Minutes

WEBSTER ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES

Jamie Newtown, Chairman

Barry Barone, Vice Chairman

Corrine Volo, Secretary

Donald Hauza

Griff Stappenbeck

John DeMarco, Attorney

Josh Artuso, Director of Community Development

Katherine Kolich, Recording Secretary

2023. This evening we have 2 tabled items and | 1 scheduled matters on the agenda. We do have

proof of publication for each of these matters from the Webster Herald. We do have a full board

this evening and we do have one administrative matter.

Call Roll /Pledge of Allegiance

does have the right to stop hearing applications, which we will at 10:00 pm. I’m sorry, I am not

interested in being here until midnight tonight. So, if you are at the tail end of the agenda, it’s a

crap shoot whether we are going to get to you tonight. I am just going to be honest.

Sumuiary of Application Outcomes

TABLED MATTERS

:

613 WEBSTER ROAD/VILLAGE OF WEBSTER WASTEWATER TREATMENT

PLANT IMPROVEMENTS

and Matt Higgins, Civil Engineer with LaBella.

ALL NEW FENCING (ENTIRE PERMINTER) WITH PRIVACY FENCING; REMOVE ALL

BARBWIRE;POLE BARN WOULD BE REPLACED WITH NEW ROOF AND SIDING OR POLE BARN

WILL BE REDUCED IN SIZE AND JUST ROOF WILL BE REPLACED. GREENHOUSE TO HAVE

ALL BROKEN AND MISSING GLASS REPLACED. GENERAL LANDSCAPING SHOULD BE

SUBSTANCIAL, ARBORVITIE AND SHRUBS. SITE PLANS WILL NEED TO BE APPROVED BY

APPROPRIATE TOWN STAFF.

Pg. 57 April 11, 2023 Zoning Meeting

1650 RIDGE ROAD/AUTOMOTIVE DETAILING SHOP

BAYS; CODE ENFORCEMENT WILL FOLLOW UP WITH A 6 MONTH INSPECTION TO ENSURE

PRODUCTS ARE BIODEGRADABLE. APPLICANT TO RETURN TO THE ZONING BOARD ON

10.10.23 FOR A POSSIBLE EXTENTION OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT, STAFF SHOULD CONSIST OF

OWNER AND ONE EMPLOYEE; THERE SHOULD BE NO OUTDOOR STORAGE, MUST BE KEPT

INDOORS; NO REPAIRS; SALES; OR PRODUCT TO BE SOLD. THERE SHOULD BE A MINIMAL OF

6TO 10 CARS. LANDSCAPING SHOULD BE DONE BY SIX MONTH CE REVIEW AS APPROVED

WITH ALL ORIGINAL APPROVALS.

SCHEDULED MATTERS

:

771 RIDGE ROAD/BEST BUY AUTO SALES SIGN

943 RIDGE ROAD/MARINA DODGE JEEP EXPANSION

520 FOREST LAWN ROAD/ACCESSORY STRUCTURE

STAKEOUT AND AN ACCESS AGREEMENT BETWEEN APPLICANT AND

NEIGHBOR.

1197 RIDGE ROAD/WEBSTER HOME IMPROVEMENTS/STOOP & STEPS

877 MAPLE DRIVE/CHICKEN COOP

ONE YEAR EVALUATION OF HENS ON APRIL 2024 ZB MEETING WITH A

POSSIBILITY OF ALLOWING MORE HENS. COOP IS TO BE LOCATED BEHIND

GARAGE.

231 RAPHAEL DRIVE/ACCESSORY STRUCTURE

492 ARIA LANE/GARAGE ADDITION

Pe. 58 April 11, 2023 Zoning Meeting

512 COVEWOOD BLVD/CARPORT WITH ADA RAMP & COVERED PORCH

[ Applicant: Thomas Milliman Jr

375 WEBSTER ROAD/RED BARN FARMS

1016 JOHN LEO DRIVE/GARAGE ADDITION

1045 RIDGE RGAD/TAKE 5 OIL CHANGE

(Corrine Volo read the first application)

VILLAGE OF WEBSTER WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENTS:

Located at 613 Webster Road. Applicant Mayor Darrell Byerts is requesting an extension of a

nonconforming use associated with proposed upgrades to the Village of Webster’s Wastewater

Treatment Plant on a 10.10-acre parcel having SBL #065.10-{-13. (WEB located in an R-3

f Single Family Residential District under Section 350-19 of the Code of the Town of Webster.

*Please note: the septage receiving component of the project has been eliminated. *

that we addressed this application was February 14, 2023 unfortunately we had to cancel some

meetings in March due to some missing members. Which I will say, we have addressed, and the

town has brought on a couple of new members, alternates to support this team. During that

meeting on February 14, we closed, and I am going to repeat, WE CLOSED the public comment

portion of that meeting, and we will not re-open the public comment back up on this application

this evening, but 1 do want to acknowledge did received and has reviewed:

e aletter dated March 5, 2023 from Lori Reynolds

e a PowerPoint and letter submitted on March 6, 2023 by Brian & Margarita Dunham

® anemail sent on March 10, 20203 and we do not have a last name. The first name was

Robby.

* aletter dated Mach 10, 2023 by Michael & Polly Conn

* a website comment dated March |1, 2023 by George Baker

* anemail dated March 13, 2023 by Patrick & Kansas McDonald

e aletter dated April 6, 2023 by Elizabeth Barnard

In addition to that we did receive a village response to comments that I am assuming you will

conumunicate to us this evening from Mr. Swingley. Those comments were dated 3.24 but the

[ letter was dated 4.3.2023 and in addition to that, ] did receive late this afternoon, an email

Pg. 59 April 11, 2023 Zoning Meeting

forwarded to me that was a request by and Lam sorry I don’t have it in front of me and I believe it

was the Dunham's to table this meeting to the next meeting which would have been May 9, 2023.

The board is not going to table this application. We are going to proceed with it this evening, but

we welcome you as residents of the Town of Webster to continue to pursue whatever next steps are

in the process with this application that has been presented to us by the Village of Webster.

Ok, before we get into your presentation, the last thing that [ wanted to address is the letter

received March 23, 2023 by Mr. White and Mr. White, if you would like to summarize that for the

board and then we could address it.

Webster Town Code which deals with preexisting nonconforming uses and that section provides

that a nonconforming use shall not be extended or increased except with the Zoning Board of

Appeals.

So, when the villager initially submitted its application, it was our feeling that the increase in a

nonconforming use was related to the seplage receiving station as this board knows that has been

removed from the project and the village will not do any septage treatment at its wastewater

treatment plant. So, that raised a question with me anyhow, what is the extension or increase to the

non-conforming use at this point. The capacity of the plant is not being increased. In fact, the

actual square footage of the buildings is going to be decreased because of the two new trickling are

smaller than the existing trickling filters. So, | would since it’s the province of this board to

interpret the zoning code in the Town of Webster. I] would like to know what this board’s

interpretation is at this point of what the extension or increase in the nonconforming use of the

village wastewater treatment plant. That was the purpose of the letter.

distributed to myself and the board and | came down to a couple of key things. One, there is

history with this site and if you look at the _ of this board with respect to a

nonconforming use such issues in that history that have been noted are pretty much everything that

has been documented in 350-91so0 from that perspective } certainly feel that this should evaluate

this application but probably more importantly to me, the new chemical bulk storage that has been

proposed, I understand that you removed the septage receiving certainly from that perspective this

is anew construction and that is new building and that is being added to the project. Everything

else ] can make the argument that it is pretty much a replacement in kind or better than what exists

today. So, that ts my two cents, but I will let the rest of the board reflect on that.

be removed as the applicant indicated. If anything, it will help the pure waters,

Pg, 60 April | 1, 2023 Zoning Meeting

building does fead it to be an extension of nonconforming use. Everything else is currently at the

site that would be an improvement of the situation.

that building has safeguards in it for chemical spillage and so on. Which they may not have now, |

don’t know. So, it would be an improvement.

back to you personally on it. | think it kind of raises a mixed issue of law and fact. One of the

things that the court of appeals indicated is that when you have preexisting nonconforming uses,

the goal ultimately is to stop them to basically having them expire and runout, so they no longer

meet nonconforming. In that vein when you look at this the statue 350-91, it’s not worded, in my

opinion, very well or is it worded with any clarity. When it says a nonconforming use sha!! not be

extended or increased, it’s in my opinion that it’s ambiguous as to is it talking about duration or is

it talking about utility. There is not any case law that ] have found that talks about it in the context

of duration that is to say by fixing the buildings and making them better that there is going to be a

longevity increase to it and therefore what you are doing is in affect you extend the nonconforming

use in time, in duration. Which would be against what I have read and how the court appeals have

interpret what the ultimate goal is on nonconforming use. The idea is to let the landowner use their

property but once it becomes nonconforming that it is not in perpetuity that there is a duration and

an end. Then as you take actions to extend it in time you are really going against the intent of the

zoning code of the State of New York. However, if you look at it in terms of building usage and

look at it literally are you expanding the facility by making it larger, which I think was the context

of your letter. Really what is done here is it is making the footprints of the building smaller so that

you are interpreting 91 as it being size and not in terms of duration. I can’t say that in reading this

statue that Iam able to say that the forefathers who drafted this language and put it in their

INAUDIBLE intentions. I suppose it is up to the board to interpret that language as part of the

parcel of their obligation as the Zoning Board. It sounds as though that each individual board

member that spoke is interpreting il in terms of physical size not in duration. So, if that is the way

that they choose (o interrupt it, ] cannot sit here and say that that is against the intention of the

statute or against how it is specially written. IT really can’t tell but the case law, my belief is that

this area is generally expansions of the building and the context of a larger operation and not in

terms of extending INAUDIBLE. ] don’t know if that explanation is helping or not, but I think that

is the struggle for INAUDIBLE.

as extending in time because you can have any property owner that has a preexisting

nonconforming use simply because they maintained the property or they want to improve it, They

pul a new roof on their house, and they are in an industrial zone , you know, they are a preexisting

nonconforming use. Yes, they are extending the duration of their house, they don’t have to come to

this board for approval for that. So, I think your duration argument is not the greatest one.

