Minutes

WEBSTER ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES

Corrine Volo Michael Short

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

2024.

Pledge of Allegiance , Call Roll

this evenings meeting. We do only have a board of four members, and we do have one board

member that is absent this evening. For any of the applications, you still need to get three yes

votes out of the four. Is there anyone who would not wish to proceed this evening because of

that. Ok then, we will proceed with the meeting. Anyone who does speak at this evenings

meeting I would request that you write your name and address on the sign up sheet that is by the

entry door so that we have the record for the minutes of the meeting.

Summary of Application Outcomes

TABLED MATTERS

:

671 WILLOW LANE/ACCESSORY STRUCTURE

meeting to respond to additional material specification requests from the Planning and

Zoning Boards.

WILLOWPOINT WAY/WATERVIEW APARTMENTS PHASE 3

therefore this application will be tabled to a future meeting**

Pg. 242 October 8, 2024 Zoning Meeting

SCHEDULED MATTERS

:

219 MILL STREA RUN/ SINGLE FAMILY

e 39.85 feet rear setback

* The screened-in portion of the covered terrace shall not be enclosed.

e Miust obtain all governmental permits.

¢ 1-year meaningful construction.

Significant landscaping along the rear of property shall be installed.

1093 SHARON COURT/GARAGE

1146 BROOKTREE LANE/COVERD PORCH

e 42’ front setback for 8’ x 9’ covered front porch.

e Must obtain all necessary governmental permits.

e 1-year meaningful construction.

671 WILLOW LANE/COVERED PORCH

e 30° front setback for gabled covered front porch

¢ Porch dimensions will be 10’ x 22° and design drawings shall be submitted to

the Town of Webster prior to receiving a building permit.

e 1-year meaningful construction.

751 MAPLE DRIVE/DETACHED GARAGE

e 35’ front setback for pole barn (4 feet from existing driveway).

e Requires Planning Board approval and building permit.

e 1-year meaningful construction

(Chris Centola 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

Pg. 243 October 8, 2024 Zoning Meeting

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.

Appearing before the board was Bryan Bishoping. So, I submitted a couple of pages, and the

new idea is to take the metal siding and install it horizontally to make it look similar to the

primary residence and that 9 inch to rib to rib is going to be very close to the existing siding on

the primary structure.

applicant want to show that.

this, we want to make sure to clarify or give clarification, At the last meeting we were, once

again, to make sure that it was more residential and neighbor friendly in nature and once again

instead of the elevation project bucket evaluation showed at the last meeting, where it was

vertical, and it was felt that it looked more industrial like a pole barn would be in an industrial

park. The alternative is then to move it horizontally which is what most of the siding is in this

neighborhood and then the pictures what were given today were just , once again, accent pieces.

Have the light fixtures above the door or adjacent to the doors rather matching the ones on the

main structure of the house and then later on today and I don’t want to speak to it right now, but

later on he has rethought my idea to try and blend the tow together for the main house and the

accessory structure and that is part of why he has brought in an application to enhance the front

of the house with a front porch. Plus, he was hanging out with his neighbor, and they wished

there was a front porch so that blends this one with the siding that would be horizontal in nature

and accent them each of them together. In addition, there are shutters are the main structure and

putting shutters on this accessory structure to match the house to make it more complimentary to

the residential nature. Is that what the board is looking for from the last clarification at the last

meeting after it was tabled. Sorry I missed that one I was out of town.

only alternative is the architect drew the lines vertically and the lines would be horizontally on

the siding, but no the architect has no been commissioned additional renderings beyond that.

The only pictures that there were neighboring residential structures in multiple communities and

the other accent piece is possible wainscoting at the bottom Just to break up the siding as it is but

once again, those are just accent pieces. We are trying to find out exactly what the Zoning Board

is looking for, for residential in nature.

Pg. 244 October 8, 2024 Zoning Meeting

Casciani has provided a letter to the Zoning Board with recommendations as to what the town

looks for with this type of a structure.

to the board in one of the previous months applications and we recently discovered that it was

not, so, yes, we did just provide it all to you tonight.

CASCIANI ATTACHED) So, it might be helpful because I know some of these issues were

addressed in the previous meeting as to where we left off which was....because I knew there

were multiple components and some of which were ok and other which were problematic.

softened up so that it met the character of the neighborhood, so it did not look like a commercial

building. That is what I am recalling and that was one of the biggest issues that I have with the

proposal,

story structure and requested renderings so that we could see exactly what the structure is going

to look like and more than just the one page sketch that we received. Um, I guess my own

thoughts, given that this is recently received material from the Planning Board chair person and

that the applicant has not seen this, I guess I would not be opposed to the applicant tabling for

one more time. Looking at the Planning Board letter that is from Tony, from Mr. Casciani and

then if you choose to come back the next meeting, have a design for us that meets this criteria

or...

where it would add another month or are you doing the review that the Planning Board did?

Pg. 245 October 8, 2024 Zoning Meeting

gave us this letter of the things that they would expect from an accessory structure in a

neighborhood such as this is going to be located. We just received this correspondence so I

understand that the applicant has not received yet but there is a paragraph here that is specific of

what we have been trying to beat around the bush of what we would like to see as far as the

esthetics of the building. There is the function that you need to be able to store stuff inside but

the outside, based on where it’s located. If it was behind the house and met all the location

criteria, I don’t know that the board would be as concerned with the esthetics but because of it’s

location and right out in the open and visible.

email from mid-after noon/3:00, there is a change between you and the applicant. | guess that

was what I was referring to, there was late submittals.

of the horizontal setback siding. Was there more than this?

our presentation today meaning the presentation that we would put on the screen, and he said it

was beyond the deadline. It was clarifications as we gathered more information even ideas from

this weekend, so it was not part of the submission no, but it was once again, working the design

progress to this, That is, what is in your hand......

THE SAME TIME)

renderings that if the board and it seems inferentially that they would like to see that, and you are

indicating that ...

architect felt was a rendering.

