Minutes

WEBSTER PLANNING BOARD MINUTES

Anthony Casciani, Chairman Dave Malta, Vice Chairman

Mark Giardina, Secretary

Peggy Maltman

Derek Anderson

Drazen Gasic

Sven Vetter

Katherine Kolich, Recording Secretary

Josh Artuso, Director of Community Development

Erika Corsi, Town Planner

Frank Ciardi, Attorney

Board meeting of May 5, 2026. We have 5 items on the agenda this evening with two

administrative matters. The first item on the agenda is 7 Brew the coffee operation they have

coming in but that has been tabled. They have to complete some more work before they do

come in so that particular one is tabled. Anyone that is here for that.

Pledge of Allegiance/Roll Call

Summary overview of outcome:

TABLED MATTERS

:

1. 7BREW-HARD RD

PENDING RECEIPTOF TRAFFIC STUDY AND STORMWATER POLLUTION

PREVENTION PLAN. (SWPPP)

SCHEDULED MATTERS

:

2. PUBLIC STORAGE SIGN

Easterly wall-mounted sign totaling 46.71 SF to be removed.

3. FINGER LAKE FEDERAL CREDIT UNION SIGN

Building number shall be added to the wayfinding sign EG-3.2 Side A.

Pg. 122 May 5, 2026 Planning Meeting

®

4. BLOOM & BLEND SIGN

5. BELLA TERRA PHASE 3

6. VERIZON WIRELESS CELL TOWER “WEBSTER NORTH”

Planning Board requests the Town to hire 3" party RF Engineer for independent

review of Verizon’s gap coverage analysis

( Mark Giardina read each application into the record)

7-BREW: Located at Hard Road. Applicant Brew Team NY, LLC/Doug Beachel is requesting

PREMILINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL (

PUBLIC HEARING

) in association with the

development of a 510 SF prefabricated double drive through only coffee stand on a 0.73-acre parcel

having SBL# 079.15-1-1.313 located in the HC High Intensity District under Sections 269-11 and

350-19 under the Code of the Town of Webster.

** APPLICATION WILL BE TABLED TO JUNE 2, 2026, MEETING PENDING

RECEIPT OF TRAFFIC STUDY AND STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION

PLAN (SWPPP)**

Driskell are requesting SIGN APPROVAL associated with the installation of one (1) 43.6 SF

freestanding monument sign, and two (2) wall signs one at 46,7) SF and one at 6 SF on a 5.6-acre

parcel having SBL# 065.03-1-38 located in the IN Industrial District under Section 265-7 of the

Code of the Town of Webster.

Appearing before the board was Kirk Wright with Sign & Light Services. I am here for Public

Storage. Basic sign package and everything complies with town code. We are doing a small

monument sign out front and we are just doing a small 6 sq ft sign to identify the office and then

47 sq ft building mounted sign that will face Phillips Road.

The building sign is not illuminated. Flat cut letters on an aluminum panel. The office sign in

not illuminated and the monument sign I believe will have up lighting but not internally

illuminated.

number going to be so you can see it from the street.

Pg. 123 May 5, 2026 Planning Meeting

letter.

front and your putting one on the building too.

storage. Usually there is an orange stripe continuous around the building. This is....again, we are

well below the square footage of what is allowed for us.

it originally came in, we have a very specific fagade on the outside with the fake window and the

arches and this....you know, I agree with Tony and I’m sure the sign on the building is not

necessary because it covers up one of the architectural features that was really put in there as a

condition of approval of the original storage buildings to make it look more attractive for the

neighborhood. So, it’s blocking one of those fake windows. It was there for a purpose. I

wouldn’t think you would need the sign on the building itself with that monument sign right out

by the road.

corporate identifying the criteria.

The FCO sign here on the back is pretty typical of our brands and standards. I heard one of the

board members state that there was a concession with the previous owner about the arches of the

architectural element. Given the square footage requirements and your concern with the

architectural, if there was a compromise pertaining to placement, maybe we could find a happy

medium, we would present that to the members of the board.

right out in front. Which is a good looking sign, and it serves the purpose and over the door, I can

see that sign okay but the one on the building, as Derek just said, that was one of the things that

we went through when the gentleman came in for that site was to create that stone affect. The

pillars and so on and so forth. This doesn’t need a variance either, does it.

you feel.

Pg. 124 May 5, 2026 Planning Meeting

Board members all agreed.

by the road, the monument signs says it all right out there and I really don’t believe the one on

the building....it actually detracts from the building looking at the photograph here.

meetings also......you know, McDonalds use to have an arch...they don’t know how to make

hamburgers without the arch, you know what I mean. They still sell them so.... I prefer the sign

taken off the building, off the face of the east side.

off the building?

Derek Anderson:

The Town of Webster Planning Board considered the request by Applicant Kirk Wright and

Melissa Driskell to install one (1) 43.6 SF freestanding monument sign, one 46.71 SF wall singe

and one 6 SF wall sign for Public Storage located at 665 Phillips Road on a 5.6-acre parcel having

SBL# 065.03-1-38, in the IN Industrial District.

The Planning Board classifies the proposed action to be a Type II Action under Section

617.5(c)(2) of the State Environmental Review (SEQR) Regulations and therefore is not subject

to further review.

