Minutes

WEBSTER TOWN PLANNING BOARD MINUTES

Anthony Casciani, Chairman Dave Malta, Vice Chairman

Mark Giardina, Secretary

Derek Anderson

John Kosel

Peggy Maltinan

Derek Meixell

Josh Artuso

Erika Corsi

Katherine Kolich, Recording Secretary

Kyle Taylor, Attorney

pretty lengthy agenda this evening so I would just like to keep things moving on.

Pledge of Allegiance/Roll Call

Anthony Casciant:

Summary overview of outcome:

TABLED MATTERS

:

SHOECRAFT ROAD APARTMENTS-1048 SHOECRAFT

e Consider lowering the number of units per building from (10) to (9).

e Incorporate more outdoor amenities.

e Consider additional parking spots for visitors.

WATERVIEW APARTMENTS PHASE 3-WILLOWPOINT WAY

FOR PLANNING BOARD’S INTENT TO DECLARE LEAD AGENCY FOR PURPOSE

OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW.

Pg. 188 November 12, 2024 Planning Meeting

;

BIRDSONG AT CONIFER COVE SUBDIVISION

e Approvals are subject to drawing #2910

e All stormwater facilities are to be constructed first

e All downspouts to be connected to the storm sewer system

Subject to PRC comments

Subject to Parks and Recreation fees (if applicable)

Subject to preliminary approval conditions

Subject to all applicable government fees

Significant construction will occur within (1) year

Conditions of Preliminary and Final approval are depicted on the cover page of the

final design plans.

e Project Engineer will 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.

¢ Letter of Credit to the Town for the project to include the fee for the Engineer’s

final certification inspection of the site.

SEQRA:

e TYPE 1 ACTION - NEGATIVE DECLARATION

SCHEDULED MATTERS

:

DETACHED GARAGE REPLACEMENT

ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING STATIONS

DETACHED POLE BARN GARAGE

GROCERY OUTLET

POSITIONED IN THE PARKING LOT ALONG WITH THE CART CORRAL IN

FRONT OF THE BUILDING.

Pg. 189 November 12, 2024 Planning Meeting

COBBLESTONE PLACE PHASE 2

e Ravenside Lane is a private road; documentation of shared access should be

provided.

e Explore additional outdoor amenities.

VISION NISSAN

Additional] information provided by applicant addressed the board’s initia] concerns about

unloading of vehicles, overcrowding of the lot and encroachment into the rear buffer area.

(Mark Giardina read the first application)

Road Apartments LLC is requesting SKETCH PLAN REVIEW associated with the proposed

construction of (4) 10-unit apartment buildings on a 5.20-acre parcel having SBL# 079.19-1-15

focated in an MHR Medium High Residential District under Sections 269-5 and 350-14 of the

Code of the Town of Webster.

Appearing before the board was Linc Swedrock with BME Associates and also with my is Nick

Graziose from Gerber Homes and Bruce Gerber as well. We are here tonight for a continuation

of a sketch plan. We were here last month to talk about the sketch plan on 1048 Shoecraft Road

for (4) 10 unit buildings and the property is approximately 5.22 acres located on Shoecraft Road

and basically we introduced the project last meeting and we got some feedback from the board

regarding the existing house that is here (SHOWING ON THE PLANS) and we looked at the

option of sub-dividing off the house from the parcel and what we did is we proposed a new lot,

lot | which would be 1.07 acres and applied the setbacks to it and then we ended up with 35 foot

setback; the 10 foot setback and the 35 setback from the existing barn (KEEPS WALKING

AWAY FROM THE MIC SO IT’S HARD TO HEAR) house.....building setbacks to the single

family. When we did thal, we were left with about 4.15 acres for the remaining land for the back

for the remaining units which when we reviewed that for code there are some code things that

pops up. There is a5 acre minimum lot size for the multi-family; there is a 50 foot setback for

the parking area off the back of the single family or off the back of that house and then the density

would go from 8 units per acre to 9.6 acres so I think the board, originally the conversation was

look at this as a single family lot and then you might be supportive of doing the variances for us

to build the project in the back so we looked at that. Then we went to the PRC meeting, and we

received some feedback on, and we are not sure that you would like to do that to support the

variances. There were some comments about maybe we just leave that as one parcel and continue

it on, J] brought both plans with me. The one that shows the subdividing and then the one that

just....that we brought in before that keeps it as one parcel and we would just Icave the structure

in the front as a....part of the project and then have the 4-10 units buildings in the back.

