Minutes

WEBSTER PLANNING BOARD MINUTES

Anthony Casciani, Chairman Peggy Maltman

Mark Giardina, Secretary

Dave Malta, Vice Chairman

Derek Anderson

Drazen Gasic

Sven Vetter

Katherine Kolich. Recording Secretary

Josh Artuso, Director of Community Development

Erika Corsi, Town Planner

Frank Ciardi, Attorney

on the agenda this evening.

Pledge of Allegrance/Roll Call

Summary overview of outcome:

TABLED MATTERS

:

1. BEST BUY AUTO SALES-771 RIDGE RD

2. WATERVIEW PHASE 3-WILLOWPOINT WAY

SCHEDULED MATTERS

:

3. UNITED BUFFET-941 HARD RD - SIGN

PREVIOUSE VARIANCE FOR TWO SIGNS.

4, STATE FARM-1065 RLDGE ROAD- SIGN

Py.oY Aprils, Zu20 Pian wiceung

5. RG&E STATION 73-891 KLEM-UPGRADE

6. 7 BREW-HARD RD

Status. TABLED TO MAY 5, 2026

7. WEBSTER SOLAR GARDENS LLC - 1460 CARACAS DR

( Mark Giardina read each application into the record)

is requesting PRELIMINARY/FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL (

PUBLIC HEARING

) in

association with the construction of an approximately 2,826SF accessory structure for auto-mobile

servicing ona |.73-acre parcel having SBL# 079.17-1-21.11 located in the MC Medium-Intensity

Commercial District under Section 269-11 and Section 350-18 of the Code of the Town of

Webster.

Appearing before the board was Ian Kuchman with McMahon LaRue Associates, Civil Engineer

representing the applicant, Best Buy Auto and looking to construct a 2800 sq ft accessory structure

outback. The primary structure at 771 Ridge Road. The intended use is accessory to the main

operations which is a used car dealership and the building would allow operations to maintain and

service vehicles that are sold through the dealership elongating that full customer service thal every

auto dealership seeks to achieve with their clients and their customers.

We were before the board a couple of months ago for sketch review and we took a lot of that

feedback and updated our plans, and we were supposed to come back last month but we were

dropped due to some miscommunication errors with the Webster Herald, so we were unable to get

a public hearing, but we are here today in an attempt to combine preliminary/final for your review

tonight. As T said, we did update the site plans, and we've included clevations and some grading to

denote some of the drainage concern that the town Engineering Department had. Primarily the

pond, who owns the pond; what we are going to do with the pond ultimately. The pond, if you

guys are looking at the screen, we can go to sheet 3 of 5 shows approximately where the pond is

outback and the proposed accessory structure there. You can see that pond straddles the existing

properly line. Half of it is on our applicants property and the other half is on the neighbor, who

would be Thomas Landscaping.

So, we are showing on our plans the maintenance of that pond. We are proposing a formalized

easement that would provide some demarcation for some future maintenance agreement. Either a

privale maintenance agicement between the 2 neighbors of tle towa Wele interested, some suil

re. /U Aptis, 2UZ0 Pianng Mecung

of maintenance agreement with the town. We are open to suggestions on that front. Either way,

there is a short term plan to maintain that pond and rehabilitate or restore the intended capacity and

also to clean out the outlet pipe to make sure there is no potential for upstream flooding situations.

then what is there currently, either way il is impervious surface. Is.................. BOTH

PARTLES SPEAKING Al }HE SAME [LME....taking care of water as it stands.

of right now has a basement that doesn’t flood, it has walk out windows that functions fine. But

again, while we have construction equipment there and excavating for footings and what not there

iS an Opportunity here to maintain this pond and make sure it is in good working condition.

From a storm water standpoint, we are not proposing to increase total impervious area of the site so

we are not proposing to generate any new overall of runoff so the capacity of the pond, if restored

to it’s original dimensions and elevations should be adequate and total site disturbance is less than

an acre so erosion sediment control and storm water pollution plan should not be required. The

accessory structure is going to have floor drains, so we are proposing an oil-water separator, and it

has been reviewed by the town Sewer Department, and we have received their comments and have

sized it according to our proposed use.

Tony, we did take a look at some of the landscaping, and J think that was one of your comments

during sketch. We are showing on our site plan the existing landscaping and we are showing where

we are going to be removing one tree, but we are also going to be preserving another tree right next

to it. And then you had asked about property line location. If you were to go out to the site and

look at the overhead power poles, those are right on the property line. Which shows a pretly

healthy vegetative stripe between our parking lot and our neighbors parking Jot. Best Buy Auto

Just invested pretty significantly in improving the landscaping along the road frontage and the plan

is to maintain that and continue to promote that curbside appeal. I think those are really those

highlights of what we are presenting here. Like I said, we received comments during sketch, and

we received comments from preliminary application although we did not have a public hearing, we

did receive town comments, and we responded to those comments. We received comments last

week or the week hefore and we have responded to those comments as well. So. best faith effort to

try and cooperate and respond to the town as best as we can. In an attempt to receive some sort of

approval with conditions of course to make sure all stake holders are coming out of this.

then you can address them and if they are in there or not. You are only landscaping the front, that

has always looked fairly decent .

We will put:

e Increase the vegetation buffer along the west side of the property.

e Show the paving hinit ds i parking suiping on the platis-is that on dice!

Pp. /) Apri /, 2026 Planning Meeung

[

Anthony Casciani:

e Include a dumpster enclosure details.

¢ Include wall pack lighting details and the building elevations, the lighting and paving

details.

e Site data table to include total number of overall parking spaces. So, ultimately at the end,

you want to strip what is supposed to go in there and that be the maximum number of cars

on the site.

e Add distant measurement between existing and proposed buildings, I think that was

something Drazen asked.

e And provide overall landscape plans, which you have done.

Now, the only question that I have on it, you have to run water in there, why are not putting a

bathroom in there?

on the adjacent parcel and right now we don’t have anv acknowledgement that there’s actually an

easement or an agreement to do that work on the adjacent parcel. | am not sure of how we can

approve work on some one else’s land.

and the easement was never filed so I think we are going to have to get creative with maybe the

towns help to figure out how to actually file that easement. Worst case scenario.......

months ago and talked to them today and they are on board with maintaining that. It’s to their

benefit as well.

something stating that their in agreement with it and granting you the casement to come on and do

the maintenance on jt and provide that to the town.

lan Kuchman: Even though there is not a formal easement in place there is a bi-right tmplicit

easement thal cxist on any parcel. If there is something on your parcel like a uulity or an egress

rg. /2 April /, 2020 Pianning Meeting

ingress, that allows me to get to my property to the right of way, there’s an implicit easement that

allows me to go and maintain whatever that utility is and, in this case, it would be stormwater so

there is an implicit easement but of course we are going to make that as explicit and formalized as

possible. Again, either through private conversation or through the town if necessary.

lan Kuchman: It was new to me until my surveyors told...explained it to me.

lan Kuchman: Yes, we are happy with that.

the word “proposed” private easement for storm maintenance and then years come back to find

out that the easement was never filed because the work “proposed” is on there.

work.

BOARD MEMBERS SPEAKING AT THE SAME TIME.

impervious area is an acre.

lan Kuchman: Yes, that total site. So, the whole frontage of the site is not going to be disturbed.

over an acre

lan Kuchman: Active disturbance is going to be less than an acre. We are just putting up a pole

barn. All the parking in the rear is existing gravel. We are just going to be putting down asphalt.

being paved with asphalt. So, that is disturbance.

Py. /3 April /, 2UZ6 Planning Mecting

now you have to have a SWPPP and a stormwater __.. (BOTH PARTIES

SPEAKING)

asphalting the whole site, just the portion marked on our plan.

SWPPP particularly since you are going to onto an adjacent parcel too.

fan Kuchman: The reason why we are showing an acre is to show that are total impervious is

remaining the same.

before we can do anything.

a modified SWPPP. Essentially, they are fulfilling components of the permit, SWPPP permit as

necessary, so we are ok with that. What I would like to see is that part of this, that not only the

easement, the drainage easement but we need to also have a maintenance agreement as well . So,

they have to go. with each other so those are important.

jet cleaning, there is a comment saying that goes over to swale on the adjacent parcel where does

the other pipe start from. The one heading north out of the pond. I see it going up towards the

landscaping area and just kind of ending. So, what’s that actually tied into?

It’s inletting into the pond.

(BOARD MEMBERS HAVING CONVERSATION PLFASF PULT AWAY FROM THF

DIAS WHEN APPLICANT IS SPEAKING)

top of the page there, Josh, Follow that up and continue to follow that up.

lan Kuchman: The storm drainage pipe.

Deoich Andeisun. Yeali, dic Plopuoed ccs Uieti aie ol the Toni ol Lutitdon aiiilg.. .

Pg. /4 Apri /, 2020 Planning Mecting

lan Kuchman: Those are existing. That’s an existing storm. All of that is not part of the project.

It’s existing.

parcel into this pond.

lan Kuchma: [is really just a quaiter of that parcel. Su, ihe front pari of the site that’s closest to

our property line. So, there’s a ridge on the other side of the parcel heads to west towards the right

away.

review those calculation for the runoff and the volume on it.

easement and the maintenance agreement, however that’s arrived at between the two property

owners, because we will identify this as a pond that needs a yearly inspection.

everything we’ve asked for preliminary. This is a public hearing. If there is anyone here wishing

to speak wither for or against this application. Not seeing anyone, so we’ll close the public hearing

and bring it back to the board. Anybody????

Derek Anderson:

The Town of Webster Planning board considered the request by applicant Allan Mallette for

construction of an approximately 2,826SF accessory structure for Best Buy Auto Sales located at

771 Ridge Road on a 1.73-acre parcel having SBL# 079.17-1-21.11 located in 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) ol the State Environmental Review (SEQR) Regulations and therefore is not subject

to further review.

Py. ¢o Apis, cU20 Plauniny Vieciny

RESOLUTION 26-006 Derek Anderson made a motion for TYPE II

SEQR which was seconded by Drazen Gasic.

VOTE:

Mr, Casciani AYE

Mr. Malta AYE

Mi. Gtardina AYE

Mr. Anderson AYE

Mr. Kosel AYE

Mrs. Maltman ABSENT

Mr. Gasic AYE

RESOLUTION 26-007

Dave Malta made a motion for

PRELIMINARY APPROVAL (PUBLIC

HEARING): Located at 771 Ridge Road.

Applicant Allan Mallette is requesting

PRELIMINARY PLAN APPROVAL

(

PUBLIC HEARING

) in association with

the construction of an approximately 2,826SF

accessory structure for auto-mobile servicing

ona i.73-acre parcel having SBL# 079.1 7-1-

21.11 located in the MC Medium-lIntensity

Commercial District under Section 269-1 1

and Section 350-18 of the Code of the Town

of Webster which was seconded by Mark

Giardina,

PRELIMINARY APPROVAL CHECKLIST

wWewno

oom >

Subject to PRC Comments

Subject to a Letter of Credit posted with the Town of Webster.

Subject to Monroe County Water Authority comments

Subject to the determination of the ZBA for requested variances.

Ali the improvements shall be constructed according to the specification of the Town of

Webster.

