Minutes

WEBSTER TOWN PLANNING BOARD MINUTES

PLACE; Webster Town Board Meeting Room 1002 Ridge Road

Anthony Casciani, Chairman Dave Malta, Vice Chairman

Mark Giardina, Secretary Drazen Gasic

Derek Anderson

John Kosel

Pegey Maltman

Frank Ciardi, Attorney

Katherine Kolich, Recording Secretary

Josh Artuso, Director of Community Planning & Development

Erika Corsi, Planner of Community Planning & Development

Borad meeting of the August 5, 2025. We have 5 items on the agenda this evening.

If anyone is here for the Dinks & Links that is going on the Hegedorn’s property, that has been

tabled to September 2, 2025.

Pledge of Allegiance/Roll Call.

Summary overview of outcome:

TABLED MATTERS

:

I. SIENNA RESERVE

Status; APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS:

No fence shall be located along the rear property line.

4x4 posts with signs shall be placed on each rear property line indicating the areas of

conservation easement.

2. COBBLESTONE PLACE PHASE 2

Status; APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS:

Pursuant to the Town of Webster Engineering Department comments and review.

SCHEDULED MATTERS

:

3. MCALPIN INDUSTRIES, INC,-PHASE 1-MODIFICATIONS

Py. 167 August 5, 2025 Planning Meeting

4. MCALPIN INDUSTRIES, INC.-PHASE 2-FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL

Pursuant to the Town of Webster Engineering Department comments and review.

5. FINGER LAKES FEDERAL CREDIT UNION

6. LOCKWOOD ELECTRIC

7. DINKS AND LINKS

information requested by the Town **

(MARK GIARDINA READ EACH APPLICATION INTO THE RECORD)

(SEE ATTACHED SEQR

RESOLUTIONS

)

requesting FINAL SITE PLAN AND SUBDIVISION APPROVAL associated with the

creation of ten (10) single- family lots on a 5.94-acre parcel having SBL# 080.05-2-2.1 located in

the R-3 Single Family Residential District under Section 269-10, 296-27, and 350-12 of the Code

of the Town of Webster.

plan review and October 21 of 2021, I'm sorry, October 19"? it received preliminary approval so

in the meantime there has been issues trying to get sewer to it so and so forth. So, there was some

delay. Now, just for the record, a lot of this stuff has already been beaten down pretly well. The

zoning there is R-3, so this isn’t an allowed use in that area. There are several PRC comments at

the time and those were applied to these plans, the current plans. Again, that area came in under a

cluster development. A cluster development in the Town of Webster allows lots to be a minimum

of 75 foot wide. There isn’t’ a lot in this project, that is

75. Everyone is there. | think there's

only a couple maybe that are

80. The rest are all 100 foot wide lots. So, they conform to the

average lots of people in that whole area with standard tots. Instead of parkland, it was

recommended by the homeowners in the area to go to a conservation casement and Rudy, he can

designate restrictions on no tree removals and so on and so forth by the residents. That's

something that can be putin. That was one of the request that they had. And one of the things we

talked about also was at the rear line of these parcels where the casement would be to pul posts

in. So, we've talked to Rudy about it. Posting 4 by 4 inch posts with a sign on them, conservation

easement, no removal of trees or anything within this area. So, that will be part of the resolution

Pe. 168 August 5, 2025 Planning Meeting

for approval on this project. Those are just notes Thad just to bring it back up to date. So, Pm

sorry.

Appearing before the board Mike Bogojevski with BME Associates. Rudy Neufeld from Insight

Land Development couldn't be here tonight but we also have Megan Serini from our office who

did help and was the engineer working on the plans also. Like he had mentioned, the project

received preliminary approval back in October of 2021s0 we are here secking final approval

subdivision approval tonight.

We've been working with the town on confirming some of the sewer details the town was looking

al,..some Sewer options so we have been working with the town. So, hence the kind of the longer

time frame between preliminary and coming back for final now but at this point, I think we’ ve got

all that sorted oul with town staff. We’ve met with town staff initially, so that way we can get a

lot of those detatls ironed out and now Rudy would like to look for final subdivision approval and

move forward with the subdivision.

I's been a little bit like.... mentioned, so Pll do a quick recap of the project just to kind of... don’t

know how much everybody remembers of it. Like you’d mentioned, it’s zoned R-3. Access will

be off Orchard Road. The project’s on the north side of Orchard Road. The roadway will be private

and like you mentioned, there’ll be an HOA for the subdivision as a whole to...for the ownership

of the private portions of the project and to provide maintenance of those items. Ultilities are

consistent with a subdivision like this water main will be extended from Orchard Road. Sanitary

sewer Is consistent with the preliminary approval approved plans to go to the north to Blue Creek

