WEBSTER TOWN PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
Webster Town Board Meeting Room 1002 Ridge Road
7:00 p.m.
6 May 2025
ABSENT:
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
Welcome to the May 6, 2025 Webster Planning Board meeting.
Pledge of Allegiance/Roll Call.
If anyone is here for Providence Estate that has been tabled and the Meadows
Two is also off the agenda this evening.
Summary overview of outcome:
TABLED MATTERS
:
SCHEDULED MATTERS
:
1. PROVIDENCE SECTION 9
H.G, BUILDERS
APPLICANT REQUESTED TO BE TABLED TO JUNE 3, 2025 MTG.
2. MEADOWS TOW SECTION 2
880 PHILLIPS ROAD LLC
APPLICATION WITHDRAWN; PROJECT RECEIVED FINAL
APPROVAL FOR ENTIRE SUBDIVISION IN 2021
3. DINKS & LINKS SOCIAL
JOE CATTALANI
APPLICANT TO FEEDBACK PROVIDED:
e The applicant will work with NYS DEC to obtain a Jurisdictional
Determination in reference to wetlands on or adjacent to the property.
Pg. 78 May 6, 2025 Planning Meeting
e The applicant wil! work with Hegedorn’s and St. Ann’s to resolve
questions/concerns regarding the feeder road from Black Cherry Bivd to 104
Access Rd.
e The applicant should consider shifting the building south to allow ADA
parking spots in front of the building.
The applicant should delineate designated walk areas with a raised walkway.
4. MCALPIN INDUSTRIES
875 PUBLISHERS PARKWAY
PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL GRANTED.
SPECIAL MEETING SCHEDULED FOR MAY 20, 2025 TO CONSIDER FINAL
APPROVAL AND SPECIAL PERMIT
5. SIERRA FRADING POST
KIM GEORGEN
FEEDBACK PROVIDED:
e The applicant will work with Wegmans to identify snow storage locations.
The canopy will remain in the rear of the building for trash receptors and a
recessed loading dock.
6. LOCKWOOD ELECTRIC
LON LOCKWOOD
FEEDBACK PROVIDED:
e The applicant will work with Town Staff to confirm whether or not the property
is located within a Monroe County Agricultural District.
Applicant will confirm if a Jurisdictional Determination is required for this
property.
(MARK GIARDINA READ INTO THE RECORD)
1. PROVIDENCE SECTION 9: Located at Abruzzi Drive. Applicant H.G.
Builders is requesting PRELIMINARY/FINAL SUBDIVISION & SITE PLAN
APPROVAL (
PUBLIC HEARING
) 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 and
296-17 of the Code of the Town of Webster.
APPLICANT REQUESTED TO TABLE TO THE JUNE 3, 2025 MEETING.
(MARK GIARDINA READ INTO THE RECORD)
2. DINKS & LINKS SOCIAL: Located directly east of Lowe’s Home Improvement.
Applicant Joe Cattalani is requesting SKETCH PLAN REVIEW associated with the
development of a 39,000SF indoor/outdoor recreational facility on a 9.38-acre lot having
SBL# 079.10-1-2.3 located in the HC High Intensity Commercial District under Section 269-
5 of the Code of the Town of Webster.
Pg. 79 May 6, 2025 Planning Meeting
Appearing before the board was Joe Cattalani for Dinks & Links at least for now. (RECORDING
NOT LOUD ENOUGH AND APPLICANT IS NOT SPEAKING LOUD ENOUGH) I am not
sure. I am trying to capitalize on the fastest growing sports in America, which is pickleball
throughout the states right now so you will see these places starting up and by far the fastest
growing sport in what was once created by retirees in Florida __ _____ pickleball. We were
actually camping last week in Naples; Florida and they were 17 years old, so it’s getting younger
and younger and very active for all kinds of _ family out in Webster . I spoke with Josh
and Erika and met Tony before on a different site and there was a question with parking and I
was glad to be at that meeting because it made me realize, you know what, it’s over we are going
to jump to a different site where even though a lot of sin Webster pretty much had
a variance so we switched to a spot that it wouldn’t be needed and we switched the spot that
would give us so we are hoping to build an indoor/outdoor facility and have a
small restaurant inside and 14 pickle ball courts inside and there will be 6 to 8 outdoors along
some other activities.
[ know the area you are talking about Dale, what is the deal with that.
They did a wetland delineation and sent the JD off tothe NY State DEC
building where all the courts and stuff are, and I did not indicate that. We have a copy of that
somewhere. There ts a little bit in the front, where the swale is | imagine build a park around it
and _—_—sdmore of the water issue.
Parking would be right across the street.
Yes, just like....exactly like Lowe’s. So right across the way there would be
parking
Actually, the design of the elevation is quite attractive.
Well, we didn’t come out and give you an unreasonable _ build something
that was kind of eye catching planning on family entertainment back there and all there
canopies are lit up back there. We reached out to our neighbors and
You are here for sketch plan so the main thing as we spoke, I wanted to have
a representative here from . One of the things from years ago, there was a curb cut with
NY State unto the 104 feeder Jane now that has been kind of gone for years and never discussed
it because there is not that many significant structures have been built.
Yes, my understanding.
But now there is a point where we can get a good grip on this thing so that is
something I think we need to resolve.
