Minutes

WEBSTER ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES

Michael Short James Spampinato

Corrine Volo

Chris Centola

John Accorso

Stacie Damelio

John DeMarco, Attorney

Katherine Kolich, Planning & Zoning Secretary

Erika Corsi, Planner of Community Development

2026 meeting. As a reminder, when we get to the public discussion section, time is going to be

limited to 5 minutes per person per application. And the discussion must pertain to the property

and issue being reviewed. We have a total of 7 items. One was a tabled matter that we’re seeing

today. And then item number 7, Waterview Apartments phase 3 is being postponed tabled until

the July Zoning Board meeting. So, if you’re here for the Waterview Apartments phase 3, we’re

not going to hear anything about that tonight. And that’ll be happening during the July meeting.

The board has the right to end the meeting by 10 p.m. if the meeting starts going long. I don’t

think that’ll happen tonight, but if it does, we do have the right to end the meeting by 10 p.m.

Call Roll/Pledge of Allegiance

Summary of Application Outcomes

TABLED MATTERS

:

1. WEBSTER SOLAR GARDEN-139 CARACAS DRIVE-MONTANTE XEROX

SCHEDULED MATTERS

:

2. POLE BARN-101 MIDNIGHT TRAIL

3. GARAGE-514 KLEM ROAD

Pg. 72 June 9, 2026 Zoning Meeting

4. BAY-RIDGE CORNER SUBDIVISION

5. SUBDIVISION LOT WIDTH-1640 LAKE ROAD

6. CHICKENS-1813 HALESWORTH LANE

Applicant to return to ZB board for extension; no more than 8 hens; applicant to

Provide screening.

7. WATERVIEW PHASE 3-WILLOWPOINT WAY

(Erika Corsi, Town Planner presented a PowerPoint Presentation for each application and

read into the record)

1460 Caracus Drive) SBL #065.02-1-40.11. Applicant Debbie Rice is seeking an interpretation from

the Zoning Board of Appeals to determine whether the Xerox Solar Farm should have been reviewed

under an Industrial Use Permit or a Special Use Permit in accordance with Sections 155-6, Section

350-22, and Section 350-101D (1) of the Code of the Town of Webster.

Appearing before the board was Sean Hanna. Good evening. I apologize for the delay. I didn’t

know whether there’s a public comment section before we started or not. This is going to be a little

bit different from what you guys are probably used to hearing. Typically, as I understand it, the

Zoning Board of Appeals is in discussions with developers to discuss whether or not a particular

project should be allowed under zoning and you hear you get presentations from the developer,

PowerPoint, that sort of thing. This is going to be a little bit different because for the first time and

I think this is very new and very cool. For the first time a citizen has actually brought a challenge to

the Zoning Board of Appeals to see if town conduct and town classifications for an existing project

were done properly.

So, what ’'m going to be doing is I’m going to be talking to you a little bit about the law. I’ve

presented each of you with a handout. (SEE ATTACHED) I'll give you a little bit of background

for a little bit of context and then to try to keep things as short as possible. We will go through the

process and the decisions step by step, sort of combining what the process should have been with

Pg. 73 June 9, 2026 Zoning Meeting

what the process actually was. That way I think things will be sped up pretty well.

There was a decision made in Albany some time ago that for better or worse it doesn’t matter what

you think of it. Albany decided that the landfill, the space covering landfill, including hazardous

waste landfills, is just sitting out there all across the state. And they decided that those landfills could

be put to better use if they had solar panels on top of them generating solar electricity. So, they

wanted to encourage that sort of thing. They passed a new program, and they passed a regulation to

accompany that program, and the regulation was designed like I said to encourage it. The best way

to encourage it is to get rid of the obstacles for being permitted and the biggest obstacle is always

SEQR. So, what they decided was that they decided to change a regulation and say that if you put

solar panel...solar electricity generating facility on top of a landfill then we are going to decide per

se that it’s TYPE Il. That means there’s no environmental impact. You don’t have to do an

environmental assessment form. You don’t have to go through the whole SEQR review process. It

speeds things up tremendously and makes things a lot less expensive. And they do that because they

wanted to...they wanted to encourage it. So, there’s a company called Montante who said, ““You

know what? We could take advantage of that plan. There’s a hazardous waste site on Xerox and if

we took a whole bunch of solar panels and put a power generating facility on top of that hazardous

waste site at Xerox, we could get all of the tax benefits, all the revenue, and we wouldn’t have to go

through the SEQR environmental process. So, that’s what they did, and I provided each of you with

handouts. That’s a picture of the site.

Now, the hazardous waste site you’ll see has black top over it. It sort of looks like a great big, huge

parking lot and around it is a bunch of mature virgin forest if you will. And their proposal was to

put solar panels on the black top and to clear cut the forest and put solar panels there as well. So,

that’s the background. What they did then is they submitted a very, very, very incomplete application

to the Town of Webster. And this is where we’ll start talking about the process, what the Town of

Webster did and what it should have done. The second page of the handout that I gave you talks

about the parage of errors. The application was first submitted to Josh Artuso but as I said it was

most incomplete. What should have happened at that time is he should have taken a complete

application made certain preliminary decisions passed it on to the town board where the town board

looks at it and says is this something that warrants further investigation and if so then they vote to

approve it and send it to the Planning Board to conduct that investigation but if after reviewing all

of the information provided in a complete application they decided no go then the application

wouldn’t go any further.

The problem is that Mr. Artuso sent virtually nothing to the town board. They didn’t have a complete

plan. They only had a concept. The preliminary decisions were not appropriately made because

they didn’t have a full application. If fact, when the town board decided to send it to the planning

board for further consideration, the former town supervisor talked about, well, yeah, this is about

building...putting solar panels in a field on Xerox. It wasn’t a field at all, but it wasn’t his fault

because they didn’t have any sort of information.

What should have happened is Mr. Artuso should have told the developer, hold out, we’re not going

to do anything with the application until you give us everything we need. And only when they had

Pg. 74 June 9, 2026 Zoning Meeting

everything we...they needed, should they have sent it to the town board. Now, the town board is

not faultless either. Once they got the application that contained virtually nothing, they should have

said, “We’re not going to vote on whether or not to send this to the planning board. We don’t even

know what we’re voting on. That’s not what happened. Mr. Artuso sent the matter to the town

board. The town board took the incomplete application and sent it to the planning board without any

discussion, without any questions, without knowing what it was about.

Now, the planning board got it and they saw that...excuse me, after the town board sent it to the

planning board finally, Montante got all their stuff together and submitted it to the planning board

and the next page on your handout is a letter from Montante dated August 11" saying, here’s all the

stuff that you guys need at the planning board to review this and we’re requiring an industrial use

permit and a special use permit. As is required by town law. I have that portion highlighted to you.

So, now the planning board at least has a full application and what did they do with it? First of all,

they only required that it be processed for an industrial use permit. They didn’t require the special

use permit as the town code requires and as Montante itself acknowledged was required by law.

Now, because they didn’t require a special use permit, there are a whole series of questions that could

have been asked and should have been asked for a special use permits that were not asked. And

those. ..some of those considerations are attached in the handout that I gave you. It looks like this,

(holds it up) the EN industrial project and it list A through N and talks about all the things that could

and should be considered for a special use permit. So, under an improper classification or at least

an incomplete classification, only industrial use, not special use, it sent the matter back to the town

board with a stamp of approval and said, “We think this is a good idea”.

