WEBSTER ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES
PLACE; Webster Town Board Meeting Building 1002 Ridge Road
August [3, 2024
7:00 pm
ABSENT:
Michael Short James Spampinato (alternate)
Corrine Volo
Dan Lagoner
Donald Hauza
Chris Centola
John DeMarco, Attorney
Katherine Kolich, Recording Secretary
Josh Artuso, Director of Community Development
Good evening and wetcome to the Zoning Board Appeals meeting for August 13,
2024. We have one tabled item and 7 scheduled matters for today. We do have proof of legal
publication for all the items. The board does have the right to end meeting by 10:00 with the
number of items we have. If we don’t, we may have to table the last couple of items, but Iam
hoping we don’t get there. During public speaking sessions we will limit public comments to no
more than 5 minutes so keep that in mind.
Call Roll, Pledge of Allegiance
I would like to make a slight change to the agenda that we have. I would like to
move Splash Car Wash, one year extension of approvals up to the first item and then we will
move back to the tabled items.
Summary of Application Outcomes
TABLED MATTERS
:
671 WILLOW _LANE/ACCESSORY STRUCTURE
Bryan Bishoping
TABLED TO SEPTEMBER 10, 2024, MEETING: APPLICANT TO RETURN
WITH A PROPOSAL THAT IS MORE RESIDENTIAL IN CHARACTER
SCHEDULED MATTERS
:
1013 RIDGE ROAD/SPLASH CAR WASH-ONE YEAR EXTENSION
Fox Five LLC
1-YEAR EXTENTION OF USE VARIANCE GRANTED: APPROVAL TO
EXPIRE ON AUGUST 23, 2025 (one year from prior approval)
Pg. 180 August 13, 2024 Zoning Meeting
210 WOODSVIEW DRIVE/CONVERT PORCH TO 4 SEASON ROOM
Keystone Customer Decks
APPROVED AS PRESENTED: 47’ (WEST) REAR SETBACK
858 JORAN DRIVE/FRONT PORCH
Tom Mykins
APPROVED AS PRESENTED: 30’ (WEST) FRONT SETBACK
712 BAY ROAD/ADDING COVERED PARKING
Michael Mattys
APPLICATION TABLED TO SEPTEMBER 10, 2024 MEETING
823 BANNERWOOD DRIVE/2‘” CAR GARAGE
Corinne Mansfteld
APPROVED AS PRESENTED: 32” (EAST) FRONT SETBACK
361 ANNA CIRCLE/IN-GROUND POOL AND CONCRETE
Brandon Sosa
APPROVED W/ CONDITION:
4.3’ (SOUTH) SIDE SETBACK TO CONCRETE EDGE OF POOL; NO PART OF POOL
OR CONCRETE TO BE LOCATED IN DRAINAGE EASEMENT
1706 WOODARD ROAD/3®? CAR GARAGE
Carl Aquilina
APPROVED W/ CONDITIONS: 6.5’ (WEST) SIDE SETBACK;
MUST RELOCATE FRONT SHED TO REAR OF RESIDENCE; GARAGE ADDITION
TO HAVE (2) GARAGE DOORS FOR ACCESS TO REAR YARD
(Corrine Volo read the first application)
671 WILLOW LANE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE: Located at 671 Willow Lane. Applicant
Bryan Bishchoping is requesting AREA VARIANCES to allow a side setback less than what is
required and to allow the placement of the accessory structure to be nearer to the front property
line than the rear line of the main residence associated the construction of a 500 SF detached
wood-framed structure on a 0.46-acre 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
ol Webster.
Hello Bryan, how are you and it’s good to see you again.
It’s good to see you.
Do you want to go through the project again.
Py. 18! August 13, 2024 Zoning Meeting
So, the second floor was eliminated, and I am just going to have shelving
inside now and the measurements have been updated so that it is within the 20 x 25 foot print
and not exceeding 20 feet tall.
Ok, so you also submitted information on the materials so it looks like an
industrial metal building if you will or a pole barn type material.
It is metal siding, yes.
Ok, very good.
The roof is going to be metal as well.
Ok and you also submitted the break down of the cost as well.
Yes.
Thank you. I know the last time that we spoke there was concerns of a building
that is being put up in a residential area that is 20 feet tall, 20 x 25 that ultimately would have a
more industrial type look and would look out of place in the neighborhood itself and I still have
that concern significantly. | appreciate that you submitted on the materials because I know the
last time we had spoke we had mentioned making it look similar to the house, to a residential
and at that point you did not have the materials decided on at that point and time, so I appreciate
all the information here. Does the board have questions.
Yes, with the removat of the second floor, what is the need to the height?
| need storage space so 1 am going to have shelving that is 20 feet tall and
be able to store on that shelving so I still need the storage. ..it’s just, Iam looking to have....the
decision that was made at the last meeting by creating a, by saying the structure was now a
1000 square feet because of the second level that required me to get a third variance because my
house is not 4000 square feet so the way to have a 500 square feet structure without needing
that other variance is to eliminate the second level and just have the storage vertically.
Are you going to have a business at this tocation.
No
I don’t know any resident that has a need for shelving 20 fect tall.
There is actually currently at Schlegel and Phillips ave larger and the same
R-3 zoning as my property. It is definitely a lot larger because I believe the door is a least 12
feet tall and 10 feet wide and that is the same residential zone that | am in.
Pg. 182 August 13, 2024 Zoning Mecting
It stl concerns me.
Any other questions?
If he could soften it up so it doesn’t look that commercial. I know one of the
previous meetings we asked a question why he couldn’t incorporate that to his existing house
and if memory serves me correctly, tt was that it was more expensive than having a standalone,
but we are talking a residential area.
So, the intent is to have both structures look similar.
So, you are going to side you house un metal siding?
Eventually...its currently metal siding right now.
It is aluminum siding that mimics plank siding so in what you submitted, is a
standing seem commercial grade siding that is roughly 18 or 24 inches on center so it not the
same project. It is a commercials grade product.
I mean the goal is the longevity of the structure not....so when I make that
transition with the house, the primary structure that's the goal that the two will be similar.
Now, are you planning on matching the color of this to the future color of your
residence which is going to be what?
I have not decided a color,
| guess this is what I am going to say, at the end of the day we have bullets that
we have to abide by, and this board has the option to say, to review it to the best of our ability
and make a decision. The last two, this ts not an undesirable change-this ts in a residential
neighborhood, Phillips and Schlegel and yes, ] understand that it might be same zone however
those are more heavily larger roads then a residential neighborhood so J would say that this
becomes an undesirable change, and this request is not significant. On one hand having a
storage unity 20 x 25, I don’t see as being significant until we put that height of 20 feet on top
of it. Now, it becomes something much more significant. These are my opinions, so I guess
from here, I mean Bryan, are you open to modifications to this structure to have a storage unit
on your property lo be able to store your equipment; materials on the property.
