Webster Town Board
July 3, 2025
A regular meeting of the Webster Town Board was called to order by Supervisor Flaherty at
7:30 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 .................................................................... John DeMarco
Town Clerk .................................................................................. Danene M. Marr
Department Heads Present:
Finance Director ..................................................................................Paul Adams
Town Engineer .............................................................................. Keith Mortimer
Parks and Recreation Director .............................................................Chris Bilow
Also in attendance was Maria Dewar, Administrative Assistant for the Director of Community
Planning and Development.
***
Supervisor Flaherty led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
***
Supervisor Flaherty discussed the Town of Webster’s grant strategy and the challenges involved
in applying for state funding. He highlighted that Webster’s relative affluence often disqualifies
the Town from many grants geared toward lower-income communities. Initially, the Town
planned to apply only for a grant to fund the engineering and design for Phases 2 and 3 of
Sandbar Park, following strategic advice from their grant consultant, Jean O'Connell Associates.
However, after receiving an unprecedented $20 million grant for the Town’s Wastewater Plant in
2024 — which now affects their eligibility for future grants — the Town had to reconsider its
broader funding strategy. As other departments raised new needs (e.g., a salt barn washing
station and sewer pump repairs), the number of potential grant applications grew from one to six.
Supervisor Flaherty stressed that applying for too many grants from the same funding pool can
hurt their chances due to internal competition. Supervisor Flaherty urges thoughtful decisionmaking by the Town Board on which grants to pursue, noting that while it may seem simple to
just vote, the strategy is complex and has long-term implications.
Resolution No. 201: MOTION by Supervisor Flaherty, seconded by Councilwoman Cataldi, to
authorize the submission for the 2025 New York State Department of State Consolidated
Funding Application (CFA) grant for the 2025-2026 Environmental Protection Fund Local
Waterfront Revitalization (LWRP).
WHEREAS, the Town of Webster has identified a project that meets the criteria for funding
under LWRP; and
WHEREAS, the Town of Webster intends to complete Phase 2 and 3 planning, design, and
1
07-03-2025
Webster Town Board
permitting for the Sandbar Park Environmental Education Area at 302 Lake Road Webster, NY
14580, identified and described within the Webster Local Waterfront Revitalization Program
document; and
WHEREAS, the Town of Webster will apply for funding in an amount up to Three Hundred
Fifty Thousand, Four Hundred Fifty-Nine dollars ($350,459.00); and
WHEREAS, the Town of Webster authorizes a local match of 25% of total eligible project costs,
from the Town of Webster General Town-wide fund.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that J. O’Connell and Associates, Inc., the Town’s grant
consultants, be authorized and directed to prepare an application for NYS DOS grant funds; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Supervisor hereby is authorized and directed to execute
any and all documents pertaining to the application and acquisition of said funding.
Vote on motion:
Supervisor Flaherty ............ Aye
Councilwoman Cataldi ..... Aye
Councilman Cahill .............. Aye
Councilwoman Nguyen .... Aye
Councilwoman Wright ....... Aye
Motion carried .................. 5-0
***
Resolution No. 202: MOTION by Supervisor Flaherty, seconded by Councilwoman Wright, to
authorize the submission for the grant funding under New York State Department of State (NYS
DOS) 2025-2026 non-agricultural nonpoint source planning and MS4 Mapping Grant (NPG).
WHEREAS, the Town of Webster has identified a project that meets the criteria for funding
under NPG; and
WHEREAS, the Town of Webster intends to complete Geographical Information Systems (GIS)
Mapping and Database Expansion; and
WHEREAS, the Town of Webster will apply for funding in an amount of to $75,000.00
(Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars); and
WHEREAS, the Town of Webster authorizes a local match of 10% of total eligible project costs,
up to $7,500.00, from the Town of Webster General Budget Fund:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That Town Staff be authorized and directed to
prepare an application for NYS DOS grant funds.
That the Supervisor hereby is authorized and directed to
execute any and all documents pertaining to the application and acquisition of said funding.
Vote on motion:
Supervisor Flaherty ............ Aye
Councilwoman Cataldi ..... Aye
Councilman Cahill .............. Aye
Councilwoman Nguyen .... Aye
Councilwoman Wright ....... Aye
Motion carried .................. 5-0
***
Resolution No. 203: MOTION by Supervisor Flaherty, seconded by Councilwoman Wright, to
authorize the Town of Webster as a co-applicant for funds pursuant to General Municipal Law
2
07-03-2025
Webster Town Board
Section 970-r.
