Planning Board Meeting

Okay. Okay. I guess we can get started. I'd like to welcome you to the planning board meeting. Um, would you join in a pledge of allegiance, please?

Pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. Okay, Catherine, you want to call the role, please?

Mr. Anderson

here.

Mr. Kashani

here.

Mr. Jardino

here.

Mr. Kotil

here.

Mr. Malta

here.

Mrs. Maltner

here.

Mr. Gassid

here.

Miss Corsy

here.

Mr. Artuso

here.

Mr. Tardy

here. Okay, I guess we'll get started now. Um, we've got a pretty lengthy agenda this evening here, so just bear with us through the evening and we'll get through it, I guess. Um, why don't we start with the first one located at 5mile line road in Lowe's Plaza. The applicant is Patrick Young, who's requesting preliminary plan approval associated with the construction of a 4,600 ft equipment rental store featuring a 41,700 ft gravel storage yard enclosed by a chainlink security fence on a 7.94 acre lot located in a highintensity commercial district under section 269-11 350-9 [clears throat] of the code of Tunnel Webster.

Gentlemen,

good evening. Uh my name is Rafael BTO uh with Marathon Engineering. I'm uh here tonight with uh the owner of Veronz, Patrick Young. Um so we appeared before the board last month uh to re for sketch plan review and I think that was uh fairly well received. Uh if I can just give a brief summary of the project for anyone uh here who either wasn't present or just to you know jog some memories. Um so this project is uh located on the uh Lowe's out parcel. Uh this is on 5m line road just south of the uh expressway 104. There is a uh an empty western parcel on uh on that Lowe's project. This was created as an out parcel in 2002 when the when the development was uh was initially created and there were uh several storm water ponds that were created as a part of that process in order to treat both the lows the existing parking lot and uh some any potential new construction that would happen on those out parcels. Um

so we are proposing to build a uh an equipment rental facility. Uh it's going to uh essentially rent out these are for this is uh equipment similar to like either a bobcat or smallj hammer. These are not large pieces of equipment. These are equipments to be used for uh home projects. Um in addition to the uh 4,000 600 ft building. Uh there's going to be, as mentioned, a uh 41,000 square ft storage yard. Now, uh I believe when we first appeared for sketch plan, our initial uh concept was to use a gravel storage yard. There were some concerns noted about the possibility of stone dust being tracked off site. Uh [clears throat] when reviewing our project to submit for preliminary, uh we've made a revision to the plans and showing that as not being a gravel storage yard, but using asphalt millings as [clears throat] the top layer of that storage yard. So that should significantly reduce the risk of any debris or any debris being tracked

off site. That's in addition to the uh layout of the driveway which I can we can go into further detail later. Just um let's see here. Uh the other the other concern that was uh brought up during sketchful interview was regards to the fence. We are originally proposing a chain link security fence around the entirety of the storage yard. that would be uh visually um that would use essentially uh vinyl slats in order to provide um a a visual buffer to both uh to the uh 5mile line road. Um we've come back and changed the fence along the front face of the building, the face that would be uh facing the interior private drive. Um and actually air cut if you can show the uh the render now the um the front facing render. So showing an example of something a little cleaner. Um this would still be a security fence with a uh with an automatic gate in order to

access for uh customers to pull up and access any equipment that's being taken from the yard. Uh so customers don't have to enter the yard. They're just going to pull up into the driveway, get their equipment loaded on, and then leave. Uh but that gives it uh a bit of a a friendlier look. Uh some of the other concerns that were uh that were not fully addressed when we were last here is a matter of uh the wetlands. There was a previous delineation that was uh performed in 2003. Uh this the property was uh marked for review by uh the New York State DEC. We have cooperated fully with the DEC in their jurisdictional review. They have determined that uh all of the ponds that are on the site are not being considered New York State wetlands. They are man-made ponds that were created in 2002 and the owner h is responsible for maintaining those and keeping those clean and functional so that they continue to serve the facility. Uh and we provided our juris our JD our

jurisdictional determination to the town and uh the last concern was uh flood plane. There is a creek that runs through this uh through this parcel. We are not proposing to touch that creek at all. There's going to be at least we're going to maintain uh the full existing vegetative buffer that keeps uh this project from the creek as it is today. That creek does have a 100red-year flood plane associated with it. We are proposing to do about there's a small area that will require a couple inches of fill within that flood plane. Uh, and we're filling in that flood plane in order to keep the storage yard and the building up above that 100red-year flood elevation in order to keep it safe from any any potential flood damages. Now, because we are filling in the flood plane, we are proposing to make some compensatory storage. We're going to be expanding those existing storm water ponds. Um uh I believe we are expanding the storm water ponds about an extra 80 cubic yards of storage

compared to what we are filling in the flood plane. So comparing the pre-development to post-development, there will actually be more flood storage within that floodway than there is today. Um, I think that summarizes all of the changes that we've made. If there are any [clears throat] questions that the board has, I'd be uh happy to answer them. Uh, we did receive comments from town staff and I believe you've been supplied with our response to those questions.

Yeah. You already you sent us a letter.

Yes. with the response [clears throat] of CPRC comments

and you're able to conform to all of them?

Yes, I believe so.

In regards to what you've brought in for preliminary, I commend you on doing a nice job with this.

Thank you.

Um, you came in for sketch plan. We had two things that we added. That was the fence situation and the ashvault. I didn't care for the, you know, gravel in the parking lot because when vehicles would be going out, they'd be leaving, you know, the limestone from onto the roadway. I didn't think that was looking too good in that area. I don't think that would have been too well appreciated. And you accommodate. So, you're putting down millings.

Yes.

I think that'll that'll serve the purpose. I'm fine with that. The building, you've done a nice job. I like the design of it. kind of looks like Country Max over there, but it's a good design to me. The fence, you modified the fencing in the front, you've got that other instead of just the chain link there, just a little more ornamental. Looks good to me. Anybody any comments or any issues with it? I think they've done what we asked.

I have just a couple comments.

Sure.

Um, so on the utility plan, the U meter is you know, close to the fence line past the bio retention area. Is that area accessible to Monroe County Water Authority in case they ever or anybody needs to get to that meter? So, this was a discussion that we had with Monro County Water Authority um that they actually do not want to have the meter near the building uh because of its proximity to the wet ponds. Mhm.

Um to summarize that discussion, their concern is that if there is a leak between the uh the tap and the meter because the area is so it because the water table is so high, you you might just not know any realize that there's any leaking occurring. Um whereas if you put them if you put the meter before that crossing where it crosses near that uh that wet area you could notice that in your in your water usage and that could be noted and repaired. Uh so there was that that meter is is going to be a little more difficult for them to access. Uh but the Monro County Water Authority is explicitly requesting that it be placed where it is.

Okay. Um, I guess maybe to address the meter and [clears throat] my next question which was the access to the bio retention area in the back of the yard. Is it possible maybe to add a gate um 10 foot or 20 foot? That way you can access the bio retention for maintenance but also can

I think you could absolutely do that. Yes.

Okay.

Um I see you've added rot iron fence detail now to the front. Um, if we can just add that detail to the plants as well, please. Same thing with a rot iron gate detail. I'm assuming you're using a rot iron gate. Um, I didn't see a cleanout detail. That's a little thing.

Uh, yes, I noticed that in your comment it'll be added in the next iteration.

Okay. And then I um closer to the 26 ft gates that are in the front that are now red iron, you have catch or basin 3 and 3.1 that are tied to an existing catch basin.

Yes.

Can you similarly I've

Okay.

As of today, I've revised to show that full uh that full um drainage pattern. So you can see how that connects to the that that connects to an existing catch basin that is in the private drive which links to a catch basin that is a little bit uh I guess we're a little bit to the east in a in the parking lot and then that drains to the north pond.

So I've expanded the utility plan to to better show that entire uh drainage path.

Sounds good. Thank you. That it anybody else any comments? If not, uh again, this is a public hearing, so we'll open it if anyone has any interest or concern, comments regard to it. Not seeing anyone. Okay. Then we'll close the public hearing, bring it back to the board. This is going too easy for this project here. [laughter]

Um anybody?

No. Thought it was.

You're all right. Derek,

no.

Peggy, you're all good.

I'm good. Okay, we can move forward with it then.

Uh, Dresen, you you're suggesting a gate

just in the back so they can access the buyer retention.

That's good. That's good.

Yeah.

Okay. So, gate going in there. So, we'll put that in there. Okay. want to do a secret adventure planning [clears throat] board consider a request by applicant Patrick Young to construct a 4,600 ft equipment rental store featuring a 41,700 ft storage yard enclosed by a chain link fence located on Lowe's Plaza on 5mile line road on a 7.94 acre parcel having SPL number 079.10-1 10-1-2.1 on a high and density commercial district. The planning board determined that the proposed action is an unlisted action under part 617 of the state environmental quality review act. The planning board determined that the action is subject to single agency review pursuant to part 617.6B1 of seeker and that is the most appropriate agency for making determination of significance. The

planning board therefore designates itself lead agency for the pro proposed action. The planning board has given consideration to the criteria determined significance as set forth in section 617.7C1 of seeker and has considered the short environmental assessment form and considered public comments directed to the planning board during concept review and consider direct or comments direct to the planning board during the public hearing. Now therefore, be it resolved that the town of Webster Planning Board hereby determines the proposed action will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment for the reasons set forth in the attached notice of determination and non-significance. Be it further resolved that town Webster Planning Board is authorized to take all actions reasonable and necessary to file a negative declaration and discharge the town of Webster Planning Board's responsibility as lead agency for the action. Be it further resolved that the town of Webster planning board based on the information analysis above the information supporting the documentation and discussions of the action of the town of Webster Planning Board is documented by the minutes for this meeting and that the proposed action will not result in a significant environmental impact. be it further resolved that the town of Webster Planning Board therefore makes a determination on significance. Uh

therefore resolved that the town of Webster planning board based on the above issues a negative declaration as evidence of its determination.

That's your motion. Need a second.

Second.

Have a second. All in favor?

I

I Okay, we're good with that. Um

your um I was going to mention also your lighting [clears throat] down lighting is onto the site not spilling out.

Yes, that's correct.

Onto the Okay.

Yeah.

And landscape plan. You'll show that. You'll show us your

landscape plan show some trees along the private parking.

Okay. [laughter]

All right. We're good. All right. I guess with that we can move over. Dave or somebody. Anybody want to make a motion for this?

Yeah. I'll make a motion for preliminary approval. We're piranha Rents located by Miland Road in the Lowe's Plaza.

Excuse [clears throat] me. D just a second. Can you folks in the back? Is this coming through? We asked them to turn it up. I don't know if you can hear back there.

You can or not.

You cannot. Thank you.

Can we turn it up or whatever we got to do?

Yep.

Or maybe talk louder or chew on the mic. I don't know. You got to do something. It doesn't make it nice when you're sitting back there and you can't hear.

Sorry, David. I didn't mean to interrupt you, but

a couple of expressions that were like,

"What do you say?"

Yeah. Put your mouth. [clears throat]

Is this time for a little commercial? Got it. Is that any better? How's that any better?

Yeah.

Yeah. Stutter.

So, subject to PRC comments, uh, subject to letter credit posted with the town of Webster if applicable, uh, subject to Monro County Water Authority comments, subject to, um, determination of ZBA for any requested variances if applicable. [clears throat] All improvements shall be constructed according to the specification of town of Webster. All roadway construction to be in accordance with the specification and regulations set forth by the town of Webster. All site work to be in compliance with the standards of the town of Webster. Comply with all requirements of any state, county, or town agency. Address drainage, lighting, signage, landscaping, buffering, burming, and snow storage. uh landscape design and approvals are subject to drawing number.

See what we got here.

Now what is the drawing number on there? I can't see.

Is it? I don't see it. Got to be down in the bottom. It's just got the drone

drawing number V1.0.

Just use the job number 1843-25.

Right. And proceed to final approval. So that's your motion.

Okay.

Um want to add to that? Um, just for the record that the applicant has modified the parking lot to use millings versus the gravel and you might want to have signs. Any future signs you're going to be presenting? Um, so I I believe there's going to be a sign on the existing pylon that belongs to Lowe's. Are you going to put up any signs on the building?

Yes, the renderings show some signs. They're going to be different, but for the rendering purposes, we just put that on.

Okay, let's let's do this. Let's Okay, we got a motion. Need a second.

Second. [clears throat]

Do we have a second? Okay, back to the sign. If you're going to have to put outside signs up by the road, I believe you said last meeting you were going to have them where the low sign is.

Yeah, one on the side.

Have to come back in with a sign.

Okay. So, he'll have to he'll have to get a permit from both of those then.

Put the two of them together. Okay. All right. All right. So that'll be future our science. We'll deal with that. So right now the approval although you have it is showing here. We don't know the color. We don't know if it's lit. We don't know anything about it. We'll deal with that separately.

Yeah. Separately.

Okay. Okay. We have a motion. We then get

Mr. Malta.

Hi.

Mr. Jardino.

Hi.

Mr. Anderson.

Hi.

Mr. Kosal.

Hi.

Mr. Gan.

Hi.

Mrs. Maltman.

Hi.

Mr. Kishan.

Hi.

