Minutes

WEBSTER ZONING B OARD OF APPEALS MINUTES

Donald Hauza Michael Short

Corrine Volo, Secretary Dan Lagoner

Chris Centola Kyle Taylor, Attorney

Rich Feola

James Spampinato

Josh Artuso, Director of Community Development

Katherine Kolich, Recording Secretary

Charlie Genese, Town Attorney

13, 2024.

Pledge of Allegiance

Call Roll

meeting so I will ask everyone, first of all, when you get up to speak and if you haven’t already

done so, please sign in at the podium that is at the outside of the room so that we get the proper

names and addresses. Also, when you are at the podium, please speak into the microphone so

that we can make sure the recording actually captures everyone is saying so that we can

accurately not that in the minutes and with that, we do have one tabled matter at 1599 Ridge

Road that is going to be tabled again until the March 12 meeting.

Summary of Application Outcomes

TABLED MATTERS

:

1599 RIDGE ROAD SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE

submitted to the Town by the applicant

Pg. 15 February 13, 2024 Zoning Meeting

SHOEMAKER ROAD GARAGE AND FRONT PORCH ADDITION

SETBACK FOR GARAGE ADDITION; 1 YEAR MEANINGFUL CONSTRUCTION;

MUST OBTAIN BUILDING PERMIT

SUDORE SUBDIVISION

SIDE SETBACK ON LOT 2; 48.3 (SOUTH) REAR SETBACK FOR PROPOSED

HOUSE ON LOT 2; DRIVEWAY TO BE REMOVED WITHIN 1 MONTH AFTER C

OF O ISSUANCE FOR NEW HOUSE.

SCHEDULED MATTERS

:

POPEYES RESTAURANT

RECOMMENDATION LETTER TO THE PLANNING BOARD TO INCLUDE

BANKED PARKING AS PART OF SITE PLAN APPROVAL CONDITIONS.

ADMIRALTY WAY POOL HOUSE & INGROUND POOL

POOLHOUSE 5 FEET TO THE WEST; 1 YEAR MEANINGFUL CONSTRUCTION

AND OBTAIN BUILDING PERMIT

(Chris Centola read the first application)

1599 RIDGE ROAD SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE: Located at 1599 Ridge Road.

Applicant Joe Barone is requesting AREA VARIANCES to allow front and side setback less

than what is required associated with the construction of 1,508 SF single family residence on a

0.62-acre parcel having SBL# 080.02-2-32 located in an R-3 Single Family Residential District

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

RESOLUTION 24-006 Corrine Volo made a motion for TO TABLED

APPLICATION TO THE March 12, 2024

VOTE:

Mr. Hauza AYE

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Centola AYE

Mr. Lagonor ABSENT

Pg. 16 February 13, 2024 Zoning Meeting

Mr. Feola AYE

Mr. Spampinato AYE

Mr. Short ABSENT

(Chris Centola read the second application)

SHOEMAKER ROAD GARAGE AND FRONT PORCH ADDITION : Located at 941

Shoemaker Road. Applicant Randall F. Peacock is requesting an AREA VARIANCE to allow a

front setback less than what is required associated with the construction of a 20° by 22° attached

garage and 12’ x 15° open front porch on a 0.57-acre parcel having SBL# 064.10-1-25 located in

an R-2 Single Family Residential District under Section 350-11 of the Code of the Town of

Webster.

Appearing before the board was Randy Peacock and my address 1s 4 Spring Meadow Lake,

Webster, NY 14580. 1 am here representing Alician Worthington, resident, and owner of the

property here. Mrs. Worthington bought the house several years ago, she has moved in and

recently from out of state to be here closer to family. She has quickly realized that upstate

winters, .,.although this winter is not as bad. Can result into some difficulties without having a

garage. She would like to start a garage on the parcel to put two cars in.

