WEBSTER ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES
Webster Town Board Meeting Building 1002 Ridge Road
13 June 2023
7:00 pm
ABSENT:
Jamie Newtown, Chairman Griff Stappenbeck
Barry Barone, Vice Chairman
Corrine Volo, Secretary
Donald Hauza
Michael Short
John DeMarco, Attorney
Josh Artuso, Director of Community Development
Katherine Kolich, Recording Secretary
Good evening. Welcome to the Zoning Board Appeals meeting for June 13,
2023. We have six scheduled matters on the agenda tonight.
Call Roll
We do have proof of public notification for this evenings matters from the Webster Herald. We
are going (o change the order up slightly this evening. The last item on the agenda Fairlife
Project located east of Tebor Road, we are going to have that application go first. ] am asking
that this applicant keep to 10-15 minutes; provide a 50,000-foot overview of the project only and
the board is not going to ask {oo many questions this evening, but we are going to digest what is
provided to us this evening. Due to the SEQR process, the applicant...we can not act on the
variance until likely the end of August, correct. I believe the town is going to take the lead
agency roll, is that correct, Town Board?
That is correct.
So, therefore this evening, we are just going to hear an overview of the project .
If there are participants in the audience that are hear to Jearn about the project, we are not going
10 open it up to public comment this evening, but we highly encourage you, based on what you
hear and see this evening to submit comments through the Town of Webster porthole.
It can be found on the community development home page.
Town of Webster community development home page and you can submit
questions or comments on the application. Is the applicant ready to step up? First, let me step
back, please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. Since we are not going to act on this, this
evening, I don’t believe we need to read it into the record, but I guess we could.
Pg. 152 June (3, 2023 Zoning Meeting
Summary of Application Outcomes
SCHEDULED MATTERS
:
FAIRLIFE PROJECT/DAIRY PROCESSING
Fairlife Project
APPLICATION TABLED TO A FUTURE MEETING PENDING RESULTS OF
SEQR PROCESS
703 HILLSPRING TER/ACCESSORY STRUCTURE
John Cushman
APPROVED AS PRESENTED.
862 SALT ROAD/FENCE
Mike Sofia
APPROVED AS PRESENTED
1152 WOODBRIDGE LANE/GARAGE ADDITION
Andrew Randisi
APPROVED AS PRESENTED; APPLICANT TO BRING EXISTING SHED INTO
COMPLIANCE OR APPLY FOR VARIANCE
665 FOREST LAWN DRIVE/FRONT PORCH
Mark McElroy
TABLED TO JULY 18 MEETING
1242 LAKE ROAD/CARRIAGE GARAGE ADDITION
Matt Lester
APPROVED; SHALL BE CONSIDERED AN ACCESSORY APARTMENT AND
REQUIRE AN ACCESSORY APARTMENT AGREEMENT; PROCEED TO
PLANNING BOARD FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW PROCESS
(Corrine Volo read the first: application)
Located cast of Tebor Road. Applicant Fairlife, Inc. is requesting
An 8’ tall decorative fence within a buffer area, which is not
permitted. A building height of 120’ for silos and a portion of the building, where a maximum
of 50’ is permitted associated with the construction of an approximately 745,000 SF dairy
processing facility on a combination of portions of 5 lots totaling approximately 106-acres
having SBL#s 066.03-1-28.111, 066.03-1-28.113, 066.03-1-18.11, 066.03-1-20.1 and 066.03
1-27.214 located in an IN Industrial District under Section 269-5 and 350-22 of the Code of
the Town of Webster.
Pg. 153 June 13, 2023 Zoning Meeting
Appearing before the board was the lead Engineer for Fairlife ( NEVER STATED HIS NAME
NOR DID HE SIGN IN) and for this project so, it would be my responsibility going forward to
oversee it and lead. As ] mentioned, Joshua Hoff is the lead Civil Engineer for our general
contractor Haskell, and he will take the opportunity here to walk us through the actual variances.
Fairlife is obviously extremely excited to start this planning process and become part of the
Town of Webster. We realize there is a long way to go as we go through the diligence, but we
all are extremely excited by the production facility and putting our grass roots down here in
Webster. Fairlife started out in 2012, ultrafiltered milk; core power is a protein shake and a
nutrition plan which ts like a meal replacement. In 2020 we were acquired by Coke-Cola
Company, and it is our intent to bring somewhere in the region to bring 250 jobs locally to the
area. Our investment is in a region of 650 million dollars for this project. Obviously as I
mentioned, pending diligence and approvals. As mentioned, 745,000 SF is our intent to process
in the region of 5 million pounds of milk a day, all of which will be sourced from upstate New
York.
We recently met with our neighbors and the Webster Community with the sole intention of
explaining what our intent here is and give an overview of the project but more importantly, to
listen. To listen to what our neighbors have to say; to provide feedback and some of the feedback
we have already introduced into our plans. So, 1] look forward to presenting our site plan and
listening to any recommendation and answer any questions. With that J will introduce Josh and
he can walk you through the variances. Thank you!
1 am the lead Engineer with Haskell, and ] am going to walk you through the site
plan first. (SHOWING PLANS UP ON THE SCREEN) So, as he already said, it’s about
745,000 SF and we are going to have two entrances, an auto entrance on the north side and then
a truck entrance on the south side. In the truck entrance area, we do have storage at for all the
milk trucks that are coming in and so we have queuing of about 156 trucks before they go
through the guard house. We have a small guard house down here; all the milk trucks will come
through and go through our scale right here and then up to the milk receiving. Now, the milk
receiving is inside the building. So, the trucks will pull in and unload and they will do a forward
motion all the way through. So, we have been able to keep a forward motion for all the milk
trucks as the access the facility. Our finished goods products, our trucks, will come through to
the guard house and they will come here to the northside and then they will exit back out and
they do have to do reverse because they are working with docks. We tried to minimize as much
reverse movement as possible. On the cast side and also on the north side, if you notice we have
this green shade, this is a berm, and we are doing that to provide some screening for visual sound
and light and then we have out fence Jocated on top of the berm on this section here. If you want
to flip to the variance and 1 will walk through that, it leads right into it.
So, there are two variances that we are requesting. The very first one is in reference to the fence.
