Video recording

captions Language: en got a question was that that was it just right no I understand for sure but the more controversial I don't know what he's going with that what me it's so good to see you that's that's like the third time you said that this even great I feel better now that Don's here to I do you can't put this I I don't like it at floor level because I'm too short I see but but I feel like I'm always I need like a pillow on my chair so I can should be this this this whole thing has to like even if it came down a couple or have monitors that are at a table like that for you for theud judge I was a young prosecutor where we going with thisit out of the countertop Hing up eliminate for I that scared a couple times I like this should be right next to that right in front but then if they need to speak to the screen they need a way to travel to the screen or a laser provide that oh yeah and just have the reusable powdered wigs underneath that was a joke and that's why I just love you on this SP that's why you love this we all have it EAS over yeah I'm just trying to make a stand welcome to uh the zoning board of appeals for the town of Webster uh June 11th 2024 uh we have a total of two tabled matters uh that we're going to be reviewing today and one scheduled matter uh for today um we have uh not not that today is going to hopefully take too long but uh we do have reserve the right that uh at 10 pm uh to table any remaining matters I'm hoping that we don't go that long today uh additionally um there's a five minute limit to uh public comment uh periods uh any particular item um I do have a proof of Le publication for all items here um with that call for attendance Mrs bolo here Mr how here Mr short here Mr Santa here Mr lagner here Mr DeMarco here Mr artuso here all right that uh PL Allegiance Al to of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liy and justice for all right gu with that um move on to our first item um which is 67 one uh Willow Lane accessory structure do you want me to reread it into the record sure yeah okay please 671 Willow Lane accessory structure located at 671 Willow Lane applicant Brian bishoping is requesting area variances to allow a side setback less than what is required and to allow the placement of an accessory structure to be near to the front property line than the rear line of the main residence associated with the construction of a 500 square foot detached woodf framed structure on a46 acre parcel having SPL number d211 located in an R3 single family residential district under sections 350-12 and 35-36 of the code of the town of Webster how's it going good evening going well thank you how are you uh give us an update from uh last time last last month so the graphic that's up there is a depiction of the three Alternatives the um tough to point to it but the upper rightmost one is where the pr a little more to the right right there 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 out there on that piece of paper is 41 is what we measured in terms of the swing that it could do so that gives us the buffer and then the board asked us to look at two other Alternatives of either keeping the 5 foot and pushing it back as far as we could to avoid those wires and that's what the one is the building sliding back and that pushes it back about 17 and A2 ft and likewise we looked at it as eliminating the side setback and pushing it 15 ft off of the lot line um but of course because of the diagonal electrical wires that's why it's pushed a little forward towards Willow Lane so I hope that addresses the the request from the board um there should be a photo that went along with this yes it's tougher to see this one this is from the road but um at right after the meeting we did go out and stake that out those were measured of those three locations and he color coded the ribbons so hopefully everybody got a chance to go out there and see it it obviously doesn't depict height but we're just looking at the area uh of placement for each of those Alternatives can you go back to the previous graphic so looking at this um the original option required side and front setback option one uh also requires side and and front setback but it's further back from from the front of the house obviously and option two on here would only require the front set back uh variant correct side would not require the side set correct okay I did get a chance to go out there um and thank you for staking that out it was very helpful good um what this graphic doesn't show but the photo does show is that there is a uh fairly mature U maple tree uh yep right there which is I know five feet plus or minus into option one so that maple tree if uh they decide to go with option one or if you know that is uh consider that maple tree would have to be removed to accommodate that and I believe uh depending on my conversations um there's concerns with some of the other options as well with that maple tree that's correct so the concern and and one of the main reasons uh or a another reason why um Brian would like to have that pushed up is not only the electric wires as we discussed last meeting it's estimated to be around $7,500 to relocate the telecommunication wires and the electric so that the building could be code compliant put in the back um but in addition to that you'd have around $4,500 to take down that tree it's his last tree it does provide some shade to the neighbors um but even pushing it back further um you worry about the the root structure that might be down there so having a buffer off of that would definitely help to keep that alive any questions from the board do you have a preferred option uh well of course the the preferred one is the application as it came in but to minimize variance and understanding that it if I know we're trying to keep it brief here I do have a presentation if the board wants it where I did call out some of the things we're looking for and and just to help you document your decision making and your finding statement of why you want if you want it I can hand it to you um not sure if it's sufficient or not uh but to just go through a couple of them the preferred one would be the one um 5 foot off the property line just to keep it off to that side to put it towards that hedro that's in there um but maybe not putting it right in as far up to the front face or the front plane yes right there but pushing it back so kind of uh a blending between the preferred location and the furthest back one so maybe splitting the difference between those and moving it back um Brian you can speak to that better how far back would you be willing to or would you be interested in in uh minimizing this variance to pushing it back towards the front um back towards the back of the building so the distance from the proposed location to the tree right now is n almost exactly 9t so I'd be willing to go three back and give that six foot buffer for any limbs coming down anything like that it is a maple tree and they are not asce uh structures that branches come if it were a pine tree have a different view have you completely exhausted the thought of using an attached garage to the existing building this is definitely the preferred preferred but PR but the other is definitely an option if uh it is more cost yes is a lot it costly with respect to moving the power lines or the construction itself construction itself and and just to clarify that sir he by the town code he's allowed to have an accessory structure we're just talking about the variances so it's a good question that he should entertain especially on the economics of it but he is per pered a shed and an accessory structure so I just want to point out that clarification he has permitted that obviously when it complies to the code correct so that would mean he would have to put the access structure back asking for Relief right thank you yes thank you good clarification so to be clear even to Brian is that would be a permanent structure that he would have the additional cost of relocating a tree and and the electric wires any other questions I don't know in the in the neighborhood are there any other similar structures two-story so um in terms of two stories I didn't search out that but in terms of accessory structures I did search that out in the 403 unit house Zone that you were given last month there's actually 135 accessory structures and just around the corner I did see a detached structure that was I don't have the square footage nor do