Drive cul de sac. There’s an existing sanitary sewer manhole there and that’s where the sewer will

connect to. Storm sewers will run along the roadway and then will extend to a proposed storm

water management area in the northwest corner of the project there. That’s basically where the

drainage flows to and then it goes to the north into existing storm sewers within the subdivision to

the north. Like you had mentioned, there are conservation easement areas that were reviewed

during the preliminary approval on basically the east and west boundaries of the project. Those

haven't changed and still consistent with the preliminary plans. One of the conditions of the

preliminary approval was for additional tree plantings to enhance the buffer to the residential

neighbors to the north so that is one of the additions that was made to the final subdivision plans

was additional tree plantings along that...basically that northern boundary of the property of the

project and then the one thing Rudy did propose was, and he’s done it, | believe, on a coupte of

his other projects where he plants trees at the end of the roadway along with some portions of

fencing, board on board, wooden fencing to try to create a little landscaped area at the end of the

road so that way, kind of creates a little buffer and designates the end of the road also which would

help to the residents of the north also. We did receive PRC comments before we submitted the

final application and then additionally since submitting, we've received town engineer comments

and town staff comments.

Part of the final application included the responses to those inittal PRC comments and then we did

just submit written responses to the latest round of town engineer and town staff comments. A lot

of that stuff we've met with town staff on just to review. We're confident, Rudy’s confident that

Pg. 169 August 5, 2025 Planning Mceting

alot of that stuff can be addressed. We don’t see anything in there that hasnt been addressed or

hasn't been talked about al this point so we're pretty confident that stuff can be basically just

finalized on any revised plans to be submitted to town staff and then reviewed from there. A lot of

technical changes if that needs to happen. But that’s very much the recap and summary of what's

happened from preliminary to final, but the plans themselves are very much consistent with the

approved preliminary plans, So, with that 'd be happy to answer any questions from the board.

minute here from Dan Dmachich at 789 Blue Creek Drive and he had some comments here. I

think what we'll do is we'll add this into the record, and these are very similar to the comments .

[ am assuming some of you people are neighbors there. I received a letter from this gentleman

today in regard to the project and some or people from your group had submitted a letter previous

with a bunch of signatures. You're al! familiar with that, I] guess, Well, [have to compliment you

on it. You did a nice job with that, whoever did it. They were legitimate requests. I agree with

many of the things on there. | think you did a very fine job with that whoever did it. Just for

correcting on some of them, within the 65 foot buffer. ’m just going to read a couple of these just

to try and shorten this thing up so we can get all on the same page here with the board. (READING

FROM THE LETTER-PLEASE SEE ATTACHED LETTER ALONG WITH ALL

SIGNATURES)

Within the 65° of buffer which is 15" beyond the 50° setback and constitutes the “limit of

disturbance” in lots 6-10. We propose that the removal of existing vegetation be specifically

prohibited and included in the definition constitutive of disturbance within this area, in addition

to any excavation of soil and grading.

J agree with that 100%. We can put that ina resolution. We can put that in that, that does not get

cut and does not get disturbed. Okay, that’s one of the main things you had, So, you want to keep

that buffer. So, that’s ...it’s a request and personally, f agree. I’m hoping the board will go also.

There is a comment in there about existing trees to be saved over 8 inches and so on. That is in

the approval. We already did that. It says we didn’t do it. Yes, we did. It’s right in the minutes

of the preliminary approval. That was accomplished.

Trees that are mature, trees need to be preserved.

Now, obviously, we all know that you can’t preserve a tee where there's a house going to go, or

a driveway, the road, and so on and so forth. Tree’s on the property then can be saved, and those

we can put in that those be saved. Any trees over 8 inches, not ina right of way or anything, can

be saved. Fm going through these because I’m trying to address your letter without making a

whole evening of it here, so bear with me.

Within all areas outside of the “limits of disturbance” we would propose that rather that this area

being constitulive of a conservation easement belonging to the HOA of the new residents, who may

vote atany time to encroach, alier er remove it, greater protection should be afforded to this

wooded area by either of the following options.

Pg. 170 August 5, 2025 Planning Meeting

r 8/5/25 Webster Planning Board Presentation:

1. Intro: Dan Drmacich, 789 Blue Creek Drive, Webster

2. As a resident who lives adjacent to the Sienna Project, | have, as

all of my neighbors do, strong concerns about the impact this

housing development will have on us, specifically from the

removal of vegetation which has provided us over the past 30

years:

A. Protection from the noise pollution from Rt. 104,

B. Natural reduction of the temperature, and

C. A safety corridor for deer, fox and coyotes, as they travel to

and from the Webster Bird Sanctuary

3. However, we do realize that the land in question has been sold

to Mr. Neufeld & approval has been granted by this Planning

Board for development.

|

4. Despite our disappointment that the Town of Webster did not

purchase this land and use it as an extension of the Bird

Sanctuary for the recreational benefit of Webster citizens, our

neighborhood and the animals, whose protection is now

diminished, and will undoubtedly force more of them onto the

surrounding roads where more of their deaths will occur,

accompanied by more car accidents, our neighborhood citizens

are hopeful that the Planning Board directions to Mr. Neufeld

will result in some action that will partially meet our

environmental concerns that include:

A. Protecting the current vegetation in the corridor between the

Sienna development and the Blue Creek neighborhood,

June 28, 2025 Obi asee—

/

Gregor Schuler, 793 Blue Creek Drive

Orchard Road (Planning Board Meeting July 1*, 2025, 7pm)

located between Orchard Road and Blue Creek Drive for the purpose of building several

homes, for approximately $120,000. While our entire neighborhood opposes this

development, we understand that in an absence of the ability to purchase the land

ourselves, the only recourse we have is to appeal to you, the Planning Board, to ensure

that the developer adheres to certain conditions which ensure that the development is

minimaily invasive. !t appears that the current final site plan makes substantial provision

for the preservation of existing trees and habitat, and we are therefore urging the Planning

Board to ensure that these provisions are upheld and implemented through conditions

you, the Planning Board, are able to attach to Site Plan Approval.