Pg. 246 October 8, 2024 Zoning Meeting

rendering. You want more detail on the selections of exterior of the elements. The wainscoting

at the bottom that the Planning Board just clarified up because that is what I am feeling is that

was not submitted to any other prior applications and what was submitted from last month to this

month and correct me if 1 am wrong Bryan, was the asking of switching of the siding from

vertical to horizonal to make it less industrial.

boards trying to drive you to spend more money on the application by asking the architect to do

more work than is necessary, but it sounds like the board is struggling with this whole

commercial appearance look and I would assume that it addresses that, and I am assuming

favorably for yourselves some softening, whatever that might consist of . It’s probably going to

be the best thing for you to do.

resemble is showing how the architecture will soften it and match the house. Is that clear.

panel, that is a material specification. It says nothing about how it looks on the structure; it says

nothing about the color or how it fits in, stuff like that. Although this is good information and it’s

not the only information and I am not going to speak for the rest of the board, but we want to see

what it’s going to look like. Have them draw almost a perspective or something like that or even

if it’s elevations showing each side.

PARTIES SPEAKING AT THE SAME TIME-Chris Centola) Mr. DeMarco...

or not we believe it’s fitting with the character of the neighborhood. I don’t believe I have

enough information to say yes it does. I don’t think it actually meets that threshold but that is just

my opinion, and I think if you are to look at Chairman Cassiani’s letter and address those , that

would go a long way and illustrate to the board what we would like to see with that.

from Jeff Losen the architect. That was the rendering and once again, it just wasn’t

commissioned to have him change the siding line from...... (DONALD HAUZA SPEAKING

OVER APPLICANT)

are intending on doing based on the information that the Planning Board Chairman gave to view

and that is a big hint from him, I mean he is providing you a lot of “ins” in that letter, and I know

you don’t have a copy.

Pg. 247 October 8, 2024 Zoning Meeting

show the scale of the structure other than the lines of the siding . The orientation of the building

doors and windows.

at the...[ lost count of how many meetings was that if this is what is going up, this is too

industrial looking. It’s very plain; the height has been a concem to the board. Since it’s no

longer going to have two floors there truly is no reason for it to be 23 feet tall which makes it

larger than any other accessory structure in the neighborhood, in that entire track. It is very

warehouse looking and that, I think every member of the board has conveyed that in some way,

shape, or form every time we have discussed it.

was brought into this.

there that were going to be 25 feet tall and you thought that was customary in a residence to have

racks.

That tells me you have a commercial business or your intentions of a commercial business

occupying that site. We are trying to avoid that. This is a residential neighborhood.

the original gentleman, are you asking to table it until next month. I mean this is new and we

just got this.

and then referred the design of the building for the applicant to take that to the Planning Board.

The applicant determined that or optionally go to the planning board, and we would have had

this information in July but since the application did not go to the planning board the conditions

Pg. 248 October 8, 2024 Zoning Meeting

referred it back to the Zoning Board to go back to go, do not collect 200.00 dollars, start all over

again. I don’t know how many different ways to convey to you that this storage structure is not

appropriate for that neighborhood in that location. The way it is currently presented.

will, because if you don’t and the board was to vote tonight, it sounds as though it would not

pass. So, to keep the possibility alive, I am recommending it to you.

table it with this new information, you would like us to request tabling it.

result that you desire.

materials and a depiction on it from a licensed architect or does it have to be a licensed architect

or not.

with phot shop, just something that shows us what you are going to build and how it is going to

look next to the house with colors.

building with how that new horizontal siding is going to look with it and any other conditions

that you need in the planning board letter that you may or may not want to add on to the drawing.

application.

of this board.

application deadline, correct?

Pg. 249 October 8, 2024 Zoning Meeting

applicant for 6 this evening ok or no, Ok, you don’t want to keep them together.

SOMEONE FROM THE AUDIENCE SPEAKING OUT.

RESOLUTION 24-0054 Corrine Volo made a motion to TABLED

APPLICATION TO THE NOVEMBER 19, 2024

Hauza.,

VOTE:

Mr. Short ABSENT

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Hauza AYE

Mr. Lagonor ABSENT

Mr. Centola AYE

Mr. Spampinato AYE

(Chris Centola 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:

* A front setback less than what is required

* A district buffer area less than what is required

* A building length longer than what is permitted

* Less parking spaces than what is required

associated with the construction of (2) 45-unit apartment buildings, each 3 stories in

height on a proposed 13.15-acre parce! 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.

RESOLUTION 24-0056 Corrine Volo made a motion to TABLE

APPLICATION AS APPLICANT

REQUESTED UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE

which was seconded by: Chris Centola.

VOTE:

Mr. Short ABSENT

Mrs. Volo AYE

Pg. 250 October 8, 2024 Zoning Meeting

Mr. Hauza AYE

Mr. Lagonor ABSENT

Mr. Centola AYE

Mr. Spampinato AYE

(Chris Centola read the third application)

MILL STREAM RUN SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE: Located at 219 Mill Stream Run.

Applicant John DeFazio is requesting an AREA VARIANCE associated with the construction

of a new single-family dwelling with a rear setback of 35 feet where the minimum required is 55

feet on a 0.51-acre parcel having SBL# 036.03-1-96 located in an WD Waterfront Development

District under Section 350-11 and Section 350-25 of the Code of the Town of Webster.

Appearing before the board was Al LaRue with McMahon LaRue Associates. Adrian DeFazio

and John could not attend this evening. A little bit of history, as Mrs. Volo knows, during

COVID of 2020 the board granted a variance for 44 foot minimum rear setback. The project

didn’t go forward due to COVID and due to cost of construction during that period of time but

since then the home has been redesigned with a covered porch in the back in the rear extending

further into, he setback. Now we have a letter that submitted to the town the Costal View HOA

and approved it with conditions of course. Architectural etc.....and the home owner does want

to build as soon as possible and if we get a variance tonight, he will be preparing site plans for

submittal to the Planning Board.

the same home that was improved in 2020.

further end of the setback.

WHAT WAS SAID, BOTH PARTIES SPEAKING)

Pg. 251 October 8, 2024 Zoning Meeting

will be a roof over it.

and obviously the definition.........

Structure,

it completely and make it part of the interior space.

be fully enclosed and the screened in porch would remain screened in.

anyone who would like to speak for or against this application.

Erich Koenig at 392 Coastal View Drive: It is the property directly behind the property here in

question this evening. I do recall having a notice from the town about 4 years ago with he

request of the variance, and I believe at the time it was 1] or 10-11 feet for the minimum

setback difference and to be honest with you, I really didn’t have a problem with it at that point

10 feet on a larger lot like that you are probably not going to notice the difference and now you

are talking beyond that amount. I went out there today in fact with a tape measure and I have

a general idea of where the stakes use to be and since then, they have been knocked down after

4 years of mowing and what not around that area, so I have a general idea of where that is.

