Minutes

WEBSTER TOWN PLANNING BOARD MINUTES

Anthony Casciani, Chairman Sven Vetter (will not start until April)

Mark Giardina, Secretary

Dave Malta, Vice Chairman

Derek Anderson

Peggy Maltman

Drazen Gasic

Katherine Kolich, Recording Secretary

Josh Artuso, Director of Community Development

Erika Corsi, Town Planner

Frank Ciardi, Attorney

Pledge of Allegiance/Roll Call

Summary overview of outcome:

SCHEDULED MATTERS

:

1. MAURICES-SIGN 1040 RIDGE ROAD

2. BEST BUY AUTO SALES-ADDITION-771 RIDGE ROAD

Increase the vegetative buffer along the west side of the property.

Show paving limits and parking striping on the plans.

Include a dumpster enclosure detail on the plans.

Include wall-pack lighting details on the building clevations and on Sheet C-301

(Lighting and Paving Details).

Site Data table to include total overall # of parking spaces

Add distance measurement. between existing and proposed buildings.

Add distance measurement of asphalt to east property line.

Provide overall landscape plan for site.

e ¢« @ @

Po. ft Pebruaray 3.2026 Planning Meeting

3. ABERDEEN ESTATES PHASE 2-HAZELHEAD LANE

4. ABERDEEN ESTATES PHASE 3-HAZELHEAD LANE

( Mark Giardina read each application into the record)

is requesting SIGN APPROVAL in association with a 69.7SF internally illuminated wall mounted

sign on a 13.9-acre parcel having SBL# 079.16-1-1.11 located in the HC High-Intensity

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

Appearing before the board was (THE MIC FOR PODIUM HAS STATIC AND NOT LOUD

EN@UGH) Michael Mammano with Clinton Signs. We are seeking Maurices signs to be placed

on the old Dress Barn. It’s right on the store front. It does not exceed square footage; it’s

individual channels; internal LEDs.

Michael! Mamniano: The panels already there.

Derek Anderson:

The Town of Webster Planning board considered the request by applicant Michael Mammano of

Clinton Signs to install a 69.7 square foot internally illuminated wall mounted sign located at

1040 Ridge Road on a 13.9-acre parcel having SBL #079.16-1-1.11.

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

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

10 further review.

P. 12 Teltiatay 3 2n2h Theaieeah NMheclraw

. - 7 c

;

RESOLUTION 25-001 Derek Anderson made a motion for FYPE

II SEQR which was seconded by Mark

Giardina.

Mr. Malta AYE

Mr. Giardina AYE

Mr. Anderson AYE

Mrs. Maltman AYE

Mr. Gasic AYE

RESOLUTION 26-002 Anthony Casciani made a motion for SIGN

APROVAL Located at 1040 Ridge Road.

Applicant Michacl Mamimano of Clinton

Signs is requesting SIGN APPROVAL in

association with a 69,7SF internally

illuminated wall mounted sign on a 13.9-acre

parcel having SBL#079.16-1-1.11 located in

the HC High-Intensity Commercial District

under Section 265-7 of the Code of the Town

of Webster. which was seconded by Dave

Malta.

Mr. Malta AYE

Mr. Giardina AYE

Mr. Anderson AYE

Mrs. Maltman AYE

Mr. Gasic AYE

is requesting SKETCH PLAN REVIEW in association with the construction of an approximately

2,826SF accessory structure for auto-mobile servicing on a 1.73-acre parcel having SBL# 079.17-

1-21.11 located in the MC Medium-Intensity Commercial District under Section 269-5 and Section

350-18 of the Code of the Town of Webster,

Appearing before the board was Ian Kuchman with McMahon Associates. 1 am here with the

representative from Best Buy Auto Sales at 771 Ridge Road. Right down the auto sales district of

Ridge Road. The applicant utilizes and operates an existing structure and they’re proposing as part

of the site plan an accessory structure in the rear of the existing principal structure of approximately

40 foot wide by 84 foot log 5 bay maintenance garage to service their existing client base and

customer base for auto sales.

a]

Pe. 13 Pebruaras 3.2026 Manning Moctiag

The site plan that we helped submit before you today provides a little bit more structure and clarity

on overall parking and striping plan. In addition to some accessory lighting in the back and

modified lighting in the front. ADA accessible parking in the front for where customers will be,

along with sewer tie in from the proposed accessory structure that will have four drains and facilities

for employees and will be plumbing in through the existing structure. No increase in impervious

area triggering any type of storm water requirements. The existing area in the back is gravel area

that’s currently being used for parking and car staging area. We received PRC comments from our

workshop a couple weeks ago. We’ ve gone through those comments, provided a response to those

comments.

I think at this point we are in sketch, right? So, that feedback has been taken. We've made

modifications to the site plans as you se here today as well. The building itself we do have building

plans from Modular Builder where the roof is going to be black. It’s going to be a steel metal

sucture. The roof will be black. The siding will be a combination of light aud dak gray. It will

be a timber post from style pole bam construction method. Regarding car haulers and traffic

patterns on the site, our applicant is not proposing any type of car haulers to be navigated through

the site.

