WEBSTER ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES
Webster Town Board Meeting Building 1002 Ridge Road
8 August 2023
7:00pm
ABSENT:
Barry Barone, Vice Chairman Jamie Newtown, Chairman
Corrine Volo, Secretary Michael Short
Donald Hauza
Chris Centola
John DeMarco, Attorney
Josh Artuso, Director of Community Development
Katherine Kolich, Recording Secretary
Good evening. Welcome to the Zoning Board Appeals meeting for August 8,
2023. We have one tabled matter and two schedule matters and then some administrative
matters. We are one board member short tonight. You all that the right to be heard by a full
board so if anyone wants to post pone or table until next meeting, will consider that. Does
everyone want to move forward? Would everyone join me in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Call Roll
We do have proof of public notification for this evenings matters from the Webster Herald.
Summary of Application Outcomes
TABLED MATTERS
:
784 RIDG ROAD-MEYERS RV FLAGPOLE
Dylan Miller
APPLICANT REQUESTED TO TABLE APPLICATION TO 8.29.23 MEETING
IN ORDER TO SUBMIT NEW PLANS WITH THE ROAD SHOWING AND FALL
RADIUS
SCHEDULED MATTERS
:
1013 RIDGE ROAD-SPLASH CAR WASH EXTENTION OF USE VARIANCE
Fox Five, LLC
APPROVED EXTENTION OF VARIANCE. ALL TO COMPLY WITH WHAT
WAS ORIGINALLY APPROVED.
241 ROYAL PARKWAY GARAGE ADDITION
Donald Barr
APPROVED AS PRESENTED
Pg. 223 August 8, 2023 Zoning Meeting
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS:
CHARLES SEXTON PARK HOTDOG CART
Tom Welsher
APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS: ONLY ON SATURDAYS; APPLICANT MAY
WORK WHEN THERE ARE EVENTS BUT ONLY AT THE REQUEST OF PARKS &
REC.
(Corrine Volo read the first application)
Located at 784 Ridge Road. Applicant Dylan Miller is requesting
an AREA VARIANCE to allow a 100° tall flagpole, where a maximum height of 35’ is
permitted associated with installation of a 100° tall flagpole on a 5.87-acre parcel having SBL#
079.17-1.14.1 located in an CO Commercial Outdoor Storage District under Sections 130-14
A(3) and 350-20 of the Code of the Town of Webster. (APPLICANT REQUESTED TO
TABLE APPLICATION)
Appearing before the board was Michael Garren and ] work at Meyers RV (DID NOT SIGN IN)
Armidale Fonzo (DID NOT SIGN IN) Attorney for Meyers RV.
So, we tabled the meeting because we didn’t have any....there is no permit for the
project; we did have an INAUDIBLE; we didn’t have a survey map and so on. So, why don’t
you tell us what new information you have.
So, the survey map was presented apparently within the past week, an updated
survey map that is dated 7.27.23. Also, I believe that the plans for the flagpole were presented
and there is the details on the flagpole.
Ok, so last meeting, we read one letter into he record from a resident that lived
about 700-800 feet behind the location in a residential neighborhood. They were opposed to it
because of light, noise, visual impact and so on. We had two people come up and speak that
were in favor of the flagpole. One was a Marine veteran, and another woman came up and spoke
in favor of it. I did a little bit of research myself because this isn’t something that I have seen
before this board, flagpole height. So, obviously I don’t think I am the smartest guy around but
what I did is I called towns around us. I called Town of Penfield, Ontario, Victor, Town of
Perinton to see what their policies were so we can kind of get an idea of what other towns are
doing. The Town of Ontario looks at the fall radius of the pole to determine if it is appropriate.
Town of Penfield, flagpoles are exempted from their height restriction. They leave it up to the
Planning Board. The Town of Victor is 50 feet and Perinton, no regulation for flagpole height it
is usually reviewed as part of site plan approval by the Planning Board. The Town of
Irondequoit, 40 feet so it kind of gives us perspective of what’s going on because I don’t think
any of us dealt with this particular type of variance before . So, Don have you thought about this
anymore? Corrine? The way the map is drawn, it looks like the pole is about 83 feet off the road,
is it off the right of way?