There is a raised berm that is between the Property in question and my property that does

partially obscure the two properties. Like if the house were to be built there is a raised berm in

there and it's probably about 6 feet in height and on the one side, it would be like the western

side of the property but does essentially slope down to nothing on the Jar side. My concern, 35

Jeet, it’s very close to that rear berm and especially with that covered porch, I don’t understand

why the whole house itself. if you want to keep that original setback of the 44 Jeet or whatever

had originally been approved, like just push the whole house forward 10 feet. I know I just

said 10 feet doesn’t make a lot but like when you are talking either 55 feet or 35 feet, you are

talking almost half of the distance that the house is now going to be coming into that minimum

setback that was allowed by the town. So, again, I didn’t have any issues with it at first, but I

Jeel like 35 feet, especially when you look down that line of all those homes and neighborhood.

fam very familiar with that HOA with the restrictions and rules and stuff, and they apply to

everybody in that neighborhood and have a very particular idea of how that neighborhood is

supposed to look and I just feel like that house, it it’s offset that much compared to the rest of

the homes is going to look out of place and basically going to encroach essentially into my

Pg. 252 October 8, 2024 Zoning Meeting

back yard. Especially if they decide, I don’t know what there future plans are but if they decide

to put like a concreate patio in or something like that which typically people do on these semi

enclosed porches so they can kind of get outside, they are going to be right beside that berm.

My kids play out back there and stuff like that, so I am just concerned that...... the originally

setback of 44, I probably wouldn't have much of an issue with that but when you are talking a

whole 20 feet when you are talking the distance, I think is a little bit too much. Unless they

would be up to an agree to plant up some screening. Some evergreen trees or something that

like that that would create some sort of natural barrier to kind of mitigate any sound. Iam

more concerned with the view. We have a pool in our back yard, and I have planted some trees

on the top of that berm already at my own expense with the permission of the HOA. They have

been going there for 5 years. They are evergreen trees, and they are probably about 10 feet

tall and most of them are ready now so it is providing some sort of buffer right and I did that in

semi anticipation of a home being built back there but it doesn’t completely screen it off so if

the applicant hear tonight would be willing to agree to some sort of additional screening at

their cost and kind of split the difference. I am trying to be neighborly, and I don’t want to

cause a big problem right, but rules are rules, and, in our neighborhood, we are kind of forced

into certain things that we didn’t want to do necessarily with our property, but I just feel like

that would be a big change in that area of the property.

common space between.

property line to the back of where theirs is, it's probably...the thickness of the berm, if I had to

guess it is probably 15 feet maybe at the base and then of course it naturally slopes upward.

There is actually a walking path for the neighborhood that goes across the top of that berm.

and their property.

Pg. 253 October 8, 2024 Zoning Meeting

distance between....even just that first one there, 217 I believe it is, they have that large patio

in the back and they are still 40-50 back to the property line. It is a significant distance so due

to the construction or the outline of the for basically the footprint of the house and that garage

way out in the front, really causes that house to be pushed back quite a distance and that lot is

not actually quite as deep as the other 217 next to it there. The berm kind of runs on an angle

and cutting into that back corner there.

10 foot. I don’t understand why this modification has to be beyond that so the board should

entertain the original one that was allowed. I would be fine with that. Thank you.

A! LaRue: Actually, the setback that we are requesting is from the step down and not the actual

covered porch which sticks out on a 45 degree angle it looks like and then just bumped out a

little bit. There is a step down, so we took the extreme.

Massimo Pietrantoni at 394 Coastal View: (NEVER SIGNED IN) I agree with Erich. There is

an original proposal which seemed fair, and this one is exceeding with what the original

proposal was, so I am supporting the last speaker, and I am opposed to it.

David Winfield at 384 Coastal View: (NEVER SIGNED IN) I just wanted to reiterate support

for Erich as well. We are against it.

against it.

David Winfield at 384 Coastal View: I feel like it's to close to the properties that are already

there.

Pg. 254 October 8, 2024 Zoning Meeting

Al] LaRue: I don’t understand.

patio like. That’s what that is. So, that is the extreme.

think we count the step towards....... (CORRINE SPEAKING OVER)

dimension that was provided. (HARD TO HEAR, BOARD AND AL LARUE HAVING

CONVERSATION). BOARD AND AL LARUE (not at the mic) CONTINUING

CONVERSATION.

what is proposed today distance from the rear setback is how many feet?

EVERYONE TALKING AT ONCE. I DON’T UNDERSTAND, IF A QUESTION IS

Ce es

you said from the 2020 approval for the extra 5 feet is what reason?

the covered space, screened in covered space.

Pg. 255 October 8, 2024 Zoning Meeting

opinion but the covered, I am sorry, the porch...the covered terrace that was capable of being

placed in the original approval had it been there.

to have it included in 2020 is that right.

one end to the other instead of angling it out like it is shown on the plan. Just continuing it

across from comer to corner and you would still have the original setback or at least the

original setback that was approved 4 years ago.

evening correct.

the second two speakers supporting the closest neighbor if you will, did not indicate that they

were requiring or recommending the berm as well. I am assuming that they are on board with

the original neighbor that is opposing it.

berm is that what the HOA controls the parkland space in between and I am assuming the

proposal (HARD TO HEAR, NOT CLOSE ENOUGH TO THE MIC) is because then you

would have to inquire with the HOA and actually be on your clients property, the berm as

opposed to the space in between 219 and 390 and there would be enough room as best as you

can tell to do that.

stood but certainly installing some landscaping on the property is anticipated in the HOA

approval. So, we are on board with that. We want also to be good neighbors.

Pg. 256 October 8, 2024 Zoning Meeting

So, the comments from the HOA represented, you have already obtained there approval or is

that yet to come.

by the HOA, but they brought up the issue of landscaping, so they are anticipating it though,

I’m sure.

without any structure there.

and they don’t want to hear it. So, if there is screening for both the sound and the visual, I think

that 392 wouid be most impacted; 394 it’s quite a distance between those two corners and there

a bit of public space in between it and 384 is far enough away that I think any planting is going

to shield any view that they would have. There is already some screening back there. So, I

guess my question is, what is the true dimension that we are looking at if we are not

counting. ...so it’s, instead of 43.8 at 38.8 so almost 39 feet.

the home owner or association. So, in theory if we were to grant him a variance even with the

conditions to provide additional landscaping anyone opposed to the project or at least trying to

make it better will still have an opportunity to appear in front of their HOA of their concerns

and have them be far more aggressive than I think we can be in providing landscaping.

