Minutes

WEBSTER ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES

Michael Short

Corrine Volo

Dan Lagoner

Donald Hauza

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. As we have open public discussion comments, we will be limiting that time frame to

five minutes per speaker as we go through that. We have a total of one tabled matter today and

two scheduled matters that we are going to be reviewing on todays agenda. At 10:00 pm we do

have the right, anything that has not been completed will be postponed until the next meeting. |

have the proof of publication for all items.

Call Roll, Pledge of Allegiance

Summary of Application Outcomes

TABLED MATTERS

:

712 BAY ROAD/BAY ROAD PORTE COCHERRE

ENCLOSED. 1-YEAR MEANINGFUL CONSTRUCTION. MUST OBTAIN BUILDING

PERMIT.

671 WILLOW LANE/ACCESSORY STRUCTURE

Pg. 213 September 10, 2024 Zoning Meeting

SCHEDULED MATTERS

:

786 WEBSTER ROAD/GARAGE REPLACEMENT

MIN DISTANCE REQUIREMENTS OF NYS BUILDING CODE). 42’ REAR

SETBACK 660 SF OVERALL SIZE. PROCEED TO PLANNING BOARD.

1-YR MEANINGFUL CONSTRUTION

WILLOWPOINT WAY/WATERVIEW APARTMENTS PHASE 3

(Corrine Volo read the first application)

requesting an AREA VARIANCE to allow a front setback less than what is required associated

with the construction of a 300 SF Porte Cocherre (covered carport) addition to an existing

single-family residence on a 1.57-acre parce! having SBL# 063.19-1-2.1 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 (NEVER STATED HIS NAME) we are doing an addition on

the front of this residence. What we are doing is trying to make il as handicapped friendly as

possible because we have two people that live there that are pretty much wheelchair bound and

we decided after we did all the renovation to make the kitchen and the entry way a more

handicapped friendly and it would be nice to have a covered area for loading and transporting of

these two individuals in a covered area because they are in a wheelchair.

REPRESENTATIVE of 712 Bay Road: It turns out that the two post are 57 fect based on the

new survey from Bay Road from the edge. It is an open format with those support posts and it’s

not blocking any view or anything . There are two 6 x 6 that fal! out of compliance that we are

asking to allow the structure to be built.

that i.

REPRESENTATIVE of 712 Bay Road: Correct.

57. Pg. 214 September 10, 2024 Zoning Meeting

REPRESENTATIVE of 712 Bay Road: Correct. The 57 is the number that the gentleman at the

Building Department told us when we ended up separating when we filed for the permit for the

addition work . We ended up separating the Porte Cocherre until we had this meeting with you

folks before we could carry on and at that point he had mentioned to me 57 feet is the distance. |

am not really sure of that if it is 55 or 57, I was just basing that on what he said.

those posts.

REPRESENTATIVE of 712 Bay Road: I was under the understanding that it was 57 feet and to

be in compliance it had to be

60. The 55 number is the first time that I heard that .

why we are asking.

REPRESENTATIVE of 712 Bay Road: And that could be accurate.

the survey map. When I scaled it, I came up with the 55 feet number.

stated what the distance is, so we are trying lo be as accurate as possible so if is 55 great and if

it’s 57, now you have just lost 3 feet. So, you want to make sure...........,

REPRESENTATIVE of 712 Bay Road: Let’s go with

55. Michael Short: Fair enough. Any other questions?

questions regarding this project. Seeing none, back to the board.

RESOLUTION 24-0046 Michael Short made a motion for TYPE IT SEQR

which was seconded by: Donald Hauza.

VOTE:

Mr. Short AYE

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Hauza AYE

Mr. Lagonor AYE

Mr. Centola AYE

Pg. 215 September 10, 2024 Zoning Meeting

2. This request is not out of character in the neighborhood: In that it is not going to look out

of place, it’s going to look like an open addition to the porch.

There will not be a detriment created to nearby properties: It’s far enough off the road and

far enough from the neighboring properties and it’s certainly not going to be an eye sore

or have any visual impact at all. It is an open carport type structure,

The benefit is not achievable by any other method: It is the location of the driveway and

the front door of the house and that is logical location for it.

From the road you are not going to know the difference.

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

stating

handicapped accessible for the residents and this ts the logical location.

This is not an undesirable change:

This request is not significant:

RESOLUTION 24-0048 Corrine Volo made a motion for a PORT

COCHEEREE Located at 712 Bay Road.

Applicant Michael! Mattys is requesting an AREA

VARIANCE to be added to the front on an existing

single family structure. It will be a 300 sq ft open

structure that will be covered, and it will have a

front setback of 55 feet where 60 feet is required on

a 1.57-acre parcel having SBL# 063.19-1-2.1

located in an R-3 Single Family Residential District

under Section 350-12 of the Code of the Town of

VOTE:

Mr. Short AYE

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Hauza AYE

Mr. Lagonor AYE

Mr. Centola AYE

CONDITIONS:

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

Building Permit.

That one-year significant construction shall expire September 10, 2025.

Corrine Volo read the second application

I

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

Pg. 216 September 10, 2024 Zoning Meeting

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.

Applicant requested to table this matter to October 8, 2024.

RESOLUTION 24-0048 Corrine Volo made a motion TO TABLE

APPLICATION AS APPLICANT

REQUESTED TO THE OCTOBER 8, 2024

Hauza.

