Minutes

WEBSTER TOWN PLANNING BOARD MINUTES

Anthony Casciani, Chairman

Dave Malta, Vice Chairman

Mark Giardina, Secretary

Derek Anderson

John Kosel

Peggy Maltman

Drazen Gasic

Josh Artuso

Erika Corsi

Katherine Kolich, Recording Secretary

Frank Ciardi, Attorney

Pledge of Allegiance/Rall Call.

this point so I guess we can go ahead and get started.

Summary overview of outcome:

TABLED MATTERS

:

WATERVIEW PHASE III

SCHEDULED MATTERS

:

AMORE & CO THE SALON-SIGN

GARAGE REPLACEMENT/POLE BARN

Pg. 35 March 4, 2025 Planning Meeting

MCALPIN INDUSTRIES

CONDUCTING COORDINATED SEQR REVIEW

SOLAR PV

VARIANCE.

IDEAL GROUP MANUFACTURING

LETTER TO ZONING BOARD.

(MARK GIARDINA READ INTO THE RECORD)

Nautical Mile Drive. Applicant Legacy Development Co., Inc is requesting

PRELIMINARY/FINAL SITE PLAN, SUBDIVISION, EPOD PERMIT

APPROVAL AND LWRP CONSISTENCY RECOMMENDATION (PUBLIC

HEARING) associated with the proposed construction of six (6) two-story townhouse

style buildings consisting of a total of 56 residential units and one (1) community center

on a 13.5-acre parcel (partially within in a Steep Slope EPOD) having SBL#s 093.06-3-

64.11 and 093.06-3-64.12 located in an MHR Medium High Residential District under

Sections 269-11, 330-4 and 350-14 of the Code of the Town of Webster

Appearing before the board Chris Nadler, general counsel for Mark IV Enterprises and

with me here today is David Cox, our Design Engineer from Passero Associates. Chris

DeMarzo, owner and president of Mark IV will join us in a few minutes. He just texted

and he is stuck in a traffic jam.

We are here in front of this board, long last, and it seems like awhile since I have seen you

all. We have been hard at work with town staff and hammering out issues. I just want to

go briefly again over the project history. Where we have been, where we are now and

where we would like to go and go over briefly some of the comments and changes, we

have made over the last several months and then answer any questions. David and I are

both available.

As you know, decades ago this project was approved for 7 story midrise on this parcel. It

was reduced to a 5 story midrise, and we obtained permits from the DEC for docks down

around the bay and then earlier this year, or last year, we came in for 2-3 story buildings

with 90 units. We met with this board a few times; we met with the Zoning Board a few

limes and we talked to town staff; we heard from our neighbors and reduced the project

significantly to 56 townhouse style apartments. In the fall of last year, this board declared

Pg. 36 March 4, 2025 Planning Meeting

i's intent to be lead agency and commence SEQR coordinated review, and we appeared

in front of the Zoning Board of Appeals and received required variances for the project

including front setback and another variance that we needed. Since that time, we have

been working diligently with town staff, town engineer, highway and sewer department,

and planning department in responding to comments drainage, potential wetlands,

stormwater management, dock permit conditions which in December, Mr. Artuso spoke

with DEC and we realized that there were conditions of the dock permit that was issued, I

don’t know, 2 decades ago that the DEC has been renewing for us every 5 years. We are

not planning on building docks at this part of application. So, what is in front of you is just

the subdivision application and the site plan application. We also talked to town staff

about construction phasing and worked out a detail plan that you have in front of you as

well as various easements that the project requires.

Tonight, we are seeking from this board a negative declaration of environmental

significance under SEQR; an LWRP, Local Waterfront Revitalization Program

determination of consistency; an EPOD Permit, an Environmental Protection Overlay

District permit; Subdivisional Approval and Preliminary Site Plan Approval as well as

Final Site Plan Approval. We have worked for over a year with town staff and this board

as well as the Zoning Board and the DEC and the board have all the information necessary

to issue those approvals. So, now I will open it up and ask the board if there are any

questions that we are happy to answer.

reading through the permit, it has been continuously renewed by Legacy Development...

since it was first put in. It has been done at their request and DEC has been doing it

administratively and so the reason this related directly to this project is that Appendix B

of this permit clearly says that parcel 2, which is included in this project, shall be conveyed

to the Genesse Valley Land Trust as a condition of the permit for the docks. So, my

question to you is, well it’s not only lot 2 it’s also a lot across the road from it. I guess my

question to you is, why hasn’t that property ever been transferred.

of this application.

since it was issued. So, you have the understanding that you know the property was

supposed to have been transferred and it says on here, within 45 days of the effective date

of this renewal. That property has never been transferred in accordance with the permit.

Pg. 37 March 4, 2025 Planning Meeting

of this permit.

them. If we do go to build the docks, we will work that out with the DEC.

been actively renewing and I think as a board, we need to notify DEC that this permit

needs to be withdrawn. It is not a valid permit because if you go through with this

development, you are building on the neighboring property. You are merging one of the

parcels into the main buildings where the buildings are.

parcels that you committed to transferring to the Genessee Valley Land Trust. So, this

permit is null and void.

BOTH PARTIES SPEAKING AT THE SAME TIME.

Valley Land Trust. We committed as part of a dock permit, if and when we built docks

and will deal with the DEC on that, but I don’t want ......... I think that is a little

disingenuous to say that we have committed to convey a parcel, when that is not even a

little bit of what we have done. As part of a dock permit... excuse me, as part of a dock

permit, we would have to do that and as I said a couple times now, we are not building

docks as part of this application.

that you have been actively renewing, you cannot meet anymore.

action that we would take tonight regarding this parcel. The DEC must be notified that

you are pulling the permit once again. Because looking though the records this permit has

been part of the development at the beginning, and it was pulled, and it wasn’t going to be

part of any project and then it reappeared at some point and probably when they did phase

2 of this project. The map that we have is in conformance with what is in the permit itself.

So, you have a development that you have been actively renewing a permit for on the

understanding that ok, once the docks are built you are to convey the property. Now you

are before the board with a development that makes this permit null and void. Which do

Pg. 38 March 4, 2025 Planning Meeting

you want in the future, do you want this development, or do you want to notify DEC that

you are pulling the permit. The permit that you have been renewing.

I can’t stop you Derek from notifying the DEC or anything.

to pull this permit. Why have you been renewing the permit when you had no intention

of transferring the property as it was negotiated as part of the permit.

point, thank you.

on building a docks and my point there would be NO. There is no intent to build the docks

currently. I hear what you are saying but where is that coming into this if there is nothing

going on with it at this point.

this permit because this permit is not valid anymore.

them, and that the town notify that there is no application or its rescinded for the dock. I

can’t see holding up a project like this for something as minor as that you see. That is just

Pg. 39 March 4, 2025 Planning Meeting

my opinion.

been beating this thing to death for a year. Somewhere along the line, it’s been open.

Again, this is a public hearing so if there are people here to speak, we will open it to the

public.

regulations. We do have a letter from Passero that says they went out and took some

pictures of it. With in the letter, they talk about doing a desk top review of the location of

wetlands which, specially under the new regulations, says you can’t do anymore. You

can’t rely on those mappings. So, has a delineation, an actual delineation been done and

an application submitted to DEC for a jurisdictional determination.

says you can’t quote, a desktop delineation. We have worked diligently with town staff ,

including the Town Planning Board Attorney; Town Attorney; Town Director of

Development; Town Planner; and Town Engineer and Assistant Town Engineer on that

matter. I think our most recent submission shows that there aren’t or isn’t a wetland in the

location that may be identified on the EAF map or whatever the substitution of that is

under the new regulations.

So, you say that you have submitted to the DEC. Did we receive a copy of that submission.

about it. Iam sure the town has whatever we submitted.

they received it.

and it is only affective if an application was filed before January 1* otherwise, the new

regulations apply and like Derek mentioned, I concur with that understanding and even if

you go onto the web portal, onto the DEC it says that it is only for reference and it’s not

comparable to actual JD application or actual physical response back from the DEC

indicating if a wetland delineation needs to be occurred or not but the transitional period

according to 664.1 is a section, the only time that you are granted a transition period is if

Pg. 40 March 4, 2025 Planning Meeting

you have a DEC wetland permit in hand; a final environmental impact statement

completed; or a site plan approval by a municipality otherwise you fall in the new

jurisdiction with a requirement of application. So, you performed a site visit, was a GPS

that was collected and has that been submitted to DEC or did you just file a JD and waiting

for a response from the DEC.

submitted to DEC. So, what the actual regulations say, that took affect in January | is that

we have the option of submitting a jurisdictional determination and do not require a

jurisdictional determination request as part of this review. This board is tasked with

addressing and evaluating what wetlands impact to wetlands, excuse me as part of your

SEQR process but this board can do that based on NY State Law as interrupted and

promulgated by the court system and NY State Town Law and NY State SEQR

Regulations based on the information you have. The way the regulations read, not the

way the DEC keeps talking about it, but the actual regulations say, if it’s a wetland then

you may need a jurisdictional determination. So, it would be predicated on it being wet.

