Minutes

WEBSTER ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES

Barry Barone, Vice Chairman Jamie Newtown, Chairman

Corrine Volo, Secretary

Donald Hauza

Michael Short

Chris Centola

John DeMarco, Attorney

Josh Artuso, Director of Community Development

Katherine Kolich, Recording Secretary

We have one tabled matter and nine matters on the agenda tonight. 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

:

665 FOREST LAWN DRIVE-FRONT PORCH ADDITION

SCHEDULED MATTERS

:

1231 STAFFORD CRED-FENCE

Applicant; Jonathan Semmler

243 PEBBLE BEACH TRAIL-ACCESSORY STRUCTURE

Status; APPROVED AS PRESENTED

1136 STONEGATE DRIVE-FENCE AND SHED

Applicant; Eric and Sarah Davis

Pg. 180 July 18, 2023 Zoning Meeting

1293 LAKE ROAD-FENCE AND SHED

1275 CREEKBEND LANE-ADDITION

936 JOYLENE DRIVE-FRONT PORCH

BEFORE RECEIVING A BUILDING PERMIT; NO CLOSER THAN 30 FT

784 RIDGE ROAD-FLAG

LOCATION OF FLAGPOLE; NEEDS ENGINNER DETAILS FOR POLE.

1432 SCHLEGEL ROAD-POLE BARN

1175 RIDGE ROAD-LIMELIGHT AUTOMOTIVE

ISSUES AND RE-APPLY; NEEDS TO ADHERE WITH ORIGINAL VARIANCES; ANY

OTHER CHANGES MADE WILL NEED TO GO BACK IN FRONT OF THE

BOARD.

(Corrine Volo read the first application)

665 FOREST LAWN DRIVE FRONT PORCH ADDITION: Located at 665 Forest Lawn

Drive. Applicant Mark McElroy ts requesting an AREA VARIANCE to allow for the alteration

of a pre-existing nonconforming building (7° side setbacks where 20’ is required / 42’ front

setback where 75° is required) associated with the construction of a 360 SF covered front porch

on a 0.25-acre parcel having SBL# 048.19-1-58 located in an R-1 Single Family Residential

District under Sections 350-10 & 350-94 of the Code of the Town of Webster.

Appearing before the board was Mark McElroy.

Pg. 181 July 18, 2023 Zoning Meeting

from the last meeting so, if you could start right from the beginning, please.

setback because we are creating a new look to out house. It is a 30-foot-wide porch by 12 feet in

depth with a shed style roof. We are located in an old subdivision in Webster called Forest

Lawn and actually right behind the desk there (picture on the wall) we are about 75 yards from

the picture and a very historic neighborhood. It is a reverted cottage neighborhood, so the houses

are very close together. The neighbors on the east and west side are 7 feet and 7 feet and 7

inches. The house at the end of our driveway is approximately 42 feet, ] think that is where the

INAUDIBLE was last time. It was advertised incorrectly.

So, we are looking for the variance and I do have approvals by all three neighbors. The

Kircher’s on the west side, John Davidson on the east. OH, excuse me John Davidson on the

west side; Rob and Barb Kircher on the east side and Carol Adams north at the end of our

driveway. That is pretty much it. If anyone has any questions or concerns, feel free to ask me. |

know we have some new members here, but I do have a PowerPoint that was printed out by Josh,

and it should be in front of you with pictures.

We are moving the entrance of the house from the side to the front where the front porch will be

located. The front entrance will be in place of one of the windows and we are just looking to

make the house a lot better because right now it is just functional. It’s not very pretty from the

outside so the neighbors are all for this because it will increase the value. Unfortunately, on the

other side, it will probably increase are taxes but that’s the way if goes,

i?s almost like you can’t build anything in that neighborhood without a variance because all the

lot sizes are substandard; the setbacks have been changed since those homes were built so every

lime someone wants to do something to their house there is a variance required, Now, we did get

2 or 3 fetlers.

them to me. I wil] read them and then should be part of the record. (PLEASE SEE ATTACHED

LETTERS) It is a pretty straightforward addition, and I don’t sce any negatives to anybody.

This mecting is open to the public. Anyone wishing to speak for or against this project, please

step up to the mic. Ok, seeing no one is interested in speaking | will close the public portion and

return it back to the board. As I] have said, we have seen probably a dozen variance requests for

Forest Lawn Dr. Everyone is trying to enhance their property and frankly, it is a beautiful tittle

community. | think that the proposed edition to Mr. Mc Elroy’s house is going to enhance the

curb appeal; the functionality of the house; you are going to put a porch on so when you walk in

the front door you have a roof over your head and so on and so forth. I don’t see any negatives

Pg. 182 July 18, 2023 Zoning Meeting

Hi GHBOR AGHEEM Al

€

teviewed the Instrument Survey presented by Mark Mcflroy af the prapased NEM Prot +

Mark & his wife, Patly Mct toy is intending to have constructed in the front porlon of the

Farest Lawa Drive, Webster, Hew York as indicated Farther, bdo not oppose tls pease

Herre property

| Rob Kircher io hereby certify that | live at 667 Forest Lawn Drive, Webster, N¥ 14580

Thave no objections and agree to then plans

Rob Kircher

NEIGHBOR AGREEMENT

i Carole Adams do hereby certify thal | live at 664 Forest Lawn Drive, Webster, NY 14580, anc that il

have reviewed the Instrument Survey presented by Patty Mctlroy of the proposed NEW Front Poret

that Patty & her husband, Mark McElroy is intending to have constructed in the front portion of th

at 665 | crest Lawn Drive, Webster, New York as indicated. Further, | do not oppose this renovation ts

enhance ther property.

[have no objections and agree to their plans.

Wan Os, b=. .. Date é Ze

| aaa

Ob ees

—

John Davidson «

Mat pee tat tt

ThE NSA A Ms yy

abS Forest lawe a

ebay an See aay

Pave Mo abypteray

Jot Davidson

a Pee eed ee ee

Soreby corty beat Lye at 661 Forest Lawn Drive, Webster, NY 14538

Instrument Survey prosentod ty Wark Mo fray ab tee prone be

fo Darty Aled trays ntending te have constructed es the frortocet

Ke Webster, Mow YouR asundialed further Edo not oppose Us sted

ents

Jar apese ta their plans

Date

whatsoever. There is no detriment to nearby properties, and I don’t sce any drainage or sile

issues; no detriment to the environment. Does anybody have anything else to add to that?

the current entrance to our house ts on the side and when you are walking down, you can actually

look right through their window. So, we are moving the entrance to our steps further off to the

strect side of the property so it will give them even more privacy. That is the only negative that |

can see that turned into a positive.

RESOLUTION 23-046 Barry Barone made a motion for TYPE IE SEQR which

was seconded by: Donald Hauza

VOTE:

Mr. Hauza AYE

Mr. Barone AYE

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Centola AYE

Mr. Short AYE

RESOLUTION 23.047 Barry Barone made a motion to APPROVE THE USE

VARIANCE Located at 665 Forest Lawn Drive. Applicant

Mark McElroy is requesting an AREA VARIANCE to

allow for the alteration of a pre-existing nonconforming

building (7° side setbacks where 20° is required / 42’ front

setback where 75’ is required) associated with the

construction of a 360 SF covered front porch on a 0.25-acre

parcel having SBL# 048.19. 1-58 located in an R-1 Single

Family Residential District under Sections 350-10 & 350-

94 of the Code of the Town of Webster which was

seconded by: Corrine Volo.

VOTE:

Mr. Hauza AYE

Mr. Barone AYE

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Centola AYE

Mr. Short AYE

CONDITIONS:

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

Building Permit.

e That one-year significant construction shall expire July 18, 2024.

(Corrine Volo read the first application)

1231 STAFFORD CRES FENCE: Located at 1231 Stafford Crescent. Applicant Jonathan

Semmiler is requesting an AREA VARIANCE to allow a 6’ tall privacy fence in the front

setback of a corner lot, which is not permitted, associated with the installation of approximately

Pg. 183 July 18, 2023 Zoning Meeting

125 linear feet of 6’ tall wooden privacy fence on a 0.48-acre parcel having SBL# 065.13-3-77

located in an R-3 Single Family Residential District under Section 350-79 of the Code of the

Town of Webster.

Appearing before the board was Jonathan Semmiler and [ am the homeowner and property of 1231

Stafford Crescent along with my wife Courtney. The project is pretty simple. We are looking to

replace an existing fence around the backyard of the property. The one change that we are looking

to make is on the Klem Roadside which is considered the front because we are on a corner lot,

front facing side or a front facing side we would like to replace with what is currently a 4-foot

chain link fence with a six-foot privacy fence. The main purpose being. ...currently there 1s a lot of

privacy from vegetation from in between Klem Road and our fence during these months but in the

winter, there is little to no privacy and Klem is also a little bit of a noisy road and on top of that, we

are typically allowing our dogs out early in the morning around 5 am. And a lot of joggers;

walkers; bikes on Klem Road and the dogs will tend to bark early in the morning, so we are

looking to limit that as much as possible. So, we would just like to add in that extra layer of

privacy during the winter months and maybe abate some of the noise from Klem Road . The fence

itself sits back about 20 feet I] would say from Klem Road and really it would only be visible

during the winter months.

chain link.

wooded so it’s really not something that is noticeable. It’s a corner Jot as everyone can see and

corner lots have two front yards which is a privacy issue, so I understand. We have seen other, and

I know we have to view each application under its own merit, but we have seen other corner lots

with privacy issues looking for the same type of variance. So, any thoughts?

everyday at least once. | did not know there was a fence there until I visited the property and based

on, you have the little bit of the drainage swell and berm and you are stil far enough far off the

road that even if the tree line weren't there, | dow t think the fence would be noticeable but with the

existing tree line you will never see it and it will not block any view of traffic at all and Kiem ts

getling busier and busier and I completely understand.

character of that wooded lot so it will even be less visible than a chain link fence.

