Minutes

WEBSTER ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES

Michael Short

Corrine Volo

Donald Hauza

Dan Lagoner

Chris Centola

James Spampinato (alternate)

John DeMarco, Attorney

Katherine Kolich, Recording Secretary

Josh Artuso, Director of Community Development

Erika Corsi, Junior Planner of Community Development

10, 2024. We do have proof of publication in the Webster Herald.

Pledge of Allegiance , Call Roll

Summary of Application Outcomes

TABLED MATTERS

:

671 WILLOW LANE/ACCESSORY STRUCTURE

WILLOWPOINT WAY/WATERVIEW APARTMENTS PHASE 3

e The building facing Nautical Mile Drive to have an 18.7’ front setback.

e The building facing McEwen Drive shail be shifted south by 2ft, and driveway shall

be moved south by 5ft. to create a 5’ district buffer and front setback to building of

43.8

e Western 10-unit building fronting Willow Point Way to have a front setback of 38.5

ft and district buffer area of 38.5 ft.

e Increase total vegetation in buffer zone and work with Town to provide buffering

in McEwen Road Right of Way.

SEQR -

TYPE 2 ACTION - NEG. DEC.

Pg. 284 November 19, 2024 Zoning Meeting

1093 SHARON COURT/GARAGE

SCHEDULED MATTERS

:

430 WHITING ROAD/ SINGLE FAMILY

867 MEADOW RIDGE LANE/HOUSE ADDITION

(Corrine Volo read the first application)

671 WILLOW LANE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE: Located at 671 Willow Lane. Applicant

Bryan Bishchoping is requesting AREA VARIANCES to allow a side setback less than what is

required and to allow the placement of the accessory structure to be nearer to the front property

line than the rear line of the main residence associated the construction of a 500 SF detached

wood-framed structure on a 0.46-acre parce! having SBL # 065.13-2-11 located in an R-3

Single Family Residential District under Sections 350-12 and 350-36 of the Code of the Town

of Webster.

to the board.

Appearing before the board was Bryan Bishoping. Actually, going back to the last meeting the

last thing, we were talking about was a rendering of what things were going to look like so the

packet that I submitted. If we could jump to page 33 (VIEWING ON THE SCREEN)

WENT DOWN) Ok, I see the image that we are looking at least so for the board, my pages

don’t have page numbers. (IMAGINE IS SHOWING ON SCREEN) EVERYONE TRYING TO

DETERMINE WHAT THE ISSUE IS WITH THE SCREENS.

you go through all images, then it goes to the rendering and once again, ] am Adam Cummings

and ] am helping out my friend Bryan on this application. I did look at the old minutes, so I want

to apologize for the past for not introducing myself. So, the one on the bottom if. It shows the

porch addition that was discussed at the last meeting as well as the accessory structure. We don’t

have the skill set to overlay them or Photoshop or Illustrator or whatever is used to get it on there

Pg. 285 November 19, 2024 Zoning Meeting

so it’s just a cut out but tried to show both of them and softening them up a bit and matching the

two. The color right now is a light grey because we can’t or doesn’t want to match the 1962

green color so there is a plan if there 1s a budget sometime in the future to eventually change it,

but this is a neutral enough color and it’s not too contrasting to the neighborhood to put that one

in there. So, they kind of blend together. Once again, the rendering down below does not show

all the windows and didn’t get into that level of details, so that is why both images were given to

show that.

So, on the bottom he is not looking to propose to take any windows out. So, if you are looking at

the paper copies and just to clarify that bottom one, other than the porch addition, he is not

looking to make any changes to the main structure of the house of this structure that is just a

rendering that didn’t take...the level of detail to do that needs a license architect to do that type

of detail.

opportunity to listen through the meeting itself, but I was at the meeting prior, and I believe it

was the September meeting when we talked about it, and we talked about softening this up. We

had talked about trying t get this to fit within a residential neighborhood and I am looking at

elevations that were received back in July and I am looking at the rendering and I can’t see the

difference between what was submitted in July and the rendering.

in more of a commercial building. It’s still metal siding but this ones horizontal to match it. It’s

still the...instead of a 4 inch siding like you'd see on a residential his has the 9 inch so yeah,

these were materials that weren’t allowed to be added at the meeting because we were going to

bring them at the same day, but we are looking to do the wider horizontal orientation of the metal

siding. Light fixtures just didn’t make it on the rendering because but there would be light

fixtures above the doors, but they didn’t make it onto that one.

the square footage of what the town code allows.

roof. It’s not the peak.

but it was recalculated and it’s going to be 21 feet and 4 inches but once again that is due to the

Pg. 286 November 19, 2024 Zoning Meeting

meeting the town code height of 20 feet measured to the midpoint of that sloping ridge. The

rendering is drawn to scale with the perspective view of what it would look like to each other to

the two builders.

perspective view from an airplane coming at it this is an aerial.

image perspective.

for 4 or 5 months, whatever it is, and the board’s been requesting different things every time.

Renderings, samples, suggested height difference, exterior appearance, things like that and we

haven’t always gotten what we’ve been asking for or suggested. Is there some reason for kind of

sidestepping some of our requests.

of what I presented for the...I think it is 43 pages is I’m following the way the town wants me to

do things. I didn’t have to get elevation drawings yet, but I did go our and do that on my own just

to get ready and then I did hand them over and it’s not stuff that’s required at this point for

something that’s less than 20,000 dollars to construct.

building permit, and it would be up. So, you haven’t provided everything that we have asked

because you are the one asking for relief, so we are trying to do our best job in weighing whether

that request merits that relief. So, it’s not like you have done everything that the code asked you

to. You’re asking for relief from some of the code requirements so that’s why we’ve asked for

extra information.

BRYAN BISHOPING SPEAKING AT THE SAMETIME. I DID NOT CATCH WHAT HE

SAID.

appreciate and recognize that the town is trying to impose architectural standards that don’t exist

opinions of what you’d like it to look like, but I would like to point out that this is the Zoning

Pg. 287 November 19, 2024 Zoning Meeting

Board of Appeals trying to find the minimum variance required not necessarily a denial or an

acceptance or an approval what you hear about it’s proximity to the back line of the house and

the side lot line. I understand that you’re trying to look at it in terms of the SEQR evaluation

and the area variance part of community character but once again, it’s on the variance and the

town code allows it so. I disagree that its been side stepping for an application that....at the first

meeling was pointed out he’s trying to see if he can get the variance approval to actually do the

project without investing too much time and effort.

is for the location, but this board does have the opportunity to take into consideration the impact

on the neighbor, on the neighborhood itself. Which is why the board has been asking for

softening of the structure to help it fit into a residential neighborhood over the course of multiple

meetings that we’ ve had. So, with that, if there’s any other comments from the board at this point

and if not, ] am going to open it up to the public if there is any public comments. I am opening it

up to public comments and please not that there is a 5 limit minutes on individual comments and

with that, please come up and state your name and address.