We are therefore proposing the following:

A)Within the 65' of buffer which is 15’ beyond the 50' setback and constitutes the ‘limit of

disturbance’ in lots 6-10, we propose that ‘removal of existing vegetation’ be specifically

addition to any excavation of soil and grading.

| 50 Laie prohibited and included in the definition constitutive of ‘disturbance’ within this area, in

AM

2. Within the +/- 3.8 acres outside of the ‘limits of disturbance’ beyond lots 1 and 2, we

propose a similar prohibition be set upon the removal of existing vegetation. If existing

vegetation is to be removed here, as indicated by the engineer's note that ‘existing trees

to be selectively cleared’ (p.5), we would expect an inventory of ‘The location of all

existing stands of trees on the site, with particular notation of all existing trees with a

diameter of eight inches or more,’ as should have been required by the Planning Board o

the site in its entirety, prior to Preliminary Site Plan Approval, according to Cn. 215

Section A, tem T9 6

8. As we understand thafTaiiure to have included this in this

first instance would potentially invalidate subsequent site plan approval, we would be

willing to accept the specific prohibition of removat of all trees in this area—or a selective

inventory of precisely which trees are identified to be removed-- as a condition of site

plan approval, in lieu of the complete inventory

3. Within all areas outside of the ‘limits of disturbance,’ we would propose that rather than

this area being constitutive of a conservation easement belonging to the HOA of the new

should be afforded to this wooded area by either of the following options:

a The Town should control this easement, or

0

Myr residents, who may vote at any time to encroach, alter or remove it, greater protection

Dead

por

which prohibit the removal of existing mature vegetation outside of the

Ea (5 The developer should be required to place restrictions upon the deeds of all lots

disturbance area, as well as being required to provide notice to the purchasers

“a

Ml

a 1472 Blve Creek Dive

" ese C, Treardona. Wwebsier “fly O-Jnen.don.

174 Yoe Greek’ Daye

* Veaceurt Tuncay webster , ¢ ie

3

144 Donald RPyYAaAw 77% BlYue CRERk OR Vesratt Kam

SV ia uy) WS Dluelrw “Bhan | Loo

"Cli LE View 18 Blue CreeK (bY Be

7 NE Cal PID BE Bw bb yo [Ving dr

ll AEaLimany eS Blue Ae :

* LP na \) ) Latte: aw KG + el eat LA Medios e

2 David SA LETES Tat Flue Crek wy. 7a

*Soym stow son FAL Blt deo > Lge fn

“ Jerri Sresahard (632 oe Lanes Trad Oe) roochard

23 David Creschard 632 Fire bales Toul OZ. (

24

Theresa Knapp SOD Pive Croek Wu sa Z Hua(g

” ul Bec KIAEP So db leak ya

© Myle B. Dayoan 292 BlsoCceek - HEB

Man Kath aes Lye 742 Bly (wen - eo

7]

I. The town take control of the easement, 03

That is an absolute. Once an HOA is formed, the homeowners there then...the 10 homeowners

that are ultimately be in there, they can’t vote to say well you know what, we’re going to change

it. No, that land stays forever wild. That is part of a residential area. That's the way an HOA

works so there is nobody going to be able to go in and change anything afterwards, okay. And let's

sec,

2. The developer should be required to place restrictions upon the deeds of all lot which

prohibit the removal of existing mature vegetation outside of the disturbance area, as

well as being required to provide notice to the purchasers of such restrictions. This

condition would be a function of the Planning Board's creation of the subdivision which

is effected through final ste plan approval.

That could go right in the deed when they buy the house. That would be in their deed that they

can not disturb that land, okay. | am trying to address some of the things that your letters. ..pretty

much all of them, And I think that was pretty much it. So, with that, we did close the public hearing,

but I know this is four years ago, but it’s been awhile. If there is anybody who wants to speak in

regard to this, just keep it short for a few minutes. Anything new or different, and you’re more

than welcome to come up. Yes sir. Give us your name and address.