So, we currently have 3 other accessory structures this size in the
neighborhood, in my current neighborhood.
1 drove your neighborhood, and 1 did not see any structure 20 feet height, 25
Pe. 183 August 13, 2024 Zoning Mecting
Maybe not 20 feet high but definitely, 18 feet high, 18-19 feet high. There is
one 21 x 25; there is one that is 20 x 25, and they happen to be in the back yard.
The ones that were identified the first time you were here, were not those.
And then at the corner of Millcreek and Willow, or Millcreek and Holley,
there is one that Jooks like an attached garage, but it is not an attached garage and that is at least
18 feet tall.
What do you have going on Josh.
| asked him if he could pull up Google Earth.
Thank you.
Michael and Chris having a discussion.
NOT SPEAKING LOUD ENOUGH...The one on Phillips and Schlegel.
Where the general neighborhood is.
It would be the south east corner on Holley.
JOSH ARTUSO PULLING UP MAP ON GOOD EARTH.
Is that attached or detached?
That is detached.
NOT SPEAKING LOUD ENOUGH. The peak might be at 20 feet but certainly
the eaves are around
10. Donald Hauza: And it certainly has a residential look.
The siding, shutters, and windows are all on the same scale of the house.
So that is one of things that Lam get to Bryan without being blunt about it but
the structure that has been submitted, in my opinion, is a commercial looking structure. Itis a
low pitch roof, and it does not fit within the neighborhood. It was just brought up; it was made
1o look to fit within the neighborhood. Are you open to
Can we look at the ones on Conifer Cove?
Pg. 184 August 13, 2024 Zoning Mecting
Sure
NOT SPEAKING LOUT ENOGH. | would have to check to see what the
addresses are. Actually Josh, it’s real close to where your cursor is. [ believe the one with the
pool VIEWING THE MAP.
Right in those back yards right there and you can see the corner of one.
But here is the other issue; yours is not going to be out in the backyard hidden
by your house and hidden by the trees.
Hidden by the hedge rows.
On one side, right.
Half of the structure yes. IT have a current picture of what it looks like today
and there ts only 4 feet from the hedge row currently to the stakes or the corners of the
structure. So, when that gets cleaned up and then planted, it definitely will blend in with he
hedge row.
Now, were you planning on plantings around the building to soften the look of it.
Yes
Because it Is entirely in your side yard so the hedgerow will hid it from the
neighbor to the north but it’s going to be right there.
I have a picture from today at 3:45 if you want to pass it around and I have
multiple copies if you like to look at it today and you can sec the stakes and corner closest to the
existing structure.
| don’t need to see it. | have been to the property a couple of times, so | know
what it books like. I don’t know if anyone clse wants to see it.
No
Ok, what Iam hearing, | guess itis Bryan, you are set on this size; style; height;
material to be installed... what Lam hearing and correct me if a Tam wrong, you are not open to
alterations to the look at this and to the size and the height of this. Correct ?
The height, the footprint, everything falls into an accessary structure
approved in the Town of Webster so that is what [am going for is that size. The look of is
going to be complimenting of the primary structure.
Pg. 185 August 13, 2024 Zoning Mecting
Ok, for you to build it in the location, you need, you have to have a variance.
This board can cither deny or grant that variance. Speaking for myself, 1 would want to see this
soften and the height reduced, and materials modified so that it fits within the neighborhood,
Again, not speaking for the rest of the board members but that is what |] would want. You are
correct, the height fits within the code. We are not hear talking about the height from a variance
standpoint we are talking about the location, but this board has the ability to grant that variance
based on a number of factors. The look of it being one of them. Again, being an undesirable
change and being a significance of a request those are the two things that we have to ask
ourselves and we have to ask ourselves, is this an undesirable change for that neighborhood is
what we have to ask ourselves and I guess we can vote now as it stands or is there any room on
your end to answer those questions differently for other board members.
I mean again, I don’t know. 1 looked at some options and I did not know that
metal siding or roofing was going to be an issue. | am sure there are other options for metal
siding, but | don’t know what they all are.
Height wise though, you are set on the height and there is no...... Ok, very good.
With that, did I already open up to the public? I open up for anyone who wants to speak for or
against this project. NO. | will bring it back to the board. Any other comments or questions
from the board?
NOT TALKING LOUD ENOUGH. I just want to tel! the applicant, should this
application be denied, you can not reapply in front of this board for a period of one year without
having a substantial change in your application. If you decide to make a submittal within that
one year period but the board would have to approve that significant enough of a change in
order for us to be able to act on it. So, [just caution you.
It's just the siding and roofing?
It is the style. CHRIS CENTOLA OVER TALKING
It is the style. It doesn’t look residential. Would 1 want this next to my house?
Absolutely not. | don’t want it by my neighbors house.
So, to Don's point right, it’s the height, | mean, it’s not insignificant right. |
mean we are talking the height of this, is probably close to 18 fect at the eaves based on what I
ain seeing here. So, it’s the height, it’s the materials, is ...............
And location
Right, it all plays into it.
It is going stick out like a sore thumb.
Pg. 186 August 13, 2024 Zoning Meeting
And while I recognize it, and I am sure the rest of the board does. Is your right,
there is nothing against having a metal shed and there is nothing wrong with have a 25 foot
height or asking for a variance but the way it is presented right now, at least for me, makes it
difficult to help you because I agree with Don and Mr. Short, that I don’t think it fits in and
while it’s not a requirement to fit in, that is why you have a board as opposed to just writing a
check and getting a variance and like I said, I don’t think it’s anyone issue, that if you just made
is shorter you would fit any better. [ think it is a combination of stuff but certainly I think the
height and the material has a lot to do with it at least for the way I would want to vote on it so,
Well, I think when you were before the board previously the concern the board
had was just that it needs to look residential, and it needs to kind of fit the neighborhood and I
think you could still get what you need function wise but just make it softer. Right now, it is
just going to look like a metal pole barn standing and not hidden behind your house.
So, 1 guess, Don with your comment, we have two options, you can pull the
application right now and take a look to see if there is something that would appease this board
or we can vote but based on what you are hearing | don’t think it is going to go well. Iam not
going lo promise that, but it may.
So, if] were to get a metal siding to look similar to the house, the primary
structure,,..
In style. Lunderstand that you are going to change that siding because it is aged
and faded but ....
Bryan, there is a lot of things right. We got the material, that is one thing. We
have the height is another thing and the location is one. The one thing that you can probably not
do a whole lot about is the location. The other two, you can do a lot about it and make that
work within that.
So, the height is going to stay; the location we have already established; and
to me it’s the exterior finish.
Esthetics play a big part and that is an entire residential neighborhood. It’s not
like you are in a mixed neighborhood where there is a farm across the street.