Although it was initially shown with a template with out initial submission. You guys may have

seen that; our revision has removed that. It’s a used car operation. There are no car haulers that

are, you know, part of their operations and being utilized on the site. Everything bought at auction

and brought to the site for sales on a one-on-one basis. Other than that, I didn’t see anything else

in the comments from the PRC. I would like to open it up to the planning board and see what types

of comments you guys have.

deliveries. You’re not proposing it, but somehow these things kind of happen. J don’t know if it

will. I’m not saying that’s the case, but there was a truck parked out there a couple weeks ago,

unloading, so this becomes an issue and the car dealers there have all been pretty much the same. I

think it’s time that we need to really tighten up on these dealerships along there. That would be

number one. Number two, with the building, I don’t have a problem with the building going back

there. We even talked at PRC taking out that turnaround thing. That was hooky. That design, you

know. You’re not going to lose that many parking spaces. If anything, there was getting in and

getting out a vehicle, but you're saying they’ re brought in independently, cat, right? That's for sure?

lan Kuchman: We have other locations available so if in fact the hauler had to be used for transport,

we can route it to one of our other locations (THE RECORDING IS NOT CLEAR, ECHOS)

P, it Tebitiaias 4. 2020 Phaliaii Mechily

back in there a couple of times now I’m totally lost. E don’t even know where I’m going back. The

cars are on the property or are they next door property or...I think somehow, we need to an I don’t6

think this can be done now with the snow, but that needs to be clarified. A definite line of where

they are and there should be a buffer in in between there, grass; a few trees, something because

we've got to start changing the way we’ re doing these places.

Anthony Casciani. No, tiv, the (wo sides. The back is woods Uiat there you have a buffer. I don't

know if your cars are parked in that buffer or not. I mean, I don’t really know where the line is

there.

lan Kuchman: Yeah, we’re showing on our plans an establishment of an edge of pavement that’s

going to be new modified . That buffer can be reestablished with vegetation, and we can add on

our plan, So, ...

willing to commit to establishing a grass area to separate our parking from our neighbors parking.

To the east, there is a pretty substantial existing pone there that provides natural buffer there. And

that pond straddles on the property line ...

opinion anyway.

and a few trees, something. We’ ve got to start fixing these places up, you know. One runs right

into the other. You don’t know who owns what other than the direction of cars are facing, you

know. So, I'd like to....that’s how 1 feel on it. 1 don’t know about the rest of the board, but I think

that is something that we should be looking at. I don’t know how you would do it. 1 mean, I can’t

do anything with it now obviously, but what are you planning to put this building up?

ae

;¢ TI

ee |

, ANAT OP, ' x .

COPE oY a (ho ob dethbebiayse v7 beaper

- rae .

that along with the approval that you get a...before you get a C of O for the building, that strip is

modified with a landscaped area. That would be spring time. Okay. I mean, you can’t do it now

obviously.

and distinguishes your property from the property to the west, you know, and I think that’s

something we need to be starting to do with these properties as they come in, too. Everybody’s

wanting to get more into it. What’s the height of that building? The height of that building isn’t

any higher than your existing building. is it?

Because right now, I don’t know where the cars are parked and if they’re in or out of the buffer

personally.

removing a tree on the west side and you’re also going into the vegetation areas on the east side.

The plans are not indicating a clear distinction of existing gravel area with what is proposed as

. So, because you could show your existing survey plot map with you know where your

limits of cxisting gravel is in comparison even on your sile plan. You now, where is thal gravel

stop with where you’re proposing new asphalt to be added on. You're only getting 5 feet on the

west side. It’s not going to give you much room for any vegetation. I’m also concerned that you

now you are putting ail these parking spaces in a 20 foot side setback on the west side. Is there a

variance needed for...

the total it has to be 15 foot, Josh?

De, 1G Pedromras 3.2 26 Phan Moeoctiig

side setback on the west side. On your east side, you’re actually going into the existing 25, 20 foot

wide easement. So, that seems to be a utility, sewer, and water easement. You know, you have an

approval to be putting designated parking cars within that easement area. This is one of my

concerns on the east side.

would totally encumber it from the use of lot 2 from accessing that utility easement. I think by

proposing asphalt that could be easily excavated, removed as part of any type of utility maintenance,

future utility maintenance that would provide the intended use of that easement. Take away from

that. That’s our justification on that.

of that is. What is the width of that? It is 20 feet.

feet of a buffer there and 5 on the other side...encompasses the

20. Derek Anderson: It just doesn’t have a 15.....(NOT ABLE TO HEAR)

drawing showing that it protrudes into that buffer into the 20 foot by 5 foot, but you still have 15

plus the 5 on the west side. Gives you your 20 foot total buffer. Okay, so we should show that.

building. is there an employee egress area in the back of the existing building?

lan Kuchman: Egress in the proposed building

Pe. 17 Pebruaray 3.2026 Mannine Mecting

(EVER YONE SPEAKING AT THE SAME TIME)

fan Kuchman: Currently, no. Historically, yes.

can exit and that area is being maintained from snow accumulation because emergency egress. The

dumpster closure area, you’re showing asphalt stopping around the dumpster enclosure. Is there a

reason that it’s also not underneath the dumpster? Is there concrete there or what is being proposed

underneath the dumpster enclosure.

could modify that.

again CMU blocks dumpster enclosure with a concrete pad.

[an Kuchman: Do you prefer blocks as opposed_

The parking we got has 9 foot spaces .

going to be on that site. Do you have a total on there now? I see 45 on one side and 17 on another.

all over again or just adding on.