Pg. 61 April 11, 2023 Zoning Meeting

“extended” or “increased” in the context of that the use shall not be extended. Had they thought it

was exclusively in size they may have said enlarged; scope increased things like that and they

chose not to.

Don White. T understand that. | understand that they chose not to, and it is rather ambiguous, and

the point is simply that to me it would be hard to defend it if you are using duration as a tigger

pomt because you know, the village could have done nothing but simply spruced up the site and

we wouldn’t have come here but would that be in violation of the statute? [don’t know but, in any

event, if the chairman can clarify, you said based on the history of the property, what does that

mean? There is nothing in the statue thal says simply because of history of the property that you

have to come in front of the Zoning Board of Appeals.

extension and in my case, I had never indicated that the extension was in time, I specifically stated

if you recollect, that it was the building in my opinion that triggered with respect to the history

comment, there is certainly a history with this site with respect to traffic, noise, all of the things

that are in here , odors, that this board would like to look at. In my opinion, as part of this

extension in terms of the building footprint. Which is the chemical bulk storage building. Had you

not proposed the chemical bulk storage building, in my opinion, I would suggest that everything

else is replacement in kind or as I stated before, you are improving what is existing.

discussion about that March 23" letter, we can move on.

this evening.

of Public Works for the Village of Webster. Jake was not with us. This is Matt Higgins from

LaBella. The villages Engineer. Jake was not with us before, but Jake is here now in case there

ure any questions about existing uses for any parts of the wastewater treatment plant. Specifically,

the green house and the pole barn in the back if you have any questions about that. In the April 3

letter, Matt addressed the comments that came out of the town’s project review committee, and |

don’t know if you want to go through all these or what.

comments?

Pg. 62 April 11, 2023 Zoning Meeting

presentation and I don’t know if you got him a copy of our response, but he is certainly...it’s a

public record, he can have it,

included this evening? 613 Webster Road, Community Development.

e Application was tabled by ZBA in February pending additional detail on proposed

chemical storage building.

e Number 2 received many complaints from nearby residents about historical operations

and proposed upgrades. Esthetic improvements and existing components of the plant are

a priority for the neighbors.

e Number 3, as of the time of this meeting revised plans have not been submitted to the

town, Therefore, we will not be able to review this item any further.

e And lastly and most importantly in my opinion is the sewer department comment that the

proposed chemical bulk storage building size of which we had a question previously and

I think the board had beat that up a little bit. Is most likely appropriate for an operation of

this size in nature that is being conducted.

Were there any others that ] missed?

April 11'" so there were a couple of extra comments that they did address regarding the proposed

material of the chemical storage building giving that it was metal we were inquiring as to if there

would be a protective coating applied so that the building doesn’t prematurely corrode from

exposure to the chemicals and they provided a response indicating that it will be a metal building

but it will also be coated with corrosion resistant coating to prevent premature corrosion and then

there was also concern about the mix of chemicals being stored and it is common to have different

types of chemicals stored in the same facility as long as there is proper containment and that is up

to the Engineer to make sure they are meeting those standards.

we created to kind of refresh memory of and maybe provide a further description of that building.

ON THEM) This is from the southeast showing the exterior and the proposed interior of this

building. The colors are generally what the village anticipates selecting during construction and

the variety of uses are shown in this image where we have the bulk storage tanks or one for ferric

chloride and one for sodium hypochlorite. The ferric chloride tank with the capacity of 6,000

gallons and the sodium hypochlorite with the capacity of 3,000 gallons. Each of those are vented

Pg. 63 April L1, 2023 Zoning Meeting

through the roof not within the building. Each one has separate secondary containment that

provides 110% capacity of storage so 6600 gallons for ferric and 3300 for sodium hypo. They are

fully separate so if both tanks were to spill at the same time it would remain in separate concrete

closures. You see in there that there are several trucks, the size of the building has to do with a few

ancillary uses the village intends to use this building for. Parking of a dump truck; parking of a

pick-up truck; parking of a lawnmower-seasonally; electrical power distribution panels to serve the

facility as well as a clothes washer/dryer for operator clothing so they don’t have to wear dirty

clothes home. The flip side of this just shows a view from the other direction from the northwest.

Again, a large garage door on one end; windows to provide some ambient light inside. Does

anyone have any questions about that?

right here (SHOWING ON THE RENDERINGS) and the unloading of trucks will pull up in the

driveway outside and run their hose through a man door on this corner to a panel that will provide

the correct hook ups and signage to make sure they are discharging it into the right tank and

minimizing any spilling that would occur. So, that panel will have it’s secondary containment zone

within there and the secondary containment via a small curbed area in the driveways so if there is

any leak or spill at the truck that that is contained within that curbed area in the driveway is

collected with a drain that sends it to the pump station at the bottom of the plant and recirculates to

the head of the plant so there will be no release to the environment from the truck nor from within

the building.

Bulk Storage regulations in mind and I am assuming the facility will have a spill prevention report,

SPR.

facilities, and they anticipate modifying that to receive official ongoing approval to store the

chemicals as shown here.

comments that were made and perhaps you could provide some clarity of what 1 will call the

aesthetic issues that were previously identified from the fencing, and I know you have documented

some of this, but I would just like to get it on record. The fencing what you are proposing; the pole

barn; ] guess for a lack of better words, along the creck; and the greenhouse.

Pg. 64 April 11, 2023 Zoning Meeting

history, obviously this decision took the village board quite awhile to make and we were nol

interested in vesting into something that we could potentially take down but once the decision was

made to make the improvements to the plant and obviously it is not an unreasonable request

giving the greenhouse replacement windows there; the pole barn we have contacted a few

contractors to look at it. One of them I talked to him on the 20" of March and again on the 30" of

March and he ts dealing with a family issue and visiting a relative in Florida, 1 was hoping to have

an email from him today but J just got back from Golf Port Mississippi this afternoon and I have

not received anything, but I was checking it while ] was down there.

The fence, we talked about replacing the chain-link around the perimeter of the facility and putting

in privacy slats and there is a section near the road. There is a little return where the driveway

comes in and the original plan was to clean it up so we can put more landscaping out there and

make that look nicer but if the consensus is that that should stay to provide a little more of a

barrier, we can provide additional privacy slats in that as well.

we have also contemplated reducing the size of the pole barn. That is what we are waiting to hear

back from the contractor as to the better way to go about that. Obviously with the roof panels they

are missing and there are a couple of trusses that need to be addressed so we thought that if we are

pulling it alt off, it’s larger than what we need now so we may just take a portion of it down. We

can use it for storage. There are manhole covers; grates and things like that; piping; flowerpots go

in there in the wintertime. So, it is larger than what we need right now so if it’s better, like I said,

either way we are going to replace the siding and the roof or reduce the size and put a new roof

and siding on it.

floodplain if they were to remove a portion of that building. Obviously, there is much of a concern

having it in the flood plain.

requires a flood plain development permit that would be issued by the town. Yes, any reduction

because a good portion of this building is within the flood plain and so any reduction in size with

theoretically benefits the flood plain, but it would require an additional permit that we would issuc.

the food plain permit before the work on the barn.

must vole on the approval of the funding for the plant upgrades?

Pg.65 April 11, 2023 Zoning Meeting

ago and they presenily...... and they received an interest free loan from the State of NY which

they are already drawing on, so the funding is all in place. They don’t need any approvals for that.

Perhaps Matt can address the SPEDYS permit, where that is.

plant improvements project, the scope of that project. Has the board passed any sort of resolution

relating to funding relating to the aesthetic improvements? (SPEAKING TO DON WHITE) and is

that what you are asking?

have talked to the mayor and the trustees, there are funds available through the ARPA funds that

the village and the town received also and could be used for this kind of a project.

wanl some assurances that these improvements were going to be made before any action was taken

by this board.

greenhouse, they said get that scheduled and get the glass in there it’s April 11" and we weren’t

quite sure if it was going to be done snowing yet and I have contacted them about the barn at the

direction of the board and we have contacted the fence company. The fence company has a

proposal to us already and they are aware of what those funds are committed to doing that and they

[ have not passed a resolution yet because we are going to do it all at once.

Discussion amongst the board members

for the new structure so essentially if the improvements to the existing structures were not made,

we would not issue a certificate of compliance.

RESOLUTION 23-0106 Jamie Newtown made a motion for an UNLISTED

VOTE:

Mr. Newtown AYE

Mr. Barone AYE

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Hauza AYE

Mr. Stappenbeck AYE

f Jamie Newtown: No, the public comment portion is closed,

Pg. 66 April 11, 2023 Zoning Mceting

fashion, and lam not sure. | am talking about the improvements to the site, and | am not sure

how to guarantee that to these people.

clear) toa C of O.

your concern.

C of O, do they?

of compliance for the actual improvements to the wastewater treatment process stuff.

the building permit to the chemical bulk storage building that the improvements are done to the

barn; the greenhouse; and the fencing. So, if those are not done by the time the chemical storage

building is built , then you don’t get a certificate of compliance or completion for that building

and now the whole thing is now in violation.

matter of getling a contractor on board for the INAUDIBLE and Mr. Barone probably can

appreciate this, these days, it took awhile to find a contractor who is even interested in the

project in the first place and then with supply issues, who knows how long it is actually going to

lake . It is going to get done but we couldn’! tell you when because we don’t even have...we

haven't decided because we don’t know the cost if it is relatively the same cost to put a new roof

and side the existing building or have to shrink it about a 1/3"), will shrink it. As Jake said, the

Pg. 67 April 11, 2023 Zoning Meeting

village doesn’t need the space anymore and itis better for the floodplains to have less than a

building there.

Discussion amongst board members. (John DeMarco and Jamie Newtown) Jamie Newtown: We

are chatting whether it makes sense to segregate this application into two pieces and that would

be purely administrative meaning that the upgrades to the treatment facility, once again back to

our discussion earlier, around 350-91, those are not, I believe, not subject to the extension of

nonconforming uses as they are upgrades replacement in kind on existing equipment vs. the

chemical butk storage facility that we could INAUDIBLE or should INAUDIBLE the assurances

that we are requesting for the rest of the site through the issuance of the building permit and

certificate of compliance.