Jann Armantrout at 670 Willow Lane: I live directly across the street and have attended

everyone of these meetings but one. I am dismayed that this information that’s being shown right

now was not available on the website as late as today so there was no change for me to make

connnent. [am the person as 1 said, who will be most affected. I have discussed with Mr. Artuso

and several other people that there are certainly things that could as the persona walking out of

her front door everyday make this a possibility of a project certainly the height and the fact that

it looks you know, in the matter you call a spade a spade and that it looks like an extra garage to

me and there is already a commercial equipment around the property on a very routine basis. I

had specifically suggested that the building be rotated so that the garage door entrance would

open to the driveway. I see even that sort of a moderate change that could make a project

workable there's no room for any sort of compromise in this. If we drive the neighborhood and I

believe all of you have, maybe multiple times. Appreciate the amount of work that you have put

into this. That is a commercial looking building in a very residential neighborhood. These

houses are now like 300,000 dollar houses. They’re like the smaller family room, bath and half,

2 and have bath bedrooms; lovely neighborhood, mostly built in the 60's and very early 70's and

we want to preserve it. My fear amongst other things with this sort of thing is that if a person

operating a business out of the home in one instance gets an approval for this building, ever

other tradesman in the neighborhood is going to have or request it before you and before you

know if, the neighborhood looks like older parts of the Village of Webster. I have made my

concerns repeatedly to you guys and I don’t see softening there. Like I said, | don’t see the

building rotated I see a garage, a big garage, a tall garage and I would ask that some other

consideration be given if it’s such an ideal building for the neighborhood put out on the other

side of the house plenty of room there and then Lam not looking at the commercial equipment

plus the garage that has routinely stored on that side of the property and again, I thank you for

the amount of work and time that you folks have given in all this.

Pg. 288 November 19, 2024 Zoning Meeting

comments from the public. Ok, with that, will bring it back to the board to any final comments

or questions that the board may have. | am going to recommend that we move forward with a

decision at todays meeting. We have gone through this process multiple times and multiple

iterations. I’m recommending that we move forward with a decision unless anybody here

disagrees.

where the code indicates that the building should be located. I drove that entire neighborhood

from Holt Road to 250 throughout the past weeks and did not see, other than a barn on 250, did

not see another two....it’s in essence a 2-story building without a middle floor a two-story

accessory structure and any of that building development and to me that’s the harshest. Part of it

is because it’s much closer to the road that it typically it would be based on what the accessory

structure codes states. Is there anyway to soften the look of it by reducing the height by 5 feet or

7 feet . 1 know you want to put shelves in but it’s still much more storage than what you have

right now, and it would make it just less big gray wall.

Bryans part. I have know Bryan for 24 years now since we went to college together and he has

been a licensed electrician that whole time. He does not wholly run his business out of there but

ever since we were teenagers he does as an electrician business, acta as an electrician there. He

does not operate his business out of it. There are times he doesn’t even have a truck that has the

business name on it. There are a lot of other ones that go in, so I just want to point that out. He

is not going to operate a commercial business out of this. The other part, in terms of what board

member Volo just asked about, to point out the way the code is, it is not drawn on here but if it

was placed in the backyard, where it could be to be code compliant, it just shifts it back to !0 or

12 feet back and 7 feet over so the height of it by the code that’s allowed, would only diminish it

by a foot and half in terms of the view that you are seeing there because he does have room in

the back ...weil, it’s not a back corner because he’s a corner lot so he’s got two side yards so he

does have room back there but it’s because of the electric service is why he’s electing to put it

here. So, in terms of the height, while I do appreciate the points, you’re making on that, the code

does allow it to be in that converging of the 2 side lots. In terms of the height impact, while no

other buildings have it, it is possible to put it in there and still receive a building permit. To the

point of Bryan answering the question, of your request to minimize it, which once again is not a

variance request of the height because he is meeting the code, I'll ask him if he’d entertain it.

when | found out the way I wanted to do it was an accessory structure I looked at the town code

for an accessory structure and this is what I’ve come up with. Location makes sense on the

property, and I think with the metal siding flipped horizontal and the existing metal siding that’s

on the primary structure is 8 inches and the new metal siding is going to be 9 inches, so | think

with the....] believe it’s about 30-32 feet from the existing garage to the side, nearest side of the

accessory structure and you're never going to notice that difference in one inch for the metal

Pg. 289 November 19, 2024 Zoning Meeting

existing south wall of the existing structure that faces Millcreek Run and it has two windows

siding. So, I think it is going to blend right in with the existing structure and you know the

[ other than that it’s 22 2 feet of metal siding.

RESOLUTION 24-0068 Michael Short made a motion to TYPE II SEQR

which was seconded by: Donald Hauza.

VOTE:

Mr. Short AYE

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Hauza AYE

Mr. Lagonor AYE

Mr. Centola AYE

Mr. Spampinato AYE

your garage door be located towards the exiting garage, would you be willing to do that.

the garage door is on the other side, I don’t have enough room to swing the boat. It’s

| (BOTH BOARD MEMBERS AND APPLICANT ARE SPEAKING AT THE SAME TIME)

AUDIENCE MEMBER SPEAKING OUT.

findings and need to do a motion for the variance. Corrine, ] don’t know if you want to read it

or.....(READ THIS INTO THE RECORD)

671 WILLOW LANE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE: Located at 671 Willow Lane. Applicant

Bryan Bishchoping is requesting AREA VARIANCES to allow a side setback less than what is

required and to allow the placement of the accessory structure to be nearer to the front property

line than the rear line of the main residence associated the construction of a 500 SF detached

wood-framed structure on a 0.46-acre parcel having SBL # 065.13-2-11 located in an R-3

Single Family Residential District under Sections 350-12 and 350-36 of the Code of the Town

of Webster.

L Pg. 290 November 19, 2024 Zoning Meeting

from the front or east lot line.

are kind of standard.

