Minutes

WEBSTER TOWN PLANNING BOARD MINUTES

Anthony Casciani, Chairman

Mark Giardina, Secretary

Dave Malta, Vice Chairman

Derek Anderson

John Kosel

Peggy Maltman

Drazen Gasic

Katherine Kolich, Recording Secretary

Josh Artuso, Director of Communications

Erika Corsi, Town Planner

Frank Ciardi, Attorney

have a pretty lengthy agenda this evening. So, bear with is and we will get through it.

Pledge of Allegiance/Roll Call

Summary overview of outcome:

SCHEDULED MATTERS

:

PIRANHA RENTS-EQUIPMENT RENTAL STORE

PROPOSED SIGNAGE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL)

MOON’S THAIMYANMAR-SIGN

EAGLE’S NEST GOLF LOUNGE-SIGN

COST CUTTERS-SIGN

Pg. 264 November 18, 2025 Planning Meeting

;

WEBSTER SOLAR GARDEN

e Project to comply with 2025 Fire Code

Subject to drawing # 0205399 dated September 2025

New asphalt cap to be laid at a minimum of 1.5 inches

Bedrock trench is protected from ballasted footers

Geo-technical settling report is submitted for the CND landfill area

Access road gate must be 20-feet wide/reconfigured to allow access

DEC approval is required prior to submitting for building permits

Limit of disturbance acreage and tree clearing acreage to be shown on the plan

Erosion sediment practices need to be evaluated in no-soil disturbance area

Deviation from solar racking ballasted system requires updated Geo-technical

report

BELLA TERRA-MAINTANCE GARAGE

e Subject to Zoning Board Approval

* Accessory Building to have windows on side walls.

( Mark Giardina will read all application into the record)

is requesting PRELIMINARY PLAN APPROVAL associated with the construction of a 4,600

SF equipment rental store, featuring a 41,700 SF gravel storage yard enclosed by a chain link

security fence on a 7.94-acre lot having SBL # 079.10-1-2.1 located in the HC High Intensity

Commercial District under Section 269-11, 350-19 of the Code of the Town of Webster.

(Camera not on applicant) Appearing before the board was Rafael Barreto with Marathon

Engineering and here tonight is the owner of Piranha Rents, Patrick Young. So, we appeared

before the board last month for sketch plan review and J think that was fairly received.

If I could just give a brief summary of the project for anyone here who either wasn’t present or

just to jog some memories. So, this project is located on the Lowe’s out parcel, and this is on Five

Mile Line Road and south of the expressway of

104. There is an emply western parcel on that

Lowe’s project. This was created as an out parcel in 2002 when the development was initially

created and there were 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 any potential new construction that would

happen on those out parcels. So, we are proposing to build an equipment rental facility. It’s

going to essentially rent out, and these are for equipment similar to like a bobcat or small jack

hammer. These are not large pieces of equipment. This is equipment to be used for home projects.

Pg. 265 November 18, 2025 Planning Meeting

In addition to the 4,600 square foot building. There’s going to be, as mentioned, a 41,000 square

foot storage yard. Now, I believe when we first appeared for sketch plan, out initial concept was

to use a gravel storage yard. There were some concerns noted about the possibility of stone dust

being tracked off site. When reviewing our project to submit for preliminary, we’ve made a

revision to the plans and showing that as not being a gravel storage yard but using asphalt millings

as the top layer of that storage yard so that it should significantly reduce the risk of any debris or

any debris being tracked off site. That’s in addition to the layout of the driveway which I can go

into further detail later.

The other concern that was brought up during sketch interview was regards to the fence. We are

originally proposing a chain link fence around the entirety of the storage yard. That would be

visually....thal would use essentially, vinyl slats in order to provide a visual buffer to Five Mile

Line road. We have come back and changed the fence along the front fence of the building, the

face that would be facing the interior private drive. And actually, Erika if you can show the

render...the front facing render. So, showing an example of something a little cleaner and this

still would be a security fence with an automatic gate in order to access for customers to pull up

and access any equipment that is being taken from the yard, so customers don’t have to enter the

yard. They are just going to pull up in the driveway, get their equipment loaded on, and then

leave. But then that gives it a bit of a friendlier look.

Some of the other concerns that were not fully addressed when we were last here is a matter of

the wetlands. There was a previous delineation that was performed in 2003. The property was

marked for review by the NY State DEC. We have cooperated fully with the DEC in their

jurisdictional review they have determined that all the pongs that are on the site are not being

considered New York State wetlands. They are man-ponds that were created in 2002, and the

owner is responsible for maintaining those and keeping them clean and functional so that they

continue to serve the facility. And we provided our jurisdictional determination to the town, and

the last concern was flood plane. There is a creek that runs through this parcel, and we are not

proposing to touch that creek at all. There’s going to be al least we’re going to maintain the

existing vegetive buffer that keeps this project from the creek as it today. That creek does ave a

100 year flood plain. Plans associated with it. We are proposing There is a small area that does

require a couple inches of fill within that flood plane. And we’re filling in that flood plane in

order to keep the storage yard and the building up above that 100 -year flood elevation in order

to keep it safe from 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, J 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-devclopment, there will actually be more flood

storage within that floodway than there is today. ] think that summarizes all of the changes that

we've made, If there are any question that board has, I'd be happy to answer them. We did

recerve comments from town staff, and | believe you have been supplied with our response to

those questions.

Pg. 266 November 18, 2025 Planning Meeting

of PRC comments and your able to conform to all of them.

a nice job with this. You came in for sketch plan. We had two things that we added, that was the

fence situation and asphalt. [ didn’t care for the gravel in the parking lot because vehicles that

were going out, they would be leaving, you know, the limestone out in the roadway. I didn’t

think that was looking to good in that area. I don’t think that would have been too well

appreciated and you accommodate. So, you’re putting down millings. I think that will 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, and you’ve got instead of the chain link there, you have a little bit more

ornamental. Looks to me. Anybody any comments.

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.

actually do not want to have the meter near the building because of its proximity to the wet ponds.

To summarize that discussion, their concern is that if there is a leak between the tap and the

meter because the area because the water table is so high, you might just not know or realize that

there’s any leaking occurring where as if you put the meter before that crossing where it crosses

near that wet area you could notice that in you water usage and that could be noted and repaired.

So, that meter is going to be a little more difficult for them to access but the Monroe County

Water Authority is explicitly requesting that it be placed where it is.

access lo the bio-retention area in the back of the yard. Is it possible to maybe add a gate, 10 foot

or 2 foot where you can access the bio-retention for maintenance.

to the plans as well, please. Same thing with a rod iron gate detail. ’m assuming you’re using a

rod iron gate. I didn’t sce a clean out detail. That’s a little thing.

iron, you have catch basin 3 and 3.1 that are tied to an existing catch basic.

Pg. 267 November 18, 2025 Planning Meeting

so you can see how that connects to that connects to an existing catch basin that is in the private

drive which links to a catch basin that is a little bit....I guess we are a little bit to the east in the

parking lot and that drains to the north pond. So, I have expanded the utility plan to better show

that entire drainage path.

concern. Not seeing anyone so we’ll close the public hearing and bring it back to the board .

Patrick Young, Yes, the renderings show some signs. They’re going to be different but for the

rendering purposes, we just put that on.

a second not back to the sign. If ...] believe you said you were going to put outside sigs by the

road at last meeting you were going to have them where the Lowe’s sign is.

(BOTH PARTIES SPEAKING AT THE SAME TIME)

So, right now the approval you have showing here. We don’t know if it’s lit or color, we don’t

know anything else. We don’t know anything about it. We will deal with it separate.

Derek Anderson:

TOWN OF WEBSTER PLANNING BOARD RESOLUTION

PIRANHA RENTS

UNLISTED ACTION

THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF WEBSTER

1002 Ridge Road, VanIngen Court Building

SEQR UNLISTED ACTION

November 18, 2025

MOTION FOR UNLISTED ACTION

Town of Webster Planning Board considered the request by Applicant Patrick Young to

construct a 4,600 SF equipment rental store, featuring a 41,700 SF gravel storage yard enclosed

by a chain tink security fence located in the Lowe’s Plaza on Five Mile Line Road on a 7.94-acre

lot having SBL# 079,10-1-2.1, in the HC High Intensity Commercial District.

The Planning Board determined that the proposed action 1s an Unlisted Action under Part 617:

State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR).

Pg. 268 November 18, 2025 Planning Mecting

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

Part 617.6(b)(1) of SEQR and that it is the most appropriate agency for making the determination

of significance. The Planning Board therefore designates itself lead agency for the proposed

action.

The Planning Board has given consideration to the criteria for determining significance as set

forth in Section 617.7(c)(1) of SEQR, and has

1. considered the information contained in the Short Environmental Assessment Form Part

I,

2. considered public comments directed to the Planning Board during concept review on

October 17, 2025,

3. considered public comments directed to the Planning Board during the Public Hearing on

November 19, 2025 and

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

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

BOARD hereby determines that the proposed action will not have a significant adverse effect on

the environment for the reasons set forth in the attached Notice of Determination of Non-

Significance; be it further,

RESOLVED that the TOWN OF WEBSTER PLANNING BOARD is authorized to take all

actions reasonable and necessary to file the Negative Declaration and discharge the TOWN OF

WEBSTER PLANNING BOARD'S responsibility as lead agency for this action, be it further,

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

and analysis above, the referenced supporting documentation, and discussions of the action by

the TOWN OF WEBSTER PLANNING BOARD as documented by the Minutes for this

meeting, that the proposed action WILL NOT result in any significant environmental impacts, be

it further,

RESOLVED that the TOWN OF WEBSTER PLANNING BOARD, therefore makes a

DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE, be it further,

RESOLVED, that the TOWN OF WEBSTER PLANNING BCARD, based on the above

reasons, issues a NEGATIVE DECLARATION as evidence of its determination.

