Video recording

>> Okay, we just have a couple of items we need to do as our first meeting. We first of all, we need to pick someone as vice chairman uh for the year. Uh someone want to make a motion for that position. >> I'll make a motion. >> Sure. Make a motion uh for Dave Malta uh to be appointed as vice chairman for the planning board year 2026. Okay. Need a second. >> I second. >> Have a second. All in favor? >> I uh also we need a >> Thank you. >> for the board secretary for the year. And um Mark has been if you want us if you're still willing to do that Mark you've done a good job with it. >> Y I'll nominate Mark Markina for that position.

>> I'll second it. >> Okay. And all in favor? >> I Okay, we're good. Anything else we got? >> Yeah, I think that's it. Okay, with that we can get started. Um Mark, you want to go ahead and read the first the application for this evening? Webster Solar Garden located at 750 Phillips Road. The applicant, Katie Soia of Monte Solar Development, is requesting final site plan approval associated with a 6.63 63 MW solar generated facility across 20 acres of a 120 acre lot owned by the Xerox Corporation located in an industrial district under sections 155-5D 269-10 and 350-22 of the code of the town of Webster.

>> You guys want to go ahead and add up? >> [snorts] >> Good evening. Happy new year. Thank you for having me here today. Um, we have a project team here representing the the uh Webster Solar Gardens project. Um, I know you've all met us before, but just a quick uh reintroduction. I'm Katie SOA. We've got uh Kim Phil uh Kim Nason from Phillips Lidle U. Marcus Lathrop representing Xerox and Janice Suz on behaalf of Haley and Aldrich. We're here today to review updates to the project and site plan that were implemented as part of the feedback from the preliminary site plan approval meeting in November and to request final site plan approval for the project as well as a referral to the town board for an industrial use permit for this application.

I'd like to re uh review the conditions addressed in the updated plans and submission if you wouldn't mind going to the next slide. Thank you. Um the project is to comply with the 2025 fire code. A new asphalt cap to be laid at a minimum of 1.5 in. Bedrock trenches to be protect from the ballasted footers. Limited uh limits of disturbance and clearing acreages to be uh shown on plan set. A geotech report for the CND landfill access road and gate reconfiguration. Um and then other uh additional conditions um were listed as well. But I'd like to go through the ones that were addressed in our actual submission.

Um so uh addressing the four points that were uh conditions um previously implemented by the board. Um on page uh G 100 2025 fire code um is listed there. Um and further detailed imple implementation of this fire code will be submitted with the electrical plan set when we actually go for our building uh and electrical permits for this project. On page C200, limits of disturbance are listed uh as well as limits of tree clearing. Uh and page C uh 203 um shows uh ballast infield adjustment note as well as a commitment to repave and add that 1.5 in of asphalt. Um, we were also asked to submit geotechnical results for the CND landfill.

Um, the geotechnical results showed that the project is well under allowable limits and I'll go through the actual methodology that was used to get these results. Uh, a geotech investigation was determined to conduct the viability of installing the weighted system on the CND landfill. Um, the methodology methodology was first reviewed uh and previewed with DEEC before we even did the testing. Uh the CND landfill cap consists of approximately six inches of top soil overlaying 18 inches of low permeability soil for a total cap of 24 in or 2 ft. A steel plate was uh placed directly on the cover surface in three different areas after clearing the vegetation from those areas and special equipment used a dial indicator to incrementally apply pressure or load um to a maximum apply load of 2,000 lbs per square foot.

Um according to our racking manufacturer 0.5 inches is the allowable amount of settlement of racking uh the racking system will design and um this shows that the limits are far below that as well. Um, I just want to make a note, uh, even though this was tested at 2,000 pounds per square foot, um, the actual ballasted and total equipment sitting on, uh, the CND landfill will only be 450 pounds per square foot. And temporary loads of up to 650 pounds square foot will, um, be implemented during actual construction for construction equipment and things like that. Um, so with 2,000 pounds, it's approximately three times more than the heaviest load predicted on the site.