Okay. You're all set.

Thank you guys.

Good luck gentlemen. See you soon.

Okay, next one. Go ahead. Dave,

Dave,

Fred, whatever you want to call me.

Harold Moon's Thai Myanmar sign located at 950 Ridge Road. The applicant, Amy,

forgive me, Amy.

Catalano.

Catalan. Oh, it is Catalano. Okay. Vital signs requesting sign approval associated with construction of a 37.2 2 square ft wall-mounted sign consisting of backlit channel letters on a 37.9 acre parcel located in a highintensity commercial district under section 265-7 of the code of the town of Webster.

Yes, ma'am.

Yes. Hi, I'm Amy Catalano from Vital Signs. Um, so you pretty much said it. Backlit channel letters, um, flush mount to the building. um translucent vinyl prints and um on the faces of the letters, LED lighting, kind of the standard for the channel letters. Are there any questions?

Says there final colors to be decided.

Well, yes, I see that. So, we're using like it's like a metallic gold translucent um on Moons and then it's a Hunter green vinyl lettering with the returns and the um channel coil um is also green around everything. And then the digital print for the plate um is a translucent vinyl.

Okay, anybody Pretty simple sign.

Okay. [snorts]

Yep.

Nothing. Just

anybody down that side? You mean it's all right with it?

Good looking sign.

Good. Yeah, it is nice looking. Okay. Want to do a secret on it? We'll move on.

Yeah. Town of Wes Planning Board consider request by applicant Amy Catalano of Vital Science to construct a 37.2 two square foot wall-mounted sign for Moon's time consisting of a backlit channel letters located at 950 Ridge Road on a 37.9 acre parcel having SPL number 079.15-1.312. The planning board classifies the proposed action as a type two action under section 617 C2 of the state environmental quality review regulations and therefore is not subject to further review.

Motion second.

Second.

All in favor?

I.

Okay. Motion for approval. [clears throat]

Oh. All right. I'll make a motion uh for the approval for a 37.2 two square foot uh mounted sign illuminated mounted sign for applicant Amy Catalano of vital signs for Moon's Thai Marramar sign my yeah Marai restaurant at um 950 Ridge Road as presented. Okay. Need a second?

Second.

All in favor?

I You're good. Okay. Good luck with your sign.

Thank you. Now, this sounds a little bit crazy, you know, but we, you know, we get these signs and they come in and they're short, they're gone. But the reason we do this, you know, people question is why do you bother? What's it, what's the big deal with a sign if you didn't have the control to just look at the sign and say, "Yes, this is acceptable. This does meet the code." Could you imagine what every building would possibly look like down the road if everybody started have glowing lights, flashing lights, this, that, and the other? So, that's the reason for it. It's a little complicated that for the applicant to have to present drawings and so on and so forth, but ultimately makes a better looking appearance in the town in my opinion. Anyways,

so you're all set. Thank you.

I'm actually going to stay for the next one, too. I told Kurt I would cover his or Eagles Nest.

I think that's next on the list.

All right, I'll read it in the record. Eagle Nest golf lounge sign located at 1170 Ridge Road. applicant is Amy Catalano. She's requesting sign approval associated with the construction of a 60.75 square foot wall-mounted sign consisting of internally illuminated channel letters on a 3.5 acre parcel located in a medium intensity commercial district under section 265-7 of the code of the town of Webster.

Yes. So again, these are back lit channel letters, remote mount, no raceway. Um, there's an icon. The icon in the middle is a little different. There's some translucent vinyl. The blue on that middle icon is opaque, so there won't be light coming through that. Just the gold border, the eagle's head, and those details within. And I don't believe I don't believe that background of the facade is going to be painted blue. I think it's gonna going to be that um that tannanish brown color.

Oh. Oh, you mean going across

the behind the sign. It's showed it's it's shown as being painted blue. And I don't think that's going to happen. I think he told me they may not do that. It'll just be painted like the rest of the plaza plaza. I think that the I think that was going to be up to the landlord and I think that's what he had said.

Okay. So, the blue is just the upper part of it.

The blue Yes. So, the blue is the building.

Yeah.

And it's shown here as being painted blue, but it's really not going to be painted blue. It's going to be that brown color like the rest of the plaza. Do you think more of the concern is it's not back lit glowing out or anything?

The letters or the

the letters will be lit.

The letters are back lit. Yeah,

that's what I'm saying. But that's it. Not the whole thing won't all be

No.

Okay. All right. Anybody any concerns? All right. Okay.

Keep moving. Got to do a secret on it. Yeah. Town Western Planning Board consider a request by applicant Amy Catalano to construct a 60.75 square foot wall-mounted sign for Eagles Nest Golf Lounge consisting of internally lit channel letters located at 1170 Ridge Road and a 3.05 acre parcel having SPL number 080.09-3-1.31. The planning board classifies a proposed action as a type two action under section 617.5C2 of the state environmental quarter review regulations and therefore is not subject to further review.

Okay, we have a motion for secret.

Second.

Have a second. All in favor?

I I Okay. Uh motion to uh I'll make a motion for applicant a Catalano to approve a uh 60 yeah 60.75 square foot mounted sign with illuminated channel letters for the Eagle's Nest located at 1170 Ridge Road as presented.

Second.

Okay. Motion to second. All in favor? Hi.

Okay, you're all set with that. We got the next one, too. You're done. [clears throat]

Okay.

Next item on tonight's agenda. Eagle Nest golf lounge sign located.

No, no, no, no.

We just did that.

Oh, okay.

We do one one or nothing.

One or nothing. All right. Next item on the agenda is cost cutter sign located at 900 Holt Road. The applicant, Connor Ewing of Elevated Sign Solutions, is requesting sign approval associated with the construction of a 27.5 square ft wall-mounted sign consisting of LED channel letters on a 28.4 acre parcel located in a high intensity commercial district under section 265-7 of the code of the town of Webster.

Yes, sir. Hello. Uh, I'm Connor. Um, we're proposing another set of raceway mounted channel letters. So, the cost cutters with the little scissor logo will be illuminated letters uh with a white face and then hair salon are going to be non-elilluminated letters just mounted right to the

facade there. So, pretty straightforward if there's any questions.

What's what's the is what's the one Herzu?

Yeah,

that that goes where

that's current site. That's what's there now.

Well, that's what's currently there now.

Herzoo is there right now.

Yeah, I see it. Okay. Yep. It says it right there. I see.

Okay. Um, [clears throat] anybody any just just the figures are lit. That's it. Conforming the code. You guys are all right with it.

Yep. Do a secret and we'll keep going. Tana Webster Planning Board consider a request by applicant Connor Ewing of Elevated Sign Solutions to construct a 27.5 square foot wall-mounted sign for cost cutters consisting of LED channel letters located in 900 Holt Road on a 28.4 acre parcel having SPL number 07912-1-6.211. The planning board classifies the proposed action as a type two action under section 617.5C2 the state environmental quality review regulations and therefore is not subject to further review.

Okay, we have a motion. We need a second.

Second.

All in favor?

I I

um

J, you want to keep going? You're on a roll with signs today.

Sure, why not? Um, [snorts] I'll make a motion uh for applicant county UI of elevated signs to approve a 27.5 square foot wall mounted sign with uh LED channel letters for cost cutters located at 900 Oak Road as presented.

Okay, that motion we need a second.

Second. All

in favor? I I

Good. Okay, you're all set.

Thank you. Next item on the agenda, Webster Solar Garden located at 750 Phillips Road. The applicant, Katie Socia of Montani [clears throat] Solar Developments, is requesting preliminary site plan approval associated with a 6.63 63 MW solar generation facility across 20 acres of a 120 acre lot owned by the Xerox Corporation located in an industrial district under sections 1555D4 269-5 and 350-22 of the code of the town of Webster.

Good evening.

Good evening. Thank you for having me here today. Um, we have a project team representing Webster Solar Gardens project. My name is Katie Sa representing Monte Solar. We also have Kim Nason from Philips Lidle. Uh, Marcus Lathrop representing Xerox Corporation. Um, and Jenna Suz on behalf of Haley and Aldrich. Together, our team is proposing a 6.6 megawatt solar project to be constructed on Xerox's campus in the town of Webster. We are here today to review updates to the project site plan that were implemented as part of the sketch plan review meeting in September and subsequent meeting held with one of the HOAs near the project site. Um, and I'm just going to pass it to my colleague Kim real quick to talk through that uh incorporation process.

Yeah, just [clears throat] wanted to touch on the fact real quickly that even before we came before the town with the formal application, obviously the team was here on the sketch plan conference. We received feedback from the board. We've had ongoing communications with town officials. Katie mentioned there was a separate meeting held with representatives from an HOA. Um really trying to get public feedback, understanding concerns, what questions there were about the project, having the team there at that meeting to answer questions to the extent we could. We also let everybody know at that meeting that um we would be submitting kind of a summary of what the questions were and what our responses were to the planning board that is in the materials with the filing. Um there's an exhibit that kind of summarizes what we went through at that meeting. So on the front end um the application was updated to incorporate some of those questions. There were some requests at that meeting with members of the HOA that Katie will will talk about the fact that we included in the application. So, um, I'll just ask tonight that you bear with us on the front end of our presentation because we heard a lot of questions then that we've tried to answer. We understand there may be still some discussion and questions in the community about the project. So, really our goal is to try to the greatest extent possible to address those questions on the front end, answer

some um, common questions we were hearing and then obviously we've got the team here if there are any additional questions, but I'll kind of turn it back to Katie to get into the project details. Thanks. Um, we can go to the next slide. Um, so, um, project background here. I know that, uh, we had already previewed this project with you guys before. Um, but it's a reuse of a brownfield site that also contains two closed and capped landfills. Um, and this is a DEC approved use of the site. Um, it helps Xerox achieve green energy goals. It's in compliance with the ongoing monitoring plan that is required by DEEC and part of the project will be open uh to community solar for eligible subscribers through NAERTA's ICSA program. Um and again after the sketch plan review our team took the uh step of meeting with local HOA for a Q&A. Go to the next slide. Um so just kind of want to set a stage of what we're going to be talking about here today. Um, we've already done uh and previewed some environmental due diligence with you guys at the last meeting. Um, but there was some additional due diligence that was requested by the board. Um, an environmental easement was submitted to the town of attorney for review that was issued by the DEEC back in 2021. Um, geotechnical uh results were also submitted to the town engineer and we'll

also go through the DEC re uh project review process to date. um project sighting and location updates to the site plan um and including viewsheds and updates to the landscape screening plan and then a couple updates to the decommissioning plan as well. So again, um environmental due diligence, um there are no jurisdictional wetlands on the site, either Army Corps, uh or DEC. Um we have confirmation from both that have been submitted to uh the town for review and Shipo has issued a no finding, no effect as well. Um go to the next slide. Um I'm just going to pass it off to my colleague Kim to talk through the uh environmental easement that was granted for this project. Yeah, just to kind of set the stage. So, one kind of recurring question that we had heard is just general questions related to a solar project being located on a remedial site on a capped landfill. You know, are there concerns? How is that addressed? Um, so I'll just start by saying that, you know, solar projects on landfills on brown fields, they're not they're not new. I've done them all over the state. they're, you know, well encouraged, I'll say, by both the EPA

and DEEC, provided that they're in alignment with the underlying institutional controls at every site. Um, that there's DEEC oversight and approval. Um, they are encouraged and it's considered a good reuse of a site that may not have a lot of other uses and helps the state meet its significant renewable energy goals. Um, but kind of speaking to this environmental easement that was provided and and what it means and and what level of security it provides for that oversight is there is a site management plan currently um covering this capped landfill covering the site that uh includes certain institutional controls requirements, inspection requirements and all of those are captured within this environmental easement. Essentially, the environmental easement runs with the land um and provides access for DEEC to come in, inspect, make sure that the site management plan is still being complied with um and to ensure ongoing operation, maintenance, monitoring requirements that may be um included in the SMP. Also, the environmental easement restricts uses at um on the land. So when a site underos remediation, you want to make sure that it's remediated to a certain level that allows for certain types of uses. As Katie

mentioned, this environmental easement contemplates a solar project as a permitted use um under these uh under the DEEC regulations both commercial and industrial uses. But what also comes into play in the environmental easement is if there is a change of use, which this would be to allow for the solar project on the site, um then that has to go to DEEC for signoff. And DEEC has guidance documents that include certain standards and things that need to be evaluated for solar projects that are being located on these types of sites. Um I think the team will get into that process and where we stand. Katie will talk about certain things that have been evaluated like settlement. That's something that DEEC requires you take a look at. So really this environmental easement is a document that runs with the land and will ensure that there are no um uses permitted at the site that aren't contemplated and that all of the institutional and engineering uh controls that are required at the site remain um effective going forward and DEEC can access the site to inspect and ensure that that's happening. So long story short, solar on these types of sites, there's a there's a history of it. It's encouraged, but also there's a level of DEC oversight that is absolutely required for this project to

go forward.

