Town Board Meeting
board meeting. If you would all rise, I'll lead us in the pledge of allegiance.
I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Jenine, would you please do roll call? Supervisor Sheldon
here.
Councilman Cahill
here.
Councilwoman Wright
here.
Councilman Hunter
here.
Councilman Wagner
here.
Attorney for the town Taylor
here.
All right. So, first up is our open to the floor. We are going to continue this up. Um we did have our signin sheet. So, we did have the rules of conduct posted out there. Um, basically just you have five minutes and no threats. Um, the first person to sign in is Mike Ziggler. Would you like to speak now?
I'll go ahead and wait until Chris Naka.
You're up. Chris Naka, 1065 Shoecraft Road. Um, it's a pleasure to be standing in front of a few new board members. It's nice to see you. It's nice to see everybody laughing and seeming like they're getting along. That's always good to, you know, the people making the decisions can get along. Um, my topic, uh, it was pedestrians. I heard about the accident that had happened on 104. Um, I'm kind of more using it as a launching point to talk about pedestrians in general because I I heard that he might have been exiting a vehicle and been hit and he wasn't somebody walking down 104 specifically. And because I I don't know the exact details of it, I'll try to keep that specific example out of it. But along the lines of pedestrians in this town, especially in the colder months, um over the last 25 years of living in this
town, you would go from the one person walking in the cold and you'd be thinking, where is that maniac going to you see a lot more people walking and there really isn't adequate sidewalks in this town and people, you know, if they're not making enough. I said I wouldn't bring this specific thing into. Anyways, if people aren't making enough to the point they're walking down 104 and they they don't have transportation, they can't afford transportation, it really speaks to the job opportunities that are in this town and the cost of living in this town not matching. And especially if you go down down towards Bay Road where a lot of the apartments buildings are starting to stack up. Uh you see a lot of people walking over there as well and there is no sidewalks and people are getting hit in the winter time over there. And I'm just hoping that if we're going to keep moving away from single family homes and into apartments, what we, you know, maybe we don't have sidewalks for 30 years ago to kind of disincentivize people that don't have the ability to drive from even being in
the town. And I know that sounds crazy, but um I think if we're going to change how the town looks physically, we need to accommodate for the downsides of what that change brings, which is more people walking, more people potentially getting hit on roads that were not designed to have a lot of pedestrians walking down them, and uh make the town safe as we increase the amount of residents that live within it. Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you very much. Uh I did forget to mention that um you can address the board. We do not have to answer any questions, but if you do have a question, we will if we have your emails, we can get your emails and we will get an answer to you. Uh next up is Kevin Lockheart. So I'm at it. Hi, how are you? Uh this town is shafting the residents. I'm really tired of it. You're treating these stakeholders in this room as if they don't matter at all. You're leveling the trees. You're clearing out the 1.5 acreage next to the town hall. You're denying my foil requests that I have legal statutory standing to demand that you give to me for the public records being generated. It's in this case by the police. You need to be giving them giving me the public records that I'm requesting.
Please, seriously, can you just calm it down? Okay,
Monica, I appreciate it, but it is his time to speak.
I'll stand back. Okay. And so you folks are shafting these people. I have earplugs in my pocket. Do you want to use them for five minutes? I actually do have earplugs.
Do you want them?
No.