Pg. 224 August 8, 2023 Zoning Meeting
From my understanding, it’s 100 feet to the road and then 105 feet to the white
line on the right-hand side of the road.
I, frankly, think the flag is beautiful but we have to consider safety and the
comments from residents and so on and so forth. Chris, you INAUDIBLE?
No, not from me but from the Zoning Board perspective, | am not knowledgeable
enough just by looking at the detail of the, both the cross sector or the profile of it and the footer
detail, 11 X 4 foot. That is a huge footer and I have no idea as far as the INAUIBLE or the stress
of that flagpole with a 20 x 40 foot flag on it and flapping in the winds at 50 mph whether or not
that footer is enough to withstand that and there is no information that says that and if there was,
I am not at a point where I could say oh yeah, INAUDIBLE someone that can look at that make
an intelligent decision of whether or not that meets any/all requirements as a structure not as a
flagpole but as a structure.
Now, you folks have an engineer’s stamp on the structure itself? Do you have a
licensed engineer stamp?
I believe so.
INAUDIBLE drawings submitted
Is that the map or
Well, we have a survey map that stamped but I don’t have engineer drawings that
are stamped.
I would like to see a civil engineers stamp on the structure of the flagpole and
foundation. I'll tell you what, while you are looking for that. Anyone in the audience have
anything to say for or against this project?
Steve Dukatz at 805 Francesca Way: I am the closest neighbor in the back of where the flagpole
is located, | am most concerned about not just the flag waving in my back yard which is clearly
and obvious to ine all the time, it’s windy but also setting precedence for other companies, other
businesses, other individuals, that will take advantage of the exception to the ordinance if it does
go through. I know of at least one person that is already looking forward to this of being
approved so that he can take advantage as a precedence to allow for a building to be
constructed that exceeds the 35-foot limit. I don’t want to see that happening in Webster and
never mind in my back yard but in Webster as a whole and I am absolutely assured that this will
be used for that purpose.
There are some towns that have no height restrictions (APPLICANT
APPROACHED THE BENCH BECAUSE HE CAN NOT HEAR.) on flag poles and I don’t
Pg. 225 August 8, 2023 Zoning Meeting
100-foot flagpoles all over. Your point is that everyone on Ridge Roads is going to put up a 100
flagpole up and down Ridge Road.
Steve Dukatz at 805 Francesca Way. They will use it to allow them to put up structures that
INAUIDBLE 35 feet.
No, no, that is not going to happen. There are fire codes and everything else
involved with that. Thank you though.
So, yesterday there was a storm in the Rochester area, and we took the flag
down because it is something we do whenever the winds get to a certain level, we always take
the flags down so. We have them in all of our stores, and we have 13 locations around in 5
states plus two Marine stores and we just put one up in Canandaigua and we just put up a flag in
Farmington, both with 100-foot poles. So, whenever it is super windy, we take the flags down.
If anyone drove by there tonight, the flag did not go back up.
Now, do you take the flag down every evening when you close for business?
No, we do not.
So, if we were to get a storm overnight, would you come in and take the flag
down?
So, we would obviously check the weather and know what’s going on if there is
going to be high winds.
What do you think Don?
|] would like to get a PE stamp on the structures. The structural drawings do not
have that on there. I would like to have some sort of certification for that. I personally like the
flag.
I don’t know if you folks remember but Perkins restaurant use to have them at all
the restaurants but INAUDIBLE, but they are expensive flag poles. Small business don’t put
those up. So, I don’t see that as a proliferation of numerous flagpoles all over the town. I don’t
see that as reality because it didn’t happen already.
I agree with you. Yes, it’s a structure but the gentleman is concerned about other
structures and buildings, each one stands on their own merit.
That is totally different.
So, we would be happy to provide a stamped engineered drawing if that is what
you are looking for. Also, we would be happy to do an annual engineering survey to provide to
Pg. 226 August 8, 2023 Zoning Meeting
the town if that was something you would be comfortable with. We have had the same
individual. He has put in all of our flag poles at all of our locations.
No, I am not saying it’s not done properly, but we need to be sure and the
engineers....and that takes the liability off the town if there is an issue. Let me ask the board, do
you think we should, and I hate to continue to table things, but do you think we should do it until
we see that engineers seal on the plans?