And even with these additional loads, the results showed that the weights are still well allow uh under that allowable differential settlement um at a point uh 2.2 times and 1.3 times respectively. Uh in addition, prior to conducting this testing, um an assessment of the actual landfill cover cap system itself was also done to uh ensure its integrity. Um if you wouldn't mind flipping to the next slide. Thank you. Um so in short, the report showed that the landfill cover is still intact and there are no concerns with the weight uh weighted system that we've proposed. Um again there's approximately 24 total inches of cover and five test pits were hand excavated to that total of 24 in below surface.

Um they did find that top soil layer of 6 in um uh at each test pit and they also um collected samples at that 6 in mark and then again at that 24in mark as well um and sent them in for a grain size um analysis. And based on that analysis, the cover soil material is consistent with the target specification that was DEEC um the DEC approved design. And so the report showed that there were no concerns of integrity to the cap. Um and then just a a reminder of what the system will actually look like and how it's weighted and and things like that. Just have the geob ballasted system put up on there.

You can go to the next slide. Um and then the updated access road. So, um there was some discussion um about uh just fire access and making sure that you know this was the best configuration. Um based on that feedback, we've updated the fire access road to bring the gate a little bit closer so that the turnaround um is inside the gate for that that fire and able to access that uh major equipment right outside the um the turnoff there. um additional conditions that um we the applicant agree to um as part of the uh conditions that were implemented at the last meeting. Um DEC approval is required to be submitted before building permits and electrical permits will be uh achieved.

erosion settlement practices will need to be uh evaluated in no soil disturbance areas and uh any deviation from the racking system that we've discussed here to date would require a complete redo on all of the geotechnical analysis. So we're very committed to maintaining that ballasted system that we've reviewed here with you guys all along the way. Um and with that I'm happy to answer any questions I can or perhaps members of my team can if if any of the board has any. Actually, you did address our concerns at preliminary approval. So, that was good. >> Great. >> Um, now is that all included in your drawings final final paperwork?

>> Correct. Yep. We we would be requesting um final site plan approval today as well as that recommendation for the >> all based on this information. >> Correct. Yes. >> All right. Um, let's see. Anybody Anybody wants to come up with something? Do you have any other thoughts uh concerns on this? >> Yes. So, one of my have some questions. So, some of the first questions I had is um >> you just indicated in your presentation a couple of drawing sets. Was that submitted to the town for review >> the revised drawing sets that you were just showing cuz I only have two pages here. I didn't have any of the other >> an entire civil plan set.

Yeah. Was submitted to the Yeah. Yeah. A full I think it was like a 10page full plan set. There are three copies submitted and then we have digital copies that were submitted as well. >> Okay. I just want to make sure the engineering department had a chance to look at it. >> Um, one of the concerns I have is um, you know, within the solar array footprint, you have uh, vegetation, you have existing trees. Um, is the intention just to cut the trees to the trunk and leave the trunks in place or were you looking to remove the trunks as well as part of your construction? >> We want to limit any soil disturbance across the entire site.

So, our goal is to uh cut flush to the ground as far as we can. Um, so it'll be like hand felding a lot of trees to be honest with you. >> Was that in your drawing set notes that that is your intention? Um I'm not I I know we have like a schedule um and the tree removal was but I don't know if a detail about how it's um okay >> being done is in there and I'm happy to add that. No problem. >> Yeah, I would like to have it added in to make sure there's no soil disturbance um as partial or that area. Also, if you could add an area indicating um the clearing area that you're proposing as part of the project, as in what is your tree clearing area, vegetation clearing area as part of the project that you need to do?