VOTE:

Mr. Short AYE

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Hauza AYE

Mr. Lagonor AYE

Mr. Centola AYE

(Corrine Volo read the third application)

requesting an AREA VARIANCE to allow both side and rear setbacks less than what is

required, and to exceed the allowable size in relation to the main residence, associated with the

demolition of an existing |-car detached garage and construction of a new 30’ x 22’ (660 SF)

accessory structure on a 0.25-acre parcel having SBL# 065.18-1-9 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 Tom Dobbins. So, what we want to do ts remove the existing

garage that is in a state of disrepair, and it was built within...we had the property resurveyed

and it was within 9 inches of the property line so if you look at the picture (SHOWING

PICTURES ON THE SCREEN FOR AUDIENCE) We currently use the downstairs of the

property to build wheelchairs for small children, so we did about 3000 over the last seven years

and when Mrs. Wagger passed away she wanted this to continue so Carl has been very

supportive of us and we take good care of the property . A lot of the people who come and

visit have to use the handicapped ramp so we can move the new structure over probably 3 feet

from the line, but this property was built back in 1900 and | looked at three properties south of

there and those garages are within three feet of the property line and a number of the other ones

on the other side of the street, so it seems to be that back in the day before the setbacks were

required and they were allowed to build close to the property line. So, what we want to do is

replace the structure with 22 X 30 pole barn type structure so we can continue with the program

that we are doing. Some of the sponsors of Bellas Bombas (NAMED A LIST OF

Pg. 217 September 10, 2024 Zoning Meeting

SUPPORTERS) they help us and do projects.

indicated...] was having a hard time reading the drawings. It looked like a 15 foot eave height

and then another area it was showing on page A1, it looks like and I’m sorry, I am having a

hard time reading it... [s it 18 feet to the eave height but then another location it was indicating

Something different of 9 feet, what is....do you know what the over all height of the structure is

going to be?

structure...

dimension to the left of Josh’s cursor in the middle...now it’s to the right of the cursor, it looks

like it reads 16-18 feet but then on one of the next three pages, it shows about nine feet....keep

scrolling down...

more detailed drawing................

am assuming 9 feet is what we are looking at...

That way we can have a seven foot door. We plan on taking the existing door out which is in

good shape it’s been replaced and then we are going to re-install that along with a man door.

prints that we have, metal siding, metal roof, is what the intent is?

right now. We are not showing any interior finishes, and we are going (o bring electric out to

il,

five different models that we ship all over the world and right now we have a container on the

Job, or on the property that has to be removed so that is why we want a little larger garage and

Pg. 218 September 10, 2024 Zoning Meeting

plus the fact that it ts falling down.

we store a lot of cardboard boxes and if they get the humidity and cold and heat back and forth

then they would be ruined.

their new construction best to my knowledge, NY State Building Code requires a three foot

setback for combustible materials to a property line, but they are requesting that whole wall and

that building would have to be non-combustible material which would be extremely expensive.

Have you received any variance from the Department of State?

me potentially needing a minimum of three feet off the property line for fire purposes for

anything that is combustible on the property line itself. That would include the six or so wood

posts that would be holding up the structure so that would be one concern that we have. |

believe I had heard you earlier in your presentation that you could move it over about three or

four feet from its current location.

foot door and we are planning on expanding the driveway so we would move it over three feet

from the property line that would not be a problem.

the three feet if you shifted it over.

have a....because there is a turn around to access the handicapped ramp, so we are going to be

approximately five foot back from the corner of the house.

as well.

feel that it rose to the level of requiring a use variance .

Ps. 219 September 10, 2024 Zoning Meeting

want to make sure everything is on the up and up. So, I have no problem with it I just want to

make sure we dotted out I’s and crossing our T’s.

repurposed the inside of the building. It is still basically a livable home with a small apartment

upstairs.

or five feet off the property line but if we were to vote on il....

operation you are offering and certainly understand that you want to put down the cost of what

you are proposing, | am just trying to help you.

then whatever the variance that is granted as well if its deemed that it’s cost prohibited

assuming the board will agree on.

send us a letter that they have no objection to this. BOARD MEMBERS SPEAKING AT THE

SAME TIME.

over.

BOARD MEMBERS HAVING CONVERSATION

for or against this application. Ok, | will bring it back to the board.

RESOLUTION 24-0050 Michael Short made a motion TYPE II SEQR

which was seconded by: Donald Hauza

VOTE:

Pg. 220 September 10, 2024 Zoning Meeting

[

Mr. Short AYE

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Hauza AYE

Mr. Lagonor AYE

Mr. Centola AYE

L.

2. Bw

6.

7.

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

There will not be a detriment created to nearby properties: Will not be a detriment to it.

While there are other remedy based on the needs the applicant has, I believe that it is the

minimal relieve necessary to get to what they need to do

The benefit is not achievable by any other method:

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

not have any but overall, I think it is a good project.

This is not an undesirable change:

This request is not significant:

improvement to the current condition.

RESOLUTION 24-0051 Michael Short made a motion to APPROVE THE

AREA VARIANCE Located at 786 Webster Road.

Applicant Thomas Dobbins is requesting an AREA

VARIANCE to allow both side and rear setbacks less

than what is required, and to exceed the allowable size in

relation to the main residence, associated with the

demolition of an existing |-car detached garage and

construction of a new 30’ x 22’ (660 SF) accessory

structure on a 0.25-acre parcel having SBL# 065,18-1-9

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: Corrine Volo.

CONDITIONS:

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

Building Permit.

That one-year significant construction shail expire September 10, 2025.