If you are keeping the height and you are only changing the materials, talking
for myself, ] would still be against it. There would have to be significant changes to it to make
this look like it fits within the residential neighborhood that you live in.
| can reapproach the architect and see what he can do.
Ok, so you are pulling the application at this point and time.
Pg. 187 August 13, 2024 Zoning Mecting
I will table it for next month.
Sounds good. I appreciate it.
RESOLUTION 24-0046 Donald Hauza made a motion to TABLED
APPLICATION TO THE SEPTEMBER 10,
2024 ZONING BOARD MEETING which was
seconded by: Chris Centola.
VOTE:
Mr. Short AYE
Mrs. Volo AYE
Mr. Hauza AYE
Mr. Lagonor AYE
Mr. Centola AYE
(Corrine Volo read the second application)
SPLASH CAR WASH -ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF APPROVALS Located at 1013 Ridge
Road. Applicant Fox Five LLC/962 Ridge Road LLC is requesting ONE YEAR EXTENSION
OF USE VARIANCE APPROVAL (
PUBLIC HEARING
) to allow the construction of a
7,000 SF car wash on a 2.16-acre parcel having SBL# 079.15-1-16.003 located in an MC
Medium Intensity Commercial District under Section 350-101 of the Code of the Town of
Webster.
Appearing before the board was Anne Riley and I represent the applicant owner of the property.
[ actually was not supposed to be here. My client was supposed to be here and last minute I got
sent over here. We are just looking for another extension and we are still involved in litigation.
We don’t want to lose our variance.
Very good. I have had a chance to go through all the paperwork and I don’t
know if anyone here has any questions or comments on the one year extension.
Ann, briefly if you could, what is the expectation on the ending of the litigation.
We are getting very close just not close enough.
Ok.
What docs that mean. Is that going to drag on again?
We are hoping that once we complete, the depositions have been completed and there
is amouion, the ligation attorney is handling the motion and once it does, this will either go
forward as a car wash,..that is what we are hoping for,
Pe. 188 August 13, 2024 Zoning Meeting
So, we shouldn't have you back here next year for a variance...for an extension,
correct?
I would say not.
Ok, hopefully knock on wood. Is there any more questions.
Do we need another car wash?
Fortunately, that is not for us to determine. Alright, we are going to open it up to
the public. Does anyone want to speak for or against this project. Ok. Do I have to go through
SEQR again?
No
RESOLUTION 24-0048 Michael] Short made a motion for 1-YEAR
EXTENTION OF USE VARIANCE
APPROVAL TO EXPIRE ON
AUGUST 23, 2025 which was seconded by:
Corrine Volo.
VOTE:
Mr. Short AYE
Mrs. Volo AYE
Mr. Hauza AYE
Mr. Lagonor AYE
Mr. Centola AYE
CONDITIONS ARE TO REMAIN AS THE ORIGINAL APPROVAL
Ann, I just have one question, are you going to be applying for an extension of the
site plan approvals?
I already submitted that.
Perfect, thank you.
Michael Short; With that, we are going to go back to our tabled matter, 671 accessory structure.
(Corrine Volo read the third application)
Located at 210 Woodsview Drive.
Applicant Keystone Customer Decks is requesting an AREA VARIANCE to allow a rear
setback less than what Is required associated with the conversion of an existing screened porch
into a four-scason room and addition of a new screened porch on a 0.47-acre parcel having
Pe. 189 August 13,2024 Zoning Meeting
SBL# 050.02-1-98 located in an R-2 Single Family Residential District under Section 350-11
of the Code of the Town of Webster.
Appearing before the board was Nathan Esh and I am from Keystone Custom Decks, and this is
Alan Brick, and he is the owner of the house that we are requesting a variance for. We are
looking to create the current screened in porch to a four season room. It’s like an addition to
the house pretty much and then off the end of that, we would recreate another screened in porch
pretty much similar to the existing structure so it would just be...the existing structure is I
believe 14 feet and we would be doing the same amount just mirroring that same copy right in
front of it. That takes us just across the 60 foot rear property setback so we would be looking
for 3 feet of relief.
I was out at the site yesterday and the backyard is pretty woodsy and nice area.
Can you tell me why to the back of the screened porch vs looking at the plan to the right/south.
Can you tell me why that location, that is my question.
So, you are saying why take the porch off the north west side vs like the south or
east side.
Correct.
That scems to be the casiest approach, and it keeps our view on the woods wooded
area and to the one side we have !ots of planter boxes, raised beds.
You would basically be building area over the existing patio?
Yes.
And another point is, the setback obviously would be correct going to the south,
but it is going further away fromthe neighbors and towards the rear of the property and the
other thing as far as building it, we just continue the A frame directly out vs having to reverse
an A frame off the existing A frame and so it creates that whole flow of the building a litle bit
easier.
Ok. Other questions from the board?
] think you had some correspondence from your next door neighbor .
Yes, we have a letter here (SEE ATTACHED) and they have no issues with it. 1
also believe that they are the ones that had a similar variance approved on their properly as
well. So, they are on board, and we have a letter here. Do you want to see that.
Did we get a copy of that?
Pe. 190 August 13, 2024 Zoning Mecting
| received it after. It was just.an email sent to me from Alan’s wife Kris and also, |
have the conversation between them two as well if you want to see that email as well.
So, 1 will just read this into the record. (SEE ATTACHED) No other questions
from the board, is there anyone who wants to speak for or against this project. No, ok back to
the board. Any other questions that the board may have.
Upon my site visit it is the most logical location and um with respect to impact
on the nearest neighbor since it will be pushing out in a direction where the neighbor really is
nol going to be able to sce it because it is up against the retention pond side of the property and
then the property to the rear is a working farm currently so again, I don’t think the farmer will
see It.
If there is no other discussions from the board, we will vote on SEQR.
RESOLUTION 24-0050 Michael Short made a motion TYPE Hf SEQR
which was seconded by: Dan Lagoner
VOTE:
Mr. Short AYE
Mrs. Volo AYE
Mr. Hauza AYE
Mr. Lagonor AYE
Mr. Centola AYE
Corrine Volo
This request is not out of character in the neighborhood: As was noted, the neighbor at 208
had a similar condition previously and I believe it was in 2019 with a similar setback to
add a room off the back of the house.
There will not be a detriment created to nearby properties: Again, the neighbor to the north
is actually a retention pond and the neighbor to the South sent a letter that he is not opposed
to it.
The benefit is not achievable by any other method: They are enclosing the room that is
currently there and extending it using the same reof lines which makes the construction
much more {casible.
This request is not substantial:
There are no adverse physical or environmental impacts to the site or neighborhood: No
impacts to the site or impacts.
The difficulty is self-created, but most variances arc, and
it really doesn’t impact any of the neighbors in the area.
