Minutes

WEBSTER ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES

Michael Short

Corrine Volo

James Spampinato

Chris Centola

John Accorso

Stacie Damelio, ALTERNATE

John DeMarco, Attorney

Katherine Kolich, Planning & Zoning Secretary

Erika Corsi, Planner of Community Development

14, 2026 meeting. We will have open forum for the public to speak, and we will be limiting the

time to the public to five minutes so please keep that in mind. We have two tabled matters and

three scheduled matters for tonight. What we are going to do instead of doing the tabled

matters first we are going to do the scheduled matters first tonight and then once we are done

with the scheduled matters we will move over to the tabled matters. Though I don’t anticipate it

happening the board does have the right to end the meeting by 10:00 pm and I don’t anticipate

that. If we do that, we will table the remaining items. I do have proof of publication here for all

the items.

Call Roll/Pledge of Allegiance

Summary of Application Outcomes

TABLED MATTERS

:

1. ZONING INTERPRETATION-139 CARACUS

was correct; the Webster Solar Garden did not require a special use permit, as it is located in

an Industrial District

2. WATERVIEW APARTMENTS PHASE 3-NORTHWEST CORNER OF

WILLOW POINT WAY AND NAUTICAL MILE DRIVE

Pg. 110 July 14, 2026 Zoning Meeting

SCHEDULED MATTERS

:

3. ADDITION-1249 MILLCREEK RUN

4, FENCE-1084 BRIGHT STREAM WAY

5. SHED-785 SOMERDALE DRIVE

(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 Mr. Sean Hanna. Good evening and thank you for allowing me to

speak. This matter as the chair suggested was on last month’s for consideration. It was adjourned

and tabled so that we could do some additional exploration on the issue of the statute of limitations.

As the Zoning Board of Appeals is probably aware, the code provides that appeals must be submitted

within 60 days quote and after the filing of any order, requirement, decision, interpretation, or

decision 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 considering sending to the Planning Board an

application that was for solar panel development that was to be treated under an industrial use permit

only. That does not raise statute of limitations issues for three different reasons. First, that

announcement was a fallacy. It was a nullity. There was no application in Mr. Artuso’s possession.

There was no application before the board. So, there’s nothing in the announcement that was correct.

Now, secondly, 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 the propriety of any application,

I have to be able to read it. Otherwise, I mean, the application could have been treated perfectly

legitimately and appropriately. 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 my client’s statute of limitations. Simply can’t do that.

Pg. 111 July 14, 2026 Zoning Meeting

Thirdly, nothing in an announcement of a public meeting of the Town Board constitutes the defi the

filing of decision or an order of the law enforcement officer. As Mr. DeMarco suggested at the last

meeting there’s nothing in the town’s procedures that technically satisfy that requirement and I have

used and I urged the board to consider an email that was sent by Mr. Artuso back on April 1°. The

only reason I did that is because it does explain his rationale for treating it as an industrial use

application. And we did file our appeal within 60 days of that. So, if we’re using that as a starting

point, then we've satisfted 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

relative to his decision was simply an internal email. So, untess the board has some questions with

respect to the statute of limitations issue that was brought up at the last meeting, I’d be happy to very

briefly review the merits of our appeal.

ultimately an interpretation of the zoning, right? That’s ...that was really the first point that came to

this board. At the last meeting there was question of timing and if it could even if it should be here

in front of us. I think honestly the board has the ability to take a look at and make a determination

on the merit of the interpretation and what was interpreted by the town. I know I had an opportunity

to go through documentations. And though the document that was presented on April has some

clarity, so do other documents. I would say in my opinion there’s no smoking documentation that

provides an earlier date so from my opinion, I think it would be more prudent for this board to move

forward with making a determination on the merit vs determining the timing of everything. I guess

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 did pull up the document that we had discussed would was the resolution made by the Town Board

and the July 2025 Town Board meeting. There was actually an application submitted. So, I’m

just....[ just want to correct for the record or make sure facts are out there for the record that when I

pull it up right now from the town’s website, there is a June 30" 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. So, there is something that was there. It’s not like the Town Board

acted based on nothing.

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. He thought and this is in the record when he referred it to the Planning Board that is 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.

project this would be the information received and granted and I’m just doing it from my engineering

Pg. 112 July 14, 2026 Zoning Meeting

perspective from an entirely different industry but the application that’s here is a rough site plan with

a 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 I could be speaking our of turn. For a project of this size, the first plan 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.

The information that I’m Jeoking at and granted I’m just pulling it up today 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 several pages so

there is information. It’s preliminary information probably.

this just, hey, can we come by and talk about it or was an application made, formwork filled out.

be built based on the information there doesn’t lessen the fact that an application was made.

to clarify that it’s not as though the Town Board acted in total darkness. Based on the documentation

at least that’s available to me.

there. It’s not...things aren’t being hidden from the public. It’s out there and the process is playing

out as should. So, thank you. Any other questions? Like I said, I’d rather....I think moving forward

with the basis of merit whether the town presented this project appropriately because of right now,

the town ....the site is an industrial site The town looked at this, and they looked out at zoning code

155-6, which is the approval standards for a large scale solar energy system. And a large scale solar

and it states large scale solar energy systems are permitted through the issuance of a special use

permit within all residential districts. 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.

Mr. DeMarco and Michael Short speaking.

to stay. Other questions?