WHEREAS, the Village of Webster, Monroe County, New York, herein called the "Applicant",
and the Town of Webster as co-applicant, after thorough consideration, have hereby determined
that certain work, as described in its application and attachments, herein called the "Project", is
desirable; and
WHEREAS, §970-r of the General Municipal Law authorizes State assistance to eligible parties
for Brownfield Opportunity Areas Program grants by means of a State Assistance Contract
("Contract"); and
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Webster deems it to be in the public interest and
benefit to enter into a contract therewith:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
1. Darrell Byerts, Mayor of the Village of Webster, is the representative authorized to act on
behalf of all applicants in all matters related to State assistance under §970-r of the General
Municipal Law for the Project. The representative is also authorized to: sign and submit the
application; execute the contract; request payment advances and reimbursements; redistribute
contract reimbursements as appropriate; submit Project documentation; and otherwise act for
all applicants in all matters related to the Project and to State assistance.
2. That the Applicant and co-applicant intend to complete Pre-development Activities to
advance development of the following projects identified and described within the
Reimagine Webster Brownfield Opportunity Area (BOA) Nomination Study:
A. Design of improvements for Commercial Street and Donovan Street in the Village of
Webster, to include the southern extension of Panama Road (Project "a").
B. Program refinement and schematic design of improvements to the Town Recreation
Complex, to include a public amphitheater, shelter structure with restrooms, realigned entry
drive, and additional parking (Project "b"), this being the portion of the Project affecting
Town lands, and the sole portion of the entire Project being funded in part by the Town of
Webster.
3. That the Applicant requests funds in the amount of $268,200.00 for Project "a" above,
representing no more than 90% of the total Project cost, and $75,600.00 for Project "b"
above, representing no more than 90% of the total Project cost; for a total funding request of
$343,800.00.
4. That the Board of Trustees of the Village of Webster has agreed or will agree that the Village
of Webster will fund the Applicant's 10% share of Project “a”, totaling $29,800, and that the
Town of Webster, as co-applicant, agrees that it will fund its co-applicant's 10% share of
Project “b”, totaling $8,400.
5. That this Authorization takes effect immediately.
Vote on motion:
3
07-03-2025
Webster Town Board
Supervisor Flaherty ............ Aye
Councilman Cahill .............. Aye
Councilwoman Wright……Aye
Councilwoman Cataldi ..... Aye
Councilwoman Nguyen .... Aye
Motion carried .................. 5-0
***
Resolution No. 204: MOTION by Councilwoman Cataldi, seconded by Councilman Cahill, to
authorize the submission for the 2025 New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation Water Quality Improvement Project grant application for the Vosburg Pump
Station project.
WHEREAS, the Town Board for the Town of Webster, located in Monroe County, supports the
submission of a 2025 Water Quality Improvement Program application through the NYS
Consolidated Funding Application on behalf of the Town for the improvements to the Vosburg
Pump Station; and
WHEREAS, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) provides a
competitive statewide reimbursement grant program for local governments, administered to
directly address documented water quality impairments; and
WHEREAS, an Engineering Report entitled Town of Webster, New York Vosburg Pump Station
Improvements, recommends implementing the Project to help improve water quality and protect
public health:
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: The Town of Webster Town Board identifies the
Town Supervisor as the authorized representative of the Town to execute necessary documents
relative to and as required for the grant application.
The Town Board does hereby accept that they shall provide
at least 25% match of the total of any grant funding awarded, as a local match are hereby
appropriated in the form of in-kind services, cash contributions and obligated from the sewer
fund or in accordance with the Bond Resolution.
That the Town Board for the Town of Webster recognizes
and fully supports the submission of the 2025 WQIP application through the CFA by MRB
Group, on behalf of the Town, to improve water quality and protect public health.
Vote on motion:
Supervisor Flaherty ............ Nay
Councilwoman Cataldi ..... Aye
Councilman Cahill .............. Aye
Councilwoman Nguyen .... Aye
Councilwoman Wright……Aye
Motion carried .................. 4-1
***
Resolution No. 205: MOTION by Councilwoman Cataldi, seconded by Councilman Cahill, to
authorize the submission for the 2025 New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation grant application for the 2025-Water Quality Improvement Project (WQIP).