All sitework is to be in compliance with the standards of the Town of Webster.

Comply with all requirements of any Federal, Sue, County, or Town agency.

Address drainage, lighting, signage, and landscaping, buffering, berming and snow storage.

The landscape, hardscape, site accessories, and associated finished grading design for the

development must be prepared by a NYS licensed Landscape Architect. The final landscape

plans shall bear the seal and signature of the Landscape Architect.

ig. 0 Aptis, cu20 Piauiing Miecuug

located at 775 Ridge Road to be included. I think also put in, just to reiterate the comments that were made

that I just read off there before, there’s a list of them that we did when they were in for sketch plan, that

they’re included. I guess they’ ve got them in there, but we'll take and copy them... Just have them in there

so that make sure that when it’s reviewed, we see them in there, you know

10. Approvals are subject to Drawing Dated:__4.6. 2026

11. Proceed to Final Approval

12. A signed and filed maintenance and drainage easement with the neighboring property located

at 775 Ridge Road

VOTE:

Mr. Casciani AYE

Mr. Malta AYE

Mr. Giardina AYE

Mr. Anderson AYE

Mr. Koscl AYE

Mrs. Maliman ABSENT

Mr. Gasic AYE

RESOLUTION 26-008

FINAL APPROVAL CHECKLIST

I. Subject to PRC comments.

Dave Malta made a motion for FINAL

APPROVAL (

PUBLIC HEARING

):

Located at 771 Ridge Road. Applicant Allan

Mallette is requesting FINAL SITE PLAN

APPROVAL (

PUBLIC HEARING

) in

association with the construction of an

approximately 2,826SF accessory structure

lor auto-mobile servicing on a |.73-acre

pareel having SBL# 079.17-1-21.11 located

in the MC Medium-Intensity Commercial

District under Section 269-11 and Section

350-18 of the Code of the Town of Webster

which was seconded by Drazen Gasic.

Subject to Parks and Recreation fees (if applicable)

2

3. Subject to Preliminary Approval Conditions.

4. Subject to all applicable governmental fees.

Pe.¢e Apis, 2u2o Pian Viecing

a

Subject to Department of Public Works approval

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

expireon 4.7.27.

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 pei Pluaniiig Boaid 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. Subject to final approved minutes

11. All storm water facilities are to be constructed first

12. Approvals are subject to Drawing Dated: 4.6.26

13. A signed and filed maintenance and drainage easement with the neighboring property

located at 775 Ridge Road.

14. The key part of this for final approval is subject to all appropriate governmental fees;

subject to engineering governmental approvals; site work is in compliance with standards

town so on and so forth. There’s also a statement in there that money is held for final

approval by the Engineer for the project. So, that’s something...1 don’t know if we’re

following very closely, but I think it’s something we need to absolutely follow and that

should be part of the monies set aside that pay for the Engineer to zo back and review that

everything that he did on his drawings are done adequately. Okay, so I just want to reiterate

that just so that we stay on the same page. We have that in there, but I don’t know if it

always gets followed.

fees; subject to engineering governmental approvals; site work is in compliance with standards

town so on and so forth. There’s also a statement in there that money is held for final approval by

the Engineer for the project. So, that’s something. ..I don’t know if we’re following very closely,

but I think it’s something we need to absolutely follow and that should be part of the monies set

aside that pay for the Engineer to go back and review that everything that he did on his drawings

are done adequately, Okay, so ] just want to reiterate that just so that we stay on the same page.

We have that in there, but I don’t know if it always gets followed. (ADDED TO CONDITIONS

ABOVE)

VOTE:

Mr. Casciani AYE

Mr. Malta AYE

Mr. Giardina AYE

Mr, Anderson AYE

Mr. Kosel AYE

Mrs. Maltman ABSENT

Mr. Qasic AYE

Vg. So pity, 2026 VPiaiaiitig Vici

WATERVIEW PHASE 3: Located at 0 Willowpoint Way. Applicant Legacy Development Co.

is requesting FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL EXTENSION associated with the proposed

construction of six (6) two-story townhouse style buildings consisting of a total of 56 residential

units and one (1) community center on a 13.5-acre parcel having SBL#s 093.06-3-64.11 and

093.06-3-64.12 located in an MHR Medium High Residentia! District under Sections 269-17 of

the Code of the Town of Webster.

Appearing before the board was Chris Nadler, general counsel for Mark V Enterprises. I am here

today with Ed Martin, from Passero, and our friend Randy Jackson. Thank you for having us.

It’s been, it’s hard to believe that it has been a year since I was last here. We are here for an

extension or renewal of the site plan approval that you did grant us a year ago and we have one

condition, the jurisdictional determination from the DEC that is outstanding. Other than that all

conditions haven been satisfied or will he satisfied and no conditions or the conditions at the site

haven’t changed. So, we are here asking for a renewal. I will turn it over to Ed Martin who can

give you the background and where we are with the DEC on getting that jurisdictional

determination.

January of 2025. They’re taking a much greater role in small wetlands, which historically have

been under the contro! of the Army Corps of Engineers. So, we have done a delineation. The

wetlands are west ul our development area. No propused disturbance 1s included in these plans.

We have received a verbal from the DEC that they’re going to issue a non-jurisdiction

determination indicating that no permitting is required from them So, they’re overworked and

understaffed. So, we're just waiting for that. Steve Miller from the DEC has indicated that they’ re

granting the JD stating that there’s no permits required. So, we’re just in a holding pattern.

Now I know there are....] think Keith, you had some concerns on it. There’s some Engineering

details. You just met with them. Whoever wants to address ahead.

Department employee that we were not privy to last year and that concern stems from an existing

30 inch sanitary truck line that runs north south through the site. It is owned by Monroe County

and connects to the McKuen pump station however when it crosses the Penfield Webster town

board on this property and the Lown is responsible lor repair and maintenance. So, some concerns

were expressed due to the condition of the pipe. It does take approximately 2 million gallons of

flow per day, primarily from Penfield. It is 60 years old and it’s about 20 feet down. So, the

concern was that this project proposes to tap into that line and not sure that it’s age and material

that it can withstand something like that without potentially creating an issue.

last year and you’re coming back for an extension on that, but if you could try to answer what

type of assurance can the town have relative to that ptpe when you guys are actually doing the

project.

Pp. ¢9 Aptu/, ZuZ0 Planning Mecung

town had when this board granted final site plan approval last year. There will be a letter of

credit, and the Town Engineers signatures are required on the final plans. We can work out the

specific details as to what’s needed in a letter of credit prior to commencing construction. And I

think we have worked well with Keith on this process so far and we’re happy to continue doing

SO.

easement for this sanitary line and the storm chamber that’s being installed is right against that

easement. So, in the event that the county or the town ever had to get in there to do repair work

on that, that line, there is a potential that there would be an impact to that storm water chamber.

So, the town would like to be held...be indemnified from any damages that would occur as a

result Of that repair work should it ever have to happen.

again, we'll work with Keith prior to signatures on the plan to ensure that easement already

contains that indemnification language.

controversial. It’s been through the loops, that’s for sure. But these are new things.

been controversial and not to say that the neighbors are thrilled about having new development,

but McEwen Road neighbors... you know, at our last meeting were not....you know, they didn’t

eco my car Thev did we had nice chats You know. I think hetween this hoard the Zonine

Board, town staff, Josh and Ketth we were really able to bring it to a you know, a good project

that the neighbors will be able to tolerate and live with and this town and the developer can be

proud of. So, now you have to open the public hearing and I’mhoping that there’s not a bunch

of neighbors with pitchforks after T just said that.

your situation is and Mim going to ask you a favor. fone person says and covers one topic, you

don’t have to cover the topic three or four times. Go ahead.

Pg. 8U Apri /, 2020 Planning Mecting

Dave Geier at 400 McEwen Drive and I do have a pitch fork and I wish you will not put words

in out mouths because that we're satisfied with this project because that’s not true. There was

one open item from last year agenda that Mr, Anderson raised. I would like to know if that has

been resolved. Which was the dock permit was supposed to be cancelled and revoked and Mr.

Nadler and Mr. Casciani and Mr. Anderson ail agreed that that would be done. And I have the

minutes from that meeting from last year and | was wondering tf that had been revoked and no

longer applicable.

that.

Bee ender ecw esas

time there was no application or anything to with that piece of the property and nothing to do

years and they go through the process of making sure that it’s been renewed so that doc permit

is still out there and it’s been you know, DEC has it. DEC has made the comment that since there

are certain covenants that were in the conditions of that permit with this development in the

disturbance on the site as part of the conditions on it that they’ ve actually violated the covenants

of that permit. So therefore, it would be null and void though we need to as a board we had agreed

to not notify DEC that okay, you know, this is being approved and the permit you know you keep

saying it’s not part of the project, but it actually is because it’s part of the overall development

that permit is null and void.

that tomorrow when I get back into the office. I just can’t recall.

Pe. St Apr /, 2UZ6 Planning Meeting

with this project with having roads that driveways that directly access a residential road and also

the poor utilization of property using only four acres out of 13 for development really crams a lot

of housing onto a very small area and tt does not meet the medium housing requirement you're

actually putting 14 units per acre onto the four acres they're going to develop. And I just think

it's nota good precedent. Tie nvo precedents are not good for the town of Webster.

you got frustrated last session because this has dragged along for so long. I think that just

indicative that it is a bad project for Webster.

Dorothy Fait at 747 Hichtower Wav Thank vou

Willowpoint 2 projects. The Webster Town Board is considering a vote on a development

moratorniam until such time as a comprehensive plan is completed and zoning regulations are

updated in compliance with that plan. The current site is covered by an EPOD for steep slopes.

fhe comprehensive plan will be guiding new regulations regarding development of fragile

environmental parcels and as such this project which failed to make any significant site

developments to date should be required to present its plan when the new regulations are in

place.

T would also challenge the planning boards prior determination that will point expansion as an

unlisted action and as such did not require a long EAF. The Planning Board has the authority to

classify this project as a type one based on the steep slope that is being developed. This project

site plan has presented shows one of the buildings on property covered by the EPOD. Also, it

appears that a retention pond may be relocated from it’s currently approved location to the parcel

that is covered by the EPOD. Visiting the location shows a heavily wooded and very steep slope

on the sandy slopes up down to Irondequoit Bay.

I contend this property requires all the protections afforded a type I on segr review and that the

Plannine Board should review this development request agam in the future when our regulatory

framework, our zoning ordinances, our subdivision regulations and related land use laws have

been updated. Currently, they have not kept pace with the evolving needs of our community or

with the modern leading edge practices in environmental protection and sustainable planning.

Following the most recent heavy rains in the Towa of Irondequoit experienced the erosion of

veep slopes on the lrondequott Bay watershed on Carlson Road south of

104. The steep slopes

Near lrondequoit Bay need to be protected, The Planning Board should, as it authority allows,

deny the requested extension. Thank you.

Pg. 82 April /, 2020 Planning Mecung

think you said you have work that that’s approved. What I'm asking the board to ask is for a

timeline. When was the jurisdictional determination filed? What's the process? Was it approved

originally? Was it denied. As you all know, this projects been going back and forth for years.

