Video recording

Um, let's see. Uh, though I don't anticipate it happening, the board does have the right to to end the meeting uh by 10 p.m. Again, I don't anticipate that. Uh, if we do that, we will table the remaining items. Um, I do have the proof of publication uh here for all the uh items. Um, call for attendance. >> Mr. Short >> here. >> Mrs. Bolo >> here. >> Mr. Spaniano >> here. >> Mr. Senola >> here. >> Mrs. Deio >> here. >> M Mr. Aorsy >> here. >> Corso. I [laughter] apologize. I'm sorry I'm looking. Miss Corsy >> and Mr. DeMarco >> present. >> If we can uh stand for the pledge of allegiance, please.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Um, all right. With that, uh, we'll start with, uh, let's see, 1249 Creek Run, >> Mil Creek, >> uh, Mil Creek Run. Thank you. Uh, the applicant, uh, Peter PenQu, couldn't come up. Did I said I got that? All right. So, um, as you're up, as anybody's up at the podium, please speak into the mic. Uh, we do use it for, uh, public access and close caption, everything else. >> Okay. Excuse me. >> So, I'm Pete. Panku. My beautiful wife is Crystal.

We are all our lives been in Webster. Our mothers live in Webster. I'm not sure you care about that stuff, but matters to me. Um, I have a PowerPoint. Yes. >> Mhm. >> So, I'm looking forward to add an addition on the the back of my house. Um, Erica, do I just you Okay, perfect. Thank you. >> Do I just go page to page? Is that the best way to do it? >> Yep. I'm just going to scroll through. you can discuss character of the neighborhood, your responses, etc. with the board and then once you get to the end, they'll ask you any additional questions. >> All right. Thank you. >> So, I'm asking for a setback of 42.4T from the rear of the property line.

And then the project location. I'm sorry, I'm still up there. So, we got it outlined right there. Um, the sides are fine. Just the rear of the property line is not 50 ft. [snorts] >> I have to go through all that stuff. Do I I do? Okay. >> Yes. >> Okay. Do I What you want me to do is just read this. >> So, go ahead, Michael. So what the board needs to understand is um how if at all this pro uh this project the variance is going to affect um various things that are on here. So you can read it. You you've already provided this information to the town. So you can you can read it. We want it on public record.

>> Um you can um you don't have to read it verbatim. You can present the information. Uh but ultimately the information that you've already presented to to the board to the town through your application is the information that that we're utilizing. And then any additional information uh that that you have that you want to share like you've been a resident um your entire life, your family, it's information that that's helpful for the board to hear as well. So again, feel free to read it verbatim, but ultimately these are the items that we need to to understand is really what it comes down to. And but again, you don't have to read it verbatim if you don't want to.

Okay, so thank you. The character of the neighborhood. Um if we look down at my neighborhood, almost every house has the addition on the back. They really do. Okay. At my house, oddly enough, is where the painters lived when they built the neighborhood. So, I have a very small thousand foot ranch with surrounded by 2,000 foot houses. And then that is the picture. Okay. Um, I did try with my contractor to make the addition work without a variance, but the roof pitch that's over my head, they can't do it from the width. [snorts] So, that's why I had to ask for that 8 ft. Okay. Yeah, the question request not significant.

I'm not sure what if it is or isn't. Um, but all I'm asking for is that that 8 ft. Okay. No physical or environmental issues will result from the construction of the addition. This kind of explains it. Um, so I do live in a thousand foot ranch with beautiful wife, three kids, two dogs, and a wonderful guinea pig that if you want him, you can handle. [laughter] It's the guinea bake that put you over, right? >> It is. Yes. Nothing else is living is going to my house though. My seven-year-old wants a fish, though, so that might happen. [laughter] Um, moving I want to stay in Webster. That's we're comfortable.

So, we've looked in Webster, but I know we're all aware of this. $150,000 over asking. I mean, that's kind of ridiculous. So, we decided this we're comfortable. We live in the neighborhood we love. The schools are good. All we want to do is just make that addition and stay there for our life and then have it for our grandkids. Thank you. >> That was nicely done. So, I appreciate that. >> Thank you. >> Um I do have a a question on one of the um on one of the surveys that we were provided. It indicated proposed addition and proposed pool. So, are are you proposing an indoor >> that is >> in the air?

>> Okay. >> Possibly. Yes. Yeah. But that doesn't apply to this board. You guys don't He doesn't need any approvals for >> No, understand. I'm just I'm trying to understand what I'm >> Okay, understand >> what I'm looking at. And that's I was just trying to understand it. That's all. Okay. >> So, I grew up with uh um the guy that owns Auto Finishers. >> Mhm. >> Anthony, they have the Publishers Parkway, the house right across the street, indoor pool. >> And that was awesome. >> Yeah. >> Be kind of cool to have one for obviously my kids cuz they're they're fish. >> Yep. And then my grandkids. >> Yeah.

>> Yeah. If it happens. >> Yeah. Yeah. Understood. >> Okay. Other questions from the board? >> Questions? >> No. All right. Um, I'll open up to the public. Does anybody want to speak for or against uh this project? No. Bring it back to the board. Uh any other questions from the board? No. I did drive by the house uh earlier today. As you said, smallest house in the neighborhood. Um very tight backyard. Um any communication with your neighbors uh 1246 Holly or 1253 Mil Creek >> next door? They've been Paris >> for a long time. >> Okay. >> They don't care though. They're cool as heck. >> Okay. Um, and the neighbors behind me, they're on Holly, >> they don't care either.

All right, there you go. >> Okay. >> No autographs. No, I didn't go to their house and get autographs from them, but we're all open. They all have kids, so we all kind of hang out in that corner. >> Okay. >> Yeah, >> got it. Very good. >> Um, >> if you look at the view that's on the screen right now, four of the houses have additions >> already on the back. It's It's We've had several variances for that neighborhood. Um it it makes the most sense to put additional living space off the back of the house. There's no really no other place. >> Yeah. I mean the these pieshaped lots make it real difficult.

>> Yeah. >> So Okay. Um, if there's no other questions or comments from the board, I'd like to make a motion for a type two action under secret pursuant under NYCRR section 617.5C of the environmental code. >> Second. >> All those in favor? >> I findings. >> I'm happy to run through them if you'd like. >> Please do so. >> The request is not out of character with the neighborhood. I don't know if it's quite 90%, but there's a lot of houses along that subdivision that have had additions added to the back of specifically to the back of the house. The detriment will not create will not create a detriment to nearby properties.

The um addition really is only going to be seen by the neighbor immediately to your rear and to your side. And from their house, I don't think it's going to look like it's out of place as far as the distance from the rear lot line. Not achievable by any any other method. As you had indicated, you and your architect work to try and find a less impactful location or addition. And the roof line of your house would not work with the roof line of a new addition. No adverse physical or environmental impacts to the site or their neighborhood. That's just self-stated. Um, I'll say it's not self-created in that you do have probably one of the smallest houses within that subdivision.

So, um, to to build a house to code with current Webster, you couldn't build a,000 square foot house, I think it would have to be at least 1,200 or,400 square feet. So, um, and it's certainly not an undesirable change. It will give you guys extra space and I'm assuming it will look as nice as the rest of the house. Yes, ma'am. >> All right. >> Anything else? >> Nope. >> If you'd like, I can make a motion >> to go for it. >> Grant an area variance at 1249 Mil Creek Run to allow a 44.4 ft rear setback where 50 ft is required associated with the construction of the 1,080 ft addition. >> It's advertised for 42.4.

I'm sorry. Did I read that wrong? >> You said 44.4. >> I'm sorry. 42.4. My mistake. Or 50 ft is required for a 1080 ft addition on a41 acre parcel SPL number 065.13-2-29 located in an R3 single family residential district. >> Second. >> Mrs. Holo. >> I. >> Mr. Senola. >> I. Miss D'Amelio M. Oh Mr. Corsy messed up. >> Mr. Corso Corso >> I >> Mr. Spanado >> I >> Mr. Short >> I >> you have uh your your area variance for the rear setback. Um you [clears throat] have one year for meaningful um movement on the project. You do you will also need to get all the other permits and approvals necessary. >> Okay.

>> So, good luck. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you, Erica. Thank you very much. >> You're welcome. >> Uh next up, 1084 uh Brightream Way. Uh if applicant Brian uh Trinkler can come on up. Uh good afternoon everybody. Um not nearly as prepared as Peter was. Seemed like he had everything in front of him. I not nearly as prepared. Um but born and raised Webster. Uh spent some time out in Ontario, but uh didn't like it out there. Just not the same character. So came right back to Webster about 2 years ago. Uh moved into the property in question. Um we have a three-year-old golden retriever. loves to run, loves to get her energy out.