So, what we have shown you is that there is no area that could be a wetland.

if its saturation and it also consists of the hydrology of the soil and actual vegetation

plantings that are existing there as well as micro clover environment conditions. It is not

just whether it’s wet or not.

just mean is it wet, I meant someone who is an environment biologist go out and there and

say could this possible be a wetland and she said no. Was there a delineation, no we are

not saying that there was but that is not required at this stage.

we are tasked with determining if there is a wetland or not but information wasn’t provided

to us from DEC or from a delineated is in fact or is not in fact wetlands out there, how are

we going to make that determination without requesting JD or wetland delineation.

is employed by Passero Associates; whose professional licensed engineer who has

stamped all the items in the application. . You could probably go look. Does it look like

it could be a wetland, no but I think that it is self-evident if the DEC regulations can

confuse people, I understand that, but I think hopefully we have worked that out with your

legal advisors and your town staff to make it clear that its not necessarily an impediment

to making a SEQR determination.

diligence to provide that information since the applicant is requesting the SEQR.

Pg. 41 March 4, 2025 Planning Meeting

being resolved down the road.

approval subject to the DEC coming back with their opinion relative to the jurisdictional

determination and also, the DEC has allowed for a stream line of this approval if you have

a third party person, expert, who has performed, which you have with Passero. So, ] guess

the question, ultimately the legal question, that I am being asked is whether some type of

conditional approval conditioned to having that DEC review and approval and ultimately

the DEC determining that delineation is not required and that it is not a wetland. If we put

that in the approval what is your position in regard to that.

along, of course we would be happy, we would be appreciative of this board if you would

move it along like that. If It’s a wetland, we can’t build on it. The DEC would take us to

court before we even got to the second day of construction. So, that is what the DEC

enforcement mechanism it is not this board. That being said, if that is the condition you

want to impose, absolutely.

SPEAKING AT THE SAME TIME)

want to build on something without getting that.

understand there is history to this project, and 1 understand that there has been years

involved back and forth with communication. I don’t understand why there is a need to

vote a conditional negative declaration on something that can be reached out to DEC and

has gotten clarification and address at the next meeting. If a JD needs to be submitted and

especially as us being the lead agency for this application. I don’t understand why there

needs to be a rush and including a conditional portion language and honestly, I am not

even sure that we can include conditional approvals in a negative declaration under SEQR,

but my point of view is it wouldn’t hurt to have a call to the DEC and get that clarification

prior to issuing conditions or approving a SEQR process without having that in hand as

lead agency.

Pg. 42 March 4, 2025 Planning Meeting

A filing of the JD, my understanding now, within 2-3 days you should be getting back an

email saying if you need to perform wetland dilatations or not.

do have a few items no question. We just make them subject to these things being

resolved. To me, this is a very small part of this whole project. The project to me is the

development; the traffic; where there is wetland or a puddle on the bank, I could care less

to be honest. Let the DEC argue that.

as the lead agency. Essentially, we are granted approval prior to getting feedback from the

consultant agency.

If not, it’s null and void.

by the town under SEQR and did not say that a jurisdictional determination would be

required. Tonight, the letter I read it again this afternoon, so

I think that is your answer. No body here works for DEC. They can carry their own water

you don’t have to. We are going to have to deal with DEC obviously.

case, so we have to follow the new regulations since we don’t need those three criteria’s

for the transitional period.

spend the evening just talking about DEC on this thing.

earlier that I think is very concerning. DEC with its new regulations has put it prominent

that they are going to protect the wetlands in the United States and by you, as a board

member, saying that you can careless about the wetlands, that doesn’t fit.

back, I could care less.

Pg. 43 March 4, 2025 Planning Meeting

is a small part of this overall project. They have had people surveying already and there

determination is there is no wetland there.

that. Let them do what they have to do and let them deal with the DEC instead of us here.

Let them resolve this issue with them. We move forward with it subject to them getting

the ok from the DEC. This is no different than things we have done in the past.

more technical information and according to the SEQR handbook, that’s....you can’t do a

conditional SEQR declaration if you are waiting for additional technical! information. It

specifically says that for places within the document that it is not allowed.

such action as it wants and it condition the decisions, that is very clear and if this board as

a whole is comfortable moving forward then do so. If Derek wants additional information

and if Mr. Gasic wants additional information, I think they would have to convince a

couple of board members that they want additional as well. At this point, we have asked

that you open the public hearing and take comments and move forward.

back from DEC. That is all 1 was asking for.

speak and we just ask that you go up to the mic and give us your name and address. Anyone

wishing to comment on this.

we are going to close the public hearing portion of the meeting for Waterview.

the areas. At the entry ways at all the road access , if we could incorporate stop signs. I

didn’t see any in the drawings. There are 2 areas that are called out for snow removal;

there are concrete curbs there; maybe do....there are two areas that have snow removal

indicated with in the vicinity of the community center, but they have curbing in those

areas, if you can do transitional curbing or maybe remove those so you can plow that in

those areas. One is the snow storage areas on the south side is very close to a residential

Pg. 44 March 4, 2025 Planning Meeting

patio that is going to be right there, so we usually have high amounts of snow. J just don’t

think that area is realistic for snow storage because it is going to be right up against

residential property there. The retaining walls have ornamental fencing. There are

locations, building | specifically Josh in the south west, there is a 10 foot drop to that

retaining wall coming from that garage and I know I am being overly cautious and

concerning but if you have a rolling car, will that ornamental fencing hold the car. Maybe

consider using like a timber guard rail in that area because it is a 10 foot drop after that,

and it goes down. I was wondering, just on the grading on the north, west corner of

building 6 , how is that transitioning happening with all the retaining walls. If we can get

clarification on how that is all being tied in on the north west side.

additional TOPO to the north west of where that retaining wall abuts those contours.

is that would be the bottom of the wall elevation.

plan. It seems that you have some prominent tree species that are going to be within you

piping network. Deep roots are going to go right into the drainage structures that you have

indicated there. Just consideration given for long term success of the drainage structures

there.

PM2. You have two of them that are PM, and they are right along the line of your drainage

structures. So, if you wouldn’t mind taking a look at that. I guess, this is miniscule but if

you look between building 4 and building 5, you have a garage, so someone is going to

pull out of a garage at night, turn on the light and it could potentially shine right into he

window of the second story of building

5. Again, if you relocate those trees or move them

and just keep that in mind that you do something for visual of maybe break up the light.

You have that scenario in a couple locations even on the east side between building 4 and

3 and also between building 2 and building | where you will have vehicles that are going

to be exiting the garage with potentially lights on. One thing to note, you have existing

vegetation along Willowpoint Way. Is there intention to move that vegetation or keep it.

The existing trees that are there.

Pg. 45 March 4, 2025 Planning Meeting

and then if you wouldn’t mind indicating how you are going to protect them because there

is some grading that is occurring there and it’s more than 6 inches so it could impact so

maybe consider moving them, it might damage trees. There are existing hydrants on

Martin Drive, Maritime Drive sorry. The silk fence that you are proposing, that is in front

of the fire hydrants. If you wouldn’t mind moving them behind the fire hydrants so that

they are not obscuring first responders and then I would recommend just to add silk fence

protections along all the existing structure along Willow point Way and Maritime Drive

and McEwen Drive. Again, silk sock then having to re flush the entire storm

drain later on. That is all mine for now.

think we might have a problem with because we have a design going and I don’t think it

is going to be easy to stop a car with anything and if a car goes over that, we can pull him

out. It’s not going to be in good shape. That is the only one that I would say, could we not

have that as an absolute condition, but could we explore the possibility of doing that.

structures. If you flip through a plan that shows it. They appear to be in the road.

basins are on a different parcel. They are on the parcel that is owned by phase 2 of the

project heading down to the bay so what I guess that I don’t see on here and maybe you

could point that out. The easement that would be associated with that and similar on the

other side. There is that easement that is the detention basin that has the and land

filters and I would expect also there to be an easement for those items.

chamber will have an easement over it and the storm water chambers are really to treat the

drainage of the phase

2. Derek Anderson: Where is that easement showing is the question.

Pg. 46 March 4, 2025 Planning Meeting

and filed before we get mylar signatures.

guys pretty much are comfortable with it at this point.

the sand filter that is on the south west side, I guess there is a road that is next to it, what

is the anticipated rating of that road that you are proposing. Is it 20; is a pumper truck

going to be able to puil onto that road to maintain potentially that sand filter or...

down there.

truck can make it down there.

existing path to get down there is somewhat steep so I don’t think you would want to take

a pumper truck down there.

schedule for it I guess over time.

on this. I think one of the biggest things was on McEwen Drive and I| think you resolved

that. You were putting bushes or a berm along there or something.

Pg. 47 March 4, 2025 Planning Meeting

Town of Webster

Department of Engineering

1000 Ridge Road, Webster, NY 14580-2917 ¢ 585-872-1000 ¢ Fax: 585-872-1352

www.ci.webster.ny.us

Mr. David Cox, P.E. February 28, 2025

Passero Associates

242 West Main Street, Suite 100

Rochester, NY 14614

Re:

February 2025, stamped ‘Received February 18, 2025’ at the Town of Webster

The Town of Webster Engineering Department has reviewed the subject SWPPP and Plans. Our

comments are as follows:

1.

2.

10. ADD Revision Dates to Drawings.

CLARIFY what the rectangle represents on Drawing C 105 (lower section between contours 397 &

399).

ENSURE the number of infiltration tests required for all storm water features is in conformance

with the NYS Stormwater Management Design Manual (July 2024).

ADD NOTE temporary sediment basins must be cleaned and prepared prior to constructing Bio-

Retention areas.