1. This request is not out of character in the neighborhood: Based on all the conversation that

I have heard from this board over multiple meetings; this request is out of character with

this neighborhood. It is a typical residential neighborhood. Typical siding throughout the

neighborhood. Dormers, the maximum height of structures are typically a two-story

structures and the structure that was presented before this board is a metal sided pole barn

structure; a low sloped roof; no dormers very flat front face and very industrial looking.

These were the materials that were presented to this board over the course of the last 6

months with very little modification made to accommodate to any adjustments. 1 think that

about it.

There will not be a detriment created to nearby properties: Again, from hearing from this

board; there is potential visual impacts to nearby properties.

. The benefit is not achievable by any other method: It is not. The applicant is attempting to

get all his materials and equipment stored inside to meet the requirements of the town code

and one of the only ways of doing that is to provide a structure to be able to put his

equipment and materials inside and build a structure.

but not from a Jocation standpoint.

There are no adverse physical or environmental impacts to the site or neighborhood: |

would agree with that other than the first two items previously identified out of character

of the neighborhood and detriment created to nearby properties.

equipment he’s acquired over time and needs to be able to store it that. Not a self-created

element.

particular project that you find that results in undesirable change. The board has noted the height

of the structure; the materials that are used having an industrial look ] would suggest that you

would incorporate some of the specific facts into the findings.

Pg. 291 November 19, 2024 Zoning Meeting

7. This is not an undesirable change:

8. This request is not significant:

as it’s the combination of the size and the materials used coupled with the reducing the setback

from the front road would that be accurate.

RESOLUTION 24-0069 Michael Short made a motion to DENY THE

AREA VARIANCE Located at 67! Willow

Lane. Applicant Bryan Bishchoping is requesting

AREA VARIANCES to allow a side setback of 5

feet and a front setback of 43.4 feet associated the

construction of a 500 SF detached wood-framed

structure on a 0.46-acre parce! having SBL #

065.13-2-11 located in an R-3 Single Family

Residential District under Sections 350-12 and

350-36 of the Code of the Town of Webster which

was seconded by: Chris Centola.

The motion is to deny so the response from the

board should be AYE.

VOTE:

Mr. Short AYE

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Hauza AYE

Mr. Lagonor AYE

Mr. Centola AYE

been denied for the structure and | believe it is a6 month period before you can come back

before the board, is that right Josh?

Pg. 292 November 19, 2024 Zoning Meeting

substantial change to the application to the Zoning Board of appeals.

disappointed with the decision but thank you for all the time and effort.

(Corrine Volo read the second application)

WATERVIEW APARTMENTS PHASE 3: Located at the northwest corner of Willow Point

Way and Nautical Mile Drive. Applicant Legacy Development Co., Inc is requesting AREA

VARIANCES to allow:

* front setbacks less than what is required

* A district buffer area less than what is required

associated with the construction of (6) buildings plus a community center (total of 56 units),

each 2 stories in height on a proposed 13.15-acre parcel having SBL# 093.06-3-64.11 located in

an MHR Medium High Residential District under Section 350-14 of the Code of the Town of

Webster.

Appearing before the board was Chris Nadler, General Council for Mark IV Enterprises with us

here tonight we have David Cox from Passero our Design Engineer and Chris DeMarzo the

President of Mark IV Enterprises and owner of Legacy Development, the owner of the property

at issue here. As you know, we have gone through several design iterations on this project over

the years. In the 1980's this parcel was for a seven story 158 unit apartment building along with

the approval of phase one which consists of 35 town houses and phase tow which consists of 62

town houses. Earlier this year we proposed to the town two, three story apartment buildings

containing 90 total units. We participated in sketch plan review with the Planning Board, and

we came before the Zoning Board and heard feedback from both boards as well as feedback

from out neighbors and other members of the public. We took that feedback to heart as you can

see and redesigned the project completely. As you see, it’s significant reductions in size, scope,

and number of units but more importantly we are presenting townhouse style apartments so it’s

more in keeping with the character of the neighborhood.

What we are proposing now is 56 townhouse style apartments, each with their own garage and

separate entrances, driveway, a clubhouse, a dog park, and sport court for the use of the

community. This is in keeping with the neighborhood of what’s already there. One thing that

we are proposing as well...does this one show it? This is a new, recent change to the plans.

There will be one single entrance onto McEwen instead of six separate driveways. The building

will remain in the same location, but the driveways will converge into one single entrance.

Pg. 293 November 19, 2024 Zoning Meeting

There will be an extensive landscape buffer between the driveways and McEwen Road to shield

our neighbors and the road and additionally we will be adding four additional parking spots in

front of the clubhouse. Some of the challenges we faced in putting together this plan was that

there were three road frontages surrounding the property and there is utility easements along the

eastern portion of the property coming from McEwen over to the existing townhouses.

We did manage what I think is a really good plan that is in keeping with the neighborhood that

those revisions eliminated two of our variance requests and now we are left with front setback

variances that we are seeking. The largest front setback variance would be 18.7 feet where a 75

ft front setback is required. That is on Maritime Drive. This building here along Maritime

Drive, it’s important to remember that from the building to the property line is 18.7 feet that’s

an 18.7 ft foot setback from the property line but from the property line to the road there is

another 17.5 ft so the total distance from the building to the road is 36.2 feet. Most of the

buildings in phase | and phase 2 have between 30 and 40 foot driveways setbacks from the

building to the road. Some of the town houses in phase | and phase 2 do have as little as 27 ft

from the townhouse to the road. So, what we are proposing is definitely in keeping with he

character of the neighborhood. If we didn’t have these....if the board didn’t grant the variance,

we would have [00 ft long driveways, 70 ft back from the property line and another 25 ft to the

road, That would be substantially more pavement and substantially less green space.

Josh, can you put the overhead, the aerial with the arrows on it. As you can see from this map,

we’re also requesting district buffer setback from an MHR multi-family residential zoning

district to aresidential zoning district. It is a 38.5 ft setback where a 100 ft district setback

buffer is required. Similarly to the driveway setbacks we have an additional 22 feet between the

border between the two zoning districts which is the property boundary and McEwen Drive

which is 22 ft away so our buildings to McEwen is 58.5 ft and the single family homes on

McEwen are across the street facing the front of the townhouse building. The distance from the

building from our building to the McEwen houses is at least 152 ft away. There is 152 ft

between the proposed building and the existing homes on McEwen. Again, there will be a

landscape buffer between the homes and the proposed building. The distance between the

existing townhouses in phase ! and phase 2 and houses along McEwen is as little as 66 ft

between buildings and we are proposing 152 ft between buildings and what is already there in

the neighborhood is 66 feet, so it is definitely in keeping with the neighborhood.

