Minutes

WEBSTER TOWN PLANNING BOARD MINUTES

Anthony Casciani, Chairman

Dave Malta, Vice Chairman

Mark Giardina, Secretary

Derek Anderson

John Kosel

Peggy Maltman

Drazen Gasic

Katherine Kolich, Recording Secretary

Frank Ciardi, Attorney

Josh Artuso, Director of Community Planning & Development

Erika Corsi, Planner of Community Planning & Development

got a late start. We had a couple of things we had to have resolved here. It took a little bit longer

than what we hoped for. Before we start, if there is anyone here that was here for the Providence

Section 9 or for the Parking Lot Expansion at 1050 Gravel Road. Those two have been tabled.

It doesn’t look like anyone is here for that so.

Pledge of Allegiance/Roll Call.

Summary overview of outcome:

TABLED MATTERS

:

1. PROVIDENCE SECTION 9

SCHEDULED MATTERS

:

1. KLEM ROAD POLE BARN

2. AMBIENCE NAILS SPA SIGN

Pg. 105 June 3, 2025 Planning Meeting

3. EV CHARGING STATION

4. SHEERRA TRADING POST

5. COBBLESTONE PLACE PHASE 2

6. PARKING LOT EXPANSION

7, FINGER LAKES FEDERAL CREDIT UNION

Status; TABLED TO 7.1.25

8. PLAY-A-LATTE SIGN

PROVIDENCE SECTION 9: Located at Abruzzi Drive. Applicant H.G. Builders is requesting

FINAL SUBDIVISION & SITE PLAN APPROVAL associated with the creation of 10-lots

and construction of 10 single family dwellings on a 5.36-acre lot having SBL# 050.03-1-68.006

located in the R-1 Single Family Residential District under Sections 269-11, 296-19, and 350-10

of the Code of the Town of Webster.

APPLICANT REQUESTED APPLICATION BE TABLED TO JULY 1, 2025.

PRELIMINARY/FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL (

PUBLIC HEARING

) associated with

the construction of a 1,920 SF pole barn on a 2.2-acre lot having SBL# 064.16-1-3 located in the

R-2 Single Family Residential District under Sections 269-11, 350-11 and 350-36 of the Code of

the Town of Webster.

Appearing before the board was Sandy and Angel Lagares at 1054 Klem Road. We would like to

place a pole barn in our backyard and it’s 30 X 60 X 14, sorry

32. The reasoning for this pole

barn is because we have lawn equipment; patio furniture. We have different thing that we would

like to place inside the pole barn to keep out of the elements and we do also have a shed in the

backyard that has...it’s been there since the house was built according to neighbors and we would

like to take them down after, hopefully we are able to build our pole barn.

Pg. 106 June 3, 2025 Planning Meeting

to say, I’d refer you to chapter 350-36, which you just said, and everything is spelled out in that

of what is required. I see what you have got, and I see you have trusses. To this board, trusses

mean nothing. That would be ok for the Building Inspector, but we have to have a number of

what is the distance from the lot line for this project.

away from the lot line.

but. Okay, so you’re going to be 15 feet. We can put 15 feet in there.

house is going to be actually 100 feet away from that.

great. It’s a heck of a nice operation but there’s requirement you have to have. What’s the height

of this building. What is the height on your house. To the peak.

then from your wall up to the peak of the shed, there’s no dimension. I don’t know how high that

is. It looks like 6-7 feet.

Pg. 107 June 3, 2025 Planning Meeting

want to do. It’s... [just took some notes on it. The plan doesn’t how the side dimension and there

is no elevations on the drawing. Samples, this board has always required you know, a sample of

the color of whatever you’re going to use for your material. What's the height of the main

structure. I just mentioned that. So, I will let you guys get into it.

far. One said 30 X 60 and the other 32 X

60. Which is it.

to scale because I don’t think it’s drawn to scale on that survey map. I think it’s drawn bigger

and then providing the actual dimensions from the property line so we know roughly in relation

to the property where you’re proposing it so we know where it’s going to be sited, it would be

very helpful. The elevation peak is what we need so the top of the truss not to the header wall to

the sidewall. We need to the peak, so we know what the height of it is in relation to what your

house is. So that we know is it going to be larger than your house, visually what it will look like

and then materiai, just you know, we got a rendering is it going to be the gray and black.

looking to extend your driveway all the way to the barn. I also see that you have an eastern side,

another larger gate or sorry, an overhead door. Are you going to have a driveway to the side of

that tco or is it, I think...

can go in and out with those.

are you paving it to the barn.

there.

when the house was built back in the 50’s,

Pg. 108 June 3, 2025 Planning Meeting

there. Josh, could you go down a little bit there to the back of it. (VIEWING THE REAR OF

THE PROPERTY ON THE SCREEN} there is another thing back there.

building like you’re proposing. We have to get a variance for that Josh.

there’s one ore structure than what’s allowed. Are there chickens in the chicken coop.

we ask that you table this thing, and I would suggest you get a copy of the part of the code. It’s

the simplest way and you can just see exactly what needs to be received.

public hearing. There’s another thing I was going to add on......

Pg. 109 June 3, 2025 Planning Meeting

anything like that.

follow that and then whoever is doing, it will generally give you a small sample....this is what we

are using, and these are the colors. You know, just something that we can refer to that’s it.

Ange] Lagares: Okay thank you so much.

John Bustard at 1050 Klem Road: My wife is here with me, Chris. We’re from 1050 Klem Road,

which is the house right next door. We are the ones that sent the Planning Board last Thursday

a four- page document with pictures and all that sort of stuff. So, we could try to get things across,

and I don’t want to repeat all that. What I wanted to do is give you all a quick summary of a one-

page document and I have copies that people can have. | don't know how we get those but here

they are. (TALKING WHEN NOT UP AT THE MIC) from what we've seen, the approximate size

of the house is or the building that they’re building is 19...No, I’m sorry. I got the wrong....that’s

the wrong document. So, anyway, we believe the proposed building is excessive. It's 97% of the

footprint of our house and 78% in height of a two-story house. Our is 18 feet to the underneath

the gutters. The town code supports an accessory building that I 25 % of the building or less

than 600 square feet or 2% of the lot size is 1920 square feet. Our neighbors are proposing 1920

square feet which is the upper limit allowed only because of the lot size. So, we say built it. Just

make full use of the 2.2 acres and, most important, keep it 100 feet from out property line. This

is really a big building. We think this is a reasonable request. It is what we put in our letter to

the Planning Board last Thursday. The core question to us is not whether to build the proposed

pole barn but where. That assumes the Planning Board believes the proposal fits within the

character of residential property in Webster. We want to enjoy our property. We're both in our