Pe. 18 Fobruarey 3.2026 Planning Meeting

up with 300 cars jammed in there and say, Well, they fit, you know. Okay.

I’m not seeing any on the drawings, but I’m assuming the buildings will be sprinkler.

you recall that about the water, bathroom in there or something?

(NOT CLEAR WHEN SPEAKING)

substantially completed. So that storm sewer was never routed through tat easement . So, the

easement that was proposed , I don’t know if it was ever filed. Trying to get to the bottom of that.

I don’t know if Erika can provide more clarity on that. We didn’t see anything in our research. The

way that storm runs now is that it runs under the driveway in the front of the site closer to the right

of way into our pond to the east. So, it was an easement that was conceptualized but it was never

actually . (NOT CLEAR WHEN SPEAKING)

show any easement go through this area.

do you that?

Pe. 19 Pobruaray 3. 2026 Planaing Mecting

as far as Thomas once it gets off the site from Thomas actually

[an Kuchman: It goes into town sewers.

or inactive?

and what process you need to go through that exist. We’re just going to take it off.

Where does that actually drain.

actually catch basin.

building. We don’t have any foot candles indicated by dumpster enclosure or really in the rear of

the parking lot. So, you know, I’m thinking of snow plowing in the middle of the night, somebody’s

out there doing some work or garbage being picked up. Just so you have enough lighting in the

rear for safety.

in there. Take your front and.......... you do have some grass in the front there. If I’m not mistaken.

9 to 10 foot sections distinguishes the front.

and this and that and at a meeting just last night, there’s a lot of this came up aboul street scape.

We need to get these things back in gear again. So, | am going to suggest that there be some

landscaping done in the front of that, We did that with the bank that’s going on the corner of Hatch

Road. They cooperated. They’re putting in a landscape berm. So, if you Just enhance it and f1x it

up, just show us a drawing of what you ca do with it. Something to improve the appearance along

Ridge Road. We got to start with this. Anyone else. All right, I guess you're just here for sketch

plans. Su, we're....1'm going to suggest again, the landscaping on the west side; asphalt not be in

ARN . ‘

Pe. 20 Pobruaray a “026 Mania Ni cddles

the buffer area but that piece that you got there’s...has to be 15 feet, you’ll be all right with that.

Address easement, whoever does that the town or you guys. I don’t know that and you are talking

about the lighting.

landscaping. Those are the key things you’re looking for. All right. Okay, I guess we’re all set

with that then.

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

e Show paving limits and parking striping on the plans.

e Include a dumpster enclosure detail on the plans.

e Include wall-pack lighting details on the building elevations and on Sheet C-301

(Lighting and Paving Details).

Site Data table to include total overall # of parking spaces

Add distance measurement. between existing and proposed buildings.

Add distance measurement of asphalt to east property line.

Provide overall landscape plan for site.

ABERDEEN ESTATES PHASE 2: Located at Hazelhead Lane. Applicant Forest Creek Equity

Corp. is requesting FINAL SITE PLAN AND SUBDIVISION APPROVAL in association with

the development of 20 single-family residential lots on a 17.10-acre parcel having SBL# 050.02-1-

23.11 located in the R-3 Single Family Residential District under Section 269-10, Section 296-18

and Section 350-12 of the Code of the Town of Webster.

Appearing before the board was Jared Hirt with Evans Fox (DID NOT SIGN IN) on behalf of the

applicant here tonight with Walter Baker with DSB Engineers. There was a letter issued by the

town On January 29, 2026 (SEE ATTACHED) which set forth some comments by PRC committee,

and we did submit response today from addressing comments that was set forth in that letter

January. I assume everyone on the board has received a copy of that. If not, I have a copy. Other

than that, 1 am I really her to be Walts candy. Most of the issues that are addressed

here are comments and concerns that Walk can address by way of Engineering.

in August of 2021 with preliminary overall approval and final for phase

1. So, overall approval

with 79 lots per the _ ___ per 100 foot by 120 minimum size depth of lots ad 22,000 square

feet in phase one which we received approval at that time was for the 23 lots which has been up

south road. You can see that it’s substantially under construction. We have approxtmately....we

have exactly 11 homes under construction are completely built. So, that leave us 12 more lots, and

the developer and the builder are moving along fairly well considering the first house was built.

The model was built last June and started the sales at that time. So, things are moving well, which

Pe. 2! Foebruaray 3.7026 Planning Meetin

Town of Webster

Community Planning and Development

| } IQG0 Ridge Road, Webster, NY 14580-2917 @ (585) 872-7032 @ WebsterNY.gov

January 29, 2026

Walter Baker

D.S.B Engineers & Architects, P.C

2394 Ridgeway Avenue

Suite 201

Rochester NY, 14626

Walter,

The Town's Project Review Committee (PRC) has reviewed the plans submitted on January 13, 2026, and offers

the following comments:

ABERDEEN PHASE 2-

Review elevation issues for Lots 215-219. If shown correctly, basements may be sufficiently above grade to

trigger sprinkler requirements. Increasing final grades beyond what is shown could also create drainage or

temporary ponding issues between lots.

Phases 2 and 3 must be combined. They will not be approved as separate phases. Please contact Mark

Stein or Keith Mortimer directly to discuss.

Verify that all lot numbers are correct on every drawing. The plat map appears to contain numbering errors.

