Webster Town Board
January 5, 2023
A regular meeting of the Webster Town Board was called to order by Supervisor Flaherty at
7:36 p.m. at the Webster Town Board Meeting Room, 1002 Ridge Road, Webster, New York,
with the following officials present:
Supervisor ................................................................................ Thomas J. Flaherty
Councilman .............................................................................. William G. Abbott
Councilman .......................................................................................John J. Cahill
Councilwoman .......................................................................... Patricia T. Cataldi
Councilwoman ........................................................................... Ginny L. Nguyen
Town Attorney ........................................................................... Charles J. Genese
Town Clerk ........................................................................... Dorothy M. Maguire
Department Heads Present:
Community Development Director......................................................Josh Artuso
Deputy Commissioner of Public Works-Sewer ................................... Art Petrone
Finance Director.................................................................................. Paul Adams
Town Engineer ..............................................................................Mary Herington
Supervisor Flaherty led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
***
Resolution No. 53: MOTION by Supervisor Flaherty, seconded by Councilwoman Cataldi, to
approve the December 8, 2022 Town Board Workshop Meeting Minutes as submitted by the
Town Clerk.
Vote on motion:
Supervisor Flaherty .............Aye
Councilman Abbott .......... Aye
Councilman Cahill ..............Aye
Councilwoman Cataldi ..... Aye
Councilwoman Nguyen ......Aye
Motion carried .................. 5-0
***
Resolution No. 54: MOTION by Supervisor Flaherty, seconded by Councilwoman Nguyen, to
approve the December 14, 2022 Town Board Meeting Minutes as submitted by the Town Clerk.
Vote on motion:
Supervisor Flaherty .............Aye
Councilman Abbott .......... Aye
Councilman Cahill ..............Aye
Councilwoman Cataldi ..... Aye
Councilwoman Nguyen ......Aye
Motion carried .................. 5-0
***
Resolution No. 55: MOTION by Councilwoman Cataldi, seconded by Councilwoman Nguyen,
to approve the bills as submitted in Warrant #0123 by the Director of Finance.
Fund
General (A,B) CL #4616-4873
Highway (C,D)
Sewer (G)
Library (L)
Drainage Districts (M)
Park Districts (P)
14
Inside
338,162.03
75,835.29
51,456.33
86,491.42
0.00
0.00
Outside
220,762.68
212,262.43
154,114.44
10,787.44
11,731.33
61.11
Total
558,924.71
288,097.72
205,570.77
97,278.86
11,731.33
61.11
01-05-23
Webster Town Board
Fund
Water Districts (R/SW)
Special Districts (N,Q,S)
Trust & Agency (T/A,TP,XM,XD)
Capital Projects (H) #103-113
H213 SB Waterfront Park Design
H220 WWTP Improvement
H223 Lake Rd WE Drain MO.56
H224 SB Shoreline Protect MO.59
H226 Lake Rd Pump Station MO.65
H230 SB Flood Wall MO.78
H232 Highway Garage Building
TOTAL
Vote on motion:
Supervisor Flaherty .............Aye
Councilman Cahill ..............Aye
Councilwoman Nguyen ......Aye
Inside
0.00
0.00
0.00
Outside
6,659.38
2,525.67
224,704.85
Total
6,659.38
2,525.67
224,704.85
106,425.58
13,362.45
61,925.67
782.95
3,429.50
270.82
76,882.90
815,024.94
0.00
0.00
1,843.65
7,837.92
0.00
8,175.00
0.00
861,465.90
106,425.58
13,362.45
63,769.32
8,620.87
3,429.50
8,445.82
76,882.90
1,676,490.84
Councilman Abbott .......... Aye
Councilwoman Cataldi ..... Aye
Motion carried .................. 5-0
***
All purchase orders were okay.
***
Resolution No. 56: MOTION by Supervisor Flaherty, seconded by Councilman Cahill, to
approve the prepaid vouchers included in Warrant #0123 by the Director of Finance in the
amount of $861,465.90. [Included in the summary of vouchers approved in Resolution #55]
Vote on motion:
Supervisor Flaherty .............Aye
Councilman Abbott .......... Aye
Councilman Cahill ..............Aye
Councilwoman Cataldi ..... Aye
Councilwoman Nguyen ......Aye
Motion carried .................. 5-0
***
Art Petrone, Deputy Commissioner of Public Works-Sewer, appeared before the Town Board.