The house had an addition on, and it looks like sometime in the 80’s, maybe a little earlier and

kind of snakes off to the east side of it and really there is a bedroom tn that space that needs an

egress window, and we came up with a design that allowed a 10.5-foot space for a small court

yard so that bedroom can still have it’s egress window and then we did the smallest garage as

possible to fit two cars in it. It is 22 feet deep by 20 feet wide. The back corner of the garage

touches the back corner meaning the southeast corner, touches the setback line off of the side

yard and the rest of the garage within the 5 feet setback but the garage does extend out into the

required 60-foot front setback. In order to, | would say soften, the impact of this garage out 1

suggested to Mrs. Worthington that we add into the project a small, enclosed porch that will add

some street affect, esthetics to the front of the house and not make it look like the garage is the

most prominent element on the garage. The porch is open and has a couple columns on il and

steps up to it and that porch would be set 47.75 feet off of the highway from the right of way line

and then the garage is 3.3 inches or 3.25 feet further back from that. The setback to the face of

the garage is 51 feet.

Mrs. Worthington expressed to me that she didn’t want the house to essentially look like a trailer

or a big, long thing. There is a cable towards the strect with a porch that expands out to a larger

cable with a garage, and | think it is esthetically a pleasant addition to the house and ] will say

that a neighboring property to the cast is a large tree and landscaping that screens the garage

from that property on the neighbors parcel that the tree does exist there. I guess the best bet

would be for me to answer questions al this time.

going to add character to the front of the house. ICs....il's nota plain house know but it’s notin

Pg. 17 February 13, 2024 Zoning Meeting

an arca of INAUDIBLE across the street. So, I think anything that you are proposing to do

esthetically it fit more of the look of the street if there is such a thing. For the garage, I really

don’t see where you could reduce the size of the garage. It is not an oversized garage at all, but |

am interested to hear what the other board members observed on their inspections on the

property and the location.

the facades, so I think you don’t a good job al that and like you said, there is some additional

landscaping, and I wasn’t sure if that was on their property or not but that is going to stay,

correct?

access to that from the front to the rear?

to that back? INAUDIBLE, BOTH PARTIES SPEACKING.

ihe house and that opens into that space and then there is a door in the back of the garage that

opens up in that space so there are (wo access points into # INAUDIBLE pavers in there.

driveway.

garage does is allows access inside the house without having to go in that small aceess on the

side, it is very strange. You walk in the house and step down one step to a landing for the

basement stairs and then back up one step for the stairs going up in the house. ICis a very strange

arrangement and then the front steps are really just conerete stairs there that are only partially

covered and they can be very treacherous resulling in shoveling all the time. This garage project

also provides safe access into the house without having to walk outside on snowy, icy surfaces.

1. Corrine Volo: We do have a letter from a neighbor at 926 Shoemaker. (PLEASE SEE

ATTACHED LET EER) This is a public hearing, is there anyone who would like to speak

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

Pg. 18 February !3, 2024 Zoning Meeting

bebruary 13 2024

7

Asmay Snolata Arde

226 Shoamaker ra

Mebster bes Yorn 1-458

Re Worthingion Variance Anokcaun

Gai Shoemaker Rd Webster

SO nas concer:

Alvson Vorinington has asked me to wile a teller to sugoor ne

application for a variance to build a garage | bsheve it wail be an

enhancement to her home twit enhance tne cum anosal sich § would

benelit from as ny home is directly across tha street

Iwholehaanacdh suport her apphcaton far ine vanance and am honsfut

“bbe @ouroved

ee ee ae

_—_

eo

ae ss a

Se oe

=

—

Fac ee Bn

ae | eae Fs eminem! oer walenpamtind Lads bails Gide page tae SE ae

ald a] AA4 ae he tb Shay Fy : J “rt

SPSS As SPS ok

_

-

Who would like to read the findings? I will say that a setback may be a little out of

character, this request is really not out of character with the neighborhood. I don’t think

there is another house on Shoemaker, at least that section of Shoemaker that doesn’t have

an atlached garage to it. It is several little segmented neighborhoods and built in different

phases, but they all seem to have garages needed in that particular section as it is a newer

section of the street, they have an entry way with decorative porches rather that front style

back in the 50°s and 60's. It will not create a detriment of nearby properties and it will not

really impact the home either to the east or the west. There is a tree between this house

and the house next door that will kind of break the view of this and it really will not be in

view of the neighbor at all at 31 Shoemaker based on the location of there house, There

really is not another location to locate this garage. There is a bedroom that ts in the back

of that garage addition so you can not butt it right up against that because you do loose the

egress to the bedroom and in addition there is an egress door to the house that if you can

maintain that it does at least give them an extra door taking you into the basement or into

he front of the house. The request is really not substantial. The setbacks in that section of