This ts not an undesirable change: It will be a desirable change. The property is attractive
now and | don’t think it will be any less attractive with this addition to it.
This request is not significant:
Pe. 191 August 13, 2024 Zoning Mecting
[
The variance is only to a point on the building really it doesn’t include the whole
side.
RESOLUTION 24-0051 Michael Short made a motion to APPROVE THE
AREA VARIANCE Located at 210 Woodsview Drive.
Applicant Keystone Customer Decks is requesting an
AREA VARIANCE to allow a rear setback less than
what is required associated with the conversion of an
existing screened porch into a four-season room and
addition of a new screened porch on a 0.47-acre parcel
having SBL# 050.02-1-98 located in an R-2 Single
Family Residential District under Section 350-11 of the
Code of the Town of Webster which was seconded by:
Corrine Volo,
CONDITIONS:
e The applicant must obtain all necessary governmental permits, including a Town
Building Permit.
e That one-year significant construction shall expire August 13, 2025.
* APPROVED AS PRESENTED: 47’ (WEST) REAR SETBACK
VOTE:
Mr. Short AYE
Mrs. Volo AYE
Mr. Hauza AYE
Mr. Lagonor AYE
Mr. Centola AYE
(Corrine Volo read the fourth application)
Located at 858 Joran Drive. Applicant Tom Mykins is
requesting AREA VARIANCES to allow a front setback less than what is required associated
with the construction of a 160 SF front porch on a 0.31-acre parcel having SBL# 078.10-1-56
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 Tom Mykins. | live on the corner Volk and Joran Drive. We
have a ranch house on the corner. We have a front porch today which is 8 x 10 and 18 inches
height off of the ground and I want to expand that to make it 8 x 20 to bring it across the house
shghtly but unbeknownst there is a variance in the current one is actually over that time, so I
didn’t have the information at the lime and it’s close to Joran Drive I believe, is where the
variance is. From the front of the house to Joran Drive and it’s only 30 feet and I don’t know
exactly but | believe the code is tike 34-35 fect on that but that is what 1 am looking for the
variance for. | do have a neighbor next door to us that has a very similar deck with the same
extension onto that also.
Pg. 192 August 13, 2024 Zoning Mecting
So, you are not coming any further closer to Joran than your current porch is.
Correct.
You are just making it
Just making it a little bit wider than it is and we are going... EVERYONE
TALKING AT ONCE.
Yup, absolutely. Ok, questions from the board. There is a variance already Josh
for that current porch,
No. We were not able to find one on record.
Got it. This is pretty straight forward to me, and I don’t have any questions.
Anybody from the board?
NO
I will open it up to the public if anyone wants to speak for or against this
project. No, ok will bring it back to the board.
RESOLUTION 24-0052 Michael Short made a motion TYPE II SEQR
which was seconded by: Donald Hauza.
VOTE:
Mr. Short AYE
Mrs. Volo AYE
Mr. Hauza AYE
Mr. Lagonor AYE
Mr. Centola AYE
Michael Short
1. This request is not out of character in the neighborhood: As you mentioned, your neighbor
next door has a very similar porch right in front. The porch is not going to be any taller or
any closer to the front or to the road than your current porch. It will be a little bit wider.
2. There will not be a detriment created to nearby properties: Does not cause a detriment as
this is attached to the house and close to the house.
3. The benefit is not achievable by any other method: To make your porch a benefit, it’s really
not achievable by any other means.
4. This request is not substantial: This is not substantial as there was already a porch there
and the neighborhood has porches all through out that are viewable trom road side.
There arc no adverse physical or environmental impacts to the site or neighborhood: None
a
Pg. 193 August 13, 2024 Zoning Mecting
L
6. The difficulty is not self-created: It is self-created to want to have a usable porch but it’s
not unreasonable to have a usable porch in ones front yard.
7. This is not an undesirable change: It is not as many of the houses already have front
porches.
8. This request ts not significant: Is not a significant request from this board.
Any other findings that | may have missed?
[am trying to figure out the front setback of the new porch.
It is supposed to be 30 fect where 40 feet is required.
So, are we going to be 30... what’s the house currently off the street? The house
is 38.4. Ok, gotcha.
RESOLUTION 24-0053 Michael Short made a motion to APPROVE THE
AREA VARIANCE Located at 858 Joran Drive.
Applicant Tom Mykins ts requesting AREA
VARIANCES to allow a front setback of 30 feet
where 40 feet is required associated with the
construction of a 160 SF front porch on a 0.3 1-acre
parcel having SBL# 078. 10-1-56 located in an R- 3
Single Family Residential District under Section
350-12 of the Code of the Town of Webster which
was seconded by: Chris Centola.
CONDITIONS:
e¢ The applicant must obtain all necessary governmental permits, including a Town
Building Permit.
e That one-year significant construction shall expire August 13, 2025.
* To provide the front porch no more than 30 feet in Liu of the 40 feet required by
the code and the porch would be no more than 8 feet x 20 feet in the front of the
house.
VOTE:
Mr. Short AYE
Mrs. Volo AYE
Mr. Hauza AYE
Mr. Lagonor AYE
Mr. Centola AYE
(Corrine Volo read the fifth application)
Located at 712 Bay Road. Applicant Michacl Mattys is
requesting an AREA VARIANCE to allow a front setback tess than what is required associated
Pg. 194 August 13, 2024 Zoning Meeting
with the construction of a 300 SF Porte Cocherre (covered carport) addition to an existing
single-family residence 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 Webster.
Applicant requested to table application.
RESOLUTION 24-0054 Michael Short made a motion to TABLE
APPLICATION TO THE SEPTEMEBER 10,
2024 ZONING BOARD MEETING which was
seconded by: Chris Centola.
VOTE:
Mr. Short AYE
Mrs. Volo AYE
Mr. Hauza AYE
Mr. Lagonor AYE
Mr. Centola AYE
(Corrine Volo read the sixth application)
Located at 823 Bannerwood Drive.
Applicant Corinne Mansfield is requesting an AREA VARIANCE to allow a front setback
less than what is required associated with the construction of a 672 SF attached garage addition
to an existing single- family residence on a 0.63-acre parcel having SBL# 081.01-1-75 located
in an R-2 Single Family Residential District under Section 350-11 of the Code of the Town of
Webster.
Appearing before the board was Brian Andrejcak and Corinne Mansfield and we are the home
owners, and we are requesting a variance to add on an attached garage to the existing house.
So, the only thing that we got is the land here, what is the attached garage going
to look like?
It will mirror the house. Same siding and same look and it will look like it
will be connected to the house and will be an extension of it.
Height wise? Do you have plans already? Is that something you can share with
the board?
NOT USING THE MIC, CAN BARELY HEAR. I did send
them... TAKES HER PHONE TO SHOW BOARD WHAT IT WILL LOOK LIKE.
