Webster Town Board
August 7, 2025
A regular meeting of the Webster Town Board was called to order by Supervisor Flaherty at
7:09 p.m. at the Webster Town Board Meeting Room, 1002 Ridge Road, Webster, New York,
with the following officials present:
Supervisor ................................................................................ Thomas J. Flaherty
Councilwoman ........................................................................... Patricia T. Cataldi
Councilman....................................................................................... John J. Cahill
Councilwoman ............................................................................ Ginny L. Nguyen
Councilwoman ...........................................................................Jennifer S. Wright
Attorney for the Town .........................................................................Kyle Taylor
Town Clerk .................................................................................. Danene M. Marr
Department Heads Present:
Finance Director ..................................................................................Paul Adams
Community Development Director ..................................................... Josh Artuso
Town Engineer .............................................................................. Keith Mortimer
***
Supervisor Flaherty led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
***
Resolution No. 230: MOTION by Supervisor Flaherty, seconded by Councilwoman Cataldi, to
approve the July 17, 2025 Town Board Workshop Minutes as submitted by the Town Clerk.
Vote on motion:
Supervisor Flaherty ............ Aye
Councilwoman Cataldi ..... Aye
Councilman Cahill .............. Aye
Councilwoman Nguyen .... Aye
Councilwoman Wright ....... Aye
Motion carried .................. 5-0
***
Resolution No. 231: MOTION by Supervisor Flaherty, seconded by Councilwoman Nguyen, to
approve the July 17, 2025 Town Board Minutes as submitted by the Town Clerk.
Vote on motion:
Supervisor Flaherty ............ Aye
Councilwoman Cataldi ..... Aye
Councilman Cahill .............. Aye
Councilwoman Nguyen .... Aye
Councilwoman Wright ....... Aye
Motion carried .................. 5-0
***
Resolution No. 232: MOTION by Councilman Cahill, seconded by Councilwoman Nguyen, to
approve the bills as submitted in Warrant #0825 by the Director of Finance.
Fund
General (A,B) CL #2492-2727
Highway (C,D)
Sewer (G)
Library (L)
Drainage Districts (M)
Park Districts (P)
1
Inside
280,566.25
88,457.38
93,976.91
5,284.08
8,930.92
6,223.25
Outside
291,226.71
160,914.50
52,014.37
17,280.53
1,836.94
156.43
Card/ACH
1,829.19
23,157.02
2,750.55
625.17
0.00
0.00
Total
573,622.15
272,528.90
148,741.83
23,189.78
10,767.86
6,379.68
08-07-2025
Webster Town Board
Fund
Special Districts (N,Q,S)
Trust & Agency (T/A,N/SF,T/T, WEMS)
Capital Projects (H) #113-122
H229 Vosburg Pump Station
H231 WWTP Upgrade Phase II
H232 Highway Garage Building
H237 Coca-Cola/fairlife
H239 Shipbuilders Creek Rehab
TOTAL
Vote on motion:
Supervisor Flaherty ............ Aye
Councilman Cahill .............. Aye
Councilwoman Wright ....... Aye
Inside
0.00
0.00
Outside
3,473.12
252,864.35
20,994.39
5,545,081.32
33,233.29
500.00
2,100.00
6,085,347.79
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
779,766.95
Card/ACH
0.00
0.00
Total
3,473.12
252,864.35
0.00
20,994.39
0.00 5,545,081.32
0.00
33,233.29
0.00
500.00
0.00
2,100.00
28,361.93 6,893,476.67
Councilwoman Cataldi ..... Aye
Councilwoman Nguyen .... Aye
Motion carried .................. 5-0
***
Resolution No. 233: MOTION by Supervisor Flaherty, seconded by Councilwoman Cataldi, to
approve the prepaid vouchers included in Warrant #0825 by the Director of Finance in the
amount of $779,766.95. [Included in the summary of vouchers approved in Resolution #232]
Vote on motion:
Supervisor Flaherty ............ Aye
Councilwoman Cataldi ..... Aye
Councilman Cahill .............. Aye
Councilwoman Nguyen .... Aye
Councilwoman Wright ....... Aye
Motion carried .................. 5-0
***
Resolution No. 234: MOTION by Supervisor Flaherty, seconded by Councilwoman Wright, to
approve purchase orders as submitted by the Director of Finance.