Pg. 113 July 14, 2026 Zoning Meeting

how the state courts require the Zoning Board of Appeals to view the zoning code. And you have to

understand, and I apologize, you’ re at something of a disadvantage because, and I’d encourage you

to tum 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,

he have two we two potentially applicable provisions of the code. One is industrial use and 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 panels developments, and we have a residential

section, excuse me, a solar law section that applies to residences that is very, very specific about the

development of solar farms. And it gives a whole bunch of criteria that has to be met. Now, the

courts have been very, very consistent in taking... making sure 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 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, we looked to guidance in the Webster Town Code

and it says that they should be used 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 desirability 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 it is

and it’s not just my opinion, one second, it’s not just my opinion, Montante , when they submitted

the application and, in the letter, I showed you specifically said that they were 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.

code, and I’ve had the opportunity to take a look through the industrial code as well.

versus the general, what is it between the two statutes that you believe are in confliction with each

other?

Board give a great deal of consideration to many factors that are not required in industrial use. For

an industrial use permit, it gets a list of activities and says, “Okay, if the activity that’s proposed is

similar to that, it’s fine. It’s in an industrial area. We don’t really 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 Montante knew that those were the questions that needed to be asked, 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.

Pg. 114 July 14, 2026 Zoning Meeting

your specific versus general construction argument that there is in fact a conflict between 350-22

and 155-6.

outset, more specific language...if you have specific Janguage that’s applicable and general

language that’s applicable to a given application, the specific language trumps the general language.

So, it doesn’t have to be a conflict per se, there just has to be...the specific language has to fill holes

that the general language does not.

there is a conflict and if they can be read in harmony with one another then I think the board has the

right to interpret it obviously as they deem, it should be applicable. So, I think the board, I think you

correctly stated the law when there’s a conflict. 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.

more, you have to give more. You have to meet the higher standard. There’s a second and I don’t

know if we want to say....

spinning a little bit to me honest. I don’t want to say. ....I’m a....I read things plainly. I looked at

155-6 I mean, that’s pretty clear language that a special use permit is required in a residential district.

It is silent on requiring a special use permit anywhere else. That’s how I’ve read it. I’ve had the

opportunity to go through 350-22, which is industrial use as well and again, in certain sections in

there believe that it’s allowed within there. Is it explicit? It is not explicit but the way I have read

it, for me it’s pretty clear, I guess with that, I’m going to open it up to the board with questions and

there’s a lot of things going on with the code and everything else and back and forth. So, questions

from the board?

things that might come out or be pertinent to the to the design and moving the project forward that

they’d have a better chance of getting what they needed out of the application process. The Planning

Board is most likely going to consider those issues anyhow. Anything that’s required under a special

permit, 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 driveway here or there?” So, my

thought is that any of the applicants concerns that somehow, they’re getting less of a review then

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?

s Pg. 115 July 14, 2026 Zoning Meeting

typo throughout the application, but I just want to make sure. 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 and I’m assuming that that’s just a typo, but I guess I just want to confirm that.

application. The classification whether it should have been special use or industrial use 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.

put the other special use permit before the town board and that 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.

the article 78 and they would be prosecuted there if necessary. However, I think that this board is

entitled to determine whether the permits that had been approved were of the same project.

that the supreme court judge will look at this. Our duties here in the appeal capacity that you’re

asking us to look at here relating to the notice and the recommendation. I don’t think it goes further

than that. Otherwise, we would really be stepping into the shows of the supreme court. We don’t

get paid enough for that.

dialogue after hearing everything that Mr. Hanna had presented plus any ...all the documentation

what we received over the last month or so. ..any other questions? Anything else we want to discuss?

believe a memoranda law or the equivalent. I know all the board member ave that. I have a series

of documents that are entitled. I think it’s a letter from ...Montante to Josh Artuso or is that

Pg. 116 July 14, 2026 Zoning Meeting

something that I had?

chapter 155 which is the energy chapter. It has reviewed the industrial, I’m sorry

it’s heard oral argument from Mr. Hanna. My comments, I just want to make sure that the records

clear as to what you’ve all reviewed before you make any determinations. Anything else that I’ve

left out?

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. I would only caution you that you know when you look at the 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 constitutes notice. I think Mr. Hanna 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, it could be interpreted a different ways by different folks. So, I think it dangerous.

Not saying that you can’t but I’m saying it’s fraught with the potential that it may come back to you.

wasn’t timely, it goes before...I suspect it would go before the New York State Supreme Court. At

that point they could tum around say it was timely and kick it back to us anyway.

that certainly is a reason why you may want to consider if you feel you have a sufficient record and

sufficient information and you’re positioned to make a determination on the merits. I don’t see any

reason why you should not If you want to short circuit it and wait for that order, if that 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.

of the notice, to me, it makes more sense to make a determination on the merit. I think we have more

than enough information presented to us, both in writing as well as, verbally, by Mr. Hanna, to be

Pg. 117 July 14, 2026 Zoning Meeting

able to make that determination. I guess I’m looking to the board to agree or disagree.

much you may have individually looked into it. I think there’s nothing that would presented

differently that would be enough to move the meter at this point and time other than just like.......

Let’s consider it based on the merits of the interpretation and see where it goes: from there.

and let the board decide from there?