Gregory Schider at 793 Bluecreek Drive: Lam right against the land because it’s a pie shape. The

only real concern T have at this point is the fence and trees. The fence will stunt the growth of the

trees, and | looked at his other properties where he's done it and tings are falling over, 1 mean, it

looks terrible. Ht should just be a double row of trees. Make it look pretty and more protection

because a fence doesn’t grow high, trees do. And then TF just want to make sure there's no

additional assessment on my property because last time on the map that I got, Lwas giving all nv

land to the town because no one proof the blueprint. So, 1 just want to make sure no additional

assessment is put on my property where the sewer line is going. So, P don’t know where | can see

that.

use my land, but on the last survey map or whatever, vou know, layout, they had my land being

given to vou guys and I want to make sure no assessment is put on my land. Okay, can we do back

on one of the maps so we can see. There looks like there’s an assessment for that. (VIEWING

THE SURVEYS ON THE TV)

That's the property line and this is the sewer line.

Pg. 171 August 5.2025 Planning Mecting

over onto yours. I got you. Okay. Thank you. Anybody else wish to speak.

shows where the trees are being removed, these plans show trees being removed from this

gentleman's property.

down 3 years ago.

work, but if it’s done already, then it's not a concern.

Diana Davis at 942 Gaywood Lane: Hi, 1 just want to say, actually 1 realty like this development.

So, fd think it’s great that you guys work with a developer and there's preservation of you know,

existing vegetation. The conservation easement thing is awesome. This is the kind of thing that,

vou know, our group, The Webster Open Space Committee, we really sort of want to see happening

more often in Webster. £ think i is the perfect example of how when vou have a development, it

doesn’t have to be completely awful and destroy everything. Tt can be actually really nice, and

vou can get the best of both worlds. And [think it’s also.a great example of how residents. 1 don’t

know who Dan ix, but To think it’s a great example of how they can...you know, if they're

understanding the code and they can intelligently as for things that make sense that are within

your power to do, this is how it’s all suppose to werk. So yeah, T just want to say this ts exactly

what f like to see and yay! Also, 1 just wanted to clarify the elements of their letter that you were,

sort of agreeing to and saving, vou know, this is good sniff. You're going to read those into the

resolution, Obviously, not the thing about the homeowners association because, as you explained,

that doesn't need to be.

makes a motion, we can, In my opinion, | would like to enter these into the resolution.

Pe. 172 August 5, 2025 Planning Meeting

did submit a letter and this came late today. | mean, this ts like 4 years late, bul you know, we're

okay with W. And pretty much everything he’s got in here is what I just expressed because tt

sounds like he read your letter and put a Jot of it in here. So, what I'll do is [ will give it to Katherine,

and we'll enter this into the record also. Okay. All right, now board, some were not here when this

was approved back then, They did receive a preliminary approval and since then it has received

all governmental approval. It's done through PRC; it’s been updated with comments from PRC

commitice and so on and so forth. So, if anybody has anything that they'd like to add into it, please

help out.

all the necessary paperwork for it. So, you fellas are all set with it. Ok, engineering is good. That

was a concern we had back then and here we are tonight. So, we did SEQR on this back then right.

Ok, that was done at preliminary. Alright this may take a little bit because | don’t have anybody

preparing a motion for me.

RESOLUTION 25-0056 Anthony Casciani made a motion for FINAL

SITE PLAN APPROVAL Located on

Orchard Rd. Applicant Insite Land

Development, Inc. is requesting FINAL

SITE PLAN APPROVAL associated with

the creation of ten (10) single- family lots on

a5.94-acre parcel having SBL# 080.05-2-2. 1

located in the R-3 Single Family Residential

District under Section 269-10, 296-27, and

350-12 of the Code of the Town of Webster.

Which was seconded by Mark Giardina.

FINAL APPROVAL CHECKLIST

1. Subject to PRC comments.

Subject to Parks and Recreation fees Gf applicable)

Subject to Preliminary Approval Conditions.

Subject to all applicable governmental fees,

Subject to Department of Public Works approval

6. Significant construction shall occur within one year, as deemed by the Planning Board, to expire

on $.5.26

7. The conditions of Preliminary and Final approval are depicted on the cover page of the final

designed plans.

$8. The Engineer for the proposed project shall provide a Letter of Certification that all proposed

work was completed, as per Planning Beard resolution of final approval before a Certificate of

Occupancy will be issued,

9. A Letter of Credit to the Town for the project shall include the fee for the Engineer's final

ceruification inspection of the site.

10. All storm water facilities are to be constructed first

Py. 173 August 5, 2025 Planning Meeting

wae iw MN

11. Subject to resolution of the Final approved minutes.

12. Approvals are subject to Drawing Na: 2723-16

13, NO FENCING along property linc, just trees.

14. (PER MR. CASCIANI) SEE ATTACHED NOTES AND COMMENT LETTER FROM

NEIGHBOR.

Now, if you guys want to help me out. | want to add a couple of the things that we just discussed. I'm

going to pul those in there too. One is and I will put this whole sentence in.

Within the 65° of buffer which is 13° beyond the 30° setback and constitutes the “limit of

disturbance” in lots 6-10. We propose that the removal of existing vegetation be specifically

prohibited and included in the definition constitutive of disturbance within this area, in addition

toany excavation of soil and grading.

the conservation easement signage along that limit of the conservation easement which is beyond

the setback.