Vote on motion:
Supervisor Flaherty ............ Aye
Councilwoman Cataldi ..... Aye
Councilman Cahill .............. Aye
Councilwoman Nguyen .... Aye
Councilwoman Wright ....... Aye
Motion carried .................. 5-0
***
Resolution No. 235: MOTION by Supervisor Flaherty, seconded by Councilwoman Nguyen, to
appoint Shelley LaRocca, Town of Ontario, as the School Tax Collector for the 2025-2026
School Year for the portion of properties in the Town of Webster located in the Wayne Central
School District.
Vote on motion:
Supervisor Flaherty ............ Aye
Councilwoman Cataldi .............. Aye
Councilman Cahill .............. Aye
Councilwoman Nguyen ............. Aye
Councilwoman Wright ....... Aye
Motion carried .......................... 5-0
***
Resolution No. 236: MOTION by Councilman Cahill, seconded by Councilwoman Wright, to
authorize the Town Supervisor to sign an Intermunicipal Agreement (IMA) with Monroe County
pertaining to proposed 500 feet of sidewalk on Lake Road from Bay Road to Sandbar Park.
2
08-07-2025
Webster Town Board
[Contract to be filed in Town Clerk’s Office]
Vote on motion:
Supervisor Flaherty ............ Aye
Councilwoman Cataldi .............. Aye
Councilman Cahill .............. Aye
Councilwoman Nguyen ............. Aye
Councilwoman Wright ....... Aye
Motion carried .......................... 5-0
***
Resolution No. 237: MOTION by Councilwoman Cataldi, seconded by Councilwoman
Nguyen, to authorize the Town Supervisor to sign a 5-year renewal Intermunicipal Agreement
(IMA) with Monroe County associated with the Town’s participation in the Irondequoit Bay
Coordinating and Technical Staff Committees. This agreement will be effective for the period of
October 1, 2025 through September 30, 2030, with the option to renew for one (1) additional 5year term.
[Contract to be filed in Town Clerk’s Office]
Vote on motion:
Supervisor Flaherty ............ Aye
Councilwoman Cataldi .............. Aye
Councilman Cahill .............. Aye
Councilwoman Nguyen ............. Aye
Councilwoman Wright ....... Aye
Motion carried .......................... 5-0
***
Resolution No. 238: MOTION by Councilwoman Cataldi, seconded by Councilman Cahill, to
authorize the Town Supervisor to award Kinsley Power a two-year service contract for
generators at the Sewer Department, Parks and Recreation, and Town Hall not to exceed the
amount of $13,109.00.
[Contract to be filed in Town Clerk’s Office]
Vote on motion:
Supervisor Flaherty ............ Aye
Councilwoman Cataldi .............. Aye
Councilman Cahill .............. Aye
Councilwoman Nguyen ............. Aye
Councilwoman Wright ....... Aye
Motion carried .......................... 5-0
***
Resolution No. 239: MOTION by Councilwoman Cataldi, seconded by Councilman Cahill, to
approve assets for recycling and auction, from the Police Department:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
3
Office Desk
Dell Monitor
Dell PC
Wedge Laptop
Tatung Monitor
Dell PC
Wooden Book Case
Pink Top Desk
Pink Top Desk
Wooden Computer Station
Asset Tag #01143
Asset Tag #01504
Asset Tag #01521
Asset Tag #01522
Asset Tag #01525
Asset Tag #01529
Asset Tag #02717
Asset Tag #02725
Asset Tag #02728
Asset Tag #02753
08-07-2025
Webster Town Board
• HP Printer 940C
• Desk w/Return
• Air Clean 600 Workstation
• Surveillance Kit
• Refrigerator
• Ultra Portable Projector
• Nikon Camera
• Nikon Camera
• Radio
• Radio
• Radio
• Radio
• Radio
• Radio
• Radio
• Radio
• Radio
• Bell Glides Stool
• Nikon Camera Coolpix 3100
• Remote Head/Siren/Speaker
• Desk, Chair & Cabinets
• Desk Chair
• Desk Chair
• Desk Chair
• Cannon Powershot Camera
• Intoxiclock DWI- Comm Services
• 2019 Ford Explorer
• 2016 Ford Taurus
Vote on motion:
Supervisor Flaherty ............ Aye
Councilman Cahill .............. Aye
Councilwoman Wright ....... Aye
Asset Tag #02767
Asset Tag #02768
Asset Tag #02857
Asset Tag #02860
Asset Tag #02861
Asset Tag #02998
Asset Tag #03569
Asset Tag #03570
Asset Tag #03679
Asset Tag #03683
Asset Tag #03684
Asset Tag #03685
Asset Tag #03686