CLARIFY the access to the Sand Filter. How will maintenance vehicles gain access to the western

side of the sand filter through use of the existing trail at the north end of the sand filter?

ADD the Stormwater Chamber to all drawings.

ADD all ADS Storm Specifications Pages 1-9 to the SWPPP appendix T.

SPECIFY who is the Site Design Engineer of Record regarding ADS specifications approvals? The ADS

specifications and manuals mention multiple areas requiring approvals by said Site Design

Engineer.

CONFIRM the design of and build-out conditions for the Stormwater Chamber is in accordance with

all ADS requirements, i.e. StormTeck Design Manual, Technical Notes, and Installation Guide.

PROVIDE with the final design plans’ (Mylars) acknowledgement from ADS they approve the

specified Stormwater Chamber for this project.

1|Page

Town of Webster

Department of Engineering

1000 Ridge Road, Webster, NY 14580-2917 © 585-872-1000 © Fax: 585-872-1352

www.ci.webster.ny.us

11. CONDUCT, prior to receiving a Certificate of Occupancy, televised inspection(s) for the Stormwater

Chamber. Stormwater Chamber shall be clean and clear of debris with no damage.

12, PROVIDE approved shop drawings for Stormwater Chambers at part of the as-builts/project

closeout.

13. ADD Signature Block to each page and ensure all the following are present -

Town Engineer

Planning Board Chairman

Town Highway Superintendent

Webster Sewer District

Fire Marshal

Town Assessor

Monroe County Water Authority

Monroe County Health Department

a a i a

Keith Mortimer, P.E.

Town Engineer

File

2|Page

that this was a group of neighbors that was really concerned and now at a public hearing

that had no comments.

town engineers have been working on this thing for several months now also along with

he applicant and I know there’s... Derek you have issues with the SEQR and so on; with

the DEC. I am going to propose that we move forward with this project, and I want it

gone and done. Whatever issues need to be resolved, let that happen with the DEC. That

is where the main issues are. I mean this thing, when was it, January } that they came out

with the new rule and kind of put blotches here and there and said this is potential wetland

so now you tell us that it isn’t and will get back to you in a few months. Is that basically....

the actual regulations says here some blotches if you want a jurisdictional determination,

we are happy to do that for you and here’s the process by which you can do that but pretty

much there are blotches and I believe someone earlier today used the phrase, it is clear as

mud.

the whole process into that is as clear as mud but anyways, I would like to propose that

we move forward with this project. We will leave the ownership to the applicant to have

to deal with the DEC and any other agency. I think the town, correct me Keith and Mark,

you have reviewed all this stuff. You are content with the engineering and.............

town engineering that says we have comments that do not hold up the application.

resolved prior to mylars.

here now. We have got actually 6 different resolutions. This first one, I will start with the

SEQR. Because we have to declare as an unlisted action, I guess at this point so I will read

it out and be patient with me, These were all prepared by town engineers.

(SEE ATTACHED) SEQR

RESOLUTION 25-0015 Anthony Casciani made a motion for

UNLISTED ACTION-LEAD

AGENCY which was seconded by

Dave Malta.

Pg. 48 March 4, 2025 Planning Meeting

TOWN OF WEBSTER PLANNING BOARD

SEQR RESOLUTION — UNLISTED ACTION

WHEREAS, the Town of Webster Planning Board (“Planning Board”) is considering

applications for preliminary and final site plan approval and subdivision approval related

to the above-referenced property to combine an approximately 3.7 acre parcel with an

approximately 9.4 acre parcel to create an approximately 13.1 acre parcel as shown on

the Re-Subdivision of Lots R2-B and R2-C Plat prepared by Passero Associates, dated

July 2024, and on which combined parcel is proposed to be constructed five 10-unit and

one 6-unit townhouse style apartment buildings, a clubhouse building, and associated

infrastructure as shown on the most recent site plans prepared by Passero Associates,

and all other relevant information submitted as of March 4, 2025 (“Applications”); and

WHEREAS, the Planning Board has reviewed the Short Environmental Assessment

Form (EAF), Part 1, prepared by the applicant related to the Applications and all other

relevant information submitted as of March 4, 2025 (“Action’); and

WHEREAS the Planning Board determines that said Action is classified as an Unlisted

Action under Part 617 of the New York State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR)

Regulations; and

WHEREAS the Planning Board declared its intent to declare itself lead agency under

SEQR and commenced coordinated review on , 2024: and

WHEREAS the Planning Board determines that it is the most appropriate agency for

making the determination of significance thereon under the SEQR Regulations; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Board has given consideration for determining significance as

set forth in Section 617.7(c)(1) of the SEQR Regulations and the information contained

in the EAF Part 1; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Board has completed Part 2 and Part 3 of the Environmental

Assessment Forms; and

WHEREAS the Planning Board under the provisions of Part 617 of the New York State

Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) Regulation s has given a thorough and

comprehensive evaluation of the impacts likely to result from the proposed Action;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Board hereby declares itself to

be the Lead Agency for purposes of completing environmental quality review as

required by New York State law and the SEQR Regulations; and

;

BE IT FURTHER RESLVED that the Planning Board has reasonably concluded that the

following impacts are expected to result from the proposed Action when compared

against the criteria found in SEQR Section 617.7(c):

{a) There will not be a substantial adverse change in existing air quality, ground or

surface water quality or quantity, traffic noise levels; a substantial increase in

solid waste production; a substantial increase in potential for erosion, flooding,

leaching or drainage problems;

(b) There will not be ijarge quantities of vegetation or fauna removed from the site or

destroyed as the result of the proposed Action; there will not be substantial

interference with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife

species as the result of the proposed Action; there will not be a significant impact

upon habitat areas on the site; there are no known threatened or endangered

species of animal or plant, or the habitat of such species; or, there are no other

significant adverse impacts to natural resources on the site:

(c) There are no known Critical! Environmental Area(s) on the site which will be

impaired as the result of the proposed Action;

(d) The overall density of the site is consistent with the Town’s Comprehensive Plan

land use recommendations;

(e) There will not be an increase in the use of either the quantity or type of energy

resulting from the proposed Action; and

(f) There will not be any hazard created to human health;

(g) There will not be a change in the use of active agricultural lands that receive an

agricultural use tax exemption or that will ultimately result in the loss of ten acres

of such productive farmland;

(h) There will not be a larger number of persons attracted to the site for more than a

few days when compared to the number of persons who would come to the site

absent the Action;

(i) There will not be created a material demand for other Actions that would result in

one of the above consequences;

(j) There will not be changes in two or more of the elements of the environment that

when considered together result in a substantial adverse impact; and

({k) There are not two or more related Actions which would have a significant impact

on the environment; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that based on the information and analysis set forth

above and the supporting documentation referenced above, the proposed Action WILL

NOT result in any significant adverse environmental impacts, subject to the condition

set forth below; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Board does hereby make a

Determination of Non-Significance for the proposed Action and the Planning Board

Chairman is hereby directed to sign the Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 3

and issue a Negative Declaration as evidence of the Planning Board's determination.

The above resolution was offered by Member and seconded by

Member at a meeting of the Planning Board held on Tuesday, March

4, 2025. Following discussion thereon, the following roll call vote was taken and

recorded:

Mr. Casciani AYE NAY

Mr. Malta AYE NAY

Mr. Giardina AYE NAY

Mr. Anderson AYE NAY

Mr. Kosel AYE NAY

Mrs. Maltman AYE NAY

Mr. Gasic AYE NAY

VOTE:

Mr. Casciani AYE

Mr. Malta AYE

Mr. Giardina AYE

Mr. Anderson NAY

Mr. Kosel AYE

Mrs. Maltman AYE

Mr. Gasic NAY

DEC to resolve any outstand issues.

SEQR. I think we have to do a subdivision approval. Dave, you have a copy of that.

RESOLUTION 25-0016 Dave Malta made a motion for

SUBDIVISION APPROVAL

Located at the northwest corner of

Willow Point Way and Nautical Mile

Drive. Applicant Legacy

Development Co., Inc is requesting

SYBDIVISION APPROVAL

(

PUBLIC HEARING

) associated

with the proposed construction of six

(6) two-story townhouse © style

buildings consisting of a total of 56

residential units and one (1)

community center on a 13.5-acre

parcel (partially within in a Steep

Slope EPOD) having SBL#s 093.06-

3-64.11 and 093.06-3-64.12 located

in’ an MHR Medium High

Residential District under Sections

269-11, 330-4 and 350-14 of the

Code of the Town of Webster which

was seconded by John Kosel.

Pg. 49 March 4, 2025 Planning Meeting

f (SEE ATTACHED)SUBDIVISION APPROVAL

VOTE:

Mr. Casciani AYE

Mr. Malta AYE

Mr. Giardina AYE

Mr. Anderson NAY

Mr. Kosel AYE

Mrs. Maltman AYE

Mr. Gasic AYE

Overlay District

RESOLUTION 25-0017 Peggy Maltman made a motion for

EPOD APPROVAE Located at the

northwest corner of Willow Point

Way and Nautical Mile Drive.

Applicant Legacy Development Co.,

Inc is requesting EPOD

APPROVAL (PUBLIC

HEARING) associated with the

proposed construction of six (6) two

story townhouse style buildings

consisting of a total of 56 residential

units and one (1) community center

on a 13.5-acre parcel (partially

within in a Steep Slope EPOD)

having SBL#s 093.06-3-64.11 and

093.06-3-64.12 located in an MHR

Medium High Residential District

under Sections 269-11, 330-4 and

350-14 of the Code of the Town of

Webster which was seconded by

Dave Malta.

discussed that we should probably add in there. We can just add this into that. Never mind,

that would be a motion.