A zoning board interpretation regarding 139 Caracus Drive with an SBL # 065-02-01-4-11 whether

let’s see......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. Sections 350-22 and section 350101 DIof

the code of the town of Webster. I make a motion that based on 155-6 which reads of the town code

(AS SHOWN ON THE SCREEN)

Large-scale solar energy systems are permitted through the issuance of a special

use permit within all residential districts, subject to the requirements set forth in

this section, including site plan approval. Applications for the installation of a large-

scale solar energy system shall be reviewed by the Commissioner of Public Works

and his/her division heads or agents or designees and referred, with comments, to

the Town Board for its review and action, which can include approval, approval

with conditions, or denial. The Town Board shall refer site plan approval to the

Planning Board prior to granting any special use permit. [Amended at time of

adoption of Code (see Ch. 1, General Provisions, Art. |)] B. Large-scale solar

energy systems are permitted.

That plan language indicates that a large scale solar energy system can be installed in the industrial

use site without the special use permit application process.

Road and 1460 Carcus Drive.

more time Chris.

Pg. 118 July 14, 2026 Zoning Meeting

though the SBL is the same.

considered this. There’s been a lot of information before us. There’s been a lot of sections of code,

alot 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...

use is permitted with respect to looking at section 350-22. The process 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 special use permit.

And it does actually go into the next section that says, large-scale solar is permitted in commercial

districts just simply by site plan review through the town board or the planning board. And it just

has to comply with all setbacks.

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 required by the residential district for that

import them into their review and final decision-making process for it. I mean that’s what they

are there for and I think they do a generally good job of it.

Pg. 119 July 14, 2026 Zoning Meeting

come up.

Geraldine Breschard at 632 Pine Lakes Trail: (NEVER SIGNED IN I have been to almost every

meeting there has been regarding this solar project. I heard a lot tonight and a lot of rational and

reasoning. 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 allow

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 a that are being built

by a builder that’s right now being built and 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. 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 Montante, 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 could 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 lot 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 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 and let it get

shut back and do a real assessment on what this mean to the residents there. Thank you for your

time.

No, okay, J guess back to the board. Should I restate them or what was already stated?

Pg. 120 July 14, 2026 Zoning Meeting

RESOLUTION 26-0028

VOTE:

Michael Short made a motion Located at 139

Caracus Drive (AKA 750 Phillips Road, AKA

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 to and the Zoning

Board found that Mr. Artuso’s interpretation of

the Town Code was correct; the Webster Solar

Garden did not require a special use permit, as it

is located in an Industrial District which was

seconded by: John Accorso.

Mr. Short AYE

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Spampinato AYE

Mr. Accorso AYE

Mr. Centola AYE

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.

Appearing before the board was Chris Nadler and I’m general counsel for MarkV Enterprises.

It’s nice to see you all again and nice to be back here with you all. I am here for a renewal of

some area variances that the project was received from the Zoning Board of appeals last year.

They’ ve now expired or about to expire. We were set for the Zoning Board meeting agenda last

night, but I understand last month, but I understand there was some notice issues, so we got

bumped here and that was obviously fine with us.

Waterview at Willow Point Phase 3 has received site plan approval from the Planning Board

and it was just was renewed two months ago, I believe. We received certain area variances

related to our driveway length from this board and we’re proposing 56 townhouse units to

complete the existing town home development at Waterview off of Bay Road. We own and

operate 62 of the townhouses currently and there is a homeowners association in the front of the

project with 35 units, some of which MarkV owns and operates. So, what we’re requesting is a

Pg. 121 July 14, 2026 Zoning Meeting

is a renewal of our variances for a front setback of 18.7 ft where 75 ft is required and a single

family district buffer to McEwen of 38.5 ft where 100 ft is required. These setbacks match the

existing driveway setbacks, front setbacks throughout the town home development in both the

homeowners association and the apartments for rent section and are necessitated in large part

because of the unique shape of the parcel. There’s roads on three sides of this parcel and given

the topography and the location this is...everything is a front setback, so we don’t have any rear

setbacks really. Either way, we would want the shorter front setback because people don’t want

a 75 ft driveway. We don’t want to build it, and 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.

As you can see from our PowerPoint the character of the neighborhood won’t be affected. This

is a variance first of all that this board has granted in the past and it matches the setbacks on the

existing town homes and the driveway distances. We will be as much as 85ft between the

proposed town houses and the house along McEwen. Which is similar to where we are now

with the existing town houses. From a substantiality standpoint again, these are the same

setbacks that we have existing and we’re proposing the same driveway distances. Granting the

variances will reduce runoff because there’ll be less impervious pavement and it will increase

green space that will have a positive impact on the environment. From a self-created difficult

standpoint, as I mentioned, this is an odd, shaped property with difficult topography. It is

surrounded by roads on three sides; The property is encumbered by easements and utilities.

Not just for us. There’s a sanitary sewer line that runs through it that feeds the adjacent part of

the parcel on the other side of our existing town homes so it’s not a self-created difficulty.

Nothing has changed since this board did grant the variances a year ago. The conditions in the

neighborhood and the community remain the same. Our proposal remains the same and

therefore we would ask that the board renew our variance.