Pg. 184 July 18, 2023 Zoning Mecting

is in front of you, but I do have a signed statement from a neighbor whose lot is directly adjacent to

where the fence would line up Tony Manicone. It was sent separately from the application to the

town, so I am not sure if its’ with the packet that you have.

application . Ok, seeing there is no one we will close the public portion and bring it back to the

board. I have one letter of support here that ] would like to read into the record. (SEE

ATTACHED LETTER)

RESOLUTION 23-048 Barry Barone made a motion for TYPE IT SEQR which

was seconded by: Chris Centola

VOTE:

Mr. Hauza AYE

Mr. Barone AYE

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Centola AYE

Mr. Short AYE

1. This request is not out of character in the neighborhood: It is not and there already is a

fence there. It is just going to replace the existing fence and probably be more attractive.

2. There will not be a detriment created to nearby properties: It will not, and the only neighbor

truly impacted would be the neighbor at 1235 and we do have a letter from the neighbor

signed and that they are not in disagreement with this.

3. The benefil is not achievable by any other method: Unfortunately, the house 1s a corner lot

which gives it two front yards so you need a variance for this location if it were not a corner

lot the variance would not be required.

4. This request is not substantial:

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

6. The difficulty is not self-created: No, as the properly was subdivided, and this became a

corner lol.

7. This is not an undesirable change: No, it will be an improvement.

8. This request is not significant:

RESOLUTION 23-049 Corrine Volo made a motion to APPROVE THE USE

VARIANCE Located at 1231 Stafford Cres. Applicant

Jonathan Semmler is requesting an AREA VARIANCE to

allow a G’ tall privacy fence in the front setback of a corner

lot, which is not permitted, associated with the installation

of approximately 125 linear feet of 6° tall wooden privacy

fence on a 0.48-acre parce! having SBL# 065. 13-3-77

Pg. 185 July {8, 2023 Zoning Meeting

June (1, 2023

Statement regarding support for fence project at 1231 Stafford Crescent. as proposed by Jonathan

Scmunter the homeowner of the proposed project address.

Phe stgnature(s) below indicate(s) thal the signer(s) is/are in support of the proposed project “1231

Stafford Crescent Fence Replacement Upgrade’, The project in question requiring an area variance

appheation approval trom the zoning board of appeals of the Fown of Webster, This project includes

the installation ofa 6° privacy fence along the Klem Rd. side of the project address.

J235 L7AFFORD ¢ RES ENT

\ { (, m VLlew

Signed Addvess

Signed Address

Signed Address

Signed Address

Address

Sizned

located in an R-3 Single Family Residential District under

Section 350-79 of the Code of the Town of Webster.

which was seconded by: Barry Barone.

VOTE:

Mr. Hauza AYE

Mr. Barone AYE

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Centola AYE

Mr. Short AYE

CONDITIONS:

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

Building Permit.

e That one-year significant construction shall expire July 18, 2024.

e Approved per drawing 22158 by Lantech

(Corrine Volo read the second application)

243 PEBBLE BEACH TRAIL ACCESSORY STRUCTURE: Located at 243 Pebble Beach

Trail, Applicant Ted Hosmer is requesting AREA VARIANCES to allow:

a. A second accessory structure, where only (1) is permitted;

b. Placement of accessory structure nearer to the front property line than the rear line

of the main building, which is not permitted;

c. A 7’ side setback where 15’ is required.

associated with the alteration of a pre-existing non-conforming detached accessory structure on a

j.64-acre parcel having SBL# 078.13-1-}2.11 located in an R-3 Single Family Residential

District under Sections 350-36 and 350-94 of the Code of the Town of Webster,

Appearing before the board was Ted Hosmer and I am here before you to replace my garage of

the existing garage. I lived at the property for 20 years. It’s a three-car garage right now and we

are looking alt making some modifications to it but using the same footprint.

property and this is one of them. You have to go down that hill, down the trail, and there are two

homes on the driveway, correct?

was on aroller coaster. 1 went down that hill and she was hanging on for dear life. It was an

interesting location. I must state, the garage is in need of repair. I can see it. It 1s not visible

from any neighboring property. You cannot see it so those are two pluses to your benefit. The

proposed plan is a very attractive building to, Does anybody have any thoughts?

that neighborhood with similar locations and even when it is not down the hill and off the road

Pg. 186 Juiy 18, 2023 Zoning Meeting

as this property is the houses are pushed back to the edge of the lot and the edge of the cliff. Its

not realty a cliff but the edge of the high ground so the only location you can put a garage or

accessory structure is in front of the building. This one is by far the least impactful as far as

being visible by anyone other than someone who lives there.

build so you don’t have a lot of latitude as far as where you can go with that structure. That 1s

the only flat spot on the lot besides where the house sits . There is no flat spot to anything.

putting the new structure in the exact same spot and same footprint as the old?

one car and adding shop space instead and then the old garage from what I can see is about 9-10

feet tall and you are going to about 22 feet tall?

are looking for more storage because it was very cramped to begin with and looking to improve

it.

sort than?

storage.

kennels and what not. As far as renting anything out, | am not interested in that.

commercial use in that space? It said shop but you are not going to manufacture things to sell.

were... my mother was still alive, and we were looking at doing something for them and

unfortunately it didn’t work out that way, so I converted it to what you see now.

it. What is upstairs, is it just completely open including the garage or is just above the shop?

Pg. 187 July 18, 2023 Zoning Meeting

that plan was not in there. For whatever reason I didn’t get it from the engineer,

you taking down the existing garage or are you going to leave that garage and build that next to

it?

has permitted.

application. Seeing that no one is interested in speaking I will turn it back to the board and close

the public portion. Any thoughts Don?

missed the boat house to be honest with you. That means, and it’s not going to make a difference

in the decision but make sure it’s legal. Is that three accessory structures or just two because he

is building the garage on the existing foundation.

Pg. 188 July 18, 2023 Zoning Meeting

6. The difficulty is not self-created:

7. This is not an undesirable change:

8. This request is not significant:

RESOLUTION 23-051 Barry Barone made a motion to APPROVE THE AREA

VARIANCE Located at 243 Pebble Beach Trail. Applicant

Ted Hosmer ts requesting AREA VARIANCES to allow:

i. A second accessory structure, where only (1) is

permitted;

il. Placement of accessory structure nearer to the front

property line than the rear line of the main building,

which is not permitted;

iii. A 7” side setback where [5’ is required.

associated with the alteration of a pre-existing non-

conforming detached accessory structure on a 1.64-acre

parcel having SBL# 078.13-1-12.11 located in an R-3

Single Family Residential District under Sections 350-36

and 350-94 of the Code of the Town of Webster.

which was seconded by: Corrine Volo

VOTE:

Mr. Hauza AYE

Mr. Barone AYE

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Centola AYE

Mr. Short AYE

CONDITIONS:

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

Building Permit.

e That one-year significant construction shall expire July 18, 2024.

(Corrine Volo read the third application)

1136 STONEGATE DRIVE FENCE AND SHED: Located at 1136 Stonegate Drive.

Applicants Eric and Sarah Davis are requesting AREA VARIANCES to allow a 6’ tall privacy

fence and legalize an existing utility shed in the front setback of a corner lot which is not

permitted, associated with the installation of approximately 76 linear feet of 6’ tall white vinyl

privacy fence on a 0.51-acre parcel having SBL# 095.05-2-73 located in an R-3 Single Family

Residential District under Sections 350-47 and 350-79 of the Code of the Town of Webster.

Appearing before the board was Eric and Sarah Davis. We purchased 1136 Stonegate Drive in

May, so we are new lo Webster. We have a growing family, and we are having our first child in

September, and we plan on being here for a very long time. We have a house on the corner lot at

Camden Heights and Stonegate and we are looking to build a privacy fence along the front yard

of the Camden Heights Lane side as part of our full fence project of our backyard.

Pg. 190 July 18, 2023 Zoning Meeting

The reason we would like this is for two reasons, first and foremost the safety of our future child

and additional children moving forward so that they can play in the backyard with supervision

from the inside additionally, we are looking for privacy especially during rush hour. A lot of

people try to cut through from State Road to Jackson or in the reverse so it can get somewhat

backed up and so we are looking for privacy when we are in our yard as well as the safety of our

children when they are out there. Regarding the shed, the shed was there when we purchased the

house, and it was heavily advertised, and it is well maintained, and we plan on maintaining it and

itis well off the road.

looking for some privacy on a corner tot. Unfortunately, the shed...we see a lot of these, when

people buy a house there are violations of code that didn’t get caught otherwise the person that

sold you the house you could have motivated them to move the shed. We see that quite often

actually. What type of fence are you looking at?

setbacks, if I am reading correctly, at the house you are at 57 feet so at that location it is really

not an issue it is the odd shape lot that would end up pushing the fence or creating this S shape if

you will, back to try and keep in Jine with he shed itself. You kind of touched on why not a 4

foot and why not a chain link if it’s safety of kids, dogs, etc., | grew up with a 4-foot chain link

fence . That keeps other dogs out and it keeps kids in and if you have a dog or pets, it keeps

them in but to your point, I have been down in that area, and it is quite a cut through, so 1

definitely understand it. ] know you are referencing Jackson, a neighbor of 1140 Jackson Road

that has something similar and I forget how many feet you are looking for is it 70-80 feet if I

remember?

one thing that I noticed when | drove through the neighborhood there is not a whole lot of fences

through there. It definitely could potentially change the aesthetics of the area, but I also

understand the need for it. I question, docs it need to be 6 foot, and does it need to be a solid

fence is what I am questioning. | don’t know the answer to that.

fence that short and also, we moved from the city after he was attacked by another dog that broke

into our yard and so we really feel that we need that fence for his safety and ours,

the shed instead of angling it. It is not a huge difference, but I think it might increase the setback

slightly.