My understanding that the Hegedorns back than they were hoping to get the mall
Pg. 80 May 6, 2025 Planning Meeting
that Irondequoit had.
No, don’t go there please. I don’t know what the hell I had for breakfast, but
I remember that.
The plan was to build a mall there. The timing may have been....I think it was...
Leonard Dobbs wanted to build on the Holt Road site and Hegedorns to build
on this site. That’s the history of it.
Yeah, most people were not around here. BOTH PARTIES SPEAKING AT THE
SAME TIME.
The curb cut was required when St. Ann’s got approved, the nursing home,
that is when that got approved and simultaneously the road was designed Black Cherry is that
called, Black Cherry was designed across from the school to be able to come across that area
into your property and exit out on to the feeder road which would eliminate school buses on Ridge
Road and eliminate a lot of the problems in that area. That was the intendent of that, and it had
nothing to do with the mall though.
NOT SPEAKING LOUD ENOUGH. We don’t think that they want to extend that
to the 104 feeder road. There isn’t going to be the traffic that may have been planned before. It’s
just a smal] development of pickle ball. It doesn’t make too much sense at this point. I think we
should figure out what makes sense.
I agree with you Dale; it is a big expense that is why we have kind of let this
thing go and go. We didn’t bother with it, with a lot of the smaller places that have done in. You
know, Popeyes and Dairy Queen, they have their own exit over there so we never brough any of
it up but now we are getting to the interior and hopefully you do sell some of these places in there.
But at what point does it have to be right now, I don’t know but I think we need to get a resolution
and when can we do this and at what point. Because if I am recalling it in the resolution of the
Town Board, any further development on that property deemed necessary to put this connection
in. We have let it go but at what point can we do it. That is the crux of this whole thing.
Okay, I don’t have an answer for that.
Ok, so I think this is a great project and everything is good going in but again,
we have to get this thing resolved. If it's not right now, what is it, next year. I think we need an
answer to that before this gets an approval . When can we come up with a timeline to complete
that roadway.
Ok, I believe you received a letter from the Senior Home, and they really do not
Pg. 81 May 6, 2025 Planning Meeting
Yeah, that isn’t their call. That road was put there with a dead end so it could
continue, It goes right down to the fence. That is why it was put there so the road could connect
onto your property. 10:03 my minutes. That was the intent of it when Betty Mullen DiProza was
the CEO of St. Ann’s at that time, she was well aware of what the timing was on that. Well now,
that was 20 some years ago. Things change but the thing still need to be done. The idea was to
eliminate traffic and that is part of the design of the overall area for the town. I know you can’t
answer now. You guys need to get together, that is what I think we need to do and get a solution
to that.
J think the existing roadway between Lowe’s and BJ's has accomplished a lot of
that kept traffic off of Ridge Road.
Yeah well, I’m the reason that road is there too. That wasn’t even going to be
in there but that’s another story.
So, in that resolution from the town to Lowe’s, it said the developer maybe required
to build to connect through. So, what your saying is you guys want the road.
To connect through, that was the intent of it. That is why we put the burden
on St. Ann’s. Like Josh was saying today, they could have ended their parking, there drive way,
that road coming in at their parking lot, but it had to be extended all the way back so people knew
this was going someplace. You know like a subdivision and people say, my kids have their
basketball! there, but that road is intended to continue through that’s why it’s there.
So, | guess that it is something for the Hegedorns to further with the town.
1 don’t know what the board feels on it, if they say wait another year or
whatever but we have to get some kind of solution to it.
Tony can I ask, to extend it up to where. I would like clarification, like how far
was the intention to extend it om the resolution. Was it supposed to go up to that
road that connects between BJ’s and Lowe’s or you............
I have a map if you want.
Well, It comes from St. Ann’s by Lowe’s there and then it crosses going north
and meanders a little bit of an angle and then over and to the express way feeder.
Ok, so frontage road up to frontage.
So, you know how Barrett Drive is by the post office, basically one of those.
(APPLICANT APPROACHED THE BOARD WITH PLANS)
Pg. 82 May 6, 2025 Planning Meeting
HAVING DISCUSSION WITH THE APPLICANT. So, is this the intention to
eventually do it this way.
| think that’s what the intention was when the town did that.
Right now, the road design isn’t too important, it’s just a timeline for that curb
cut. So, you want to see what you can do with that Dale. Come up with something and talk to the
whoever is there. Board members, any....you are actually here for a sketch review. Does anybody
have any concerns or interests.
I just had some questions. With Lowe’s trucking access being right there budding
to your property, is that road remaining and same thing with the concrete area.
That actually is an easement there that’s a truck turnaround for the entire
development not just for Lowe’s, Lowe’s kind of capitalized on it but it is actually for the entire
development for a truck turnaround.
I know sometimes they gate it off in the back where their storage is. The sketch
plan, as least going off of it, substantial parking across the street. Is there anyway to push the
building and littke more south and do ADA parking in the front like you say if you have any
elderly or need to get closer to the building.
I don’t see a problem with that. There is 20 feet right now. Certainly, we can find a
spot for them. That’s a good idea.
Is that road there, town road between Lowe’s and Bjs. Is that owned by the town.
It’s private.