So, on the east side of the facility, we are adjacent to large lot residential so it is required that we
have a !00-foot buffer or buffer yard and the code states that you can not have a fence within
that buffer yard but what we are requesting though is that the fence be located on top of the berm
Pg. 154 June 13, 2023 Zoning Meeting
so that we can get the maximum affect of screening for light, the sound and for visual . The
second variance we are requesting is for building height and that is going to be for this section of
the building here and this is our automatic retrieval system and also for the silos down here the
mild receiving. So, those are the two variances thal we are requesting. Any questions?
Maybe you can explain the necessity of the height of the buildings.
Lead Engineer for Fatrlife ( NEVER STATED HIS NAME NOR DID HE SIGN IN): Let me
start with the milk silos INAUDIBLE it is several reasons, but we wish to keep the milk silos as
close to the milk receiving as possible, as close to the building as possible, as close to the
building as possible. Lets say they are half the size of the tanks and double the amount of tanks
that | have which brings me further out to the perimeter of the property which we don’t wish to
do and it also makes our process extremely more complicated because the addition doubling the
amount of silos and on top of that from a footprint point of view, it would be a Jot more energy
use and a lot more water lost as we have to clean and chill those tanks constantly so that is on the
silo end of it. Then on the automatic warehouse, by going up it allows us to reduce our footprint
and without that the footprint would be quiet excessive and moving out towards the perimeter
and the edge of the property. So, the height allows us to, one, ultimate the warehouse and
secondly become a lot more efficient process within it with a lot of automation inside.
So, you have looked al the various options in terms of building height
obviously as you just described that it is going to increase the footprint, INAUDIBLE footprint,
encroachment on buffers and or setbacks.
Lead Engineer for Fairlife ( NEVER STATED HIS NAME NOR DID HE SIGN JIN): I wouldn’t
say encroach on the buffers, but if gets very close to the buffers.
Do you have a facility similar to the site closest within the area?
Lead Engineer for Fairlife ¢ NEVER STATED HIS NAME NOR DID HE SIGN IN): Not in the
area. Fairlife has two facilities. We have one in Coopersville in Michigan, Grand Rapids and
then we have another one in Goodyear, Arizona. Goodyear is our newest facility built in 2019
and itis a smaller facility, but it does have silos and it does not have the aulomatic warchousc
that is something that is new for us in this particular project.
Thank you.
Could you just touch on your next step, obviously there is a planning process.
You have had one initial meeting you said with the residents, for the record, could you indicate
which residents you met with.
Lead Engineer for Fairlife (NEVER STATED HIS NAME NOR DID HE SIGN IN): Yes, so we
had two meetings, and the first mecting was with our neighbors around the perimeter of the
property, mainly to the east as you look al the page INAUDIBLE also to the northeast as well.
Pg. 155 June 13, 2023 Zoning Mecting
So, we had a one on one with a smailer community and then that evening we opened it up to a
public forum in the high school and anyone from the Town of Webster was welcome to come
and get an overview of the project.
And I think you may have mentioned that you incorporated some of the initial
feedback into the plan. Did I hear that correctly?
Lead Engineer for Fairlife ( NEVER STATED HIS NAME NOR DID HE SIGN IN): You did
indeed. We have extended some of the berm because there was industrial down here . There
was a resident down there, so we felt it was the right thing to do to extend that berm and fencing.
Once again, the intent this evening was really to hear this at the Zoning Board
for the first time and have you outline at the 50,000-foot level which I believe you have done
And provided some additional detail. Once again, there is not going to be a public comment
portion of the meeting with respect to this application this evening. That will be during the next
Zoning Board ...
Not necessarily.
No, August is the potential target?
Correct.
End of August. There could be a special meeting.
Josh Artuso” That 1s correct. Once SEQR has played itself out.
Are there members in the audience tonight thal are here specifically for this
project? Ok, it doesn’t prevent you, once the applicants are in the hallway and if they are
available and have time, to discuss any concerns that you have. You don’t have to give up the
opportunities. We, officially as a board, are going to open it up to the public in a future meeting.
Lead Engineer for Fairlife ( NEVER STATED HIS NAME NOR DID HE SIGN IN): No,
absolutcly, we did that at the last plan review when we got to speak to some neighbors outside
and we are always willing to do that of course.
Ok. Once again, we anticipate hearing the application after the SEQR process
and likely at the end of August. Alright, thank you. Ok, lets move to the first item on the
agenda.
(Corrine Volo read the second application)
703 HILLSPRING TERRACE POOL SHED: Located at 703 Hillspring Terrace. Applicant
John Cushman is requesting an AREA VARIANCE (o allow a 5’ side setback where 15” is
required and a 29° rear setback where 50’ is required associated with the construction of a 350
Pg. [56 June 13, 2023 Zoning Meeting
SF pool shed on a 0.27-acre parcel having SBL# 079.05-3-88 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 John Cushman and I five at 703 Hillspring Terrace. | am here for
an area variance and looking for 5-foot west side setback and a 29-foot rear setback to
accommodate the construction of a 10 x 32 pool house shed structure.
Ok, questions, comments?
I visited the property the other day and it is surrounded by fence, and it is very
isolated. I mean the 5-foot setback has become acceptable for sheds since they changed the code
and frankly, I don’t think any of the neighbors could even sec it. He has a 5 foot on his lot, and a
6-foot fence to the rear. Now, did you have any letter of approval or acceptance from any of the
neighbors?
Yes sir. All the adjoining neighbors have given letters of support and including the
back neighbor with the 6 foot and then both neighbors on both sides.
Ok, so all the adjacent neighbors are in favor of your project?
Yes sir.
It is a small lot. It is a cluster development. This lot is only 150 foot deep. It would
be difficult lo meet the setback requirements with a shed and pavilion in any respect. It is also a
narrow lot so. The structure size 1s not excessive. I1’s a tight lot.
What is the distance off the pool?
To the structure?
Yes
Estimated approximately [1 fect,
The point of that was that you don’t have a lot of room to move closer towards
the pool perse.
It’s a ight lot. We had two Jandscapers companies come out and both of them
independently came up with very similar designs and that is where we are today.
Now, is there a reason that you could not turn the pool 90* which would skinny
everything up.
Yes, in addition to the easement in the back that had a swale that is not an
Pg. 157 June 13, 2023 Zoning Mecting
casement, and the pool company will not turn the pool 90* to get into that.