Pg. 190 November 12, 2024 Planning Meeting

So, I think what we are looking for mainly is to get the feedback on the two options from the

board so we can get some clear direction on how we should proceed. The other thing that came

up, the big thing in PRC was the variance discussion if we try to do the single family house

whether we want to try and go get variances or whether we would just want to leave the single

family house on the parcel. The next thing that came up, we had a discussion about doing some

of the amenities for these residents and we discussed doing a pickle ball court, benches, and a

dog park as part of the project and then there was also some comments about the turn around

being.....right now we are trying to do a dedicated turnaround and that road to the towns, I know

the Highway Superintendent comments about somehow segregating the entrance from the

turnaround so I] think we are looking for any feedback on all that to see what the next steps would

be and try and get your feedback on where you would like to see the project go next and I have

John D (DID NOT SIGN IN) here to answer any questions.

day for a meeting and having a hard time hearing the board. How is it back there, can you hear.

(Audience members responded) Mr. Casciani asked the board to get a little closer to the mics.

Does anyone have any questions. My concern was the town tax department wanted to separate

the parcels I guess, am I right with that so far.

parcel as one, they just do a.... it’s just a little harder to assess it but it’s not an issue that they

can’t solve so they have done it to other parcels in town.

addresses, emergency response, vehicles and things of that nature. So, although the Assessment

Department said that they could do that, itis the Town Planning& Zoning office recommends

nol going in that direction.

units so it is basically one with a door that they just have a padlock on.

apartment buildings with a 1048 Shoecraft Road address when you are not accessing the

development from Shoecraft Road would just be a nightmare on a variety of levels that we would

like to avoid,

Pg. 191 November 12, 2024 Planning Meeting

variances, They back right up to the buffer, there is no amenities in there and what do you have,

2 parking spaces. A garage and one, in a driveway, correct. Is there additional parking here for

visitors or...

plans...there is additional parking here...... and each garage has a spot in front of it as well as a

garage for each unit.

board. If you look at it....2..........

setback I should say, 50 foot buffer.

has 2 spaces.

some more as well. It’s a sketch so we are looking for input. We will incorporate your comments

into our next steps here. We have a 24 foot road in the middle to try and provide enough room

for a car in front of the garage as well as a garage space for cach unit. Some of the reasons that

maybe were getting pinched a little bit because we are trying to keep the lot with the house on it,

we are trying lo keep everything (WALKED AWAY FROM MIC AND TALKING, CAN NOT

REALLY HEAR WELL) spread out and the barn in the back. We are trying to make that lot

conform as much as we can to the setbacks so maybe there is a combination of both that we look

al that maybe it’s putting the barn on the multi-family project and incorporating that into the

multi-family portion of it and subdividing it differently, We were just trying to keep that, sort of

the way that lot is operating together with that lot. Like I said, we just tried to sort of draw that

line where it made sense to create that lot based on the zoning and keep that sort of together, but

I think there are other options that we can consider for subdividing off that structure and heiping

with if you are concerned with density variance. The overall density of the site at the 5.22 acres

allows for the density that we are proposing at 8 units an acre, we are allowed 41 units so we

would be looking to do the 40 units plus just having one unit in the existing structure that we

would be renting out.

and leave it separated and then use that as a separate parcel and that leaves you 4 acres of land

Pg. 192 November 12, 2024 Planning Meeting

with 40 units. You need 5 units per acre that would be...you need 5 acres, so you are an acre

short for the number of units. [see what you are doing you have a plan, and you are making it

work on paper. My concern is that this is going to have to go to the Zoning Board for variances

and it’s going to be up to them whether or not they want to approve it, but | would rather see you

make some changes on that.

units per building so that it brings it into conformance.

space...yeah, you are right Derek either way.

FACING THE SIDE) existing building are mobile units to begin with.

and somewhere for some activities. | know older people five there, well, it doesn’t mean we sit

in the couch all day long either, so you want to have something for them to do.

amenities which we talked about briefly.

has some storage and a little woodshop in there but we are just letting him use thal as is for now.