And we now have a 7-month-old at home who will very soon uh be looking to run as well. And the current backyard, while quite large, um is not protected in any way. I would hate to have the dog or the baby run out into the street. Um so we are looking to install a 6-ft white vinyl privacy fence around the inboard edge of the yard. Um due to the nature of it being a corner lot, there is a concern property line right over yonder. Um where that is encroaching on what would be considered a front yard. However, I think we can all agree that it's not really a front yard other than just zoning. Um so looking to get a variance to get that project started.

Questions from the board. Just to confirm that you won't be removing any of the uh existing trees. >> No, the the tree line will be staying exactly as it is. Those trees have been there since the property was built in 1987 and no plans on removing those. >> And the fence will be on the inside of >> inside of the tree line. Yes. And actually, I do have um photos of the property just taken just the other day. If I can pass those out to the board just showing either side of that tree line. So the first photo will be from the inside of the uh lot looking out towards the street and then the other photo will be from the street side looking into the property that you can see not really much visibility on either side into the property or out.

Thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you, sir. >> The other question I have for you is um on the right side of this image, are are you bringing the fence line back to the house to >> So, there is already um a few sections of the uh fence that the previous owners had put in. So, you're attaching to that. >> Attaching to that and continuing on. Yes. >> Okay. I drove by earlier today. I didn't see it because those trees are so dense, >> right? Yeah. Yeah. They've been there quite a while. So, there's >> Okay. >> Definitely coverage, just not protection. >> Yep. Understood. Other questions from the board?

>> No. I'd like to open it up to the public for anybody wants to speak for or against the project. All right. I'll bring it back to the board. Any other comments from the board? Uh since there are no any no additional comments, uh I'd like to make a motion for a type two action under seeker pursuant uh NYCR section 617.5C of the environmental code. >> Second. >> All those in favor? >> I. >> Uh with that move on to the findings or you want. Okay. the um grain of the variance will not uh impact the essential character of the neighborhood. Uh there's no there's actually almost no change not less an undesirable change in the character and it will not be a detriment to the nearby properties.

Uh if alternates were considered it it is a corner lot so there's you want to be able to use as much of your lot as possible. So it makes sense and in fact he is placing it behind the screen and uh not taking as much land as he possibly might want to by putting the fence within the tree line. Um the uh the request is not substantial or significant. Once again based on it being a corner lot. He's trying to utilize as much as the yard as possible for his family and his pets. Uh there aren't any uh physical or environmental conditions that are being adversely affected by granting of the variance and putting the fence up.

And it's it is self-created, but it uh is a is a response that allows him to uh let him and his family utilize uh utilize the yard as much as possible. >> Yeah. I'd just like to add that um as as Chris has already mentioned, the the fence is going to be on the interior side of the existing vegetation. Uh they're they got to be 20 20 plus foot uh pine trees. It's a very thick uh vegetation. So, by putting the fence line on the interior side, it it has no impact on the visual aesthetics of the neighborhood uh whatsoever. Um, as I drove by earlier today, I couldn't I didn't even know that there was another fence uh back behind there.

So, again, uh no impact to to the community uh for this project. that I'd like to make a motion uh for an area variance [clears throat] located at 1084 Bright Stream Way uh to allow a 6ft private privacy fence in the front yard of a corner lot on a 0.59 acre parcel having SPL 064.08-2-79 located in R2 single family residential district under section 35011 of the count town uh code of the town of Webster. Second, >> Mr. Short. >> Hi, >> Mrs. Wolo. >> I >> Mr. Spanado. >> Hi, >> Mr. Corso. >> I >> You have your variance. You still need to get your uh permit from the from the building. Uh >> Chris, >> was that Oh, Chris, you still have to call.

>> No, you did. >> No, >> Mr. Senola. >> Hi. >> I'm sorry. I [laughter] thought he I thought No, >> she got excited. Of course, right. >> She pronounced my name correct. >> Oh, yeah. >> I I gladly >> No, I said Mr. Short, Mr. Cen. >> No, that's right. All right. >> Yeah. >> All right. Did you hear it? >> I'm not getting [laughter] >> You now have your variance. Um, >> we're a mess. >> We're excited. It's the summer. Uh, you now have your variance. You still have to get your building permit for the uh for the fence. You have one year to to get the project complete. >> You have a enjoy your summer.

>> Perfect. Thank you all so much. Appreciate your time. >> Uh next up, 785 Summerdale Drive. If uh applicant Randy Pock uh can come on up. >> All right. Good evening. Uh my name is Randy Potuk. I am the resident of 785 Somerdale Drive where uh I am filing for an area variance for a shed. Uh I've been a resident there 18 years. Um it is a corner lot as you can see on uh the screen. It's outlined in yellow. Um the area I'm requesting uh is within the the 30ft setback for be the southwest portion of that uh lot right there. And the shed is uh approximately 10 by 20. All right. So, I'll just go into the standards.

Um, I don't I don't anticipate any uh negative uh impact uh to the character of the neighborhood. It's a brand new construction uh professionally built and it should not encroach on any of the neighboring properties. Uh alternates considered, uh I did explore other options on the lot. Uh unfortunately or fortunately, I have uh mature trees, vegetation, and the areas where we could do it within the boundaries uh would require probably removing some of that or it would it would impede the open grass area where the kids play. So, I I was not looking to do that if possible. uh substantiality. Uh it's a corner lot, so um it is considered frontage and it would be within that 30-foot setback.

Um but it would be approximately 8 foot from both uh property boundaries. Uh no environmental impacts expected. And last self-created difficulty, it's corner lot. Um, like I said, if it was normal uh single frontage, it would fall within the boundaries. In this case, it does not. So, I do have a a quick question. I drove by earlier today um off on is that Huckleberry Way. Uh you have a BM. You have a handful of trees there. Um, yep. Down on the Yep. Right there. Um, you're So, you're going to keep it as close to the within 8 foot of the property line on the on the rear side is where where it's going to go.

I'm trying to >> when I when I drove by, I'm trying to envision where physically where it's going to be. >> I had flags up. I I actually just removed them to mow. But, um, >> so did you notice the new BMS? >> Okay. So it would be approximately 8 foot from each of those within within the property. >> What determined the 8 ft for set? I mean no I I don't know because like you said there's BMS there and you obviously want to keep it on your property land but >> what was there a specific reason for the distance or it just >> it was arbitrary. It was it was my >> No, I just Nothing wrong with that.

I'm just >> okay >> curious. I just wanted to keep it far enough away from the property line um and from those burns where you can mow around it. >> Perfect. >> Thank you. >> You're not running electric or anything out there? >> No, sir. >> Okay. >> Other questions from the board? >> When I I went by it last I think Friday. I could have swore I saw a trailer parked in that spot. Was it? >> Yes. Yes, sir. >> What's What are you going to do with the trailer? that that's just to load materials and and uh because I have to prep the site uh if it does get approved for gravel and uh make a pad there.

>> So, will it be gone after the I mean, where are you going to park it? >> Uh I have another property. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Yes, sir. >> Other questions from the board? >> No, I mean it's going to be hidden again by the tree line. >> Yep. So, no one will know it's there unless you go looking for it >> right >> within the property. >> Open it up to the public. Anybody want to speak for or against the project? >> No. Back to the board. Any other uh questions or comments from the board? Okay. With that, I'd like to make a motion for a type two action under Seager pursuant under NYCR section 617.5C of the environmental code.

>> Second. >> All those in favor? Hi. >> Findings. >> I kind of want >> Does anybody else want to do it? >> I'll do it. Okay. Well, unless you want to. Uh, granted, the variance will uh not impact the essential character of the neighborhood. It won't uh produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood mostly because there's existing buffering between the applicant's property and the street with both BMS and vegetation and the uh the shed is located so that it works with uh the existing vegetation and the applicant's uh planned use of it. Uh the applicant did state that uh they did look at other uh alternative locations, but that this was the best one for both his use and for uh the the screening aspect of the the BM along North Huckleberry.

uh because it's a corner lot uh the requested variance is not uh substantial or contextually significant uh once again because of the depth of the uh the corner lot and the existing Burman vegetative buffer it'll be significantly screened and uh the uh the application will not have any potential physical environmental impacts upon the the lot or the neighborhood. Uh while the uh the application is self-created, it does appear to be the best location for the lot, especially uh it being a corner lot with a uh with essentially two 30 foot required setbacks. Anybody else want to add anything else?