He stated that bids were solicited for Ferric Chloride Solution to be used at the Wastewater
Treatment Plant. Three responses were received which resulted in one bid and two no bids. The
bid specifications included a two-year contract term. As a result of receiving just one bid, the
Sewer Department staff would like to rebid and adjust the contract terms to one year with a
one-year option. After speaking with the chemical suppliers, they may be willing to agree to
one-year terms.
Resolution No. 57: MOTION by Councilwoman Cataldi, seconded by Councilman Abbott, to
reject all Ferric Chloride Solution Bids.
WHEREAS, on December 7, 2022 bids were advertised in the Webster Herald for Ferric
Chloride Solution to be used in the removal of phosphorus at the Town of Webster Wastewater
Treatment Plant located at 226 Phillips Road for a term of two (2) years with two (2) one-year
extensions; and
15
01-05-23
Webster Town Board
WHEREAS, on December 21, 2022 at 11:05 a.m. three (3) sealed bids were publicly opened and
read aloud; and
WHEREAS, the following bids were received:
Kemira Water Solutions, Inc. $1,422.00 Per Dry Ton
PVS Chemical Technologies, Inc. – No Bid
Slack Chemical Co., Inc. – No Bid
WHEREAS, the Town of Webster reserved the right to reject any and all bids:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That the Webster Town Board rejects all Ferric Chloride Solution Bids received on
December 21, 2022 for the Wastewater Treatment Plant located at 226 Phillips Road.
Vote on motion:
Supervisor Flaherty .............Aye
Councilman Abbott .......... Aye
Councilman Cahill ..............Aye
Councilwoman Cataldi ..... Aye
Councilwoman Nguyen ......Aye
Motion carried .................. 5-0
***
Bids were solicited for Sodium Hypochlorite to be used at the Wastewater Treatment Plant.
Art Petrone, Deputy Commissioner of Public Works-Sewer, stated that three responses were
received which resulted in one no bid. The two remaining bids received did not provide a long
enough term. The plan is to rebid the Sodium Hypochlorite.
Resolution No. 58: MOTION by Supervisor Flaherty, seconded by Councilwoman Cataldi, to
reject all Sodium Hypochlorite Bids.
WHEREAS, on December 7, 2022 bids were advertised in the Webster Herald for Sodium
Hypochlorite to be used at the Town of Webster Wastewater Treatment Plant located at 226
Phillips Road for a term of two (2) years with two (2) one-year extensions; and
WHEREAS, on December 21, 2022 at 11:05 a.m. three (3) sealed bids were publicly opened and
read aloud; and
WHEREAS, the following bids were received:
Bison Laboratories, Inc.- $3.02/Gallon (Price firm through 9/30/2023 only)
JCI Jones Chemicals, Inc.- $2.25/Gallon (Subject to change after 3/31/2023 upon 30 days written
notice)
Slack Chemical Co., Inc. - No Bid
WHEREAS, the Town of Webster reserved the right to reject any and all bids:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That the Webster Town Board rejects all Sodium Hypochlorite Bids received on December 21,
2022 for the Wastewater Treatment Plant located at 226 Phillips Road.
16
01-05-23
Webster Town Board
Vote on motion:
Supervisor Flaherty .............Aye
Councilman Cahill ..............Aye
Councilwoman Nguyen ......Aye
Councilman Abbott .......... Aye
Councilwoman Cataldi ..... Aye
Motion carried .................. 5-0
***
Resolution No. 59: MOTION by Supervisor Flaherty, seconded by Councilwoman Cataldi, to
adopt the amended Town of Webster Sewer Lateral Maintenance Policy as presented.
POLICY FOR SEWER LATERAL MAINTENANCE
IN THE TOWN OF WEBSTER
The maintenance of all sanitary sewer laterals that tie into the Town of Webster Sanitary Sewer
System from the home or the business to sanitary sewer main is the responsibility of the
homeowner or business. Any repairs that need to be completed between the right-of-way
(ROW) and the main are at the sole direction of the Town of Webster Sewer Department.
Town’s Responsibility
If the sanitary sewer lateral structurally breaks in the Town of Webster’s right of way.
If the Town of Webster determines that the lateral within the Town’s right of way is flatter than
normal or has a low spot that is causing issues, the Town will determine the resolution to this, if
any such resolution is needed.