I actually went into the back yard and checked it out and it is the case in a jot of
subdivisions in Webster. The drainage swale is not in the drainage easement. It is almost in the
middle of the back yard. They can’t be filled so the drainage swell is just behind where he proposes
the shed not in the drainage easement. If he fills that, it’s going to block off the drainage. So, there
is a practical reason for it.
This application is open to anyone wishing to speak for or against this
application. Secing none, we will return the discussion back to the board.
RESOLUTION 23-037 Jamie Newtown made a motion for TYPE IT SEQR which
was seconded by: Donald Hauza.
VOTE:
Mr. Newtown AYE
Mr. Barone AYE
Mrs. Volo AYE
Mr. Hauza AYE
Mr. Short AYE
Any further questions or comments?
We see this a lot with Webster developments, they are very narrow lots and very
shallow lots. There is a tradeoff, the town gives green space to allow these smaller lots so
unfortunately people...they are not asking for too much if they want a pool, shed or these
amenities and as | said before, he is going to move his 5 foot fence, out to the lot line, which is
permissible now and he is maintaining 5 feet from the lot line which is the new shed regulation,
not accessory structure but it is a shed regulation. So, [ really don’t see where clse you could put
the structures in that yard so, I think we actually gave approval right next door to him with some
sort of pavilion or pergola and again, it’s a small lot. So, folks are trying to make do with what
they have for space. | don’t see any negalives to the environment or neighbors. As he said, all
three neighbors adjoining his property have expressed their approval and we have nobody
speaking against the application so ] really don’t see anything else that the gentleman could do to
accomplish what he needs to accomplish. He is taking his deck off to get the pool closer to the
house, he is removing the deck.
If the pavilion were not part of the application, the shed by itself would be allowed
to be 5 feet from the side setback so he would not even need a variance so the enclosed portion
of it fits the definition of a shed but because there is an extra pavilion added to it that is the
reason il needs to be here. Do you have any intention for ever enclosing the pavilion portion of
iv?
No
Pg. 158 June 13, 2023 Zoning Meeting
;
Any one care to, I think we have a few findings that were touched on by Mr.
Barone. Anything else in terms of findings?
RESGLUTION 23-038 Barry Barone made a motion to APPROVE THE USE
VARIANCE Located at 703 Hillspring Terrace. Applicant
John Cushman is requesting an AREA VARIANCE to
allow a 5’ side setback where 15’ is requtred and a 29’ rear
setback where 50’ is required associated with the
construction of a 350 SF pool shed on a 0.27-acre parcel
having SBL# 079.05-3-88 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: Corrine
Volo
VOTE:
Mr. Newtown AYE
Mr. Barone AYE
Mrs. Volo AYE
Mr. Hauza 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 June 13, 2024,
] would like to give a shout out to Josh and the planning group and to the whole
zoning office, a great deal of help from them. I think you do a great job, so thank you.
(Corrine Volo read the third application)
862 SALT ROAD FENCE : Located at 862 Salt Road. Applicant Mike Sofia is requesting an
AREA VARIANCE to allow a privacy fence in the front yard, which is not permitted,
associated with the installation of approximately 185 linear feet of a 5’ tall fence on a 0.65-acre
comer parcel having SBL# 081.01-1-2 located in an LC-II Class 2 Low Intensity Commercial
District under Section 350-79 of the Code of the Town of Webster.
Appearing before the board was Mike Sofia. My wife is here with my tonight because my
hearing is not so good. We are looking to get a variance for a permit for our fence. It is going to
go in the back of the yard for privacy and we have a pel to so we want to make sure that we can
cover everything. So, the fence is going lo go from the existing fence of the neighbor down in
back of the yard and back down to the house.
So, it’s along Ridge Road so the issue is that you have two front yards on Ridge
Road and Salt Road. I think [saw you out in the rain. Was your son helping you out with a little
backhoe and cleaning some stumps up the other day?
Pg. 159 June 13, 2023 Zoning Meeting
No, that was our neighbor doing that.
It’s 5 feet high.
Well, if you were there you saw what I saw. Ridge Road is 10 feet higher.
I am trying to think, the neighbor across the street has a fence...remember the
dog kennel stuff? That would be the front yard to that is on Salt.
Well, it’s interesting, the properly is an LC-2, We were just conversing that if
you read the code, there are different ways of reading it, but it talks about a residential lot vs
residential uses but LC-2 use, the fence code doesn’t really apply to a LC-2. So, if it is a kennel,
it is more commercial.
I want to say we granted a variance for the kennel itself and the fence,
remember that?
Well, I think most of the fences behind her house...
That is also on the Salt Roadside.
Yes, between the house and...
Anyway, I didn’t mean to sidetrack us but there is something similar in the
area.
Bul does it need a variance because it is LC-2?7 ] thought fences were just
residential or just to cover our bases.
lt is a residential Jot.
But we have donc this on...further down Salt Road and on Phillips with the two
front yards.
I don’t think it is out of character with he neighborhood. It is farms and a few
commercial businesses down that stretch plus the...
What type of fence are you putting in? I didn’t see it in the application and if 1
missed it, apologize. Are we talking chain-link or we talking wood?
How big is your dog?
(not using the mic, hard to hear) IVs a yorkie and she heads right for the road cvery
lime and the neighbor behind us had a couple dogs that got hit.
Pg. 160 June 13, 2023 Zoning Meeting
So, this is more for privacy than anything?
Yes, and for the dog.
We are trying to get the fence and making sure it is good for distance and everything
and | measured il off at 22 feet from the end of the road to the beginning of the fence and the
next door neighbor put his fence up to and we have permission, documents from him saying it is
ok to butt our fence up to his because his past approval, so not to go past that and make sure we
are in line with that just to butt up against his fence.
That is very nice and courteous.
Help me understand what ! will call, and I don’t know my shapes but the shape
of home plate kind of. Why did they cut that angle off there by New York State. I can’t read
what il says.
To ensure sight distance
Oh DOT, Ok.
That was my biggest concern especially with the 5 feet. The property does sit
low so that should not be an issue.
So that is DOT owned property then. It is a right of way.
It is a right of way and there is a light at the end of the intersection.
It has to only be on that corner because on the north corner or the south corner,
the house is right on the corner. Alright, this mecting is open to anyone wishing to speak for or
against this application. Any further comments or questions. | guess I have just one question, it
appears that it is 75 feet from the corner of the southeast corner of the house, 75 feet towards
Ridge Road, is that accurate?
ls 73
| need glasses (LAUGHTER) It looks like 75 but is
73. Did you consider any
other distances or get it further away from Ridge Road? Were you trying to maximize the space?