Years before I even moved there. Part of the original approach was to kind of piggyback on an

approval that was I think 1985. So, really what P'm getting at here is these extensions, these

projects, they keep coming buck for tis particular piece of tand. 1m asking the beard to put

more restrictions, dates, specific dates, timelines in terms of when they should be required to get

the actual jurisdictional determination from the DEC as a condition of any extension that you

grant today.

the nublic hearing and bring it hack to the hoard Is there anv thouch to how lone this is soning to

take, Chris, with as far as your deal with the DEC. The hold up on this whole thing has been the

completion of the environmental issues with the DEC. Like you said, they’re lacking their own

help, I guess.

the DEC. They do have a verbal approval is my understanding and beyond that I don’t think we

can predict. I can’t imagine it’s going to be much longer, but J can’t predict or force the DEC to

acl. Well, you know, within the one-year renewal, we Ul absolutely....you better get done within

that one year.

but this would be the last year that it gets an extension.

because of the unpredictability of you know, so many factors when you’re planning construction

like this. You know, | understand that previous projects have dragged on, but this is a new project,

and I think we’re entitled to what's allowed by code. We’re leaning on Passero and Passero is

leaning on the DEC, and we hope to have an answer as soon as possible.

with this project that have since expired. So, they actually had to go back to the Zoning Board to

reapply for those variances. So, just to tactor that into any ming considerations that the board

might be thinking of.

I've dealt with several projects, and you can’t communicate with them. You can’t get any

timeline from them and when they get it done, they get it done and that’s their attitude and that’s

theaway itis. His veryedifficuh te price tinicline on DEC.

Py. 83 Ap! /, 2UZ0 Planning Meeting

at the time right now they’re having issues with their department even, So, that compounds it

even more so.

frame it’s taken them to do approvals. You know, particularly with the white line regulations.

{he tact he got something verbai to me 1s Kind ot surprising.

would be a whole new application coming before us.

to.

what they want. Amendments. And quite honestly, I don’t know why they put limitations on it

at the Zoning Board because the Planning Board, that s the tinal plan. So, where did they come

into doing it.

just like the variance needs technically an extension.

question for several years.

And then it appears that you’re at the mercy, as Dave said, of the DEC. Not much you can do

about it.

RESOLUTION 26-009 Anthony Casciani made a motion for to

GRANT A ONE YEAR EXTENTION

(

PUBLIC HEARING

): Located at 0

Willowpoint Way. ONE YEAR

EXTENTION APPROVAL associated

with the proposed construction of six (6)

two-story townhouse style — buildings

consisting of a total of 56 residential units

and one (1) community center on a 13.5-acre

parce! having SBL#s 093,06 3 61.1! and

093.06-3-64.12 located in an MHR Medium

Py. 34 April /, 20260 Planning Meeting

L

High Residential District under Sections

269-17 of the Code of the Town of Webster

which was seconded by Dave Malta.

be contingent upon on the Zoning Board?

variances. But we'd be happy to have it subjectivity of that. Whatever makes you guys

comfortable.

approval.

correspondence to DEC checking to make sure the dock thing has been.

to check on them and....

and what they’re going to do. And I don’t think that was what was discussed at the previous

mecting at last year’s meeting.

(BOARD MEMBERS HAVING A DISCUSSION, PLUASL MOVE AWAY PROM THE

DIAS)

Pg. 85 April /, 2UZ60 Planning Meeting

didn’t meet the conditions of the permit and J think that should be put into this resolution for the

extension. Do we get verification that they have revoked that permit.

regardless of what was approved previousiy, you're asking for an extension right now. So, this

is the conditron of this extension.

Josh was going to send a letter and that was what this board agreed to a year ago. Under New

York State Law and Webster town code, this board is not allowed to impose new conditions

on a renewal unless they relate to the renewal.

to be done and we're just verifying that it was done and that the permit has been pulled....

BOTH PARTIES SPEAKING AT THE SAME TIME

extend this.

to send a letter. You can not impose a condition on me that the DEC is going to do something.

I don’t have control over that, right. The permit is set to expire at some point. I don’t know in

the near future.

administratively. Which simply means that the applicant sends in and says, “Hey, could you

renew this?” And DEC says, “Okay”. They’re not really taking a close look at it because of

their close process. That ts based on the discussions I had with the person at DEC,

I can’t recall if! senta formai letter, but | do recall them saying that because of the condition

associated with that permit and the resubdivision of land that took place to facilitate this project

that since they can’t meet that spirit of that condition that it would null and void the permit. So,

they wouldn’t entertain another extension because they are aware of the change that has occurred.

But I will circle back with them and verify the status of that permit and ensure that they’re aware

of What the towns pusition is ii regard to hat.

Py. so April /, 2UZ60 Planning Viecung

will contact the NY State DEC to verify the status of the docks and probably should add in there

too that we are granting the one-year extension and part of that is subject to you negotiating with

I guess negotiating with the DEC for the approval through their office. Which is the key to the

whole thing.

VOTE:

Mr. Casciani AYE

Mr. Malta AYE

Mr. Giardina AYE

Mr. Anderson AYE

Mr. Kosel AYE

Mire Moaltman ARSENT

Mr. Gasic AYE

APPROVAL associated with the installation of two (2) 51.33SF front lit channel letter wall

mounted signs on a 1.2-acre parcel having SBL# 079.15-1-1.2 located in the HC High-Intensity

Commercial District under Section 265-7 of the Code of the Town of Webster.

Appearing betore the board was Chns McCarthy. | am filling in for Jenny. So, 1 am just here to

see if what Jenny submitted for her restaurant is acceptable. If not, I’m just here to collect the

information of what needs to happen because she’d really like to open this May. May 1°.

does that sign meet all the requirements Josh?

had been granted to Bill Gray’s for having two signs on the building.

the old Bill Gray’s building so if you’re right on Facebook, get it right. Don’t put some crazy thing

in there. This has been on the books here for a little bit now and I guess it’s an oriental buffet

restaurant.

selection of foods. The hibachi grill; dessert collection; vegetarian and jumbo buffet,

including......largest restaurant in Webster in surrounding area and have good selection of Asian

Ativiicais Dulhei, alGlidlives for heatthy difeslyle cumpuded to Wie dica Wilh Teoli vogelubles,

topnings: dressings made fresh daily. Hibachi meats and mixed vegetables and we just sav fresh

Pg.8/ April /, 2U26 Planning Mecting

fruit and pastries for dessert.

Derek Anderson:

The Town of Webster Planning Board considered the request by applicant Jenny Z. to install

two, 51.33 sf front lit channel letter wall mounted signs for United Buffet located at 941 Hard

Road on a 1.2-acre parcel having SBL# 079.15-1-1.2.

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 26-010

Derek Anderson made a motion for TYPE II

SEQR which was seconded by Mark Giardina.

VOTE:

Mr. Casciani AYE

Mr. Malta AYE

Mr. Giardina AYE

Mr. Anderson AYE

Mr. Kosel AYE

Mrs. Malitman ABSENT

Mr, Gasic AYE

RESOLUTION 26-011

Dave Malta made a motion for SIGN

Applicant Jenny Z. is requesting SIGN

APPROVAL associated with the installation

of two (2) 51.33SF front lit channel letter

wall mounted signs on a |.2-acre parcel

having SBL# 079.15-f-1.2 located in the HC

High-Intensity Commercial District under

Section 265-7 of the Code of the Town ol

Webster. which was seconded by Mark

Giardina.

VOTE:

Mr. Cusetini AYE

Mr. Malta AYE

Mr, Giardina AYE

Mr. Anderson AYE

Mr. Kosel AYE

ipeoo rpiti 7, 2UCO Pialiiing viecting

Mrs. Maltman ABSENT

Mr. Gasic AYE

APPROVAL associated with the installation of a 23.35F internally illuminated channel letter wall

mounted sign on a |.83-acre parcel having SBL# 079.16-!-24.2] located in the HC High-Intensity

Commercial District under Section 2605-7 of the Code of the Lown of Webster.

Appearing before the board was Chris Ross.

right?

the building. Correct.

back on the existing.

Pg. s8Y April /, 2026 Pianning Mecung

Derek Anderson:

The Town of Webster Planning Board considered the request by Chris Ross to instal! a 23.33 sf

internally illuminated channel! letter wall mounted sign for State Farm located at 1065 Ridge

Road on a 1.83-acre parcel having SBL# 079.16-1-24.21.

lhe Planning Board classifies the proposed actton to be a L ype Il Action under Section

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

to further review.

RESOLUTION 26-012 Derek Anderson made a motion for TYPE II

SEQR which was seconded by Dave Malta.

VOTE:

Mr. Casciani AYE

Mr. Malta AYE

Mr. Giardina AYE

Mr. Anderson AYE

Mr. Koscl AYE

Mrs. Maltman ABSENT

Mr. Gasic AYE

RESOLUTION 26-013 Dave Malta made a motion for SIGN

Applicant Chris Ross is requesting SIGN

APPROVAL associated with the installation

of a 23.3SF internally illuminated channel

letter wall mounted sign on a 1.83-acre parcel

having SBL# 079.16-1-24.21 located in the

HC High-Intensity Commercial District

under Section 265-7 of the Code of the Town

of Webster which was seconded by Mark

Giardina.

are saying front lit LED.

BOARD MEMBERS DISCUSSING PLANS REGARDING THE LIGHTING

Pe. YU April /, 2U20 Pianning Mectng

CONDITIONS:

e Internal lighting only/2 signs. It has to be lit from inside because there’s no light

shing on it. So, it can’t be front lit.

mounted

we're all right with it.

VOTE:

Mr. Casciani AYE

Mr. Malta AYE

Mr. Giardina AYE

Mr. Anderson AYE

Mr. Kosel AYE

Mrs. Maltman ABSENT

Mr. Gasic AYE

RG&E STATION 73: Located at 891 Klem Road. Applicant Eric Thorne is requesting

PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL (

PUBLIC HEARING

) in association with the

modernization of an existing RG&E electrical substation on a 0.77-acre parcel having SBL#

064, 14-2-17 located in the R-2 Single Family Residential District under Sections 269-11 and 350-

1! under the Code of the Town of Webster.

Appearine before the board was Marvy Steblein with J abella Associates and we are assisting RG&F

with permitting on this project. [ have with me Eric Thorne with RG& E and he ts the manager of

environmental programs and projects. So, we are here tonight in support of station

73. So. 1s a

modernization project on Klem Road. As you can see from the aerial image there, this is an existing

electrical substation, consisting of a yard, fence, and transformer, a small switch hear building,

driveway, and some grass lawn in a triangular shaped parcel.

We propose to construct the new expanded substation around the cxtsting substation which much

remain operational during construction in order to minimize any service disruptions. So, this

planned modernization and expansion of the existing substation will support upgrades to

transmission and distribution fines in the region, provide backup ciretuits, which will reduce

customer outages and support the growing electrical demand in the Penfield and Webster areas.

Pe. Yi April /, 2UZ0 Flanning Mecting

The proposed substation will include two pre-engineered metal buildings or metal-sided buildings

which are the gas insulated switch gear buildings. An additional third building which is a control

building, a transformer with an oil containment foundation that also is surrounded by a firewall on

three sides. New asphalt access to the substation yard and then the associated electrical vaults, hand

holes, duct backs, conduit trenches, the new stone substation yard, security fencing with vehicle

gates and associated lighting that are necessary for substation operation.