>> Sure. Um that the acreage limits are talking about that is addressed um on several pages of the set. Um I believe, let me just get out my notes real quick so I don't give you the wrong numbers. Um but uh limits of total disturbance is 17.5 acres and limits of tree clearing is 15.1 acres. Um there's some of the areas of the site that don't have any trees on them. Um so that's why the numbers are different there. >> And are these mature trees or just um because it is a landfill? I'm wondering. >> Um >> so so the site didn't have any trees on it in the '9s. So all the trees there are like relatively some of them are bigger but the majority of them are relative are considered you know smaller.

>> Okay. Uh and again I apologize if this is on your notes. It's just I don't have that set. Are are you indicating the monitoring wells to be protected? >> Yes we have >> staked out surveys staked out and protected uh during construction. Yeah, we have 20 foot setbacks and then uh roped off as well. Um during construction >> for those 24 inch cover that test bits that were performed on site. Are you indicating the test bit locations on your drawing set? >> I don't think we did. It's in the geotech report that was um submitted which the engineer also has um but we can overlay that if that's a request of the engineer.

>> The test pits were within the project footprint. Yeah, they were within the CND landfill footprint itself and um that's included in the the CND uh geotech uh cover assessment. >> Okay. Um in the actual drawing sets for any areas that you are doing work that is within a wetland, are you using timber mats? >> Um are you able to speak on that? There's there's two there's two areas kind of around the asphalt cap that our uh wetlands created because of that imp permeable surface. Um I honestly can't remember. Uh we had uh submitted our nationwide uh or our um notification to Army Corps and I believe that was included.

Um but I can certainly get you a copy of that. >> Um I'm just asking if you could add a note >> Sure. >> in your drawing sets that timber mats will be used in wetland areas. >> Sure. during construction. >> Y >> um so you did have a note in the updated drawing said within that infiltration area for the uh testing the sepage testing locations that you will not be putting any ballasts on top of that system. >> Correct. >> Um I had a note here for your fences. Are the fences um ballasted? >> Fences ballasted around the entirety of the site. The one area that remains in question is the CND landfill where there is some topography.

We'd like to work with DEEC on how they'd like us to handle that specifically in that area. >> Okay. Um >> it would be just be a very small area. Is it possible to add a note on your drawing set? Uh Josh, if you can zoom to the left area where the purple I wish I had a pointer right now to zoom in. Uh so where it's uh RW1 uh for the monitoring well RW1. >> Yep. >> So right there you we have two collection trenches and then your pink line is your fence. Um, if you can do call outs there that no ballasts are to be for for the fencing to be placed on that system there so they can space the fencing.

>> Yep. So there's there's no weight on it >> on top of that. >> Yep. We can do that. Has the revised access with the turnaround been looked at by the fire marshal? >> Uh, it was submitted to the town. I didn't specifically call the fire marshall to ask if he had any um uh review comments on it, so I'm not I'm not sure if he's looked at it individually. >> I I can speak to that. Uh it has been reviewed by the fire marshall and is found to be acceptable. >> Okay. All right. I think those are all of my questions unless somebody else is going to go through these ones that were circulated to us about the asphalt.

>> Yeah, I think there was a few things actually you want to address those. >> Yeah, there there's just a few things about the um the asphalt that I think you touched on, but I just want some clarity u with regards to the geotech report. You're going to put an add the additional 1.5 in on the cap. Um did is did the geotech report get updated with regards to that additional layer that's going to be put on on the camp? >> We didn't update it with those results. >> All right. Do you know if that's going to change uh anything with regards to the bail the you know the actual um solar panels that are on the cap with that additional 1.5 in >> in terms of like um like settlement between on and off the cap.

So the racking system that we have is really nice in that we can take breaks quite often in it. It's not like um a continuous arm where there are no brakes. So we can put brakes in between if there is a deviation in um topography there. Um so that'll be an infield adjustment as we haven't added that 1.5 asphalt cap yet and we still need to clear the area. Um but we can certainly account for that easily. Can you update the geotech report um with that 1.5 included? >> I think Katie the concern the question Katie is uh will the 1.5 in overlay contribute to any impact on the cap because of that weight added onto the cover.