What was the deciding factor on 73 feet?
To meet code.
(not using the mic, hard to hear) You mean how we decided on that? We took all the
trees down and we wanted to line it with that neighbors fence, so we didn’t want to lose all the
yard.
Pg. 161 June 13, 2023 Zoning Meeting
You are trying to maximize the yard in the back, Comments, questions,
concerns? There is one letter here from Ken Valens.
That is the next-door neighbor.
Reads letter out loud: We are the next-door neighbor of Sofia’s who live at
862 Salt Road in Webster. We are in favor of them installing a fence up to our property line.
Anybody?
Yes, actually as I said before, when you are on Ridge Road you are going to look
right over that fence because there is such an INAUDIBLE, so I don’t think what they are asking
for is unreasonable. Containing the dog ts a big deal. There is a lot of traffic in that area, So, I
will make a motion.
RESOLUTION 23-039 Jamie Newtown made a motion for TYPE IT SEQR which
was seconded by: Barry Barone.
VOTE:
Mr. Newtown AYE
Mr. Barone AYE
Mrs. Volo AYE
Mr. Hauza AYE
Mr. Short AYE
RESOLUTION 23-040 Barry Barone made a motion to APPROVE THE AREA
VARIANCE Located at 862 Salt Road. Applicant Mike
Sofia is requesting an AREA VARIANCE to allow a
privacy fence in the front yard, which is not permitted,
associated with the installation of approximately 185 linear
feet of a 5’ tall fence on a 0.65-acre corner parcel having
SBL# 081,01-1-2 located in an LC-I] Class 2 Low Intensity
Commercial District under Section 350-79 of the Code of
the Town of Webster referencing map as part of the
configuration, survey map 862 Salt Road 2021-4822 which
was seconded by: Jamie Newtown.
VOTE:
Mr. Newtown AYE
Mr. Barone AYE
Mrs. Voto AYE
Mr. Hauza 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 June 13, 2024.
Pg. 162 June 13, 2023 Zoning Mecting
(Corrine Volo read the fourth application)
1152 WOODBRIDGE LANE GARAGE ADDITION: Located at 1152 Woodbridge Lane.
Applicant Andrew Randisi is requesting an AREA VARIANCE to allow a4’ side setback,
where 10’ is required associated with the construction of a 280 SF attached garage addition on a
0.29-acre parcel having SBL# 065.13-1-24 located in an R-3 Single Family Residential District
under Section 350-12 of the Code of the Town of Webster.
Just before you get started, obviously there is only 4 board members now since
he has recused himself so you will still require 3 yes votes.
Appearing before the board was Andrew Randisi and | am the homeowner of 1152 Woodbridge
Lane. | am seeking a variance to add a third garage bay to my house.
It appears that it is 14 foot by 20?
Correct.
Your existing is 20 foot wide approximately, 20.7 feet ? It is a smaller two car
garage.
Correct.
By todays standards. That corner will be at 4 feet and the front corner will
meet the setback. Is that an accurate statement?
Yes. It is a pic shaped lot and as a result, the back corner of it hits the lot fine
far earlier than the front corner of it and there is a park easement that runs between my parcel
and the neighbor so even after the, if the variance is allowed, there will stili be more than 30 feet
between myself and my netghbor.
I believe it goes roughly to 4 feet to 15 feet exactly, but it is hard to tell.
I just sealed it, and it looks closer to 12 foot, Do you know the exact dimension
that it will be at the front of the garage to the property line?
Ido not.
This probably isn’t all the accurate and obviously it is going to match the rest
of the house?
It is, and it will use the existing roof line. There is a small overhang in front of
the garage, and we can match that for the roof line.
Pg, 163 June 13, 2023 Zoning Meeting
And then the driveway... No issues with the driveway is what I was going to
say.
I do not need to remove any trees or reroute any type of land feature in order to
instal} it.
Even if you went to 12 feet it really doesn’t change the application all that
much. 14-foot vs 12 foot or 6 vs 4 it doesn’t ......
It is still adequate separation between this and the neighbor to the west. It is not a
large addition by stretch of the imagination as far as an additional garage bay.
It doesn’t really have any other options. It couldn’t go on the other side of the
house... ] was just looking; do we have a variance for 12.8?
For the front?
For the rear portion of the house?
So, this was a 281 development, and the setback of this particular Jot is 10 feet, side
setbacks.
How about the shed. Does the shed have a variance?
I don’t know, the shed was there when we purchased the property.
Yeah, 1 would have to Jook at our records to see if there was a variance granted for
that.
Good point. If we can just look into that and either bring it into compliance at
5 foot or SEQR variance for it. This all started because I was going to say, even an accessory
structure in the backyard for additional storage or car parking is not really feasible so. It is an
odd size lot or shaped tot, sorry.
[t would still bring it in from of the garage so
You have a two feet recess on the main garage it really doesn’t accomplish
anything.
The sketch provided, instrument survey, shows thal the new garage will be set
back maybe a foot and a half or 2 feet from the existing garage. Are you intending on doing that
or are you going to extend flush pretty much with the front extension of the garage.
Pg. 164 June 13, 2023 Zoning Meeting
The builder recommended it for aesthetic reasons. | don’t think it made a
difference in the measurement and if it did, it would only be 6 inches.
Ok, I was just curious.
I was going for aesthetic reasons.
I agree with the decision. That is what I did with mine. (LAUGHTER) I set it
back 2 feet and it may be that Mr. Barone built it to. This meeting is open to anyone wishing to
speak for or against this application. Seeing no one we will turn the discussion back to the board.
RESOLUTION 23-041 Jamie Newtown made a motion for TYPE H SEQR
which was seconded by: Corrine Volo.
VOTE:
Mr. Newtown AYE
Mr. Barone RECUSE
Mrs. Volo AYE
Mr. Hauza AYE
Mr. Short AYE
(Corrine Volo): The variance is not an undesirable change or out of
character with the neighborhood. There are other houses within that track that have a third bay
added. There is no other location for it so there is no other remedy. The garage addition really
needs to go to the garage side of the house and brining it forward would require a variance and
you couldn’t really make it any smaller and fit a car in there and you couldn’t put it on the east
side of the house because it would not fit. It is the minimum space that is required to give the
feature that the homeowner is looking for. It is a 14 x 20-foot garage addition which is not a huge
addition by any stretch. It does go up against parkland so there is still significant spacing between
this house with the addition and the neighbor to the west and it is really only the rear corner of the
addition that is going to require a variance and probably 2/3rds of it will be, at feast the front corner
will, will be, at or within the setback.