Before the town board got to do anything with it, Montante made another important decision. They

said, “Guess what? You know, all those solar panels that we’re going to put on the industrial...excuse

me, on the hazardous waste site, we’re not going to do that anymore. We’ re still going to clear cut

all the trees and put all the solar panels where the forest is now, but we’re not going to put any on

top of the industrial waste site”. Well, guess what? That’s the whole basis for getting the SEQR

TYPE Ii classification without putting the solar panels on the industrial waste site. This is a TYPE

I classification. They have to do all of the environmental leg work or at the very least it’s an

UNCLASSIFIED TYPE and they still have to do all of the environmental leg work.

What happens then is nothing. What the town board should have done is they should have said this

is a substantial change to the application that we have in front of us. Town law says that after

planning board approval, if there’s a substantial change to the project, it has to go back to the

planning board. Substantial change is defined as a change of 10% or more. Montante admitted this

was 20%. So, this should have done back...first of all they should have said hold it, the TYPE II

classification does not apply and this is a substantial change in any of it, it has to go back to the

planning board and the planning board has to ask all the questions that it didn’t ask and Montante

has to provide all the information that they didn’t provide then the planning board has to vote on it,

generate a report with it’s thoughts, send it to us for our consideration and that’s what the planning

board does, it gives counsel to the town board. They didn’t have any council. They didn’t review

Pg. 75 June 9, 2026 Zoning Meeting

this project. They reviewed a project with solar panels on the hazardous waste site. Now, what was

in front of the board, the town board, was a project without solar panels on the hazardous waste site

and only in the forested section. But what did they do? They didn’t send it back to the planning

board. Instead, what they did is they voted on it and said, “well, this is contingent. We’re going to

vote to approve it contingent upon having subsequent planning board approval. So, they’ve sent us

to the planning board again, still under industrial use.

The planning board should have changed the TYPE II classification to a TYPE I. It did not. It

should have said you’re required to have a special use permit. Even Montante admits that and they

did not do that. The town has suggested that sending it to the planning board after the town board

has already acted was sufficient. Having it subject to planning board approval down the road is

sufficient. We know that it’s not. The law is written sequentially for a reason. As I’ve already

stated, the town board had to have the benefit of planning board council, and it didn’t. there was a

similar situation that occurred just last year with the New York State Legislature. The state

legislature decided that it wanted to present to the voters a change, a constitutional amendment, and

a change to the New York State Constitution. The law says that before they can do that, before they

can vote to put that issue on the ballot, they have to get a report from the attorney general’s office

saying that the proposed change would be constitutional and that the language that was being

proposed was reflective of the legislatures’ intentions. That’s got to come first. They didn’t wait for

that. They voted on Wednesday and they got the AG’s report on Thursday. And the AG’s report

said everything was fine, but they did it in the wrong order. And that went to the New York State

Supreme Court. And the Supreme Court said. “You can’t do that. You have to do it in the right

order. The fact that you’re approving something without even having the attorney general’s report

shows that you’re not following the law. You’re supposed to take the attorney general’s report and

actually read it and consider it and factor it into your voting. And they didn’t do that. The Supreme

Court said you can’t. Said that’s no good. And they reversed it.

What we have here is a project that has been messed up at every stage of the procedure. And because

it has, it has an industrial use permit only, which is insufficient and that mean that it doesn’t fit under

the proper zoning. It needs a special use permit. And if you have any questions about the difference

between special use and industrial use, I’d be happy to discuss them. I’ve given you copies of each

legislation of each set of rules. But essentially what it is, is the industrial use permit regulations say

everything that is allowed and it’s not on there. That’s why you have to couple it with special use

which says okay if this is something that’s going to be happening in an industrial lot but is not

specifically authorized by industrial use reguiations and you need a special use permit. And here are

all the considerations that you have to meet in order to get a special use permit. And when the town

board ultimately votes at the end of the day on whether or not to issue the special use permit, it has

to go through each and every one of those considerations to decide whether the proposed project

meets them, None of that happened. This approval is procedurally deficient from top to bottom.

And as a result, it is also so substantively deficient. It’s up to this board to correct it. And that’s what

I’m asking you to do to indicate that this project may not proceed until it goes back to the planning

board and until they take the proper procedural steps and more importantly until they consider

everything that the law requires them to consider. This isn’t just an argument about technicalities.

Pg. 76 June 9, 2026 Zoning Meeting

This is an argument about the fact that the things that were supposed to be considered and debated

and evaluated were not. Accordingly, the town’s action have to be reversed. They have to be

stopped, and they have to go back to the drawing board. Thank you.

questions they want to ask or not ask. Sean, I’d look at you from time to time out of courtesy, but

you’re behind that pillar, so you can stay seated. I’m just...I don’t want you to think I’m rude.

So, look as any good advocate would do, as Mr. Hannah does here. You present a mix of fact with

your interpretation of the law and ultimately some conclusions that you want the fact finder, which

in this case is this board to make a final determination kind of just as you would if you were an

appellate body or a jury. And some of you have not been on the board when we’ ve done this before,

but we have done this before on one occasion this what....... Was in the last year or so I can’t

remember and I think it was a citizen that was outside of the applicant I want to say. So, it doesn’t

happen often, but we have done it before.

So, Mr. Hannah has framed the issues a bit more broadly than what I think your duties are here

tonight. Certainly, an argument can be made that with respect to a determination that Josh made had

a cascading effect as this thing wound through the process. However, I’m going to recommend that

you focus on Josh’s determination and much less on the broadness of Mr. Hannah’s representations

that may ultimately be correct, but your job is to review the determination that Mr. Artuso made.

And parenthetically, I would tell you that the group that is opposing the approval that the town board

made, I guess within the last 30 days, commenced an action in article 78 that the town board acted

essentially arbitrary and capriciously with the respect to the determinations that’s made significantly

based on many of the reason that Mr. Hannah set forth. So, that’s as I see this in terms of setting the

table.

As a threshold matter which is important here typically and I guess it’s not so typical as I said we’ ve

done this at least one other time and it may go back before my time you will see this closer in time

to the town board who ultimately might make a determinative decision. You...you’d hear this board

this type of appeal would be brought before this board before that time because the statute requires

that when sitting in this capacity and I'll read to you the statute which is town law 267-4 says in

pertinent part of jurisdiction of the board of appeals shall be appellate only and shall be limited to in

this case hearing deciding appeals from any reviewing or from reviewing an order requirement

decision, interpretation or determination made by the administrative official charge with the

enforcement of any ordinance or local law adopted pursuant to this article. Such appeal may be taken

by any person who agreed which Mr. Hannah presents.

So, that requirement essentially is that this board needs to be placed on notice of this circumstance

within 60 days after that determination has been made in this case by Mr. Artuso. There is some

ambiguity in so much as J believe the statute talks about a filing of Mr. Artuso’s decision that shall

be filed in the office of such administrative official within five days from which from the day which

Pg. 77 June 9, 2026 Zoning Meeting

it is rendered shall be a public record. Well, we know as a practical matter that Mr. Artuso makes

decisions similar to this on a regular basis and there’s no official order per se, but often times there’s

emails or other documentation that the determination was made. In this case, we know at the very

least that there was a resolution of the Webster Town Board on or about July 17" , 2025 about 11

months ago, wherein that resolution contained whereas pursuant to the Webster Town Code, an

industrial use permit is required for any use within an IN-Industrial district. So, the town board was

acting, we know, at that time, based upon an act by Mr. Artuso, limiting his recommendation as to

what they needed to do, just an issuance or review of the industrial permit as opposed to the special

use permit or both as might be essentially. Mr. Hannah, amongst other things, argues that is the

missing link here and the fact that that was not made a requirement caused the cascading again the

applicant’s opinion that all of these things that weren’t reviewed that should have been reviewed that

followed and again I’m not commenting or passing judgement as to the accuracy of that or not.