Okay. So, this town is absolutely out of line. You are treating these people as if they're not stakeholders. You completely turn you bastardized, for lack of a better term, this the stakeholder selection process. Kyle Taylor, the town attorney, told me today in an email. He he emailed me in black and white text saying, "This town selected the comprehensive plan steering committee fully according to the law." And I sent him back an email that proved evidence of the contrary. Tom, the previous town supervisor, selected the town committee, and that's illegal. You can't do that. And then you retroactively tried to legalize it through a town board resolution that I personally came and insisted that you pass a resolution on. And you tried to retroactively legalize it. These we are the real stakeholders. We are the real party of interest here in this town. We pay the taxes. We're the constituents. We vote. We pay the property. we pay taxes, yada yada yada, etc., etc., etc. And what this town is doing to shaft us so that we can't have any role at all in the future of Webster is dastardly. And the town trying to I see what you folks
are doing and it's very bad. It happened under a Republican town board and tonight you're voting on a few things that I think are downright offensive. the demunation of the of the 20 acres into the village of Webster. I live in the village of Webster. I'm a resident of the village of Webster. And you folks are trying to they're talking about you guys are talking about expanding the land, the property line in the village of Webster. That's going to dilute my vote. I don't want my vote diluted. Especially when you folks have absolutely no respect for these stakeholders that are here. There's only 13 people that the town recognizes as stakeholders in the future of Webster, and it's the comprehensive plan. And I'm legitimately, genuinely upset that you folks captured our town comprehensive plan, cut us all out of it, and decided you're going to rewrite the future of Webster without any of us, without any of us having a role, not being allowed to apply to the steering committee. You violated town laws 272 by allowing Tom to select the steering committee. It's not allowed. Town law does not allow anybody to just go and select and invite
their friends onto a steering committee so that you and the town can have no can can have no competition from the taxpayers. We're not influencing the the town comprehensive plan at all in any meaningful way. And it shows through the profile and the character and the footprint of Webster. This town is absolutely out of control with the 20 acre solar farm site that they're building. You cut down two sugar maples in front of in front of town hall. One of those sugar maples I would like an explanation actually for because it looks to me and everybody else like that sugar maple tree was perfectly healthy and you just went on the rampage thinking that there's no counterveailing force because you cut us out of the comprehensive plan steering committee. You did not allow us to apply. This is a critical procedural error. It's not just a error or a mistake. This was done deliberately so that Webster citizens cannot have any meaningful influence on the future of Webster and the town comprehensive plan which is our most important document that we have in this town. It decides the future of Webster, the zoning, the land use, the character of our town. And you're changing our
town irreversibly affecting people's lives, exploiting our labor, exploiting us so that we pay you the continuous tax budget every year, every year, every year, continually, continually into the future. And yet you're going to go and knock down all the trees to make new roads, which is really upsetting people. And then you're going to go
5 minutes. Unfortunately, we have to cut you off here.
I'm taking the 30 seconds that the
We cannot transfer it. I am sorry, Kevin. You will have to sit down. when we heard you.
No, no, no, no. I'm taking the 30 seconds that the nice lady took from me because this is policy. Again, this goes to my point. The town thinks that they don't even have to follow the law. They don't have to follow their own policy. These folks are out of control. I'm tired of it. I came here tonight to tell these folks to stick it. They're going to follow the law. Enforce the damn law.
Thank you.
Okay. Now, is anybody else willing to speak? Monica Gorlick, please step up. First off, I'd like to say thank you for your opinion. But you don't speak for me when you say everybody. That's number one. I'm talking to the board. Okay? I'll speak for myself. Also, when you try to talk to somebody or you want Oh, sorry. If you want people to hear you and listen to you, you need to talk at a different tone rather than shouting because no one's going to hear you that way. And I want to thank the board for everything that you've done. I live in I moved from another area to Webster because it is a town that I do believe in that I do find comfortable and beautified. Um, I don't like trees being cut down, but some of the trees that have been cut down are to pro for progression to to put other things there that are necessary. But mainly, please, if you're going to come up here, talk at a normal voice. Don't shout and
don't speak for everybody. Speak for yourself. And if you're going to be stating something and you're going to be putting laws out there, please speak about those laws. show us the facts and the proof because I don't have a book with me to tell me what rules and laws have been passed and that the board is destroying everything. So, I just want the facts to be put in front of me so I can read them. And that's all I have to say. I'm sorry if I took up some time, but I um I just needed to say something. So, thank you.
Thank you. Thank you, C.
All right. Anybody else? No,
no,
sorry, Chris. Nice try. It
was a good effort, though. Um, okay. With that, um, we have minutes to be considered for approval from the January 2nd, 2026 organizational meeting. So, I make a motion that we approve those minutes.
Second.
Supervisor Sheldon.
I.
Councilwoman Wright,
I. Councilman Cahill.
I,
Councilman Hunter,
I.
Councilman Wagner,
I.