Thanks. Um and we can go to the next slide. Um so one of the other concerns from both the board and the community um was settlement on the asphalt cap, which is a specific capped area on the um Xerox campus. And so we did conduct a geotechnical analysis um and the results showed that the project is well under allowable limits and I'll go into the actual methodology that was used. Um so a geotechnical investigation was conducted to determine the viability of installing our weighted system on the cap. The meth uh the methodology was first discussed with and previewed by the DEEC team that has oversight over this uh this site. A steel plate was placed directly on the asphalt surface, and special equipment used a dial indicator to incre incrementally apply pressure or load to the plate at a maximum applied load of 2,000 lbs per square foot. And this was done in three different areas across the cap. And the allowable uh amount of set settlement before the integrity of the cap is affected uh for the sake of the system is uh a half an inch. Um so note the ballasted system altogether. So the racking, the ballast, the panel, the wiring, all the components of the system

will only weigh approximately 450 lbs per square foot. And there would be temporary other loads during construction like a skid steer or equipment like that that are about 650 lbs per square foot. So 2,000 lbs per square foot is approximately three times heavier than the heaviest load on the site during construction. And even with these additional loads, the results show that the weights are far under the allowable settlement. Um, at site one, it's 30 times below the allowable load. At site two, it's 33 times below the allowable load. And at site three, it's 11 times the allowable load. Um, in addition, Xerox has committed to resealing the entire asphalt cap prior to the start of construction to ensure the long-term integrity um, over the lifetime of the system. Um, and I'm going to turn it over to my colleague Janice to review where we are um with the DEC review [clears throat] process.

Thanks Katie. Um, you can go to the next slide. Thank you. Um, so the solar project team has been in active communication with the DEEC. Um, specifically the hazardous waste corrective action and postclosure division. Um, they're under the Bureau of Hazardous Waste and Division of Materials Management. Um, and a project manager and supervisor have been assigned to this project and are reviewing the project to ensure that it does meet DEEC rules and regulations. Um, and in accordance with DEEC procedures, as Kim had mentioned, we we did submit a change of use notification that's required specifically for this site and for this type of project. Um, and this change of use notification provided details on the on the solar project um, as well as environmental considerations and any requirements for this site specifically. Um, we've had multiple calls with the DEEC um, to talk through the proposed solar project and that change of use that was submitted. Um, we've discussed their comments and their questions um, and have responded to some of those things. Um we we did submit a change of use a revised change of use I should say um and have revised some elements of the solar project

design in response to th to those discussions. um that second bullet there um so DEEC has been in communication with the the town's planning board um and that if for and have indicated that if for any reason the DEEC determines that through their own separate review process that this project is is incompatible with protection of human health or the environment that they would either notify that the the project context that the that specific um requested changes would need to be made in order for the project to proceed ceed or state that the project would not be able to move forward at all. Um and the third bullet there as another layer of the oversight and review and um oversight and approvals process um we're required by um DEC and DEC has directed Monte and Xerox to follow their um department of materials management policy DMM4 um it's guidance specifically for photovoltaic solar projects at closed solar uh solid waste landfells. Um, so we've done work and assessments in response to and to meet those DMM4 requirements um to make sure that the project will not adversely impact the

landfill or the area and that it is compatible with protection of human health in the environment. I'll turn over to Katie. Um so the project sighting um the uh project has been strategically cited um on an area of the Xerox campus where there are two closed line landfills and several monitoring wells with ongoing uh reporting requirements by the DEEC. Um we've already discussed that this leaves the area with limited redevelopment opportunities. However, you know, solar is one of those ones that is encouraged on this site. Um the parcel is industrial zone located at the dead end dead end of Caracus Drive at the northern part of the Xerox campus. Um and the closest edge of the panel is more than 200 feet from the closest HOA property line, 740 ft from the closest residential lot line and 800 feet from the actual closest doile. We can go to next. Thank you. Um the 6.6 6 megawatt project includes approximately 10,872 panels, a top of racking and 18 inverters that have been strategically cited at the southeast corner of the project, 1,300 ft uh from the closest

HOA property line, 650 ft from the closest point on the HOA walking trail, 1,700 feet from the closest residential property line, and 1860 ft from the closest doicile. The project will be connected directly into RG&'s distributed generation lines along Caracus Drive and RG& has already reviewed and approved the project. Um, and the project has been strategically designed so all environmental monitoring obligations with DEEC will remain intact. Uh, the project has been designed in compliance with the NEC electrical code and all uh, state and local laws. Some updates to our site plan include uh fire access turnaround that was implemented as part of the discussions uh from the last uh sketch plan meeting um and ballasted fencing which was also um requested as part of the last sketch plan meeting as well. Um major equipment here um panels uh aka modules this is you know what they look like. Inverters again just wanted to show a real image of what they look like. um geob ballasted racking system. So there are no ground penetrations here. It's a weighted system. It's tried and true on uh landfill projects. Um and this is an actual photo from one of our sites as well.

So, um, one of the major points of concern that we heard, um, from the community was, um, the sight lines and really, um, the the understanding point, not wanting to, um, see or hear the project, basically not wanting to know that it exists. So, our team investigated the current sight lines and site conditions to establish a base and then how we can improve and build upon it. You can see some images of the current sight lines here. Um that's kind of from a a little bit further back than the walking trail. You can see the walking trail like within those pictures there. Um and uh the bordering vegetation surrounding the entire project site will stay in place. So to the direct um immediate east uh it's about uh 250 I'm sorry 2,500 ft of wood vegeta woods and mature vegetation. To the west it's 1500 feet of mature woods and ve vegetation. And then to the northeast and northwest, it's 150 feet on the northeast and 250 feet on the northwest. Or I'm sorry, I swapped those. Uh northwest and northeast for the opposite. I apologize. Um so if we click through again, just wanting to establish a base of what's currently there. Um there's a mix of deciduous and coniferous trees there um that are quite

mature. Um, and kind of just again like a different image from a little further up on the trail as well. Uh, and then this is from the other uh development that is currently taking place um to the uh northeast of the project site as well.

Can I interrupt you? I'm just trying to ask a question while you're right there. You're saying there are trees some decision. Is that on the actual site?

Yeah, so it's a mix. Um I'm not sure if you're able to bring up like the um Well, the reason I'm asking the question though is because

if there's trees growing, those trees have roots.

Mhm.

Are the roots penetrating the barrier? The ashalt?

Oh, the asphalt cap, sorry, is only on one uh part of the project site and that's no vegetation on that area. Yeah, the the rest of the project site is um

Yeah. So if you kind of zoom in, you can see the property lines are kind of that step down area there. Um and that is the area that we were looking at to see the uh vegetation um kind of in there.

Yeah. just

um so then um if you go to the next slide um one of uh the members from the HOA suggested we do some infield testing as well. Um, and we did, um, we plotted the fence line, uh, in the northern area and took caution tape and wrapped it around that northern edge, um, at about 10 feet high to simulate the the back of the panel. And then um, that those are pictures documenting it. And then a drone was flown um, closer to the edge of the tree line um to try and see if we could actually see the caution tape um, in that area as already established as is. Um, so that kind of sorry that yellow line uh the yellow area there shows the caution tape and then the closeup the red line that's closer to it is where we flew up uh to see if the we could see the yellow caution tape through the existing vegetation. So these are some of the images and then we couldn't see it. So then we also flow flew the drone up higher and then shot down into the site to see if we could find it. Um which is the next image. Um and again we couldn't um see the yellow caution tape um through the

tree line. Um so then uh in addition to the already established vegetation, we're going to um leave all the natural vegetation intact and then insert a double row of coniferous trees to the northeast and northwest of the project as well, which is right now proposed as a Norway spruce and an eastern red cedar to further mitigate potential viewsheds. trees will be 10 to 12 feet tall upon planting um and spaced 10 feet apart on center to allow the trees to continue to grow. Um and these trees grow on average about 2 feet per year. Um and because Xerox heard the concerns of these neighborhoods, they have volunteered to implement these plantings as soon as they are able to in the spring season ahead of any major construction on the project. Um, and then decommissioning plan is pretty much the same as what we reviewed last time, but some of the requests by the planning board members were to add drone photos of current site conditions, which were added, and then also to update uh a table to include a possible 35-year uh lease term, which was was also done there as well. [laughter] Um, and then I'm just going to kick it off to my colleague Kim again to uh close us out on our presentation.

Yeah. Um, also one point I I want to just touch on um for purposes of seeker. Again, we've we've covered a lot of ground here on um DEEC on the fact that this is a portion of the site is a cap landfill, but this project is also a type two action under seeker. Um what that means is there's a list of actions board's probably very familiar with them. um that there are certain actions that DEEC has evaluated already and determined based on the nature of that activity that it does not have potentially significant adverse impacts on the environment. um solar projects that are under 25 acres that are very similar to this project. Um whether they're on closed landfills, other brownfield sites with COC's, inactive hazardous waste disposal sites with full liability releases or currently disturbed areas at uh sites that are zoned for industrial use. Those are all determined to be type two action. So, I just wanted to cover um that point as well, and we we can answer any questions. Um, but really I know this is a lot of information and I'm sure there'll be some questions that come from the public um as well that we'll be happy to answer, but um we respectfully submit that this is a productive reuse of a site that's been remediated um and we're looking forward to answering questions.

Okay, thank you.

Where do we even start? Derek, I know you had some comments on it. Why don't you go ahead? So my understanding is that this site is not remediated that it is an active remediation site. That's the purpose for the cover to prevent groundwater from seeping into the hazardous materials which are actually still on site underneath the cover. It is the reason for the bedrock blast trench that is north of the asphalt cover. the remediation system that draws out the groundwater, treats it within the building on site before discharging it to the public sewers. So when you say this site has been remediated, it's it's actually under remediation. Correct.

It has not yet met its remediation goals.

Right. It's um and it's subject to those institutional controls that are part of that site management plan and the environmental easement which limits uses that can exist. I just want to make clear because I because I heard the term a couple times that the site has been remediated but it has not been remediated.

So there's no active remediation going on. Um you're thinking of a different part of the campus where we have that that air stripper that's treating um contaminants and performing active remediation. The there's a record of decision and a series of institutional controls which is the cap um and a couple other institutional controls that are put in place. the bedrock trench to capture any any potential um groundwater of concern. So, it's not active actively being remediated. It's

So, this is different and there's groundwater monitoring going on right now.

This is different than the conversation I had with DEEC about the site that the trench

that that collection system on the trench is is still active and samples.

Yeah, that is still active. Yeah, we're still pulling water and we we monitor it on a monthly basis. But

right,

you know, when we're talking the technical terms here, active remediation is not going on.

But you are pulling groundwater.

Yes. Yes. And we test it every month and it's in the contamination per billion levels. It's but it's it's not

according to DC rules, it doesn't need to be actively remediated at this point.

There's a record of decision going back to 1989 on that.

A record of determination.

Okay. I'm I'm confused because it's this is totally different than what DEEC told us or told me during a conversation that I had with them. Okay. The other thing is that one you you referenced

seeker and the items that are in here. Uh you've also referenced that the site's a brownfield.

No, let sorry let me let me just be clear.

I've heard the term brownfield multiple times saying that the site's a brownfield.

No,

but it is not a brownfield. So, my reference was um on the list of type two actions, when you're specifically talking about those solar projects that are under 25 acres, there's four separate types that can qualify as type two actions, you can be any one of those four types to fall under the type two action. So, brownfield is one of them. I was just listing all four.

Okay. But the the engineer referred this as a brownfield site. I want to make it clear that this is not a brownfield site. Who did somebody say? No, it it is a site that's subject to um a remedial program. It is has a site management plan. It has ongoing institutional controls that are part of that site management plan. But when I mentioned my mention specifically of the brownfield cleaner program, that was just to describe the list of solar projects that are considered as type two actions.

I understand that. But the presentation that was just made started out saying that this is a brownfield site. So I want to make it very clear that the presentation even though it said this is a brownfield

and you said that not you though. [laughter]

We're notitting that this is a brownfield.

So it's not a brownfield.

So from that case and you know that the item 14 number two doesn't apply because it's not a brownfield site.

Right.

For the seeker type two actions.

Yes.

Correct.

And you're saying close landfill. So that closed from the perspective that it's not receiving additional waste. I mean that that is true from that perspective on it

and that it's

but this is also a hazardous waste site and have you received a release from DEC? So, specifically to the type two actions, let me just cover um of the ones that I listed for solar projects, I'll specifically reference um let me the first one which we talked about which was the closed landfill and then the fourth um item under the rags which is a disturbed site um that is zoned industrially. So, that applies to the entirety of the site. So, th those are the two specifically that we're referencing.

Sure. I I understand that, but I also see in here that there's a for inactive hazardous waste disposal sites, a full liability release,

but that that you are not required to have that. That's just one of the options. So th those four items are ors. So you don't you don't have to be every one of those items. You just have to be one. And we're submitting that we we fall under two of them. I mean, I look at it from a perspective too within later on in the the regulation. per seeker or that this is focusing on a simple one point of it. We have to look at the entire project and I do know that the site is the entire project site does include Xerox.

So therefore it is a record facility

and we have to take that in consideration when we we we do the review on it. We can't

and for purposes of the classification

focus on the one item

correct and for purposes of the entirety of the site and the classification um the entirety of the site is zoned industrial. So understood. You're absolutely correct. Need to take into account the the full parcel. Um and that's where that kind of fourth bullet uh covers the project.