Setbacks to meet NY State Building Code and should be 3 feet and to exceed the

allowable size in relation to the main resident associated with the demo of one car

garage. The new structure will be 30 x 22 or 660 square feet accessory structure

VOTE:

Pg. 221 September 10, 2024 Zoning Meeting

Mr. Short AYE

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Hauza AYE

Mr. Lagonor AYE

Mr. Centola AYE

Mr. Spampinato AYE

and this board will not vote on this evenings meeting. We will open up to any public comments

after the conceptual presentation so with that, if you don’t mind stating your name.

(Corrine Volo read the fourth 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 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 Jess Sudol with Passero Associates and we are an Engineering

and Architectural firm representing the Legacy Development Company with Chris DeMarzo

(did not sign in) and is here with be on behalf of the Legacy Development Company.

So, the parcel that we are presenting this evening and again Mr. Chairman, thank you for

clarifying that we have zero expectation of any kind of approval tonight. We are just hoping to

gain some comments from this board and potentially the members of the public because this

project does have quite a long history going all the way back to the original Willow Point 7???

which we know, no longer in affect. That was almost 40 years ago and at the time it was

originally contemplated to be a7 story building with a 158 untts which is obviously quite large.

stories depending on how you measure it with the grade there and approximately {20 units and

then that project has since tabled or put aside and now here in 2024 we are proposing 2-3 story

buildings and each one of them being 45 units each so that is a total of 90 units.

We did appear before the Planning Board and receiving a lot of helpful comments that we are

working with the applicant to find different ways to address, and we are thankful to be here this

evening to give this board the same opportunity to provide comments so that once we go back

to our design table and collectively review all the input from the various stakeholders, both

here at the town and also the neighbors and potential revise our proposal to something that

Pg. 222 September 10, 2024 Zoning Meeting

could incorporate some of those comments.

Again, because we are not seeking approval tonight, [ won’t be to terribly long. As you can see

if you are not aware, that is McEwen Street so to the north and this kind of sits back to the

south...I°m sorry, north west corner of the Willow Point Development. Josh, if you go back to

the overall plan, and that one there shows it as well. The project would disturb approximately 4

acres. The entire site or the property under controlled by the applicant is roughty 13 acres so

everything for the most part that is west of where Josh is showing that property line isn’t

proposed to be impacted by the development. So, just to review the variances that are

requested, quickly, it’s really a unique site. It’s really the last piece that was left over after this

thing was carved up over the years and the majority of it is built out. It is the last piece overall

in the Willow Point project. The first variance that we are requesting has to do with a buffer

from single family homes. Typically, when we see this buffer it’s in a situation where you

have the zoning line in between two different properties where one is zoned single family, and

one might be zoned multi family and you are trying to ensure that you have proper separation

and screening from the single family homes which are in the single family district. In this case

because we are largely surrounded by road ways either public or private, that buffer is enforced

to the north which is actually on the other side of the public roadway. It’s a 100 foot buffer and

is measured from their front property line which would be the right of way line of the public

road and the house itself I believe is a 136 feet from that property line so that is in excess of the

buffer but because that buffer is enforced from the property line and not the actual structure it

requires us to have that variance and the buffers aren’t just to buildings it’s also parking areas,

and you can see there we do have some parking in that area on the north side of our project that

wraps around the side of the building.

The second variance that we are requesting is for the front setback and again, this is kind of a

unique parcel because we more or less have three front setbacks or at least two front setbacks

because it is a corner lot. We are able to meet that setback for 90 % of the project but if you

look to the one building to the left, the way it is kind of angled there that little corner of the

building does encroach on that setback area but if that were considered a side yard if that

wasn’t there, we wouldn’t have that variance required. So, it is somewhat of a unique results

and the geometry of the parcel and how it exist today. The third variance that we are

requesting has to do with parking from the two spaces per unit. The whole idea of parking and

doing it per unit basis has been around for decades and decades. We found from doing a lot of

multi-family projects here in western New York and elsewhere that (he more appropriate way

of accessing an actual parking need and not over building a project and what I mean by over

building is that you don’t necessarily want to build parking that you are not going to need.

That is additional cost, that is additional impervious area that is additional storm water impact;

that is additional impact on the environment so when we do a project, we propose the amount

of parking that we know that we need. Not only has our company did a lot of multi-family

projects but gone back to them after they are built and have done studies on occupancy rates to

see how many cars are actually on the lot, but Mr. DeMarzo and his group have done many

projects over the years and conducted a similar analysis. So, the way we size the parking was

Pg. 223 September 10, 2024 Zoning Meeting

one space for the 1 bedroom units and there are a lot of 1 bedroom units in this project and then

two spaces for the 2 and 3 bedroom units and so one of the reason why units in my opinion is

not always the best way to gauge the amount of parking that 1s needed.

A building with a 100 units are all | bedroom units are going to a much more different parking

demand than a building with a 100 units that are all 3-4 bedroom units. So again, we try and

look at bedrooms and the amount of people that might actually be living there which is why we

are proposing the configuration with the current number. This is the variance that we obtained

actually here in the town on other projects but certainly worthy of discussion and we are happy

to do so. Then lastly is the building length and I believe the building length is restricted to 165

feet and our building, well, each of the buildings because they are essentially the same are

approximately 229 feet in length in excess of that they town code does allow you to the length

to 250 which would be longer than our building if you do provide access to all sides of the

building and in our case we are providing access to 3 sides with what we would call a fire

apparatus road and then you have an additional road access from the infostructure that is in

place today. So, in order for us to do that, we would have to move the building that is on the

left side further to the left and then try and pul a fire drive lane in between those buildings

where I am not sure fire fighters would want to be fighting a fire anyway. So, those are the 4

area variances that we are seeking and again, we are very early on the process. We had our

first meeting previously as ] stated with the Planning Board and received a lot of good input at

that time, and we are hoping to do the same this evening and eventually come back with a plan

that addresses some of those comments and concerns if they are any and with that, ] am happy

to hear from the board or anybody else.