I was thinking it was 15 feet, but it is 10 so or even if it is 12 or 15 it doesn’t
require at that point.
There really is no other place to put it.
RESOLUTION 23-042 Corrine Volo made a motion to APPROVE THE AREA
VARIANCE Located at 1152 Woodbridge Lane.
Applicant Andrew Randisi is requesting an AREA
VARIANCE to allow a 4 side setback, where 10° is
required associated with the construction of a 280 SF
attached garage addition on a 0.29-acre parcel having SBL#
065.13-1-24 located in an R-3 Single Family Residential
Pg. 165 June 13, 2023 Zoning Mecting
District under Section 350-12 of the Code of the Town of
Donald Hauza
VOTE:
Mr. Newtown AYE
Mr. Barone RECUSE
Mrs. Volo AYE
Mr. Hauza 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 June 13, 2024.
(Corrine Volo read the fifth application)
665 FOREST LAWN DRIVE FRONT PORCH ADDITION: 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 / 54’ 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 and ! live at 665 Forest Lawn from about a 100
yards from that picture, in those old houses there. I am looking for two variances because we are
on top of each other in the Forrest Lawn neighborhood as you are probably aware of, and Mr.
Barone did come to our home to look at this project.
So, | am Jooking for a side setback of 20 feet and we are actually 7 feet from one neighbor and 7
feet and 7 inches from another and by the way, I do have approvals from two neighbors in terms
of there approval on the project and then we are also looking for a variance of the front setback
and as you know itis 75 feet. ] don’t know if it was my handwriting, but I measured 68 feet and
I think 7 inches and the card that went to my neighbors, it was
54. Whatever and I am not in the
front setback anyway, so | need the variance. So, if you look at this, it says Forest Lawn.
Can we just step back; 1 want to make sure that we understand this. So. The
advertisement is for 54 front setback, but you are saying it is 68.7
It might be a type o.
| just want to make sure it is not in the reverse, right? You are requesting
something less than what’s’...do you get my point? If you were to say, I need a 40-foot setback,
but it’s advertised for 54 feet, we would want to readvertise it because it is in accurate so what
you are requesting is the opposite,
Bul the survey map says its 54 fect.
Pg. 166 June 13, 2023 Zoning Meeting
Then we will go by the survey map and not my measurements than. So, that is
fine.
The present house may be at 68 feet but with the addition its 54 and so that is what
we are doing the addition is going to be moved up to the front of the house.
Josh, can you go to the next slide. So, here is the side setback to Rob Kircher’s
home that name might sound familiar to you. You just approved a variance for his garage so we
are looking to put the front porch on where the roof is to the garage so we are looking to go 30
feet to the width of the house and coming out 12 feet and we are looking to take down...if you
could turn to the next slide, please. This is my neighbor on the west side John Davidson who
also signed off on the project where 7 feet 7 inches... I apologize, I reversed it. We are 7 feet on
his side and 7 feet 7 inches from Rob Kircher’s house. So, if you look, these bushes will be
coming out and the front porch will go from the left side of the house all the way to the end of
this side of the house which is approximately 30 feet, and the porch will come out 12 feet. Could
you hit the next slide please. This is the look from the variance, which would be the porch to my
neighbor Caro! Adams and her house is behind the trees, the old BB house which is right on
shoreline and right next to shipbuilders creek again, she signed off on the project to. Can you hit
the next slide please.
I am going to back to the setback really quick, I apologize. So, looking at the
plans provided, it looks like they are asking for a 42 foot or 42.17-foot setback from the property
line INAUDIBLE 51.17-foot setback is actually to the original or to the house property
INAUDIBLE to the property line, so back to what you were saying before ...
So, it is greater than or less than?
According to what he is saying. It would be greater than. INAUDIBLE
advertising. It wouldn’t be advertised properly.
We are asking for closer to the road than what was advertised.
I don’t understand.
There are two dimensions on here. One of the dimension 54.17 feet which
matches the advertisement is part of the original survey which was utilized in developing the
proposed depth. That is cut off and itis actually going to your house from the property line
itself. From the road to the front of your house that 54.17 feet. There is another dimension into
the left which is 42.17 feet which is going to the road to the proposed deck . That is the number
that should have been used, if Lam reading this correctly. I will turn to the board to make sure |
am reading this correctly, that should have becn used in the advertisement.
Pg. 167 June 13, 2023 Zoning Meeting
I think you are correct. [ was utilizing the larger number that I must have
misinterpreted the overall length, but | didn’t sce the smaller. Good catch. It does appear that
we have that issue.
He should be asking for 42.17-foot front setback, and you are advertised for
54.17.
So, what does that do to my project ,do we have to...
INAUDIBLE to 54.17 feet but it is not going to accomplish what you want to do
in order for us to grant you the variance, we would have to re-advertise your application to a
front setback of 42.17 feet.
Even though the three neighbors have been involved and signed off on it with
the variance.
That is correct. Under NY State Law, we would have to readvertise it.
Ok.
Because you communicated to them that it was
54. Mark McElroy: So, | have to come back next month to re-do this or what is the process?
We would table it to the next meeting.
Ok.
Everyone talking al once and paper rattling.
Do we have an original survey without the mark up on it?
I could check the town records, but this is what was provided
| didn’t see it on my application
It should be on page 2 of the architectural plans.
|] have the survey but with the proposed deck on it. I was looking for the survey
map that was the original.
I thought I put that with the application. (LOTS OF PAPER RATTLING)
We just have the large.
Pg. 168 June 13, 2023 Zoning Meeting
INAUDIBLE has the porch added to it. Which I think the confusion was because
it looks like that dimension is going to the porch.
Mark McElroy approached the board with a survey map and speaking with Corrine Volo: 54
actually goes to the house but on the picture, we have 54 going to the front of the porch.
So, do I have to re-fitl out an application or what is the process?
It has to be re-advertised.
Josh will re-advertise it with the correct...
So, you have to send out another postcard to the neighbors? Advertising it?
Right, it will go into the Webster Herald. I¢ will be re-advertised in the
Webster Herald and new postcards will go out to the neighbors. You don’t have to do anything.