70’s and never know when health issues would require us to move, at which time property values

are also important to us. So, both further enforce why 100 feet from our property line is

appropriate. We have friend that lie in a residential neighborhood where commercials business

was grandfathered. They tell us to make sure the intent of the pole barn Is not now or in the

future for commercial purpose. On said day, | asked if the 40 foot plus 40 foot was going to be

inside the proposed pole barn. I was told it was not and nor is it any of my business what the

proposed pole barn is. It's a big building. in summary, as we said in our letter last Thursday, we

are supportive of the proposal if it’s built at least a 100 ft from our property line and it's use is

for the 100% residential. We believe both are a reasonable requests. Furthermore, the picture

up here says 30 X 60 and they're proposing 32 X

60. The picture up here isn’t where they want

to put it. The map they had in the town in the picture that is up here aren’t’ the same. If they put

it where it was on up here, hallelujah, that’ a 100 feet away. Where they are proposing is not a

100 feet away from our lot line. I don’t know if you have any questions.

Pg. 110 June 3, 2025 Planning Meeting

John Bustard at 1050 Klem Road: Okay, no questions.

and it is going to have dimensions of the property line and dimensions to the locations and again,

it’s what will be at the next planning board meeting that is going to be governance of the

document.

from them. They want it much farther and closer to our property line. The opinion ts it’s there

property and they should be bel to do anything they want, and I want to reiterate, just lo at the

size of this thing. Our neighbor put a 30 by 40 on their property.

information.

will not close the public hearing. We’ll leave it open, so this won’t be the end. So, we will leave

the public hearing open and let him come back and let’s see what changes they make in their

presentation and where they locate the building. If they can modify it to please you somewhat, I

guess, that’s up to them but they meet the requirements.

I think at this point we understand, and I think they understand where you are coming from so if

you have anything else to add but I think we all get what you are saying.

The public hearing will remain open.

or July 8"?

RESOLUTION 25-0040 John Kosel made a motion to

TABLED APPLICATION TO

JULY 1, 2025 which was seconded

by Mark Giardina.

VOTE:

Mr. Casciani AYE

Mr. Malta AYE

Mr. Giardina AYE

Pg. 111 June 3, 2025 Pianning Meeting

Mr. Anderson AYE

Mr. Kosel AYE

Mrs. Maltman AYE

Mr. Gasic AYE

100. Applicant Nick Tu is

requesting SIGN APPROVAL associated with the installation of a 60 SF channel letter building

mounted facade sign on a 9.1-acre lot having SBL# 079.12-1-20 located in the HC High Intensity

Commercial District under Sections 265-7 of the Code of the Town of Webster.

Appearing before the board was Nick Tu. Good evening, everyone. I hope everyone is doing

well tonight. I am looking, if I may with your blessing, I’m looking in to install a sign which is

a 2 feet by 30 feet for the space. It’s the.... I believe it’s the acrylic single channel letters.

taking that whole section of the building there.

RESOLUTIONS

FOR APPLICATIONS)

RESOLUTION 25-0043 Derek Anderson made a motion for

TYPE IT SEQR which was

seconded by Mark Giardina.

VOTE:

Mr. Casciani AYE

Mr. Malta AYE

Mr. Giardina AYE

Mr. Anderson AYE

Mr. Kosel AYE

Mrs. Maltman AYE

Mr. Gasic AYE

Pg. 112 June 3, 2025 Planning Meeting

SEQR

RESOLUTIONS

THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF WEBSTER

1002 Ridge Road, VanIngen Court Building

June 3, 2025

1. AMBIENCE NAILS SPA SIGN

The Town of Webster Planning Board considered the request by Applicant, Nick Tu to

install a 60 SF channel letter building mounted facade sign for Ambience Nails Spa

located at 915 Hard Road on a 9.1-acre lot having SBL# 079,12-1-20.

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

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

subject to further review.

2. SIERRA TRADING POST

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

Goergen, of Wegmans Food Market to enclose a portion of the existing former Chase-

Pitkin outdoor space, to create a new tenant space located at 900 Holt Road on a

28.7-acre lot having SBL# 079.12-01-06.211, and in a HC High Intensity Commercial

District.

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

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

subject to further review.

3. PLAY-A-LATTE SIGN

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

Acker to install a 35 SF illuminated channel letter building mounted facade sign for Play-

A-Latte located at 1028 Ridge Road, Suite 130 on a 9.1-acre lot having SBL# 079.12-1-

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

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

subject to further review.

[

RESOLUTION 25-0044 John Kosel made a motion for SIGN

APPROVAL Located at 1028 Ridge Road,

Ste.

100. Applicant Nick Tu is requesting

SIGN APPROVAL associated with the

installation of a 60 SF channel letter

building mounted facade sign on a 9.1-acre

lot having SBL# 079.12-1-20 located in the

HC High Intensity Commercial District

under Sections 265-7 of the Code of the

Town of Webster. Which was seconded by

Mark Giardina.

VOTE:

Mr. Casciani AYE

Mr. Malta AYE

Mr. Giardina AYE

Mr. Anderson AYE

Mr. Kosel AYE

Mrs. Maltman AYE

Mr. Gasic AYE

requesting PRELIMINARY/FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL (

PUBLIC HEARING

)

associated with the installation of 2 dual port EV charging stations in the parking lot of the

Fairfield-Inn on a 2.19-acre lot having SBL# 079.11-1-21.2 located in the HC High Intensity

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

Appearing before the board was John Marcott. Bridget couldn’t be here so I’m just her

counterpart. She is actually at another Planning Board meeting somewhere else in New York. I

am here on behalf of Charge Smart EV. We are proposing like...just said, dual port EV charging

stations. They’re going to be powered off of the existing transformer behind...that utility design

has been approved. Pretty small scope in perspective of some of the EV projects we do. So,

normally we would put four level two stations. This is Just two level twos. So, they provide

charging for up to four cars at one time. The stations will be set behind the curb. They’ll have

vehicle protection boliards and what not? And then our electrical contractor will install a small

panel to hook the chargers to and then hook the panel basically to the transformer that was already

opened up and investigated. Like there’s free conduits in there and whatnot.

I know some preliminary drawings were submitted and that’s the page I was going to say to look

at here. It kind of highlight the panel there and right to the south of the panel is the existing

transformer and then the two dual port units. It looks like we are going to be removing a couple

shrubs there to fit the chargers. All this was customer approved. You know they are looking to

have these chargers put in. That's pretty much the gist of it. [ll pause and see what questions

Pg. 113 June 3, 2025 Planning Meeting

there are.