Show the locations of any known farm tile systems.

Add the following abbreviations to the legend: SA, ST, WS, CS, F.F., G.F.

Confirm whether clearing limits have been completed.

identify any trees proposed to remain within the clearing limits, if applicable.

Provide temporary fencing (e.g., orange construction fence, silt fence) to clearly delineate wetlands on Lots

209 and

210. Add the SWPPP construction sequence to the drawings.

Clarify and expand on the note stating, “Various lots may be subject to deeper than average basements...”.

Note 5 on the Grading Plan states that sediment traps and sinks deeper than 1.5 feet must be protected with

orange fencing. Show the locations of these features on the drawings.

The Grading Plan legend includes a symbol! (A) for “Deep Hole Location.” Confirm whether any deep hole

locations exist and show them on the plans if applicable.

Remove the SWPPP certification signature block. This requirement wilt be addressed through a separate

submission.

585-872-7032 © 585-872-1352 (fax)

Planning-Zoning@ci webster ny us # www.webstemy.gov/106/Community-Planning-Development

Town of Webster

Community Planning and Development

| b [000 Ridge Road, Webster, NY 14580-2917 @ (585) 872-7032 @ WebsterNY.gov

On the Grading Plan, revise the SPDES compliance note to replace “College” with “Town of Webster.”

Show pad and finished grade elevations at each proposed house. Finished grade elevations should be

labeled in boxes at each comer of the structure.

Re-evaluate drainage patterns and grading elevations for Lots 215-218.

Add drainage arrows showing flow paths to an approved catch basin, drainage swale, or stream. This may

be shown on a separate grading and drainage plan.

Several Phase 1 lots had downspouts that could not connect to the storm system. Address how this issue will

be avoided in Phases 2 and

3. Add a signature block to all drawings.

Any changes to driveway locations shown on the plans must be coordinated with Town of Webster staff to

avoid conflicts with cleanouts or manholes

Provide detailed landscaping plans for the berm along the southern property line. Specific plantings

(arborvitae) were previously committed to the adjacent property owner, but are not currently shown.

Show adjacent property lines and ownership information on all plans, as required by Town Code.

Provide clarification on project phasing and the expiration of final approvals.

Conservation easement boundaries must be physically marked in the field with bollards or similar features.

Lot 220: A storm manhole (DB13) with a south invert of 312.28 for a 30-inch main runs parallel to a sanitary

manhole (SA21) with a south invert of 312.73 for an 8-inch main. Clarify how the long sanitary laterals from

Lots 201 and 202 will cross the storm main. If routed over the storm line, laterals would be limited to

approximately three feet of cover on the far side of the road

ABERDEEN PHASE 3-

Provide spot elevations at all building corners.

Clarify grading details, as the current information is unclear.

Add grading and stormwater flow direction arrows, either on the same sheet or a separate plan.

Show distances from property lines to clearing limits in the cul-de-sac area. Existing pine trees in this area

must be preserved, as committed during the 2021 rezoning from R-2 to R-3.

Clearing limits must be clearly delineated and verined by Town staff prior to the start of any site work

Show adjacent property lines and ownership information, as required by Town Code.

585-872-7032 @ 585-872-1352 (fax)

Planning-Zoning@ci webster ny.us ® www.websterny gov/106/Community-Planning-Development

Town of Webster

Community Planning and Development

| ) 1000 Ridge Road, Webster, NY 14580-2917 @ (585) 872-7032 @ WebsterNY.gov

e Lot 318: Storm and sanitary laterals are shown crossing the road to the southwest, even though the mains

are located on the southeast side of the road. Revise plans to eliminate unnecessary iong laterals crossing

the roadway and water main.

¢ Between Lots 305 and 306, there appears to be approximately six inches of clearance between the 8-inch

sanitary main and the 24-inch storm main crossing from MH DB24. Confirm adequacy and compliance.

Any plan revisions made in response to the Project Review Committee's comments must be resubmitted to the

Department of Community Development for review.

Should you have any questions, don't hesitate to contact me at (585) 504-3996 or ecorsi@websterny.gov .

Sincerely,

Erika Corsi

Erika Corsi

Planner

Community Planning and Development

585-872-7032 © 585-872-1352 (fax)

Planning-Zoning@ci webster ny us @ www.websterny gov/106/ Community-Planning-Development

brings us to the point where we wanted to come in to get the final approval for phase 2 and also

phase

3. So, phase 2 consists of 20 lots and phase 3 will be the remaining 36 lots. The thinking of

the developer is that sales are going so well that he would like to get final approval for both sections,

2 &

3. As the board may recall, we submitted an application in December for this January meeting,

and we withdrew that based on the comments from the town PRC.

We were intending to come in with a total of 56 lots called it phase 2 with 2 construction phases.

Again, the developer thinking is that he wants to try to get pricing from site contractors. So,

hopefully with the number of lots we can get more of scales on pricing and comments that the

December application was they wanted us to separate it back to phase 2 and 3 and we came in for

phase 2 and phase 3 at the same time but basically there was some confusion on the town staff part.

