Minutes

WEBSTER ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES

Michael Short

Corrine Volo

Dan Lagoner

Donald Hauza

Chris Centola

James Spampinato

John DeMarco, Attorney

Katherine Kolich, Recording Secretary

Josh Artuso, Director of Community Development

2024, We have a total of 2 tabled matters that we are going to be reviewing today and |

scheduled for today. We have and not that today, hopefully is going to take too long but we do

reserve the right at 10:00 pm to table any remaining matters and I am hoping we don’t go that

long today. Additionally, there is a 5-minute limit to comment for any particular item. I do have

proof of publication for al! items.

Call Roll

Pledge of Allegiance

Summary of Application Outcomes

TABLED MATTERS

:

671 WILLOW LANE-ACCESSORY STRUCTURE

CONDITIONS:

© APPLICANT TO OBTAIN PLANNING BOARD APPROVAL

e 1-YEAR MEANINGFUL CONSTRUCTION

¢ MUST OBTAIN BUILDING PERMIT

1246 STAFFORD CRESCENT-GARAGE ADDITION

¢ 9 (WEST) SIDE SETBACK & 46 (SOUTH) FRONT SETBACK

e 1LYEAR MEANINGFUL CONSTRUCTION

« MUST OBTAIN BUILDING PERMIT

Pg. 131 June 11, 2024 Zoning Meeting

SCHEDULED MATTERS

:

46 LAKE ROAD-VARIANCES

4.5’ (EAST & WEST) SIDE SETBACKS

35’ (SOUTH) FRONT SETBACK

MUST OBTAIN BUILDING PERMIT

1-YEAR MEANINGFUL CONSTRUCTION

(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

of Webster.

Appearing before the board was Adam Cummings (NEVER STATED HIS NAME) So, the

graphic that is up there is a depiction of the 3 alternatives. It is tough to point to it but the upper

right most, a little to the right, is where the application stands and then the board did ask us to

identify where the power lines were; the swing distance; and the height of those so the actual

measurement on there, on that piece of paper is 4 ft 11 in and that is what we measured in terms

of the swing it would do so that gives us the buffer and then the board asked us to look at 2 other

alternatives of either keeping the 5 ft and pushing it back as far as we could to avoid those wires

and that is with the building sliding back and that pushes it back about 17.5 feet and likewise we

looked at it as eliminating the side setback and pushing it 15 feet off of the lot line but of course

because of the diagonal electrical wires, that is why it is pushed a little forward towards Willow

Lane. So, I hope that addresses the request from the board and there should be a photo that went

along with this.

It is tougher to see this one . It is from the road but. Right after the meeting we did go out and

stack that out and were measured of all three locations and he color coded the ribbons. So,

hopefully everyone got the chance to go out and see it. Obviously, it does not depict the height,

bul we are just looking at the area of placement for each of those alternatives.

required side and front setback; Option | also required side and front setback but further back

from the front of the house obviously; Option 2 on here would only require the front setback

variance, would NOT require the side setback, correct?

Pg. 132 June 11, 2024 Zoning Meeting

helpful. What this graphic doesn’t show but the photo does show is that there is a fairly mature

maple tree, yes right there. (PICTURE CHANGED ON THE SCREEN) which is 5 ft +/- into

option one so that maple tree, if you decide to go with option 1 or if that didn’t or considered,

that maple tree would have to be removed to accommodate that and I believe depending on my

conversations, there are concerns with some of the other options as well.

why, Brian would like to have that pushed up. It’s not only electric wires as we discussed at this

last meeting, it was estimated to be around $7500.00 dollars to relocated the telecommunication

wires and the electric so that the building could be code compliant and put in the back but in

addition to that, you would have $4500.00 dollars to take down that tree. It is his last tree, and it

does provide some shade to the neighbors but even pushing it back further you worry about the

root structure that might be down there so having a buffer off of that would definitely help to

keep that alive.

in. (CHRIS CENTOLA SPEAKING AT THE SAME TIME) to minimize and understand that

and I know we are trying to keep it brief here, I do have a presentation here if the board wants it.

Where we will call out some of the things that we are looking for and just to help you document

your decision making and your finding statement of ...it you want it, } can hand it to you. Iam

not sure if it is sufficient or not but just to go through a couple of them. The preferred one would

be the one 5 foot off the property line just to keep it up on that side to put it towards that

hedgerow that is in there but maybe not putting it as far up to the front face or the front plane,

yes, right there (VIEWING ON THE PLANS) but pushing it back so kind of a blending between

the preferred location and the furthest back one so maybe splitting the difference between those

and moving it back. Brian, you can speak to that better. How far back would you be willing or

interested in minimizing this variance to pushing it back towards the front.

distance from the proposed location to the tree right now is almost exactly 9 feet so I would be

willing to go 3 back and give that 6-foot buffer for any limbs coming down or anything like that,

it is a maple tree, and they are not nice to structures. If it were a pine tree, I would have a

different feeling.

existing building?

Pg. 133 June 11, 2024 Zoning Meeting

USING THE MIC)

structure, we are just talking about the variances. It’s a good question that he should entertain

especially on the economics of it, but he is permitted a shed and an accessory structure, so I just

want to point out that clarification.

PARTIES SPEAKING AT THE SAME TIME) asking for relief

permanent structure that he would have the additional cost of relocating a tree and the electric

wires.

structures, I did research that out and the 403-unit house zone that you just out and given last

month, there is actually 135 accessory structures and just around the corner I did see a detached

structure 13:13 that was, and I don’t have the square footage, nor do I have the height but once

again, it is relative to that house roofline. It was their garage that is detached and that would

count as an accessory structure so there is one around the corner that is similar to it. Once again,

it’s not necessarily the height that I am reporting or a two story but it’s the match of the ridgeline

of the house that is there.

Can you get to the mic so we can hear you,

the tractor can fit inside; the snow mobiles can fit inside. So, between that and the attached

Pg. 134 June 11, 2024 Zoning Meeting

garage of my house, the car can go inside the attached garage at the house. So, the snowmobile

trailer does not fit inside. That can stay in the driveway.

grandparents belongings that were in the basement and start relocating those for some other

storage instead of the basement. Is that correct?

glass door on the second floor based on the imagine that I] am looking at, those are all proposed

to be facing the street.

second-floor access for larger items. The door is not necessarily set in stone on the front. If I

have enough room in the back, by keeping the structure closer to Willow Lane than | can move

that door to the back of the structure and put a window up front. So, the drawing is preliminary,

it’s until I have an exact of where I can place the building, I won’t know exactly what the layout

is.

Michael} Short: So that is another door on top, is what that is for a larger items to go in and out,

essentially.

for or against this project? As a reminder, we have a 5-minute limitation.