[ Pg. 50 March 4, 2025 Planning Meeting

TOWN OF WEBSTER PLANNING BOARD

SUBDIVISION APPROVAL RESOLUTION

WHEREAS, the Town of Webster Planning Board (“Planning Board”) is considering

applications for preliminary and final site plan approval and subdivision approval related

to the above-referenced property to combine an approximately 3.7 acre parcel with an

approximately 9.4 acre parcel to create an approximately 13.1 acre parcel as shown on

the Re-Subdivision of Lots R2-B and R2-C Plat prepared by Passero Associates, dated

July 2024, and on which combined parcel is proposed to be constructed five 10-unit and

one 6-unit townhouse style apartment buildings, a clubhouse building, and associated

infrastructure as shown on the most recent site plans prepared by Passero Associates,

and all other relevant information submitted as of March 4, 2025 (“Project”); and

WHEREAS, the Planning Board has completed a formal review of the proposed

subdivision and site plan applications in compliance with the implementing regulations

of the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR); and

WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined the proposed development to be an

Unlisted Action under Part 617.6(b)(4) of the SEQR Regulations; and

WHEREAS, on March 4, 2025 the Planning Board made a determination of significance

and filed a negative declaration thereby concluding review pursuant to SEQR; and

WHEREAS, on March 4, 2025 the Planning Board conducted a public hearing that was

duly advertised according to law and at which all persons interested were heard; and

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Board hereby approves the

proposed subdivision with the following conditions:

The above resolution was offered by Member and seconded by

Member at a meeting of the Planning Board held on Tuesday, March

4, 2025. Following discussion thereon, the following roll call vote was taken and

recorded:

Mr. Casciani AYE NAY

Mr. Malta AYE NAY

Mr. Giardina AYE NAY

Mr. Anderson AYE NAY

Mr. Kosel AYE NAY

Mrs. Maltman AYE NAY

Mr. Gasic AYE NAY

t (SEE ATTACHED)EPOD APPROVAL

VOTE:

Mr. Casciani AYE

Mr, Malta AYE

Mr. Giardina AYE

Mr. Anderson NAY

Mr. Kosel AYE

Mrs, Maltman AYE

Mr. Gasic NAY

(SEE ATTACHED) WATERFRONT REVITILATION

RESOLUTION 25-0018 John Kosel made a motion for

LOCAL WATERFRONT

APPROVAL Located at the

northwest corner of Willow Point

Way and Nautical Mile Drive.

Applicant Legacy Development Co.,

Inc is requesting LOCAL

WATERFRONT (PUBLIC

HEARING) associated with the

proposed construction of six (6) two-

story townhouse style buildings

consisting of a total of 56 residential

units and one (1) community center

on a 13.5-acre parcel (partially

within in a Steep Slope EPOD)

having SBL#s 093.06-3-64.11 and

093.06-3-64.12 located in an MHR

Medium High Residential District

under Sections 269-11, 330-4 and

350-14 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 NAY

Mr. Kosel AYE

Mrs. Maltman AYE

Mr. Gasic NAY

L Pg. 51 March 4, 2025 Planning Meeting

TOWN OF WEBSTER PLANNING BOARD

EPOD RESOLUTION

WHEREAS, the Town of Webster Planning Board (“Planning Board”) is considering

applications for preliminary and final site plan approval and subdivision approval related

to the above-referenced property to combine an approximately 3.7 acre parcel with an

approximately 9.4 acre parcel to create an approximately 13.1 acre parcel as shown on

the Re-Subdivision of Lots R2-B and R2-C Plat prepared by Passero Associates, dated

July 2024, and on which combined parcel is proposed to be constructed five 10-unit and

one 6-unit townhouse style apartment buildings, a clubhouse building, and associated

infrastructure as shown on the most recent site plans prepared by Passero Associates,

and all other relevant information submitted as of March 4, 2025 (“Project”); and

WHEREAS a portion of the Project is or may be located within Environmental Protection

Overlay District 2 — Steep Slopes Protection District because portions of the Project site

contain or may contain areas with a fifteen percent or greater slope and are located on

the Boundary Map attached as Appendix t of Town Code Chapter 350 — Zoning;

WHEREAS applicant has requested that the Planning Board issue an EPOD

Development Permit is accordance with Town Code § 350-9 (B)(2); and

WHEREAS a public hearing has been held on this matter, and

WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the effect that the proposed regulated

activity will have on the public health, safety and welfare and the protection or

enhancement of the fragile and environmentally sensitive steep slope areas within the

Town; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the standards set forth in Town Code §

350-9(D)(5); and

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Board does hereby grant an

EPOD Development Permit for the Project.

The above resolution was offered by Member and seconded by

Member at a meeting of the Planning Board held on Tuesday, March

4, 2025. Following discussion thereon, the following roll call vote was taken and

recorded:

Mr. Casciani AYE NAY

Mr. Malta AYE NAY

Mr. Giardina AYE NAY

Mr. Anderson AYE NAY

Mr. Kosel AYE NAY

Mrs. Maltman AYE NAY

Mr. Gasic AYE NAY

TOWN OF WEBSTER PLANNING BOARD

LWRP RESOLUTION

WHEREAS, the Town of Webster Planning Board (“Planning Board”) is considering

applications for preliminary and final site plan approval and subdivision approval related

to the above-referenced property to combine an approximately 3.7 acre parcel with an

approximately 9.4 acre parcel to create an approximately 13.1 acre parcel as shown on

the Re-Subdivision of Lots R2-B and R2-C Plat prepared by Passero Associates, dated

July 2024, and on which combined parcel is proposed to be constructed five 10-unit and

one 6-unit townhouse style apartment buildings, a clubhouse building, and associated

infrastructure as shown on the most recent site plans prepared by Passero Associates,

and all other relevant information submitted as of March 4, 2025 (“Project"); and

WHEREAS the proposed Project is or may be located within the Town of Webster's

coastal area, as defined in Town Code Chapter 331; and

WHEREAS Town staff have prepared a coastal assessment form on the Planning

Board’s behalf in accordance with Town Code Chapter 331; and

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the proposed Project is consistent with the

LWRP policy standards and conditions set forth in Town Code § 331-4 (G).

The above resolution was offered by Member and seconded by

Member at a meeting of the Planning Board held on Tuesday, March

4, 2025. Following discussion thereon, the following roll call vote was taken and

recorded;

Mr. Casciani AYE NAY

Mr. Malta AYE NAY

Mr. Giardina AYE NAY

Mr. Anderson AYE NAY

Mr. Kosel AYE NAY

Mrs. Maltman AYE NAY

Mr. Gasic AYE NAY

;

(SEE ATTACHED) PRELIMINARY APPROVAL

RESOLUTION 25-0019 Anthony Casciani made a motion for

PRELIMINARY APPROVAL

Located at the northwest corner of

Willow Point Way and Nautical Mile

Drive. Applicant Legacy

Development Co., Inc is requesting

PRELIMINARY APPROVAL

(

PUBLIC HEARING

) associated

with the proposed construction of six

(6) two-story townhouse _ style

buildings consisting of a total of 56

residential units and one (1)

community center on a 13.5-acre

parcel (partially within in a Steep

Slope EPOD) having SBL#s 093.06-

3-64.11 and 093.06-3-64.12 located

in an MHR Medium High

Residential District under Sections

269-11, 330-4 and 350-14 of the

Code of the Town of Webster which

was seconded by Dave Malta.

APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS:

lA a ee)

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16. Subject to PRC Comments

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

Subject to Conservation Board comments

Subject to Monroe County Water Authority comments

Subject to the determination of the ZBA for requested variances. (applicant received)

Address any land to be conveyed to the Town.

Address any recent subdivision approvals of adjacent lands.

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

Webster.

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

by the Town of Webster.

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

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

engineer prior to the commencing of any site work.

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

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

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

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

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

Approvals are subject to Drawing No: 202439030002

Proceed to Final Approval

Pg. 52 March 4, 2025 Planning Meeting

TOWN OF WEBSTER PLANNING BOARD

PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL RESOLUTION

WHEREAS, the Town of Webster Planning Board (“Planning Board”) is considering

applications for preliminary and final site plan approval and subdivision approval related

to the above-referenced property to combine an approximately 3.7 acre parcel with an

approximately 9.4 acre parcel to create an approximately 13.1 acre parcel as shown on

the Re-Subdivision of Lots R2-B and R2-C Plat prepared by Passero Associates, dated

July 2024, and on which combined parcel is proposed to be constructed five 10-unit and

one 6-unit townhouse style apartment buildings, a clubhouse building, and associated

infrastructure as shown on the most recent site plans prepared by Passero Associates,

and ail other relevant information submitted as of March 4, 2025 (“Project”); and

WHEREAS, the Planning Board has completed a formal review of the proposed

subdivision and site plan applications in compliance with the implementing regulations

of the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR); and

WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined the proposed development to be an

Unlisted Action under Part 617.6(b)(4) of the SEQR Regulations; and

WHEREAS, on March 4, 2025 the Planning Board made a determination of significance

and filed a negative declaration thereby concluding review pursuant to SEQR; and

WHEREAS, on March 4, 2025 the Planning Board conducted a public hearing that was

duly advertised according to law and at which all persons interested were heard; and

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Board hereby approves

preliminary site plan approval with the following conditions:

The above resolution was offered by Member and seconded by

Member at a meeting of the Planning Board held on Tuesday, March

4, 2025. Following discussion thereon, the following roll call vote was taken and

recorded:

Mr. Casciani AYE NAY

Mr. Malta AYE NAY

Mr. Giardina AYE NAY

Mr. Anderson AYE NAY

Mr. Kose AYE NAY

Mrs. Maltman AYE NAY

Mr. Gasic AYE NAY

VOTE:

Mr. Casciani AYE

Mr. Malta AYE

Mr. Giardina AYE

Mr. Anderson NAY

Mr. Kosel AYE

Mrs. Maltman AYE

Mr. Gasic NAY

(SEE ATTACHED) FINAL APPROVAL

RESOLUTION 25-0020 Anthony Casciani made a motion for

FINAL APPROVAL Located at the

northwest corner of Willow Point

Way and Nautical Mile Drive.