MEMBERS SPEAKING AT THE SAME TIME.

address now. I am happy to do so.

you can’t get fire access on all 4 sides and I know you are not going for the 250 of potentially

reducing the building length and then therefore reducing the impact of the buffer and the other

Pg. 224 September 10, 2024 Zoning Mecting

setbacks and also | applaud your way of calculating parking it works because you don’t want

all that extra asphalt but would you be willing to.....[ Know this is more of a Planning Board

issue but have some sort of banked parking incase an area for banked parking in case you need

it for the occasional 3-4 times a year when you do get more visitors or people needing to park

then there are spaces available.

think that ts something that we are certainly willing to take a look at. It is a concept that we are

very familtar with where you design the project as if it were built and if you need it, you can

build it. As far as the building length that is largely...the building width is determined by it’s a

double loaded corridor and for us to reduce the building length we would have to make the

building length an L and if we did that, that would potentially or would likely, we looked at a

couple different scenarios, trade more variances and more impact to the land that is there.

What I mean by that is, the topography drops from east to west so what we are trying to do is

line the buildings up with the contour for the best that we could and limit the amount of land

disturbance. If we made both buildings an L that would increase the over all scope of the site

development but with that said, again, we are here to lake your comments and respond to them

so we will certainly take another look at that.

applaud that a lot of time we over build parking lots for all types of structures including

apartments. However, how do you end up limiting say if those 1 bedroom apartments end up

having 2 vehicles, how do you end up limiting the vehicles on the property from then all of a

sudden parking on the street and causing other congestion within the area. | mean, we can all

say that here in the planning side of things but when reality hits and the neighbors than have to

deal with it that becomes a bigger issue for all of us.

which afforded us the opportunity for better or worst to build these projects using two spaces

per unit; 2.5 units per unit in communities all across Monroe County. We have gone back and

made those cases using the same calculations that we are here built projects as many times as

Mr. Centola mentioned, and we included land banked parking, but I can say confidently in no

situation have we ever run into an instance where we ran into over flow parking on the adjacent

properties which then would allowed...we would have wanted to build because we don’t want

that situation. The Code Enforcement of that municipality would have required us to build it so

the space with the calculations that we use again is based on precedent and cdloes have a certain

amount of over flow or guest or visitor parking built into it but to Mr..... just to put the two

comments together, if we are able to show some land banked parking which we are certainly

going to look into and that situation did exist for some reason than of coarse we would have

built a land banked parking, but I can say confidently, that is not going to be an issue.

on the left is that able to slide to the south, I believe it’s south on the page within that 75 foot

Pg. 225 September 10, 2024 Zoning Meeting

front setback or even closer to it by wrapping the parking around on the north face.

Board members having a discussion.

Josh, maybe you can help with the pointing. Are you suggesting eliminating some of the stales

on the south side of the building?

south but maybe not all and some of the parking to the west that ends up getting wrapped up

across the north. Again, I didn’t take out my scale; I] didn’t...

cannot, because there is a lot of contributing factors whether it’s the topography or the utilities

or whatever, but I understand.

and a lot of this stuff we are hearing tonight is the same stuff we heard then obviously and they

are presenting to our group again but most of this stuff we are hearing, J think is Planning

Board issues rather than Zoning Board issues. I think we need to focus more on the variances

that they ave asking for and the requirements for the setbacks; buffers and things like that other

than other things that we have heard tonight.

on it right now, I] would say no just based on the setbacks. That is too much of a discrepancy

between what 1s required and what is proposed and there is no way they can turn that around to

make that fit.

genesis of my questions were to sce if the applicant would be able to minimize the relief

requested...that was the whole purpose of my line of questioning was to sec if he can minimize

it soit’ a little more palatable.

more palatable plan so,

and that includes the parking and everything clse and right now, they have a field there so

having a 3 story building that doesn’t have a bufter because a grade shock is what it comes

down to, so which is also one of the reasons that I asked about, is it possible to move. How can

Pg. 226 September 10, 2024 Zoning Mecting

we minimize that and similar with the parking, how can we alleviate any potential issues for

people parking on the streets around the area. So, those are my comments. I don’t know if

anyone else has any more.

foot buffer where a 100 feet is required which is significant...it’s kind of big and from one of

the prints that was provided there is a big massive growth of trees that this area is going to be

cleared which 1s essentially everything that is buffering the residents at McEwen so that is a

concern to me that their going to lose...1 mean it’s scrub woods but it’s still something that

blocks the view and | understand something is going to be built there but it’s going to be right

on top of them. My other concern is from the fire service point of view, the building is

significantly longer then what is permitted by code, and I have two sides of the building that as

a fire fighter ] can’t access with normal means that would keep personnel and equipment safe.

