Video recording

>> Okay. Um well, we might as well we can start. I mean, I don't want to wait. Don't hear. Why don't you go ahead Mark? You want to start with the number one first? >> Table matter. Pardon me. Daint Links located at 95 mile line road. The applicant Joe Catalani is requesting preliminary site plan and subdivision approval along with a public hearing associated with the construction of a 41,000 ft² indooroutdoor recreational facility on a proposed 10.4 acre lot consisting of SPL 07910 2.3 9.3 acres 9.38 acres excuse me and a 1.0 zero acre portion located in a highintensity commercial district under sections 26910, and 350-9 of the code of the town of Webster.

>> Okay, thanks Mark. >> Okay, the next question is anybody here for that? Hi, Joe Catalani here for representing Dinson Links and as you heard we're hoping to put a family recreation center next to Lowe's. Um, this was uh land that I think in the early 2000s was set aside for this kind of thing. Um, Lowe's is on one end, BJ's is on the other kind of bookends. We're in the middle of it. Um, we're um not asking for any variances. Um we uh have enough parking. Um in fact, we are um planning on leaving the top quarter, the north end um untouched and uh that'll stay green if we can. Uh we have enough room down below to uh facilitate our parking needs.

Um and uh that's really about it. >> Okay. Did Did you get a list uh Mr. Carolani of the uh PRC comments? Yes, I got the PRC comments and the county. They have been responded to. You should have it in your I got it late Friday. Everybody was off. The engineers did respond to it today. >> So Josh and Erica should have a copy and Keith um of that. Uh and the traffic study came in earlier today. The comments regarding the traffic study as well. So everything's been responded to. >> Okay. My understanding, if I'm correct, right now there's issues to deal with the DEC. >> That is correct. still open on this.

I know we we did get some letters, you know, now they're opposed to a save the woods and >> that that that you know a little history on that that land >> was Brian Hegodor's grandfather >> farmed that land. So that is not an old growth forest folks over there. That's brushed trees growing. >> Number one. Number two, that whole parcel from Hard Road over to over to Five Mile Line Road does have an approval for this >> uh type of building going in there. It's been approved for construction already. What comes in, we don't know. In this case, we have we have this pickle ball court coming in and we're dealing with that currently.

uh regard to some of the letters complaining about it and things that I see on on the internet makes sense to me some of the questions and answers that people come up with. I don't know where they get their information, but they're 99 and a half% wrong. Um that said, >> this still has some issues to deal with the DEC. What has changed over the past few years? I don't know. But I do know for a fact this parcel was surveyed and found to have no wetlands on a few years back. Now this was 23. >> I don't know if there's new rules there. >> I don't know if there's new rules or regulations that have to be followed but we have to wait until this stuff is resolved with the DEC.

>> True. >> Okay. Um again this is a public hearing so we will open it up. We will end up more than likely tableabling this. There won't be a vote on this, but if there is anybody here that wishes to speak. If you do, we ask you to come up to the podium. Not seeing. Okay, go ahead. Uh Dorothy Fate, 742 High Tower Way. Um, I believe that this was uh recently delineated as having wetlands. The EC's new maps show it as having wetlands. >> And you could be right. I don't know that. That's why that's why we're >> so um and I just want to point out that you know wetlands control floods pro provide habitats for wildlife they mitigate climate change by um absorbing the carbon >> from uh and I think that uh it reduces heat islands and I think we need to look at this carefully as it's surrounded by two shopping plazas and a senior center >> that um are producing um urban heat and runoff and the wetlands purify that water.

Um, so it's important that uh that it not be disturbed so that they can continue to we're a we're a wet town and we have an obligation to um to Lake Ontario um the Lake Ontario watershed. So, it's important to um that the project sounds like a nice project, but this might not be as it's described currently and its location and where the wetlands are on these properties. Um that >> we don't know where the wetlands are. See, we don't know how big it is. So, that's what we have to find out. We do know the maps show you where the the um >> the New York State maps clearly show you where the wetlands are.

>> We will have to see that from the DEEC. I've not seen that. >> I have and it's on the it's on the computer. You can do it. >> They're they're referenced as areas of potential wetlands. >> Further investigation is needed to confirm. >> It is. So that's not necessarily wetland. That's a potential wetland. See the map you're looking at is something the DEEC came out with about a year ago. I think it's about a year ago, isn't it, Derek? >> January program. >> January. >> January, not even a year ago, where they threw darts at the wall and said, "This could be wetlands." And they did this all over.

It has infuriated a lot of the builders and construction people and so on in all, not just here, >> because it isn't a firm positive wetland. But I drive it frequently. It does not hold water right now. >> It's wet a lot. >> I'm sorry. >> I I drive that frequently and it is it is wet a lot. So yeah. Okay. So it needs more identification. I mean >> I want to get into an argument with having water on the site doesn't designate it as a wetland. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> I'm aware. Anything else? So, we also need to um realize that our comprehensive plan is coming up for um uh to be looked at and we may be changing uh building codes um coverages um things like that that may definitely impact I mean right now uh Lowe's doesn't use that full parking lot um that they were required to build.

So, you know, I think that we need to take some time as a town to look at um the fact that we may be changing some of that. >> Mhm. >> Um so, I'm saying that it needs some modifications. Um it needs further investigation and um >> okay, nothing. >> It's a great business, but >> maybe not this location. >> That's what we'll be doing. Okay. Thank you. >> Anyone else wish to speak? >> I would just question. >> Yes. Oh, you have to you have to go up to the [Music] >> Jane Bashon. My property is probably the closest. >> Want to guess your name and address first? I'm sorry. >> Bashaw. >> Your address?

>> 1492 Grand Meadows. >> Okay. >> What are they talking about? This >> we're discussing Dinks and Links, the property between We're discussing Dinks and Links project, the property in the Lowe's Plaza area. >> Oh. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Tell me when you get to the >> Welcome back again. It's nice talking. [Laughter] >> Okay. Someone Yeah. Go ahead. Good. Hello. Um, Diana Davis, 942 Gaywood Lane. Hi. Um, so I'm going to start by saying I like your acknowledgement. Um, and I like Webster's willingness to um, ensure that the issues with the wetlands, which are indeterminate as of now, um, and the DEC and the whole permitting process and everything that's, um, pertinent to that with respect to the new regulations is dealt with before any permissions are issued.

I think that's great. Um, so I'm not going to bang on about that. Um, I will say a couple of things to reiterate kind of where Doy was coming from with the upcoming comprehensive plan point and there being certain aspects of our code which are out of date and in needing of refurbishment. I do think that any current development that should be taken into account. things like parking lot size and lot coverage. Those things hopefully in the not too distant future will be being updated and that will really affect any future development that's going through. So I think those factors um need to be considered with current developments.

I think that kind of a thing is going to be different in the future and we shouldn't necessarily be rushing anything through if we know that imminent uh is going to be change which you know ostensibly materially affects the nature of the development. And having said that I appreciate that there was a PDD done by Kostich in O2. I appreciate that these woods are not old growth and that the intention for this area was always of a particular uh direction, viewpoint, remmit, what have you. But I would say that given we do have the comprehensive plan update coming up, it should at least be allowed that that intention may be re-evaluated, modified, rearticulated, particularly because Webster in 2002 was a lot different than Webster in 2025.

Um, personally, I think a pickle ball court, I've seen the plans, I think, you know, the development itself is a great idea. Um, I just do think that, and it seems like you guys are in line with this, that the issues with the wetland and the DEC permitting and all of that does need to be sorted because it's going to affect really it's setting a precedent for any development in Webster on or adjacent to wetland in the future. Right. So, it's important to like get that part right. >> Okay. Yeah. Just one thing though is >> you'd have to do >> I hear what you're saying with the comprehensive plan coming up and modification stuff.

>> Yeah. >> In the meantime, you can't tell someone they can't do something if they conform to what the code is today, you know, >> and I totally understand that. >> Put a moratorum on building, >> right? All you can do I suppose is just take that into account in your kind of subjective um analysis the feedback that you give to the developer any goodwill that they are willing to sort of you know issue forth with those factors taken into account. Um I realize it's a gray area and you know I'm not really sort of articulating any any specific directive for you based on that but all I'm saying is those are considerations.

So, >> I can only assure you nothing will happen until everything is resolved the way it's got supposed to be. >> Yeah. >> Appreciate it. Thank you. >> Okay. >> Um, can you can you folks hear in the back there these microphones? You can't hear >> louder. Gez, I got the thing. I'm going to choke on it if we get any closer here. Um, I don't know if they can be turned up or anything. Can they? >> They can. >> I should have asked earlier on. I'm sorry. Is that any better? >> Nothing. Can you really? >> How about now? >> Can you hear? Okay. Back there. You guys can hear. All right. Oh, okay. >> I'm sorry.

Can What's that? >> You can. Okay. All right. All I can ask the board just don't choke on it, but get that thing close to your mouth, I guess. >> Not an expert on microphones. Yes, sir. We're on Nesbbit uh 1075 railway crossing. I would just like to recommend to the board that this area along the 104 in the 2008 comprehensive plan was made high intensity zone >> for these type of operations. This is even a low intensity. So the project outside of the question on the wetlands shouldn't have any problem being passed whatsoever. Uh there are people that do not want us to take any more trees down in the town of Webster, but I asked them to go back and look at a map from 1950 >> where we have more trees today than we had in 1950.

And the reason for that is this was farmland and the farmland was turned into houses where you all live now. So we also have 2,915 acres of open space right now in the town of Webster and a lot of you people do not know where they are. So, I'm just saying to the board that this project is a permitted use in this zone outside of the questions that are being brought up about the wetlands and it should be passed. Thank you. >> Thank you, Ryan. Yeah, I I agree with what you're saying. The the only thing is is there an area there that was wetlands prior to I don't know. That's why I'm just I'd rather table it, make sure we cover all the bases with that.

I wouldn't want to move forward with a motion for an approval on it and then have it come back and bite us. That's all. Yes, sir. >> Uh Chris Bowen, 839 Lake Road. Um just thank you, Mr. Chairman, and board for the opportunity to speak. Uh I'm in support of the project. I think this would be a great facility for the community. Uh continues to build out the community relations and allowing people to come together and work together. I'm sure the DEC and the CIRCs and everything that you're going to have to do to make sure it checks all the box are going to come through. So, >> okay. Thank you. >> Okay.

There at the last PRC meeting. I don't want to dwell on this. >> There's a guy back there. >> Oh, yes, sir. Go ahead. Come on up. >> Good evening. I am Larry Hinger. the engineer of record and um last week when I got the Monroe County comments specifically about the PUBHX wetland, >> I sent an email to both Joe Catalani and Joe Aretta and I'm going to share that with you folks starting at the loft. You can pass it down. There's a picture of me standing in this wetland that's supposed to be permanently flooded open water in April. >> I wouldn't have been standing in it if it was open and permanently flooded.

>> Well, when that project was originally approved way back when um the water system was already put in all the drainage there's if you've ever gone back and looked at the backside right there, there's ponds back there. There's ponds by five mile line road. I think there's what is there three or four different ponds on that site. They were developed to take the water excess runoff water from the parking lots for what's there and for future development. So, as far as the drainage that was covered, I'm sorry, sir. >> No, that's fine. I apologize for being late. It's been a long time since I've been to Webster.

And if I'm not mistaken, Chairman uh Cassani, were you on the board with Angelo Orolio? >> I've been here since 76. Yeah. Okay. I recognize you. So, I'm an old-timer and I went to the wrong building, but um All right. So, this wetland, they called it a PUBHX. And on the front sheet, it says this pedestrian non-title wetlands. Okay, we would agree with that. >> It's got an unconsolidated bottom because it was dug. Permanently flooded? No. Excavated? Yes. So, it's not permanently flooded. It's not open water. What's my point? I have a project down in Vuly out right outside of Fulton where the Army Corps they when January 1 came about they changed their wetland maps that created a great deal of confusion.

They show potential wetlands 14 feet higher than the stream with a slope of 7%. Yeah, >> I have requested and Asiggo County will not review this one single family building until the DEEC gives it the all clear. There's no way there's a wetland 14 ft higher than the stream with a 7% slope. But what's happened now is the Army Corps draws some lines and they basically send it to DEC and then the DEEC central office Albany throws it to the region. I have another one in Farmington where yes, we know there is a wetland on the south of the Mohawk property. We're up on the north right by the Farmington town hall except it's the same tax account.

