Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Webster board denies hardship waiver for Dinks and Links development
Summary
After a public hearing and hearing from the developer, the Webster Town Board voted unanimously Aug. 6 to deny an administrative hardship waiver for the Dinks and Links project, finding the applicant had not proven by clear and convincing financial evidence that the moratorium prevented reasonable use of the property.
The Webster Town Board voted unanimously Aug. 6 to deny a request from the Dinks and Links LLC for an administrative hardship waiver to bypass the town’s moratorium on high‑intensity commercial districts.
At a public hearing and subsequent board questioning, Joe Catalani spoke for Dinks and Links, saying the developer has reworked site and architecture plans multiple times, has paid for engineering and that financing which expired in June has been extended through October. Catalani said the project has “done a lot” of engineering and permitting work and that delays were often caused by agencies and town requirements. “We do have financing which expired in June. We do have a 4 month extension, which gives us to October,” Catalani told the board.
Board members repeatedly pressed for documentary dollars‑and‑cents proof of irreparable injury or lack of reasonable use. The presiding officer framed the legal standard in the moratorium: the applicant must show clear and convincing evidence, including financial proof, that the moratorium prevents reasonable use, causes irreparable injury, and that denying relief would be unreasonable and unjust. After discussion the chair moved to deny the waiver on the grounds that the applicant had not met that standard; the motion was seconded and carried on a recorded roll call.
The denial does not approve or disapprove the underlying project; it prevents the applicant from using the moratorium‑waiver path to resume planning‑board approvals during the moratorium. The presiding officer noted extensions are available from the landowner and encouraged the applicant to pursue those options and return when they have the required documentary proof.
The board did not adopt any changes to the moratorium itself during the meeting. The applicant and supporters acknowledged progress on plans but said time, repeated engineering revisions and permit interactions created significant costs and delays; opponents and nearby residents argued those circumstances did not rise to the legal test for immediate relief.