So, we separate it out and submitted 2 complete sets of plans. Phase 2 complete with 20 lots and

phase 3 complete with 36 lots and resubmitted after seeking final approval. Again, we’re trying

to....the developers intent is to hopefully get better pricing with both sections being good at the

same time with the contractor. And if that’s the case, he will obviously move forward going to

have one year to get all the approval and sign offs and get it to the county for filing for phase 2 as

weil as phase

3. So, we coinplied with the change from following two construction phases to

complete phase 2 and 3 plans. So, that’s the change from out January submittal to the February

submittal. And we did receive the other comments which made, as Jared mentioned, we’ve written

responses to that and there technical nature will comply with that you know construction....they

move forward 30 minute (NOT SPEAKING LOUD ENOUGH AND KEEPS

CUTTING IN AND OUT) all that make changes to the plan. Are there any questions?

didn’t get any responses if they were submitted back today, I think it’s realistic for us to have time

to review them to incorporate them into the decision. One of the PRC comments was from

engineering department that they would like phase 2 & 3 combined not separated and there should

not be an approval granted as separate phases which seems kind of contradicting.

was referred to the phase 2 and phase 3 and submitted both as the same time. Which we did.

tables provided for both phase 2 and phase 3 so that we know you're equaling out or if you're

exporling out or importing in as part of your projects. T know some of the comments that

engineering had was with regards to basement exposure and whatnot. So, we could see earthwork

tables to show the proposed as part of the project.

Pp. 22 Tebrualuy 3, 2026 Planing Meeting

nothing that is not fill material and so it’s pretty apparent when you look at the plants closely where

the original ground is proposed elevations standard you want to call it, 9 foot ~ 8 ft clear basement.

So, 9 feet with the first floor structure so the footers are actually 9 % feet underground so everything

complies with being on ground.

1 said, provide an earthwork (EVERYONE SPEAKING)

meaning-First Floor and we also have what’s called a garage floor which is key for us to the pitch

of the driveway between the road and the driveway to the house. So, we call out first floor, garage

will basically....... from the first floor down to the basement floor level of 9 feet plus standard footer

depth.

a 100 foot wide. It tapers down, but the mean width of the lot does meet the requirements of 100

feet.

minimum 55 feet at the right way but the setback it should be.

all legitimate. We don’t want to reinvent the wheel of this thing.

like to see construction is proposed in concrete wash out areas which weren’t in there. I want to

see the limits of disturbance area identified. It’s very hard. Again, you have a very, you know, a

drawing set with a scale so it’s pretty hard to determine some of the line types that are used. It’s

hard to determine where your clearing limits are as part of the project. So, I would likely thicken it

up, make il really stand out where your proposed disturbance limit is part of your project.

I didn’t see and maybe it’s just because the size of scale, but I want to make sure that you have

enough sampling locations for the water main.

Meg. 23 bebruaray J, 2026 Planning Mecuag

got town engineers.

the jurisdiction over the water system, and we get comments from them. We obviously worked

with them for a number of years, and we comply with their requirements.

already completed with phase one.

around the project. And obviously we need to clear so that the house can go in. If there’s a tree

line, the tree lines are primarily on the east side of the project, and we show a clearing limit line

which is there for the construction of the homes as well as having adequate backyard space. 1 think

the home builder actually wanted us to have something like 120 feet from the front set back, so

you technically build a house. ..that’s about 40 ft deep. So, they get like an 80 foot backyard, but

we did have on there. So will add dimensions from the rear property line.

you to.

control. Obviously, we have erosion control notes on the detail sheet that shows the sequence of

the clearing and grading site. We've cleared that limit. Will have a tree specialist come in and

clear all the trees that are within the clearing limit line. So, we established that already so that will

all be done at one time because it’s again, it’s economic scale to be done as a separate operation.

Get erosion control up first clear line and this way you don’t have to keep coming back and get an

increased price on each lot.

showing a clearing limit, but it would be good to see a hatch indicating where the current tree line

is and where you're clearing up to. So, visually we can see thal you are clearing to the point you're

supposed to be clearing.

existing contours, proposed contours, existing tree line. ....... it’s all on there.

Pe. 2) bebruaray 3, 2020 Mlanning Niceting

contours are missing in a lot of areas. So, if you could maybe just check that you have proposed

contours typed back , your existing............

have a tree per lot, but um....

own landscaping ts going to be the same as you see on every subdivision. Homeowners do their

own, especially at this price range. They’re going to be.......

BOTH PARTIES SPEAKING AT THE SAME TIME.

ENOUGH, CAN NOT HEAR) and we did show the berm adjacent property owners of the south.

So, he has a complete hedgerow on his property line, but they are primarily deciduous trees, and so

arborvitae will give them a year round buffer.

where this berm is and so if you keep going to the east and towards the wetland that it’s not to

disturb. Is there a reason that area couldn’t be excluded or protected and just leave the vegetation?

You know, you’re not clearing all the way, but is there any way to protect that area and limit the

amount of clearing that’s needed along that area?

BOTH PARTIES SPEAKING AT THE SAME TIME.

comments. Josh, what do you think?

approve them until the town has had an opportunity to actually review the plans that area reflecting

the comments that we got this evening.

Pe 25 bebruaray 4, U6 Planning Meeting

a chance to actually look at a plan that illustrates............ (did not finish sentence)

did we send these things out? Thursday you said.

That give you two day to prepare. We got something missing in here.

SO HARD TO HEAR) they’ re not changing plants themselves. So, it’s pretty routine

that the town or Planning Board issue approval, especially when we’re talking about adding in

property information. I mean, that’s the requests that are coming through. ...nothing of substance.