So, central office Albany flagged it. Yes, you have a wetland on the property. I've had to go to region 8 and ask. And after a year of fooling around, we had to withdraw our application in Farmington because of the slow response because they're overloaded in Avon with this stuff. But my point is, just because somebody waves a magic wand and calls it a wetland, those are swailes that were cut as part of the hostage plant, they are very flat. If you have a swale that's less than 1.5% slope, it's going to grow fragmites. It just fact of life. You really need 1.5 2% slope and or you got to be on top of it all the time, always maintaining it.

So >> there was a wetland delineation done by Marathon Engineering with um group out of Victor. And the other thing is that they classified the roadside ditch of the service road as a potential wetland. Well, if they classify every roadside ditch um as a potential wetland, we're in trouble. You're in trouble. if you've got roadside ditches in in the town. But the other thing is that they can't deny you access to your property. You you need a permit, but they can't deny you access >> to the property. And we're of the two fields to the north, one would make a really great little guy soccer, the furthest one north.

Of the two, we're only putting a parking pad on the southern one, not on the northern one. And you can see them up on the m further up on the map. Mhm. >> The other thing I'll just say about parking, the parking for this site is 1.75. Every 1.75 square ft, 175, you need one parking space. Lowe's is two. I would agree that Lowe's is potentially overparked. I did the design for the Lords and Taylor expansion at East View Mall. And the argument that Wilmont made at the time to the town of Victor was that taking their parking code and it was going to create way more parking than you needed. >> And if someone can't find a space two days before Christmas, that's just too bad.

But most of the time, people are always going to be able to find a space. The other thing is that some of the western towns, one being Ogden and actually down in Rush, they're still going with 10 by 20 parking spaces, which increases your asphalt footprint by 10%. So, on the one hand, we're trying to reduce storm water runoff. We still have towns with codes that are probably 30 years old. That's kind of my soap box right now. Are there any questions? No, that's that's good. Um that that's that was the point earlier as far as you know they post these this is wetland that's wet land that's information that isn't finalized yet but people see this stuff and they say that's a wetland there you can't do anything it's potentially we don't know nobody knows yet so anyways back to that um >> the other thing is >> we did we did get a we did get a bunch of PRC comments there are several PRC comments and >> haven't seen them >> but we can show ghosted parking I mean, we can show that if you really needed it, you could expand your parking.

>> Done that plenty of times. I'm sure you've seen that. >> Yep. Now, we we got that all. Okay. >> All right. >> There's there's there's discussion about Well, I don't want to go into it all, but driving around the road. So, to get to this pickle ball thing, you don't necessarily have to go buy Lowe's. The roadway is already in around the perimeter. >> Well, but that is that's private property. That's Lowe's parking lot and Wegman's there big fight about Wegman's, you know, people wanted Wegman's Pittsburgh to put the bus stop up on Wegman's parking lot closer to the store and they said, "No, it's private property.

>> That bus stop is on Monroe Avenue." >> And so if you're telling people or telling Lowe's that they've got to allow people to drive around on their private property, you're creating a liability in my opinion. M I I don't know what the whole story is on it yet. And that's that's why >> again that goes back to why we're tableabling this. There's comments and concerns that need to get addressed on here. >> Yeah. I'm I'm just saying if Wakeman says we have a concern we're not putting bus stops on our private property, >> I would think that Lowe's Corp would have a similar >> reaction. >> Okay. Thank you.

>> All right. >> Anybody any other questions or anything? >> I do. >> Go ahead. I guess I'm just looking for clarification here. Um, seems like the wetlands are contentious here. When was the most recent wetland delineation completed? >> So, the wetland delineation was done in 23 late in 23. The DEC has that along with the SWIP. We have applied for a permit for freshwater permit on the site and we're actively before them for review. That delineation showed no wetland other than a very tiny portion of the um most eastern portion of our parking lot up towards the front and the drainage ditch which even a gentleman from um the DEC said is is not classified correctly.

Mhm. >> Um but in any event, we've taken that top of that parking lot, a quarter of the site, which under the PDD was to be fully developed. >> Mhm. >> And we decided we didn't need that. You know, we we fulfilled the town's parking without having to pave that. >> And so we left that green. And the thought is if the DEC wants us to replace more wetland there, we'd be happy to do it. We've got a we've got a couple acres to do it with. Um, but we are before them for a permit and um, that's where we stand now. I don't know if there's ways to further on, you know, getting approvals with subject to a DEC permit or not or or how the process goes.

>> Yeah, you that's not really a a good way to do that, Mr. However you >> So, as part of the PDD, the entire facility area, the project area was delineated, >> both north and south portion, >> north and south, east and west. did all of the properties >> and that report was submitted to the town as well. >> Town has it. Yeah. >> Okay. >> So the the base map that is reflected in the application drawings is incorrect which is showing all the wetlands. >> The base map >> so the survey map that >> the survey map that shows that wetland that comes into that parking lot just a little bit. >> Well, it's showing a wetland on the north so to the south.

>> So that's right. So that that northern wetland is a small dug ditch that is part of this swip. When they originally did this PDD, right, they said we're we're going to build all of this retail, right? And where my site is, it was approved for 48,000 square feet of retail. So already we're >> we're building 20% less. But in any event, when they did that that comprehensive plan, the the um development district, it went from Lowe's to PJs, right before PJs. And so what they say is they look at that and they say, "All right, listen. If these buildings get built and they put the buildings on even though they weren't constructed yet, they put the Lowe's on.

They put the 48,000 foot where I am. They put another 48,000 square foot next to me. They put all these restaurants out in the parking lots which aren't going to be developed probably." But they said, "If this were to occur now, we need to put a storm water prevention plan in for all of this wershed." >> And so that top piece of wetland around was a dug basin and there's inverts in there. >> All this water eventually goes to 9M um creek or um ship builders creek and all exits there. So when they did this development, they dug that pond out. They dug a pond out up on the north uh northwest side in the very corner.

You'll see a pond there. They dug two ponds right at the entrance to Lowe's. They dug a pond behind us. >> Um and they dug a pond on the western side. All those were there to mitigate rainfall in the swift. Now it's 20 years later. >> Mhm. >> And so now what's happened is over the years some of those regulations have gotten a little bit more stringent. So now we have to live with the original SWIP and all the benefits all those ponds and that one pond becomes a wetland now. >> Correct. >> Okay. We have to we have we can live with that the benefits of it but the additional incremental changes um that that are now today's standard we have to meet >> and we should be able to meet them very easily.

We're we're 20% less watershed just on our building alone. >> But we have the SWIP before the DEEC. the DEEC is the one that you know okays the design and the town is the enforcement end of it to make sure that it's done right. >> So in 23 >> the delineation was done. >> Was it determined to be a federal or a state wetland? >> State >> state wetland. So DC >> say and now they're all kind of the same. I think the federal's given their jurisdiction over to the state. >> Okay. So I saw that for example as part of the RPZ that's being proposed you're grading into the wetland and you're filling it on a north side.

>> Well there's there's a there's a comment there as to how we're going to get around that. Yeah. >> So that's a very small a small portion that'll be something that'll be handled with >> with the uh with the DEC. >> Okay. So you are proposing to have some wetland impacts currently that are delineated as state wetlands and you're coordinating with the DAC for that. >> Yes. >> Impact. >> Yeah. >> That'll all be through a freshwater um permit >> is the south so south of Lowe's southeast is it's referred to as a pond in some of the drawings but it's indicated in the plans as wetland also. Is that a pond or is that delineated wetland on the It's a 4ft tube underneath Lowe's parking lot.

>> It's a It's a storage facility itself on the You're talking about the very south end of Lowe's >> where where it shows. >> So it's it's on a proposed property south of the concrete pad. So going east that whole area there where >> Oh that's a pond. There's an actual retention pond there. >> There's an actual pond there. Okay. >> Which is empty of course. There's it's totally dry but it's there. That was built when they did the overall development. That was one of those ponds that was dug. >> Okay. I think most of my questions that I have here remaining would be engineering related. So maybe I'll send those to our engineering department specifically.

Some additional details I would like to see on the plan set. >> Anything from dumpster enclosures. What are you proposing for that? >> All the proposed external like the volleyball court details, pickup ball details, botchi ball details. You're proposing a mini golf, but there's no grading indicated for that area. Uh, so you know what's going on with >> Yeah, I think we had talked before in concept. You were you had um concerns about handicap parking. We put some of that >> um raised pedestrian crosswalk with an actual detail indicating what kind of crosswalk will be proposed there. >> I did have a question.

This might be more engineering related. Infilt you're showing infiltration basins as one of the storm water practice. Were infiltration perk tests performed in those areas? >> Yeah. Yes, they were. And they're in the updated SW. >> Okay. All right. >> And it's all the soil which is a class A soil. >> Mhm. Um I saw the detail is calling it out as a one and a half foot wide, but the drawings are indicating it anywhere from 4 and 1/2 ft to 15t wide infiltration. We'll fix it. >> Okay. All right. Um, couple of erosion sediment details are missing. Check dam, silt fence, inlet protection, those kinds of thing.

Construction entrance. Um, I also saw there's a storm water pipe that's over 300 ft long. I was wondering if there should be a manhole there. It's one that's in the parking lot going east west. And then I didn't see any RPZ details or anything with regards to um those connections. Let me let me address the uh RPZ meter. Um the water man is at the north end in a 15 foot easement adjacent to the DOT rightway. >> That's where water is on the property. There's no other water. If you drive around the perimeter of Lowe's, you will see their RPZ meter. It's the same detail. They have a pipe to carry the swale.

They've got to go up and over, maintain frost protection. We're gonna have to do the same thing. And I located it. I asked Joe, I said, "Where's your mechanical room?" And he told me, "It's to the east side of the main door." >> So, I drew a straight line north and we'll have to get a permit to cross that swale. >> Yeah. I was also just look, how are you looking? >> And we're just over 500 ft. So, we can't put the meter in the building. >> Yeah. Are you accessing the RPZ from 104 uh there or how are you accessing the RPZ for maintenance? >> It'll be in a hot box. >> How are you accessing it? >> It's going to be a land bridge.

>> You're you're going to have to you're going to >> I see >> you're going to have to drive in a little gator or something like that up to where it is. Okay. When uh when did they get these here? The date item is August 29th, Josh. The PRC comments, >> I believe. So, yes. >> Yes, that's correct. >> That's when they got them, right? So, these are ones still to be addressed. In other words, >> yes. >> I mean, we haven't got anything back that quick on it, I'm sure. >> We received back today um comments regarding traffic study. Uh there was still additional comment responses that engineering is looking for.

Yes. >> So that you just got that today, >> correct? >> All right. Okay. All right. So look, let's let's do this. >> Let me let me address one thing. The wetlands that were delineiated in late hired I'm going to say Debbolt, but they make lots a firm out of Victor to do the wetland delineation for the whole thing. Mhm. >> The client was Hegodorn Properties, Inc. Hegedorn did this because they wanted to sell land and they wanted to be um full disclosure as to what they were selling. Does that make that make sense? >> So, they Marathon hired a sub who's a wetland expert. They did it. the client was Hegedorn Properties and that's that's where our wetland delineation came from.

>> Okay. But alls we got to do now is >> get something from the DEC verifying what you're saying. Address the comments on here which you've got a month I guess now to probably get this and hopefully we move forward with the project. >> I I understand I've been doing this I'm 70 years old. I've been doing this for 47 kids and stuff. >> Yeah. My my wife my wife retired from strong a year ago. She's pushing me to retire, but I got a couple projects that got to get wrapped up. >> Okay. >> I've been told no more. >> We're going to let you go now and go ahead and get them finished. >> All right. You said no more new projects.

No more new projects. >> Okay. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. [Applause] >> And those those engineering comments are you have them? They were done this afternoon and I emailed them to you about an hour ago for the PRC engineering comments that you had. Yeah, once you get once you get those addressed, >> get your paper all your stuff back from >> from DC, we should be able to move. Um, again, this is it's a public hearing this meeting. >> Um, in the case of this, there is interest from people. We'll leave we won't close the public hearing. We'll leave it open. Is that okay with you guys? >> Yeah.

>> We'll leave it open. >> So, it's not closed. So, the next meeting if something new comes up, you want to address something, you'll be able to do this. Okay. Fair enough. One thing, Tony, just real quick, if I recall the traffic study that we had discussed on this project, you had mentioned wanting a traffic study to be done because of the impact that the traffic has from Lowe's to BJ intersection. >> The report as I saw it basically calculated on what an anticipated flow would be and said, "Hey, we don't have to do a traffic study based on these requirements." So I guess is the ask of the applicant that irregardless of what this calc calculation of what the anticipated number is where they fall under that it wouldn't need to do a traffic study.