RESOLUTION 26-017 Derek Anderson made a motion for TYPE II

SEQR which was seconded by Mark Giardina.

VOTE:

Mr. Casciani AYE

Mr. Malta ABSENT

Mr. Giardina AYE

Mr. Anderson AYE

Mrs. Maltman AYE

Mr. Gasic AYE

Mr. Vetter AYE

Pg. 125 May 5, 2026 Planning Meeting

Drazen Gasic:

Public Storage

WHEREAS the Town of Webster Planning Board (the “Planning Board”) has received an application

from Kirk Wright and Melissa Driskell (the “Applicants”) seeking Sign Approval associated with the

installation of the following signage on a 5.6-acre parcel identified as SBL# 065.03-1-38, located in

the IN Industrial District, at/near 665 Phillips Road, Town of Webster, New York, pursuant to Section

265-7 of the Code of the Town of Webster:

One (1) freestanding monument sign with a sign area of 43.6 square feet;

One (1) wall sign with sign areas of 6 square feet, respectively;

*WHEREAS, the Planning Board reviewed the application materials and plans submitted by the

Applicants, including the sign drawings titled Drawing No. 040126-R2 dated 04/01/26, and associated

supporting information, as presented to the Planning Board; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Board conducted its review of the proposed signage for compliance with

applicable provisions of the Code of the Town of Webster, including but not limited to § 265-7 , and

evaluated the proposal with respect to compatibility with the site, surrounding area, traffic safety, and

overall community character; and*

WHEREAS, atter due deliberation, the Planning Board finds that the proposed signage, as presented, is

acceptable and consistent with the intent of the Town’s sign regulations, subject to the conditions set forth

herein;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Town of Webster Planning Board

hereby APPROVES the Applicants’ request for Sign Approval for the Public Storage property.

RESOLUTION 26-018 Drazen Gasic made a motion for PUBLIC

Road. Applicants Kirk Wright and Melissa

Driskell are requesting SIGN APPROVAL

associated with the installation of one (1) 43.6

SF freestanding monument sign, and two (2)

wall signs one at 46.71 SF and one at 6 SF ona

5.6-acre parcel having SBL# 065.03-1-38

located in the IN Industrial District under

Section 265-7 of the Code of the Town of

Webster which was seconded by Mark

Giardina.

CONDITIONS:

e Easterly wall-mounted sign totaling 46.71 SF to be removed

VOTE:

Mr. Casciani AYE

Mr. Malta ABSENT

Mr. Giardina AYE

Mr. Anderson AYE

Mrs. Maltman AYE

Mr. Gasic AYE

Mr. Vetter AYE

Pg. 126 May 5, 2026 Planning Meeting

building looking nice.

FINGER LAKE FEDERAL CREDIT UNION SIGN: Located at 1055 Hatch Road. Applicant

Eric Baker is requesting SIGN APPROVAL associated with the installation of one (1) 66.8 SF

freestanding monument sign, and two (2) wall signs at 58.6 SF on a 2.26-acre parcel having SBL#

079.17-1-78.001 located in the MC Medium-Intensity Commercial District under Section 265-7 of

the Code of the Town of Webster.

Appearing before the board was Steve Stanley and I am here on behalf of Eric Baker working for

Vital Signs at 764 Ridge Road here in Webster. As the gentleman stated, we are proposing both

two wall mounted signs and a monument sign. The wall mounted sign will be front lit, illuminated

channel letters that will be mounted to an aluminum constructed shoe box cabinet, mounted directly

to the building. The icon is to be pushed through the acrylic on both of the building mounted signs.

The free standing sign will also be aluminum constructed cabinet with routed faces for the text and

pushed through acrylic for the icon.

drive through signs and exit signs and so on.

road. We need to make sure it meets the minimum 25 feet from both property lines since you are

at the corner.

there. Is that going to be a requirement.

on the sign. What is your recommendation for that.

wouldn’t see it anyways but if you just had a small arch way at the top of it maybe.

part here, if your looking at the site plan on the part of the sign to the right.

Pg. 127 May 5, 2026 Planning Meeting

assigned a Hatch Road address, so I am not quite sure how the numbers fit with the existing

addresses along Ridge Road.

anything on there.

the building if that would be the board concession I can take that feed back to the client and see

how they feel about that. I think that would be an easy concession.

sign.

sign that €.283,20-.

sign.

cause confusion which might cause some congestion with traffic and quick turn arounds and such.

the access.

Pg. 128 May 5, 2026 Planning Meeting

want it on sign A.

Derek Anderson:

The Town of Webster Planning Board considered the request by Applicant Eric Baker to install

one (1) 66.8 SF freestanding monument, two 58.6 SF wall signs for Finger Lake Federal Credit

Union located at 1055 Hatch Road on a 2.26-acre parcel having SBL# 079.17-1-78.001 line the

MC Medium-Intensity Commercial District.

The Planning Board classifies the proposed action to be a Type II Action under Section

617.5(c)(9) of the State Environmental Review (SEQR) Regulations and therefore is not subject

to further review.

RESOLUTION 26-019 Derek Anderson made a motion for TYPE IT

SEQR which was seconded by Mark Giardina.