Discussion amongst board members.(John DeMarco, Jamie Newtown)

was some incentive on the villages part that they have to get the SPDYS permit in order to...So,

if the upgrades are conditioned as part of the building permit and certificate of compliance

process, I don’t see how they can not do it.

to see the actual finished product before they issue the permit?

draft copy at some point before construction completion certainly . I would expect it during this

calendar year. It is very unclear based on correspondence with DEC and we anticipated seeing it

last year and haven’t seen it yet and there is hopes on the part of DEC that local approvals and

any intermunicipal agreement would be in place prior to their release of the permit but I think at

some point they are just going to release a draft copy for public comment and then proceed with

releasing the permit but it is all very unclear at the moment. The exact timing, I should say. F

indicate what? What are the required upgrades? The fence, what specifically about the fence. I

think we need to be specific about it. So, we have four items, three ilems. The fence, we have

what we will call the pote barn and we have what is called the green house.

spruce trees that were planted behind the initial row, and they are maybe like 2 feet high, that

you can sce from Webster Road. It should be substantial in height if there are going to be shrubs

Pg. 68 April 11, 2023 Zoning Meeting

and arborvitae or any type of bushes. They just can’t just plant little whips and that should be

reviewed by the Public Works Department.

my perception of landscaping.

the fence will be replaced and now the privacy panels, will they the entire perimeter of the fence

or just...

and then I am seeing through them.

chain-link fence is coming down.

be any higher, but the chain-link will be all replaced. So, the brand new chain-link and then

within the chain-link, you kind of weave these privacy slats through the chain-link and that is

what the proposal is.

returns and there is some of the fencing that doesn’t have to be there around the perimeter so.

about. (PASSES THE PICTURES OUT TO THE BOARD)

been 2 approaches that have been stated, right. Approach number I, is to remove a portion of

the building or the 2 option, is to replace and repair the roof section.

Pg. 69 April 11, 2023 Zoning Mecting

guess some or one of the roof trusses needs to be replaced to so if you have to replace that, that is

what triggered maybe just making the building smaller and don’t replace that truss and just make

the building smaller. So frankly, the preferred route is to make it smaller but without any

estimates to cost, | am hesitant to commit the village one way or the other. Mr. Swingley is

trying to get estimates by now, but he has been unable to do so but, in any event, no matter

which option it is, there will be a new roof and brand-new siding on cither on the existing barn

or on the smaller barn. If it gets smaller, the north side of the barn doesn’t have to have a garage

door on it anymore and it would just be a man door because you just have the larger doors at the

other end.

either going to repair as is with a replacement of a new roof and replacement of new siding.

on and new siding.

the drying bed and that’s where it would continue to have the same use. It is used very

minimally now because we have a centrifuge but occasionally it does have to be utilized.

the fencing will be replaced and that is on all perimeters, correct?

proposing some ornamental plantings around the entry way?

Pg. 70 April 1{, 2023 Zoning Meeting

come down. Either way we can do some landscaping, additional landscaping there but obviously

without the returns we have more room for more landscaping.

sections with the X’s are what is being referred to as the returns. That is, it. Just those two

sections.

remove it and replace it with landscaping. Whichever this board desires.

hours of documents that have been submitted to us. I would just like to state for the record, this

board is here basically in a voluntary role, trying to do our best and we are going to be here for 3

4 hours and we have heard about 3 hours already of public comment. We have to move on.

entrance but with the privacy slats, it will secure the entrance.

there and INAUDIBLE ten on one side and six on the other.

litetime expectancy? Will they crack and dry out and require frequent replacement? Is there

better fence option?

about 5 years, and | haven't noticed any deterioration with them. Everything has a life cycle, and

Pg. 71 April 11, 2023 Zoning Meeting

Pam sure it would require a replacement over time, but 1am not certain what that is. Is been 5

years and they stil] look good.

sections with the privacy slots in them, the red X’s and leave as is and in addition to a few

ornamental plantings you said you would contribute to pretty up the entry way. Ok, do we have

any further questions/comments/concerns around the slots? What other options did you consider

from a fencing standpoint?

was doing an investigation on the fence. I know he was talking about a wooden fence but

obviously that is a lot of maintenance on it, and it can start looking bad pretty quick. I know we

just talked about a chain-link fence but with the chain-link fence, | am sorry, I just drove for 20

hours. The chain-link fence would look good but that is just a matter of time as well so with

addition of chain-link and the privacy slat that kind of gives the best of both worlds and it gives

you a better fook for the chain-link itself and then provides the screening and the desire has been

expressed for that.

from a, what I will cail, an overall facility aesthetic enhancement point of view. The fence: It

would be completely replaced and obviously you stated some of the post will stay unless they

need to be repaired. New fencing and chain-link around the entire perimeter without the

barbwire and the support system for the barbwire that would reside on the poles will be removed

and the entire pertmeter fencing will have privacy slats put in it, That is the fence.

new siding on the building OR if money allows, they will reduce the size and put a new roof on

and new siding to match and I am assuming that the chemical bulk storage colors.

barn building does not have electricity, and we have to have panels in there where it allows light

in there.

replaced, and any other necessary repairs will be made and then general landscaping, we are

going (o throw in the return fence section under general landscaping will remain improved and

privacy slots left in place or in place. In addition, there will be some ornamental plantings that

will be placed at the entry way.

approved, | mean signed off by.

buildings were used for the septage and are they going to be demolished or no longer used?

Pg. 72 April | 1, 2023 Zoning Meeting

the only thing what they ask ts if they can be done concurrently with the overall upgrade of the

plant. We would want to have to wait to, you know, until these are completed before.

permit.

I was foolish.

when that was discontinued.

HAVING DISCUSSIONS WITH JAKE SWINGLEY)

anything else that they would like to add? Last call. Barry, it sounds like you want to add

something.

extension of the use variance then?

SPEAKING AT ONE TIME)

nonconforming use.

Pg. 73 April 11, 2023 Zoning Meeting

conditions that we would put on it.

board was thrown a political football to be quite honest. It does not please me that this landed on

our lap; it does not please me that the town and the village can not come together and make a one

Webster community when the Town of Webster has two, I will repeat, wo wastewater treatment

plants and the rest of Monroe County is services off of Van Lare. I believe this is an issue that

could have been resolved elsewhere. However, I do feel, and I respect all of the input and the

community and comments from the residents in the area. [think this board struggled to find a

balance between beautifying. Some of the issues that have been raised around the site, I feel like

these conditions placed on it will address a lot of those issues. I truly belicve that if we don’t act

on this and this is my opinion and my opinion only, that it is not for the benefit of the betterment

of the community that this will continue to fall in disrepair, and I feel like we have the

opportunity now to place restrictions and handcuff this project to these conditions. That will

better that facility in the jong run. That is my soapbox. I will get down off of it and move to the

board to see if anyone would care to make a motion,

RESOLUTION 23-011 Jamie Newtown made a motion to APPROVE AND

GRANT THE EXTENTION OF A PREEXISTING

NONCONFORMING USE FOR THE WEBSTER

VILLAGE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT

IMPROVEMENTS Located at 613 Webster Road.

Applicant Mayor Darre!| Byerts is requesting an extension

of anonconforming use associated with proposed upgrades

to the Village of Webster’s Wastewater Treatment Plant on

a 10.10-acre parcel having SBL #065.10-1-13. AWWEB

located in an R-3 Single Family Residential District under

Section 350-19 of the Code of the Town of Webster which

was seconded by: Corrine Volo

VOTE:

Mr. Newlown AYE

Mr. Barone AYE

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Hauza AYE

Mr. Stappenbeck AYE

CONDITIONS:

e ALL NEW FENCING (ENTIRE PERMINTER) WITH PRIVACY FENCING: REMOVE ALL

BARBWIRE;POLE BARN WOULD BE REPLACED WITH NEW ROOF AND SIDING OR POLE

BARN WILL BE REDUCED IN SIZE AND JUST ROOF WILL BE REPLACED. GREENHOUSE

TO HAVE ALL MISSING/BROKEN GLASS REPLACED. GENERAL LANDSCAPING SHOULD

BE SUBSTANCIAL, ARBORVITIE AND SHRUBS. SITE PLANS WILL NEED TO BE

APPROVED BY APPROPRIATE TOWN STAFF,

Pg. 74 April 11, 2023 Zoning Meeting

[ Josh Artuso: We would need the Planning Board Chairman to sign off on the mylar.

e All NY State DEC permits and we will say that it is a condition that you receive the

necessary approvals from the state inclusive of chemical bulk storage permits or

modifications to the existing permits. I will say, all the general conditions, fence;

pole barn; greenhouse; general landscaping will be a condition of the issuance of the

building permit for the project. To close out the building permit, those will have to

be completed for the certificate of compliance.

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

Building Permit.

e That one-year significant construction shall expire April 11, 2024.

Can you restate that and clarify?

construction. You have one year to commence. That could be footers...

[ Brian Dunham approaches the board.

(Carrine Volo read the second application)

1650 RIDGE ROAD AUTOMOTIVE DETAILING SHOP: Located at 1650 Ridge Road.

Applicant Steve Schlegel of Tesley LLC is requesting a special use permit to allow an auto

detailing business within a portion of an existing tractor equipment storage building on a 1.12-

acre parcel having SBL# 081.01-1-62 located in an LC-II Low Intensity Commercial District

under Sections 350-17 and 350-103 of the Code of the Town of Webster.

Appearing before the board was Steve Schicgel. I am the owner of Tesley LLC Steve’s

Lawncare who is currently renting the majority of space. For the sake of time, ] would like to be

thorough but yet pretty brief. If you may recall, | was back here in February, and it was the

suggestion of the board to withdraw the use variance application and submit a request for a

special use permil for this. So, we are looking to use just a couple of bays, a small percentage of

the building for a small automotive detailing business to rent out to.