Are they not required to do a traffic study anymore or is the board still saying irregardless of that we want you to do a traffic study? >> Well to what what limit would we have what I guess what limit do we want to go with a traffic study on this Josh? I mean I mean we could carry this thing all the way over to hard road if you know if you wanted to >> make an issue of it. You know >> the area the area around um BJ's the gas station there that needs to be modified without a question. >> That that that needs to be widened so that what is there currently is part of BJ's gas station. You know what I mean?

where they could people can go in and it needs to have a clear shot out which could be a little bit moved to the north. They can put a stretch of road in there, you know, some ashalt there and they'd have it. But that's something I don't know. Do we need to have that as a part of the study? I don't know. >> Well, I having that information would be useful. I don't know if it's fair to require this applicant to bear the burden of doing that. But in terms of potential reconfigurations that are off their property, >> we did ask the town engineer what he wanted or the town engineer Keith what he wanted as a traffic study.

He supplied to us what type of study he wanted and we supplied that. >> All right. And we did we did receive um an updated response to some of the traffic related comments from our engineering department. And in speaking with Keith uh earlier today, he still has some concerns and some additional information that he's going to require. >> Okay. Then Keith, in my opinion, should get that stuff to them like yesterday to get this stuff. >> We just got it a few hours ago, but I'll make sure that Keith responds tomorrow. See this I I I Okay, I don't want to get into it, but >> Well, that way you know at the next that way you'll know at the next public hearing next month, you'll know what to do.

But if Keith just got it to you, you'll have them on for you. >> See, I thought he had his comments from the PRC meeting last Thursday. >> Yes. And then >> he's got more >> that generated a response from the applicant that didn't address all of our comments. So there are certain things that did not get addressed originally and that's what I'm referring to. Okay. Yes. >> Okay. >> I think we have a >> person Charlotte Kabili 651 Cumberland Way. My two questions is if this is tabled uh for consideration. One is to understand the users of this new facility. If it's young, can we consider as a part of a traffic study, which is pending, um, bicycling, and I see kids that are crossing over 104 with their helmets on a bike.

Could we think about lessening traffic, increasing bike flow, and then lessening um, you know, just the need for parking spaces, making this really more inclusive of ages across the community. And the second question is can we consider the conservation board's recommendations site walkth through again um you know coming into this next meeting will there be a conservation board representative as a part of the next discussion um I would love to see that so that that is weighted as well as the DEEC determination those >> we could do that >> that'd be great thank you >> okay make a note of We have somebody.

>> All right. Um, anybody any other questions? I think at this point we probably should table this thing, get the required information that's requested and uh plan on coming in next month with it and hopefully move forward. >> Okay. >> Does that work? Good. So, you want want to make a motion, John? Table? Yeah, I'll make a motion to table the u what is there the >> dinks and links. >> Dixs and links. Uh what is our next meeting? What's today? The uh >> October 7th. >> Two October 7th. Okay, I have a motion to second. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I Okay, we're good. >> No. >> All right, we're all set with that one for tonight.

>> All right, what's the next one we got on? You want to do the next one, Mark? >> Weapons. >> Yeah. Next on the agenda, Webster Solar Garden LLC located at 750 Phillips Road. The applicant, Katie Socia of Montenei Solar, is requesting sketch plan review associated with a 6.63MW 63MW I think that's solar spelled wrong generation facility across 20 acres of a 120 acre lot owned by the Xerox Corporation located in an IN district industrial district under sections 269-5 and 350-22 of the code of the town of Webster. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Hi. Uh members of the um town planning board and members of the town of Webster, thank you guys for having me here today.

My name is Katie Sa. I'm the director of project development representing Monte Solar. My colleague Marcus Lathrop represents Xerox Corporation and together we the applicant are proposing 6.63 megawws uh of a solar project to be constructed on the Xerox campus in the town of Webster. I'd like to start by introducing the project basics. Um this is a 6.6 63 megawatt facility across 20 acres near the dead end of Caracus Drive. The project is wholly located in the town of Webster um more than a thousand feet away from the village of Webster line. The project will direct uh directly benefit Xerox Corporation um and the larger community as it's participating in NAERTA's inclusive community solar project.

Xerox Corporation will be hosting the solar project at its campus and utilizing 60% of the energy generated by the project and 40% of the energy will be eligible um will go to eligible sub subscribers through that community solar program. The parcel is zoned uh industrial RG& has already reviewed and approved the project. Um and the project we believe is currently designed is in compliance with the town of Webster zoning code and are asking for no variances. Um the project background um Monte Solar is a full-ervice developer and installer of large-scale and industrial commercial solar systems established in 2009 by two brothers located in Buffalo, New York.

Monte Solar is still a family-owned business. Um and the the projects we have completed uh range from 100 kilowatt rooftop commercial projects to over 13 megawws on a landfill constructed in Niagara Falls, New York. Montante has received a NAERTA's quality installer designation is NABSEP certified and is one of the only installers in New York State to have a department of labor approved apprenticeship program. Haley and Aldrich uh is our professional services cons is a professional services consulting firm and it was founded in uh 1957 providing geotechnical environmental and management consulting services across the United States.

Haley and Aldridge has been consulting uh at the Xerox Webster campus since the early 1990s and Haley and uh Haley and Aldrich and Monte have worked collaboratively on past product projects. It was Haley and Aldrich that introduced Xerox to Montante in 2022. And I'm just going to pass the mic real quick um to my colleague Marcus just to um speak a little bit about why Xerox is interested in doing this project. And then I'd like to dive in and give you um all of the information that I can about this project to date. >> Hi. So Marcus Leup, I'm the manager for envir environmental operations at Xerox Corporation.

Um so it was kind of my doing that brought uh Katie and Mante in. Um so as you know um Xerox is evolving uh beyond our legacy in print technology um to become broader provider of software and services. Um but you know with that change we still remain deeply committed to our legacy of corporate social responsibility. Um as part of our commitment um we recognize the importance of addressing climate change. Um and so we have a roadmap to net zero. I don't know if you've seen it on our website, um, but it's how we're going to get to net zero by 2040. Um, there are three pillars there. Um, energy efficiency and process improvements, uh, circular economy and lowcarbon design of our products.

And then the third pillar, which this project falls under is carbon compensation and neutralization. Um so the the benefits that we see in the solar project um first zerocarbon electric electricity generation that um this will produce clean renewable energy. Um optimal land use. The location on our campus where this is being placed um includes a solid waste landfill. So it makes this project kind of one of the more beneficial uses for this part of our property. Um it's a community solar project. So this initiative allows the community to subscribe and benefit from the project as well. Um having access getting access to renewable energy as well as uh support for our state initiatives and the the New York State climate leadership and community protection act.

So kind of my closing um you know invite the community to join us uh in this endeavor to create a sustainable future. So thank you. >> Thanks Marcus. Um if we go on to the next slide, um I have some background on the environmental due diligence that was completed for this project. Um so there are the project had a full wetland delineation completed. Um and we have heard back from both the Army Corps of Engineers um and uh DEEC. Um no jurisdictional wetlands um on site for either. Um Shipo, no finding, no effect. Um that's the state historic preservation office. Um and then DEC was also notified separately a different department um because uh this is on a landfill and so um an NOI was already submitted.

The uh 90-day period has passed with no comment. Um if we go to the next slide, um just want to talk about the project sighting a little bit. Um, so the project has been strategically cited on an area of the Xerox campus where there are two closed landfills and 13 monitoring wells with ongoing monitoring and reporting requirements by the DEEC, leaving the area with limited redevelopment opportunities. Xerox has deemed that this is the highest and best use for this area. It's an industrial zone parcel located at the dead end of Caracus Drive uh at the northern part of the Xerox campus. And the project's closest uh edge of panel is uh more than 250 ft away um from I'm sorry, more than 200 feet away from the closest HOA property line and uh 740t away from the closest residential lot line.

Um and then the closest actual doicile is about 800 feet away. Um the actual proposed site plan includes uh just under 11,000 solar panels a top of racking and 18 inverters. The project will be connected directly into RG&'s distribution lines along Caracus Drive. And as I mentioned, RG& has already reviewed and approved the project. The project has been strategically designed so that all environmental monitoring obligations with DEEC can remain intact. Uh the project has been designed in compliance with national electric code in all state and local laws. Um and the entire project will be surrounded by an 8ft tall fence.

Um and on the next slide I have some pictures of an actual project which I think is kind of like helpful to see what these projects actually looked like. So this is a a similar project that was also constructed on a closed landfill. This is actually the project in Niagara Falls that I was referencing. And so this project is um 100% fully ballasted. So no ground penetrations were made. Um and the DEEC um you know we worked with them to review and approve this project. Um if we go to the next slide um this is some of the major equipment that will be used. Um panels. Uh panels are pretty big. They're over 10 feet tall.

Um and then inverters just like what an actual inverter looks like, how big they are. That's kind of one of our um uh site superintendent opening up a box and and looking inside. If we go to the next slide, this is the racking system that we're going to be using. Um it's a geob ballasted system. So, it's a weighted system and it has rock um in inside um gabian baskets and it's weighted down. Um, this is really nice, um, because no ground penetrations are made. Um, and also these can be, uh, rock can just be brought in and and dumped on site and it's really easy to decommission and take away as well.

And I'll get into the decommissioning of the project in a moment. So, neighboring sight lines. Um, so wanted to talk about really the major neighbors of the project are kind of to the northeast and northwest. Um to the direct east, um Xerox owns all that land all the way to uh Salt Road. And then to the direct west, they own um a bunch of land um all the way up to I think that's like a volunteer fire station that you can't quite see because I have a picture over it, but it's uh it's quite a distance away. So um to the east there's about uh 25,000 ft of vegetation. To the immediate I'm sorry, yeah, to the immediate west there's about 1500 feet of uh vegetation.

to the northwest there's about 150 ft of mature vegetation before it kind of goes out into more of that mode uh field kind of area and then there's some more mature vegetation before there's like a small stream um and then to the northeast um there's about two uh yeah 230 feet of mature vegetation um before it kind of gets to that other mode area which is that Webster Meadows 2. Um, so I just uh wanted to show what was um here right now. Um, taking some photos out from the site. And I also just wanted to point out one other thing. Um, the direction uh of the project. So the back side of the project will be facing um Webster uh Meadows of Webster and web uh Meadows of Webster 2.

Um so there shouldn't there's no glare, no panels um actually looking at we're looking at the back side. Um so so glare concerns and gl concerns um should be eliminated because of that. If we go to the next slide I also want to talk about some more mit mitigation. Um so as I mentioned the really the major neighbors of this project are to the northeast and northwest. And so we'd like to propose um I actually a town resident had reached out to me right before um last week right before this meeting. So, I don't have it included as part of our civil set, but I would like to add it with our next iteration.

Um, but I want to add some landscaping mitigation to kind of help some concerns. Um, so I did have the opportunity last week to um walk to walk around um the meadows of Webster and then drive around the meadows of Webster, too. um and agree that you know we can put some um evergreen hedge in to help mitigate views um in the winter months when some of those trees natural vegetation mature vegetation that already exists um the deciduous trees shed their leaves. Um so putting some coniferous trees uh in place will um also help mitigate viewsheds all year round. Um I would like to point out that the um racking at the tallest point, the backside is about 15 feet tall and the um trees that we're proposing to plant um at time of planting be between 12 and 15 feet tall with some space left in between so that they can continue to grow and mature and continue to obstruct that fuchia.

Um we could go to the next slide. Okay, so the operations plan um so the only way that this project actually makes money is if the project is up and running. Um so our operations plan is put in place um to make sure that the project is um compliant to all uh state, local and federal laws. Um and is also uh ensuring maximum um safety and uptime. Um monitoring and performance um can be tracked real time. Um the utility has real-time monitoring and can um disengage the project from the grid whenever it wants to immediately. In addition, um Monte uh and Naerta will both have access to monitoring portals as well, um where we get real-time alerts.

Um anything, like I said, can be pulled off, um virtually, um like offsite if there's ever an emergency. Um next slide. So, a decommissioning plan. So, making sure that this thing doesn't stick around forever. Um, so the project will be fully removed at the end of its useful cycle. And the useful cycle of these solar projects are anywhere between 25 and 35 years. Um, so a decommissioning bond will be put in place with both the town of Webster and Xerox uh both listed as the beneficiaries of that decommissioning bond to make sure there's monies in place um to remove even if for whatever reason Monte isn't around um you know 25 years from now or whatever.