18 whatever feet setback? Is it on McEwen?

do when we filed this variance request two years ago probably was take the shortest front

setback which was 18.7ft. We have similar setbacks, that the setback next door is 19.2 ft. The

setback next to that is 20.4 ft as an example. So, the 18.7 is the smallest and I believe as you

were looking at it, it would be on the southeast corner of, or which is Willow Point Way and

Maritime Drive. It’s one of those driveways. But the general answer is they’ re all about that

distance.

What is bothersome to me is that along McEwen because directly across the street you have some

very nice single family homes and what you’re proposing to me is that it is not in character with

that neighborhood particularly because it’s so close. I mean going from a 100 feet setback to 18,

I think it’s rather significant.

Pg. 122 July 14, 2026 Zoning Meeting

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 feet of right of way before you hit pavement of McEwen

Drive.

can you zoom in. It’s 59.9 feet from the building face to the edge of McEwen Drive. So, still to

your point, not 100 foot setback, but it is a 60 feet from the edge of the road, which then there’s

right ways and other things there. So, it looks like 41.8 feet from and I’m assuming that big fat

black line is the property line, is that correct?

to the left and that was 54.7 ft building to the right.

parcel, our trees come right to the edge of McEwen right now.

trees stop. The property line is 10 — 15 feet back from that which is where we have to measure

from...which is what Mr. Short just pointed out.

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...three story apartment buildings that

were much long that what is permitted by code and then I think those were 90-100 units and

between this board and I don’t know if the planning board.... It was, the applicant was continued

go back try again, go back and try again so 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 more matching the area of the surrounding homes that are also

single and two story homes. So that’s just how we got here. Whether it’s right or wrong, it’s

expired. So.

process. So, the only way to get a renewal is by reapplying.

Pg. 123 July i4, 2026 Zoning Meeting

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 on me. That being said, we are still waiting signatures on our site

plan approval. We do have site plan approval. The DEC is stalled in giving it’s wetland

jurisdictional determinations and so that’s why the planning board granted a renewal.

a deadline. We would have had to reapply either way.

months following.

Albany told the DEC they couldn’t issue those determinations anymore. So, the DEC is in a

holding pattern and not issuing them. Which is frustrating to all the civil engineers in Rochester

who would like to get these signed and moved on.

wants to speak for or against?

George Kugler at 449 McEwen Drive: I'm sort of kitty corner to the project there. I know Chris

quite well, Mr. Nadler. I have a couple of my letters, one of ones that I submitted prior to the

previous scheduled meeting, and I know there were several other submitted from other neighbors

on McEwen Drive that have numerous concerns. One of the, you know, points Mr. Nadler made

that this is similar to the existing town homes and similar setbacks, which I would respectfully

disagree with. Um, 56 units, if you look at the map, they have 62 units over their entire project

or the entire phase two of the project. 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. So, I would disagree that they are similar to what they already have built on that

point and the....... I also you know, I haven’t seen any elevation drawings of what these buildings

are actually going to look like. We have a 10 unit town home across, direct 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 in areas and these you know higher density

projects. 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 and the easily

90 % or more of the project is still on the original parcel that did not meeting the acreage

Pg. 124 July 14, 2026 Zoning Meeting

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 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 McEwen Drive, 449 next to the

existing town homes. Well, that’s not a face to face, front to front setback. That's a side, you

know, from side lot to side lot, which is much different than someone who is directly across the

street, you know, looking at it now this, you know, 56 unit complex that is all of a sudden being

put up on this, very compact area.

George Kugler at 449 McEwen Drive. I would also ask if they, 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 the private town home access from Bay Road, you know, and_I don’t know if

they have been able to negotiate that with the existing town homes. But now you're looking at a

signofocamt increase of traffic to this medium residential property through the single family, you

know, dead end 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 considered. I know I’ve heard in the planning

board 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 34 of what the town code that was designed and approved for reasons are you know,

going to bypass basically. So, I think my letter and some of the other letters express most of

those concerns pretty well.

George Kugler at 449 McEwen Drive: Just a quick question, I haven’t...I don’t know if the

application has been updates at all, but I don’t believe there was an elevation drawing. I mean,

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.

Pg. 125 July 14, 2026 Zoning Meeting

this application. It’s going to look like a townhouse. If we haven’t seen them, it’s going to look

like townhouses and very similar to the existing townhouses that are right there.

private road, I’ve driven down 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. 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 do down it.

saying there that I know that when it comes to the wintertime many people don’t even like going

down there because it’s more treacherous than an access.

Stacie Damelio.

EVERYONE SPEAKING AT ONCE.

Mile.

homes. I’m confused.

emergency vehicles and school buses and the like. It is used without....we’ve not had any

objection in I don’t know, a half a dozen years probably to anybody else using it. There’s multiple

points of access to this entire development. So, there is through access there as required by the

Fire Marshal of the Town of Webster.

Pg. 126 July 14, 2026 Zoning Meeting

to look at the plans just to verify that they can actually get a fire truck and access to all sides of

the building unless of a concern with the two story perhaps that if you can have a multi-story but

I just want to make sure that we do still consider emergency vehicles.

previously.