PIRANHA RENTS

NOTICE OF DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE

The Planning Board has reasonably concluded the following results from the proposed action,

when compared against the criteria in Section 617.7(c):

1. The proposed action will not have a substantial adverse change in air quality since it does

not include a regulated emission source.

Pg. 269 November 18, 2025 Planning Mecting

ho

on

10. I].

14.

15. The proposed action will not have a substanuial adverse change in ground or surface

water quality or quantity since the proposed action connects to the public sewer system.

Water will be supplied by the Monroe County Water Authority which has adequate

capacity to support the action.

Wastewater wil! be treated by the Town of Webster.

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

flooding, leaching or drainage problems. Development will conform to NYSDEC for

stormwater management and control.

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

production since the action is for the rental business that will produce solid wastes in

quantities typical of small rental businesses

The proposed action will not have a substantial adverse change in existing noise, odor or

light since the action is being developed in accordance with Town of Webster standards.

A temporary increase in noise levels consistent with normal construction activities is

anticipated during construction.

The proposed action will not have a substantial adverse change, or cumulative change

since the proposed action utilizes an existing outparcel created as part of the Lowes Plaza

development. Traffic generated is anticipated to be minimal.

The proposed action will not have a substantial adverse impact on the criteria listed under

Section 617(c)(1)(i1) of SEQR because no habitats or threatened or endanger species were

identified on or contiguous to the proposed site.

The proposed action is not located in an area designated as a Critical Environmental Area

by the Town of Webster or New York State pursuant to subdivision 617.14(g) of SEQR.

The proposed action is not in matertal conflict with the Town of Webster 2008

Comprehensive Plan.

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

617(c)C)(v) of SEQR since the action is not located in or adjacent to the listed resources

and is in character with the surrounding community.

. The action will not result in a major change in the type or use of energy since the action

is for the construction of a rental building and equipment yard that do not require an

upgrade to existing power distribution system infrastructure.

The action will not create a hazard to human health since it does not contain nor is it

located adjacent to an existing source of hazardous substances or contaminants. The

project does not contemplate the use of hazardous substances or contaminants.

The action will not create a substantial change in use of the land since the action is

consistent with zoning for the land, the existing community character, and the Town of

Webster 2008 Comprehensive Plan.

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

compared (o taking no action since the action involves the creation of nine new parcels

and does not create areas that will attract a large number of people.

. The action will not create a cumulative impact on the environment as listed under

617(c)(1)(x), (xi), and (xii) of SEOR.

Pg. 270 November 18, 2025 Planning Meeting

;

RESOLUTION 25-0083

VOTE:

RESOLUTION 25-0075

PRELIMINARY APPROVAL CHECKLIST

Derek Anderson made a motion for

UNLISTED ACTION which was seconded by

Mark Giardina.

Mr. Casciani AYE

Mr. Malta AYE

Mr. Giardina AYE

Mr. Anderson AYE

Mr. Kosel AYE

Mrs. Maltman AYE

Mr. Gasic AYE

Dave Malta made a = motion — for

PRELIMINARY APPROVAL (PUBLIC

HEARING) PIRANHA RENTS: Located

at Five Mile Line Road in Lowe’s Plaza.

Applicant Patrick Young is requesting

PRELIMINARY PLAN APPROVAL

associated with the construction of a 4,600

SF equipment rental store, featuring a

41,700 SF gravei storage yard enclosed by a

chain link security fence on a 7.94-acre lot

having SBL # 079.10-1-2.1 located in the

HC High Intensity Commercial District

under Section 269-11, 350-19 of the Code of

the Town of Webster which was seconded

by Mark Giardina.

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

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

1. Subject to PRC Comments

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

3. Subject to Monroe County Water Authority comments

4, Subject to the determination of the ZBA for requested variances.

5,

Webster.

6.

by the Town of Webster.

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

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

9. I

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

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

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

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

Il. Approvals are subject to Drawing No: Job # 1843-25/v1.0 Dated:

12. Applicant has to return for sign approval.

Pg. 271 November 18, 2025 Planning Meeting

the gravel. And you might want to have any future signs you're going to be presenting?

Are you going to put up any signs on the building.

VOTE:

Mr. Casciani AYE

Mr. Malta AYE

Mr. Giardina AYE

Mr. Anderson AYE

Mr. Kosel AYE

Mrs. Maltman AYE

Mr. Gasic AYE

Vital Signs is requesting SIGN APPROVAL associated with the construction of a 37.2 SF wall

mounted sign consisting of backlit channel letters on a 37.9-acre parcel having SBL# 079. 15-

1.312 located in the HC High Intensity Commercial District under Section 265-7 of the Code of

ihe Town of Webster.

Appearing before the board was Amy Catalanio from Vital Signs. So, you pretty much said it.

Backlit channel letters; flush mount to the building; translucent vinyl] print and on the faces of the

letters; Led lighting. Kind of standard for the channel letters. Are there any questions?

and then it’s a hunter green vinyl lettering with the returns and the channel coil is also green

around everything and then the digital print for the plate is a translucent vinyl.

Derek Anderson:

The Town of Webster Planning Board considered the request by Applicant, Amy Catalanio of

Vital Signs to construct a 37.2 SF wall mounted sign for Moon’s Thei Myanmar consisting of

backlit channel letters located at 950 Ridge Road on a 37.9-acre parcel having SBL# 079.15-

1.312,

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

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

to further review.

Pg. 272 November 18, 2025 Planning Meeting

;

RESOLUTION 25-0077

VOTE:

RESOLUTION 25-0078

VOTE:

in the town in my opinion anyways.

Derck Anderson made a motion for TYPE If

SEQR which was seconded by Mark Giardina.

Mr. Casciani AYE

Mr. Malta AYE

Mr. Giardina AYE

Mr. Anderson AYE

Mr. Kosel AYE

Mrs. Maltman AYE

Mr. Gasic AYE

John Kosel made a motion for Located at

950 Ridge Road. Applicant Amy Catalanio

of Vital Signs is requesting SIGN

construction of a 37.2 SF wall mounted sign

consisting of backlit channel letters on a

37.9-acre parcel having SBL# 079.15-1.312

located in the HC High Intensity

Commercial District under Section 265-7 of

the Code of the Town of Webster which was

seconded by Mark Giardina.

Mr. Casciant AYE

Mr. Malta AYE

Mr. Giardina AYE

Mr. Anderson AYE

Mr. Kosel AYE

Mrs. Maltman AYE

Mr. Gasic AYE

in and they are short and they’re gone. The reason we do this, and people question, what is the

big deal with this. If you didn’t have the control to just look at the sign and say yes, this is

acceptable and it does meet the code. Could you imagine what every building would possibly

look like its down the road. If everybody started having glowing lights, flashing lights and this

that and the other. So, that’s the reason for it. It’s a littte complicated, for the applicant to have

to present the drawings and so on and so forth but ultimately makes a better looking appearance

Ragles Nest.

Pg. 273 November 18, 2025 Planning Meeting

Johnson is requesting SIGN APPROVAL associated with the construction of a 60.75 SF wall

mounted sign consisting of internally illuminated channel letters on a 3.05-acre parcel having

SBL# 080.09-3-1.31 located in the MC Medium Intensity Commercial District under Section

265-7 of the Code of the Town of Webster.

Appearing before the board was Amy Catalano: So, again, these area backlit channel letters;

remote mount; no raceway; There’ an icon. The icon in the middle is a little different. There’s

some translucent vinyl and 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

the background of the facade is going to painted blue. I think it’s going to be that tannish brown

color .

to happen. He told me they may not do that. It will just be painted like the rest of the plaza. 1

think that was going to be up to the landlord and | think that’s what he had said.

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.

Derek Anderson:

The Town of Webster Planning Board considered the request by Applicant, Amy Caralanio to

construct a 60.75 SF wall mounted sign for Eagle’s Nest Golf Lounge consisting of internally

illuminated channel letters located at 1170 Ridge Road on a 3.05-acre parcel having SBL#

080.09-3-1.31.

Pg, 274 November 18, 2025 Planning Meeting

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

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

to further review,

RESOLUTION 25-0081

RESOLUTION 25-0082

VOTE:

VOTE:

Derek Anderson made a motion for TYPE II

SEQR which was seconded by John Kosel.

Mr. Casciani AYE

Mr. Malta AYE

Mr. Giardina AYE

Mr. Anderson AYE

Mr. Kosel AYE

Mrs. Maltman AYE

Mr. Gasic AYE

John Kosel made a motion for SIGN

APPROVAL (

PUBLIC HEARING

)

Located at 1170 Ridge Road. Applicant

Kurt Johnson is requesting SIGN

APPROVAL associated with _ the

construction of a 60.75 SF wall mounted

sign consisting of internally illuminated

channel letters on a 3.05-acre parce] having

SBL# 080.09-3-1.31 located in the MC

Medium Intensity Commercial District

under Section 265-7 of the Code of the

Town of Webster which was seconded by

Mark Giardina.