Anthony Casciani; Ok, the trees, we had that in the preliminary. So, you're going to have to

before final and before you get a permit and everything, you're going to have to just locate the

trees that youre saving on the site there 8 inches. So, saving the trees, that’s afready been in

there. So, we'll follow up with that one.

up a little bit. Will put it in but part of the approval for the HOA is the deed restriction is that

none of thal and can be touched and that’s controlled because it is an HOA. So, the HOA

controls that.

(wo proposed conservation easements then gets included in the HOA.

buffer coming back that of the buffer area that 4 x 4 inch signed, this is a conservation be placed

In the rear lines of those lots,

Pg. 174 August 5, 2025 Planning Meeting

neighborhood. | think these are everything that you requested.

It's only proposed just at the end of the road.

evergreens and then beyond that ts the amount of buffer existing trees that we could keep to limit

the grading so but at least the fence isn’t along the property line. It’s just a small section at the

end of the road. The real buffer is the continuous row of tree plantings. The landscape plan

shows it really.

your...... what's that.

drive road, right: there.

stops,

house, only in Webster. 2.0.0.2... 1 CAN NOT HEAR.

NOT HEAR.

Pg. 175 August 5, 2025 Planning Mecting

Anthony Caseiint Ok, tets do that, So. we"H eliminate the fencing and propose the trees to

match to what they re puting in.

should be just a line of evergreen trees. And again, what you just said, it’s under the HOA so that

makes the restriction so nobody can do anything as far as cutting trees in there. Ok, I think that

covers it pretty much. I think we have addressed the comments of the neighbors. [think we’ ve

worked as best we can with it because, you know, we all know that there's houses going up and

the land is approved for it and all we can do is the best we can do with it. You know,

VOTE;

Mr. Casciani

Mr. Malta

Mr. Giardina

Mr. Anderson

Mr. Kosel

Mrs. Maltman

Mr. Gasic

RESOLUTION 25-0057

VOTE:

Mr. Casctani

Mr. Malta

Mr. Grardina

Mr, Anderson

Mr. Kosel

Mrs. Maltman

Mr. Gasic

AYE

ABSENT

AYE

AYE

AYE

AYE

ABSENT

Anthony Casciani made a motion for

SUBDIVISION APPROVAL Located on

Orchard Rd. Applicant Insite Land

Development, Inc. Is requesting

SUBDIVISION APPROVAL associated

with the creation of ten (10) single- family

lots on a 5.94-acre parcel having SBL#

080.05-2-2.1 located inthe R-3 Single Family

Residential District under Section 269-10,

296-27, and 350-12 of the Code of the Town

of Webster. Which was seconded by Mark

Giardina.

AYE

ABSENT

AYE

AYE

AYE

AYE

ABSENT

Pg. 176 August 5, 2025 Planning Meeting

COBBLESTONE PLACE PITASE 2: Located at 1025 Ravenside Line. Applicant Brickwood

Management is requesting FINAL APPROVAL (

PUBLIC HEARING

) in association with the

construction of a 3-story building containing 47 market rate apartment units on a 5.0-acre lot

having SBL# 079. 15-1-8.003/SEN2 located in the MHR Medium High Residential District under

Sections 269-1] and 350-14 of the Code of the Town of Webster.

Appearing before the board was Jake Calabrese (NEVER SIGNED IN) and | am with Marathon

Engineering here to present the Cobblestone Phase 2 project. Also here is Luke Vanupps with

Brookwood Management as well as Matt Tomlinson with Marathon Enginecring.

We are seeking preliminary and final approval for the 3-story; 47 unit market rate apartment

facility. Just to kind of follow-up on some board comments from the July meeting. We finalized

the snow storage locations as well as, we confirmed with our landscape architect that the plantings

on the south side. They're along the 3 on | slope will grow just fine. He’s very confident in that.

Between that last meeting and tonight, we have updated the SWPPP, resubmitted it and received

comments back from the town on 7/23 and we were able to sit down with Keith, Mark, Erika with

the town to just review the comments and just conform that they were more maintenance related

than engineering related. After that meeting, we updated our plan just to include a pond plan as

well as some minor updates within the body of the SWPPP and then resubmitted that the first of

August to the town. They are currently, | think, just reviewing that now. Other than that, there

really hasn’t been too many changes plan wise. So, with that, 1 will hear any comments or

concerns from the board.

Peggy, you had comments about the trash and recycle stuff.

comments on that.

on and so forth. With that, Keith and Josh, you guys are alright with all that.

yel.

hearing. Now, if there is anybody for that project. We did close it, but we could...Okay, that’s

fine, we'll leave tt closed. Anybody, any comments for this for preliminary.

Py. 177 August 5, 2025 Planning Meeting

RESOLUTION 25-0058 Anthony Casctani made oa motion for

PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL

Located at 1025 Ravenside Lane. Applicant

Brick wood Management Is requesting

PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL

(

PUBLIC HEARING

) in association with the

construction of a 3-story building containing 47

markct rate apartment units on a 5.0-acre lot having

SBL# 079,15-1-8.003/SEN2 located in the MHR

Medium High Residential District under Sections

269-11 and 350-14 of the Code of the Town of

Webster, Which was seconded by Mark Giardina.