They’re all technical in nature.

some issues with the first phase that we’re trying to avoid replicating in subsequent phases. So, we

would really like an opportunity to evaluate the plans they’re provided.

it wait a month.

put this back now six weeks. (NOT CLOSE ENOUGH TO THE MIC) So, we’re just trying to get

ahead of it and again, looking at comments, I’m not sure what comments are otherwise sensitive,

but....

around in 2021. This property was rezoned from R-2 to R-3 to allow it to move forward in this

configuration. Now, they agreed to keep the 100 foot lot sizes and make deeper lots to preserve

what small number of trees are on the site, so one of our comments was the town believe there

should be a conservation easement protecting the trees along the east side. That was what was used

to convince the Town Board to rezone the property. The comment we received back to that, to our

comment was there are no conservation requirements and that’s not an adequate response from the

town’s perspective.

If you have preliminary approval and you cant begin imposing certain conditions and restrictions

in final that otherwise were not included in the preliminary putting in requiring the developer to put

in a conservation easement that otherwise was not required to preliminary approval is not proper.

Po. Zo bebruaray 3, 2u20 Phinning Meeung

So, [ mean I’m certainly willing to communicate and work with the town, but things like that can

not be imposed in final. Final is as you know, our plans that we have submitted are in compliance

with the preliminary approval scope and so what I’m looking at what has been provided to us, these

are technical adoptions. I mean asking us to again you know, clarify certain things to put in the

owners name and addresses of the neighboring lots, the signature block will be removed. I

mean, those are things that can be done relatively quick fashion and they’re not going to check and

they’re not going to affect the overall plan of the development of the subdivision.

part of the development. We just want to ensure that that remains. What is going to prevent any

of these future homeowners from removing those trees?

mean, I could show you the minutes,

one imposed as part of the preliminary or as part of the resub or the rezoning.

the questions that put forth by PRC. Why don’t we have an opportunity to have the board review

that in the middle I’ve ever seen (NOT SPEAKING LOUD ENOUGH) I live in

Webster ____ you are not going to do anything this month it gives just a brief

opportunity to review what you submitted today and thank you for submitting them today. I am

not familiar with what, you know, what happened in 2021 either. So, I mean, it gives us everybody

just a brief opportunity. I know you want to be nice to get pricing and getting everything done right

now but the goal is just to have this approved next month. | just don’t understand the urgency.

necessarily....I understand where you’re coming from. It’s were going back to the point place

beginning where we started this process.

SPEAKING LOUD ENOUGR) So, I mean it’s not the board I’m just....the question

is what’s the urgency for me to ask you.....you know, I’m not familiar what preliminary plans were

to answer Josh just question, you know, if there were minutes that were put before the board to

create a conservation plan I think that it would done but I would have to go back at look at it. T just

think the intent is to get this done just there were two pages of questions that need to be responded

to. I think it will work and hopefully they'll be satisfactory to vote on tonight.

BOTH PARTIES SPEAKING AT THE SAME TIME.

Vs.2/ bebruaray 3, 20260 Planning Mectiig

were supposedly been done prior to, that are still up.

he done, so to speak. Is there a possibility to have a meeting before a month? Would it help?

BOTH PARTIES SPEAKING AT THE SAME TIME

outside of the purview of the board getting final approval... There are certain things that occur in

phase one which I don’t know what they are but whatever they are, that’s not relevant as to getting

final approval and my oniy concern is that we provided our responses and i understand you guys

have not had a chance to look at them but I don’t want to have responses provided the day before

the next day and the next meeting and then we’re back to work right and I understand you’re busy

so I’m not throwing salt but we get responses to where we then can address anything that might

still be outstanding so that when we come before the board let’s say next month, we’re not trying

to do the same thing right, and that’s my concern.

responsibility for the initial confusion relating to the two plans versus one, so I did that. We just

wat to make sure that we want to be sure everything is correct and there are no issue when you’ re

going out to construct the project that we experienced the first time around. That’s all I’m saying.

So, okay, the board could opt to approve it will all of these conditions but just know that the town

is going to take it’s time in doing a thorough review once we do get the revised plans if they do

decide to go that direction.

same situation with both of them.

to call it phase 2 and

3. It’s phase 2 with 56 lots. That’s the towns request.

phase

2. All lots, one phase. That’s our request. Because then when you have phase 2 and phase

3 plans, there’s construction sequence problems. They’re going to want to do building over here

and maybe a lot over here. The town is not interested in getting into a situation like that. That is our

concern. So, is it that he wants the flexibility to build any site, or they sequentially go phase 2 and

phase 3 because it still doesn’t really make a lot of sense.