Mr. Casciani AYE

Mr. Malta AYE

Mr. Giardina AYE

Mr, Anderson AYE

Mr. Kosel AYE

Mes. Maltiman AYE

Mr. Gasic AYE

Solutions is requesting SIGN APPROVAL associated with construction of a 27.5 SF wall

mounted sign consisting of LED channel Ietters on a 28.4-acre parcel having SBL# 079.12-1-

6.211 located in the HC High Intensity Commercial District under Section 265-7 of the Code of

the Town of Webster.

Pg. 275 November 18, 2025 Planning Meeting

Appearing before the board was Connor Ewing. We are proposing another set of raceway

mounted channel letters. So, the Cost Cutters with the little scissor logo will be illuminated Jetters

with a white face and then hair salon are going to be non-illuminated letters just mounted right to

the facade there. So, pretty straightforward if there’ any questions.

code, You guys all right with it.

Derek Anderson:

The Town of Webster Planning Board considered the request by Applicant, Connor Ewing of

Elevated Sign Solutions to construct a 27.5 SF wall mounted sign for Cost-Cutters consisting of

LED channel Ietters located at 900 Holt Road on a 28.4-acre parcel having SBL# 079.12-1-

6.211.

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

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

to further review.

RESOLUTION 25-0081 Derek Anderson made a motion for TYPE II

SEQR which was seconded by Mark Giardina,

VOTE:

Mr. Casciani AYE

Mr. Malta AYE

Mr. Giardina AYE

Mr. Anderson AYE

Mr. Kosel AYE

Mrs. Maltman AYE

Mr. Gasic AYE

RESOLUTION 25-0082 John Kosel made a motion for SIGN

APPROVAL (

PUBLIC HEARING

)

Located at 900 Holt Road. Applicant

Connor Ewing of Elevated Sign Solutions is

Pg. 276 November 18, 2025 Planning Meeting

requesting SIGN APPROVAL associated

with construction of a 27.5 SF wall mounted

sign consisting of LED channel letters on a

28.4-acre parcel having SBL# 079.12-1-

6.211 located in the HC High Intensity

Commercial District under Section 265-7 of

the Code of the Town of Webster which was

seconded by Mark Giardina.

VOTE:

Mr. Casciani AYE

Mr. Malta AYE

Mr. Giardina AYE

Mr. Anderson AYE

Mr. Kosel AYE

Mrs. Maltman AYE

Mr. Gasic AYE

Montante Solar Development is requesting PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL

associated with a 6.63 MW Solar Generation Facility across 20-acres of a 120-acre lot owned by

Xerox Corporation having SBL# 065.02-1-40.111 located in the IN Industrial District under

Sections 155-5D(4) 269-5 and 350-22 of the Code of the Town of Webster.

Appearing before the board was Katie Soscia (did not sign in) Representing Monte Solar. Thank

you for having me here. We have a project team representing Webster Solar Garden project. We

also have Kim Nason from Phillips Lidle; Marcus Lathrop (did not sign in) representing Xerox

Corporation and Jenna Suz (did not sign in) 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 revicw updates to the project site plan that were implemented as part of the

sketch plan review meeling in September and subsequent meeting held with one of the HOA’s

near the project site. I’m just going to pass it to my colleague Kim real quick to talk through that

incorporation process.

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.

Katic mentioned (here was a separate mecting help with representatives from an HOA. Really

irying 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 mecting that 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

Pg. 277 November 18, 2025 Planning Mecting

the filing. There’s an exhibit that kind of summarizes what we went through at that mecting. So,

on the front end 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 talk about the fact that

we included in the application. So, I'll just ask tonight if 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. Patrick

Young. So, really our goa! is to try to the greatest extent possible to address those questions on

the front end, answer some common questions we were hearing, and then obviously we’ve got

the team here if there for any additional questions, but I'll kind of turn it back to Katie to get into

the project.

we had already previewed this project with you guys before but it’s a reuse of a brownfield site

that also contains two closed and capped landfills and this is a DEC approved use of the site. It

helps Xero achieve green energy goals. It’s in compliance with the ongoing monitoring plan that

is required by DEC, and part of the project will be open to community solar for eligible

subscribers through NAERTA’s ICSA program. Again, after the sketch plan review our team

took the step of meeting with local HOA for a Q & A. So, I just want to set the stage of what

we're going to be talking about here today. We’ve already done and previewed some

environmental due diligence with you guys at the last meeting. But there was some additional

due diligence that was requested by the board. An environmental easement was submitted to the

town attorney for review that was issued by the DEC back in 2021. Geotechnical results were

also submitted to the town engineer, and we’ll also go through the DEC project review process

to date. Project sighting and location, updates to the site plan and including viewsheds and

updates to the landscape screening plan and then a couple updates to the decommissioning plan

as well.

So, again, environmental due diligence, there are no jurisdictional wetlands on the site, either

Army Corps, or DEC. We have confirmation from both that they have been submitted to the

town for review and Shipo has issued a no finding, no effect as well. If you can, go to the next

slide. Iam going to pass it off to my colleague Kim to talk through the environmental easement

that was granted for this project.

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? So, I will just start by saying

that, you know, solar projects on landfills on brown fields, they are notnew. I’ve done them all

over the state. There, you know, well encourage, I’ll say, by both the EPA and by DEC, provided

that they’re in alignment with underlying institutional control at every site. That there’s DEC

oversight and approval. They are encouraged and it’s considered a good reuse of a site that may

not have a Jot of other uses and helps the state meet it’s significant renewable energy goals. But

kind of speaking to this environmental easement that was provided and what it means and what

level of security it provides for that oversight ts there is a site management plan currently covering

this capped landfill covering the site that includes certain institutional controls requirements,

Pg. 278 November 18, 2025 Planning Meeting

inspection requirements, and all those of those are captured within this environmental casement.

Essentially, the environmental easement runs with the land and provides access for DEC to come

in, inspect, make sure that the site management plan is still being complied with and to ensure

ongoing operation, maintenance, monitoring requirements that may be included in the SMP.

Also, the environmental easement restricts use on the land. So, when a site under goes

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 under these is under the DEC regulations both commercial and industrial uses.

But what also comes into play in the environmental easement ts if there is a change of use, which

this would allow for the solar project on the site, then that has to go to DEC for signoff. And

DEC 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. 1 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 DEC 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 uses permitted at

the site that aren’t contemplated and that all of the institutional and engineering controls that are

required at the site remain effective going forward and DEC 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 history

of it. It’s encourage, but also there’s a level of DEC oversight that is absolutely required for this

project to go forward.

settlement of the asphalt cap, which is a specific capped area on the Xerox campus. So, we did

conduct a geotechnical analysis and the results showed that the project is well under allowable

limits and PH go into the actual methodology that was used. So, geotechnical investigation was

conducted to determine the viability of installing our weighted system on the cap. The

methodology was first discussed with and previewed by the DEC team that has oversight over

this site.

A steel plate was placed directly on the asphalt surface, and special equipment used a dial

indicator to incrementally apply pressure or load to the plate at a maximum applied load of 2,000

Ibs. per square foot. And this was done was done in three different areas across the cap. And the

allowable amount of settlement before the integrity of the cap is affected for the sake of this

system is a ¥2 an inch. So, note, the ballasted system all together. So, the racking, the ballast, the

panel, the wiring, all the components of the system will only weigh approximately 450 Ibs. 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 Ibs. per square foot is

approximately three times heavier than the heaviest load on the site during construction. And

even with these additional foads, the results show that the weights are far under the allowable

settlement. At sile one, it’s 30 times below the allowable load; at site two, it’s 33 times below

the allowable load and at site three, is 11 times below the allowable load.

Pg. 279 November 18, 2025 Planning Mecting

In addition, Xerox has committed to resealing the entire asphalt cap prior to the start of

construction to ensure the long-term integrity over the life time of the system, I’m going to turn

it over to my colleague Janice to review where we are with the DEC review process.

Specifically, the hazardous waste corrective action and post closure division. They’re under the

Bureau of Hazardous Waste and Division of Materials Management. And a project manager and

supervisor have been assigned to this project and reviewing the project to ensure that it does meet

DEC rules and regulations. In accordance with DEC procedures, as Kim had mentioned, we did

submit a change of use notification that’s required specially for this site and for this type of

project. And this change of use notification provided details on the solar project as well an

environmental considerations and any requirement for this site especially. We’ve had multiple

calls with the DEC to talk through the proposed solar project and that change of use that was

submitted. We have discussed their comments and questions and have responded. It is just some

of those things. We did submit a change or use a revised change of use I should say, and we have

revised some elements of the solar project design in response to those discussions, So, DEC has

been in communication with the town’s Planning Board and have indicated that if for any reason

the DEC determines that through their own separate review process that this project is

incompatible with protection of human health or the environment that they would either notify

that the project context that the specific requested changes would need to be made in order for

the project to proceed or state that the project would not be able to move forward at all. As

another layer of the oversight and review and oversight and approvals process. We’re required

by NYSDEC has directed Monte and Xerox to follow their department of materials management

policy DMM4. It’s guidance specifically for photovoltaic solar projects at closed solar solid waste

landfills.

So, we've done work and assessments in response to and to meet those DMM3 requirements 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. Pll turn over to Katie.

Xerox campus where there are two closed line landfills and several monitoring wells with

ongoing reporting requirements by the DEC. We've already discussed that this leaves the area

with limited redevelopment opportunities. However, solar is one of those ones that is encouraged

on this site. The parcel is industrial zone located at the dead end of Caracus Drive at the northern

part of the Xerox campus. And the closest edge of the panel is more than 200 feet from the closest

HOA property linc, 740 feet from the closest residential lot line and 800 fect from the closest

domicile. The 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 from

the closest HOA property line, 650 feet from the closest point on the HOA walking trail, 52.31

1,700 feet from the closest residential property line, and 1,860 feet from the closest domicile. The

project will be connected directly into RG&E’s distributed generation lines along Caracus Drive

and RG&E has already reviewed and approved the project. The project has been strategically

designed so all environmental monitoring obligations with DEC will remain intact.