If I remember correctly.

you don’t, I have a hard copy here.

ow doe is fit within the moratorium that was just enacted by the town board for new

developments?

moratorium. It’s for projects that have not received a preliminary or final approval.

facing Nautical Mile Drive to have an 18.7 ft setback; the building facing McEwen Drive needed

to be shifted by 2 feet to the south and driveway. So, the building to be shifted by 2 feet and the

driveway to be shifted, to be moved south by 5 feet to create a 5 ft district buffer and front set

back to the building of 43.8 feet. The wester 10 unit building fronting Willow Point Way was to

have a front setback of 38.5 feet and district buffer area of 30 and a district area buffer of 38.5

feet and increase of the total vegetation in the buffer zone and to work with the town to provide

buffering in McEwen Road right of way. So, I guess my question, all the conditions that were

previously presented no issues with any of those conditions then?

Pg. 127 July 14, 2026 Zoning Meeting

the final plan that was approved. There was actually a connector road so that there were not six

different driveways out onto McEwen one entrance and all six of those are connected.

EVERYONE SPEAKING AT ONCE

correctly.

shall be moved south by 5 feet. So, ...

drawings dated May 2026. Are these drawings....have they addressed moving those ....those

addressing those conditions?

Planning Board.

Pg. 128 July 14, 2026 Zoning Meeting

that there will be no further development, and do you think you can get it started within the 12

months that any new variances would be accomplished?

It would be prohibitively expensive. This is enough here. This is a good solid, you know, this is

a good stopping part.

to be read.

afternoon.

EVERYONE SPEAKING AT ONCE.

official record.

EVERYONE SPEAKING AT ONCE.

Pg. 129 July 14, 2026 Zoning Meeting

personal...

the letter from Dorothy Fait which is dated July

14. Has everybody on the board had a chance to

review that letter.

acknowledged...each board member that they’ ve read that.

Deborah Cuz at 446 McEwen;

at 449 in which the applicant is speaking now.

submitted. Has the board had the opportunity to read and take those into consideration as well?

you. Appreciate it. I guess if there’s no other questions from the board, I’m going to make a

motion. I have to do SEQR again right because it’s a ......

which the previous approval was based. If these board members, you know, weren’t present at

the prior approval, I don’t know.

or the board standpoint that they’re not relying on information that wasn’t specified in this

Pg. 130 July 14, 2026 Zoning Meeting

application, but they are familiar with from a previous application and I don’t know and I don’t

know who was a voting member at that time.

the board member that was not here, is there any information that wasn’t presented tonight that

you’ re relying on to make any decisions here?

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 whether you can’t build that there because your going to block my

view. I’m not looking at that. It was zoned one way, so it’s res...it’s unlit family residential, so

to speak. But they’re also looking at certain setback required. But if you know it’s going to be

across the street, but it’s going to be setback so far and I think 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 feet to 43 is a big difference. And I just have a problem with it personally.

RESOLUTION 26-0029 Michael Short made a motion TYPE II

Centola.

VOTE:

Mr. Short AYE

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Spampinato AYE

Mr. Accorso AYE

Mr. Centola AYE

character in the neighborhood.

1. This request is not out of character in the neighborhood: We have two different

neighborhoods essential is McEwen which is essentially a single family residential and

then you have the multi-housing area and town home area adjacent to it. Being out of

character for the town home this project is not out of character for the town home

properties. However, looking at the single family residential across the street there is a

potential for this to be out of character. The presentation of these bring two story. The

intent is to make these look more characteristically similar to a single family residential as

evident through some of the site plans of the town homes themselves. They have proper

offsets to really present themselves as single family homes although there are 10 units per

building.

Pg. 131 July 14, 2026 Zoning Meeting

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

nearby properties the argument could be made that there is not a detriment created to nearby

properties having a residential house, residential structure on a residential street is not

necessarily a detriment to nearby properties. These are residential not commercial

properties.

3. The benefit is not achieved by any other method: It is not achieved by any other methods.

The benefit of building on this site. There is already additional town homes on the site, so

it is a continuation of what is already on the site itself. Could other means have been able

to achieve it to provide the buildings identified on the site and due to the topography of the

site other means were not feasible in the layout. The only way to make it feasible to

eliminate one or more of the buildings.

4. This request is not substantial: It is not substantial and falls in line with the existing use of

the site to the, I guess that would be the east of the site.

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

the amount to structures would reduce some of the requirements due to the topography of

the site both all the way down to the water’s edge as well as the topography of the site

where the structures are identified makes it more difficult so that is why the structures are

identified and shown as they were in the plans.

7. This is not an undesirable change: Again, continuing the existing structures throughout and

is this request significant. The request is asking for setbacks on multiple frontages to

accommodate the new site; to accommodate the new structures to align with what the

existing town homes are built to the east of the site.

Sn

Does anybody else want to add anything into the findings ?

corner of Willowpoint Way and Nautical Mile Drive an 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.

WITH CONDITIONS:

© For the building facing Nautical Mile Drive to have an 18.7 foot front setback.

© The building facing McEwen Drive shall be shifted south by 2 feet

e Driveway shall be moved south by 5 feet to create a 5 foot district buffer and front setback

to building 43.8 feet.

© The western 10 unit building fronting Willio Point Way to have a front setback of 38.5 feet

and district buffer area of 38.5 feet.

e Increase of total vegetation in the buffer zone.

Pg. 132 July 14, 2026 Zoning Meeting

¢ Work with town to provide buffering on McEwen Road right of way.

e Developer consents to no further development on the remaining parcel all the way down

to lake edge.

e In addition to the condition, the Zoning Board makes a recommendation for the town to

evaluate a traffic control device at Maritime Drive and McEwen.