Um in order to move forward with decommissioning um it would follow a very similar process as uh as permitting. um we would need to reach out to both the town and DEEC um to let them know that we want to take down the project and see what the laws and requirements are at that time um to safely comply and do so. Um getting rid of the equipment itself. Um panels will be recycled at a licensed facility. Um all other equipment that has value will also try to be recycled. A lot of that racking has steel and things like that that has reusable value. and all other materials would be uh disposed of at a CNI facility um or is otherwise deemed by the uh town andor DEEC at the time.

I talked a lot. I'm a little out of breath. Um but I'm happy um to answer any questions and I'd also love to hear from the community um as well. Thank you so much. on your on your environmental assessment form number seven you have you have marked as no is that correct number seven it reads is the site of the proposed action located in or does it adjoin a state listed critical environmental area you have no >> uh I don't think it uh oh I guess from um I think that there's a separate question uh on there towards the end that has about uh landfills um which is >> talking that I apologize. I don't have the the speaker uh in front of me right now.

>> I If you got it, Derek, you're you're that's your field. >> Number seven, >> there's a question about critical environmental areas. >> Yeah. >> Um >> it's marked. No. Does it matter? >> There isn't any. >> There isn't particular area. >> Okay. What is different and I think it's something that we really need to find out about is that it's not just a landfill. >> It was a DEC listed inactive h or hazardous waste site. >> Correct. >> On the Xerox property which is an active record facility. >> Yep. >> Correct. And the record of decision actually had the thing classified as a co a code two parcel which meant that it was a threat to human health and environment.

So therefore you have this asphalt cap over part of the landfill cover. The landfill what I did notice from the original decision that the the drawings are attached in here is actually shown on your drawings at a different location than the the study was done back in the day. At some point, the landfill has been classified as a code four, which meant it needed continuous monitoring. And my understanding is that that's supposed to go on for the next 30 years. Um, even though you're using ballasted things, you are still building on top of a hazardous way. And there are deed restrictions on this property.

We are aware of those because of the transfer of all the property for those developments that you saw to the north. And there still are deed restrictions on those properties that require at least on the neighboring parcel a portion of the landfills to be or the the wetlands and wooded areas to be maintained as a green space with no development and that direction came from DEC. I don't see any of that stuff addressed in your application. There are deed restrictions on it is something that we need to see to verify that those are still in place. >> Okay. and what they actually entail. You know, some of the wording there there was semantics about that in the past on on the previous product.

Find out what the deed restrictions are and really find out from DEEC. Your simple comment that you sent it to DEC and they didn't respond in 90 days doesn't really hold water for this particular property. I called the direct who the person was supposed to be the manager for this application. There's no longer an email address that works and her phone number is directed to a different person. So I believe that person has left EC in Albany. >> Your application, her name was Debbie Gordell. I don't believe she is there anymore. Where has where the application has ultimately gone to, that's up for you to determine, but right now it seems like if you haven't got a response, it's probably because they have had staffing changes and that has been systemic across all of DEC.

So being outside the comment period doesn't doesn't work for this project. Yes, >> this this is this is a hazardous waste site and it's something we want to make sure is protected properly. >> Yeah, change in use notification went to the um the individuals in Albany that are managing a ripper permit >> so they're aware of the site in the landfill. >> Okay, >> that's where use went to. Yeah, I don't recognize that individual that >> so that's where we need the she's listed as the project manager for review of this application in DEC. Okay. >> So, we would need to get an absolute response from DEC that this is a permitted project.

It's nice as permitted by RG&. They don't know what's underneath the ground. You Xerox know what's underneath the ground. Even monitoring it. Your plans do show on it the rock trench that was blasted into the ground for the correction of the the groundwater. The dualphase vapor extraction system that was used for collecting the groundwater and the vapor space for remediation. >> Yep. Is that operation still going on? >> Absolutely. And if you look at the um the layout, you'll see where there's certain gaps around our monitoring wells and our recovery wells. Um we we made changes to the the solar panels.

So we have access to those to monitor those for the next 30 years maintain or whatever. So yeah, none of that is changing. So with that amount of monitoring on based on decisions of the neighboring area personally I think it's unlikely the DCE would like to go ahead with this property just because it is a contaminated site >> and we don't want to we don't want to create a situation that is going to allow it to become a way to release those contaminants. Once again this is a very specific cover on this landfill. You don't see very many landfills that have an asphalt cover. In regards to your landfill you put up in Niagara County, that was what a CND landfill or a municipal waste landfill that has a liner system and six feet of cover on top of it.

This landfill is not covered that way. It's a different type of cover. >> Yeah, thank you. I appreciate your comments and like we'll definitely follow up for sure. Just so you know, as part of our NOI to DEEC, we are doing geotechnical investigations to ensure the uh asphalt land uh the asphalt cap can withhold any weights um to the landfill. Um Haley and Aldrich will be at our next meeting and can talk about that testing in more detail. Unfortunately, I'm just not the best person to talk in detail uh about the engineering related to that. >> It's not just the asphalt tube, but it is the cover that was put over the other landfill on the site.

Uh yes, that was a CNI landfill that has a specific color cover on it too and making sure the delineation that what you show on your drawings really does match with what was in the original delineation for the project. >> We'll get uh something in writing from DEEC to address your concerns. U one thing I just want to note and kind of what um what was was there kind of mentioned your fence system is not a ballast fence system and so the posts are going to be driving through the caps that are on site. So, there's existing um fencing already on site specifically around the asphalt uh cap that will remain in place and then we're going to be adding on around that.

Um we can change to ballasted um if that is something that the DEEC requests which is you know part of uh this discussion is something that we'll be um going down in deeper detail with them. >> Yeah. I mean if you um can you just jump back to the drawings that they had? You've identified the areas as landfill, but then you're also showing fencing going through that area. And the fencing detail is a typical fence that's going to be probably protruded 4T into ground past the cap impacting the cap. So, it's something that should be also reviewed cuz right now the proposed fencing throughout the whole site if if it is if the landfill and the environmental sensitive areas are not just limited to the areas that are currently shown in these drawings, you're impacting those environmental areas all throughout the site with your fencing.

>> We can definitely do ballast. It's something we're we're comfortable with. It's not foreign to us. We've done it before on other landfills in the past. We're happy to do it here as well. >> Okay. Could you just give us documentation to that then when you come in? >> Yeah, I'll update the um >> we're just in here for sketch plan tonight anyway. So, >> yeah. >> Um you're doing string inverters, >> correct? >> Is it string inverters in a central location or string inverters? Okay. >> String inverters in a central location right by the access road. >> Okay. So, it's fire access. >> Yep. >> With the road.

Is the uh road HS20 load rated? Proposed. Is the road HS20 load rated for fire truck? >> For fire trucks. Yep. >> Okay. Might want to recommend a turnaround area there for a firet truck. >> Um where would you like to see it? >> Usually like a K turnaround area at the end so that a firetruck if it were to pull in can turn around and leave again. >> Okay. >> Actually the fire department would probably come up with something. They they are tuned right into anything like that. So they'll give you some feedback too. I'm sure >> that'd be great. Yeah, we would like to have a comment rather than just like proposing something.

Yeah. So >> is there going to be a knockbox at the gate so that the fire department can access? >> Yes. And there'll be training as well. I forgot to mention that as part of my operations program, there'll be training to the fire department as well as part of this project. >> Will there be annual trainings after that first training for any new staff members at the fire department or upon request by the fire department? >> We could do it upon request for sure. every time there's like turnover or something. >> Uh, in the areas that you're putting arrays that are in wetland areas, are you using timber matting as you're crossing those wetland areas?

>> Um, I believe yes, we're using uh mats. We are. even though they're not jurisdictional wetlands, um we're still being compliant to uh the um uh nationwide uh permit uh 51 um just to uh not have to go through permitting for that project. >> Okay. Um you already touched on landscaping plan if you could provide that uh if you could use like a staggered planting system so it isn't just a single row. Um, probably minimum plant height at planting should be 8 ft and then uh at least a 2-year landscaping warranty >> for sure. >> I think you mentioned 12T, didn't you? >> Yeah, we were actually going to do 12 to 15 ft just because that's about the height of the back of the rack.

>> Was the spacing that you were proposing? >> Yeah, sorry. 10 foot on center spacing just so they can grow healthy over the years and not like choke each other out. Okay. >> I had some just brief questions on >> some of you folks in regard to this. >> Sorry, just some brief questions on a decommissioning plan that they provided. >> I'm sorry. >> I had just some brief questions. >> So, in the decommissioning plan, could you provide existing condition um images of what it looks like including aerial view? Um, I saw the es proposed escalation be 25 years. Would you be able to do the escalation at 40 years plus 18 months for decommissioning?

>> Um, could we do I can I ask why 40? >> It's just typically I've seen 40 years on them. Why was 25 picked? >> Uh, well 25 uh coincides with the lease and we do have two 5-year options which would be 35 years. So it would coincide with the end of the lease. >> Okay. >> But we can do 35 years if that what you would like to see. >> Uh it 25 plus 18 months is good enough I think. Or I'm sorry you have extensions in your leases. So I would cover the extensions as well. >> Okay. So we'll do 35 plus 18. >> Uh add 2% escalation. And then I'm not sure if you've done this before, but if you are doing bond instead of letter of credit, uh would you be able to do like a standby trust fund?

um established so that uh the shy company can pay the fund into the trust company if something were to happen um with the owner of the facility. >> I'm not well verssed on that. Let me take that question back and um I'd like to talk about it internally with our ownership um and I can get back to you for sure. Um but it's a standby trust um fund to fuel. Okay. >> Uh that's all I have right now. Got it. Okay. Are a bunch of you folks neighbors there? Is that why you're here? Okay. So, what this is justformational as you just saw tonight. It's not a public hearing. Um I know there's a few of you would if you want to speak I want to get I don't want to open this up to everybody going up.

It's not a public hearing. However, if maybe two or three people want to come up and weigh something um we'll open it to them. >> And just for clarity, I mean >> just three minutes. That's it. for clarity. There will be a public hearing. >> Yeah, that's that's now. >> So, you'll have plenty opportunity to speak, but we I think Tony's right. We give a few people the opportunity today. >> If somebody Go ahead, Jess, >> just give us your name and address. >> Tony, I think it would be helpful just to reiterate that this is a sketch plan level right now. So, they'll be coming back for another site plan which would have the public hearing >> it would be when they come back again.

Hi, Elaine Johnson, 626 Pine Lakes Trail. I honestly just I don't know much about solar panels and energy. I have a lot of questions for the company, so I'm I don't know if you want to hear them or if I could arrange time to ask the questions. >> We can't hear you. Number one, and number two, you need to address the board, not the applicant, that you can ask the question. Okay? >> Then she can get up and respond if we've got time. and and they're and if you have any direct questions to the developers, >> I can just ask >> they they seem that they seem to believe that they want to talk to you. So you you can have that opportunity as well.

>> So >> not at this meeting, right? Not not right here. >> No, I know. I guess my my one question that I'll raise to the board is I noticed that this um 40% goes back to the community >> um in the in the in the energy and the power, right? Um and I noticed it's designated only for low income. So, is is that is there a reason why it's designated that way? >> If you want if Yeah. What we Let's do this. We're not We don't want to drag this out. Again, it's not a public hearing, but >> you got your question. >> Yep. >> And we'll have you come up. You can address that then. This way any everyone can hear exactly what what her question was and what her answer is.

>> Yeah. So the question is um why can only um like low to medium income uh housing or disadvantaged communities um subscribe? So um that's just the program that NAERTA has laid out. Um it's uh called the inclusive community solar program. Um so right now the only way um that Xerox can construct a project that is also a community solar project so they can receive the benefit is through this program. Unfortunately, the there uh the only other program out there um is called Statewide Solar for All, and Xerox can't participate as at all because they're a a corporation. This is obviously on Xerox land, and they're wanting to make the project happen.

Um but but I would like to um give you my card um as well as anyone else in the community who has some questions. Um I would love the opportunity to talk with you. happy to arrange um like a virtual uh town hall or come here in person sometime as well. So sorry for >> just a quick followup on that. So the 40% goes to the community. So port portion of this project is considered community solar. Correct. >> Correct. Yes. >> Uh one thing I think we ought to have town council look at and I don't know if it's been addressed yet. Take a look at our code for um solar community solar. Our code specifically says all residents of Webster.

>> Uh I I I don't recall seeing that in the town code. >> It's part it's a model code and when it was adopted it has the word all for who is benefit who benefits from the electrical. >> Um so I guess what is your >> website has been changed in the last couple years. >> I guess what is your feedback for for me then? So my feedback is that this, you know, 40% goes to the community and if it has a caveat in there saying it could only benefit a low income, that's not in conformance with the town code. >> Okay, I'll take a look at that. >> We'll have council take a look at and verify, but the last time I read it, which was admittedly a year or so ago, it did have the word all residents.