Jane Armantrout at 670 Willow Lane: (NEVER STATED HER NAME OR ADDRESS) At the last

meeting this issue was tabled when it came to, should we vote tonight or should be table it and

Bryan would provide answers for some of the design and how it would be constructed; would it

match the siding on his house so that things would look right. What is being proposed here

fonight puts me in the position of looking at Bryans house; his attached garage, the aging and

deteriorating airstream and then there will be a small patch of land, maybe, if that is not where

the doghouse goes and then we are going to have this big structure and I am going to look at 2

garage doors and aman door, Two garages, a rose by any other name, it's not so sweet, isn’t

allowed in code, in my neighborhood. I ask you to take the person NOT SEEKING A VARIANCE

wanting to go and be in compliance with the town code to deal with that, As 1 spoke with Mr.

Artuso last week some time, I could live with the aging camper being gone, which looks junkier

Pg. 135 June 11, 2024 Zoning Meeting

looking by the moment and no proof of license that he was asked to provide several years ago. If

that was removed; [f the building that he was requesting was rotated 45 degrees so that so that

the entrance is garage door and man door were facing his house and that the exterior of the

utility building be compatible with the rest of the neighborhood. It is a well-developed, mature

suburb and to start this, it shows no respect for the nature of property that I bought and not

seeking to have a huge structure. I apologize for not having something in print, | have not felt

well for several days but do you hear what I am saying? Do you have any questions?

Jane Armantrout at 670 Willow Lane: So, it would be those two contingencies that I would wish

like I said so that he deals with his driveway doors that way and...or another thing is, if he could

move his trailers behind the house. There is room for that. Thank you very much and I

appreciate your courtesy through this process.

the rear yard and one in the front yard in the driveway.

in the code on that?

anyone who wants to speak for or against the property?

Jim Balliet at 1278 Millcreek Run: which is the adjoining property with Bryans. I just want to

clarify our position. Bryan has shared all the changes and all the things he has gone through for

variances. He has communicated everything with us as he went along from our perspective, we

see them as iniprovements to even taken care of the drainage between the houses and that and it

was a good plan because it helped us as well. As far as from our perspective where we are,

everybody has there structure in the backyard for putting things in, so we look at this as more of

the same. It does not present a problem for us on our side of the fence and just in 2009, we put a

shed in our yard and the requirement was 15 feet from the property line. I wish we had that back

to 5 feet where we hoped it would be because that would help us a lot. Lam sure that would help

Bryan with his options as well, but we want fo portray our support or no objections to what he is

doing.

Pg. 136 June 1, 2024 Zoning Meeting

that. (READ THE SUBMISSION OUT LOUD-SEE ATTACHED)

other questions from the board.

staked out. A. because looking at the survey map doesn’t give you the location of the trees and

the wires in real times as opposed to the straight line of the wire. Um and it gave me a much

better feel for the impact of the size and location of the building with respect to all of the

contiguous neighbors on that property so thank you, I do appreciate the applicant and his

Engineer in going through that work for us because it did certainly help my perspective. Um, I

am not sure as far as location yet. I could see advantages to the existing location; I could see

advantages to bringing it in 15 feet from the setback except I know we asked the applicant to

consider eliminated the one variance by bringing it in 15 feet, the downside of that is now that 1

have pulled it out of the hedgerow it is much more visible which didn’t....J mean, I kind of knew

it but didn’t see it until it was actually physically INAUDIBLE.

and half of that building is inside the hedgerow. Grant it that hedgerow will probably be cut back

to a certain degree, but the black stakes are right out in the open and the white and the red are

about halfway into that hedgerow, so I am of the same opinion. The zoning code allows the

height of the structure; the zoning codes allows the square footage of the structure. Realistically

we are looking at the location. There are wires in the back that are preventing this from truly

Pg. 137 June 11, 2024 Zoning Meeting

fitting in that particular location due to the wires and that is eliminating one of the variance

requirements. It puts a big structure very visible.

What remains of it is going to be redirecting your eyesight there. I think it works better from my

point with a 5-foot setback into the hedgerow. My concern is like you said, it’s allowed but it’s

the relief he is seeking but if we were to vote on it | would rather see it be as close to matching

the exterior of the existing house as possible as far as the look, not exactly the same material but

giving it a much more residential took as a two story accessory structure can have which would

....try and match the shingles, the gutters on it and even if you have to put some fake esthetics on

it. I don’t care if it’s a real window on it, just something that breaks up this model, slab of a

fagade besides the door and my concern is that that is overreaching our ability as a board to

dictate architectural. So, that’s my concern. Just like I said, if the board were to entertain it, I

would like to see it be as aesthetically pleasing as possible and I think it also doesn’t.......... we

have no power to do anything about the other issues that some of the residents may feel are

occurring on the site. Obviously, there are photos and whether we approve this or not there is

still going to be that same issue. So, the way I see it is, we can’t, I can’t really look at that

as...unless they are all going to be in this accessory structure, it really doesn’t matter because

they have a right to keep those. Unless, like I said...... Josh said the code, it needs to be licensed

or something like that and if it doesn’t then, why INAUDIBLE one more thing to add to that

very busy side yard right now.

guess | will call it, there is quite a bit in that side yard with the old shed that is kind of....very

old, it has seen better days but that would be coming out and that side area would get cleaned up,

if I’m still understanding correctly so it would....I] think the building would neaten the overal!

appearance. The camper is still going to be there, you are allowed to have a camper but if it gets

some of the other, miscellaneous items out of sight, I think it benefits both the applicant and the

neighbors.

Pg. 138 June 11, 2024 Zoning Meeting

1000 sq ft that is larger than a bunch of houses. You essentially have 2 home size structures on

that lot. 1 am just having a problem with the 2 story.

print it is not the floor square footage, correct.

BOARD MEMBERS HAVING A DISCUSSION.

think that these are half acre plots in the neighborhood and having an accessory structure 500

square feet, that is 22 feet tall, if I understand it. Any other comments?

anything that the applicant wants to comment upon as to what they are willing or not willing to

do. Strictly voluntary, it doesn’t have to be a requirement of your presentation, but the

comments made by the board 1 do not want to not allow you to comment as that is something

that you are in agreement to do or not in agreement to do.

final, this is exactly what it’s going to look like because of location. Obviously, I can swing

doors, a second-floor door I can swing that to the back and put a window there that is actually

going to....... currently I was planning on the back, but I could flip flop those, I just don’t...... I

can’t make that decision.

about consistent with the exterior look of the home. Is that something that you are willing to

stipulate to Or ...........,

Pg. 139 June 11, 2024 Zoning Meeting

that you would rather leave outside the application.

be upgraded not at the same times as the structure but....