Pg. 191 July 18, 2023 Zoning Meeting

and so on and so forth but we just looking to maximize and get the best look from the street.

chain link and dog can jump it. My dog is pretty close to doing that himself.

application. Seeing that no one is interested in speaking I will turn it back to the board and close

the public portion.

RESOLUTION 23-052 Barry Barone made a motion for TYPE II SEQR

which was seconded by: Michael! Short.

VOTE:

Mr. Hauza AYE

Mr. Barone AYE

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Centola AYE

Mr. Short AYE

don’t hear any opposition to your proposal we are just kind of trying to tweak it or fine tune it.

what he is asking for he is not asking for his whole yard so I think, | don’t ...if we were to keep

it parafle] to the house and then when that angle hits the garage somewhere it says 36 feet, he

would angle back to that front wall of the shed, J think. From my point of view, it would be

more than enough to make it look good and not...while sull giving him the ability to have

privacy in addition to the dog and keeping them in, To make that investment and they want a 6

foot for privacy, especially on a corner lot it’s important. I think they have done a good job to try

and compromise and like I said, | would come straight off that garage line and then straight off

the shed line off of Camden Heights and then where they intersect have that angle is what |

would say.

put the fence onto the front and get a permit to get the fence around the property, is that correct?

They said to come here first.

Everyone talking over one another.

Pg. 193 July 18, 2023 Zoning Meeting

Enric and Sarah Davis:

vinyl and wood structure. Is there a concrete floor in there or a dirt floor?

with respect to the shed is the house immediately behind it with the tree line, they can’t see that

shed and traffic really does cut through there. | make the unfortunate decision to visit at rush

hour and was almost run over by a minivan.

we micromanage the applicant and tell him exactly where we want that fence. I personally

would like him to stay away from the road as long as possible and then angle it over to the shed.

That’s my opinion.

run it to the far side of the shed and great if it doesn’t like I said, come straight off that garage

line and then straight off the shed line off of Camden Heights and then where they intersect have

that angle it somewhere % of the way.

agenda so from an aesthetic standpoint from keeping it as far back from the road space as

possible, what IT would propose is that instead of being on the front face or the, what road is

that....the Camden face of the shed, we have it pushed back and I am going to call it 18 inches,

from the face so the shed still looks like a shed from Camden Heights; it runs parallel with that

wall of the shed and then i runs straight back and where ever those (wo converge is where it

ends up . It’s how it ends up playing out, is what | would recommend.

comes off the southeast of the corner of the garage, in line with that south side of the garage back

to within 20 feet of the shed and then you can bring it out to that shed at whatever angle you

want and not go get any closer to the road then the corner of the shed. You follow that. Go back

to within 20 fect of the shed. Could you somehow capture that in the minutes? We have not

heard any negatives from the neighbors; no objections and there is no environmental impacts,

and il is not going to affect sight distance; it doesn’t affect drainage so there is no negatives to

the neighbors or neighborhood, It gives you the privacy you need because you always have to

Pg. 194 July 18, 2023 Zoning Meeting

;

weigh the benefit of the applicant as opposed to the negatives of the neighborhood, so the benefit

is Significant, ok. So, does anyone have anything to add to the standard.

RESOLUTION 23-053 Barry Barone made a motion to APPROVE THE AREA

VARIANCE Located at 1136 Stonegate Drive. Applicants

Eric and Sarah Davis are requesting AREA VARIANCES

to allow a @ tall privacy fence and legalize an existing

utility shed in the front setback of a corner lot which is not

permitted, associated with the installation of approximately

76 linear feet of 6’ tall white vinyl privacy fence on a 0.51-

acre parcel having SBL# 095.05-2-73 located in an R-3

Single Family Residential District under Sections 350-47

and 350-79 of the Code of the Town of Webster which was

seconded by: Corrine Volo.

VOTE:

Mr. Hauza AYE

Mr. Barone AYE

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Centola AYE

Mr. Short AYE

CONDITIONS:

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

Building Permit.

e That one-year significant construction shall expire July 18, 2024.

* Needs to legalize shed; 6-foot white vinyl fence to be used.

(Corrine Volo read the fourth application)

1293 LAKE ROAD FENCE AND SHED: Located at 1293 Lake Road. Applicants Bryan and

Susan Patane are requesting an AREA VARIANCES to allow a 6’ tall privacy fence, and

legalization of a pre-existing shed in the front setback of a corner lot, which is not permitted,

associated with the installation of approximately 125 linear feet of 6’ wooden privacy fence on a

0.64-acre parcel having SBL# 050.01-1-45 located in an R-1 Single Family Residential District

under Sections 350-47 and 350-79 of the Code of the Town of Webster.

Appearing before the board was Bryan and Susan Patane. We recently purchased 1293 Lake

Road about 5 weeks ago. It’s considered a corner Jot again because of Gallant Fox . There ts a

little town easement hedgerow to the east side of the property between our property and Gallant

Fox and there is a wooded hedgerow behind our property and because it’s a corner lot we are

looking for a variance for a 6-foot privacy fence on the side lot . 6-foot privacy fence to contain

dogs and small children and also, we are looking for acccptance of an existing shed that was on

the property NOT PERMITTED but it has been on the property for years and years. Depending

on when you drove by you may or may not have been able to sce it. It was encapsulated in a

bunch of trees that we had cleaned out recently.

Pg. 195 July 18, 2023 Zoning Meeting

there 20 years Don. That shed is more than 20 years old. I can tell just by the condition of the

roof. That shed is 25-30 years old so that was there before that road was even installed. That

road made you a corner lot. As the applicant said, it’s heavily wooded along that right away.

Gallant Fox and J don’t believe. Do we have a rough measurement?

the road.

the edge of the shed and 3 foot 7 from the property line to the fence fine and if I was guessing, if

everything is to scale which that is always dangerous, it looks like the street line from property

line is another six feet, plus or minus.

if I] brought it down to the property line.

want to keep them there. We just trimmed back some of the branches.

the hedgerow or the outside of il?

from the gutter to the property line. From the gutter to the property line there is 30 feet. There is

30 feet Gallant Fox casement.

17.5 feet from the gutter to the hedge of the right of way but that must have been the width of the

property that they purchased

Pg. 196 July 18, 2023 Zoning Meeting

line and there is quite a buffer between the property and the road.

gutter so we have another 13 feet more so that affectively from a visual perspective makes your

shed appear further from the road then it would be typically.

mistaken.

side for some reason for whatever reason. This meeting is open to the public. Anyone wishing to

speak for or against this application. Ok, seeing no one is interested in speaking, we will return

it back to the board and close the public portion. John keeps me in line here....we have letters of

support, (PLEASE SEE THAT ATTACHED)

RESOLUTION 23-054 Barry Barone made a motion for TYPE IT SEQR

which was seconded by: Chris Centola

VOTE:

Mr. Hauza AYE

Mr, Barone AYE

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Centola AYE

Mr. Short AYE

from the audience. People are Jooking for privacy and on a corner fot again. One of the points I

made, and J think it is an important point, that house and shed were there before the road was

installed so they kind of got trapped into this situation. So, what they are asking for is perfectly

reasonable, The nearest neighbor said that it 1s not going to affect them environmentally or

aesthetically in anyway, no sight issues. They are going to leave trees in place between the shed

and the road so it will be minimally visible from the road. So, does anyone have anything to add?

RESOLUTION 23-055 Barry Barone made a motion to APPROVE THE

AREA VARIANCE Located at 1293 Lake Road.

Applicants Bryan and Susan Patane are requesting

an AREA VARIANCES to allow a 6’ tall privacy

fence, and legalization of a pre-existing shed in the

front setback of a corner lot, which is not permitted,

associated with the installation of approximately

125 linear feet of 6’ wooden privacy fence on a

0.64-acre parcel having SBL# 050.01-1-45 located

inan R-1 Single Family Residential District under

Sections 350-47 and 350-79 of the Code of the

Pg. 197 July 18, 2023 Zoning Meeting

Letter of Support of Request for Variance

211 Gallant Fox Lane, Webster, NY 14580

585-750-1317

This letter is to support the request for variance filed by our neighbors at 1293 Lake

Road Webster, NY 14580. Our neighbors, Bryan and Susan Patane, are requesting approval for a

privacy fence height variance in the front and side yard from 4 feet high to 6 feet high.

This property adjoins our side yard and the proposed fence will not obstruct our view or change

the neighborhood aesthetics.

We have discussed the proposed plans with the Patanes and do not have concerns about the

impact of the project. We ask that you approve their variance request.