Showmaker, those were probably built before the current setbacks were in place and so

there really isn’t any way to do this change without bringing it closer into the front setback,

but it really is not excessive. The garage is still going to be over 50 feet off of the road and

the porch is just a small section of the house it is not a full wall! of the house so that being

at 47.75 feet, | don’t think driving by that it is going to be an eye sore or that it is projecting

to close to the road. There are no adverse physical or environmental impacts to the site or

neighborhood. In this instance, J guess I would say the difficulty 1s not self-created in that

there is not a garage on that structure for whatever reason and the house is located where

it is before the applicant purchased it. Is there anything anyone would like to add to that?

(WE FORGOT TO DO SEQR PRIOR TO)

RESOLUTION 24-008 Corrine Volo made a motion FOR TYPE 1

VOTE:

Mr. Hauza AYE

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Centola AYE

Mr. Lagonor ABSENT

Mr. Feola AYE

Mr. Spampinato AYE

Mr. Short ABSENT

ae

a) a

This request is not out of character in the neighborhood:

There will not be a detriment created to nearby properties:

The benefit is not achievable by any other method:

This request is not substantial:

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

Pg. 19 February 13, 2024 Zoning Meeting

;

L

7. The difficulty is not self-created:

8. This is not an undesirable change:

9. This request is not significant:

RESOLUTION 24-009 Corrine Volo made a motion to APPROVE THE AREA

VARIANCE Located at 941 Shoemaker Road. Applicant

Randall F. Peacock is requesting an AREA VARIANCE

to allow a front setback less than what is required by the

code which a 47. 75-foot front setback to the front porch

and a 51-foot front setback to the garage addition for the

construction of a 20’ by 22’ attached garage and 12’ x 13’

open front porch on a parcel having SBL# 064.10-1-25

located in an R-2 Single Family Residential District under

Section 350-11 of the Code of the Town of Webster which

was seconded by: Chris Centola.

VOTE:

Mr. Hauza AYE

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Centola AYE

Mr. Lagonor ABSENT

Mr. Feola AYE

Mr. Spampinato AYE

Mr. Short ABSENT

CONDITIONS:

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

Building Permit.

e That one-year significant construction shall expire February 13, 2025.

(Chris Centola read the third application)

requesting area variances to allow setbacks less than what are required associated with a lot line

adjustment to separate an existing detached accessory structure from its current parcel in order

to facilitate building a new single family home on adjacent parcel and attaching it to said

accessory structure involving (2) parcels totaling 3.31-acres having SBL #’s 050.01-1-32.2 and

050.01-1-32.1 | located in both an R-| & R-2 Single Family Residential District under Sections

350-10, 350-11, and 350-36 of the Code of the Town of Webster.

Appearing before the board was Al LaRue with McMahon LaRue Associates and when were

here last the board has some requests for us and | wanted to show the entire proposed home that

is going to be attached to what is now a garage but now itis going to be a living space and to

show a potential split of the properties as well as what a turnaround, a fire code standard turn

around and what it would Jook like and of the private drive and we have done that. In the

process of pulting in the proposed home we discovered that the old garage, which is going to be

Pg. 20 February 13, 2024 Zoning Meeting

part of the home, is at a slight angle so that when you come across, the distance for the new

home it makes the setback, and we are asking for more of a variance than a setback. Just

because we are squaring up the new proposal with the existing structure that is there so that turns

out....the new proposed home would be 48.83 feet from the property line where 55 is code.