It is what it is, right.

stations at hotels like anybody that’s going to charge there, with these being level two stations,

those are essentially overnight chargers. You know, six to eight house or whatever it is. So, we

find that most people are staying at the hotel. That’s the idea behind it but technically, someone

needed to charge a few miles, they could pull in. I don’t think the signage is nonrestrictive. It

would be at the end. Yes, the signage at the last page, the last page of the plans obviously

highlights that it’s EV parking but it’s not specifically restrictive to.

these free, how do these work.

through our phone. So, as far as finding the chargers you know, a lot of hotels we work with you

know, they want them out front because they think people are going to drive by and say, “‘Oh,

there’s a charger there.” And there is some truth to that but for the most part, people will pull up

an app on their phone. It brings you to it like a gas station. So, you are essentially following a

direction from your phone. Pull up to the charger like I said, these are overnight, so people aren’t,

you know, going to a level two station to charge for 20 minutes.

150 Lighting, I’m sure the battery is larger on one of those than it would be like a Prius. As far

as I know it’s somewhat in the balipark of filling up your gas tank. Again, I don’t have an EV,

but I think it’s maybe 30 buckish for a full charge. Somewhere in that range but the hotel does

have, you know, decision-making power to charge what they'd like per kilowatt used or whatever

it is.

come in.

Pg. lid June 3, 2025 Planning Meeting

always comes to mind. Is this charging station actually owned by the hotel or is it like an

independent company that’s being contracted out.

works in a nutshell is you know we install the chargers, right. We hire out an electrical contractor

to install the chargers and then at that point it’s like a revenue share. So, I don’t know the specifics

of how the revenue split is made but then the hotels own and manage the charging you know rates

what they want to charge and there’s some divide there and like we usually have like a 5. year

revenue share I think is like the standard and it’s a percentage of however much charge is being

used at the stations.

we’ve talked about this before that right now,.NOT SPEAKING LOUD ENOUGH OR CLOSE

ENOUGH TO THE MIC) we kind of have a gap in the code in regard to EV stations and in the

past when we talked about it, we’ ve gone down the path of well it’s similar to a gas station. Pull

up and pay, get electric as opposed to getting gas. Is that something that we would see as

consistent use for this area under the zoning you know based on acceptable uses.

OR CLOSE ENOUGH TO THE MIC) we don’t have like a model code for EV stations right

now. The only thing that the code has in it is 350-19-820, which talks about gas stations which

is the sale of gas for vehicles...really kind of the closest thing for sale to electricity for a car. Is

that something...does the town really kind of thought that well, we can treat it as that until we

get a model ordinance.

it’s a much different....it generates a much different amount of traffic. I think the percentage

share of electrical vehicles versus gas powered vehicles is relatively low, so I look at it more as

an accessory use. We’ve allowed them in some of our shopping plaza and other businesses it

town so I don’t think they have the same impact as a gas station with convenience store would.

They tend to be parked, you know, longer periods of time. There is not as much turnover so we

do recognize that there is the gap in the code as you mentioned, but we’ ve been treating them this

way by bringing it to the Planning Board just to make sure that we’re looking at them on a case

by case basis but vehicle service stations alone already as it is are only allowed in like a one block

radius in the whole town so I would not be proponent to liken this to a gas station.

operated by the hotel and then when you mentioned, it really is an accessory structure to the hotel.

which I mentioned are like overnight stations. So, it'd be one thing if they were level threes which

Pg. 115 June 3, 2025 Planning Meeting

are DCFC stations, I think it’s like direct current fast charge. Those are like, charge up in 20

minutes. That’s....I’m not saying that’s a gas station, but I would say there’s more parallels there.

These are like, you know, kind of to the accessory structure point, like more so for the hotel to

say like, hey, we can also have guests that have EV’s. So, when you park to stay the night, which

people, stay the night at the hotel, they can get a full charge overnight. So, it’s not like a

quick...yeah, It’s not like a quick.

that we have right now that we don’t have to say that this has to..........

BOTH PARTIES SPEAKING AT THE SAME TIME

need to get a variance on before we do an action.

covered by.

it’s technically it’s a physical addition to the site, so it triggers a site plan review. That’s how

we’ve been handling it in past. We haven’t really likened it to a separate use, if you will.

agenda.

HC which I guess goes back to the principal use of a hotel which is permitted.

this. It’s a good point.

model code for electrical! station.

I've never seem a specific EV permit but usually it triggers site plan review in a municipality that

requires like a Planning Board review it’ usually like that’s what I’ve seen but sometimes it’s pull

a building permit and an electrical permit and have a Zoning Board or Planning Borad review it.

It really depends on the municipality but what I’ve seen so far is like bigger picture. There’s not

like....it’s kind of a newer thing still in perspective so, a lot of townships don’t have anything in

Pg. 116 June 3, 2025 Planning Meeting

their code about it and sometimes they say you don’t even need a permit. I don’t think that’s

going on here, but that’s pretty few and far between. But yeah, we ee in all sorts of different

towns like everyone has something going on as far as the code goes.

based on their transformer that they have there like if it was just charge smart charging it so it’s

an independent entity it wouldn’t be an amenity that Fairfield is essentially offering as part of

their services.

either for or against this. Okay, no one so we'll close the public hearing and bring it back up to

the board. Any concerns.

vehicles will be towed at vehicle owners expense and risk. Now, you're saying that these

charging stations are connected with the Fairfield hotel, am I correct.

we'll change the sign per municipality so like some of the municipalities won’t want it to be

restrictive. This...in this case, it does kind of look restrictive. If there’s any....I guess if there’s

a specific sign you'd like to see or any sort of verbiage, we can absolutely implement that. I guess

to understand your question, you want the hotel to be listed on the sign.

on it if they think that should happen or not.

municipality. If you guys want non-restrictive, we’re doing like a lot of work in Buffalo where

they want non-restrictive signing, for example. If you want it to be non-restrictive, we can do

that. But it’ also, you know, sometimes that the hotel will want a specific signage so, I guess

that’s....kind of I’m open to...I guess hearing if you guys have any preference on that.

Anthony Casciani; What would be your reason for wanting that.

hotel and decides to use the charging station and perhaps walks down the street to get something

eat at Bill Grays or whatever and somebody who was at the hotel and wants to use the charging

station but it is being used by a non-occupant of the hotel...

Pg. 117 June 3, 2025 Planning Meeting

EVERYONE SPEAKING AT ONE TIME.

that’s not at the hotel will end up sleeping in their car.