Okay.

As do you see I mean personally I I have a concern about putting this on top of this asphalt cup this equipment in general. I also see in the details that there is um indications that there's going to be penetrations for cabling for the panels. What details do you shield an equipment pad with cabling going underneath? And my understanding is that nothing on the site is allowed to penetrate the surface.

So there's going to be one area of disturbance um which I'm not sure if we're able to zoom in uh on the site plan a little further. Um, all of the con all of the cabling throughout the site is going to be above ground. Um, it's going to all collect in the north uh I'm sorry, in the uh southeast corner [laughter] of the project. Yeah. Um, if you zoom in a bit there, kind of by the very uh edge of the uh the access road into the site. So, all of the disturbance is going to be limited to the access road. um the poles that are going to be uh the the utility poles essentially that are going to be connecting into the lines along Caracus Drive. Um and then that medium voltage pad area there. Um and uh Janice can probably speak to it a little bit better than I can. Um but as part of of Xerox's site monitoring plan, soil sampling needs to be done within those areas as well before any type of um uh digging can occur. Um, and if you have further questions on that, Janice is probably the the best person to answer those.

And then just to make sure it's clear, the red box up there, that's the landfill. Um, that's that's where the contamination is, where it's been encapsulated, and we have the institutional and operational controls in place. Um, and so the any sort of impact of the soil is to the um souththeast of that. That's the far corner towards the the yellow corner there. That's where any sort of intrusive activity would happen. Do you have to do anything special for the fence, the security fence? Is that also balanced amount of the security fence around the solar array?

Uh, yeah. So, it's going to be a ballasted fence. We made that change per the request of the planning board last time. Um, there's going to be part of the fence that's going to be left in place. There's a part of the fence that already exists along the edge of the asphalt along Caracus Drive there. Um so we'll be attaching the new fence to either uh to yeah the um west side of that to continue along the edge and then also um the fence line will go up uh kind of north of that building 343 indicated there um and along to make sure the medium voltage equipment is uh encapsulated as well. Josh, do you mind switching to the civil set instead of the site plane because they don't they don't match? [snorts]

Which page did you want? Uh, so right there you can just zoom in to that left array area. What Katie's referring to is the remaining fence to stay in place is orange and then the black line is the post fence.

Yeah. Kind of north of building 343 there. That's depicted. Yeah, that area there. Derek, do you have more questions?

No, I I personally just have a concern about putting anything on top of the asphalt cover.

Okay.

And also the having solar panels on top of the the trench system that's part of you know, the site monitoring system. I'm just not I understand you're gonna pay you're gonna you're planning on paving it beforehand. It's going to be here for 35 years with no way to maintain the asphalt around those ballasted.

To be clear, DEEC does have the right if during an inspection something comes out of concern like they do have the right to take the system off and make any remediations that are required. um if there is like an issue, let's say 20 years from now where you start seeing a crack or something like that, that is a right that they do have. However, the geo uh technical testing that we've done far exceeds the actual weight limits that are going to be on there. And even at those weights, we're just not seeing settlement.

No, I I read the report. I understand I mean it does have settlement and the entire purpose as is it is to prevent surface water from migrating into the hazardous material that is stored underneath the asphalt.

It's in place. It's not being removed. It is there. It will be there forever.

No. And I just want to add we have an we do annual inspections and annual you know maintenance as needed to ensure the integrity of that cap because

I'm concerned about anything going through that cap as well. That's my biggest concern. So,

because asphalt's not a 35year product.

Yeah.

And asphalt is not

address it on an annual basis and make sure we we prevent any sort of growth on top of that asphalt camp to cap to eliminate any sort of risk of water going through the landfills.

Right. And my concern is that now you have all these ballasted systems that you have to work around to maintain the integrity of the asphalt cap.

No, I understand your concern. Yeah.

Yeah. It just doesn't seem a very practical use for this area.

What is the What's the acreage of the capped area? The actual capped area.

I I don't I don't know the actual acreage off the top of my head, but it's around two acres or so.

Thought I read an uh an application. Xerox is going to pave the cap again. is going to pre-seal the cap again. Yes.

So, you're not milling and repaving, you're just adding onto it.

Yeah.

How how much of asphalt that you're looking to add on top of it?

We we haven't like decided exactly how much. You just,

you know, we'll do one last. Okay. It's a fresh sheet. Let's do one last sealant on that before this happens. And

the cap is great right now.

Yeah. So that's the only thing that DEEC has mentioned about the asphalt is whether or not Xerox is going to ahead of construction um do a final sealing effort and as as Marcus indicated they are required by the site management plan to inspect the cap and repair any deficiencies every year. Um I heard a mention about um concern of of stuff going of maybe water surface water going through any potential cracks. um those blasted bedrock trenches that you mentioned, that is the intent of those that are there is to capture any sort of infiltration that is on or shearing off of that landfill um surface. Um so there are already protections in place for that concern.

Um can I ask what is so there's a cap landfill but then there's a CND landfill. What's the CND? the one that's further to the north.

So that landfell was um mainly it's captain closed as well um um with um DEC is aware of of that and has been was involved at the time. I think it was closed in the I don't have the date exactly. Yeah. um maybe in the late 80s or early 90s. I can't remember exactly the date. Um but it was um reportedly mainly like vegetative debris. Um not hazardous waste,

but it is capped.

It is capped. Yeah. With a low permeable.

Is there a reason that that wasn't also evaluated in the geotechnical report? Is that a reason that that wasn't evaluated as part of geotechnical report? Yeah, we we do have a separate geotech report or geotech analysis of the CND landfill. We know that the planning board was focusing on the asphalt cap, so that's what we provided, but there is a second geotech report for the CND landfill. In addition to that, we also did um I think along a couple areas of the cap um some uh handdug holes to ensure that the um soil and clay uh amounts that were reported in the closure report were actually there and they are actually there. So that's uh going to be submitted for the uh to the DEC for review as well. What kind of asurances can we build into the ballasted layout so it does not impact the trenching? So we've discussed about the potential, you know, the geotech report that evaluated the settling on the asphalt cap. There's another one as a geotechnical report that would be on the CND landfill for the cap. But how do we protect the actual collection trench system where the ballasted footings are going to sit

on top of those?

Sure. So like kind of in that area between if you can scroll down a bit.

So where the red lines are and then you have a portion of your array to the east there where it's cutting through.

Yeah. So we strategically, you know, didn't put um the B or didn't put the uh the solar project over that area just because there were two wells and then the trench was connecting them. We're like, let's just leave it open. Um we did put the um solar project over the rest. That hasn't been raised as a concern by DEC and they have reviewed this and have talked to us about it. It has not been raised by them as a concern in that uh area to the east there.

I guess my concern is the system is in place to collect groundwater. So if the existing cap was to ever leak in the future, the system is there to collect the water. And if there's enough settlement, I mean, we're talking about pounds per square inch of each footer sitting on top of this trench. Um, is it possible potentially to stake out this trench and avoid the footers sitting on top of

I think so. I think that's doable. And I think it's also possible with this system to have small gaps as well between. No problem. That's something we can adjust.

Yeah, sure. And then

Yeah. And those trenches, those are blasted bedrock trenches, so they're in rock,

um, not in soil. So, I mean, I I don't know the exact depth if it's 25, 30 feet, depends on where we are at the on the site. So, there is a significant layer of material above the bedrock um to protect those trenches.

Um, one of the I guess conditions that I was contemplating is if you change your ballasted system, a new geotechnical report would have to be submitted to the town prior to a building permit just because your geotech report is specifically based on this ballasted system. So when it comes to the CAP settling and impact, so if you're not going to be using APA, uh if you end up switching it, just I would say a new geotechnical report would need to be submitted. Yeah. Um, we we're definitely going to be using APA. What's in question right now is the actual make and model of the the panels like we just like based on availability of what we can get right now. So, obviously based on size, snow loads, wind loads, we'll tweak slightly, but that's all something that we'll update and submit to both the town and DEEC prior to moving forward. Yeah.

Okay. And then Katie, just as a clarification, your presentation, I think you mentioned there were no wetlands on site. You meant freshwater wetlands, right? So that would be DEEC. There's still federal regulated wetlands on site.

Uh there are two area two small areas of wetlands. We are uh impacting them less than 0.01 acres. Um however, we are going to follow um the uh the um nationwide permit 51 uh just to comply with that and not have to go through permit through USA USC. Okay. Um, one of your notes calls out and it's really a question of proposed sequence of work. So, no soil disturbance within the CND landfill, but um I believe you're using um silt socks with stakes. So, the stakes would penetrate the soil. [clears throat]

Um just consider, you know, how you would want to draw address erosion sediment control without using stakes.

Okay. Yep. Um,

yeah, I recall getting a DEC comment on that and asking if we could reduce the depth of those stakes. Um, and Katie, I believe we can do that. Yeah.

Um, where's your proposed staging area for the project? Uh so if you scroll down to the actual um yeah so um dead end of Caracus Drive is going to be like our staging area.

So already paved uh street uh area.

Okay. Um I think one of your drawings indicated that you're conforming to 2020 fire code. Um again the new 2025 fire code goes into effect December 31st. It does have specific sections for photovoltaic or solar projects, section 1205. Just want to make sure that you're going to be in conformance with the new fire code. Uh it also has electrical requirements for NFPA70 that are built into it. So I know the drawings call out 2020, but just want to make sure you're going to be updating for 2025.

Yeah. If 2025 is the standard when we're going for our electrical permit, then that's what will be referenced in the drawings. Um, your current fire access K turn there. Um, it's calling out a 20 foot wide or I'm sorry, 10 foot wide gate. Uh, I'm not sure if that's a mistake. Um, is the is the road width 20 ft there?

Is the gate 20t?

It it should have been. I apologize if it's not. And that's an easy thing for us to update for you.

Um, is it possible to rework that fence line somehow? is right now if a fire department was to come in, they can't really access the equipment that's to the west there, the equipment pad, because the fence is in the way. Um, not sure if you want to look at a different layout of the gate, maybe moving the gate closer to the front. Um, I know you're trying to avoid the poles, but at the same time, right now, uh, a fire truck will essentially have to park outside the fence.

Yeah. and then somehow get the equipment inside to the equipment pad.

If you'd like, we can adjust the fence line to above the K turn to north of the K turn and so they have that area to pull in and then even potentially maneuver the truck to like a different side if they had to.

Thank you. um your fence line. Now again, it's ballasted system, but there's some locations if you look at the existing grade where it does some drastic changes in in grade. Not sure if you're going to be able to install a fence where you currently have it shown. If you wouldn't mind just taking from a a look at that because otherwise you'll have some significant gaps underneath your fence areas.

Yeah. So, we could do two things. Um, and we'll, uh, I guess it'll be based on DEC feedback. Um, we can either change those areas to actual traditional staked post with DEC oversight on that process or we can move our fence line out to where it uh, evens out on topography a little bit more.

Um, I was wondering if you could give us a little bit more of a space between the existing fence and the modules there by the entrance. You're right up to the fence line. It doesn't give somebody a first responder um space to get around those modules if you could keep like 15 feet potentially.

Are you talking along Caracus or along um

the existing orange fence right next to equipment pad and we have the modules there.

Yeah, we can move that over a little bit. Not a not a problem. And I think there was some community concerns with regards to potential noise um that the inverters would be creating.

Um have there been any um noise studies performed? I I saw your detailed breakdown of the decibel attenuation over time, but um not sure if you have something like an actual report that would provide the existing ambient noise and then the proposed decel levels.

Yeah. So you're you're correct. There was not um a noise study included. Really this is due to the fact that there are as Katie outlined very significant setbacks. Um whether you're looking at the uh town's code requirements with respect to noise levels or you're looking at some of the DEC guidance on assessing um noise and mitigating noise impacts. Really that's why we included the assessment that we had that kind of breaks down how DEEC views decibel level reductions. Um I don't know if it's helpful for us to kind of reiterate some of those setbacks, but that's correct. That question did come up I believe at the HOA meeting as well. Um and some of the concerns we had heard are due to the fact that you know our materials reference this decibel level of 18 inverters that are rated at 80 dBA um with a combined noise value of 92.6. But importantly, as we pointed out in our materials, that's a level measured one meter from the equipment. So, you're talking a little over three feet. Um, as Katie mentioned, the inverters are kind of strategically placed as far away as as we can be from from some of those property lines. We're looking at, I believe, over 1300 feet from the closest HOA property line, over 1,650 ft from

the closest point on that walking trail, over 1,700 feet from the closest residential property line, and over 860 ft from the closest residents. And really, that that distance when you're looking at the DEEC guidance on on reduction in decibel levels ensures that there will not be perceptible sound impacts at property lines or adjoining residences. So there was not a noise study completed but the information um that we provided from our position shows that the significant setbacks um address the issue. And one other point I'll just make is as we mentioned the the type two actions um when DEEC went through the amendments to the regulations in 2018 and added these types of solar facilities that are less than than 25 acres they evaluate um you know potential environmental impacts which includes noise impacts. Um and when you look at that type two exe exemption specifically the one um that I referenced with respect to ind industrial zoned sites um the position from DEEC is there's not potential for significant adverse environmental impacts for projects of these size on located in those types of industrially

zoned areas.