Asset Tag #03687
Asset Tag #03688
Asset Tag #03689
Asset Tag #03690
Asset Tag #004073
Asset Tag #004122
Asset Tag #004530
Asset Tag #004552
Asset Tag #004553
Asset Tag #004554
Asset Tag #004555
Asset Tag #004639
Asset Tag #004644
Asset Tag #06583
Asset Tag #06563
• HP Printer
Vote on motion:
Supervisor Flaherty ............ Aye
Councilman Cahill .............. Aye
Councilwoman Wright ....... Aye
Asset Tag #3590
Councilwoman Cataldi .............. Aye
Councilwoman Nguyen ............. Aye
Motion carried ........................... 5-0
***
Resolution No. 240: MOTION by Councilman Cahill, seconded by Councilwoman Nguyen, to
approve the following items for recycling from the Finance Department:
Councilman Cataldi .......... Aye
Councilwoman Nguyen .... Aye
Motion carried .................. 5-0
***
4
08-07-2025
Webster Town Board
Before opening the “Open to the Floor” portion of the Town Board meeting, Supervisor Flaherty
provided information to the audience in attendance.
Supervisor Flaherty began by having packets distributed related to a proposed cell tower site and
emphasizes their importance, regardless of the outcome of the current meeting. He stressed that
even if the proposal is rejected, the materials may be useful for future reference as similar
proposals might arise. The packet includes visual data showing distances from the proposed site,
a summary of outreach efforts, and coverage maps submitted by Verizon showing current service
gaps and projected improvements if the tower is built.
Supervisor Flaherty described the communication efforts made with local residents, including
mailing information to over 300 homes and personally visiting nearly 200 to ensure everyone
was informed. Some areas were initially missed, but supervisor Flaherty corrected this by handdelivering letters and speaking directly with residents. The intent was to be as transparent and
proactive as possible after earlier criticism about inadequate communication.
Supervisor Flaherty addressed how the meeting will proceed, noting that 24 people have signed
up to speak, which could take up to two hours. He proposes a quicker solution if the proposal is
voted down, suggesting there may be no need for extended commentary. It’s revealed that
Verizon representatives left the meeting early, which supervisor Flaherty called unfortunate.
Supervisor Flaherty announced the below Resolution.
Resolution No. 241: MOTION by Supervisor Flaherty, seconded by Councilwoman Cataldi,
issuing a Negative Declaration pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act for the
proposed project at 1209 Creekside Trail, Town of Webster, State of New York.
WHEREAS, Bell Atlantic Mobile Systems of Allentown, Inc. d/b/a Verizon Wireless (“Verizon
Wireless”) proposes to construct and operate a wireless telecommunications facility on Town
property located at 1209 Creekside Trail, Town of Webster, Monroe County, New York, Tax
Map No. 065.05-1-47 (the “Site”); and
WHEREAS, in connection with the Project, the Town of Webster will lease a portion of the Site
to Verizon Wireless to be used for the purposes of constructing and operating a wireless
telecommunication facility; and
WHEREAS, representatives of Verizon Wireless previously met with Town officials to discuss
the Project; and
WHEREAS, the Town Board is fully familiar with the proposed location and the surrounding
area; and
WHEREAS, the Town Board has reviewed the Project, the Lease and all other materials
submitted in connection therewith; and
WHEREAS, the Project is an unlisted action under SEQRA and the Town Board is proceeding
with an uncoordinated review of the Project:
5
08-07-2025
Webster Town Board
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
Based upon the Town Board’s thorough and careful review of the Project, the Lease, and all
other materials submitted in connection therewith, the Town Board hereby determines that the
Project and the Lease will not result in any significant environmental impacts and hereby issues a
Negative Declaration pursuant to SEQRA.