I have the height but once again uh it's relative to that House's roof line it was their their garage is detached and and that would count as an accessory structure so there is one around the Cor Corner that's similar to it once again it's not necessarily a height that I'm reporting or a two-story but it's to match the ridgel line of the house that's there will this structure have enough space to store everything it's outside currently as can you get to the mic so we can hear you what is uh any like the tractors the trailers so both can fit garage door has been sized so the boat can fit inside the tractor can fit inside the snowmobiles can fit inside um so between that and the attached garage of my house the car can go inside you know my attached garage of the house so the snowmobile trailer does not fit inside that that can stay in the driveway on and I think he said last month that his goal is to take some of his grandparents belongings that were in the basement and start relocating those to some other storage that is in the basement is that correct yes y the um man door the overhead door and I don't know if it's a window or a sliding glass door on the second floor um based on the image that I'm looking at um those are all proposed to be facing the street so facing Willow Lane would be a garage door a man door and that is the second floor access for larger items door is not necessarily set in stone of on the front if I have enough room at the back by keeping the structure closer to Willow Lan then I can move that door to the back of the structure and put a window up front so that 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 okay so it's a that's a another door up top is what that is for larger items to come go in and out correct essentially yep okay any other questions from the board not yet no all right um with that um I'm G to open it up to uh to the public so is uh anybody here want to speak for or against this project as a reminder uh we have a five minute uh limitation on I don't have slides today so okay okay fair enough um at the last meeting this issue was tabled when it came to should we vote tonight or should we um table it and Brian would provide answers for some of the design and how the building would be constructed would it match the um siding on his house so that you know things would look all right what is being proposed here tonight puts me in the position of looking at Brian's house his attached garage the aging and the deteriorating Airstream then there'll be a small patch of land maybe if that's not where the dogghouse goes and then we're going to have this big structure and I'm going to look at two garage doors and a man door two garages arose by any other name smells a sweet isn't allowed in code in my neighborhood I ask you to take the interests of the person not seeking a variance wanting to go and be in compliance with the town code um to deal with that as I spoke with Mr artuso last week sometime I could live with the Aging um camper being gone which gets junkier looking by the moment and no proof of lure as he was asked to provide several years ago if that was removed if the building he was requesting was rotated 45 degrees so that 45 or 90 so that the entrance his garage door and man door were facing his house and that the the exterior of the utility building be compatible with the rest of the neighborhood this is like this is a well-developed um mature suburb and to start this um this it shows no respect for the nature of the property that I bought not seeking to have a huge structure I apologize for not having something in print I have not felt well for several days but do you can do you hear what I'm saying yep do you have any questions I don't anybody else have any questions for Jim so it would be those two contingencies that I would wish that I said so that he deals with his driveway doors that way and um or another thing is he could move his trailers behind the house there's room for that so thank you very much and I appreciate your courtesy throughout this process thank you Josh what's the uh there's no code issues with respect to the trailer uh town code allows a recreational vehicle to be parked in the side yard and one in the rear yard and one in the front yard on a driveway was there some reference to licensing or registration or is there any requirement in the code on it um not to my knowledge okay I didn't think so thank you um any additional questions back at the board or sorry uh public sessions not uh not closed yet anybody else want to speak for or against the property come on up hi I'm Jim bot I live at One 1278 Milk Creek which is the adjoining property with with Brian's um and just wanted to you know clarify our position uh Brian shared all the changes and things he's gone through variances and that he's looked for um communicated everything with us as we've went along um from our perspective uh we see it as improvements to a lot of the areas of you know what we understand from his property um the even taking care of the the drainage the drainage uh between the houses and that was a good was a good plan because it helped us as well um and I think you know as far as from our perspective of where we are everybody has a a structure in their backyard for for putting things in so you know we look at this as is more of the same uh it doesn't it doesn't present a problem for us on our side of the fence and you know just in you know 20 20 9 we put a shed in our yard we had the requirement to be 15t from the property line I wish we had that back to 5 feet where where we hop it would be because that would help us a lot um and I'm sure that would help Brian in his his options as well but we just wanted to uh portray our our support or no objections to what's what's going on thank you any other um uh public uh for or against the project we did receive a comment online I don't know if you'd like me to read that yeah would you mind sure uh this comment was received from a Richard Eder from 1244 Cloverwood Drive um yes uh so this comments from Richard Eder at 1244 Cloverwood Drive which is around the corner from 671 Willow Lane while I can't directly see this property from mine I drive and walk by it every day I am opposed to the variance as submitted for the following reasons I can sympathize with the applicant in terms of needing more space for his lawn tractor and snowmobiles however the proposed two-story 500 square foot structure seems to be overkill for that use a simple extension of the the existing garage either rearward or to the north side would easily accomplish this a two-story structure is not in line with the other storage structures in our neighborhood most are in the range of 150 square ft or so none of them are two stories given that the applicant has a homebased electrical business I can't help but suspect this structure will be used primarily for that purpose it will also not reduce R the amount of vehicles already in the yard such as the deteriorating Airstream trailer the snowmobile trailer and the boat if this application was for a single story structure of a lesser size I don't think there would be much concern it would better fit aesthetically and it wouldn't interfere with the overhead electrical lines that Supply the house so it could be relocated and not require the variances it would also not have as much of a vis visual impact for the homeowner directly across the street on Willow thank you for your consideration all right with that the uh public session is closed bring it back to the board any other questions at the board all the board members that would be voting toight were present in the previous app I was not here I okay so all other more um have you have you reviewed the minutes or gone through yes I have okay so you're fully up to speed from the original presentation okay so we're good to go okay other questions from the board comments I know helpful for me to visit the property with the multiple locations staked out um a because looking at the survey map doesn't give you the location of the trees and the wires um in real time as opposed to just the straight line of the wire um and it gave me a much better feel for the impact of this size and location of the building with respect to all of the uous Neighbors on their property so thank you I do appreciate the applicant and his engineer going through that work for us because it did certainly help my perspective um but I'm not sure as far as location yet okay I could see advantages to