We met with the Planning Board for another sketch plan review to go over the proposed plan

last week and they received it favorably. I understand at least some of them have indicated that

to you in correspondence and we’ re looking forward to coming back with them next month for

site plan approval. Our...you know we went back and designed something that’s in keeping

with the neighborhood and | think that the variance requests are absolutely reasonable. David

and J are here to answer any questions the board may have.

accordingly. I’m struggling seeing that graphic and that graphic is we don’t have that graphic

Pg. 294 November 19, 2024 Zoning Meeting

and our screens are not working so if you have a copies, | would greatly appreciate that.

(APPLICANT HANDS OUT PLANS TO BOARD MEMBERS) you indicated that significant

planting of vegetation along McEwen Drive, if I am reading this plan correctly those plantings

are happening outside of your property line is....am I reading this correctly.

way.

apartment buildings that have individual garages, individual entrances, that’s how streets are

created is you know, tow residential structures facing each other . Here we actually have a lot

more distance between the house on McEwen and the one building that faces McEwen.

what you’re presenting.

apologize.

hill serviceberry; raising sun redwood; fringe tree; real star...

if Pm not...............

actually large shrubs not really. They legally are called trees but they’re more shrub like in size

and appearance.

Pg. 295 November 19, 2024 Zoning Meeting

ft and then the serviceberry 20 — 25 ft; the redwood is 8 — 12 ft; fringe tree is 18 ~ 20; and the

star magnolia is 10 — 15 ft and the egg recort Hlac is 8 -10 ft.

building that is closest to McEwen or the one that faces McEwen that 38 feet distance remains

the same. There is no change other than I’m just consolidating the driveways.

41. Chris Nadler: The building facing McEwen will be

41. David Cox: The one to the left of the screen is 38.5.

that’s directly across from the pump house.

Pg. 296 November 19, 2024 Zoning Meeting

without anything in it OR am I treating it like a setback because I had assumed that buffer was

greenspace.

(NOT CLOSE ENOUGH TO THE MIC, CAN HARDLY HEAR) if can run thought the

perpendicular.

the buffer. So, the buffer would start at the edge of the drive once it starts to run parallel so

with the previous plan.

permitted but having a single ingress egress on McEwen now changes the dimension technically

to the buffer.

Donald Hauza. lt does but it occupies more space of the buffer so eliminates any type of

screening that...potential screening that may be needed.

consolidating the driveways was made at the Planning Board’s request as well as the Highway

Superintendent who wants to limit the number of curb cuts to the public road.

big block buildings. This is far above a much easier and more palatable design, and I think it'll

work better. I think when your going down the Street it’ll look nicer and more in character with

the surrounding neighborhood.

Pg. 297 November 19, 2024 Zoning Meeting

minutes per individual so.

David Geier at 400 McEwen Dr: The south east o my property is right at the cure where the

road comes in by the pumping station and I did see if I’m correct that you’ ve redesigned the

road, so it doesn’t go across my property which I appreciate. Is there supposed to be a buffer

between my property and a private road. I don’t know the town code for that.

driveway, but it is literally going onto my property, so I don’t know if that’s an again to be

considered further redesigned to push that road further away from the southeast corner of our

property.

where I can point so yes this is my property line here.

of the road coming into McEwen. Concerned about cars just whipping around that corner and

not slowing down or stopping and that does go against the Department of Transportation

reconunendations for roads coming in perpendicular to another road. So, not excited about

that. That corner and that curve I’m also a little concerned about the fact that we're only using

32% of this property and 4.2 acres and we are cramming 56 units onto that or 13.4 units per

acre. | understand why they are doing that, but I think that is trying skirting the way we're

trying to get around medium high res property so that we are putting a lot of units in a very

small place on that property. I don’t see a community need or a hardship by the developer

need to do that other than they want more units on that property. There are way, in my opinion,

they could redesign this property it maybe a few, fewer units not opposed to the development |

am opposed to doing things that are against the code. We really, in my opinion, should be

following the code as much as possible. Thank you.

Pg. 298 November 19, 2024 Zoning Meeting

Charlie and I were here previously (DID NOT SIGN IN). [am at 440 McEwen. First off, this

new design is better l will admit that. We are still concerned with the same questions that you

have in terms of the buffer, right. If's it’s not going to be as big as it should be or as long as it

should be, it should be more significant. There is no other MHR in the Town of Webster that

will have this small of a buffer between an R3 in our case or an MAR district. Almost all of

them have significant whether it’s vegetation, tree, shrubs, these are a lot bigger than what they

actually proposed right now. So, if we are asking for a variance or if they’re asking for a

variance in that buffer, lam asking the town to consider making that buffer a lot more

significant than what they are currently proposing. I also went down a black hole in terms of

cluster development. I kind of understand the need to develop these properties in the most

suitable part of the property and what I don’t understand, and I don’t know if you can answer

this, it is very similar to what Dave was saying earlier. How...the calculation in terms of the

area relative to the number of dwellings that is allowed in a cluster development. I was trying

to do the math myself | couldn't quite figure it out. I don’t know if that is something you can

answer right here today but it is definitely something I want you all to consider.

there are two lots being combined which totals I believe Mr. Nadler, was it 12-13 acres.

certainly speak to any concerns you might have about that.

board. Any other questions from the board at this point.

buffer I think there should be more plan material to buffer not that the proposed buildings are

not going to be really, really attractive I believe that but as a district buffer ] think, especially

since you're doing it in the right of way and not on the property itself and you basically have a

parallel road going there. I think it would make a much better plan if there was some more

plant material in there and not just necessarily trees but a mixture of both size and types.

Deciduous and evergreen along with shrubs and trees as well. Once again, I don’t know if that

Pg. 299 November 19, 2024 Zoning Meeting

is more of a Planning board thing, but I believe it goes to the character which then brings it

back to us for saying that but just my opinion.

further. The buffers were meant to protect any residences outside of the project limit. The

project limit unfortunately is the property line which is the right way to McEwen. I personally

think there should be more green space from that project limit to the project itself. This way it

protects the single family homes on McEwen and also protects the town house within the

community.

parallel road, I would like to see that small little area right of way really over...almost

overplanted to make up for that lack of distance.

and said, we are absolutely going to put pine trees or evergreen trees in there. We can

absolutely beef that buffer up including in the lawn between the driveways if that is what the

Planning Board or this board would like. Usually, the way we select is through the Planning

Board process with input from our neighbors. They’re the ones who are going to wind up

looking at it, but we can absolutely beef that up. I think we probably were going to anyway.

purpose for its distance off of the property line vs moving further south.