REASONS SUPPORTING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
a. The Proposed Action will not have a significant adverse environmental impact as a result of
physical changes to the Site.
b. The Proposed Action will not have a significant adverse environmental impact on unique or
unusual land forms found on the Site. The installation of the Project will limit the amount of
tree removal, if any, to only that required to complete the installation of the Proposed Action.
c. The Proposed Action will not have a significant adverse environmental impact on any water
body designated as protected. All necessary erosion and sediment control measures will be
in place during construction. The Facility is unmanned and will not require any wastewater
disposal. No hazardous waste will be generated. Visits to the Facility will be rare,
approximately one to three times per year for each carrier. Therefore, there will be no
adverse impacts from the Facility on the critical environmental area. Moreover, the Facility
will not be located in any wetlands.
d. The Proposed Action will not have a significant adverse environmental impact on any nonprotected existing or new body of water.
e. The Proposed Action will not have a significant adverse environmental impact on surface or
groundwater quality or quantity. As noted above, all necessary erosion and sediment control
measures will be implemented. The area of disturbance will be minimal.
f. The Proposed Action will not have a significant adverse environmental impact as a result of
altered drainage flow or patterns, or surface water runoff.
g. The Proposed Action will not have a significant adverse environmental impact on air quality.
h. The Proposed Action will not have a significant adverse environmental impact on any
threatened or endangered species since none are located in the area of the proposed Facility.
i. The Proposed Action will not have a significant adverse environmental impact on nonthreatened or non-endangered species.
j. The Proposed Action will not have a significant adverse environmental impact on
agricultural land resources.
6
08-07-2025
Webster Town Board
k. The Proposed Action, especially as compared to any potential alternatives, will not have a
significant adverse environmental impact on aesthetic resources. The proposed Facility will
be a monopole, and only 135ʹ tall, and unlit.
l. The Proposed Action will not have a significant adverse environmental impact on any site or
structure of historic, prehistoric or paleontological importance.
m. The Proposed Action will not have a significant adverse environmental impact on the
quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities. The
disturbance will be minimal and is contained within a Town owned parcel on which a sewer
pump station currently operates.
n. The Proposed Action will not have a significant adverse environmental impact on the
quantity or quality of a critical environmental area (CEA) established pursuant to 6 NYCRR
Part 617.14(g).
o. The Proposed Action will not have a significant adverse environmental impact on existing
transportation systems.
p. The Proposed Action will not have a significant adverse environmental impact on the
community's sources of fuel or energy supply.
q. The Proposed Action will not have a significant adverse environmental impact as a result of
objectionable odors, noise, or vibration.
r. The Proposed Action will not have a significant adverse environmental impact on the public
health and safety. The Proposed Action will be designed to meet existing FCC guidelines for
radio frequency exposure in accordance with Federal law.
s. The Proposed Action will not have a significant adverse environmental impact on the
character of the existing community for the reasons described above, in relation to the
aesthetic impact and safety impact.
t. The Town Board has relied upon a thorough analysis and review of the Project, including by
its professional planning and engineering staff, and confirmed it requires compliance with
applicable structural requirements of the Building Code of New York State, and certain other
applicable local, state, and federal codes and regulations, and the Facility will so comply.
u. The Project is a public utility which must be located as and where necessary to provide
essential wireless telecommunications service.
v. No plant or animal life will be adversely affected by the Project.
w. The Project is in keeping with the official community plans and goals and will have no
adverse effects on land-use or the use of natural resources by or in the community.