I could see advantages to the existing location I could see advantages to bringing it in 15 ft from the setback except I I know we asked the applicant to consider eliminating the one variance by by bringing it in 15 ft the downside of that is now that I've pulled it out of the Hedge R it's much more visible visible yep which didn't I mean I I kind of knew it but didn't see it until it was actually physically staked yeah I mean even in this photo here right I mean you look at the white Stakes right in front of you half of that building is inside the hedro right you know granted that hedro would probably be cut back to a certain degree and whatnot but um you know the black Stakes are right out in the open and the white and the black uh red stakes are about halfway into into that HR right so I'm I'm of the same same opinion um you know the zoning code allows the height of the structure the zoning code allows the square footage of the structure um realistically we're looking at the location there are wires in the back that are preventing um preventing this from truly fitting um in that particular location due to the wires um you know and that's you know eliminating one of the uh variance requirements is great but it puts it a big big structure very visible than it well it's going to be visible regardless regardless whether it's five or 15 ft off sure it's not like the hro what remains of it is going to be you know redirecting your your eyesight there it's I I think it would it works better from my standard point with a five foot set back into the um into the hro uh my concern is uh like you said it's allowed minus the relief he's seeking but we need if you know we were to vote on I'd want to see be as close to matching the exterior of the existing house as possible as far as the look not necess the exact same material but giving it a more as much of a residential look as a two-story accessory structure can have which would you know match you try and match the shingles put put gutters on it put some even if you have to put fake Aesthetics on it I don't care if it's a real window or not just something that breaks up this monolithic slab of a of a facade besides besides the door sure right and I my my concern is that that's overreaching our ability as a board to dictate architectural elements so that that that's my concern though but uh just because like I said if if if the board were to uh entertain it I I would like to see it um be as aesthetically pleasing as possible not just a PO Mar right and uh I think it also doesn't we we have no power to do anything about the other issues that may that one some of the residents may feel are occurring on this when not obviously there's photos that that are there in that and whether we approve this or not there's still going to be that same issue sure right trailers right I mean there it's we so the way I see it is we can't really I can't really look at that as being unless they're 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 unless Jos said the code you know needs to be licensed or something like that but if it doesn't then allowing the shed is just going to have one more thing to add to that very busy side right now mhm well the one thing that I think the applicant expressed to us is there is a um material I guess I'll call it there's there's quite a bit in that side yard with the old shed that is right kind of it's very old it's SE better days but that would be coming out and that side area would get cleaned up if I'm still understanding correctly um so it would I I think the building would neaten the overall appearance the camper is still going to be there you're allowed to have a camper but if it gets some of the other miscellaneous items out of sight it I think it benefits I agree both the applicant and the neighbors I agree but there are certain things that we don't have any control over we can't say you can't have what the code allows you to have including an up to a 500 accessory structure correct that's unless the applicant consense does that also apply to architectural sure may not be able to condition it but they may be willing to sweeten the pot got you the problem I may is the twostory you got a 500 square foot footprint two stories you got a th000 square foot that's larger than a bunch of houses you essentially have two home siiz structures on that lock I'm just having a problem with the twostory does the J the code prohibit number of flors or it's and the square footage is the foot print it is not the floor square footage correct can't cannot be higher than the uh than the main structure right and there's a limit where is it and the height is defined it cannot exceed 20 ft in height yeah and that's that's not to the ridge that's to like the midpoint well it's the average right right a mean height so it's going to be another three or four feet on top of that yep which which I mean this is shown 22 foot2 right so okay so again unfortunately right mean height is dictated by the Yeah at all so just personal yeah I hear you I kind of agree right in a you know Halfacre I think these are Halfacre plots neighborhood having a accessory structure 500 square feet go up that's 22 feet tall definitely understand it other um any other comments with respect to uh some of the uh that the board has discussed um is there anything that the applicant wants to comment upon as to what they are willing or not willing to do strictly voluntary you know it's doesn't have to be a requirement of your presentation but the uh comments made by the board I don't want to not allow you to comment uh as that is something that you're agreement to doing or not an agreement to doing so like like I said before the the drawings that I provided are preliminary I don't have a final this is exactly what it's going to look like um because of location obviously I can I can swing doors um you know the second floor door I can swing that to the back and put a there that's actually going currently I was planning on putting it at the back but I could flip-flop those I just don't can't make that decision right now without a location what about the materials the appearance of the building the board has talked about uh consistent with the exterior look of the the home is that something that you're willing to stipulate to or something so the exterior of the home is let me chime in on that let me let me just finish y sorry go ahead is that something you're willing to to or something that you'd rather leave outside the application so because the exterior of the existing home is most likely going to be upgraded not at the same time as the structure so I don't need to cut you off it's kind of a yes or no question I think what he's going to compliment each other but they may not match at the exact same time because he may build this first with the color scheme that he wants and then invest in resurfacing the facade of the existing structure if I may add to our concern is that it's going to be a metal pole barn right looking structure that does not fit within the residential neighborhood um are you willing to utilize materials and design Aesthetics that provide a residential look to the new structure that would um complement the residential neighborhood that you're in I haven't looked at any surfaces that are are available right now I know the general idea of what I'm looking for not as far as the Finish but how I want the building to be constructed I guess is the uh you know for insulation and for what's the siding going to be I don't know the currently my my house is metal siding so so I think what they're getting at is you're not planning on putting in an industrial style metal sided Ral roofed pole bar the architectural idea that Mr loen put together is that it would be constructed of some kind of materials it could be metal studs whatever it is but it will be residential in neighbor neighborhood or character and then be constructed in that fashion not industrial looking or pre-manufactured but rather again I don't I don't have a finished look to the structure he hasn't gotten that far yet are you aable to I think the answer is no it's pretty clear to me yeah understand that you don't have material selected guess are you amable to different option committing committing to committing to residential type materials similar to those found in the neighborhood now which would mean I don't know what those are but yeah you live in the neighborhood I mean is it going to be siding if it's going to be siding what are