VOTE:

Mr. Casciani AYE

Mr. Malta ABSENT

Mr. Giardina AYE

Mr. Anderson AYE

Mrs. Maltman AYE

Mr. Gasic AYE

Mr. Vetter AYE

Drazen Gasic:

Finger Lake Federal Credit Union Sign

WHEREAS the Town of Webster Planning Board (the “Planning Board”) has received an application

from Eric Baker (the “Applicant”) requesting Sign Approval pursuant to § 265-7 of the Code of the

Town of Webster associated with the installation of signage on a 2,26-acre parcel identified as SBL¥

079.17-1-78.001, located in the MC Medium-Intensity Commercial District, Town of Webster, New

York, for the following signage:

One (1) freestanding monument sign with a sign area of 66.8 square feet; and

Two (2) wall signs, each with a sign area of 58.6 square feet; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Board reviewed the application materials and plans submitted by the Applicant,

including the sign drawings and associated supporting information, as presented to the Planning Board;

and

WHEREAS, the Planning Board conducted its review of the proposed signage for compliance with

applicable provisions of the Code of the Town of Webster, including but not limited to § 265-7 , and

evaluated the proposal with respect to compatibility with the site and surrounding area, traffic safety, and

overall community character;

Pg. 129 May 5, 2026 Planning Meeting

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Town of Webster Planning Board

hereby APPROVES the Applicant’s request for Sign Approval for the Finger Lakes Federal Credit Union

property, subject to the following conditions:

¢ Building number is added EG-3.2 Side A

RESOLUTION 26-020 Diazen Gasic made a motion for SIGN

Applicant Eric Baker is requesting SIGN

APPROVAL associated with the installation

of one (1) 66.8 SF freestanding monument

sign, and two (2) wall signs at 58.6 SF on a

2.26-acre parcel having SBL# 079.17-1-

78.001 located in the MC Medium-Intensity

Commercial District under Section 265-7 of

the Code of the Town of Webster which was

seconded by Mark Giardina.

CONDITIONS:

¢ Building number shall be added to the wayfinding sign EG-3.2 Side A.

VOTE:

Mr. Casciani AYE

Mr. Malta ABSENT

Mr. Giardina AYE

Mr. Anderson AYE

Mrs. Maltman AYE

Mr. Gasic AYE

Mr. Vetter AYE

BLOOM & BLEND SIGN: Located at 790 Ridge Road. Applicant Alyssa Connors is requesting

me SIGN APPROVAL associated with the installation of a 32 SF wall sign on a 1.2-acre parcel

having SBL# 079.17-1-15.1 located in the CO Commercial Outdoor Storage District under Sections

265-7 of the Code of the Town of Webster.

APPLICANT NOT PRESENT

RESOLUTION 26-021 Mark Giardina made a motion to TABLE

APPLICATION TO JUNE 2, 2026 which

was seconded by Drazen Gasic.

VOTE:

Mr. Casciani AYE

Pg. 130 May 5, 2026 Planning Meeting

Mr. Malta ABSENT

Mr. Giardina AYE

Mr. Anderson AYE

Mrs. Maltman AYE

Mr. Gasic AYE

Mr. Vetter AYE

BELLA TERRA PHASE 3: Located at a new road, extended south of Bellora Way. Applicant

Tom Thomas and representing agent Michael Montalto of Costich Engineering are requesting

FINAL SITE PLAN AND SUBDIVISION APPROVAL in association with the development of

66-single-family residential lots on a 21.2-acre parcel having SBL# 065.02-1-40.225 located in the

LMR Low-Medium Residential District under Sections 269-10, Section 296-18 and 350-17 under

the Code of the Town of Webster.

Appearing before the board was Mike Montalto (DID NOT SIGN IN) with Costich Engineering

here this evening on behalf to Tom Thomas at 800 Phillips Road, LLC. As mentioned, we are here

this evening requesting final site plan subdivision application approval for section 3 of the Bella

Terra subdivision. This is the final section of Bella Terra residential subdivision. This project

received preliminary site plan approval in December of 2018 for approximately 83 acre parcel with

102 townhomes. The full environmental assessment form was submitted and a negative declaration

issued under SEQR in September of 2018 and final site approval plan was granted for section one

of April in 2019, Final site plan approval was granted for section 2 in May of 22024 section two

was currently under construction. Similar to the previous sections, the roads are to be private so is

water, sanitary, and sewer. They are all to be built to town standards as they were in previous

sections. So, if they ever should be or need to be dedicated, they could be. Army Corp of Engineer

permits were obtained for the culverts; for the stream cross they were installed as part of the section

2 and there is a current SPEEDYS permit active for the project and weekly SWPPP inspections are

currently being performed for section

2. There have been no changes to the utility alignment roadway; geometries or lot configurations

during the course of the project from the preliminary overall approval. When it was initially

granted, the final plans incorporate the actual building footprints that will be put on the individual

lots, and the earth work has been minorly tweaked to represent any of the earthwork that was done

in previous sections. Mass earthwork and any extra soils from utility built construction and

basement installations. At this point, I would like to......our map does show (NOT USING THE

MIC, hard to hear) showing the section in red and section one the completed section, 2A and 2B

construction and what’s (BACK AT THE MIC) depicted in red is section 3 which is the

final section of the subdivision. All internal road connections; all internal utility connections; all

storm water management ..........

any questions the board may have.