I know we have had other buildings of this length or significantly longer than code allows in

town, but those buildings have also had some type of a....if not a true road, but a road surface

that is not usable that gives fire access. I don’t see how and | understand that is planning and

that is a Fire Marshal issue but it’s also a personal issue um, | don’t see how this will allow

ihat, and ] don’t even know based on the tight configuration of the parking lot how easy it

would be to get the fire truck that has the resources for a 3 story building. ..1 don’t know that I

can get in there. So, to me that is a big concern. It’s human life.

ones that you have mentioned but I do understand all the comments and there are certain things

that we can do with the spacing of hydrants and hose drag lengths and there is a lot of different

ways to do your fire access and some of them do it with a grid paver system, where it’s not

really like a road way that they use but it is an emergency exit that you could get to if you

needed to. We can take a look at that, and I think with any design once we finalize it, we

provide turning templates for the actual emergency vehicles to prove that they can get in and

oul safely, but | will make a note to do that with whatever iteration that we come back with and

investigate the idea of an emergency access road.

image of the building and parking which then separates the buildings further or if you can put

parking on both sides, ] don’t Know, 1 understand the need for less parking spaces because

there is a lot of older complex’s just have alot of cmpty parking spaces as long as you are

able to balance the need vs the requirements um, with some land banked spaces if they become

available. This is a less walkable area than some of the other areas in town just based on its

location. Those are my primary concerns right now.

phase 1 been resolved?

Pg. 227 September 10, 2024 Zoning Meeting

their written comments that ended up in the MRB comment letter, so [ know that Mr. DeMarzo

and his team are looking into that and where that current stands.

up to public comment.

so we were going to give them an opportunity to speak and keep the public hearing open.

allow the representative get the feedback from the board, end it there tonight, and then have the

public comment on the following meeting.

open it up for public comment. As I mentioned, this board will not vote on anything this

evening. We will be discussing this again at the October meeting. Public comment will not be

closed at this meeting. We will keep it open for the October meeting as well. As you come up,

limit it to 5 minutes and please speak into the mic. State your name and address.

Cheryle Saveri at 1400 Mountain Ash Trail: (NEVER SIGNED IN): I have one question,

everybody is 2??? to this evening that the Planning Board had some comments, and you have

these notes. There was one comment that was made in regard to, | believe it was a question

that they had and didn't seem to have an answer or know what it is. So, for clarity, the question

was, does the Tawn of Webster have an expressive statutory provision or act ata local law

setting fourth the condition under which adjoining parcels maybe be deemed to have merged.

In this particular case, if the plot is 3.78 acres, it’s net over 13 so there has been a merger of 2

lots and we have a question in regard to what the Planning Board was asking, do we are don’t

we? So, ifthe beard could clarify whether there is sone sort of prevision, what chapter and

what section does that provision fall under. Thank you.

Pg. 228 September 10, 2024 Zoning Meeting

Charles Johnson at 440 McEwen Drive: Which is on the north east corner of the diagram that

you have there and actually the last house at the bottom of that road if you were to go straight.

My concerns are the same as the ones you have as specially as it relates to the parking issue.

More specifically, for me, | am more concerned with the influx of cars right, if the only way and

correct me if lam wrong, the only access to this property is through McEwen Drive . If there is

one way tn there is one way out. There is a few things so obviously IT have children, and they

have to walk up this road to Bay for the bus and trying to make a left hand turn out of McEwen

Drive onto Bay Road is an issue. Even if and 1 don’t know the exact number that you have for

the parking spots but even if it’s 60 we are talking about a significant number of cars and

traffic just on the daily basis trying to get out of McEwen Drive going either way. There is no

public transportation here and there is really no other way for residents that live there outside

of a vehicle. fant not familiar with the data, math that you guys are referencing but 90 units,

we don’t know but we don’t know the break down of | bedroom, 2 bedrooms, 3 bedroom just

from a practical matter or 2 bedroom unit with 2 residences in this area the likely hood that we

have 2 vehicles seems to be high and if they expand that out to 3 bedroom obviously, we are

increasing the number of vehicles again that are going to flow through this single are there.

They other issue is the buffer part of tt and L understand that from what | can tell from their

drawings that there is an attempt to kind of mitigate that and I did see that they wanted to leave

some of the tree lines, if lam not mistaken, I think it actually stopped before it got to my

particular home so | would really like that particular issue to be addressed in terms of what

that is going to look like; where and how that buffer will actually be there and to be honest, 1

am not against the project at all, 1 don’t think it is unreasonable for someone to develop their

land or property but in this case, given the size and scoop of these two buildings crammed into

this area... know at the Planning Board they started talking about density right, again, this is

a bigger area I think where you are referencing 13 acres but they are really only using a small

portion of that and whether that is developable or not, f don’t know, f just know the way that

this ts currently structured [| see a significant impact on our everyday quality of life just being

at 440 McEwen Drive.

Dave Geter at 400 McEwen Drive: When we were at the Planning Board a number of us, last

week for the Planning Board meeting the Engineer for Passero spoke about a number of

comparable properties, apartment complexes in Webster specifically Webster on the Green;

Winding Creek Woods and Picture Perfect or Picture Parkway Apartments there. My wife and

I took a drive around and we looked around and looked at these things. They are not even

close. All the setbacks, buffers, are fully met. [looked at parking because parking is a lot of

discussion, and the first one has 2 “2 spaces maybe 3 spaces each. Same with the second one,

nota comparable. Picture Parkway is interesting because theirs is about 1.4 so ok that is a

fairly comparable. So, my wife and | drove over there on my way here tonight and every spot

was pretty much full. Pam really concerned about parking in this building. The setback, half

the setback in the front; the buffer we have talked about 8-20 feet; the people, we can't go to

their front door and say it’s a 130 feet, they have the right to enjoy their entire yards in front

yards. Parking short by 59 spaces where they are going to park, Waterview you said that they

will regulate parking and require people not to park or not to have cars registered, where are