If blockage occurs in the main sanitary sewer due to lack of maintenance and repair of a known
issue causing a backup into the sanitary sewer lateral. These blockages do not include grease,
rags, wipes, eggshells, coffee grounds, tree roots or anything other than what is permitted to be
disposed of in the sanitary sewer per the Town’s Sewer Use Ordinance.
Homeowner/Business Responsibility
From the home/business extending to and including the cleanout and the Y connection for the
cleanout.
If the cap on the sewer lateral cleanout is removed or broken, it is the responsibility of the
homeowner or business to have it replaced with a metal cleanout cap, which needs to be always
visible and accessible.
If cleanout and or “Y” is broken or damaged for any reason it is the responsibility of the
homeowner or business to have it repaired/replaced.
At no time is there to be excavation and/or repairs completed in any Right of Way or easement(s)
without prior written approval from the Sewer Department and a 149 permit from the Town of
Webster Highway Department is approved.
17
01-05-23
Webster Town Board
The homeowner or business is responsible for any repairs and/or maintenance from the home to
the Town’s sanitary sewer main caused by but not limited to any root intrusion, scaling of pipe,
grease build up or any other obstruction or items causing an obstruction in the property owner’s
lateral. The homeowner or business is responsible for any costs incurred by the Town for
repair/maintenance of any of the items noted above from the property line to the main and is
deemed to agree to reimburse and remunerate the Town of Webster for the costs, including
salaries or wages, incurred by the Town for any such repair and/or maintenance is necessary.
In the event a contractor/utility damages the lateral between the home/business and the main, it is
the responsibility of contractor/utility to repair. If the damage occurs within the Town of
Webster of ROW, the Town will facilitate the repair with the contractor/utility. If the damage
occurs between the home/business, it is the responsibility of the owner to facilitate the repair
with the contractor/utility.
Vote on motion:
Supervisor Flaherty .............Aye
Councilman Abbott .......... Aye
Councilman Cahill ..............Aye
Councilwoman Cataldi ..... Aye
Councilwoman Nguyen ......Aye
Motion carried .................. 5-0
***
Resolution No. 60: MOTION by Councilwoman Cataldi, seconded by Councilman Abbott, to
approve the renewal of a Mobile/Manufactured Home Park Permit for Sunset Valley Manufacturing
Home Community for calendar year 2023 which was inspected by the Department of Public Works
and is being operated according to the zoning and land use standards or requirements at the time the
use was legally commenced. The fee for the permit was received and the application is on file in the
Town Clerk's Office.
Vote on motion:
Supervisor Flaherty .............Aye
Councilwoman Cataldi ..... Aye
Councilman Cahill ..............Aye
Councilwoman Nguyen .... Aye
Councilman Abbott .............Aye
Motion carried .................. 5-0
***
Resolution No. 61: MOTION by Supervisor Flaherty, seconded by Councilwoman Nguyen, to
declare the following item for transfer from the Assessing Department to the Community
Development and Engineering Department:
Table, Asset Tag #02805
Vote on motion:
Supervisor Flaherty .............Aye
Councilman Cahill ..............Aye
Councilman Abbott .............Aye
Councilwoman Cataldi ..... Aye
Councilwoman Nguyen .... Aye
Motion carried .................. 5-0
***
Resolution No. 62: MOTION by Councilwoman Cataldi, seconded by Councilwoman Nguyen,
to declare the following items for recycling from the Sewer Department:
Coleman Powermate Generator
Asset Tag #2011
Pulsamatic 7660 Stroke Activating Pump Asset Tag #2063
Pulsamatic 7660 Pump
Asset Tag #2064
18
01-05-23
Webster Town Board
Pulsamatic 7660 Pump
Pulsamatic 7660 Pump
Pulsamatic 7660 Pump
Clow Mixer
Clow Mixer
Minarik Powermate
Clow Mixer
Vote on motion:
Supervisor Flaherty .............Aye
Councilman Cahill ..............Aye
Councilman Abbott .............Aye
Asset Tag #2065
Asset Tag #2066
Asset Tag# 2067
Old 106 (not on list)
Old 107 (not on list)
Old 108 (not on list)
Asset Tag #2071
Councilwoman Cataldi ..... Aye
Councilwoman Nguyen .... Aye
Motion carried .................. 5-0
***
The meeting was open to the floor and the following people spoke on the proposed Resolution
for consideration of a Special Use Permit and referral to the Planning Board for site plan review
associated with a proposed self-storage facility at 959 Five Mile Line Road.