Pg. 131 May 5, 2026 Planning Meeting

Erika...

stage.

approval in 2018 or something

but it is all private.

Drazen Gasic:

Bella Terra Phase 3

WHEREAS, the Town of Webster Planning Board (the “Planning Board”) has received an application

from Tom Thomas (the “Applicant” ), with Michael Montalto of Costich Engineering as representing

agent, requesting Final Site Plan Approval and Subdivision Approval for the development of sixty-six

(66) single-family residential lots on a 21.2-acre parcel identified as SBL# 065.02-1-40,225, located in

the LMR Low-Medium Residential District, Town of Webster, New York, pursuant to § § 269-10 , 296-

18, and 350-17 of the Code of the Town of Webster; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Board reviewed the application materials, plans, and supporting

documentation submitted by the Applicant/representing agent, as presented to the Planning Board; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Board conducted its review of the proposed Final Site Plan and Subdivision

for compliance with the Code of the Town of Webster, including but not limited to § § 269-10 , 296-18, and

350-17, and considered the layout and design of the subdivision, proposed lots, roads, utilities, drainage

and stormwater management, and other site improvements, as applicable; and

Pg. 132 May 5, 2026 Planning Meeting

WHEREAS, after due deliberation, the Planning Board finds that the proposed Final Site Plan and

Subdivision, as presented, is acceptable and consistent with applicable Town requirements, subject to the

conditions set forth herein;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town of Webster Pianning Board hereby

grants FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL and SUBDIVISION APPROVAL for Bella Terra Phase

3, subject to the following conditions:

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

* Conformance to Approved Plans: The project shall be constructed in substantial conformance

with the final plans and application materials as submitted to and approved by the Planning

Board. Any material change shall require further review and approval by the appropriate Town

authority, as determined by the Town.

e All Required Agency Approvals: The Applicant shall obtain all required permits and approvals

from the Town and any other agencies having jurisdiction prior to commencement of the related

work,

e Stormwater / Drainage Compliance: All stormwater management, erosion and sediment

control, and drainage facilities shall be designed and constructed in accordance with applicable

Town and New York State requirements, and to the satisfaction of the Town Engineer, as

applicable.

¢ Public Improvements and Inspections: All required public improvements shall be installed and

inspected in accordance with Town standards and procedures.

e As-Builts / Record Drawings: As-built plans/record drawings and any required certifications

shall be provided upon completion of required improvements, in a form acceptable to the Town

Engineer and/or Building Department, as applicable.

e Subdivision Plat Filing: The final subdivision plat shall be in recordable form and shall be

signed and filed in accordance with Town procedures and any applicable county requirements.

Any required legal instruments shall be provided in a form acceptable to the Town prior to plat

signing and/or filing, as applicable.

RESOLUTION 26-022 Drazen Gasic made a motion for FINAL

SITE PLAN AND _ SUBDIVISION

APPROVAL Located at a new road,

extended south of Bellora Way. Applicant

Tom Thomas and representing agent

Michael Montalto of Costich Engineering

are requesting FINAL SITE PLAN AND

SUBDIVISION APPROVAL in association

with the development of 66-single-family

residential lots on a 21.2-acre parcel having

SBL# 065.02-1-40,225 located in the LMR

Low-Medium Residential District under

Sections 269-10, Section 296-18 and 350-17

under the Code of the Town of Webster

which was seconded by Mark Giardina.

Pg. 133 May 5, 2026 Planning Meeting

one we have. And I think you did include subdivision approval in there also, right.

recreation fees, EVERYONE TALKING AT THE SAME TIME.

for final approval and that way, it includes parks and recs fees.

FINAL APPROVAL CHECKLIST

Subject to PRC comments.

Subject to Parks and Recreation fees (if applicable)

Subject to Preliminary Approval Conditions.

Subject to all applicable governmental fees.

Subject to Department of Public Works approval

Significant construction shall occur within one year, as deemed by the Planning Board to expire

on 5.5.27

7. The conditions of Preliminary and Final approval are depicted on the cover page of the final

designed plans.

8. The Engineer for the proposed project shall provide a Letter of Certification that all proposed

work was completed, as per Planning Board resolution of final approval before a Certificate of

Occupancy will be issued.

9. A Letter of Credit to the Town for the project shall include the fee for the Engineer’s final

certification inspection of the site.

10. All storm water facilities are to be constructed first

11. All downspouts to be connected to the storm sewer system.

12. Subject to resolution of the final approved minutes.

Pa tok pe

13. Approvals are subject to Drawing No: Dated:

VOTE:

Mr. Casciani AYE

Mr. Malta ABSENT

Mr. Giardina AYE

Mr. Anderson AYE

Mrs. Maltman AYE

Mr. Gasic AYE

Mr. Vetter AYE

VERIZON WIRELESS CELL TOWER “WEBSTER NORTH”: Located at 1222 Wildflower

Drive. Applicant Robert Burgdorf for Bell Atlantic Mobile Systems d/b/a Verizon is requesting

SKETCH PLAN REVIEW in association with a 125-foot telecommunications tower with a 4’

lightning rod and associated ground-mounted equipment on a 14.2-acre parcel having SBL#

065.05-1-48 located in the R-3 Single Family Residential District under Sections 269-5 and 350-

12 of the Code of the Town of Webster.