Maybe something to consider somehow to slow down a little bit of traffic there if
you are going to have contractors coming through there if you have kids or others crossing the
road to get into the building. Is there going to be a speed bump or something to slow it down a
little bit or does it need a crossing as part of the concept.
A speed bump is not a bad idea. They put they put that little turn in the road there
right after Lowe’s just to do that.
That is not even in the plan . All we are interested in is the building and a time
line for the curb cul.
So, right now they are showing . Tony, they are showing a building across the
street there they are showing parking, it’s just a way for either ADA parking in front of the
building or a designated walk area to go from the parking lot to the building.
Pg. 83 May 6, 2025 Planning Meeting
Lowe’s has a ratsed.........
Like a speedbump or designated speedy bump just to a designated wall area that
is raised and clearly defined so that it forces somebody to slow down when they are going by
there.
So, for sketch plan, the design of the building ok. What is it, 39,000 sq ft.
Yes
Alright I like the idea for what you are showing for the base around it, 4 ft up.
That adds to it a whole lot. Alright, anyone have any questions or concerns. It’s just sketch plan,
so you have to deal with DEC and all that now. Ok, you are on the road with it so if you can come
up with making a decision for a time line that we can agree to, I think that is going to be key. Ok,
thanks for coming in.
© The applicant will work with NYS DEC to obtain a Jurisdictional
Determination in reference to wetlands on or adjacent to the property.
e The applicant will work with Hegedorn’s and St. Ann’s to resolve
questions/concerns regarding the feeder road from Black Cherry Blvd to 104
Access Rd.
e The applicant should consider shifting the building south to allow ADA
parking spots in front of the building.
e The applicant should delineate designated walk areas with a raised walkway
(MARK GIARDINA READ INTO THE RECORD)
3. MCALPIN INDUSTRIES: Located at 875 Publishers Parkway. Applicant McAlIpin
Industries is requesting PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL (PUBLIC
HEARING) associated with the construction of phase I (100,000 SF of a total 300,000SF)
of a light manufacturing warehouse on a 25.65-acre lot having SBL# 079.06-1-32.123
located in the HC High Intensity Commercial District under Section 269- 11 of the Code
of the Town of Webster.
Appearing before the board was Mike Ritchie with Costich Engineering and Matt McAlpin with
McAlpin Industries. Thank you for allowing us to come in front of the board. We were last in
front of you a few months ago, when we presented the project where Matt presented the overview
of his company and what they do. Since then, I think the biggest issues were the coordinated
review for SEQR and the wetland review. We did receive some additional PRC comments from
town staff, and we subsequently revised the plans and resubmitted to address those comments.
We did receive the no impact letter from the DEC relative to the wetland, so we received that last
week and we were, happy to pass that along to Josh. We did also hear from the previous time
Mr. Casciani that we were in front of you. They are looking for some kind or some more
Pg. 84 May 6, 2025 Planning Meeting
architectural detail on that building. We did submit some additional architectural renderings.
Is this what you changed it to. The one you just gave me.
[am not sure what you are talking about.
Most of those are in the submission. There are a couple additional ones in there
to reemphasize.
Are you sure this is the same building.
A lot more updates to it and again, it’s a phase project. Phase one and I think I
heard a 100,000 but was...applied for 120,000 square foot for the first phase. 300,000 square foot
overall. So, the first phase being on the south side of the project and subsequent additions would
be to the north. We also made some revisions to the utilities. We did add a second storm water
management pond on the north side of the site to get some additional earth also to prevent kind
of some low spots on that north area and hopefully allow any future development on that very
north end on publishers to be able to utilize that for storm water management as well. So, we’ ve
addressed all the comments from PRC, from the agency’s water authority health department and
the like and with this boards approval we would like to move forward wit site work on this in
probably the next month or two. So, there team is ready to go, and we would be happy to answer
any questions that this board may have.
Ok, you submitted I think it was April 15th, I think it was April 15'". You
had some comments, and you address ail the comments then you had the latest edition of it.
We revised and resubmitted those back as well. They were technical in nature, no
major showstoppers or anything. Again, if there’s any connections this board has or any other
comments going forward would you.
This is all primarily 99% all engineering detail.
And I think more of the Engineering has been sorted out at this point.
[ don’t want to get into all that part of it but The concern we have is the
building. What's it going to look like, traffic and things of that nature. You did a traffic study
and completed that. I think that was probably one of the main things, wasn’t it.
That and the widening the entrance so the tractor trailers could turn in.
We proposed a slight widening of the entrance there and we did also propose a
dedicated lefthand turn into the site which will be part of the first phase.
Ok, we can open it up, it’s a public hearing. Is there anyone who wishes to
Pg. 85 May 6, 2025 Planning Meeting
speak in regard to this project.
Diana Davis at 942 Gaywood Lane: | might be behind the curve on this one, but it looks like you
guys are calling it high-density commercial as the zoning. SPEAKING TO THE APPLICANT.
Yes, that is what is on your plan. So, I am just wondering if you’ ve and again, | might be behind
the curve, so I don’t...again, my fault if I haven’t been the story.
What is it , you’re specifically asking.
Yeah, no, my question is given that it’s office park and this is a warehouse facility,
it would be one of the uses that the Town Board would basically have to do a special use permit
for, so ] am just wondering where we are in that process.
That was taken care of initially with the town.
Got it, okay.
That was the first step of the project.