Thank you for your consideration,

Eric Wiedemer

; “a |

CAVE (0/22/23

Alexis Wiedemer

y P Os aa . —>

Letter of Support of Request for Variance

1289 Lake Rd, Webster, NY 14580

This letter is to support the request for variance filed by our neighbors at 1293 Lake

Road Webster, NY 14580. Our neighbors, Bryan and Susan Patane, are requesting approval for a

privacy fence height variance in the front and side yard from 4 feet high to 6 feet high.

This property adjoins our side yard and the proposed fence will not obstruct our view or change

the neighborhood aesthetics.

We have discussed the proposed plans with the Patanes and do not have concerns about the

impact of the project. We ask that you approve their variance request.

Thank you for your consideration,

Zulta Rizvanovic

ra

Dzevad Rizvanovic

Town of Webster which was seconded by: Corrine

Volo.

VOTE:

Mr. Hauza AYE

Mr. Barone AYE

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Centola AYE

Mr. Short AYE

CONDITIONS:

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

Building Permit.

e That one-year significant construction shall expire July 18, 2024.

(Corrine Volo read the fifth application)

1275 CREEKBEND LANE ADDITION: Located at 1275 Creekbend Lane. Applicants Gary

and Robin Partridge are requesting an AREA VARIANCE to allow a 35’ rear setback where 50’

is required associated with construction of a 296 SF addition to a single-family home on a 0.41-

acre parcel having SBL# 065.14-1-16 located in an R-3 Single Family Residentia! District under

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

Appearing before the board was Gary and Robin Partridge. We are here requesting a variance to

allow a 35-foot setback off the rear of our home where 50 feet is required. What we are trying to

do is add a handicapped bathroom and first floor laundry in the event that we are no longer able

to gel up to the second floor of our home or the basement, we could continue living there. 296

square feet and we have talked to our neighbors on the east side and the west side even though

the setback does not affect them, they support the project. We also talked to the neighbor to the

rear where the setback, where it would affect the setback and he is supportive also. If you look

at the rear of our property, is wooded so you really can’t see very much from where our yard

stops lo where the woods start. So, I have the document here that shows the approval of our

neighbors on the east, west, and south sides,

residents behind it so... this is going to be a master bedroom you said also? Or just a laundry...

is so heavily wooded in the back you can’{ really see so therefore, the neighbor won’t even be

Pg. 198 July 18, 2023 Zoning Meeting

able to see your addition. It works both ways. I will make note that it’s a cul de sac lot and the

depth of that fot on the west property line is 147 feet, very shallow and the house is far forward

as itcan go. It is only 51 feet off the road and the house is and it’s just an average home in that

neighborhood, so you really have no where else to go with that addition, so it makes sense to put

it where you show it and the depth of the lot. The need for a variance is a function of the depth

of the lot the way I see it, alright.

side.

you don’t want to put that off on the family room, it doesn’t belong there. The traffic flow is

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

application please step up. Seeing that no one is interested in speaking we will close the public

portion and turn it back to the board. I really don’t see any negatives if they want to modify their

house so they can live their for the rest of their lives basically. I don’t see any detriment to the

environment, no impact on the neighbors.

visited the property between their back yard being heavily wooded and the property at 665

Webster Road being heavily wooded, no one is going to see this except the residents of the

home.

RESOLUTION 23-056 Barry Barone made a motion for TYPE II SEQR

which was seconded by: Donald Hauza.

VOTE:

Mr. Hauza AYE

Mr. Barone AYE

Mrs, Volo AYE

Mr. Centola AYE

Mr. Short AYE

RESOLUTION 23-057 Chris Centola made a motion to APPROVE THE

AREA VARIANCE Located at 1275 Creckbend

Lane. Applicants Gary and Robin Partridge are

requesting an AREA VARIANCE to allow a 35’

rear setback where 50’ is required associated with

construction of a 296 SF addition to a single-family

home on a 0.41-acre parcel having SBL# 065. 14-1] -

16 Jocated in an R-3 Single Family Residential

District under Section 350-12 of the Code of the

Pg. 199 July 18, 2023 Zoning Meeting

Town of Webster which was seconded by: Barry

Barone.

VOTE:

Mr. Hauza AYE

Mr. Barone AYE

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Centola AYE

Mr. Short AYE

CONDITIONS:

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

Building Permit.

e That one-year significant construction shall expire July 18, 2024.

(Corrine Volo read the sixth application)

936 JOYLENE DRIVE FRONT PORCH: Located at 936 Joylene Drive. Applicant Sean. C.

Riga is requesting an AREA VARIANCE to allow a 30’ front setback where 35’ is required

associated with the construction of a roof over an existing 5’ x 6” front porch on a 0.28-acre

parcel having SBL# 064.14-2-41 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 Sean Riga and the project is to put a roof over the front porch

that is currently open. It’s been existing since | have lived there, and it is on the original map

that I have, and it will not extend past the currently installed sidewalk that has been added at

some point prior lo my ownership but that does exceed the front offset of 35 feet and brings it to

30 feet from the front also or from the front property line.

the homes are pretty much placed in the front setback line with no room for expansion to the

front and you have no porch whatsoever. It just a slab there right now. So, when people are

wailing at your front door, if it’s raining out, they are getting wel.

siding the house, so you want t get this going before you get to the siding there. A side from a

corner lot fence and shed setbacks, front porches are second. The second most popular variance

requested.

requirement in the neighborhood, and it wasn’t until ] went to submit the building permit

application that we identified that originally the idea was just because we are 1:13:38 just adding,

I think it’s 5 feet 4 inches to the front of the house and for those purposes it would have been fine

Pg. 200 July 18, 2023 Zoning Meeting

[

for a building permit for the tape location map which is what I was able to obtain at the town

hall.

closer to road than 30 fect and it would probably be wise to have a surveyor come out and check

that. What are you thinking?

questions about making sure everything is in line.

take action.

can’t disagree with you Don.

going to cause in terms of problems in the context of the application?

line up like a straight line. The worst that could happen is that he might be instead of 30, 29 and

half feet or he might be off a little bit INAUDIBLE and come back to the board at some point

and time. It's, Pll use your words, deminimis.

and half, well than it violates the variance.

give them one foot to spare. I mean, but you are saying what’s the downside Wf he is a couple

Pg. 201 July 18, 2023 Zoning Meeting

inches closer to the road. Well, what happened is when you go to sell that house there may be an

objection if it didn’t match the variance that we are proposing or that you are proposing. So,

what do you recommend? We could hold him to a setback and put that on him to get the survey

and make sure it is properly done.

contingent upon him submitting an instrument survey and if the survey is within that

INAUDIBLE itt is self-approving if you will and if it’s not, he is going to come

back... INAUDIBLE

Both parties speaking over

make it four. Do you understand what Mr. DeMarco is suggesting?

weck or two, but it is better than waiting an entire month, if we table this. So, it could save you a

couple of wecks. Because the surveyors are busy like everyone else.

customary way.

to get a surveyor quick if you plead your case to them. Lets proceed with that and lets move

forward with the variance conditioned on and you won’t get your building permit until you come

in with a survey so that the building inspector is satisfied that you are 30 feet from the road and

no closer. Does that make sense?

io the road than that.

Pg, 202 July 18, 2023 Zoning Meeting

next meeting.

Both parties speaking at the same time.

your porch can not be any closer to the road then 30 feet and then in order to get the building

permit you will nced to come in with a survey just to confirm the dimension.

exactly...... myself, I am pretty darn confident that house is at 36 feet right now

survey right away but at least a measurement from the front of the road to the front of the house

to confirm that dimension. You may be able to go back to who did the original survey and they

may be able to do points.

Board having discussion

being done on that house, correct.

upon him submitting the instrument survey within X but then he would be allowed to go forward

and if the instrument survey dictates that there has to be an adjustment, then there has to come

back to the board to get 1 adjusted or adjust his porch.

differently and not that ] am telling you to build it closer but...

from the face of the current existing structure...

Pg. 203 July 18, 2023 Zoning Meeting

are still even less than 30 feet or sorry, we are greater than 30 feet from the curb.

has to deal with it.

application. Seeing no one we will close the public portion of the meeting. I think we have good

direction now . It is up to you to make sure you are 30 feet off that front, and you have to get a

professional surveyor to do that. So anyways, any other thoughts? [ know where you are coming

from but this one...I] am trying to help the fellow out INAUDIBLE at the same time.

instrument survey.

get a survey prior to starting the construction. So, I think that is reasonable. I went by the house,

and it has not siding he can’t leave that like that for weeks.

RESOLUTION 23-058 Barry Barone made a motion for TYPE H SEQR which

was seconded by: Donald Hauza.

VOTE:

Mr. Hauza AYE

Mr. Barone AYE

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Centola AYE

Mr. Short AYE

practical value when you are standing there out of the weather, there are all kinds of positives to

it. Il is going to take a pretty straight colonial a much more interesting house from curb appeal

and so on. We did not hear any objections to the project and actually a great project.

RESOLUTION 23-059 Barry Barone made a motion to APPROVE THE

AREA VARIANCE Located at 936 Joylene Drive.

Applicant Sean, C. Riga is requesting an AREA

VARIANCE to allow a 30’ front setback where 35’

is required associated with the construction of a roof

over an existing 5’ x 6’ front porch on a 0.28-acre

parcel having SBL# 064.14-2-41 located in an R-3

Pg. 204 July 18, 2023 Zoning Meeting

Single Family Residential District under Section

350-12 of the Code of the Town of Webster which

was seconded by: Michael Short.

VOTE:

Mr. Hauza AYE

Mr. Barone AYE

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Centola AYE

Mr. Short AYE

CONDITIONS:

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

Building Permit.

e That one-year significant construction shall expire July 18, 2024.