Pg. 280 November 18, 2025 Planning Mecting

The project has been designed in compliance with the NEC electrical code and all state and local

laws. Some updates to our site plan include fire access turnaround that was implemented as part

of the discussions from the last sketch plan meeting and ballasted fencing which was also

requested as part of the last sketch plan meeting as well. Major equipment here panels, a modules

this is you know what they look like. Inverters again just wanted to show a real image of what

they look like. Geob ballasted racking system so there are no ground penetrations here. It’s a

weighted system. It’s tried and true on landfill projects. This is an actual photo from one of our

sites as well,

So, one of the major points of concern that we heard from the community was the sight lines and

really the understanding point, not wanting to 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. That’s kind of from a little bit further back than the walking trail. You can see

the walking trail within those pictures. The bordering vegetation surrounding the entire project

site will stay in place. So, to the direct immediate east it’s about 2,500 feet of woods and mature

vegetation. To the west it’s 1,500 feet of mature woods and vegetation and then to the northeast

and northwest, it’s a 150 on northeast and 250 feet on the northwest. Oh, I’m sorry, | swapped

those.,..northwest and northeast for the opposite. I apologize. So, if we click through again, just

wanting to establish a base of what’s currently there. There is a mix of deciduous and coniferous.

There are trees there that are quite mature. And kind of just again, like a different image from a

little further up on the trail as well.

This ts from the other development that is currently taking place to the northeast of the project

site as well.

question while you are right there. You’re saying there are trees. Is that on the actual site?

those trees have roots. Are the roots penetrating the barrier? The asphalt.?

vegelation on that area. Yeah, the rest of the project site is if you kind of zoom in, you can the

property lines are kind of that step down areca there. And that is the areca that we were looking at

to see the vegetation in there. So, if you go to the next slide, one of the members from the HOA

suggested that we do some infield testing as well and we did we plotted the fence line in the

northern area and took caution take and wrapped it around that norther edge at about [0 high to

simulate the back of the panel and there are pictures documenting it and then a drone was flown

closer to the edge of the tree line to try and see if we could actually see the caution tape in that

area as already established as is. So, that yellow line, the yellow are there shows the caution tape

and then the close up, the red line that’s closer to it is where we flew up to see if we could see the

Pg. 281 November 18, 2025 Planning Meeting

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 flew the drone up higher and then shot down into the site to

see if we could find it which is the next image. And again, we couldn’t see the yellow caution

tape through the tree line. In addition to the already established vegetation, we were going to

leave al! the natural vegetation intact and then insert a double row of coniferous trees to the

northeast and the northwest of the project as well, which is right now proposed as a Norway

spruce and an eastern red cedar to mitigate potential viewsheds. Trees will be 10 to 12 feet tall

upon plating and spaced !0 feet apart on center to allow the trees to continue to grow. These

trees grow on an average about 2 feet per year and because Xerox heard the concerns of these

neighborhoods, they have volunteer to implement these plantings as soon as they are able to in

ihe spring season ahead of any major construction on the project.

The 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 the current site

conditions, which were added, and then also to update a table to include a possible 35-year lease

term, which was also done there as well. And ]’m just going to kick it off to my colleague Kim

again to close us out on our presentation.

lot of ground here on DEC on the fact that this is a portion of this site is a cap landfill, but this

project is also a type two action under seeker. What that means is that there is a list of actions

and the board is probably very familiar with them. There are certain actions that DEC has

elevated already and determined based on the nature of that activity that it does not have

potentially significant adverse impacts on the environment. Solar projects that are under 25 acres

that are very similar to this project 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 al sites that are zoned for industrial use. Those are all determined to be type I] action. So,

I just wanted to cover that point as well, and we can answer any questions. But really, I’m sure

there will be a lot of information and I’m sure there’ll be some questions that come from the

public as well that we’ll be happy to answer, but we respectfully submit that this is a productive

reuse of a site thal’s been remediated and we're looking forward to answering questions.

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 actually

under remediation, It has not yet met its remediation goals.

plan and the environmental easement which limits uses that can exist.

Pg. 282 November 18, 2025 Planning Meeting

has been remediated but it has not be remediated.

thinking of a different part of the campus where we have that air stripper that’s treating

contaminants and performing active remediation. There’s a record of decision and a series of

institutional controls which is the cap and a couple other institutional controls that are put in

place. The bedrock trench to capture any potential groundwater of concern. So, it’s not actively

being remediated.

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

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

contamination (both parties speaking at the same time) per billion levels. It’s not according to

the DEC rules; it doesn’t need to be actively remediated at this point. There is a record of decision

going back to 1989 on that

a conversation that I had with them. The other thing is that one you referenced SEQR and the

items that are in here. You've also referenced that the site’s a brownfield.

brownfield.

Pg. 283 November 18, 2025 Planning Meeting

about those solar projects that are under 25 acres, there’s 4 separate types that can qualify as type

two actions, you can be any one of those 4 types to fall under the type II action. So, brownfield

is one of therm. I was just listing all

4. Derek Anderson: Okay, but the engineer referred this as a brownfield site. | want to make it clear

that this is not a brownfield site.

has ongoing institutional controls that are part of that site management plan. But when |

mentioned, my mention specifically of the brownfield cleaner program, that was just to describe

the list of solar projects that are considered as type IT actions.

this a brownfield site, So, | want to make it very clear that presentation even though it said this

is a brownfield and you said that not you though

number two doesn’t apply because it’s not a brownfield site.

not receiving additional waste. | mean that is true from that perspective on it. But this is also a

hazardous waste site. Have you received a release from DEC ?

solar projects, Pll specifically reference the first one which we talked about which was the closed

landfill and then the 4" item under the regs which is a disturbed site that is zoned industrially.

So, that applics to the entirety of the site. So, those are the two specifically that we’ re referencing.

disposal sites, a full liability release.

items are “ors”, so you don’t have to be every one of those items. You just have to be one. And

we're submilling that we fall under two of them.

Pg. 284 November 18, 2025 Planning Mecting

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 into consideration when we do the review on it. (both parties speaking

al the same time).

of the site is zoned industrial. So, understood. You're absolutely correct. Need to take into

account the full parcel and that’s where that 4" bullet covers the project

the asphalt cup , this equipment in general. | also see in the details that there are indications that

there’s going to be penetrations for cabling for the panels. What details do you show an

equipment pad with cabling going underneath. And my understanding is that nothing on the site

is allowed to penetrate the surface.

zoom in on the site plan a little further. All of the cabling throughout the site is going to be above

ground, It’s going to all collect in the north, I’m sorry, in the southeast corner of the project. If

you zoom in a bit there, kind of by the very edge of the access road into the site. So, all the

disturbance is going to be limited to the access road. The poles that are going to be, the utility

poles essentially that are going to be connecting into the lines along Caracus Drive. Then that

medium voltage pad area there. Janice can probably speak to it a little bit bet(er than I can. But

as part as Xerox’s site monitoring plan, soil sampling needs to be done within those areas as well

before any type of digging can occur. And if you have further question on that, Janice is probably

the best person to answer those.

where the contamination is, where it’s been encapsulated, and we have the institutional and

operational controls in place. So, any fort of impact to the soil is to the southeast of that. That I

the far corner towards the yellow corner there. That’s where any sort of intrusive activity would

happen.

also balanced amount of the security fence around the solar array?

the Planning Board last time. 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.

So, we'll be attaching the new fence to cither....the west side of that to continue along the edge

Pg. 285 November 18, 2025 Planning Meeting

and then also the fence line will go up kind of north of that building, 343 indicated there and

or

along to make sure the medium voltage equipment is encapsulated as well.

don’t match.

to. The remaining fence to stay in place is orange and then the black line is the post fence.

cover and also the solar panels on top of trench system that’s part of you know, the site monitoring

system. I’m just not understanding you’re gonna pay.... You plan on paving it beforehand. It’s

going to be here for 35 years with no way to maintain the asphalt around those ballasted.

of concern like they do have the right to take the system off and make any remediations that are

required. Jf there is an issue, lets 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 Geotechnical testing that

we’ve done far exceeds the actual weight limits that are going to be on there and even out those

weights, we're just not seeing settlement.

purpose as is if 1s 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. (both parties speaking at the same time)

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.

on top of that asphalt cap to eliminate any sort of risk of water going through the landfills.

to work around to maintain the integrity of the asphalt cap.

Pg. 286 November 18, 2025 Planning Meeting

SO.

asphalt are you looking to add on top.

decided exactly how much. We'll do one last. Okay, It’s a fresh sheet. Let’s do one Jast sealant

on that before this happens. The cap is great right now.

not Xerox is going to ahead of construction do a final sealing effort and as Marcus indicated,

they are required by the site management plan to inspect the cap and repair any deficiencies every

year. ] hear a mention about concern of stuff going maybe water surface water going through

any potential cracks. 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

surface. So, there are already protections in place for that concern.

is the CND? The one that is further to he north.

has been involved at the time and I think it was closed and [ don’t have the date exactly. Maybe

in the last 80’s or early 90’s, I can’t remember exactly the date. But it was reportedly mainly like

vegetative debris and not hazardous waste.