>> Yeah. >> Yeah. The >> Would you like to I'm just not the geotech. Yeah. We'll just have to review that with our engineer and we can address that and get back to you. >> Okay. And then um the 1.5 kip. So that's going to be added. That's not you're not going to mill and then put it. It's just going to be right over the top. Right. You don't think um putting that 1.5 will compromise on the ground at all? or can we have that as part of the geotech report if there's going to be any compromise with regards to putting that asphalt right over the top? >> Yeah, I'm I'm not a geotech analysis, so I can't answer that question then in the moment here.

So, we need to take that question back to the experts. Um, and there's a lot of like calculations and math run behind the scenes. So, I think it would take a couple days to get that answer anyways. >> But you're not opposed to us putting that in the final as a condition of the final site. I guess my only question would be um when we did the geotech analysis as is we actually used um like it it's the asphalt cap is there and we used a system to push down and basically do calculations. If it's not there then it's difficult obviously to redo. I don't know if it's easy enough to say hey it's going to be x amount of weight added on.

Can you add that into your math? I just don't know the answer to that. If it's possible we're happy to do that. I just don't know if that's, you know, chicken egg situation. I don't know to be honest with you. >> That's fair. >> And then I reading the geotech report that one and a half inches wasn't needed. It met it met specifications the way it is right now. That was a request that was made at the last planning meeting to add that to try to um address some concerns about issues moving forward. So that's really that one half isn't needed per the geotech report. >> Just for the record, what was your name again?

I'm sorry. >> Oh, Marcus Le was there. >> Yeah. >> And then anybody else have any questions? Because I just have some questions about the bond at all. >> No, >> just with regards to the bond. Um, so we had some questions early on uh at the at the um preliminary when we got preliminary approval with regards to the de decommission bond. Um, and I went through your decommission plan. Your bond doesn't it's not listing a certain company. You are you guys going to what company do you use? Are you picking a company after um >> yeah, we need to um I guess get approval on the amounts and stuff for us to actually have the bonds issue, but we usually work with Hoffman and Associates.

That's who we've done um our bonds with in the past. Um but uh there there isn't a I guess a bond to show for yet until it it's approved. Um but I did put in the um bond paperwork of like basically what we've used in the the p the form paperwork that we would insert information to if it were to be approved. >> Okay. And obviously I I saw the bond it's going to be av bond of the value of the of the of the u project. Uh Hoffman Associates is that do you know what grade of a company >> like an A or an A+? I I don't know off the top of my head. So if we put in um >> A rating or bad >> A- rated or higher, you'd be okay with that?

>> Yep. >> I think that's all the question with that. >> Anybody else? I think we've gone in pretty >> pretty deep into this thing and this is your line anyway. So thanks for your help on that. Um, >> David, do you have any concerns or >> No, >> we did give it a a preliminary approval and we did have you did address copy them all out. I wanted to see what you did with it. You did address them all. So, we're good with that. So, you've got that stuff showing on your final drawings and all that stuff. That's good. >> Mark, you have any concerns? >> No. The intent would be to move forward for final approval.

Jonathan, you okay with that? >> Move forward with it. Mark, you all right with it? >> Yes, sir. >> All right. As we did with the preliminary, I'll I'll start one off. We need some help as we go along because we entered some different things here. So, I'll make a motion that we uh grant the final approval to is the actual name the Webster solar garden project and we'll make that subject to the generic thing subject to the project review committee comments subject to parks and wreck fees I don't know if there's any of that to be done but uh subject to all the preliminary approval conditions uh subject to all applicable governmental fees uh subject to department of public works approvals and conditions Well, significant construction will occur within one year.