Okay. I think my last question is just u with regards to landfill sequence of work. Do you anticipate having an on-site environmental monitor by any chance to witness the work that's done along the landfill cap area and potentially report like a report back to the town just to let us know um that you know that work has gone smoothly that there were no concerns. So, um, as part, and I think Marcus or Janice can probably speak more intelligently to it than I can, but as part of Xerox's closure and rem remediation plan with DEEC, there are certain acts that happen on the site that have to have an environmental monitor or some kind of environmental oversight, and that would be areas like we where we're going to have disturbance and things like that. So, we are planning on complying with Xerox's uh, plan and reporting with

DEC. All of my questions. I was at this point probably be a good idea. Oh, I'm sorry. [clears throat]

I was just gonna uh back up what Katie was saying. Yeah, the site management plan that's in place requires any requires environmental monitoring whenever there's going to be um site disturbance. Um and uh I forgot I was going to say about the cap, but I can't remember right now, but if I remember

it is required. Yes,

there's there's been a lot of just you've mentioned quite a few times there's been discussions ongoing discussions with DEEC. You know, this is again it is an active site. It's a record site. You're going to be talking to DC for now and till eternity. Um where are they at in their review of this specific project? Because what I'm what I'm not hearing is DEEC has looked at this and they have determined that they're okay with it. Alls I'm hearing is that you've gotten review comments from them and you've responded to them. Where are they at in their review and when do you expect to hear a response from them in regards to this project?

Sure. So, there are certain elements that we can't finalize with DEEC until we have site plan approval. For example, one of those items is um get putting a down payment and locking in our panels. Um once we lock in our panels um the geotechnical results are going to um potentially change just a little bit based on the size of the panels. Some of the load calcs on the snow and wind loads are going to change. So there are certain things that we can't finalize until we have site plan approval. However, the project will not move forward until we've re we have uh approval and review completed by DEEC. So regardless, outside of this setting, there is a whole another review and approval that we need to get the thumbs up on with DEC besides this [clears throat] process with the town.

Do they need site to complete that?

They can't hear back there. Get a little bit closer to the mic. I'm sorry.

Does DEC need site plan approval so that they can complete their review? Um I think

or

can we get a response or get the results of the review before we complete ours?

I think it's uh the DEEC is waiting. We we've made the DEEC aware of this meeting. We told them that we're going for a site plan approval. DEEC has been supportive of us through this process and we are not finished with our review process with DEEC. They are expecting in terms of sequence of events for site plan approval to happen before they complete their review of the project.

Is that preliminary approval or final approval?

Final.

Okay. Um I'm sure there folks here want to speak in regard to this project. We have received [clears throat] quite a few letters from neighbors and appreciate the comments and stuff. But if anyone wishes to speak, it is a public hearing. All I ask is that if you go up to the mic, use three minutes. Don't drag it out. And please, if somebody says something, let's don't all just repeat the same thing over and over. So if anybody wishes to speak, please go up, give us your go up and give us your name and address. And one one at a time. Hi, my name is Peter Latra. I live at 1444 Quail Creek Trail, which is in the Meadows, which is right next door to this project. Um, I'm going to get a little ahead of this. Um, but I needed I didn't hear what the cost of this project was going to be. Does anybody know

the cost of the project?

Cost? I don't know what it is.

You don't know what the cost is?

Well, you're asking. I know you said you.

No, I'm asking.

Um, I believe.

All right. This isn't going to work this way. You need to you need to communicate with the board the questions and then if we can, we can ask one of them to respond.

Okay. Well, the cost the cost of the project is quite expensive. Obviously,

New York State taxpayers are paying for the whole thing. Mhm.

Xerox is paying nothing.

I need to know how many jobs this is going to create. Permanent jobs, not temporary jobs. If the state is investing this kind of money into a project, it should be creating jobs. Xerox is no longer headquartered in Rochester. They're now in North Norwok, Connecticut. CEO Stephen Bandrazik salary and compensation 14.3 million a year. Xerx did at one time employ 12,000 over 12,000 people in 1987. At the end of 2023 they had 1754.

We got three minutes in. Yes, I'm almost done.

History of Xerx.

I'm almost done.

Move on with this. Get to your point.

In 2024, that decreased by 3.

One second, sir. If you could just keep your comments, Germaine to the project.

Okay. Well, this is all building up. Where is Xerox going with this down the road?

If they're employing less and less people every year, those buildings are all vacant over there. I'm asking why. If this project goes, how many permanent jobs is it create? is going to have those buildings filled. Also, the life expectancy of these solar panels is 25 to 30 years. Each year after the first year, they lose about 1% of their efficiency. So, about about 20 30 year mark, but it's about half gone because it increases more as years go by. Max is 40 years out of these. That's all I have to say. And I I I do I know I was getting ahead of myself here, but this is important to me that when our tax money is going into something, we should get something out of it.

Thank you.

I don't think you're going to get an argument.

Thank you.

Hi.

Hi. Elaine Johnson, 626 Pine Lakes Trail. I represent the 261 signatures of Webster residents that lack confidence and are opposed to this project due to it falling short to protecting the human human health and our environment as it relates to it being developed on a hazardous wayside. Construction on this location could have long-term impact on soil, air, and water, and the risks may not be able to be determined by the DEC today. As the board continues its due diligence in reviewing this project, we respectfully urge you to prioritize the safety of your of your fellow neighbors and residents as you make your final in this project. So, thank you so much.

Okay. Thank you.

Okay. Anyone else wishing to speak? Oh, did we say something bad or something? [laughter]

Okay. Uh, no one else wishing to comment on this. Yes, sir. Go ahead.

My name is Robert Curtis. I live at 1474 Bushwood Circle, and I just have a number of questions about the project.

How many trees are you taking down? Do do you know how many trees?

Well, go ahead and ask the question. They'll take note of it and then we'll have them respond. What? Okay. Next question.

How many trees are are taken down?

Okay. What's the next question?

Next question is this will predominantly face south. We have aircraft that fly over from the south. We're we we on Bushwood we sit and watch planes come in all the time. What impact does this have and has it been assessed on the visibility and any impact on the pilots going by? Um, can the board make them replace every tree with another tree on their property because they have a lot of property. If this is really a green project,

then it ought to be a green project.

Thank you.

Okay. Thank you.

Any folks want to address any of those questions? Sure. Go ahead.

I think he had like three questions.

I think somebody was gonna speak.

Well, let let's address the questions first.

Go ahead.

Okay. So, in regards to um concerns about uh visibility to pilots um as part of our project review process, this project was submitted to the FAA and several there actually every corner or every point of the project needs to be submitted. It was reviewed and approved and we do have that information. Um in regarding tree removal, I don't know the number of documented trees um that are being removed. Um again, this is a site that is uh doesn't have um a use a useful alternative and um DEEC Xerox both feel that this is a good reuse of the site. We are going to be implementing some trees as part of our landscaping mitigation as well. Um, and then I just wanted to clarify one point on the degradation of the panels. Um, I'm not sure what panels are being referred to, but the panels that we need to use for our project that are compliant with NAERTA are tier one

panels which have a 0.5 degradation rate um, not a 1% over the year. So, just want to clarify that as well. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you.

All right. [clears throat] Was there I'm sorry. Go ahead.

[clears throat]

Hi, I'm Charlotte Kabili and I live in Webster and I'm just speaking on behalf of the open space committee. Um, I just wanted to speak to not only the perimeter and the visibility that's affected, but just in general the biodiversity of this area. And I wanted to um just take this point of reusing the land. It's not usable. These kinds of claims that go part and parcel with the development and with the grant uh and with Xerox goals. I don't think that that's in line with Webster's town goals for uh open space and biodiversity. I think that there's uh important use of the land uh in its current form. Um and I I worry that you know simply replacing trees that is extremely important but there is more to it and this land. Um

and I share concerns about the health and safety of the residents and neighbors. I think these are extremely important. Um I think that the compliance is clear. uh but at the same time these risks are still there and um some unknowns are still there. So I just wanted to express my concern with the safety.

Okay. Thank you.

Anyone [clears throat] else wish to speak?

Hi, my name is Mark Williams. I live at 1448 Quail Creek Trail and I was just thinking it'd be great if um groundwater testing results could be made available publicly uh you know as they're periodically done. It would just uh help people understand what's in the water or the concentrations of the contaminants going up or down that kind of thing. Just just a thought.

Interesting. Okay. Thank you. Are any of those reports available?

It's a good point. I mean, it might put more ease into this whole

Yeah. Any report that we submit to the New York State DEC is publicly available

where can you provide

it can either be requested through like a foil request. Um in some cases depending on the site it's they have a DEEC infolocator like a web it's via the web you can access the document repository.

Can you provide links?

Yeah, we can provide a link. Yeah. And I did um we did get a request from the DEEC project manager recently um who was asking us for um all past um available electronic reports. Um so they will have all of that available soon. So there will be more available.

Okay. All right. Is there anyone else? Again, this is a public hearing and before we close it, no more comments. Okay. Then with that, we'll close the public hearing for this project. Bring it back up to the board for discussion. What are we doing with this? Anybody have any thoughts, changes, modifications, whatever? Eric, anything you

study on it?

And my primary concern is really putting anything on top of the asphalt cover.

And so the alternative would be to move it off of that,

put it on a different part of the site or just leave that area

blank.

Okay. Okay. you know, given really kind of given the history of the site and the type of site it is.

I'm just not

just leave the capped area totally alone.

Yeah.

Okay.

Den,

yeah, I just I checked the drawings again. Uh, it would be good to see where the proposed tree line is. the existing tree line is there but not where the proposed tree line is after the clearing. If a table could be included that shows um the LO limits of disturbance acreage and then also the [clears throat] proposed clearing acreage on the drawings

and your thought relocating it off of the ashalt as Derek has stated. I mean that seems to be the biggest concern that I'm hearing in letters that people have responded to the town with uh all refer to the weight and I understand they they've done studies and we that was one of our concerns the beginning was constant pressure in one spot and then you can do a test on it but when you do a test on something like that you can park a big truck on an ashalt driveway and it'll be fine but eventually it'll settle. So with these kinds of weights concentrated, excuse me, with these kind of weights concentrated in a particular area, will this in in 80 90 degree temperatures cause this to soften and do some settling? That's, you know, it's ashvalt is soft. I think having the reports

I think I'm sorry

having the reports available

that they've done for the last

three years

but

to see if there's been improvement or to see if there's been

you know what what the data shows

right

for the sample results for the the monitoring program

right

they've given us tests they showed the you know calibration of

No you're talking about two different things

you're talking about asphalt

yeah no I'm talking about the groundwater that one of the gentlemen.

But then we can go back to what Derek is suggesting which not a bad idea. Maybe

we don't have any of that data

totally eliminate the building on on the ashvalted area.

Why don't we allow them to answer a few of those questions? First, I guess the first question that that seems to be the biggest for the board is why the solar panels have to beyond the cap and was there any thought to put it somewhere else? And then the second

question um was the the the actual weight on those caps if if it does get approved that way.

Yep. So, so I'll I'll kind of if you're okay with me reversing the order in which I'm going to respond to those. Um on the cap side of things, as Katie mentioned, there was a geotech analysis done. It does analyze the weight over time as we've also talked about. Um there are requirements for the site and for that cap under the site management plan that have to be complied with that is true even if the the owner of the site was to change that's what's captured in that environmental easement. Um so DEEC as well as Xerox will be monitoring that and if there are any issues it will have to be addressed. So there is a DEEC process as we've talked about they are aware of the asphalt cap they are aware of the geotech this is part of their analysis this is in squarely in in their purview with the existing site management plan with the change of use with the division of materials management policy so understanding the questions and the board's concerns um DEEC will be evaluating all of those points they have already asked some follow-up questions as we as we talked about and I think in the correspondence we included from the DEEC to the town. Um they're happy to answer any questions and to keep the town updated as to how the the review is going as well. Um, with respect to

moving panels off of this area, um, Katie, I can let Katie speak to some of the sight specific conditions, but yes, we've evaluated whether there is ability to relocate it, but one, the analysis that we've done from our position has demonstrated that it is safe to put the panels there based on DEEC guidance, based on the regulations, based on the analysis that we've done, but also there are some limitations on the site with respect to streams and some other um site features that limit where else the panels could be put at a project size that is sufficient to ensure viability.

Yeah. So, um in in regards to being able to take that off and relocate it elsewhere, um there there really isn't anywhere else to put it on the site. Um the site is bordered by two different streams. Um we have setbacks from those streams as well to account for, you know, appropriate wetland setbacks. Um, and uh, you know, there really isn't, if you kind of move it off site, it's going to be be like this orphan project somewhere else. Um, so we really can't take those panels off and put them somewhere else.

Okay. Why not the parking lot just to the south of the site?

I'm sorry.

Why not in the parking lot just to the south of the site?

Uh, Xerox doesn't own that property anymore. I believe Tessie does.

Okay. that was subdivided out. [clears throat]

The other the other thing, Derek, like I think that

when was that subdivided out?

Okay.