SPEAKING AT THE SAME TIME.

44. Pg. 257 October 8, 2024 Zoning Meeting

little over 40 feet from the...

RESOLUTION 24-0058 Corrine Volo made a motion TYPE II SEQR

which was seconded by: Donald Hauza

VOTE:

Mr. Short ABSENT

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Hauza AYE

Mr. Lagonor ABSENT

Mr. Centola AYE

Mr. Spampinato AYE

The proposed house will fit in with the basic character of the neighborhood and not resulted in

undesirable change to the essential character of the neighborhood although there may be some

visual impacts to people behind either side of it . It is an empty vacant lot right now so there is

opportunity for redesign for a building that would fit in there, but the applicant has already gone

through the expense of having something designed and receiving variance, so I understand their

desire to use this even though it is it self created. The variance requested is not substantial

especially based on the variances that were approved four years ago for an additional four foot

variance. The application is not have an adverse impacts and like I said, although it is self-created,

I believe it is trying to work within the initial variance granted four years ago.

application minus the additional extra 4 4% feet was approved on March 10, 2020 and it did note

that there is a forever wild buffer along the rear with a berm so it should shield this from the

properties to the north; there are several other homes in that subdivision with, it looks like

essentially the same foot print so the house is in character with the neighborhood; request is not

substantial it is about 25 percent but given that there is a buffer, it’s not significant; no adverse

physical or environmental impacts; Yes the difficulty is self-created but again the lots are small

and homes in that subdivision are larger so we have trying to minimize and that’s about it from the

previsions meeting.

Pg. 258 October 8, 2024 Zoning Meeting

covered structure not to the steps and that why the difference from what is advertised to what the

board approved this evening.

GO BACK AND DO SEQR)

RESOLUTION 24-0059

Corrine Volo made a motion to APPROVE THE

AREA VARIANCE Located at 219 Mill Stream

Run. Applicant John DeFazio is requesting an

AREA VARIANCE associated with the

construction of a new single-family dwelling with a

rear setback of 39 feet where the minimum required

is 55 feet on a 0.51-acre parcel having SBL#

036.03-1-96 located in an WD Waterfront

Development District under Section 350-11 and

Section 350-25 of the Code of the Town of Webster

which was seconded by: Chris Centola.

CONDITIONS:

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

Building Permit.

39.85 feet rear setback

The screened-in portion of the covered terrace shall not be enclosed.

Must obtain all governmental permits.

1-year meaningful construction.

Significant landscaping along the rear of property shall be installed.

That one-year significant construction shall expire October 8, 2025.

We do have a letter of approval from the HOA for this plan

VOTE:

Mr. Short

Mrs. Volo

Mr. Hauza

Mr. Lagonor

Mr. Centola

Mr. Spampinato

(Chris Centola read the fourth application)

requesting an AREA VARIANCE to allow for construction of a ready-made garage/workshop

with a side yard setback of 5 feet where the minimum required is 15 feet, a difference of 10 feet

ABSENT

AYE

AYE

ABSENT

AYE

AYE

Pg. 259 October 8, 2024 Zoning Meeting

on a 0.55-acre parcel having SBL# 079.18-1-40 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 Dale Weiss and we would like to put a small garage/workshop

off our side driveway and requesting the variance for 5 feet from the property line along the

northern hedgerow of our property. The structure will be mostly for some power tools and

summer and winter storage.

gentlemen’s garage and I am not mocking you or anything but that’s what I found, and he

really needs something to clear out his garage LAUGHTER.

thank you. My initial thought, was that it would make more sense to put it on the other side of

the property on the south side but then realized upon my property visit that there is already a

garage addition in there so, never mind. So, that location is probably the most shielded. I was

just concerned with the 5 feet being so close to the side just being able to maintain between the

shrubbery and the building but...

so both will be shielded from his next door neighbor. My other concern would be, what is the

coverage on this lot, Josh. Because it looks like. ... well, it?s a ranch but it tooks like it’s really

sprawled out so I would be concerned that it may need a variance for coverage.

the survey map does not necessarily reflect some of the most recent additions to the house.

room so that is the only thing that was added to that house since we owned it was the new

garage.

SAME TIME) and that was to the south side.

circle. We emailed them to Josh.

middle of the yard basically on that north edge because if it was 15 feet from the setback it

would be out in the middle of the yard, and I think it wouldn’t look very good.

Pg. 260 October 8, 2024 Zoning Meeting

bathrooms that they built for the field. So, our back yard is just the football field.

against this application. Seeing no one, I will return the discussion back to the board.

or

8. Corrine Volo: With the hedgerow there, it helps but it will be right up against that hedgerow.

There won’t be any wiggle room between the building.

feet and the back would be more like 7 because of the way the property line. The front is 7 and

the back is

5. Dale Weiss: If you look at the picture of the map because I referenced it off the corner, the

north driveway which is according to the survey map is 7 feet from the property line, so I just

moved it back to the required, I believe it’s 50 feet from the front and positioned the stakes

basically in that area. So, the idea is to leave the hedgerow in tack and not infer with the

hedgerow at all.

think is not aesthetically pleasing look.

edge of the property.

but aesthetically it would look more pleasing if it actually followed the property line.

(EVERYONE SPEAKING AT THE SAME TIME), and the rear corner would be 7 feet.

Pg. 261 October 8, 2024 Zoning Meeting

(EVERYONE SPEAKING AT THE SAME TIME)

paper but when you are in the space you won’t even notice it.

structure and the property line.

pool....

walk through that we have but I also, since it is going to look like a garage and going to have a

garage door on the front, I really wanted it to be at the end of the driveway.

MRS. WEISS SPEAKING AT THE SAME TIME)

have a copy of the letter of support and the visual representation of the proposed garage. Just to

get that on the record,

signatures from all their neighbors right in their circle. ] scanned and sent to Josh.

have signed a letter with the picture of the proposed shed that they do not have any problem

with it. INFORMATION SENT AROUND TO EACH BOARD MEMBER TO VIEW) SEE

ATTACHED.