But it is office park still, right.
It is zoned still yet but that was a required Town Board.
Okay then. Again, | am just behind the curve but that’s all. I just was wondering
and I just wanted to make sure that if it is office park that you guys are still adhering to the lot
coverage maximums.
We are.
All right. Thank you.
Okay, anyone else wish to speak. Nobody. All right, board. Any comments.
I have looked at this thing a few times.
Josh, if you can zoom into the entrance way area, the vehicle turnaround is showing
a fire truck, but you are saying you have WBSO trucks there. Are you able to provide vehicle
(urnarounds there for a WB50 in that entrance way.
I believe we ran a WB62 on that as well. I don’t know if the detail shows a 50. 1
don’t know, Matt, did you confirm WB?
It is just showing a fire truck. It doesn’t show a standard operation vehicle coming
in and out. My concern is just on Hard Road north south coming into it. Does that other side
have to get widened too. Coming southbound going into the facility.
Pg. 86 May 6, 2025 Planning Meeting
I don’t believe any proposed trucks are proposed to come from the north side. AH
the truck traffic would come from
104. Drazen Gasic: So, you seem to stop pavement just short of the existing facility there. Any
intention potentially to mill and pave ail the way to Hard Road after construction?
That wasn’t part of our, but I can talk with Matt. You know, it shouldn’t be a major
change to the scope to mill and just make that a nice uniform pavement. Have an issue with that.
We already have to pave that portion by the end.
It’s just after construction. You're going to be doing earth work and there is going
to be in and out traffic. You know, if it gets degraded, it'll look nicer if it’s just a continuous...
A nice, finished product and then, you know, we could put topping on everything
and redo the striping and make it all uniform.
J am not sure if it would be part of your, but I guess this question is related to Josh.
You know, should there be a stop sign on that intersection there onto Hard Road, especially now
with truck traffic being proposed. Should a stop sign, and striped stop be on that intersection.
Sure. Yeah, that would be...that’s a private road so it would not be the town’s
responsibility to do that.
We have no issue with that,
Josh, if you can go to the utility plan and go to the front of the building. So, if you
zoom in to where the water line goes into the building. | just to get a clarification here. You have
a combined system going in and then a combined system leaving. The building, is it going to be
just hydrant dedication going out or is thal going to be...
Yes, it will be split in the building for domestic fire sprinkler and then back out to
the......
That has to be a correction that has to be made on the drawings.
Yeah, we’re coordinating with MEP just trying to get everything sorted out where
all the connections lie but yeah, that ts that intent.
Are you able to provide a mechanical room drawing of just showing how that
transition.
] think that'll be part of the building permit process but that will be done. Again,
you know, meter backflow in an enclosure out by the road where it separates the public water.
Pg. 87 May 6, 2025 Planning Meeting
IT was just surprised not to see profile views of the sanitary or storm lines. Is that
something that you guys can add?
Absolutely. I think that’s, you know, something for construction. Again, there’s
nothing really out there in terms of conflicts with other utilities but with other utilities but
certainly can provide profile view for those.
And then I think my fast question here with that pond going in now in the back,
do you have access going up to it for maintenance.
That was not a comment that was generated, but we certainly have no issue
providing an access easement to the Town of Webster for both ponds. Knowing that they are
going to be private, but in the event that the town ever needed to get to them, we have no issue
granting easements for those.
I guess would it be an easement or would it be also like a stone gravel road in order
to go back there and do the maintenance.
I think the intent is that the parking lot adjacent to it would be built and that would
allow it to provide access, but we can certainly look into that to make sure that if town staff needs
to get back there, you know, put a gravel access road to the berm to the outlet structure but we
can add that in to the final plan.
So, Josh, does the Town of Webster maintain the pond.
No, we would require a stormwater maintenance agreement, and it would be the
responsibility of the owner.
It would still be a good idea to add something there in case they need to hire a
contractor to hog out the pond, so it doesn’t, you know, destroy landscaping. So, we can put that
in the plans for.
I recommend putting in an access road to it for maintenance and then the volume
of that pond, I just want make sure that your not at a US Army Corps dam level.
We are not.
You're below it.
We’re below the height for a dam.
Alright and then the spillway that you have there, there discharge to it, you have
indicating where it’s going, and I just want to make sure that that is not impacting the neighboring.
Pg. 88 May 6, 2025 Planning Meeting
We did have to Jook at that because everything drains up north through Publishers.
So, we have a spillway and then a swale and then a dedicated secondary storm line to get that all
to the north, so it doesn’t pond back in there.
That’s all the questions [ had. There are some engineering things in there that we
could build in for .
Yeah, a lot of this stull actually that’s all engineering detail that's why. We
have town engineers to look at that also. They have reviewed a lot of this already. So, like
drainage and a lot of hours went into that already. Anybody have any questions . Does anyone
one have any questions or concerns. BOARD: No. Ok, then we will close the hearing and bring
it back in. Alright at the last meeting we actually...we made a motion, I believe, that we would
take lead agency if nobody was interested. It went out for 30 days and nobody took it, nobody
wanted it that’s for sure. So, it came back. 30 days are up. So, we need to make a motion to take
lead agency for the SEQR process. You can combine...can we combine that, Derek.
We’ ve lypically done in the past. Is there any other comments.