APPLICANTS BOTH SPEAKING AT THE SAME TIME. (BRIAN AND ADAM)

with the color scheme that he wants and then invest in resurfacing the fagade of the existing

structure.

structure that does not fit within the residential neighborhood. Are you willing to utilize material

and design esthetics that provide a residential look to new structure that would compliment the

residential neighborhood that you are in.

general idea of what I am looking for not as far as the finish but how I want the building to be

constructed | guess...for insulation and for....

in an industrial style metal siding, metal roof pole barn. The architectural idea that Mr. Lossin

put together is that it would be constructed of some kind of materials, metal studs, what ever it is,

it will be residential in the neighborhood or character and then be constructed in that fashion.

Not industrial looking or premanufactured but rather..........

COMMIULUNG tO... eee ee eee

Pg. 140 June 11, 2024 Zoning Meeting

be siding are you going to have metal siding on it?

CHRIS CENTOLA AND MR. DEMARCO SPEAKING.

garage doors, and it also has windows; it is sided the same as the house; roofed with the same

shingles as the house. So, when you drive by it doesn’t stand out as a hot red metal pole barn. It

is a grey and white building that looks just like the house next door, just like the house on the

same property. Can you make it look it belongs in the neighborhood where it has some softer

design features or are you planning on putting a stee! pole barn which I guess technically are

allowed to accept that there is no location on your lot that complies but would look much more

industrial at less welcoming than a residential neighborhood.

...maybe the metal shingles. So again, 1 don’t know what the product is but yes, I am looking to

have the house and the barn eventually match. So, yes, the two are going to eventually match

but currently the house is a faded green.

what happens if it gets put up and we give the variance, and it moves forward and then it ends up

being meta!?

buildings that are attractive.

neighborhood.

the existing characteristics of the general surrounding area and not even looking at materials as

much as the look. I mean, that is what I think we are looking at. If it is metal and it looks good.

i ain not opposed to metal Iam opposed to INAUDIBLE everyone speaking! T-111 1 would be

opposed to. So that is my concerns is that if we are going to approve any of the relief, he has

Pg. 141 June 11, 2024 Zoning Meeting

requested it has to really, really fit in with that neighborhood for me to feel comfortable to vote

for something like that.

that because perception, what you are receiving and what they are describing is maybe different

what I am perceiving,

don’t know what to do.

somebody to design a building for me without having an approval. Um, | think the applicant has

stated that the upstairs door can go on the back and then you can soften the front with J don’t

know, a pair of windows or something um, I mean a garage door and a man door is not out of

character but the upstairs door | definitely want to see in back just because otherwise it looks

more barn like and while there used to be old farms, it’s not anymore.

BOARD TALKING AMOUNGST THEMSELVES

maybe we are beating a horse dead twice. The Planning Board has to review any accessory

structure in excessive of 500 square feet. If it is 2 story building, I technically have a 1000

square feet of floor space. Do they look at....does the code reflect floor space or does the code

reflect area. Because { know | had to go to the Planning Board for mine which is slightly smaller

than this.

if this was one square foot larger, it would go before the Planning Board, and they would require

that you provide the materials. They actually require that you bring in samples of the material

SO...

Pg. 142 June 11, 2024 Zoning Meeting

the structure?

how it is going to look but yet you have an estimate that covers the price.

could be vinyl siding, it could be aluminum siding, could be..........

Pg. 143 June 11, 2024 Zoning Meeting

number, or they will want to see the content so and the board could take the position tonight that

the application is not complete and agree to table it. Maybe by that time your applicant might

have some more concrete answers as to what the building might look like and at that point the

board may be a little more comfortable.

because my friend is more on the industrial side, he is INAUDIBLE at the metal siding part

because there is horizontal...

stage of the process, not know what this building is going to look like when he knows the

applicants neighbors want to know, it’s not a big ask or a heavy lift for a guy in the business. It

just doesn’t seem like he is being genuine about it .

baker making cupcakes and doesn’t know anything about construction I guess I would by it. It

sounds a little invasive to me and he doesn’t have that part of the application complete, so he is

asking us to make a leap, but he doesn’t want to help us.

before he can finally......because you did hire an architect to put those concepts together, right?

further to get all the specs from him.

now? On your house.

structure could match that with a gable roof just facing it perpendicular ......

Pg. 144 June 11, 2024 Zoning Meeting

variance so it makes it a lot easier for us to grant that variance when the questions we are asking

have answers to them. I understand that you have not taken it to the next step right, it’s a leap of

faith on your part to pay an architect to select materials to get a quote to continue to go down that

path without having the variance but it’s also a leap of faith for us then to grant a variance not

knowing any of that information either and at the end of the day that is the crossroads that we are

at. We want to help you to a certain degree, but we also want our answers to be able to say, yes

you know what, it’s not going to negatively affect the aesthetic looks of the neighborhood, it’s

not going to have any adverse effects but the questions my colleagues and I, the board members

and I are asking, you don’t have the answers to right now and we get where you’re at we need

those answers to make a decision.

determine the location, but | think the Planning Board would have to approve the design. When

I get assessed on the square footage of my house, it counts the upstairs and the downstairs and |

pay taxes on the whole thing, so I think the code calls for 500 square feet or more and this is

technically going to be a 1000 square feet because it is a 2-story building. Which then, that gives

the applicant the approval for their variance and a location and then allows them to work with an

architect to get the actual design because now they know they have permission to place the

building and then can work that information out. The code says square feet and if it is a 2-story

building, it is more than 500 square feet.

to the Planning Board for a determination per the Planning Board code.

guided by the town that it is 500 square feet or less and it doesn’t require those steps.

can consent to do things, or we can get into a legal tug of war. It could make you do something

that you don’t think; you can sue the town, here’s what I am saying, at the end of the day I have

to assume that the applicant, all things being even wants to be a good neighbor and there are

some neighbors that are in agreement with the way it stands and there are other neighbors that

Pg. 145 June 11, 2024 Zoning Meeting

really are not opposing the structure but where it is positioned and how it looks. In an effort to

gel thal right not only for the applicant but the neighbors, legal requirements aside, is the

applicant willing to go to the Planning Board to get their input and approval. If you say no,

that’s fine but this board can do whatever it decides to do. I am just asking.