It’s not electric, then they can tow it.

EVERYONE SPEAKING AT ONE TIME.

hotel. This just says if you park here, and your vehicle isn’t electric, we can tow it.

EVERYONE SPEAKING AT ONE TIME.

charge, They’re not going to a level two station. They’re going to follow their phone to a level

three. You know, you see them outside of like a Wegman or a grocery store or something because

people are plugging in, shopping and they’re back in 20 minutes. They’ ve got a full charge. So,

that’s kind of like, I guess, back to the beginning, like people aren’t really pulling into these

hotels, which are the majority of our business that they’re not pulling in for like a quick 20

minutes. It’s not really going to amount to anything in their car. I mean, I think they’ll get a

couple miles or whatever, but I think that sign is more so like if a you know, big diesel F250 pulls

in, like you can’t park.

please. Okay, now, where are they located. Do they put bollards in front of them or anything to

protect.

switch gear or the panel board. You can all it about seven different things. We always put like

vehicle protection around just because like it’s electricity and you know.

Go ahead and do SEQR.

being an UNLISTED ACTION. It’s just not listed right now.

RESOLUTION 25-0045 Derek Anderson made a motion for

an UNLISTED ACTION which

was seconded by Mark Giardina.

Pg. 118 June 3, 2025 Planning Meeting

TOWN OF WEBSTER PLANNING BOARD RESOLUTION

ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING STATIONS

915 HARD ROAD, SBL #079. 11-1-21.2

SEQR — UNLISTED ACTION

06-03-2025

MOTION FOR AN UNLISTED ACTION - NEGATIVE DECLARATION

The Town of Webster Planning Board considered the request by applicant, Bridget O’Connor to install

2 dual port EV charging stations in the parking lot of the Fairfield-Inn located at 915 Hard Road ona

2.19-acre lot having SBL#079.11-1-21.2 and in the HC High Intensity Commercial District.

The Planning Board determines that the proposed action is an Unlisted Action.

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

617.6(b)(4) of SEQR and that it is the most appropriate agency for making the determination of

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

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

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

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

May 12, 2025,

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

2025, and

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

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

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

environment for the reasons set forth in the attached Notice of Determination of Non-Significance; be it

further,

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

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

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

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

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

OF WEBSTER PLANNING BOARD as documented by the Minutes for this meeting, that the proposed

action WILL NOT result in any significant environmental impacts, be it further,

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

DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE, be it further,

RESOLVED, that the TOWN OF WEBSTER PLANNING BOARD, based on the above reasons issues

a NEGATIVE DECLARATION as evidence of its determination,

VOE:

Mr. Casciani

Mr. Malta

Mr. Giardina

Mr. Anderson

Mr. Kosel

Mrs. Maltman

Mr. Gasic

RESOLUTION 25-0046

PRELIMINARY APPROVAL CHECKLIST

Subject to PRC Comments

Pe We)

Proceed to Final Approval

VOTE:

Mr. Casciani

Mr. Malta

Mr. Giardina

Mr. Anderson

Mr. Kosel

Mrs. Maltman

Mr. Gasic

AYE

AYE

AYE

AYE

AYE

AYE

AYE

Dave Malta made a motion for

PRELIMINARY APPROVAL Located at

915 Hard Road. Applicant Bridget

O’Connor is requesting PRELIMINARY

SITE PLAN APPROVAL (PUBLIC

HEARING) associated with the installation

of 2 dual port EV charging stations in the

parking lot of the Fairfieid-Inn on a 2.19-

acre lot having SBL# 079. | 1-1-21.2 located

in the HC High Intensity Commercial

District under Section 269-11 and 350-19 of

the Code of the Town of Webster. Which

was seconded by John Kosel.

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

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

Approvals are subject to Drawing No: Dated: AS SHOWN

AYE

AYE

AYE

AYE

AYE

AYE

AYE

comments. The public portion is closed.

Pg. 119 June 3, 2025 Planning Meeting

[

RESOLUTION 25-0047 Dave Malta made a motion for FINAL

APPROVAL Located at 915 Hard Road.

Applicant Bridget O’Connor is requesting

FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL

(

PUBLIC HEARING

) associated with the

installation of 2 dual port EV charging

Stations in the parking lot of the Fairfield-

Inn on a 2.19-acre lot having SBL# 079.1 1-

1-21.2 located in the HC High Intensity

Commercial District under Section 269-11

and 350-19 of the Code of the Town of

Webster. Which was seconded by John

Kosel.

FINAL APPROVAL CHECKLIST

1. Subject to PRC comments.

2. Subject to Parks and Recreation fees (if applicable)

1. Subject to Preliminary Approval Conditions.

2. Subject to all applicable governmental fees.

3. Subject to Department of Public Works approval

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

on 6.3.26

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

designed plans.

VOTE:

Mr. Casciani AYE

Mr. Malta AYE

Mr. Giardina AYE

Mr. Anderson AYE

Mr. Kosel AYE

Mrs. Maltman AYE

Mr. Gasic AYE

Food Market Inc. is requesting PRELIMINARY/FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL (PUBLIC

HEARING) associated with enclosing a portion of the existing former Chase-Pitkin outdoor

space, to create a new tenant space on a 28.7-acre lot having SBL# 079.12-01-06.211 located in

the HC High Intensity Commercial District under Section 269-11 and 350-19 of the Code of the

Town of Webster.

Appearing before the board was Evan Gefell with Costich Engineering (NEVER SIGNED IN)

and this is Kim Gorgin with Wegmans. So, the plan for the Wegman’s Plaza is to enclose the

southern portion of what it was the formerly Chase Pickins outdoor area, storage area, display

Pg. 120 June 3, 2025 Planning Meeting

area. So, the building is going to Sierra Trading Post. The building will have two walls in between

the southernmost wall and the Hobby Lobby 19,000 square feet and in the rear of the property

we will removing some of the canopy leaving the remainder piece of the canopy as there’s egress

from Hobby Lobby. There will be a single loaded loading dock and a trash compactor.

We...during concept looked at different truck routings and we were able to get it into the site

without crossing into oncoming traffic and the Sierra Trading Post has agreed to that.

All utilities are already within the site private, and the sanitary will connect to a stub that is in

front of the building out in the parking lot and the water will be in the rear and the storm will go

to the rear. The storm, we pulled out the drawings from the original design of the plaza. It is

within the same drainage area, and we are not really adding impervious surface to this area. One

of the comments that we had received was on the elevation of the building to get rid of some of

that white facade and kind of add brick component to it to match the plaza. (VIEWING PLANS

ON THE SCREEN) So, we put the brick layer on the bottom to match the rest of the retails space

and then brought the brick up on the pillars as well.