No, I closed it, we are good.
(PLEASE SEE ATTACHED) So previously we determined this is a type one
action, So, there’s a motion for TYPE 1 ACTION.
RESOLUTION 25-0027 Derek Anderson made a motion for TYPE 1
ACTION/LEAD AGENCY 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
Ok, we can move to give preliminary approval on it. I like the way you
changed the building. That was probably my biggest hangup from day one was, you know, the
appearance of it. We should, we got to do, we should do though, is to actually have this
incorporated into a final drawing sheet all at one. I’m ok with moving forward with preliminary.
I think we still need to just fine-tune some of the miscellaneous things. Enginecring is ok with
your answers sort of speak and if it’s ok with the board, | don’t want to drag it out for another
month. If you can get the stuff in soon enough and it meets the requirements for Josh, I'd be
willing to say, and | think the board would agree to have another meeting in a couple weeks with
the final drawings in front of us with everything on il.
Pg. 89 May 6, 2025 Planning Meeting
TOWN OF WEBSTER PLANNING BOARD RESOLUTION
875 PUBLISHERS PARKWAY - TYPE I ACTION
THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF WEBSTER
1002 Ridge Road, VanIngen Court Building
SEQR TYPE I ACTION
MAY 6, 2025
MOTION FOR TYPE I ACTION
Town of Webster Planning Board considered the request by Applicant, McAlpin Industries to construct
a 300,000 square foot light manufacturing warehouse on a 25.65-acre lot having SBL# 079.06-1-32.123
located at 875 Publishers Parkway.
The Planning Board determined that the proposed action is an Type I Action under Part 617: State
Environmental Quality Review (SEQR).
The Planning Board determined that the action is subject to a single agency review pursuant to Part
617.6(b)(1) of SEQR and that it is the most appropriate agency for making the determination of
significance. The Planning Board therefore designates itself lead agency for the proposed action.
The Planning Board has given consideration to the criteria for determining significance as set forth in
Section 617.7(c)(1) of SEQR, and has
1. considered the information contained in the Environmental Assessment Form Part | dated
January 29, 2025,
2. considered public comments directed to the Planning Board during the Public Hearing on May 6,
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 action will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment
for the reasons set forth in the attached Notice of Determination of Non-Significance; be it further,
RESOLVED that the TOWN OF WEBSTER PLANNING BOARD is authorized to take all actions
reasonable and necessary to file the Negative Declaration and discharge the TOWN OF WEBSTER
PLANNING BOARD'S responsibility as lead agency for this action, be it further,
RESOLVED that the TOWN OF WEBSTER PLANNING BOARD, based on the information and
analysis above, the referenced supporting documentation, and discussions of the action by the TOWN
OF WEBSTER PLANNING BOARD as documented by the Minutes for this meeting, that the proposed
action WILL NOT result in any significant environmental impacts, be it further,
RESOLVED that the TOWN OF WEBSTER PLANNING BOARD, therefore makes a
DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE, be it further,
RESOLVED, that the TOWN OF WEBSTER PLANNING BOARD, based on the above reasons issues
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION as evidence of its determination.
TOWN OF WEBSTER PLANNING BOARD RESOLUTION
875 PUBLISHERS PARKWAY - TYPE I ACTION
THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF WEBSTER
1002 Ridge Road, VanIngen Court Building
SEQR TYPE | ACTION
MAY 6, 2025
LOCHNER SUBDIVISON
NOTICE OF DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE
The Planning Board has reasonably concluded the following results from the proposed action, when
compared against the criteria in Section 617.7(c):
2.
3.
an
10.
11.
12.
13,
The proposed action will not have a substantial adverse change in air quality since it does not
include a regulated emission source.
The proposed action will not have a substantial adverse change in ground or surface water
quality or quantity since the proposed action connects to the public sewer system.
Water will be supplied by the Monroe County Water Authority which has adequate capacity to
support the action.
Wastewater will be treated by the Town of Webster.
. The proposed action will not have a substantial adverse change in potential for erosion, flooding,
leaching or drainage problems. Development of individual parcels will conform to NYSDEC for
stormwater management and control.
The proposed action will not have a substantial adverse change in existing solid waste production
since the action is for the multiunit residential buildings that will produce solid wastes in
quantities typical of multi-family residences.
The proposed action will not have a substantial adverse change in existing noise, odor or light
since the action is being developed in accordance with Town of Webster standards. A temporary
increase in noise levels consistent with normal construction activities is anticipated when during
construction on the subdivided lots.
The proposed action will not have a substantial adverse change, or cumulative change since the
proposed action creates new residential parcels from an existing residential parcel. Traffic
generated is anticipated to be minimal.
The proposed action will not have a substantial adverse impact on the criteria listed under
Section 617(c)(1)(ii) of SEQR because no habitats or threatened or endanger species were
identified on or contiguous to the proposed site.
The proposed action is not located in an area designated as a Critical Environmental Area by the
Town of Webster or New York State pursuant to subdivision 617.14(g) of SEQR.
The proposed action is not in material conflict with the Town of Webster 2008 Comprehensive
Plan.
The proposed action wil! not create an impairment of the criteria listed under Section
617(c)(1)(v) of SEQR since the action is not located in or adjacent to the listed resources and is
in character with the surrounding community.