John....There is nothing special about the barn except for that it is in really good shape. It is part

of the history of the town. That is one of the things, we were trying to incorporate that as it is

and try and keep it there for the esthetics of the home but if that is going to be a hurdle then will

have to make other arrangements.

John... The roof is as straight as an arrow. It has been very well kept over the years.

meet (NOT SPEAKING LOUD ENOUGH AND NOT CLOSE ENOUGH TO THE MIC) to

Pg. 193 November 12, 2024 Planning Meeting

meet the density requirements. This is really too much stuff jammed in to one placc.

1. Are there no other

projects in town that have two addresses for the same tax parcel. We have property in other towns

where we have, it’s all one parcel, we have one road address, and a different road address for the

same parcel. So, Tam just a little confused on that one.

on this intersection and the other one is on that. So, I just wasn’t sure if that’s uncommon.

2 roads with the same address and different uses. So, it’s not unheard of but again, it just

complicates a lot of things from the towns perspective.

have its own trash receptacles.

the middle but if you guys fee! strongly one way or another, we are willing to make a compromise.

necded to.

independent contractors out there | imagine and bringing in materials, supplies, etc., will you

emphasize to them not to use Shoecraft Road as a shortcut because traffic is bad enough on that

road as it is already.

Pg. 194 November 12, 2024 Planning Meeting

them that they can not use Shoecraft Road as a short cut because traffic is “hellish” already.

through the Shoecraft to the single-family house. They don’t connect the driveways, and we will

make sure they don’t use that entrance.

amenities in there if you need to take off a picce of the building, just work it out. As far as the

project, it’s an allowed use; it meets the requirements for the area, but I think it’s just too

congested and I would like to see some amenities. That is my opinion anyways.

parcel where the house is and the barn, is that rear setback suppose to apply to the silo to or not.

It shows a silo on the back side of the barn but is that within the setback area, It’s not a livable

structure or it’s not...

to the setback requirements.

it makes sense, for this application to look at it different way of subdividing that!8:41 rear lot

line for the single family that helps with our density count with overall and everything and puts

that barn on the other parcel. [think we could look at that if that makes sense to the board.

be subject (o the setback or not.

an issuc. It doesn’t impact the apartments nor the single-family so. {t would be a simple variance

for that. ] think that would be the easiest thing to resolve.

Pg. 195 November 12, 2024 Planning Meeting

You are set up for the Zoning Board next week, right.

feedback before we did that.

the board. Do that and we will go with that.

(Mark Giardina read the second application)

WATERVIEW APARTMENTS PHASE 3: Located at the northwest corner of Willow Point

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

PLAN REVIEW associated with a revised proposal to construct six (6) two-story buildings

consisting of 56 total units and one (1) community center on a 13.15-acre parcel having SBL#

093.06-364.11 located in an MHR Medium High Residential District under Section 269-5 and

350-14 of the Code of the Town of Webster.

Appearing before the board was Chris Nadler with Mark IV Enterprises and here with me today,

we have Chris DeMarzo (DID NOT SIGN IN) President of Mark IV and owner of Waterview

Phase HI property and also David Cox, our Design Engineer from Passero Associates.

Tonight, we are here for sketch plan review, and we would tike to briefly review the history of

the project ; go over some background and give you our current proposal which as you know has

been significantly reduced and made to be more in keeping with the neighborhood. We would

like to review the materials submitted for our full site plan application; go over the review

process; and where we are tn it today. Then, David Cox will talk about some of the technical

details of the project and will be available to answer any questions that the board might have.