(Corrine Volo read the seventh application)

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.

Appearing before the board was Dylan Miller and ] am the General Manager at Meyers over

there on Ridge Road and we have erected a 100-foot flagpole there on site . Ido come a 100%

with my hat in my hand and apologize for not consulting with the town and doing our due

diligence on that beforehand but | am asking permission from you folks to keep our flagpole

which we are very fond of. That is our project.

never heard anything back, I consulted some folks and J tried to read through the code and tried

to get opinions on what the code stated, and | missed it frankly. | thought we were ok if we were

off the property line by 100 feet in every direction and that ts sort of the standard that I used.

permit, the code, everything and at the same time I feel unpatriotic.

created . It’s not like someone bought a house and there was a shed and they are trying to make

it right where they want a fence or a porch overhead. This ts self-created.

you just neglected the process.

Pg. 205 July 18, 2023 Zoning Meeting

due diligence on this thing and just did not get good information and went ahead with it, but I

will say, anybody that has driven by this thing, this thing is beautiful, it really, really is. It is a

great flag for what it is worth, and | understand, and I know that is not what is in question here,

but we have dozens and dozens of daily phone calls from residences thanking us for putting this

flag up. We have social media posts that are coming in constantly on the daily basis and

thanking us for putting this flagpole up and [ really do believe it adds to the character of that

stretch of road and it really enhances the feel of that area.

Francesca Way (SEE ATTACHED LETTER) Now J will mention that when I spoke to Mr.

Croyle, I asked him if he had experienced any of what he described and he was unaware that the

flagpole has actually been installed so I think his statement was based more on fear than facts. |

told him to take a Jook at it and get back to me if he is in fact experiencing those things.

9:30-10:00 one evening at his house and the light is straight up it is not...1( doesn’t wash up to

the neighborhood, The gentleman made it sound as if the light was coming into his bedroom

window and keeping him up at night and that is not the case. | didn’t see the flag waving in the

breeze because it was raining oul then. It is visible from his house but between the trees...

Corrine, how far did you say it was?

Francesca Lane.

Michae} Short: 1 unfortunately did not get a chance to drive by it. It would have been really easy

for me to do I just...time did not permit. I suuggle because it went up without the due diligence

and the other piece | struggle with, a 100-foot appendage in the Town of Webster and setling a

precedent for others to start doing the same and right now the zoning has tt set to the maximum

height of what the allowable main structure is on the property so for me I struggle with a lot of

things. It’s not just one, is stacking up on each other and Chris as you mentioned, this was an

item that was caused by Meyers.

Pg, 206 July 18, 2023 Zoning Meeting

Karen Buck <kbuck@ci.webster.ny.us>

Thu 7/13/2023 6:11 PM

ToJosh Artuso <jartuso@ci.webster.ny.us>;Katherine Kolich <kkolich@ci.webster.ny,us>

Outlook for iOS

Board Meeting Comment Form

Residents,

Please use the form below to submit any comments or

questions you have regarding a Board Meeting Agenda

Item or a Property Under Review.

For Board Meeting comments, please submit them no later

than 5 p.m. on the day prior to the meeting.

Your comments will then be shared with the appropriate

Board Members and included as part of meeting records.

Thank you!

t

Fj

SRE 9 S65

Agenda Item or Topic you i

are commenting on: +

Please type your comments

in the box below:

Variance to allow a 100 foot flagpole located at 784 Ridge

Road. Unfortunately ! cannot attend the meeting scheduled for

July 18 @ 7pm because of my handicap situation. | am elderly

and live alone, almost directly behind the rv business at 807

Francesca Way, a residential street zoned residential.

There is a small wooded lot approx.50 yards that separates us

from Mayers. There is also a water right of way

managed by the town of Webster with a drop back requirement

This water right of way runs down the entire back yards of

residents living on Francesca and empties into a beautiful

retention pond that supports many forms of wildlife including

deer,fox,waterfowl and many more forms of wildlife.

| cannot imagine the need for a 100 ft flag pole with an

attached very large flag flapping in the wind and the associate

noise it would make, not to mention to be lit at night with the

light pollution shining in our bedroom windows. Meyers maybe

zoned commercial but we are not. We pay our taxes and keep

our properties up.

if this variance is granted it would be a nightmare not to

mention a huge eyesore to Webster. Meyers is only one

business and they certainly don't need this flagpole in my

opinion. They apparently don't care about their

immediate neighbors. Pease deny the variance request and

keep Webster where life is worth LIVING!

furthermore | request that these comments by me be entered

into the minutes and read aloud by a board member. Thank you

for your consideration.

David Croyle

Once you have typed your comments, please

click on the SUBMIT button below to

complete the submission process.

Thank you for taking the time to submit

your comments!

Email not displaying correctly? View itin your browser.

neighboring buildings and if tt were to fall ina certain direction and would it impact traffic. It is

more of a safely concern from our prospective and | will say that the site itself is set down from

Ridge Road quite a bil, so it doesn’t have the full impact of...

this in order to verify it’s proximity to the lot lines and | know that there are also power lines that

run north and south just to the east and from the towns perspective we just want to insure that if

it were to fall that it is far enough away from all of that and it would not pose a safety threat.

pulls that pole, it could pull it into he road.

of thing, the fall pattern, and the damage if it came down.

acell tower you need a 150-foot fall zone with that in mind, 1s there a way for us to make him

come back with a survey to make him prove that it is where it is supposed to be.

up and down Ridge Road having a 100-foot flagpole. I have a concern with that because he did it

why can’t we do it. What kind of attitude would hurt us in the long run.

bright light straight up to the sky which is diminishing your night sky so there is light pollution

there as well. Again, I have a lot of check boxes that 1 am checking unfortunately.

this application, please step up.

Pg. 207 July 18, 2023 Zoning Mecting

currently a retired US Marine and I have got to tell you, going down Ridge Road and seeing that

flag is amazing tome. It shows that Webster still has patriotism that we need in this country.

This country is.... We don’t have it. We need to display it; we need to display our flags and we

need to let people know we still are patriots in America and to take that flag down [ think it

would be devastating to this conununity. Thank you!

Resident/Robin — lam anew resident of Webster and I have been here for about 5 years, but I

love living here because Webster is where life is worth living and that is part of having a 100-

foot flagpole. If any of you remember, about a year or so ago, we had a thing going trying to get

a flagpole going at the Webster, where the bushes are over the bay. Well, NY State is NY State,

and we could not do that, and Lam so glad that you put that 100-foot flagpole here. We have a

lot of veterans here. We have blue star families, and we have gold star families; we have people

doing acts of kindness everyday and we have people being good neighbors everyday and that

doesn't happen everywhere that happens here in Webster. He was nice enough to put a 100-foot

flagpole in a spot where people drive going to Sodus Point, Oswego and everywhere else. Going

through our towa, spending money in our town, | think we should be thanking him instead of

giving him trouble. He is in a spot where there are not a lot of other things but other businesses.

He is almost next door to the VFW. I think we need to give him a variance for that flagpole and

keep that flag ata 100 feet. Thank you!

board. Iam hearing a lot of concerns from the members of the board, probably could have

prevented all this by getling a permit and direction. Maybe a 50-foot flagpole would have passed

for a variance but what ] am hearing from a few members of the board is that they are not in

favor of it.

of a 100 fect 1s taller because typically when I am standing next to a cell tower/radio tower it is

from the ground level and this is (wenty feet off of the road level. That being said, the

dimensions of the flag are the same as the footprint of my house, its huge. It is lovely but there

are flagpoles up and down Ridge Road that also show patriotism without being that large and |

know Meyers at several other locations have farge flagpoles and I don’t know if all locations, but

] did check the google views just the ones the seem to be located within cities proper are Iess

likely to have a flag pole and | know the location out in Caledonia does but it is in the middle of

corn fields and your property is significantly bigger than 5 acres and there is no body around that

is Impacted by it except a cow or two and the same with the other locations. It’s a dangerous

precedent for us to allow it to be there, especially without a permit because you did have a

company install it. They should have known better even if you didn’t, and I don’t think the

reflection of your commitment to the country and it’s values would be any less on a 50-foot

flagpole. So, I’m just.... | love the look of it, but 1 also know when | looked up at it, I was not

looking at the road and that is a wicked stretch of Ridge Road to try and pass through at any time

of day. So, Pm..... don’t know right where it is because we don’t have the survey,

Pg. 208 July 18, 2023 Zoning Meeting

something a little smaller than what is presently located. [ would like to know the exact location.

establish. It is very concerning to me and always has been.

statement?

size of flag that Meyers wants, you need a certain size flagpole to carry a certain size flag is

really what it comes down to.

a sail so it has to have the structural ability and honestly, IANUDIBLE everyone’s opinion but to

me it is not the height because if he was asking for it ] wouldn’t necessarily be against it if no

one else around him was against it and he could prove that he said tt was good where he said it

was going to be and we could see the affects. To me, especially the way the project is now

selling a precedent he skipped a process where we could have debated or discussed, could you

make do or be happy with a small flag with a 60-80-foot pole or something Jike that.