Lighting wil! consist of building mounted wall packs along with perimeter security lighting which

is on from dusk till dawn and then task lighting which is only used if they need to respond to work

in the non-daylight hours. Substations such as this are unmanned so there is no need for any sanitary

service, any water service or any trash disposal outside of that which is necessary during

construction. We know that screening will be an important component of this project. RG&E

senerally nrefers not to have vesetation around substations for safetv and security nurnoses but

based on feedback that was provided when we appeared before this board in October of 2024 for

sketch plan, a landscape plan had been provided in response to those comments.

Additionally, the fence was swapped out. Initially, we came in with a chain link fence. And the

feedback was provided and indicated to provide something maybe more decorative. So, that’s been

swapped out for a high security steel palisade fence, which is shown In the renderings. RG & E also

used input from the October and December 2024 sketch plan meetings that we attended to revise

(the materials used on the lagade ol the pre-engineered buildings to ury to blend in with the residential

nature of the area. And again, the renderings reflet the implementation of that input received, The

current design, when compared to that 2024 sketch plan also features a modified basement in the

building which allows the buildings in general to be not as tall as what was presented previously

and still include gabled roof without increasing the overall building profile.

We are requesting variances from the ZBA, and we have an application in with them. It is an

existing non-conforming lot in terms of minimum lot area. We would also need variances for the

front yard setback, the rear yard setback. And some of that is based on the unique shape of the

parcel as it is triangular. Also fence height and setback. According to the National Electrical Safety

Code, substations should have fences that are at least 7 {t tall which would exceed most codes and

that is for safety purposes to keep people out and keep people safe. As this site is less than an acre,

it’s .77 acres. it won't trigger the need for coverage under the SPREDYS construction general

permit. Though we do recognize that il triggers requirement from the Town of Webster, we

provided an erosion and sentiment control storm water pollution prevention pian.

We have received comments from Monroe County’s review. One of the comments was related to

the ag parcel that’s on the corner of Whiting Road and Klem Road because that’s within a certain

distance of proposed substation expansion parcel. And we also received their input about

considering the relationship with the Hojack Trail. J just wanted to follow up on that comment in

particular that we do not anticipate impacting vegetation along the trail. That existing natural buffer

would be maintained to the extent possible of the trees that are already there and the lower

vegetation (hats already there.

Pe. 92 April /, 2020 Pianning Miccung

We did not receive any specific feedback from the PRC, but we do look forward to the comments,

which I understand are intended to be speaking to the aesthetics of what was proposed. So, that’s

our summary and we look forward to your feedback.

vandalism or anything like that.

the security. You know, as that’s not my forte, but it is an unmanned station but there is a relative

amount of due diligence by RG&E to make sure that impacts to the statton don’t occur and if they

do those will and can be flagged through systems that I am not fully aware of but it will be an

unmanned station but you know, being that we have the security fence around the station you know,

it’s not anticipated that we would be receiving much impact at this time.

knowledge, this is our standard practice, we do typically provide the local fire departments the

ability to understand what those systems are. And I do believe there are call alarms that go to those

fire services as well.

first shared on it on the buildings. They look kind of boxy. It needs to be more residential. It’s

just a minor change, but.

request from the hoard was to investiaate installing a cabled roof anto the huildines So. we did

work with out engineer here of the pre-manufactured buildings and design it in such a way that we

could incorporate the gabled roots to the possible...you know, without impacting the you know,

the overall structural integrity of the buildings themselves.

residential because they're quile tall. They’re setting up about 3 or 4 feet off the ground even.

Right. The wall around the actual building.

Pe. 93 Apr /¢, 2UZ6 Planning Mecting

landscaping on the front. I think there were some questions. Did you have some Alex? These are

from the people from the friends of Webster Trails. They had some comments there that they sent

me today, so.

them addressed. (READ INTO RECORD-SEE ATTACHED FOR COMMENT SENT IN) This

is directly from them.

The plans do not appear to account for the adjacent Hojack Trail, which is a heavily used

* "hoat 4 fre / fear ‘ y a a ' FAA AAR? : vw

ede bed davwed Ae Fed Uy FeO OLG Fa MAL Plt pr cias ddan kad uy Pte re ar baped ew dd ily. Lau

which RG&E actually wrote a letter of recommendation for this grant that we did for it.

So) The following issues must be addressed by the planning board to avoid significant

adverse impacts to the trail:

Encroachment on Hojack [rial during construction and operation

a. Will construction or operation of the substation require closure of the Hojack

Trail, even temporarily? Even temporary closure of the trail should be a non-

starter for the town.

Runoff and groundwater issues

a. The grade will be significantly increased/elevated on the site, and it appears

that water will be able to run south directly onto the newly resurfaced trail,

which already has drainage issues due to inadequate ditch maintenance

over the years. Please ensure adequate stormwater infrastructure is installed

sufficient to divert ALL runoff away from the Hijack Trail. A flooding trail

wouid be a terrible outcome.

Visual screening

a. Site plans show visual screening from the road but not from the adjacent

Hojack trail. Please add robust visual screening to shield the substation from

the trail.

Parking

Pp. Y+ April, 2020 Planning Mieclung

a. To mitigate the adverse impacts caused by proximity of an industrial facility

next to the trail, as a condition to the permit RGE should be required to

expand the proposed asphalt driveway/apron to create a public parking area

and trail head for the Hojack trail.

fulsu request the matter ve iudied uid Wie record senidas Gpeit for udddional wiillen

submissions for consideration at the next planning board meeting.

Be well, Ben Wisniewskin 756 Herman Road

; ome 's tee eerie ge BS n oneey ove . .

addressed and put in for final approval or something. I wouldn’t want to table this for something

like that.

on the boundary survey it’s RG&E’s property there. So, I think a more defined drainage ditch

between the substation and the trail to mitigate any impact to the drainage of the trail, you know,

would be helpful too.

5 of the

8. On that corner that does get wet because 1 drove by the property today. That's the lower

part of the property. It does look like you have a reinforced concrete pipe there that would help to

increase the flow over to a . As Keith raised earlier with another project, I think you need

maintenance plan to assure that that’s inspected on a regular basis to prevent flooding. That way you

ensure that you have a conduit to remove that water.

the drainage in the overall design of the project. We are including a drainage culvert that gocs

underneath the proposed driveway pitched towards Klem Road and an intent to, with approval from

the ownership of the existing 8 inch culver that’s there on the property upgrade that inlet, storm inlet

to receive the surface drainage as il comes off of the proposed development of the property.

Forgotten how to sprinkle oul licte, so Ht rains really hard, culverts are going lo back up and gel

clogged and I think they need to inspect it on some regular basis. If | might, I'll just add one more

thing. From a storm water perspective, while you have a storm water and a dewatering plan, it’s

wicheat as to where atid wien you dew diced where til water vous. Su, dtuinig your CONSE UCIO

Py. Yo April /, 2020 Planning Mecling

phase, how are you going to manage water if it builds up in your excavations or in anything else

where you’ re currently constructing? Just one additional item along that same track. It’s a small

plot of land. You have a relatively large construction on that site and you’ re entering right onto

Klem Road. So, to avoid having mud and other debris build up on the road, it would

It is nice to have some type of plan to assure that the trucks entering and leaving the site go

onto a dry Pad so they’re not getting into those areas of excavation.

construction entrance during the construction of the project. And it 1s our intent that all of the

construction traffic would be maintained within the RG&E parcel you know on that construction

entrance and you know onto the site development as the projects move forward. So, I don’t believe

that there’s an intent ta utilize the evicting roadway far van know canctrictian narking and traffic

down. Does the yard really have to go right up to the property lines? Especially, you know, the

neighbors to the east, you are I mean the yard is literally going right up to the property line and the

existing drainage pattern again goes west. Your proposed drainage pattern is pushing some of the

yard cast. And I’m concerned, you know, stmilar to what I mentioned, just like your drainage that’s

coming off of your yard into the neighbor’s property now to the east, how are you addressing that?

Since you're pulting the yard right up to the property line.

constructed while the existing substation is energized. The existing substation understanding that

the existing fence is you know, right on the property line or near to the property line on the east in

order to maintain the necessary clearances that you know, we would need for the electrical

equipment. It was oriented in such a way to...and in also due to the unique lot being a triangular lot

it was proposed in such a way to you know, maximize the space while allowing for the clearances

to be met for the infrastructure. You know if it was tight or compact it wouldn’t facilitate

the expansion while the existing substation is energized and we would have to look at you know

taking out that existing substation you know which could have an impact on the you know, the

services that ate fed by that station. So, it was maximized in such a way to facilitate the upgrades

but you know impact the you know, the service that ts fed from the station

line and that existing fence of the substation that’s grass. Is there a reason that that can’t retain or

stay grass and then you put ina diversion swale for your yard to make sure that your proposed yard,

which is currently sheeting to the east is not impacting that neighbor.

Ente Thorne. Su, we can certainly look ad the drainage tow aids to the cast lo make sure Uiat out

Swales intended to capture that runoff as well. Understanding you know, we certainly don’t want to

flood out an adjacent neighbor. We are also utilizing the space to the east of the buildings as a turn

aod aieas We uiiglitally bad PE sepg ob vwtlli tlie otibsiaiion bias bias lwo ali Weweiyo li ziity iin

existing driveway and the newly nronosed driveway. In reaching out to Monroe County DOT. thev

Pp. Yo April /, 2020 Planning Meeting

advised that we only utilize one driveway for the parcel. And to facilitate the impact, the

infrastructure necessary to complete the substation we’ re proposing that driveway on the side of the

parcel but in equipment around also if they’re on the you know, the off chance that there is to have

the room to that comes on an essentially on a, you know, a large trailer. We need to be able to have

the room to bring that infrastructure in to...bring the customers of the yard is designed for to allow

that turnaround area.

you're turning around a mobile substation within this yard. I think you’ re backing that in. So, if you

wouldn’t mind just looking at my concern. It’s really to the neighbor to the east on their property.

So, if we could evaluate that.

information.

lo see some screening on the east side. lil be honest with you, to that neighbor, bul | know you did

a great job with the frontage but again, you’re just becoming basically a lot, impervious lot, and if

you can do anything for that neighbor to the east, ] think it will be appreciated.

there.

will right, so right now there is a grade to property I kind of forget in which direction but now it's

kind of tabled off so and then that table is made up of 18 inches of gravel and another 6 inches of

fill oravel/sonl mix So. infiltration is caine to probably improve with that kind of a sittation over

draining to the adjacent neighbors. So that is why we....

built up. So, you're still going to be seeping out into the neighbor.

neighbors in my professional opinion. The only question that I did have is there are a couple of

locations where you have splash blocks. So, how is that....how much water are we talking about

at the splash block locations and is it constant, What is the....you don’t have to answer it here but

Wwe Wil want some beller dideistuidiag of what's occuuing there, The other thing PH mention

about this property. if | was looking at the contours appropriately, it....his whole property sits

Pe.y/ April /, 24U20 Planning Meeting

about a foot below and maybe two feet below the Hojack trail itself. So, you know, again, it’s

lower than the trail itself as well. 1 think with the features that they’re showing here on their plan,

I think there is going to be some help migrating water to the catch basins and things where it needs

to go to help dry that out potentially.

provide public parking on here tor the tratler. You could comment about that. Personally, 1 would

say, no. You don’t want to make this thing into an attractive nuisance. You don’t want people to start

poking around inside the station.

spaces along the road periodically. You see a few cars parked along there. I think that’s adequate,

isn’t it?

parking on this spot.

have a few spots for parking.

neighbors or anyone here wishing to speak either for or against this project, we invite you lo go up.