Pg. 134 May 5, 2026 Planning Meeting

Appearing before the board was Laura Smith with Nixon Peabody and I’m joined by

(DID NOT SIGN IN) of NB&C and Kathy Pomponio with Verizon. (DID NOT

SIGN IN) and together we are representing this application. As noted in the intro, the action before

the Planning Board is sketch plan and site plan. They are a number of approvals this project will

need, including from the Town Board and the Zoning Board of Appeals, but I did want to introduce

the entire project to you so you had a full scope of what the project will entail.

As we have noted in previous meetings, Verizon is a public utility for zoning purposes and it’s

licensed and regulated by the FCC and The Telecommunications Act of 1996. The area that this

antenna will service is known as the Webster north area. It is located in a single family residential

zoning district where telecommunications are permitted. And if I could, I’d like to draw your

attention to exhibit F of the application. That first page of the engineering necessity case. Josh,

I’m going to keep you on your toes.

So again, just as some background for the project, this area shown on that page, that first page of

exhibit F shows the current towers that are serving the Webster North area as well as that terrain

shown in red. Very close, just a couple pages up. Yes, that’s it. Exactly. Thank you. So, you’ll

note here there are three towers predominantly serving this Webster North area. The Webster North

area is outlined, circled in red and there is a Webster Park site, a Fourmile creek site, and a Webster

site all kind of triangulated around that red circle. This Webster North search area, this is the area

that has a significant gap in coverage. This is the area that we’re trying to serve. I do want to draw

your attention the...all of the area within this red circle is a residential neighborhood. You know,

so to the extent that there is a conversation of is there another district we could go into, is there a

higher intensity use in the area? That answer is no. We are trying to serve this residential area.

The only properties within this residential area are residential save for a town property that we first

attempted to lease from the town in order to place an antenna in this area. The town board has full

discretion whether or not to lease to any applicant as well including telecommunications. And if

you recall last summer the town declined to lease to Verizon. So, that has put us back into a search

area ring to look for an appropriate site. And brings us to the zoning application and that’s before

the planning board today.

And then if we could go four pages down, I’m sorry, one page up. This shows the existing low band

coverage. You'll see again I want to draw your attention to the Webster Park antenna, the Four

Mile Creek antenna and that Webster antenna as well as the Xerox antenna down to the southeast.

And you will see here in that residential neighborhood, we’re lacking coverage from the other

antennas that are serving this area, and it is a very low strength signal. And then Josh, if we could

do down one page. With the construction of this Webster North Tower, we would increase the

capacity and coverage for this residential neighborhood, really closing that gap in coverage. And

then if we could go down one morte, this is the existing midback coverage and is showing the

shading that you could get from the existing coverage and again demonstrating that there is

significant coverage gaps within that Webster North area.

And the next page again is showing us with the Webster North tower online. Now, we’ll go down

Pg. 135 May 5, 2026 Planning Meeting

one more. This is the existing midband coverage again showing significant orange areas to the

southwest of the site and no coverage to the northwest portion of the site. I’m sorry, northeast

portion of the site. So, again showing that there is a significant gap in coverage within this Webster

North area. And if we go down to the next page, it’s the proposed band coverage. Again, that same

coverage area showing with the Webster North Tower online.

So, with that understanding of where the coverage gap is, we then went through a pretty rigorous

site selection analysis, as we do for all of our sites. The only site that both met our RF needs and

they were willing to lease to us was the site that’s before you today, the 120...the 122 Wildflower

Lane. That site if I may next draw you attention to our site plan which is exhibit P. It shows that

it’s arelatively large parcel within this residential neighborhood and it allows for significant setback

from other residential properties as well from the road and shielding the property to the extent

possible with the existing tree coverage. So, we in addition to it being the most appropriate site for

our RF needs, the most appropriate site to meet town requirements, it works well from an aesthetic

point of view to help hid the equipment and to shield the tower to the extent that’s possible.

On that note, also I’m sorry Josh, I keep switching back and forth. I’m going to bring us to the

viewshed map that is, I’m sorry exhibit K. The viewshed map. So, here you’ll see a map of the

areas shaded in yellow that for that cross-hatching. Those are the areas that are anticipated to have

a view of tower. So, again, although we’re in a residential neighborhood, the areas that will actually

be able to see the tower is quite limited. Certainly, that will be affected when leaves are not on the

trees, but when leaves are on the trees when looking from a residential neighborhood up you know

for the most part if will be covered in the foliage. We also provided some photo simulations of

what the tower would lock like in the next following slides.

So, again, we’re here before you for this application to cover that significant coverage gap

demonstrated in the Webster North neighborhoods. This area...this remedy wil! serve and solve

that gap and again, we went through that very extensive site analysis. We began discussions with

the town to use the town parcel about two years ago, went through that process with the town.

Again, the town are fully within there right to decide not to lease to us as a tenant. But now back

before you, we’re here with a zoning application for the site as selected to solve that coverage gap.