The action will not result in a major change in the type or use of energy since the action is for the
construction of multi-family residences that do not require an upgrade to existing power
distribution system infrastructure.
. The action will not create a hazard to human health since it does not contain nor is it located
adjacent to an existing sources of hazardous substances or contaminants. The project does not
contemplate the use of hazardous substances or contaminants.
TOWN OF WEBSTER PLANNING BOARD RESOLUTION
875 PUBLISHERS PARKWAY - TYPE | ACTION
THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF WEBSTER
1002 Ridge Road, VanIngen Court Building
SEQR TYPE I ACTION
MAY 6, 2025
15. The action will not create a substantial change in use of the land since the action is consistent
with zoning for the land, the existing community character, and the Town of Webster 2008
Comprehensive Plan.
16. The action will not attract a large number of people for more than a few days when compared to
taking no action since the action involves the creation of nine new parcels and does not create
areas that will attract a large number of people.
17. The action will not create a cumulative impact on the environment as listed under 617(c)(1)(x),
(xi), and (xii) of SEQR.
Yes, we can do that. We did submit the updated elevations as part of the most
recent package.
That way these are not just a sheet. They’ re incorporated right.
We can certainly make that. I guess two weeks , I don’t think It will kill us. I think
we already submitted most of those renderings when we submitted the revised plans.
But in lieu of a separate rendering if you can just put it all in, right in one of
those sheets. Right in your drawings like you know. I think that would work ok.
Yes, we certainly make those incorporated into the final approval plan set if that is
what you're looking for prior to this board being able to issue final approval or if you wanted to
condition it, we could make it so that those are part of the record submitted in the final plans.
A lot of what you have in front of you right now is part of the submission. We
just had a couple of updates that I wanted to make sure you saw.
Tony there’s just some good amount of engineering items that would be nice to be
incorporated as a final set so when the board votes on it as a final we’ re good to go.
Ok, lets do that. Let’s do a preliminary if that’s okay and then in two weeks
we can have the final and you got everything incorporated into it.
Yes, we can turn everything around.
You wanted a stop sign.
A truck being used for the access movement just to make sure that intersection
works with an 18-wheeler, a stop sign there just for safety to stop onto Hard Road and then the
road going up to the pond.
You also noted profiles from the sewers.
Yes, but that should be engineering’s calls
RESOLUTION 25-0037 Dave Malta made a motion for PRELIMINARY
APPROVAL (
PUBLIC HEARING
)Located at
Located at 875 Publishers Parkway. Applicant
McAlpin Industries is requesting PRELIMINARY
SITE PLAN APPROVAL (
PUBLIC HEARING
)
associated with the construction of phase I (100,000
SF of a total 300,000SF) of a light manufacturing
warehouse on a 25.65-acre lot having SBL# 079.06-
1-32.123 located in the HC High Intensity
Pg. 90 May 6, 2025 Planning Meeting
Commercial District under Section 269- 11 of the
Code of the Town of Webster which was seconded
by Mark Giardina.
PRELIMINARY APPROVAL CHECKLIST
= pO be
a
= ooo
Subject to PRC Comments
Subject to a Letter of Credit posted with the Town of Webster.
Subject to Monroe County Water Authority comments
Subject to the determination of the ZBA for requested variances.
Ajl 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.
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.
11. Approvals are subject to Drawing No: 9649 Dated:
VOTE:
Mr. Casciani AYE
Mr. Malta AYE
Mr. Giardina AYE
Mr. Anderson AYE
Mr. Kosel AYE
Mrs. Maltman AYE
Mr. Gasic AYE
(MARK GIARDINA READ INTO THE RECORD)
4. 1048 SHOECRAFT ROAD APARTMENTS: SIERRA TRADING POST: Located at
900 Holt Road. Applicant Kim Goergen, of Wegmans Food Market Inc. is requesting
SKETCH PLAN REVIEW 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
269-5 of the Code of the Town of Webster.
Appearing before the board was Evan Goldfeld (DID NOT SIGN IN) from Costich Engineering
and I have Kim Jurgen from Wegman’s . So, for sketch plan review, the proposed project is
enclosing that existing ouldoor display area that was once part of Chase Pickins. The project, the
building, would enclose 19,000 square feet of that for retail for Sierra Trading Post. The rest of
the canopy would remain in the rear of the property. We would be incorporating a trash compactor
and a recess loading dock and the utilities. We are utilizing the Hobby Lobby wall currently and
the southern wall for the outdoor display area, so it fits within that footprint of the outdoor display
Pg. 91 May 6, 2025 Planning Meeting
area. The utilitics are private and most of them have been stubbed during the development of the
plaza. I know PRC had comments about the truck access that we had coming off of Rachel. We
are in the works of coming down from either the north end and through the Wegmans property.
Right behind the plaza, making a turn within the back of the building and there is also an option
of locking to come off of 104 to Ridge Road and circulate down through Rachel just to relieve
that turn radius at that point.
The building elevations were submitted as part of this package, and I think it’s a nice looking
modern fagade with their branding.
What will they have to do with the interior. Will the have to tear that floor
out.