you going are you going to have metal siding on it I could yes like like I said I I don't know I just I need to make sure that I understand his right Viewpoint I I currently have at my residence a 20 by 24 accessory structure it's got two garage doors it's also got windows it's sided the same color as the house it's roofed with the same uh shingles as the house so when you drive by it doesn't stand out as a hot red metal pole barn it's a a gray and white building that looks just like the house next door just like the house it's it's on the same property as can you make it look like it belongs in a neighborhood where it it has some softer design features or are you planning on putting a a steel pole barn which I guess technically are allowed to accept that there's no location on your lot that complies but but would look much more industrial and less welcoming in a residential neighborhood yes I'm looking definitely looking for obviously if metal roof but it may be the metal shingles so I again I don't know what the product is but yes I am looking to have the house and the barn eventually match accessory structure correct accessory structure um so yes the two are eventually going to match but currently the house is a faded GRE right and I understand the house is faded and needs that needs to be upgraded as well right so yes they are going to complement each other let me ask this question um I'm not saying this would occur but if it did occur um what happens when it gets if it gets put up and it is a m we we give the variance and moves forward ands up being metal well and I don't even know that I want to stipulate not metal because there are metal buildings that are attractive and metal roofs are totally acceptable so it's it's industrial I'll say industrial sorry just you know no but something that doesn't complement the residential that neighborh that if it were on its own would stick out like a sore thumb yep because it doesn't match the existing characteristics of the general surrounding area and you know like I'm not even looking at Material as much as the look just yeah I mean that's what I think we're looking at if it's metal and it looks good right I I don't think I'm opposed to metal I'm opposed to some I'm also opposed corrugated metal or even T t111 I'd be opposed to as well that's right um so that's that's my concern is that we if you're going to approve any of the relief he's requested it's got to really really fit in with that neighborhood for me to feel comfortable to to vote for something like that well and I if that's your point of view then we should ask for an architectural uh drawing of that because perceptions perception what you're perceiving the is describing is maybe different from what I'm perceiving I I agree but lack of the applicant providing any more information this evening I don't don't know what to do well and I would be reluctant as as a homeowner I would be reluctant to hire somebody to design a building for me without having an approval um I think the applicant has stated that the upstairs door can go on the back and then you can soften the front look with I don't know a pair of Windows or something um I mean the grage door and a man door is not out of character but but the upstairs door I definitely want to see on back just because then it otherwise it looks it looks more barn likee and while they used to be Old Farms it's not anymore so has been for a long time is there an estimate of the cost in the application no address issues I thought you Josh I have a question with respect to planning board approval because I think maybe we're beating a horse dead twice um the planning board has to review any accessory structure and excess of 500 square fet if it's a two-story building I technically have a th000 square fet of floor space do they look at does the code reflect floor space or does the code reflect area area cuz I know I had to go to the planning board for mine which is slightly smaller than this list of this area yeah um traditionally it's it's the footprint of the structure that's calculated um I will say if this was one square foot larger it would go before the planning board and they would require that you provide the materials um they actually require that you bring in samples of the materials so um isn't that isn't that going to be a component of the cost of the structure the cost right the cost of the structure is a is a requirement under the code in terms of providing for the building permit for for well yeah for the building permit and for our approval here it is a field on our application that was left blank I think under the code it's it's required is it not yeah B right uh B4 right and what is the cost of the structure what ask it was estimated 20,000 okay and the estimate is uh an aggregate of what components materials material labor right and what's the material the the wood the insulation the start to finish and does that does that include the the the sighting of the building yes so you I guess I'm confused I didn't out I just you're telling me on the one hand you don't know what it's going to be made of or how it's going to look but yet you got an estimate that covers the price so usually those cost estimates are order of magnitude where it could be vinyl sighting could be aluminum sighting could be right but if the if the board wants to see the itemized estimate you don't have it right correct all right so but you need to have it we need to have a total cost of it yeah right well I guess it's up to the board to decide whether it's just an aggregate number but they want to see the content so the board could take the position tonight the application is not complete right and agree to table it again right and maybe by that time your applicant might have some more concrete answers as to what the building might look like and then the board at that point may be a little more comfortable so so to to backtrack a little bit of where he was going because my friend is more on the industrial side he's blocking at the metal sighting part because there is horizontal saying is he is he an electrician yes all right you know his aners seem a little ambiguous for a guy in the construction trade as to this stage of the process not knowing what this building is going to look like when he knows the applicants neighbors want to know it's not a big ask it's not a heavy lift for a guy in the business that just doesn't seem uh like he's being genuine about it wow um I I can't speak to that one but he I'm just telling you what I'm hearing that's all I got you you know if if he said he was you know a baker making cupcakes and doesn't know anything about construction I guess I would buy it gotcha but it sounds like it sounds a little evasive to me okay and he doesn't have that part of the application complete correct so he's asking us to make a leap but he doesn't want to help us I got you so he is looking for the variance first before he finally because you did hire to put those first Concepts together just just to give us a footprint General layout I I have gone the next step further to get all the specs for the building so so to put a question mark on here what type of roof is on your building right now on your house I have a single shingle roof no what type of is it a hip is it a gam Gamel roof is it the house is a gamble I want to see if he could answer so he's got a Gamal roof that this structure could match that with a Gamel roof just facing in a perpendicular fashion but you're I understand you're asking us for a variance that you know yes the it's a it's a um you know it's a location or a site variance so it makes it a lot easier for us to grant that that variance when the questions we're asking have answers to them I understand you haven't taken it have not taken it to the next step right it's it's a leap of faith on your end 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 than to Grant a variance not knowing any of that information either and at the end of the day that's the crossroads we're at we we want to help you to a certain degree but we also want our answers to be able to say yeah you know what it's not going to you know negatively affect the Aesthetics of the neighborhood it's not going to uh have any adverse effects but the questions you know my colleagues and I board members and I are asking you don't have the answers to right now and get where you're at but we need those answers to make a decision I I honestly think it would need to go before the planning