TIME.

Pg. 287 November 18, 2025 Planning Meeting

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 and in addition to that, we also did I think

along a couple areas of the cap some hand dug holes to ensure that the soil and clays amounts

that were reported in the closure report were actually there and they are actually there. So, that

is going to be submitted to the DEC as well.

the trenching? So, we 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 Jandfill for the cap. But how do we protect the actual collection trench where the ballasted

footings are going to sit on top of those?

there where it’s cutting through

that area just because there were the two wells and then the trench was connecting the. We're

like, let’s just leave it open. We id put the solar project over the rest. That hasn’t been raised as

a concern by DEC, and they reviewed this and have talked to us about it and has not been raised

by them as a concern and in that area to the east there.

existing cap was to ever leak in the future the system is there to collect the water and if there’s

enough settlement, | mean, we’re talking about 420 pounds per square inch of each folder sitting

on top of this trench. Is it possible to stake out this trench and avoid the footers sitting on top.

gaps as well between. No problem, that’s something we can adjust.

] don’t know thee exact depth if it’s 25, 30 feet depends on where we are at the site. So, there ts

a significant layer of material above the bedrock to protect those trenches.

ballasted system, a new geotechnical report will 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 come to the CAP settling and impact, so it you’re not going to be using APA, if you

end up switching it, | will say a new geotechnical report would need to be submitted.

actual make and model} of the panels. Based on availability of whal we can get right now. So,

Pg. 288 November 18, 2025 Planning Meeting

obviously based on size, snow loads, wind toads, we'll tweak slightly, but that’s all something

that we'll update and submit to both the town and DEC prior to moving forward.

were not wetlands on site. You meant freshwater wetlands, right? So that would be DEC. There’s

still federal regulated wetlands on site.

however, we are going to follow the nationwide permit 51 just to comply with that and not have

to go through permit through USACE (?)

So, no soil disturbance within the CND landfill, but I believe you’ re using silt socks with stakes.

So, the stakes would penetrate the soil. Just consider how you would want to draw/address

erosion sediment control without using stakes.

of those stakes and Katie, ] believe we can do that.

like our staging area. So, already paved street area,

Again, the new 2025 fire code goes into effect December

31. It does have specific sections for

photovoltaic or solar projects, section 1205. Just want to make sure thal you’re going to be in

conformance with the new fire code. It also has electrical requirements for NFPA70O that are built

into it. So, | know the drawing call out 2020 but just want to make sure you're going to be

updating for 2025.

will be referenced. In ihe drawings.

10 foot wide gate. Pm not sure if that’s a mistake. Is the road width 20 fect there? Is the gate 20

feel?

for you.

department was to come in, they can’t really access the equipment that’s to the west there, the

Pg, 289 November 18, 2025 Planning Mecting

equipment pad, because the fence is in the way. Not sure if you want to look ata different layout

of the gate, maybe moving the gate closer to the front. 1 know you’re trying to avoid the poles,

but at the same time, right now, a fire truck will essentially have to park outside the fence. Then

somehow gel the equipment inside to the equipment pad.

and so they have that area to pull in and even potentially maneuver the truck to like a different

side if they had to.

at the existing grade where it does some drastic changes 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 a

look at that because otherwise, you’l! have some significant gaps underneath your fence areas.

either change those areas to actual traditional staked posed with DEC oversight on that process

or we can move our fence line our to where it evens out on topography a /ittle bit more.

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 space to get around those modules if you could keep like 15 feet

potentially.

modules there.

that the inverters would be creating. Have there been any noise studies performed. I saw you

detailed breakdown of the decibel attenuation over time, but I’m not sure if you have something

like an actual report that would provide the existing ambient noise and then the proposed decibel

levels.

fact that there are, as Katie outlined, very significant setbacks. Whether you're looking at the

town’s code requirements with respect to noise levels of you’re looking at some of the DEC

guidance on the assessing noise and miligating noise impacts. Really, that’s why we included the

assessment we had that kind of breaks down how DEC views decibel level reductions. 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. And some of the concerns that we

had heard are due to the fact that you know our materials reference this decibel level of 18

Pg. 290 November 18, 2025 Planning Meeting

inverters that are rated at 80 dba 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 3 feet . As Katie mentioned, the inverters are kind of strategically placed as

far away as we can be from some of those property lines. We’re looking at, I believe, over 1300

feet from the closest HOA property line, over 1,650 feet from the closest point on that walking

trail; over 1,700 feet from the closest residential property line, and over 860 feet from the closest

residents. And really, that distance when you are looking at the DEC guidance 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 that we

provided from our position shows that the significant setbacks addressed the issue. And one other

point I'll just make is as we mentioned the type II actions, when DEC went through the

amendment to the regulations in 2018 and added these types of solar facilities that are Jess than

25 acres they evaluate and know potential environmental impacts which includes noise impacts.

And when you look at that type I] exemptions specifically the one that I reference with respect

to industrial zoned sites the position from DEC is there’s not potential for significant and adverse

environmental impacts for project of these size on located in those types of industrially.

you anlicipate 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 that that work has gone smoothly that there were no concerns.

it than I can, but as part of Xerox’s closure and remediation plan with DEC, there are certain acts

that happen on this site that have to have an environmental monitor or some kind of environmental

oversight, and that would be areas like where we’re going to have disturbance and things like

that. So, we are planning on complying with Xerox’s plan and reporting with DEC.

in place requires environmental monitoring whenever there’s going to be site disturbance. It is

required.

mentioned quite a few times there’s been discussions, ongoing discussions with DEC. This is

again; il is an active sile. You're going to be talking to DEC for now and till eternity. Where are

they al in their review of this specific project? Because what I’m not hearing is DEC has looked

al this, and they have determined that they’re okay with it. Alls ['m hearing is that you’ ve gotten

review comments from them and you’ ve responded to them. Where are they out in their review

and when do you expect to hear a response from them in regard to this project.

site plan approval. For example, one of those ilems is putting a down payment and locking in

our panels. Once we lock in our panels, the geotechnical results are going to potentially change

just a tittle bit based on the size of the panels. Some of the load calcs on the snow and wind loads

Pg. 291 November 18, 2025 Planning Meeting

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 have approval and review

completed by DEC. 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 process with town.

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

told them that we’ re going for a site plan approval. DEC has been supportive of us through this

process, and we are not finished with our review process with DEC. They are expecting in terms

of sequence of events for site plan approval to happen before they complete their review of the

project.

have receive quite a few letters from neighbors and appreciate the comments and stuff. But, if

anyone wishes to speak, it is a public hearing. All that I ask is if you go up to the mic, use 2

minutes, don’t drag it out and please, if somebody says something, let’s not all just repeat the

same thing over and over. So, if anyone wishes to speaks, please come up and give us your name

and address.

Applicant was responding but from audience....CAN NOT HEAR.

the board with the questions and then if we can, we can ask one of the to respond.

Peter Latra at 1444 Quail Creek Drive.(DID NOT SIGN IN) Well, the cost of the project ts qutte

expensive obvisioyly, NY state taxpayers are paying for the whole thing. Xerox is paying nothing.

T need to know how many jobs this iy going to create. Permanent jobs, not temporary Jobs. Uf the

state iy investing this kind of money into a project, it should be creating jobs. Xerox is no longer

headquartered in’ Rochester. They are now in Norwalk, Connecticut. CEO, Stephen

Bandrowczak, salary and compensation, 14.3 million dollars a year. Xerox did at one time

employ 12,000, over 12,000 people in 1987, At the end of 2023 they had 1754...

Pg. 292 November 18, 2025 Planning Meeting

Peter Latra at 1444 Quail Creek Drive. Pin almost done...

Peter Latra at 1444 Quail Creek Drive. In 2024, that decreased by

3. Frank Ciardi: Hold on, one second sir, If you could keep your comments, germane to the project.

Peter Latra at 1444 Quail Creek Drive. Okay, well, this is all building up. Where is Xerox going

with this down the road. If they’re employing fewer and less people every year, those buildings

are all vacant over there. T'm asking why. If this project goes, how many permanent jobs ts it

create? Is it 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

the 20-30 year mark, it’s about half gone because it increases more as years go by. Max is 40

years out of these. That's all T have to say, and 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.

Elain Johnson at 626 Pine Lakes Trail: | represent the 261 signatures of Webster residents that

lack confidence and are opposed to this project due to falling short to protecting the human health

and our environment as it relates to it being developed on a hazardotts waste site. 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 fellow neighbors and

residents as you make your final in this project. So, thank you so much,

Robert Curtis at 1474 Bushwood Circle: | just have a number of questions about the project. How

many trees are you taking down? This will predominantly face south. We have aircraft that fly

over from the south. We're on Bushwood and we sit and watch plans 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? Can the board make them replace ever tree with another tree on their property because they

have alot of property, If this is really a green project, then it ought to be a green project. Thank

you.

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. In regard to tree removal, I don’t know the number of documented trees that are

Pg. 293 November 18, 2025 Planning Meeting

being removed. Again, this is a site that doesn’t have a useful alternative and DEC; 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. And then | just wanted to clarify one point on the degradation

of the panels. 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 NYSERDA are tier one panels which have a 0.5

degradation rate, not a 1% over the year. I just want to clarify that as well. Thank you.