Applicant Legacy Development Co.,

Inc is requesting FINAL

APPROVAL (PUBLIC

HEARING) associated with the

proposed construction of six (6) two-

story townhouse style buildings

consisting of a total of 56 residential

units and one (1) community center

on a 13.5-acre parcel (partially

within in a Steep Slope EPOD)

having SBL#s 093.06-3-64.11 and

093.06-3-64.12 located in an MHR

Medium High Residential District

under Sections 269-11, 330-4 and

350-14 of the Code of the Town of

Webster which was seconded by

Dave Malta.

APPROVED WITH CONDITION:

Subject to PRC comments.

Subject to Parks and Recreation fees (if applicable)

Subject to Preliminary Approval Conditions.

Subject to all applicable governmental fees.

Subject to Department of Public Works approval

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

on 3.4.26.

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

designed plans.

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

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

Occupancy will be issued.

eA cd ie) ee

Pe. 53 March 4, 2025 Planning Meeting

TOWN OF WEBSTER PLANNING BOARD

FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL RESOLUTION

WHEREAS, the Town of Webster Planning Board (“Planning Board”) is considering

applications for preliminary and final site plan approval and subdivision approval related

to the above-referenced property to combine an approximately 3.7 acre parcel with an

approximately 9.4 acre parcel to create an approximately 13.1 acre parcel as shown on

the Re-Subdivision of Lots R2-B and R2-C Plat prepared by Passero Associates, dated

July 2024, and on which combined parcel is proposed to be constructed five 10-unit and

one 6-unit townhouse style apartment buildings, a clubhouse building, and associated

infrastructure as shown on the most recent site plans prepared by Passero Associates,

and all other relevant information submitted as of March 4, 2025 (“Project”); and

WHEREAS, the Planning Board has completed a formal review of the proposed

subdivision and site plan applications in compliance with the implementing regulations

of the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR); and

WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined the proposed development to be an

Unlisted Action under Part 617.6(b)(4) of the SEQR Regulations; and

WHEREAS, on March 4, 2025 the Planning Board made a determination of significance

and filed a negative declaration thereby concluding review pursuant to SEQR; and

WHEREAS, on March 4, 2025 the Planning Board conducted a public hearing that was

duly advertised according to law and at which all persons interested were heard; and

WHEREAS, on March 4, 2025 the Planning Board completed a review and granted

preliminary site plan approval: and

WHEREAS, the Planning Board has compared the final site plans with the approved

preliminary site plans and has determined that said plans are consistent and all

conditions have been satisfied or will be satisfied prior to signatures being affixed to the

final site plans; and

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Board does hereby grant final

site plan approval with the following conditions:

The above resolution was offered by Member and seconded by

Member at a meeting of the Planning Board held on Tuesday, March

4, 2025. Following discussion thereon, the following roll call vote was taken and

recorded:

Mr. Casciani AYE NAY

Mr. Malta AYE NAY

Mr. Giardina AYE NAY

Mr. Anderson

Mr. Kosel

Mrs. Maltman

Mr. Gasic

AYE

AYE

AYE

AYE

NAY

NAY

NAY

NAY

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

certification inspection of the site.

10. All storm water facilities are to be constructed first

11. All downspouts to be connected to the storm sewer system. (ENGINEERING APPROVALS)

12. Subject to resolution of the final approved minutes.

13. Approvals are subject to Drawing No: 202439030002

VOTE:

Mr. Casciani AYE

Mr. Malta AYE

Mr. Giardina AYE

Mr. Anderson NAY

Mr. Kosel AYE

Mrs. Maltman AYE

Mr. Gasic NAY

application. 1 know it’s been long and there has been a lot of issues and again, I reiterate, 1 think

the biggest thing here is DEC stuff and it’s always a big issue and holding a project up....let the

applicant go and battle it. That is out of my expertise that’s for sure.

the SEQR. The completed part of 2 &

3. Josh Artuso: I have it. JOSH GAVE DEREK ANDERSON COPIES)

I would like to see it. If it’s in the resolution, I would like to see it.

(MARK GIARDINA READ INTO THE RECORD)

AMORE & CO THE SALON SIGN: Located at 1050 Gravel Road. Applicant Jessica Costa of

Vital Signs is requesting SIGN APPROVAL associated with the installation of a 19.73SF

monument style sign on a 0.50-acre lot having SBL# 078.20-1-69 located in the MC Medium

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

Appearing before the board was Mike Nuccitelli (DID NOT SIGN IN) I am the owner of 1050

Gravel Road, and my office will also be in there as well.

Pg. 54 March 4, 2025 Planning Meeting

real simple.

RESOLUTION 25-0021 Derek Anderson made a motion for TYPE

II SEQR which was seconded by Mark

Giardina.

VOTE:

Mr. Casciani AYE

Mr. Malta AYE

Mr. Giardina AYE

Mr. Anderson AYE

Mr. Kosel AYE

Mrs. Maltman AYE

Mr. Gasic AYE

RESOLUTION 25-002 John Kose] made a motion for SIGN

APPROVAL Located at 1050 Gravel Road.

Applicant Jessica Costa of Vital Signs is

requesting SIGN APPROVAL associated

with the installation of a 19.73SF monument

style sign on a 0.50-acre lot having SBL#

078.20-1-69 located in the MC Medium

Intensity Commercial District under Section

265-7 of the Code of the Town of Webster

which was seconded by Mark Giardina.

VOTE:

Mr. Casciani AYE

Pg. 55 March 4, 2025 Planning Meeting

DRAFT SEQR

RESOLUTIONS

THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF WEBSTER

1002 Ridge Road, VanIngen Court Building

March 4, 2025

1. AMORE & CO THE SALON SIGN

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

Muskiatelly to install a 19.73 square foot monument style sign on a 0.50-acre parcel

having SBL # 078.20-1-69 located at 1050 Gravel Road.

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. GARAGE REPLACEMENT / POLE BARN

RESOLUTION

The Town of Webster Planning Board considered the request by Applicant Jake Burke

and Susan Dutro to remove an existing garage an replace it with a 2,100 square foot pole

barn attached to an existing structure on a 1.20 acre parcel having SBL# 063.11-1-89

located at 580 Bay Road.

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.

Mr. Malta AYE

Mr. Giardina AYE

Mr. Anderson AYE

Mr. Kosel AYE

Mrs. Maltman AYE

Mr. Gasic AYE

(MARK GIARDINA READ INTO THE RECORD)

GARAGE REPLACEMENT/POLE BARN: Located at 580 Bay Road. Applicant Jack Burke

is requesting PRELIMINARY/FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL (

PUBLIC HEARING

)

associated with the construction of a 2,100 SF pole barn on a 1.20-acre lot having SBL# 063. 1 I -

1-89 located in the R-3 Single family Residential District under Section 269-11 and Section 350-

12 of the Code of the Town of Webster.

Appearing before the board was Suzanna Dutro. I am the owner of 580 Bay Road and have been

there for 21 years and tonight we are here; after getting a zoning variance we are here to seek

approval for a pole barn to replace an existing garage. This is a registered historical property in

the Town of Webster so we are looking to continue the longevity of the property so that we can

stay there and make it more functional. Being an 1868 home, it lacks storage in every possible

way so looking for storage and also a place to house vehicles because the existing structure, I

have never been able to park a car in it. It is not original to the property I think it was built in the

50’s and so looking to house cars because we do have multiple vehicles, and I will in the next

year have a work truck. I typically because we work out in the field, I have a staging and design

company, decorating company so we work out in the field but we do use a truck that I need to

bring home with me so I would like to house that in the pole barn. So, currently they are seeing

UHAULS, and I have one in my driveway right now to house that to clean up the appearance of

the property and to improve the overall function of the property.

built to it’s not really a pole barn; it’s stick built which is nice. What are you going to use for

siding.

COLORS) it will be in keeping with the farm house. It was an apple orchard so it will be red like

a barn; it will have a black metal roof and white trim; white doors with windows. So, it will have

quit a nice appearance. It is important to me as a steward of the property that it looks in keeping

with the property and that it’s an improvement because I want to pass this on and this house has

been a passion for me for 21 years and I would like it to continue, and I feel it needs that update

really for us to stay in it and for it to function as well as for the next property owner.