PRELIMINARY APPROVAL CHECKLIST

oe

10. Il.

12.

13. I4.

15.

16

Subject to PRC Comments

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

Subject to Conservation Board comments

Subject to Monroe County Water Authority comments

Subject to the determination of the ZBA for requested variances.

Address any land to be conveyed to the Town.

Address any recent subdivision approvals of adjacent lands.

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

Webster.

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

by the Town of Webster

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

Preserve all mature trees on sile, where possible, and mark said trees by the developer's

engineer prior to the commencing of any site work.

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

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

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

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

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

Approvals are subject to Drawing No: 1764-25

Proceed to Final Approval

VOTE:

Mr. Casciani AYE

Mr. Malta ABSEN]

Mr. Giardina AYE

Mr. Anderson AYE

Mr. Kosel AYE

Mrs. Maltman AYE

Mr. Gasic ABSENT

Pg. 178 August 5, 2025 Planning Meeting

SUBDIVISION APPROVAL Located at

1025 Ravenside Lane. Applicant Brickwood

Management is requesting FINAL

SUBDIVISION APPROVAL (PUBLIC

HEARING) in) association with — the

construction of a 3-story building containing

47 market rate apartment units on a 5.0-acre

lot having SBL# 079.15-1-8.003/SEN2

located in’ the MHR Medium High

Residential District under Sections 269-1]

and 350-14 of the Code of the Town of

Webster. Which was seconded by Pegg

Maltman.

[ RESOLUTION 25-0059 Anthony Casciani made a motion for FINAL

FINAL APPROVAL CHECKLIST

Subject to PRC comments.

Subject to Parks and Recreation fees (if applicable)

Subject to Pretiminary Approval Conditions.

Subject to all applicable governmental fees.

Subject to Department of Public Works approval

Significant construction shall occur within one year, as deemed by the Planning Board, to expire

on 8.5.26

7. The conditions of Preliminary and Final approval are depicted on the cover page of the final

designed plans.

8. The Engineer for the proposed project shall provide a Letter of Certification that all proposed

work was completed, as per Planning Board resolution of final approval before a Certificate of

Occupancy will be issued.

9. A Letter of Credit to the Town for the project shall include the fee fer the Engineer's final

certification inspection of the site.

10. Alb storm water facilities are to be constructed first

11. Subject to resolution of the final approved minutes.

12. Approvals are subject to Drawing No: 1764-25

ea SS oe

VOTE:

Mr. Casciani AYE

Mr. Malta ABSENT

Mr. Giardina AYE

Mr. Anderson AYE

Mr. Koscl AYE

Mrs. Maltman AYE

Mr. Gasic ABSENT

L Pe. 179 August 5, 2025 Planning Meeting

MCALPIN INDUSTRIES PHASE Eo Located at 865 Hard Road. Applicant McAlpin ladustries is

requesting FINAL SITE PLAN MODIFICATIONS including minor revisions to the previously

approved phase | plans associated with the construction of a 120,000 SF hght manufacturing warehouse

on a 25.65-acre lot having SBL #079.06- [-32.123 located in the OP Core-Area-North Office Park

District under Section 269-10 of the Code of the Town of Webster

Appearing before the board was Mike Ritchie frem Costich Engineering and with me is Matt McAlpin and

some other McAlpin team members here and we were last before you t believe it was May 20"

where this board granted final site plan approva! for phase one as well as special use permit approval.

Since then, Matt and his team have been getting pricing and crunching some numbers and come to the decision

that phase 2 needs to happen sooner than later. Which is what's resulting in this modification of phase | and

they are very minor modifications, and all are a result of building out phase 2 nmmediately. Those minor

changes are the shifting of the loading docks from being built in the phase | portion to just inmediately north.

No change to the number of docks or anything like that just shifted as well as the entrance that was proposed

for the phase one is just getting minimized a little bit because the grand phase 2 entrance will be built

immediately.

Everything else that this board reviewed that engineering reviewed previously in terms of storm water and

traffic and layout are all as they were approved then and was approved per the preliminary plan. So, we did

receive some comments from town staff when we submitted, I guess primarily the first was, can we combine

our phase one, phase tow into one set instead of having two separate standalone, that would be confusing. So,

we did do that, resubmitted that. And then I believe, was it last week or Monday, we received a few minor

sewer department comments and we sent revisions back to the town addressing those today.

So, again, the phase 1 modifications are as a result of moving forward with phase 2, So. happy to answer any

questions this board may have.

any issues with that. [think we're domg that as separate, obviously right. We are doing that as a separate

resolution. We gave final approval to section one a while ago there and with the section with the new section

that they are proposing to do, they had to modify what we already approved. So, basically all we are going here

is just making a modification to what was already approved . Does someone want to make a motion to that, If

you are all ok with that. 1 think it’s just a matter of simple resolution that we are approving the modifications.