board so we can determine the location but I think the planning board would have to approve the design when I get assessed on the the square footage of my house it counts the upstairs and the downstairs and I pay taxes on the whole thing y so I think the code calls for 500 square feet or more and this is technically going to be 1,000 square feet because it's a two-story building which then that gives the applicant the approval for their variance at a location and the Aesthetics 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 no as long as we legally can make them the Code says square feet and if it's a twostory building it's more than 500 square fet I understand but Josh just said it's based on area not or footprint not well that's but it doesn't but it doesn't specify that right it's not in the code and I know I had to go before the planning board for mine which would be a question is the applicant will the applicant consent to taking this to the planning board for determination um per per the planning board code uh so so I'm confused on it because is it we've been Guided by the town that it's 500 square feet or less doesn't require that Stu I'm not saying I'm not saying that the code has I'm not saying that the ambiguity right so so this is why I said earlier right y we can the applicant can consent to do things or we can get in a legal tug of war we could make you do something you don't think you can sue the town yeah you know we don't want to here's what I'm saying at the end of the day right I I have to assume that the applicant all things being even wants to be a good neighbor right and there are some neighbors that are in agreement with the way it stand there's other neighbors that really aren't opposing the structure but where it's positioned and how it looks in an effort to get that 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 that that's fine then but this board can do whatever it decides to do I'm just asking yeah so we're not getting into that defition heu but the I will voice the concern the applicant has because he is new to this part of even though he has build things throughout the state is the procedure to get this type of application um has been cumbersome he there's been Mis publication dates so he has he's losing behind this whole time at the same time he's getting written up by the building department for having things in his yard so he's trying to rectify that but at the same time he's getting strung along month after month so but I pardon Mei does anybody on this boord object to reviewing their architectural drawings of what they're proposing he hasn't submitted architectural drawing well I understand but should he go to the planning board he would need to provide that corre does anyone any member of this zoning board have any objections of making that review and do you feel comfortable in making that review real quick can I ask a question real quick to Josh what is the cost threshold for a structure to need architectural plans isn't there a dollar amount in a square footage amount $220,000 is the dollar amount so so that's how your 20,000 came up from the architect so um in all likelihood if this cost escalates because of material selection and things like that I think it would behoove you to go to the planning board get their input and get through that um but it's up to you that's the proper procedure yeah but at the same time on this procedure I I just want to hone this one in I want to make sure if we come back to the variances here we're here to talk about variances area variances and the height is allowed the square footage is allowed this is just putting it to the planning board for a review side of it I feel like to be honest I feel like we're going beyond the scope of the variances that are being tied to this land talk about things that yes and no right at the end of the day we have to take into account a lot of different components for a variance and the size of the building the Aesthetics of the neighborhood all of that that we have to take into account we get to say yes you're getting a variance or no you're not getting a variance based on the information that is provided to us the there's a lot of information that we don't have we've asked a lot of questions we don't have answers to so I understand what you're saying it's about the variance we're here to give you or or not give you a variance but we need information to be able to do that so I understand where you're coming from again I also read the code it says 500 square feet in area to me that's not the footprint that is the building size that's my opinion it sounds sounds like Brian what I heard you say is that um you are open to um going forward with the planning board to get the the planning board's approval um if I apologize is it the planning board is it us first then the planning board yes all right so if if that is the case what I'm hearing and is that we can make a vote on the the uh location contingent upon you getting planning board approval so if it goes if it goes this route we we review we we make our 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 Aesthetics and all the other components in the location that this board ends up deciding now to be clear the planning board he's also going to have to address site placement drainage the secret elements that they do that's I just want a clarification here if we're doing that it sounds like we're changing how the code is written so we may need another variance no we'll we we're going to prove it based on one of your options what sorry what would the other variance be so if you're changing the definition of the 500 square foot um oh never mind because that would be going we're going to the planning board correct right never mind and as far as the placement if if we were to vote on it and Grant you relief it would based on a specific setback right and they would send it the planning board's going to send it back to you is what and they'll and the planning board will have to um place it based on that setback based on that setback right so uh it's not really tying your hand they will either approve or not approve it with our setback but what I'm getting as our location back to that point that you just made the location we're having we would not meet the code because we would be coming for a variant so the planning board would just have to condition yes any considerations they have subject to a variance being requested right we would well we would Grant the variance and then they would approve the building y but not worry about the location as long as it's where the variants allowed the building to be you wouldn't you would go to the planning board if the process were to continue you'd go to the planning board with our approval based on the setbacks that we've agreed on and then they would have to recognize that this is where the the structure has to be and then move forward with the review and approval based on our contingent approval right correct correct so which variants are we consider so all right so I think for me we we've gone around on this quite a bit um I personally would like to take a look at Josh can you pull up the um plan uh again um because we do have to make a decision on a location if we are deciding to to move forward with this I'm I'm hoping that we can move forward with this there's three locations that were provided and during the presentation uh there was a option to um slide you know keep the five foot set back and then slide it basically along that that line if you will um the current option or the the original option is to keep it in line with the front of the house option one is back about 17t from the front of the house not uh not in line with the back of the house as per the the code requires option two is 15 ft off of the uh side setback which uh would not require a side setback variance but it is uh it looks like about five or six feet off of the front of the house um me personally when I was out there I on the plan view I was originally wanting option two however when I was out there um I was looking more for option one or something in between I don't want to uh take down a a nice large maple tree but I do want the building set back from the front of the house um um I think there was a comment of 3et which I'm okay with you know just again getting that hierarchy of a an accessory building versus the the main house so for me having it pushed back about 3 feet from the front of the house is where I would like it to be