But I have to come back to the July meeting though?
That is correct. (PAPER RATTLING VERY LOUD) Unfortunately you will
have to come back, and you can just confirm, and we are going to table this to July 18".
RESOLUTION 23-043 Jamie Newtown made a motion to TABLE THE
APPLICATION TO JULY 18, 2023 which was
seconded by: Donald Hauza
VOTE:
Mr. Newlown AYE
Mr. Barone AYE
Mrs. Volo AYE
Mr. Hauza AYE
Mr. Short AYE
(Corrine Volo read the sixth application)
Located at 1242 Lake Road.
Applicant Matt Lester is requesting an AREA VARIANCE to: allow a 12° side setback where
20’ ts required (14° side setback was previously approved; but structure was built 12” from
property line); the expansion of an existing detached accessory structure that ts closer to the front
property line than the rear line of the main residence, which is not permitted without Zoning
Board approval; associated with an approximate 429 SF addition of a covered patio area,
workshop, 2™ story guest living quarters and balcony (for a total of 1,069 SF) on a 3.26-acre
parcel having SBL# 050.05-1-10 located in an R-! Single Family Residential District under
Sections 350-10, 350-36 and 350-94 of the Code of the Town of Webster.
Ps. 169 June 13, 2023 Zoning Meeting
Appearing before the board was Betsy Brugg with Woods Oviatt Gilman, Evan Gefell with
Costich Engineering is here tonight and unfortunately Matt Lester could not be here tonight, so
we are here representing them on their proposed renovation project of their carriage garage. It is
an existing garage in front of their home at 1242 Lake Road and hopefully you have had a
chance to look through the application and you have seen the plans and you know where the
property is.
It is one of the larger lots on their stretch of Lake Road and over 3 acres in size. The plans are to
renovate a major renovation to their existing home so before proceeding with that they are
proposing a major renovation of their carriage barn to make it really livable space for their
family so that they don’t have to leave their property while they are doing their home renovation.
They have school-age kids, and they would like to say and be least as disruptive as possible in
terms of the family so that is what we are here for. The existing garage is a two-bay structure,
and it is where they store boats and various equipment and personal materials. They have a
garage attached to the home for their vehicles. They are proposing essentially to do a larger,
attractive, and high-quality structure and approximately in the same location that it currently sits
and would extend closer to Lake Road. The existing structure that is there is about 335 feet back
from the road INAUDIBLE.LOUD NOISE. In terms of distance from the road and they are kind
of extending it 25 feet forward which includes about 17 feet of actual space plus a porch on the
front so from the street what wil! be visible is kind of the smaller dimension of the building so it
kind of hides the structure behind it and have a pretty little porch in the front. Again, over 300
feet from the road and they have over 500 feet of driveway. I think I INAUDIBLE on their
house, it’s about 4800 feet. I was corrected today that is it closer to 5300 feet and again, it’s over
a 3-acre Jot. They have the support of their neighbors. They are not here today but I have the text
from the immediate neighbor to the west and there neighbor two down and again | miss spoke,
there is a similar structure to what they are proposing two parcels over and | think I said the
adjacent lot and it’s actually two over. I] have an aerial of the neighborhood if that is helpful to
anybody. My understanding is that these accessory structures are somewhat common in the
neighborhood and common on Lake Road but what they are doing is not a whole lot different
from what many others are doing. They have large parcels, they are on the lake, they are deep
parcels, the location isn’t going to affect anyone. Their immediate neighbor who would be the
most affected has no objection and is totally supportive. The existing structure actually has an
existing variance, It was actually built by a prior owner of the property. His actually built 2 feet
closer to the property line than the existing variance. They like to do their project on the existing
space and renovate the structure, so we want lo just correct thal addition and legalize that
existing side setback . They actually already have, I looked through the record after we
submitted this and there already is an existing variance to allow the structure in the front yard. It
is included in our application, but they were granted a variance to allow the structure to be in the
front yard. I think the variance is technically to sit in front of the rear property line of the house
if [ am stated that correctly. We are of course going closer to Lake Road, but they actually have
an existing variance for that as well.
So, they are proposing to do a really nice structure and we have given you a pretty complete
application and we would be happy to talk to about kind of what the building is hke and answer
Pg. 170 June 13, 2023 Zoning Meeting
any questions. It’s a relatively minor relief requested in the context of the existing parcel in the
neighborhood. We are not in a small, half acre subdivision where you have to worry about being
on top of your neighbor. The location of the structure is closer to Lake Road and is actually
beneficial for the neighbors. We don’t want to do anything that would obstruct the views of the
lake, for example which having frontage on the lake, frontage on Lake Road they have to deal
with the existing conditions of those two frontages. Everyone of the lake obviously orients their
living towards the lake and the structure is set back far enough from the road that it wouldn’t
have any Impact on anyone. Josh, I will give you both of these. I have texts from both
neighbors for support.
So, the standards for the variance obviously the benefit to the applicant is it would allow them to
make improvements to their property and it would allow them to remain in their property while
they do a major renovation to their home. There is absolutely no detriment whatsoever from
these variances. They are relatively minor given the existing conditions and the existing
structure that is there and the context of the neighborhood. They are not disrupting their nearest
neighbor, other properties in the neighborhood have similar types of structures. So, there is
absolutely no negative impact whatsoever. | went through all of the criteria, and | am happy to
do that again in a littke more detail. Again, no change in the character of the neighborhood. It’s
consistent with other properties along the lake; other neighbors have similar structures. No
detriment to any nearby properties with the granting of the variance whatso ever. Can the benefit
be achieved by any other method? Not really. They need the variance because the building is
where it actually sits, they didn’t put it there. The prior owner constructed it. It is just slightly
off from where it should have been. The variance to move it forward obviously to can reorient
the configuration of the layout of the structure however, that would not be equally beneficial to
the applicant or to the neighborhood. Obviously having the alignment remaining the way it is
allows them to use the existing driveway. They have over 500 feet of driveway, so the location
of the existing structure really is oriented to allow the continued use of the driveway and that
harrow orientation also is the more appropriate orientation for the view from the road to the
public. Whether the variance is substantial, we are talking about 2 feet on the side setback. The
structure is already there, and the neighbor next door has no problem with it whatsoever and has
no problem with the project whatsoever and doesn’t interfere with the living of the adjacent
neighbors. Again, these are very deep lots, so the distance and dimensions are all...we are
talking about the context of the neighborhood when we talk about whether the variances are
substantial in the context of these large lots, these deep lots and the orientation and placement of
the homes in the neighborhood. These are not substantial variances whatsoever. There is already
a variance for the structure to be located in the front yard. We are moving it a Jiltke forward but
not in any way that the material or anything would impact anyone in the neighborhood or the
public. Any adverse effect or impact on physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood. None whatsoever and if anything, it is going to improve. They are going to
invest in quality design and quality structure. It is going to be an attractive structure and it will
also allow them to make renovations and upgrade their home in the long run. The variances arise
from the existing conditions; the location of the existing garage; the location of the existing
house and the location of the existing driveway. They are working with the existing structure
that is there and making improvements on that so I think we meet the standards, and I would
Pg. 171 June 13, 2023 Zoning Meeting
point out that it did go to the Planning Board because this is over 500 sq feet and I think that is
what requires site plan approval and the Planning Board sent a letter of recommendation in
support of the variances and { believe that was addressed to your board so you should have that
in your packet. We did see some staff comments and Evan can address it, but I think it was about
the sewer and didn’t have any issue with those comments.