WHEREAS, the Town of Webster has identified a project that meets the criteria for funding
under WQIP; and
WHEREAS, the Town of Webster intends to replace the Town’s existing salt storage structure at
4
07-03-2025
Webster Town Board
1005 Picture Parkway; and
WHEREAS, the Town of Webster will apply for funding in an amount up to $600,000.00 (Six
Hundred Thousand Dollars); and
WHEREAS, the Town of Webster authorizes a local match of 25% of total eligible project costs,
up to $150,000.00 (One Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars), from the Town of Webster General
Town-wide Fund:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That J. O’Connell and Associates, Inc., the
Town’s grant consultants, be authorized and directed to prepare an application for NYS DEC
grant funds.
That the Supervisor hereby is authorized and directed to
execute any and all documents pertaining to the application and acquisition of said funding.
Vote on motion:
Supervisor Flaherty ............ Nay
Councilman Cahill .............. Aye
Councilwoman Wright……Nay
Councilwoman Cataldi ..... Aye
Councilwoman Nguyen .... Aye
Motion carried .................. 3-2
***
Resolution No. 206: MOTION by Councilwoman Cataldi, seconded by Councilwoman
Nguyen, to authorize the Town to submit a Water Quality Improvement Project grant application
to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation for the East Branch
Shipbuilders Creek Restoration Project. The Town is requesting $924,320.00 of grant funding
for the $1,155,400.00 project.
Vote on motion:
Supervisor Flaherty ............ Nay
Councilwoman Cataldi ..... Aye
Councilman Cahill .............. Nay
Councilwoman Nguyen .... Aye
Councilwoman Wright……Nay
Motion denied ................. 2-3
***
Resolution No. 207: MOTION by Supervisor Flaherty, seconded by Councilman Cahill, to
approve the June 18, 2025 Town Board Minutes completed by the Deputy Town Clerk and
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. 208: MOTION by Councilwoman Nguyen, seconded by Councilman Cahill, to
approve the bills as submitted in Warrant #0725 by the Director of Finance.
Fund
General (A,B) CL #2102-2283
Highway (C,D)
5
Inside
231,641.82
62,224.68
Outside
500,948.48
138,121.65
Card/ACH
2,882.75
3,454.74
Total
735,473.05
203,801.07
07-03-2025
Webster Town Board
Sewer (G)
Library (L)
Drainage Districts (M)
Park Districts (P)
Water Districts (R/SW)
Special Districts (N,Q,S)
Trust & Agency (T/A,N/SF,T/T, WEMS)
Capital Projects (H) #105-111
H231 WWTP Upgrade Phase II
H232 Highway Garage Building
H239 Shipbuilders Creek Rehab
TOTAL
Vote on motion:
Supervisor Flaherty ............ Aye
Councilman Cahill .............. Aye
Councilwoman Wright ....... Aye
31,773.04
6,378.65
10,306.46
3,991.00
0.00
7,785.90
0.00
309,521.98
16,935.61
1,836.94
0.00
26,359.38
0.00
411,871.14
3,473,683.28
5,879.77
5,515.00
3,839,179.60
575.03
0.00
0.00
1,406,170.21
26,601.34
958.48
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
367,896.36
24,272.74
12,143.40
3,991.00
26,359.38
7,785.90
411,871.14
0.00 3,474,258.31
0.00
5,879.77
0.00
5,515.00
33,897.31 5,279,247.12
Councilwoman Cataldi ..... Aye
Councilwoman Nguyen .... Aye
Motion carried .................. 5-0
***
Resolution No. 209: MOTION by Supervisor Flaherty, seconded by Councilwoman Nguyen, to
approve the prepaid vouchers included in Warrant #0725 by the Director of Finance in the
amount of $1,406,170.21. [Included in the summary of vouchers approved in Resolution #208]
Vote on motion:
Supervisor Flaherty ............ Aye
Councilwoman Cataldi ..... Aye
Councilman Cahill .............. Aye
Councilwoman Nguyen .... Aye
Councilwoman Wright ....... Aye
Motion carried .................. 5-0
***
Resolution No. 210: 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. 211: MOTION by Supervisor Flaherty, seconded by Councilman Cahill, to
authorize the Town Supervisor to sign a renewal agreement with Monroe County Department of
Transportation to maintain a traffic signal device located at the intersection of Hard Road and
Publisher’s Parkway.