East. tf you'd like me to read that. This is from John Saulsgiver pega

Address:

897 Klem Rd 14580

Agenda Item or Topic you Substation 73 on Klem Rd.

are cammanting an

Pe. 9S April /, 2026 Planning Mecting

r

Please type your

comments in the box

below:

First, this design looks much better than the last renderings we

were shown. We still have concerns about the amount of light that

the installation will emit into our neighborhood.

Second, we consider the following things to also be positive, as

compared to.tho.cxsiic sigue

1) the access drive will be much further from our house.

2) the transformer will be mostly hidden from view, and also

further from our house, lowering the electric field strength and

probably reducing the audible hum that exists now.

3) in general, it will look slightly less industrial than what's there

now.

We noticed that there will be plantings al! along Klem road, but

nothing along our shared property line. We would appreciate it if

we could have the same sort of plantings along the east

penmeter.

Anything that could possibly be done to reduce light podution here

would be appreciated.

In like a few feet or what.

neighbor with some landscaping in there. Include some of that maybe.

Station was as if somebody was there doing work. It’s not continuous.

it perimeter lighting and that would be at that end of the project located on the transformer wall on

the outside of the transformer wall, But according to the photometric that we provided. we're near

al nearly zero al the east property line.

but there s also a manual tunetion as well. And its our current ment to set it as the manual luncuon

Py. yy April /, 2026 Planning Meeting

so, at this point and time it’s not intended that the lighting would be on through the dust

to dawn duration.

are we going to do, toiks? | kind of agree with Ketih with 15 inches of gravel. (hat’s almost like a

leech bed there. Yeah, I think that’s adequate for taking care of the water in that area for drainage.

As far as that letter that came, I gave it to you there. You just want to go....have you read it?

Anthany Cacciani) Anv comments on tt

of the screening, just want to reiterate, you know, we definitely understand the... you know, concerns

about the public usage of the Hojack Trail. We’ve designed it in such a way that the fence actually

follows the existing tree line inside of the tree line. So, as it is intended right now, we are not

anticipating necding to remove any of the existing vegetation. We certainly ... you know would keep

all the low growing vegetation you know...upon any such approval of the, you know, orientation,

we can certainly look to stake out some of he critical infrastructure and just do an assessment of

some of the, you know, the tallest maybe mature trees to make sure that there’s not a hazard that we

would, you know, have to do some sort of tree trimming to or something like that, But it’s not our

intention to remove the woody vegetation through there. You know, we’d like to keep it toa

minimum you know as much as possible. I haven’t actually walked the trail myself, so 1 don’t know

really what you can see.

standpoint we would not be impacting the trail during construction so it can remain open because all

of our work ts going to be confined to that triangular parcel.

For resolution. recall what you had. Everybody had some good points they brought up. [| didn’t

get a chance to write them all down. So, just remember them. So, with that, if you want lo move

forward and do a SEQR.

Derek Anderson:

[TOWN OF WEBSTER PLANNING

BOARD RESOLUTION

MODERNIZATION OF AN EXISTING

SUS PAT DON UOF. ldec-

Py. HU April /, 2020 Planning Meeting

SEQR-. UNLISTED

ACTION 04/07/2026

MOTION FOR AN UNLISTED ACTION - NEGATIVE DECLARATION

The Town of Webster Planning Board considered the request by applicant, Eric

Thome to modernize an existing RG&E electrical substation located at 891 Klem

Road on a 0.77-acre parcel having SBL# 064.14-2-17 located in the R-2 Single

Family Residential District.

The Planning Board determines that the proposed action is an Unlisted Action.

ave Planning Board determined that the action is subject to a single agency review

mrrernant te Doet a7 CORN AN , af SPOR and the at ttt tha meet armen Inte nena Fre

i eran porte sapere ye

eanine the determination of significance. The Planning Board therefore designates

itself lead agency for the proposed action.

The Planning Board has considered the criteria for determining significance as set

forth in Section 617.7(c\(l} of SEQR, and has

1. considered the information contained in the Short Environmental Assessment

Form Part 1

dated March 16. 2026,

2. considered public comments directed to the Planning Board during the

Public Hearing on April! 7,2026,and

3. completed Parts 2 and 3 of the Environmental Assessment Form.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT: RESOLVED that the TOWN OF WEBSTER

PLANNING BOARD

hereby determines that the proposed project will not have a significant adverse

effect on the environment for the reasons set forth in the attached Notice of

Determination of Non-Significance; be it further,

RESOLVED that the TOWN OF WEBSTER PLANNING BOARD is author ized

Ratal-, ANT cytes ‘ onable ’ ' ary to Gils tho BMaaotivn Declo Wias 5

hs Be hba tt adhe he ba ire Sit ae ~ eu ke pea an “ot Rhee bee ran ahi

discharec the TOWN OF WEBSTER PLANNING BOARD'S aera iiey as

lead agency for this action, be it further,

RESOLVED that the TOWN OF WEBSTER PLANNING BOARD, based on the

information and unalysis above, the referenced supporting documentation, and

discussions of the action by the TOWN OF WEBSTER PLANNING BOARD as

decumented by the Minutes lor tits meeting, that the proposed action WILL NO1

result in any significant environmental impacts, be it further,

Py. il Aprils, 2020 Planning Meeting

RESOLVED that the TOWN OF WEBSTER PLANNING BOARD, therefore makes

a DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE, be it further,

RESOLVED, that the TOWN OF WEBSTER PLANNING BOARD, based on the

above reasons, issues a NEGATIVE DECLARATION as evidence of its

determination.

TOWN OF WEBSTER PLANNING BOARD RESOLUTION

MODERNIZATION OF AN EXISTING SUBSTATION 064. 14-2-17

NOTICE OF DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE

ike Piahihiiy Bowl bas icasulldviy COLIC Lie POLIO WHITES PesUlls Lod tlic prupusea

action, when compared against the criteria in Section 617.?(c):

The proposed action will not have a substantial adverse change in air

quality since it does not include a resulated emission saurce

The proposed action will not have a substantial adverse change in ground

or surlace water qualily or quantity since the proposed action does not

include on site wells or sentic systems

The proposed action will not have a substantial impact on water supply since

it will not connect to the public water system which has adequate capacity to

supply the action.

The proposed action will not have a substantial impact on the sanitary

sewer system since it will not connect to the public sewer system which has

adequate capacity to convey wastewater from the site.

The proposed action will not have a substantial adverse change in potential

for erosion,

flooding, leaching or drainage problems. Construction practices will conform

to accepted storm water management and controls.

The proposed action will not have a substantial adverse change in

existing sotid waste production since the proposed action does not

puvotadiidn) ete e oS Hato us pruducig WelP vatican wit lie afte ndien

compared to the similar establishments.

The proposed action will not have a substantial adverse change in existing

noise, odor or light since the structures are consistent with the character of

the surrounding area and includes downward directed exterior lighting. A

temporary increase in noise levels consistent with normal construction

activities ts anticipated during constriction

[he proposed action will not have a substantial adverse change, or

cumulative change in traffic since the proposed action provides internal

traffic coniro! that prevents stacking on public thoroughfares.

Phe proposed action will not have a substantial adverse impact on the

Pe. 102 April /, 2020 Pianning Meeting

criteria listed under Section 617.7(c)(DUi) of SEOR because no habitats

or threatened or cndanger species were identified on or conliguous to the

proposed site.

IG. The proposed action ts not located in an area designated as a Critical

hi.

12.

14. Environmental Area by the Town of Webster or New York State pursuant to

subdivision O17.14(2) of SEQR.

The proposed acuon ty Holi midland Comiict with the Lown ol Webster

2008 Comprehensive Plan.

The proposed action will not create an impairment of the criteria listed

under Section 617.7(c)(I)(v) of SEQR since the action is not located in or

adjacent to the listed resources and is in character with the surrounding

community.

The action will not result ina maior chance in the tyne or use of enero

since the action does not require an upgrade to the electrical distribution

system.

The action will not create a hazard to human health since it does not

contain nor is it located adjacent to existing sources of hazardous

substances or contaminants. The project includes engineering controls

that help prevent the release of cleaning solutions off the site.

OWN OF WEBSTER PLANNING BOARD

RESOLUTION MODERNIZATION OF AN EXISTING

SUBSTATION 064, 14-2-17

15. The action will not create a substantial change in use of the land since it consists of the

types of structures already located in the overall commercial development. The action is

consistent with the existing community character, and the Town of Webster 2008

Comprehensive Plan.

16. The action will not attract a large number of people for more than a few days when compared

to taking no action since the action since the action, by ils design, is a drive through structure

with limited parking.

17. The action will not create acumulative impact on the environment as listed under

617.7(c)XDCX),CxD, and (xii) of SEQR.

SOLUTION 26-014 Derek Anderson made a motion for TYPE IT

SEQR which was seconded hy Mark Giardina

Pe. 103 Apri /, 2026 Planning Mecing

VOTE:

Mr. Casciani AYE

Mr. Malta AYE

Mr. Giardina AYE

Mr. Anderson AYE

Mr. Kosel AYE

Mrs. Maltman ABSEN I

Mr. Gasic AYE

with moving. All right, we’re good. All right,

RESOLUTION 26 O15

PRELIMINARY APPROVAL CHECKLIST

Subject io PRC Comments

YaYwNo

nN

by the Town of Webster.

= een

matt an fos ”

at 891 Klem Road. Applicant Eric Thorne is

requesting PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN

APPROVAL in association with the

modemization of an existing RG&E

electrical substation on a 0.77-acre parcel

having SBL# 064.14-2-17 located in the R-2

Single Family Residential District under

Sections 269-11 and 350-11 under the Code

of the Town of Webster which was

seconded by Mark Giardina.

Subject to a Letter of Credit posted with the Town of Webster.

Subject to Monroe County Water Authority comments

Subject to the determination of the ZBA for requested variances.

Address any land to be conveyed to the Town.

All roadway construction to be in accordance with the specification and regulations set forth

All sitework is to be in compliance with the standards of the Town of Webster.

Preserve all mature lives on site, where pussible

Address drainage, lighting, signage. and landscaping. buffering. berming and snow storage.

0. The landscape, hardscape, site accessories, and associated finished grading design for the

development must be prepared by a NYS licensed Landscape Architect. The final landscape

plans shall bear the seal and signature of the Landscape Architect.

We got a bunch of drawings here. So, do we have just a project number?