So, with that E will pause and see if there’s any questions.

line that were trying to solve for here.

I would assume and I will look at Nico Facey, but I assume that we’re about 10 feet further down

Pg. 136 May 5, 2026 Planning Meeting

in elevation which requires 135 feet so that we can reach that same antenna center line.

feet.

trees get taller.

came in. I asked a question, I still don’t understand how that works, but could there not be two

lower towers somewhere, you know, out of the residential area. I mean, that’s a dense residential

area there.

residential neighborhood, so you know, we’re not trying to hid the ball on you or pretend that we

are not acknowledging that it isn’t a residential neighborhood.

towers are located, there is already a tower in the park. There is already a tower at our four mile

creek site and there is already a tower at the Webster site and the Xerox site. So, if you recall from

our prior application, the way that the cell phone towers work, it’s almost as if you have a flashlight

and where the light shines, that is where the cell coverage goes. Very rudimentary obviously but

it’s a good kind of analysis for it. If you start crossing beams with other towers, then that interferes

with how that other tower is working and how that other tower is serving the facilities. So, it really

needs to be kind of juxtaposed in between the existing towers to ensure that we’re both closing the

existing coverage gap as well as not interfering with the towers that are currently serving the area.

some of the other carriers, do they get reception in that area.

might be coverage by another carrier is candidly irrelevant in the analysis of the zoning application

before you.

Pg. 137 May 5, 2026 Planning Meeting

they’re coming off of, could Verizon collocate their tower?

required in your code. It is what makes the most business sense for Verizon. There is no existing

tall structure or no existing tower within the search area we’re trying to serve.

guess maximum that we already have. Can this be done at a 100 foot? Is it...you know, I don’t

know.

and that is played with quite a bit with our RG Engineers. Again, to be candid with you, if we

could have a site that didn’t require a variance, that is a more straightforward zoning application,

the 135 is the minimum that’s necessary to close this coverage gap.

we’re being told and understandable. I think we’ve discussed this with the town. I think what we

need to do is to have...our code allows for this. ..is to have an outside consultant come in and review

your numbers, your calculations on everything and pass that information to us because you’re

saying yes, it needs to be a 135 feet and of all the towers we’ ve had, I don’t know any we’ ve had

to make 135 feet. I think that’s what we’re going to need to do. Would you guys agree to that.

properties in the area. When I look at this photo view and considering it’s a half mile radius, we

are right on the edge of the Village Wastewater Treatment plant. Has that been considered? Not

only is it less than a half mile from where you’re proposing, it’s a higher elevation which may not

require you to have as tall an antenna. The other thing I'd like you to consider or at least better

understand is that cell towers aren’t the only solution. There’s smaller utility pole mounted

antennas, There’s roof mounted antennas. There’s utilization of satellite communications and I

don’t know if Verizon has considered any of those things in the process of locating this.

site selection analysis. We did look at the wastewater treatment plant. Again, to be fully transparent

with the board, if we can’t find collocation, we do look for property in order to enter more into a

partnership with the municipality as we were trying to do with the other site, in this location. The

wastewater treatment plant declined to contract with us. And if you look at ...Josh, page 11 of 13

of that site selection analysis. Yeah, it’s the next exhibit down. Yep, that one and then page 11 of

that. So, this shows the candidates that we approached and either were had to be rejected due to

RF. So, for example, K,J, and H were not close enough in the search range to solve the RF coverage

gap. And then our candidate before you, that’s candidate C. I believe A is the town property and

then...yeah, I’m sorry. Candidate A is the sewer property at the near...the town pump station.

Pg. 13% May 5, 2026 Planning Meeting

drawing.

appears. You did approach the waste water treatment piant.

the properties that we approached and either declined to contract with us or did not meet the RF

needs.

support a larger geographical area than the small cell is meant to design. Small cells have a radius

of about 50 yards or 50 feet of service. They’re really band-aids for areas in an existing network

that just need to be patched over. For example, they’re often on Wegmans’ because when you’re

at Wegmans, there’s too much capacity going to at Wegman’s and there needs to be booster there.

The area that we are looking to serve is much much too large to be served with small cells. This

needs a macro backbone to help really bring the coverage gap to aclose. And then if there are those

small spots that then need to be filled in with small cells, that is what the small cell technology is

meant to do. It’s meant to fill in the gaps...fill in small gaps that need that booster or have capacity

issues because of high volume use.

house bis broadcasting. It has spots that are blank or don’t have perception. Where a mesh allows

you to distribute it in a much more effective matter with smaller nodes. So, I’m not an expert in

telecommunication’s. I was just using that for an analogy. But I would like to at least understand

that.

we all felt that an outside consultant is the way to go because those are things that we’ve talked

about, we’ ve read about, people in the neighborhood have read the same things that we’ ve read, but

we don’t know what works and what doesn’t work. So, I think....

So, it would be best in our part to have the secondary resource evaluated from our perspective to

just to educate us even further. One of the things that you just mentioned out of curiosity is age

which is the sewer plant was taken out of consideration because of RG need parameters.

What is the RG need? Is it just s spectrum, a range?