Josh, do you have?
Pg. 195 August 13, 2024 Zoning Mecting
Ido not. It might have been submitted with your building application but that
didn’t transfer over to this one. If you have them clectronically, you can email them, and I can
pull them up on the screen,
[s there an actual structure connected to the garage to the existing garage or is
that just a covered walk way?
It will be ...... (BOARD MEMBERS SPEAKING AT THE SAME TIME AS
APPLICANT) as the garage. The garage will be here and a little...
Right, is that going to be enclosed or is that just going to be.........
It will be enclosed.
Why this particular location?
Because it is near the driveway.
(NOT AT THE MIC SO IT’S HARD TO HEAR) We had a couple
setbacks had we done it just continuing it on...otherwise our window would be looking into the
garage. So, our only option was to do it that way. We also thought about doing it straight down
the driveway NOT SPEAKING LOUD ENOUGH.... I have a truck and need to turn around.
Gotcha. Can you zoom in on that a Little bit Josh.
It’s really not giving me the option.
Are there any clevations.
I don’t believe the elevations were provided. Do you have elevation drawings of
what the building would look like?
No, that is basically what our contractor gave us.
Will the roof line be similar to the other garage?
Yes...NOT AT THE MIC AND NOT SPEAKING LOUD ENOUGH)
Obviously the stairs are going up to the storage area.
(NOT USING THE MIC) similar to our old house. If you want to google
20 Jeffreys Circle that is pretty much what we want to do with it.
Pg. 196 August 13, 2024 Zoning Mecting
Do you know what the height of the garage?
It will be the height of the current structure. The height will not execed the
current structure.
NOT SPEAKING LOUD ENOUGH AND NOT AT THE MIC.... Make
sure not to do that because it would look like an apartment complex. The height of the garage
going to much higher than...................
It is not an accessory building because it’s connected to the house.
That is what f was going to ask if it is not enclosed. It’s an addition.
What was the address that you gave?
20 Jeffreys Circle
So, on that side, the Bannerwood side, you have essentially there is 3 rooflines
and it’s not going to be any higher than the house, which roof line are we talking about.
Ht will be a litthe below,......... the second
The middie roof line, if you will, right. Ok, that makes sense, and you said a
little bit below that.
Yes
Material wise you said it looks tike you have vinyl siding.
1 will all match.
NOT USING THE MIC............ We are actually going to be using the
door we previously had so it’s the same exact door.
You converted the existing garage into living space?
Yes, during COVID we needed a little bit more room.
And the garage is going to have a full......the garage area, is that just going to be
a small little area that the stairs are leading to.
NOT USING THE MIC....... lt will be the full
Pe. 197 August 13, 2024 Zoning Mecting
Any other questions from the board? Any one for or against this project that
wants lo speak? Ok, will bring it back to the board. [am having Josh email me the images and
I want to see if I can actually open them up. So, Josh received a screen shot of what was on
your phone which ts fine, | guess my question ts it....1t looks like there may have been another
page based on the screen shot. If you scroll up there is a title block so it looks like there might
be more to it. TALKING TO THE APPLICANT....they don’t give any dimensions
whatsoever, very nice of them however they are keeping the sofit line and the eave the same as
your current house and it actually looks like it might be taller than that middle portion but
lower than the upper portion of your house based on what | am seeing on this elevation. If you
wouldn’t mind sending that to Josh, | appreciate that. So, the elevatton based on what was just
shown to me is actually below the tope eave but above that middle eave. There is not
dimensions of the heights. There is a dimension on the truss it looks like il says its 9 foot clear,
Fcan’t really tell. Inside the truss it might be 8 foot and then the peak itself. We will just limit it
LO eee ecece eee eee eee ecees CHRIS CENTOLA SPEAKING OVER: over 25 allows us (o vote
Any other questions from the board?
NO
RESOLUTION 24-0056 Michael Short made a motion TYPE 1E SEQR
which was seconded by: Dan Lagoner.
VOTE:
Mr. Short AYE
Mrs. Volo AYE
Mr. Hauza AYE
Mr. Lagonor AYE
Mr. Centola AYE
Corrine Volo
1. This request is not out of character in the neighborhood: All of the houses in the
neighborhood due have garages and most of them have 2-3 car garage and several of the
homes actually have a third bay garage added where this is house is only going to have a2
car garage because the previous garage was converted to living space.
2. There will not be a detriment created to nearby propertics: This is a corner lot but it looks
like } don’t Know if it’s quite a full double lot but it's wider in the direction to the nearest
neighbor of the garage than most of the lots are and | am going to guess this is a cluster
subdivision because as you go further down Bannerwood the houses are all on lop of one
another but there is significant space between this home and the nearest neighbor the
garage then most of the lots ....the neighbor at lot 211 the neighbor’s house on the garage
side also does not have any windows on that side of the house so as far as impacting and
being in the view of the neighbor they are not going to sce it on the windowless side. The
Pg. 198 August 13, 2024 Zoning Meeting
distance from this addition to the lot line is still going to be 46 feet and then at least another
10 feet to the house next door so it’s going to be significantly spaced.
The benefit is not achievable by any other method:
4. This request is not substantiah It is not an oversize garage. It’s a 2 car garage that is a little
bit deeper to allow room for an upstairs access to a storage loft.
There are no adverse physical or environmental impacts to the site or neighborhood: None
6. The difficulty is not self-created: It is self-created, but the applicant does have room on the
lot in order to do so.
a
an
7. This is not an undesirable change:
8. This request is not significant: T will say it Is not significant with the setback in this
instance,........... Is it 40 feet Josh because it’s a corner lot? One side is 40 and the other
would be....
This particular lot is a cluster development and has a 35 foot front setback.
Ok, so Iam only going 3 feet beyond.
(NOT CLOSE ENOUGH TO MIC) If you look at the instrument survey, it’s
really not to scale. It’s really...the way that it is show on the instrument survey that was
provided by the applicant, that location is much closer to the road than it actually will be. I want
to make sure that the applicant is aware of that because it is not that much of an angle as they are
depicting on the survey, or it won't be.
Lam sorry our contractor drew that up.
I don’t want you back in a half a year and say, well our contractor.............
RESOLUTION 24-0057 Corrine Volo made a motion to APPROVE THE AREA
VARIANCE Located at 823 Bannerwood Drive.
Applicant Corinne Mansfield is requesting an AREA
VARIANCE to allow a front setback less than what is
required 320 feet where 35 feet is required associated
with the construction of a 672 SF attached garage addition
lo an existing single- family residence on a 0.63-acre
parcel having SBL# 081.01-1-75 located in an R-2 Single
Family Residential District under Section 350-11 of the
Code of the Town of Webster which was seconded by
Michael Short.