[Contract to be filed in Town Clerk’s Office]
Vote on motion:
Supervisor Flaherty ............ Aye
Councilwoman Cataldi .............. Aye
6
07-03-2025
Webster Town Board
Councilman Cahill .............. Aye
Councilwoman Wright ....... Aye
Councilwoman Nguyen ............. Aye
Motion carried .......................... 5-0
***
Both Supervisor Flaherty and Councilman Cahill presented the following Resolution. Supervisor
Flaherty discussed the upcoming approval process involving Penfield Volunteer Ambulance
(PVA), a 501(c)(3) nonprofit. If approved, it will allow collaboration between the Towns of
Penfield and Webster to establish consistent budgeting metrics for funding PVA. Currently,
Webster contributes $100,000 and Penfield $200,000 annually. However, with combined
services and economies of scale, there's hope PVA may become financially self-sustaining
within a year or two—eliminating the need for town subsidies. This would benefit both towns'
residents financially. Councilman Cahill credits Penfield for expanding coverage and integrating
employees from the previous EMS provider while maintaining strong service.
Resolution No. 212 MOTION by Councilman Cahill, seconded by Councilwoman Nguyen, to
authorize the Town Supervisor to sign a five-year contract with Penfield Volunteer Ambulance
on Emergency Medical Services (EMS) for the Town of Webster.
[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
***
The meeting was open to the floor for public comment.
Kevin Lockart, a Village of Webster resident, addressed the Town Board to express concerns
about the legality and transparency of the Town’s Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee. He
began by acknowledging his appreciation for living in Webster and his unique position as a dual
Village and Town resident. Mr. Lockhart referenced a letter published in the Webster Herald
that questioned the legitimacy of the Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee, noting that under
New York State Town Law 272A, such a committee must be formally established by a Town
Board Resolution. Despite the committee already meeting and working with Colliers
Engineering, which was contracted to help update the Town’s comprehensive plan, no such
Resolution has been passed to authorize the committee’s formation.
Mr. Lockhart detailed the timeline of events, including the Request for Proposal (RFP) issued in
late 2024 and the selection of Colliers Engineering, and emphasized that both the RFP and
contract require the existence of a lawfully established Steering Committee. He criticized the
Town for proceeding without this formal step and stated that he had been excluded from
participating in the process, despite his best efforts. Mr. Lockhart concluded by urging the Board
to immediately legitimize the Steering Committee through a formal Resolution and warned that
failure to comply with legal procedures would result in him pursuing an Article 78 proceeding in
court to seek judicial review.
Dave Malecki, a West Webster resident, addressed the Town Board, initially expressing
disappointment that a previous message he shared—referred to as the “Bridge It 24/7/365”
message—was not included in the official meeting minutes. He clarified that his frustration was
not directed solely at the Town Clerk, but at the Board collectively for omitting what he believed
7
07-03-2025
Webster Town Board
was an important contribution. While acknowledging that some members may have heard the
message, he emphasized its absence from the record as unfair.
Shifting topics, Mr. Malecki spoke about the societal reliance on cell phones, comparing their
importance to even driving. He highlighted his personal choice to walk or bike rather than use
his cars, which led into his main concern: the difficulty of crossing the Irondequoit Bay Outlet
without a vehicle. He urged the Board to allocate funds in the next Town budget to support
active transportation infrastructure and expressed his commitment to staying engaged by
attending future meetings.
Supervisor Flaherty, began the next portion of the Open to Floor, by recapping the recent
history surrounding the proposed cell tower at Creekside Trail. A Public Hearing was held on
June 5, 2025, properly noticed and advertised, where a small group of residents voiced
opposition to the tower. Before that Public Hearing, a workshop presentation by Verizon
representatives was held on June 5, 2025, to address community concerns and correct
misconceptions. Despite this, a flyer opposing the tower was later distributed to homes in the
area, containing claims that had already been debunked during the meeting. This prompted
renewed communication with the Supervisor's office, both supporting and opposing the project.
In response, the Town provided links to the relevant workshop video and meeting minutes to
help residents better understand the facts.