11. Approvals are subject to Prawine No:73-003-08 77110865

Py. (U4 Aprils, 2UZ6 Planning Meeting

L

hip roof vs the gable ends. And your roof, trom the looks of the roof, the way it’s designed, you

have gutters on there, They look like they’re almost flush with the outside of the building, the end

of the roof.

can bring that back to our engineer.

proposing |] sheet down or what that could be. But anyways, biggest thing is ’m suggesting is

the hip roofs on there. Mentioned about landscaping to the adjoining neighbor to the east.

Somebody brought that. Anybody has anything that you did bring up? We didn’t write it down or

anvthine And it’s on recorded but we dan’t have the recordina richt naw Derek vou had a counle

comments.

that it’s not public parking.

that culver doesn’t get blocked up and water does flow properly and then some type of plan for

how you manage the construction vehicles so tront road doesn't get tilled with water in the event

that you are working in there and vehicles to leave. And then how’s the dewatered?

assure that construction vehicles don’t drag a lot of mud and debris out into the road. And then a

plan for managing water that’s dewatered out of excavations or other areas of construction.

VOTE:

Mr. Casciani AYE

Mr. Malta AYE

Mr. Giardina AYE

Mr. Anderson AYE

Mr. Kosel AYE

Mrs. Mallman ABSENT

Mr. Gasic AYE

Anthony Casciani. Okay, we ale good for prelimiaaly approval. We've gui sone iifuration ty

deal with there and hopefully come back for final and we're all set.

Pe. UD Apri /, 2U20 Planning Wieeting

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.

TABLED TO MAY 5, 2026 MEETING

SITE PLAN AMENDEMENTS in association with a revised 5.2 MW Solar Generation Facility,

including approximately 8,800 solar panels, and 16 inverters on a 19-acre portion of a 120-acre

lot owned by Xerox Corporation having SBL# 065.02-1-40.111 focated in the IN Industrial

re ere ee ea

Appearing before the board was Katie Soscia. Thank you guys for having me here tonight. I’m

here seeking a site plan amendment for the solar farm that’s proposed on the Xerox Campus. The

only site plan amendment that we are changing or that we are requesting to be approved is that we

are removing the solar panels off of the asphalt cap. That is a deduction of about a little over 2,000

panels and a loss of about 1.4 megawatts to the project.

Means and methods are staying the same. Construction wise, landscaping plan is not changing,

That is really the only change. There’s also going to be a deduction of the number of inverters.

Originally there were 18, now there are 16 proposed. I’m happy to answer any questions that the

board has.

an approval. We had sent them the information. They approved it and it’s back here with a

modification to what was originally approved by this board.

as part of the project approval was a 1.5 inches of asphalt on top of the cap. Since the project is

removing it off of the cap, we were wondering if that requirement could be removed as well.

was put on there was to accommodate the additional work that was going to be done on that. If that

work isn’t going to be done. What is the sense of capping it.

Py. 106 Apr /, 2026 Planning Mecting

cap is intended to keep moisture out from the landfill below so that if it’s necessary to repave it to

maintain the seal on it, then you know that requirement would still need to be there.

Wendy Latco from Environmental Health and Safety and Xerox. So, that entire site is under a part

373 permit by the DEC and maintenance of that cap is part of that permit. So, you know in the

absence of the solar project impacting it, all you know, jurisdiction over that will revert to the DEC

and we ot course will continue to tollow their requirements tor maintenance ot the cap.

actually going to let the fence remain in place there because there is no sense in taking it down.

Chairman Vhave one more thing The ather request that Twas ening ta make i< if we conld undate

the one-year approval from the final site plan to today to the site plan amendment date for...

I will make a motion that we grant the approval to the Webster Solar Garden based on the

revisions presented to the Town Board and I would say eliminating the asphalt cap on there and

that’s to be name.,...that is under the jurisdiction of DEC approval through Xerox.

RESOLUTION 26-016 Anthony Casciani made a motion for

SITE PLAN AMENDEMENTS

AND EXTENTION Located at 139

Caracas Dr. Applicant Katei Soscia is

requesting SITE PLAN

AMENDEMENTS AND

EXTENTION in association with a

revised 5.2 MW Solar Generation

Facilitv. incliding appraximately

8,800 solar panels, and [6 inverters

ona 19-acre portion of a 120-acre tot

owned by Xerox Corporation having

SBL# 065.02-1-40.111 located in

the IN Industrial District under

Sections 155-5D (4), 269-10 and

350.22 of the Code of the Town of

Webster which was seconded by

Dave Malta.

Fy. lOf April /, 2026 Planning Meeting

[

as an overall project, I would say no.

VOTE:

Mr. Casciani AYE

Mr. Malta AYE

Nit. Giardina ABSTAIN

Mr. Anderson NAY

Mr. Kosel AYE

Mrs. Maltman ABSENT

Mr. Gasic AYE

significant construction to commence within one year from this date which would be April 7" ,

2027.

Okay, we have update for the communication code.

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER:

¢ Verizon Wireless Communication fower Update

Laura Smith with Nixon Peabody and I’m joined with Jeff Skolnick (DID NOT SIGN IN) of

NBNC, Tim Zarnki (DID NOT SIGN IN) of Verizon, and Kathy Pomponi (DID NOT SIGN IN)

of Verizon and together we’re representing this application.

As noted, we were before this planning board on March 3" at your previous March meeting

where we discussed the proposal for a 125 ft monopole tower to be constructed at the corner

essentially of Lake Ave and County Line Road. The site is located in the town’s large lot single

family residential zoning district and is permitted by a special permit and site plan approval

from this planning board.

At the March 3™ meeting. my colleague Bob Buredorf. he noted that Verizon is able to be

located at anywhere within the search ring that was presented to the planning board in exhibit G

of our original application. Upon the planning boards request, however, we did look into two

additional locations. One is a location H that was sown on a map that was submitted on March

31* submission to the planning board. That’s exhibit..../’m sorry, location H was in the

southwest corner of the map. It is butting up against that forest area on the border of the

agricultural use as well as exhibit [ which is essentially mirroring that location on the other side

of County Line Road. With the planning boards request to took into it, we did in fact reach back

out to the landlord and the landlord declined allowing us to move the leased premises. I'll note

as a baseline, we can’t force a landlord to lease to us. So, a sheer declining to lease to us is

sufficient tu rule Ghat out as a possible dlermative site. However, P will not that the hindlord

provided a letter to the planning hoard explaining hts reasoning. which we verv much appreciate.

Py. ivo Apis, 2020 Pianoing Viccuny

Usually, we just get no. So, it’s nice to the get the reasoning from the landlord. And as noted in

that reasoning from the landlord, the area that is actively farmed agricultural are under private

and public conservation restrictions as well as the realities of a working farm don’t make it

hospitable to having a cell phone tower back in the trees.

So, after going again back to the landlord to ask if we could move the sites to the two sites

idenufied by the planning board, we also pushed our RF consultant who's here, ‘lim Zarnaki

(DID NOT SIGN IN) to confirm that there were no sites located outside the search ring that

would work from an RG perspective. He again scrubbed the site from an RF perspective and

confirmed that the search area that was presented to the planning board and presented as part of

this application is the tightest search area that would meet his RG needs.

We nrecented that infarmation in March 31 ct cunnlement that wac nrovided to the nlanninag

board. In the interim between that supplement and tonight’s meeting, we asked NBNC to do

another scrub of neighboring properties to confirm although RF said we cannot be one property

out of the search ring or I’m sorry, the search area to confirm were there other viable sites froma

site acquisition perspective. With that, it was noted that majority of the properties along Lake

Ave, I’m sorry, Lake Road, are smaller residential properties or residential properties and are not

available for a cell phone tower lease. And then also noted on the map that was presented, |

think quite clearly in the March 31" presentation, there’s quite a bit of wetlands and creek area

around thal area. So, It’s really impeding where a cell phone tower can go within that search

area,

And then poor Tim as he'll present...we asked him to check again, and with that he was able to

present a visual presentation that once I turn if over to Tim, he'll walk you through the visual

presentation to help really set the tone or set the scene that we really cannot be outside of that

search area. The reason why the search area is so important and why Tim is going to walk you

through this presentation is because Verizon is considered a public utilily for zoning purposes in

New York State. So, in order to demonstrate that we meet the public necessity standard, we have

to demonstrate that there is a significant gap in coverage that this proposal remedies that gap in

coverage and that it’s the most feasible solution to remedy the gap in coverage.

Pil not for the first two items, that there are gaps in service That information is provided toa you

in exhibit F. That is the RG analysis that was first proposed and OR first presented by Bob. If

you have the application in front of you, PI note. you know, page 18 and 19 really tell a

compelling story to show the existing midband network within the search area and the

surrounding areas that we area attempting to service. And then the next page, page 19 that

demonstrates thal this remedy, this tower, is the remedy that will serve that that coverage gap.

To demonstrate the facility is the most feasible. We are always happy to look at alternative

sites. That is the process that we did going back to the landlord. This process that we did

scrubbing the site, you know, we really, we really pushed everyone quite hard to see are there

any alternatives sites that Verizon may locate this tower and the answer that has been coming

Vath in bis, ri also liote Wwhicit louniaig cli “ais apecilic alle, Witibe We ie vel) diidib ual aiid

cognizant of the public input that we heard on March 3™ and the public input that we anticinate

Py. 1UY April /, 2026 Planning Meeung

hearing at the May meeting, this site is a goad focatton to locate the cell phone...the cell tower

within the search area. There's no residential houses on it. It’s a clean space that already has

significant amounts of utility wires and utility poles. It is visually cluttered currently. It's not an

open field or open vista. As noted in the visual environmental assessment addendum that is

provided in the packet, there are no significant natural resources in the surrounding area. And the

top of the tower wili be visible from other locations 1n the search area. So, the concept of being

able to move the tower to avoid the aesthetic impacts of having a tall tower, it cannot be

remedied. So, we ask the board to consider those and them I’m going to invite Tim up to give a

presentation. And we’ ll be providing this in a letter to supplement the record.

propagation studies that we run that show coverage search area works and how we come about

them What hannenc ic we have either nranaention studies that we rin that chau roversce hates

or we have traffic problems that arise where sites are getting overloaded with traffic that can no

longer with stand the amount of people getting on them. So, then we’re asked, hey, we need a

site, what can you do for us? We take that existing propagations and we’ ll get into that I guess

but we’ll take the existing propagations and find an area where can we go? We'll look at

AMSLS, sea levels. We’ll look at, kind of hills, mountains, whatever is in the area. Where do

we need to find and target the areca where we’re going to get the best coverage to cithcr offload

or add service. We will do that by out propagation studies, or we have a tool that we use called

ALL that we dig through. We, you know, run these propagation studies, tind where we need to

g0, find out what heights we can do because AMSL wil! matter. If we have a 50 foot AMSL for

100 foot, that can make a difference in how far we need to go up on our tower.

We'll take that and we do into the design of that site and once we create an area where we know

we can go to based on those, we'll hand it off lo our site acquisition company say this is a search

area. This is where the general area we need to go in based on AMSL and a 125 ft tower. At

that point they go, they scrub the ring they come back to us with property owners that are

interested, not interested where we can go and we’ll take that and then now we’ll design the

site. Will design the site say you know if we get 50 foot AMSL we know we need 75 or 100 foot

or [25 foot tower to meet those AMSL plus center lines going through those.