We tried renting out to other businesses and currently the towns code is not necessarily...we

don’t have many video tape stores or watch repair shops anymore which is what LC-2 is zoned

for. So, we found a use for automotive, and | found a potential tenant who is very great, and I

have a bunch of reviews for him if you guys are interested in seeing the reviews. We are just

[ Pg. 75 Apri! 1f, 2023 Zoning Meeting

looking for a short-term special use permit to allow him to conduct his work there. Are there any

questions I can answer?

Donald Hauza; What is the time span?

company of Gravel Road that it was granted for the landscaping company, and I think it was

revisited after one year and then extended to five.

an option, but it gives us a little bit more control as well because the use permit expires and has

to be renewed INAUDIBLE so... because one of the comments was well, you are going to use

one bay now for this well, what if he turns the whole building and that is not necessarily what we

have in mind so I think the use permit was an option we could live with as opposed to a use

variance because we have the history.

discretion of the board?

what the ZBA determines necessary to ensure the standards of safeguard are set fourth in the

section and can be met and will be met.

Pg. 76 April 11, 2023 Zoning Meeting

vehicles; turn over.

just do a handful of cars a day. So, they are usually higher end detailing jobs. They don’t have

any outside storage. So, if they want to leave a customer’s car there overnight it would have to be

parked in the building. They are not to leave anything outside. No outside storage there and then

customers would just come and drop off their car and pick it up.

Steve Schlegel; They are 30 x 40 so it ‘is 2400 square feet.

equipment.

year extension after that, | would prefer not to go to five years. It sounds like we have the

authority to limit it to [| to 5 years,

possible to do a two year with a possible extension? | started this process...

to approve this unless we have a six-month check-in to begin with. That is absolute. It is nol

happening, in my opinion, without a six-month check-in. OK.

up to five years. So, we can issue now for six-months and

Pg. 77 April 11, 2023 Zoning Meeting

L

to the permanent period of time.

on.

a use variance for automotive use. Auto detailing only is not allowed in this district. The board

was not in favor of that approach but was willing to take a take a look at a revised application

submittal to the Zoning Board to access whether it made sense or not to move forward witha

special use permit. That gives this board the opportunity to evaluate this use after a period of

time, You heard us talking, six months would be a review period and coming back in on October

10" to address any public comment concern; any observations that were made by the town etc.

and probably inspect the site as well. I will open this up to public comment.

Sarah Castanova at 1629 Ridge Road and we also have a property at 1645 Ridge which is across

the street from this facility. A little bit of an issue going forward because a precedent would be

set for all storage facilities in Webster to be able to rent out each of their units. Since this waws

an original storage facility approved by the Planning Board it will not be a good precedent to set

for all of the storage units that are now in Webster. Number six on the 350-103 talked about

required landscaping, the Planning Board did require landscaping on Ridge Road that has not

been installed yet. Automotive is not enumerated in the LC-2. It is in CO and IN and so for

number |2 it does not comply with the code. These septic chemicals, the Planning Board was

worried about being number 10 and [1] that would not include being an adequate facility for

disposing of the chemicals used and several vehicles a day, Vic’s was just approved for a home

occupation, and he is limited to 3 a day and this would be a larger one | guess but putting a limit

on it would be a good idea. Also, there is no fertilizer storage there which was not in the original

approvals so more ground water concerns and original approval like I said, was for seasonal

traffic storage facility and this is definitely beyond that.

There has also been automotive/mechanical body work done there and not just dollops at this

point. So, | guess that is it.

[04, is that an accurate statement?

Pg. 78 Aprif 11, 2023 Zoning Meeting

storing his tractors for snow blowing business, correct?

facility to the Planning Board, I guess I an tracking what you are saying.

for site plan review before it’s original construction. Then it also returned six months again to the

Planning Board under the provision that allows them to deem them a use that is similar to other

uses, They did not agree with that. They didn’t think it was a fit for that code. So, they referred

to it to this board for a use variance.

there present or there are not?

be installed...

expressway by the parking lot.

building on the side and then there is another low-lying retention arca off to the west side. It

really doesn’t collect or hold or hold any water because it is really sandy there it just drains.

any applications where there are outstanding violations, and I don’t know whether or not that is

in fact the case or lack of compliance.

Pg. 79 April 11, 2023 Zoning Meeting

aware of the landscaping requirement and the applicant has indicated that when the weather

turns, he will be installing that. | can not corroborate what was stated in regard to the automotive

repair or collusion work that is nothing that the town staff have witnessed but we would certainly

keep a close eye and have our code enforcement ensure that they are complaining with any

conditions if the board approves

1. John DeMarco: The facility is set up though to address any chemicals that are being washed off?

THE APPLICANT) the products that are used or how they react with...

fertilization truck that we park inside there but we are not washing off the machine or anything

else like that. {t is just stored inside.

previous conditions and or uses that were specified for this facility are met. Because I recall,

specifically talking about having tractors with snowblowers only in this facility,

lawncare in the summer and snow removal in the winter.

need to be aware of that, number 2 and number | and 2 is, if there are any requirements that you

are not needed as it relates to the initial approval or of this approval are you in agreement that it

would come under the requirement of the special use permit? So, you would be subject to that

reputation .

Pg. 80 April 11, 2023 Zoning Meeting

and now I am hearing that it is on septic, and I don’t know about the fertilizer truck and whether

there is anything being cleaned, hosed off, or whether these products for the auto detailing shop

are biodegradable or not but at Jeast there is potential for runoff into the ground. Alj lam saying

is | want to sec If you are consenting to any violations of the greater building would be included

in those purposes for the special use permit meaning auto detailing so that you understand the

violations on the on the greater operation if you will... would subject you to losing your special

use permit for auto detailing.

RESOLUTION 23-012 Jamie Newtown made a motion for an UNLISTED

VOTE:

Mr. Newtown AYE

Mr. Barone AYE

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Hauza AYE

Mr. Stappenbeck AYE

special use permit for a six-month period with an extension possibly up to a period of 5 years

depending on a revisit to this board on October 10, 2023 and inspection(s) by the Town of

Webster for these operations. The operation that I heard, what I believe would be, the owner and

one employee and no outside storage of vehicles outside the building. Ail to be left inside unless

being delivered or picked up. There will be no automotive repair, maintenance, or product sales.

The operation would be limited to 2400 square foot which is equivalent of two-1200 square foot

bays.

The applicant must comply with all original approval conditions inclusive of landscaping of what

is allowed to be stored within the facility. Josh, where are they documented...where are those

conditions documented currently?

email.

Pg. 81 April 1!, 2023 Zoning Meeting

would suggest that we provide of maybe a maximum.,..... It’s getting to be spring, two months,

to address these issues. Landscaping is one of them. Is that fair, two months? Three months?

recall] a detention pond on the northwest corner of this facility, and I didn’t see one.

is stormwater run off because of chemicals so there should be some retention on that. 1 don’t

think there was a road on the north side going and there is a driveway there. There again, lam

thinking out loud.

question.

were to restrict to two employees, five cars per day?

2 Ya cars a day.

park their vehicles, He has a land scaping company, and he is going to have trucks. I mean,

during the course of a business day it is going to be busy but absolutely everything should be

clean.

Jamie Newtown; How about, we restrict it, just for now, for the sixth month period, to 7-10 and

no more than that ] would think. I mean, you can’t even store inside overnight in 2400 square

fect so.

than

10. Steve Schlegel: And that is just for the automotive detailing shop because during a snowstorm,

we have twenly operators showing up.

Pg. 82 April 11, 2023 Zoning Meeting

and revisit to the board.

Do they need biodegradable compliance? Because it is going to septic, we are eventually getting

runoff and that is going to get full quick.

type of chemicals.

that is what they are using, correct?

appropriately captured this providing this applicant an opportunity to comply with the existing

conditions and get some additional revenue at least for a six-month period while we evaluate it?

Are you clear on the expectations?

previous conditions from Mr. Artuso.

application.

RESOLUTION 23-013 Corrine Volo made a motion to APPROVE THE

AREA VARIANCE Located at 1650 Ridge Road.

Applicant Steve Schlegel of Tesley LLC is

requesting a special use permit to allow an auto

detailing business within a portion of an existing

tractor equipment storage building on a |. 12-acre

parcel having SBL# 081,01-1-62 located in an LC-II

Low Intensity Commercial District under Sections

350-17 and 350-103 of the Code of the Town of

Pg. 83 April 11, 2023 Zoning Meeting

VOTE:

Mr. Newtown AYE

Mr. Barone AYE

Mts. Volo AYE

Mr. Hauza AYE

Mr. Stappenbeck AYE

CONDITIONS:

e APPROVED FOR AUTOMOTIVE DETAILING WITH CONDITIONS: 2400 SF TOTAL, TWO

BAYS; CODE ENFORCEMENT WILL FOLLOW UP WITH A 6 MONTH INSPECTION TO

ENSURE PRODUCTS ARE BIODEGRADABLE. APPLICANT TO RETURN TO THE ZONING

BOARD ON 16.10.23 FOR A POSSIBLE EXTENTION OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT, STAFF

SHOULD CONSIST OF OWNER AND ONE EMPLOYEE; THERE SHOULD BE NO OUTDOOR

STORAGE, MUST BE KEPT INDOORS; NO REPAIRS; SALES; OR PRODUCT TO BE SOLD.

THERE SHOULD BE A MINIMAL OF 6 TO 10 CARS. LANDSCAPING SHOULD BE DONE BY

SIX MONTH CE INSPECTIGN/APPROVAL AS APPROVED WITH ALL ORIGINAL

APPROVALS.

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

Building Permit.

e That one-year significant construction shall occur to expire April 11, 2024.

pointed out , 1650 Ridge Road -Mark McCauley; 1645 Ridge Road-Steven D. Gossamer, 1656

Ridge Road-Tony Domacello; 1644 Ridge Road- Jared Cote and those were the letters of

support for this application. Ok, I think just based on the approval from the board the conditions

are going to built into your special use permit which will be issued by the town, and we will see

you back here on October

10. Steve Schlegel: Ok and thank you very much.

(Corrine Volo read the fourth application)

BEST BUY AUTO SALES SIGN; Located at 771 Ridge Road. Applicant Vital Signs is

requesting an area variance to allow a second building mounted facade sign where only one is

permitted, associated with a used car dealership on a 1.73-acre parcel having SBL# 079,17-1-

21.11 located in an MC Medium Intensity Commercial District under Section 265-7 of the

Code of the Town of Webster.