Pg. 262 October 8, 2024 Zoning Meeting

have not put any projected research on it.

used for commercial purposes just the gentleman’s hobby of woodworking and what not.

be behind the rear most line of the house which in this case it wouldn’t even fit because it does

not meet the rear setback anyway but that was not part of the notice in the public notice in the

Herald, so we unfortunately do have to table this to the next meeting to get that noticed so we

are not changing the location. We do have to publish that it doesn’t meet that qualification.

from the back and 50 from the front but it has to be behind your house.

it has to be behind the rear most line of the primary structure or the home which in your lot

would not fit because your lot is pie shaped and kind of short but unfortunately....I don’t think

the board has a problem with the location, but we just can’t approve the location because of the

notice to the paper. So, are you ok with tabling this until the November meeting.

Mrs, Weiss: Yes, we were hoping to get it in before winter, but it is what it is.

on my part.

THE PAPER) so we will be back then.

RESOLUTION 24-0060 Donald Hauza made a motion to TABLE

APPLICATION TO NOVEMBER 19, 2024

VOTE:

Pg. 263 October 8, 2024 Zoning Meeting

Mr. Short ABSENT

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Hauza AYE

Mr. Lagonor ABSENT

Mr. Centola AYE

Mr. Spampinato AYE

(Chris Centola read the fifth application)

M. Elsbree is requesting AREA VARIANCES to allow for construction of a new 8” x 9° gabled

covered front porch with a front setback of 42 feet where the minimum required is 50 feet, a

difference of 7 feet on a 0.40-acre parcel having SBL# 065.05-1-96 located in an R-1 Single

Family Residential District under Section 350-10 of the Code of the Town of Webster.

Appearing before the board was Todd Elsbree. It’s a simple and humble 8 x 9 covered from

porch just to protect from the elements as I am getting older. I just want a little protection from

the weather and some place to sit and look over the neighborhood and hopefully beautify the

neighborhood. A couple of posts that sit just passed the current side walk to be dug into he

ground below the frost line according to what the construction manager said and that is really

about it. Pretty simple.

stoop and it’s going to go just past the sidewalk, matter of inches.

application. Seeing no one I will return the discission back to the board. It is straightforward

and the only location that makes sense for this house is at the front door in the front of the

house. It will dress up the front of the house. A lot of the houses along this subdivision that

have had additions over the years so it will fit right in with the rest of the neighborhood and it’s

only going to be 8 feet wide and 9 feet deep so that is not at all excessive. Um...no plans to

enclose it.

Pg. 264 October 8, 2024 Zoning Meeting

[

RESOLUTION 24-0062 Corrine Volo made a motion for a TYPE IH SEQR

which was seconded by: Donald Hauza.

VOTE:

Mr. Short ABSENT

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Hauza AYE

Mr. Lagonor ABSENT

Mr. Centola AYE

Mr. Spampinato AYE

1. Opel Fao ad

This request is not out of character in the neighborhood: Driving around that subdivision,

a lot of porches have been added and features. When they were built, they were all rather

flat and now they are all getting just a little bit of embellishment/style to the front. The

house has a southern exposer so the sun comes right in and probably bakes right in to your

front door so that is going to cover the front door from the sun and it’s also going to cover

it from the elements, the rain, snow and it is only coming out 9 feet so it certainly not

excessive.

There will not be a detriment created to nearby properties:

The benefit is not achievable by any other method: None

There are no adverse physical or environmental impacts to the site or neighborhood: None

without a front porch and just had a stoop. It is definitely going to be an attractive change

and there is no one in the neighborhood speaking against this so really the neighbor to the

west isn’t going to see it with the hedgerow that is there, and it will be attractive for the

neighbor to the north or the neighbor across the street.

This is not an undesirable change:

This request is not significant:

RESOLUTION 24-0063 Corrine Volo made a motion tt APPROVE THE

AREA VARIANCE Located at 1146 Brooktree

Lane. Applicant Todd M. Eisbree is requesting

AREA VARIANCES to allow for construction of a

new 8’ x 9” gabled covered front porch with a front

setback of 42 feet where the minimum required is

50 feet, a difference of 7 feet on a 0.40-acre parcel

having SBL# 065.05-1-96 located in an R-1 Single

Family Residential District under Section 350-10 of

the Code of the Town of Webster which was

seconded by: Chris Centola.

Pg. 265 October 8, 2024 Zoning Meeting

fs

CONDITIONS:

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

Building Permit.

That one-year significant construction shall expire October 8, 2025.

Porch will not be enclosed and will not be used for living space or commercial use.

VOTE:

Mr. Short ABSENT

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Hauza AYE

Mr. Lagonor ABSENT

Mr. Centola AYE

Mr. Spampinato AYE

(Chris Centola read the fifth application)

Bischoping is requesting AREA VARIANCES to allow for construction of a new 13’ x 22°

gabled covered front porch with a front setback of 27 feet where the minimum required is 40

feet, a difference of 13 feet on a 0.46-acre parcel having SBL# 065.13-2-11 located in an R-3

Single Family Residential District under Section 350-10 of the Code of the Town of Webster.

Appearing before the board was Adam Cummings representing or helping my friend Bryan

represent this one along with Bryan Bischoping at 671 Willow Lane. I do have to clarify on the

letter of intent that we did provide as part of the application we were under the impression that

we were under different zoning so thank you to Josh and the Building Department for

correcting that and making sure it’s accurate on the agenda and public notice. So, I just wanted

to point that out. We wrote it wrong in the letter of intent, but he did it correctly. I just want to

compliment him and commend him for catching that.

So, for this one, what we are looking for is the front porch. Right now, there is an existing

front stoop and very similar to the one previously, but Bryans house is a little bit different than

that one. So that is the front stoop and there should be another rendering on it but what he is

looking to do is cover...and this all came about from not only the previous one that keeps

getting tabled each month, but he has a neighbor, a couple of neighbors that come and hang

out. Like you said, it’s nice to hang out and have lunch like you said at the last application and

nice to get front porches back onto houses so that neighbors want to talk to each other instead

of going to the back of their houses in their private living room spaces.