So, the concept now, because it is all concrete currently, they are going to level
it and obvisioyly there were floor drains, and you can probably see them in there. (LOOKING
AT THE PLANS ON THE SCREEN) so it was all pitched to the center so the high points are on
the perimeter and it’s going to be leveled for that portion and then we will be rerouting the storm,
the trench drain to the rear. There is a storm drain back there. We’ve already looked at the
drainage patterns from when this was developed and the volumes. The only utility running
through there would be sanitary out of the front We would have to cut through the floor.
He is showing me a picture of another Sierra. Kind of looks a little different.
APPLICANT IS SPEAKING TO CHAIRMAN AND NOT INTO THE MIC. Right now, they
switched to more of the white and cream color.
It’s got an orange sign on it and has stone going up the sides. What’s the plaza
there? All Wegmans, it’s all brick anyways. So, this you’ve the lower part . What is the white
part on this.
Yeah, I don’t have the details from the architect since we’re at conceptual level
of what it is, but they’ve been using, 1 mean with construction these days you know, kind of a
fascia board or board or something of that nature.
I think it’s fine but if there is a way to just dressing that up. There is a lot of
white there that I am looking at you know, whereas the plaza itself is pretty broken up and
designed nice and features and so on. If you can do something just to dress that up a little bit by
the entrance area.
APPLICANT IS SPEAKING TO CHAIRMAN AND NOT INTO THE MIC. OK, will bring that
back to the architect.
I think that will be good. Anything else anybody.
Pg. 92 May 6, 2025 Planning Meeting
What is the color of the sign again.
Well, it’s like an orangish color they have.
Oh, okay.
Seems tike a good fit for the location.
If I could ask, in the back so you know, the Sierra portion looks like it going to be
redone but there is a portion still in the back that is the former Chase Pikkin what’s that...what’s
going to happen with that portion of the building.
That portion of the building is going to remain. The canopy is structural for that
roof, the back wall and there’s some egress doors for the Hobby Lobby to that area.
Okay.
There is actually only a couple of comments, general comments. Tractor
trailers are required to stay in the appropriate lanes when making the turn from Rachel Drive into
the plaza. You were aware of that anyways. The others, all the utilities are going to be private,
which is on your private property. So, correct. Only concerns. I have no issues, anybody.
Just lo put some consideration for snow storage. It’s a very tight area and that’s a
berm there. So, [’m not sure where your going to store the snow over lime.
Yes, with Wegman’s Plazas you know, they hire a contractor, and you see the
big mountains out front. So, it will be removed out of there and put out to where no one utilizes
the parking.
I guess with that, you’re all set. See you next time you’re in.
e The applicant will work with Wegmans to identify snow storage locations.
The canopy will remain in the rear of the building for trash receptors and a
recessed loading dock.
(MARK GIARDINA READ INTO THE RECORD)
5. LOCKWOOD ELECTRIC: Located at 633 Basket Road. Applicant Lon Lockwood is
requesting SKETCH PLAN REVIEW 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 269-5 of the Code of the Town of
Webster.
Appearing before the board was [an Kuchman with McMahon Larue and | am here with Lon
Lockwood owner of Lockwood Industries Electric. We are here for sketch plan application for
Pg. 93 May 6, 2025 Planning Meeting
the new office location and operations facility for Lockwood Electric in addition to leasable space
for a tenant to be determined, garage space and then a dog daycare as well. The site is a former
homestead, farming, agricultural residential site. It’s now zoned industrial. We were before the
Town Board last week for application of industrial use permit and referral to the Planning Board
here tonight.
Lon Lockwood is proposing to build a post frame style kind of pole barn style structure for their
operations which I believe we've submitted the architectures as part of our application by GLA
Architects, The site has been mostly demolished from its original homestead application. What
remains is a couple of accessory structures. One of which is going to be incorporated as part of
this buildout for the dog daycare and the substantial post frame pole barn in addition is going to
be mostly for Lockwood Electric and the parking space is substantially increased for Lockwood
Electric fleet of vans and work vehicles in addition to employee parking.
Lockwood Electric is currently operating out of 520 Salt Road. So, a long time Webster resident
and looking to stay in the community. The application process is long for us. Like I said, we were
before the Town Board last week and we're before the Planning Board today for Sketch Plan
application. We’re next to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a variance to the buffer requirements
and then we will be here a couple more times for preliminary and final application and then finally
back home to the Town Board for the issuance of industrial permit along with the special permit
application for the dog daycare.
With that said, the goal is to minimize total disturbance on the site to under an acre. So, it’s a
small scale construction operation that will yield substantial dividends to the community and the
success of the business. I wanted to see what comments the board had. I think we’ve jumped the
gun a little bit. We've prepared and submitted pretty substantial site plans with a substantial
amount of design incorporated. A lot more than what you would typically see on a sketch plan
application, but we do want to take the boards’ considerations as we move over to the Zoning
Board and the remainder of the Planning Board application process.
So, al this moment I will open it up for any questions.
Are there no variances required.
lan Kuchman: There is a variance required.
Have you got it yet or you have to not yet.
lan Kuchman: That'll be the next process for us.
And what would that be for, I’m sorry.
lan Kuchman: So, for Industrial Zone the parcels have an industrial setback requirement and a
buffer requirement which is a little bit more than what we are asking for and it includes not only
Pg. 94 May 6, 2025 Planning Meeting
the building but also the parking area, So, the edge of pavement is slightly infringed on that buffer
requirement. So, we will be seeking a modest amount of relief from that. I think the intent of that
requirement is most industrial sites in Webster are large parks, you know, like Xeroz Park where
you re looking for a little bug buffer between those larger parcels. This is a much smaller parcel.