Dorothy Fait, Webster Resident, stated that she would like to share her thoughts on the use of
Special Use Permits and Zoning, specifically the request to grant a permit to the non-conforming
Mini Storage Unit, RV Storage and U-Haul Retail Rental business at 959 Five Mile Line Road.
The Town of Webster has designated the property as Low Intensity Commercial District, and
zoning deserves to be reviewed and approved as an overall Town plan. The Town Board has on
more than one occasion indicated that piece meal zoning is not the way they wish to address any
zoning issue. If this is an appropriate use for this property, she would ask the Town Board to
direct the developer to apply for a change in the current zoning and not grant this permit. She
would ask the Town Board not to bend to development pressure and allow the citizens of the
Town to have a say in the direction the Town is going by participating in the Comprehensive
Plan process. She is willing to face the probability of higher taxes versus suffering the other
negative impacts of overdevelopment and believes there are a significant number of Webster
residents who would agree. She believes that the current zoning is appropriate as it is very close
to residential properties along Five Mile Line Road and Gaywood Lane. Those neighborhoods
need to be protected from retail encroachment. This property is ecologically sensitive.
Shipbuilders Creek tributaries need to be protected. Granting a commercial building and paved
parking area above the recommended lot coverage with a non-permeable surface area endangers
this creek. Also, the storage of recreational vehicles as well as a fleet of rental trucks could lead
to a discharge of gas or oils or other environmentally toxic liquids into the creek’s watershed.
Everything comes with a cost, and protection of our environment is worth the cost in her opinion.
Mike Salway, Webster Resident, stated he is directly affected by the project. The proposed plans
are calling it a four-story building. However, once the mechanicals are added to the building it
will increase the height and becomes a five-story building. He stated he will be looking directly
at this monstrosity in his backyard and listening to trucks and forklifts. It is a 24-hour facility in
a residential area and surrounded on three sides with homes located on Patty Lane, Gaywood
Lane and Five Mile Line Road. The Town is stuffing commercial monstrosities into residential
areas. He stated the property had a tax abatement and paid 80% of the taxes while the residents
paid the remaining 20%. He stated there is a flood zone area in the northeast corner of the
property and asked where will the water be directed to because the creek on Five Mile Line will
19
01-05-23
Webster Town Board
not be able to handle the runoff. He feels there are plenty of other commercial properties in
Webster that are vacant and for sale that would be more conducive for this facility. He is also
concerned about the devaluation of his home if the project moves forward.
Dan Dalton, Webster Resident, stated there was quite a bit of discussion thirteen years ago
regarding 959 Five Mile Line Road. A valid petition was signed by sixty homeowners who were
located within fifty yards of the property and those same sixty people are going to be of the same
mind today. What called his attention to this project was the notice that said it was to be a mini
storage. He does not think this project could ever fit the definitions of a mini storage based on
his research and feels it is a zoning issue. He is concerned with visual and noise impacts along
with height issues. He stated the soil is most likely contaminated from pesticides used on the
tree farm. He would like the developers to find a new location or find a nice project that fits into
a residential setting.
Gail Binder, Webster Resident, stated she is not opposed to the project. The property is zoned
commercial and will eventually be developed commercial. Maybe a mini storage, if it is a mini
storage, might be one of the lesser evils to be built on the property. Her problem is with the
Special Use Permit, and it should require very careful consideration. She stated she is very glad
to see there will be several hearings on the project. She believes transparency is important.
Bill Davis, Webster Resident, stated he wanted to correct some misconceptions. He stated it was
mentioned that there are residents all around this property. There are no houses to the north of
this project, no houses to the east of this project on Five Mile Line Road. He is the one that
would be most affected and impacted. He is not opposed to the project. He has been in Webster
for thirty-five years and realized when he moved in that the tree farm would not last forever. He
stated it does appear there is an issue with variances and concessions that may have to be made.
Public service is not always a position of authority, but it is always one of responsibility and that
responsibility is to the Town Code and to the Town's people. He has no major problems with the
design. However, in regard to proposed Building B he would rather see the loading dock on the
north side rather than on the neighbor side.