Appearing before the board was Steve Stanley from Vital Signs. We have Best Buy Auto Sales

at 771 Ridge Road. We are proposing an area variance to have a second sign mounted to the east

side of the building. Each of these signs will be 46" X 46” which gives us total square footage of

14.69 percent. The signs are both non-ifluminated; flat panel with digital print and as |

mentioned, we are requesting an areca variance to be allowed to hang a second sign. There are,

with the document that ] handed out just a moment ago, you can see that the other businesses

right on Ridge Road that are also auto dealerships are aloud multiple lit signs. So, as I said

before, we are requesting you to put a second sign on the building that will be non-illuminated.

Pe. 84 April 11, 2023 Zoning Meeting

outs with the recessed area in the middle. Having two signs on the peak of the roof might give

an overall better aesthetic to the building with displaying the business name.

forward and that whole section up and down Ridge Road have multiple signs. I think the most

closely related obviously is the Chevy Subaru and Ford dealers that are across the street. 1

believe Hyundai next door and the Nissan Dealer. You didn’t give us a picture of those, but I

know they have multiple signs too. This seems pretty straight forward. This mecting is open to

anyone wishing to speak for or against this application. Seeing no one, we will return the

discussion back to the board.

RESOLUTION 23-014 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. Stappenbeck AYE

1. This request is not out of character in the neighborhood: All the auto dealerships up and

down the street has multiple signs.

2. There will not be a detriment created to nearby properties: None

3. The benefit is not achievable by any other method: They are looking for some symmetry

and J] can sce where the building is perfectly symmetrical, and they just want to balance it

and J think it has a nice look to tt.

4. This request is not substantial: Not compared to some of the other size of signs up and

down the street.

5. There are no adverse physical or environmental impacts to the site or neighborhood: None

6. The difficulty is not self-created: They are just looking to make the building as attractive

and easy lo see al possible,

This is not an undesirable change: None

~~

Pg. 85 April 11, 2023 Zoning Meeting

8. This request is not significant: The signs are not overly large in sive and actually the other

dealers in other buildings have much larger signs.

requirements.

RESOLUTION 23-015 Barry Barone made a motion to APPROVE

THE AREA VARIANCE ; Located at 77!

Ridge Road. Applicant Vital Signs is requesting

an area variance to allow a second building

mounted facade sign where only one is

permitted, associated with a used car dealership

ona 1.73-acre parcel having SBL# 079.17-1-

21.11 located in an MC Medium Intensity

Commercial District under Section 265-7 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. Stappenbeck AYE

CONDITIONS:

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

Building Permit.

e That one-year significant construction shall expire April 11, 2024.

(Corrine Volo read the fourth application)

LaRue is requesting an extension of a non-conforming use to accommodate a 3,379 SF addition

to a pre- existing non-conforming car dealership on a 4.82-acre parcel having SBL# 079. 15-1-

Pg. 86 April 11, 2023 Zoning Mceting

22.104 located in an MC Medium Intensity Commercial District under Section 350-91 of the

Code of the Town of Webster.

Appearing before the board was Al LaRue with McMahon LaRue Associates. John Gabrielle

one of the principles of Marina Dodge, is here to answer any questions you might have regarding

the operation and what he is planning to do, This is a non-conforming use. We are adding a

3379 square foot addition over an area that is now presently black top and that is to contain the

Jeep Dealership. It results in an addition of existing building of 17.9 percent. The whole

building, right now, is 18846 square fect so the new building , the total, is 10.59 percent of the

total.

It's going to be very unique building because of the grades. (SHOWING ON THE PLANS) what

is also happening with the building is there is a new entrance to the service which is coming in

from the north now and straight in, two lanes and then going in to service and that is in the lower

floor there will be a wall on the east side of that entrance. The area, the three parking spaces in

front of the new Jeep dealership, is going to be concrete and there is going to be molded in

boulders in that concrete for display of jeeps. It’s a pretty steep area but that is perfect for what

the product is and so there will be an easy way to go straight into the show room. There is a

sidewalk that is going to get extended. We have moved handicapped spaces that used to be in

the front before and there is still one there but two at the southwest corner and two at the

northeast corner and then across from the main building, there 1s another handicapped space

where the chagrining stations are. So, that is it in a nutshell. Do you have any questions that you

would like answered?

quickly. At the April 4, 2023 meeting the Planning Board of the Town of Webster heard the

following application:

McMahon-Larue Associates is requestitg SKETCH PLAN REVIEW associated with the

construction of a 3,379 SF addition to an existing auto dealership on a 4.82-acre parcel having

SBL # 079.15-1-22.104 located in an MC Medium Intensity Commercial District under Section

269-5 of the Code of the Town of Webster.

The Planning Board ts comfortable with the use variance and based on the Planning Boards

review of this project, the board is contfortable with the requested use variance. I guess they

wanted us to know it was comfortable. Any conunents or questions on this?

what ts there now.

Pg. 87 April 11, 2023 Zoning Meeting

handled through the building on the lower floor, both sides to an elevator.

Al LaRue; Yes

necessarily a requirement. They are looking for their dealerships because of some of the new

products we have they want to upgrade the facilities and so this is something we have been

contemplating for quite some time and decided to go forward with it. If you have been out to

Victor, there is a brand-new facility that was erected from ground up that has the new look that

Chrysler is looking for. It is already going to enhance what J think is already the nicest facility in

Webster and it will give it a modern take on what they are looking for so. It addresses some of

the things that we feel are lacking in the facilities. Specifically, a two-lane service drive and

entrance as you come right off the road into the service lane and with some of the new products

that we have, as A! has mentioned, Jeep is a unique product, so we want to make sure that it has

that aesthetics for the customers as they come in to look at them.

difficulty indicated that the Jeep franchise required the showroom addition in order to maintain

the franchise. That may be a little aggressive,

they are not forcing anyone at this point, but we are just trying to be ahead of the curve.

Existing?

dealership in the county to have level 3 charging stations and they are right here in the Town of

Webster in front of our building. There are two different units with two heads each so you could

have 4 vehicles parked there at any given time. They are for fully clectric vehicles which at

present, we don’t have any, but they are coming and it’s where the market is, but they are

functioning. So, if you have a fully electric vehicle, you can come in and charge it. There is an

app, Or you can use a credit card.

Pe. 88 April 11, 2023 Zoning Meeting

existing entrance as well?

have a more metallic finish to the Chrysler Dodge Ram butiding and the Jeep building, I don’t

know if you have any of the renderings there but if you don’t, we will make sure to get them

over to you.

anyone wishing to speak for or against this application. Secing none we will turn the discussion

back to the board.

RESOLUTION 23-016 Jamie Newtown made a motion for an UNLISTED

Stappenbeck.

VOTE:

Mr. Newtown AYE

Mr. Barone AYE

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Hauza AYE

Mr. Stappenbeck AYE

pointed it out, problem the best in terms of the impacts of the setbacks, it blends right into the

existing front showroom entrance. It is an extension of that facade line and I see some positive

impacts with the traffic flow. [have pulled into the dealership a few times and it’s a bit tight in

there and this seems to maybe improve that flow for the facility. Any other comments or

questions?

cohesive look to their different dealerships. Look at all the Chevy's, Fords, they are al] starting

to look very similar. Chrysler docs the same thing. [tis the nature of industry.

RESOLUTION 23-017 Burry Barone made a motion to APPROVE THE

AREA VARIANCE Located at 943 Ridge Road.

Applicant Alfred LaRue is requesting an

extension of a non-conforming use to

accommodate a 3,379 SF addition to a pre-

existing non-conforming car dealership on a 4.82-

Pg. 89 April [1, 2023 Zoning Meeting

acre parcel having SBL# 079.15-1-22.104 located

inan MC Medium Intensity Commercial District

under Section 350-91 of the Code of the Town of

Stappenbeck,

VOTE:

Mr. Newtown AYE

Mr. Barone AYE

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Hauza AYE

Mr. Stappenbeck AYE

CONDITIONS:

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

Building Permit.

® That one-year significant construction shall expire April 11, 2024,

(Corrine Volo read the fifth application)

520 FOREST LAWN ROAD ACCESSORY STRUCTURE: Located at 520 Forest Lawn

Road. Applicant William T, Lill is requesting area variances to allow:

a. The placement of accessory structure nearer to the front property line than the rear

line of the main building

b. 0° setbacks to all property lines surrounding proposed structure

associated with the construction of a below grade 1,000 SF accessory structure on a 0.35

acre parcel having SBL# 048.19-1-5 located in an R-1] Single Family Residential District

under Sections 350-12 & 350-36 of the Code of the Town of Webster.

Appearing before the board was Cindy and Bill Lill. We bought the house in 2018 and it was a

mess when we bought it. We rehabbed il and now we would like to put a garage on the lot, on

the parcel. It is a four-lot parcel, it’s an 1890 cottage lots, they are small but still there are four

and the house sits on one. It is important | think to bring up that we do have written support

from our neighbors, and we were hoping that because it is subterranean that the setbacks would

not be or could be waived. This current proposal is a result of many shots to the DEC, and this

does satisfy the concerns with the DEC and their INAUDIBLE for potential hazard erosion area.

If we are able to put the garage in that configuration it would allow us to service and access the

western properties and be able to repair the slope, the yard and the break wall for our cars and

our neighbor’s property.