So, not with standing that I think this board first before it gets into the merits and we can talk and

the board can ask questions if you wish about the language and I think it was... 155.6 that talks about

requirements of a special use permit for residential districts which as we know this is not a residential

district. But first I think the board should make a determination as to whether this application as an

appeal of Mr. Artuso’s decision is timely before you to consider. If you determine that it’s not, it

would be my recommendation that you need to go no further. If you find that it is, then obviously

the next step would be to get into the merits of Mr. Hannah’s argument as to whether or not Mr.

Artuso’s decision not to bring that to the attention of the town board. We can obviously get into that,

but I want to say that it is not this board’s job to correct actions taken by the town board or the

planning board. It is really narrowly on that decision that Mr. Artuso made. But first off , is it timely

or is it not timely?

suggested at the outset, I think as Mr. DeMarco suggested at the very outset of his remarks there was

no official pronouncement from Mr. Artuso as to the type of permits that were going to be required

and in fact after the town board action that Mr. DeMarco described as having occurred in July. There

was still a letter from Montante indicating that they were seeking they finally submitted the

application which had been acted on you know without having received it. And when the application

was submitted from Montante specifically said we are seeking and we need industrial use and special

use permits. They would not have said that if the issue had been decided as is being suggested, it

only became public, the industrial use permit component only became public on April 1* when Mr.

Artuso wrote a letter to the various town board members and copied in a number of the neighborhood

residents saying that only an industrial permit was going to be required and here’s why. That’s when

the clock started running. You start the clock running at the latest time and that’s when the clock

started running and the appeal to this board was filed within 60 days of that letter.

respect to his interpretation as to whether or not something being made public is what the statute

requires. The statute addresses that it should be a public record, and I think as a matter of practice

probably in most if not all towns that there is some type of communication made by a public official

Pg. 78 June 9, 2026 Zoning Meeting

whether by email or otherwise because you can imagine the number of decisions that are being made

there wouldn’t be formal orders filed with the Webster Town Clerk in each and every instance. And

that’s why I am suggesting to you that we know that the determination was made part of the public

record in the July 2025 resolution. But again, ultimately, this board has to make a decision here

whether in light of the requirements that is in your mind sufficient to trigger the 60-day clock and

whether that 60-day clock has run. So, go ahead.

guess the applicant for the zoning interpretation there is an article 78 at this point which has been

filed. I’m assuming that will be heard regardless of anything that this board does at that point. If I

misspeak at any point Mr. DeMarco, please stop me. This board has the opportunity to make a

determination if this zoning interpretation is timely based on when the application was submitted

based on correspondence that had occurred. We could forego that and move forward with the zoning

interpretation as itself if deem it not timely. We could stop there. Is that...did I summarize that in...

quote public close quote, what document is that? OR do we have that document?

members.

submit. That’s the first notice that the public every had. You can’t file an ap[peal if you don’t know

what happened. And that’s the first announcement to the public that this was going to be processed

under an industrial use permit only.

portion that I read relative to the July 2025 resolution that that is as I stated.

published minutes of the town board count as notification?

Pg. 79 June 9, 2026 Zoning Meeting

don’t know where do our minutes go?

decided this was whatever that it’s not necessary published, but it is made public.

2. The first one is given the nature, and I'll call it the importance of

the request that’s being made of this board. All right, first it’s a statement. I guess I'll voice my

frustration that the additional! information that we received from the applicant tonight was the first

time we saw it, which doesn’t give us any time to review it. So, I'll just note that. But if this matter

is currently moving forward with the article 78 proceeding, should this board act at all until the

matter is currently in litigation or are they two separate entities?

article 78 dos does not affect our ability to make this determination.

78. John DeMarco: I guess that’s up to Mr. Hanna whether it does, or it doesn’t .

play this role very often, but it is a core responsibility of the zoning board to act as a review board

for the actions of in this case, Mr. Artuso. So, if he determined that something should or should not

come before this board or perhaps in this instance whether he did not bring something to the attention

of the town board. And so, this board’s being asked to review what it was that he did and make a

determination as to whether or not he acted appropriately given the nature of the application. And I

essentially indicated to the board there’s....it’s a two-step process. As in many things legally, the

application has to be timely. It can’t be stale. It can’t be prohibited by a statute of limitation or like

statute. And in this case, there is a colorable claim that it might be or that it is. There’s some

Pg. 80 June 9, 2026 Zoning Meeting

ambiguity in the statue as to timeliness so I’m bringing those to your attention to first decide whether

it’s timely or not. If you determine that it is timely, than you should consider Mr. Hannah’s

arguments and take a look at the law that’s relevant to those arguments and make a decision as to

whether you think that there was an error by Mr. Artuso.

an interpretation on what is considered a front yard. When you have a property, I think was it last

month before the property had roads on three sides, which one of those are a front yard or the front

yard proper for setbacks, front doors, things like that nature. So that’s one of the things we’ re being

asked to do is interpret use whether guess whether a special use permit was required. I don’t think

there’s any argument that this is an industrial area but it’s more of whether a special use permit was

required. That’s my understanding. Okay.

been required?

that is something that could happen, but it doesn’t necessarily kill it. Okay, thank you.

the way I look at it, not being an attorney, there’s a lot of technical points that Mr. Hannah has laid

out listed his cascade of errors. So, whether Josh was or not, if it wasn’t timely, it doesn’t make a

difference.

could determine that the town board acted without the requisite authority and that the court sends it

back to the town to consider something that it overlooked. And that ultimately may or may not

change the decision as to whether or not the town board issues those permits. Obviously, Mr. Hannah

is hoping that that’s the case so that they feel that a more complete picture will end up stopping the

project. It’s to be determined if in fact they believe there is an error made or this board determines

that there was an error made.

Pg. 81 June 9, 2026 Zoning Meeting

for us to pull up those minutes and read that resolution into the record so that we can see what was

exactly said? That’s not information that I would normally...

determination, and you indicated such then you can take steps to make sure that you have what you

need assuming it exists.

probably reviewing them in detail would make more sense, but that it is published on the town

website, but we would certainly need time to review

was provided to us 5 minutes for me, 5 minutes before we started this meeting, you know, I

understand that there’s the email from April 1°, 2026. I have no idea if there’s any previous

documentation, so I can’t sit here and say that there was.

complete, but I wanted to determine whether there was emails from the department. Again, I’m not

saying that an email from Josh is dispositive of the notification issue, but I have not yet been provided

an email essentially on topic prior to the resolution of the town board.

resolution because I think we’re kind of hanging it on a very technical issue. Whether or not that

was the clock started then last July or this past April makes a big difference.

email. So, now I know it just arrived. So, look I can’t quarrel with that. It’s potentially, you know,

something that’s going to make your decision a little bit clearer.

here, right, I mean, so that’s issue one, right? And we can make a determination on whether it was

timely or not. The other issue at hand and it’s kind of the actual issue is the interpretation of the

Pg. 82 June 9, 2026 Zoning Meeting

zoning...you know, the zoning interpretation as well. You know if we’ ve determined again and Mr.