7
08-07-2025
Webster Town Board
x. The Project will have no adverse impacts on the public health. The Town Board recognizes
that the Project will enable Verizon Wireless to provide reliable wireless telecommunications
service to the public, enabling individuals, businesses and emergency service providers
access to this essential service. The Project will promote the general health, safety and
welfare of the citizens of the Town by providing access to a modern, reliable system of
wireless telecommunications service.
y. Further, the Town Board finds that none of the criteria for determining significance set forth
in §617.7(c)(1)(i)-(xii) would be implicated as a result of this Project.
RESOLVED, the Town of Webster, by its Town Board, has determined that the Proposed
Action described below will not have a significant effect on the environment and that a Draft
Environmental Impact Statement will not be prepared; and
RESOLVED, that a Negative Declaration for the Project is hereby adopted as there are no
significant adverse environmental impacts.
Notice of this determination of non-significance shall be filed to the extent required by the
applicable regulations under SEQRA and as may be deemed advisable by the Town Board.
Vote on motion:
Supervisor Flaherty ............ Aye
Councilman Cataldi .......... Aye
Councilman Cahill .............. Nay
Councilwoman Nguyen .... Nay
Councilwoman Wright ....... Aye
Motion carried .................. 3-2
***
Resolution No. 242: MOTION by Supervisor Flaherty, seconded by Councilwoman Cataldi, to
authorize a Lease with Bell Atlantic Mobile Systems LLC, d/b/a Verizon Wireless.
WHEREAS, Bell Atlantic Mobile Systems LLC, d/b/a Verizon Wireless (“Verizon Wireless”)
has a gap in coverage to the residents living in and motorists traveling through the area
surrounding Town property located at 1209 Creekside Trail, Town of Webster, Monroe County,
New York, Tax Map No. 065.05-1-47 (the “Town Property”); and
WHEREAS, to remedy this gap in coverage, Verizon Wireless proposes to construct and operate
a wireless telecommunications facility (the “Facility”); and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the Code of the Town of Webster, the Town proposes to lease a
portion of the Town Property consisting of approximately 10,000 square feet, and associated
access and utility rights, to Verizon Wireless for the installation, operation, and maintenance of
Verizon Wireless’ telecommunications equipment (the “Project”) for an initial term of five (5)
years with four (4) five (5) year automatic renewals, at an initial annual rent of $20,400 with 2%
annual increases, and such other terms and conditions as set forth in the Lease Agreement (the
“Lease”); and
WHEREAS, the portion of the Town Property to be leased to Verizon Wireless is not needed for
Town purposes; and
WHEREAS, the Town Board has determined that the rent to be paid by Verizon Wireless is fair
and adequate; and
8
08-07-2025
Webster Town Board
WHEREAS, a Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Webster Herald on May 21, 2025,
and posted on the Town’s website and on the Town Clerk’s Bulletin Board at 1000 Ridge Road,
Webster NY; and
WHEREAS, the Public Hearing to consider the proposed Lease was held by the Town Board on
June 5, 2025, and all interested persons having had an opportunity to be heard at the Public
Hearing; and
WHEREAS, this resolution shall be adopted subject to a permissive referendum, in accordance
with Town Law § 64(2):
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
1. That the notice of hearing was published and posted as required by law, and it was otherwise
sufficient.
2. That the Board hereby authorizes the Town Supervisor to enter into the Lease with Verizon
Wireless on the material terms set forth above and having such other terms and conditions as
agreed upon by the Town and Verizon Wireless.
3. That the Town Clerk is authorized and directed to publish notice of such Resolution
approving the Lease within ten (10) days from the date hereof stating that such Resolution
was adopted subject to a permissive referendum in accordance with Town Law §§ 64(2)
and 90, and such Resolution shall take effect thirty (30) days after its adoption, provided that
no petition for a permissive referendum meeting the requirements set forth in Town Law § 91
has been filed within such 30-day period.