INAUDIBLE know where the existing sewer is...we will be utilizing it with the El
pump and a back up generator and then the applicant will allow for an easement for the town.
Anything else?
No, happy to answer any questions.
Was that an apartment before?
No. Currently it is a two-bay structure single story. It is now going to have some
living space above the garage so that they can....they have three kids they would like to live in
the structure while they do their renovation, and they understand that this is not for commercial
purposes, and we state that for the record. It is purely for the use of the owners of the home.
So, what is the intent for using it after words right, because the area variance that
] received is it was necessary to do the renovation. I] have done renovations on my residence, my
clients residence, sometimes that have lived through it and sometimes they have had temporary
structures pul up to live through the renovations. Here we are doing significant renovations for
lack of a garage, and we are not converting il from an accessory building and now to living space
so what is the final intent.
| think that their intent is just to continue to have it available for their family to use.
] think that they have in-laws that come to visit in and out and their life revolves around their
house lake, but we would have no problem with supulation that there 1s no intent for anyone
other than the family to use the home.
It wouldn't be like an Airbnb site or anything like that?
Excuse me?
I mean you wouldn’t rent it out.
No, no. No commercial use whatsocver.
| just want to make sure; does it meet the definitions of accessory apartment or
Yes, we have had some internal discussions about how to handle this and it was
determined that it would not really fil the accessory apartment definition. They are not
Pg. 172 June 13, 2023 Zoning Mecting
proposing to have separate utilities or have someone permanently living in it so there was a
consensus among town staff that it was ok to proceed as it has been advertised for.
But we have not allowed it with other circumstances and 350-42 limits a single
detached dwelling on a single family and while I understand that they have zero intention of ever
using it as a residence for anyone else the variance stays with the property not with the owners.
BOTH PARTIES SPEAKING AT THE SAME TIME
INAUDIBLE
I understand that, but we have denied similar applications in the past. While he is
not going to use it commercially , the people that come after the Lesters. The person that built
the garage originally put it in the wrong spot. So, variances are only as good as that people own
it currently.
But I do believe the town has a mechanism for enforcement when there is that use.
Use violations are much easier to stop than somebody being a foot off.
But the code....it would need a variance because the code says no.
The interpretation was made by the staff. They directed us on how to file the
application.
Could you just run us through what the process is.
What process?
The internal discussions that you had.
Well, we brought the project to PRC in which the Planning Board chairman attends
and | directly asked him his thoughts on whether or not he believed the intent of the accessory
apartment and then a group discussion. There are similar structures in the stretch of Lake Road
whether it’s allowed by the code or not, they do exist, and the thought was if you are living in a
property of this nature are you really going to want to rent out to a stranger so the general
consensus was then that it should not be treated as an accessory apartment.
Were there any discussions around conditions?
Yes, the Planning Board indicated because it would have to go back before them
that they would put a condition that it would be for personal use only of the homeowners.
What is the code section on that?
Pg. 173 June 13, 2023 Zoning Meeting
The accessory apartment section?
Yes
It is 350-50. So, they are detached accessory apartments and are allowed; limited to
500 square feet however, principal dwelling unit in which an accessory apartment is located must
be occupied by one or more of the owners of record. It goes into utility service; exterior, you can
not have an additional entrance but this is detached so it is a separate structure and then it
requires an accessory apartment agreement that gets filed with Monroe County so [ don’t know
how they would file one of those with themselves.
We are doing work in Penfield right now, where it is an in-law apartment, and
they make the owner sign an agreement that is filed with the abstract with the Monroe County
clerk that restricts it to only family of the owners. It’s an official record. So, anyone buying the
property would be aware of that also. To Corrine’s point, maybe the next owners may nol use it.
We should be doing the same thing. I think it also requires twice as much
acreage as required by...when it’s a detached apartment . I mean carriage houses, ] understand
the language for them, it’s a novelty but INAUDIBLE purposes, no one has carriages anymore. It
is what it is. It’s an accessory apartment above a garage by today’s standards.
I am not speaking for the board, but my opinion is the accessory structure in the
front yard, ! don’t think it’s an issue because it is Lake Road and that is the back yard of Lake
Road. ] don’t think the {2 foot...although it’s disappointing it wasn’t built the way 14 should have
been, I think the occupancy is the issue. That is my opinion.
Agreed.
So, Don, just to your point, so if it is detached it does require at least twice the
required minimum lot area for the district however, | believe they meet that. It is a fairly large
parcel.
Will it then meet the minimum square footage or is it going to be a 1100 square
foot apartment or the maximum square footage of ?
It would exceed what the code allows for a detached accessory apartment.
It really should be advertised for that also.
For what?
Donald Hauza; For the accessory apartment. I certainly understand, like | said earlicr, the
carriage house, for all intense and purposes, no one has carriages anymore. It is a garage witha
studio apartment above it.
Pg, 174 June 13, 2023 Zoning Mecting
It could be guest quarters. How do we assure it is not used commercially? I mean,
the next owner and the next owner,
Well, that is the decision we have to make.
Actually, there is a structure just to the east of you almost exactly the same
distance down the road, does that have a living quarters above it? It looks like it does but maybe
you don’t know.