Pg. 139 May 5, 2026 Planning Meeting

of the search ring. So, we do look, especially when it’s municipal properties, we will run some

properties outside of the search ring to see if it is viable from an RF perspective to fill that coverage

gap. And candidly, this is my own ignorance of why it’s yes or why it’s no, but RF is the final

decider of whether or not putting a tower at that location will solve the coverage gap.

RF need, you still wouldn’t place it in that location, for example, since it doesn’t address the entire

Bap.

tower, the Xerox Tower that’s to the southeast of that location and when we’re looking at the

network, it is both filing the coverage gap that’s existing and also looking at non-interference. So,

when an RF is looking at a site, they’re looking at both. Does that fill the coverage gap and or does

it interfere with the neighboring site. I can’t speak to which one of those or both of those items is

the reason the RF rejected it. We can certainly get that information, but when RF is reviewing this,

they are the final say on what is sufficient for the network in order to protect it’s integrity and also

to ensure that the coverage gap is filled.

if you meant it jokingly or not, but when he said, you know, initially the towers were 100 feet and

now they’re up to 135 and it’s because of the tree heights have increased. Repurposing the existing

towers by increasing the height of those towers, would that potentially address and cover the areas

that have gaps now?

those existing towers. Again, going back to that flashlight idea, the higher you get up, the weaker

the signal is. The weaker that light is. There’s also foliage and topography that can interrupt that

flow of the cell coverage. Which is why you know, again we were somewhat joking but candidly

it is the foliage on the tree. This is such...... RF that is emitted from these towers is such a low

frequency that it is very low power. It candidly can’t travel that far. So, when we’re looking at

filling that coverage gap, there is a distance that just can’t be overcome by the radio frequency. It’s

a very low power and the higher frequency you go up, the shorter amount of distance it can go.

did have them. I’ve read them. It won’t do us any good to read them out loud her tonight, but we

do have them and appreciate it. J think the way to move this thing forward is to simply request that

the town hire a consulting firm that the town’s choice, not their choice. And it gets reviewed by an

independent RF specialist, engineers, whoever they are, and give us their results before we move

on with this. Does that sound fair to you folks, too? There’s nothing else we can do at this point.

And tonight is not a public hearing. It’s just..........

Pg. 140 May 5, 2026 Planning Meeting

SOMEONE IN THE AUDIENCE SPEAKING OUT

want, why don’t you go ahead on up and let....just give us your name.

Barbara Robbins at 1205 Wildflower Drive: Just a question as to why none of the other cell carriers

are having this issue and it is only Verizon that we're hearing about. 1 know one of the gentlemen

who lives by me and wrote the letter into the editor of the Webster Herald. He’s actually driven

around our neighborhoed and sees that there are additional boosters for other cell providers that

are on some of the lines. And all of the people that are dealing with these other providers do not

seem to have any of the issues that the Verizon customers have had. I’ve been going around the

neighborhood for the last 5 days with a petition and so I’ve been speaking one on one with a lot of

my neighbors to find out who they have that wasn’t part of the petition to ask them, but they've been

very open about that. And the only ones who have said that they have any type of cell phone

coverage issues are Verizon customers. And they have stated that, you know, the few people that

have WI-FI in their house, they just make sure that they connect into that and going in. Once they

get outside of their homes and they get onto the main roadways, they go up to three bars. Why is

that? Within the house there's a problem. But outside on the road there's no issue. So, these other

boosters those other companies are using must be working in the neighborhood and they’re not

putting up you know 135 feet -139 with the antenna.

We can turn that over to the people that do end up ultimately reviewing this and have them address

that.

been getting more information, and I have been putting together more questions. The road that

needs to be created to get back to where this cell tower, is it going to be a double lane? Is it going

to be a single lane? How is it going to be maintained? Is it going to be maintained as if it was on

an individual's property or is somebody from the town or from Verizon going to maintain it. Those

are all questions, you know. As far as easements. How far back is this road going to be relationship

to everybody's property?

to?

Pg. 141 May 5, 2026 Planning Meeting

least some of your questions right now. The reason that AT &T and T-Mobile are not having the

same issues as Verizon, there’s more than one answer to that. Number one, our networks are

different. Where, you know, AT&T’s network is not exactly the same as Verizon’s network or T-

Mobile’s network. The other biggest difference is the fact that Verizon owns the majority of the

market share across upstate New York. And so, there’s a capacity issue. So, if you saw some of

the exhibits that Laura and Josh were putting up earlier, the surrounding sites have sectors that are

at capacity because we have 70% of the market share in this area and the remaining 30% is split

between AT&T and T-Mobile. So, we have a very large capacity of network usage on our system

that is draining the system. So, this...part of the reason is coverage, and part of the reason is

capacity, but we have to solve that problem because we have so many users on our system and that

is the biggest reason right there.