So, there's also, you know, concern the settlement of the asphalt cap, right? Um the system that they're proposing to use has a tolerance of how much this this metal beam rack is able to actually allow settlement and it's only an inch. So an inch over a foot. So it is in their best interest that there's no settlement underneath the ballast systems because the system itself will not tolerate it settling. Um, you know, in the report, the geotech report did say that they only had half an inch of settlement in the asphalt. I mean, it could be a condition that, you know, when we ask Xerox, how much are you overlaying? Maybe we stipulate how much the additional overlay is on top of the asphalt. You know, we say it has to be at least an inch and a half or two inches that you're adding on

in order to proceed. And

I just want to clarify one thing. Um, there wasn't a half inch of settlement. That a half inch is what is allowable. The actual amount of settlement at each of the different sites was um at the first site 0.0162 at the second site po 0.0151 and at the third third site 0.0554. So I just want to clarify that as well.

And what over what period of time was that did it say?

Dis it was like a full full day.

Yeah. I don't know know how exactly long the tests are but it was it was a standard geotech testing process that was accepted

question um does that the the do the panels have to stay like level I mean does it affect the panels if they do do settle or or just for solar collection I guess it's kind of a random question but

yeah so just for ongoing like maintenance and things like that like We don't want the system to settle. Um if you have the system settling, the actual racking components are going to start getting messed up. Um so you don't want settlement within. There is like minimal settlement allowances like not every single piece of ground is going to be perfectly flat, but you don't want to see large changes in between your racking parts.

Okay, let's let's [clears throat] break this thing down a little bit. Most all of the letters that we've received pertain to health, safety, and welfare and so on so forth. [clears throat] We're looking at this thing as a package of contaminated previously contaminated site that's capped over now and solar panels. It's but we're putting it all together. Separate them a minute. Let's take just the site. That site as it stands has been there since what 1990.

No, I think it was closed in 71.

Oh, okay. That's so it's been covered. I mean been capped for how long? Several years.

Yeah. Yeah. I think the 80s when it was officially once environmental regulation came about then they did the asphalt cap and started doing control.

Okay. So, so with the constant review, studies, testing, there's been nothing that's caused an issue with DEEC or anyone. Am I right with that so far?

That's right.

Okay. If that's the case, then we can assume that it's a safe site if not disturbed.

Y

Okay, fair enough conclusion to that. If it's a safe site the way it stands and constantly monitored, then we're okay. Now, that should should alleviate some of the concerns of people with in health, safety, and welfare. That's the concern that I would have if I was living there. So, set [clears throat] that aside now. Now, let's go to the to the panels. Do they emit any pollution or anything like that?

Uh, no. No active pollution is there like producing I mean I'm sure in the actual uh manufacturing process yes of course um but then also at the end of the useful life we do have a decommissioning plan in place where we are sending the panels to a recycling facility.

Just want to clarify that as well.

Okay. All right. So then based on that that is the separate issue. There's no contamination. It's a use for the site by putting the panels there and you just explained there is no concern with the pollution that is sealed. So put this two pack these two items together now. Let's put the package together. So you've got the land that's neutral, not contaminated on top. Everything's good. No harm to anyone. Now you want to put panels on this thing. DEEC is okay with it. There are no complicated issues to be seen. Other biggest concern [clears throat] we had was because of the gabians settling. You've resolved that I guess as best as you can with now I got to say I I had I don't know what the issues would be. Anybody feel any differently? I don't know. Um

I got one question is you said that cap went in around 1980.

I don't know the date. I was born So, so it's roughly about 40 40

whatever. Yeah.

What kind of maintenance has been done in that period of time?

Um,

so [clears throat] so we we do annual monitoring, annual inspection of the cap to make sure the integrity is maintained and you know if there's if you see any sort of a little green thing, you pull it and you you put more asphalt down. So it's on an annual basis and we have to track that and report to the DEEC on an annual basis that we completed that inspection did any sort of maintenance that was needed to maintain the integrity of the cap.

Do you seal that?

Yep.

With the sealer.

Yep.

And the other the other issue would be um [clears throat] it was brought up I think some one of the residents brought up about or you brought it up also the noise from these that's emitted. What If you were the closest house to that property, would you hear this?

No.

No. Okay. That's that was one of the concerns people had in letters, the sound traveling. Um, based on what you're telling us here, based on what I've heard, um,

I think, sorry, Tony, I just have one more. I mean, there was a concern that was brought up about the clearing and the trees being removed.

Now, we just have to keep in mind that the sampling, the water sampling that are per currently being done reflect a site that is vegetatively covered with trees. So, now if we remove those trees, you have more groundwater. Is there concern that now with more groundwater, there's a spike potentially in in

in that area? You're going to continue to monitor that. Those are going to be the monitoring walls, right?

Yeah. And the caps are still in place around the contamination. So more more or less

more so worried about the groundwater and this collection system that's meant to protect it though. Making sure that that is not impacted.

That that concern hasn't been raised by the um supervisor and the project manager overseeing this project. Um we are obviously as part of our project going to reveate the site um just with grass seed and that's going to be part of like our SWIP and everything in compliance with that as well.

Good.

Okay.

All right. What are we doing here?

Anybody have any suggestions? I as far as I can see my feeling when I came in was questionable but after comments Den made some Eric's made some good comments there um and going through these letters uh again that's why I wanted to separate the two you know the the land from the use of it you know and we did that and I have no issues with this I did in the beginning I'm serious. The gentleman sitting here, I kind of agreed with him. I even brought that up when you were in here for a sketch plan. It's my dollars going into it. What the heck am I getting out of it? That part I'm not happy with, but that's the way the world turns today. I guess

can I address that as well? [clears throat]

So, um the project um is in the process. I know this is like with sits with the town board and not the planning board, but we are planning to try and have a discussion about a pilot and an HCA with the town about this project. So, we do plan to pay into the town's tax basis as part of this project.

Yeah. So, I just again I can't speak to the amounts or anything because they haven't been agreed upon by the town board. I know that's voted on over there, but that is something that's being considered as part of this project.

Okay. That's interesting. Okay. [clears throat] All right, David. I think there's a lot of checks and balances,

you know.

Are you comfortable with the project?

Yeah,

I am. Now,

what do you think?

I don't like that we have to give approval on a site plan before the DEC.

Well, that's conditional though.

Condition.

Yeah, that's [clears throat] that's

but we would be completely fine um with a a condition to the approval acknowledging that that DEC sign off

subject to

is required.

Absolutely. Yeah, I think we had aside from the DEC some other conditions we want to make sure

uh that are built into the approval though.

What we can do is start a resolution if we're willing to move forward with it and then whoever has let's itemize it down. I I didn't take notes of it all. I don't know we can get it off the table later, but

may I just ask one um procedural point question?

Sorry. Sure.

Sorry to interrupt.

No, that's okay. Um I I see that we are listed as preliminary site plan approval. We filed as as simultaneous uh preliminary and final. I'm just wondering the context if if both of those are able to be evaluated [clears throat] simultaneously or

just as just as a preliminary site plan approval. I think that's all we'd be able to do

because we did submit the full civil set and and all of the deliverables required for the final. So

I'll ask engineering department. Josh, what do you think? Good. All right.

The request was for preliminary and final. Um, but as you mentioned, it was advertised just for preliminary because we've run into issues in the past granting both without everything nailed down. So, it was communicated to the applicant that preliminary was only going to be looked at today.

Okay. So, then that's then it'll be a preliminary approval if we go that way and then put stipulations in. Those can all be addressed then at at a final whatever comments we've got to add to this. Okay, that'll be it then. All right. [clears throat] Again, we've got to do a seeker on this. Derek, you've got one. I think there needed to have it if we got to this point.

I just want kind [clears throat] of got to go back to one clarification really.

Um,

got to get closer to that mic though. So you're saying kind of going back to understanding the terms that DEEC uses as opposed to terms that the public would use um for this particular site with the blasted trench that's in there. You're saying that there there is not an extraction system in there.

Is there?

No.

There is there's no active remediation system operating for this cover other this site other than the cover.

So the groundwater is pumped from the blasted bedrock trenches and discharged to the PTW.

Okay. So it is

under a permit. It is under ongoing remediation. From that standpoint,

you are drawing

ground water and discharging into the PDW.

You're not treating yourself. You're just drawing it off the ground. Pummeing it into the sewers.

Okay. All right. You want to do a secret around this one and move it along? Uh as secret resolution for the Webster Solar Gardens, the town of Western Planning Board consider request by applicant Montano Solar to construct a community solar energy facility on land owned by Zurax Corporation located at 750 Phelps Road, Webster, New York on portions of the parcels having SPL number 65.02-1-4 2-1-40.11 and 65.03-1-9 and 65.19-1-1 etc. Whereas Montelo Solo, the applicant has submitted an application to the town of Webster Planning Board, the planning board for for preliminary site plan approval to construct and operate community solar energy facility known as

the Webster Solar Garden project. The property owned by Xerox Corporation located at 750 Phips Road in the town of Webster, Monroe County, New York. And whereas the portions of the property are located on property that is undergoing environmental re remediation under the oversight in the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and is subject to environmental easement dated November 16th, 2021 recorded in the Monroe County Clerk's Office. And whereas a portion of the site is undergoing environ environmental remediation and is subject to institutional engineering controls pursuant to the NYSDC approved site management plan. And whereas the applicant has represented to the town of Webster planning board has confirmed through review of a submitted of the submitted site plans that the project involves the installation of solar energy to raise and less than 25 acres of physical authoration. And whereas the Webster planning board hereby declares itself the lead agency for the purposes of making a secret determination for the project. And whereas the town, excuse me, whereas the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act Seeker

and its implement implementating regulations require lead agencies to determine whether a proposed action is subject to environmental review. And whereas 6NY CRR 617.5A provides that actions or classes of actions identified as type two actions are not subject to review under seeker because they have been determined not to have a significant impact on the environment or are otherwise precluded from the environmental review. And whereas 6NYCR 617.5C number 14 specifies specifically identifies as type two actions the installation of solar arrays where such installation involves 25 acres or less of physical alteration of the following sites including pursuant to subp part number or one closed landfills and subsection five currently disturbed areas at sites. zoned for industrial use. And whereas the planning board has reviewed the applicant submission, including site plans, project narrative, and documentation regarding the property's environmental status and

remediation history. And whereas the planning board has reviewed the environmental easement and confirmed that the property is is a remediation site subject to NYSDEC oversight with allowable uses including commercial and industrial activities. And whereas based on its review of the application materials and the applicable seeker regulations, the planning board finds that the project falls within the type two classification set forth in 6NYCRR 617.5C141 and 5 because number one, the project involves the installation of solar energies arrays. Number two, the installation involves 25 acres or less of physical alteration. And number three, the project is located on a site that is undergoing environmental re remediation under NYSDC oversight with allowable commercial industrial uses. And whereas the planning board notes that while the project is exempt from seeker as a type two action, the applicant remains subject to all other applicable local, state, and federal requirements, including compliance with environmental easement and the site management plan approved by NYSDC. Now therefore, it be resolved that the town of Webster Planning Board hereby issues that the Webster Solar Garden project is a type two project action

pursuant to 6NYCE CRR 617 5C141 and 5 and as such is not subject to review under the state environmental quality review act.

That be your motion. We need a second.

Second it.

Have a second on

Mr. Anderson.

Hi,

Mr. Malta.

Hi,

Mr. Jardino.

Hi,

Mr. Kosal.

Hi,

Mr. Gassid.

I

Mrs. Maltman.

I

Mr. Kashan.

Hi.

Okay. Um, I'll start a motion for preliminary approval, but I'm [clears throat] going to need you guys to help because there were things you brought up that need to be put into it. Um, I'll make a motion for a preliminary approval for the Webster Solar Garden at 750 Phillips Road. And I'll use some of the generic items. First of all, here just uh there would be a subject to a letter of credit posted with the town of Webster and uh subject conservation board comments. And in regard to this, we did have a letter from the conservation board. Should have mentioned it earlier. And they did not have any significant issues with the site. So just for the record um make that subject to um no land being transferred to the town for no appraise. All improvement shall be all all improvements [clears throat] shall be constructed according to the specifications of the town of Webster and all roadway construction on the site to be in accordance with specs and regulations set forth by the town of

Webster and all site workers to be in compliance with the standards of the town of Webster. Um you want to preserve and what you plan on doing preserving mature trees where you can. You're not taking the whole thing out so you're not clearing the site. Okay. Um, let's see. Comply with all requirements of any state, county, and town agency. Address drainage, which you've done. There's no lighting. No drainage. Forget that one. Landscape hardcape. We're not going to deal with that right now. And this would be made approval subject to drawing number whatever the heck it is there. What is it? So many drawings I've got right now. Is there a number on there, Josh? Anywhere?

You should use the civil set, not this one. I think

which one judge.

So, it's u project number uh 0205399 and dated September 2025 as the drawing said.

Okay.

Okay. And with that then um I just add in that um need I've had the only note I took was the DEC approval prior to uh uh any approvals but that's you say that's doesn't come until afterward.

Correct.

Correct. That's after the final approval.

But what uh we agree that no building or electrical permit shall be issued by town of Webster before that sign off from DEC is given. Yes. All right, Dres, you had some comments. You want to add some in there?