Unwillingly circumventing the process, we have been denied the ability to compromise

potentially on what he wants vs what we think is best for the town, That is what Iam conflicted

about. Overall, 1 get il, but the fact is this whole thing 1s self-created makes it difficult for me to

say, yeah go ahead, no big deal.

have any engineering drawings on that pole. That pole could be fatally dangerous. That is a

structure a major structure. It is as tall as a 10-story building. So, we are lacking permitting;

lacking the opportunity for a discussion. If you came to this board maybe we would have agreed

to a 50-foot pole or 60, I don’t know [am just throwing out numbers but there is no engineering

on it and we get 60 mph winds here every month so it could conceivably be a hazard and we are

nol even aware of it because il didn’t go through the proper stages with an enginecr’s stamp and

engineers drawing and in structural details and so on. How to proceed here is probably deny the

variance and then have the applicant come back with alternatives if he wants a flagpole with

more detail. What do you think?

us with the necessary information so we can massage his application.

Pg. 209 July 18, 2023 Zoning Meeting

to be, take it down and put a new one up. You don’t cut the top of a flagpole off unfortunately to

shorten it so...

alternalives lo using the mass majority of the structure that is already there and maybe they are

able to, not necessarily cut it off but maybe it is in sections and you just remove the top section, I

don’t know. I didn’t look at it that close but this way we are not denying him the opportunity to

request it. This way, he can come back if he believes it is in his best interest to come back and

present it to us and we can evaluate it with all the information not just by the way it is built.

escaping me... Pond Mills Enterprising.

meeting but I would like that you bring everything together by next meeting because personally,

that flagpole maybe a hazard and we are not aware of il, tight in the heart of Webster. If that

were 10 fall across Ridge Road it will kill people but that is serios business we are talking about

so, would you like to table and investigate your options?

it may be a hazard.

from any hazard except the flag, when it tips over, now I have 30-40 feet of flag beyond it, and |

live with a first responder, so 1 know what a hot mess that is going to create. So, Pm just......

there are any adjacent buildings or structures, whatever would be a hazard so.

so you can collect all this data, engineering, surveying, and work and so on so we can be a little

more informed before we can make a decision.

Pg. 210 July 18, 2023 Zoning Mecting

RESOLUTION 23-060 Barry Barone made a motion to TABLED

APPLICATION TO AUGUST 8, 2023 which was

seconded by: Donald Hauza.

VOTE:

Mr. Hauza AYE

Mr. Barone AYE

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Centola AYE

Mr. Short AYE

(Corrine Volo read the eighth application)

1432 SCHLEGEL ROAD POLE BARN: Located at 1432 Schlegel Road. Applicant Sue

Trottier is requesting an AREA VARIANCE to allow the size of an accessory structure to

exceed 2% of the fot size, which 1s not permitted, associated with the construction of a 1,680 SF

accessory structure on a 1.295-acre parcel having SBL# 065.02-1-3.4 located in an R-3 Single

Family Residential District under Section 350-36 A(4) of the Code of the Town of Webster.

Appearing before the board was Brian White and I work for McMahon LaRue Associates and J

am here tonight with Joe Trottier the property owner and Sue is not here tonight. We are

proposing a 30 x 56 pole barn on the parcel. As you said, it is kind of exceeding the square

foolage requirements per lown zoning code. What initiated this project is the Trottier’s interest

in storing their motorhome in a pole barn. Currently they store in it the driveway and for safety

concerns, when they are on vacation, they would like to have it in the barn. The remaining space

in ihe barn is allocated for storage of additional items that are currently stored on the neighboring

property who happens to be Sue’s mother at 500 Phillips Road. Which is the adjoining parcel to

the northeast, ] am sorry, northwest.

Currently, we work to justify the space that will be allocated in the pole barn, and J actually had

a plotting included in the application packet. The motorhome is a Class A motorhome, and it is

10 X 36, and it has (wo slide outs on each side and in addition to that they have currently

occupied space approximately 35 X 20 space in Sue’s mothers place at 500 Phillips Road. They

would like to reallocate and relocate those storage materials into his pole barn as part of the

project . The materials are currently stored in an existing barn Jocated at 500 Phillips Road. At

some point in the future, that property will be sold, and they will need to relocate the items.

going right through the proposed pole barn, but Josh told me that someone from Webster DPW

went out and Jooked at that and that drainage casement isn’t necessary, and it was never filed

sO...

Pg. 211 July 18, 2023 Zoning Meeting

record of the easement ever being filed.

it’s not a drainage issue.

and we reviewed titled documents, and we are unable to recover the actual documentation which

in some cases are fairly common for some of the older subdivision maps so our reference on the

map was from the original subdivision map and we are working with the town to remove that

note. In addition to this project Sue and Joe have talked to neighbors and we have 7 letters for

the project and that was submitted on Friday, and I do have hard copies tonight if you would like

to see those. I created a visual plotting or graphed plotting showing where those properties are in

reference to where the pole barn would be located.

that on the arial picture here that 1395, 1399, 1403, 1440, 1448 and 500 Phillips Road are all in

support and that they completed surround the parcel in subject.

LETTERS OF SUPPORT)

exceed 2 % of the parcel size towards the square footage. 1 worked with the equation and this,

what we proposed equals 3 % of the parcel size so it 1s a factor of 1% .

pole barn square footage that we proposed works to 3 %.

Pg, 212 July 18, 2023 Zoning Meeting

Town of Webster

Zoning Board

1000 Ridge Road

Webster, NY 14580

Sue and Joe Trottier

Dear Members of the Board,

L. Scerlt cS ern.

, am the owner of property located at

(403 Schlegel RD

and have spoken with the applicants, Sue

and Joe Trottier, regarding their interest in constructing a 30’ X 56’ pole barn on their

property.

After discussing the project with them and reviewing the site plan depicting its

proposed location, I find no objection and support their efforts to obtain approval for

construction.

Sincerely, (UL plexe tt

Town of Webster

Zoning Board

1000 Ridge Road

Webster, NY 14580

Sue and Joe Trottier

Dear Members of the Board,

L EX UA ASC nan Jex CY) t ) _, am the owner of property located at

U U O SCH Lz G&S GL RD and have spoken with the applicants, Sue

and Joe Trottier, regarding their interest in constructing a 30’ X 56’ pole barn on their

property.

After discussing the project with them and reviewing the site plan depicting its

proposed location, I find no objection and support their efforts to obtain approval for

construction.

Sincerely, Boro | Lorglyy-

Town of Webster

Zoning Board

1000 Ridge Road

Webster, NY 14580

Sue and Joe Trottier

Dear Members of the Board,

,

I.) fpsA f 1 LA va 2) , am the owner of property located at

)

/ f Y 6 cel Le gtd 7 ZA and have spoken with the applicants, Sue

and Joe Trottier, regarding their interest in constructing a 30’ X 56’ pole barn on their

property.

After discussing the project with them and reviewing the site plan depicting its

proposed location, I find no objection and support their efforts to obtain approval for

construction.

Sincerely,

Town of Webster

Zoning Board

1000 Ridge Road

Webster, NY 14580

Sue and Joe Trottier

Dear Members of the Board,

L, Ken Kileeiek Sa , am the owner of property located at

AGO a Pies LD (RBSRE KW J and have spoken with the applicants, Sue

and Joe Trottier, regarding their interest in constructing a 30’ X 56’ pole barn on their

property.

After discussing the project with them and reviewing the site plan depicting its

proposed location, I find no objection and support their efforts to obtain approval for

construction.

Sincerely,

Town of Webster

Zoning Board

1000 Ridge Road

Webster, NY 14580

Sue and Joe Trottier

Dear Members of the Board,

L Sande Doctn oe

, am the owner of property located at

500 fy / / {fe Kid f [ths fe €4~__ and have spoken with the applicants, Sue

and Joe Trottier, regarding their interest in constructing a 30’ X 56’ pole barn on their

property.

After discussing the project with them and reviewing the site plan depicting its

proposed location, | find no objection and support their efforts to obtain approval for

construction.

‘J

Sincerely,

Town of Webster

Zoning Board

1000 Ridge Road

Webster, NY 14580

Sue and Joe Trottier

Dear Members of the Board,

in VA bref ) 6 D , am the owner of property located at

) 349. g Al Le el ke ( welt dor NM OY) and Wal? 00 with the applicants, Sue

and Joe Trottier, regarding their interest in constructing a 30’ X 56’ pole barn on their

property.

After discussing the project with them and reviewing the site plan depicting its

proposed location, I find no objection and support their efforts to obtain approval for

construction.

Sincerely,

liu

To whom it may concern:

We understand that the Trottier’s will be building a pole

barn across the street from our house. We have no

issues with it being built there.

Grou Woevo. bo ntl

Signature Dated

1399 Schlegel Road

Webster, NY 14580

Tt

Oa ae

ubject Parcel

oo 8B

¥

basically stated, everything that you have that you want to put in there you need that size, and

you can’t reduce the size of the structure.

application and if you have any detailed questions, Joe would probably be able to answer those

for you.

stored on your.... You mentioned your mothers property to the north, the west if I remember

correctly. Lawn mowers, tool area, patio and then your equipment and general storage. What is

that general storage because that equals, if 1 remember correctly, that is probably about 8-9 feet.

Joe Trottier and we live at 1432 Schlegel Road: We have a hot tub in the back of our yard, and

we built a lien to too keep the snow off the top of it and it is totally portable but when I take it

down in the winter or take it down in the summer, we need all the storage to store it with all the

other stuff that is in there.

and a lot of storage space and the pole barn was 16 feet high and I don’t want to make an

assumption with pallets racks going in there or whatever, what else is being stored in there.

we have; we have a rotary tiller; patio furniture; extra picnic tables that we have; kids games;

Christmas stuff; decorations; we are a big decorating house.

application. Alright, we will bring it back to the board and as Mr. DeMarco said, we have all

the neighbors surrounded by this property in favor of this project. It is larger than then the code

allows but Tam trying to picture what you are storing in that because what we are trying to do is

give you the minimum variance necessary, but it sounds like to me is your saying that you need

all that space for what you have. Is that true?