As far as the height is concerned the surrounding towers in Webster are larger than....they’re higher

than 100 feet. So, the height of the tower is driven by what we’ re trying to solve within the coverage

gap and the capacity issues. It’s also driven by height, the height of the trees, we have to see through

the trees and the foliage in order for the signal to penetrate. And as far as the questions regarding

site plan and I mean that’s something that the planning board is all going to review the

site plan within our application. All of those questions area currently within our site plan

application before the planning board.

maxed out on cell phone use as in calling or does the towers also provide capacity or usage for like

residential home, commercial home data usage as well?

you’ ve maxed out your capacity.

this tower is going to solve both of those problems for both data and phone usage.

again is the real service from a utility scale of these towers.

emergency at your home and the provider, the emergency service provider is trying to transmit

telemetry to the hospital, that is also a data issue. And we welcome you hiring a third party

Pg. 142 May 5, 2026 Planning Meeting

consultant. I mean, we’re all for it. As long as that person is qualified and they’re not gouging,

you know, from a cost perspective, then we welcome it.

to hire someone, and the bill goes back to the applicant. So, your tax dollars are not involved in

this. Just for the record that’s all. I think that is the way we’ve got to travel with this. Anybody

else?

previous application. I fully understand the coverage and the data issues that they have and why

this tower is actually at 135 feet. But you’re trying to maintain a level from a sight line from tower

to tower that’s pretty much level. I know this site here on the map it shows that stream going by it.

And if it’s anything like that stream that’s up by the villages wastewater plant. This is one of the

lower parts on the town. So, you wind up with a higher tower elevation to be able to see the towers

on either side. So, having a fixed tower of 100 feet, but you’re on ground elevation that goes from

elevation 300, elevation 400 that center line changes whenever you are in the town. So, this thing

has to be able to see and talk to other towers.

of the elevation of the ground where we need to be is where the center line will be at this elevation

at 135 feet that....you’re exactly right. It’s the antenna center line.

located where it’s at. And while it’s nice to have the outside consultant come into the RF, I’m not

sure that that’s money well spent by the town and passed on to the applicant. I understand these

diagrams.......

they’re capped out. They’re capped out because they have the market capability. They have the

larger usage, and they need to introduce a tower so they can meet that demand. But why isn’t the

demand being capped as in you’re allocating like a percentage of ............. BOTH PARTIES

SPEAKING AT THE SAME TIME.

they are not allowed to have Verizon in this particular area because they don’t have the coverage .

You can’t have that kind of a cap. But the diagram that they have to me, personally, makes 100%

sense on what you’ re trying to do.

days or something that you have to have to have some sort of an accomplishment or whatever.

Pg. 143 May 5, 2026 Planning Meeting

a determination based on when the application was submitted. This application was submitted

March 10" which means that a full decision so that mean both site plan approval; the height variance

that’s required as well as the telecommunication special permit from the town board would all have

to be issued on or before August 7”. Candidly, you know, if we get to a situation that it’s just a

few days over, we often extend the shot clock. It’s not meant to be punitive, but it is meant to allow

a project to move forward and serve the area. And you know, again, we have been working on this

particular site for a number of years. So, to the fullest extent that we can move forward and serve

this area and serve this community is exactly what shock clock is meant to provide.

to come up with a firm that can do the research on this and report along with what you’ ve presented

and give us some numbers that we can work with.

FEEDBACK PROVIDED:

e Planning Board requests the Town to hire 3“ party RF Engineer for independent review

of Verizon’s gap coverage analysis

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER:

e Dinks N’ Links - Planning Board made a motion to declare its intent to be Lead

Agent for SEQR.

Derek Anderson:

TOWN OF WEBSTER PLANNING BOARD RESOLUTION

DINKS N’ LINKS

SEQR — INTENT TO ESTABLISH LEAD AGENCY

05/05/2026

MOTION FOR INTENT TO ESTABLISH LEAD AGENCY

WHEREAS Town of Webster Planning Board (Planning Board) considered the request by

Applicant, Joe Catalani to consiruct a 41,000 SF indoor/outdoor recreational facility for Dinks

N’ Links located next to 900 Five Mile Line Road on a proposed 10.4-acre lot consisting of

Pg. 144 May 5, 2026 Planning Meeting

portions of SBL# 079.10-1-2.3 (9.38-acres) and a 1.08-acre portion of SBL#079, 10-1-1.11 in the

HC High Intensity Commercial District

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Board has determined

that the Action is an Unlisted Action.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT: RESOLVED that the Planning Board determined that the action is

subject to a coordinated review pursuant to Part 617.6(b) of SEQR and that it is the most

appropriate agency for making the determination of significance. The Planning Board therefore

intends to designate itself lead agency for the proposed action.

RESOLUTION 26-023 Derek Anderson made a motion to declare

LEAD AGENCY for SEQR which was

seconded by Mark Giardina.

Mr. Malta ABSENT

Mr. Giardina AYE

Mr. Anderson AYE

Mrs. Maltman AYE

Mr. Gasic AYE

Mr. Vetter AYE

¢ Approval of minutes for: April 7, 2026. Motion: (GIARDINA/CASCIANI)

Mr. Malta ABSENT

Mr. Giardina AYE

Mr. Anderson AYE

Mrs. Maltman AYE

Mr. Gasic AYE

Mr. Vetter AYE

With no other applications before the Board this evening Anthony Casciani concluded tonight’s

meeting at 8:10 PM.

Respectfully Submitted,

A/S ) Dated o &

Mark Giardiga, Secretary .

Katherine Kolich, Recording Secretary - a leone ad CLK

Pg. 145 May 5, 2026 Planning Meeting

Signed