Yeah, I had um asphalt cap is overlaid uh with a minimum of one and a half inch asphalt.

Um

did you say one and a half? Yeah.

Okay.

Uh bedrock trench is protected from the ballasted footers. Uh geotech settling report provided for CND landfill area. Uh project complies to 2025 fire code.

Um access road gate is 20 foot wide.

Yeah, I got

um

final approval.

I'm sorry. Are are these changes that we need them included in the drawings next time or this this is the conditional approval?

Okay, then we'll leave it at that.

Is that it or you got more?

Well, the other stuff is really more drawing related than

well thing things that we want to put into the resolution. Maybe you should just say the drawing related stuff now just to

uh deviation from solar racking ballast system requires revised geotech report.

Limits of disturbance acreage and tree clearing acreage to be shown on the plan. Erosion sediment practices needs to be evaluated in no soil disturbance area. That's all I have.

That's it. Okay. Derek, you had a couple comments you had. I know you wanted to Do you want to put anything into it?

All right. That's just my personal thought. I just don't want to see the the racks on top of the cover, but that's not

All right. Okay. [laughter]

That will do it for preliminary approval. Uh, need a second.

I'll second it.

Mr. Fishi.

Hi,

Mr. Malta.

Hi,

Mr. Jardino. Hi,

Mr. Anderson.

No,

Mr. Posel.

Hi,

Mr. Gassid.

I

Mrs. Maltman.

Hi.

Okay. 61.

Okay. All right. I guess you're set for preliminary approval. Move forward to final. Come in with requested information. We'll go from there.

Thank you.

Okay. Thanks a lot. Have a good night. Um, you want to take a couple minute

break?

Yeah, let's get it over.

Okay, go ahead then. Mark, I'm sorry.

Bellatera maintenance garage located at Bella Verde Way lot 209. The applicant Mike Richie of Costage Engineer is requesting preliminary final plan approval associated with the construction of a 1600 square f foot accessory maintenance garage on a 0.40 40 acre parcel located in a low medium residential district under sections 269-10, 269-11, 350-36 of the code of the town of Webster. Boy, I can clear a room, can I? Yeah. I thought they were all here for me. Um, Mike Richie from Cost Engineering. Yeah, I I think the board's familiar with this project. Um, private uh development. The owner would like to put up a maintenance garage for lawnmowers, snow plows, uh, just so it can be kept in one spot. Uh the reason we're in

front of this board, per town code, any uh accessory structure over 500 square feet requires planning board approval. Uh we are proposing a 40x40 uh maintenance garage uh to be built on lot 209. Uh we tried to look through and find the largest lot out there. It's tucked away um back from Salt Schlaggel and most the rest of the development. I did submit, yeah, a second um sketch there kind of showing the overall subdivision. And in red there is is the proposed maintenance garage tucked away in the corner. Um again, it's going to be for lawn maintenance guy, snowplow guy. It's not going to have a a permanent, you know, shop there with people coming in and out all day. It's going to have uh architecturals that are going to match to the the building itself. You can see I think it's a two garage bays there uh just so snow plows uh you know can come in and out and be tucked and hidden away not not parked in a driveway at the model or something like that. So um we do have to go to the zoning board um for this um and we're planning on going to that next week. Um if this board doesn't have an issue with it, we would hope that maybe a conditional approval um for this could be granted contingent upon obviously any variances from the zoning board. So with

that, I I'd be happy to answer any questions you have.

Would this be a permanent building on that site then?

Correct. Yep. It's an

access house is sold there. That would be

that'd be part of the lot. Yep.

Okay. And what's your if you go back to the P the How far was it from the road? It look like it was

uh I believe it's 15 feet off uh the front of the road. Um just trying to kind of keep it accessible, make it as as short of a driveway as it can be. Again, the driveway is going to be fronting actually on a stub road um between the Meadows 2 subdivision and this uh so it's not necessarily even going to be fronting in front of anybody's house. Um yeah, so the driveway will be off the north there. Um and again, it's it's it's two bays. Again, probably snowplow and lawnmow equipment uh will be tucked in there in that building. Kind

of unusual situation. I don't recall having something like this. Um 15 feet from the roadway.

Oh, 15 feet from the property line. Yeah.

Or Yeah, more like 30

feet from the

Well, yeah.

edge of pavement.

Anybody any concerns or questions on it?

Well, the only thing I'd like to see is throw some windows in this thing.

Yeah, we can. We can certainly throw

Does it look like a

Yeah. No, that's a excellent point. Maybe a couple windows just to let in some light

and match the architecturals of the the units.

Is the exterior color going to match?

Yes.

Some of the other resident units

and the units kind of have a they they're not all identical. They kind of have a few different color schemes. So, they'll pick one that kind of blends in with the pre-existing colors.

Okay. Anybody any other issues or concerns?

Is there um how's this going to affect sight lines for traffic in the future?

Traffic in the future. I mean, I think any use of this would be minimal. We'd have one guy plowing during a snowstorm and he would probably drive his, you know, a personal vehicle there, park it, take the snow plow out, do his route, go back. Same thing if you know

in relation to future development. a future development

when you have more traffic going through the area. It to me it's kind of an odd

too close to the road kind of a building.

Yeah.

And I I see it's on the stud. Yes. And right now it's really out of the way, but

it just seems to be

we look to find better spots throughout the development and this this seemed and I I I get your point, Derek, that you know residents could be cutting through quite honestly. I you know potentially yes. anybody coming up Salt may cut through this development in the future to get to the Meadows subdivision. Um, but again, I think the traffic associated with this. It's not going to be somebody coming and going all day. It'd be somebody that comes, you know, once or twice a week to do lawn maintenance. Somebody that comes after we get, you know, three inches of snow.

Dave, you were mentioning the wind. On the drawing, you show windows.

Okay. Yeah. Sorry,

you're already there.

I didn't draw where

in the back

on the side you

got four of them.

You got a man door on the side, two windows. The other side has two windows.

And I think this was discussed last year to come in. The issue is that you can't make application for an accessory structure until the primary structure has been built. So

209 has been constructed.

The rear elevation

there's no windows.

There's no windows in the rear elevation. No, but there is windows.

So yours, for example, has windows there. Mine doesn't have windows there.

No, I don't have windows to the rear elevation.

You have windows on the side, which I don't.

We got We got two different drawings.

Yeah.

Two sets. Well, anyways,

two sets.

You want windows?

You want You'll get windows.

So, you want to use the one that's got the windows.

Understood.

Great.

Move on. Let's go.

Let there be light.

All right. We okay with this? It's got to go to the zoning board.

So, quick quick question. So, this is a duplex on site. This this garage is going to be part of the parcel that the duplex

correct. Yep.

So, is that duplex owned by somebody as in their taxes are going to have to reflect this addition?

All the units are owned by

Oh, okay. Sorry.

Yep. All right. It's one owner, but every every lot is a a full lot

with its own tax number,

separate tax.

It could be sold in in the future.

Yeah. Okay. And so you could put something in then in in future that it doesn't get subdivided, it's going to be part of it. So whoever whoever buys those units,

I'm sure there's somebody out there that would love something like So eventually it's going to it's going to be owned by lot 209

eventually. Yes.

Y

why don't you do it now?

I don't think he has any intention to sell off the units and if one unit is sold then kicks in.

I understand it may not be his intention.

Yeah.

But why why do we want to leave that up for grabs?

This has to go for a variance.

Yes, there's a couple variances. Nice.

You can approve it on condition.

Okay. Put their stipulation in there.

Correct.

All right. Okay.

And they can't be sold until this whole thing has been subdivided. So they're

they're established lots. It's the same way.

Yeah. Further subdivision 209

of lot 209 would not be. So

it's already incorporated.

Correct. There there would not be any additional reubdition.

No, I thought it was I thought it was two lots.

Okay.

Yep.

All right. Um I guess Okay, then if we give this thing a preliminary approval. Boy, this is unusual. We're going to get preliminary and final approval prior to a variance. contingent on them getting the variances.

Yeah, I know. But that's at this stage usually we don't do that,

right?

I think we should wait.

We should do preliminary and wait for the results of the uh

We can come back next month if you're more comfortable with that.

Yeah.

After the zoning board.

What's that?

If you want to only grant preliminary tonight, we can come back after the zoning board.

Yeah,

that'd be better hopefully. Well, but I don't know. The way I'm thinking is if we're giving a preliminary final goes to the zoning board, it's like it's a done deal. I mean, they may say

you are you're guiding the zoning board by granting.

They may come up with something totally different on it.

We don't want to set a precedent either

doing that.

Are you want you okay? You if you all are okay with preliminary, we'll move with preliminary.

Yeah.

Okay. All right. Want do a seeker on this, I guess, right?

Yep. Yeah. Uh, town of Watser Planning Board consider a request by applicant Mike Richie of Costas Engineering to construct a 1600 square foot maintenance garage for Bellator located on Terway lot 209 on a 0.40 acre parcel having SPL number 065.02-6-20. The planning board classifies a proposed action as a type two action under section 617.5C12 of the state environmental quality review regulations and therefore is not subject to further review.

Motion a second.

Second.

Have a second. All in favor?

I. [clears throat]

All right. A motion for preliminary approval for this.

Yeah. I make a motion for preliminary approval of Bellera maintenance garage located at Terra Verie Way lot 209 subject to PRC comments. Um all approval should be constructed according to the specification of the town of Webster. There's no all site work to be in compliance with the standards of the town of Webster. Comply with all requirements of any state, county or town agency. Um address any any drainage and landscaping and it's subject to or yeah subject to approvals drawing number. Whatever we got here. Is that heaven?

7686.

Project 6786.

6786. Yeah.

Okay. That's your motion.

That's the motion.

Okay. Need a second.

Second.

A second.

Mr. Malta. I got to add one thing.

What's that?

Subject to determination of ZBA for requested variances.

Yeah, that's right. Yep. Good. Good catch.

Now I'll say I

Okay, Mr. Jardino.

Hi,

Mr. Anderson.

Hi, [clears throat]

Mr. Kosal.

Hi,

Mr. Gassid.

Hi,

Mrs. Maltton.

I

Mr. Kani.

Hi.

Thank you.

All right, you're all set with that one. All right.

Okay. You got the last one there.

All I got is a change request for McAlen Industries.

Industries change request. All right.

Well, keep going.

So, thank you, uh, Mr. Chairman. Uh, myself, members of the Mccelpin team, and the Leafroyce team are here to kind of go over changes uh to the site um that have occurred, transpired the last few weeks. Um the big one I think which brought us to the board. Um there was some additional tree clearing. Uh there was some confusion uh internally between uh our team and our survey [clears throat] team in terms of what was the plan to clear and they cleared what in our mind was still a under review plan not an approved plan. So, uh, as you can see that that area in red, um, was cleared when it that wasn't the approved plan, but, uh, part of what we were discussing internally was adding a landscape burm at the north portion of the site, um, to to spoil additional top soil on site. Um, so what we've done with that and speaking with PRC, we've gone through and the updated plans, everything shown in red shows the proposed changes. Most of them are minor. I think what would be considered change order type items for a normal plan, but since we're at this point, we wanted to show you all changes and we

tried to enumerate that uh in a a list there that was submitted to the planning board. Um you know, things like adding extra concrete pads or uh additional sidewalk, removing some parking, some light poles, adding an additional hydrant. Um again uh the Leafroyce and the Kalpin team talked internally there were some revisions to the rear loading dock um that instead of it being notched out basically that whole west wall is is continuous which added square footage and uh there was some internal discussions about interior space needs and and the north wall was was bumped up a little bit further north still within the overall 300,000 square foot that was approved at preliminary. Um so again, we're looking for your input, looking for um approval to move forward with this. A stop work order was placed on this project uh last Friday and all work stopped since then. Um and again, part of the things we tried to do with the plan that was submitted, understanding the additional tree clearing and the sensitivities that the town has to that, we proposed additional landscaping on that burm. Um and we proposed additional landscaping uh that wasn't required along the west property line along that emergency access drive, but proposed a

lot more landscaping along there. Um since the tree clearing was done, we've been able to re-evaluate that and felt that that would be a benefit to this project and to the residents. So with that, we're here and happy to answer questions.

Any estimate on how many trees were accidentally removed?

How much? I don't know how many. And that's a good question as well because you know the history of this project this area I think if you look back on aerials you know 20 years ago a lot of that area was cleared and maintenance mowing stopped and brush grew up. I think different interpretations of what's out there. There were some mature trees but most of that area was I guess you would consider brush uh in that north area. Um you [snorts] can actually go back in there now and you can see a lot of what remains along that area is brush. Um it looks even more stark now with all the leaves gone versus when the vegetation is there, but it was about an acre in total of clearing um above and beyond what was I believe 20 acres approved to be cleared. An additional acre was cleared uh inadvertently or without prior approval.

And just to give further context, this is this is a picture from circa 2009. It looks like the trees were cleared sometime prior to 2000 in the area in question. Um sometime big trees have a little uh gap in their uh dates on when when they actually went out there and took pictures. So sometime around 2015 is when uh whoever was maintaining this before stopped maintaining it. So the growth has been in that area since 2015. The mature trees that are shown here were all previously approved to come out in the prior.