All right. Now, uh, we do have some housekeeping to get to in the first, but there are a couple items that were on the agenda that was posted that have since been removed, and I just want to clarify. Number one was the resolution to uh, accept bids for the salt barn. We, as Maria stated earlier, do not have the grant information yet. So we are waiting um until we have that information so we can make a responsible decision. And the second one was the dimminuation of 25 acres to the village uh for around the Xerox West campus and the Xerox has withdrawn their petition as of today. So that is off the table as of now. Um other than that, Jen, I believe you're up. Um, yes. I reviewed all of the uh bills. Everything is in order and I move to approve the those bills as submitted by the director of finance.
Second.
Councilwoman Wright.
I.
Councilman Cahill.
I.
Supervisor Sheldon.
I.
Councilman Hunter.
I.
Councilman Wagner.
Hi. I make a motion that we approve the prepaid warrant as submitted by the director of finance.
Second.
Supervisor Sheldon.
I.
Councilman Hunter
I.
Councilman Cahill.
I.
Councilwoman Wright.
I. Councilman Wagner.
I.
Up next, we would I would like to make a motion to consider to approve purchase orders as submitted by the director of finance. Second.
Supervisor Sheldon.
I.
Councilman Cahill.
Hi.
Councilwoman Wright.
I.
Councilman Hunter.
I.
Councilman Wagner.
I.
All right. This next one um is a resolution to approve the renewal of the mobile home park permit for Sunset Valley manufactured home community for the calendar year 2026. Everything has been inspected by our town building inspector. Everything is up to code. The fire marshall is okay with it. So, I make a motion that we approve the renewal for the permit.
Second.
Supervisor Sheldon.
I.
Councilwoman Wright.
I.
Councilman Cahill.
I.
Councilman Hunter.
I.
Councilman Wagner.
I.
That's a very nice neighborhood back there.
It is. And I am not allowed to make this motion. I can is there is there a little bit of background to this motion? I mean, sorry, there is a pretty straightforward. It is pretty straightforward. There's an IMA um in fighting with Monroe County for stopping DWI and other high visibility programs that we do each year. I will um move or make a resolution to approve the town supervisor to enter into an intermunicipal agreement and funding with Monroe County for stop DWI and high visibility programs.
Second.
Councilwoman Wright
I.
Councilman Cahill
I.
Supervisor Sheldon
I.
Councilman Hunter
I.
Councilman Wagner
I. Jen, the next one is your liaison department. Would you like to
um this this is another one that is every year there's work that gets done, general repairs. Um um and I will make a resolution to authorize an agreement between the highway superintendent and the Webster Town Board to spend 2026 highway funds for general repairs and permanent improvements in the amounts stated within the agreed within the agreement and as approved within the budget. And I believe it is Pellet Road, Pellet Road. I remember pellet road and hard road um will be I guess it's resurfaced right resurfaced paved is that those are the the big road repairs for for this year.
Mhm.
I second.
Yeah. This is a interesting part of highway law. uh the highway superintendent actually has uh responsibility or the approval to spend money as he sees needs sees fit to make certain road improvements. It's also included in the 2026 budget was which was approved back in October. So
the numbers tied to the
Thank you Paul.
I'll second Jen's motion.
Councilwoman Wright
I.
Supervisor Sheldon
I.
Councilman Cahill
I.
Councilman Hunter
I. Councilman Wagner.
Hi.
All right. Next one is one of the big ones. Um for those of you who are not aware or have seen the several presentations when we updated our wastewater treatment plant and added the anorobic digtor, we have a whole bunch of natural gas that is released and we've been looking into capturing that renewable natural gas process to sell back and you know find a new revenue source. Um but you know we are we started the engineering. So this is the next one is going to be basically to finish the engineering. Um we're voting if we want to keep spending money to finish the engineering before spending the money on the actual and John it is your department. Would you like to make the motion?
I can't.
Okay. Uh, I make a motion to authorize renewable natural gas engineering and design costs to come from current 85 million contract owner allowance contingency and have said engineering and design start immediately.
Second.
Supervisor Sheldon.