I don’t know how current the county’s GIS maps are, but it shows 1432 and 1436 looks like is

all of this, so have you combined those parcels?

own all of the property west of this to Phillips Road so in an effort to comply with the zoning

code requirement they did purchase a rectangular piece of property just north of where their

house is, and they also combined the residential lot that was undeveloped just cast of their

existing house.

Pg. 213 July 18, 2023 Zoning Meeting

pole barn and if any of you had an opportunity to visit the property there is fairly substantial trees

along the front there. In our survey, we have 40-60-inch maple trees in addition, directly east of

that there are some smaller screening trees along that adjoining parcel and those are not showing

on our survey map, but they are adjacent to the chain link fence that is shown on there.

agricultural to the rear and agricultural along Phillips. I don’t think that particular building is out

of place in that setting and with he support of the neighbors. Those are the neighbors it affects. ]

think it is wise to store, esthetically itis nicer to store things out of sight and I have seen

properties where there are things all over the yard and why wouldn’t they build a structure to

store it, so this is basically what you are asking for.

RESOLUTION 23-061 Barry Barone made a motion for TYPE IT SEQR

which was seconded by: Michael Short.

VOTE:

Mr. Hauza AYE

Mr. Barone AYE

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Centola AYE

Mr. Short AYE

neighbors, in favor of the project and I don’t see any negatives to it. ] mean, the code is written

for a reason obviously. If this was ina residential lot or a subdivision than it’s a big deal but you

are location on Schlegel Road with agriculture land to the rear, it’s more of a, for lack of better

word, rural setting in that arca so I really don’t see any negatives to il. Anybody else have any

thoughts?

Ok, so there is no detriment to the environment or the neighborhood. The neighbors show

support. There is no drainage issues; no site issues.

RESOLUTION 23-062 Barry Barone made a motion to APPROVE THE

AREA VARIANCE Located at 1432 Schlegel

Road. Applicant Sue Trottier is requesting an

AREA VARIANCE to allow the size of an

accessory structure to exceed 2% of the lot size,

which is not permitted, associated with the

construction of a 1,680 SF accessory structure on a

1.295-acre parcel having SBL# 065.02-1-3.4

located in an R-3 Single Family Residential District

Pg. 214 July 18, 2023 Zoning Mecting

under Section 350-36 A(4) of the Code of the Town

of Webster which was seconded by: Michael Short.

VOTE:

Mr. Hauza AYE

Mr. Barone AYE

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Centola AYE

Mr. Short AYE

CONDITIONS:

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

Building Permit.

e That one-year significant construction shall expire July 18, 2024,

(Corrine Volo read the tenth application)

requesting an AREA VARIANCE to allow a @ tall fence on the property line within a district

buffer area which is not permitted, and a 36.6’ district buffer area, where 100’ is required

associated with parking lot and fencing modifications to a previously approved site plan for

Limelight Automotive on a 2.3-acre parcel having SBL# 080.13-2-3.11 located in an MC

Medium Intensity Commercial District under Sections 350-18 of the Code of the Town of

Websier.

Appearing before the board Steven Smith and I represent Limelight Automotive, and I am the

owner here. I guess to fill you in first and foremost, we have gone through approvals for a lot of

these variances, for five different variances. Last meeting, we had attended and gotten those

variances was in July of last year, We have since then, constructed the building; everything has

gone about as planned but upon the last meeting there was a concern, one of the variances has

been slightly altered from what we had been asking which is basically the buffer to the rear in

pertaining to the parking lot back there where the fence would be located and things like that. I

expressed some immediate concern with the engineer, I let Josh know about some of these

things, but we were going to kind of feel it out once the building was up. We wanted to see what

kind of turning radiuses we were doing with the vehicles. One of the bay doors around the back

of the building is a 14 X 14 bay door and that was designed specifically to fit the turn radiuses

that we were dealing with the vehicles. One of the bay doors around the back of the building is a

14 X 14 and that was designed specially to fil some larger vehicles. We do and without name

dropping, dump trucks and we do some of Wilbert’s vans and stuff like that. We also do boats

between tinting and graphics and audio systems. It is really required to be able to fit some of

these larger vehicles and things in there and the turning radius is proved to not be quite enough

of what was granted as the variance in July last year.

So, what I am here to do ts just to get that variance to get it slightly extended to actually what we

are looking to do is pave the preexisting parking lot. It has been there since Gary put it up, |

think in 87 and then just move the fence back to the property linc. We feel like that is going to

Pg. 215 July 18, 2023 Zoning Mecting

make it a lot easier for snow removal and things like that. So I believe it is a fairly simple request

tonight but I would love to hear your guys thoughts and really my biggest concern is being able

to do the business we had brought the property for and put the structure up for and not being

limited to things like the parking lot like that and my biggest concern obviously and I think

everyone’s is, to finish the project and get the screening that we had been proposing and make

this a nice area between our commercial building and property and the neighbors behind us.

Was that suppose to be 49 feet from the rear line or 44 feet? 41 was the proposed fence I believe

and 49 was the pavement.

was the very last thing that was basically given to me at the very last meeting. I thought we

came here for approval on what we had asked for and that was a little bit of a blind side to me,

and I was immediately concerned with that turning radius but yes, you are correct. We had

asked for a 41-foot variance to the parking lot and then a fence in the buffer zone and when we

had to come for that last meeting it was approved to the variance of 41 feet to the fence and then

another 8 feet to the parking lot.

enough factor to make itso. It is very difficult to turn back there. I actually invited Josh and

Mary to come out and take a look at the project and see what it physically looked like. T brought

hard copics of very rough drawings essentially from the engineer showing some turning radiuses

with certain vehicles and unfortunately, he didn’t have the option of doing like a truck and a

trailer type of thing but I could submit those to you guys to show some sort of proof of that but

the day that I had Josh and Mary down we had parked cars in that fashion and actually witnessed

a vehicle trying io get around and having quite a time trying to do that. Even down to Fed-Ex and

UPS drivers that want to deliver packages back there. You pull around back and it 1s almost

impossible to turn around with the limits that were granted for a variance last time.

direction of where not to pave and they had seen that there was stil! stone between Limelight and

Pg. 216 July 18, 2023 Zoning Mecting

Jiffy Lube and assumed that they should pave the extra 10 feet and yet the day....It was paved

July 5, I closed the shop down, I wanted enough time for the parking lot to cure and everything,

so we left and by the time I had checked with them they had started to pave the very back lot and

already had gone past there limits there, so I mean if this does become an issue where we have to

set it back, again, my biggest concern is the turning radius and being able to use the building the

correct way. I apologize that it had gone down that way and it was only a week and a half ago

and yes, you are absolutely correct. We did not expand the parking lot from it’s existing stone

limits by any means but yes, it was paved to it’s existing limits.

setbacks. You had a lot of concerns; Corrine had a lot of concerns and obviously Chris and Mike

were not here at that meeting. The buffer is not to protect commercial property it is to protect the

residential property so we take that really seriously and we did make some concessions for you

to locate your business there and the neighbors actually made concessions as well because it is

no where near a 100 feet because you couldn’t do a 100-foot buffer there. It is an existing

Situation, but we tried to maximize their buffer and you laterally decided to take it away, which

isn’t fair to the neighbors, So, ] am not comfortable with this at all. | don’t know how the rest of

you feel but ...

is indicating parking spots and they look Itke extra deep parking spots, maybe I’m wrong but

they look like extra deep parking spots, and it is indicating 9 of them. The turning radius ] am

assuming is inside those parking spots.

needed to go in there, we would be moving 8 or 9 cars just to be able to get a truck backed up to

the trailer lets say and then doing a nice U turn to get oul of there.

feet because the parking space is usually about 20 feet so thal would give you up to about 55

feet. Grant it, you would loose 9 parking spots and you would have to figure out where they

would end up parking etc. Bul and just go back to what you were saying, the buffer is there for

the residential district. Itis a bummer that the pavement contractor paved the area that they were

nol supposed to pave, that is definitely a bummer, but | agree. Hf] was living back, there, and not

30 feet away

error but not 8,9, or !0 fect.

Pg. 217 July 18, 2023 Zoning Mecting

submitted last year, that dumpster enclosure was there.

Board update on it INAUDIBLE

LETTERS THAT WERE READ OUTLOUD)

application? Seeing there isn’t we will return it back to the board. J think I already expressed my

feelings. I don’t know, I would probably like to hear from the other board members.

concerned with the setback, the fence, concern with the location of the dumpster, with respect to

the buffer and the fence. I had a dumpster located outside my bedroom window for a couple of

years and it is a miserable experience at 5 am when they empty them, so [am a little sensitive to

that. We also would condition it that there would be no car sales at this location, and I guess we

weren't specific with no car rentals or rentals at this location, but I also see that you are a

licensed renter for Penske trucks.

allow it and on first pass, I did try and go and find the lot line to sec where the fence would be

and I didn’t not find any stakes for the lot line but where il appeared to be the lot line, you have

to decimate all of the trees along that back in order to put that fence up which is going to make

the situation worst for the residential neighbors behind you and i looks like it was and maybe it

was entirely accidental but like you just deliberately ignored every restriction and every

condition that this board gave you and did what you asked for anyway and then, I am so sorry

but let me do it now. The pavement is 39 feet or 36 fect, it should be at 49 feet so you missed it

by 13 feet, or your paver did and | understand there was an original! stone lot there for a kitchen

business which was a very un-inlense use compared to what you are doing as far as the number

of vehicles going back there and then the fence is not there so for all the time that your business

has been open the neighbors behind you have had to deal with it so I don’t generally get angry

but this makes me angry. I just feel like you just thumped your nose at everything the board

tried to do to help you.