Vote on motion:
Supervisor Flaherty ............ Aye
Councilman Cataldi .......... Aye
Councilman Cahill .............. Nay
Councilwoman Nguyen .... Nay
Councilwoman Wright ....... Nay
Motion denied .................. 2-3
***
Supervisor Flaherty confirms that the proposed cell tower at the Town-owned 1209 Creekside
Trail site is officially off the table. However, he cautioned attendees that this does not mean the
issue is resolved permanently. Verizon is expected to seek a nearby private property to place the
tower, as the area has confirmed low coverage and capacity. Due to FCC requirements, Verizon
is obligated to address service gaps, making it likely that a similar proposal will return within a
couple of months. The audience is advised to hold on to the informational packets for future
reference.
Before opening the floor to public comments, Councilman Cahill checked on the legal
sufficiency of the earlier SEQR negative declaration. It’s clarified that, while the declaration
applied to the now-rejected lease, it remains relevant for the record. Supervisor Flaherty
emphasized that the key point is this: the tower will not be built at the proposed original 1209
Creekside Trail location.
The meeting was open to the floor for public comment.
9
08-07-2025
Webster Town Board
George Sharlow, a Webster resident, shared his personal struggles with poor cell phone
reception over the past 30 years. Living near Mill Creek, Mr. Sharlow described consistently
weak signals despite using signal boosters, often having to stand in a specific window just to
hold a conversation. Mr. Sharlow explained how this issue affects both his personal life and
occupation, which relies heavily on phone communication. He expressed excitement about the
potential improvement a cell tower could bring and is concerned that rejecting the current
proposal will delay a badly needed solution for their area.
Mr. Sharlow urged others to consider those who have lived with unreliable service for decades,
pointing out that many people in the community may take their strong signal for granted. Mr.
Sharlow worries that wherever a new site is proposed, it may also face opposition, further
delaying improvements. While he acknowledged that the 1209 Creekside Trail location is no
longer an option, he asks decision-makers and the public not to forget about households like his
where basic connectivity is still a daily challenge.
Supervisor Flaherty noted that out of 23 people signed up to speak, 12 are from Providence and
Thyme—areas with newer housing developments that were clear-cut before construction, leaving
no trees or barriers to interfere with cell signals. As a result, residents there generally have
strong cell coverage, especially due to their higher elevation and proximity to Route
250. In
contrast, the majority of the surrounding neighborhood—older developments with dense trees—
suffers from poor reception. Supervisor Flaherty emphasized that while Providence and Thyme
residents may not experience cell issues, roughly 80% of the area's households still struggle with
unreliable service.
Janice Rivenberg, a Webster resident, expressed gratitude to the Board and shared her personal
experience with cell service. Despite living in a wooded area shown as a low-coverage zone on
the map, she hasn’t experienced dropped calls since upgrading her phone years ago. She also
emphasized the value of having a reliable landline, recommending an affordable alternative
called Oma, which she uses as a backup. Janice voiced concerns about the potential health risks
of 5G towers and urged people to consider safer, cost-effective options instead of supporting new
tower installations.
Rick Storace, a long-time Webster resident, raised several concerns about the proposed cell
tower near his home on Providence Drive. He emphasized the potential health risks of prolonged
exposure to radiation emitted by modern cell towers, citing studies that linked RF exposure to
headaches, sleep deprivation, DNA damage, cancer risks, and effects on fertility and fetal
development. He pointed out that the FCC safety guidelines were outdated, having been
established in 1996, and argued that today’s towers emit significantly stronger signals. Mr.
Storace, with over 40 years of experience in the electronics industry, supported the American
Academy of Pediatrics’ call for updated wireless safety regulations. He also offered printed
studies to the Board to back his concerns.
10
08-07-2025
Webster Town Board
In addition to health risks, Mr. Storace discussed the negative impact cell towers could have on
property values, referencing studies showing home value reductions of up to 7.5% for properties
located within 500 to 4,500 feet of a tower. He stated that no one wants to see a cell tower from
their window, especially in a scenic town like Webster, which prides itself on its natural beauty.
Although he acknowledged that the specific proposed location had been ruled out, he urged the
Board to protect residents from future tower proposals and prioritize long-term community
wellbeing. He closed by reminding the Board of Webster’s slogan, “Where life is worth living”,
and encouraged them to preserve that ideal.