DeMarco If I mis-speak, please correct me. But if we’ ve determine that we...if it wasn’t. That this

isn’t timely, we could stop there, not make a determination on the zoning interpretation. However,

we could theoretically skip that, still make a determination on the interpretation if we wanted to.

the board had an opportunity to read through and understand Mr. Hannah’s take on it? I’ve read it

last month. [ve re-read it this month. I do get hung up on, you know is it 150-6 where it says a

special use permit is required for residential areas. I get hung up on the fact that when you’re talking

industrial areas, industrial areas do allow I think it’s energy generation if I remember correctly. I’m

looking for it right now. Public utilities, right. So, I guess. I’m and I don’t know is I mean all the

solar fields that are out there when they’re now tied into the grid, is that technically a utility? So,

those are questions that I have that I’ve raised for myself, and I don’t know if anybody from this

board has had kind of similar or not.

with you on that. It’s still interpretation.

it would be much easier if it were cut and dry. But my own opinion is let’s wait. I’d like to see us

wait so this way we don’t have to necessarily go through an entire debate on how we interpret it

unless we really have to. My other question is we still going to open whether we if we decide to

table it, we still need to open up to the public for comments, don’t we?

lot of people here. I didn’t want them to necessarily...

we want to table this matter? I mean, is that kind of what I’m hearing.

Pg. 83 June 9, 2026 Zoning Meeting

Pl look for them on the web, but is it possible to those sent out to us?

going to table this matter until the July meeting. You know, again, you provided some additional

information today which I know me personally, I didn’t get to see that. I probably would have asked

for some of this additional information earlier.

minutes I had to review it of presenting your case and what you saw as pertinent points. And I’m

going to par what other people have said, it just unfortunate that we didn’t have a chance to digest it

versus just reading through really quickly before.

provide?

information that you have for the board, please give us at least a week before the meeting to

preferably two, but at least one to review it. Just so that we don’t do the applicant a disservice as

well.

RESOLUTION 26-0017 Michael Short made a motion to TABLE

APPLICATION TO THE JULY 14, 2026

Centola.

VOTE:

Mr. Short AYE

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Spampinato ABSENT

Mr. Accorso AYE

Mrs. Damelio AYE

Mr. Centola AYE

please. Thank you.

AREA VARIANCE to allow a front setback of 44 ft where 75 ft is required, and to allow the

accessory building to be located nearer to the front property line associated with the construction of

a 480 SF pole barn on a 5.35-acre parcel having SBL #064.02-1-11.111 located in an LL Large-Lot

Single-Family Residential District under Section 350-13 and 350-36 of the Code of the Town of

Webster.

Pg. 84 June 9, 2026 Zoning Meeting

Appearing before the board was Joe Herbst. I am pretty sure you all have the maps or have gotten

the package. This lot lends itself to a unique situation being over 1,000 feet off the road and the way

the access to the log cabin is and the orientation of the cabin turned sideways renders this the front

yard. Hence the reason for the variance. It’s pretty much straight forward. It’s a 20 x 24 auxiliary

building pole barn construction.

neighbor’s house or on the other side of the...

it'll be on the south side of the driveway. This is not my property. I’m actually acting on behalf of

a friend of mine. He’s in the military and he’s the last two months he’s been on four continents. He’s

not in town very often. So, I was helping him out to do this for him,

of the map, it is pretty wooded. It’s mostly pine like 80 to 90 foot pines. This is already just a clear

field where they used to have horses and the topography once you get in the woods, topography

drops about 15 feet. It’s the same elevation on the north side of the building but drops about 15 feet

on the south side and the whole thing is a hill. This lends itself to no cutting of any forest. It’s the

easiest access. It’s still 200 feet from the log cabin. So, as you come in and as I park vehicles or

what not it’s still a good walk to get to the cabin but lends itself to the most common sense area.

Pg. 85 June 9, 2026 Zoning Meeting

located closest to it. The house that’ located at 100 David Brown.

BOTH BOARD MEMBERS SPEAKING AT THE SAME TIME

young men. Boy Scouts... LAUGHTER

further south you are within that parcel once you get off of the flag, more likely you are to find a flat

section. And it is an incredibly densely wooded piece of property. With this being the clearing

where the horse stable was or the horse pad at some point and time. So, it does the least damage to

the property to the woods and it still...there’s enough woods between the neighboring property in

this location that it truly isn’t really going to be noticed.

anybody wants to speak for or against the project? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the board.

questions from the board?

and brown, earthtones. [t’s natural.

RESOLUTION 26-0018 Michael Short made a motion TYPE II

Accorso.

VOTE:

Mr. Short AYE

Mrs. Volo AYE

Pg. 86 June 9, 2026 Zoning Meeting

Mr. Spampinato ABSENT

Mr, Accorso AYE

Mrs. Damelio AYE

Mr. Centola AYE

1.

nw

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

neighborhood in that a lot of those lots back there have accessory structures wither along

Shoemaker or as you go down a couple of the properties that back up to Midnight Trail or

are on Midnight Trail.

There will not be a detriment created to nearby properties: The accessory structure will not

be a detriment to any nearby properties. It should be noted for the record that the closest

property did submit a letter that they are in favor. They’re not opposed to having this

building be built.

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

It’s a five plus acre parcel. However, it’s the least detrimental to the land by putting it in

this particular application.

house actually faces the back of the property. So, you could even almost call it the rear lot

just based on house location.

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

that property has been back there for as long as I lived in Webster. Just with different

ownership at this point and time.

This is not an undesirable change: It will give the homeowner an opportunity to store their

property and will be unknown to anyone other than the immediate neighbor and the

homeowner.

of the site to be able to place the pole barn as well.

RESOLUTION 26-0019 Corrine Volo made a motion for AREA

Applicant Joe Herbst is requesting an AREA

VARIANCE to allow a front setback of 44ft

where 75ft is required, and to allow the

accessory building to be located nearer to the

front property line associated with the

construction of a 480 SF pole barn on a 5.35-

acre parcel having SBL #064.02-1-11.111

located in an LL Large-Lot Single-Family

Residential District under Section 350-13 and

350-36 of the Code of the Town of Webster of

Pg. 87 June 9, 2026 Zoning Meeting

which was seconded by Michael Short.

CONDITIONS:

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

Building Permit.

e That one-year significant construction shall expire June 9, 2027

VOTE:

Mr. Short AYE

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Spampinato ABSENT

Mr. Accorso AYE

Mrs. Damelio AYE

Mr. Centola AYE

VARIANCES to allow a side setback of 13.3ft where 15ft is required in association with the

construction of a new 720 SF attached two-car garage on a 0.26-acre parcel having SBL# 063.15-

1-84 located in the R-3 Single Family Residential District under Section 350-12 of the Code of the

Town of Webster.

Appearing before the board was Michael Meyer. (DID NOT STATE HIS NAME) vehicles. I’d

like to build the garage, a little bit bigger, 24 x

30. We do have snowblower and all the other

stuff that we have to put in the garage also. I did give you guys a packet about all the neighbors

and I had them sign it and they stated that everything was okay and I would just like to get the

variance of a few feet.

match the house.

for or against this project? No, bring it back to the board.

RESOLUTION 26-0020 Michael Short made a motion TYPE II

Centola.

Pg. 88 June 9, 2026 Zoning Meeting

VOTE:

Mr. Short AYE

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Spampinato ABSENT

Mr. Accorso AYE

Mrs. Damelio AYE

Mr. Centola AYE

The application as proposed would not have any impact to the essential character of the

neighborhood as they’re extending the garage. There is really no other spot on the property to

expand the garage except on that side. The variance is not significant. The property line is

somewhat wooded ! will say with the shrubs and trees. By approving this there’d be no physical

or environmental conditions that will be negatively impact. And although it is self-created, there’s

really no other choice for them to expand the garage without moving it entirely in two different

spots. So, in that respect, it is not entirely self-created.

car garage and then going in a little bit deeper.