Matt is not here but I think it does. I have been told that there are other similar
structures in the area,
So, I just want to step back and Josh you made a comment that Tony was part
of a PRC review committee for this. The area variances that we would grant this evening on the
side setback and the additional square footage on the existing structure and the front yard. Did
you make the comment that the Planning Board was going to condition something because they
have to go back for greater than 500 feet?
Right, this does trigger site plan review, so they did appear before the Planning
Board for concept last week and they have to return for a final approval.
And they were going to place a condition on it did you say?
Yes, they said if approved that they would put a condition on it that states it is for
personal use only, not for commercial use. There was much discussion amongst the Planning
Board members, but they seem to be in agreement that it didn’t fit the intent of the accessory
apartment regulation but if this board feels differently...
Well, | just INAUDIBLE Don Hauza speaking at the same time. How do we
interpret it that 1 doesn’t meet the standards as an accessory apartment in this instance but when
the gentleman two doors down wanted us to do it, then it is. We just need to be consistent no
matter what it is that we do.
Did the gentieman two doors down go for @ variance?
If it is the house that I think it is, he was denied a variance for an accessory
apartment in that structure that yellowy.
I recall years ago; | can’t recall the address...
It has a gate.
Pg. 175 June 13, 2023 Zoning Meeting
There was one that was approved, similar situation. My objective is to bring it up
lo todays standards. You call it a carriage house, it’s very romantic language and what not, no
one has carriages anymore. J mean it’s an accessory apartment over a garage.
It meets all the requirements and just skimming through here, it appears that it
meets all the requirements.
There would be a single utility service, correct?
I believe so.
One meter in the house?
If that were the case and the boards interpretation is that it meets the definition
of an accessory apartment then it would need to be advertised as this.
Well, it does indicate that there is a living area above the garage.
[ appreciate you guys debating this but we filed an application based on an
interpretation indicating that the relief we needed was these two variances so that is the path that
we have taken. We are happy to address the concerns of the board as conditions on any
approval. I have not heard any objections to the structure.
We just trying to dot our I’s and cross out T’s . Thank you, we appreciate it as
usual.
330-50 sull good and it is reflected in the book, right?
Correct. Lam just thinking here, it could be treated as an accessory apartment from
this point forward with the Planning Board as they are the board that has the purview on
approval of those and if there isn’t anything that or any of the standards that can’t be met, they
also have the authority to waive those. So, if it makes this board more comfortable, we can refer
to iL as accessory apartment as it moves forward.
| would gladly do that. Take it back and Jet them address it.
In the C3, the size, it is in excess of that?
Yes, it is.
What ts the square feet of the principal dwelling?
Did you say 5,000?
Pg. 176 June 13, 2023 Zoning Meeting
Over 5, OOOO.
What is the total square foot of it? 1069, is that accurate?
I thought it was a 1,000 square foot, wasn’t it?
It’s a total of 1069
So, it’s under.
No but you are allowed 35 percent of the house or 750 square feet.
EVERYONE TALKING AT ONCE
So, 1 would at least need a variance for that then for the size.
They would need a waiver and that could be handled under the Planning Board into
the code.
Ok. ] am with the opinion that as long as we all are aware of this, the 350-50
the accessory apartment language, the conditions, the requirements there in and the fact that the
Planning Board is going to address this a second time, correct?
Yes.
Ok, the ] would say we sce this as is as Mr. Hauza pointed out. It does in the
advertisement; it does suggest that there is a second story living quarters. (A LOT OF PAPERS
RATTLING)
Well then do we condition it as the Town of Penfield did where it has to be filed
with the deed that it will be a personal.............
If there is a motion made, I would put that int here.
Plus, I think it is required by our code also.
Yes, it is.
Any other comments or questions? | think we have beat this one up and we
appreciate your patience, and J will open it up to public comments. There is no one in the
audience so we will return it back to the board.
RESOLUTION 23-044 Jamie Newtown made a motion for TYPE IT SEQR
which was seconded by: Donald Hauza.
Pg. 177 June 13, 2023 Zoning Meeting
VOTE:
Mr. Newtown AYE
Mr. Barone AYE
Mrs. Volo AYE
Mr. Hauza AYE
Mr. Short AYE
My recommendation would be to proceed with an approval like that is that we
adopt the....] always like your letters because I like to adopt what you outline instead of re-
iterating it so, I would suggest that we adopt from the May 23" , 2023 letter by Mrs. Brugg to be,
let me find it, on pages 3, 4, and the five criteria by the Zoning Board as she has outline them on
those two pages. Does anyone have anything else to add? Ok, does anyone care to make a
motion, We are going to adopt her findings.
RESOLUTION 23-045
VOTE:
CONDITIONS:
Jamie Newtown made a motion to APPROVE THE
AREA VARIANCE Located at 1242 Lake Road.
Applicant Matt Lester is requesting an AREA
allow a 12” side setback where 20’ is
required (14’ side setback was previously approved; but
structure was built 12’ from property line); the expansion
of an existing detached accessory structure that is closer to
the front property line than the rear line of the main
residence, which is not permitted without Zoning Board
approval; associated with an approximate 429 SF addition
of a covered palio area, workshop, 2™ story guest living
quarters and balcony (for a total of 1,069 SF) on a 3.26
acre parcel having SBL# 050.05-1-10 located in an R-i
Single Family Residential District under Sections 350-10,
350-36 and 350-94 of the Code of the Town of Webster
which was seconded by: Barry Barone.
Mr. Newtown AYE
Mr. Barone AYE
Mrs. Volo NAY
Mr. Hauza AYE
Mr. Short NAY
e The applicant must obtain all necessary governmental permits, including a Town
Building Permit.
® That one-year significant construction shall expire June 43, 2024.
e Move to the Planning Board and we can recommend that they condition this
appropriately and ensure that they address the items within 350-50 for accessory
apartments to ensure that this is specific to the current resident at hand and not for
commercial; Airbnb or rental.
Pg. 178 June 13, 2023 Zoning Mecting
e it must be filed with the deed / county that it was to be for family use only, not rental
;
Since there is no further application before the Board Jamie Newtown adjourned tonight’s
meeting at 9:30 p.m.
Minutes were approved for May 9, 2023.
Corrine Volo, Secretary
Katherine Kolich, Recording Secretary
Sra, KA, Mega
[ Pg. 179 June 13, 2023 Zoning Mecting