Adam Cummings; I will voice a concern, the applicant has because he is new to this part even

though he has built things throughout the state, is the procedure to get this type of application has

been cumbersome. There has been mis publication dates, so he is losing time this whole time

and the same time he is getting written up by the Building Department for having things in his

yard, so he is trying to rectify that but at the same time he is getting strung along month after

month but I ............

drawings for what they are proposing?

that. Does any member of this Zoning Board have an objections of making that review and do

you fee] comfortable in making that review?

what is the cost threshold for a structure to need architectural plans? Isn’t there a dollar amount

or square footage amount?

and things like that, | think it would behoove you to go to the Planning Board (HE IS

SPEAKING TO THE APPLICANT) and get there input and get through that but it’s up to you.

to make sure if we come back for the variances here, we are here to talk about variances, area

variances and the height that is allowed; the square footage is allowed. This is just putting il to

the Planning Board just for a review side of it. To be honest, I feel like we are going beyond the

scope of the variances that are being tied to this land INAUIDBLE.......

components for a variance and the size of the building; esthetics of the neighborhood; all of that

we have to take into account. We get to say yes, you are getling a variance or no you are not

getting a variance based on the information that is provided. There is a lot of information that we

Pp. 146 June 11, 2024 Zoning Meeting

don’t have. We have asked a lot of questions that we don’t have answers to, so I understand

what you are saying, its about the variance . We are here to give you or not give you a variance,

but we need information to be able to do that. So, I understand where you are coming from

again, | also read the code and it says 500 square feet in area. To me that is not the footprint that

is the building size. That is my opinion. It sounds like Bryan what I heard you say, is that you are

open to going forward with the Planning Board to get the Planning Boards approval...I

apologize, is it Planning Board or us first then the Planning Board?

the location contingent upon you getting Planning Board approval so if it goes this route, we

review and we make our vote. If we agree and you get the variance then you would have to go to

the Planning Board to get their approval for the materials, that you don’t know yet, the height,

the aesthetic, all the other components in the location that this board ends up deciding.

site placement; drainage; the SEQR elements that they do. I just want clarification here, if we

are doing that, it sounds like we are changing how the code is written so we may need another

variance.

the 500 square feet. Oh, never mind, because we are going to the Planning Board.

based on a specific setback .

really INAUDIBLE they will approve or not approve it without the setback.

location that we are having we would not meet the code because we would be coming for a

variance so the Planning Board would just have to condition any considerations. ..(MICHAEL

SHORT AND ADAM CUMMINGS SPEAKING AT THE SAME TIME) a variance being

requested.

not the location as long as it’s where the variance allowed the building to be.

Pg. 147 June 11, 2024 Zoning Meeting

go to the Planning Board with our approval based on the setbacks that we have agreed on and

then they would have to recognize that this is where the structure has to be and then move

forward with the review and approval based on our contingent approval.

like to take a look...Josh, can you pull up the plan. Again, because we do have to make a

decision on a location if we are deciding to move forward with this, I am hoping that we can

move forward with this. There are three locations that was provided and during the presentation

there was an option to slide....keep the 5-foot setback and then slide it basically along that line if

you will. The current option or the original option is to keep it in line with the front of the

house, option | is back about 17 feet from the front of the house and not in line with the back of

the house as per the code requires. Option 2 is 15 feet off of the side setback which would not

require a side setback variance, but it looks about 5-6 feet off of the front of the house.

Me personally when I was out there, on the plan review I was originally wanting option 2

however when I was out there, I was looking more for option | or something in between and |

don’t want to take down a nice large maple tree but I do want the building setback from the front

of the house and I think there was a comment of 3 feet which I am ok with, just again, getting

that hierarchy of a accessory building vs the main house so for me having it pushed back about 3

feet from the front of the house is where ] would like it to be placed vs the preferred option.

that works best. At least 5 feet off, I think it works better further back from the house as well.

the yard, so it stands out. Does it have to go back the full 17, if you want to save the tree,

probably not.

Pg. 148 June 11, 2024 Zoning Meeting

[

RESOLUTION 24-0040 Michael Short made a motion for TYPE I] SEQR

which was seconded by: Corrine Volo.

VOTE:

Mr. Short AYE

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Hauza AYE

Mr. Lagonor AYE

Mr. Centola AYE

nM -

This request is not out of character in the neighborhood: It is not out of character. [ think

we have made it less out of character with the neighborhood. There are sheds all over the

place and not a lot of accessory structures, but I think it will be esthetically acceptable to

the neighborhood.

There will not be a detriment created to nearby properties: The most impacted neighbor is

the neighbor directly to the north who is actually at this meeting this evening and speaking

that they are in agreement with the placement of the building.

The benefit is not achievable by any other method: We have reviewed all the other methods

and locations which to place the building and having analyzed eliminating the side setback

or pushing it as far back as possible, this is the best location for esthetics within the

neighborhood and also to preserve the current vegetation and the large maple tree

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

are stuck with the lack of real estate that you have. If your front were actually Millcreek,

you would have plenty of room to stick it in the back yard of the house. It would be no

less visible to anybody else, but it wouldn't require a variance to be located there.

This is not an undesirable change: And I will say this will be a desirable change because it

will neaten up the parcel and allowing the applicant to have room to put some of the

material that is currently stored outside inside the barn, I am sorry, the accessory building

and therefore, clean it up a little bit.

corner lot the backyard is extremely shallow. I don’t think there is any place on this lot

where an accessory structure could be placed that would fulfill all of the setbacks of the

code for an accessory structure.

Any other?

Pg. 149 june 11, 2024 Zoning Meeting

;

RESOLUTION 24-0041 Corrine Volo made a motion to APPROVE THE AREA

VARIANCE Located at 671 Willow Lane. Applicant

Bryan Bishchoping ts requesting AREA VARIANCES to

allow a side setback less than what is required and to

allow the placement of the accessory structure to be nearer

to the front property line than the rear line of the main

residence associated the construction of a 500 SF detached

wood-framed structure on a 0.46-acre parcel having SBL

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

District under Sections 350-12 and 350-36 of the Code of

the Town of Webster which was seconded by: Michael

Short.

APPROVED 5’ (NORTH) SIDE SETBACK & 43.4’ (EAST) FRONT SETBACK W/

CONDITIONS:

e APPLICANT TO OBTAIN PLANNING BOARD APPROVAL

CONDITIONS:

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

Building Permit and flood plain development permit.

e That one-year significant construction shall expire June 12, 2025,

John DeMarco:

e Upon Planning Board approval and in the even that it is later determined the

Planning Board approval is not necessary, the matter has to come back before the

board, this board, the Zoning Board with a complete application that includes the

cost of structure, design and materials of the building so the board can pass

judgment on that issue

VOTE:

Mr. Short AYE

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Hauza AYE

Mr. Lagonor AYE

Mr. Centola AYE

(Corrine Volo read the second application)

1246 STAFFORD CRESCENT GARAGE ADDITION: Located at 1246 Stafford Crescent.

Applicant Bob Peters is requesting AREA VARIANCES to allow a front and side setback less

than what is required associated with the construction of a 245 SF 3 rd. bay extension to an

existing 2 car garage on a 0.41-acre parcel having SBL# 065. 13-3-60 located in an R-3 Single

Family Residential District under Section 350-12 of the Code of the Town of Webster.