>> Covers that. >> And I'd like to make a motion for an area variance uh located at 1084. Uh, nope. 785 Somerdale Drive. Um, to allow a utility shed to be located in the front yard of a corner lot in association with the installation of a 200 ft shed on a 0.68 acre parcel having SPL079.05-3-13 located in R3 single family residential district under section 350-12 of the code of the town of Webster. Second >> Mr. Short >> I >> Mrs. Mola >> I >> Mr. Spanada >> I >> Mr. Sinol >> I [laughter] >> Mr. Osa >> I >> you have your area variance uh you still need uh you have one year for completion you still need to get all your other uh permits and uh everything else that's necessary.

>> Understood. Thank you very much. >> Have a good summer too. Uh now moving over into the table matters uh for the zoning interpretation uh located at 139 uh Caracus Drive. If uh the representative can come on up. Good evening. Thank you for allowing me to speak. Uh this matter as uh as the chair suggested was on at the last month's for uh for consideration. It was adjourned uh and tabled so that we could do some uh additional exploration on the issue of the statute of limitations. As uh the zoning board of appeals is probably uh aware, the uh the code provides that uh that I'm sorry uh appeals must be submitted within 60 days quote after the filing of any order, requirement, decision, interpretation, or determination of the code enforcement officer.

It was suggested at the last meeting that the board might want to consider the possibility that Mr. Artuso's announcement that the town board would be uh considering sending to the planning board uh an application uh that was for solar for solar panel development that was to be treated uh under an industrial use permit only. uh that does not um raise statute of limitations issues uh for three different reasons. First, that announcement was a fallacy. It was a nullity. There was no application uh in Mr. Artuso's possession. There was no application before the board. Uh so there's nothing in the announcement uh that was correct.

Now, secondly, uh because there was no application before Mr. Artuso or before this board, there wasn't an application that I could review either. Now, if I'm to challenge uh the propriety of any application, I have to be able to read it. Uh otherwise, I mean, the application could have been treated perfectly uh legitimately and appropriately. Uh I wouldn't know until I read it. And if you're going to start the clock before I have the ability to read an application because we don't even have one, then Mr. Artuso is unlawfully shortening uh my client's statute of limitations. Simply can't do that.

Uh thirdly, uh nothing in an announcement uh of a public meeting of the town board constitutes the defi the filing of a decision or an order of the uh of the law enforcement officer. As Mr. Demarco uh suggested at the uh last meeting there's nothing in the town's procedures that technically satisfy uh that requirement and I have used and I urged the board to consider an email that was sent by Mr. Artuso back on April 1st. The only reason I did that is because it does explain his rationale uh for treating it as as an industrial use application. uh and we did file our appeal within 60 days of that.

So if we're using that as a starting point, then we've satisfied the statute. But in truth and in fact, the statute hasn't even the clock hasn't even started running because that also does not constitute the filing of a decision in order uh relative to his decision was simply an internal email. Uh so unless the board has some questions with respect to the statute of limitations uh issue that was brought up at the last meeting uh I'd be happy to very briefly uh review the uh the merits of our appeal. So I I guess u thank you uh for that. Um, I guess ultimately the the the question to the board is is ultimately an interpretation of um of of the zoning, right?

That that's that that was really the first point that that came to this board. Um, at the last meeting there was question of of timing and if it could even even um if it even should be be here in front of us. Um, I think honestly the board has the ability to take a look at and uh make a determination on the merit of uh on [clears throat] of of the interpretation and what was interpreted by the by the town. Um I know I had an opportunity to go through documentations. Um and though I though the document that was presented on April has some clarity, so do other documents. Um I would say in my opinion there's no smoking uh documentation that provides an earlier date.

So, from from my opinion, I would I think it'd be more prudent for this board to move forward with uh making a determination on the merit versus um determining the the timing of everything. I guess I I want to hear from everybody else what your thoughts were if you had chances to review the documents and if you feel differently. >> I I tend to agree with you. Um, I do just want to make a point of clarification. Um, because I did pull up the document that we had discussed would was the um the resolution made by the town board and the July 2025 town board meeting. >> There was actually an application submitted.

So, I I'm just I just want to correct for the record or make sure the facts are out there for the record that when I pull it up right now from the town's website, there is a June 30th application from Monte Solar that was part of what was on the town website for the entire town of Webster and anybody else that cares to look at. And it appears very similar to the information that you had also provided that was an amended application from August >> respectful. >> So there is something that was there. It's not like the town board acted based on nothing. >> It it Thank you for the clarification. The town board had a partial application that did not even include a site plan.

So incomplete was the material that was submitted to the town board that the town supervisor was not even aware that it was being placed on top of a hazardous waste site. It he thought and this is in the record when he referred it to the planning board that it was being built in a field somewhere. They had a very brief skeleton of an application. Nothing nearly even approaching legal sufficiency for an application. typically and and I could be incorrect but typically I believe at the beginning stage of a project this would be the information received and and granted I'm I'm just doing it from my engineering perspective from an entirely different um industry but the application that's here is a rough site plan with the recommendation to send it to the planning board, which is what any project would do within the town of Webster.

And then the details are filled in before anything is finalized. Final plans typically are not the first and and I could be speaking out of turn. >> Well, for a project this size, >> for a project of this size, the first plane you see is not the plan you end up with. You start with this is what I'd like to do, and then you fine-tune it. There's I'm I'm the the information I'm looking at and granted I'm just pulling it up today from from your comments has rough dimensions. It has the rough layout of the solar field. It has a short application. There's information here that's too small for me to want to read on my phone, but there's se there's several pages.

So, it's not it's not no information. It's it's preliminary information. It probably would have to be >> and the town board accepted it as an application, >> I guess, was the question. Was this just, hey, can we come by and talk about it or was an application made >> formwork filled out and >> it's a formal >> it's a formal formal. That's what I'm saying. So, it's a formal application. So the fact that it isn't ready to be built based on the information there doesn't lessen the fact that an application was made. >> Sure. >> I mean >> and it doesn't change the direction that the board is going to go with.

But I just want to clarify that it's not as though the town board acted in in total darkness. >> Thank you. >> Based on the documentation at least that's available to me. >> Yeah. Yeah. I mean, and and that's what I saw as well, right? It's there was documentation out there. It's not things aren't being hidden from the public. It's out there. Um, and the process is is playing out as it should. So, thank you. Um, any other questions? Like I said, I'd rather I think moving forward with the basis of merit um whether the town um presented this project uh appropriately um because it right now the town uh this the site is an industrial site.

Um the the town looked at this. They looked at uh zoning code 155-6 which is the approval standards for a large scale solar energy system. uh and a largecale solar and it states large scale solar energy systems are permitted through the issuance uh of a special use permit within all residential districts. Um the the site in question is not an industrial district. So I guess my question to the board is does anybody feel that this needed a special use permit and the way I look at this based on 155-6 a special use permit was not required. >> I would agree with I came to the same conclusion. >> May I address May I address the board on that point?

you misstated your words >> in terms of you said that it it wasn't an industrial district unless I included >> it the site that it is on is is an industrial district correct >> so if I misstated it that's not what I meant to say >> um other questions I mean I don't know the >> concur with what you said >> okay um uh Mr. Hannah, you you want to make a comment? >> Yes. Before the board makes up its mind on that point, uh the board really has to consider how the state courts require uh zoning boards of appeals to view uh to view the zoning code. And you have to understand, and I apologize, you're at something of a disadvantage because and I I'd encourage you to to turn to Mr.

DeMarco for assistance but there are laws of statutory construction and interpretation and you need to sort of understand that to understand how the courts are going to view this thing. First specific language in the statutory code always trumps general language and in this situation we have two we have two potentially applicable uh uh provisions of the code. One is industrial use doesn't say anything about solar panels. says something about public utilities, but for reasons I won't go into it, this doesn't qualify as a public utility. There isn't any question about that. So, we have an industrial use section that says nothing about solar panel developments.

And we have a residential uh section, excuse me, a solar law uh section that applies to residences that is very very specific about the development of solar farms. and it gives a whole bunch of it gives a whole bunch of criteria that have to be met. Now, the courts have been very very consistent uh in taking making sure that the zoning boards of appeal view the zoning code as a whole. So, even if there's specific language that applies to a residential district uh that it does is not contained in the industrial zone. If the industrial zone impacts a residential area, then you need to look to the more specific language that is a matter of statutory construction that state courts simply require.

And for special use permits, uh we looked to guidance for the uh in the Webster Town Code and it says that they should be used uh for uses having some special impact or uniqueness which requires careful review of their location, design, configuration, and spectral impact to determine against fixed prescribed standards the desiraability of permitting their establishment on any given site. There are uses which may or may not be appropriate in a particular location depending upon a weighing in each case of the need and benefit against the local impact and effect. That's what the Webster Town Code says.