This a much smaller parcel this is less that an acre and a half. So, I think it would be realistic to
ask for that relief from the board.
Now your drainage it looks like a pond back there.
Yes so, the challenge with this site is that we're tying into an existing structure.
So, our finished floor elevation is pretty well established. It’s a relatively flat site as it is so, we
don’t have a lot of options storm water-wise so we’re trying to sheet flow everything into that
relatively flat swale that’s going to have a perforated under drain. It’s going to drain into the
storm sewer out on Basket Road.
Okay. You have a dumpster enclosure going....that’Il be near the front.
Yes, we choose the front within that dog fenced in area to avoid the westerly winds
blowing odor into the operations of Blackwood Electric.
A little premature but just when you get to that point, don’t just throw cement
block up, make it look decent you know.
| live directly across the street, and I am going to make sure it is a nice place.
Alright, any questions or concerns.
So, you mentioned it used to be agricultural use, and I noticed this is near Bolter
Industrial. One thing to double check and I didn’t see it on the SEQR form but just double check
in general, is that...there are county agriculture districts in this area that haven't been used for a
long time, but the agriculture districts have never been resolved. So, just verify that the parcel
itself is not subject to agriculture district reporting.
I will double check. Thank you.
There are even acouple industrial parks that we have that are right in the middle
of an agriculture district that had never been dissolved.
Yes, with that said, we’re on the industrial side of Basket Road so everything
around us, we got Waste Management right next door to us. Right across the street, we do have
residents, so we are substantiating a buffer.
But that why I mentioned it because it’s deceptive. The agriculture district was
put in place 30 years ago and then as development came in certain areas and it hadn’t been used
Pg.95 May 6, 2025 Pianning Meeting
for agriculture for years and years. but the district still exists. So, you are subject to those
requirements.
lan Kuchman: Josh are you aware of....
I don't believe this property is within an agricultural district, but we can help double
check that and with this property being on Basket Road, we were required to refer in to Monroe
County and I know that that’s also something that they take a look at as well. So, once we....we
can confirm that for you.
All right. That’s something we can check out anyways, right. So, when you
come back to preliminary you can have an answer to it.
First things first, get our variances first.
I just have one more thing, you indicated a fence in the RGE RTC easement, utility
easement, | just want to make sure that it is allowed within that easement, the fence that you guys
are proposing.
lan Kuchman: Okay.
And then out of curiosity, interior architectural plan showed storage. I’m assuming
we're not dealing with like transformers; storage; any kind of chemicals inside because it’s right
next to a budding to the dog area. Does it need to have a fireproof wall between the two
components of use, ] guess.
So, I’m sorry, I’ve got hearing aids. I have a bit of a hard time hearing you. But
you are concerned about the storage.
Yes, | am assuming you are not storing transformers any kind of chemicals inside
because it’s right next to a budding to the dog use and then your storage use.
Correct. The storage use is going to be used for the H & L Incorporated that’s
owning this place to store the stuff to maintain the property.
Okay.
And that kind of stuff, nothing industrial or anything like that. Nothing more
than you would find in your garage.
The overall site once you’re completed, there’s outdoor storage, right.
No. Everything should be inside. The only thing outside would be a parking
lot.
Pg. 96 May 6, 2025 Planning Meeting
That sounds good.
So, the draft SEQR, it does indicate on here that there are wetlands or other
regulated water bodies on the parcel. So, you’re aware you have to start that whole process with
the new wetlands regulations as soon as possible.
Derek, you're saying there are wetlands on there.
Yes. According to the SEQR form, it identifies that there’s wetlands or other
regulated areas and you know, because of that, ] would say that they got to start down that path
of the jurisdictional determination under the NY State Wetland Regulations. Start that now so
you don’t get hung up on it.
Ok check in to that. Sounds good and good luck. You know what, before you
go, Josh, if the are going to the Zoning Board do you feel that there are any issues with it.
No, I think that the variances that are being requested are not really substantially
and are not of concern.
f was thinking, if it was questionable, you know...
I mean, the board could provide a letter of support if they’re favorable to the design.
It’s up to you, fellas; do you want to send them a letter. THE BOARD
AGREED. We can send them to the Zoning Board that might expedite it a little bit.
e The applicant will work with Town Staff to confirm whether or not the property
is located within a Monroe County Agricultural District.
Applicant will confirm if a Jurisdictional Determination is required for this
property.
ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM:
© Approval of Meeting Minutes for March 4, 2025 (GIARDINA/MALTA) THESE MINUTES
WERE A DUPLICATE AND NOT NEEDED. April 1, 2025 (GIARDINA/KOSEL) GASIC
-ABSTAIN.
Pg. 97 May 6, 2025 Planning Meeting
With no other applications before the Board this evening Anthony Casciani concluded tonight's
meeting at 8:00 PM.
Respectfully Submitted,
Signed
Mark Giardina, Secretary
Katherine Kolich, Recording Secretary
JUN 4°25 axSia7?
FILED WEBSTER THN CLK
Crone tllann
Pg. 98 May 6, 2025 Planning Meeting