Pg. 229 September 10, 2024 Zoning Meeting

they going to put them, they are going to put them on McEwen. My wife and I already have

occasions, the town pumping station is at the end of McEwen right by our property and our

neighbors and we already have occasions where I have to come out and stop and wait when

they move their vehicles. When we put another 50 cars on McEwen parking somewhere [am

worried that we wont even be able to get out of our neighborhood and so, like Mr. Johnson, I

ai not opposed to developing this project, | just asked that the board consider, how do we do

this project by meeting all town codes. The buildings as there sized, the parking sizes are just

ridiculous over specked. Putting a building in there that makes, that fits the property, fits the

area, and meets town code, makes a lot of sense. Maybe it's 30 units. That makes a lot of sense

to me, and I would support that. You would see a lot of resistance go away if these projects

would meet the code.

think you heard kind of everyone’s concern and hopefully that helps a little with things that you

have to look at to continue with the project.

I have to formerly table it?

RESOLUTION 24-0052 Michael Short made a motion TO TABLED

APPLICATION TO OCTOBER 8, 2024

VOTE:

Mr. Short AYE

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Hauza AYE

Mr. Lagonor AYE

Mr. Centola AYE

allow for 8 hens at 604 Drumm Road.

ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM:

© 6month review of a Special Permit to all (8) hens at 604 Drumm Road.

Elio Realbuto at 604 Drunim Road.

first complaint was chickens and ducks. The ducks were removed and then our code official

went back to the site and noticed that the chickens were then roaming free which the Zoning

Pg, 230 September 10, 2024 Zoning Meeting

Board from my understanding had expressed keeping them inside a chicken run is my

understanding. So, with that, how many.......

Elio Realbuto At 604 Drumm Road: No, I actually would like to reply to that. I did receive a

letter, and | immediately got back to Jim Montgomery. Two of the complaints were completely

false. We do have a field fence up, which is not the entire yard and that is not a free range that

would be considered a run. You can’t keep chickens inside the actual coop. Our run, again...

sent pictures as well along with this and sent it to Josh Artuso immediately following. There was

also a complaint that our coop was not moved. Which is an absolute lie. The coop was moved in

March. So, I am not sure who inspected or whoever made the compliant, but the coop was

definitely moved, and ] sent pictures to prove that.

The ducks, they were not mine and were not intended to stay there permanently. I sent this email

when I called Jim Montogomery and let him know that they were my parents ducks, and they

were oul of town, and they were having work done on their pond. They ducks were maybe there

a week, maybe two tops. Again, in an enclosed area with absolutely no way to get onto others

property or for that matter again, considering there is only a small amount where a neighbor

could even see in our property, ] am really not sure unless they were looking around looking for

trouble. ] am not really sure even how they would know we had ducks but again, it’s kind of

disheartening considering false accusations and this is one of the issues I mentioned right before

the end of the last time we met, where anyone can just make a call. Maybe they don’t like you;

maybe they don’t like what you are doing; and they can just call and make an accusation. I think

that is completely inappropriate. Again, I did send an email to Josh with pictures showing that,

that information was false and as far as the ducks, an adult conversation with me would have

cleared that up quickly.

wouldn’t mind, after you log in, if you wouldn’t mind going back to the (APPLICANT

SPEAKING OVER)

Elio Realbuto at 604 Drumm Road: | did send pictures of what it looks like recently and I believe

you did have an inspector there today. A women name Corrie and she was there to see

everything as well.

Board members.

Elio Realbuto at 604 Drumm Road: 1 am sorry. Someone was there and they could clearly see

that everything was in regulation,

Pg. 231 September 10, 2024 Zoning Meeting

Elio Realbuto at 604 Drumm Road: Those are the recent photos. I sent some back on May 3°!

and May 4". [ think I replied on May

3. As you can see, supposedly that is where the coop still

was, You can’t miss it, That garden was there before I bought the property and obviously you

can see that there is no coop there. That is the original spot of the coop and as you can see, so

false accusations . That is the south west quadrant where my permit is allowing me to have our

chickens and our coop.

Elio Realbuto at 604 Drumm Road: So that black fence keeps them in that area and then I have a

field fence which you can see there and then and that is the back and the field fence is out further

because it is not the entire yard and actually now, it’s even covered more because I have been

planting saw grass and certain privacy shrubbery.

Elio Realbuto at 604 Drumm Road: Absolutely not and you can barely see it and again, unless

you are looking for something. (VIEWING THE PICTURES ON THE SCREEN) that is my

sons soccer net and trampoline and there is the coop again in the south west quadrant.

realized it was on the agenda. Um, you actually have to pull into the driveway to even see that

there is a chicken coop there um, in any of my visits ] didn’t’ even see a chicken and I wasn’t

sure even if you still had them. It was quiet and it was well kept. There was a trampoline, and it

was a kids yard. Um and I never saw any evidence other than the coop was there so obviously

the chickens had been there. Um, but it’s in a location where... couldn’t see it and J have not

seen them roaming around but it’s not like I go there every day. I cut through that street

frequently but not every day. Um, I am going to add....[ read through the minutes because I was

not present for the March meeting because | was trying to understand what the conditions were

and what the discussion was, and I did try and go back to look at the video, but I could not locate

the video, so the minutes 1s what I had to go with. Um and I didn’t see any conditions within the

Zoning Board discussion that limited the location where they had limited coop location, but it

didn’t say anything about the chickens being locked in a certain area or not being allowed to

range. Tt just noted the location of the chicken coop and (he maximum of 8 hens so that is kind

of went looking for was documented within the minutes. ] don’t know what was on the special

use permit; | don’t know. I thought the Zoning Board sets the conditions and the permit reflects

whatever we decided so I] don’t know.