I think I covered everything. Is there anything else? Any other conditions that I ate

Someone from audience asking for stop lights.

EVERYONE SPEAKING AT ONCE.

can’t dictate that but....

engineering issue.

variances....

be a stop sign. But that is not something that this board can condition. But the town will be re-

viewing the pre-mylar phase so it’s still technically in the review.

town to evaluate a traffic control device at Maritime Drive and McEwen.

What is the new roads name? The connector road because I would also do one there.

Pg. 133 July 14, 2026 Zoning Meeting

board so desires.

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 discussion,

as I mentioned before, the application is identical and there have been no change in circumstances.

While it is a new application, there’s a standard in New York State Law that the arbitrary and

capricious 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.

had a second. I don’t think I’ve had a situation where we haven’t and that 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.

matter for further discussion?

something specific or what.

issue, the applicant is seeking to now table the matter. Is that accurate?

Pg. 134 July 14, 2026 Zoning Meeting

to table the matter until further notice.

RESOLUTION 26-0030 Michael Short made a motion to TABLE

APPLICATION UNTIL FURTHER

NOTICE of which was seconded by John

Accorso.

VOTE:

Mr. Short AYE

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Spampinato AYE

Mr. Accorso AYE

Mr. Centola AYE

(THE BOARD IS PRESENTING ALL

SCHEDULED MATTERS

FIRST)

VARIANCE to allow a rear setback of 43.4ft where 50ft is required associated with the construction

of a 1,044 SF addition on a 0.41-acre parcel having SBL# 065.13-2-29 located in an R-3 Single-

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

access and close captioning and everything else.

Appearing before the board was Peter Pankiw and my beautiful wife is Crystal. We have been

in Webster all our lives. Our Mothers live in Webster and I’m not sure you care about that stuff,

but it matters to me.

So, I’m looking to add an addition on the back of my house. Do I just go page to page, is that

the best way to do it?

neighborhood and your responses etc. with the board and then once we get to the end they will

ask any additional questions.

property line. The project location, so we have it outlined right there. The sides are fine it’s

just the rear of the property line is 50 feet. Do I have to go though this? What do you want me

to do, just read this?

Pg. 135 July 14, 2026 Zoning Meeting

variances is going to affect the various things that are on here. So, you can read it. You have

already provided this information to the town so you can read it. We want it on public record,

and you don’t have to read it verbatim. You can present the information but ultimately the

information that you presented to the board and the town, through your application. That is the

information that we are utilizing and then any additional information that you have and want to

share like you’ ve been a resident your entire life Your family...... it’s information helpful to

the board to hear as well so, again, feel free to read verbatim but ultimately these are the items

that we need to understand is really what it comes down to but again you really don’t have to

read them verbatim, if you don’t want to.

neighborhood almost every house has the information on the back and my house is where the

painters lived when they built the neighborhood. So, I have a very small 1,000 sf ranch and

surrounded by 2,000 sf houses. I did try with my contractors the addition work without a

variance but the roof pitch, it’s over my head, he can’t do it from the width. So, that’s why I

had to ask for the 8 feet.

The request is not significant. I am not sure what or if it is or isn’t but all I’m asking for is that

8 feet. No physical and environmental issues will result from construction of the addition.

And this kind of explains it, so I do live in a 1,000 sf ranch with beautiful wife; three kids; two

dogs and a wonderful guinea pig that....1f you want him, you can have him. LAUGHTER

want to stay in Webster. That is where we are comfortable. So, we’ve looked in Webster, but I

know we are all aware of this 150,000 over asking, that’s kind of ridiculous. So, we decided we

are comfortable where we live and the neighborhood we love. The schools are good and all we

want to do is make that addition and stay there for our life and have it for our grandkids.

of the surveys that we were provided. It indicated a proposed addition and proposed pool. So,

are you proposing an indoor pool .

for that.

understand it, that’s all.

Pg. 136 July 14, 2026 Zoning Meeting

Parkway, the house right across the street. Indoor pool and that was awesome. It would be kind

of cool to have one for my kids because their fish and my grandkids. If that happens.

up to the public. Does anyone wish to speak for or against this project. Nope, bring it back to

the board. Any other questions from the board? No......] did drive by the house earlier today,

as you said, the smallest house in the neighborhood. Very tight back yard. Any communication

with your neighbors at 1246 Holley OR 1253 Millcreek.

cool as heck. The neighbors behind me that are on Holley, they don’t care either. I didn’t go to

their house and get autographs. They all have kids so we all kind of hang out in that corner.

additions already on the back. We have had several variances for that neighborhood. It makes

the most sense to put additional living space off the back of the house. There is really no other

place.

comments from the board, I would like to make a motion.

RESOLUTION 26-0031 Michael Short made a motion TYPE II

Spampinato.

VOTE:

Mr. Short AYE

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Spampinato AYE

Mr. Accorso AYE

Mr. Centola AYE

1, This request is not out of character in the neighborhood: I don’t know if it’s quite 90% but

there’s a lot of houses along that subdivision that if you had additions added specifically to

the back of the house.

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

nearby properties. The addition is really only going to be seen by the neighbor immediately

to the 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.

3. The benefit is not achievable by any other method: As you had indicated, when your

architect worked in trying to find a less impactful location or addition and the roof line of

your house would not work with the roof line of the new addition.