We were scheduled for last month and because the mecting didn’t occur, we sent in some

paperwork, and I think you people all have. Maps and a set of notes that | had planned on

reading last month but we just sent them in because you were not here. So, you can sce from the

Pg.90 April 11, 2023 Zoning Meeting

map that is in color that Forest Lawn being an old neighborhood established in 1880, the lots are

small, The buildings are right on the boundaries, all of them, so we are not doing anything that ts

different. Our garage if it goes there, would not affect anyone's view and it would not affect any

access from any of the neighbors. The black and white map shows the dimension of the

properties and Forest Lawn so you can see across the lake the 45 feet wide and if you put a house

on any one of them, there is no room left for setbacks.

basis!! | don’t think that has ever occurred in the fifteen years that I have sat in this boardroom.

email, and there should be another one. We only have two neighbors back there.

this?

based on the code. Can I have an explanation on that one, Josh?

from that. We didn’t have to go to them for this. We have to come to you guys.

comments.

denied.

Pg.91 Apmril [1, 2023 Zoning Meeting

approvable.

that would be compliant with the towns code however, itis forward of the natural feature area,

and I am assuming that they were not going to allow you to construct there.

have an ordeal to pul a garage on the property and lot 18 was the obvious place for it and the

DEC was against that. Lots 20 and 21 the line runs more south than north on those properties so

there was no room there to put a garage there. So, our neighbor Mr. Jenson and his wife Jody

were kind enough to sell us that piece of property that would allow us to put the garage on their

ground, well, out ground now.

something that I haven't seen.

the town, indicating that he wanted to sell some land to his neighbor and then I believe we have

had some correspondences after that, and this didn’t go through the traditional resub division

process where the town actually reviews a mylar map. This was a split by deed between two

private parties so had it gone through the traditional process, we would have most likely

suggested that purchasing more land than what was ultimately purchased, I believe they

purchased the exact amount of land to construct the garage so unfortunately this was not caught

in that resub division process. It was kind of handled as a private matter.

property and T understand that you are ina jam ...

Pe. 92 April 11, 2023 Zoning Meeting

obliviously complicates matters for a variety of reasons. So, we suggested that they purchase

some additional tand and combine il but unfortunately it is the exact size of the proposed

structure, but it will be primarily below grade.

property.

property owners going forward.

they will most likely encroach onto his land in order to build this thing. So, yes, the town would

request some sort of formula documentation. | have spoken to Gene, and ] know he is very

supportive of this, but we would just want something for our records.

excavate past what you own so we would want something indicating from Mr. Jenson that you

have his permission to do that and then in terms of any perpetual maintenance in the future,

which might be something that would need to be spelled out.

conflict, the sanitary sewer, or any piping im the area .

Pe.93 April 11, 2023 Zoning Meeting

pipe in that location but yes, we want to be sure that the building remains to the west of that

sanitary casement linc.

between the two parties?

Discussion amongst board members.

it is the exact location because the nature of the location so there should be a survey stake out.

agreement be filed/developed between you and the Jenson’s and then the second one would have

your surveyor pul surveyor stakes in prior to excavation. We understand you are going to over

excavate but you ensure that the building corners are truly at the zero-foot setback mark. They

don’t extend beyond that, ok.

permission to access your neighbors property to do the construction and to maintain it if need be.

allows you to repair foundations to go in there and fix it.

Pg. 94 Aprit f1, 2023 Zoning Mecting

application. Sccing none, we will return the discussion back to the board,

RESOLUTION 23-018 Jamie Newtown made a motion for TYPE IT SEQR

which was seconded by: Donald Hauza.

VOTE:

Mr. Newlown AYE

Mr. Barone AYE

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Hauza AYE

Mr. Stappenbeck AYE

This is an extremely unusual variance, but the gentleman needs a garage. You need a garage in

the climate, especially near the lake. He was industrious enough to go to a neighbor and work out

an agreement. It doesn’t meet any of the town codes but it’s the only place to pul a garage there

thanks to the DEC’s restrictions. So, | will say that that particular neighborhood is very tight. It

is a cottage lype in the neighborhood so nothing there meets the standard setbacks.

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

the neighborhood.

2. There will not be a detriment created to nearby properties: The neighbor has already sold

you the property so there really is no detriment because they already agreed to il.

3. The benefit is not achievable by any other method: As I said, there is no place else on the

property to put a garage. I tried to figure something out, but it just doesn’t work.

4. This request is not substantial: It is somewhat substantial because there are still setbacks

but unusual situation.

5. There are no adverse physical or environmental impacts to the site or neighborhood: None

6. The difficulty is not self-created: Like you said, when you bought the house, you figured

you have four lots there you can put a garage anywhere. DEC squashed that idea, so.

7. This is not an undesirable change: The garage will not even be visible to the neighbors

because the are going to look right over the roof of it. Not blocking any views or anything.

8. This request is not significant:

RESOLUTION 23-019 Barry Barone made a motion to APPROVE THE

AREA VARIANCE Located at 520 Forest Lawn

Road. Applicant William T. Lill is requesting area

variances lo allow:

1. The placement of accessory structure nearer

to the front property line than the rear line of

the main building

Pg.95 April [1, 2023 Zoning Meeting

2. 0° setbacks to all property lines surrounding

proposed structure

associated with the construction of a below grade

1,000 SF accessory structure on a 0.35-acre parcel

having SBL# 048.19-1-5 located in an R-1 Single

Family Residential District under Sections 350-12

& 350-36 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. Stappenbeck AYE

CONDITIONS:

e Applicant to obtain an access easement agreement with neighbor to the south for

construction and maintenance of structure and provide copy to the Town prior to

building permit issuance.

e Survey Stakeout of pole barn location by professional land surveyor with inspection

by Town prior to construction to ensure that building is placed in the correct

location.

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

Building Permit.

e That one-year significant construction shall expire April 11, 2024.

on il. So, that’s definitely on your property, right?

18. Pg. 96 April 11, 2023 Zoning Meeting

We have 4-11 to go. As [stated on the onset of the meeting, we are not going to hear

applications passed 10: 00 this evening. We may give consideration, I can talk to Mr. Artuso

about a special meeting between now and the next scheduled meeting if needed and we can have

discussion after tonight, but | would suggest, we are probably going to gel through 4 through 6

and 7 through |] we are probably not going to get to this evening, so lam giving you fair

warning. Seven is Aria Lane; 8 is Covewood; 9 is Red Barn Farm; 10 is John Leo and 11 is Take

5. You are welcome to say bul | am pretty sure we are going to get through six.

(Corrine Volo read the sixth application)

WEBSTER HOME IMPROVEMENTS FRONT STOOP & STEPS: Located at 1197 Ridge

Road. Applicant Tom O’Brien is requesting an area variance to allow an alteration to a pre-

existing non-conforming building associated with the construction of a front stoop with steps on

a 0.69-acre parcel having SBL# 080.13-2-9 located in an MC Medium Intensity Commercial

District under Section 350-18 of the Code of the Town of Webster.

Appearing before the board was Tom O’Brien, owner of Webster Home Improvement. Our

business is 1197 Ridge Road. I am just trying to modify some front steps.

modification for the record.

existing structure that are deteriorating to the point where I can’t modify them anymore.

especially a commercial building when you have public coming in and out of the building.

Sec.

Secing none, we will return the discussion back to the board.

RESOLUTION 23-020 Jamic Newtown made a motion for TYPE ITSEQR

which was seconded by: Barry Barone.

Pe. 97 April 11,2023 Zoning Meeting

VOTE:

Mr. Newtown AYE

Mr. Barone AYE

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Hauza AYE

Mr. Stappenbeck AYE

going to be what, a couple feet longer or closer to the street than the original.

front door. The stairs are not code compliant and not terribly user friendly. Just based on things

have changed since that building was originally built.

have to back off those steps to open the door. It needs a little bit of a platform there.

and with a landing so that when the door opens you don’t have to go back down the stairs to

open it. Any other questions?

RESOLUTION 23-021 Corrine Volo made a motion to APPROVE THE

AREA VARIANCE Located at 1197 Ridge Road.

Applicant Tom O’Brien is requesting an area

variance Lo allow an alteration to a pre-exisuing non-

conforming building associated with the

construction of a front stoop with steps on a 0.69-

acre parce] having SBL# 080. 13-2-9 located in an

Pg. 98 April 11, 2023 Zoning Meeting

MC Medium Intensity Commercial District under

Section 350-18 of the Code of the Town of Webster

which was seconded by: Barry Barone.

VOTE:

Mr. Newtown AYE

Mr. Barone AYE

Mes. Volo AYE

Mr. Hauza AYE

Mr. Stappenbeck AYE

CONDITIONS:

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

Building Permit.

e That one-year significant construction shall expire April 11, 2024.

(Corrine Volo read the seventh application)

877 MAPLE DRIVE CHICKEN COOP : Located at 877 Maple Drive. Applicants Nicholas

and Megan Sereni are requesting a special permit to allow the construction of a chicken coop and

raising of (6) hens, which is not permitted, on a 1.90-acre parcel having SBL# 078.1 1-1-28

located in an R-3 Single Family Residential District under Section 350-103 of the Code of the

Town of Webster.

Appearing before the board was Megan and Nicholas Sereni. You basically described our entire

application. We are proposing a chicken coop to be right behind our garage, so it is away from

public view. We have talked to our neighbors about raising chickens and they are very

supportive of i. [believe you guys have a couple copies for our immediate neighbors. | am

aware that one of our board members had to recuse himself for this and I didn’t know he was a

neighbor.

zoo/farm so we kind of fit in with the general esthetics. ] just wanted to make sure that the board

knew we are not planning on having any roosters and the only reason that we are proposing to

get six hens is that it is a requirement, We can not get any less because the state is afraid that...

people buy them and flush them down the toilet after Easter as like a gift, we are not sure but that

is basically out application ina nutshell. We are here for any questions.

somebody on the comments that pointed this out and 1am sure this is being taken into

consideration but | said this before, we are starting to see more and more of this, homesteading

type of and I will say mentality and don’t take that the wrong way but that is what is happening

in the country, i's a movement and not just here in Webster. Josh, we talked about modifying

the code and this is one area of focus for the future. This is not the first time we have dealt with

chickens, Is at least the fourth time and then we obviously dealt with some pigs so. The major

Pg. 99 April 11, 2023 Zoning Meeting

concern is always clean up; where are they going to be; are there any roosters vs hens; and the

assurances that you are not going to have roosters that are waking people up al 4:30 in the

morning and certainly would be a condition of this that you would not have any roosters.

be something.