Pg. 218 July 18, 2023 Zoning Mecting

Don & Margaret Mooney, neighbor at 1178 Jackson Heights Drive for 35 years.

In 1989, after the construction of our house was complete, built by Gary

Lazzaro in 1988, we split the cost and effort with Gary to plant all of the trees,

bushes and landscape screening on our North property line and Gary Lazzaro’s

South property line, formerly Kitchen and Bath Expressions. This screening was

put in place because Gary understood that there was a District Buffer between his

MC zoned property and our R-3 zoned property, which is defined as a District

Buffer Area and by code must be 100’.

On April 18" 2022, the Zoning Board of Appeals approved a Use Variance

with the conditions that there be no car sales and limit the number of cars to be

stored on the South end of the property to 11, which we did not argue with. Also,

an Area Variance with conditions that the buffer area to the South be enhanced, a

distance of 49’ to the pavement and 41’ to the fence (where 100’ is required).

That is a 59% decrease in required buffer area between districts, which we

accepted and did not argue with. Now, he is asking to change his plans again and

ask for a 0’ setback on the fence between our house in a residential

neighborhood, that we built 35 years ago, and his auto business in a Medium

Intensity Commercial District, which is typically not an approved use to begin

with.

Per Town Code Section 350-79 (F) In NO case shall a fence be located ina

buffer area nor in any Town easements without prior Town Board Approval and

filing of a licensing agreement. He isn’t just asking to put a fence within the buffer

area, he is asking to put a fence on the property line on the opposite side of the

buffer area where it would normally be permitted. There is no possible way to put

a solid fence on that property line without removing and destroying the existing

screening that has been there for the last 34 years.

He had previously been granted multiple variances in his favor for this

project, he is now asking for more for his benefit, not for the neighboring

residential properties. The property in question is also a hub for Penske Truck

Rentals, which is not a permitted use nor has it been approved. The parking lot

modification that is part of his request being presented tonight has already been

completed without approval from this board.

| am asking that the 0’ setback for the fence not be granted, the fence to be

located to the North of the existing screening in the open area and the additional

approved landscape screening be installed per plan to cut down on the noise from

the business and glare from the lights at night. Thank you for your time.

§ 350-3 Definitions.

which is covered with grass, vegetation, trees, embankments, berms or other

landscape elements. Ingress, egress and sidewalks may be permitted. Where the

property abuts a right-of-way, the buffer area shall be measured from the right-of-

way.

§ 350-79 Fences. [1]

F. In no case shall a fence be located in a buffer area nor in any Town easements

without prior Town Board Approval and filing of a licensing agreement.

MaIA WOOIPEg MAlA WOO Bululg

Wd 68:6 €2O2/ET/ZL INd ZE:6 €2OZ/ET/L

ZH MAI Od L# MAlA Od

id €v:6 €2OZ/ET/L . Wd €vi6 €2OZ/ET/Z

mal/ 408q

Nd Sv:6 €207/ET/L

Gary & Marlene Lazaro fete

1177 Ridge Road <ECEIVED

Webster NY 14580

lowe? of tangy

7-14-23 fu'd-g Oasar 4

lo Members of the Webster Zoning Board of Appeal:

high: fence

We, Gary and Marlene Lazzaro, with our residence located at 1177 Ridge Road, share a common lot tine

with Limelight on our West barder which is Limelight’s East border.

Regarding our West border line, we would want to be assured that the proposed fence does not

encroach onto our property

Our concern, also, involves the location of the proposed fence between Limelight Aulomotive’s South

border and neighbors to the south, Don & Maggie Mooney residing at 1178 Jackson Heights

The placement of the 6° high white vinyl fence is proposed to be or the fot line, which now has

numerous established trees,

the proposed fence could be North of Mooney’s lot line enough so it would allow the trees to remain in

the Mooney’s yard

Sincerely,

Gary and Marlene Lazzaro

117? Ridge Roac

Webster NY 14580

(Pf

roy COM

i

pase “Pp }-~2

~

what that looks like and what is going on. I have no problem putting this fence anywhere that

doesn’t allow an issue with snow removal or anything like that. My thought on the property line

was it would be easier if we were putting all these trees up and everything for us to be

maintaining around them. If there is an area of 20-30 feet between a fence and their property and

all the arborvitaes and trees we put up would have seemed like that would be almost... just

looking at it, something that they be taken care of or have a landscaper go back there and take

care of it. The proposition of the fence and the property line was there, and I thought to help with

the neighbors, and | should have talked to them over the last month but... T understand right on

the property line there are some trees and I struggled to see where the property line was too but

too much in front of that we run into a hill and some dead trees that will actually need to be taken

down before they fall on something as well. I have no problem moving the fence a little bit. 1

don’t...in no way was my intention Lo upset the neighbors, truly, it’s not. I did not mean to

come here and ask for approvals and have it seem like that. I talked to Josh a couple of weeks

ago or I’m sorry, almost a month ago now to discuss a lot of these things.

have you plant more trees?

the project. It is putting up the screening and putting up the fence.

you have floodlights at the peek at the building, at the top of the building, through the trees,

lighting up their back yard. Unacceptable.

way it was iniuially planned and approved by this board before I would consider anything any as

far as any new approvals. That is my position.

board. You have to take....you are commercial against residential properly; you have to take

that relationship very scriously. Right down the road from you another developer developed

where the McDonalds is they built a berm like 30 feet tall and planted trees all over it so that

people wouldn't have to sec the commercials property. All we asked you to do was adhere to a

setback and put back the fenee back so far. Phat is pretty minimal, So, | don’t know if we make a

Pg. 219 July 18, 2023 Zoning Meeting

motion to deny the variance or just, | mean, no motion at all is a denial but what do you think

John?

the parking, | think at the request of the Planning Board we had requested that the parking be

behind the building instead of the front of the building and frankly given that it is a commercial

stretch of Ridge Road that there are cars parked up and down it anyways, if 1 would be more

prone to be agreeable to parking on the side and front of the building so that you could use the

back for your turning radius but the edge of the pavement and the fence are where they are

suppose to be. I understand some trucks don’t turn as well as others, but there is plenty of space

on this parcel where you could put the other vehicles. I don’t think the space between the

building and the parking lot would limit your traffic to behind it.

big dump truck from AP or whoever there every day, maybe plan accordingly. Put a couple of

cones there, ok, don’t park here today because I have a big truck coming in.

neighborhood behind you.

judgement....do we have if there is denial that you have to wait {2 months?

the problem so that it is consistent with what was originally requested and then if there is a

variance or modifications that come subsequent to getting into compliance, you won't be

prejudice by tonight’s application and then you can come before the board with clean hands sort

of speak and start the process over again.

Pg. 220 July 18, 2023 Zoning Meeting

speaking over)

hoping that this wasn’t how it was looked at. I have been trying very hard and this was my first

endeavor like this, so I apologize to everyone of the board members. If it is denied and 12

months, it is going to cause a big situation. | would love to talk to both Gary and the Mooney’s

and come up with a better situation if this is INAUDIBLE. My questions for the board would be,

it seems like there concerns were more about the fence and screening, and | completely

understand your guys need for upholding a border between a commercial and residential. Is it

worth me discussing any kind of slightly larger parking lot where if we were to go to the original

approved variances, it is going to cause us some turning issues. I completely understand where

you guys are coming from and I don’t want to deny it, ] am just curious if we did work with the

neighbors and the engineer, is there anything between the 36.5 that we are asking for tonight and

the 49 that was approved on...last year. That would potentially be acceptable even if am I just

ditching the entire idea of asking for more parking and I guess just dealing with it.

opinions. The thing to do, should the board chose to be really gratuitous and understanding that

the board is not going to be bound going forward by any opinions it might render tonight, is that

agreeable?

runs with the properly. Hopefully you make your plan work within those variances. Go back to

the drawing board.

a year and you haven't donc the planting that the Planning Board told you to do, and that is

affecting the neighbors because the lights come into their yard. Literally, the lights are shining

right on their house. So, that should all be done as quickly as possible.

be replaced so I can know where those plantings go and I am not making any other excuses and |}

apologize for that not happening immediately per plan it seemed like the order of events was to

put the building up, figure out the parking lot and pave it and then put the fence and the

screcning up. In that order. We started this project in the winter, so 1 am not sure if it is

possible.

Pg. 221 July 18, 2023 Zoning Meeting

make have to be a formal application to this board and we discuss it and ask for public comment

and we move it on. We don’t give advice.

that. Again, ] am still new to this, this last year and half. It has been a little overwhelming at

times. Again, I apologize if it is being looked at as me doing whatever I wanted. Is it in now way

what I want. I am trying to do the best for everything including my business and the neighbors.

We will go back to the drawing board and figure out what is going to be the best solution for

that, but | am hearing everything you are saying loud and clear.

Since there is no further application before the Board Barry Barone adjourned tonight’s meeting

at 9:45 p.m.

Can nce QQ 28

Corrine Volo, Secretary

Katherine Kolich, Recording Secretary

S SLO LEM. Maud

Pg. 222 July 18, 2023 Zoning Mecting