At the conclusion of our sketch plan review tonight we ask the board to be lead agency for SEQR

and make a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals is where we are going to appear

next weck at this time. Then after going to the Zoning Board will come back for site plan

approval. As you know, this project was approved for a 7-story, 158 unit apartment building in

1986. That approval was well know to everybody in town and we have pursued it over the years,

and we have come back with reduced versions of the project over the years and in August of this

year, we came back with a proposal for (2) 3-story apartment buildings with 90 units. After

meeting with this board, the Zoning Board and hearing comments from the public, we went back

to the drawing board and made significant reductions and made an effort to make a project that

fit with the netghborhood. What we are proposing now is to 2-story townhouse style buildings; a

Pg. 196 November 12, 2024 Planning Mecting

total of 56 units; each of which will have it’s own garage; own driveway and own private

entrances; clubhouse and sport court. We do need some variances which are similar to what

already exists in the neighborhood and are driveways are about the same distance to the right of

way as the current Waterview Phase 2 and 1 which is the HOA so we will need some front

setbacks from the Zoning Board, and we will need a residential buffer between zoning districts,

The one we are proposing is similar to the buffer between the existing phase | and phase 2 of

Waterview to the existing residential district immediately to our north. We have submitted a full

set of site plans and site plan application to the town; we have submitted SEQR and environmental

assessment forms; traffic report; and attended a few PRC meetings with town staff and I know

Passero has a few revisions to make based on our most recent meeting with PRC.

We are here tonight for sketch plan review, and we are going to go next week to the Zoning Board

and come back in December for site plan approval. Again, we ask that this board declare intent

to be lead agency commence it’s coordinated review and make a recommendation to the Zoning

Board regarding our variance request. David, do you want to talk about some of the technical

aspects.

a 7-story building and then in 2016 we came back with a revised 5-story building and same

configuration; August of 2024 we came back with a 3-story building and now our current

proposal is a 2-story. So, 7,5,3,2 that is like a 70% reduction in the number of stories. Units went

from 158 units down to 98; down to 90 and now we are at 56 units. So, once again, we are in that

65 to 70 reduction of units from when the first approval was and then total building square

footage. We were at 233,000 sq ft, in 2016 we were at 144,000 sq ft, August 24 was 112,000 sq

ft and now proposed is 76,000 sq ft. So, once again, another 65-70 % reduction in the number of

square footage for al! the buildings on the property. So, stories; units; total square footage all a

drastic reduction that we have done so we, when we were here last time and went before the

Zoning Board, we really heard can you reduce the height of the building; can you reduce the size;

can you have it more in keeping with the neighborhood so that is when we went to the drawing

board....(he surrounding area and the surrounding propertics, it’s the townhouse style building

so it really looks like one kind of project now with an overall global townhouse development.

(PICTURES SHOWING ON THE SCREEN OF WHAT THEY WILL LOOK LIKE) AGAIN,

DAVID IS SPEAKING BUT NOT USING THE MIC SO ALL CAN HEAR. ----------------

clubhouse, very much a residential style. You know, the peaked roofs and architectural styles,

similar to the single family house. So really fits in much better with the community. Each

building will have individual totes for trash and completing we have 360 degree access all around

the property by connecting to McEwen so for fire safety and everything really completing that

full loop around the building and putting that clubhouse and the sports courts in the center is kind

of a main attraction for them to utilize that clubhouse area. So, it’s a pretty straight forward

project. We have reduced the size and scope substantially and feels that this fits in much better

with the community and we can answer any questions that you have.

that you lowered them just to 2-story standard type places. It conforms with the existing buildings

Pg. 197 November 12, 2024 Planning Meeting

on the site. The one thing I think I mentioned the other day, along McEwen Drive, see those

driveways coming out, the 6 driveways come oul on to McEwen Drive, put an interior drive and

connect them so that there is just like maybe one drive way coming out.

coming our onto McEwen, The interior is all private drive and doesn’t really affect anything

there is that standard in a subdivision like that. That would be the biggest thing. The clubhouse,

] think that is a terrific asset for that project. That is a major big change in there it’s nice. Now,

with the 2-story one, it’s in the EPOD district, the lower part there.

on some of the units.

driveway outside thal garage. So, each unit has 2 parking spaces plus 10 parking spaces at the

clubhouse.

car garage.

separate units.

there any neighbors here in regard to this. Okay, you know what, if you can just Keep it toa few

comments or something it might help us out a litte bit with anything where | think we can

Pg. 198 November }2, 2024 Planning Meeting

entertain that but just keep it to a couple three minutes not long, alright. All we ask is give us

your name and actually you should sign....you can go up and talk and just go out and sign if you

haven't already.