4. This request is not substantial:

Pg. 137 July 14, 2026 Zoning Meeting

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

self-stated.

6. The difficulty is not self-created: It’s really not self-created. I will say it’s not self-created

in that you probably do have one of the smallest houses within that subdivision so, to build

a house to code with current webster you couldn’t build a 1,000 sq foot house, I think it

would have to be at least 12 to 14,00 sf so

7. This is not an undesirable change: Certainly not. It will give you guys extra space and I am

assuming it will look as nice as the rest of the house.

RESOLUTION 26-0032 Corrine Volo made a motion for AREA

Run. Applicant Peter Pankiw is requesting an

AREA VARIANCE to allow a rear setback

of 42.4ft where 50ft is required associated

with the construction of a 1,080 SF addition

on a 0.41-acre parcel having SBL# 065. 13-2-

29 located in an R-3_ Single-Family

Residential District under Section 350-12 of

the Code of the Town of Webster of which

was seconded by Chris Centola.

44. Corrine Volo: My mistake, I’m sorry.

VOTE:

Mr. Short AYE

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Spampinato AYE

Mr. Accorso AYE

Mr. Centola AYE

CONDITIONS:

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

Building Permit.

e That one-year significant construction shall expire July 14, 2027

VARIANCE to allow a 6-foot privacy fence in the front yard of a corner lot on a 0.59-acre parcel

having SBL# 064.08-2-79 located in the R-2 Single Family Residential District under Section 350-

11 of the Code of the Town of Webster.

Appearing before the board was Ryan Trenkler. Good evening. I am not nearly as prepared as

Peter was and he seem like he had everything in front of him. I am not nearly as prepared but

born and raised in Webster. I spent some time out in Ontario but didn’t like it out there. Not

Pg. 138 July 14, 2026 Zoning Meeting

the same character. So, came right back to Webster about two years ago and moved into he

property into question.

We have a three year old golden retriever that loves to run and get her energy out and we now

have a seven month old, who will very soon be looking to run as well and the current back yard,

while quite large, is not protected in any way and I would hate to have the dog or baby run out

into the street so we are looking into installing a 6 ft white vinyl privacy fence around the edge

of the yard and due to the nature of it being a corer lot, there is a concern property line over

yonder where that is encroaching on what would be considered a front yard but I think we can

all agree, that it’s really not a front yard other than zoning. So, looking to get a variance to get

that project started.

since the property was built in 1987 and no plans in removing those.

could just pass them out to the board. (SEE ATTACHED PHOTOS) Showing either side of

the tree line. So, the first photo will be from inside of the property towards the street and then

the other photo will be from the street side looking to the property and hope you can see, not

much visibility on either side of the property into the yard.

bringing the fence line back to the house to...

in.

BOTH PARTIES SPEAKING THAT THE SAME TIME

public if anyone would like to speak for or against the project. Seeing none, I will bring it back

to the board. Any other comments from the board. Since there are no additional comments.

Pg. 139 July 14, 2026 Zoning Meeting

jolene Su

COL

a

me es

at

iS

Ae |

7 r = 7

a a =. |

— = ;

TF

I

\?

ie

Ia

mo 2

= i P

eal away

<e ce —

=

e Mie

RESOLUTION 26-0033 Michael Short made a motion TYPE II

Volo.

VOTE:

Mr. Short AYE

Mrs, Volo AYE

Mr. Spampinato AYE

Mr. Accorso AYE

Mr. Centola AYE

1.

2:

6.

7. This request is not out of character in the neighborhood: The variance will not impact to

the neighborhood.

There will not be a detriment created to nearby properties: Wil] not be a detriment to the

nearby properties. If alternates were considered, it is a corner lot so you want to be able to

use as much as your lot as possible so it makes sense and if fact, he is placing it behind the

screen and not taking as much land as he possibly might want to by putting the fence within

the tree line.

The benefit is not achievable by any other method:

comer lot he’s trying to utilize as much as the yard as possible for his family and his pets.

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

are not any physical or environmental conditions that are being adversely affected but

granting of the variance by putting the fence up.

response that allows him to and his family utilize the yard as much as possible.

This is not an undesirable change: There is no undesirable change to the character.

be on the interior side of the existing vegetation. They have to be 20 plus foot pine trees and it’s

a very thick vegetation so by putting the fence on the interior side it has no impact on the visual

esthetic of the neighborhood whatsoever. As I drove by earlier today, I did even know there was a

fence back behind there. So again, no impact to the community for this project.

RESOLUTION 26-0034 Michael Short made a motion for AREA

Way. Applicant Ryan Trenkler is requesting

an AREA VARIANCE to allow a 6-foot

privacy fence in the front yard of a corner lot

on a 0.59-acre parcel having SBL# 064.08-2-

79 located in the R-2 Single Family

Residential District under Section 350-11 of

the Code of the Town of Webster of which

Pg. 140 July 14, 2026 Zoning Meeting

was seconded by Chris Centola.