Supervisor Flaherty emphasized that the proposed tower is to be built on municipal land, which
affects how the approval process can proceed. Unlike previous projects that had to go through
multiple Boards, this project qualifies under the “Monroe Balancing Test”, which allows the
Town Board to handle the entire process internally, potentially bypassing the Planning and
Zoning Boards. This legal pathway is influenced by federal telecommunications law,
particularly the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) authority under the
Telecommunications Act, which limits how much a municipality can restrict such infrastructure.
The speaker noted that drawing out the approval process could mislead residents, as even if local
opposition prevails, the FCC may ultimately overrule the Town’s decision in favor of the tower
due to federal preemption.
Finally, Supervisor Flaherty acknowledged residents' frustration and clarified the Board’s
intentions. While they have several options—including approving the project tonight, deferring it
to another meeting, or sending it through the Planning and Zoning process, they must weigh
those choices against legal realities. He acknowledged the appearance of inevitability, which
understandably upsets residents, but maintained that he was trying to prevent a lengthy,
emotionally draining process that may end in the same result. The Town Board must now decide
whether to act immediately under the Monroe Balancing Test or allow a longer review involving
other Boards, knowing the final decision may still fall under federal control.
Laure Barr, a Webster resident residing within the proposed area for the Creekside Trail cell
tower, voiced opposition to the 100-foot cell tower being placed near her tightly knit residential
neighborhood. While she acknowledged the need for improved cell service, she argued that the
chosen location would negatively impact the area’s peaceful character, aesthetics, and property
values. She emphasized the community-oriented nature of the neighborhood, which hosts events
like food drives and Halloween gatherings, and questioned why a more suitable, non-residential
alternative—such as nearby Village-owned land on Wall Road—had not been considered. Ms.
8
07-03-2025
Webster Town Board
Barr urged the Town Board to reconsider the proposal in order to preserve the quality of life for
residents.
Teresa Zawacki-Chapman, a Webster resident residing within the proposed area for the
Creekside Trail cell tower, expressed strong opposition to the proposed cell tower near her
neighborhood, emphasizing that she speaks not only for herself but for a growing number of
concerned residents. She highlighted potential negative impacts such as decreased property
values, environmental disruption, ongoing maintenance noise, and unknown long-term health
risks—particularly given the tower’s proximity to homes and schools. Ms. Zawacki-Chapman
criticized the Town’s lack of transparency, noting that many neighbors learned of the proposal
only through chance or word-of-mouth, despite the significant implications for families living
nearby. She questioned whether Town Board members would accept a 100-foot industrial tower
in their own backyards and stressed that affected residents deserve early, direct communication
and inclusion in the decision-making process.
Ms. Zawacki-Chapman further urged the Board to slow down and reconsider the plan, pointing
out that while the community is not against improved cell service, it objects to the poor siting of
the tower. She mentioned alternative locations, such as the Village Water Treatment Plant on
Wall Road, which would be less disruptive to residential areas. Citing nearby elementary
schools and the presence of wildlife, she called for careful planning grounded in community
safety, environmental stewardship, and responsible governance. Her closing message was a plea
for smart, considerate action that balances technological needs with the well-being of local
families.
Nathaniel Chapman, came before the Town Board and stated the following; “Hi, I'm Nathaniel
Chapman. I am in first grade at Klem North. This phone tower is going to be in my backyard
and my friends play in my backyard. Please do not approve this because it is where I go fishing
with my dad and walking my dog Zeke.”
Christine Remington, a Webster resident residing within the proposed area for the Creekside
Trail cell tower, expressed deep concern about the proposed 100-foot cell tower being placed in
her neighborhood. She emphasized that such a large industrial structure would be an eyesore in
a peaceful, wooded, family-oriented community, and questioned whether any Board Member
would tolerate it near their own homes. Ms. Remington voiced frustration that despite public
notices and a posted sign, communication about the project was inadequate, leaving many
neighbors unaware unless they actively searched the Town website. She appreciated that at least
one Board member visited the site but stressed that broader outreach should have occurred.
Ms. Remington raised questions about the fairness of the Town, potentially profiting from lease
revenue while homeowners could face property devaluation. She expressed skepticism about
health and safety assurances provided by Verizon’s Radio Frequency Engineer, particularly
regarding radiation levels and long-term effects. She reiterated concerns about the lack of
transparency, the detrimental impact on property values, neighborhood aesthetics, and
environmental risks. Ms. Remington concluded by urging the Board to consider these serious
community concerns before moving forward with the project, asking whether their voices truly
matter in the decision-making process.