There is also a shed in the back and that is 9.1 feet from that property line to the south and with

that I] can answer any questions that you might have.

for right now it was just for the subdivision.

required so | think that applies to both the side and rear. We left it general that way

intentionally.

any comments? This plan is what the board had asked for previously because we didn’t believe

that we had sufficient information to be able to approve the subdivision not knowing that we had

the appropriate room for the and I will call it the fire truck turn around near the house that was

going to be in this location. So, is this information sufficient?

please come to the podium at this point and time. Seeing no one | will return the conversation

back to the board,

RESOLUTION 24-0010 Corrine Volo made a motion for TYPE IT SEQR which

was seconded by: Donald Hauza.

VOTE:

Mr. Hauza AYE

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Centola AYE

Mr. Lagonor ABSENT

Pg, 2) February 13, 2024 Zoning Mecting

Mr. Feola AYE

Mr. Spampinato AYE

Mr. Short ABSENT

on lot 2 which the 15.02 does meet the side setback requirements and tot 2 is looking for a 48.3-

foot rear setback to the construction of the new home on lot

2. FINDINGS OF FACTS: CORRINE VOLO

I.

a

a

This request is not out of character in the neighborhood: It is kind of a private cul de sac

neighborhood and the side setbacks are going to be appropriate for what is permitted within

code. I should note that part of the property is R-1 zoned which requires a 20-foot side

setback and part of the property is R-2 zoned which requires only a 15-foot side setback

and that would be the reason you still don’t have the full setback for lot | and the reason

they need the side setback is because of the two zoning differences R-2 in lot 2 would be

permitted.

There will not be a detriment created to nearby properties: The applicant currently owns

both properties and is subdividing the lot to allow the accessory garage to become part of

his new home.

The benefit is not achievable by any other method: There really is not another place to put

the lot line that would....it’s the least impactful location of the lot line to give both the side

setbacks on lot | and on the new to be constructed home on Jot 2 as well the rear setback,

the garage is already turned at a slight angle and is already at a setback then is less than

what it is permitted and in order to follow that line with the building that takes the one

corner of the house to INAUDIBE the house is not at that setback, it is justa partial section

of the lot.

This request is not substantial:

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

do not have any complaints from any neighbors. There are homes to the rear of this, but

they are not going to be impacted by this new construction at all or by the setbacks.

This ts not an undesirable change: I will say this is not an undesirable change and I am sure

the new constructed house will be an attractive addition to the properly and the applicant

has given the board the information that the board had requested which was any plans for

future subdivision. Is there anything that you would like to add to that.

existing garage. Is there a date on that removal ?

the lot outside of the building. So, | am taking that one side out once I have the left side of the

building another words, Jam using that for storage to get my vehicle in and out without having to

Pg. 22 February 13, 2024 Zoning Meeting

INAUDIBLE like I took the other part out with the demolition permit so within a year, it will be

all gone. There will be grass in there.

8. This request is not significant:

RESOLUTION 24-0011

VOTE:

CONDITIONS:

Corrine Volo made a motion to APPROVE TWO AREA

VARIANCES for setbacks at 252 Webster Road.

Applicant Frank Sudore 1s requesting area variances to

allow setbacks less than what are required associated with

a lot line adjustment to separate an existing detached

accessory structure from its current parcel in order to

facilitate building a new single family home on adjacent

parcel and attaching it fo said accessory structure

involving (2) parcels totaling 3.31-acres having SBL #'s

050.01-1-32.2 and 050.01-1-32.11 located in both an R-1

& R-2 Single Family Residential District under Sections

350-10, 350-11, and 350-36 of the Code of the Town of

Mr. Hauza AYE

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Centola AYE

Mr. Lagonor ABSENT

Mr. Feola AYE

Mr. Spampinato AYE

Mr. Short ABSENT

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

Building Permit.

e That one-year significant construction shall expire February 13, 2025.

e¢ APPROVED FOR 14.5’ (EAST) SIDE SETBACK ON LOT 1; 15.02 (WEST)

SIDE SETBACK ON LOT 2; 48.3 (SOUTH) REAR SETBACK FOR PROPOSED

HOUSE ON LOT 2; DRIVEWAY TO BE REMOVED WITHIN 1 MONTH

AFTER C OF O ISSUANCE FOR NEW HOUSE.