100 foot long driveways...

road I’m going to call it, the heart, the one that is parallel to the property line . If we were to

take that building and move it back 15 feet, you’re adding 15 feet of a perpendicular driveway.

That is what your adding right, we’re not talking about adding significant to all the other

properties or whatnot. You are getting closer to the bio retention pond; you are making the

fields in the backside smaller right in that a little bit smaller. Again, I don’t know what the

distances are but if it was to move back 15 ft that give the ability to provide more buffer,

staggered buffer vs you have a row of trees that are next to each other you end up a single row

of trees doesn’t really provide a great deal of buffer but if you are able to provide a stagger row

of trees it provide a much better level of buffering.

it gets it out of the easement which once again if it gets plowed up, they can tear it up and say,

have fun putting your driveway back in.

Pg. 300 November 19, 2024 Zoning Meeting

green space. There’s not going to be ...you’re not going to be able to perceive a difference. It’s

important to remember...Josh, could you put up the overhead, the aerial with arrows on it. It’s

important to remember that our buffer, where we are measuring from is our property line and

then what’s after that is some space between our property line and McEwen Drive and then

there’s McEwen Drive and then there’s a bunch of front yards and then 160 feet away, are

single family residential houses. Generally, the residential district buffer requirement is when

you're putting an apartment building in the backyard of single family residential. The backyard

is where the activity of home is focused not the front yard so putting an apartment complex

even right on the boarder impacts that home. We have 160 ft to what’s in peoples garages and

then a little bit more to where their foyers and living rooms and dining rooms usually are ina

single family home. So, were not....[ don’t think there’s a ton of space to add...to move that

building back.

those courts was that a request from that board.

think itll really make this a great project.

Drive, as far as access. What if you flip that and utilize the access point to the clubhouse for that

building.

I'ma lawyer not and engineer. It does not work that way. The project isn’t feasible that way.

There’s about 9 ft of elevation (EVER YONE SPEAKING AT THE SAME TIME) And then

you have people on McEwen looking at our backyards not the front of the house like a

residential street like the design should be.

to have a back yard if you know what I mean. It’s like a single family’s

didn’t hear an answer to it. Would you consider or is there am ability to slide the building

facing McEwen and back a number of feet you know. J. am looking at; | see where they are

about 15 feet from the retaining wall. The retaining wall is about 8 feet from the corner of the

pickle bail court, so I don’t know, we’re 35 feet plus or minus from the corner of the pickle ball

fencing is what I am reading there.

Pg. 301 November 19, 2024 Zoning Meeting

mean, there is a backyard to these townhouses, and you don’t want to destroy that or impede on

the sport court, or the clubhouse and I don’t think we can go back a foot or two, but I don’t

think it will be perceptible.

we could probably get to a 5 foot. You know moving the building a couple feet shifting the

driveway a few feet and get at least 5 more feet there.

the parallel driveway was a request by the town but that does technically put you a zero foot as

a buffer which I understand that there is greenspace on it on the other property that can be

vegetated to block it a little bit, but 1 think if you could make it a little bit deeper. It’s still going

to be a significant change from what is there now, but it will be a little less harsh with more

plantings and more depth of plantings.

because you’re not going to take that extra couple feet if the move their ... SOMEONE ELSE

SPEAKING

easement a little bit as well.

you wouldn’t want to. It’s been...my experience that I generally won’t plan-specify anything in

an easement because tree roots tend to do what they do, and it could be detrimental to any type

of utility.

a precedent. People say you don’t establish a precedent each application stands on their own

merit, but it concerns me. It could establish a precedent. This phase came in | think I believe it

Pg. 302 November 19, 2024 Zoning Meeting

was like 3 acres or 2.5 so they combined lots to get around the density issue. God Bless you.

What’s to prevent them from splitting their land off again. That concerns me also .

assuming that this will be the end of the development for this property and even know there’s

acreage that’s undeveloped at this point and time as part of this 12 acre parcel you are not

planning any additional development the acreage

the plan from the 1980's and this is the end of owners plan on development.

another developer to come and then this is the parcel.

integral to not only to this project but our current 62 town houses that we rent. It would be a

devastating blow to lose that . We also couldn’t subdivide below 5 acres because then we

would be out of compliance with town code and would need a variance. So, I get we could, but

we'd need the Planning Board and the Zoning Board to approve it again that’s not...in the plan.

other single family residences, what is that distance there.

buildings.

Pg. 303 November 19, 2024 Zoning Meeting

;

RESOLUTION 24-0070 Michael Short made a motion to TYPE II SEQR

which was seconded by: Dan Lagoner

VOTE:

Mr. Short AYE

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Hauza AYE

Mr. Lagonor AYE

Mr. Centola AYE

Mr. Spampinato AYE

l.

a

7.

8. This request is not out of character in the neighborhood: This request is not out of character

with the neighborhood. The applicant has really made an effort from the initial submission

to the current submission to ensure that the project is within the character of the

neighborhood itself both within the current property as well as adjacent properties there.

There will not be a detriment created to nearby properties: At the end of the day the

applicant has agreed to additional 5 foot setback more than what was previously proposed

as well as buffer plantings to minimize and eliminate any visual impact to any of the nearby

properties.

The benefit is not achievable by any other method: Due to the slope of the property all the

way to the bay as well as the immediate area. This is a large project; it is a substantial

project for the area.

There are no adverse physical or environmental impacts to the site or neighborhood: There

are none especially with the buffers being put in place and the 51.8...the document that I

have adding 5 feet to that 56.8 feet from nearby structures themselves.

that are there.

This is not an undesirable change: This is a desirable change to the area from the fields that

are there.

This request is not significant:

RESOLUTION 24-0071 Michael Short made a motion to APPROVE THE

AREA VARIANCE WATERVIEW

APARTMENTS PHASE 3: Located at the

northwest corner of Willow Point Way and Nautical

Mile Drive. Applicant Legacy Development Co.,

Inc is requesting AREA VARIANCES to allow:

* front setbacks of 18.7 where the code

requires 75 feet.

associated with the construction of (6) buildings

plus a community center (total of 56 units), each 2

Pg. 304 November 19, 2024 Zoning Meeting

stories in height on a proposed 13.15-acre parcel

having SBL# 093.06-3-64.11 located in an MHR

Medium High Residential District under Section

350-14 of the Code of the Town of Webster which

was seconded by: Corrine Volo.