And if that's not the appropriate criteria for a special use permit, I don't know what is. And it's not just And it's not just my opinion. >> So I one second though. It's not just my opinion. Montante when they submitted the application and in and the letter I showed you specifically said that they were uh applying for a special use permit they recognized that a special use permit is and was required. Not just me, the developer did as well. Thank you. So I appreciate that. Um I know I've had the opportunity to go through the code. I've had the opportunity to take a look through the industrial uh code as well.

>> Go on, Mr. Hannah. C. Can you in in support of that argument that you're making that the specific versus the general, what is it between the two statutes that that you believe are in confliction with with each other? Well, the for a special use permit, it requires uh that the planning board and the town board give a great uh deal of consideration to many factors that are not required in industrial use. For an industrial use uh permit, it gets a list of activities and says, "Okay, if if the activity that's proposed is similar to that, uh it's fine. It's in an industrial area. We don't really uh need to worry about it." If it's a special use permit, there are a whole bunch of factors and considerations, some of which I just read, that have to be considered by the planning board, have to be considered by the town board, and they weren't.

And Monte knew that those are that that was those were questions that needed to be asked, that that was information that needed to be provided. And that's why they acknowledged in writing to the town board and to the planning board that they needed a special use permit. >> So, but you agree that the zoning board would have to find in order to um agree with your specific versus general construction argument that there is in fact a conflict between uh 35022 and 1556. No, I don't think there I don't think there's a a conflict is required. I think that as I said at the outset, more specific lang if if you have specific language that's applicable and general language that's applicable to a given application, the specific language trumps the general language.

So there doesn't have to be a conflict per se. There just has to be uh the the specific language has to fill holes. uh that the general language does not. >> I I I respectfully submit I think that the argument that you're making uh is accurate when there is a conflict and if they can be read in harmony with one another then I think the board has has the right to interpret it obviously as as they deem uh as they deem it should be applicable. Um, and so I think the board I think you you correctly stated the law when there's a conflict. If the court if the court if the board doesn't find a conflict and they can read both statutes in harmony with each other, then it can make a determination based upon the applicability of the statute, not that one excludes the other.

I respectfully suggest that it the law provides that if where uh one statute requires more, you have to give more. You have to meet the higher standard. >> Okay. But there there's a second uh I don't know if we want to uh uh say I'm not an attorney and and all the >> I'm not an attorney and all the all the uh jargon going back and forth has got me uh got my head spinning a little bit to be honest. Um you know I I don't want to say I'm a I read things plainly. I look at I looked at uh 155-6. I mean, that that's pretty clear language that uh a special use permit is required in the residential district.

Um it it is uh silent on requiring a special use permit anywhere else. Um that's that's how I've read it. I've had the opportunity to go through um is it 350-22, which is industrial use as well. Um and again, it certain sections in there lead me to believe that it it's it's allowed within there. Is it explicit? Uh it is not explicit. Um but it the way I the way I've read it uh it it's for me it's pretty clear I guess uh with with that I'm going to open it up to the board with questions and there's a lot of there's a lot of things going on within the code and everything else and and back and forth.

So questions from from the board. >> The only question I have is that if he's if the applicant is concerned that certain things that might come out or be pertinent to the design and um moving the project forward that they'd have a better chance of getting what they needed out of uh the application process. the the planning board is most likely going to consider those those issues anyhow. Anything that's in required under a special permit, it's not it's not like they're wearing blinders necessarily cuz it's not a legal issue if planning board says, "Have you considered rotating the project or moving the the driveway here or there?" So my thought is that any of the applicants concerns that somehow they're getting less the review a less of a review than they think they need or want.

I don't know if I find that valid because like I said the planning board would I think naturally look into all those items whether or not they were tasked to by code. Did that make sense? >> It it did. Um, other questions and comments from the board, Mr. Chairman, before there not I'm sorry. No, >> I Well, I just I have one question for the applicant that I guess I'm assuming is a typo throughout the application, but I just want to make sure. Um, under most of your sections, you're referring to a section 151-1 for a section within the code that is not part of the current code. I could not find it historically.

I apologize >> and I'm assuming that that's just a typo, but I guess I just want to confirm that >> probably. So, I'm sorry. >> Okay. So, you're actually looking at it should be 155-1 through 155-10, >> correct? >> Okay. Other questions um from the board? No, >> I >> there. >> No, >> Mr. Hannie, you wanted to uh make one last comment? >> Well, well, there's Yeah, there's one there's one more point that I'd like the board to consider. Okay. uh uh with respect to the application uh the classification whether it should have been special use or industrial use is is only the first issue. The second issue is whether the town board approved the same project that the planning board approved and it did not.

I don't think that's for this board uh as an I don't think that's our >> Yeah, I that's that's accurate. >> Yeah. So >> the the issue is the the appeal of Mr. Artuso's uh refusal or failure to put the other special use permit before the town board and that um I I think it stops there. You may be >> accurate in the point that you're trying to make, but I don't think that issue is before this board. Oh, there are several issues that I've not raised before this board that are that are in fact in the article 78 and they will be they they would be prosecuted there if necessary. Uh, however, I think that the I think that this board is entitled to uh determine whether the uh permits that had been approved uh or of the same project were of the same project.

Well, I think I think you know that goes more to the arbitrary and capriccious standard that the Supreme Court judge will look at this our um our duties here in the appeal capacity that you're asking us uh to look at here relative to the notice and the recommendation. I don't think it goes further than that. Otherwise, we would really be stepping into the shoes of the Supreme Court. We don't get paid enough for that. [laughter] Well, maybe you do. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> So, um I guess I'm I'm bring it back to the board questions or any other dialogue uh after hearing everything that uh Mr.

Hannah had had presented plus any uh all the documentation that we have received over the last uh month or so. Uh any other questions? Uh anything else we want to discuss? >> Let's be clear. Uh the we have Mr. Hannah's application which is [clears throat] the notice of appeal and I believe a memoranda law or the equivalent. I know all the board members have that. Um, we have uh I have a series of documents that are entitled um I think it's a letter from was that letter from Monte to Josh Artuso or is that something that I had? >> No, that's that was the additional information. >> That was the additional information.

Yeah. Okay. Um and then the board has um looked at the um resolution from July of 2025. Yes, >> it has reviewed uh chapter 155 which is the energy chapter. It has reviewed the industrial um I'm sorry the >> 350-22 the industrial >> correct zoning 1556 in the corresponding sections under the town code. Um obviously it's heard oral argument from Mr. Hannah. my comments. Just want to make sure that the record's clear as to what you've all reviewed before you make any determinations. Anything else that I've left out? >> Uh besides the application, the short short uh looks like EAF. Um >> there's a set of prints with the application.

>> There's photographs, right? All right. Yeah. Okay. >> Um I I would encourage the board to address the merits of the application. You certainly have the right to make a determination as to whether the notice is timely. If you decided that it was not, you don't have to get to the merits. If you decide that it is, you get to the merits. Um I would only caution you that you know when you look at um when you look at the New York uh town law 267A and it references that each decision made by an administrative official charged with enforcement of zoning laws and it talks about filing and then it goes into what what constitutes notice.

I think Mr. Hannah raises some colorable claims as to the ambiguity of whether that notice is sufficient. You know, the very nature of notice in that context of a staff person at a municipality who doesn't have necessarily official orders, but is corresponding by email, memos of law, directives of the board, and whether or not that is sufficient notice, uh, >> it's a gray area. >> It's Yeah, it could be interpreted different ways by different folks. So, I think it's dangerous. Not saying that you can't, but I'm saying it's I think it's fraught with uh the potential that it may come back to you.

>> And I guess that's the question. If >> let's say we went down that road and said uh it wasn't timely, uh it goes before I suspect it would go before the New York State Supreme Court. at that point they could turn around say it was timely and kick it back to us anyway >> and and come back to to make a determination. So that that's not a reason to uh not to do it. Uh but that that certainly is is a reason why you may want to consider if you're if you feel you have a sufficient record and sufficient information and you're positioned to make a determination on the merits. I I don't see any reason why you should not.

If if you want to short circuit it and wait for that order, if the order comes, you can put it off for another day. My sense of this is that based upon the record that exists now, I can't imagine that coming back around another day, you're going to have anything further to evaluate. >> Yeah. So, I mean, again, with what I'm hearing, the the gray area of the timeliness of it of the notice, um, to me, it makes more sense to, um, make a determination on the merit. I think we have more than more than enough information, uh, presented to us, both in writing as well as, um, verbally uh, by Mr. Hannah uh, to be able to make that determination.

Uh, I guess I'm looking to the board to to agree or disagree. >> I think we we've heard it a couple times now and >> uh, you know, depending on how much you may have individually looked into it. I I think there's nothing that would be presented well I should >> differently >> differently that would be enough to move the meter at this point in time >> other than just like let's let's consider it based on the merits of uh the interpretation and then see where it uh goes from there. >> Does everybody agree with that? Okay. >> Yes, I do. >> Okay. Um, this is new to me. So, is it just make a motion to >> make the interpretation as I see and let the board decide uh from there?