I kind of expected that the drawings that we were going to get would have been
signed and sealed engineers drawings. I mean, this gives me the installation information but that
is not my specialty in engineering to know if that is correct or not.
That being said, if you get the variance for the flagpole you are going to need to
get a permit for it. A permit is going lo require that stamp on the drawing. An engineers stamp so
itis something you need to do anyway.
J am still just concerned, the flag is beautiful but when J am driving down Ridge
Road, I am either looking at the road or looking up, I would prefer look at the road but looking at
it from the safety perspective, granted if it is a 100 feet from the roads edge, the pole itself, if
there is an event and the flag is left up for whatever reason and it does blow down, I know have
60 feet of flag in addition to a 100 feet of pole. It is certainly not far enough away from any
structure to alleviate that concern.
All that I can say is thal we have never had an issue with that before.
And we don’t usually get tornados either, but it could happen anyway
Actually, | did call the town of Farmington to because there is one in Farmington,
right off the edge of Rt 96, but they didn’t get back to me so. I wanted to pick their
brain... BOTH PARTIES SPEAKING AT THE SAME TIME.
INAUDIBLE
So, I am not missing any details.
Right on 520 and Canandaigua is our other location.
Honestly, I hate to do this to you again, but I am sensing that this board is not
ready to act on this. I am not feeling a strong opinion one way or another and | think....why
don’t you....we don’t show the fall radius on the drawing or survey; we don’t have the engineer
drawings, engineers seal so a few more weeks isn’t really going to matter one way or the other so
why don’t you provide us with that.
Ok.
Pg. 227 August 8, 2023 Zoning Meeting
Because I am not sensing a lot of posilive or negative opinion. We are kind of on
the fence right now. So, all the details help.
Understood.
So, would you like to table until the next meeting?
Yes
Discussion amongst the board to determine which meeting, August 29" or September
12. Questioning if the August 29 meeting is strictly for Fairlife or all applicants.
I don’t see why we wouldn’t be able to add another item as long as they feel they
could turnaround the information in that amount of time.
So, it is just a few weeks away.
Ok.
Are all the flags at each location 100 feet?
No sir, we have 150-foot flag that we just pul up in the State of Pennsylvania
and our location in Ohio is also going to be putting up a 150-foot flagpole so.
Does it have to be 100 feet for here?
100 feet is what we usually put up.
Ok, so the applicant has decided to table.
RESOLUTION 23-063 Barry Barone made a motion to TABLED
APPLICATION TO AUGUST 29, 2023 which was
seconded by: Donald Hauza
VOTE:
Mr. Newtown ABSENT
Mr. Hauza AYE
Mr. Barone AYE
Mrs. Volo AYE
Mr. Centola AYE
Mr. Short ABSENT
Pg. 228 August 8, 2023 Zoning Meeting
As long as you are going back to your engineer, if you could have you surveyor
put the road on the survey as well, edge of pavement and the fall radius, !00-foot fall radius for
that. That wouid help.
Ok, thank you for your time,
(Corrine Volo read the first application)
SPLASH CAR WASH EXTENTION OF USE VARIANCE APPROVAL: Located at 1013
Ridge Road. Applicant Fox Five LLC is requesting a 1-year extension of a Use Variance
associated with the construction of a 7,000 SF car wash on a 2.16-acre parcel having SBL#
079.15-1-16.003 located in an MC Medium Intensity Commercial District under Section 350-
101E(3) of the Code of the Town of Webster.
Appearing before the board was Anne Riley and | am the attorney for the applicant. We were here
last year for this application. We got the variance approved and went to closing in December and
now we are in litigation because they failed to show up. So, we think they might end up having to
show up because the court might order that. If they do, we don’t want to lose this use variance
obviously, so we are asking for a one-year extension.
Has anything changed whatsoever?
No, nothing has changed.
If 1 remember correctly, the neighbor to the east, the ice cream...is that it, am |
thinking about the right one?
] don’t know, Don Young was here last year for the extension.
This is the property next to Wendy’s across from town hall.
Ok, I know which one it is now. Well, to me it’s a no brainer. We did have one
letter of objection. Do you have a copy of that, do you want to read it Josh?