RESOLUTION 25-0060 Peggy Maltman made a motion for FINAL

SITE PLAN MODIFICATIONS Located

al 865 Hard Road. Applicant McAlpin

Industries is requesting FINAL SITE PLAN

MODIFICATIONS including minor

revisions lo the previously approved phase |

plans associated with the construction of a

120,000 SF light manufacturing warchouse

on a 25.65-acre lot having SBL #079.06-1-

32.123 located in the OP Core-Area-North

Office Park District under Section 269-10 of

the Code of the Town of Webster. Which was

Pg. 180 August 5, 2025 Planning Meeting

seconded by Anthony Cascran

VOTE:

Mr. Casciant AYE

Mr. Malta ABSENT

Mr. Giardina AYE

Mr. Anderson AYE

Mr. Kosel AYE

Mrs. Maltman AYE

Mr. Gasic ABSENT

Requesting PHASE II FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVALS including minor revisions to the previously

approved phase | plans associated with the construction of a 120,000 SF light manufacturing warehouse

on a 25.65-acre lot having SBL #079.06-1-32.123 located in the OP Core-Area-North Office Park

District under Section 269-10 of the Code of the Town of Webster.

Appearing before the board was Mike Ritchie with Costich Engineering. Section 2 is the 120,000 sq feet

immediately north of phase |. Again, all the stormwater management; traffic, everything was design for full

buildout so no real engineering change just building some additional bio retention facilities and building the

additional parking and one thing did come up, prior to this mention to phase 2, the fire marshal had comments

that a fire access road would be needed to be built whenever phase 2 would be proposed so as you can see

that’s shown on the plans along that west property line and an emergency access road just for emergency access

vehicle only tying into Publishers Parkway. So, everything else per this plan is the same as it was on the

preluninary plan but just building more of it in one step now.

the stories there's some issues with that yet Josh. There's some engineering stuff that needs to be resolved.

Unfortunately, all staff have not had the opportunity to review in depth and detail the phase 2 plans.

But again, if town staff is not comfortable with it, | guess we can come back ata later date. But again, there

really there are no changes to this plan that what was approved, And we are happy to work with staff on any

conditions they may have.

cleanouls. You know, ] know that this is a big project, and they want to make sure it’s all set and we're more

than happy to add a condition that, you know, no plan sign off can be sent in until we've addressed all.

Pg. [81 August 5, 2025 Planning Mectiny

final details will be resolved through engineering.

comments they have.

Publishers Parkway is that a gate that is at the beginning of that.

that was revised in the plan

RESOLUTION 25-0061 Anthony Cascitanit made a motion for

PHASE II FINAL SITE PLAN

APPROVAL Located at 633 Basket Road.

Applicant Lon Lockwood is requesting

PHASE IE FINAL SITE PLAN

APPROVAL (

PUBLIC HEARING

)

associated with the construction of un

8,822SF multi-tenant post-frame — style

building on a 1.48-acre lot having SBL#

066.03-1-9.11 located in the IN Industrial

District under Section 269-11 and 350-22 of

the Code of the Town of Webster. Which

was seconded by Mark Giardina.

CONDITIONS

1. Final details should be submitted to Engineering,

VOTE:

Mr. Casciani AYE

Mr. Malta ABSENT

Mr. Giardina AYE

Mr. Anderson AYE

Mr. Kose] AYE

Mrs. Maltman AYE

Mr. Gasic ABSENT

Pg. 182 August 5, 2025 Planning Meeting

Applicant Jason Stanley 1s requesting PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN AND SUBDIVISION

APPROVAL (

PUBLIC HEARING

) in association with the demolition of the existing structures

(two-story residential dwelling, barn and garage) and the construction of a new 2,600SF banking

facility with internal site parking on a proposed 2.26-acre lot having SBL#s 079.17-1-78.111 and

079.17-1-79 located in the MC Medium Intensity Commercial District under Section 269-5 and

350-18 of the Code of the Town of Webster.

Appearing before the board was Evan Gelell (DID NOT SIGN IN) with Costich Engineering and

Bob McFadden with Fingertakes Federat Credit Union. So, last meeting we received preliminary

approval, and we also received town engineering comments, and we addressed all the comments;

provided a new SWPPP; provided the updated plans for final approval. Not much has changed

since preliminary. We worked through the landscape and some of the comments with the storm

water Management facilities.

miscellaneous drainage, this and that, It would be nice to have you guys out of here, wouldn’t it.

Okay, does anyone have any concerns with this? We covered everything and all we had was the

drainage issues and things of that nature and that’s all been resolved apparently so.

RESOLUTION 25-0062

PRELIMINARY APPROVAL Located at

711 and 715 Ridge Road. Applicant Jason

Stanley is requesting PRELIMINARY

APPROVAL (

PUBLIC HEARING

) in

association with the demolition of the

existing structures (two-story residential

dwelling, barn and garage) and the

construction of a new 2,600SF banking

facility with internal site parking on a

proposed 2.26-acre fot having SBL#s

079.17-1-78.1 bE and 079.17-1-79 located in

the MC Medium Intensity Commercial

District under Section 269-5 and 350-18 of

the Code of the Town of Webster. Which

was seconded by John Kosel.