placed versus um the preferred option so a 43 foot front set back as opposed to the yes 40.4 and you want it how far off the s that I'm fine with the five five five makes the most sense I agreed I mean when I went out there actually from the plan view I liked option one right myself I think that works best the original right well least 5 feet off I think it works better further back from the house as well any comments or thoughts Don or no I'm I'm fine with the the 5 foot um that keeps it Clos but they line that up in the middle of the yard mhm so it stands out um and does it have to go back to full 17 if you want to save the tree probably not right well I think the proposal is for 43 ft yeah versus 40 40.4 43.4 yeah whatever it is yeah yeah I'm I'm good with that that yeah all right um with that um and that that is the best placement as far as you're concerned as well okay okay should we do Seeker no we haven't done Seeker yet can we okay please all right uh I make a motion for a type two action under Seeker pursuant to nycr section 61 7.5 of the environmental uh code second all those in favor hi hi crane you want to take the uh if I can find my notes condition um I think we've made it less out of character with the neighborhood there's sheds all over the place um not a lot of accessory structures but I think it will be aesthetic um acceptable acceptable thank you to the neighborhood um it will be not be a detriment created to nearby properties the most impacted neighbor is the neighbor directly to the north who was actually at this meeting this evening speaking that they are in agreement with the placement of the building um we have reviewed all of the other methods and locations with which to place the building and having analyzed um eliminating the side set back or pushing it as far back as possible this is the best location for Aesthetics within the neighborhood and also to preserve the current vegetation and the large maple tree um the request is somewhat substantial but given this is a corner lot the backyard is extremely shallow um I don't think there's 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 um no adverse physical or environmental impacts to the site or the neighborhood it it is self-created but then again it is a corner lot so you're you're stuck with the lack of real estate that you have um if your front were actually mil Creek you'd have plenty of room to stick it in the back backyard of the house it would be no less visible to anybody else but it wouldn't require variance to be located there um and I'll 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's currently stored outside under the roof and inside the barn and I'm sorry the accessory building and therefore clean it up a little bit um any other that's contingent found I didn't make a motion yet those are just my findings those are the findings I think you covered it okay yep so then with that I will make a motion to Grant an area variance at 671 Willow Lane to allow a side setback of 5T from the north property line and a front setback from the East property line of 43 feet 43.4 43.4 or 43 it says 43 I say 43.4 43.4 Okay um from the front which is the East to allow the placement of a 500 1,000 square foot well 1,000 square foot accessory structure with a 500 foot footprint footprint thank you um detached wood frame structure on a046 acre parcel d211 located in an R3 single family residential district and then um granting of your permit will be conditioned upon approval by the planning board and then the variance will be conditioned onee meaningful construction and all necessary government approvals that to be used for living uh space oh true and not to be used for commercial purposes correct second y sorry what I miss so this is condition upon the approval of the planning board correct and in the event that it is later determined that planning board approval was not necessary the matter has to come back before the board this board Zing board with a complete application that includes the cost structure of the building so the board can pass a judgment on on that on that issue as it's part of the application cost and design y c design materials Y which they would have to make to appear for the board anyhow correct so they you'll already have all that hope they already have they determine that that they don't have any jurisdiction over it and gets back to us then we would be able to that and make it all right okay you all that okay second you're second oh did you already get a second yeah okay all right Mrs ba I you know what Mr short Mr lagner hi Mr how I Mr CA I all right uh you have your uh variance uh you have to go to the planning board for there what's that there two variances you have your yes you have both variances yes so 43.4 ft to the front 5T side side back you have to go to uh board or planning board for uh approval from them uh this is Con upon all building applicants and you have one year uh to complete the project one year to complete the project from the completion of the planning board or from here one year start of meaningful construction one year to start start meaningful construction okay so after the building permit no one year start of meaningful construction from this meeting but you should have all of the other approvals long before then hope dig a hole all right thank you thank you thank you all right um next up uh we have 1246 Stafford precent garage Edition okay you want me to reread it please 1246 Stafford Crescent grage Edition located at 1246 Stafford Crescent applicant Bob Peters is requesting area variances to allow a front and side setback less than what is requ required associated with the construction of a 245 ft 3 Bay EXT third Bay extension to an existing Garage in a41 acre parcel having SPL number 3-60 located in an R3 single family residential district under section 350-12 of the code of the town of Webster can you hear me okay yes yep uh just to give you a little quick review from last month U I was here to uh for two variances on a 245 square foot addition to my 2 and a half car garage one variance would be on the west side which is uh 15 feet normally and I I need to take that to 9 feet so I need six feet more and then uh on the front of the property it's a 50t set back and I need 46 on that and we went over all that I think and I I handed prints drawings and things so you could see exactly what it looks like uh question came up could I move this structure back to the back part of the house and we talked a little bit about I have a patio there I have kitchen windows there and and really wouldn't be something that I'd be interested in doing so if it didn't go through then I wouldn't be doing it um and uh don I saw you there today looking I wasn't home but I did see you I always go to front I was going to talk to no problem um so and and the other thing we had talked about near the end of the uh discussion was that Monroe County water has an easement between our two houses and I would be building right up to that easement um and then there could be a potential overhang uh of my roof line so I I got a license from Monro County water authority to be able to do that and you didn't really want to move forward on it until you saw something in writing so I went to them and I I sent the email to Katherine and explanation of uh what they said and more or less they say even if I did protrude which I'm not going to but if I did I would have to redo the license so the license is ongoing type thing I mean if I get over more I got to tell them and then they'll make me sign another license so um basically that's where we're at I guess that was the last thing that you had asked me to do and I forwarded that so I guess I need to ask you do you have any more questions and there was a legal thing I think too attached what I think your attorney last time had mentioned about he wasn't 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 variant right just so that would be understood so just go back over so your existing garage is 22 feet deep you're looking for a garage that's 26 ft deep you're looking to extend closer to the front of the uh property by four feet uh beyond what um beyond what the current house is and you indicated the reason that you don't want to go back was because that you have Windows in the kitchen the kitchen is on the other side of the garage so at the end of the day the windows would not be blocked in any way shape or form um it does you know this plan does indicate the bay window so