VOTE:

Mr. Short AYE

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Hauza AYE

Mr. Lagonor AYE

Mr. Centola AYE

Mr. Spampinato AYE

MIC)

of perpendicular on the left side of the screen, t hat one is not changing that one’s

38. Corrine Volo: So can we do a dual buffer, from the west more 10 unit building have a buffer of

the 38.5 feet and the building facing McEwen have a5 foot buffer to that connected drive.

conditions that the building move. I think that would comply with public notices with a

condition that we move the building back .

OX-AriVEWAY... eee eee EVERYONE TALKING OVER

shift south 5 feet so the building and the access road.

driveways 5 but the building is only shifting

2. Pg. 305 November 19, 2024 Zoning Meeting

Michae! Short: So back to what Corrine was saying earlier, and I think I got you is that the

western most building have a buffer of 38 feet. The building facing McEwen...

APPLICANTS HAVING A DISCUSSION

feet and moving the driveway 3 feet.

TALKING OVER

bee ee eee EVERYONE

building..........

both sizes.

EVERYONE TALKING AT ONE TIME

RESOLUTION 24-0071 Michael Short made a motion to APPROVE THE

AREA VARIANCE WATERVIEW

APARTMENTS PHASE 3: Located at the

northwest corner of Willow Point Way and Nautical

Mile Drive. Applicant Legacy Development Co.,

Inc is requesting AREA VARIANCES to allow:

* A western most 10 unit town home to have a

a single family district buffer variance of 38

feet from the property line and the 10 unit

building facing McEwen to have a 5 foot

buffer to the drive and to maintain a 43.8 feet

buffer or distance to the property line

associated with the construction of (6)

buildings plus a community center (total of

56 units), each 2 stories in height on a

proposed 13.15-acre parcel having SBL#

093.06-3-64.11 located in an MHR Medium

High Residential District under Section 350-

Pg. 306 November 19, 2024 Zoning Meeting

14 of the Code of the Town of Webster

which was seconded by: Chris Centola

VOTE:

Mr. Short AYE

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Hauza NAY

Mr. Lagonor AYE

Mr. Centola AYE

Mr. Spampinato AYE

CONDITIONS:

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

Building Permit.

e That one-year significant construction shall expire November 19, 2025.

e Buffer landscaping to be provided both in the buffer zone on your property as well

as work with the town to provide buffering in the town property as well.

setback with the conditions of additional buffer vegetation as well as moving the building back 2

feet and moving the horizontal or the drive road back 5 feet.

(Corrine Volo read the third application)

Weiss is requesting an AREA VARIANCE to allow for construction of a ready

made garage to be placed closer to the front property line than the rear line of the

main building on a 0.55-acre parcel having SBL# 079.18-1-40 located in an R-3

Single Family Residential District under Sections 350-12 and 350-36 of the Code of

the Town of Webster.

Appearing before the board was Dale Weiss and Lisa Weiss at 1093 Sharon Court.

noticed for the building being in front of the rear line of the house. So, we just needed to

readvertise it so that variance could be correct.

have is 21,780 sf based on the deck, pool house, car, shed and then the new structure. 1 believe

we are going to exceed 20 percent of lot coverage as well.

and that is when I noticed it.

Pg. 307 November 19, 2024 Zoning Meeting

is what I recall. Maximum lot coverage so if you have, you know, I think you’re a half-acre

plot of land that’s 21, 780 sf and 20% of that is 4,000 and change. That is calculated based on

structures on the property which includes the deck , deck wrap around porch, the pool, the

house, the shed, and then the new structure as well would be the ones that would come up and

when I did my math and I don’t know what your specs, the actual property size is if it’s truly a

straight half acre or it’s .6 of an acre or if it’s .4 of an acre. So, I didn’t have all the figures, I

was over by about 700 sf when I was doing my quick calculations. It would be another variance

that you would also need on top of the side variance; the front variance; and then lot size

variance as well.

shed was about 110 square feet +/- . I was not out on your property with a tape measure so I

was doing the best I could with the information that I had. The house, pool, and deck I have at

about 4700 sf and then the new structure itself. You had the size on here and it was like 14 x

20 or something like that. That was another several hundred square feet allowable based on

what I was calculating was 4356 and the house and pool without the shed was already at 4700.

Again, without me having actual numbers, I apologize.

sf which would be the house, the pool and the shed. If you loose the shed, yes, you would be

able to put another 100 sf shed back up, but you would still be at the max. Again, my

calculations were based off of Google Earth measurements. They were not my physically out

there measuring it so.

will advertise this along with what you were here tonight okay.

for the lot size. Is that ....1’m sorry, fam having trouble hearing you.

Pg. 308 November 19, 2024 Zoning Meeting

coverage on the lot and that is of structure so anything that you build on your lot can not exceed

20% of the total lot size. Your lot is .55 acres, or 23,958 sf is what your lot is so 20% of that

would be 4, 791 sf of built structures and that is not including the driveway or any of that but

that is the house, deck, pool, the shed and then any new structures that are built.

maximum you’re allowed so 1 am not trying to speak for the chairman but like you said, you

could get rid of the existing shed and you know, tell us you get rid of the existing shed or just

come back unfortunately next month and it is unfortunate that you have to do it that way bit it

has to be advertised even though I am sure everyone that’s here tonight to speak against it will

be back next month but unfortunately that’s the way it goes.

calculated and put in the paper and then will come back again and see if we can the variance.

Three variances it sounds like.

EVERYONE SPEAKING AT THE SAME TIME.

RESOLUTION 24-0072 Short made a motion TABLED

APPLICATION TO DECEMBER 10, 2024

which was seconded by: Chris Centola.

VOTE:

Mr. Short AYE

Pg. 309 November 19, 2024 Zoning Meeting

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Hauza AYE

Mr. Lagonor AYE

Mr. Centola AYE

Mr. Spampinato AYE

(Corrine Volo read the fourth application)

Applicant Austin Goodwin is requesting an AREA VARIANCE to allow a front setback of 30

feet where the minimum required is 75 feet, associated with the construction of a 2,261 SF

single family residence on a 3.0-acre parcel having SBL# 049.03-1-34.2 located in an LL

Large Lot Single Family Residential District under Section 350-13 of the Code of the Town of

Webster.