VOTE:

Mr. Short AYE

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Spampinato AYE

Mr. Accorso AYE

Mr. Centola AYE

CONDITIONS:

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

Building Permit.

e That one-year significant construction shall expire July 14, 2027

VARIANCE to allow a shed in the front yard of a corner lot on a 0.68-acre parcel having SBL#

079.05-3-13 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 Randy Potuck and I am the resident of 785 Somerdale Drive

and I’m filing for an area variance for a shed. I have been a resident there 18 years and it is a

corner lot. As you can see on the screen. It’s outlined in yellow. The area that I am requesting

is within the 30 ft setback for the southwest portion of the lot right there and the shed is

approximately 10 by

20. All right, so I’ll just go into standards. I don’t anticipate any negative impact to the character of

the neighborhood. It’s brand new construction, professionally built and it should not encroach

on any of the neighboring properties. Alternates considered, I did explore other options on the

lot and unfortunately or fortunately I have mature trees vegetation and the areas where we could

do it within the boundaries would require probably removing some of that or it would impede

the open grass area where the kids play. So, I was not looking to do that if possible.

Substantiality. It’s a corner lot, so it is considered frontage and within that 30-foot setback. But

it would be approximately 8 foot from both property boundaries. No environmental impacts

expected and last self-created difficulty, it’s a corner lot and like I said, if it was normal single

frontage, it would fall within the boundaries. In this case, it does not.

Michae! Short: I do have a quick question, I drove by earlier today and off on Huckleberry Way

you have a berm, and you have a hand full of trees there. So, you’re going to keep it close to

within 8 foot of the property line on the rear sides is where it’s going to go. I’m trying....when

I drove by, I’m trying to envision where physically where it’s going to be.

new berms? So, it would be approximately 8 foot from each of those.

there’s berms there you obviously want to keep it on your property line but was there a specific

Pg. 141 July 14, 2026 Zoning Meeting

reason for the distance or it just ....

berms where you can mow around it.

approved for gravel and make a pad there.

there unless you go looking for it within the property.

None.

RESOLUTION 26-0035 Michael Short made a motion TYPE II

Centola.

VOTE:

Mr. Short AYE

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Spampinato AYE

Mr. Accorso AYE

Mr. Centola AYE

Pg. 142 July 14, 2026 Zoning Meeting

This request is not out of character in the neighborhood: Will not impact the essential

character of the neighborhood. It will not 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 berms and the vegetation and the shed is located so that

it works with the existing vegetation and the applicant’s planned use of it. The applicant

did state that they did look at other alternative locations, but that this was the best one for

both his use and for the screening aspect of the berm along North Huckleberry. Because

the requested variance is not substantial or contextually significant, once again because of

the depth of the corner tot and the existing berm and vegetative buffer it'll be significantly

screened and the application will not have any potential physical environmental impacts

upon the lot or the neighborhood. While the application is self-created, it does appear to

be the best location for the lot, especially it being a corner lot with essentially two 30 foot

required setbacks.

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

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

3. This request is not substantial:

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

5. The difficulty is not self-created: It’s really not self-created.

6. This is not an undesirable change:

RESOLUTION 26-0036 Michael Short made a motion for AREA

Way. Applicant Ryan Trenkler is requesting

an AREA VARIANCE to allow a 6-foot

privacy fence in the front yard of a corner lot

on a 0.59-acre parcel having SBL# 064.08-2-

79 located in the R-2 Single Family

Residential District under Section 350-11 of

the Code of the Town of Webster of which

was seconded by Corrine Volo.

VOTE:

Mr. Short AYE

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Spampinato AYE

Mr. Accorso AYE

Mr. Centola AYE

CONDITIONS:

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

Building Permit.

That one-year significant construction shall expire July 14, 2027

Pg. 143 July 14, 2026 Zoning Meeting

Approval of minutes for June 2, 2026 (VOLO/CENTOLA)

VOTE:

Mr. Short AYE

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Spampinato AYE

Mr. Accorso AYE

Mr. Centola AYE

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

meeting at 9:15 PM

-

CRA SOND RR—

Corrine Volo, Secretary

Katherine Kolich, Recording Secretary

AUG 13°26 aMi1:13

_— FILED WEBSTER TWN CLK

Goss Nha

Pg. 144 July 14, 2026 Zoning Meeting

fa : I l a a nee Ge: a a

rian | iB i an j- 1 | ts % th :

| - a a : oh . & =, | ! a.

hese fi a ve ay ws 19 af en gare 1

in me ‘a Oe ee ey 5

| r

4

i fe a a ee ao |

bes Meet aye beg abo a 2, ee

oe “i ” Sey i, ag Te 7 . -— o% 1 bf

he es = .

a : mf ms + - 7 - - 4 tr =.

f oe ~ baat hy iheeecvicny wi“ a is cS Se .

% : i

- = . : i J ,

_ 5 1 — = i

i Pp —_ | ; ops _™ :

ae Ae

s k i! / =k > |

= : a's, x . avs gan Hig %, ;

we BE ie a

~ a “i. . 5 om < = «a!

P| /. Lad 4 | a

; - .

" & _ =x 1

1 . os | : re

= 7 | =I - - WE:

5 eM ye = bos rs

2 = io Z =— wt = 7, _

. a1 a le er

; ‘ty 1 s Ey = “tf = 1 i. ff

7 “ "se i .* r (

™ 7 oo 2 ; - e” =e ¥

ty ae a |

7 ; be re al | i= ~ i

- ri — a. ; : s ' i jf 1

= a Oo -3 2? 2 re

a 7 = is

a 7" | | r . ' F

A j » 7 ; . 1

zeing + a Lo ly ee ee

- a "a -, = I

- = i

L. 7 ; = : I P| i

i i 1 ~ e “