Pg. 150 June 11, 2024 Zoning Meeting

Appearing before the board was Bob Peters (NEVER STATED HIS NAME OR ADDRESS)

Just to give you a quick little review from last month. I was here looking for two variances for a

245 SF addition to my 2.5 car garage. Once variance would be on the west side which is 15 feet

normally and ! need to take that to 9 feet, so I need 6 feet more and then on the front of the

property it is a 50-foot setback and I need 46 on that. We went over all that I think, and I handed

in prints and drawings and things so you can see exactly what it looks like. A question came up,

could I move this structure back to the back part of the house and we talked a little about that, I

have a patio there; I have kitchen windows there and it really wouldn’t be something that [ would

be interested in doing so if it didn’t go through then I wouldn’t be doing it. Don, I saw you there

today looking, and I was not home and the other thing that we had talked about near the end of

the discussion was that Monroe County Water has an easement between our two houses and I

would be building right up to that easement and then there could be a potential overhang of my

roof lines. So, I got a license from Monroe County Water Authority to be able to do that and you

didn’t really want to move forward until you saw something in writing so I went to them and I

sent the email to Katherine and explanation of what they said and more or less, they said even it

I did protrude, which I am not going to but if I did, 1 would have to re-do the license so the

license is an ongoing type thing. If I get over it, I have to tell them and then they make me sign

another license. So, basically that is where we are at and that was the last thing you had asked me

to do, and I forwarded that. Do you have any more questions? There was a legal thing to 1 think

attached. I think your attorney last time mentioned about, he was not quite sure of the legal

formality of the water authority and the water authority came back and said there is no legal

attachment to the Town of Webster from the variance. Just so that would be understood.

for a garage that is 26 feet deep; you are looking to extend closer to the front of the property by 4

feet beyond what the current house is and you indicated the reason that you don’t want to go

back was because you have windows in the kitchen and the kitchen is on the other side of the

garage so at the end of the day, the windows would not be blocked in anyway shape or form.

This plan does indicate the bay window, so that window would not be blocked it would be about

12 between the window and the garage addition and that window is actually 10 feet back from

the garage so that window still wouldn’t be blocked because it would only be back about 4 feet.

So, talk to me about the reason why you don’t want to go back.

covered up. If we did bring it back it is going to be more cost for me to be able to do the roof

structure and everything to bring everything back. | did look at it and we did look it over, so it

just didn’t make sense to do that financially. It is easier to construct it the way it is now and just

go out 4 feet off the front and I did send a drawing to you to show you what it looked like

esthetically and it’s all going to be great. It’s going to be cedar siding and match the house. The

garage doors are going to be new but all the same. I went around to 8 of my neighbors and I

could have gone to more, but they all agreed that they have no problem with that, and they were

very helpful with that. If] did find a neighbor was really concerned about it, I probably wouldn’t

Pg. 15! June 11, 2024 Zoning Meeting

be here. They were all great about it so that is why we are back. I could, Michael and go back.

The first thing I thought about was going back but then I got the architect in there and we have to

rip the whole roof off and 20,000 dollars more to do that. So, I am better off not going this so this

is easiest type of construction to do, and ] want to do the 245 square feet and it’s only 9 feet more

added to what I already have but I have to have a 14-inch bay, so I go back into he existing

building more feet there, actually 5 feet to make the bay wide enough to accommodate cars and

stuff.

would make that 12-foot area very dark. Not only if you are standing outside, but the windows.

It just wouldn’t give you a nice warm feeling. Dark and dingy.

other houses, the front of the house, nobody else’s is protruding forward. There are other

additions that are off to the side, other garage additions off to the side but I don’t recall any other

garages or any other components sticking further forward. I drove the loop at least twice.

just going to be like a normal setback 2 feet and then I would only have 20 feet in there, but I am

actually putting in a lift to store my cars on and to do that and to get the garage door to rollup, I

had to be out so many feet so I could roll that door up and still have my lift inside, that is why 1

need 26 feet.

existing architectural style, it steps out.

pulled them up on the GIS mapping. ..a lot of the subdivisions if the setback is 50 feet you can

draw a line at 50 feet and all of the houses come right up to that line. In this subdivision they are

staggered so I don’t think it will look out of place just because they are not all in a nice, neat line

as where we do have a front setback on a nice, neat line of houses it definitely sounds out.

Pg. 152 June 11, 2024 Zoning Meeting

anyone would like to speak for or against this project. Ok, nobody, I will bring it back to the

board. Any final discussions?

RESOLUTION 24-0042 Michael Short made a motion for 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

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

project will not affect the existing character of the neighborhood. The relief requested is

minimal.

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

3. The benefit is not achievable by any other method: The benefit based on the applicants

statement is not achievable by any other method and still allow him to enjoy the existing

house and windows in the structure.

4. This request is not substantial: It is not substantial.

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

are none.

6. The difficulty is not self-created: The difficulties are minimal.

7. This is not an undesirable change: | believe that this is a desirable change.

8. This request is not significant: Is not.

RESOLUTION 24-0043 Chris Centola made a motion to APPROVE THE

AREA VARIANCE Located at Located at 1246

Stafford Crescent. Applicant Bob Peters is

requesting AREA VARIANCES to allow a front

and side setback less than what is required

associated with the construction of a 245 SF 3 rd.

bay extension to an existing 2 car garage on a 0.41-

acre parcel having SBL# 065. 13-3-60 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: Donald Hauza

Pg. 153 June 11, 2024 Zoning Meeting

APPROVED AS PRESENTED:

[ e 9° (WEST) SIDE SETBACK & 46 (SOUTH) FRONT SETBACK

CONDITIONS:

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

Building Permit.

e That one-year significant construction shall expire June 12, 2025.

VOTE:

Mr. Short AYE

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Hauza AYE

Mr. Lagonor AYE

Mr. Centola AYE

(Corrine Volo read the third application)

46 LAKE ROAD RESIDENCE: Located at 46 Lake Road. Applicant Raymond C. Nannini is

requesting AREA VARIANCES to allow setbacks less than what is required associated with the

construction of a 1,333 SF single family residence on a 0.9-acre parcel having SBL# 063.09- 1-

13.1 located in an WD Waterfront Development District under Section 350-11 and 350-25 of the

Code of the Town of Webster.