Appearing before the board was Austin Goodwin, owner of 430 Whiting Road along with my

fiancé Caroline. The reason we are here tonight, as you already stated, to request a front

setback variance smaller than the one applicable to town code. Looking up at the screen you

can see that this is a 3 acre flag lot along Whiting Road and town code specifies that your front

setback for a flag lot is not typical of a normal property where it comes off of the right of way,

it comes off of the rear lot line of the property in front of you so off of the property in front of

me being 446 Whiting which is Mr. Schneider who is also here with me tonight. The front

setback starts from him rear property line. So, just to make it clear, when I’m talking about a 30

foot front setback, ] am not talking about a 30 foot front setback from Whiting Road I am

talking about a 700 plus foot setback from Whiting Road.

The reason that I am asking for this is because of the natural topography of the property itself .

Things that I stated in the statement of difficulty, number one being that this is not a self

created hardship the natural topography. Josh, if you don’t mind, keep going, right there. So,

the natural topography of this parcel is a central valley running right through the middle and

then just to the right side of that another steep hill with a peak and once you go down the back

side of that hill the far edge of this property is Webster Park. So, this property is not a flat lot

that is easy to build upon in a sense the only real logical place that I can place a single family

residence is where you see on here where it will be is the front of the house will be at the top of

the valley where it’s flat and the house will be a single story residence with a walk out

basement that goes down the hill and that would allow me to, based on where it is be a few feet

up from the low point of the valley where when we get freeze thaw and all the snow starts

melting you don’t want your house in that and the reason it has to be pushed a little bit farther

forward like that is the leech field that you see on the right side of the house. So, Whiting Road

doesn’t have all the utilities that a typical road does. There’s about a 1,250 ft gap on both sides

of the road where there is no water service and there 1s no sanitary sewer. So, the house ts

actually 410 just to the north side of this is the last house that has water service off Whiting

Road which means I can either pay the Monroe County Water Authority tens upon tens of

thousands of dollars to extend the main or I can go on a wel! like most people in this area have.

Pg. 310 November 19, 2024 Zoning Meeting

In order to do that there is certain health code requirements that separate the well! from the

leech fields so on the left side of the house, 1 know you probably can’t see it but there’s a little

circle right there and that is where I’m proposing to put the well, at the top side of the hill up

stream from the leech field. That is a health code requirement, and I can’t change that, nor

would I want to. I don’t want my well downstream with my leech field. The leech field itself

also can’t be built in the valley because of during the spring when that becomes inundated from

snowmelt now it’s inundated and I’m going to back up my plumbing and that’s gong to cause a

whole mess of problems. So, the leech field has to be built as a tiered system on the side of the

hill. That leech field has separation requirements form property lines and that is why there is

an arrow right there on the north tippy corner of the leech field essentially that leech field is as

far to the right and as close to that little valley that I can possibly put it. It is also as close to the

house as [ can put it because health code requires me to have the septic tank, and the leech

fields a certain distance from the house in order to build this house that means that the house

has to move closer to the back rear lot line of Mr. Schneider’s property and that’s why I’m

asking for the 30 foot vs the

75. Now, in terms of all the other questions for statement of

difficulty essential character would this affect the character of the area. No, it’s a very sparse

single family residential where all the lots are at least 3 acres all covered in vast mature

vegetation, and I do not plan to change that in any way. In fact, by having the house closer up

I’m farther, I’m as far as I can possibly go to stay away from Webster Park. So, instead of

having the house way in the back corner by the trail 1 am trying to stay away from it. I want

people to enjoy that, and I also want to have my privacy from the park. In terms of no other

remedy without mass grading this 3 acre site and effectively filling in that valley and clear

cutting all the trees on the property to get the net cut fill there’s no other way for me to do it

without putting the house where it is where the front of the house at the top of the hill build it to

be a single story ranch and have it be a walk out basement vs a two-story house like many

others in the area. A couple reasons why I want that, I’d like to grow old in this house. I don’t

want to have stairs in 40 years and another sense is because of the property being on a hill. The

only way essentially to do it is to be a walk out basement style house.

In terms of significance to neighbors, the only neighbor that would be affected by granting this

variance is Mr. Schneider and that is why | brough him here today. Because this a one

dimensional movement the house is not getting any closer to the properties to the north than is

already allowed. It is not any closer to the property to the south or the east which is Webster

Park. The only person who is affected by this would be Mr. Schneider’s property and the

closest distance between this house and his is over 500 feet. The nearest neighbor in terms of

even just distance to this house whether this was granted or not is over 300 feet to the north

with vast mature vegetation between this house and all of the neighbors. So, during the middle

of summer no one can see each other anyway regardless if this house is here or back no one is

going to see it. Otherwise, this is probably the smallest presentation I have ever done for a

project since it’s a single family house, so | am here for any questions you have.

Pg. 31! November 19, 2024 Zoning Meeting

it in it’s current location. I took a quick sketch, and I rotated it 30 degrees and I was able to

pick up an additional 25 feet and keeping the building, the house in the same location. Is that

something that you are willing to consider is rotating the design you have to move the garage.

Ultimately what it does is pulls the garage back further away from the property line.

that house as is................

house would get turned counterclockwise like this so the reason J did not do that is because of

the steep grade change that drops off into that valley. If you were to turn the house yes the main

portion of the house is still on the flat side of the hill but what you’ ve now done is that the back

side of the basement, the walk out portion is now on the portion of the hill where it's coming

down it’s not an open level ground in the back you have essentially one corner of the house at

the bottom but the entire house is a skew from the hill so that you don’t have anything out

back. I can’t put a patio out back for people to sit on, I can’t put anything other than just

having the land dive down to one corner of the house and 1 would have nothing usable.

whole face would be facing downhill.

the more and more you turn this that is more and more fill that has to be placed just to put the

garage in and with this house being a walk out basement the only soil that I am going to get

without mass grading more the site and cutting down trees and getting that soil from

somewhere is by leaving il like this. The soil that gets dug out for the basement has to go

where the garage currently is in order to build a pad to put the garage in so if you turn that

farther and farther then the garage is farther and farther down the hill and now that’s

significantly more and more material that I have to bring in or import or cut down trees in

another part of the property to steal that soil in order to fill that pad area in order for me to put a

6 to 8 inch concrete pad in. So, it’s a much larger and 1 don’t want to say significance, it’s a

much larger construction project in order to turn that and put more of the garage over an area

that would have to have multiple and multiple feet of additional fill placed underneath it.