9
07-03-2025
Webster Town Board
Dave Remington, a Webster resident residing within the proposed area for the Creekside Trail
cell tower, voiced concerns about the proposed cell tower, especially regarding its potential
health risks. He challenged the claim that Verizon had "debunked" safety concerns, asserting
that there are not enough studies to make such a conclusion. Mr. Remington referenced a recent
report by “Make America Healthy Again”, which he said was the first official acknowledgment
by the U.S. Executive Branch that electromagnetic fields (EMFs) may pose health risks—even
below FCC exposure limits. He also cited a recent decision in Maryland where a cell tower was
rejected due to visual and environmental concerns, quoting a Board Member who emphasized
not making long-term environmental changes for short-term technological needs.
Mr. Remington further commented that rapid advancements in technology, such as satellitebased systems, could soon render cell towers obsolete, making such permanent structures
unnecessary and potentially harmful in the long run. He noted that the proposed timing of the
meeting—on July 3rd,2025 during a holiday week—may have limited community turnout,
suggesting that more residents would have shown up to oppose the tower if the meeting were
held at a different time. Mr. Remington concluded by urging the Board to reconsider, stating
simply, “We don’t need another cell tower”.
Christina Spezio McEwen, a 29-year resident of Webster, residing within the proposed area for
the Creekside Trail cell tower, expressed opposition to the proposed cell tower due to its
proximity to her home and the potential long-term impacts on her family. She emphasized that
her 13-month-old daughter will grow up just ten houses away from the tower, raising concerns
about the effects of low-level RF radiation, particularly on children. Ms. McEwen highlighted
the neighborhood’s family-oriented, safe environment—marked by community events like Easter
egg hunts and Halloween parades—and fears this tower would compromise that atmosphere.
She urged the Board to consider alternative locations such as Xerox or the nearby Village Water
Treatment Plant, which are less residentially dense and could meet infrastructure needs without
putting residents at risk. Ms. McEwen clarified that she is not against technological progress—
she works in digital media and understands the importance of connectivity—but argued for
responsible planning that prioritizes community health, home values, and thoughtful
development. She concluded by calling for a reconsideration of the location to protect the wellbeing of current and future Webster families.
Mary Monefeldt, a Webster resident, expressed surprise and concern that she and her neighbors
were unaware of the proposed cell tower project. She admitted she hadn’t been following local
news but plans to stay more informed going forward. As a retired nurse with a background in
research, she emphasized the community’s need for clear, evidence-based information on the
health impacts of the tower, questioning what studies have been done and how the tower might
affect residents' well-being and property values. She suggested the council should broaden
outreach and hold another public presentation before moving forward. Ms. Monefeldt also
acknowledged the challenges faced by council members and thanked the neighbors for their
10
07-03-2025
Webster Town Board
engagement, urging everyone to work together kindly during these uncertain times.
Mary Guider, a Webster resident residing within the proposed area for the Creekside Trail cell
tower, expressed concern about the lack of transparency regarding the proposed cell tower. She
hadn’t been informed through traditional means like mail or visible signs, partly because her
home is on a cul-de-sac where signage isn’t easily seen. Ms. Guider only learned about the
project through a message on social media, highlighting how those without social media might
remain unaware. She compared this to a neighbor’s home addition, which required direct
approval from nearby residents, emphasizing the difference in communication and community
involvement.
Ms. Guider also shared worries about the potential impact on property values, recalling her son’s
reaction to the tower’s proximity and expressing a strong desire not to have it near her home.
She voiced solidarity with others in the neighborhood who oppose the tower and stressed that the
current notification efforts have been insufficient, urging better communication with residents.
Stacy Schoen, a Webster resident residing within the proposed area for the Creekside Trail cell
tower, expressed surprise and frustration at being completely unaware of the proposed cell tower
project nearby. Despite being active and connected in the community, she hadn’t seen any
notifications or signs about the project and only learned about it through a neighbor. She
emphasized that many residents, especially elderly ones not on social media, likely remain
uninformed. Ms. Schoen stressed that assuming the neighborhood is aware is incorrect and
urged the council not to rush decisions, highlighting concerns about the potential negative impact
on property values and the close-knit, community-focused nature of their neighborhood.
Tom McEwen, a Webster resident residing within the proposed area for the Creekside Trail cell
tower, expressed strong concerns about the safety claims made by Verizon regarding the cell
tower project. He compared Verizon’s defense to other corporations like Volkswagen, Nestle,
and Kelloggs, which previously defended harmful products that later proved dangerous. Mr.