Wait, no,
we're going to have some discussion. No,
no, we can have discussion. Um,
okay. because it and I want to thank Rick, Paul, Garrett, everybody that I've spent a lot of time on this topic and I know that it comes with projected income. It comes with projected um tax abate or p tax credits and if the stars align, it's going to be good. My contention which I have spoken to everybody on the board is we're carrying currently $120 million in debt. We have a boss Vossberg station project estimated at 6.1 million the salt barn at 5.8 million and I don't even know what the cost of ship builder creek is going to be. My point is we are heavily heavily in debt right now. And while it's not guaranteed that these credits and this revenue were going to come through, I I can't even go for I'm not in favor. I'm going to vote no because of the debt load in the upcoming projects that we have. I I just I can't do it. And I know I've explained it to everybody and I appreciate your respect
of my position and I respect your positions, too. So,
I think that's a reasonable place to be, John. Honestly,
um I I'll say if it's okay, I'll add just a couple of points from my perspective because, you know, there there is going to be some inherent disagreement in this
and I I've heard and I respect your guys' position
because you're you're absolutely right. This town does have a fair amount of debt. Now, on the flip side, towns like businesses often do need some semblance of debt in order to maintain a revenue stream.
Um so, what we're talking about is a fair amount of risk right now. And with the Bossburg, with the Salt Barn, with Ship Builder Creek, we don't get any return on that. Now, this is one where we have an opportunity for long-term revenue streams based on basically the way that we have methodically rebuilt the sewer system, which is a beautiful thing and a beautiful potential. So, just want everybody to be aware and consider the fact that we have very few revenue streams as a town and as a municipal government aside from taxes. So, we should take advantage of opportunities like this to help long-term ability. Um, because really that's what we're talking about is the long-term revenue stream that's going to come from a project like this.
No, I I completely understand where you're coming from. I respect that position. My contention is it's not guaranteed revenue
and it's not guaranteed tax credits. That's and and we can agree to disagree. That's great. That's totally fair.
That's that's what that's why there's, you know, five people on the board. And not everybody has to vote the same way. We're all going to have different positions on topics at some at some point. The important the most important thing with respect to the board is that we do it after we have done our due diligence and believe me everybody on this board has done their due diligence with respect to this project and we have our conversations amongst each other and with the experts respectfully and and that's that's key to me right here.
For sure. Yeah. And I I will say that, you know, this has been a a hot topic from the previous board. And I know Garrett, Nick and I came into this one, you know, and did a lot of research. Garrett specifically really went above and beyond in all of the work he did for that
looking into this. And like this is not a decision like these votes are not made lightly. John and John did so much work on this and we we worked very hard. This is not a quick decision. Um we're not rushing things through. So, I just want everyone to be aware that we are thinking and that's why I actually enjoy having a split board right now is we're going to have very different opinions and I might see we might see things that we might not normally see from our own point of view.
That's a good point that you made and and and that's why it's good that that we've I can't even tell how many conversations I've had with Garrett. We've met with the sewage treatment plant, had conversations with them, we've had conversations with Paul. I mean, we we've have done our due diligence on this issue.
We've talked to Navatas a couple times as well to make sure our questions are answered. I think John, it's important like we're really trying to do the best we can to make as informed decisions as we can,
right,
before we do this.
So, with that, John, are there other variables that you'd feel more comfortable if we addressed first? I mean, we have a little bit of wiggle room, not a lot.
Not not at this time. No.
Okay.
And also consideration that this is a tiered process. We're we're not voting to approve of moving forward with the whole totality of the project. We're moving into the next stage of engineering which is the just upwards of 450,000 I think for the
um
estimation and that frankly will answer some of the additional questions that may may change all of our
it is a it is a 100% design at this point. We're not doing the hey we're going to seek 30% 40% but this is this is going to be the final design of this project right
and the money is coming out of the contingency so that that money is already inside of the budget for the waste water
to clarify that Paul is it coming out of the contingency or out of
unspent money the three four we got to spend where does that spec because it gets a little nuanced
yeah we have contingency which there's about a million dollars and we have uh owners allow owner savings which I think is about 430,000 currently.
So where where's that money coming?
Cost 348,000.
Is it part of the bond or is it coming out of the contingency or the allowance
or the owner savings?
It would be coming out of owner savings.
Okay.
Yeah, because it's our choice. It's not
not an unexpected item.
Gotcha. But it's there. I'm I'm I'm just curious um Rick of your I don't think you got to speak on this and this is for your department and Paul from a finance perspective and risk. I'd be interested in your perspectives as well as part of this decision.