On Del Rio right now, they are seeing what kind of looks like an old building that needs to be

Pg. 56 March 4, 2025 Planning Meeting

improved on so they are going to have a much nicer view for the neighbors that they can see and

for when you drive by and on Bay Road. | think it’s going to be a much improved looked and

it’s in keeping with the farms that you see along Bay Road.

on one side so that it is almost as old as the house and that will remain there and that will be

attached.

there is not really much that you can put in it without climbing up a ladder which...it was built

in 1889.

probably add heating but it would be a wall type unit but there won't be water or drainage. It is

not meant to live in it.

speak in regard to this.

the property and there is only 30 feet between the neighbor to the east and J am not sure what the

terrain is doing back there and potentially discharging into their yard or is more slopped towards

the west and not going to discharge.

feet between the property line.

up prior to me purchasing the property so it will drain out that way, but il will not be flooding

into the neighbors yard.

Pg. 57 March 4, 2025 Planning Meeting

members, any concerns. We looked at this and the applicant did go and obtain the necessary

variances. It is a nice looking building actually.

for this as opposed to Jack...

meeting so I apologize, I could be added to that.

RESOLUTION 25-0023 Derek Anderson made a motion for TYPE

IL 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

what the situation is. It is conforming to pretty much all of the requirements of the zoning

ordinance in chapter 350-...1 make a motion that we just enter that in without going through the

whole thing that it conforms to chapter 350-36 regarding accessory buildings and everything is

falling within the category of elevation, approval and so on. I think that will simplify it.

RESOLUTION 25-0024 Anthony Casciani made a motion for

PRELIMINARY/FINAL SITE PLAN

APPROVAL Located at 580 Bay Road.

Applicant Jack Burke is requesting

PRELIMINARY/FINAL SITE PLAN

APPROVAL (

PUBLIC HEARING

)

associated with the construction of a 2,100

SF pole barn on a 1.20-acre lot having SBL#

063.11-1-89 located in the R-3 Single

family Residential District under Section

269-11 and Section 350-12 of the Code of

the Town of Webster which was seconded

by Dave Malta.

Pg. 58 March 4, 2025 Planning Meeting

;

CONDITION:

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

expire on 3.4.26

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)

requesting PRELIMINARY/FINAL SITE PLAN (

PUBLIC HEARING

) and SPECIAL

USE PERMIT associated with the multi-phase development totaling 300,000 SF (1"' phase

totaling 120,000 SF) on a 25.65-acre parcel having SBL# 079.06-1-32.123 located in an OP

Webster.

Appearing before the board was Mike Ritchie with Costich Engineering and with my Matt

McAlpin. My board is a little to big and I apologize. We were here in front of this board back

in January for sketch plan review and we got good feedback from the board. Since then, we

applied to and obtained a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals. We have received

comments, actually 2 rounds of PRC comments and plans have been revised based on those

comments. We have submitted a traffic study as well as architectural elevation for town review.

At this point, it is our understanding that the project would be considered as a Type | action under

SEQR so we are here tonight requesting that this board clear their intent to be lead agent under

SEQR so we can continue this process but with that we would be happy to answer any questions

that this board may have.

County Planning SECTION 239M. One of the comments was in regard to, again, DEC; a JD;

that there is potentially state wetland on this have you filed.

not asking this board to do anything that they are not comfortable with. The old maps that are

now not to be used did not indicate any wetlands. The new informational maps do not show any

wetlands on this property so our hope and believe that wetlands will not be present but yes, we

did submit and hope to have that hopefully by April for the town to review.

Pg. 59 March 4, 2025 Planning Meeting

on Hard Road, is that existing?

architect and honestly this is our understanding that this is going to be outside and the next plans

that we submit will show the enclosure similar to the size of what is out in front of the U of R

right now. We are just coordinating that, but it will be the standard kind of metal enclosure, and

we will make sure that it is one the next set of plans.

services. So, this will be a combined service, fire and domestic service and will provide for

hydrants and sprinklers.

north west which seem to be a future phase pond or storm water practice, is there a reason that

that pond is not being constructed now and built out to accommodate any of the storm water that

is sheet flowing off of the back area behind the building into that swale that then goes north.

currently kind of funnels back towards to Publishers but there is not a real defined flow path so

it is our intent that drainage in that northern area will continue to kind of sheet flow over to

Publishers but if it’s the boards intent that we kind of solidify that and maybe push it there to a

more dedicated path we can look to do that in the first phase.

being contributed to that north, how are you addressing that RV, CPV.

on the southeast corner we are proposing the main stormwater management pond which provides

water quality and peak rate control for the whole site full buildout 300,000 sq ft and then there is

a bio retention, a large bio retention in the parking area for phase | and then we are proposing

another bio retention to the north of the future loop road that bio retention was intended to be

built out in future phases and that would all be connected and tied back in out at Publishers.

storm water pond and there’s kind of a break back there. There’s a break kind of at the north end

of the proposed building and then it kind of funnels back to the north so there is a break where, I

Pg. 60 March 4, 2025 Planning Meeting

guess if you look north south kind of where the cursor is from there it ll break back south into the

storm water pond and then the future.

contours on that. This is more of an egress your question. I’ve noted a couple of egress doors that

have concrete landings, but a sidewalk should be provided and maintained for emergency egress.

So, a door opens, and you have a concrete pad there but in the winter time it’s going to be you

know, snowed in. Is there a way to do just a sidewalk out to an area that you know

they surface discharged or are they being tied...

to kind of splash block that out.

but for the next submission we can show the under drained line that connects to the pond.

are those being tied to the foundation drain or ...

now along the north side and into the storm line back there.

when additions are made but that was the easiest way to do it.

type locations identified.

plans have the sampling disinfection taps al the connection and at the ...kind of the connection

to the building to make sure that is per Water Authority standards.

combined system coming towards the proposed manufactured building. Then you have a private

hydrant then the combined system continues into the building which I am assuming is sprinkler

just any concern with there being a hydrant essentially the first hydrant that the fire Department

Pg. 61 March 4, 2025 Planning Meeting

could tap into and draw from water that could be going into.

make that T prior to that first hydrant so that there can’t be cross-contamination.

or final phase would be 2030 but the EAF indicated the final phase being 2028. Is it 2028 or

2030.

to 2028 and again, we’re doing this in an intent to get seeker done for the entire development do

storm water design for the entire development not piece meal it and come back you know two

more times you know to go through the process but to design the whole site once.

Publishers Parkway.

to Hard Road and that traffic study didn’t recommend any improvements with the exception of

maybe adding a left turn lane coming in that little gore striped area that exists right now but no

other improvements. They said the level of service our at Hard wouldn’t be impacted and I think

we mentioned the last time that we were here that the shift that these workers do is kind of off set

from most rush house traffic.

agency and get that notification sent out.

taken. No one wishing to speak, ok, will close the public....1 won’t close the public hearing

because you are going to be coming back and will leave it open and will just close it for this

evening.

Pg. 62 March 4, 2025 Planning Meeting

; Derek Anderson: (SEE ATTACHED)

RESOLUTION 25-0025 Derek Anderson made a motion for TYPE I

ACTION 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

elevations. You have that little thing there but something significant in size and ] am going to

recommend landscaping, the front there across your front something a little unique. I don’t want

to use the work brick but something across the front to make it not just a pole barn looking

building.

NOT HEAR) we will work with Matt and the architect to propose stone at the entrance. Not

along the entire building but the entrance there.

office in the front with a front lobby and that would have more of a vocal point that you would

see going down that access road. The front entrance that you are seeing on the sketch plan right

now it is not visible from the road and it not going to be the long term main entrance.

HEAR) AT

guidelines.

HEAR)

[ Pg. 63 March 4, 2025 Planning Meeting

TOWN OF WEBSTER PLANNING BOARD RESOLUTION

MCALPIN INDUSTRIES

SEQR — INTENT TO ESTABLISH LEAD AGENCY

03/04/2025

MOTION FOR INTENT TO ESTABLISH LEAD AGENCY

WHEREAS Town of Webster Planning Board (Planning Board) considered the request by Applicant,

Matt McAlpin with McAlpin Industries to construct a multi-phase development totaling 300,000 SF of

light manufacturing on a 25.65-acre parcel having SBL# 079.06-1-32.123 located in an OP Core Area

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Board has determined that the

Action is a Type I Action based on the following criteria:

1. 617.4(b)(6)(i) a project that involves the physical alteration of 10 acres; and

2. 617.4(b)(6)(v) in a city, town or village having a population of 150,000 persons or less, a

facility with more than 100,000 square feet of gross floor area.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT: RESOLVED that the Planning Board determined that the action is

subject to a coordinated review pursuant to Part 617.6(b) of SEQR and that it is the most appropriate

agency for making the determination of significance. The Planning Board therefore intends to

designate itself lead agency for the proposed action.

(MARK GIARDINA READ INTO THE RECORD)

PRELIMINARY/FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL associated with the installation of a 24.56

kW AC ground mounted solar PV system consisting of 64 solar panels and 64 microinverters on

a 5.0-acre lot having SBL# 037.03-1-33.1 located in the LL Large Lot Single Family Residential

District under Section 269-11 of the Code of the Town of Webster.

Appearing before the board was Steve Mikolajczyk with ACES Energy. This is kind of a change

order that was approved a couple of months ago. The home owners have just decided that they

want to move the location of the panels. The number of panels is the same and everything is the

same except for the fact that instead of one long array they are doing 2 shorter arrays. Other than

that, the design is the same and it’s moving further south about a 100 feet or so.

modifying it, changing the location of it.

they’re being proposed.

there is anyone here to discuss it. Do we do a SEQR on it or does the other one still exist.