So, if you can zoom in and J am not sure that you can Josh but that is what we are looking to

do. That is an exact replica of the front porch. The angles of the roof match what are above his

windows here in terms of angles but that is an exact measurement from the house across the

street on the east side of the road so. That is actually the same dimension as that one in terms

of this elevation there. It is deeper because of the way his house is with the over hang and to

Pg. 266 October 8, 2024 Zoning Meeting

cover the front stoop that is why it is 13 feet closer. His house is currently at is 40.8 on the

garage or on the house side and then on the garage side it is 40.4 because you have to take into

account the overhang so he always. ..any structure for a porch to go on to a front would have to

go closer to the road and require a variance. So, in this case, the reason why the 13 feet is

brought in is because of that stoop that is there, and he does want to extend it a little further

because of the swing of the door and having a step that is big enough is problematic as you are

trying to do both. He is trying to remedy a couple of things. We don’t feel that it is substantial

in nature. It is a corner lot; it does allow it to be 10 feet closer and but what we are looking for

to also compliment hopefully the accessory structure if he ever does succeed in getting that, but

it does give a covered entry way that he doesn’t currently have; it does architecturally match

the neighborhood and with it being the corner lot, it does not obstruct any views for any traffic

or pedestrians or anything else that would be going in there. So, while it is 13 feet closer I don’t

feet that it is substantial or a high enough magnitude to be detrimental to his application

success.

nice if you ever want to put a double door and this type of house does lend itself to having

doubie doors or 7 foot wide houses because staircases are immediately in, so some people do

modify those. Once again, this sticks with the land not just Bryan Bishoping owning this, but it

would lend himself or a future owner wanted to add in a second door that stoop would

accommodate that. With the symmetry of the house and you can see it right there with the 4

windows. You have the two double on the sides and the two in the middle and if you just put it

above the one single door it doesn’t symmetrically look as appealing.

upstairs windows.

side and yes, it does allow itself to move the lamps if you needed to, but he also has the foot

and half over hang that he has to contend with, with the house architecture and that is

incorporated into the 13 feet. Once again, the 13 feet is the total overhang. The actual post of

the structure is in, but he has a one foot overhang from the post.

Peete tee wees

looking for the 13 foot reduction from this porch so...

Pg. 267 October 8, 2024 Zoning Meeting

feet and I was getting confused with the numbers. He is supposed to have 40 feet, and he is

asking for 13 feet relief so he will be 27 feet from the right of way line to the front face of this

porch...so from the front face of the porch back to the front of the building is 13 feet.

exterior of it or just going to be covered.

sides and because it’s only one step it doesn’t really need a railing on it.

a sidewalk, that’s existing . It’s depicted right there, the concrete stoop.

CHRIS CENTOLA AND DONALD HAUZA SPEAKING AT THE SAME TIME.

WITH BRYAN BISCHOPING)

Going from the driveway

adding 8 feet.

gets eaten up very quickly.

Pg. 268 October 8, 2024 Zoning Meeting

my porch; my sons porch; and the next door neighbors porch mine is very similar with the

offset door and a little bit wider porch um, and it’s just over 7 feet and I have ample room for a

couple of chairs; a table, um, the door to swing and not be in the way of anybody um, so I

extended it to 10 feet and made it 10 feet and with 10 feet it seemed significantly large and

given how close your house is to the road already my concern is the depth of it...it just seems

deep.

overhang is 13 so the roof line is 13, there is a 1 foot overhand. So, the concrete is 12 feet off of

the house, 20 feet wide.

BOTH PARTIES SPEAKING AT THE SAME TIME.

comer and then the sofit goes one foot over the overhang. One foot beyond the post and

concrete. That is why we are here for 13 instead of

12. Bryan Bishoping: The concrete itself is 12 x 20

would be below the roof.

underneath it and it would be inside of that rectangle by a foot on each side. So, this is strictly

the roof . So, are you saying that your visioning more just covering the sidewalk.

mine is a little over 7 feet and I brought it out another 3 feet and it seemed, 10 feet seemed like

a significant porch as far as depth which would then allow the setback to be 30 feet from the

road which makes it just a little less impactful, but I am just one voice.

have 13 feet from the overhang so that gives them a 14 foot deck if I could use that word or

Pg. 269 October 8, 2024 Zoning Meeting

patio underneath the coverage porch.

the second floor.

you have 13 feet from the structure over which is why

eee eee eee

TIME)

proposing a 14 foot wide patio having 22 feet in length.

thank you.

against this application.

Jann Armantrout at 670 Willow Lane: Bryan faces my property directly as we talked before

about the out building that he wants to build. I was pretty shocked by this proposal for the

porch when I first learned that given its looking for a 286 square foot porch. That is kind of a

huge porch because it stretches not only into the variance request to the road, but 22 feet is

that, across the front of the building. If you look at the drawing and you look at the numbers

Pg. 270 October 8, 2024 Zoning Meeting

there and you look at the picture with the lines drawn in, they don’t seem compatible and I

would really like to know if those are...the picture Josh, do you have that. See that, it doesn’t

look like what we are talking about in the drawing . It looks like on the drawing; it goes almost

to that next window, and I am not sure about the peak really doing anything. The letter of

intent that came with the application was confusing; it brought information like this is going to

be compatible with the soon to be approved storage unit or whatever it is that Bryan is seeking

to build. That puts him 25% of what is required for setback closer to my house which I already

look at his house that has the trailers and the boats and the request for the shed or whatever it

is called. It strikes me as being manipulative to talk about, well this will be compatible with the

shed/the outbuilding. Because if we put that black industrial siding up there then the case

could be made that (BOARD MEMBERS SPEAKING AT THE SAME TIME) and now we can

put the black industrial siding horizontally on the out building. Bryan, as we speak right now,

has a boat, a recreation car, the airstream trailer and the snow mobile trailer all in the places

on his property and three of which are right in my face. So, if this goes through, now he will be

closer to my property. That is a pretty big porch. I have concerns about the business nature

and the use of that house and property as a business. As late as yesterday, there was a

laborers car or truck in the driveway where they meet to go on business. There have been

ladders all over the place all summer in terms of the yard. When you start to get to 22 feet,

really? That fits a lot of things besides people. The house is not......the upkeep is terrible.