>> Okay, I didn't catch that. Thank you for bringing it up. I'll be sure to look at that. Thank you. >> It is different than the model code that was out there. >> Thank you. Yeah, I I can I can provide you my email as well after. >> Hello, I'm Thomas Fitz Simmons, 1484 Grand Meadows Way. Um, I have a few um comments and concerns. I don't need answers to everything right now. I just want to get them out there so other people can maybe join in and understand where I'm coming from. Um, the first thing was when we saw the first maps of where this was going, it's in a wooded area. So, you're going to cut down a bunch of trees to put up solar panels.

And if it's benefiting, I didn't know who was benefiting originally. So, now I know benefiting Xerox. They're paying for it, it sounds like, and they're going to get 60%. They've got a ton of open land where they could just put solar panels in without having to cut trees and woods down. >> Yeah. So I it's just a concern is why was that considered and or was it not and why why it's understand I didn't know it was a landfill. So but it's a wooded area and why cut it's the wildlife and the trees is what I was concerned about. That was my first comment. Um the other was uh there's in the planned document that I read uh yesterday or the day before there's a lot of comments on if they hit contamination the equipment will be decontaminated and all that.

So, I'm wondering, is this normal that normal language in these things where they're going to build these properties or do do this kind of work, is it normal that they talk about contamination so much and what they have to do if they do run into a contamination? >> Okay, look, I'm I'm going to hold you up a second on this. We're getting off base with this thing. They've already said the whole site is already a contaminated site that's been shielded over, >> okay, and protected. So, that's that's why they're using it. cannot be used for any development or anything else. Okay. >> So, rather than go into a good wooded area or natural feature or whatever, >> uh this would be the ultimate use for this piece of property.

>> Okay. >> All right. I wanted I just I I don't want to drag this out and I open it just for a couple of comments, not for a whole >> No. And I I just have one more is um I just would like to understand or maybe have some comments back on what this will do to the assessment of our properties with this solar panel system. so close to Grand Meadows and everybody in that community and Grand Meadows too that's now being built. Um, will this does does this type of thing affect the assessments of our property? >> I appreciate that. That's good. I'll let her I'll let her address that if you want to address that right now or do you want to just make a note of that and address it in the future?

>> Whatever you prefer to do. >> Yeah. No, thank you for your uh questions and concerns. Um, I wrote down um some of them and I'm happy to kind of like take it back and um address them. Um, regarding the the assessment, um, I'd like to have uh a land use attorney answer that question. I just don't think I'm the best person to to answer that for you, so I apologize. But, um, like I said, this is just a sketch plan meeting. Um, at our next meeting, our full team will be here, which will include our engineers and our legal counsel as well, which can help address some of those questions that I can't answer.

>> Yeah. Thank you. >> Okay. All right. With and you had yours answered. All right. One more. That's going to be it. >> Craig Bashaw 1492 Grand Meadows Way. >> Uh Tom brought up a good point and I'm just going to reiterate it. Uh we could flip that map onto pavement. I don't know if this would be from Marcus, you know, so I don't expect an answer right now, but it's why couldn't we flip property and go right off a paved area that's not in use? I don't know. But that's something that be interesting to know. Um, I do have a map. We're probably the closest property to where the panels will be. So, obviously, I have a concern with that.

And I have uh not only the map that was in the display, but I have a picture from the back of our property. I know you can't see it from the back of our property which faces southsoutheast. And my question is, what would I see if this comes up? I talked to Katie earlier, but my big concern is what am I going to see? Especially during the winter when deciduous trees lose their leaves, what is expected? >> I believe they talked about >> I guess they talked about putting 12ft pine trees in there 10 ft apart. >> Number one. Number two, you have to look at the positive side of this too. That being Xerox's property, you could have had a fivetory building there.

>> Yeah. >> In le of that, this is a to me a whole lot >> more acceptable. >> And I realize that this property is owned by Xerox. So the whole discussion is kind of moved. >> Yeah. >> But you know, I just wanted to bring up the comment to see if I get some answer for it. That's all. >> Okay. Appreciate it. Thank you. >> And and everybody don't forget we we will have the opportunity at a at the public hearing as well to have more comments and questions. >> So I can just do a quick answer. Um so Z for the Xerox perspective worked with our real estate team and we looked at the whole campus, you know, trying to find the best location.

there's the reimagine Webster program between the village of Webster and the town of Webster that's going on. So there's some ideas for some of the other property and what how that could benefit Webster. So when we were looking at the whole thing from a you know 30,000 foot view, we said, "Okay, what's going to be the one area where we could do this where it wouldn't impact some of the potential growth opportunities here?" And so that's why we selected the landfill. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. All right. Anybody Anybody else? >> Yeah. No. >> Uh just curious, does this qualify for a brownfield project with NAERTA or no?

With it being a contaminated site? >> Uh we did reach out to NAERTA and confirmed that it would be uh a brownfield project. >> Is that the program that you're applying through? >> Uh so there's been a lot of changes with the NAERTA program. I don't know how closely you've been following it u this but just at the beginning of summer. Um, so right now, um, I believe we would be applying through the inclusive community solar program and it would be a brownfield adder. >> Okay. >> Okay. Anybody Derek, Peggy, anybody any concerns? All right. Then look, >> we've uh we've gone through the the sketch plan review of the project for the solar solar garden.

Um, I think you've got some responses that you can fill in the blanks on. >> For sure. I'd like to think >> you're saying you have somebody coming in regard because that's I read somewhere in your literature that's already black topped over, isn't it? >> It is. Yep. >> Okay. But we don't know how thick it is, but you got somebody coming in. That was going to be my concern is what happens in the summer with those gabians full of stone. Will that sink into the ashva? Will it ultimately crumble up or what? You know, that's you're going to be able to address that. So um that's the comment that Mr.

Anderson um had brought up just wanting something in writing from DEEC acknowledging the project. Um as part of our NOI to DEEC, we did have a geotechnical investigation plan proposed in there to make sure um that the integrity of the CAF would not be affected. >> Okay. >> Um but yes, I I appreciate um all of the um you know questions and concerns. I'd like to go back um and make some edits to our plan set um and come back again um for a preliminary um site plan review >> October 7th. >> Sounds good. >> Cool. >> Okay. Good luck. >> Thank you so much. Thank you everyone. >> Okay. Thank you. >> I I'm sorry.

I'll I'll stick around. I have my card um if anybody wants to grab my info. Thank you. It's a stretch on the introduction. >> Next item on the agenda, Bull Barn located at 895 County Line Road. The applicant, Joseph Gordon, having trouble with names tonight, is requesting preliminary final site plan approval in a public hearing associated with the construction of a 1536 ft metal pole barn on a 2.7 acre lot in an LL large lot district under sections 26910, 35013, and 35036 of the code at the town of Webster. >> Good evening. Thank you for having us. I would say that my feelings are some somewhat hurt that everyone's left.

>> Excuse me, just a minute. Um, okay, good. Somebody closes their heart. Thanks. Go ahead. I'm sorry. >> I'm here. My Damian Castanza. I'm an attorney. I'm here uh purely almost in an advisory capacity for Mr. Georgoni, who I've known for 25 years. Mr. Georgoni uh suffered a bout with the co virus in which he almost lost his life. As a result, sometimes he has some trouble with his speaking voice. So, I'm here to offer aiden assistance where I can this evening. This is an application for a pole barn on Mr. Georgjon's residential property. Uh the pole barn uh is 32x 48. It will be composed of 28 gauge metal.

Uh it uh there is a 65 ft uh setback from the rear property line uh that we have uh put into the plan. uh knowing what the setback should be. We've got ourselves a little bit of grace room there. Uh it will have no floor other than uh crushed stone, crushed stone floor. There will be no electricity. Uh there will be no plumbing. Uh there will be no water to the facility. It'll be primarily just be used for storage. Uh this is primarily as a result of the fact that Mr. Geoni lost his father uh recently. Mr. Geonie's father was a Mason for all of his life. Uh as a result uh there are some things that uh came uh into uh Joe's possession.

Uh he needs some space to store those things in. Uh so this would serve that function primarily uh for him. Uh the uh the metal facility would be constructed of black metal. It would be directly behind the house. Uh there's no side uh of the property issues. Therefore, um as you know the size uh of the facility um and it is a post and beam barn. The trusses are not being homemade. Uh they have been ordered. They are professionally made trusses for the structure. Uh Mr. Georgoni has lived at this address for I believe just over 20 years. Uh as a result of his bout with COVID, he is now having thoughts that he will be spending more time at home.

Therefore, this is an attempt, I think, to to have more use of his property uh and uh as he will be spending more time there uh in the relatively near future. Uh there he also owns a couple of rental properties. Sometimes there are things that need to be stored. Uh this would allow a place for uh for those things to be stored like washing machines or things like that. >> I have a question. Uh I'm looking at a copy of the proposed barn. You say there's no electric going into the barn. >> That's correct. >> Uh the two wide doors, I don't know. >> Are they um closer closer to my hand? >> If I get any closer, I'm going to start chewing on it.

Um there's two two large uh looks like uh doors, garage doors. Are they going to be operated manually? >> Yes. >> Okay. Anybody? Any >> Did everybody hear that >> questions? >> Okay. >> Um I don't see any dimension of the height of this. What's the height of this? >> I'm sorry. >> The height of the building. >> Uh it will have a 12t ceiling. >> Well, >> 48 ft in length. >> The code gets pretty pretty specific. It's maximum height. What is it? 20 feet I believe. >> 20 feet. >> So the maximum height is 20 feet. That's to the peak, your highest point. >> So, I don't know what you've got. You're not showing anything in regard to it there.

>> 16, >> right? I haven't seen it anyways. >> Mr. Georgoni informs me that we're looking at 16 ft. >> 16 ft. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> All right. You probably should. All right. Let's Let's say it's 16 ft. Then let's make a note of that. That the height is 16 ft. Um the color is pretty accurate with what it's showing there. I believe Mr. I believe Mr. Georgoni actually has a piece of the metal if you'd like. >> Okay. Yeah, that's good. That's >> You don't have to just You can just show it. Just show us. >> Yeah. So, it's a dark Okay. Similar to what's here then? >> Okay. Um there's no variances required for this.

>> None. >> Okay. All right. Anybody any questions or concerns? Is this whole bar and meet falls within the requirements of the height? >> No. This is a public hearing. >> It's a public hearing. >> Yeah. No, no, I just I just wanted >> You can go up to the mic. Yeah. >> If they were done. Yeah. >> We are Peter and Depp spec we believe at 899 County Line Road which is directly behind this. Our concerns are that first of all, he has not indicated where he's going to build this. So there's no site plan. Where where you going to build it? >> Where on the lot? >> Well, he's showing it on on the map here where it's going.

>> Where? >> Point to it. On which side of the creek? because the map I got from the town shows it drawn on our property which is on the other side of the creek. >> Uhhuh. >> Yeah. It looks to me that that they just put that in there >> uh to be straight, >> but it does not show it >> does not show exactly where it's going to be. >> And it really should. I mean, it has to. Mhm. >> Um, you know, typically we wanted a >> I think the way this was submitted was deliberately misleading, so it's not on here. >> Can I see that? >> Can I just speak to this for a second? >> Sure, absolutely. So, we had a little trouble helping the applicant try to sketch the location to scale on the survey map because the survey map that was provided indicated a one to 40 scale, but then when we scaled it out to his size building, we realized it wasn't right.

So, Erica sketched the building up top. Okay. It wasn't intended to to to reflect the location on your property. >> That That's what they took it. So maybe you should reconsider doing that. >> Okay. Why don't we do this? Why don't we do this? Get to a solution to this thing. I That's You drew that, right, Erica? Well, you're showing it. Yeah. Right. Okay. And I can see where it is. I got the program here. Why don't we do this? If we approve it, we could And this up to the board. If we were to approve this project, we could make it subject to the applicant having an engineer actually make a site drawing with the location to >> Why would you put the carpet before the horse?

>> Let let me finish. Let me finish. He won't get his approval until that would be completed. He'd have to give that before he could get a permit. That's all. >> I I just think that's a bad idea. Um, I I'd like to know the setbacks from all the lot lines and there's a creek in the back and I'd like to know the setback the lot lines in the middle of the creek. So, do you take that into consideration or not? >> Uh, from the looks I I don't I >> it requires a 50ft rear set back from the property line >> and he's got that correct. I thought it was the 65. >> I can double check, but I believe it was 50.