Charlie and Sarah Johnson at 440 McEwen (NEVER SIGNED IN): We kind of had the same

concerns you had obvisioyly with those six driveways that are egressing into single family district,

! haven’t seen that type of development yet in the Town of Webster we have been driving arotnd,

we have been on a satellite and 7 even if you count the last driveway and then in terms of the

buffer between the two districts those properties coming directly into that R3 District the ones

facing McEwen heading, facing north was our biggest concern and the other thing is that

property, the development itself, [know the parcel is listed at 13 but they actually only developing

on 4.1 think we look...J think about 4.17 acres us the total area of this particular development

right kind of speaks to the same issues and questions you had about the Shoecraft property right;

it’s 56 units be crammed into 4.2 acres is really what's happening here which is are biggest

concern, If you look at the... guess the building facing McEwen and then the building to the

west of that one as well as the EPOD there, that’s 26 units whose primary access is probably

going to be down McEwen and then into that area. McEwen is only 20 feet wide and there is also

a pumping station in the north I guess, the northwest corner if you would look at that picture

right there so you are talking a lot of congestion that’s coming down into this area potentially.

Okay so again, our primary concern is the buffer, and the congestion associated with the

development.

it’s your biggest concern right there. If those driveways are eliminated, they could put a berm

and landscape that across there that basically would hide the whole project.

Charlie Johnson at 440 McEwen: Any buffer as defined I guess in the town code

something...because right now, at least in that description or even in their site plans, 1 think

there's about 4 or 5 shrubs, that is all there is so we are clearly not against saying you can't

develop this property we would just like to it to fall somewhat in line with what the town intends

for this type of development. Specifically, as it relates to this type of single family district.

over/on off of Bay Road. That would be very similar to this type of a situation right here. It’s

not congested, and I believe Mark IV built that, didn’t you, years ago and that’s as close as |

could relate this to looking like but, thanks for your comments.

Dave Grier at 400 Mckwen Drive: My property directly attaches to the property in question.

Both Charlie and | did send some information including drawings to both boards. You did receive

that. For example, the road that is coming in actually goes onto my property, onto a corner of

my property and where it curves into McEwen which is a strange way for a road to attach to

another road to have a 56 degree curve and that actuatly goes onto my property. So, we certainly

need that to be addressed and then the comments from the board for the prior Shoecraft Road I

though were very enlightening about developing 40 units on a 5 or 4 acre property. This is 56

Pg. 199 November 12, 2024 Planning Meeting

units on a 4.17 property. If we look at what is being developed so we are actually putting a lot

more units into a much smaller unit, smaller area. So, | would ask the board continue to look at

how do we put the right number of units onto this very small piece of property um it’s a certainly

being developed ata higher rate than an MHAR facility. Thank you.

just...

other questions.

was just blocked there were just four buildings locked together it looked a military camp. This

has got some style to it; this has potential for berming around the property. Your point Mr. Grier,

about the driveway, your house is right across from that.

(AUDIENCE MEMBER SPEAKING FROM HIS SEAT AND NOT AT THE MIC)

on you.

(AGAIN, AUDIENCE MEMBER SPEAKING FROM AUDIENCE, CAN NOT REALLY

HEAR): If ] am coming out of my driveway...... there’s potential.

shining into your house or ............

(AUDIENCE MEMBER ANSWERS)

coming by your house and the lights were shining and then we would ask if maybe they could

put a berm in the front.

looking at the map also, you have the building in the center; there is open space around it; there’s

amenities for it; this is not even close to that type of an operation as the other one was. My opinion

anyways. This is much more spacious open, and these are more built like individual homes, and

it conforms the units that are existing there now. They are the same type units they are in

Willowpoint right now.

Pg. 200 November 12, 2024 Planning Mecting

know the existing site plan that’s also received, it’s dated July 2024, it does show a pond on this

parcel and my understanding...

shows the pond in the corner of this development the southwest corner of the development and

that pond when you go to look at it you see that there ts a pipe that goes into it and appears to be

the quality component of storm water management, and the pond seems to be...it’s not being

addressed really as part of this project . It was part of a storm water management facility for the

overall project to begin with and I don’t see anything on how this is being replaced and

incorporated into the new design. It’s just having a corner of the building literally built over the

pond from the best I could tell by looking at the alignments it’s really like the southwest corner

of building number...! don’t know if it’s these actually have numbers on them the one that’s in

the southwest portion of the parcel there.

bottom left corner of the property on the opposite side of the road and then we have three bio

retention areas that kind of surround the clubhouse and the courts in there, so we are putting in

bio-retention areas and were putting in that new storm water pond and there is some additional

underground storage as well.

on a different parcel.

development it’s on a third parcel, correct?

proposed, actually it says proposed sand filter on it. Which on of these drawings actually shows

the drainage and the structures and so forth that would be associate with that new pond.

grading for it. So, keep going. (PLANS ARE GETTING CHANGED ON THE SCREEN) Ok,

right there, that one, it shows the piping going to it.