Chris Whitcomb, Webster Resident, stated he will be directly affected by the project as proposed
Building D will be within one hundred feet of his house. He feels the project does not fit the
neighborhood whatsoever. There is a giant self-storage unit that was just built behind Brusters’
on Ridge Road, and it is not even being filled up. Why does the Town need another one? He is
under the impression that the U-Haul portion of the project is not just rental trucks but that pods
will be stored in proposed Building D. He is concerned with the chemicals that will run off into
the creek when the parking lots are salted and plowed during the winter months. He agrees the
owner should be able to develop or sell the land. He suggested the Town Board advise the
developer to find an alternative project or a suitable site for the current proposed project.
Kent Walters, Webster Resident, stated he is concerned with the light pollution and that
consideration be given for proper drainage in the area.
20
01-05-23
Webster Town Board
Janice Jackman, Webster Resident, stated that if the Town Board allows this project to go
through, it will make three such businesses within a two-mile radius. The one behind Brusters’
that was recently built and another on North Avenue as well as the U-Haul truck business. She
stated how dare the Town Board continue to champion themself as caring for open space
preservation when the true evidence of such a claim is nowhere in sight. The Town Board, as
elected officials representing all residents of Webster, have a duty and moral obligation to
understand the urgency of an ongoing shrinking habitat dilemma for most of the Town’s
beautiful wildlife population. She stated the Town Board postures itself as being on the front
lines of protecting open space and thereby protecting animals, yet the politics on display
consistently say just the opposite. The Town Board is failing to act on any behalf other than
augmenting more money-making opportunities and greed and failing the Town. She feels and
claims many others feel there is total overdevelopment of Webster.
Ken Corpus, Webster Resident, read aloud the following statement the Town received via the
Town website form:
U-Haul plans to build a storage unit and provide a rental facility at 959 Five Mile Line Road. I
believe this 24-hour access facility violates zoning regulations for the LC-II District for the
following reasons:
1. This is being called a storage unit, but it will include vehicle rental which is not an approved
use according to the zoning regulations for this district.
2. Zoning regulations for this district state a maximum height of allowed which 35 foot (3
stories) Proposed building height (4 stories, 50 feet) is greater than the maximum allowed.
3. Zoning regulations for this district state that “New commercial development shall employ
architectural styling and detail that is consistent with the residential nature of the surrounding
area”.
4. Zoning regulations for this district limit the square footage of the building to 5,000. The
office building alone appears to be upwards of 13,000 sq ft.
5. Zoning regulations for this district limit the Maximum lot coverage to 20%. From the plan
shown, it appears that it exceeds but I cannot read the dimensions precisely to know for sure.
This project would be better aligned with the Commercial Outdoor Storage District which
permits "New or used motor vehicle, recreational vehicle, trailer, boat, farm implement and
contractors' equipment sales, service, repair or rental". I strongly recommend that you do not
approve this Special Use Permit in this District without a formal public hearing to get Town
resident's input.
Diana Davis, Webster Resident, stated she is not opposed to the development of the property.
However, she feels this particular project with the existing characteristics makes it inappropriate,
and those characteristics need to be first mitigated and modified before referring it to the
Planning Board.
Paul Wohlrab, Webster Resident, submitted the following comments on the Town’s website
form:
21
01-05-23
Webster Town Board
The access facility not only violates zoning regulations but will also be an eyesore to the
area/town. It will mean building on wet areas and destruction of many old trees. There will be
excess traffic as well as noise from tractor trailers and other vehicles since it will be 24 hours.
We do not need another Henrietta NY.
Jennifer Breunig, Webster Resident, submitted the following comments on the Town’s website
form:
The proposed violates the intended use for this lot. If Webster was in desperate need of the
service provided AND there were no places available in the correct zoning, it might be
understandable. Fortunately, there is already plenty of appropriate zoning for U-Haul, and plenty
of choices for the Webster public to choose from in order to get the same services.
Open to the floor for public comment was closed.
***
The Town Board was presented with a proposed Resolution to consider a Special Use Permit and
referral to the Planning Board for site plan review associated with a proposed self-storage facility
at 959 Five Mile Line Road.
Mike Ritchie, Costich Engineering, appeared before the Town Board representing the U-Haul
Moving & Storage Project Applicant, Amerco Real Estate Company. Mr. Richie provided a
summary of the project.