And I think it's important to note too that the buffer in its entirety was not removed. There's still between 100 and 150 ft of tree buffer from where it was cleared to to where the trees end along publishers. And there's no intent to take any more trees out farther than have been taken out.

So approximately how many acres? about an extra acre of tree clearing beyond what was approved uh occurred.

See, because I don't know if anybody's called your office, but I'm sure if you ask

Josh or Erica how many calls they received,

you drive by the site even before the approved clearing, it's it's

I think it's pretty startling when you drive it's it's it's a big site with a lot of clear that was approved by this board.

You know, I would say 95% of what was done was per the approved plan. the additional back along the north end. You know,

it's that extra 15%. You know what? I'm perfectly I'm disappointed. I mean, God, we worked with you guys. I mean, your local people and everything else and and um I feel like she we got slapped in the face. That's my opinion.

It was no intention to be any sort of bait and switch.

How How could you How could you one of the paper one of the documents I read, you said you had there's a miscalculation on a cut and fill of like 10,000 yards. I wouldn't mess up that much.

It's not a miscalculation. We get geotech and the actual field conditions can vary greatly. Um even what the geotech determines as top soil when they get out there they can find soil that would be considered uh unusable for structural fill and needs to be removed. So it's a large site. Um and it was never our intention to play games.

But it was all calculated. Then what were you going to do with the dirt? Initially the goal so the his history of the project we knew we had top soil that had to be dealt with. Then initially there were conversations between McKelpin and the town about future use of that property to the north. Uh the initial plan was to truck it all off site. 30,000 yards was our initial estimate.

So you had a big expense of doing that. So by saying we're going to make a burn. We're going to make everybody happy and build a burn but we're going to save $150,000.

Right. I I'm not saying right. We're not

We should have did that in the beginning. Probably wouldn't have been so bad.

Well, the reason we didn't do that in the beginning is because part of this whole approval and what we were doing with the town was reserving a certain area for a potential town use. So, we would have put a burm there if that conversation was never out in the open. We tried to reserve that area to the north to be untouched that it could be sold donated in the future. And when it was turned out those conversations uh weren't going anywhere um and then yes when we did get cost back on what that would be um it was discussed internally and it was never our intent to do that without coming back to this board and getting that approval. Um I will take the blame that there was miscommunication in my office in terms of which file should have been used for that. Um, but it was never our intent to do this and try and pull, you know, pull a fast one on you.

Well, again, needless to say, I'm really disappointed. I mean, just just the people complaining, you know, it's like, how do you how do you say, well, they messed up. They did this or they did that. Well, it wasn't that much. They don't want to hear that.

In all fairness, I think there would have been a lot of complaints if everything was done 100% per plan. And I I think, you know, it even driving down 104, it's it's a visible site and I think it people see it and they they take note of it. Um and I I take blame for for the mistake that happened.

I don't know. What do you folks think? I don't know.

I was just going to say one thing that I noticed, you know, after we got our our approval, um it was uh discussed at an access point, the publishers had to be put back in. If you recall, that was something everybody here was against. Um, but after the fire marshall reviewed it, he said a fire lane needed to be added and so we put in the the uh northwest portion of the site and everyone thought that was the best location for it. After that was cut in, that opened up. There's a huge line of sight now. And as soon as we did that, we started talking internally, hey, I think there's something we can do better here. And that's when the discussion started about, hey, what else can we do to to add smart trees to the site?

Before you guys h you guys have that discussion, did you think about coming to the board and having that discussion?

No, it was totally with with the planning board first.

Yes. Yes. And I with again not trying

from a legal aspect, it would have been smarter when you had a discussion about

changing the site to come back to the planning board and saying,

"Hey, we need to change it." Yes, and I agree. And and when this mistake had happened, we had not finalized the changes and our our goal was to try and capture all of our proposed changes in one submission back to the town and not peacemeal it. Yes, we we did have discussions about what to do with this top soil. We had prepared a plan internally for discussion and we all knew that plan was not approved to be to be done and uh unfortunately the wrong plan was used when the stake out for the clearing was done. Um but again we were trying to come back to the town with everything we did submit um and be above board with it and and that was our plan probably within the week or two after you know uh the clearing happened. It was our intention to be in front of this board. If it wasn't this meeting it would have been later uh next month.

So the question remains what do we do as a board? It's already happened. I mean we can't go out and plant uh 5 foot trees and expect them to grow overnight. Well, right and we understand that and and you know we have proposed I think in initial plantings the initial caliber trees to be a little bit larger. We are proposing I I don't know the exact number. I think we yeah a large amount of deciduous coniferous trees to be put back. Um we can't we can't we can't undo what happened. Um but we can certainly try and fix um and make it so that it's um at least down the road not as big of a burden. anybody any

I don't know how the rest of us feel I mean you know mistakes happen I mean what what can we do to rectify it

if you plant these this is all planning what what happens with this birming stuff now

I'm sorry what

I think this is I mean a state a mistake was made and here's a solution to fix the mistake

what's that I'm sorry

the mistake mistake was made in the field for clearing and this is the solution to fix it. It's essentially putting trees back in and

correct

the pilot.

I guess the question Tony wants to know is what what what about the burm that currently is there? Is that

there's no burm there now?

There's no burm.

There's no burm. Nope. [clears throat]

So where would the burm be now?

The burm would be just north of the pond. And we've again worked with the the forest team and minimize the amount of excess top soil we're going to have. If you look at the grading plan, we tried to make an undulating uh attractive landscape burn, not just a big mound.

Josh, could you go to six, page six?

Keep going up. So, it's see those lines, Tony, that are like

that's the BM

and it varies in height. I think some areas um when compared to the existing grade is 12 or 13 feet high. In other areas, it's about six feet high. So, tried not to make just a big mountain um but something in addition with the landscaping and the additional meadow mix planting um trying to uh put it back as close as we can to to what it was.

I have to agree with Derek. I mean mistake was made. They're trying to rectify that mistake. Yes, we're upset about the way it happened, but there's no way unless you have a time machine in your basement that you're going to be able to go back and to rectify this.

And in hindsight, if if we could if you know that whole conversation about that northland, you know, wasn't there, this would have been our proposed plan to begin with.

Can I just ask a question if you don't mind? I [clears throat] know that there were potential plans for the future for this site, if not with the town, but with Mckelpin Industries for other visions that they had down the road. How does the placement and of this burm and replanting affect those future plans of for this northern end of the site?

Yeah, I think what you're you're uh alluding to there, Josh, is one of the things that uh we would love to do someday is to put a trade school in. Uh seems like there's a a great opportunity there, especially with the high school there. Um, you know, to to build up the manufacturing trade here in Western New York. Um, that that could be a potentially location. Uh, it could be potentially within the phase three portion of our project. Um, that's undetermined at this time. Um, all we know right now is that is not a piece of the property that is needed right now. Um, and our preference is not to invest any further in it at this point. So I don't know just I'm really more of a legal but just to understand this where we see red that that's the existing BM but that was all flat.

No the BM has not been we're proposing to build Bang flat right now. Red is red is what they're proposing to put in as part of their

right. The only thing that has occurred that is not per the approved plan to this point is the clearing of the trees.

So, uh, one of the things to me is that this additional clearing, it's outside of the seeker limits, what was under the EAF. So, you're you're outside the LOD and you're clearing. So, are you reproposing a revision to the EAF that you're going to be submitting?

Uh, I I I we could if this board that it's it's enough of a change to have to uh redo seeker. Uh I think being the character that it's not a drastic change from above and beyond what was approved. I will say that the storm water permit um was submitted um not for this in general but with I believe 22 acres of disturbance just to provide uh the team with additional buffer if anything were to change. So from a storm water perspective this change is captured but And from a a seeker standpoint, I don't believe uh that additional acre was accounted for on seeker. Um I don't know from a legal perspective if that requires re-review uh uh by this board.

Well, I think the question was just the clearing the tree clearing component of it. And I know that you're replanting. I like the replanting. I'm not a fan of the burm. I don't understand why you can't pull in your parking lot and your buyer retention if you're reducing your building footprint and reallocate this Berm, you know, to the south area and then provide the vegetation

is about, I think, 25 30 ft from that parking lot. Um, so there really wasn't a whole lot of room to be gained

um by shifting everything south. We've looked at a bunch of different options and um again

I mean I'll be honest with you the dirt had to go somewhere. So there was an expense accounted by Mccelpin to export it. Mhm.

So in our opinion, the remediation of the clearing is what needs to be addressed. Whether it's replanting, the export of the dirt is something that uh I think it's a separate matter like

if it's a small constellation, I know it it maybe looked at it that way. We when we were out there looking at the utilities running out to publishers um it shows more clearing along the east property line behind Mir show that still needs to be done. We stopped that clearing. Um, in this revised plan, we shifted some of the utilities that are supposed to go through that area to the west a little bit to try to maintain a little bit more tree buffer than, you know, there's there's about 15 feet roughly there that um was supposed to be cleared that we have not cleared yet, but we think we can maintain that. Does that burm does that impede the flow of any water going over to that sediment basin you have there.

No, everything was continuing to drain north there.

Top of the BM will drain back in the pond and everything else will drain back to the north as it is today.

All right. What are we doing? As I said again, they made a mistake. They're trying to fix it. I mean, we can accept their apology and move on or we can put this project on hold until they, you know, plant the trees in the area that we want them to.

They they show reveating that area that was disturbed.

But the burm that's that's a major change on the on the drawings. Uh, what do you guys want to do? Tell me. We'll move on this. Derek, what do you think? But I don't have a problem.

I don't have a problem. I mean, they're leaving trees on the side of mirror show. So,

you okay with it?

Okay.

I'm okay with it.

All right. [clears throat]

All right. And somebody want to make a motion? One of you guys want to make a motion to

So, just want to check we we should have a revised EAF submitted because this is a different LOD

that limited disturbance needs to be accounted for. There shouldn't be further clearance happening on the vegetation from what has occurred already.

Jasmine, why don't you go ahead and make a motion for this?

I'm not good at that.

Go ahead. You can wing it.

Not really. Peggy, you want to make a motion?

No.

Geez, what a point we got up here.

Just say motion for acceptance of the site modification as presented.

That's all it is really. Now couple of other items.

You just made I just made the motion.

Wasn't there a couple of other things?

Had a couple things you wanted.

Wait a minute. Hold on a minute. Wasn't there a couple of other things that

pertain to this? There were modifications you had in here?

Yes. And that was submitted uh in the letter of intent.

Okay. I don't remember what they were. I remember seeing them, but I don't recall what they were

in red on the plan. Um added a sidewalk uh from the north face of the building out. Added a bump out turnound in the future loading dock area. Um on the west side, the loading dock was uh recessed into the building. Now the whole west face um will be uniform.

Okay.

Office.

Is that the office?

Oh yeah. And then a little bit of office space on the north side uh was needed. So that the north wall was was bumped up uh slightly.

Okay.

Um and then again re-evaluated with McKelpin. There were more parking spaces than needed. So pulled back a few. There were uh light poles that on phase one uh where there was never supposed to be a building proposed once the phase 2 building was added. They're all wall packs. Couple light poles along the west property line aren't needed. We an extra hydrant. Um it was never captured during the previous review process um along the back of the building. So an extra I believe 500 ft of water man and extra hydrant along the west side of the building will be put in to provide additional fire suppression. Um and again you know in the plan that we submitted we've shown all changes. Again most of these changes minor would have been probably handled you know through town staff as a change order. We wanted to get everything in front of you and you know certainly not our intent to make any changes going forward but if anything comes up during construction we'll certainly notify.

Okay. So you you'll have to modify the drawings to show all this stuff.

We did. Yeah. That was Yep.

Most most of this is still on, you know, 100% per

right. Yeah.

All right. Derek, I'm sorry. Did you you made a motion?

Der made a motion. You do make a motion.

Yeah. Motion to accept the modifications as presented and enumerated in their letter dated November 6th, 2025

with including land additional landscaping proposal.

That's all listed here,

right? Okay. All right. We have a motion to second.

Second.

A second call.

Oh, and you also want to have a new EAF made, right?

Right. I got it.

Got it. Okay.

Okay. Mr. Anderson. Hi

Mr. Jardino.

Hi

Mr. Malta.

Hi

Mr. Coel.

Hi

Mr. Gassik.

No.

Okay. And Mrs. Malt

I.

And Mr. Kani.

Thank you.

All right.

Okay.

All right. Yes, sir.

Sorry. the stop work order that was issued. Will that now be lifted?

I'm sorry, I didn't hear it. But

there should be a motion to lift the stop order.

Oh, I would guess so. Yeah, sure.

Do you want us Do you want us to have a motion on that or

No, no, they that's all internal. That's through the

Yes.

We just wanted to make sure that the board was comfortable with the changes.

Thank you. Apologize again. Wasn't our intent to

Okay.

Appreciate it, guys. We hear you.

We'll be watching.

Yeah, we got uh September 2nd meeting minutes that need to be approved. I'll make a motion to approve the September 2nd meeting minutes.

I'll second it.

All in favor?

I.

Anyone opposed?

Close the meeting.

Okay, I guess with that, we're all set for this evening. Thanks for coming in.