I'm sure you're good with that. As determined by this board to expire on January 6th, uh, 2027, the uh, conditions of preliminary and final approval would be depicted on the cover sheet of your final design drawing. So, whatever preliminary and final approvals, that needs to go on the cover sheet of those drawings. Okay. Uh, let's see. Letter of credit engineering letter the [clears throat] engineer for the proposed project provide a letter of certification that all the proposed work was completed as per planning board resolution. A final approval before a certificate of occupancy uh would be issued.

Letter of credit to the town for the project shall include the fee for the engineer's final uh certification inspection of the site. And I'll score more down subject to resolution. Make this subject to resolution of the final approved minutes. And this is that would be it for there. Um few things we wanted to add on was um the applicant shall enter into a host community agreement with the town of Webster town board uh to their satisfaction. That's something you guys have been working on. It's out of our area. We don't even know what took place with it all, but that's up to the town board to to to work with.

>> Um, uh, decommissioning bond that's going to be determined by the town board, whatever that would be >> with a with a grade A or higher. >> Yeah. Okay. All right. With grade A or higher. Okay. Good. Thanks. Let's see. uh no permits issued until uh prior to any permits being issued. DEEC needs to issue that letter that we've spoken in the past. >> Yep. >> To the town. Um Johnson, you mentioned timber mats in the construction. >> The the three that I have is >> put whatever you had. I know you had a few different things. >> Yeah. So, timber matting to be used in wetlandated areas during construction.

uh vegetation and tree cutting uh is only allowed to be done to the surface level. Um and you know no no no soil disturbance with uh the tree clearing. So it needs to be flush to the ground. [clears throat] um drawing notes to call out and be added to protect the ballasted trench and bedrock system both for fencing and solar array ballasted installation. Those were my three that it >> Okay, that's it. Okay, that would be a motion for final approval. Need a second. >> Second. Mr. Pashani. >> Hi, >> Mr. Jardino. >> Hi, >> Mr. Malta. >> Hi, >> Mr. Gassic. >> I >> Mrs. Maltman. >> I >> Okay, I think we also we need to make a motion um to send this application to the town board for an industrial use permit also.

So, I'll make a motion that we >> can I just clarify that real quick? Sorry to interrupt. So actually procedurally it's been referred to this board by the town board. So what we'd be looking for tonight, this is in our letter as well is a recommendation on the IUP to the town board. So ultimately the town board issues the IUP, but they have the ability to ask you all as part of the site plan process to issue a recommendation on the industrial use permit. >> Okay. So, so a motion recommending the town board grant you your permit, your your >> industrial use. >> Correct. >> Okay. All right. That'd be a motion.

Need a second. >> Second. >> A second. >> Okay. Mr. Pashani. >> Hi. >> Mr. Malta. >> Hi. >> Mr. Dardina. >> Hi. >> Mr. Gassic. >> I. >> Mrs. Maltton. >> I. I think one of the key things in here that was I think one of the big concerns with the board back when we were originally was what the [clears throat] and this again this is out of our line but [cough] just satisfaction for a program for financing with the town whether it's a pilot program or however they want to work it but that's this is all based on that you on you working with them >> yep >> for that approval okay >> we're looking forward >> all right just >> thank you >> okay I guess that's it anything elsebody else anybody Nope.

>> Nope. That's it. >> Present. Okay. >> All right. That's it. I guess you're all set. >> Thank you very much. >> Good luck. >> Okay. I guess that's it. >> No, we got one. We got three sets of minutes that have to be approved. So, I'd like to make a motion to approve the October 2nd, 2025 meeting minutes. >> Second. >> All in favor? I >> I >> I'd like a motion uh support a motion, please, for November the 18th, 2025 meeting minutes. >> Second. >> Have a second. All in favor? >> I. >> And finally, December the 2nd, 2025 meeting minutes. >> Second. >> Second. All in favor? >> I. >> Thank you. >> All right.

With that, I guess we'll finish the evening. So, happy new year to everyone. Thanks [cough] for your project, folks. Hey,