CONDITIONS:
e The applicant must obtain all necessary governmental permits, including a Town
Building Permit.
e That one-year significant construction shall expire August 13, 2025.
Pg. 199 August 13, 2024 Zoning Meeting
« APPROVED AS PRESENTED: 32” (EAST) FRONT SETBACK
VOTE:
Mr. Short AYE
Mrs. Volo AYE
Mr. Hauza AYE
Mr. Lagonor AYE
Mr. Centola AYE
(Corrine Volo read the seventh application)
Located at 36! Anna Circle. Applicant Brandon Sosa is
requesting AREA VARIANCES to allow a side setback less than what is required associated
with the construction of a 16° by 40° in-ground swimming pool on a 0.34-acre parcel having
SBL# 050.04-9-16 located in an R-3 Singse Family Residential District under Sections 350-12 &
350- 46 of the Code of the Town of Webster.
Appearing before the board was Brandon Sosa at 361 Anna Circle. I am looking to install a 16°
by 40° inground pool in our backyard and seeking an area variance for the side setback.
Side yard {5’correct, and based on this to the water fine ts 14.3 feet and I think
when I was there, we were talking that the waterline was going to be 15’
When we had the pool contractor come out and measured it 15° it was fine and |
started doing it on the plat map and it was off by 9” so, T went with worst case scenario.
Ok and then the concreate on that end is 10°?
Yes, that is correct.
Why that size pool and why that location?
That size pool, we originally wanted a shorter and wider, but we ran into the
easement in the back of the yard so trying to keep the same area we went a little longer and a
little skinner. That location, we felt that maximized distance from our neighbors and also kept
a nice symmetrical fook for the back yard. A couple slides down, if you sce or if you move it
any other direction, you get closer to our neighbors than further away.
I think there ts one other with a rotation as well.
That one is in the easement,
Why 40 feet?
Pg. 200 August 13, 2024 Zoning Mecting
They way we were looking, the functionality of the pool, the shallow end and
then a deep end to get everything out of it we wanted. That was the only length.
Ok. How low is the shallow end?
Oh, | don’t know off the top of my head. I believe it’s 10 fect.
They are literally all over the place.
So, the deep end ts going to be 7 feet so it allowed a larger shallow end and that
should be close to accurate where the lines are.
Board members talking.
Ok. Any other questions from the board.
Could you swap the location um,.alight, how am I asking this question, | was
going to say can you flip it so that the shallow end is to the left of the pool as J am looking at it
in this view and then the wider concrete would be on that side which would give you
Qeeeeeee eee leave the pool in the same place and flop the widths of the decking on each end if that
makes any sense.
Yes, so the undated plan, if you go to the other one Josh. We are actually
showing 10 feet on cach end so based off of kind of what we have been looking at and we have
10 feet on one side for sun ledging; tanning and lounging and the other side is to give room for
solar cover and kids jumping into the pool, so it wound up being symmetrical in the end.
Are you going to have a diving board?
No
Any questions from the board?
No
Alright, we are going to open it up the public.
Bob Curtis and | live at 1474 Bushwood Circle: When you look at the lot, that has a point to it,
we live Kitty corner to Brandon at the point and we have no ebjection.
| also forgot to mention that there is a signed affidavit trom my neighbor to the
side where the variance is, and they have no objection. (SEE ATTACHED)
Pg. 201 August 13, 2024 Zoning Meeting
That was in here as well. [do have an online submission that 1 will read from
Amy Delooze at 356 Anna Circle. (GEE ATTACHED) this will be part of the file. With that I
will bring it back to the board. Any other comments or questions from the board.
Are you going to have to modify the fence to make sure that it meets all codes?
Yes, I have already under agreement with the fence installer to add the correct
locks and self-closing.
Self closing......
Yes, all that stuff.
You are not removing the fence that will be in place will be in the same location
as the current fence, correct.
Yes.
Josh, and you may not... didn’t know where to look for it. I know this board
granted side setback variances at 365 and I think at 367 or maybe it was across the street.
There were several,
I know at least 365 because I do remember that when the contractor placed the
pool incorrectly and it was a fix it variance. Contractor installed incorrect location, hence
requiring a variance for actual location.
(VIEWING SLIDES AND TALKING ABOUT SOMEONE ELSES VARIANCE) Repeat of
what was discussed above. Corrine and applicant speaking at the same Ume.
If its not ready available its ok. We have had similar conditions in that
neighborhood. The lots are .3 acres, they are tiny. It is a cluster subdivision
RESOLUTION 24-0058 Michael Short made a motion TYPE ITSEQR
which was seconded by: Donald Hauza.
VOTE:
Mr, Short AYE
Mrs. Volo AYE
Mr. Hauza AYE
Mr. Lagonor AYE
Mr. Centola AYE
Pg. 202 August 13, 2024 Zoning Meeting
[
Chris Centola
2.
wh
This request is not out of character in the neighborhood: As there are many residents with
pools in the back yard
There will not be a detriment created to nearby properties: Will not be based on he has
looked at other options, so T think he has minimized the amount of variances that he
required.
The benefit is not achievable by any other method: No
This request is not substantial:
There are no adverse physical or environmental impacts to the site or neighborhood: I don’t
think there will be any the neighborhood. He is asking for the minimum relief necessary
with his setbacks
It is self-created, but it is a small lot so to put in something
lo enjoy your investment, I really don’t think that is a bad thing.
This ts not an undesirable change: Overall, | don’t think it is an undesirable usc.
This request is not significant:
The next door neighbor submitted a letter that did not object to the request.
We had neighbor in the rear come in with no objection as well.
It’s located on the easement side of the lot. There is an easement between 361 &
365 so that just gives it the illusion of having extra space between the pool and the neighbor.
With that, I forgot to ask earlier, you are nol going to be in the easement at all,
anyway, shape or form correct.
No, not in the easement at all.
Ok.
RESOLUTION 24-0059 Michael Short made a motion to APPROVE THE
AREA VARIANCE Located at 361 Anna Circle.
Applicant Brandon Sosa is requesting AREA
VARIANCES to allow a side setback less than
what ts required associated with the construction of
a 16’ by 40° in-ground swimming pool on a 0,34-
acre parcel having SBL# 050.04-9- 16 located in an
R-3 Single Family Residential District under
Sections 350-12 & 350- 46 of the Code of the Town
of Webster which was seconded by: Chris Centola,
Is it the cast and the west side?
Pg. 203 August 13, 2024 Zoning Meeting
It’s north and south.
The pool and deck will not be located in the drainage casement at all; the pool
water line will not be any closer to, is that the north, north line more than 14.3 inches and the
concrete will not be any closer to the property line of 4.3 feet. | meant to say 14.3 feet earlier.
Did you say it was going to be 15 or just going 14.3?