350-36 part of the code, I believe, is where it is. You can find it in the code. >> That's the problem. It doesn't doesn't illustrate it on this. I I I understand the well intention of the town to assist in sketching the scale, but I I think the instrument survey should reflect the actual applicants location of the poleb barn and then also indicate the setback requirements that are required as part of the application uh clearly on this instrument survey and I also see based on the aerial view that looks like this has already started to be constructed including um elongation of the drive to the back.

So, is that is that something that was approved in the past to start this already or >> No. >> Okay. >> Okay. So, you what do you guys want to do? You want to table it? >> Yeah. >> I I have some other comments I'd like to get through. It's too big. It's too ugly. We'd like to see it downsized. The house is a tiny two-bedroom ranch. 12 uh 1,23 square f foot. The building he's proposing to put up is 1536 square foot. It's almost a third size larger than the house itself. He made the application saying he was just going to store a tractor and some household goods, which is absurd. He intends to store much more.

He's already changed his mind. And um you don't need our shed is less than 200 square foot and we store a tractor with a bucket, a riding lawnmower and household. So this is absurdly large. He also um owns and this is the major concern. He owns a business called Upstate Auto on 104, which as far as I can tell is like a junkyard auto shop place. So, our concern >> Are you saying it's like a junkyard auto shop now? >> His business on 104. >> I'm sorry. >> He has a business on 104. >> Okay. >> That it's called Upstate Auto. It's a junkyard. It's an mess looking like a jungle. >> I am afraid that that business, by his own admission, he plans to be home.

I'm afraid that he's going to run that business out of this commercial type apartment. It doesn't pass the smell test, something is up. And why would you need two 10-ft tall doors just to store, you know, a tractor and some household items? It seems like he wants to bring in, you know, RVs or something to work on. >> Sean, he wants to bring in John. >> And he says the building is going to be 16 foot tall. Um, but he he's got 12 foot sidewalls and then a a 4 inch run on the on the roof. >> Four foot. >> That's another five foot. So that's 17 foot. >> That's 16. Four. You said you said what's the walls?

>> 12 foot. >> 12 and four is 16 I think, isn't it? >> No, he's got 4 inch run on the on the roof on the pitch of the roof. So every foot you go up four inches. So my calculations is going to have five foot on top of that 12 foot. So that's >> apparently it sounds like okay we got your message on it. >> Um sounds like the board would prefer to table this thinking right here. >> In addition one we're all set. Thank you very much. >> One final point. His house is going to be shorter than this building which makes it a coat. Well, I don't that's have to be determined. I guess >> it's not to determine if it's out of code >> the h the height of the house you're saying is lower.

>> Yes. >> It says no accessory building shall be higher than the main structure. >> Right. >> So if his >> but what is the height of his house? Do you know? >> I don't know. It's a small ranch. >> Okay. So that could very well be 16 foot too. No, >> if we suspect. >> Okay. We'll we'll have to ask them to determine that and show that on a drawing. >> Okay. >> Okay. Okay. Yeah, good comments. We appreciate it. >> We'll just have to have them addressed. >> I I just would like some guarantee from the town that what he says and what he does is the same and it will you enforce that going forward? >> Okay.

Thank you. All right. So what do we want to do here? Ask to table it. What do we want them to show? Actually, probably the best way to say is to look at the code, what the code requires >> and just go by that. >> Provide a submitt that conforms to I'm sorry. Provide a submitt that conforms to the code. >> Provide >> a submitt that conforms to the code. >> Oh, yeah. Right. Yeah. This one >> shows the site plan, the building height, the height of the existing building. >> Yeah. >> Square footage. Square footage of building compared to the acreage of the lot. Yeah, with the cuz he may have a big lot getting the acreage that's why he's be able to get the size >> the locations >> the actual location the actual setbacks.

>> So So a tape location. All right. So we're going to let's get it together. We got to get a tape location map showing >> we need just something that conforms to the code. >> Yeah. Well, a tape Yeah, actually that's in there, too. So yeah. Okay. So have an engineer make you a drawing up showing where it is, what your dimensions are, and you want to give the height of the building, height of your house relative to Okay, >> just go by the code. That's that. And setbacks is okay. He's got a lot. >> Well, we don't know because we don't know where it's going to be on the side. >> Yeah. I mean, well, it looks like it looks like he's got a lot of room there, but Okay.

Yeah. >> All right. That's where we're at, I guess, right now. So motion to table, excuse me. Motion to table um George PBar. >> Yeah. 895 County Line Row for the FB bar. Motion to table that until October 7th. >> Second. >> Have a second. All in favor? >> I I >> All right. On to the next one. >> Pullbar located at 1759 Ridge Road. The applicant, John Hayes, is requesting preliminary final site plan approval along with a public hearing associated with the construction of a 768 square ft pole barn on a 0.57 acre lot located in a large lot district under sections 269-10, 350-13, and 35036 of the code of the town of Webster.

>> Yes, sir. Hi, my name is John Hayes. Uh we're looking to build a 24x 32x 12t pole full barn um to be used as a garage for uh wife's car and winter storage for our boat. Um basically we're 268 square foot over what code calls for for our for our lot. Um, >> okay. Let's see. >> I'm sorry, Tony. I just got one more comment about the previous application. >> Is it the aerial photograph? It looks like it's fairly new. >> Um, whenever it was taken, it implies that construction has started on it. >> Oh, on the project on the previous project, you're saying? >> Correct. I think it's something that the the town building inspector ought to go out and check and make sure the work is not started on that project.

>> Okay. >> Is that would that be that brown area back there? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. There's a brown area and there's piles of stone and there's ground. >> There's a driveway right there. >> There's a dozer there. >> Yeah. This imagery says it's dated 2025. So, this is very new imagery. Mhm. >> So, this is something the code enforcement should go out and check. >> Yep. We'll follow up on it. >> All right. You got it. All right. >> Sorry. So, um the color of it will be gray to match the house with a red roof. Um we're looking at a single 14x10 garage door. Um personnel door. Um and couple windows. Um we are doing we want to do the attic trusses.

So the overall height will be 23 ft 10 in which I know we're set to get a um go in front of zoning board for that and one setback where we're going to be off by three feet for one setback. You got this. The survey map shows where it's going to be with the setbacks. >> I'm guessing it's 12 foot the height of it. >> 12T to the ceiling. And then we're doing the attic trusses. So storage up above, which will make it overall 23t 10 in. >> Okay. And what's the height of the house? >> The house is 21 ft to the driveway. >> So you'd have to get a variance in, >> right? And actually, it's going to be set back from the house.

So, it's line of sight from the road. It should be about the same height as the house. >> This is for personal use, is it? Or >> Yeah. It's to store the wife's car for the winter so I don't have to >> wipe the snow off it. And storage for the boat. >> Yeah. It's not accessibly large, so that's all right. Anybody any questions or concerns on it? >> You have to get a variance for it anyway. So, >> yeah, we need two. >> You're matching it to the house, correct? >> Yeah, the color is going to match the house. >> It would be helpful to just have a framing plan to indicate, you know, are is it a prefab that you're just getting?

Is it something that you're >> That's I got the um material list and there's a picture of what it's going to look like. >> Okay. Not sure if that was submitted to to >> basically lumber build it. >> Um Okay. Okay. So, you have a cross-section essentially of like what your truss height will be and what kind of framing you're proposing, your footers, anything like that. >> Um, it's a typical pole barn. >> Okay. >> Going to have the post um every 8 ft. >> Mhm. >> Um dug into the ground and >> Oh, okay. Sorry, I didn't see this before. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> So, basically they're every 8 ft the post Um said I got Santelli Lumber.

>> They're the ones kind building it. >> Sounds good. >> Okay. Again, this is a public hearing. If there is anyone here, we should speak for not seeing anyone. We'll close the public hearing. Bring it back. Any concerns, Dave? >> No. Just got to get a variance for the uh >> yeah, for the job >> for the fake. This application is um this applicant is going before the zoning board next week. So they've they are >> we can we can approve it make it subject to him getting the variance. That's all. >> That that way you don't have to come back again. >> Thank you. >> Yep. Um any other you guys are all right with it then?

>> All right. You want to do got do a secret on it, right? >> Yes. Uh, town of Webster Planning Board consider request by John Hayes to construct a 768 square foot pullbar on a 0.57 acre lot located at 895 Mark. Sorry, there's a Ridge Road, right? >> Yeah. >> 1759 >> 1759 Ridge Road having SPL number. Make sure I read the SPL number. Okay. 081.01-1 dash 201, right? Yeah. Dash2. Okay. The planning board classifies a proposed action as a type two action under section 617.5C12 of the state environmental aquatic review regulations and therefore is not subject to further review. here. >> Second. >> All in favor?

>> I >> I don't want to post. >> Okay, we're good with that. >> Thank you. >> All right. >> We haven't done it yet. I was just thinking >> that was your that was for the seeker state environmental quality review. Now they're going to vote on your approvals. >> He was leaving. >> Oh, he Oh, I didn't I was looking down at the paperwork here. No, don't run away yet. >> Okay. Okay. Look, I I got a sheet of it right here. Motion for for an accessory building for the stated address. What is it? 1759 Ridge Road. >> Um we'll base it on the town code. The accessory building is defined permitted one lot and placement shall not it shall conform to all the setback requirements which is done applicable to other buildings in the district.

No such building be placed nearer to the front of the property. He's in conformance with that. It's to the rear. Um >> no that's what needs a >> needs variance for isn't it? >> Well >> side set back >> the height height >> we that' be the height. Hold on. No such building is larger than 25% of the square footage of the main building or 2% of the lot size. He conforms to that. Uh where the accessory building is more than 500 square feet. He had appears before the planning board. He has done that. And the main access or the accessory building should not be higher than the main structure. In this case, it is a couple feet higher.

The applicant will need to get a variance. So you conform with everything else. >> Excuse me. This is for personal use only. >> Yeah. >> Not for rental or anything like that. Power to the building. >> Power. >> Probably have electric in there. You want to have lights and what? >> Yeah. >> Okay. Uh heating it. No. >> Um probably. >> Okay. So, that's that's discretionary, I guess. Um anything else we need to put in there? I think that should do it, shouldn't it? >> Significant construction >> requirements. A new center. the cost of the building. Okay, we've got all that information. All right. Yeah.

All right. So, um significant construction to commence within one year from this date, which is what? September 2nd, 25 that' be 26. And there shall be no permit issued until the applicant obtains a variance. >> Yeah. >> For the project. Okay. >> Okay. >> That's a motion. Need a second. >> Second. >> Have a second. Call the roll. >> Mr. Kosani. >> Hi. >> Myself. Second. U. Hang on one second. >> We can make >> Mr. Molton. >> Okay. Go ahead. >> Hi, >> Mr. Kosal. >> Hi, >> Mr. Anderson. >> Hi. >> Mrs. Maltman. >> Hi, >> Mr. Gassik. >> I >> Okay, we're good. >> Mhm. >> All right, we're good. I guess now you can go.

>> Thank you. But you now what you want to do is make sure you he's you probably scheduled for variance. Correct. >> Yes. >> Okay. So you get your variance and then you're all set. >> Okay. >> Next item on the agenda, vision of Mitsubishi Webster located at 765 Ridge Road. The applicant, Robert Sanders, is requesting sketch plan review associated with the construction of a 1,200 ft² building addition, expansion of existing parking lot, and improvements to existing storm sewer system on a 3.1 acre lot located in a medium commercial district under sections 269-5 and 350-18 of the code of the town of Webster.

>> Yes, sir. Good evening. I'm Ryan Destro from BME Associates. I'm here on behalf of the applicant, Mitsubishi Webster. Um, as mentioned, we are here for a sketch plan application for the vision Mitsubishi Webster. Um, located at 765 Ridge Road. Um, this proposal is for a,200 square foot building addition. And this is for a proposed vehicle entry to the dealership's um, service department, and it's located on the east side of the existing structure. Um, this proposal also includes an expansion of the existing asphalt parking lot and improvements to the existing on-site storm sewers. Just to give a quick brief uh overview of the property, the total area of the subject parcel is 3.3 acres in size.

It's located along the south side of Ridge Road to the east of the existing Vision Hyundai dealership for reference. The parcel contains two zoning districts. um one being the MC medium intensity commercial district that's located in the northern or front portion of the parcel and then it also contains the LMR low medium residential district and that is located in the southern or rear uh portion of the parcel. We did receive comments from both the town PRC as well as the Monro County Department of Planning and Development on August 27th. Um all comments appear to be minor in nature uh to this point and will be addressed in the subsequent plan submittals.