>> Just make sure you make it clear which interpretation you're >> okay >> putting forth. [clears throat] Uh, let's see. Okay. Um, let's see. So, I make a motion for an uh zoning board interpretation uh regarding uh 139 Caracus Drive SP with a SPL number of 065-02-1-4-11. um whether let's see whether the Xerox solar farm should have uh been reviewed under an industrial use permit or a special use permit in accordance with sections uh 155-6 uh sections uh 350-22 and section 350101D1 of the code of the town of Webster. Sir, um I make a motion that uh based on 155-6 um which reads Oh, is it up here?

Yep. Thank you. Um a large scale solar energy systems are permitted uh through the issuance of a special use permit within all residential districts. Um that plain language uh indicates that um a large scale solar energy uh system um can be installed in the industrial use site without the um without the special use permit application process. I think I covered No, >> I would just add the the also known addresses. >> We're being all legal here. >> Oh, >> 750 Phips Road and >> 1460 Caracus Drive and we do not find any conflicting provisions of the code. So, sorry, say that one more time. Chris, >> just add the other addresses just to >> the addresses.

Okay. >> 750 Phillips Road and 14 >> 1460 Caracus Drive. >> Even though the SPL is the same. >> Yep. >> Let's >> All right. >> Be diligent about our >> Should I do I need to restate that? >> No. >> Okay. >> No. Do we want to pull each board member for their comments or additions to it or >> I'm good with that. You want to start? >> Okay. [laughter] >> You ask. >> Well, I I just I I want it to be understood that that every member of this board has considered this. There's been a lot of information before us. There's been a lot of sections of code, a lot of a lot of prints and a lot of it. It's not a decision that I think the board makes lightly, but based on the wording of the code with which the town is required to live within >> bound by >> bound by um I I don't I don't see where we could come to any other conclusion.

the the industrial use is permitted with respect to looking at section 350-22. Um the process is is very similar regardless of how it goes through. It goes to the town board. It goes to the planning board. It gets analyzed and revisited and rehashed. Then goes back to the town board for approval. I based on how the solar code is written, I only see the special use permit required for residential uses. Large scale solar and an industrial use is not deemed as specifically being required of a spe of a special use permit. And it does actually go into the next section that says that large-scale solar is permitted in commercial districts just simply by slight plan review through the town board or the planning board.

[snorts] >> And it just has to comply with all setbacks. >> Yep. Chris, >> I uh I agree with Karen and would add that uh even though there might be a little more scrutiny given a special use permit based on a residential district, I have full faith in the planning board that they would have looked at any conditions uh required by the residential district for that and import them into their review and final decision-making process. for it. I mean that that's what they're there for and I think they do a generally good job of it. >> Thank you, Mr. Artuso. >> I agree with what's been said already.

I don't know how I could I could repeat everything, but I don't think it's necessary. >> In agreement also, >> can I get a motion? Oh. I would do it just in case. >> Yeah. Okay. Uh before we move forward, um if anybody want any public wants to speak for or against, please come on up. Good evening. My name is Jerry Bashard. I live at 632 Pine Lakes Trail and I have been to almost every meeting there has been regarding this solar project. >> Can you please speak into the microphone? >> I'm sorry. >> Thank you. >> Is that better? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Um I heard a lot tonight and a lot of rationale and reasoning.

Um, the one thing I did not hear is how it is going to affect the people that live right on top of this project. And I have not heard the word toxic, which is what that industrial permit is allowing you to put a solar farm on toxic waste. My home is adjacent to that, and I won't suffer the consequences nearly as much as some of my friends back there. Some homes that are being built by um a builder that's right now being built are some of them are going to be about 200 ft from this solar panels. And they don't know that. Nobody has told them that. They do not know that. And you don't expect that the builder is going to tell them that.

After all, he's out to sell homes. The problem I'm having here is, you probably know from my voice, I'm not from here. I'm from Long Island. I moved up here and had a custom home built on a beautiful piece of property. Was not aware that Xerox existed behind me and it was solar waste. It wasn't bad enough that I built a house there, but I think at that time there was surrounding farms all around there. The town went ahead and let a builder go ahead and build homes there so close to toxic waste. I'm sure the builder didn't know that a solar project would be funded by New York State and no cost to Monte, no cost to anybody, but that the residents would suffer.

There's a lot to be considered here. And I really, really hope that you take into consideration that a special use permit would have listened to my concerns. My concerns are I don't want that in my backyard. 17 acres of trees are going to be cut down for this solar farm. I thought Webster was all about green space. That doesn't sound very green to me. We have lots and lots of wildlife back there that live back there. They're the only things that can live in toxic waste. And you're taking that part away from them and a lot from me. So when you consider this, make sure that you consider the people that live around it just like you consider the people with the cell phone towers that are being subject subjected to this.

I came here eight years ago to Webster because it reminds me of back home. Back home has no elbow room. And now you folks are allowing these ridiculous things. And those solar panels are ridiculous where they're being put. Solar panels are great. I'm for clean energy. I think they're great, but not where you're putting it. Please consider the residents. Just this one time, consider us. Do the right thing and let it get shut back and do a real assessment on what this means to the residents there. Thank you for your time. >> Thank you. Appreciate it. >> Anybody else want to speak for or against the project?

No. Okay. Um [clears throat] I guess back to the board. Um should I restate them or what what was already stated? >> No. If the rest of the board what you said 10 minutes ago, [laughter] I remember >> I'll second it. Okay. Are we done? Done. >> Yep. >> Okay. Mr. Short. >> Hi. >> Mr. Corso. >> Hi. >> Mr. Senola. >> Hi. >> Mr. Spanado. >> Hi. >> Mrs. Walla. >> I. >> All right. >> Thank you. With that, we move on to Waterview Apartments phase three. cleared the room. >> It's hard not to take that personally, but not in trouble. [laughter] Good evening. My name is Chris Nadler. I'm general counsel for MarkV Enterprises.

It's nice to see you all again. Uh and it's nice to be back here with you all. Um I'm here for a renewal of some area variances that the project was uh received from the zoning board of appeals uh last year. They've now expired or about to expire. Um, we were set for the zoning board meeting uh agenda last night, but I understand or last month, but I understand there was uh some notice issues, so we got bumped here and that was obviously fine with us. Uh, Waterview at Willow Point phase 3 uh has received site plan approval from the planning board and uh it just was renewed two months ago, I believe.

Uh we received uh certain area variances related to our driveway length from this board. Um and we're proposing 56 townhouse units uh to complete the uh existing town home development at Waterview uh off of off of Bay Road. Um we own and operate 62 of the town houses currently and there's a homeowners association in the front of the uh project uh with 35 units some of which uh MarkV owns and operates. Um so what we're off requesting is a renewal of our uh variances uh for a front setback of 18.7 ft where 75 ft is required and a single family district buffer to Mchuan of 38.5 ft where 100 ft is required.

These setbacks match the existing uh driveway setbacks, front setbacks uh throughout the town home development in both the homeowners association and the apartments for rent uh section um and are necessitated in large part um because of the unique shape of the parcel. There's roads on three sides of this parcel. Um, and given the, uh, topography and the location. Uh, this is, uh, everything is a front setback. So, we don't have any rear setbacks really. Um, either way, we would want the shorter front setback. Um, because people don't want a 75 ft driveway. We don't want to build it. our our residents don't want to live on it and the town doesn't want us putting that much asphalt right here in a sensitive environmental area.

Um as you can see from our PowerPoint um the character of the neighborhood won't be affected. This is a variance first of all that this board has granted in the past. Um and it matches uh the setbacks on the existing town homes and the driveway distances. Um will be as much as 85 ft uh between uh the ex the proposed town houses and the houses along Mchuan. Um which is similar to where we are now with the existing town houses. Um from a substantiality standpoint again these are the same setbacks that we have existing and uh we're proposing the same driveway distances. Um the granting the variances will reduce runoff because there'll be less uh impervious pavement uh and it will increase green space that will have a positive impact on the environment.

And from a self-created difficulty standpoint, as I mentioned, this is an oddshaped property with difficult topography. Um, it's surrounded by roads on three sides. The property is encumbered by easements and utilities. Um, not just for us. There's a I want to say sanitary sewer line that runs through it uh that feeds uh the adjacent part the parcel on the other side of our existing town homes. Um, so it's not a self-created difficulty. Um nothing has changed since this board did grant the variances a year ago. This uh conditions in the neighborhood uh and the community are remain the same. Our proposal remains the same and therefore we would ask that the board renew our variance.