Snow storage was also another comment as that was the rear of that storage area was spot for

piling the snow. Talking to Kim; Wegmans; their contractors, that the snow plowing is under

contract and they are usually piled up in the outer islands that are not parking spaces that are not

utilized. I guess with that any questions.

know it came up there and it was discussed.

discussed at PRC, but I don’t recall if there was anybody....had I think the sewer department

made a comment something about the sewer running thought their or something.

BOTH PARTIES SPEAKING AT THE SAME TIME.

fixed up the front. That looks much more attractive. It looks good. Anybody, anything.

have. The recessed dock is 60 feet long. Your design vehicle is 69 feet. Maybe consider a 70

foot. That way you’re not jack knifing the cab. So, just consideration.

Pg. 121 June 3, 2025 Planning Meeting

a public hearing. Is there anyone here wishing to speak either for or against this application.

Okay, no one. Let it be noted that no one wished to respond for the public hearing, so we’ ll close

it to the floor and bring it back to the board.

RESOLUTION 25-0048 Derek Anderson made a motion for

TYPE IE SEQR which was

seconded by John Kosel.

VOTE:

Mr. Casciani AYE

Mr. Malta AYE

Mr. Giardina AYE

Mr. Anderson AYE

Mr. Kosel AYE

Mrs. Maltman AYE

Mr. Gasic AYE

eager to be part of the plaza.

RESOLUTION 25-0049 Dave Malta made a motion for

PRELIMINARY APPROVAL Located at

900 Holt Road. Applicant Kim Goergen, of

Wegmans Food Market Inc. is requesting

PRELIMINARY APPROVAL (PUBLIC

HEARING) associated with enclosing a

portion of the existing former Chase-Pitkin

outdoor space, to create a new tenant space

on a 28.7-acre lot having SBL# 079. 12-01-

06.211 located in the HC High Intensity

Commercial District under Section 269-11

and 350-19 of the Code of the Town of

Webster. Which was seconded by John

Kosel.

PRELIMINARY APPROVAL CHECKLIST

1. Subject to PRC Comments

2. Subject to Monroe County Water Authority comments

Pg. 122 June 3, 2025 Planning Meeting

3. All the improvements shall be constructed

Webster.

Comply with all requirements of any Federal

IAA S

Proceed to Final Approval.

according to the specification of the Town of

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

, State, County, or Town agency.

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

shown there and just looking at the recess to look at.

feet.

VOTE:

Mr. Casciani

Mr. Malta

Mr. Giardina

Mr. Anderson

Mr. Kosel

Mrs. Maltman

Mr. Gasic

RESOLUTION 25-0050

FINAL APPROVAL CHECKLIST

le a aa

Subject to PRC comments.

AYE

AYE

AYE

AYE

AYE

AYE

AYE

Dave Malta made a motion for FINAL

APPROVAL Located at 900 Holt Road.

Applicant Kim Goergen, of Wegmans Food

Market Inc. is requesting FINAL SITE

PLAN APPROVAL (PUBLIC

HEARING) associated with enclosing a

portion of the existing former Chase-Pitkin

outdoor space, to create a new tenant space

on a 28.7-acre lot having SBL# 079.12-01-

06.211 located in the HC High Intensity

Commercial District under Section 269-11

and 350-19 of the Code of the Town of

Webster. Which was seconded by Mark

Giardina.

Subject to Parks and Recreation fees (if applicable)

Subject to Preliminary Approval Conditions.

Subject to ali applicable governmental fees.

Subject to Department of Public Works approval

Pg. 123 June 3, 2025 Planning Meeting

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

on 6.3.26

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

designed plans.

6. Subject to resolution of the final approved minutes.

7. Approvals are subject to Drawing No: AS SHOWN

VOTE:

Mr. Casciani AYE

Mr. Malta AYE

Mr. Giardina AYE

Mr. Anderson AYE

Mr. Kosel AYE

Mrs. Maltman AYE

Mr. Gasic AYE

COBBLESTONE PLACE PHASE 2: Located at 1025 Ravenside Lane. Applicant Evan Van

Epps with Brickwood Management is requesting PRELIMINARY/FINAL SITE PLAN

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 269-11 and 350-14 of the

Code of the Town of Webster.

Appearing before the board was Jake Calabrese with Marathon Engineering on behalf of

Brickwood Management. We are proposed a three-story 47 unit market rate apartment facility.

Give you a quick background sine I know we ‘ve heard it a couple of times. It was initially a

two-phase apartment complex. Twp 60 unit senior living facilities. Phase One was approved in

2015 and built in 2016. Phase 2 never got funding. So, Brickwood Management approached the

property owner to purchase 1025 and from there a sketch plan and we’re going to go do a site

plan and we found out that the fot was actually never subdivided and then due to that we then had

to get variances approved for the site on 313 and then followed with subdivision approval for

325. Just a couple quick hits on the big parts of the facility. There are 87 spaces and 10 of which are

in garages which are underneath the apartment complex. We are working with the town now to

review the existing SWPPP that Passero did for the entire site and we are going to review that

and have to resubmit a SWPPP due to the new MS4 form, but we are going to utilize what Passero

did and make sure that there isn’t anything that’s changed in the past roughly 10 years in that to

make sure that we are all proposing any green infrastructure and we have received initially

comments from the Health Department and our Monroe County Authority so we are working

through those now as we work though approvals and with that, I will take any questions.

to get a variance for that.

Pg. 124 June 3, 2025 Planning Meeting

here. It’s 94 and we are proposed 87 and that was one of the variances that which I believe its’s

a 1.8 spaces per unit when the code is two.

Josh, could you go back to the site. Where would you be putting your snow in this case.