So, the plan is to center it on the patio and based off the numbers on the survey
map it wilt be 14.3
CONDITIONS:
e The applicant must obtain all necessary governmental permits, including a Town
Building Permit.
e That one-year significant construction shall expire August 13, 2025.
e 4.3’ (SOUTH) SIDE SETBACK TO CONCRETE EDGE OF POOL; NO PART OF
POOL OR CONCRETE TO BE LOCATED IN DRAINAGE EASEMENT
VOTE:
Mr. Short AYE
Mrs. Volo AYE
Mr. Hauza AYE
Mr. Lagonor AYE
Mr. Centola AYE
(Corrine Volo read the eighth application)
WOODARD ROAD 38” BAY GARAGE ADDITION: Located at 1706 Woodard Road.
Applicant Carl Aquilina is requesting an AREA VARIANCE to allow a side setback less than
what is required associated with the construction of a 420 SF garage addition to an existing
single-family dwelling on a 2.0-acre parcel having SBL# 050.02- 1-28 located in an LL Large
Lot Single Family Residential District under Section 350-13 of the Code of the Town of
Webster.
Appearing before the board was Al LaRue with McMahon LaRue Associates and Carl Aquilina
who is the home owner is here with me tonight. We think that the proposed addition we are
looking for a 6.5 foot side setback and I have calculated, and we have donc the survey, and |
have calculated a 14 foot by 30 foot proposed addition would yicld about a 6.92 or 6.99 side
setback and 6.5 gives us a little bit room during construction or whatever so we have added a
little snuff in there. We don’t think that the character of the neighborhood will be changed at all
by this and in fact, the new garage will be setback 8 feet from the existing garage and there is a
pretty prominent tree stand to the south protecting the neighbor so other than that it looks like a
good location and there is no other way to put the third car on this. So, with that, | will turn it
over lo any questions you may have for me or Carl.
Py. 204 August 13, 2024 Zoning Mecting
Ok, I just want to say one thing basically, ] am 122 feet behind. This addition
will be 122 feet behind my next door neighbors house. He is not objected to it.
Thank you. I was out at your site yesterday and you really don’t have any other
place to provide this addition. You are kind of sandwiched in on the property if you will and
you have a fairly large drop off, off to the east side of the property as well so and I appreciate
that you had it all stacked out for me so I could visualize were it would end up going. So, I do
greatly appreciate that. Height is it your intention to keep the height roughly the same height as
what your peak is of your current garage ts.
Basically, it will probably be a little bit shorter because I have a window on the
east side on the existing structure so it might be 512 or it might be 5 % 12 but it is going to be
within that range. That is why I set it back so far so | would miss the window.
Are you intending on keeping the shed in front of the proposed addition? In
front of your house. (NOT CLOSE ENOUGH TO THE MIC)
Yes. (BOARD MEMBERS TALKING AT THE SAME TIME) It is set up on
peers and it’s not connected to anything ------- foundation what so ever.
Do you have a variance for that shed?
This was basically done 30 years ago.
Preexisting, nonconforming.
I think we had an ordinance 30 years ago. | know we had an ordinance 30 years
ago. How casy ts that to relocate? (HAND OVER MOUTH)
1 would have to slide it off of the peers that it’s on and drag it around the back of
the house going to the west, Fim sorry, going to the cast. It would be a litte impractical because
I would have to bring it about 200 feet.
| would like to have this conform. Either by relocating the shed that’s in front
of existing house or have the applicant apply for a variance for that shed to make it comply.
My preference is, you know, if they have equipment to butld the addition to utilize that
equipment and maybe move itin the back. If, he possibly can. Other option is to apply for a
variance.
There are two sheds...........c0. cease ee
SPEAKING OVER..........0..00......
Pg. 205 August 13, 2024 Zoning Meeting
I wasn’t even going (o get to that one because that one looks like it’s falling
apart,
It’s open in the front because it is the fire wood storage.
Al LaRue and Carl Aquilina having a discussion.
We are talking about the shed right now. There is a slope on the east side of the
existing home, and it wouldn’t be very easy to move that or slide that shed....
You would have to do it before the construction started because you could
move it to the west side of the house.
A! LaRue: Oh, before the construction, I’m sorry. I am Jooking at it built but it is not built so
you could slide that back like that, behind the house before construction,
That is possible and that is the only way that I could get it back there.
It would be appreciated. EVERYONE SPEAKING AT ONE TIME. I would
like to make that a condition that it complies with the ordinance.
Carl agrees that he will slide that back prior to construction of the addition.
| will open it up to the public.
Bryan Bishoping at 671 Willow Lane: 1 am here representing the property directly to the east
and my only concern ts what if, after the structure is completed, the addition is completed, how
do you get any equipment in the back yard to maintain a septic system, Other than that, if there
ig away te make things happen than no objections.
Audience member; (NOT CLOSE ENOUGH TO THE MIC) Lam that owner to the east and you
don't show the property stake up by the road and if you look down through the rock wall and
the wood storage are on the property line on the west side of our property. See that posted
sign? Right in there is where the GPS survey was done. There are two stakes missing up
further but...
Someone speaking from the audience.......... CAN NOT HEAR.
What ts your question sir? That the survey stakes are
(owner) 1 an just saying that the only one that! can locate right now is the
one by the posted sign.
Pg. 206 August 13, 2024 Zoning Meeting
So, the only issue would be, in the future after construction, getting
equipment into the back yard.
Basically, what 1 would like to say is, it’s an access road. To the east of that
access road and there is still 15 feet of road way going back . To the east of that is a 100 foot
easement because the water pipeline went through for the water treatment plant, and it is not
obstructing anything. The pins that have supposedly been removed by me, have never been
touched. The stakes have rotted out and have fallen down. I am not going to replace the stakes.
I did not touch the pins.
When we did a survey for that piece to the east, and we put those stakes in the
ground, when we did Carl’s house, we found those pins and used them on part of the survey.
So, they are there but the wooden lath that marks them, it rotted out, but they are still there, and
we can always markers beside them so you can find them.
And you have placed capped rebars along the eastern property line.
Right, rebars with my name capped on it.
So, can you tel! me where your septic system is because I don’t see it identified
on the survey. Do you know where it is.
My septic system is in the center of the back yard.
So, kind of dead center.
Yes, I am at least 20 feet either way.
Michael! Short: But how far back from the house.
(NOT AT THE MIC AND NOT LOUD ENOUGH) I would say about to the
---- it’s about 50 feet.
Carl’s house is 19.36 feet off the property line outside.
I see that and how far off is the stone wall. The stone wall looks like it is
roughly on the property line. Maybe 2 feet off the property line if 1 had to guess but Lam
stricly guessing.
Carl Aquilina; COULD NOT HEAR WHAT HE WAS SAYING.
The stone wall on the east side correct.
Pg. 207 August 13, 2024 Zoning Mecting
We did not locate it.