>> Thank you. Uh any questions from the board? >> I do. Um, I can't I don't have a site plan, so I'm a little bit confused. Where is the 18 whatever feet setback? Is it on? >> I So roughly it's all of the driveways are about that. Um what the town instructed us to do when we filed this variance request two years ago probably was take the shortest front setback which was 18.7 ft. We have similar setbacks that the setback next door is 19.2 ft. The setback next to that is 20.4t uh as an example. So that the 18.7 is the smallest and I believe as you were looking at it, it would be on the souththeast corner of or which is Willow Point Way and Maritime Drive.

It's one of those driveways. >> Yep. [laughter] >> Building three. >> Building three. It's going. >> But the general answer is they're all about that distance. >> It doesn't within your development, the setbacks aren't bothersome to me. What is bothersome to me is along McKuan because directly across the street you have some very nice single family homes and what you're proposing to me is not in character with that neighborhood particularly because it's so close. I mean going from 100 feet set back to 18 18 I think is rather significant. Oh, sorry. I I misspoke. Well, the setback is 18 feet of the driveway.

The the the driveways are 18 feet to the property line. There's then, and I'm ballparking here cuz I'm a lawyer, not an engineer, but there's, I believe, 20 ft of right of way before you hit pavement of Mchuan Drive. >> If you can zoom in onto proposed um >> building four, >> is that what that is? >> Yeah, the one in the middle. Yeah, the one right in the middle. >> This one? >> Yeah, if you can just zoom in. >> There' be at least 10 feet right away. >> It's 59.9 ft from the building face to the edge of Miku and Drive. >> Thank you, sir. So, still to your point, not 100 foot setback, but it is uh a 60 foot um 60 ft from the edge of the road, which then there's um rightaways and other things there.

So, it looks like 41.8 ft from I'm assuming that big fat black line is the property line. Is that correct? >> I believe that's correct. So, it looks like 41.8 ft from the property line and then 38.5 ft to the building to the uh to the left and was that 54.7 ft building to the right. So, if you drove by the property earlier today, our trees, you know, it's an overgrown parcel. Our trees come right to the edge of Mchuan right now. >> Well, that's a mood point. They're all disappearing. >> Yes. No, no. I absolutely no. My point is the property line is at is not actually the where our trees stop. The property line is 10 15 ft back from that which is where we have to measure from >> which is what Mr.

Short just pointed out. >> Yep. >> I I guess I um just to give a little bit of a history of the project. The first time this project was before the board, and I can't tell you how long ago it was, this was an eight-story apartment building, and then that changed to I think two threestory apartment buildings that were much longer than what is permitted by code. And then and I think those were 90 to 100 units. and the between this board and I don't know if the planning board um it was the applicant was continued go back and try again go back and try again um so the the last proposal that was brought before the board was to make them two-story town houses to be more in line with the rest of the town houses within that complex as well as um >> more matching the area of the surrounding homes that are also So single and twotory homes.

So that's just how we got here. Whether it's right or wrong, it's expired. So we can What are the circumstances with respect to the expiration? >> Well, uh the in the town of Webster, uh variances automatically expire and there's no renewal process. So, the only way to get a renewal is by reapplying. >> No, I'm sorry. My go question is a year passed by. What were the circumstances? >> Why is it taking so long? Why did I miss it? >> It's taking so long. I like it. >> Well, in December uh of 2024, I had a heart attack, which was uh about 3 days before the town mailed the notice. And so, I didn't give it to my assistant to calendar it.

It expired. And um that's that's on me. That being said, um we are still waiting uh signatures on our uh site plan approval. We have we do have site plan approval. Uh the DEEC is stalled in giving its uh wetland jurisdictional determinations. Um and so that's why the planning board granted uh a renewal of or yeah, renewal of that. There were substantive reasons outside of your your medical situation for the delay. >> Correct. Yes. But the reason we missed the deadline, well, I guess there wasn't a deadline. We would have had to reapply either. >> Concerned about the deadline, just substantively what what's gone on in the last 12 months following.

>> Yeah, we're waiting for jurisdictional determination from the DEC. >> Ultimately, >> a court out of Albany >> told the DEC they couldn't issue those uh determinations anymore. So the DEC is in a holding pattern and not issuing them. Um, which is frustrating to all the civil engineers in Rochester who would like to get these things signed and move on. >> Sure. Of course. Okay. >> Other questions from the board? How you feeling? >> Much better. Thank you very much. [laughter] Much much better. Thank you. >> Other questions? I'd like to open it up to the public. Anybody wants to speak for or against?

And there was a letter. >> There was several. >> Yeah, we'll hear from the public first and >> Good evening. Uh George Cougler. I live at 449 Mchuan Drive. I'm a sort of kitty corner to the uh project there. Um I know Chris quite well, Mr. Nadler. Um um I have a couple of uh my letters, one of the ones that I submitted prior to the uh to the previous scheduled meeting, and I know there were several others submitted uh from other uh neighbors on Mchuan Drive that have uh numerous concerns. Um, one of the uh, you know, points uh, Mr. Nather made was that this is a um, similar to the existing town homes and similar setbacks, which I would respectfully disagree with.

Um, 56 units. If you look at the map, um, they have 62 units over their entire project or the entire phase two of the project. Um, this is on a much smaller parcel than what these 62 units currently are on and you could not fit, you know, 62 units of the design that they currently have on this parcel. Um, so I would disagree that they are similar to what they already have built. um on that point and the uh I also you know the I haven't seen any elevation drawings of what these um buildings are actually going to look like. Um we have a 10 unit town home across directly across from three single family homes.

So you know you're triple the density in the same area that you currently have. The setbacks that the town requires are there for a reason and that's to provide a buffer between the single family low density you know areas and [clears throat] these you know higher density projects. Um, I would also say I know the project only now fits the acreage requirement by adjoining two parcels that were previously separate. And as you can see from the site plan that easily 90% or more of the project is still on the original parcel that did not meet the acreage requirements. So, while it's within the uh technically within the law, it's not necessarily within the spirit of it.

You know, they're skirting around those issues um by doing that. And that he's talking about the three roads. Well, two of the roads that are on the project are their privately owned drives. So, you know, those are their own construction. They can do it with those what they want. And whether it's self-created, this is their design. This is a pretty wide open lot. There's no reason they couldn't build town homes, fewer town homes with the setbacks that are required. You know, situated differently on the property than they're currently proposing. He also talks about the setbacks to, you know, my property on Mchuan Drive, 449 next to the existing town homes.

Well, that's not a face to face, front to front setback. That's a side uh, you know, from side lot to side lot, which is much different than someone who is directly across the street, you know, looking at now this, you know, 56 unit, you know, complex that is all of a sudden being put up on this, you know, very compact area. >> I apologize. You said you were what number? >> Uh, 449. >> 449. Got it. Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. >> Um I would also ask if they, you know, have they been able to secure, you know, I know part of the issue with the original project or some of the projects that they've was whether they had an easement through um the private town home access from Bay Road, you know, um and I don't know if they've been able to negotiate that with the existing town homes.

Um, but now you're looking at a significant increase of traffic to this medium residential property through the single family, you know, uh, deadend road that only has seven homes on it. We've already seen a significant increase in traffic over the last few years, you know, since they've posted that that is a private, you know, the privately owned town homes have, you know, posted signage on that drive. So, I would, you know, hope a lot of those would be uh considered. I know I've heard in the planning boards and such they talk about stretching the rubber band and how far we're willing to go in granting easements and what you know I know they say that these are supposed to all be considered on an individual basis but at what point you know do we set some sort of precedent to you know for other developments that we're having or you know cutting these requirements by half or 3/4 of what the town code that was designed and approved for reasons are we you know going to bypass basically.

So I think my letter and some of the other letters uh express most of those concerns pretty pretty well. Thank you. I appreciate it. Other questions from the board? >> One other just a quick question. Do they I haven't I don't know if the application has been updated at all, but I don't believe there was a uh an elevation drawing. I mean, I I think that's very important to be actually visually interpret what this project is going to actually look like from the perspective of these single family homes. >> There wasn't an elevation drawing for the planning board. >> I not that I have. >> I don't know.

>> There have been multiple elevation drawings submitted to the town, including for this application. It's going to look like a a townhouse. Um if if we haven't seen them, it's going to look like town houses. S very similar to the existing town houses that are right there. >> Can I ask a question? Can I ask a question? Is it okay? Can I be like a part of the >> Uh >> Well, you're not you're not >> I'm not sitting on >> She's not She can >> But she's a member of the public. a member of the community. >> I'm a member of the public. >> That's a that's a stumpy. [laughter] >> Yeah. I'm not sure. >> Uh would you like to make a comment?