Charlotte Cabili at 651 Cumberland Way: I live in Webster and I’m just speaking on behalf of

the open space committee. 1 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 just take this point of

reusing the land. It’s not usable. These kinds of clainis that go part and parcel with the

development and with the grant and with Xerox goals. I don’t think that is in line with Webster's

town goals for open space and biodiversity. 1 think there’s important use of the land in its current

form and I worry that you know simply replacing trees that is extremely important but there is

more to it and this land, and I share concerns about the health and safety of the residents and

neighbors. | think these are extremely important. [ think that the compliance is clear but at the

same time these risks are still there and some unknows are still there, so I just wanted to express

my concern with the safety.

Mark Williams at 1448 Quail Creek Trail: I was just thinking, it would be great if groundwater

testing results could be made available publicly you know, as they're periodically done. It would

just help people understand what's in the water or what’s in the concentrations of the

contaminations going up or down, that kind of thing. Justa thought.

ease into this whole thing.

be cither requested through like a FOIL request in some cases depending on the site it’s...they

have a DEC info locator like a web it’s via the web and you can access the document repository.

recently who was asking us for all past available electronic reports so they will have all of that

available soon,

will close the public hearing and bring it back to the board for discussion. What are we doing

with this.

Pg. 294 November 18, 2025 Planning Meeting

given the history of the site and the type of site it is,

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 the limits of disturbance acreage and then also the proposed

clearing acreage on the drawings.

that seems to be the biggest concern that I’m hearing in letters that people have responded to the

town with all refer to the weight and I understand they’ ve done studies and that was one of our

concerns in 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 asphalt 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 80-90 degree temperatures

cause this to soften and do some settling.

to see if there’s been improvement or see if there’s been....you know, what the data shows.

Maybe.

Pg. 295 November 18, 2025 Planning Meeting

question that seems to be the biggest for the board is why the solar panels have to be on the cap

and was there any thought to put it somewhere else? And then the second question was the actual

weight on those caps if it does get approved that way.

respond to those. 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, There are requirements for

the site and for that cap under the site management plan that have to be complied with that 1s true

even if the owner of the site was to change that’s what’s captured 1n that environmental easement.

So, DEC as well as Xerox will be monitoring that and if there are any issues it will have to be

addressed. So, there is a DEC 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 their purview with

the existing site management plan with the change of use with the division of materials

management policy’s . So, understanding the questions and the board’s concerns, DEC will be

evaluating all of those points they have already asked, some follow-up questions as we talked

about and J think in the correspondence we included from the DEC to the town. They are happy

to answer any questions and to keep the town updated as to how the reviews going as well. With

respect to moving panels off of this area, ! can let Katie speak to some of the sites 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

DEC 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 site features that limit where

else the panels could be put at a project size that is sufficient to ensure viability.

anywhere else to put it on the site. The site is boarded by two different streams. We have

setbacks from those streams as well to account for, you know, appropriate wetland setbacks. You

know, there really isn’t if you kind of move it off site, it’s going to be like this orphan project

somewhere else. So, we really can’t take those panels off and put them somewhere else

that they’re proposing to use has a tolerance of how much this metal beam rai 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 setthkement underneath. The ballast systems because the system itself will not tolerate

it settling. The report did say that they only had half an inch of settlement in the asphalt. | mean,

Pg. 296 November 18, 2025 Planning Meeting

it could be acondition 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.

inch is what is allowed. The actual amount of settlement at each of the different sites was at the

first site 0.0162 at the second site 0.0151 and at the third site 0.0554 so I just want to clarify that

as well.

process was accepted.

for solar collection, | guess, It’s kind of a random question.

to settle. If you have the system settling, the actual tracking components are going to start getting

messed up. So, you don’t want settlement within. There is 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. 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.

pertain to health, safety, and welfare and so on and so forth. 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 and let’s take just the site. That

site as it stands has been there since what, 1990.

about then they did the asphalt cap and started doing control.

caused an issue with DEC or anyone, am I right with that so far. If that’s the case, then we can

assume that it’s a safe site if not disturbed. Okay, fair enough conclusion to that. If it’s a sale

site, the way it stands and constantly monitored, then we’re okay. Now that should alleviate

some of the concerns of people with in health safety and welfare. That's the concern that | would

have if I was living there.

Pg. 297 November 18, 2025 Planning Meeting

So, set that aside now. Now, let’s go to the panels. Do they emit any pollution or anything like

that?

manufacturing process yes of course but also at the end of the useful life we di gave a

decommissioning plan in place where we are sending the panels to a recycling facility. I just

want to clarify that as well.

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 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. DEC is okay with it. There

are no complicated issues to be seen. Other biggest concern that we had was because of the

gabions settling. You’ve resolved that I guess as best as you can. Now, I got to say, | don’t know

what the issues would be. Anybody feel any differently, I don’t know.

period of time?

integrity maintained and you know, if there’s ....if you see any sort of a little green thing, you

pull it and you put more asphalt down so it’s on an annual basis and then we have to track that

and report to the DEC on an annual basis that we completed that inspection; did any sort of

maintenance that was needed to maintain the integrity of the cap.

residents brought it up or you brought it up also the noise from these that’s emitted. If you were

the closest house to that property, would you hear this?

Pg. 298 November 18, 2025 Planning Meeting

Based on what you are telling us here, based on what I’ ve heard, | think....

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 a

concern that now with more groundwater that there’s a spike potentially in thata area.

Or less ........ eee

il though. Making sure that that is not impacted.

oversecing this project. We are obviously as part of our project going to revegetate the site just

with grass seed and that’s going to be part of like our SWPPP and everything in compliance with

that as well.

as I can see, my feeling when I came in was questionable but afler comments, Drain made some;

Derek’s made some good comments and going through these letters. Again, that’s why I wanted

(o separate the two you know. The fand from the use of it 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 sketch plan. It’s my dollars going into it.

What the heck am 1 getting out of it? That part ?'m not happy with, but that’s the way the world

turns today, I guess.

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.

So, 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.

Pg. 299 November 18, 2025 Planning Meeting

DEC sign off subject to, if that is required.

sure that are built into the approval though.

and then whoever has...let’s itemize it down. I didn’t take notes of it all. | don’t know, we can

get it off the table later, but...

listed as preliminary site plan approval. We filed as simultaneous prelimary and final. ] am just

wondering the context if both of those are able to be evaluated simultaneously or just as.............

just for preliminary because we have ran 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.

put stipulations in, Those can all be addressed then at the final whatever comments we’ ve got to

to add to this. Okay, that'll be it then. Alright, we’ve got to do a SEQR on this.

going back to understanding the terms of DEC uses as opposed to terms that the public would

use. For this parucular site with the blasted trench that’s in there , you're saying that there is not

an extraction system in there. There is no active remediation system operating for this cover

other than this site other than the cover.

to the PTW under a permit.

Pg. 300 November 18, 2025 Planning Meeting

treating yourself. You’re just drawing it off the ground. (BOTH PARTIES SPEAKING AT THE

SAME TIME)

Derek Anderson:

The Town of Webster Planning Board considered the request by Applicant Montante Solar to

construct a commercial solar energy facility on land owned by the Xerox Corporation located at

750 Phillips Road, Webster, New York on portions of parcels having SBL #s 65.02-1-40.11,

65.03-1-9, 65.19-1-1, et al.

WHEREAS, Montante Solar (the "Applicant") has submitted an application to the Town of

Websier Planning Board (the "Planning Board") for preliminary site plan approval to construct

and operate a commercial solar energy facility known as the Webster Solar Garden Project (the

"Project") on property owned by Xerox Corporation located at 750 Phillips Road in the Town of

Webster, Monroe County, New York; and

WHEREAS a portion of the Project is located on property that is undergoing environmental

remediation under the oversight of the New York State Department of Environmental

Conservation ("NYSDEC") and is subject to an Environmental Easement dated November 16,

2021, recorded in the Monroe County Clerk's Office; and

WHEREAS a portion of the Project site is undergoing environmental remediation and is subject

lo institutional and engineering controls pursuant to a NYSDEC-approved Site Management

Plan; and

WHEREAS, the Applicant has represented, and the Planning Board has confirmed through

review of the submitted site plans, that the Project involves the installation of solar energy arrays

on less than twenty-five (25) acres of physical altcration; and

WHEREAS the Planning Board hereby declares itself lead agency for the purpose of making the

SEQRA determination for this Project; and

WHEREAS the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA") and its

implementing regulations require lead agencies to determine whether a proposed action is subject

to environmental review (see ECL Article 8: 6 NYCRR Part 617); and

Pg. 301 November 18, 2025 Planning Meeting

WHEREAS 6 NYCRR § 617.5(a) provides that actions or classes of actions identified as Type

I] actions are not subject to review under SEQRA because they have been determined not to have

a significant impact on the environment or are otherwise precluded from environmental review;

and

WHEREAS 6 NYCRR § 617.5(c)(14) specifically identifies as a Type II action the “installation

of solar energy arrays where such installation involves 25 acres or less of physical alteration on

the following sites,” including, pursuant to subsection (I), “closed landfills", and subsection (v)

“currently disturbed area at sites zoned for industrial use”; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Board has reviewed the Applicant's submissions, 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 a remediation site subject to NYSDEC oversight with allowable uses including

commercial and industrial activities; and

WHEREAS, based upon its review of the application materials and the applicable SEQRA

regulations, the Planning Board finds that the Project falls within the Type II classification set

forth in 6 NYCRR § 617.5(c)(14)(1) and (v) because: (1) the Project involves the installation of

solar energy arrays; (2) the installation involves twenty-five (25) acres or less of physical

alteration; and (3) the Project is located on a site that is undergoing environmental remediation

under NYSDEC oversight with allowable commercial and industrial uses; and

WHEREAS the Planning Board notes that while the Project is exempt from SEQRA review as a

Type II action, the Applicant remains subject to all other applicable local, state, and federal

requirements, including compliance with the Environmental Easement and Site Management

Plan approved by NYSDEC.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Town of Webster Planning Board hereby

determines that the Webster Solar Garden Project is a Type If action pursuant to 6 NYCRR §

617.5(c)(14)(1) and (¥) and, as such, is not subject to review under the State Environmentat

Quality Review Act.