McEwen emphasized the need for verifiable data proving the tower’s safety before proceeding
and suggested that the current meeting’s timing, on July 3,2025 likely limited community
attendance and engagement.
He clarified that no one in the room questioned the intentions of the Board Members but stressed
that taking the easiest path without thorough community involvement is not acceptable. Mr.
McEwen urged for more Town Board meetings and involvement from other committees at a time
when more residents could participate. He acknowledged that if the FCC mandates the tower,
there may be little choice, but until then, the community deserves a full discussion and
reconsideration of the tower’s placement.
Robert Burgdorf, a representative of the law firm of Nixon Peabody, spoke on behalf of
Verizon Wireless to address the proposed cell tower installation in the Webster North area. He
was joined by Project Manager Kathy Pomponio and Site Acquisition Consultant Nico Facey.
Mr. Burgdorf explained that the need for the new tower is well-documented, both through
written materials and prior testimony, due to significant coverage gaps. He clarified that the
nature of cellular networks requires towers to be placed with precision—specifically within a
central radius of a designated coverage area—to function properly without overlap or
interference. Verizon’s site selection process followed a hierarchy, starting with existing
11
07-03-2025
Webster Town Board
infrastructure, then industrial zones, and finally municipal land, which is considered less
obtrusive than residential locations.
In response to public suggestions for alternate sites like Xerox Campus or Webster Park,
Burgdorf explained those areas already have towers and are outside the required coverage zone.
He stated that Verizon is flexible on location as long as it meets three key criteria: technical
functionality, reasonable cost, and minimal delay. While alternative locations were considered,
none met those standards within the required 2,000-foot radius. Internal notes exist detailing
other possibilities, and Verizon is willing to share them upon request. Burgdorf emphasized that
if a more suitable site within the designated area were proposed, Verizon would be open to it.
Mr. Burgdorf also addressed health concerns, property values, noise, lighting, and traffic.
Burgdorf stated that under federal law, municipalities are prohibited from considering health
risks related to RF emissions in zoning decisions. Nevertheless, he reassured the public by citing
numerous studies from institutions—including the FCC, FDA, WHO, and others—that found no
evidence of harm from cell tower emissions. He also noted that reliable wireless service has
been shown to improve property values, contradicting public fears of real estate depreciation.
Additionally, he clarified that the tower would be unlit, generate no noise under normal
circumstances, and involve little to no ongoing traffic besides occasional maintenance.
***
Supervisor Flaherty provided background on the site selection process. The Town and Verizon
began exploring the location nearly a year and a half ago, and the Town had proactively engaged
with Verizon to prevent surprise proposals in residential areas. The selected municipal parcel
includes a sewer pump station and is shielded by old-growth trees, minimizing its visibility.
While some residents questioned the environmental impact and credibility of certain studies, the
Board was faced with four possible actions: vote to reject the tower, delay the decision, approve
the project immediately, or send it to the Planning Board for further review. The following
Resolution was offered.
Resolution No. 213: MOTION by Supervisor Flaherty, seconded by Councilman Cahill,
WHEREAS, the Webster Town Board has reviewed the proposed Creekside Cell Tower as
submitted by Bell Atlantic Mobile Systems LLC d/b/a Verizon Wireless; and
WHEREAS, Verizon Wireless proposes to construct and operate a wireless telecommunications
facility on Town property; and
WHEREAS, the Town has considered the important public community benefits associated with
the Project, and the option and reasons for permitting this Project to be referred to the Town
Planning Board:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
1. The Town Board finds and determines that the proposed development is designed to meet the
12
07-03-2025
Webster Town Board
following objectives:
(a) The plan is conceptually sound in that it meets a community need.
(b) The plan encourages sound development in the interest of safety and general welfare of
the public.
(c) The plan shows a development pattern in harmony with the Town Comprehensive Plan.
Vote on motion:
Supervisor Flaherty ............ Aye
Councilman Cahill .............. Aye
Councilwoman Wright ....... Aye
Councilwoman Cataldi .............. Aye
Councilwoman Nguyen ............. Aye
Motion carried .......................... 5-0
***
There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at
9:34 p.m.
____________________________________
Danene M. Marr, Town Clerk
13
07-03-2025