Tom Rutalis, a webster resident, stated that this was his first time seeing the visual layouts
showing cell tower coverage gaps. He referenced the Town Supervisor's corner article, which
noted that the tower planning process began in January 2022 and that the now-rejected site had
been under consideration for 18 to 24 months. During a recent conversation with the Supervisor,
Mr. Rutalis expressed concern that rejecting the proposed site might result in the tower being
relocated to privately owned land, potentially with more visibility to residents. He inquired
about which private properties were being considered, prompting the Supervisor to respond that
while exact parcels were unknown, public data showed several three to five acre properties in the
necessary area that could be viable options if owners agreed to lease them.
The Supervisor explained that any of these private locations would fall within a specific area
shown in the handout and that, unlike the rejected Town-owned site with large trees and ample
space, private parcels were likely to be smaller and more visible. He speculated that the final
location might be more intrusive for residents and clarified that the decision would likely fall to a
future Town Board, as his term would end in December. Supervisor Flaherty emphasized that
unless Verizon secured a lease within the next month, any new proposal would go through the
same Planning Board process, including Public Hearings, with some procedural differences for
private property applications.
Dr. Genevive Johnson Stuber, a Webster resident, expressed her concerns about the
transparency and accessibility of information related to the proposed cell tower. She emphasized
the need for thorough environmental impact studies for any future tower locations, particularly
regarding the potential damage to trees and land. Dr. Stuber stated that she had difficulty finding
clear information about the proposal and wanted the public to have access to details such as
alternative sites, pros and cons, arguments for and against, and whether proper studies had been
conducted. She believed that making such information available online would help residents feel
more involved in the decision-making process and reduce tension between the community, the
Board and Verizon.
In addition to transparency concerns, Dr. Stuber shared her personal struggles with poor cell
reception at her home despite having good phones and Wi-Fi. As a physician who often takes
calls from patients, she found it problematic to have to step outside for privacy. While she
acknowledged that alternatives like landlines exist, she argued they were outdated. She
concluded that a cell tower would likely be built eventually, but urged the community and
decision-makers to work together to select a site that minimizes environmental and residential
impact while allowing people to feel informed and included, rather than blindsided by sudden
developments.
11
08-07-2025
Webster Town Board
Supervisor Flaherty explained that the process surrounding the proposed cell tower site unfolded
over a period of two months, from the Public Hearing on June 5th to the decision on August 7th.
During this time, community members actively participated, and Supervisor Flaherty emphasized
that the system of local government had worked effectively. They acknowledged earlier
communication gaps and took responsibility for them, noting that after hearing residents express
frustration on July 3rd about being uninformed, a new round of letters was sent on July 11th.
When they realized some streets had been missed Supervisor Flaherty personally delivered the
letters to ensure those residents were included in the process.
Supervisor Flaherty stressed that this kind of community engagement and direct outreach
demonstrated how government could be responsive and functional. Supervisor Flaherty also
mentioned visiting 199 homes to gather feedback, although he chose not to elaborate on the
content of those conversations. Ultimately, Supervisor Flaherty highlighted that the decision
came down to a five-member vote and that regardless of individual opinions, the vote determined
the outcome. Looking ahead, they noted that future proposals involving private property would
involve different procedures and considerations than those for publicly owned land.
Kristin Feese, a Webster resident, expressed her deep concerns regarding the proposed Verizon
cell tower near her home. As a mother, nurse practitioner, and community member, she
highlighted both health and environmental risks associated with placing a tower in close
proximity to residential areas. Drawing on her professional background, she pointed out that
FCC safety guidelines were outdated and failed to address long-term biological impacts of radio
frequency radiation. She cited scientific studies and recommendations from organizations like
the American Academy of Pediatrics to stress the heightened vulnerability of children to
radiation exposure.
Ms. Feese also raised serious environmental concerns, emphasizing that the proposed location
was within protected wetlands and an EPOD (Environmental Protection Overlay District) zone.
She warned that the tower’s construction and operation would permanently damage ecosystems
and introduce noise and light pollution. She criticized the tower’s placement in a low-priority
residential zone, contrary to the Town’s own communications code, which ranked collocation
and industrial zones as higher priority sites. She questioned how the project progressed so far
over three years with limited public awareness and input.