We’re limiting I think it’s roughly around 10 feet so all of this snow can be pushed to this back

side as well as along the portion of the parking lot .

on the other side of them.

said, during the winter moths we could kind of take these spaces up front, I guess, it’d be toward

Ravenside and block those off for snow removal. Then we’ll be able to push everything and that

way, kind of similar here and witl be able to push down to this property line as well as across

kind of upper in this section. And I can add those to the plans, if needed.

the town, you probably should show some place on there where you can put snow.

something. You have a picture of the buildings. This is basically the building you’re proposing,

the photograph that you gave.

kind of forgot to mention this. The footprint is extremely similar to the one that was proposed

back on the 2015 plans. Obviously the architecturally we’ ve modernized it a little bit, but it still

complements the existing building.

and I see where their parking is and then I see where your proposed parking is, I there any

designation for parking for each facility or is it open parking for everybody?

parking but with that being aid, there is a property line that kind cuts t right around to the hatching

area and there will be entrances. So traditionally, these parking lots will come in here and park

here. These handicaps spots will traditionally are used for the senior facility and a lot of the back

lot obviously will be. So, its not necessarily is delineated visually but just by how the site’s laid

out and a lot of kind of walking paths and egress from your car kind of the existing facility and

Pg. 125 June 3, 2025 Planning Meeting

the proposed facility are.

and so forth, what...where does this stuff go.

some bike rack, I guess it would probably be preferably towards the sides of the facility to jut try

and keep it away from the senior living facility. I know that that was a public comment.

racks or something.

facility.

that will be produced there. Ifs it’s big enough then also there’s a call out there’ chosen by

owner for materials. Is there standard enclosure that should be provided as a detail for the

dumpster encloser.

size of dumpster or we say that it needs to be emptied every bi-weekly or twice a week instead

of kind of aa traditional once a week. So, I will let Evan know that and we’ll

The structure around it. Most of them all are all masonry.

Pg. 126 June 3, 2025 Planning Meeting

Structure, decorative block something that is attractive. Because that is only going to last so long.

town, we were unable to provide comments on it obviously so basically, we do not have

comments at tis time. So, we’re waiting on the revised SWPPP.

of the engineer if he wants to incorporate it. I didn’t see in the plans hot box details or the water

cross section . Was that something that was submitted to the town.

want to tap that. We’re thinking unfortunately that we are going to have to run almost a

duplicate line for our parcel and then obviously for the 10-23 parcel. So, we’re working with

water authority now. I mean, we’re going to try to see if they will take ownership of the portion

so, we only have to do a small tap and don’t have to put in more infrastructure, but I think most

likely we will have to do a hot box with kind of a mirrored water line but that will be worked

through with the water authority here in the next couple months.

missing in the drawing. If you could include that. Josh, if you wouldn’t mind going to the utility

plan. I aw that you’re using 12 inch PE perforating piping going underneath the roads. I was

wondering if there was a reason for running perforated 12 inch.

Subbase. The drier it is the more ...the better and it helps. So, kind of instead of doing a main

line with small stubs because the parking area isn’t large. We're kind of doing one main where

Pg. 127 June 3, 2025 Planning Meeting

it’s perforated so it can collect and obviously it'll keep the flow going to the existing facility, but

it will also keep that subbase dry and structurally sound.

big difficulty for groundwater representation that’s going to go into your storm water system and

through basin because with the 12 in pope you’re going to be collecting a lot of water too.

definitely just confirm that.

a 6 inch gate. Is that a six, a valve going to the east or is that just a sampling tab.

we’ve moved with preliminary, I think it’s probably good to come back the details we spoke of.

I mean we’re talking about the bike rack; snow storage , dumpster encloser.

have that material and have a change and also the SEQR for this project was done on the overall

golf tea project back in 2010. The board isn’t tasked with conducting SEQR again because the

project really hasn’t changed al} that much but we would like an opportunity to review the

updated SWPPP just to make sure everything’s compliant.

completed drawings and then we can do preliminary and final.

the existing SWPPP, and we will kind of mirror that and move on from there.

peak at the roof jut to make the drive aisle along the south edge meets the fire code so that was

one thing that he did mention.

Pg. 128 June 3, 2025 Planning Meeting

[

RESOLUTION 25-0051 John Kosel made a motion to

TABLED APPLICATION TO

JULY 1, 2025 which was seconded

by Mark Giardina.

VOTE:

Mr. Casciani AYE

Mr. Malta AYE

Mr. Giardina AYE

Mr. Anderson AYE

Mr. Kosel AYE

Mrs. Maltman AYE

Mr. Gasic AYE

requesting PRELIMINARY/FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL (

PUBLIC HEARING

)

associated with a 20’ x 105’ parking lot expansion to an existing office building and self-storage

facility on a 0.5-acre lot having SBL# 078.20-1-69 located in the MC Medium Intensity District

under Section 269-11 and 350-18 of the Code of the Town of Webster.

APPLICANT REQUESTED THAT APPLICATION BE TABLED TO JULY 1, 2025.

Applicant Jason Stanley is requesting PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN 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 Bob McFadden and I am the President and CEO of Finger Lakes

Federal Credit Union, and we are here to present our plans for 7-Eleven and 715 Ridge Road.

which would be a new permanent home for our Webster facility. We are currently leasing space

in Webster Woods Plaza, and we acquired or merged with Webster Federal Credit Union back

and we are at the end of our lease, and we’d like to make a permeant structure and redevelop that

new corner lot for our new location.

With me is the Engineer and Architect and the Building Manager for the project and I will let

them introduce themselves.

Pg. 129 June 3, 2025 Planning Meeting

Evan Goodfell with Costich Engineering (DID NOT SIGN IN) So I am just going to go briefly

over the site plan. SO, it’ almost a 26,000 foot building and it’s going to be located up to the

northeast to the corner of the property at the intersection of Ridge and Hatch. The site has one

access point. From Hatch 200 feet away from the intersection single lane and single lane out.

The site design allows for 16 parking space. The building has three drive up lane with queuing

of nine vehicles. Even though we don’t anticipate queuing based on the counts that we’ve

collected other branches.

There was a comment about the monument sign. We had it closer to the ridge that we were

atlowed. So, I have revised a plan and sent it to Josh meting the setbacks and not requiring a

variance for the monument sign. The stormwater system will utilize two infiltration basins which

will collect most of the runoff from the drivee-thru and the roof and then a series of bio retention

areas to the south for filtration and water quality. We have a SWPPP, and we submitted that it’s

under review. So, the site is designed to regulate the runoff control and reduce and reduction

volume as well as peak rate. The stormwater ultimately discharges to the arch pipe on the

southeast corner of the property. The creek used to flow through the rear of the property. It was

diverted when Country Max was constructed, and it goes around Country Max and then continues

on. The snow storage will be located on the west side of the parking area. We put a zero reveal

curb there so the plows can come in before the bank is open and push it out of the way.

Other things we submitted to DEC as well as SHPO for the review. We received a no

jurisdictional letter from DEC and no impact letter from SHPO and then if you have the building

renderings I will pass the torch.

all very excited about it getting constructed. It’s a very unique design and we do think it speaks

highly to the local community. Throughout the entire design, I used wind and water as my

inspiration for this. Being on the lake I’m assuming is a very important aspect of living in this

community and I wanted to respect that and show that in the design. Any questions on the design

or the site plan at this point.

us what you were doing it did generate a lot of excitement. I was a nice looking project and I’m

not saying this isn’t. My opinion preferably, was the other building what you showed originally.