that window would not be blocked there'd be about 12 ft between the window and the um the garage Edition um and that window is actually 10 ft back from the back of the garage so that window still wouldn't be blocked because it would only be back about 4 feet so talk to me the reason why you don't want to go back okay that that's uh there is another window there which is the the bathroom window which would be covered up okay that's good I don't like people looking at me when I'm using the restroom anyway you be surprised how you sit there and look outside you know but anyway um if we did bring it back it's going to be more cost for me to be able to do the roof structure and everything to bring everything back I did look at it and we did look it over and U so just didn't make sense to us financially to do that it's it's easier to construct it the way it is now and just go out four feet with a little off the front and um I did send a drawing to you to show you what it looked like aesthetically and it's going to be great it's all going to be Cedar sided and match the house um the doors the garage doors are going to be new but they'll be all the same it's good I went around to eight of my neighbors I could have went to more and they all agreed they they have no problem with that and and they were very helpful about that so um if I did find a neighbor that was really concerned about it I probably wouldn't be here and uh but they were all great about it and uh so that's kind of where we're back I mean I I could you know Michael go back and I first thing I thought about doing is going back but then I got the architec in there and we have to rip the whole roof off and it's $20,000 more to do that so I'm I'm better off maybe not not doing that so this is the easiest type of construction to do what I want to do is add this 245 square feet and it's only 9 ft more added to what I already have but I have to have a 14inch base so I go back into the existing building more feet there uh actually five more feet to make the the Bay wide enough to to accommodate cars and stuff any other questions in Walking the site today I would agree if if that garage was pushed back would make that 12T area very dark um not only uh if you're standing outside but the the windows it just wouldn't give you a nice warm feeling it would be dark and dingy cave like yes cave thank you no concern with uh as far as I recall when I drove by uh last month all the other houses the front of the house nobody else is protruding forward from it there are other additions that are off to the side you know other garage additions off to the side but um I don't recall any other garages or any other components sticking further forward I drove the loop at least twice yeah what okay the distance it's coming out is four feet yep okay I originally did this 10 years ago I was going to do this I had the architecture all the drawings and it was just going to be like normal set back two feet and then I would only have 20 feet in there but I'm actually putting in a lift to store my cars on stack my cars on and to do that and to get the garage door to be able to roll up I had to be out so many feet so I could roll that door up and still have my I lift inside that's why I need 26 ft I I really don't think the at fourt is going to be noticeable from the roadway plus the existing architectural style it's you know steps out steps out steps out well yeah it goes progressively further in the lot as you you move through and looking at the front setbacks as I go along Stafford Crescent when I just pull up on the GIS maps um a lot of the subdivisions if the setback is 50 ft you can draw a line at 50 ft and all of the houses come right up to that line um in this subdivision they're staggered so I I I don't think it will look out of place just because they're not all in a nice neat line whereas when we do have a front set back on the nice neat line houses it definitely stands out I don't I think you're going to notice that 4 foot bump out made you're driving by it anyhow no I think the 4 foot bump out would add a little architectural character to the house all right any other questions comments from the board are you okay with the licensing agreement Mr attorney s yeah I looked at it the I'll open up to the public if anybody wants to speak for or against this project nobody all right back to the board any final discussions no Seeker make a motion for type two action under Seeker pursuant to nycrr section 6175 of the environmental code second all those in favor anybody want to read uh the findings Chris uh the uh the project uh will not uh in affect the uh existing characteristics of the neighborhood the relief requested is minimal uh you got a cheat there sorry it's been a couple months it's not out of character it will not create uh the detriments to adjoining properties uh the benefit based on the applicant's uh statement is not achievable by any other method and still allow him to enjoy the existing house and windows that are in the uh structure the request is not substantial there are no adverse physical or environmental impacts to the site and while the difficulty is self-created it once again is minimal and I do believe this is a desirable change and that the request is not significant sure I um make a motion that we approve the uh the 1246 Stafford Crescent garage Edition uh the area Varian is to allow front and side setback less than what is required associated with the construction of a 245 ft um third Bay extension to an existing two-car garage on a 0.41 acre parcel having SPL number d360 located in R3 single family residential district under section 350-12 of the code of the town of Webster the only thing I like to do is add the setback and the front setback Dimensions uh 46 feet for the front and what was it N9 feet for the side second Mr Santa hi Mr H hi Mrs Vol I Mr lagner hi Mr schw hi you have your variant um you have um person obtaining building permit and uh one year uh substantial project completion what how long will it be before they pulled the sign out of the front yard we'll arrange for that it'll probably be sometime later this week okay appreciate that thank you okay thank you everybody appreci welome thank you thank you next up uh 46 uh Lake Road residence 46 Lake Road residence located located at 46 Lake Road applicant Raymond nanini is requesting area variances to allow setbacks less than what are required in association with the construction of a 1333 Square F foot family single family residence on a 09 acre parcel having SPL number 063.0 n-11 13.1 located in in WD Waterfront development District under Section 350-1 and 35-25 of the code of the town of Webster how's it going good evening U Greg McMahon from mcmah Laro I'm representing Ray and Ron benini the owners of the property at 46 Lake Road uh the our request is for uh first of all the their intent is to demolish the existing house and build a new home on that site it's uh as many of the lots are down there Lake Road a narrow 35t wide lot uh we're requesting uh side and front setback variances uh I would note that we did appear before the board uh back in February of uh 23rd of 2021 and and they did Grant these variances but we've been since that time uh 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 they published the notification in the Webster Herald I believe that was last week and then after a 10day waiting period they they'll be issuing the permit uh to build the house so uh we are through the gaunlet with the dec and this this time we wanted to come back and get these Varian hopefully get these variances reapproved Mr McMahon what was what were the permits the EC needed to Grant you just for the rec uh well this this home as all the homes are along there are both in the a coastal erosion Hazard area and the structural Hazard area and to do any work uh you need a permit we filed a joint permit with the dec the core of engineers and the Department of State uh Department of State and the Corp of Engineers approved the project fairly quickly but um the de uh because it's in the structural Hazard area only allows the expansion of the of of a structure by a certain out they actually wanted us to move it right up to the RightWay of um Lake Road we are asking for a 35t front set back in L of the the 60 required and one of the reasons is that we're adding a garage to the front to the lake road side of this Ronda nin who lives in the house and will live in the new house is disabled and they were looking