* File subdivision map with the Town and the County

Pg. 23 February 13, 2024 Zoning Meeting

(Chris Centola read the fourth application)

Steenburgh is requesting an AREA VARIANCE to allow 24 off-street parking spaces, where

203 spaces are required associated with the construction of a 2,532 SF fast food restaurant with a

double drive through on a 0.83-acre parcel having SBL# 079.1 1-1-12.12 located in an HC High

Intensity Commercial District with a Progressive Development District overlay under Section

350-74 D(5)(a) of the Code of the Town of Webster.

Appearing before the board was INAUIDBLE and I am the Engineer for the applicant Liberty

Restaurants, and | am hoping this is relatively a simple variance. We are seeking a variance here

this evening to what I believe to be a typographical error in the Webster town code for a fast

food restaurant INAUDIBLE. Currently the code states that two parking spaces are required for

every 25 square foot in gross area of the building. Which would require 203 parking spaces for

the 2,532 square foot, 24-seat Popeyes Restaurant. Typically, we have seen anywhere utilizing

between 15 and 25 parking spaces for a restaurant of this magnitude I think personally, I think

the code was supposed read two spaces per 250 per square feet which would equal out to 21

parking stalls which seems to be more in concept with adjoining our typical for what you would

see however | did run down through the numbers if this was just a formal sit down restaurant

which is one space per three seats which would require 8 spaces and then 1.5 spaces for

employees during a max shift which their max shift is 10 employees so that would total out at 23

parking spaces.

Popeyes is proposing 24 off-street parking spaces and again, this is something that they feel very

comfortable with the number and there is also space for additional parking spaces, however we

don’t see the point in providing a hard scape or additional parking that will never be parked on

just because the size of the restaurant and the quantity of sit-down traffic that they will get.

spaces. The old code is............. it’s an old code. The county did a study back in 2019 which

made recommendations for parking spaces. This is certainly not out of the question for this area

of the neighborhood, but I do recall Taco Bell and Dairy Queen receiving their variances for

parking.

call them traditional parking spots plus two handicapped; Taco Bell received a variance they

have 39 parking spaces plus two handicapped; Dairy Queen has 54 plus three handicapped;

Wendys I think also had a variance for 55 plus 4 handicapped and McDonalds up the road was

the other one that have the double drive through, so I was trying to compare them because we

don’t have a lot of the double drive throughs in Webster and the McDonalds that is further up

Ridge has 40 spaces with two handicapped. Looking at even the other Popeyes within Monroe

County this one still has, and ] won’t significantly less but a number of less spaces and those,

they tend to average 30-35.

Pg. 24 February 13, 2024 Zoning Meeting

especially since COVID. They have seen a significant drop in in-store dining. So, that number is

INAUDIBLE slightly. When you figure 24 seats, that is a relatively small dining area.

spaces were needed.

spaces. Actually, more than that because that crush stone actually extends to our property line

because...1 don’t know probably 6-8 spaces. I know because I have been on a lot of these

spaces. Over the past so 1 thought 9-10 of them over the past two years around New York State

and Connecticut and 24 seems to be the maximum amount that we have done and actually have

done some with Cicero at considerable a lot less I think we are down around 16 and visiting

those sites that and actually visiting some of the other sites, ] have never seen them full at peak

hour with those spaces and we feel very comfortable with this number and again as an Engineer,

I hate seeing parking spaces going in and never be utilized from environmental standpoint

INAUDIBLE. It is best to build what is necessary.

Again, with the sit-down dining code, it actually INAUDIBLE spaces and follow that code.

Typically, your sit-down restaurants may generate a little more than your restaurants with drive

thru IJANUDIBLE.

should ask now or later. As far as bank parking, is that more for the Planning Board than us? |

mean, I know we gel to grant variances if we deem the application acceptable but is that a

condition that we can INAUDIBLE Planning Board INAUDIBLE. Lets say they want 4 more

spaces, and the Planning Board says | don’t think they do,

know that we would condition that you have to have an INAUDIBLE but...