It had a lot more style to it and....

original one.

SOMEONE SPEAKING. (NOT AT THE MIC AND CAN HARDLY HEAR) It’s a different

rendering that’s it.

Pg. 130 June 3, 2025 Planning Meeting

L

are looking at on the screen is technical drawings. These are actually exonometrics. So, they

give it a certain perspective but for understanding adjacency of materials and how everything ties

in, this is a very effective tool. What you have in your hand there and the rendering we shared

earlier is actually reflected in this as well.

just don’t like black and white. I tike colors.

much as we are.

really your rear and you have more of the advertisement of who you are. What would be for

normally a back of the building. So, it’s just I was curious about the layout that selection.

intersection and allow the parking to live behind but then understanding that you now have two

fronts to the building. You have the front that faces the intersection and bridge and then you have

the front that faces the parking field for the members so addressing it the way that we addressed

it with kind of a central atrium feature with entry points on one side but the other side mimicking

the entry point side at the parking area and then using a lot of glass to allow a lot of nature light

into the branch and to also represent the feeling of air pre-moving space.

ATM’s and tellers are on the west side of the building giving you a little bit more of a queue

approach when it come to cars coming in.

Union did a traffic analysis and transaction counts for walk-ins and drive ups, and I actually have

a printed copy here and in no way will we exceed the nine queuing spaces in addition to the three

transaction spaces. So, 12 total vehicles. For instance, here looking at the numbers they have for

drive up, I think the peak they had was on May 23 where they had 29 vehicles come into the drive

up. That is over the 9 hour period of the branch being open and this is all from the webster branch.

So, these are just counts from just down the road. We don’t see any need for any additional

queuing. Having 9 stacking per lane is pretty standard for other jurisdictions. We also have

the....we call it a bypass lane and essentially, it’s the last lane. The canopy does not extend over.

Fire trucks can go around but it’s also kind of like a pressure relief valve . So, if someone is

pulling up and they see a lot of vehicles or they feel like it’s taking too long, they have the

opportunity to drive around and either leave or park and go into the branch.

...standing vehicles, you know, on asphalt will eventually sink just due to the heat. So, we like

Pg. 131 June 3, 2025 Planning Meeting

to have when the cars are sitting in the drive up that they’re on concrete pavement. So, it is

actually wider . Standard 1s typically 18 feet from the curb to curb at that final lane so that will

leave you, you know, 9 feet for the person doing the transaction; 9 feet for the one doing the

bypass. I believe and correct me If I’m wrong, I believe that we made that 20 feet, so we’ve

added 2 additional feet to it. And the canopy, just so you guys understand, the edge of the curb

to the extension of the canopy only goes out 6 feet. we are only trying to build a canopy to break

the midpoint of the vehicle so that if there is any rain that is falling, it’s not going to roll into the

window of the driver.

are proposing there. Right by the corner there. It looks like you have a little landscape area there

right by the corner. Now, I think we talked one time about putting a berm with some landscaping

or something ornamental there instead of that long plain strip along Ridge Road.

conversation you guys had at the PRC.

Evan Goodfel!l: We did and with moving that monument sign down, we can spruce that up.

but that stretch going west. I like to use the example of Marina Dodge how they maintain that

in the front there. I’m not saying you have to have trees that big. I mean, this is over years, but

they put a berm in there, it’s nicely landscaped and something that’s...I mean, this is one of the

things we... years ago, we almost would have wanted to see a drawing showing every bit of that.

to be reflective and beautiful.

because it’s the highest point there and then the sights slope off on both sides. So, a berm with

plantings of vegetation would only visible from the credit union side not necessarily from Ridge

unless it’s taller type plantings. If you look down the road where Country Max is, I believe that’s

just grass. That area between their parking and Ridge. Is there any specific requirements for us

to add in this additional landscaping.

development planning guidelines. It’s a little pamphlet the town has, and anyone can get it and

it’s online also. One of the things that I was looked for was how to ornament some of these areas

and again, I use as the example is Marina. It’s a class act what they did there, and he gets a long

of compliments. This is an open area. The building is nice. I think this is good, but I just would

like to see that.

Pg. 132 June 3, 2025 Planning Meeting

and I am sure with the amount of snow , the trucks, the salting that any planting that’s adjacent

to Ridge is going to suffer. The second one is the maintenance of this. That is typically a costly

item for financial institutions to carry to maintain these plantings. So, we will follow the

guidelines in the zoning, but I don’t think that we feel that it will be necessary to add additional

plantings that are most likely just going to die.

Johansson, he was a landscape architect, and he was paid by the town but reimbursed by the

developers to design these things what we wanted to see and a lot of these things, that’s how

they materialized. The plazas, Kohls the landscaping there, so on and so forth but I remember

his big term was undulating berms. I mean, you know, this was out there somewhere, |

understand that but something similar along those lines would definitely.

since then, let me tell you. So now back to this and I’m just seeking that little bit on the corner

and the rest is all grass.

going to, you know, not invest in the landscaping. You know, all of that we want to come

together . Three are some challenges though if you go down there. It’s not just open you know,

it’s very...there’s a lot of trees and vegetations that’s wild. We need this approved before we

can even do the clear cut to get to that. There isn’t a lot of open flat ground. It doesn’t go too

far before it just falls right off. So, we’d have some challenges. We’d have to fill all that in

before we could even landscape the outer western portion of that land.

to affect the drainage of the site.

make it visible, yeah, we get that but at the same time, it’s going to be a lot of grass. That’s just

going to be bare grass and then the question is, can we do something just to make it a little bit

more visually pleasing as people are coming up to your brand new facility. Whether they’re like

lilac bushes or some juniper trees or something that gives it a little bit more color but also gives

Pg. 133 June 3, 2025 Planning Meeting

you that visual aspect of we want to make sure that this facility is seen as people are driving

down Ridge Road because that is the intention ultimately.

well and that will be part of the eventual plan.

the west side but at least what I am seeing here it looks like there’s a curb on the west side. I

see there’s a small opening where there’s a transition curb but is that stretch there not going to

happen. Is there not going to be a curb at all and just be grass.

the west side all the way over to....it’s that whole kind of corner of that parking lot.

it.

there as well or...

Most of those, most of the trash that they produce gets put into shred bins within the branch and

they’re securely taken away by companies like Iron Mountain and shredded offsite. When it

comes to like trash from employees or trash from members, lunches, cleaning crews come in

and they bag the trash, and they actually haul it off. No need for a dumpster.