to get a garage so he can drive in and access what would be a very small one floor living area there is a loft if he has company but it'll be a uh the living area is is one floor okay so basically they granted you the permit for the natural features area and and the structural Hazard Hazard area right okay thank you there was a variance from the dec required to do any work with in the structural Hazard area we did a that was part of the permit okay thank you so with respect to anything that is being requested here there's been no other than the U other than obtaining the variances of which you just smoke spoke there are no other changes relative to the previously approved variances there are none no we're asking for the same variances that were approved in 2021 a f a 4 and a half foot side for both the east and west side um which actually in one case the building the current house is a little over a foot uh and 4 in from one sideline now and uh so we're we'll be opening up the space and uh but in order to center it in the lot we'll have a 4 and A2 foot set back on each side a front set back off a Lake Road per code is 60 fet and we're asking for 35 ft 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 uh many homes down there have been reconstructed with similar variances any other questions comments from the board Don you guys I'm assuming were I wasn't here in the 21 when this came yeah no we um the setbacks are consistent with many of the houses in the area that have been rebuilt um in the existing lot primarily in the existing Footprints um with respect to the grage Edition off the front there have been at least two others in that area one um further up the road at 68 is significantly closer to the road than this one and then the one at number 40 is a little bit further set back so this is striking the average between the two 68 40 40 40 the house the house at 40 has one and the house at 68 has one4 you go further down 88 and 90 are closer to the road yeah and then the road gets much closer to the houses anyways that go down this one we did maybe years ago thought it okay so it's it's it's a line withd and it actually by bringing it away from the East property lining and more set set centering it within the lot um it actually improves the spacing between the homes slightly the rear setback or Lakeside setback roughly the same as what is currently uh it's actually less that was that was one of the sticking points with the dec we had to uh the current house has a a a large deck on the lake side um we had proposed a deck we're cut back to about a a six foot wide deck right now we had a a Stairway with a Stairway yeah that was um I say this was a real chore to get this through the dec and okay there was a lot of concessions that had to be made to get to the point we're at right now any other questions concerns from the board no going to open it up to the public anybody want to speak for against the project I got two individuals this will be quick because I got to get home and let my dogs out I'm Jack dwire and I'm in that little yellow house next to Ron's and uh when when Ron first started talking about doing something about his house you know that that sandbar is a pretty unique little Community uh everybody get gets along pretty well and everybody knows exactly what everybody else is doing and uh Ron was just like anybody else would do there he talked to his neighbors and I there's an attorney here so I want to make sure that you understand Mr DeMarco that I'm not the representative but I I can assure you that over barbecues and a few beers and just talking with neighbors everybody is enthusiastic about this property being changed uh I you all seem like really intelligent people I I take it most of you have seen that property okay yeah well it's it's just intuitively obvious to even a casual Observer that that something has to be done and um I can I say something Mr DeMarco can I say something off the Record sure okay thank you uh if you went in I if you ever went inside I don't I'm sure you would agree with me that that would that house would never ever get a certificate of occupancy so it's it's it's it's a project that's desperately needed and uh actually more than that Ron is a really decent guy and uh he deserves to have a nice home uh to your point sir he's he's got some very serious health problems and U I think he should spend the rest of his life in a home on the lake that belonged to his family and such and uh enjoy himself so uh thank you for listening to me and U thank you that's it thank you thank you you're welcome hello uh my name is Dave Mali live in West yes um can you hear me now okay Dave M I live in West Webster um I've been here before talking about possibility of putting in pedestrian bridge at the outlet and uh therefore you know all the properties there along that area of interest to me um the one thing I'm here to ask about is uh what is the uh width of the property uh based on the plant 3 35 feet 35 feet yep okay and that's like property line to property line yes yeah yeah it's not very wide right there no it's not small on this Ro well I'm wondering about public access is my understanding is Webster has zero footage of uh Beach Public Access certainly in this area further down the road I think now with the new park I think we have some access oh Webster Park not Webster Park no portions of sandar Park sandar Park I haven't seen any Beach there but okay perhaps um but anyways it'd be nice to have a public beach there like there is on the RIT side that's one of the reasons why I like the the idea of the bridge and when you go up to Charlotte um there's actually something they call the hidden um the hidden walkway out behind the houses by the lake and I was just reading the portion in the uh town code there about Waterfront districts and it does mention you know the possibility of putting walkways as close to Lake as possible U my question is on the lake side when I walk on the pier right now I see some private property signs that are in questionable place um I don't know if you guys have looked at that but please look at it at some point um has nothing to do with this property but just just so you look at it um and my question is that in the future would it be possible to put some sort of Public Access coming in from the pier across all of those properties to including this one so that that's the question for you guys and as far as this property here I have no comment for or against it thank you heard the uh a little bit beyond our uh scope of work tonight but I appreciate the comments and we'll take those into consideration yeah what relates to this is be the possibility of a walkway between wherever this property ends and the L Point good thank you all right with that uh public uh anybody else uh public comments no bring it back to the board final discussion any other comments in the board no no all right um Le to Seeker make a motion for type two action under Seeker pursuing to nycr section 17.5 of the environmental code second all those in favor I I anybody want to do the findings done well L that this application has received the variances and the variances being requested have not changed since 19 I'm sorry 2021 um I mean I would have the same conditions uh the applicant is certainly much farther along in having received all his uh permits from DEC the Army Corps of Engineers um I would uh basically make a motion uh to Grant approvals for uh 46 Lake Road uh uh to uh sorry to the applicant requesting the area variances for the setbacks uh on the sides being 4.5 I believe yes yes yep 4.5 on each side 35 fo for front set back and can we um adopt the section of the minutes and the findings from the February 23rd 2021 zoning board meeting because this has already been previously approved but it expired based on DEC taking most importantly there's been no and there's no changes yes and this is associated with the construction of a uh 1,333 ft squ foot single family residence on a 0.9 acre parcel having SPL number 063.0 n-1 D1 3.1 located Waterfront development District under Section uh 350-1111 and 350-2 with the Cod of town Webster second Mr how hi Mrs Vol hi Mr lagner hi Mr CA hi Mr schw hi you have you have your variance thank you very much welcome um let's see uh what else do I have on is there any other administrative matters uh board minutes for May 14th no nope okay table that for next meeting um that I motion to uh end the meeting in favor hi hi thank you everybody your