So. we developed the search rine we added the area we don’t look at wetlands, we dan’t lank ata

lot of stuff, we just look at T need a site in this area. So unfortunately, site act gets caught up with

finding the feasible landscapes that we can go into and then when we look through these. we

make our design and we try to fit them into our network system and make that work. So, in this

area, as you can see here, we ended up on the far west side of our search area. We're basing the

search area on the coverage of our existing site to the west, which is four mile creek. And then

to the cast. we have Ganey. If you look at the search area in this, and 1 think this is up here

before... you look at ou scarch area here, we're basically cight in the middie of thuse lwo

siles. We’re focusing on the middle of these two sites. We’re trying to find that area, weakest

coverage and where we’re getling some traffic. The weak area actually causes a heavier burden

wil ic alien. Whitt it’s Weak, they Jaye i Woik dicta, Youtt plies lite bo Win inaichea, (hic

Pe. i10 Apri /, 2026 Planning Mectng

site has to work harder to work with each other. So, we're looking to fill those holes right in the

middle and you can see we’re pretty much in the center of that area.

We did look at the extra sites. We had, you know, landlords said no to a couple of them. So, we

looked at them, but they were rejected or declined at that point anyways. I know we looked at

another one that was just to the northeast. Northeast of our area. Looking at that, we came across

and found that it's just in not tar enough east. it s encroaching on the coverage ot our four mile

creek road. We are not getting what we need out of it; we’ll be back for another tower or if we

go to thal northeast site or northwest site. So, you know, we're always looking to stay in the

center of where we're covering and going after those areas.

I guess we can kind of go into some of the supplemental. If you look at page four, it kind of

shows this is our propagation study of the two sites Ganev and Four Mile Creek You can see

there’s our search area basically centrally located between those two sites. We’re on the west

side of it, so we, you know, definitely went as far west about as we can really go in those. We’re

open obviously for areas we can find, but that’s what we had a jandlord. That’s where we looked

and that’s what we got. If you go to page 5, or ...fives not in here, page six and seven. This is

kind of a unique view of how we look at these things sometimes as well. You can see on page

six. That's coverage from Four Mile Creck extending across the area. And you could see if we

went to the northeast, we’d be really encroaching on that coverage. We wouldn’t be getting

central area and get taking care ol both the sites that we need that we re trying to oftload slash

add coverage onto. Then if you look at page seven, that ‘s the opposite. That’s gonna ......you

can see that Ganey is kind of barley reaching to the search area, which again, this is why we

made the search area where it is. We’re trying to find that center point of the two sites and

equally offload the two sites I think that’s all I’ve got for now. Are there any questions?

Quite the lengthy conversation I had with him. I suggested maybe his firm or you folks, could

possibly contact the association that Mr. is involved with because he’s not talking in

his letter. Apparently, he gets grants or there’s soil bank or whatever he puts the money, you

know, he’s getting money for the property by not allowing building and so on and so forth.

Whatever the program is, I don’t know and I don’t care. However, my guess is if somebody

contacted this outfit. this firm or this oreanization T think Cornell Cooperative is part of it alsa

but whatever. Contacting them and trying to make an arrangement to say, Look, we’re not going

to put a building. we're not putting a barn. We’re not pulting anything on this property. Its a

simple cell tower going back there. And my suggestion at that meeting, the last mecting, was to

put it not into the woods, but by the woods as close as possible to it. Get it back where that

roadway that the owner of the property has his driveway comes right off of County Line Road.

It goes right back to that area. Now, I understand what you're saying, Well, it might be a little

bit too far and it does t receive. And Pim looking at if you puta straight dine from where four

mile creek is to Ganey, it’s almost a straight line with il. There’s no jog.

Pe. thi Aprils, 2020 Planning Meeung

I think what happened here, | think they picked a spot and said look we got that corner, drew the

circle and said this is where it fits. That’s my opinion. [think this....] am not happy with it

going there. I don’t think anyone is and I still think somebody needs to investigate a better

location for that.

back to the landlord, and we asked if he would be open to have that discusston with the agencies

with whom he’s contracted. He has declined. I'll note, 1 don’t know the type of agreement, nor

have I reviewed the agreement, but I am familiar with conservation easements and similar

language, and they are meant to be prohibitive of development. So, I, you know, candidly again,

Edon’t have experience with a particular contract or a program that he’s under, but it is not

surprising to me that a conservation easement or a similar type of contractual conservation

oblications and protocol would prohibit the type of development that were seekine here

in, ’'m not going to vote in favor of it, and I know what the situation is. The government says we

can do it one way or the other. Then you’re going to have to meet in my regard. You'd have to

take that route. It’s up to the board though because I will definitely not support it going ona

corner like that. I’ve been here from the first cel! tower that came into Webster years ago and

we have been able to manipulate, maneuver, and change locations of them. Get them

somewhere where they re al least conspicuous or concealed lo protect anybody in the

neighborhood and this couldn’t get any worse.

related to where you’ re putting this property, but you seem to be limiting us just to where you’ ve

already put it. So, I don’t know if you could talk to the owner buit giving us one particular area

rather than giving us an area that is the least adverse to the visual effect. So, I believe probably

some of the people that are here on the lake and you know, it kind of limits what potentially this

board would be willing to do. I mean, the code allows us to at least, we’re not saying we can’t

have the project, but at least have us have options, and it doesn’t appear there are any other

options than putting if where you put it on your plan. And I don’t think it’s necessarily positive

for the project, but potentially...............

Finally, the location of the tower on active farm property will create operational

inefficiencies. A commercial apple farm is a very busy place to work and live. People,

equipment, and harvested produce all need to be able to move.

What the hell is acell tower going to inffinge on that? Can you tell me that.

Pg. tl2 April /, 2u20 Pianning Mecung

only go where the landlord allows us to go. If we were allowed to pick where we were going to

go. You know, I’m not sure where in this circle would be the most ideal, but you know,

certainly we are receptive to the board’s responses. We want to be in a location that works well

for the town and works well for Verizon’s RF needs. We share your frustration that this is the

only location that is avatlable within our search area that will remedy the coverage gap. If there

was another alternative site, we would welcome it. Again, as Bob point out in the prior meeting,

we don’t care where we are within the search ring. We just need to be within the search ring ina

location that works. We can get out height. There’s no unreasonable delay and no unreasonable

cost. We want to be in the search ring.

area where I was referring to. he said it might be too far awav it wouldn’t work. Tsaid T don’t

know that much about the towers, but maybe you have to get an extra five or 10 foot because if

it’s back there, I don’t think anybody’s going to know five or 10 foot higher on a tower. So, and

I’m seeing this as....the owner of the property and he’s....he’ll get the revenue from it but not

willing to cooperate with it. And I have an issue with it. It’s a busy road. It’s one of the

most...itis probably one of the most attractive routes through Monroe County along Lake Road.

And to see that cell tower there. I’m opposed to it. Bottomline. | think the farmer said, “Well,

you know, Ill give you the spot there and then they drew the circle. End of story, I’m done.

almost a blind choosing of where the search area will be, and it’s based solely on the RF

coverage. If I may ask to pull up that supplemental material. | think two pages above. I think

two pages above I find very digestible as a non-engineer, you know that’s the search area that

Verizon is trying to solve. You see the four mile creek coverage to the west, you sce Ganey

coverage to the east. That area in the middle is where the coverage gap is. It is not based on

what the parcels look like. And in fact, it is not until after Tim and his team identify where the

coverage gap is that the site selection analyst goes out and even asks people. So, you know, I will

push back on the concept that we had this site and found a problem to solve. Instead, the process

is we locate this or identify the gap in coverage. We identify the appropriate remedy to remedy

that gap in coverage and then we scrub the site to look for potential landlords that would host us

in that area. Here. that is the only landlord that was willing to enter into a lease with us. That ts

the only location the landlord is willing to lease to us on his property. You know, | appreciate the

concerns or push backs or what the landlord should or should not be considering, but you know,

candidly, it’s his property. He can decide where were going to go. To the extent he’s limited us

to A and he’s provided actually a very good reasons to limit us to A when candidly no reasons

are needed. You know, we share your frustration that we can’t be somewhere else in the site, but

that is....there are no alternative sites that are within the search area that will remedy the

coverage gap.

frustration. Secis like we're almost boxed insight ow aud Pi just proposing some oul of the

box thinking. You can let me know if that’s something that we cannot do. So, it seems like the

Pe. dis Apis, 2U20 Fianning Mecung

limitation is really the search ring and there’s parameters that go into defining the search ring.

One of the things that Tony mentioned was what if we were to consider a tall tower? Does the

search ring widen potentially given you more opportunity to locate different is that something

you could look into if we were to increase it by another 10 feet or what to give you the flexibility

to maybe consider other parceis and modify the search ring.

fim Zarnicki: We designed the tower based on the existing coverage around. So, you’ ve got

Ganey and four mile creek. So, we designed something that kind of fits in there. We keep going

taller. What’s going to end up happening is we're going to cause interference to those sites.

Now the taller you get the farther the site propagates causes and gets in stronger and then it just

causes interference. We would have to do a lot of strange things to optimize the system that may

or may not work right.

name Roberts, candidate C, last name Smith which are in Wayne County as no interest.

Personally, I’m just curious, is that no interest based on a lease dollar amount that you were

offering? If you were to increase it, would there be interest potentially. You know, I’m just

curious if itis something that is negotiable with the landowner and then you know, again, out of

the box thinking, with the Johnson’s with their concerns there, do they have relationship with the

Smith family or the Roberts family there? Because those are both wooded lots unoccupied that

maybe they could build that rapporv/relauionship tor them to reconsider relocating the proyect

onto those properties because again, they’re more in wooded areas away from their land too

because there’s a concern that it’s currently right in front of their house.

guys said, | mean, we don’t start our work on the ground until they define an area that we need to

he in. We looked at those candidates. There’s a lot of wavs to talk with a land owner and try to

get them on board. None of that. 1 mean, some people just don’t want a cell tower on their

property. We can have a lot of conversations with them. We can have a lot of conversations

with you, but some people just don’t want it. We engage, we discuss, we go back and forth, we

answer questions with these land owners, and at the end of the day, they just aren’t interested.

That is pretty much all we can do,

Ontario and suppose you put two smaller towers in on other properties. In other words, instead

of putting a 125 foot or 30 foot tower, you pul two 100 foot towers, 90 foot, whatever, I don’t

huow, someplace in between to stretch the signal Dhave no idea what Pin lilking about. Pan...

ry. Li4 Api /, ZUZ0 Planning Viecuing

probably be four to provide that same coverage.

noted where we’ re looking at these towers, it is solving a problem between two towers so to

expand that area or move a tower closer to the towers that we're trying to solve the cover gap

coverage trom would bring interterence with the neighboring towers. 1’! also not you know

while we do appreciate alternative sites or alternative locations you know we are limited to

finding solutions without unreasonable costs and unreasonable delay. So, to the extent of

building two towers to solve a solution from a technological point of view having one tower in

the middle is ideal. You know, we would have to consider that from a cost perspective.

Anthanvyv Casciant Tran understand that hut Pm lankine at in far the residents in the

neighborhood. If I lived there, I wouldn’t want it either. So, cost is one thing and aesthetics in

the neighborhood is another.