Finally, Ms. Feese spoke about the personal impact the tower would have on her family and
neighborhood. She described the area as a peaceful, nature-filled community where her daughter
and other children played daily. She argued that approving the tower would set a dangerous
precedent for other neighborhoods and urged the Board to prioritize public welfare over
corporate interests. She thanked the Board for reconsidering the project and implored them to
pause and reevaluate the long-term consequences before allowing irreversible changes to the
community’s character.
12
08-07-2025
Webster Town Board
Justin Jenner, a Webster resident, thanked everyone for coming out and supporting the
community effort. He mentioned meeting new people, including Kristen and her family, and
acknowledged the positive outcomes from the gathering. Although he had prepared a speech, he
chose not to deliver it fully. Mr. Jenner recognized that some residents on Imperial Drive still
faced cell reception issues but emphasized that there were alternatives like landlines. He
expressed concern about the proposed cell tower, noting that no concrete evidence existed
proving its safety for prolonged exposure, and stated that anyone claiming otherwise was
incorrect.
Mr. Jenner acknowledged the challenges posed by FCC regulations and local laws but vowed
that the community would continue to fight stronger in the future, even if it meant appealing to
Congress. He emphasized his role as a father protecting his children’s welfare and urged the
Board members to remember their responsibility in safeguarding the community's children. Mr.
Jenner made it clear that the law should protect children, and he hoped that decision-makers
would keep this privilege in mind as they considered the future.
Dave Remington, a Webster resident, recalled attending the first meeting where fewer than ten
people were present. He appreciated that Supervisor Flaherty had helped spread the word, which
led to increasing attendance at subsequent meetings—20 people at the second meeting, a full
crowd at the third, and many more showing up at the latest one, though some were away on
vacation. Mr. Remington acknowledged that the issue was not going away, mentioning a nearby
property owner with about seven acres who Verizon would likely approach for a cell tower site.
Mr. Remington expressed his belief that newer technologies, such as satellites used by TMobile’s Starlink, could eliminate the need for a cell tower, and he believed Verizon could adopt
similar solutions. He thanked the Board for turning down the initial proposal and hoped they
would also reject any future plans. Mr. Remington encouraged continued community
involvement and urged everyone to keep fighting against the cell tower construction to protect
the neighborhood.
Kevin Lockart, a Village of Webster resident, questioned the purpose of the Environmental
Protection Overlay District (EPOD) in the Town Code. He wondered why, if one side had to
concede, it would have to be the residents rather than the Verizon cell tower developers. He
challenged why the developers should be allowed to build in the Environmental Protection
Overlay District while the residents were expected to give in because of the location.
Teresea Zawacki-Chapman, a Webster resident, thanked the Board for coming together with
them and hearing their concerns. She sincerely hoped that the Board would continue to support
them and other residents who might come forward with concerns about other proposed sites near
the area. She also asked the Supervisor if he could answer Kevin’s question stated above.
13
08-07-2025
Webster Town Board
Supervisor Flaherty explained that the Environmental Protection Overlay District (EPOD) maps
were from the 1970’s and were outdated, with uncertain integrity. Development was not outright
prohibited in EPOD districts, and there had been significant development in those areas over the
past 45 years, though it was unclear if enough care had been taken to protect the natural
environment. The Town was currently working on updating the EPOD maps for 2025 to ensure
better protection, as the old maps had many flaws, including allowing developments like a sewer
pump station in protected zones. The Planning Board was responsible for closely reviewing any
development proposals in EPOD districts, paying careful attention to wetlands and trees.
Supervisor Flaherty also addressed concerns about potential cell tower locations on private
property nearby, noting that while it might seem logical for Verizon to negotiate with a private
landowner who had a large property, the landowner’s motivations were unpredictable. Some
financially secure owners might reject such proposals, while others might accept the financial
benefits. Overall, the situation remained uncertain regarding where a cell tower would
ultimately be placed.
***
There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at
8:15 p.m.
____________________________________
Danene M. Marr, Town Clerk
14
08-07-2025