Which, if this were a large development project they’re masquerading the entire side anyway,

that’s not a big deal. For a single family residence, the only soil I’m getting is what gets dug

out for that basement and there is not much that would allow me to build a pad as is which

already has a 4-5 foot grade change from front to back. If I turn it, I now have to fill in front of

it and underneath it and I am not going to have enough soil to do that.

Pg. 312 November 19, 2024 Zoning Meeting

being a ravine back there, but I was not...{ did not remember how significant the ravine was on

that lot.

standing there.

the house is really the only logical location to put it on that parcel with the least amount of

damage............... BOARD MEMBER SPEAKING OVER

design standpoint J think from a practical standpoint based on the existing conditions out there [

think that works. It’s not a question of it not working it’s a question of personal preference of I

think it might be better if you rotated it, but I don’t think the necessary actions to rotate it is

significant enough to request him to do that.

or against.

Eric Schneider at 446 Whiting Road with my wife Karen and I will note that Katherine Kolich

is still coughing...LAUGHTER. Yes, we are the only affected neighbor in fact we are the only

neighbor, and we won’t even be able to see this development unless we’ re standing behind our

barn it’s just a....even in the summer you just won’t see it at all. So, there is no problem there.

I can tell you from having lived here for 30 years that valley will become a quagmire in the

spring it simply can’t be built on at that location and the leech field does have to be up on the

hillside itself in order to support that and it does drop off quite quickly there’s a good 13 foot

difference as it drops from the flat section down to with what my wife and I call the meadow.

So, there is not a whole lot of space there and you pretty much have to have the house running

parallel to the hill itself in order to have any sort of patio wall out basement thing like that and

it's almost going to be at the level of meadow floor by the time you get there so. There are a

lot of constraints there. You would have to push it all the way across the meadow floor and

within, well closer to Webster Park by 50 foot you'd basically be staring at the people on the

west loop as they walk through in the summer so not the best idea, so this is really the only

feasible location of a house given the constraints that you’ ve got and trying to keep it within a

reasonable budget. So, my wife Karen and I have discussed this, and I believe that Karen and

Mrs. Volo walked the property together along with the dog. Thanks for exercising him while I

was at work and basically, we are fully in agreement with position of the house and the

variance requested,

board.

Pg. 313 November 19, 2024 Zoning Meeting

fields that are there.

RESOLUTION 24-0073 Michael Short made a motion for TYPE Tf SEQR

which was seconded by: Corrine Volo.

VOTE:

Mr. Short AYE

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Hauza AYE

Mr. Lagonor AYE

Mr. Centola AYE

Mr. Spampinato AYE

The project doesn’t result in the undesirable change in the essential character of the neighborhood

and there would be no detriment to any adjacent properties if the variance is granted. The relief

sought by the variance is not achievable by other feasible method due to the existing contours of

both the valley and the flat area of the existing property . The variance is not substantial based on

the amount of property on the proximity to adjacent neighbors. The variance will not have an

adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood and it’s not self-

created because the flag Jot has already been subdivided and the topography and the wooded areas

were existing probably longer than the flag lot was created.

RESOLUTION 24-0075 Michael Short made a motion for an AREA

VARIANCE Located at 430 Whiting Road.

Applicant Austin Goodwin is requesting an

AREA VARIANCE to allow a front setback of

30 feet where the minimum required is 75 feet,

associated with the construction of a 2,261 SF

single family residence on a 3.0-acre parcel

having SBL# 049.03-1-34.2 located in an LL

Large Lot Single Family Residential District

under Section 350-13 of the Code of the Town of

VOTE:

Mr. Short AYE

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Hauza AYE

Pg. 314 November !9, 2024 Zoning Meeting

Mr. Lagonor AYE

Mr. Centola AYE

Mr. Spampinato AYE

CONDITIONS:

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

Building Permit.

e That one-year significant construction shall expire November 19, 2025.

(Corrine Volo read the fifth application)

Chad Willardson is requesting AREA VARIANCES to allow a rear setback of 38 feet where the

minimum required is 50 feet associated with the construction of an addition on a 0.41-acre parcel

having SBL# 079.19-1-30 located in an R-3 Single Family Residential District under Section

350-12 of the Code of the Town of Webster.

Appearing before the board was Chad Willardson, Project Manager for Marshall Exterior and I

am representing the home owners, Kathy and Steve Buckner. We are looking to change the

setback from 50 feet to

38. We had a permit for a covered structure already and the

homeowners asked to enclose it. We are not changing the footprint what so ever, we’ re just

looking to have the setback changed.

remain.

to the board.

RESOLUTION 24-0074 Michael Short made a motion fora TYPE II SEQR

which was seconded by: Donald Hauza.

VOTE:

Mr. Short AYE

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Hauza AYE

Mr. Lagonor AYE

Pg. 315 November 19, 2024 Zoning Meeting

[

Mr. Centola AYE

Mr. Spampinato AYE

2.

3.

na

aa

This request is not out of character in the neighborhood: Will not change essential character

of the neighborhood.

There will not be a detriment created to nearby properties: No detriment to nearby

properties

The benefit is not achievable by any other method: No other remedies based on the size

and configuration of the lot.

There are no adverse physical or environmental impacts to the site or neighborhood: Will

not have physical or environmental conditions of the general area.

only spot to really put an addition.

This is not an undesirable change:

This request is not significant:

RESOLUTION 24-0075 Chris Centola made a motion to APPROVE THE

AREA VARIANCE Located at 867 Meadow

Ridge Lane. Applicant Chad Willardson is

requesting AREA VARIANCES to allow a rear

setback of 38 feet where the minimum required is

50 feet associated with the construction of an

addition on a 0.41-acre parcel having SBL# 079. 19-

1-30 located in an R-3 Single Family Residential

District under Section 350-12 of the Code of the

Town of Webster which was seconded by: Corrine

Volo.

CONDITIONS:

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

Building Permit.

That one-year significant construction shall expire November 19, 2025.

VOTE:

Mr. Short AYE

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Hauza AYE

Mr. Lagonor AYE

Mr. Centola AYE

Mr. Spampinato AYE

Pg. 316 November 19, 2024 Zoning Meeting

* Approved minutes for September 10, 2024 (VOLO/SHORT) and October 8, 2024

(VOLO/HAUZA)

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

meeting at 9:00 p.m.

[ ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM:

Rar as Ch yess

Corrine Volo, Secretary

Katherine Kolich, Recording Secretary

JAN 15°25 PH12:17

FILED WEBSTER TWN CLK

(ahons neManrr

L Pg. 317 November 19, 2024 Zoning Meeting