RESOLUTION 25-0081 Derek Anderson made a motion for TYPE IT

SEQR which was seconded by Dave Malta.

VOTE:

Mr. Casciani AYE

Mr. Malla AYE

Mr. Giardina AYE

Mr. Anderson AYE

Mr. Kosel AYE

Pg. 302 November 18, 2025 Planning Meeting

;

Mrs. Maltman AYE

Mr. Gasic AYE

to help because of the things that you brought up that need to be put into it.

RESOLUTION 25-0082 Anthony Casciani made a motion for

PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN

APROVAL Located at 750 Phillips Road.

Applicant Katie Soscia of Montante Solar

Development 1S requesting

PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN

APPROVAL associated with a 6.63 MW

Solar Generation Facility across 20-acres of

a 120-acre lot owned by Xerox Corporation

having SBL# 065.02-1-40.111 located in the

IN Industrial District under Sections 155-

SD(4) 269-5 and 350-22 of the Code of the

Town of Webster which was seconded by

Dave Malta.

PRELIMINARY APPROVAL CHECKLIST

I.

2.

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

Subject to 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.

Address any land to be conveyed to the Town.

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

of Webster.

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

Preserve all mature trees on site, where possible, and mark said trees by the developer’s

engineer prior to the commencing of any site work.

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

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

storage.

Approvals are subject to Drawing No:__ _ Dated: 9.25.25/0205399

that’s...you say that doesn’t come until afterward. That’s after the final approval.

before that sign off from DEC is given.

Pg. 303 November 18, 2025 Planning Meeting

provided for CND landfill area. Project complies to 2025 fire code; access road gate is 20 foot

wide. I am sorry, are these changes that we need them included in the drawings next time or this

is the conditional approval. Okay, then we will leave it at that.

Limits of disturbance acreage and tree clearing acreage to be shown on the plan. Erosion

sediment practices need to be evaluated in no-soil disturbance area and that’s all I have.

it?

the cover.

10. Project to comply with 2025 Fire Code

IL. Subject to drawing # 0205399 dated September 2025

12. New asphalt cap to be laid at a minimum of 1.5 inches

13. Bedrock trench is protected from ballasted footers

14. Geo-technical settling report is submitted for the CND landfill area

15. Access road gate must be 20-feet wide/reconfigured to allow access

16. DEC approval is required prior to submitting for building permits

17. Limit of disturbance acreage and tree clearing acreage to be shown on the plan

18. Erosion sediment practices need to be evaluated in no-soil disturbance area

19, Deviation from solar racking ballasted system requires updated Geo-technical report

VOTE:

Mr. Casciant AYE

Mr. Malta AYE

Mr. Giardina AYE

Mr. Anderson NAY

Mr. Kosel AYE

Pg. 304 November 18, 2025 Planning Mecting

Mrs. Maltman AYE

Mr. Gasic AYE

209. Applicant Mike Ritchie of Costich Engineering is requesting PRELIMINARY/FINAL PLAN

APPROVAL associated with the construction of a 1,600 SF accessory maintenance garage on

0.40-acre parcel having SBL# 065.02-6-20 located in the LMR Low-Medium Residential District

under Sections 269-10, 269-11] and 350-36 of the Code of the Town of Webster.

Appearing before the board was Mike Ritchie from Costich Engineering. I think the board is

familiar with this project. Private development, The owner would like to put up a maintenance

garage for lawnmowers; snowplows; just so it can be kept in one spot. The reason we are in front

of this board, per town code, any accessory structure over 500 square feet requires Planning Board

approval.

We are proposing a 40 x 40 maintenance garage to be built on lot

209. We tried to look through

and find the largest lot out there. It’s tucked away back from Salt/Schlegal and most the rest of

the development. I did submit a second sketch there showing the overall subdivision. And in red

there is the proposed maintenance garage tucked away in the corner and again, it’s going to be

for lawn maintenance guy, snowplow guy. It’s not going to have a permanent, you know, shop

there with people coming in and out all day. It’s going to have architectural that are going to

match to the building itself. You can see | think it’s a two garage bays there just so snow plows

you know, can come in and out and be tucked and hidden away not parked in the driveway at the

model or something. So, we do have to go to the Zoning Board for this and we’re planning on

going to that net weck. If this board doesn’t have an issue with it, we would hope thata maybe a

conditional approval for this could be granted contingent upon obvisioyly an variances from the

Zoning Board. So, with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions thata you have.

of a driveway as it can be. Again, the driveway is going to be fronting actually on a stub road

between the Meadows 2 Subdivision and this so it’s not necessarily even going to be fronting in

front of anybody’s house. So, the driveway will be off the north there. And again, it’s two bays.

Again, probably snowplow and lawnmower cquipment will be tucked into that building.

Pg. 305 November 18, 2025 Planning Meeting

Fifteen feet from the roadway.

30. Anthony Casciani: Anybody any concerns or question on it.

the architectural of the units.

of have a few different color schemes. So, they will pick one that kind of blends in with the pre-

existing colors.

guy plowing during a snowstorm and he would probably drive his, you know, a personal vehicle

there, park it, take the snow plow oul, do his route, go back. Same thing....

the area. To me it’s kind of an odd, too close to the road kind of building.

seems to be...

your point Derek that you know, residents could be cutting through and quite honesty’, | know,

potentially yes. Anybody coming up Salt may cul through this development in the future to get

to the meadows subdivision but again, | think the traffic associated with this. It’s not going to be

somebody coming and going ali day. It'd be somebody that comes, you know, once or twice a

week to do lawn maintenance. Somebody that comes after we gel, you know, three inches of

snow.

Pg. 306 November 18, 2025 Planning Meeting

They are already there. There are four of them and a man door on the side.

make application for an accessory structure (HARD TO HEAR WHEN BOARD IS

CONVERSING) until the primary structure has been built so 209 has been constructed.

BOARD SPEAKING AMOUGST THEMSELVES. (Board all had different sets of plans)

parcel that the duplex...

addition?

in the future.

subdivided, it’s going to be part of it. So, whoever buys those units...

209. Mike Ritchie: Eventually, yes.

kicks in.

Pg. 307 November 18, 2025 Planning Meeting

grabs?

BOARD HAVING DISCUSSION

variance.

grant preliminary tonight, we can come back after the Zoning Board.

Zoning Board, it’s like it’s a done deal. I mean,

BOTH PARTIES SPEAKING AT THE SAME TIME.

Pg. 308 November 18, 2025 Planning Mceting

Derek Anderson:

The Town of Webster Planning Board considered the request by Applicant, Mike

Ritchie of Costich Engineering to construct a 1,600 SF accessory maintenance garage for Belle

Terra located at Terra Way lot 209 on 0.40-acre parcel having SBL#065.02-6-20.

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

617.5(c)(12) of the State Environmental Review (SEQR) Regulations and therefore is not subject

to further review.

RESOLUTION 25-0081

Derek Anderson made a motion for TYPE I

SEQR which was seconded by Mark Giardina.

VOTE:

Mr. Casciani AYE

Mr. Malta AYE

Mr. Giardina AYE

Mr. Anderson AYE

Mr. Kosel AYE

Mrs. Maltman AYE

Mr. Gasic AYE

RESOLUTION 25-0082

PRELIMINARY APPROVAL CHECKLIST

Subject to PRC Comments.

Dave Malla made a motion for

PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN

APROVAL Located at Terra Verde Way

Lot

209. Applicant Mike Ritchie of Costich

Engineering is requesting

PRELIMINARY PLAN APPROVAL

associated with the construction of a |,600

SF accessory maintenance garage on 0.40-

acre parcel having SBL# 065.02-6-20

located in the LMR Low-Medium

Residential District under Sections 269-10,

269-11 and 350-36 of the Code of the Town

of Webster which was seconded by Mark

Giardina.

Subject to the determination of the ZBA for requested variances.

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

of Webster.

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

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

Pg. 309 November 18, 2025 Planning Mecting

6, Address drainage, lighting, signage, and fandscaping, buffering, berming and snow

storage.

7. Approvals are subject to Drawing No: 6786 Dated:

8. Proceed to Final Approval.

9. Applicant to submit a revised EAF.

10. Subject to Zoning Board Approval

11. Accessory Building to have windows on side walls.

VOTE:

Mr. Casciani AYE

Mr. Malta AYE

Mr. Giardina AYE

Mr. Anderson AYE

Mr. Kosel AYE

Mrs. Maltman AYE

Mr. Gasic AYE

ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM:

® McAlpin Industries —- Change Request

the LeFroy team are here to kind of go over changes to the site that occurred, transpired the last

few weeks. The big one, I think which brough us to the board. There was some additional tree

clearing and there was some confusion internally between our team and our survey team in terms

of what was the plan to clear, and they cleared what in our mind was still under review plan not

an approved plan. So, as you can see, the area in red, was cleared when that was not the

approved plan, but part of what we were discussing internally was adding a landscape berm and

the north portion of the site, to spoil additional top soil on site. So, what we’ ve done with that

and speaking with PRC, we’ ve donc through and updated the plans, everything showing in red

shows the proposed changes. Most of them are minor. [think what should be considered change

order type items for a normal plan, bul since we’ re at this point, we wanted to show you all

changes and we tried to enumerate that ina Jist there that was submitted to the Planning Board.