Pg. 134 June 3, 2025 Planning Meeting

pole but there wasn’t a detail. If you could add a detail, put a flag pole. I saw a detail for a

ladder bar pavement markings as in for crossing, but I didn’t know where that was being

proposed on the drawings. Are you indicating a crossing somewhere or...

standard detail like a boiler plate detail.

seeing anything on a site plan. Are you looking to do any kind of enclosure of the generator.

looked like a really nice PVC fence or timber fence on the south side along the bio-retention

where the parking lot is. Is the intention to have that there.

aware of the difficulties we had coordinating with County Max so as you can see, we are no

longer accessing any of Country Max’s existing drives and with the site being rotated, it must

have gotten lost but yes, we will have like...1 think it’s a split rail, like a two split rail fence.

tellers to designate them.

says ATM and then usually the other lanes would have open or closed. Green or red sometimes.

lighting.

ATM that is accessible.

adequate, and all the lighting is pretty much downward facing.

there is a random concrete pad on the south side on the parcel is that something that is...........

Pg. 135 June 3, 2025 Planning Meeting

pad. Maybe somebody had it for a like a lawn chair so they could fish in the creek.

taking it out or if that has a purpose.

that. There was a lot of accessory structures on this lot and a lot of the foundations for those

accessory structures still exist today and I do know that the credit union wants to remove them.

are they all coming out.

the wooded area that we can as kind of a separation from Country Max and that was something

decided on way early on before we started to even have conversations with Country Max. We

wanted to have the branch cited at the corner of Ridge and Hatch and then anybody that was

traveling on either of those roads could see the branch and then behind the branch would be the

large mature vegetation that is there today. So, essentially only remove only what we really have

to remove.

is.........he knows better than I.

by town staff. It was not submitted along with he rest of the application so we didn’t have an

opportunity to review it, and you know, upon reviewing it , it might precipitate changes to the

design, so we just want to make sure that the SWPPP that was provided is compliant before the

board grants any approvals.

retention area.

Pg. 136 June 3, 2025 Planning Meeting

it but yes, we would want to confirm that a storm water pond isn’t necessary, that’s one example

opposed to the treatments that are being proposed here. So, we just want to make sure that what

is being proposed complies with the regulations before the board makes any decision.

request obviously it’s June, we are looking at two additional meetings because we would have

to have a preliminary and a final.

SWPPPS and everything, we can do preliminary and final the same night so you’re no further

behind.

giving them an opportunity to be notified of what’s happening, what the development I, who’s

going there and what they plan on doing. Has this already occurred.

into winter with asphalt plants closing and concrete paving not curing properly, the request is,

instead of having concurrent approvals and hear me out, can we submit to the Building

Department the current set of construction documents we have. Not so they can review and

approve, just so they can review so that we are granted approval, hopefully in July, we can then

get the building permit quicker because they’ ve already done their leg work. Like they can hold

off sending us comments, but they’ve already done all that review period. That will save us a

month of time, which in terms of pavement and construction costs. Going in the winter is really

going to help getting this branch open in time. We have a deadline with their lease running out

in their current space and we definitely want to get this built and get the members adjusted o the

new location and bring the staff over as well. We don’t want anybody like laid off or

unemployed. So, all we’re asking for is just can this be a parallel path versus concurrent

approval.

Pg. 137 June 3, 2025 Planning Meeting

We’ ve done that before. So, that if and when the board finally issues the approval, the building

department can issue the permit more promptly. Yes, we can work with you on that.

questions.

took notes what we were taiking about. So that’s pretty much it. So, we'll table this until July

1s

RESOLUTION 25-0057 John Kosel made a motion to

TABLED APPLICATION TO

JULY 1, 2025 which was seconded

by Mark Giardina.

VOTE:

Mr. Casciani AYE

Mr. Malta AYE

Mr. Giardina AYE

Mr. Anderson AYE

Mr. Kosel AYE

Mrs. Maltman AYE

Mr. Gasic AYE

130. Applicant Richelle Acker is

requesting SIGN APPROVAL associated with the installation of a 35 SF illuminated channel

letter building mounted facade sign on a 9.1-acre lot having SBL# 079.12-1-20 located in the HC

High Intensity Commercial District under Sections 265-7 of the Code of the Town of Webster.

Appearing before the board was Richelle Aker and my home address is 11 Ruddy Duck Lane in

Greece, This is my sister Christy Phillips. We’re business partners and we’re opening a play

café in the town center plaza on Holt Road, and we would like to ask to build or have an outdoor

sign installed on our building to identify our business. The name of the business is Play-a-Latte.

I have the dimensions of the sign 180 inches long by 24.4 inches tall.

confused.

Pg. 138 June 3, 2025 Planning Meeting

WAS THE SECOND APPLICATION HEARD)

and caregivers. So, a place to come to connect with other parents while their children play and

will also host birthday parties.

RESOLUTION 25-0060 Derek Anderson made a motion for

TYPE II SEQR which was

seconded by Mark Giardina.

VOTE:

Mr. Casciani AYE

Mr. Malta AYE

Mr. Giardina AYE

Mr. Anderson AYE

Mr. Kosel AYE

Mrs. Ma!tman AYE

Mr. Gasic AYE

RESOLUTION 25-0061 John Kosel made a motion for SIGN

APPROVAL Located at 1028 Ridge Road,

Ste.

130. Applicant Richelle Acker is

Pg. 139 June 3, 2025 Planning Meeting

with the installation of a 35 SF illuminated

channel letter building mounted facade sign

on a 9.1-acre lot having SBL# 079.12-1-20

located in the HC High Intensity

Commercial District under Sections 265-7

of the Code of the Town of Webster. Which

was seconded by Mark Giardina.

[ requesting SIGN APPROVAL associated

VOTE:

Mr. Casciani AYE

Mr. Malta AYE

Mr. Giardina AYE

Mr. Anderson AYE

Mr. Kosel AYE

Mrs. Maltman AYE

Mr. Gasic AYE

ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM:

e Approve Planning Board minutes for May 6, 2025 (GIARDINA/KOSEL) and May 20,

2025, (GIARDINA/KOSEL)

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

meeting at 9:00 PM.

Respectfully Submitted,

Signed

_YMlod Peau Dated Aves 5, 20%

Mark Giardina, Secretary

Katherine Kolich, Recording Secretary

___ AUG 8°25 ana02

EILED WEBSTER TWN CLK

Cadu mo. gnn

L Pg. 140 June 3, 2025 Planning Meeting