Should that hedgerow be every tended for and be moved back as it probably should be, in terms

of traffic visibility than again there is this big jetting out porch with the cars and the trailer and

another trailer and possibly this building and this huge porch coming out now in front.

please.

about a horizontal line of various objects will call it and now he wants to encroach upon the

stated setback with this huge porch. I object to this type of thing. I also find it controversial

that, I realize that perhaps it was posted as it should be in the Herald but the sign that this

property is under review has been up continuously so the neighbors, unless Bryan told them,

you know, someone walking by that is going to be reviewing this porch proposal, they don't

think that anything else is going on. They think that sign just pertains to the out building. It

really concerns me that letter of intent that will put this on and it will coordinate with the out

building.

application?

property is under-review.

Pg. 271 October 8, 2024 Zoning Meeting

yeah, that’s right. The neighbors are objecting to that thing, you wouldn't realize it was under

review.

do is go look at the town website and see if there is any new information.

outbuilding we are discussing the porch.

building.

talking about 25% of the required setback being modified to accommodate this big porch, 286

square feet of porch on an already crowded property and other concerns things that will be

appropriately put in the garage. Bryans stores a big, huge machine in that which I am sure is

related to business, somebodies private business. But when the ladders were outside and the

snow mobile trailer which is sometimes used as a work trailer and now, we are going to have

this porch.

stored on the porch other than tables and chairs and the appropriate porch type décor.

building something that requires a variance as we go through this other process for such a

huge thing. You could have a ten foot. Bryan, why don’t you stay in the variance.

feet, and the house is at 40 feet and 8 inches. So, anything beyond 8 inches that is done to this

home requires a variance. Because all of the houses along that street are put right on that

setback line.

about.

Pg. 272 October 8, 2024 Zoning Meeting

that into consideration.

application was tabled until there was resolution on the out building because I think that would

give me and the neighbors a much clearer picture of what this property is going to look like in

our neighborhood, and I realize you guys have put in a ton of time on these projects and I

thank your expertise and for your concern.

separate application.

board feels like, when you look at the character of the neighborhood and you look at all the

criteria, globally you want to see the entire picture. If the board wanted to vote to consolidate

that I don’t think there would be anything wrong with that. Otherwise, in a sense, you are

sticking your head in the sand. I am not saying that there is a relationship that impacts character

but there could be.

think there is anything that prohibits you from consolidating and that doesn’t mean if they are

both considered the same time you couldn’t approve one and not the other but in affect, I

think......

time and I think this board has taken special consideration into the accessory building

application above and beyond the call of duty but my opinion, 1 would separate the two.

saying, I think the board would be fooling themselves to pretend that the other item is not there.

other one as part of the application for this. Like it’s going to match the other structure that

they are trying to get approved. He is the one tying it together, not us. I agree with you, he

opened the door and tied it together because he references it.

roof, pillars and concrete slab and doesn’t bare impact to esthetics of any possible accessory

structure and if anything, it would give some character to the front of the house and maybe

Pg. 273 October 8, 2024 Zoning Meeting

dress it up a little bit. I know when I had visited that property the applicant had discussed

slowly making improvements, residing the house as time goes on and maybe the porch is the

first step to do that, J don’t know.

to the manner in which the home is being maintained in spite of the fact that all of the

collection of vehicles and what may not be dully pleasing her is there any code violation on

existence given what the neighbor described.

recreational vehicles or trailers being stored on the property. There are some that are in code

compliant with location, but I believe there are a couple open issues which is what prompted

the applicant to come forward with the accessory building application. We have not taken any

further code enforcement actions recognizing that he has been in the process trying to apply for

this to help alleviate and negate some of the existing violations.

there is a matter pending in terms of the actual file violation.

this year. Do you want to speak to it.

no issue. We talked and the location of the snow mobile trailer is the issue, and it is currently in

my driveway. So, currently there is no issue. But when it was parked next to the driveway it

was an issue.

ee ey

Audience member speaking out

Pg. 274 October 8, 2024 Zoning Meeting

stuff in the yard. A car, boat, RV, the snow mobile trailer and I think that is it and the dog

house.

porch would more than accommodate the front porch, so I think this one also.

large structure not some 8 x 9 overhang with two additional posts. This is far more of a

significant structure and as the structure becomes more complex, I think I would like to see

more detail .

architect or engineer stamp those drawings and get a building permit because that is a long span

for that plus a lot of it is, I won’t say misleading but difficult to understand as far as what is

going on underneath it. It required the applicant to ask him a question twice before he actually

answered about whether or not It’s going to be paved underneath there a simple dash line with

arrows pointing to whether it’s the overhang or the building, so it clearly shows dimensions,

you know, between what and if your structure is going to be 13 feet what is the width of the

concrete underneath as well . I think it would be nice to have additional information to help me

make a better decision on that.

picnic or enjoy a beer with their neighbors afterwork. Size wise doesn’t bother me as much as

the span and the setback if he was still 40-50 from the street it wouldn’t bother me as much but

the fact that he is encroaching more into the setback is the part that bothers me about that 13

foot depth.

think it’s too large maybe that is the size they need. I question whether or not based on the front

setback whether or not it should be that large.

ee oe ey

Pg. 275 October 8, 2024 Zoning Meeting

road, I would be more comfortable with a 30 foot setback than a 27 foot setback. It’s the joy of

the corner lot.

because he does have neighbors contrary to the one who keeps speaking at these. He does have

neighbors come over and hang out with him and he does have dogs, and they like to congregate

at the front part so that is driving it with the size of the portion. Would you be able to reduce it

down to ...... and J agree, your job is to find the minimum variance possible so...reducing it

down to 10 feet instead of the 13 foot dimension would reduce down the variance request to 30

feet from the front setback so therefore you would only be looking at a deviation of going from

40 feet to 30 feet. So, we would like to revise the application to be that and once again, that is

for a gabled roof porch and the construction being similar to it. In terms of the engineering

part, we do acknowledge that that would go through the building permit, that process. So that

could be a condition that a building permit would be needed for this one and any requirements

he has.

architectural.

span is large.

afford into projecting what he wants to show us. I am not saying its architectural or engineering

stamped drawing but assuming that he will need one to get a building permit, I’m good with it.

approve what is submitted to them.

Pg. 276 October 8, 2024 Zoning Meeting

RESOLUTION 24-0064 Corrine Volo made a motion for TYPE II SEQR

which was seconded by: Chris Centola.

VOTE:

Mr. Short ABSENT

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Hauza AYE

Mr. Lagonor ABSENT

Mr. Centola AYE

Mr. Spampinato AYE

mentioned, front porches are common although his one might be a little larger than most it’s still

doesn’t upset the character of the neighborhood. I believe there is other remedies but the fact that

he has already agreed to reduce it down to 10 feet instead of 13 feet it was achieved by other

methods. He lowered the amount of the variance that was requested while it is still large, I don’t

think it is really significant.