You know, things like adding extra concrete pads or additional sidewalk, removing some

parking, some light poles, adding an additional hydrant. Again, the LeFroy and McAlpin team

talked internally and there were some revisions to the rear loading dock and instead of it being

notched out, basically that whole west wall is continuous which added square footage and there

some internal discussions about interior space needs and the north wall was bumped up a little bit

further north but still within the overall 300,000 square foot thal was approved at preliminary.

So, again, we are looking for your input, looking for approval to move forward with this. A stop

work order was placed on this project last Friday and all work stopped since then. Again, part of

the things that 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 berm, and we proposed additional landscaping that was not required along the west property

Pg. 310 November 18, 2025 Planning Mecting

line along that emergency access drive, but proposed a lot more landscaping along there. 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.

you know the history of this project, this area and | think if you look back on aerials , you know,

20 years ago. A lot of that area was cleared and maintenance and mowing stopped, and the

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 in that north area. You can

actually go back in there now and you can see a lot of what remains along that area is brush. 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 above and beyond what was J believe 20 acres approved to

be cleared. An additional acre was cleared inadvertently or without prior approval.

this is a piclure from circa 2009. It looks like the trees were cleared sometime prior to 2000 in

the area in question. Sometime big trees have a little gap in their dates on when they actually

went out there and took pictures. So, sometime around 2015 is when, 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.

There’s still between 100 and 150 feet of tree buffer from where it was cleared to where the trees

end along Publishers and there’s no intent to take any more trees out farther than have been taken

out.

Josh or Erika how many calls, they received...

when you drive....it’s a big site with a lot clear that was approved by this board. I would say

95% of what was done was per the approved plan. The additional back along the north end.

mean, God we worked with you guys. | mean, your local people and everything else and | feel

like we got slapped in the face. That’s my opinion.

Pg. 311 November 18, 2025 Planning Meeting

miscatculation on cut and fill of like 10,000 yards. How can you mess up that much?

greatly. Even what the Geotech determines as top soil when they get out there, they can find soil

that would be considered unusable for structural fill and needs to be removed. So, it’s a large site

and it was never our intention to play games.

to be dealt with. Then initially there were conversations between McAlpin and the town about

future use of that property to the north. The initial plan was to truck it all off site. 30,000 yards

was our initial estimate.

berm...we’re going to make everybody happy and build a berm but we’re going to save

$150,000 dollars.

so bad.

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 berm there if that conversation was never out in the open. We

tried to reserve that area to the north to be untouched so that it could be sold, donated in the

future. And when it turned out those conversations weren’t going anywhere, and then yes, when

we did get cost back on what that would be, it was discussed internally, and it was never out

intent to do that without coming back to this board and getting that approval.

I will take the blame that there was miscommunication in my office in terms of which file should

have been used for that, but it was never out intent to do this and try and pull, you know, pull a

fast one on you.

complaining. You know, how do you say, well, they messed up. They did this or they did that.

They don’t want to hear that.

Pg. 312 November 18, 2025 Planning Meeting

done 100% per plan and I think, you know, even driving down 104, it’s a visible site and | think

when people see it and they take note of it. I take blame for the mistake that happened.

it was discussed that an access point, that publishers had to be put back in. If you recall, that was

something that everyone here was against. But after the Fire Marshal viewed it, he said a fire

lane needed to be added and so we put in the 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, | think there’s something we

can do better here and then that is when the discussion started about, hey, what else can we do to

add some trees to the site?

having that discussion with the Planning Board.

changing the site to come back to the Planning Board and say, Hey, we need to change it.

and our goal was to try and capture all of our proposed changes in one submission back to the

town and not piecemeal it. Yes, we did have discussion 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

done and unfortunately the wrong plan was used when the stake out for the clearing was done

bul again, we were trying to come back to the town with everything we did submit and be above

aboard with it and that was our plan probably within the week or two after the clearing had

happened. It was out intention to be in front of this board. If it wasn’t this meeting it would have

been later next month.

mean, we can’t go out and plant 5 foot trees and expect them to grow overnight.

the inttial caliber trees to be a little bit larger. We are proposing, I don’t know the exact number.

] think we....yeah, a large amount of deciduous coniferous trees to be put back. We can’t undo

what happened, but we can certainly try and fix and make it so that it’s at least down the road not

as big of a burden.

What can we do to rectify it.

Pg. 313 November 18, 2025 Planning Meeting

now.

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

trees back in.

there?

team and minimize the amount of excess top soil we’re going lo have. If you look at the grading

plan, we tried to make an undulating attractive landscape berm, not just a big mound...

berm.

12 or 13 feet high. In other areas, it’s about 6 feet high. So again, we tried not to make just a

big mountain but something tn addition with the landscaping and the additional meadow mix

planting, trying to put it back as close as we could to what it was.

rectify that mistake. Yes, we’re upset about the way it happened, bul 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,

northland, you know, wasn’t there, this would have been our proposed plan to begin with.

this site, if not with the town, but with McAlpin Industries for other visions that they had down

the road. How does the placement and of this berm and replanting affect those future plans for

this northern end of the site.

love to do someday is to put a trade school in. It seems like there’s a great opportunity there,

Pg. 314 November 18, 2025 Planning Mecting

especially with the high school there. You know, to build up the manufacturing trade here in

Western New York, that could be a potential location. It could be potentially within the phase

three portion of our project, That is undetermined at this time. All we know right now is that itis

not a piece of the property that is needed right now, and our preference is not to invest any

further in it at this point.

we see red, that’s the existing berm but that was all flat?

point is the clearing of the trees.

SEQR limits, what was under the EAF. So, 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?

! think being the character that it’s not a drastic change from above and beyond what was

approved. | will say that the storm water permit was not submitted for this in general but with |

believe 22 acres of disturbance just to provide the team with additional buffer if anything were to

change. So, from a storm water perspective this change is captured but from a SEQR standpoint,

I don’t believe that additional acre was accounted for on SEQR. | don’t know from a legal

perspective if that requires re-review by this board.

that you’re replanting. | like the replanting. I’m not a fan of berm. I don’t understand why you

can’t pull in your parking lot and your bioretention if you’re reducing your building footprint and

relocated this berm to the south area and then provide the vegetation.

room to be gained by shifting everything south. We've looked at a bunch of different options

and again....

expense accounted by McAfpin to export it. 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 I

think it’s a separate matter like....

Pg. 315 November 18, 2025 Planning Mceting

way. When we were out there looking al the utilities running out to publishers it shows more

clearing along the east property line behind Mirashow that still needs to be done. We stopped

that clearing 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 more tree buffer than, you know, there’s

about 15 feet roughly there that was supposed to be cleared that we have not cleared yet, but we

can maintain that.

sediment basin you have there.

drain north there. The top of the berm will drain back in the pond and everything else will drain

back to the north as it is today.

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.

major change on the drawings. What do you guys want to do, tell me. We'll move on this.

different LOD. The limited disturbance needs to be accounted for. There shouldn’t be further

clearance happening on the vegetation from what has occurred already.

Anthony Casciani; Peggy, do you want to make a motion?

Pg. 316 November 18, 2025 Planning Meeting

RESOLUTION 25-0082 Derek Anderson made a motion — for

APPROVAL OF CHANGE REQUEST

Located at Terra Verde Way Lot

209. Applicant Mike Ritchie of Costich

Engineering is requesting APPROVAL

OF CHANGE REQUEST associated with

the construction of a 1,600 SF accessory

maintenance garage on 0.40-acre parcel

having SBL# 065.02-6-20 located in the

LMR Low-Medium Residential District

under Sections 269-10, 269-11 and 350-36

of the Code of the Town of Webster which

was seconded by Mark Giardina.

modification you had in here.

letter of intent.

a side walk from the north face of the building out; added a bump out turnaround in the

future load dock area. On the west side, the loading dock was recessed into the building.

Now, the whole west face will be uniform, And then a little bit of office space on the north

side, So that the north wall was bumped up slightly and then again, re-evaluated with

McAlpin. There were more parking spaces than needed. So, pulled back a few. There were

light poles that on phase one that 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, and we added an extra hydrant. It was never captured during the

previous review process along the back of the building. So, an extra, | believe, 500

water main and extra hydrant along the west side of the building will be put in to provide

additional fire suppression and again, in the plan that we submitted we’ ve shown all changes

again, most of these changes are minor and would have been probably handled through town

staffias a change order. We wanted to get everything in front of you, and you know, certainly

not our intent (o make any changes going forward but if anything comes up during

construction we'll certainly notify.

Pg. 317 November 18, 2025 Planning Meeting

Letter dated November 6, 2025.

VOTE:

Mr. Casciant AYE

Mr. Malta AYE

Mr. Giardina AYE

Mr. Anderson AYE

Mr. Kosel AYE

Mrs. Maltman AYE

Mr. Gasic NAY

e Approval of September 2™ meeting minutes. (GIARDINA/KOSEL)

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

meeting at 10:00 PM.

Respectfully Submitted,

som Ht. Purr ~ ruct 6/2

Mark Giardina, Secretary

Katherine Kolich, Recording Secretary

JAN 8°26 a411:50

FILED WEBSTER THN CLK

C1 Breed tMlgnr

Pg. 318 November 18, 2025 Planning Meeting