FINAL APPROVAL CHECKLIST

I. Subject to PRC comments.

Subject to Parks and Recreation tees (if applicable)

Subject to Preliminary Approval Conditions,

Subject to all applicable governmental fees.

Subject to Department of Public Works approval

wn fe db

Pg. 183 August 5.2025 Planning Meeting

6. Significant constuction shall occur within one year, as deemed by the Planning Board. to expire

on 8.5.26

The conditions of Preliminary and Final approval are depicted on the cover page of the final

designed plans.

8. The Engineer for the proposed project shall provide a Letter of Certification that all proposed

work was completed, as per Planning Board resolution of final approval before a Certificate of

Occupancy will be issued.

9. A Letter of Credit to the Town for the project shall elude the fee for the Engineer's final

certification inspection of the site.

10. Approvals are subject to Drawing No: 9444 Dated: 5.12.25

VOTE:

Mr, Casciani AYE

Mr. Malta ABSENT

Mr, Giardina AYE

Mr. Anderson AYE

Mr. Kosel AYE

Mrs. Maltman AYE

Mr. Gasic ABSENT

requesting FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL associated with the construction of an 8,822 SF

multi-tenant post-frame style building ona |.48-acre lot having SBL# 066.03-1-9.11 located in the

IN Industrial District under Section 269-10 and 350-22 of the Code of the Town of Webster.

Appearing before the board was Greg McMahon with McMahon LaRue and Lon Lockwood, the

applicant and owner of the property.

We appeared last month and received preliminary approval. Two of the comments; the larger

comments that we heard last month were that the dumpster enclosure was to be of concrete block

type and that change has been made to the plans and also you wanted to sce some type of

renderings or colors for the building and elevations, colored elevations were provided. I believe

we did receive town engineer comments, and they were addressed on the plans, and we are here

tonight seeking final approval.

on the site or whatever. We may have talked about it, but } don’t remember though.

Pg. 184 August 5, 2025 Planning Mectine

toward the road

property.

You don't have it here now but would you.

Business and then you have the dog business and so on. Make it into one sign though instead of

separate signs, ok. Anything clse. I think we've looked at this. There were just some issues

that were there . Derek, you had concern about it being in an agricultural district or something

and thal was resolve though.

RESOLUTION 25-0063 Mark Giardina made a motion for FINAL

SITE PLAN APPROVAL Located at 633

Basket Road. Applicant Lon Lockwood is

requesting FINAL SITE PLAN

APPROVAL (

PUBLIC HEARING

)

associated with the construction of an

8,822SF multi-tenant = post-frame — style

building on a 1.48-acre lot having SBL#

066.03-1-9.11 located in the IN Industrial

District under Section 269-11 and 350-22 of

the Code of the Town of Webster. Which

was seconded by John Kosel.

FINAL APPROVAL CHECKLIST

Oe

Subject to PRC comments,

Subject to Parks and Recreation fees (if applicable)

Subject to Preliminary Approval Conditions.

Subject to all applicable governmental fees.

Subject to Department of Public Works approval

Significant construction shall occur within one year, as deemed by the Planning Board. to expire

on 8.5.26

The conditions of Preliminary and Final approval are depicted on the cover page of the final

designed plans.

The Engineer for the proposed project shal! provide a Letter of Certification that all proposed

work was completed, as per Planning Board resolution of final approval before a Certificate of

Occupancy will be issued.

A Letter of Credit to the Town fer the project shall include the fee for the Engineer's final

certification inspection of the site.

Pg. 185 August 5, 2025 Planning Meeting

10. All storm water facilities are to be constructed first

11. Subject to resolution of the final approved minutes.

12. Approvals are subject to Drawing No: 24129

13. Applicant to return for any future signs,

VOTE:

Mr. Casciant AYE

Mr. Matta ABSENT

Mr. Giardina AYE

Mr. Anderson AYE

Mr. Kosel AYE

Mrs. Maltman AYE

Mr. Gasic ABSENT

DINKS & LINKS: Located next to 900 Five Mile Line Road. Applicant Joe Catalani is requesting

PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL (

PUBLIC HEARING

) associated with the

construction of a 41,000 SF indoor/outdoor recreational facility on a 9.38-acre lot having SB#

079.10-1-2.3 located in the HC High Intensity Commercial District under Section 269-10, 269-11

and, 350-19 of the Code of the Town of Webster.

*#This project will be tabled to the September 2™ mecting pending additional information

requested by the Town **

ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM:

* Planning Board meeting minutes for June 3, 2025 (CASCIANI/KOSEL) and July 1, 2025

(CASCIANI/KOSEL) were approved.

With no other applications before the Board this evening Anthony Casciani concluded tonight's

meeting at 8:00 PM.

Respectfully Submitted,

Signed

Mlle Pie é~ vaca 2128

Mark Giardina, Secretary

Katherine Kolich, Recording Secretary

C ADeeer Wan

Pg. 186 August 5, 2025 Planning Mecting