All right. Well, I think I've spoken to most of you on this and you I think you know my opinion on I think um being stewards of the sewer department, we want to bring things that we feel are will benefit not only the plant but obviously you know the community and the environment. We're in the environment business and we're burning off gas constantly and that'll be further ever of this plant now because of the gas we're producing. So there is a monetary value to that gas. And I actually want to piggyback off of Nick's point is and go back to when we decided to do this project phase the the big project. There was asset renewal. It's the cost of doing business. We have to keep our infrastructure upgraded and it hadn't been for a while. So we were looking at that. But we looked at the piece of the pie that would also be asset renew not asset renewal but resource recovery. And that helped pay for actually it raised the cost of the the project but it also it actually brought back in revenue and that's what this type of project does. It will not only there'll be cost to it but there'll be revenue that will continue to come in and we this uh previous board voted to have with them come in which is one of the utmost experts in this tax field
said that this is good for another 10 years this this specific tax credit
even if not there is money going out that pipe every day that we could be recouping and helping pay for projects and moving forward that's all and I just think it's environmentally um sound to do also.
So,
yeah, based on the the Willham CPA report, I'm confident uh that the IRS credits will come through. Um in addition to the the sale of pipeline quality natural gas, uh the net revenue from that will be about $450,000 a year. So, I'm confident in the numbers. One one last point I'd like to make is um in regards to what this project does is or this tax credit it gives towards the current project. But also because we already built stuff and it's a continuous project that we can get credit for stuff that we've already built as long as it stays, you know, continuous in this project. Um and there's a value to that. You know, we're getting money back for stuff we already spent.
That's correct. And it's been it's very conservative what they said already. I'm sorry to cut you off, but
No, that's fine.
The further step will actually get really definitive. There might be equipment that we didn't think about yet that could be included in this and that increases the credit coming back.
Correct. They were conservative in their initial estimate. Uh they identified eligible equipment of between 26 and $33 million. Uh the tax credit is 30% of that amount. uh it's discounted uh by 15% because we're it's being paid for through municipal financing. Uh but I mean they're coming up with a large base of eligibility and she did say that she thought it was conservative because uh it was based on safe harbor. So
so for for that and and I did have a lengthy conversation with Councilman Cahill and I do understand his concern of the debt load. This is a very unique opportunity to have, you know, to be able to move forward with a project that may cost 9 to12 million but actually only have to to pay a fraction of that. It could end up being a 2 or3 million project net of the uh tax credit. And there's there's definitely concern about the tax credit not coming through or the revenue coming in at a different level, but there will always be that revenue stream. It may be a little higher, it may be a little lower, but that revenue stream will be there. And the tax credit we we paid an accounting firm to do that analysis for us. So when they come back and say there's a very high probability, and I don't know that they put numbers to it or not. I can't remember if they said like 95% or even beyond that that there is a high confidence in receiving that tax credit. It it just seems like u it would be a missed opportunity to not
move forward.
And and one final point just to close the loop on everything Rick mentioned the timing. We talked about time frame. Just remember everybody while there's a lot going on. You might say why are we even doing this now? In order to get the tax credits, it has to be continuous construction. So, it's got to get started by this summer. So, if we don't start the engineering by the end of this month, it won't get done in time and we lose the tax credits totally.
April, wasn't it Rick?
What's that?
We have to have this done by April. Correct.
Project project end point is July. We need to So, we need to get the engineering because then we got to start, but once the bids go out, we can get going. They just need to start construction before.
So, so due to that, this project can't wait. six months, eight months, two years. We have to decide today or not today but by the end of this month to do it or not. Hence the timing why despite all those other things, John Sean, you raised a good point. We got a lot of other projects. Why is this one now? Because that outside
right
criteria of the time frame.
Yeah.
All right. Before we vote, does anybody else have anything they'd like to bring to their attention? I'll make sure every
now this is just one case where you know 6 months down the road I hope I'm wrong but given the the the current debt load that we're carrying I I just I can't with a good conscience do it. I just can't but I respect everybody's input. Thank you.
I I respect that, John. That's a that's a tough call to make. Yeah. Um, so then I will officially make a resolution to authorize renewable natural gas engineering design cost to come from the current 85 million contract owner allowance contingency to have said engineering and design start immediately.