Pg. 64 March 4, 2025 Planning Meeting

;

that’s the case we will move forward with the approvals.

RESOLUTION 25-0026

Anthony Casciani made a motion for

PRELIMINARY/FINAL SITE PLAN

APPROVAL Located at 1822 Lake Rd. Applicant

Steve Mikolajczyk is requesting

PRELIMINARY/FINAL SITE PLAN

APPROVAL associated with the installation of a

24.56 kW AC ground mounted solar PV system

consisting of 64 solar panels and 64 microinverters

on a 5.0-acre lot having SBL# 037.03-1-33.]

located in the LL Large Lot Single Family

Residential District under Section 269-11 of the

Code of the Town of Webster which was seconded

by Mark Giardina.

the Zoning Board for the proximity to the front Jot line so that should just be added as a condition.

parcel technically doesn’t front on Lake Road, but it is scheduled to go back to the Zoning Board

next week.

subject to obtaining the necessary variance.

CONDITION:

e subject to obtaining the necessary variance

VOTE:

Mr. Casciani AYE

Mr. Malta AYE

Mr. Giardina AYE

Mr. Anderson AYE

Mr. Kosel AYE

Mrs. Maltman AYE

Mr. Gasic AYE

Pg. 65 March 4, 2025 Planning Meeting

(MARK GIARDINA READ INTO THE RECORD)

Stroyer with Ideal Manufacturing, Inc is requesting SKETCH PLAN REVIEW associated with

the proposed expansion of a manufacturing facility on a 10.30-acre lot having SBL# 079.07-1-1

located in the OP Office Park District under Section 269-5 of the Code of the Town of Webster.

Appearing before the board was Jerry Goldman. I am the attorney and agent for Ideal

Manufacturing, Inc. and it’s related real estate entities Picture Parkway Properties, LLC and Bluff

Drive Partners. As long as everyone is up here, I think ] will introduce everyone who is here.

(NO ONE SIGNED IN) with us with have Lee and Matt Stroyer who are the second generation

if you will of the business as well as lan Kutchman from McMahon LaRue who is the Project

Engineer.

We did provide a letter of intent on January 27": and we are here this evening for concept review

which is an interim step along the way. We have already gone to the Town Board and the Town

Board has granted us authorization for us to come to the Planning Board on this concept review

ultimately, we will go forward and do full preliminary and final plans for this particular site and

as part of our application we are requesting a couple of interpretations, and those interpretations

are designed to try and keep as much as this process with the Planning Board going forward. If

you have taken a look at the letter of intent. Our third request has apparently already been

addressed by the staff comments that we will...the PRC comments as we will talk about those in

a second but apparently it has been determined that the Planning Board will handle the special

permit for this application.

Let me give you a little bit of background in terms of what we are talking about. Ideal

Manufacturing is a light manufacturing business that deals with construction right now of high

capacity helic piles which are a necessary the foundational block for building construction. The

Ideal Manufacturing story is a nice story. Swen Stroyer, who is the father of these two gentleman

started out in this business in general contracting and then they moved forward to actually create

and obtain 19 patents for specific manufacturing processes. The building that we are talking

about that is currently occupied along the Picture Parkway frontage is what many people who

have been in time along time refer to it as the Josten’s building. It used to be the people that did

yearbooks and class rings and that is probably why the road going in was actually names the way

it is. | mean we have nice creative history in town of naming the roads after the uses. Publishers

Parkway probably had something to do with lawyers Co-op if I would imagine, I really don’t

remember myself, but this particular picture parkway probably dealt with the fact that it was a

yearbook company that started out with approximately 60,000 sq ft building on this site. The

original property, which is owned by Picture Parkway Properties an ideal is a 7.8 acre parcel

which fronts on Picture Parkway on which there is currently the 60,000 sq ft building. Over the

course of time the Stroyer family has obtained property going all the way south to Document

Drive basically 2 parcels. Which is a 7.8 acre parcel and a 3.57 acre parcel. What they are

proposing to do is todo a 21,000 sq fi addition to their existing building, the 60,000 sq ft building

also to construct to the east of that an 11,400 sq ft processing building but then add 3 buildings

at the far end of the site, at the southern end of the site being at 10,000 sq ft office building of

Pg. 66 March 4, 2025 Planning Meeting

5,000 sq ft training building and an 11,400 sq ft building which will essentially capture if you

will the overall use within the what will ultimately be a campus. This is the OP Core North

District. Light manufacturing is a special permit use within the district, We are requesting that

you take a look at a couple of interpretations relative to the site. One deals with the fact that as a

part of their operation there is a necessity to have some materials outdoors and there is always a

questions as how we define the outdoor staging if you will of materials. We have a code provision

which talks about outdoor storage but there is no definition for outdoor storage in the code, so we

don’t have it and also there is a question as to whether that relates to outdoor storage as a principal

use or an accessory use. This is clearly accessory to the use and the outdoor staging if you will

is for temporary storage of materials coming in and going out and to that extent, we consider that

to be the same or similar to the use of the property under the code and therefore should be

permitted as part of the Planning Boards jurisdiction. We also talked about and have requested,

] think this is more in the purview of town staff in dealing with this. The code provides as a

45,000 sq ft limit on the size of manufacturing buildings this is already 60,000 sq ft. We are

talking about a 21,000 ft addition and ] am not sure whether the 45,000 sq ft limitation should

apply to a building which already well exceeds that and probably exceeded it from the time the

code was actually created and whether we would need any sort of relief on the Zoning Board.

Again, our intention is to try to keep the rest of the review of this project with this board if at all

possible. We have received comments from the PRC which I believe the board has received as

well and I am going to run through them at this point. The first one talks about the need for the

special permit from the planning board and we understand that and we will be making a formal

application in that regard to engineering at this point in terms of storm water quality management

that is currently under design conceptually the engineer have indicated that we have sufficient

room and sufficient area to provide for storm water quality management on the site and that will

be part of our preliminary plans and preliminary details on the site. Second comment says a

wetland delineation will be required and obviously you had some robust discussion if you will

on wetland delineation already at the time of the early development of the site there were

identified federal wetlands. We had an outside consultant who dealt with that. We are well

within and had a JD. We are well at the federal level. We are well within our situation on that

one without the need of anything more than a nationwide permit, but we are going to go back to

that consultant and review the new rules and new regulations that are involved. You’ ve heard a

lot of stuff that has gone on and January 1*' really is a watershed. We are considered to be oddly

enough an urban area for purposes of the wetland determination so that puts us in a category

where we are no longer subject to what was a 12 acre limitation or need for a 12 acre are for the

state to obtain jurisdiction over wetlands. They will be doing that on a much tighter basis, but

we will be reviewing what wil! be necessary under the new regulations to make sure that we are

in compliance. The Highway Department had some comments and the highway Department is

one of our neighbors as I’m sure you all well know at the end of Picture Parkway is the highway

garage and highway facility for the town so in addition to dealing with as you know as reviewing

agency they are also taking a look at it as a neighbor and they talk about the existing parking in

the front of the public right of way obviously as we more fully develop the site we will be able

to better control how we deal with all that and we will be reviewing that. That is comment

number one. Comment number 2 is one we will be discussing more at length with the Highway

Pg. 67 March 4, 2025 Planning Meeting

Department and with town staff relative to the road itself. Tt is the strong desire of the Stroyer

family and the business to maintain the road which would connect Picture Parkway and

Document Drive servicing the site as a private road and we are going to try to see what we can

work out relative to that issue but again we are still a concept. The concept is to have that road

connection going north south between picture and document. With regards to the sewer

situations, the connections we know that there is a sewer easement at the front of the building and

that we will be dealing with this as an overall project and this is not coming in as a phase project

if you will at this point but it could ultimately be divided into phases but we are talking about

trying to re-subdivide and combine all of this into a single lot so our request is that this board

make the interpretation that our outdoor staging is permitted on the site without need for any

relief from any other board and similarly for you to consider whether an expansion of the building

itself which is already above the 45,000 threshold would require relief from the Zoning Board. I

talked a lot and barely took a breath. With that, I don’t know if anyone on our team has anything

to add to that.

We would like to obtain as many comments as we can from the boards so that we can move

ourselves forward in this process. There is a lot of excitement on part of ideal in terms of trying

to increase their footprint if you will and to try and stabilize their situation within the Town of

Webster.

question the neighbors. You have done that I believe.

Hard Road frontage, and it appears that we may have a neighbor, and I was not involved in that

discussion and Ben is not here tonight. So, I really am not sure so my understanding is that he

had not received any opposition if you will to the concept and the idea of trying to improve the

property. There is some separation, and I can’t see what maybe up on peoples screens, but you

can see that there is some separation between the residents and the neighbors. There is intended

to be an enhanced landscape buffer in that particular area and our clients of course would continue

to engage with neighbors with any questions that they have.

Drainage swales going in the back there to.

Or...

Pg. 68 March 4, 2025 Planning Meeting

want to look at it I suppose. I look at it as a staging area. You are not keeping things you are

moving things along from there.

kind of have our hands tied relative to trying to interrupt that because there is a continuum

between what maybe staging and what might be storage and everything else but without taking

Mr. Ciardi role in raising this question, one of the legal tenants ts that interruptions if they are

vague they are suppose to be interrupted in favor of an applicant so in the absence of a definition

I think that we have at least an ability to take that first step and to give you our perspective in

terms of what it should be.

district at the end of picture we’ ve got the town, J] mean we are talking about major outdoor uses

in the neighborhood.