TIME) .............008 the setback he would need a variance.

lot or the neighborhood and being on a corner lot what you purchase or build there you are kind

of tied in there so while it is self-created, there is very little remedy except to get a variance to do

anything to improve your home.

someone else so it’s not like he placed the house right at the front.

RESOLUTION 24-0065 Donald Hauza made a motion to APPROVE THE

AREA VARIANCE Located at 671 Willow Lane.

Applicant Bryan Bischoping is requesting AREA

VARIANCES to allow for construction of a new

10° x 22’ gabled covered front porch with a front

setback of 30 feet where the minimum required is

40 feet, a difference of 10 feet on a 0.46-acre parcel

having SBL# 065.13-2-11 located in an R-3 Single

Family Residential District under Section 350-10 of

the Code of the Town of Webster which was

seconded by: Corrine Volo.

Pg. 277 October 8, 2024 Zoning Meeting

[

CONDITIONS:

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

Building Permit.

¢ That one-year significant construction shall expire October 8, 2025.

¢ No outside storage other than typical porch things will be on the porch. This is not

going to become a pile of eye sore and that the 10 feet is from the face of the building

not from the face of the overhang; it can not be enclosed.

VOTE:

Mr. Short ABSENT

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Hauza AYE

Mr. Lagonor ABSENT

Mr. Centola AYE

Mr. Spampinato AYE

(Chris Centola read the fifth application)

Schlegel is requesting AREA VARIANCES to allow for the construction of a new 24° x 28”

garage with a front setback of 30 feet where the minimum required is 60 feet and for the

placement of the proposed garage being closer to the front property line than the rear line on a

0.52 acre parcel having SBL# 063.19-1-9.1 located in an R-3 Single Family Residential District

under Section 350-12 and 350-36 of the Code of the Town of Webster.

Appearing before the board was Raymond Schlegel. I am doing a 12 x 28 pole garage at 751

Maple Drive.

28. Raymond Schlegel: 24 x 28 sorry.

Pg. 278 October 8, 2024 Zoning Meeting

the geometrics of the driveway with the current curve it is going to be tough to turn into it if it

is adjacent.........

it was pushed back

get in and out.

has a catch basin back there and you don’t want to encroach on that because the ground does

collect a lot of water in his back yard.

sewer.

garage and move it closer to be in line in with the back line of the house.

Pg. 279 October 8, 2024 Zoning Meeting

house.

against this application. Seeing no one, I will retum it back to the board. What the board is

discussing is moving the garage further to the west by 8 feet so that the back of the garage lines

up with the rear wall of your house.

like to keep the garage close to the driveway if I could, the front of it.

(PICTURE OF MR. SCHLEGEL’S YARD SHOWING ON THE SCREEN)

more significant than the one from the driveway to the catch basin.

BOARD HAVING DISCUSSIONS REGARDING THE SLOPE/DROP/CATCH BASIN)

well.

4. Corrine Volo: It is still further back than the house and if it were attached to the house it

wouldn’t matter,

Pg. 280 October 8, 2024 Zoning Meeting

we are just trying to make it esthetically and honestly give him better access if

TIME) grant the variance to the garage. It could be there forever.

honest with you. I generally try and pick up on those things but if he says 4,

4. It still pushes it back a little bit

have it serve the purpose it needs to which is basically a garage and the location of the front

door or of the house you are not going to want to walk to the back of the house....

that property. I did not see that dip.

front of the house as well just based on...so, what the board is talking about, instead of being

30.65 feet to the garage make it an even 35 so it’s moving about 4 1/3" feet so it’s back a little

bit, it’s a little closer to compliance .

RESOLUTION 24-0066 Corrine Volo made a motion for TYPE II SEQR

which was seconded by: Chris Centola.

VOTE:

Mr. Short ABSENT

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Hauza AYE

Mr. Lagonor ABSENT

Mr. Centola AYE

Mr. Spampinato AYE

Pg. 281 October 8, 2024 Zoning Meeting

1. This request is not out of character in the neighborhood: It is not. This house in the

neighboring house are both very close to the road so the garage is going to be further from

the road then either of the houses and a lot of house up and down Maple Drive have added

accessory structures or detached garages as some point and time.

2. There will not be a detriment created to nearby properties: It will not, there is a hedgerow

to the north that shields it and there is a house between this and the neighbor to the south.

No complaints from the neighbors.

3. The benefit is not achievable by any other method: There is no good way to make it comply

completely with the code so this is a compromise balancing all of the factors.

4. This request is not substantial: It is less substantial. It is certainly further from the road than

the front of the house is.

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

and in fact we are trying to make sure they stay out of the catch basin with the building, so

it was not going to impact storm water retention and flow.

6. The difficulty is not self-created: This house was built a long time ago, so the difficulty has

been there as long as the house has been there.

7. This is not an undesirable change:

8. This request is not significant:

RESOLUTION 24-0067 Corrine Volo made a motion to APPROVE THE

AREA VARIANCE Located at 751 Maple

Drive. Applicant Raymond Schlegel is requesting

AREA VARIANCES to allow for the

construction of a new 24’ x 28’ garage with a

front setback of 35 feet where the minimum

required is 60 feet and for the placement of the

proposed garage being closer to the front property

line than the rear line of the existing home on a

0.52 acre parcel having SBL# 063.19-1-9.1

located in an R-3 Single Family Residential

District under Section 350-12 and 350-36 of the

Code of the Town of Webster which was

seconded by: Chris Centola.

CONDITIONS:

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

Building Permit.

That one-year significant construction shall expire October 8, 2025.

VOTE:

Mr. Short ABSENT

Mrs. Volo AYE

Pg. 282 October 8, 2024 Zoning Meeting

Mr. Hauza AYE

Mr. Lagonor ABSENT

Mr. Centola AYE

Mr. Spampinato AYE

ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM:

e Approved minutes for August 13, 2024. (Volo/Centola)

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

meeting at 9:15 p.m.

Ne Ne

Corrine Volo, Secretary

Katherine Kolich, Recording Secretary

NOV 20°24 PH? 17

FILED WEBSTER THN CLK

Pg. 283 October 8, 2024 Zoning Meeting