Sure. (READ LETTER-SEE ATTACHED)
{s there anyone is the audience who would like to speak for or against this
application? In that case, we will return it to the board. To me it’s pretty straight forward. This
board does not decide which business are viable or not viable. We went through some extensive
research in granting this use variance and it was pretty long meetings and they provided all the
necessary documentation that we required so being that there are no changes, I would be inclined
to extend.
I mean, there has been no changes to the character of the neighborhood either.
Pg. 229 August 8, 2023 Zoning Meeting
No changes to the code, no changes to Ridge Road and it hasn’t changed
significantly.
I have no problem with that.
RESOLUTION 23-064 Donald Hauza made a motion to GRANT EXTENTION
OF VARIANCE TO COMPLY WITH ORIGNAL
APPROVAL which was seconded by:
VOTE:
Mr. Newtown ABSENT
Mr. Hauza AYE
Mr, Barone AYE
Mrs. Volo AYE
Mr. Centola AYE
Mr. Short ABSENT
(Corrine Volo read the second application)
241 ROYAL PARKWAY GARAGE ADDITION: Located at 241 Royal Parkway. Applicant
Donald Barr 1s requesting an area variance to allow a 15’ rear setback where 50” is required
associated with the construction of a 337.5 SF garage addition on a 0.33-acre parcel having
SBL# 063. 18-4-10 located in an R-3 Single Family Residential District under Section 350-12 of
the Code of the Town of Webster.
Appearing before the board was Donald Barr at 241 Royal Parkway. Well, the houses and the
garages are small in the area as you know. I keep my cars in the garage, well, I keep two in the
garage, and I have stuff along the walls to get it out of the way but anytime I need something
falls on the car or I have to pull the car out of the garage. I don’t have the room. ] would rather
be neat than a slob. Right now, I’m a slob and I am embarrassed of my garage.
| am just curious because I was there today and looked at the project, did you
consider making the garage wider instead of deeper?
Well, I talked to the contractor and said I was better off going deeper than wider.
My fuck I would go wider and get INAUDIBLE so | would rather no do that.
Yes, because | think....well, you need a variance there anyways. 19.2 feet to the
sideline so you need a variance there as well. What about coming forward with that? Is that an
option?
] can not do it. There is a kitchen window right there. I wish I could.
Pg. 230 August 8, 2023 Zoning Meeting
You would lose driveway as well. The lot is fenced with a 6-foot stockade fence
so there really isn’t a lot of visibility from the rear of the side. Your yard is very private. I don’t
think we have gotten anything...
I talked to all my neighbors, and it is pretty private. They are all good people.
Josh, I don’t think we have gotten comments from neighbors or anything.
No, we have not received any comments.
Visiting the site, its an odd shape lot, it’s a pie shaped lot, on a cul de sac.
The lot is actually only 128 feet deep on that side. That is very shallow and it’s
on a cul de sac, like you said, it’s pie shaped. Do you have any thoughts, Chris?
No when I looked at it the drawing states that it is less than 28 feet to the rear lot
line anyhow, so I think he was already pushing that 50 foot anyhow, so this is minimum if that is
what he needs. I am ok with it. He really doesn’t have any other place to expand. I am assuming
it is Just going to be one story.
Yes, just he garage.
There is no location on the garage side of the house to put an addition that won’t
require a variance. Even brining it forward you would still need it for the side. 1f you went off
to the side of the garage you would need a side setback variance. It’s a very odd, shaped lot and
it’s not event he traditional pie that you get in a cul de sac so given that the entire thing is...the
entire back yard is fenced in, I don’t think the neighbor to the rear would be the only one to see it
wil] see it anymore than the garage is there now,
This meeting is open to the public. Is there anyone wishing to speak for or against
the project? Seeing there are none, we ill bring it back to the board .
RESOLUTION 23-065 Barry Barone made a motion for TYPE II SEQR which
was seconded by: Corrine Volo.
VOTE:
Mr. Newtown ABSENT
Mr. Hauza AYE
Mr. Barone AYE
Mrs. Volo AYE
Mr. Centola AYE
Mr. Short ABSENT
Pg. 231 August 8, 2023 Zoning Meeting
So, what I am hearing is...from the board and I concur. There really is no place
else on the lot to put that garage no matter where you put it you need a variance. There is no
impact on the neighbors because of that stockade fence. We have not heard any negatives from
anyone via the website or in the audience . There is no environmental impact and it’ really the
only location and the addition is only 15 feet deep. Not an undesirable change and the request is
really not significant. As Mr. Centola pointed out, the garage is already too close to the rear line
before this variance so would somebody like to make a motion.