Secing none we will return the discussion back to the board.

RESOLUTION 23-022 Jamie Newtown made a motion for an UNLISTED

Stappenbeck.

VOTE:

Mr. Newtown AYE

Mr. Barone AYE

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Hauza RECUSE

Mr. Stappenbeck AYE

Pe. 100 April 11, 2023 Zoning Meeting

From 871 Maple Drive. I will make a motion to grant a special permit...

would be four to six months before they are larger.

the 2024 calendar yet so April of 2024. So, this will be one year with an opportunity for an

extension after reevaluation.

RESOLUTION 23-023 Corrine Volo made a motion to GRANT A

SPECIAL PERMIT Located at 877 Maple Drive.

Applicants Nicholas and Megan Sereni are

requesting a special permit to allow the construction

of a chicken coop and raising of (6) hens, which is

not permitted, on a |.90-acre parcel having SBL#

078.11-1-28 located in an R-3 Single Family

Residential District under Section 350-103 of the

Code of the Town of Webster which was seconded

by: Jamie Newtown.

VOTE:

Mr. Newlown AYE

Mr. Barone AYE

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Hauza RECUSE

Mr. Stappenbeck AYE

Pg. LOL April 11, 2023 Zoning Mceting

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

To Josh Artuso <jartuso@ci webster ny.us>;Katherine Kolich <kkolich@ci. webster ny.us>

Name:

Address:

Contact Information:

Agenda Item or Topic you

are commenting on:

Please type your comments

in the box below:

Karen Buck

Town of Wester

Linda Stango

545 Spring Meadow Lane

lmstango@yahoo.com

877 Maple Avenue

We are in support of the application for the Sereni's to build a

chicken coop and raise hens. The Town should consider

changing the zoning ordinance to permit the raising of hens as

of right.

Thank you for your consideration.

Director of Community Programming

(525) @72-6247

ch. Webster jy. tts

March 7, 2024

Zoning Board of Appeals

Town of Webster

1000 Ridge Road

Webster, NY 14580

Neighbor Letter

Dear Board Members,

We, as the neighbor to Nicholas and Megan Sereni at 877 Maple Drive, are supportive of their decision to

raise chickens. We believe they are capable and conumitted to raising healthy chickens, and as neighbors,

lave no issues wilh chickens being raised on their property.

PL L— Lek $7/ ee Va Ss 7/83

Signature Addfess Date

;

CONDITIONS:

e Maximum of 6 hens

e Requires a one-year evaluation in April 2024 ZBA meeting with possibility of

extending special permit and allowing more hens.

e Coop to be located behind the garage

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

Building Permit.

e That one-year significant construction shall expire April El, 2024,

(Corrine Volo read the eighth application)

231 RAPHAEL DRIVE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE: Located at 231 Raphael Drive.

Applicant Dave Brannigan is requesting an area variance to allow a 20° rear setback where

50° is required associated with the construction of a 33° x 15’ (495 SF) accessory structure on

a 0.40-acre parcel having SBL# 063.18-2-2 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 David Brannigan at 231 Raphael Drive here in Webster. 1 want

to build an accessory shed/structure for the various yard items. I have yard furniture; four

wheelers; pig roaster; rototiller, lawnmower, all stuff jike that. | have a small 8 X 8 a metal one

that is falling apart and is obviously not big enough, so I measured it out and the size that 1

needed in my application. The only place for something that big in my yard is where I propose it

to be because of the septic tank.

HIS HAND)

already. I can not get anyone to straighten it out for me. | have to wear mittens again.

stations in for a regular sewer line but that was....

Pg. 102 April 11,2023 Zoning Meeting

icture I think, iUs going to kind of look like that Amish shed.

ie gong

(PLEASE SEE LETTERS ATTACHED) This meeting is open to anyone wishing to speak for

or against this application. Secing none, we will return the discussion back to the board.

RESOLUTION 23-024 Jamie Newtown made a motion for TYPE Il

VOTE:

Mr. Newtown AYE

Mr. Barone AYE

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Hauza AYE

Mr. Stappenbeck AYE

Maybe not in terms of height but in terms of square footage based on what you provided as a

Photo in the application. A shed would be up to 200, is it 200 or 220?

20. Twenty is the maximum length now. What you are

proposing is 495 which is just under requiring Planning Board approval right, for 500 square

feet for an accessory building. Does anyone have any further questions or comments?

1. This request is not out of character in the neighborhood: Not out of character. Letters of

support from the neighbors (that I just went through)

There will not be a detriment created to nearby properties:

The benefit is not achievable by any other method:

This request is not substantial:

There are no adverse physical or environmental impacts to the site or neighborhood: None

6. The difficulty is not self-created: It is self-created. Fifty-foot shed is only 5-foot rear and

side setback that was changed from previously 15 but when you get to an accessory

structure it requires a 50-foot rear setback, but you are al 20 fect which is the best you can

do because some of constraints that you indicated in your back yard.

7. This is not an undesirable change: No undesirable change.

8. This request is not significant:

lead

RESOLUTION 23-025 Jamie Newtown made a motion to APPROVE

THE AREA VARIANCE Located at 231

Raphael Drive. Applicant Dave Brannigan is

requesting an area variance to allow a 20° rear

setback where 50° is required associated with the

Pg. 103 April (1, 2023 Zoning Meeting

construction of a 33° x 15° (495 SF) accessory

structure on a 0.40-acre parcel having SBL#

063.18-2-2 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: Griff Stappenbeck.

VOTE:

Mr. Newtown AYE

Mr. Barone AYE

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Hauza AYE

Mr. Stappenbeck AYE

structure would be... I don’t have that. I just want to make sure that we...

you provided in the application.

CONDITIONS:

e Applicant to remove existing metal shed.

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

Building Permit,

e That one-year significant construction shall expire April 11, 2024,

and Katherine. Thank you for your time.

(Corrine Volo read the ninth application)

492 ARIA LANE GARAGE ADDITION: Located at 492 Aria Lane. Applicant Troy Bradford

is requesting an area variance to allow a9’ side setback where 15° 1s required associated with the

construction of a 12° x 20° (240 SF) garage addition on a 0.44-acre parcel having SBL# 078.07-

3-13 located in an R-3 Single Family Residential District under Section 350-12 of the Code of the

Town of Webster.

Pg. 104 April 11, 2023 Zoning Meeting

Appearing before the board was Troy Bradford at 492 Aria Lane. Basically, | have an existing

bump out it’s approximately 4 ft by 12 ft and T basically just want to eliminate that all together

and create a 12 x

20. You can see from my survey that my property kind of angles so the front

of the new garage additions is going to be around 11-12 foot and then the back corner will end

up being somewhere around 9-10 feet.

neighborhood,

I mean | basically pretty close to all my neighbors. The neighbor to the north who recently

moved in James Egan, I had some pretty in-depth conversations with him as close as yesterday

evening, he has absolutely no issues with it. He has given me his verbal OK . Everything has

been fine on that level.

most.

The size, itis definitely not an oversized garage. You left a note here, 12 foot by 20 foot,

correct?

today. So, 12 by 20, 240 square foot is not excessive. Once again, that is the logical location on

the driveway side attached to the existing garage. | think itis pretty reasonable, 9-foot side

setback to 11 feet on the front and 9 foot in the back and 11 fect in the front. Itis going to blend

in with the existing garage and tic in. 1 don’t have any other comments.

Pg. 105 April 11, 2023 Zoning Meeting

This mecting is open to anyone wishing to speak for or against this application. Seeing none, we

will bring it back to the board.

RESOLUTION 23-026 Jamie Newtown made a motion for TYPE II

VOTE:

Mr. Newtown AYE

Mr. Barone AYE

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Hauza AYE

Mr. Stappenbeck AYE

1. This request is not out of character in the neighborhood: Not out of character with the

neighborhood. You provided several examples.

2. There will not be a detriment created to nearby properties:

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

4. This request is not substantial:

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

adverse impacts.

6. The difficulty is not self-created: I think you minimized that. This is not an excessive size

garage and the most logical location for it to be placed. No issues with the black top

driveway and you will meet the 5-foot side setback for the asphalt

7. This is not an undesirable change: No undesirable change.

8. This request is not significant:

RESOLUTION 23-027 Jamie Newtown made a motion to APPROVE

THE AREA VARIANCE Located at 231

Raphael! Drive. Applicant Dave Brannigan is

requesting an area variance to allow a 20’ rear

setback where 50° is required associated with the

construction of a 33’ x 15’ (495 SF) accessory

structure on a 0.40-acre parce] having SBL#

063. 18-2-2 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: Griff Stappenbeck.

VOTE:

Mr. Newtown AYE

Mr. Barone AYE

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Hauza AYE

Mr. Stappenbeck AYE

Pe. 106 April 11, 2023 Zoning Meeting

CONDITIONS:

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

Building Permit.

e That one-year significant construction shall expire April 11, 2024.

whole if we would have cut them off. Are you here? We will get through it. I don’t want you to

leave, you are the last two here.

(Corrine Volo read the tenth application)

512 COVEWOOD BOULEVARD CARPORT WITH ADA RAMP & COVERED

variance to allow an alteration to a non-conforming building (40° front setback where 50’ is

required and 10° side setback where 15’ is required) associated with the construction of a

covered car port and porch on a 0.59-acre parcel having SBL# 063.07-2-57 located in an R-3

Single Family Residential District under Sections 350-12 & 350-94 of the Code of the Town of

Webster,

Appearing before the board was Thomas Milliman at 512 Covewood Blvd. My wife and I are

jooking to put this addition on in front of our home for our child with cerebral palsy. You may

have seen her; she was here earlier. As she is moving into her teenager years, we are trying to

make the house more accessible for her. We have modified our first floor to have a bedroom and

a handicapped accessible bathroom. Our previous addition on the back of the house had a ramp

that was covered for backyard access, and we are looking to be able for her to get on and off the

bus and have a ramp. Ail the drawings provided were done to ADA compliance and that is why

we are asking for the covered portion to be as long as il is so that the full compliant ADA ramp is

covered, and we are trying to keep the same feeling and look as the original house of the 1950's .