INAUDIBLE additional rule on the property for additional space INAUDIBLE the Planning

Board requires it or needed in the future.

always a line and the parking lot, | have not seen it full yet. Same with the Dairy Queen, I would

Pg. 25 February 13, 2024 Zoning Mecting

agree that it seems to be INAUDIBLE especially with those types of restaurants. It is not like I

am going to go to Dairy Queen and visit for a | 4% and have coffce and just hang out but just my

own observation while this is probably efficient, 1 want to make sure that there is room to add or

should the demand but again, if there is not a place for me to park and I want to eat inside and

Popeyes is full, there are two other choices within a 100 feet.

essentially the same type of food and I realize they have a double drive thru which I think is

probably way more important especially if you seen Dairy Queen when they get backed up into

the main road so | am just wondering, just in the interest of being consistent as a municipality,

we give them a minimum number to match with, essentially the people just to the north of them,

Taco Bell and I agree with you.

and I will disagree with him. You made Taco Bell put in 30 spaces....

make a recommendation to the .............

recommendation as to what we should have. You are right. INAUDIBLE

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

RESOLUTION 24-0012 Corrine Volo made a motion to FOR TYPE IT SEQR

which was seconded by: Chris Centola.

VOTE:

Mr. Hauza AYE

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Centola AYE

Mr. Lagonor ABSENT

Mr. Feola AYE

Mr. Spampinato AYE

Mr. Short ABSENT

1, This request is not out of character in the neighborhood: The application fits within the

existing character of the neighborhood. Granting the variance will not be a detriment to

any of the adjacent property owners while it 1s self-created, | don’t think there are any other

means/method to grant any relief other than the parking since the lot itself will not be

Pg. 26 February 13, 2024 Zoning Meeting

INAUDIBLE you would need 5 times the land to put that parking in there. There are no

detrimental affects and the INAUDIBLE and the use of the facility is presented by the

applicant, the request is minimal.

parking spaces for fast food restaurants and that our code is as it is written right now and been in

exisience since those prior recommendations and the updates have not been made to it. Anything

else anyone would like to add?

RESOLUTION 24-0013 Chris Centola made a motion to APPROVE THE AREA

VARIANCE Located directly south of 925 Hard Road.

Applicant Brett Steenburgh is requesting an AREA

VARIANCE to allow 24 off-street parking spaces, where

203 spaces are required associated with the construction of

a 2,532 SF fast food restaurant with a double drive through

on a 0,83-acre parce! having SBL# 079.11-1-12.12 located

in an HC High Intensity Commercial District with a

Progressive Development District overlay under Section

350-74 D(5)(a) of the Code of the Town of Webster which

was seconded by: Corrine Volo.

VOTE:

Mr. Hauza AYE

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Centola AYE

Mr. Lagonor ABSENT

Mr. Feola AYE

Mr. Spampinato AYE

Mr. Short ABSENT

CONDITIONS:

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

Building Permit.

© That one-year significant construction shall expire February 13, 2025.

(Chris Centola read the fifth application)

ADMIRALTY WAY POOL HOUSE & INGROUND POOL: Located at 688 Admiralty

Way. Applicant Robert Neufeld is requesting an AREA VARIANCE to allow a rear setback

less than what is required associated with the construction of an in-ground swimming pool and

Pg. 27 February 13, 2024 Zoning Meeting

565’ SF pool house on a 0.5 i-acre parcel having SBL# 063.13-1-13 located ina WD

Waterfront Development District under Sections 350-11 and 350-25 of the Code of the Town

of Webster.

Appearing before the board was Aaron Beyler with BME Associates and | am here representing

the applicant Robert Neufeld with Neufeld Custom Homes. He is requesting an area variance to

reduce the INAUDIBLE setback at the family residence at 688 Admiralty Way. The proposal

includes the construction of a 14 X 36 inground pool associated with 565 sq ft single story pool

house from the accessory structure and it is located in the towns Waterfront Development

District and this use is permitted in this district.