Second.
Supervisor Sheldon.
I.
Councilman Hunter
I.
Councilman Cahill.
Nay.
Councilwoman Wright.
I.
Councilman Wagner.
Can I ask a clarifying question? Sorry. This says from the allowance contingency, but Paul, you were saying it was from the unspent piece. So,
the owner allowance, not the contingency.
Just to be just to clarify where it's coming from because this is
Yeah, it's not contingency. It's it's owner's allowance,
right?
Which is owner savings.
There' be amendment to the motion
to clarify that's from the owner's allowance.
All right. So, I make an amendment to it's the owner's allowance. Okay.
Yeah. So, we amend
the owner allowance. So,
do we need to revote?
I I would take the the roll call again based on the amendment to the motion.
Okay. Supervisor Sheldon.
I.
Councilman Hunter.
I.
Councilman Cahill.
Nay.
Councilwoman Wright.
I.
Councilman Wagner.
Hi.
All right. Well, our last item up here. Um, we have a small presentation about uh 10:30 Ridge Road. So, I will welcome Mike Ziggler. Am I saying that right? Ziggler or Ziggler?
Ziggler. Uh, please come up and plead your case.
Uh, thank you very much. I appreciate your time and uh, being able to speak with you tonight. This is my first venture uh, before you guys. So, uh, thanks for everything that happened before us at the meeting today. U, I wanted to thank, uh, Mr. Artuso and, uh, his help in getting us together on this plan. We've been working for the last couple of months just on trying to come up with a a solution to this property that's owned next door uh, to the town's property. Uh we got introduced to this property uh through a a third party and the the property owner came to us with a problem. Um we've done work in other other areas of the state of New York and and elsewhere up and down the the east coast where we try and come in and work in concert with uh governmental entities and coming up with solutions for problem properties. Um they heard about us and our work that we did with the village of Ferdonia where they had a long vacant building uh that we came in and refaced the building. It had been generating no tax revenue so to speak for uh the village. We came in refaced the
building, brought in all new tenants. Uh we filled about 27,000 square feet with uh retail. Um we had construction jobs. The total of that project was probably close to $3 million. Um, with construction jobs that were generated in the community, we then obviously opened up a number of stores. We opened up in O'Reilly's Auto Parts, a firehouse subs, uh, Super Cuts. We brought a lot of jobs to that center, which had had not really been producing any revenue for the community. Um the owner of the property next door came to us and said that obviously they had come before uh this town board on two separate occasions recently uh and been rejected for the the use of that property. It is a non-conforming piece of property. U it is really too small for the zoning that's been assigned to it. Um they had a use which was a McDonald's. Um they had a use that was a auto repair facility. Um, and I can completely understand why those uses were rejected. U, you've got a a beautiful park next door, great ball fields, you've got a great development here. Um, if I'm enjoying my time, if I'm watching my kids play
baseball, the last thing I want to hear over and over again is, "Would you like fries with that? Would you like fries with that? Would you like fries with that?" So, I can understand that McDonald's generate a lot of traffic, a lot of trash, a lot of noise. Similarly, the auto automotive repair facility, you've got the power drills, you've got banging on car motors, you know, car doors, whatever the case may be. You have oil changes, other fluids. I can understand how that would be a concern. So, we worked with the owners to come up with what we felt would be a a solid solution to their issue. um they do not feel that they have the ability to just donate the property to the city. Um it sounds like from what I'm hearing certainly the city doesn't want to go about buying the property uh from the owners. So we wanted to try and work on something that could be a win-win. And that was the the proposal that we gave you guys uh for a 7200 square foot retail building. We do have a tenant who is very interested in in the building that we felt was the the least intrusive use. Um what we worked with with Mr. Artuso was coming up with a site plan that would protect the canopy of trees
as much as possible to give us the buffer that is is needed between your property and this property being developed. thus shifting most of the development to the the far side of the building closer to you know its more natural location next to other retail. What we'd like to do, what we'd like for for you guys to do tonight is just to approve us to keep working with staff on a site plan review, which would include coming up with a landscaping plan that could further provide uh more of a buffer between those properties, but allow us to move forward with the development. uh generate some jobs and some tax revenue both on the construction side and then also on the ongoing retail job side. So I'll open up to any questions that you guys might have.