>> I'll make a comment. Well, >> got to stand up. >> I'm going to need you to come up to the podium though >> and and let's make it clear that you're in your nonofficial capacity. >> I am in my official capacity right now. >> I just have a question in regard to the private drive, the nautical mile. >> Mhm. the private road. I've driven down that a number of times, especially in inclement weather when it snows. And my concern is emergency vehicles having access to the buildings that are right along and are not on either side of the public roads. Um, I do know that personally that road is often not plowed and it's often very dicey and very hazardous where a number of people don't even go down it.

Um, so >> this is Willow Point you're talking about? >> No, nautical mile drive behind the >> one building that's a twotory. So, I'm just saying there that I know that um when it comes to the wintertime, many people don't even like going down there because it's more treacherous than an access. >> And I'm going to need you to state your name. >> My name is Stacy Dilio. >> Thank you. >> Okay. [laughter] >> Where is Nautical Mile? >> It's this road right here. just >> Oh, okay. Yep. >> Wait, no, that's maritime. >> Is it maritime? >> Oh, that's not that was maritime. >> It's listed in the plans as maritime drive.

It's listed in our GIS system as not on the mile. >> There you go. >> Okay. >> Yes. >> And for my clarification, that's a private drive, not for through access of the town homes. I'm confused. >> Uh the town fire marshall I believe has uh required uh that that be for through access uh for emergency vehicles and school buses and the like. Um it is used uh without uh we've not had any objection in I don't know half a dozen years probably uh to anybody else using it. There's uh multiple points of access to this entire development. So there is through access there um as required by the fire marshall of the town of Webster.

>> Thanks Scott. >> Has >> to go ahead. >> Has the fire marshall seen the current layout that was approved the last time? >> Yes. >> Okay. because I know there there used to be the fire chiefs of the different departments used to look at the plans just to verify that they can actually get a fire truck and and access to all sides of the building. Um less of a concern with the twotory perhaps than if you have a multi-story, but I just want to make sure that we do still consider emergency vehicles. Fire trucks are large. Just to clarify, these plans haven't changed, correct, from when they were approved previously.

>> That's correct. Thank you, Erica. >> Thank you. >> So, if I recall correctly, there were some conditions that we put on this last year. If I remember correctly, >> I sent you a copy of the approval from 2024 via email, so you should have it. And if you don't, I have a hard copy right here. Okay. >> I can share mine if you'd like. >> Yeah. Would you mind? >> Can you share that with me, please? >> Yes. Thank you. >> Can I I don't I don't know if this applies or not. Um, how does this since the approval has expired, how does this fit within the moratorum that was just enacted by the town board for new developments?

[clears throat] >> So, because this project received final approval already, they don't fall under the moratorum. Okay? >> It's for projects that have not received a preliminary or [snorts] final approval. >> Okay? So the the variances expired but the final approval did not expire. >> Correct. They received an extension of that approval I believe uh last >> right before the moratorium I believe. >> Yep. So, um [clears throat] conditions that were were placed on uh granting the variance the last time um building facing nautical mile drive uh to have an 18.7 ft uh setback. The building facing Mchuan Drive needed to be shifted uh by 2 ft to the south.

uh uh and and driveway. So, the building to be shifted by 2 ft and the driveway to be shifted to be moved south by 5 ft uh to create a 5-ft district buffer and front set back to the building of 43.8 ft. Uh the western 10 unit building fronting Willow Point Way was to have a front setback of 38.5 ft. uh and district buffer area of 30 uh and a district area buffer of 38.5 ft and increase of the total vegetation in the buffer zone um and to work with the town to provide buffering in Mchuan Road right ofway. Um so I guess my my question all the conditions that were previously presented no no issues with any of those conditions then >> no issues.

>> Okay. The um just to note the plan that is on the screen right now that's October 2024 was not the final plan that was approved. There um was actually a connector road so that there were not six different driveways out onto Mchuan one entrance >> and all six of those are connected. >> This came from your uh PowerPoint. >> I got the drawing >> the correct plan. It's on your PowerPoint somewhere. >> Yeah. >> Yes. >> Yep. >> Sorry, I just pulled up the other one. >> Yeah. So, >> um that's another feature that we did do to >> I think that was with the planning board that that that came out of if I remember correctly.

>> Hey, Mr. Short, can you please uh reread the setback from Mchuan Drive again? Can I just >> The building facing Mchuan Drive shall be shifted south by 2 feet and driveway shall be moved south by 5t. So well I guess the question for the applicant is we have in our possessions drawings dated May 2026. Are these drawings have they addressed moving those those addressing those conditions? Those were addressed prior to approve of receiving site plan approval from the planning board. >> Thank you. >> Yes, sir. >> Other questions from the board? I It's not our role to do site plan approval, but it's [laughter] >> No, but but it I would have done this different, but it's not our role.

>> Do you have any plans on developing the rest of the acreage that's part of this lot? >> Absolutely not. It's uh it's a 45 degree angle down >> but I just I guess I want would like to add that as a condition if this board does approve it that >> there will be no further development >> and understood and agreed. >> Do you think you can get it started within the 12 months that any new variances would be >> accomplished? Okay. approval for the EEC. >> She just asked him that. If he doesn't think so, he could say no. >> I I've talked to the owners about this that they're not building anymore. It would be prohibitive prohibitively expensive.

This is enough here. This is a good solid, you know, this is a good >> stopping parting. Okay. Other questions? >> Michael, I think there was a letter that came in this afternoon that was supposed to be led read. >> There's there's a several. Do you mind? Can you pull up the letter that came in this afternoon? [snorts] All right. >> Can anybody read that? >> If I get really close to my screen, I can. >> It [snorts] doesn't have to be read in. As long as everybody now is >> Is there some uh specific? >> No, I just didn't know if it had to be read in or not. >> No, no, there's several there. They are going to be part of >> They will be part of the application.

That's all I was concerned about. >> Yep. >> Just just mention that we've received the correspondence and they'll be part of the official record. >> Yeah. record. >> Here we go. Is this the one you're referring to? >> The July 14th. >> This is the only one that I got today. >> Uh, actually, so this must be it. Yep. When was it? >> This is it. >> Yes. July 14th. >> This is it. 148. >> Yes. I'm sorry. What else have I received? >> Is this pulled up so you guys can read it into the record or just reading it for your own? Oh, I just personal. >> Can you go to the bottom of the letter for a moment?

>> Yep. >> Okay. So, the board is seeing the letter from Dorothy Fate, F AI T, which is dated Erica on top. I know it was >> July 14th. >> Has everybody on the board had a chance to review that letter? >> Yeah. >> There's been several others others. Did you want >> you should at least title them and the record seems like the board has acknowledged each board member that they've read that >> letter from Miss Fate. >> I can call them up if you'd like or Erica you can. Whatever is easiest. >> I don't have the letters. >> Okay. Yeah. >> We received one on July 8th from David Guyer at 400 >> Mchuan.

Um, nope. That was a cell tower. >> Mhm. >> Uh, on July and I'm sorry, June 2nd from Deborah Cuz at 4:46 Mchuan and That was chicken. >> Did you get the June 9th one? I think there's one from June 9th as well. Is that right? No. >> June 9th. I have minutes. I have a June 1st. >> June 1st. Okay. >> Is Nope. That's chickens. Out some chickens. George >> June 2nd. Yeah, that was the last one. >> George Cougler Cougler, I'm pronouncing it wrong. At 4:49, which the applicant is speaking now. >> Yep. >> And or um >> online submission that it's June 2nd. Uh no online submission. >> Oh, missed that one.

That was another cell phone. 44 Mchuan, Charlie Johnson. That was June 8th as well. So, I I guess um it looks like three uh online forms were submitted. Um, has the board had the opportunity to uh read and take those into consideration as well? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> All right. Um, >> other questions from the board? Uh, can we have the other view up, Erica? >> Can we have the other one up? Thank you. >> Appreciate it. Uh, I guess if there's no other no other questions from the board, I'm going to um where where did it go? Bear with me. I'm going to make a a motion for I have to do seeker again, right?

Because it's a >> Yeah. And I want to be clear here uh that um the board is not relying >> on last the last issue >> on any information of which the previous approval was based. if that if if if these board members, you know, weren't present at the prior approval. Um I I don't know. >> This is a new application is essentially what this is. it is, but I I want to make sure that inferentially either from the applicant standpoint or the board standpoint that they're not relying on information that wasn't specified in this application, but they are familiar with from a previous application. And I I don't know um I don't know who who was a voting member at that time.