RESOLUTION 23-066 Corrine Volo made a motion to APPROVE THE AREA
VARIANCE Located at 241 Royal Parkway. Applicant
Donald Barr is requesting an area variance to allow a 15’
rear setback where 50” is required associated with the
construction of a 337.5 SF garage addition on a 0.33-acre
parcel having SBL# 063.18-4-10 located in an R-3 Single
Family Residential District under Section 350-12 of the
Code of the Town of Webster which was seconded by:
Barry Barone.
VOTE:
Mr. Newtown ABSENT
Mr. Hauza AYE
Mr. Barone AYE
Mrs. Volo AYE
Mr. Centola 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 August 8, 2024.
So that concludes all the scheduled matters. There is going to be a special
meeting on August 29" , is that correct?
We have one administrative matter
Yes, but we are going to close the public portion to go to the administrative.
Thanks for watching and see you next meeting.
(CAMERAS SHUT DOWN AT THIS POINT AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS
WERE NOT CAPTURED/ RECORDED)
Pg. 232 August 8, 2023 Zoning Meeting
ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM:
The board discussed and approved a meeting to hold an extra meeting in August.
RESOLUTION 23-069
VOTE:
Barry Barone made a motion to APPROVE MEETING
TO BE HELD ON AUGUST 239, 2023
which was seconded by: Corrine Volo
Mr. Newtown
Mr. Hauza
Mr. Barone
Mrs. Volo
Mr. Centola
Mr. Short
(Corrine Volo read the third application)
Located at Charles E. Sexton Park. Applicant
Tom Welsher is requesting a letter of recommendation from the Zoning Board of Appeals
supporting the approval of the itinerant vendor’s license to allow the operation of a food cart at
Charles Sexton Park, a 48-acre parcel having SBL# 079,08.1-15 located in an OP Office Park
under Section 234-5D(1)(b) of the Code of the Town of Webster.
ABSENT
AYE
AYE
AYE
AYE
ABSENT
Appearing before the board was Tom Welsher. He explained he didn’t want to work all
weekend, only on Saturdays. Tom said he spoke with the other vendor at the park who works all
week there and they both were in agreement with what each other’s schedule was there were no
conflicts. A conversation was had about when Parks & Rec have functions that the vendor was
not to be working that day UNLESS Parks & Rec request that they be there. Applicant was fine
with this.
RESOLUTION 23-067
VOTE:
Barry Barone made a motion for UNLISTED
Donald Hauza.
Mr. Newtown
Mr. Hauza
Mr. Barone
Mrs. Volo
Mr. Centola
Mr. Short
ABSENT
AYE
AYE
AYE
AYE
ABSENT
Pg. 233 August 8, 2023 Zoning Meeting
f
RESOLUTION 23-068 Corrine Volo made a motion to APPROVE THE AREA
VARIANCE Located at Charles E. Sexton Park. Applicant
Tom Welsher is requesting a letter of recommendation
from the Zoning Board of Appeals supporting the approval
of the itinerant vendor’s license to allow the operation of a
food cart at Charles Sexton Park, a 48-acre parcel having
SBL# 079.08.1-15 located in an OP Office Park under
Section 234-5D(1}(b) of the Code of the Town of Webster.
which was seconded by: Donald Hauza.
VOTE:
Mr. Newtown ABSENT
Mr. Hauza AYE
Mr. Barone AYE
Mrs. Volo AYE
Mr. Centola AYE
Mr. Short ABSENT
CONDITIONS:
ONLY ON SATURDAYS; APPLICANT MAY
WORK WHEN THERE ARE EVENTS BUT ONLY AT THE REQUEST OF PARKS &
REC
® Minutes were approved for June 13, 2023 and July 18, 2023.
Since there is no further application before the Board Barry Barone adjourned tonight’s meeting
al 7:45 p.m.
SEP 15°23 an9:45
Cornet OARS FILED WEBSTER TWN CLK
Corrine Volo, Secretary ei MA, Mey ;
Katherine Kolich, Recording Secretary aes 3 5 ta
Pg. 234 August 8, 2023 Zoning Meeting