One town PRC comment that we'd like to highlight. Um it was acknowledged that the commercial parking extended into the low medium residential district um area on the parcel at the southern end of the parcel. Um after discussion with the applicant um the proposed pavement will be removed from the LMR zoning district. Therefore, a use variance um for the commercial parking area in the LMR um zoning district will not be required with this application. With regards to utilities, uh no new connections to the public utilities are proposed um or necessary with this application. Uh with regards to storm water management, um this the proposed soil disturbance will be designed and updated to be under 25,000 square feet.

Therefore, New York State DEEC Speedy's general permit coverage for discharges from construction activity is not required um nor are any post construction stormwater management facilities um required per the New York State DEC storm water management design manual. And a SWIP um will also not be required per the town code requirements. With that being said, we are here for the planning board's feedback on this application as we move forward uh with this project. And with that, I'm happy to answer any of your questions. >> Yeah, you're in you're obviously going to need a variance, but um I I pulled in there tonight and I'll tell you what, this is like putting 15 pounds in a 5B bag.

The additional parking in the back, I really don't know where that line is there, but that's it's right by the edge of the wetland area. My feeling on this, we did this with with the other project, Josh. Remember a few about a year or so ago? I actually have a site visit there a few people just go take a look at this thing cuz I'm looking at this piece of paper and I'm seeing a pretty drawing, but in reality, not what's there. Not even close. There's cars all over the damn place in the back there. Looks like a mess. And the place right next door is a disaster zone. gentleman earlier was talking or the lady was talking about a junkyard.

This that's what this is in the back. Um, another thing, uh, the cars are parked out by the road. They're not supposed to be there. This is getting to be a real pain in the butt with, uh, with the car dealers. Um, I don't know how it's got to get enforced. They're unloading right in the middle of the road. This is one of them that's doing it, too. Last week, I think it was a truck parked right in the middle of Ridge Road unloading >> Y >> the Brinkard. That's bologoney. I'm sorry. >> Right. >> Um, you got to you guys got to come up with something new and different. The property just to the west of you there, that that's part of the problem.

Also, somehow, I don't know if we mentioned this at PRC, if if there could be a roadway connecting the two together, a circle like a U-shape in and out where trucks can come in. every dealer that's been in, we've requested, where can you unload on your site, not on the road. So, I think that's going to be one of the prime things that may be having to get looked at for this project. Uh, buffering on the side. Um, I saw the drawing. I don't remember what it was now, but it's tight on the side. What's the side line supposed to be on there? 15T. The side setback requirement is 20 foot. >> Is it 20 foot?

>> Yes. >> In that area. Okay. >> And I don't know if there's any 20 foot on that east side. Tony, it sounds like we would want the applicant actually here. Some of those concerns that you're mentioning >> as part of this application, especially because they're looking to upgrade >> this facility. we we would want to have that discussion with the actual applicant. I feel like a lot of the comments that we're making to the engineer record are also supposed to be directed directly at the applicant that is looking to do this. >> Well, we we've done this in the past and and yeah, we can but this is their first visit right now.

I'm just giving the the keys. He can take it back. It's up to them how you want to handle this. You know, >> I'm suggesting that a couple board members and town staff, >> we've done this in the past, go over and look at the cuz I'm looking at this and if you drive in there, doesn't look like that. >> Mhm. >> You know, >> the back looks Where's in that back section there where you're showing future parking? Is that where there's gravel been put in there right now? So, as I mentioned um earlier in my presentation, that parking in the rear is going to be removed with the subsequent applications. So, we are not going to be encroaching into the LMR zoning district.

The existing pavement limits will remain as they are in the rear of the parcel. So, a variance will not be required with this application. Yeah, that's >> something definitely has to be done with the loading and unloading >> um on Ridge Road instead of on the property and and like you said, it goes for every one of them. Um I don't know what we got to do to get you guys to comply. Uh but it's it's a terrible hazard. I'm up and down all the time. >> Well, right now if you if you drive down, every dealer down there has cars parked on the grass out by the by the road. Yeah. >> They wouldn't even think of doing that in the past.

So, somehow that's got to get tightened up. >> Yeah. >> And this is the time where you do it right here. >> Yep. >> I I stopped. I The guy asked what I was doing. I drove drove around the back. Told him I was just going in because you were coming in this evening for the planning board. I says, "Uh, I'll tell you right now, those cars you've got out there have got to be moved. Oh, I'll move them right now." Well, you know, they shouldn't be there. You know, they're not supposed to be there. Why the heck you got them there? See? >> Yeah. They they just keep pushing buttons on this stuff. Anyways, that's enough complaining.

Um, >> can't the code enforcers uh help with this? The cars on the grass out front? >> Yeah. Yes. Unfortunately, we have a lot more. >> That's right. There's a lot >> pressing issues and only one code enforcement officer for the whole town. So, although we'd like to enforce this more, we do have limited staff. Well, when somebody gets killed and I wonder how unlimited or limited we're going to be because one day somebody's going to drive in the back of one of these air carriers. >> All right. Um, anything else? Um, >> I think just one of the engineering questions I had for you. So, since you're pulling that rear lot back in, you're not putting silt fence up against that wetland anymore.

Are you bringing that in as well? >> Correct. the disturbance limits will be pulled back and then the sil fence will be brought back accordingly as well. >> Is that wetland line that you're showing there is that the 100 foot buffer or is that the actual edge of the wetland and there should be another 100 foot buffer off of that? >> No. Um the print it might might be fine on the on the or small on the um the plans that were submitted, but the line closest to the rear of the parking is the 100 foot adjacent. Just wanted to make sure. Okay. Yeah. 100 foot from the rear rear property line there. >> Thank you.

>> All right. Um Okay. Uh anybody here wish you know this isn't a public hearing. I know Pat Pat's been there forever. He lives in the back of that. >> You would bear with me for a few minutes. >> Just make it quick. Go ahead. >> Best I can. >> No. No. We'll make you quick for you. Um, my name is Patrick Mroniano. I live at 746 Eastwood Circle for the last uh 50 plus years. Uh, almost as long as Tony uh been around here. Um, I I'd like to say a few things and I know you've had a long night and I hope you bear with me for the sake of some of our new residents who have just moved in on our street and don't know the history from from what has transpired on this LMR zone.

Uh, and also for some of you new board members who may not have been here 40 years ago and know what has transpired, but basically approximately 40 years ago, the LMR zone that's there was an R3 residential zone. uh a uh insurance agent on Ridge Road tried to put in a project that was way too dense, 50 feet from my lot line, three stories tall, and I think Tony was the first one that uh said, "This is way too much." Well, we as neighbors re realized that there's probably not going to be an R3 uh residential property put in this LMR ever. It just was a little too narrow for a two-sided street. So, we decided to work with the town, with some of the uh property owners from Ridge Road, some potential developers to create something that would work for everybody.

All right. We had uh Jim Carloat who was a town councilman. He came down on a weekend and he walked the properties with us and he went on our went on my back porch with all of us residents from Eastwood and Westwood, listened to our concerns and he did right there drew up the specifications for the LMR zone the size the building maximum the density uh height everything uh also with some wooded area for us. Our concern was to keep the residential uh residential aspect of our streets because every one of the uh businesses from Ridge Road was trying to move back right to our lot line and build you know more car dealers and more things that would that would uh you know change our complete residential uh character of our community where we live.

Well, anyway, the town board adopted it and ever since they adopted the LMR zone. This has worked perfectly for the residents on Eastwood and Westwood, the commercial ventures on Ridge Road to be able to build to use their property the way they want, and also the LMR zone. We've had three successful uh multif family projects come in there that have done a great job to insulate us from the sights and sounds of Ridge Road. uh it's done a great job for us and we want to continue that aspect but about every three four five years one of the car dealers comes in and I hear you say that you've rescended I guess I heard it correctly that he's rescended the fact that he wants to move into the LMR at all.

Okay. I I'm not sure that's correct or not, but uh we've got to maintain that LMR the way it is and not allow them to move into that zone. Uh so far there's been a number of times I think Vision was in once before for that. Peter Gun was in here once before that to do that to move into it. Each and every time the zoning board or the planning board has decided to honor the decisions that the original town board made and that the subsequent boards made in protecting us and keeping that LMR strictly residential and not allowing any commercialization into that zone whatsoever. It has worked very well.

I think the town like the fact that we worked with them and worked with the business people. So, uh hopefully you can do the same thing, honor that commitment, not necessarily tonight or but in the future. Uh and our residents here can know what also happened back then. Uh so it's it's worked well and uh I want to thank you for your time and unless you have a question for me, I'll get out of your way. >> All right, I think >> pretty much addressed it all, Pat. Thank you. Thank you very much. I think I think you pretty much hit it on the line there. That's I I'm going to go back and and I don't know how you're going to do this, but somehow they cannot be parked on the road unloading.

So you need to communicate that to whoever owns this business. >> We've had in the past them shows what's >> in the past. We've requested that they show on the plan the absolutely loading area, >> right? >> And with this type of thing, it should be repeated on here. >> Well, that's what I'm suggesting. Join in with next door because they're make a U cut right through and make a U a horseshoe come in on one and out the other side. I don't know. >> So just general discussion. Um >> I know all these projects have been in the past subject to addressing the loading and unloading of the properties. And if this can this practice has been continuing and we've even had previous dealers come in and say, "Oh, we don't have a control of it.

That's just a driver on it." >> This practice keeps continuing. All these things have been issued a special use permit for use in this area. all their approvals are subject to making sure that the trucks and so forth unload off of the property. >> It keeps happening. Do we have to send a notification to them saying that they are in violation of their approvals and their approvals are rescended >> because they're not they're not conforming to the approvals, >> right? >> Yeah. >> For the special use permit and also for the approval of the lots. And here's another one that's coming in. And there's really with this canopy on there, 25 ft.

Do a zigzag getting your your car carrier to get around that to a place in the back. >> The car carriers don't even go on a property. So, >> you know, assuming you could force them on there, right? So, right, >> this parcel itself is not even conducive to putting on a way for the cars to unload. Wasn't Wasn't Vision Vision Nissan in recently and they have decided they're unloading their cars at a rental property somewhere else? >> Yep. Over on Basket Road >> and down the road was that was their solution to it. >> Yeah. >> Like you said, I have seen it actually was better for a while, but recently I saw that truck in the middle of the road twice >> than that site.

Really? There you go. >> You know, not just on the side of the road, but really dead center in the right straight train. They they park between the parking no parking signs >> in front of guard gard >> or they run them over. >> Um but it seems that we've been having this discussion now for >> forever >> for years and years and it's you know time to take action on it. you know, we we can't approve this until we get some kind of guarantee or some some way to make sure >> and like Josh said, >> and it seems to me the way that you do it is an initial >> we've got one code enforcement officer in town and and there's more stuff goes on, right?

This is one of the minor ones relative to the major ones. You know, on the other hand, would it do any good I'm just thinking here. Would it do any good to issue a letter to all the car dealers? >> Hey, Tony. >> Yes. Um, I just want to clarify, does the board have any questions or comments or concerns regarding the addition to the building so that we can note it >> as part of this application that's in front of us today? Yeah, >> I know that the the parking of the trucks and unloading is an issue that has been discussed many times. >> So, >> we'll make sure to put it in. Um, but in terms of what's on the agenda, does the board have comments or concerns for what is being presented in terms of an addition?

>> If you're asking me, my answer would be maybe because it depends on what we're going to do with the rest of the project. They can show it again if they come in for a preliminary week, come in with a re reapplication, but they need to show some of the things we're asking for on there. And if they conform, and I think if the board's satisfied, we can move forward. Otherwise, why the hell are we putting an addition on a building that's already squished in there? >> You know what I mean? >> I mean, it's as simple as when we're looking at snow storage areas. This is show me truck turning in the back that a 18-wheeler can get back there, a specific vehicle that is meant for transporting these vehicles.

Uh, and if it can't fit on on the site and it can't turn around, then I know that you can't unload on site. Uh, and if uh you're unloading on site, indicate the designated unloading area with the vehicle turning going into that area. >> Thank you. >> I can tell you from personal experience, I had to drive off the road because, excuse me, they were unloading cars >> and as far as I went off the road, if you know how Ridge Road is, it's slants. And uh I was somewhat concerned, even though I had control of my own car, I was concerned that I was going to slide down the the hill there. And uh because the those uh trucks are huge, even if you go around them, you're still very close to them.

See, in this case, Erica, again, with the size of the addition they're putting on there, um 30 foot, that's a big piece of an addition on with the back of the other the existing building is probably what is it about 4550 ft or something? Not even. It It's It's a large piece of that overall site. And the way they're showing the the bypass to get around there, that may be a spot where they have to come in with a truck or something to to to negotiate turning. I don't know. >> We definitely would want to see that on the plan. How's a truck coming in there and how are they getting out? Again, >> one of the one of the PRC comments also addresses the concern of vehicles parking in in the bumpout around the proposed addition.