I think the three of us were >> and I don't I >> I wasn't. >> I believe Adam is here. >> You were here. >> I believe so. Okay. So, >> gotcha. Uh, four out of the five board members were here for the previous application. >> Yep. and the board member that was not here. Is there any information uh that wasn't presented tonight that you're relying on to make any decisions here? >> No, I'm relying on my own my own feelings about the thing. >> Okay. It's a question of when someone buys a house and they look at the property across the street. And I was on a planning board, too. So, I know it's not a question of you can't build there because you're going to block my view.

I'm not looking at that. They were that it was zoned one way, so it's res. It's multif family residential, so to speak. But they're also looking at certain setbacks required. And if you know it's going to be across the street, but it's going to be set back so far, then I think that that's what you're counting on. I mean, if it was me living across the street, I wouldn't be happy. And that's the way I feel about it cuz going from 100 ft to 43 is a big difference. And I I just have a problem with it personally. Appreciate it. Yeah. All right. Uh, with that, I'd like to make a motion uh, for type two action under seeker pursuant uh, NYCR section 617.5C of the environmental code.

>> Second. >> All those in favor? I >> findings. >> Anybody? Anybody want to touch this one? >> Yeah, I see that. Um All right. So, um, you know, the question of is is this, uh, request out of character in the neighborhood? Um, you know, we have two different neighborhoods essentially. Uh, you have Mchuan, which is a single family residential. Uh and then you have um the multi- uh multi-ousing uh area town home area uh adjacent to it. The the being out of uh character for the uh for the town home. This this project is not out of character for the town home properties. However, um looking at the um the single family residential across the street, um there is a potential um for this to be out of character.

Uh the the presentation of these being twotory. The intent is to make these look more uh characteristically similar to a single family residential as evident through uh some of the site plans of of the um of the town homes themselves. They have proper offsets to to really present themselves as uh single family uh homes, although there are 10 units per per building. Um, is there a detriment uh created to to nearby properties? Uh, the argument could be made that uh there there is not uh a detriment created to nearby properties. um having a residential um house uh residential um structure uh on a on a residential street uh is not ne necessarily a detriment to uh to nearby properties.

These are residential not commercial uh properties. Um benefit is not achieved by any other methods. uh the the the benefit of um building on on this site. There is uh already additional um town homes on the site. So it is a continuation of what is already on the site itself. Um could other other means uh have been able to achieve it to to provide uh the buildings identified on the site and due to the topography of the site uh other means were not feasible um in the in the layout. Uh the only way to make it feasible would be to eliminate um one or more of the uh one or more of the buildings. Um request is not substantial.

Uh it falls in line with the existing uh use of the site um to the I guess that' be the east of the site. Uh no adverse physical or environmental impacts to the site. Um difficulty uh difficulty is is itself created again uh right now the site is a vacant vacant plot. It uh reducing the amount of structures uh would [clears throat] reduce some of the requirements. However, um due to the topography of the site uh both all the way down to the water's edge as uh as well as the topography of the site uh where the structures are identified um makes it uh makes it more difficult uh so that that is why the the structures are identified and shown as they were in the plans.

Um it's not a [clears throat] undesirable change. Uh again continuing the existing structures uh throughout. Uh and is this uh request significant? Uh the request is asking for setbacks on uh multiple frontages to accommodate the the new site uh to accommodate the the new structures. um to align with what the existing town homes are in the uh built to the east of of the site. Anybody else want to add anything to the to the findings? Okay. Um let's see. I guess I'll [clears throat] make a motion for area variance. See, for [clears throat] uh for the Waterview Apartments phase 3 located at the northwest corner of Willow Point Way and Nautical Mile Drive, uh an area of errands to allow a front setback of Bear with me.

Let's see of 18.7 feet where 75 ft is required. Uh and to allow a single family uh district buffer of 38.5 ft where 100 ft is required in association with the construction of six buildings plus community center total of 56 units each two stories in height on a proposed 13.15 acre parcel having SPL 093.06-3-64.11 06-3-64.11 located in an MHR medium high residential district under section 350-14 of the uh code of the town of Webster uh with let's see with conditions uh for the building facing Nautical Mile Drive to have an 18.7 ft front setback. Uh the building facing Mchuan Drive shall be shifted south by 2 feet and driveway shall be moved south by 5t to create a 5-ft district buffer and front set back to building 43 uh.8 ft.

uh the western 10 unit building fronting Willow Point Way to have a front setback of 38.5 ft and district buffer area of 38.5 ft. Uh an increase of total vegetation in the buffer zone uh and to work with the town to provide buffering on uh Mchuan Road right of way. Um, >> no further development. >> Yeah. Yeah. I was >> We got I got that. >> I was getting there. Uh, and the developer consents to no further development uh on the remaining parcel all the way down to uh the lake edge. I think I covered everything. Is there anything else? Any other conditions [cough] that that I missed? You get a traffic control device on time.

Stop requiring a stop sign there. >> I'm not sure that's within the board's going to say that's site plan. Can we make [clears throat] site plan? Yeah. Sorry. Uh there are >> What? What did you say, Karen? >> Can we make that recommendation to the planning board because that's we we can't dictate that. >> Yeah, we can't dictate that. >> That's not even a potentially a plan board issue. That's a road. >> It's a traffic engineering issue. >> No, they already received their extension for the site plan. >> Okay. >> So, >> so it's not going back to >> once they get their variances, >> they're done and they can move forward.

>> Correct. I gotcha. >> But the town the town can still require that. >> Correct. The town the town can still re-review the plans and based on >> recommendations that Daria stops saying. >> Correct. But that is not something that this board can condition. >> Correct. >> But the town will be re-reing the premyar phase. So it's still >> technically in the review. still being reviewed? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Can this board make a recommendation to the town for that? >> Yes. Statement. Absolutely. Okay. >> Um in addition to the condition, the the zoning board makes a recommendation for the the town to evaluate um a traffic control device at Maritime Drive.

And >> is that Mu? Uh, right. Maritime Drive in Mchuan. What is the new road's name? The connector road >> because I would also do one there. >> I don't know that we have a name yet. >> And the new road to the to the west of the property um in Mchuan. >> I think that might just be an extension of Willow Point Way. >> Okay. Any other anything else I'm missing? >> I need a second. Sorry. Was that >> Yes. I don't think there's anything else. >> Okay. Uh I need a second from the board if uh if the board so desires. Under New York State law, variances aren't required to be passed by motion. You don't technically need a motion.

The recording secretary can at the direction of the chair call the question. That being said, I think if there's not sufficient votes, we may want to have uh discussion, as I've mentioned before, the the application is identical and there there have been no change circumstances. Um, and while it is a new application, um, there's a standard in in New York State law that uh, the arbitrary and capriccious standard where you would have to explain why something was different than when the same board granted the same variances. So, at this point, I guess if there's maybe you want to talk to your attorney.

Um, >> well, it's a different board, of course. Sure. And >> as a a matter of practice, we have we have always had a second. I don't think I've had a situation where we haven't and that uh it's gone to a vote. You may be right. It would be a matter of first impression from me, but that may be in fact the case. >> So, so >> I second it. >> It's >> Well, thank you. It's no different. >> Before I go any further, uh I guess my question is do you want to table the matter for further discussion? >> Yeah. Thank you. >> Is >> I request that. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> I So we're going to table this matter for for further discussion and and go from there.

Well, I think we need to [clears throat] if we're going to table it, we need to tell him if we're looking for something specific or what. >> Okay. Yeah. Let let's let's clean up where we were first of all. >> All right. >> There was a a motion. >> I'm going to remove my second. >> Okay. >> So, um John, next steps from where we're at right now. >> So, there's a motion. Mhm. >> There is no second. >> Okay. >> Right. >> While we await my counsel on that issue, the applicant is seeking to now table the matter. Is that accurate? >> Yes, please. >> Okay. You can take that up if you so choose. >> Uh as a motion to table the matter.

>> Yep. >> Um so >> withdraw your motion. So, I'm going to withdraw my motion for Waterview Apartments um and make a motion to table uh the matter uh until further notice. >> Thank you. Second. >> Okay. Mr. Short. >> I >> Mr. Corso. >> Hi, >> Mr. Santo. >> Hi, >> Mr. Spanado. >> I Mrs. Wallo. >> I Okay, table. The matter has been tabled. >> Thank you so much. Have a good evening. >> You too. >> Thanks. >> Leave that back too. >> Thank you. >> Are we ever going to get the cell towers back? >> Katherine, >> do you know if we're ever going to get the cell towers? >> It'll be a while. >> It'll be a while because the town is doing um They have their own evaluation.

>> Yes, we do have one. Yes, we've got minutes. >> If everyone has had an opportunity to look at the June 9th meeting minutes. >> Yes. >> I would make a motion to approve those minutes. >> Second. >> All those in favor? >> I