Planning Boards is discussion about landscaping or are there ways we could mitigate the visual

impact of the equipment on the ground. You know, the tower will be the height that is but there

are landscaping choices or fencing choices that can be done to help alleviate the visuals on the

ground.

it be a monopine?” You say, it can be, of course, but to have a single uh cell phone tower looking

like a tree in the middle of the field might not be the aesthetic.

everybody’s best interest .

Kathy Pomponi (DID NOT SIGN IN): Iam the Project Manager. I just wanted to kind of tell

you T can appreciate you were here for the first cell phone towers in the Town of Webster Just

wanted to explain, back then, | mean F’ ve been doing this for 33 years, so | was involved with

some of that as well. Back then we had more flexibility as (o where we could put because we

didn’t have existing infrastructure in place. So, now that there is existing infrastructure around

where these coverage needs are, the search areas are becoming smaller, tighter, right? That that is

the reason why. I don’t want you to think that we’re appearing to be unreasonable. We're trying

to work with you. We're frustrated, too. But that is the reason why back then there was more

Meaibility. The search areas were larger. We had more fleaibility as we could put where we

could put out initial infrastructure is in place, it’s much more limited as to where we can be to

solve the problem because that infrastructure exists around it. Does that make sense?

Pe. Pld April /, 2020 Planning Mecting

history, there’s new developments have come in too.

Kathy Pomponi (DID NOT SIGN IN): But those are the communities that we’re trying to serve.

Those are exactly the communities that we're trying to serve,

sven Vetter: (NOL SPEAKING LOUD ENOUGH) | m not a telecommunications expert by any

stretch folks but it seems like there’s a proliferation of new towers. Like we have a couple of

them that were being considered for this town already. And the ownership shouldn’t be on us to

always find the new locations. You should accept some of the responsibility to modify your

equipment to increase your coverage. And | think that there should be a balance.

Kathy Pomnoni (DID NOT SIGN IN: Well we ahwave trv to modify the equinment an evicting

infrastructure first. I mean, of course, we would do that. We know that these are not popular.

We wouldn’t be here if it wasn’t needed. If there was another way to solve this, we would do it.

interfere with the other two. If you increase the height of the other two, would it solve this

coverage?

Kathy Pompont (DID NOT SIGN IN): No

A, that’s a whole lot of work and effort to be done in an existing tower. Can the tower actually

take that height so that means we have to get a whole set of you know rebuilding the tower

basically but then if you look at where these siles are (hey’re pretty close to the lake when we get

too high close to the lake, we have to be concerned about interfering with Canada. Canada uses

the same frequencies as we do and if we proliferate across the lake, we’re going to interfere with

them then we’re going to have all sorts of really big FCC issues if we do that, so we have to

maintain a proper heights for proper coverages. You know the balance is tricky with what I do

and we’re always playing with what is the right height and what can we get away with, so 1 don’t

come in here lightly with these things. | know you know these....we’re not well liked with doing

these things but we’re doing it for a reasan because everyhady’s using cell phones. We need

coverage. We need to get to the areas we need to get to.

the technical discussion. Happy to have it. But the other thing that when T look at this, the circle

looks to be idealized and the location that you’ ve picked is on the western edge of that idealized.

Can that circle shift?) And how much do you....if you shifted that circle a little bit to the cast

and inte the south, would you pick up other additenal propeities thal may be potential foi

leasing’? And how much would you lose in the event?

Kathy Pomnont (DID NOT SIGN IN): It wasn’t really our question that T think

yg. 110 April /, 2020 Planning Meetng

there other than this spot. He did review that.

EVERYONE SPEAKING AT THE SAME TIME. APPLICANT WAS ATTEMPTING TO

SPEAK.

looking at it and going through it and how about this one or how about that. Even with the

residential houses across on the north side of the road, you know, would it fit there? And that’s

all residential, but would somebody possibly, you know, but that didn’t work either apparently.

heine the search area necessary to calve the coverrce ean That’s the informatian nrecented here

in the supplemental information and is shown in exhibit F that you know this is where RF needs

to be. Again, the analysis is not done by we found a site let’s see if we can put something there.

It is done by RF identifying where they need the tower to be and where they need the tower to be

centrally located. I think in Tim’s ideal world, it would be in the middle of County Line Road,

that’s in the very center of the circle and that’s the ideal place to be within the ideal search area.

The fact that it is closer to the cast it still works from an RG perspective but to be further outside

that ring you know every movement is farther and farther away from being to remedy the

coverage pap that we’re seeking to remedy...

something there where would they put the tower then.

wouldn’t provide coverage there. It would just be............

needed like I don’t know what | do actually in that case. If we had nothing there trying

to.. (BOARD MEMBERS HAVING CONVERSATION AND HARD TO HEAR APPLICANT

SPEAKING) This, is you know always the gamble we get is like okay, I can’t solve it. Nothing

can go there. What do Ido? I don’t know.

mentioned two short towers. You say it doesn’t work. I don’t know. That’s beyond me but.

evity Daly iy

Peo lity Apres, 2020 Planning Mecting

that’s been provided. The effort that they put in for locating it, it does sound like this is the

location. So, I wouldn’t have no other reason to not believe it.

CLICKING THEIR PEN WHEN MR. CIARDI IS SPEAKING, IT’S DISTRACTING) County

Line Road, that triangular area where you want to pul it. [mean you're talking about minimal

feet from that triangle area past a little, it iooks like a little road, or some type of gravel road to

the other side of these electrical towers. Is there some particular reason why, there’s a hedgerow

already. It’s kind of not away from the road. It’s kind of covered by the hedgerow near the

electrical tawers Is there 4 reason why the farmer wouldn’t want it like an the other cide nf

those electrical......

the existing site. The existing proposed site, can it be moved south.

little higher now, there’s the triangular area that has where you are going to put the tower.

ihere s already a hedgerow that’s on the property line. i mean, you re talking about...

place where (EVER YONE SPEAKING AT ONCE) So, you have whatever that weird thing is.

that and be done to help mitigate the appearance of the equipment, we always welcome those.

something around it, but that really doesn’t do anything to....because that stretch of road is

straight down Lake Road. If you're going cast, it’s a straight run down. And if you are going

wesl, you’re coming around that corner. It’s right in front of you all the way. Anyways, we can

tatk alt nicht lone on it We're not soing to set anywhere with it Mv opinion is t think there’s

some way there’s an alternative. I think something should he able to be worked out with that

tarm property right there to locate 1t where we first suggested. I’m firm on that my opinion. So.

with that,

exhibil K. That's a good visualization of where the anticipated viewshed would be. Exhibit K of

the application. So just as youre considering it and thinking about as you were lalking about

driving down Lake Road, I wanted to offer exhibit K is showing the proposed view.

4 Bs F . e 7 '} ' i] " en 1 . X '

‘ hitholy Carvin: ie dity Ga pull Puyo deiuia ditele. Ade yee tet edi Lieie. b veti hit,

I'm thinking back a long time ago waste management, a little of f the tonic here. Waste

Pg. 118 April /, 2UZ6 Planning Meeting

management came in over on Basket Road and the neighbors were opposed to them putting the

garage and all the trucks and stuff there and they negotiated a deal with the neighbors. They

gave them free pickup or something. You ever consider doing that. Again, I’m out of the box

but....

know if you’ ve ever done thal or not. | was just thinking about that particular incident on Basket

Road. Try anything. Something to appease the neighbors that are affected by this the most.

Maybe it’s something you guys can think about and work out. I’m sorry.

Kathy Pomnont There’s alwave oning ta he neichhors that area affected hy it No matter where

we put it. It is just the way itis. It’s how this works.

point.

we are highly regulated by the FCC, and we are a public utility under NY State Law. We are

also highly regulated by the felecommunications Act of 1996. [his is a pretty well preenipted

body of law when it comes to the sighting of cell phone towers. We have done this time and time

again. We have located the narrowest search are that we could or the most pinpoint of search

area that we can be in. We’ve reviewed whether or not that search area can be expanded. We

have scrubbed additional properties to see if there was any other feasible locations. You know, to

the extent, there is RF data that it can be quite dense on other municipalities have taken

advantage of seeking a consultant of it’s own. So, we do offer, you know, we offer these as

notes of we understand the Planning Boards hesitation or the Planning Boards viewpoint of

aesthetics and location, but this field is quite crowded by the Telecommunications Act of 1996

through case law regarding the public utility standard and to the extent it feels boxed in or feels

hampered in and candidly, it is. It 1s because of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and

because of the public utility standard. So, we would welcome a conversation with the Planning

Board asain shout landscaping. about fences. tf there’s other mitiaation efforts that can be done

to help address the aesthetics of the equipment tower or Pm sorry, the equipment facility at least

or again seeking a review by a professional consultant about the RF data.

having to protect and infringing on Canadian...could you elaborate more on what you had to do?

eileel, lol cAanie. OU Fe Boing ap orth lo die lake aid wai Rind oF iileage oi aia ial the

Canadians have and we have the United States.

Pe. 1i¥ April /, 2046 Planning Meeting

middle of Lake Ontario....

basically 1t becomes serving, We don t want to interfere with Canadian service on the Canadian

side of their land mass actually, but we are regulated by FCC to not go pass the actual border in

the middle of the lake. We do that by regulating tower sizes by powers by down tilts. You know

we’ ve got ways we can do it. It just gets harder the closer we get to that lake because when a

signal it’s the lake, it just starts skipping and takes off so. We do our best to stay away from

being on lakes like that to mitigate that.

apologize, but Canada has a series of repeater stations along the northern shore of the lake.

There’s a station in Toronto that carries into Cobberg. It carries up the St. Lawrence. It’s radio.

It has nothing to do with cell. But can there be and here comes the question, which I’ going to

get hung up on. Can there be a type of a repeater station here tor a cell tower where you could

put it so they...you know what I’m trying to say. You have one at the bay or you have one here.

and those signals, their powers are magnitudes higher than what we run at. So, doing repeaters,

we'd have to have repeaters every 50 feet.

don’t really work in an RF environment because the biggest problem with a repeater, it’s still the

same sight, just being repeated over and over. So, that site, if it has traffic capacity issues,

you’ re just... you’re extending that coverage zone of that site to be just repeated over and over

again. So now you're just making cover a larger area then it is currently.

much spoken our pieces. See where it goes from here. [ guess I’m disappointed in it. And I’m

actual disappointed with the owner of the property for not being a good neighbor and willing to

cooperate with his neighbors. That’s very disappointing, but it is what it is.

AUDIENCE MEMBER YELLING OUT REGARDING VERIZON.

Pe. 120 April /, 2UZ0 Manning Meeting

e Approval of minutes for: March 3, 2026. Motion: (GIARDINA/CASCIANID

Mr. Malta AYE

Mr. Giardina AYE

Mr. Anderson AYE

Mrs. Maltman ABSENT

Mr. Gasic AYE

Mr. Vetter AYE

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

meeting at 9:45 PM.

Daread | S; 2b

MAY 6°26 PH2:02

FILED WEBSTER THN CLK

(Todnene nt Moor

Respectfully Submitted,

ark Giardina, Secretary

Katherine Kolich, Recording Secretary

Pe. l2i April /, 2026 Planning Mecung