Mr. Ritchie stated he and the applicant were appearing before the Town Board requesting a
Special Use Permit. Although self-storage is a permitted use within the LC2 District, any
structure over 5,000 square feet requires a Special Use Permit. They understand that this is a
long process. This is not the end but just the beginning. The concept plan Amerco has prepared
is the ideal layout for their operations. They understand there will be a lot of discussion with the
Town and residents and various Town of Webster Boards regarding specific details. In regards
to the traffic, he believes that this use is a very low traffic generator. In fact, in the application
materials, Amerco provided trip generations based on the numerous sites they have across the
Country. The average daily trips to a U-Haul Center are thirty-one trips on a weekday and fiftythree on a weekend. Comparing that to other permitted uses that could be built in this District,
such as a restaurant or gas station, that number could be in excess of hundreds if not thousands of
trips in a day. In terms of the impact to the neighborhood from a traffic standpoint, the project is
probably the lowest impact that could be built on this location. In terms of the setbacks and how
the site is laid out, they have shown the plan meeting all applicable setbacks, and all buffers.
They do understand that they will have to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a height
variance as well as a use variance for the rental of vehicles. There is a wetland on the site which
has been delineated and will not be disturbed by this project. There is an area of floodplain that
will be impacted by the parking lot which will be mitigated per FEMA rules with proper
compensation. They will also provide stormwater management and landscaping to meet the
State's rules. There also will be improvements to the existing traffic signal where all traffic will
be forced to go through the existing traffic signal used for Lowes. There will not be any traffic
near the residential homes. In regard to the project being in close proximity to resident
properties, the property will be subdivided, the LC2 and residential district line. The proposed
22
01-05-23
Webster Town Board
location of the building will be ± 500 feet to the nearest structure on Patty Lane and
approximately 200 feet to the closest house on Gaywood Lane. They understand any
development is going to cause concern to the neighbors. They intend to be good applicants by
working with the residents and the Town to come forward with a project that they believe
everybody can be proud of.
Supervisor Flaherty stated that he handed out to the residents in attendance prior to the meeting a
one-page document prepared by Josh Artuso, Director of Community Development, that
explained the Special Use Permit process. Included in the documentation was clarification of the
Town Code that an application of this nature goes to the Town Board for an initial review. The
Town Board can take one of the following actions: 1) take no action; 2) request that the
applicant modify the application and resubmit; or 3) refer the application for review and
recommendation by the Planning Board.
Councilman Cahill stated he has reviewed the Town Code and the application materials, read
everyone's posts on social media and listened to the comments made this evening. He stated he
had questions regarding the Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 1 - Project Information.
He pointed out to Mr. Ritchie that several items on the Form were blank and did not have a yes
or no answer.
Mr. Ritchie provided explanation to some of the items on the form and apologized for other
items left blank. He stated the form was prepared by others and in future submissions to the
Planning Board, they could include a supplemented Environmental Assessment Form which
would contain more detail. He also stated that when the document was being prepared and
submitted, he believes that it was too early in the concept phase to include all the information as
it was not available at that time.
Councilman Cahill commented that he read Town Code Section 350-17 and is of the opinion that
the project does not conform with the neighborhood as far as the architecture goes and there is
going to be a number of variances that are going to be required for this particular development
and use. He stated he is in agreement with a great deal of people that have commented and does
not believe that this project follows the intention or language of Town Code Section 350-17 Low
Intensity Commercial District. He feels strongly that there are so many variances and Special
Use Permits that are going to be required. He is of the opinion and position to take no action on
this matter.
Councilman Abbott addressed the Town Supervisor stating that he would like to propose a
motion that the Town Board take no action on this application. Councilman Cahill seconded the
motion.
Supervisor Flaherty asked Town Attorney Genese, to explain what “take no action” means.
Town Attorney Genese stated “take no action” means there will not be a referral to the Planning
Board, nor is there a request for modification or any further instructions to the applicant.
Supervisor Flaherty stated he would rather see it move along in the process. In most Towns the
size of Webster, the process does not start with the Town, it ends with the Town. He has concern
when the Town has the first say and a lot of concern when the first say is no action because the
Town Board has given no counsel or input to the developer and the engineer.
23
01-05-23
Webster Town Board
Councilwoman Cataldi stated that she and Councilman Abbott might be in a unique position in
that thirteen years ago they were both sitting on the Town Board when the property was
presented for a rezone. She believes the developer has been given guidance from the comments
made this evening. She also has concerns that the project does not meet her concept of a mini
storage. Her understanding from reading the application is that the hours of operation are not 24
hours per day. Like many residents she is also concerned with referring the application to the
Planning Board and would not approve a Special Use Permit unless there were major
modifications made to the project. When looking at the entire application and giving some
thought back to the thirteen years ago when the Board approved the rezone, she is concerned that
if the project moves forward, and variances are granted, the Town would be diluting what was
done thirteen years ago and feels concessions keep being made to the point where it does not
mean anything anymore.