The original house is 49 feet away from the road and it was built prior to the standard so the

current front porch is a concrete stoop with metal railings. It is cracked and is in dire need of

repair and so that would also fall under this because it is closer to the road than the 50-foot

setback. | provided pictures and I know many of you drove by and saw it. No additional run off

because currently there now 1s an asphalt driveway so it would be covering the existing

driveway.

be able to get out of the car, come up the ramp and be able to sce the school bus from the

breezeway of the house. The original breezeway that is between the garage and at some point,

prior to us in 2001, the previous owners enclosed the portion of the breezeway so that this is

wailing in this area is for wailing for the school bus and you will be able to see where you are

going and so forth. That is our reasoning behind what we are doing.

Pg. 107 April {1, 2023 Zoning Meeting

Secing none, we will return the discussion back to the board.

RESOLUTION 23-028 Jamie Newtown made a molion for TYPE I

VOTE:

Mr. Newtown AYE

Mr. Barone AYE

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Hauza AYE

Mr. Stappenbeck AYE

sideline because that whole neighborhood is kind of tight and the lots are a little bit narrower.

This addition that the gentleman is proposing is perfectly practical for what he needs so that is

why the Zoning Board exists. We have given a Jot of variances in that neighborhood to people

with front porches; in front of the garage. Not out of character with the neighborhood.

1. This request is not out of character in the neighborhood: We have granted several variances

in that neighborhood and most of those homes are 40 feet from the front rather than

50. Just the way they built in those days.

2. There will not be a detriment created to nearby properties: None

3. The benefit is not achievable by any other method: The benefit is actually helping a family

member with the ramp and now it is a covered area. You can pull the car up there and get

her out.

4. This request is not substantial: None

5. There are no adverse physical or environmental impacts to the site or neighborhood: None

6. The difficulty ts not self-created: The house is situated on the lot and that is the only place

lo pul thal carport ramp,

7. This ts not an undesirable change: Not and it is actually very attractive and adding to the

covered porch also. So, I don’t sce any negative issues whatsoever,

8. This request is not significant:

RESOLUTION 23-029 Griff Stappenbeck made a motion to APPROVE

THE AREA VARIANCE Located at 512

Covewood Blvd. Applicant Thomas Milliman Jr is

requesting an area variance to allow an alteration to

Pg. 108 April 11, 2023 Zoning Mecting

a non-conforming building (40° front setback where

50° is required and 10° side setback where [5° is

required) associated with the construction of a

covered car port and porch on a 0.59-acre parcel

having SBL# 063.07-2-57 located in an R-3 Single

Family Residential District under Sections 350-12

& 350-94 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. Stappenbeck AYE

CONDITIONS:

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

Building Permit.

e That one-year significant construction shall expire April 11, 2024.

Jamie Newtown”: Once again, Red Barn Farm he left when we gave him the offer and

Take 5 Oil Change is not here which leaves 1016 John Leo Drive. It’s 10:01 so we are

sorry...(LAUGHTER) 3:07:10

(Corrine Volo read the eleventh application)

special permit to allow the seasonal use of an existing barn as a special events space on a 3.85-

acre parcel having SBL# 050.03-1-34.2 located in an R-1 Single Family Residential District

under Section 350-103 of the Code of the Town of Webster.

THIS APPLICATIONS TABLED TO MAY 9!" 2023 MEETING,

(Corrine Volo read the twelfth application)

1016 JOHN LEO DRIVE GARAGE ADDITION; Located at 1016 John Leo Drive. Applicant

Maric West is requesting an area variance to allow a 10” side setback where 15’ is required

associated with the construction of a 12” x 21° (252 SF) garage addition on a 0.43-acre parcel

having SBL# 079.13-3-42 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 Maric West at 1016 John Leo Drive. We want to put an

addition on the back of our house which obviously just needs a permit, but it comes out a little

bit past the side of the garage and part of the project that we want to do is another one car garage.

We have actually worked with an architect and talked with our neighbors. We talked with the

architect, and they are concerned about the roof line, so we met and obviously Barry is the

contractor, and he has been to the meeting with the architect, so we know that the roof line

Pg. 109 April LL, 2023 Zoning Mecting

matches up. Itis not a standard throw on addition. It will match the roof lines of the house; it

matches the look and feel of the neighborhood and the gentleman to the north of me, to the left of

me, he has a third car garage which would be similar, and he has no issues with what I do/what

we do with out house.

anything, it is the garage addition thal you are proposing and it kind of completes the picture and

the look and provides you with a third car garage.

addition. Once again, we just heard about one of these applications and that is the logical

location for this addition, and I certainly wouldn’t go anywhere else with it. That is 12-foot X 21

which is almost identical to the 12 foot by 20 that was proposed by the previous applicant.

Which on his lot put him at 9 foot and 11 foot and you at 10 so.

on the other side but unfortunately that garage would not make sense being on that side of the

house, so we don’t have a lot of setback to work with.

Damon Tyler at 916 Lothario Circle: Fant here to express nry objection to an area variance as

requested by the property owners of 1016 John Leo Drive. Tam the owner of 916 Lothario

Circle, and my property is generally to the northeast to the subject property and abuts the

property in question sharing about 15 feet or rear property line. The variance would allow the

primary structure at 1016 John Leo Drive to expand northwards to a point of about 25 feet of the

primary structure onto the lot of the north.

The proposed construction would be out of character for the neighborhood by creating the

narrowest gap between primary structures in the area with the exception of corner lots. Gaps

range between 40-60 feet. Even the corner lots maintain gaps that meet or exceed 30 feet.

If this variance is granted and construction proceeds, pry vista to the tree line and horizon

benveen 1016 and 1018 Jolin Leo Drive would be reduced by 40%. Essentially, 1 would only

have construction in homes in the backyard. The variance request is rooted as desired from an

additional garage stall as stated and the existing structure has a two-car garage with an

additional 100 square foot in-garage storage area on the north side. Based on the drawing

provided the storage area ts not being reclaimed by the project and as proposed, would result in

essentially three and half earage stalls on this property. If this five-foot-wide storage area was

sacrificed the landowner would have any ample room for an additional stall on the 12 foot of

buildable property without intrusion into the standard setback.

Pg. 110 April (1, 2023 Zoning Meeting

f know that this would be the second area variance granted to this homeowner within the past

four years. Presently and additionally to the primary structure the subjects property suffers

coverage from a 300 square foat elevated deck; 2100 square foot patio; 870 square foot

inground pool and two additional outbuildings. [tis my opinion that the landowners, hence

1016 John Leo Drive, have outgrown their property. This additional need for should not

be allowed to create an uncharacteristic condition in the neighborhood and an imposition on the

neighborhood. Thank you.

uncharacteristic condition in the neighborhood.

through those two residents?

also moves the primary structure of the applicant closer to my home.

that.

application. Seeing none, we will return the discussion back to the board.

Pg. $11 April 11, 2023 Zoning Meeting

RESOLUTION 23-031 Jamie Newtown made a motion for TYPE II

VOTE:

Mr. Newtown AYE

Mr. Barone RECUSE

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Hauza AYE

Mr. Stappenbeck AYE

Jamie Newtown; Ok, does anyone have any other comments or questions? So, we have one

neighbor in favor at 1018 which is the immediate neighbor to the south.

actually more concerned when they saw your sign go up in my yard that I was selling my

property. They were all in favor of me doing home improvements for the neighborhood, making

the neighborhood better, you know, bringing more value to the homes in the neighborhood.

third car garages. Third car garages are pretty common these days. Pretty much most houses are

now going with a third car garage. The proposed size at 12-foot x 2! foot is not out of character

of what a third car garage bay would be . Ten feet is certainly not unrealistic. Any thoughts or

comments? Mr. Hauza?

it is not centered. I agree with you as far as the 10-foot side setback. There again if it were a

cluster development they would be more in compliance. There are a lot of three car garages in

that area. The rear addition, I believe you are looking to put a laundry room in there.

Everything 1s in compliance. Was there a variance granted for the other accessory building?

house on the other side of the house so we could actually have shade. When you are out there

watching kids in the pool.

Pg. 112 April !1, 2023 Zoning Mecting

this is attached to the house so from that point of view, it’s...... adding it to the house is less

intrusive and if it were a separate building

additional findings?

the roof line to make sure it looks like part of the house.

up and make it 10 x 20 and stick it 5 foot from the lot line and accomplish the same thing. In a

worst position.

RESOLUTION 23-032 Donald Hauza made a motion to APPROVE THE

AREA VARIANCE Located at 1016 John Leo

Drive. Applicant Marie West is requesting an area

variance to allow a [0° side setback where 15’ is

required associated with the construction of a 12” x

21° (252 SF) garage addition on a 0.43-acre parcel

having SBL# 079. 13-3-42 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: Jamie Newtown.

VOTE:

Mr, Newtown AYE

Mr. Barone RECUSE

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Hauza AYE

Mr. Stappenbeck AYE

CONDITIONS:

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

Building Permit.

e That one-year significant construction shall expire April 11, 2024.

Pg. 113 Aprif [1, 2023 Zoning Meeting

TAKE 5 OIL CHANGE: Located at 1045 Ridge Road. Applicant Quattro Development is

requesting a use variance to allow the construction of a 1,610 SF oil change facility on a 1.25-

acre parcel having SBL# 079.15-1-8.009 located in an MC Medium Intensity Commercial

District under Section 350-18 of the Code of the Town of Webster.

TABLED APPLICATION TO MAY 9, 2023.

Since there is no further application before the Board Jamic Newtown adjourned tonight’s

mecting at 10:30 p.m.

Corrine Volo, Secretary

Katherine Kolich, Recording Secretary

HAY = PMDIE

FILE D WES TER THN OLX

i

Sug, M.- Mogan

Pg. 114 April 11, 2023 Zoning Meeting