Appearing before the board was (DID NOT SIGN IN) Greg McMahon representing Raymond

Nannini, the owners of the property at 46 Lake Road. The request is for, first of all, the...their

intent is to demolish the existing house and build a new home on that site. As many of the lots

are down there on Lake Road, a narrow 35-foot lot. We are requesting a side and front setback

variances. I would note that we did appear before the board back on February 23, 2021 and

they did grant these variances but since thal time, struggling with the DEC to get the necessary

permits to construct this house we finally reached a point where the DEC has accepted our

plans and they published the notification in the Webster Herald and I believe that was last week

and then after a 10 day waiting period they will be issuing the permit to build the house and we

are approved with the DEC and this time we wanted to come back and hopefully get these

variances re-approved.

for the record.

erosion hazard area and the structural hazard area and to do any work you need a permit. We

filled a joint permit with the DEC and Cor of Engineers and the Department of State., The

Department of State and Cor of Engineers approved the project fairly quickly but the DEC

because it’s in the structural hazard area only allows the expansion of a structure by a certain

amount. They actually wanted us to move it right up to the right of way to Lake Road. We are

a Pg. 154 June 11, 2024 Zoning Meeting

asking for a 35-foot front setback INAUDIBLE and the 60 required and one of the reasons is

that we are adding a garage to the front, to the Lake Roadside of this. Ron Nannini who lives

in the house and will live in the new house is disabled and they were looking to get a garage so

that he can drive in and access what would be a very small, one floor living area and there is a

loft, if he has company but the living areas is one floor.

permit for INAUDIBLE feature area and the hazard area. Ok, thank you.

structural hazard area, thal was part of the permit.

other ....other than obtaining the variances of which you just spoke, there are no other changes

relative to the previously approved variances.

in 2021. Four and half foot side for both east and west side which in one case, the builder

....the current house is a little over a foot and 4 inches from one side line so we will be

opening up the space in order to center in the lot we will 4.5-foot setback on each side. A front

setback off of Lake Road per code is 60 feet and we are asking for 35 feet. And again, this is

very similar to many of the homes if you look at the homes on Lake Road. Many of them have

put these garage additions on the front of their homes. Many of the homes down there have

been reconstructed with similar variances.

guys were here. I wasn’t here in 2021 when this came.

have been rebuilt and the existing lot primarily on the existing footprint with respect to the

garage addition off the front, there have been at least 2 others in that area. One further up the

road and 68 is significantly closer to the road than this one and then the one at number 40 is a

little bit further setback so this is an average between the

2. BOARD MEMBERS ALL SPEAKING.

centering it, within the lot, it actually improves the space between the homes.

Pg. 155 June 11, 2024 Zoning Meeting

current house has a large deck on the lake side , we had proposed a deck, and we are cut back

to a 6-foot-wide deck right now with a stairway. This was a real chore to get this through the

DEC and there was a lot of concessions that had to be made.

anyone want to speak for or against the project?

Jack Dwyer at 52 Lake Road: If am in that little yellow house next to Rons and when Ron

started talking about doing something about his house....the sandbar is a pretty unique little

community. Everybody gets a long pretty well and everyone knows exactly what everyone else

is doing and Ron, just like anybody else would do, he talked to his neighbors and excuse me,

there is an attorney here, so I want to make sure that you understand Mr. DeMarco, | am not

their representative, but I can assure you, over barbeques and a few beers and just talking with

neighbors, everybody is enthusiastic about this property being changed. You all seem like

really intelligent people, I take it, most of you have seen that property ok it is intuitively

obvious from a casual observer that something has to be done. Can I say something Mr.

DeMarco, off the record...if you every went inside, 1 am sure you would agree with me, that

that house would never, ever get a certificate of occupancy. So, it is a project that is

desperately needed. Actually, more than that Ron is really a nice decent guy, and he deserves

to have a nice home...to your point sir, he has some very serious health problems. I think he

should spend the rest of his life on the lake that belong to his family and such and enjoy

himself. Thank you for listening to me.

Dave Malecki and I live in West Webster: (NEVER SIGN IN)-NOT SPEAKING LOUD

ENOUGH. I have been here before talking about putting in a pedestrian bridge in the outlet.

All the properties there and walking the area of interest to me. The one thing Lam here to ask

about is what is the width of the property?

Dave Malecki and I live in West Webster: NOT SPEAKING LOUD ENOUGH. That is not

very wide. Well, lam wondering about public access. My understanding is Webster has zero

footage of beach, public access, certainly this area?

Dave Malecki and f live in West Webster: NOT SPEAKING LOUD ENOUGH. At Webster

park?

Pg. 156 June 11, 2024 Zoning Meeting

Dave Malecki and I live in West Webster: NOT SPEAKING LOUD ENOUGH. I! have not seen

any beach there but ok but anyways, it would be nice to have a public beach there like there is

on the Irondequoit side. It’s one of the reasons I like the idea of the bridge and when you go up

to Charlotte, there is actually something called the hidden walkway, out behind the houses by

the lake and I was just reading the portion in the town code there about waterfront districts and

it does mention the possibility of putting walkways as close to the lake as possible. My question

is, on the lake side, when I walk on the pier right now, I see some private property signs in

questionable places. I don’t know if you guys have looked at that but please look at it at some

point. It has nothing to do with this property but just so you look at it and the question is, in the

future, would it be possible to put some public access coming in from the pier, across all of

those properties, including this one. So that is a question for you guys. As far as this property

here, I have no comment for it or against it.

will take this into consideration.

Dave Malecki and I live in West Webster: NOT SPEAKING LOUD ENOUGH. As it relates to

this is possibly a walkway wherever this property ends INAUDIBLE.

RESOLUTION 24-0044 Michael Short made a motion TYPE II SEQR

which was seconded by: Corrine Volo

VOTE:

Mr. Short AYE

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Hauza AYE

Mr. Lagonor AYE

Mr. Centola AYE

requested have not changed, since 2021, I would have the same conditions...the applicant is

much further along in having received all the permits from DEC; Army Cor of Engineer, I will

basically make a motion.

RESOLUTION 24-0045 Donald Hauza made a motion to APPROVE THE

AREA VARIANCE Located at 46 Lake Road.

Applicant Raymond C. Nannini is requesting

AREA VARIANCES to allow setbacks less than

what is required associated with the construction of

a 1,333 SF single family residence on a 0.9-acre

parcel having SBL# 063.09-1-13.1 located in an

Pg. 157 June 11, 2024 Zoning Meeting

public portion of the meeting. Anyone have any thoughts? | think this is fairly straight forward.

Am I missing something?

RESOLUTION 21-012 Mr. Barone made a motion to APPROVE AN AREA

Road. Applicant Randolph Henderson is requesting an area

variance to allow a 17° side setback where 20° is required

associated with the construction of a 15° x 20° garage

addition on a .82 acre parcel having SBL # 050.01-1-9.2

located in an R-| Single Family Zoning District under

Section 225.9 of the Code of the Town of Webster which

was seconded by Mr. Hauza.