Councilwoman Nguyen thanked the residents for their input on the matter. She feels the Town
Board needs more time before a decision is made as it affects the community.
Resolution No. 63: MOTION by Councilman Abbott, seconded by Councilman Cahill, declining to
refer an application by Amerco Real Estate Company for a Special Use Permit.
WHEREAS, James R. and Lucille Kunz are the owners of real property with an address of
959 Five Mile Line Road, Town of Webster, consisting of a total of 19.09 acres, being the parcel
known as Tax Account Number 079.09-1-37.11; and
WHEREAS, the land is located in an LC Class II (Low-Intensity Commercial) District; and
WHEREAS, AMERCO Real Estate Company has proposed to develop a portion of this parcel
into a(n) U-Haul Moving and Storage Store, including uses of and purposes for self-storage,
U-Haul truck and trailer sharing, and retail sales; and
WHEREAS, Webster Town Code Section 350-17(A)(5) permits "Mini storage" or self-storage
facility or facilities; and
WHEREAS, if such use is to operate on or exist upon the property in excess of 5,000 square feet,
Webster Town Code Section 350-17(A)(7)(a) such permitted use may be permitted in an LC
Class II District upon the issuance of a Special Use Permit by the Town Board; and
WHEREAS, an application has been made by the applicant, in writing, for a Special Use Permit
review; and
WHEREAS, the Code of the Town of Webster Section 269-19(A), permits the Town Board to,
INTER ALIA, (1) take no action, or (2) request that the applicant modify the application and
resubmit, or (3) refer any application for a Special Use Permit to the Planning Board, for the
Planning Board’s review and recommendations upon such application prior to the required
Public Hearing on the Special Use Permit application and approval by the Town Board; and
WHEREAS, after due consideration of the application, particularly of the number of variances,
both area and use which will be required for the approval of the site application as made, as well
as other concerns, the Town Board, pursuant to Webster Town Code Section 269-20(A)(1):
24
01-05-23
Webster Town Board
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That no action will be taken by the Town Board upon the application of AMERCO Real Estate
Company for development of a portion of 959 Five Mile Line Road, Town of Webster, as
presented.
Vote on motion:
Supervisor Flaherty .............Nay
Councilwoman Cataldi ..... Aye
Councilman Cahill ..............Aye
Councilwoman Nguyen .... Aye
Councilman Abbott .............Aye
Motion carried .................. 4-1
***
At 8:56 p.m. Supervisor Flaherty called for an Executive Session.
Resolution No. 64: MOTION by Supervisor Flaherty, seconded by Councilwoman Cataldi, to
enter into Executive Session to discuss proposed, pending or current litigation pursuant to New
York State Public Officer’s Law §105(1)(d).
WHEREAS, New York State Public Officers Law provides that the Town of Board may enter
into Executive Session to discuss certain subjects or matters:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That the Town Board enter into an Executive Session pursuant to New York State Public
Officers Law, §105(1)(d) to discuss proposed, pending or current litigation.
That the following persons were authorized to attend: Charles Genese, Town Attorney,
Josh Artuso, Community Development Director, Mary Herington, Town Engineer, Paul Adams,
Finance Director, and Matt Chatfield, Webster Economic Development Alliance.
Vote on motion:
Supervisor Flaherty .............Aye
Councilman Abbott .......... Aye
Councilman Cahill ..............Aye
Councilwoman Cataldi ..... Aye
Councilwoman Nguyen ......Aye
Motion carried .................. 5-0
***
Resolution No. 65: MOTION by Supervisor Flaherty and seconded by Councilman Cahill, to
return to Regular Session at 9:36 p.m.
Vote on motion:
Supervisor Flaherty .............Aye
Councilman Abbott .......... Aye
Councilman Cahill ..............Aye
Councilwoman Cataldi ..... Aye
Councilwoman Nguyen ......Aye
Motion carried .................. 5-0
***
There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at
9:36 p.m.
___________________________
Dorothy M. Maguire, Town Clerk
25
01-05-23