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

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:

6. The difficulty is not self-created:

7. This is not an undesirable change:

RESOLUTION 26-0021 Michael Short made a motion for AREA

Applicant Michael Meyer is requesting

AREA VARIANCES to allow a side setback

of 13.3ft where 15ft is required in association

with the construction of a new 720 SF

attached two-car garage on a 0.26-acre parcel

having SBL# 063.15-1-84 located in the R-3

Single Family Residential District under

Pg. 89 June 9, 2026 Zoning Meeting

Section 350-12 of the Code of the Town of

Webster of which was seconded by: Chris

Centola.

CONDITIONS:

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

Building Permit.

e That one-year significant construction shall expire June 9, 2027

VOTE:

Mr. Short AYE

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Spampinato ABSENT

Mr. Accorso AYE

Mrs. Damelio AYE

Mr. Centola AYE

Bay Road. Applicant Scott Measday is requesting AREA VARIANCES for the following listed

below in association with a proposed re-subdivision (lot line adjustments) of 5-single-family

residential lots into 4-single-family residential lots totaling 2.5-acres having SBL #s 078.18-2-9,

078,18-2-10.2, 078.18-2-10.1, 078.18-2-11.11 and 078.18-2-11.2 located in the R-3 Single Family

Residential District under Section 350-12 and 350-36 of the Code of the Town of Webster.

Lot 1:

a. Existing Front Setback of 22.3’ & 22.5’ where 40’ is required

b. Proposed Side Setback of 8.0” or 55.6’ where 15” is required

c. Proposed Rear Setback of 8.0” or 55.6’ where 50’ is required

d. Proposed Area of 10,919 SF where 22,000 SF is required

Lot 2:

Proposed Area of 12,647 SF where 22,000 SF is required

Proposed Lot Frontage of 92.22’ where 100.00” is required

3:

a. House - Existing Front Setback of 13.1’ where 50’ is required

b. House - Proposed Rear Setback of 45.4’ where 50” is required

c. Barn — Proposed Rear Setback of 8.0’ where 50' is required

d. Proposed Area of 10,624 SF where 22,000 SF is required

€, Proposed Lot Frontage of 79.42’ where 100.00’ is required

Lot 4:

a. Existing Front Setback of 27.4’ where 60’ is required

Pg. 90 June 9, 2026 Zoning Meeting

pao se

L

o

_

2 Residences (Main & Guest) where only 1 is permitted

gens

Appearing before the board was Tom Sutherland and I’m here covering for Walt Baker tonight

and here with me is Scott Measday, who is the licensed surveyor for the project. He is very

familiar with this property. And we are representing the owner, James and Lou and they own

all five parcels on this corner lot totaling roughly 2.4 acres.

Current uses on this property include the mechanic shop on the corner of Bay and Ridge as weil

as multiple residential homes and storage barns. The three buildings on Ridge Road are serviced

by public utilities including sewer, water, electric, and gas. While the tow properties along Bay

Road, they each have their own private septic system and all other utilities are public such as

water, electric, and gas. So, while this may appear as a large subdivision, it’s really just fixing

some lot lines. So, currently there’s some lot lines that go through existing buildings. And we’re

here tonight to kind of dedicate each building to it’s own lot.

So, we did receive preliminary planning board approval last week, and some of their concerns

were about the drainage on the southern lot or the neighbor to the south. So, we added in a 15

inch culvert to try and collect that water and drain water into he creek. So, the neighbor to the

south is very happy now that that dried up his lawn. Another one would be another concern they

had was the power from the lot three barn, the frame barn provided electricity to the metal barn

on lot four. So that connection has been removed. So, there’s no power going to that metal barn

on lot proposed lot 4 now. And the last concern that they had was the septic tank on the guest

house for the proposed lot 4 which would be 1036A. We went out there and we looked at the

septic, and it was very old. It was an old steel tank. So, we replaced that with concrete and

made sure that the leech field worked and it was good. So, we’re here requesting a variety of

variances, but we are here to improve pre-existing non-conforming to make it a little bit less

non-conformity.

familiar with the location and trying to understand, the red lines are what? The existing property

lines?

4 is the larger lot and then there’s three lots to the north.

Pg. 91 June 9, 2026 Zoning Meeting

1036 Bay Road as well as the black and metal garage and 1036A. 1036A is a guest house. So,

we initially were going to put 1036A on its own lot. But the utilities for the house are in the

basement of 1036. So, the water meter and gas meter in the basement of 1036 and that’s what

we decided with the planning board that it would be better to keep it all on the same lot.

really thick other lines. I’m not...I’m starting to see them, but I’m struggling seeing them.

between the driveway and the property line. But the paper copy, I believe it is much clearer.

the black? But I got it now. Okay.

but some buildings here only have 15 feet in separation between them . We believe that this is

the best configuration.

lines will go through the existing buildings.

recently sold and within that collection of properties, I have lot lines going through buildings

and so therefore some buildings were located on two lots as opposed to having each building

have its own lot. So, there’s no additional structures being added to this.

within a single lot and the lot lines are spaced as best they can apply to what are the preferred

setbacks or the code required setbacks to balance it so that should you need to sell one again,

you actually can because it’s legal and appropriate.

Pg. 92 June 9, 2026 Zoning Meeting

cross through another lot other than the existing gravel, old gravel driveway. But that’s not

needed to access the lot

off of Ridge one story block you can get from Ridge or Bay and then the one story block

including the metal barn including the block and metal garage and the one story frame all of

those access off of Bay through that large...

test with it or...

Michael! Short: I though you indicated that you checked the leech field and it was working. I

was curious how you check the leech field.

out and did the septic system.

before it looked like with the red line, although the red lines do have to move... have no

Pg. 93 June 9, 2026 Zoning Meeting

questions. There’s no doubt about that. But it now looks like the one story frame and the one

story block. I’m assuming that is a house, the one story block ?

coming through 1036 to go to 1036A.

Actually, the water meter is shared. There is only a single water meter that feeds both. The gas

meters are separate. The electric meters are separate, but they are contained in the basement off

the forward house.

did this sale ever go through with so many things not in compliance with town code.

want to speak for or against this application. Please come on up. None, I will bring it back to

the board.

of potentially selling each structure, which would have been even harder if you did it

individually. Based on the existing lot lines so I think, it’s....they did a good job.

RESOLUTION 26-0022 Michael Short made a motion TYPE II

Volo.

VOTE:

Mr. Short AYE

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Spampinato ABSENT

Mr. Accorso AYE

Pg. 94 June 9, 2026 Zoning Meeting

Mrs. Damelio AYE

Mr. Centola AYE

Overall, the action will not impact the essential character of the neighborhood as there are lot lines

and no one will even know where they exist. While there might have been other alternates

considered, this is probably the best solution to make sure that each building at least each

well,..each building I will say has at least a noticeable and minimal setback for a lot. The variances

requested are not substantial, especially when you consider that there are existing buildings going

over multiple outlines and there won’t be any potential impacts on drainage, traffic, dust, or noise

or public services. And the applicant has already stated that they’ ve added a culvert to improve

drainage for one of the lots. The application is not self-created. It’s been there for a while and

they’re doing the best job they can to make them as compliant as possible. With that in mind,

they...okay, that should do it. Sorry. We can do the setbacks under the motion.

ultimately what this is trying to do. Anybody else what to add anything to the findings?