VOTE:

Mr. Barone AYE

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Newtown AYE

Mr. Hauza AYE

Conditions:

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

Building Permit.

e That one-year significant construction shall occur to expire February 23, 2022

Corrine Volo read the second application:

46 LAKE ROAD SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE: Located at 46 Lake Road. Applicant

Raymond Nannini is requesting area variances to allow: a. a 4.5" east side setback where 15” is

required b. # 4.5" west side setback where 15’ is required c. a 35° front setback where 70° is

required d. a lot size of 13,244 sf where [8,000 is required associated with the construction of a

910 sf single family residence on a .09-acre parcel having SBL # 063.09-1-13.1 located ina WD

Waterfront Development District under Sections 225-10 and 225 22 of the Code of the Town of

Webster.

Appearing before the board was Al LaRue with McMahon LaRue Associates. Raymond Nannini

is here tonight. You can ask him any questions that you may have regarding the new home he

plans to build there. The lot itself is 35 feet wide and the new home is 26 feet wide. It is only

910 square feet. It has a loft, so 14 is nol a big home. ICs a one-story home with a loft. We are

placing it in the middle of the Jot trying to take advantage of the fact thal we only have 35 feet to

work with so we split it to at least make it a little bit more manageable on either side for him to

be able to maintain it, We can’t shove the home to the north more because it ts already north of

the coastal erosion zone, the DEC erosion zone so we are kind of in the same envelope that the

existing home was in bul no more north then it. So, that necessitated the 35-foot front setback

because we are planning on a 2-car garage with that so there are some comparable tn the

Pg.41 February 23, 2021 Zoning Meeting

neighborhood which I am sure you have. We are kind of as far as his front setback is concerned,

we are kind of in the middle. One was at 27 and one was at 45 and we are al

35. We are kind of

in the middie range with that. But again, we are trying not to push the home any further north

then the original home was but build a new home and with that any questions from me or Ray,

we will be glad to answer.

it?

large scale. I can’t remember which it is. The map shows the line.

narrower?

because the side setbacks have been a huge issuc on this.

in the neighborhood. If you look at the map, it is a very odd shaped place right now and it is

kind of falling apart. We have to build the thing on piers so we would like the loft part of it for

some storage. We are losing our crawl space. We need a place to put our furnace , air condition,

that sort of thing. As far as the side setbacks go, there are 2 other houses within that

neighborhood with only 3 1/2 feet side setbacks. They are 35-foot lots and they have 28-foot-

wide houses.

think, on the other.

Pg.42 February 23, 2021 Zoning Meeting

Al] |-aRue: The house at 52 is further away from the line then ours. So, when you add them up

there 15 still pretty good distance between the 2 houses.

Ray Nannini. We are actually shrinking the width of the house. I think it was about

29. It was

touching one spot. [think it was 28 feet originally and we shrunk it to

26. Barry Barone: Now I know Corrine asked Josh for the variances previously granted on that side .

Did you bring some of that data with you?

property at number 40 and also the property, ] believe it was 68 and the property at 40 has 45

feet setback and 68, | believe has 27 feet for their front setback. Both of them | believe were

remodels onto the existing homes shortly after they had purchased the property in the front that

become available and allowed any front setbacks from the properties as to what they had before.

remodel it, we can’t make them move il. Another words, if they are going to build on a

foundation, you can’t say you have to tear down your house and build it over again and the house

that is there on this lot, is beyond repair. It is sagging all over the place. [tis terrible. Do we use

that same standard for a new house? Another words, it's definitely going to be an improvement

to the property, and he is going to be further from the lot line . The question is, if he was just

there and he just wanted to fix it and he needed a permit

INAUDIBLE,

and down the line and I think this one is kind of the average of the front setback [ believe and

correct me if | am wrong, but there is some closer and some further back.

don’t think any of them are at the 70-75 feet thal is required but there are only the 2 parcels that

close being 45 and one at

27. Did we gel any comments from any neighbors or public?

LETTER)

Pg.43 February 23,2021 Zoning Mceting

you have more questions.

a deck on top and it was 6 places down?

45. It was originally approved at 47 and then erroneously built at 45

and then the property at 68 which was Pelusio was at 27 to add the garage to the front of that

property.

to about where it is now. So, what we are trying to do is improve the situation by not keeping

that existing structure and building a new structure, making it all clean and get it up out of the

flood zone and those kinds of things of what we need to do and that is the theory behind it.

Jine ? Is the deck pushing the house forward?

kind of where we are pinned to because if we move the entire structure to the north out past that

point, we certainly are not going to get DEC approval.

A] LaRue: That is the part that is stopping us.

existing, but the deck could be in that

Pg.44 February 23, 2021 Zoning Meeting

A! LaRue: Did J say the street?

Donald Hauza [ understand. This is a single story?

A! LaRue: Yes, single story with a loft.

house is tiny.

you shorten il up by a foot ? You're not going to push it towards the lake any further because of

the issues he has to deal with on the front and it is in line with the rest of the houses on the lake.

So, the only issue is, we deall with that one with a neighbor thal was concerned about the line of

site to the Irondequoit Bay, but I don’t think that impacts that.

public hearing yet, but we have not gotten the same level of neighborhood comments as we did

previously with, he others.

because it is so dilapidated right now. F'll tell you what, let's see if any of the neighbors want to

callin. This meeting is open to the public. Anyone wishing to speak for or against this

application, please dial 872-70211. Ok, while we are waiting for the phone to work.

RESOLUTION 21-013 Mr. Barone made a motion for a TYPE {1 SEQR

which was seconded by Mrs. Volo.

VOTE:

Mr. Barone AYE

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Newtown AYE

Mr. Hauza AYE

INAUDIBLE about a 3 42 foot side setback.