Pe 28 Peitruaray 32020 Plioning Meoune

to...you’re not going to skip from one lot and go all the way to the back. That’s not....... from

phase 2 standpoint you’ve got the depths set forth in the preliminary so getting 20 lots approved

but then also getting phase 3 approved would allow some scalability of bringing in and getting. ..for

example, infrastructure; clearing roads, things like that potentially al! at one time. But it doesn’t

mean you're going to start construction on a 300 above lot and skip over

2. Derek Anderson: So actually my (NOT SPEAKING LOUD ENOUGH, CAN HARDLY HEAR)...

SPEAKING LOUD ENOUGH) I would agree.... but because there’s this grey area, I would say

table it tu Uie neal weeling. Nu iced to pet any iteai resulved because Thave sume iecollection of

conversations articles in the newspaper from the............ original...... there is a public perception

that there is an environmental easement that protects the trees as much as possible and if that’s

something that wasn’t recorded, we would have to find a way to correct that. We quite often see on

plans recent, particularly on Ridge Road............... example of this, here’s a parcel it has on it,

line work showing proposed easement and find out it’s never been.......... and that happens quite

often. Oh, it’s just listed on the plan as proposed even though it’s approved, the work proposed is

stuck on the plan and so it’s never actually filed. And then years later, people come back and look

at it and say, Oh, it doesn’t say easement, it says...back then it was proposed. The reality is it

should have been filed whether or not................... We have seen it on several other projects

actually over the years or these types of conditions they disappear. And J think in this case

remembering the conversations about it and the conversation on the town board side for zoning

area that this is a significant item that needs to get resolved before wee move forward on it at all.

And the follow up on that too in response to the PRC comments, from my standpoint, we have not

received a response. No, just...you say you emailed them after 5....

BOTH PARTIES SPEAKING AT THE SAME TIME

emails 5 minutes before the meeting and read through all this stuff that got submitted at the last

minute. There is a time frame. Maybe there was a screw up of telling when things were supposed

to be put in, but we need time to read any kind of response to................ So, from my perspective,

they don’t exist. I have not seen them. We don’t even have printed copies here

BOTH PARTIES SPEAKING AT THE SAME TIME.

Derek Anderson:...really should be tabled completely.

Py 29 Tobiiiatas 1, 7026 Miesdiiiies Nios

come in again, what are we coming in under? One phase or two and three? I’m seeing two letters.

One letter says from December and says combine the work into a single phase 2 and 2 B or revert

to the original phasing under which the town would review phase 2 and phase 2 separately. Then

the next letter I have, from January, phase 2 and 3 must be combined, so what are we doing? (SEE

ATTACHED LETTERS)

was to submit for phase 2 at this time with the assumption that phase 3 would be coming in the

future. So, I think that’s where the miscommunication came from. What we intended to say is

either combine all the lots into a singular plan set or move forward with phase 2 now and phase 3

when you’re done with

2. That was the intent of the original comment, and it was not clear. Like

I said, { apologize for any ambiguity.

addressing PRC comments, so they’re just not comments okay, to the town by the end of next

week....Idon’t....How much time does the town need to review. What I’m thinking is can we have

a meeting to discuss those prior to the last public hearing.

but there’s other issues. For example: we’ ve raised the conservation easement question that is going

to result in dialogue. Right, so I would like to. That is my concern about not voting and getting the

table is...... ] just want to make sure that we’re getting things addressed between now and next

week and so we can commit to the town that we’ll have revised plans to you by the end of next

week that address the PRC comments. Okay, and then I guess what I’m looking for from a town

stand point is your review of giving us comments back if there are any and that if there’s going to

be some concern or issue raised regarding.........

obviously....can’t do it but right. Josh and I can go over that if you have referring question after

the meeting and we can hammer it out in the next couple of weeks and then you know, we would

have to have a public meeting, right?

BOTH PARTIES SPEAKING AT THE SAME TIME.

Po WO Petrus 3 7826 Pi HenY Meelis

D.S.B.

ENGINEERS & ARCHITECTS, P.C.

2394 Ridgeway Avenue, Suite 201, Rochester, New York, 14626

(585) 271-5230

February 2, 2026

Erica Corsi

Planner

Comununity Planning aud Development

Town of Webster

1000 Ridge Road, Webster, NY, 14580

and Phase 3

Erica,

This letter is in response to the review comments received January 29, 2026, for the above-

mentioned project. The following responses are consistent, where appropriate, with comments

bearing the same number or order.

Aberdeen Phase 2:

© All the Lots 215-219 are set with basement footers on virgin ground not on fill material. As

for the rear yard grading, the proposed contours are at 2% with the grades between the lots

all directed to the rear property line drainage swales and inlets. We will add drainage swale

contours between each of the property lines.

e Phase 2 & 3 full Plan sets were submitted at the direction of the Town’s PRC review

comments of 12-24-2025. The contractor will be required to either combine the work

into a single Phase 2 (without 2A and 2B) “construction sections” or revert to the

otiginal phasing, under which the Town would review Phase 2 and Phase 3

separately. We have submitted the two complete separate sets of plans Phase 2 & 3 as the

Town (PRC) directed on 12-24-2025. We are asking for final approval of the two separate

sets of plans.

® The Plat Plan for Phase 2 “Overall Plat Plan” lot numbers outside of Phase 2 had an

incorrect layer shown, it will be corrected.

¢ We will verify the locations of any known farm tile in the Phase 2 area with the selected site

contractor prior to construction.

We will add the noted abbreviations to the legend as requested.

Page 1 of 3

¢ The clearing limits are shown on the plans for home rear lot areas and will be staked ptior to

the clear operation.

© §6Alltrees will be removed within the noted clearing limits.

© We will add Orange Construction fence as well as Silt Fence to protect the wetland on Lots

209 & 210

© <A SWPPP construction sequence will be added to the Grading Plan.

e All the Lots are set with basement footers on virgin ground not on fill material, including

Lots 215-219. The Grading and General Note #6 on the Grading Plan is a general note and

does not apply to any lots in this Phase and will be removed.