Road that that would be acceptable. In my opinion.

from inside to outside. There are six overhead doors on the south side of the building right.

Pg. 69 March 4, 2025 Planning Meeting

the one facing Picture Parkway, the north side of the building

footage of the buildings and what is proposed on each one of them it would kind of assist in just

the communication of this. So, the addition on the southside is how many square feet and the

purpose of that is just internal manufacturing or internal storage.

60,000 sq ft roughly.

is that structure,

now we do all the stuff in our main building, and it would just be an additional manufacturing

space in a separate building. So, we’d bring our pipe and plate in there to cut it.

outdoors proposed stage area like lay down yards or is that potential truck parking. What are you

looking to do with the additional imperious area that is going to the south and the east there.

would go through and then that slightly darker area is like a truck loading area so that the trucks

would pull off to the side of the road there to get loaded and then pull back out. The idea is to get

truck traffic off of Picture Parkway so they would come in Document Drive, drive thru our

property, gel loaded and pull out onto picture.

that could leachate into he ground, be impacted by rain water or anything like that or is it primarily

just steel.

organized.

Pg. 70 March 4, 2025 Planning Meeting

arial photograph.

town has received in regard to storage that you have right now.

people that are affected, the other families they're just like 12 families but just because I am the

only one here doesn’t mean I’m the only one that cares. I met some of my neighbors for the first

time and they were in the back but they couldn't stay up this late at 810 Hard Road and I spoke

with my neighbors at 818 Hard Road before coming and we did positively receive the owner when

he came by and he showed us some version of this and he was very cordial but he also kind of

made it seem like this was a very distant thing that may or may not happen kind of a thing. So,

now that people have had time to think about it some of the things that we are concerned about,

one that I am really concerned about it there are a lot of young children in these houses now and

I’ve been a homeowner there for 5 years and in the time that I have been there the houses around

me have turned over and a lot of young families growing families and a lot of children under the

age of 10 live in there and I have four children under 10 myself. The traffic in the morning and

I know you’re going to do traffic studies and stuff like that, but we just added the medical building

kind of off Hard Road and there’s another project we heard about earlier today and now this and

Tam assuming increased trucks eventually. It's already a nightmare in the morning and I have

been in an accident on the way out of my driveway just because of the school traffic. There are

the buses coming out multiple times a day. It’s not just the schools across the street, all the buses

that go to Klem South and Klem North go by there too and my children’s school bus has been in

an accident out there. There’s just a lot of traffic already. 1 worry about the kids walking and

playing in the yard. There is going to be a lot more big trucks, The other thing that the neighbor

at 810 asked and asked me to speak for. They're watching on YOUTUBE at home now the noise.

It is already a noisy site, Twill say that we brought this up when whoever came to our house,

and it does seem like it got a little bit of quieter at night but sometimes is sounds like you're

dropping the steel pipes at a great height, and I don’t know if there is a way to move them quieter.

At least at night. With all the young families sometimes, you can’t have your windows open in

the summer, you know, that kind of thing. It’s very loud and you can’t have company, and you

can’thave a barbecue in your backyard because it sound like you are in an industrial zone which

I don't know, I knew when I bought this house that eventually it probably would get developed

and it could be worse, but I don’t know, | just...still am a little like worried I guess about some

of these things.

now Jerry or does anybody know.

Pg. 71 March 4, 2025 Planning Meeting

narrow strip along my house they came in and cut all the dead ones which was good because we

all worried about the safety of that and that reminds me of one other thing, I was hoping that

maybe they could clean up that area in between where you're at right now, That's still all just

full of downed trees and rubbish and even way before that, it collects garbage in there. I don't

like to look at it so twice a year I go out and pick up all the garbage. I don't know where it comes

from, but it blows in there. I think there is probably a rodent problem with all the down...my cat

likes it, but I don't so this is just another small thing. I do think they have a right to make money

and like use their property, but I] Just want them to be kind and respectful and you know that kind

of thing.

is that it can be mitigated with some landscaping and stuff. They’re showing some we don’t

know how much but this is just a sketch right now. When they get a final you know, preliminary

drawing it can show adequate to you know subdue some of the sound, I’m sure.

there, every morning and every afternoon you wil! have over 100 buses going out of the garage

there to the schools around Webster so that road does get very busy and also being by the

Highway Department, when we have a leaf pickup in the fall there and the leaves are stored at

the Highway Department and about every 3 weeks they go around and they turn the leaves over

so that afternoon you have a very organic smell throughout.

and half.

they are not dropping metal.

times with our employees just telling them to keep it quiet after 8 pm but I can do a better job at

that. B shift is quite a bit smaller as well. It’s a lot less employees than a shift .

pulling out.

Pg. 72 March 4, 2025 Planning Meeting

Zoning Board and what do you keep here. We’ ve requested two interpretations as far as I know,

our site plan itself doesn’t require any variances. It’s just a question as to whether the outdoor

staging is something which would be handled as something which is same and similar as the

existing use and the question of how we deal with the expansion of the building. I know Josh has

a viewpoint on the expansion of the building, so I don’t want to preempt him from commenting

if he wants to but if we get interpretations the way we are looking for, we keep it all here. If not,

we are going to the Zoning Board, but we need from here we go into full design; we go and

analyze wetlands, we go and analyze all those other elements that we need to do to have a good

preliminary submission to deal with SEQR and everything on the site.

45,000 sq ft would be the original building.

talking about adding 21,000 sq ft to it. Everything else is well under the 45,000 sq ft threshold.

for essentially there is a provision in town code an expansion of a non-conforming, pre-existing

non-conforming structure. So, f think that portion is clear. The outdoor staging, as Mr. Goldman

mentioned, we do not have a definition of outdoor storage .

the Highway Department or like Dave said, the school buses. It’s a staging area 1 don’t know.

Anybody else, what is your opinion on that. Give them a consensus maybe. Eliminate the Zoning

Board if possible. Drazen???

difference here between school buses and highway operations again, is the use of the material,

especially for public good here. This is specifically business and this is raw material that is then

also being manufactured and then you have something potentially staged outside that is going to

be loaded up and then sent off. So, I can relate to difficulty of determining whether it is staffing

or if it is storage, but it sounds like we have to go to ZBA.

think,

metal or...this is a neighborhood now we’ ve got kids around. What ts to stop kinds from coming

Pg. 73 March 4, 2025 Planning Meeting

in there like on weekends or at nights and playing on the stuff that ts staged outside.

hold of that and there is no need to get the Zoning Board involved in that issue. It looks like we

are going to the Zoning Board relative to the building addition and if that is the case, we would

request that this board consider a recommendation in favor of that when we....... You know, at

this point after the concept review because what that does it that it increases the amount of area

which is inside and also visually it’s not obtrusive because it is all right behind the ex-building.

It is not like we are expanding the visual footprint of it.

don’t see a whole lot that just say outdoor storage and don’t define it. It’s , you know, here’s just

been an undefined term.

of materials, and they can also be somewhat vague in terms of how they deal with it.

poll of the board and see where we are with it. I don’t want to see government getting involved

in every step of the way. We don’t need to go to the Zoning Board, why are we going to the

Zoning Board. It’s a simple thing. It’s just an interpretation. The size, that’s a set thing, that I

understand.

when it comes to that.

out there been what we are talking about. So, now we are going to say go get a Zoning Board

Pg. 74 March 4, 2025 Planning Meeting

after 24 years to get an approval for it.

and saying that it’s been there for so long and there’s never been a complaint about it and the

town has not had to do any kind of action on it so therefor by default, it meets whatever definition

is available.

operation.

then we will add some. Not a third shift at this point.

steel that’s there and not, let’s say there’s a future expansion all of sudden there is a new product

that they’re looking to manufacture and il requires some additional outdoor storage that is outside

of what we’re currently seeing there you know is there a way to say yeah it’s outdoor storage

because it’s raw material, it's steel instead of all of a sudden you see containers out there fir

something and it should have been in an enclosed storage space.

is that it doesn’t not need to go to the Zoning Board.

take that to the bank.

Pg. 75 March 4, 2025 Planning Meeting

[ RESOLUTION 25-0027

Anthony Casciani made a motion for APPROVAL

OF OUTDOOR STAGING Located at 999

Picture Parkway. Applicant Ben Stroyer with Ideal

Manufacturing, Inc is requesting OUTDOOR

STORAGE STAGING associated with the

proposed expansion of a manufacturing facility on

a 10,30-acre lot having SBL# 079.07-1-1 located in

the OP Office Park District under Section 269-5 of

the Code of the Town of Webster 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

forward and put in a preliminary application.

through the concept to deal with filing a preliminary application on this.

doing that between preliminary and final we do that before preliminary, I don’t know at this

point.

board sending a letter in support of it. So will see where that goes.

Pg. 76 March 4, 2025 Planning Meeting

ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM:

¢ Approval of Meeting Minutes for February 4, 2025 (GIARDINA/KOSEL)

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

meeting at 9:20 PM.

Respectfully Submitted,

Signed

Mark Giardina, Secretary

Katherine Kolich, Recording Secretary

APR 2°25 pH2:43

D WEBSTER THN CLK

M Mann

Pg. 77 March 4, 2025 Planning Meeting