3 '3 foot side setback there as a minimum and | think | remember the board said that, to be able

to puta ladder up on your roof the minimum was so many feet and if both at 3% feet that would

give you 7 and then you could vet up on your roof. Otherwise, anvthing less then that probably

wast going to be approved. So, when f built at 32, Pxold that lot to my to my cousin and they

Pg.45 February 23, 2021 Zoning Meeting

held him to 3 “on either side. So, { think it has kind of been set at 3 ¥2 foot and right now those

guys are right at it exactly at 3 4 on either side and it would look a lot better then what it looks

like now. They are great people and they have been great neighbors and actually they have been

there long then me. I bought the lot in 95 so way before me and I would like to see something

happen. As long as there is not anything different then what the neighborhood is then what has

been approved in the past and as far as the 75 front setback, there is not one house that | know of

on Lake Road west of Bay Road that has a 75 foot front setback. That only came in account, I

think when the county took it over from state and that was for the front setback so. That is all f

am going to say, and I am in favor of it and appreciate you guys listening.

residence the house can not be a heck of a lot narrower than that. We can nit pick a foot here and

there, but the bedrooms are only | 1-foot-wide and that is tiny and that is the main bedroom in the

house.

would have something on both sides if they needed to put up a ladder or whatever. I didn't want

to make one smaller of bigger. We took | % off of each side.

took at a plan and say ok, were the extravagant with their dimensions and can we squeeze it to

minimize the impact of the variance, but I really don’t see how to do that here. The kitchen is a

corridor kitchen, a tiny kitchen and the living room is only 13 feet wide. The bedroom is only 1 |

feet wide and the garage is a standard 2 car. There is no place to save any space. The bathroom

is a very modest bathroom. It is just functional. I don’t think we are going to get any calls so I

will close the public portion of the meeting. We do have a letter here from Michael D’ Amico

also in support and Michael D’ Amico just called in, but I will enter that into the record also,

site. Are there doors going to either side of that building?

have to walk through their garage just to get into their house.

Pg.46 February 23,2021 Zoning Meeting

Al LaRue. That is exactly nght

Barry Barone. And no doors on either side to your point Don. Just doors out to the deck in the

back. Does somebody want to go through the standards? Or do we need more discussion? | can

go through the standards,

structure north of the existing structure it’s ano go. They are getting really tough on that.

Another thing is al! those houses are fined up across the front and we wouldn't want that to be

sticking out either because it will look odd our from the shore and potential obstruct.

A! LaRue: No, nat the road front.

Is that what you were asking? | can’t hear because you are so far away Don... (laughter)

because I think we have had an issuc with this before where it could take a year to get the

approval?

80% because they are just not handing out permils . Our firm right now is not taking any more

work that requires a DEC permit because the clients get frustrated and we get frustrated. Its just

not...

lo gel through the paperwork that the board would most likely look favorable on an extension

extension for the DEC permit and nothing else that is approved is going to change that allows

Josh to administrative extend it for at least a 6 month term and they can bring it back to the board

and that is [8 months. You don’t have to re calendar the matter of having the board grant the

authority to Josh if it is only an extension that the only reason for the extension ts for the DEC

approval,

Pg.47 February 23, 2021 Zoning Meeting

approval takes you beyond 12 months rather then coming back to the board for the extension we

will allow the administrative approval assuming that it is only for that purpose.

still don’t have anything and all we are looking to show there is to show the waterfront and

smooth out the yard heading down to the bay. We don’t expect anything for 2-3 months and that

is extremely simply. So, yes, that would be a good thing to put in. Thank you.

Road or just part of Lake Road. This shows an available driveway. Does that extend to

property line to property line?

INAUDIBLE

some of the other homes that we gave variances to so we will just make it a condition.

setback.

like to have a 5-foot separation from both the side property lines to delineate that driveway.

Landscape it whatever.

it’s no Jonger an issue.

want.

Pg.48 February 23, 2021 Zoning Meeting

[ FINDINGS OF FACTS:

8. This request is not out of character in the neighborhood: With respect to the setbacks, |

will say that. We know that along this stretch of Lake Road we do have some setbacks that

are closer to 3-31/2 feet which this 1s.

There will not be a detriment created to nearby properties: On one side is actually the east

side 1s going to be further from the fot tine from the existing home and the west side is very

similar that the existing home has.

The benefit is not achievable by any other method: Again, it’s a small house and it is only

900 square feet. It's 26 feet wide. The lot is a small lot in giving the amount of developable

area based on the DEC requirements there really is no other way to do this especially with

a single story home.

with respect to what is in the area already and with respect to the house outline vs. the lot

line in this point and time

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

fact that the north home line is not changing and not getting any further or any closer to the

lake or impacting the neighbors view would suggest that this is going to have an adverse

impact and we also do have posilive comments from the neighbors impacted nearby that

are in favor of this upgrade.

require a variance other than build a hallway within that lot.

. This is not an undesirable change: It certainly is not an undesirable change. It is going to

be a significant improvement to the properly since the house sits there right now needs

some help.

This request is not significant:

RESOLUTION 21-014 Mrs. Volo made a motion to APPROVE AREA

Lake Road. Applicant Raymond Nannini is requesting area

variances to allow: a. a 4.5’ east side setback where 15” is

required b. a 4,5’ west side setback where 15° is required c.

a 35° front setback where 70° is required d. a lot size of

13,244 sf where 18,000 is required associated with the

construction of a 910 sf single family residence on a .09

acre parcel having SBL # 063.09-1-13.1 located ina WD

Waterfront Development District under Sections 225.10

and 225 22 of the Code of the Town of Webster which was

seconded by Mr. Hauza

Pg.49 February 23,2021 Zoning Meeting

VOTE:

Mr. Barone AYE

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Newtown AYE

Mr. Hauza AYE

permit until you get the DEC permit. With this board, per John’s recommendation, is we are

going to allow an extra 6 months for Josh to give you a 6-month extension, an administrative

extension for the purpose of getting a DEC permit only. Ok. Good luck with that because I know

they are slow.

granted in addition to the one year by the Public Works Department for DEC approval and any

other changes would need to come before the board. If the DEC permit is not granted within that

18 months, then the applicant would need to come before the board for a formal extension

beyond this deadline.

Conditions:

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

Building Permit.

That one-year significant construction shall occur to expire February 23, 2022

e¢ Approved w/conditions: DEC approval with admin extension of 6 months until DEC

permit is received. Should more time be needed, applicant should call before expires.

¢ Driveway to have a 5-foot setback from property lines.

Pg.50 February 23,2021 Zoning Meeting

WD Waterfront Development District under Section

350-11 and 350-25 of the Code of the Town of

APPROVED AS PRESENTED:

© 4,5’ (EAST & WEST) SIDE SETBACKS

e 35’ (SOUTH) FRONT SETBACK

23, 2021 Zoning Board meeting because this has already been previously approved, but it

expired based on DEC taking............

CONDITIONS:

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

Building Permit.

e That one-year significant construction shall expire June 11, 2025.

e Adopt minutes and findings from the Zoning Board meeting of 2.23.21. (SEE

ATTACHED)

VOTE:

Mr. Short AYE

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Hauza AYE

Mr. Lagonor AYE

Mr. Centola AYE

ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM:

e No minutes were approved.

Since there is no further application before the Board Michael Short adjourned tonight’s meeting

at 10:00 p.m.

Corrine Volo, Secretary JUL 10°24 Pe12°26

Katherine Kolich, Recording Secretary FILED WERSTER THN CLK

(dua Mam

Pg. 158 June !1, 2024 Zoning Meeting