Elio Realbuto at 604 Drumm Road: I do have the special permit right here and approved with

conditions: location of coop will be located at the south west property to the corner of the house;

no more than 8 hens allowed; follow up after 6 months. So again, they are not free ranging, there

is an enclosed run. That is not my entire yard but there ts a fenced in yard.

Pg. 232 September 10, 2024 Zoning Meeting

BOARD MEMBERS HAVING A DISCUSSION.

Elio Realbuto at 604 Drumm Road: [ have it right here.

provided photos and videos of their own that we have available. If the board is interested in

viewing those.

twice and once, I didn’t see any chickens and once I did and I saw, from inside the black fenced

area, but also, Jim has been to the site, and we received a letter from Jim on 8/23 and he

indicated he saw the chickens roaming the yard. He didn’t say they were roaming the outside of

the yard but roaming the yard. Chickens are able to jump over a 3-4 foot fence and that’s why |

was asking if there is a top over it.

Elio Realbuto at 604 Drumm Road: And can I say, they have never gone to another yard.

Elio Realbuto at 604 Drumm Road: They don’t poop in other yards because they don’t eat in

other yards. They stay in our enclosed area and there is a very small area that you can even see

inside. Again, unless you are looking to cause problems for our household and again, can we talk

about the false allegations because................

have to say.

Elio Realbuto at 604 Drumm Road: That’s fine and I still have more to say, I did write

something up. That I would like to say at some point.

Pete & Terry Skovira at 592 Dunnbridge Drive: Our property borders the entire north boundary

and the cast boundary so again, the coop was moved, that was not us. 1 applaud that balance

compromise. That was...thal was....] applaud the board. The coop was moved, and it was

moved to the south west corner. | have no problem with that, I think it’s a balance compromise.

The only problem we have and some of the other neighbors that were hesitant to come, was as

we come up our driveway, where that fence is....the character of the neighborhood is not a farm

and with that fence there, the chickens are there and the time that you come you may not sce

them, but they are there all the time. We are very, very close to where we are. People whisper

and you can hear things and with the chickens there constantly, that ts what we hear, and my

Pg, 233 September 10, 2024 Zoning Meeting

primary concern is just the character of the neighborhood. It’s not a farm and I don’t wish to see

a farm when I come out.

through the property a couple of times, if you are entering the property from Drumm Road, you

are entering into Mr. Realmuto’s home. If you were to come up our private drive, you would see

from our view what we see. His back yard is a front yard to 3 separate home so when you are

going in his driveway it’s a nice secluded little property but when you are viewing it from our

private drive, it’s affecting the front yards of other neighbors. We live in a nice neighborhood;

it’s quite; great neighbors; so, we are not used to this confrontation, we are just not used to it.

would you say 1s acceptable. So, it’s the location of the fence that

south west corner would be tdeal. There would be no complaint.

was to put the coop in an enclosed area and I believe his transcript from the last meeting said, ]

am going to move il, no one will be able to see or hear my chickens in that area and to us, we are

like, that’s fine because that will avoid conflict with a neighbor that we have no interest in.

about here.

the arrow.

APPLICANTS AND BOARD SPEAKING

the garage.

same thing. Ok, where is the applicant, can you see where they are marking i.

Pg. 234 September 10, 2024 Zoning Meeting

ok with at least to where our garage is.

that area. (BOARD MEMBERS IN A CONVERSATION)

If you take the corner of the garage and it kind of Hines up in the middle or center line of that tree

and just throw that line down like that, I think...it sounds like.

really but. If that is what I have to do to keep my chickens. I have almost % of an acre. So, all

that spaced is covered...

from the applicants standpoint, whal the neighbors are saying they can Jive with. That is

problematic for you?

It’s wrong

live with that.

WELL) Yes, | can tive with that if that is my only choice.

Pg. 235 September 10, 2024 Zoning Meeting

both parties or someone can get that on the record,

garage to the north west corner of the old garden area and then perpendicular to the property line

on the south side the chickens would be located to the west of that line. Can we take a screen

shot of that.

page.

Josh, please correct me if ] am wrong, I think it may have changed. Does it necessarily allow it

(OTHER BOARD MEMBERS ARE HAVING A DISCUSSION, SO IT’S HARD TO HEAR)

the zoning in the Village of Webster does allow it. We are not in the village, and we are not

talking about the village but at the end of the day your concern is that there are animals, poultry

that are roaming and I am not saying that they only stay on the property, ] am presuming they are

only staying on the property but because they are farm animals in the nice neighborhood, you

have a concern that those animals are there, is what 1] heard and I am not trying to be

condescending but that is what [ heard. Is that correct?

concern, Mr, Realbuto had a few chickens, and it is never anyone intent NOT to get along with a

neighbor, so we never said anything, we were kind, we were whatever and then there were more

chickens; then there was a rooster; the coop became extremely sightly and then he had a pig that

was in iny drive way when [walked out my front door and that's when I said, | need to report it

to the town, So, it was just the acceleration of the farm animals. So, when the board said ok you

heave six months special use permit to keep your chickens in this area, we said ok fine, we once

again will try. We do not want to deal with a hostile neighbor. We have submitted evidence that

we have a hostile neighbor. It’s important that you understand that we are just not, OH WE

LIVE INA NICE NEIGHBORHOOD, but we don't want to live next to chickens.