Yeah. Um you mentioned previously that you've been doing this with vacant buildings, but there's no vacant building here. This appears to be a massive clearcut to a area that people very much enjoy.
Sure. I mean obviously the the current property only has the ability to cut some of it. What we're trying to do here is minimize the clearcut to provide you with a canopy that would provide you with some coverage during the summer months of course to protect you from building and also again to work with you guys and your uh and your plans for additional landscaping to further protect it. But we would not we would not be clear cutting an acre and a half. There are going to be limits of disturbance. We're not going to go as the the plans that I gave you. There's about 75 feet of the rear of the property that we would not touch. There's about 30 feet uh from the the side that borders the town's property that we wouldn't touch. And then there's additional landscaping that we would do in addition to that in planting more trees etc to uh provide more coverage. Now, the we also our town code states that, you know, this should be conceptually sound and that it meets a
community need. I I don't see a need for an auto parts store when we have Autozone, Advanced Auto Parts, and a litany of dealerships and oil change places nearby. Where did you come up with that type of business?
Well, it's zoned for retail. So, I would I would then reverse the question and say, what type of retail do you feel there is a community need for? I I mean I don't know, but it's not my I'm not trying to develop this property, so that wouldn't be my burden to bear.
Well, I understand, but if if it's zoned retail and you're saying there's no retail for which you find a community need, then you've effectively z
That's not what he's saying. He's saying that there are there's an auto part store right in the village. There's an auto part store right down the road. I think that's
there's there's
I think that's the point he's trying
seven to nine quick oil change places
and it and it's not his responsibility to express what type of retail is appropriate for this for this area. You're presenting to us an idea for an auto parts store. his position is it's not really appropriate and it's my I I take the same position as he does and and you you will be removing quite a few trees down there.
Oh, I there's no two ways about it.
Absolutely. But the the owner has has the right to to remove trees as well, which they could do. And again, they came to us.
He sure does. And we and we have we have the right to do what you know make a decision based upon the plans submitted.
Sure. of whether to move this forward or not. Also,
yeah, there's there's also the safety concern of Ridge Road. That area, especially next to town hall, is so congested at all times and that is a steep incline with a very short driveway like that is just asking for somebody to get hurt.
That that was going to be my concern as well. I was on the planning board years ago when Mavis Tire came in. I I think it was Mavis Tire at the time. And um even at even at that point the board agreed it would be better to find the planning board agreed it would be better to find a different place because of that incline. And then the next piece of this is the town is working on the comprehensive plan and you mentioned that this is a nonconforming parcel and and that can be addressed or resolved as part of the comprehensive plan. it it it would be a little dangerous I would think coming out with the the incline that would be required to get in and out of that property onto Ridge Road. So for those two reasons, I think we should wait for the comprehensive plan to see what other potential opportunities there can be and and if your firm is good at finding resolutions for problem properties, maybe just find a different
resolution for this one. Okay.
Anybody else?
No. All
right. I'm going to make the official uh motion to refer the proposed project in the highintensity commercial district to the planning board for the purpose of site plan review located at 10:30 Ridge Road under section 35019F of the town code of Wester.
Are we referring it or not referring it for reasons?
I'm making the motion that we are voting if we refer it or not. So the the motion if it's not going to be to refer it a proactive motion um if there's anyone that supports that position they should be making that motion. If there isn't and the motion is going to be made in the negative it's a little atypical but in this situation it would be necessary. So the motion would be not to refer and you would need to put on the record um the criteria under uh town code section 35019F to support that position as part of the motion.
All right. Well, then I make a motion that we not refer the proposed project under section 35019F of the fact that it does not meet a community need and it is not safe for the general public at this time. So,
and I would say I would I would also add that it's not in harmony with the comprehensive plan since that comprehensive plan is it underway.
I second.
Supervisor Sheldon. Uh, I'm voting not to answer.
So, the resolution is not to refer. That's yes.
No. Yes.
Councilman Cahill.
Hi.
Councilman Wright.
I.
Councilman Hunter.
I.
Councilman Wagner.
Hi.
All right. That is everything on our agenda tonight. So, with that, I will close up the January 8th, 2026 town board meeting. Thank you all for coming.