I would say that is at least 8 or 9 feet back and like I said, it is not obstructing
the roadway going back. It’s on a slope-----house.
It also appears in front of the wall that protrudes to the east like where Josh is
pointing to right now. I didn’t check that out at the time because [ didn’t think it was pertinent
when I went to visit the site, sorry.
Mr. LaRue, did you....in the survey that I have here it indicates the and lam
calling it a fire wood shed, you did locate that.
We did.
So again, looking at the photos here and again, perspective changes things
obviously but it looks like the stone wall is roughly in line with the back of that shed roughly.
That is what it looks like in the photo.
Plus, or minus. How would you propose to service your septic system in the
rear of your house with the addition,
(NOT USING THE MIC) We drive down back down the driveway which is on
the west side, he runs his hose out, so | am not on anyone’s land at that particular time.
Ok. | am going to ask a silly question here Josh. Septic systems are allowed in
the front property.
The town actually does not regulate septic systems it is the County Health
Department.
So, if a new septic system was required and the applicant did not have access or
permission from anybody to use their property to get equipment, he could put it in the front
yard if he needed to.
EVERYONE TALKING AT ONCE
Another option would potentially be putting a garage door on the back of, on
the back of the addition as well to be able to do a drive through if you had to, is that something
you would be open to.
Yes, he could do that.
Pg. 208 August 13, 2024 Zoning Mecting
The other thing is to; ] wouldn't expect that shed to outlast the septic system ,
No. Lam assuming that shed won’t last long.
We are speaking about the wooden one, correct.
Is the party that is opposing this is that what the concern is or is there some
other issues.
(NOT AT THE MIC) (OWNER) Fam just concerned about that lane way is our farm lane way.
That lane belongs on the farm, Yes, Monroe County Water got an easement to put in the water
line 5, 10, 6 years ago. Whatever is was, now we can work the farm but that is the lane for the
farm. It is not for everyone to use. My brother and 1 own the farm together now.
Who else would use that land other than................
(OWNER) a lot of people to drive back.
To do what.
Horse around. They go through my way to and down my backyard as well.
Audience member; (owner) I is clear that that lane way is part of the farm. That's all.
Sir, I don’t know if we got your name and address for the record.
Audience member, (owner) My address is 19 Pierce Street in the Village, but Lam the one you
sent that card to at 1780 Woodard Rd is where the farm is located.
Again, because I am not clear on this, how does the garage going up or down
impact the frequency of other people other than the applicant use the roadway.
(owner) My address is 19 Pierce Street in the Village (James Bishoping) It
is private property,
T understand but relevant to the garage approval, how does that impact......
EVERYONE SPEAKING OUT AT ONCE.
(DID NOT HEAR BECAUSE EVERYONE WAS TALKING) On one side he
wants to make sure that it is know thal there won’t be any access on the
| understand that it’s just the applicant, but this genUeman concerned about the
rest of the public. I just don’t know whether the garage ts on the other side of the house.
Pg. 209 August 13. 2024 Zoning Meeting
(owner) My address is 19 Pierce Street in the Village (dames Bishoping)
No, Fam not even worried about that.
John DeMarco, I just don’t understand it.
You concern is access in and the applicant using that............ EVERYONE
YELLING OUT AT ONCE.
It is not the vest of the public, it’s if a structure goes there and blocks that
path, another path is potentially going to be utilized.
But how many times could somebody have a septic issue?
Do you have a septic system.
Yes, I grew up on one yeah.
EVERYONE TALKING AT ONCE
I think we have made that point that basically the back side of the wood storage
on the east side of the wood storage is private property and not an access lane and the applicant
understands that , correct.
We acknowledge that.
RESOLUTION 24-0060 Michael Short made a motion TYPE IT SEQR
which was seconded by: Corrine Volo,
VOTE:
Mr. Short AYE
Mrs. Volo AYE
Mr. Hauza AYE
Mr. Lagonor AYE
Mr. Centola AYE
The application in front of the board is asking to build a garage addition which is
not uncommon and especially within this area. They are looking to located that on the east
side.,.1’m sorry, the west side of the existing garage.
Michael Short
1. This request is not out of character in the neighborhood:
2, There will not be a detriment created to nearby properties: There will be no detriment
created to nearby properties. The owner has acknowledged that the parcel to the cast is 17
Pe. 210 August 13, 2024 Zoning Meeting
feet off the rear of their wood shed is private property and the access road to the rear of
their house. The neighbor to the west has not provided any objection so their will be no
detriment created to nearby properties.
3, The benefit is not achievable by any other method: It’s really not achievable by any other
method. The garage, the current garage is on the west side of the property, and this is
adding an additional bay on the west side of the property. On the east side there is an
elevation change as well as further away from the garage, far away from the existing
garage. So, really not feasible.
4. This request is not substantial: It is adding to the existing house. The house is already about
120 feet behind the closest residential house/neighbor.
5. There are no adverse physical or environmental impacts to the site or neighborhood: None
being so far back and the plans that were submitted are going to mimic the current house
as currently submitted.
6. The difficulty is not self-created: Where the house is located the difficulty is really not self.
created it is to be able to make the addition. They would have to go into the side setback.
7. This is not an undesirable change: Not undesirable being so far back and the style of the
addition.
8. This request is not significant: Is not significant.
RESOLUTION 24-0061 Michael Short made a motion to APPROVE THE
AREA VARIANCE Located at 1706 Woodard Road.
Applicant Carl Aquilina is requesting an AREA
VARIANCE to allow a side setback less than what is
required associated with the construction of a 420 SF
garage addition to an existing single-family dwelling on a
2.0-acre parcel having SBL# 050.02- 1-28 located in an
LL Large Lot Single Family Residential District under
section 350-13 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,
e That one-year significant construction shall expire August 13, 2025.
e APPROVED W/ CONDITIONS: 6.5’ (WEST) SIDE SETBACK;
e MUST RELOCATE FRONT SHED TO REAR OF RESIDENCE; GARAGE
ADDITION TO HAVE (2) GARAGE DOORS FOR ACCESS TO REAR YARD
eo
There is an existing shed in front of the residence that will need to be moved to
moved to the rear of the residence and a garage door both on the front and rear of
the garage addition will be required for access to the rear of the property.
Pg. 211 August 13, 2024 Zoning Mceting
VOTE:
Mr. Short AYE
Mrs. Volo AYE
Mr. Hauza AYE
Mr. Lagonor AYE
Mr. Centola AYE
ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM:
¢ No Minutes were approved.
¢ Since there is no further applications before the Board Michael Short adjourned tonight's
meeting at 8:45 p.m.
Corrine Volo, Secretary
Katherine Kolich, Recording Secretary
OCT 9°24 9H10:10
FILED WEBSTER TWN CLK
Pe, 212 August 13, 2024 Zoning Meeting