¢ “Note #5” on the Grading and General Notes on the Grading Plan is a general note for

sediment traps and sinks deeper than 1.5 feet. If during construction or at the direction of

the Town Inspector sediment traps and/or silt sinks require protection with orange fencing,

it will be provided.

¢ No deep hole locations exist, and the legend will be revised.

e The SWPPP signature block will be removed.

e The note will be changed.

e Additional grade elevations will be shown around each house labeled with boxes as

requested.

¢ Lots 215-218 all backyard drainage flows to the reat property line at 2% then flows are

within 2 lot line swale toward a field inlet and into the storm sewer system.

¢ Drainage arrows will be shown whete appropriate as requested.

¢ Phase 2 and 3 storm laterals are located in front of each lot as noted,

¢ The signature block will be added to all the drawings.

e A note to that requirement will be added to the plans.

¢ ‘The Arbotvitaes will be added to the south berm on Lots 203-207 on the Grading and

Erosion Control Plan.

¢ Property ownership will be shown on all plans.

* The project construction phasing will follow the Grading and Erosion Control Notes as

outlined on Plan Sheet 7 of 9,

* There are not any conservation areas on the project.

e We now have the surveyor’s as-built of the storm and sanitary sewers and we can adjust the

storm system to increase the separation distance for Lot 201 lateral crossing of the sanitary

main.

Aberdeen Phase 3

e Spot elevations will be shown around each house labeled with boxes as requested.

Page 2 of 3

¢ Additional grade elevations and contours will be shown as requested.

© Grading and stortn flow arrows will be added as request.

¢ Distance from Property lines to clearing limits will be added to the plans for the cul-de-sac

lots.

¢ The Clearing limits as shown on the plan will be staked in the field prior to any construction

activity.

¢ Ail adjacent property lines and ownership will be shown on all plans.

© Lot 318 Storm and Sanitary laterals will be relocated from Hazelhead Lane sewer mains to

the mains on Craggan Heights to avoid road crossings.

« Lhe crossing will be reviewed and addressed as noted.

If you have any additional concerns or comments, you may contact me at 271-5230.

Thaok you,

r

! [id

i Ad =

3 -

ve fe 1,28 fu——

‘ a Pd

Walter F. Baker

Engineering Manager

D.S.B. Engineers & Architects, P.C.

Page 3 of 3

answer any questions with us and then we’ll make sure that anything that they want, anything you

have to complete can happen before the next planning board meeting.

know we got this one....it’s like a freaking newspaper, everyday new additions come out here. Um,

let’s get them all documented down. One sheet of paper, go over it. What does the town actually

need and end it. We can’t...... you know, I have to agree with them partly. I mean, you know,

once you got the approvals, why did it get this far? There was things lacking and if you got this far

with it ...how?

presumably answered, there’s nothing more that you know off the top of your head right and that

is pretty mucli is Whal we need tu have abewered. Su, Pdon't....7 would presume afier tonight this

will be....the questions that they have unless it’s a question with regards to their answer. There

won’t be any new things in the cards.

now. This should have been done way back when. See what I’m saying?

the middle of the construction site. And there’s evidence of another in the phase 3 area.

paperwork together, all on a sheet of paper and say here, resolve this. Put it on your drawings. The

town looks at it and that’s it; you should be all set.

all the technical details can be hashed out directly between the town engineer and the project

engineer.

Jared Hirt T think we have PRC comments and oui response. We just uced to memorialize those

and the plan essentially. Correct?

ALL BOARD MEMBERS SPEAKING

copies? (JARED GAVE ALL MEMBERS COPIES OF LETTERS)

Poo Sd Tobitatay 3 20° Mastiine Mocs

;

RESOLUTION 25-003 Anthony Casciani made a motion to

TABLE APPLICATION TO MARCH 3,

2026 which was seconded by Mark

Giardina.

Mr. Malta AYE

Mr. Giardina AYE

Mr. Anderson AYE

Mrs. Maltman AYE

Mr. Gasic AYE

ABERDEEN ESTATE PHASE 3: Located at Hazelhead Lane. Applicant Forest Creek Equity

Corp. is requesting FINAL SITE PLAN AND SUBDIVISION APPROVAL in association with

the development of 36 single-family residential lots on a 52.44-acre parcel having SBL# 050.02-1-

23.11 located in the R-3 Single-Family Residential District under Section 269-10, Section 296-18,

and Section 350-12 under the Code of the Town of Webster.

APPLICATION WAS TABLED.

RESOLUTION 25-004 Anthony Casciani made a motion to

TABLE APPLICATION TO MARCH 3,

2026 which was seconded by Mark

Giardina.

Mr. Malta AYE

Mr. Giardina AYE

Mr. Anderson AYE

Mrs. Maltman AYE

Mr. Gasic AYE

tee

32 bebruaray 3, tuze P

(GIARDINA/MALTA-ANDERSON/ABSTAINED)

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

meeting at 8:15 PM.

Respectfully Submitted,

? t

Dated 3/ 3 [ £6

Mark Giardina, Secretary

Katherine Kolich, Recording Secretary

Signed

MAR 4°26 an9:28

FILED WEBSTER THA CLK

HAR 4°26 aN9:23

‘D WEBSTER TWN CLK

ig. 33 [cbliaiay 3, 2026 Planning Mecting