This request is not out of character in the neighborhood:

There will not be a detriment created to nearby properties:

The benefit is not achievable by any other method:

This request is not substantial:

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

This is not an undesirable change: It is not an undesirable change.

ion Sit

RESOLUTION 26-0023 Michael Short made a motion for AREA

Ridge Road and 1036 and 1036A Bay Road.

Applicant Scott Measday is requesting AREA

VARIANCES for the following listed below

in association with a proposed re-subdivision

(lot line adjustments) of 5-single-family

residential lots into 4-single-family residential

lots totaling 2.5-acres having SBL #s 078. 18-

2-9, 078.18-2-10.2, 078.18-2-10.1, 078.18-2-

11.11 and 078.18-2-11.2 located in the R-3

Single Family Residential District under

Section 350-12 and 350-36 of the Code of the

Pg. 95 June 9, 2026 Zoning Meeting

Town of Webster which was seconded by

Chris Centola.

Lot 1:

e. Existing Front Setback of 22.3’ & 22.5’ where 40” is required

f. Proposed Side Setback of 8.0’ or 55.6’ where 15’ is required

g. . Proposed Rear Setback of 8.0° or 55.6’ where 50” is required

h. Proposed Area of 10,919 SF where 22,000 SF is required

Lot 2:

f. House - Existing Front Setback of 9.8’ where 50’ is required

g. House - Proposed Side Setback of 12.0° where 15” is required

h. Garage — Proposed Side Setback of 7.5’ where 15' is required

i. Proposed Area of 12,647 SF where 22,000 SF is required

j. Proposed Lot Frontage of 92.22’ where 100.00’ is required

Lot 3:

Proposed Area of 10,624 SF where 22,000 SF is required

Proposed Lot Frontage of 79.42’ where 100.00’ is required

4:

Existing Front Setback of 27.4’ where 60’ is required

Garage ~ Proposed Side Setback of 8.2’ where 15” is required

2 Residences (Main & Guest) where only 1 is permitted

of which was seconded by Corrine Volo.

Qo r moa rh

So orga oh

get this finalized.

month.

CONDITIONS:

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

Building Permit.

e That one-year significant construction shall expire June 9, 2027

VOTE:

Mr. Short AYE

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Spampinato ABSENT

Mr. Accorso AYE

Pg. 96 June 9, 2026 Zoning Meeting

Mrs. Damelio AYE

Mr. Centola AYE

Family Asset Group LLC is requesting an AREA VARIANCE to allow a minimum lot width for

(LOT 1) of 162.45’ and a minimum lot width for (LOT 2) of 177.45’ where 250’ is required in

association with the subdivision of an 8.3-acre parcel having SBL #036.04-1-21 located in an LL

Large-Lot Single-Family Residential District under Section 350-13 of the Code of the Town of

Webster.

Appearing before the board was Bryan White with McMahon LaRue Associates. I’m here

tonight representing Michael Seversky of Triple Family Asset Group LLC who’s the applicant

of this application. We are proposing a two lot subdivision located at 1640 Lake Road. For

context, the property is approximately a tenth of a mile east of Salt Road between the north edge

of Lake Road and Lake Ontario. With our proposed subdivision, again it’s a two parcel

subdivision. Along this area will require two area variance for minimum lot width. By code, it

stipulates that the minimum lot width should be 250 feet.

For lot one, we’re proposing a lot width of approximately 162 feet and change. And for lot two,

we’ re proposing a lot width of approximately 177 feet. The exact dimensions are noted in our

application. For additional context, the applicant is proposing to purchase lot one and the

applicant also resides along the westerly side of this property. The owner of 1640 Lake Road

is currently selling the property and with that arises the opportunity for the applicant to acquire

this land east of where he currently resides. The parcels conform with the remaining

dimensional lot requirements. Minimum lot acreage of 3 acres. We meet that. We’re

requesting area variances for lot width.

It’s our opinion that this configuration is very consistent with the adjoining properties. It almost

stands out as it is today. It’s one of the last ones that hasn’t been subdivided historically. It’s

also noteworthy that the three parcels east of our subdivision were recently granted area

variances for lot width in August of 2022. So, they had similar same variance request similar

distances that were previously approved. The proposed lot line falls just north of a natural low-

lying area. So, it is a natural boundary. We’ ve chosen the lot width for lot one as it aligns with

an existing access easement that runs north and south along an existing driveway servicing all

these properties.

So, we feel that it’s a natural location as we’ve drawn it here tonight. Be happy to answer any

questions you have or provide additional clarification at your direction.

not meet the code, correct?

3. Pg. 97 June 9, 2026 Zoning Meeting

I’m going to say approximately 30 years ago. This property was this property long before large

lot existed. So, the width was probably appropriate at that time.

there, right?

is not the owner of 1640 currently. He has, you know, arrangements. ...

behalf to do the subdivision so he can purchase lot one.

helpful Erika. I do have a similar hard copy of what Erika is depicting currently if that’s useful

to anyone from the board.

Pg. 98 June 9, 2026 Zoning Meeting

applicant, is to the west of the subject parcel. Doesn’t that mean that in order to connect the

two parcels, not that he’s going to want to connect them necessarily, but he’s got to cross the

driveway for the remaining parcel to go to the back? That’s the way it looks on the map.

The intent is to have a standalone new parcel know as lot one which would require the area

variance for lot width.

have that, Erika? Okay, that’s fine. We have it. That’s all the questions I have. Any other

questions from the board? I will open it up to the public. Anyone want to speak for or against

this? No. . Any other questions from the board?

RESOLUTION 26-0024 Michael Short made a motion TYPE II

Centola.

VOTE:

Mr. Short AYE

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Spampinato ABSENT

Mr. Accorso AYE

Mrs. Damelio AYE

Mr. Centola AYE

1. This request is not out of character in the neighborhood: There are several parcels both to

the east and west of this that have done similar subdivisions. They’re all originally

relatively narrow, like lest that 200 feet wide and deep going from Lake Road all the way

to the lake.

2. There will not be a detriment created to nearby properties: The change is not going to create

a detriment to nearby properties. The only property that this would really impact is the

property to the west which is the purchaser of the lot one.

3. The benefit is not achievable by any other method: The benefit really cannot be achieved

by any other method. You could move the lot line, but 3 acres is the minimum that is

required because this is not a large lot.

4. This request is not substantial:

Pg. 99 June 9, 2026 Zoning Meeting

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

are none. The dividing line is roughly where there’s...I don’t know if it’s technically a

wetland, but it’s at the dividing line. It’s a wettish area. It’s the logical location to put the

break in. It’s not an undesirable change. And I will note that the lot width is substandard

based on the fact that these lots were put into the large lot district after long after they had

already been established as lots. So, they did not have an opportunity to comply with the

lot with from inception.

6. The difficulty is not self-created:

7. This is not an undesirable change:

RESOLUTION 26-0025

CONDITIONS:

Corrine Volo made a motion for AREA

Applicant Michael Seversky of Triple Family

Asset Group LLC is requesting an AREA

VARIANCE to allow a minimum lot width

for (LOT 1) of 162.45’ and a minimum lot

width for (LOT 2) of 177.45’ where 250” is

required in association with the subdivision of

an 8.3-acre parcel having SBL #036.04-1-21

located in an LL Large-Lot Single-Family

Residential District under Section 350-13 of

the Code of the Town of Webster of which

was seconded by Michae! Short.