John DeMarco and Michael Short having a discussion.

Pg. 236 September 10, 2024 Zoning Meeting

acceptable as well as a compromise . Do you see the second line up there.

are down by those tree arborvitaes quite a bit.

EVERYONE SPEAKING

you can say oh, it’s a sound of nature but it’s not, it’s a chicken but again, we would deal with

something like that if it wasn’t ...if it was contained in an area that really didn’t affect us.

(WHILE AUDIENCE MEMBER IS SPEAKING, THE BOARD IS HAVING DISCUSSIONS.

IT MAKES IT HARD TO HEAR WHOIS ACTUALLY SPEAKING)

the second line, the further east line is upheld the chickens would not be by those arborvitaes, the

chickens would be blocked by the garage and maybe we need to put a fine across the north side

as well because theoretically...so the second line where Josh’s cursor is, the chickens would be

blocked by the garage, the chickens would not be back by the arborvitae and I will have

questions for the applicant as well but...and I understand the noise, if this was a dog and

unfortunately, my dogs barks his head off and then you would have a dog barking and that is

noise as well. So, [hear you, as John was pointing out, what is the difference between the east

line and west line tf the chickens are staying in that confined area.

ENOUGH) the fence where it’s at which goes off from that east corner of the garage right now .

Pg. 237 September 10, 2024 Zoning Meeting

the right side, is that the garage?

wouldn’t see them correct.

LOUD ENOUGH AND USING THE MIC) The original blue line is closer to the driveway.

out of your line of sight because it’s hidden behind the building.

neighbors from Dunn Bridge.

we see when in the winter time when all the beautiful greenery is gone, that is our view.

assuming that it’s that concrete area right there roughly... (WVE!WING THE PLANS ON THE

SCREEN) so the views from that area would be blocked by the garage to the chickens on the

eastern line. Ok, so J will go back to my original question, in that eastern line again, if the

chickens were to stay within that eastern line right, they are chickens, if they were to stay within

that eastern line, they would be blocked from view from the area that you site in the morning or

having coffee or whatever it is, correct? So, going back to as John was mentioning, would that be

acceptable compromise to use that second line, the eastern line, leaving the eastern portion of the

applicants property void of chickens.

taking a seat, [ would like the applicant to come back up. Ok, you do live in a smaller area, and I

am going to call it half acre for a lack rounding purposes. Here is the compromise that is

proposed, the eastern blue line that is showing on the property the chickens need to stay within

thal area and f will be honest, I don’t know how you are going to keep your chickens in that area

Pg, 238 September 10, 2024 Zoning Meeting

that is going to be up to you to figure out. I know chickens like to jump and flutter and fly and

whatnot but that is your responsibility to keep the chickens within that area to be able to

maintain the variance moving forward. I look at this and ] think this is a win-win because no one

is happy, but it allows you to keep your chickens, and your neighbors won’t have to see but they

still may have to hear the chickens, and I understand you heard the other comments regarding all

the other animals as this variance is only for 8 chickens at this point. Roosters, I get it. You

purchase..........

they are until they start crowing and it takes a couple of weeks to get rid of them, I get it. Pigs,

whether it happened or not, am assuming there are photos and what not, you can’t have them

we are in a residential neighborhood we are not in a farm so with that, | am willing to extend it

another 6 months with he 8 hens. 1 don’t know if the board has additional questions or

comments.

through winter or early spring. March, we can still get some good snow fall. I would like to

extend it to May at least, that is my opinion.

9 months or whatever I think makes sense because if it goes well, no problem and if it doesn’t,

will hear about it.

to even make it longer just because there is a mechanism for any dissatisfaction to be presented

to us. ALL BOARD MEMBERS SPEAKING AT THE SAME TIME

there are no issues. So, the May Zoning Board meeting.

RESOLUTION 24-0053 Michael Short made a motion TO EXTEND THE

SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR 604 DRUMM

ROAD FOR NO MORE THAN 8 HENS WITH

THE PREVIOUS CONDITIONS THAT WERE

SET FORTH IN ADDITION WITH THE

EASTERN LINE INDICATED ON THE

ATTACHED DRAWING FROM THE SOUTH

Pg. 239 September 10, 2024 Zoning Mecting

VOTE:

KAST CORNER OF THE EXISTING GARAGE

THROUGH THE SOUTH EAST CORNER OF

THE EXISTING GARDEN AREA TO THE

WEST TO DRUMM ROAD; CHICKENS ARE

TO BE MAINTAINED WITHIN THAT AREA

AND NOT BEYOND THAT AREA . WE ARE

GRANTING A 9 MONTH SPECIAL USE

PERMIT TO BE REVIEED IN THE MAY

ZONING BOARD MEETING which was

seconded by: Corrine Volo.

Mr. Short AYE

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Hauza AYE

Mr. Lagonor AYE

Mr. Centola AYE

for the enclosure.

say a month.

ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM:

* Minutes were approved for July 9, 2024 (Volo/Centola)

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

mecting al 8:45 p.m.

Corrine Volo, Secretary

Katherine Kolich, Recording Secretary

NOV 20°24 pa2:17

FILED WEBSTER TWN CLK

Coven (Viguve

Pg. 240 September 10, 2024 Zoning Meeting