So, we would require that it be marked as a fire lane because you can't it has to be accessible 24/7. Can't park cars there. >> Yeah. And we know how accurate that'll stay, too. Um All right. All right. So, let's let's boil this thing down. What are we looking for? We're looking for eliminating going any further to the south. Correct. Going into past the buffer line there, right? >> Or the the zoning line. >> Um showing how they could park cars inside and out. Uh definite side. What's the side step back on on the on the east side there? As far as your pavement, it looks like it's right right on the edge of the black top, doesn't it?

>> Yeah. I wasn't able to determine the proposed setback on this particular >> It looks awfully tight. I think that is clarified. These would be the notes we would be wanting to take down to >> the proposed setback for that building addition is 32 feet from the eastern property lane. >> But we're referring to >> the building, but I'm referring to the just where the cars are parked. Edge of pavement. Edge of pavement is a property line. >> See, it looks like edge of pavement is right right to the lot line. >> Right. I'm pretty sure >> pave from line to line. >> 20 foot buffer green space is required.

>> Yeah. But see, that's that's where the stuff gets away. We've got to get this I think I think need to look at this thing engineering wise and bring it into conformance for a review. Bottom line. Okay. It's a small lot. What the heck is that lot? It's only what? 151 ft. Yeah. 151 ft. Got houses with bigger lots than that. We're putting Anyways, I don't want to be labor. I think you need to come up with something on that thing to >> modify it to make it accommodate truck traffic, you know, unloading on the site, no parking out by the road, and eliminating going back beyond the uh rear uh zoning line.

Those would be the three main things and side setbacks to be shown. Okay. Did you have any comments or concerns on the proposed uh elevation drawings for the the building >> for the addition? >> Well, it looks like they're going to be >> refacing it. >> Refacing the whole thing? >> No, that's an improvement. I that I don't find an issue with that. That's cleaning it up, making it a nicer appearance. But that's a really cute picture, though, isn't it? I guess the question there is and is any of it being lit extra more than what it is currently? Is the whole Mitsubishi motors, the whole vertical strip on top going to be lit up at night or is it just certain portions of that facade um going to be lit continuously?

something shows the total lighting package >> because it looks like they're also proposing to have that red lighting around the entrance door. So, you're going to have red lighting at night there, too. We did just receive, I think earlier today, a signed package application for this project. Um, so we'll we'll make sure to get that those details flushed out before next meeting. >> All right. I don't know what else we can do here tonight with it. So, I think those few comments we we're not taking them down. They'll be in the tape. I guess that's the best we can do. I've brought them up a couple times.

So, >> yeah, we've jotted them down. >> Okay. All right. I guess that's all we're going to do this evening. >> Excellent. Thank you for your input. We appreciate it. >> Do we need to table it to the next meeting? >> I'm sorry. >> Sketch plan. >> Just sketch plan. >> Yeah, it was just sketch plan. Yeah. >> All right. Uh Mark, what do we got? Next one is >> 512 Lake Road. >> Yeah, 512 Lake Road. The applicant Jay Polalmo is requesting preliminary final site plan approval and a public hearing associated with the construction of a ft twocar garage on a 0.49 49 acre lot located in a single family district under sections 269-10 350-10 and 350-36 of the code of the town of Webster.

>> Yes, sir. >> Good evening board. My name is Jay Palmo. I'm the owner of JC Concepts. I'm on I'm here on behalf of my client Kate McCertie. Uh we're proposing to a remove an existing uh structure that is 14 by 24 currently for size. We want to expand out 10 ft to the east elevation and go another 4T to the north. Uh the application is uh going to be a vinyl sided polebar style construction. So no steel siding. It's going to actually have uh ashvalt shingles to match the existing roof structure of the house. Uh it is a 24x 28 10-ft tall pole barn that has a 412 truss on it coming in at 14 foot uh average off average grade for our elevation height which is 4 ft lower than the current house uh at 18 ft off average grade all the way around the existing property.

The reason that we need this uh this approval is because it's on the backyard of the house because of the lake view of the house. It's one of those situations. Uh so my client has a electric vehicle that she wants to be able to keep inside along with some uh other family effects and another truck. And obviously electric vehicles, we like to keep them under roof. So we will be doing a sub panel that is currently in the space. We're going to be decommissioning it during construction and we'll bring that conduit back in. It's going to be an uninsulated uh unconditioned space with one man door on the west elevation and one overhead door on the south elevation with appropriate coach lights on each opening and no overhead spotlights that are going to affect any neighbors views.

It's going to have a concrete floor as well. >> Mhm. >> I was looking at that. How come you didn't move it closer to the house? Just move it back so you wouldn't have to walk so far. >> Hi, Kate McCertie. 512 Lake Road. Um, I didn't really want it closer to the house. I like it I like it where it is. I don't mind walking and my um future husband does not mind shoveling, so I'm good with it. >> Can I ask you a question? How long have you lived there? I moved in about a year and a half ago. >> Oh, you're new? >> Yeah, I'm new. >> I used to play there when I was a kid. >> Oh, really? Yes. The house has been around for a while.

>> Bring that one up. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. That was Harold Bur Burlovs that used to own that years ago. >> Oh, nice. >> Yeah, it was a nice spot. >> I love it. Very happy there. >> I understand what you're doing. >> So, did you shovel it back in the day and that's why you wanted closer or >> um money? >> Yeah. what you're looking for as far as I guess you got to get a variance for it, right Josh? >> Yes. >> So, but there's a lot of them. That's the way they all were back along the lake along that lake road there. >> Um, >> so one question that does come up again because this aerial photography is dated >> and the survey map that we have is dated 2010.

There appears to be three buildings on this parcel. What is the building that's behind the existing garage? >> There is a uh freestanding shed that's currently there that my client is willing to forego because I know there is restrictions to uh multiple dwellings or multiple bu out buildings on a property. Uh that is something that we are prepared to as a condition of our approvals uh remove and eliminate before any uh final CFC is permitted. I'd like to also add too, there was a uh previous application uh last owner of a expansion of a carport to the said property. Uh there's current footers in the ground.

Uh and it's actually going to be in the within the footprint of what we're proposing. So they just never built that carport off the existing garage, but that was originally proposed as a 24x 24. We're going to go 24x 28. uh just reducing our impact of size and it's going to match the clap siding in the house. The current house is cedar uh clapboard. It's going to have a vinyl clapboard going on as a color match and then eventually we're going to be doing the siding on the house as well uh down the road. But now we have our color palette all matching the neighborhood all horizontal substrate, no vertical.

So basically the building is going to pretty much match the house. >> Yes, >> correct. >> Well, I guess going back this would be a second accessory building on the site and they indicated they would take off the other one. >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Taking one you'd be taking the one down. That would be something we do as part of >> the wood tech shed will be removed and then the existing building will be torn down and then the new building will be built in that place. >> Okay. Anybody any questions? It's >> No, I think it's simple thing. >> Pretty simple. It's uh >> you know and it's decent. It's good looking.

So >> yeah siding on it. All right. >> Yours is your color is different than that. >> What's that? >> I said they have a brown door with it looks like a green sighting and you have blue and gray. Which >> which one is it? >> So the >> I think it's the angle of the screen that you're looking at. >> Is it the TV screen? >> I think it's the angle of the screen that you're looking at. If he turns the screen towards you, you'll see the >> crazy. That's all right. >> The siding is a lighter green color called spring meadow. Our trim and our uh corners are going to be a sand drift. >> And now we're gonna be doing an orange Corning driftwood shingle on the roof to match existing.

>> It is a green greenish gray. >> Oh, all right. Cuz I I'm looking and I'm seeing two different colors. So, unless I'm losing my mind, there's you know, >> it's late. We've had a long night. >> It's a long night. Okay. >> Yeah. My gosh. Um Okay. Um this is a public hearing, is it? >> Yes. >> Yeah, it is. I don't know if there's anybody wishing to speak for you want to get up and complain about it. I don't think so. Huh. Okay. Um All right. We'll close the public hearing, bring it back up. Anybody any concerns? >> Nope. Nope. >> Pretty simple little operation. Um we can approve it, but then it's we'll have to put in there and make it subject to uh uh getting getting a variance from the zoning board to >> to the secret.

>> Yeah. Go ahead. Do it. Yeah. Tana Webbster Planning Board consider a request by J. Palmo to to replace an existing garage with a 672 foot twocar garage and a 0.49 acre parcel having SPL number 048.19-1-82-1. The planning board classifies the proposed action as a type 2 action under section 617.5C2 state environmental quality review regulations and therefore is not subject to further review. >> See the house is here. is here. This is the >> All in favor? >> Anyone opposed? >> You have to do that. >> Okay, we've gone through that. Let's um All right, >> I'll make a motion for preliminary approval.

Accessory building for 512 Lake Road. Lot is restricted to one accessory building. So, one of the three, >> what did you call it? Was it a shed? >> The woodtech shed. Yes, sir. >> That that shed would have to be removed. Uh the building is to conform to the size and location presented on the plan. Placement of the building shall conform to all setback requirements. Um no point in the building will be higher than the existing structure. No commercial use shall occur on the parcel. Accessory building shall be used for personal use only as defined by town code. Significant construction shall occur within one year as deemed by the planning board to expire on September 2nd, 2026.

Comply with all requirements of any state, county, and town agency. All site work to be in compliance with the standards of town of Webster. Subject to all engineering government approvals. Sub to all appropriate government fees if any. Subject to resolution of final approved minutes. >> It's a motion. Need a second. >> Second. >> All in favor? All right. Hi. >> Okay. Why don't you do you got to do a final? Really? Should do a final >> everything I just said. >> Make it subject to all preliminary conditions. >> Thank you. >> That's your motion. I need a second. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I.

>> You're all sir. >> Awesome. Thank you, board. Appreciate it. >> Last item on the agenda tonight is Carol sign located at 369 Phillips Road. Applicant Connor Ewing of Elevated Sign Solutions is requesting sign approval associated with the replacement of existing facade and monument signs, 30 square ft facade signs and 21.5 SC monument sign for the Careralot child care facility on a 2.3 acre parcel located in an R3 single family residential district under section 265-7. seven of the code of the town of Webster. >> And there isn't anybody here for the application. >> Um Josh, you said the sign is already up.

>> Yes, it was brought to our attention. The sign was installed already. Um I've had several conversations with this particular sign applicant. Um they assured me they were going to be here tonight and unfortunately it looks like they're not. >> Okay. So what we can do then is just give them a letter saying that >> we feel that the it's a it's a backlit sign. So the white is glaring white. >> Yes. And I >> So that the sign will need to conform to what the code is prior to their you know reapplying. >> Yeah. They were they were counseledled numerous times. >> Yeah. They let them change the sign.

That's it. >> Put a number down. >> Well that's what I'm saying. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. We'll >> you know what I'm saying, Dave? The the white on here >> Yeah. >> is all lit bright white. That's >> similar to the Christian flooring sign that we're taking to the court for code enforcement as well. >> Sign is everything against our code. >> Yep. Okay. >> Needs to come down. >> All right. So, the suggestion of the board is to issue a letter >> to the applicant >> or you can deny it. However, however you want to handle it. We can follow up from a code enforcement perspective. >> That's the way to do it.

Deny the application. >> I deny it. >> Okay. I'll make a motion we deny the application for car lot sign as proposed because it's number one. It's not conforming to what the town code is and the applicant has already put the sign up prior to any approvals >> and and and that we were on here for site sign approval tonight and the applicant has failed to appear >> at this hearing. >> I'll second that. >> Okay. Have a motion. Have a second. All in favor? >> I >> Okay, that's it then. >> That's it for tonight, right? >> Yep. >> Well, there's no meeting minutes here, so I don't know what to tell you.

We have to wait till >> All right. Well, we'll have to we'll get together. >> Sorry. >> Wait, there there might be. Hold on. >> We're still getting a few things figured out. You said meeting minutes from last week. >> The last Yeah. Sorry. >> Okay. Did I hit the right button here? Cuz this suddenly popped up. >> I didn't get them. >> Warning recorded audio. >> Well, I don't know what happened here. >> Okay, got it. >> What's matter? >> I just got I stopped the recording and it says recorded audio was lost at the labeled locations. possible causes. >> Okay, I think what we're going to do right now is we'll close the p the public hearings are all done and uh we've completed our meeting this night for this evening.

So, thank you for coming in. >> I'm sorry. >> Sorry. >> Right here.