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

Building Permit.

e That one-year significant construction shall expire June 9, 2027

VOTE:

Mr. Short AYE

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Spampinato ABSENT

Mr. Accorso AYE

Mrs. Damelio AYE

Mr. Centola AYE

SPECIAL USE PERMIT to allow 8’ X 8’ chicken coop and no more than 8 hens on a 0.42-acre

parcel having SBL #081.01-2-84 located in an R-2 Single-Family Residential District under Section

350-40 and 350-103 of the Code of the Town of Webster.

Appearing before the board was Christian Lyke. I do have some signed signatures from some of

the neighbors as well as a packet I have for the board. I didn’t make enough copies. I apologize. I

Pg. 100 June 9, 2026 Zoning Meeting

thought there was five board members that would be here. WALKING AWAY FROM MIC AND

TALKING) I know there was some neighbor concerns that I have to address and then kind of

going over the plan overall as far as what we’re looking to do. I know Mrs. Volo was on site

yesterday and kind of walked through as well with taking a look at the property and the proposed

plans.

BOARD MEMBERS SPEAKING WHILE APPLICANT IS.

consumption as well as for you know teaching our kids and everything to go along with the garden

and everything like that that we have. So, there’s...I felt we put together a pretty good plan as far

as what we’re going to do to house them, protect them, make sure that they don’t get out. As well

as even down to the breed that we went with to ensure that it was aligned and didn’t take away

from the aesthetic of the neighborhood. And they would be as quiet as a hen can be, right?

There’s no roosters allowed. So, we put together, I think, a pretty good plan as far as what we’d be

looking to do. You know, I don’t know if there’s any questions from the board or where we’d like

to start with on the review process.

be in the back parcel where the red box is identified up on the screen. Is that correct.

from the shed to the left there, that is where it would be placed to kind of give you an idea of the

placement. I have 10 feet behind that fence due to an easement. So, there’ll probably be about 10

feet between where coupe and the run would be. And then that probably have about another 15 to

20 feet back of the property line. And then in photo seven it kind of gives an idea there as well

where you can see the gray box. The garden is located on the other side of the shed.

that I created. So, you’! have to look at the paper copy in your packet.

1814, 1820, and 1809.

beforehand. So, and then it did turn into kind of a neighborhood situation between some folks, and

I didn’t want to involve anybody any further. So, I left it as of today. The lines you see was my

youngest daughter thinking her signatures would help. LAUGHTER

10. Pg. 101 June 9, 2026 Zoning Meeting

is going to be identified in the back?

He actually thought you could have chickens in Webster without having to go through all the

variances. He’s a contractor, so he gets that sometimes. Brain Lipa was on board. I did think

1817 was its to my understanding that they have sent in a letter otherwise, so I did not get a

Signature from them. And then 1811 there’s been a long dispute since our fence went in

unfortunately. So, they were not on board. We could put the Taj Mahal up there for them and they

wouldn’t be on board.

the postcards were going out, and the sign would be going up. I started knocking on doors then we

spike to them and they wanted to kind of see how we were going to secure then hens and then

what our plans was. We went over it and they seemed fine and then something changed

afterwards. So, unfortunately for them. I think a lot of it was around noise.

concerns that I’m looking at here talks about...I guess ultimately animal management not so much

the chickens in general and visibility. So, how are you...ultimately what is the coupe going to look

like? How are you going to maintain that coupe?

options in there that we’ve actually already...they’ ve been delivered. I can return. They were on

sale, so I did order them from Tractor Supply, but we will have a couple that will be able to attach

to a run, an 8 x 8 like run essentially that will have a roof over it that we can then put a...it’s like a

mesh tarp is the only way I can describe it. This will help with making so hawks can’t get in, they

can’t get out. We plan on having cameras, solar cameras like I have on the back of the house onto

the coupe as well. So that we’re able to monitor it as well as a lock on the door. So, kids can’t get

in, other folks can’t get in, and they don’t get out by accident. There will be a solar door for the

coupe to allow the chickens to come in and out at dusk and dawn and also help keep out predators.

So, some of the other options as far as what we’d be looking to do is also we'd be putting more

Pg. 102 June 9, 2026 Zoning Meeting

arborvitaes around it. We plan on planting different flowers to help with the aesthetics of the coupe

so that it blends in more and it’s just not like an eyesore to some folks.

then he has to come back. Just to clarify.

there’s any issues, neighbors have the ability to call in if necessary. But yes, we have the ability to

provide a special use permit for up to 5S years. For a first time applicant, I would not suggest going

beyond one year.

together the plan that we plan on doing as a family with the children for the daily maintenance, the

weekly, monthly, quarterly, as well as winter maintenance. We have found the coupe we went with

allows...it has a vent at the top so it can property vent throughout the winter. We will be using a

different type of bedding, a hemp bedding because it’s a little bit more dust free, it gives better

warmth and overall, it keeps any odors and anything down like that as well. We’re surrounded by

farms anyway in our subdivision there’s a cow farm right there on Ridge Road. I highly doubt the

chickens would create any smell if we can’t smell that large , you know, cow farm. So, I’ve

worked with the neighbor across the street. Her name is Tiana and she used to have 30 chickens at

her old resident. Christy Tummani on there as well. Had some at her residence on Lake Road.

They’ ve walked us through some dos and don’ts as well like 1 said right down to the breed. We

went with a bard rock. It’s one of the older chickens. I guess in American. I’ve learned more about

chickens than I ever thought I would in my life. But they are known to be extremely friendly.

They’re more like a pet. They like to be held like a pet. They coo...They’re quiet other than, you

know, when they lay the egg, you may hear something. But I plan on trying to do my best to put

more bushes, arborvitaes, things around it to kind of shield some of that sound the best I can. From

my understanding and the people, I’ve spoken to, I did have to put an order in for the eggs because

I wanted all hens. So, you have to pay extra. You have to wait time to get them. They probably

won’t be hatched and delivered to us by the end of June. I apologize and then my understandings

by the time they get to me, they’re 2 to 3 weeks old at that point and they’!] be inside somewhere

for three weeks until they get feathers and can go outside so that gives us time to get everything

properly set up. As far as food storage goes, was that gray bin that you see in the picture there on

the side. I have gotten some, you can get them for dogs, but it has a seal on the inside so that you

can seal it. This way no rodents or anything can get in there and start to go though the chicken

feed. I mean, you name it. I think this probably cost more then I ever anticipated, but I wanted to

make sure that I was not going to upset anyone further. Like I said, there has been issues when the

fence went up and that’s caused some disruptions unfortunately with the neighbors and I hope I’ve

shown that the property is upkept. None shown that the property is unkept of the stuff that I don’t

agree with in those statements is there. I even couldn’t get it my landscaper, and he sent a message

to me that he never confirmed that was never any dog waste. If there is, i's seldom. My dogs go

Pg. 103 June 9, 2026 Zoning Meeting

in two spots really in the yard and it’s off to the side nowhere near the chicken coop. But I pay to

get the grass cut and taking care of through Pinnacle once a month. And also do extra treatments

for crane flies to make sure that we don’t have any issues with the June bugs coming up and

everything. And then I do have a landscaper that comes every single Thursday and mows the lawn

for me, front and back and week wacks all the way around. So, I’m a little disheartened by some of

the comments that I heard were put out there, but I think I’ve shown in the pictures as well that

there might be times where maybe there’s some, but I think every animal owner has had times

where I’ve seen everybody out there picking up extra droppings because they may have missed

one. But I have three kids like I said , who play, tons of kids who come over to play. It’s a very

busy neighborhood. And that’s keeping the backyard safe, for them is the highest priority. First

and foremost . So, like I said it’s dishearten to hear those statements, but I think I’ve shown the

pictures and that is how the property is upkept. My wife is a nurse practitioner. I’m finishing up

school. Ido network infrastructure for charter communications. We’re both respectable people in

our fields and with our friends. So, it’s just unfortunate that fence cause some people some issues

and it’s lingered for years now.