As we have outline in the five factors in our letter of intent, we don’t believe this area with have

any detriment to health, safety, or welfare in the community and the owner of this property is

actually INAUDIBLE Stoney Pointe Homeowners Association for this construction. If the board

has any questions thal we can answer.

going to be a sanitary force main because there is a bathroom INAUDIBLE and a little pump

INAUDIBLE inch and a half pve force main that is going to the house and connected into

INAUDIBLE house and as for the water service, it will a standard % inch pipe

were brough closer to the existing paver patio so that the 5 feet of that concrete edge becomes

part of that patio which would allow you to bring everything 5 feet further in.

or not.

Pg. 28 February 13, 2024 Zoning Meeting

out the width of the 5-foot sidewalk on the west side I think is a good idea except it does ruin the

symmetry of the edge of that pavement that Kind of frames the existing INAUDIBLE but that is

minimal.

we ask the applicant to do that?

the INAUDIBLE concrete sidewalk at best maybe a foot deep and if it’s an oak, those roots are

deeper because they are one foot down.

that.

board would like to see that just so there is a less setback but once the variance is granted, if he

didn’t like it

30. Corrine Volo: This is a public hearing. If anyone is willing to speak for or against this

application, please come up to the pedium. Secing no one, we will return the discussion back to

the board.

RESOLUTION 24-0014 Corrine Volo made a motion for TYPE IT SEQR which

was seconded by: Chris Centola

VOTE:

Mr. Hauza AYE

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Centola AYE

Mr. Lagonor ABSENT

Pg. 29 February 13, 2024 Zoning Meeting

Mr. Feola AYE

Mr. Spampinato AYE

Mr. Short ABSENT

1,

This request is not out of character in the neighborhood: It is not out of character with the

neighborhood, There are more than a couple of homes that have in-ground pools there.

The new trend seems to add a pool house to the pool, and we have seen several of those

requesting for variances before this board.

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

three different properties that touch the rear lot line, but the applicant agreed to move it

further away to the lot line and the impact to those neighbors is lessened and the board has

not received any negative feedback from any of the neighbors.

3. The benefit is not achievable by any other method:

4. This request is not substantial: It is semi substantial. It is not a huge structure, and it is not

the entire structure thal is going to be within the setback and AGAIN, the applicant is

willing to work with us in order to make it less impactful

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

6. The difficulty is not self-created: It’s a balancing act and | think there are enough reasons

for the board to grant the variances.

7. This is not an undesirable change:

8. This request is not significant:

RESOLUTION 24-0015 Corrine Volo made a motion to APPROVE THE AREA

VARIANCE Located at 688 Admiralty Way. Applicant

Robert Neufeld is requesting an AREA VARIANCE to

allow a rear setback less than what is required associated

with the construction of an in-ground swimming poo! and

565’ SF pool house on a 0.51-acre parcel having SBL#

063.13-1-13 located ina WD Waterfront Development

District under Sections 350-11 and 350-25 of the Code of

the Town of Webster which was seconded by: Chris

Centola.

VOTE:

Mr. Hauza AYE

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Centola AYE

Mr. Lagonor ABSENT

Mr. Feola AYE

Mr. Spampinato AYE

Mr. Short ABSENT

Pg. 30 February 13, 2024 Zoning Meeting

CONDITIONS:

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

Building Permit.

e That one-year significant construction shall expire February 13, 2025,

¢ APPROVED FOR A 30’ REAR SETBACK; SHIFT THE POOL AND

POOLHOUSE 5 FEET TO THE WEST; 1 YEAR MEANINGFUL

CONSTRUCTION AND OBTAIN BUILDING PERMIT

ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM:

e No minutes were approved

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

at 8:00 p.m.

Corrine Volo, Secretary

Katherine Kolich, Recording Secretary

APR 17°24 auioi5

FILED WEBSTER TUN CLK

Pg. 31 February 13, 2024 Zoning Meeting