will be discussing oh you want to put a deck on what and then we're going to go through the whole process of you know how does it affect the neighbors is it right I mean so that discussion will occur um but not hey there's two residences on this property do we even allow a deck now to raise I'll talk to 253 to start with if if you raise that building just lift it up and yeah just lift it up and stick a foundation under it um it's like Legos do you does the applicant need to come before this board or is that strictly the building department or you still have to come before this board because the dec has now added a little extra drama into it well yeah technically I wouldn't require it to come to the board if they were literally just lifting it up and putting it with no changes to the footprint correct um but because it is within proximity of the bay and it is under jurisdiction of the dec um yeah we would we would uh they they would need to be involved in it you can't beg for give this later well there is that option doesn't usually go it usually doesn't work but so I I'm still I don't have Clarity when we built the house we showed you we got into the DC we got all the proper approvals then we came to you and we built our house and now it's changed in January and Chang I'm not understanding like what my concern is we go back to the drawing board we we maybe look at enhancements come back before you with with modifications we want to do to the current structures that are there but then after that I all this money to do this all over again we go to the DC and then the DC has a problem with something like how how do I get approval or know the next steps I should take so that I'm not just spinning my wheels I think that's what we're discussing here at least regarding the the EC component of it right and and and I understand your your quandry right so um we don't know right we don't this is all brand new right it started in January right so you're going through it we're going through it you know the town's going through we're all trying to figure it out um but Kyle to your point you know the determination would be for the application as is um we could do an amendment after the fact right to be able to get the determination from DEC I don't know would DEC with dec's deter the EC's determination doesn't matter if it's a 10x10 or if it's a you know 5,000 foot they're likely going to take whatever they feel is the right Wetland boundary or they're just looking at the boundaries at that point versus you know if if it's a 10 x 10 or a 50 by 50 if it's within that Wetland they're probably not going to be you know they're not going to sign off on it correct the Lots aren even large enough to accommodate a wetland right not not I don't mean definitionally but if there is a wetland with the required buffer that that's what the issue is the the Wetland is adjacent to this property and it these Parcels are within the buffer correct yeah the area of potential Wetland that's been identified by the dec is actually on the town's Sandbar Park parcel um 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 both actually both of them only 50 ft wide right but I think as long as they want to move forward but if the property if the building is already there right there's no the dec isn't going to make them move it because it's already correct it's ex not conforming before their new law came into effect but DEC would would still regulate a deck or anything else going on it well yeah but then you the deck when you there's ways around that to build in in a w in a in a buffer area but to keep their keep the process going anything you do on this property because of its proximity to Arondo Bay and arits Bay classification the entire Bay is classified as a class one Wetland so anything along the Waterfront requires permitting from the dec anyway right it's just this additional um question has now come up with the new maps and the new regulations and different process and a different process right now with the houses further to the West the two most recent construction approvals the whole thing the whole lot had to be elevated by two or three feet based on the calculated new safe level how does that impact especially if you're going to like Jack it up and put a foundation under it how does that so with the impact it elevation wise the new flood plane maps that were adopted last year actually reduced the flood level of arquit bay um so neither of these properties are within the flood plane so elevation isn't a factor in this case thank you all right um so I think what we were hopeful for was simply if the board could take that Seeker action 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 the issue is that for us to for us to declare intent for lead agency we have to declare the type of seeker and then we have to and that's based on the current application so the one way around that is we do that we move forward with it as it is currently and then at a later time we make an amendment to that Seeker to you know to to look at a different determination um I don't I mean I've done that on my larger projects um I the dec determination isn't going to change based the project time our determination changes because we become the the okay the lead agency so we're making the determination on being unlisted based on the current application and as soon as that application changes there needs to be an amendment to the Seeker did you apply for a partial jurisdictional determination I'm assuming because you're you're first stage with the DC so you applied for a parcel JD not a project okay yes yep I just think to keep it going if we can declare the intent to be the and if we need to amend it later on they'll at least they have no idea whether the dec is going to kill their project or not or not right so at least we can let them proceed with knowing whether or not they they can do it and if they can't they can come back and say we've amended the project can you amend you know that I'm assuming that would still be legal correct and ultimately they Josh I believe they'd be able to resend at a later date if they're going to make wholesale changes and they could um I guess my question is if this were to be classified as an unlisted 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 we know right yeah right now we have what we know will not be correct the approved so as part of that process I the we'd actually be sending the plans although they already have them to the dec that would be one of the interested agencies and it wouldn't truly reflect what I think ultimately would be proposed so I think that's another potential issue with moving forward with the Seeker at this point when the board we don't physically have the plans that would be associated with the ultimate end goal Mar Mark to you kind of see the quadrum that that uh that this is uh stirred up uh and I I get spending money on Architects and and trying to get stuff uh done um and the plans that you have are are very nice plans uh to help us along if we you know lose the renderings lose the you know the floor plans you have the existing you know you have the existing footprint of the buildings if if we could get um you know essentially the uh the site plan with the existing buildings and if if you're doing a deck or if you're doing something along those lines identify that on there um 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 is what I'm trying to to get to because the Seeker Pro Josh is Right me we would then theoretically have to take the plans that we have here send them over the plans are wrong I I guess we could theoretically send them but now the coordinator review is also wrong and then we would have to then we're either delaying it now or delaying it later right is really what it comes down to um because then we'd be delaying getting dec's approved because then we'd have to send them an amendment for it then as well um I don't I mean my pre 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 take off a lot of the other stuff get us that so at the next meeting we can declare our intent we can then do the coordinated review for the unlisted um and then we can move move forward from that point I know you you're going to lose four weeks I get that um um that's from my perspective that's the best way I see us moving forward um I don't know if and that will'll move it forward with DEC at the next meeting because we would declare our intent and then we would do a coordinated review at that point yes that's I I understand your position I respect it I I will say that I have to give this tremendous amounts of thought sure uh the way those houses are it's it's not just a deck I mean and so that is going back that is going back to the drawing board and that is what is it going to cost to raise the house what is it going to cost to put the foundation without even knowing if the dec is going to have a problem with this uh I've been through this is my second set of of designs already um this was supposed to be the the start of a much bigger investment in that whole area and now that I understand kind of the town's position I we need to rethink this family sure so I I I understand what you want from us I just don't know if that's the direction I want to go yeah and and I understand that and you know you're going to need dec's approval regardless moving forward uh with much of anything you're going to do there um so is there any way we could ask them just to give us approval like I don't understand the new law you can ask them I I don't know if they're going to give it to you do you know when the request for the jurisdictional determination was submitted to them well after I get after I got it kicked back because they no longer submit on one other websites uh was January 14th and they didn't have anyone at the division 8 location that could take my submission so I had to resubmit it's 90 days from that day it's 90 days from 14th yeah so he's looking at April 14th G or right yeah I think at this point we just resend it both of them okay I'm sorry I definitely understand it thank you guys um so application for application for uh Fury Cottage is located 253 um with where is it parcel SPL number 063 d09 d139 uh has been rescinded and um property at 257 R Lake Road with SPL 063.0 n-1 d38 has been resented at this time so thank you guys have a good night uh you got a lot of stuff for me to they're with me and then I have minutes you got minutes yeah let me find them okay all right was present January and February all right if there are no correction I will make a motion to approve the amends of the January 14th 2025 zoning board meeting second second all those in favor I I all right and if there are no further corrections I will make a motion to approve the February 11th 2025 zoning board meeting minutes second all those in favor I I all right thank you everybody uh that concludes our meeting