website this morning to pick out and I don’t know if I want arborvitaes or a different type. We

kind of like the cypresses better, but we are going to along the fence line there as well as because

of some of the disruption, I have contacted the company who put in our fence, and I’Il work with

the town to see what I can do. There’s extenders that I can do to give more privacy. It’s a 4ft up to

the property line and at the time when I did it, 6 foot wasn’t approved. I did find out there are

aluminum extenders I can put across the top to give privacy and then they can do like a weave on

the bottom with like a vinyl so that it pretty much gives me a blackout fence to do that, but I do still

plan until they can figure that because I don’t know cost to put more arborvitaes along that side and

then plant. If you look, that’s why I highlighted the swim spa there. Similar plan to that with he

landscaping. I read that certain flower were better for the hens like blackeye susans, like what’s the

one we put down for...to keep bugs out of the garden? Marigolds, blackeye susans, and some of

the others and then all around.

SPEAKING AT THE SAME TIME.

intention to put the arborvitae along the rear lot line or along your border with 87 or 1817?

Pg. 104 June 9, 2026 Zoning Meeting

there’s two giant pear trees right there behind where it’s going to be, but I do plan on doing both.

Then as far as compost, I do have a compost that I built in the back. I have to build a lid for it, but

I understand I can put it in compost and then let it do its natural thing and use it in the garden in

years to come. So, that was the other plan for the waste if that came up.

the shed, based on the screen that we have here. Your plan is to plant and I’m going to call it

arborvitaes. I’m using it as a generic term, but some type of evergreen screening along the back

side of your fence on the, I’m going to say it’s the north side.

that I took their...the house can’t even see where the coup’s going to be because of their 6 foot

privacy fence. I’m still going to put something there just in case they’re in the backyard on the

swing and they have no visual of it.

property line.

board.

RESOLUTION 26-0026 Michael Short made a motion TYPE II

Centola.

VOTE:

Mr. Short AYE

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Spampinato ABSENT

Mr. Accorso AYE

Mrs. Damelio AYE

Mr. Centola AYE

(1)

The use will not prevent the orderly and reasonable use of adjacent properties or of properties in

adjacent use districts. They are all residential. Based on the location per my visit to the property,

where the coupe is going to go, it is really only going to potentially be visible to two neighbors

and the applicant has indicated that it and I guess | would agree based on my visitation that

Pg. 105 June 9, 2026 Zoning Meeting

between his screening and the location, it’s not going to prevent anybody from using their property

in any way, shape, or form.

(2)

The public health, safety, general welfare or order of the Town will not be adversely affected by

the proposed use in its location. And | would agree as long as the chicken coupe is maintained as

proposed by the applicant.

(3)

The use will be in general harmony with and promote the general purposes and intent of the most

recent Comprehensive Plan of the Town and the Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 350). J would say the

direction that the town tends to be moving in. We’ve had I’m just going to side note in the past

two years, 8, 10,we do get three or four a year of this exact application. I think people are just

more cognizant of the quality of their food source and where their food is coming from. And it’s

certainly a good project for kids to learn responsibility and the whole food chain

(4)

The proposed use will not interfere with the preservation of the general character of the

neighborhood in which such building is to be placed, or use is to be conducted and that the

proposed use will, in fact, be compatible with its surroundings and with the character of the

neighborhood and of the community in general, particularly with regard to visibility, scale and

overall appearance. And again, it’s going to be screened appropriately between the shed and

plantings and it’s in a location that is at least 20 feet from the rear lot line and probably at least

that much from the other lot lines so it's not right up against anyone else’s property and the

location within the lot is really the most logical with respect to keeping it screened within buildings

and as far away from other residences as possible. And the use will provide the appropriate

landscaping to buffer this from surrounding land uses.

(5)

The physical characteristics and topography of the proposed site make it suitable for the proposed

special use.

(6)

The proposed special use provides appropriate landscaping and/or other forms of buffering to

protect surrounding land uses.

(7)

The property has sufficient, appropriate and adequate area for the use, as well as reasonably

anticipated operation thereof.

(8)

Access to facilities is adequate for the estimated traffic generated by the proposed use on public

streets and sidewalks so as to assure the public safety and to avoid traffic congestion.

(9)

Adequate parking and internal traffic circulation can be accommodated on the property in

compliance with other sections of the Code, taking into account adequate buffering and

landscaping.

(10)

Pg. 106 June 9, 2026 Zoning Meeting

Adequate facilities exist or can be integrated into the site development to properly deal with

stormwater runoff, sanitary sewers, fire protection, electrical power needs, refuse or other waste

that may be generated, odors, noise or lights which may go beyond property boundaries.

(11)

The natural characteristics of the site are such that the proposed use may be introduced on the

property without undue disturbance or disruption of important natural features, systems or

processes and without negative impact to groundwater and surface waters on and off the site.

(12)

The proposed use can and will comply with all provisions of this chapter and of the Code which

are applicable to it and can meet every other applicable federal, state, county and local law,

ordinance, rule or regulation.

RESOLUTION 26-0027 Michael Short made a motion for SPECIAL

Lane. Applicant Christian Lyke is requesting

a SPECIAL USE PERMIT to allow 8’ X 8’

chicken coop and no more than 8 hens on a

0.42-acre parcel having SBL #081.01-2-84

located in an R-2 Single-Family Residential

District under Section 350-40 and 350-103 of

the Code of the Town of Webster of which

was seconded by Corrine Volo.

CONDITIONS:

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

Building Permit.

That one-year significant construction shall expire June 9, 2027

Provide screening evergreen “plantings” along the north property and the east

property line around where the hens are.

e This is for one year. A special use for one year.

EVERYONE TALKING AT ONCE.

VOTE:

Mr. Short AYE

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Spampinato ABSENT

Mr. Accorso AYE

Mrs. Damelio AYE

Mr. Centola AYE

Pg. 107 June 9, 2026 Zoning Meeting

back in front of the board one year from today to ultimately request an extension.

WATERVIEW APARTMENTS PHASE 3: Located at the northwest corner of Willow Point

Way and Nautical Mile Drive. Applicant Legacy Development Co., Inc is requesting AREA

VARIANCES to allow a front setback of 18.7’ where 75’ is required and to allow a single-

family district buffer of 38.5’ where 100’ is required in association with the construction of (6)

buildings plus a community center (total of 56 units), each 2 stories in height on a proposed

13.15-acre parcel having SBL# 093.06-3-64.11 located in an MHR Medium High Residential

District under Section 350-14 of the Code of the Town of Webster.

APPLICATION TABLED TO JULY 14, 2025

e Approval of minutes for May 12, 2026 ( VOLO/CENTOLA )

VOTE:

Mr. Short AYE

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Spampinato ABSENT

Mr. Accorso AYE

Mrs. Damelio AYE

Mr. Centola AYE

Since there are no further applications before the Board, Michael Short adjourned tonight’s

meeting at 9:00 p.m.

Cn ne AACE A

Corrine Volo, Secretary

Katherine Kolich, Recording Secretary ey eae ae K

—-

Pg. 108 June 9, 2026 Zoning Meeting