I guess, right.

Pg. 201 November 12, 2024 Planning Meeting

characteristics for that because I imagine that’s not only going to pick up this parcel it’s going to

pick up the rest of the development since that’s what that original pond was for ...

built on top of served the rest of the development so when you put together your storm water

management plan that is going to incorporate the existing and the new development into it so you

want lo make sure that it will.

is going to have a SEQR correct?

Kyle Taylor; It will but this is not considered an actual application though, right Josh.

since the last time we brought it back as a sketch plan.

it.

Pg. 202 November 12, 2024 Planning Meeting

combing them together and that is how you are coming up with the density that you are using for

the developments going on there. Part of the parcel though, is located in a couple different

protection overlay districts that we have and just simply because of the proximity of it and the

number of units involved I would have to double check, but I believe that would bring it into the

calegory of ...... you know everything gets reduced down by 25% and that kind of thing that it’s

going to wind up being a type | seqr.

AUDIENCE MEMBERS SPEAKINGH OUT THAT THEY CAN NOT HEAR.

talking as close as I can so.

ANTHONY CASCIANI AND KYLE TAYLOR HAVING DISCUSSSIONS.

it.

We don’t. It is an unlisted action.

establish any kind of lead agency tonight as part of this sketch plan review. I would actually like

to be able to take a look at it closer and see if it does meet any of those thresholds. I have not had

that opportunity.

agency.

official application here.

Pg. 203 November 12, 2024 Planning Meeting

Josh said, we did submit full preliminary site plan applications and what we discussed at PRC

was doing a declaration of intent to be lead agency which does require a classification of the

project but it’s not just my opinion it’s your entire town staff discussed it and believes this to an

unlisted action including a representative if ] may say of MRB Group who was at the PRC

meeting, and everyone concurred it was an unlisted action. So, declaration of intent to be lead

agency is also something that can be rescinded. If it turns out that it is something else you can

rescind that, but I would ask that you make the declaration of intent and commence the

coordinated review to (HARD TO HEAR, CHAIRPERSON AND ATTORNEY HAVING

DISCUSSIONS)

either way, whether it is a type one or an unlisted the Zoning Board next week could make that

determination as a compromise right if Derek has concerns that this might be a type one rather

than unlisted rather than declaring and then rescinding is an option for the Zoning Board next

week to simply declare the type or classify action, declare themselves lead agency under a

coordinated review.

coordinated review. You are correct you certainly could make the classification declare yourself

lead agency and then rescind at a later date.

is docsn’t fali into the category.

RESOLUTION 24-0059 Anthony Casciani made a motion that the Planning

Board deem itself to be LEAD AGENCY for the

project and it would be an UNLISTED ACTION

was seconded by John Kosel.

VOTE:

Mr. Anderson NAY

Mr. Kosel AYE

Mr. Malta ABSENT

Mr. Meixcll AYE

Mr. Casciani AYE

Pg. 204 November 12, 2024 Planning Meeting

Mr. Giardina AYE

Mrs. Maltman AYE

that point, that’s all.

Natali Ferrara at 448 McEwen Dr: I see they have a driveway and it’s not really big. These

people they got company where are they going to go and park. There is no place to park .

McEwen Drive, it’s not really wide to park all these cars.

door she’s got company. Those people have no place to park, and they got the pond and the

gully. So, where ts all the room to put all this condo.

come out onto there, their driveways will be inside . There will be just one driveway coming

out.

Natali Ferrar; Right. They got enough space to park the cars.

require them to have enough parking spaces so if visitors come there is a place for them to park.

dlready now to get out from McEwen Drive when they close the bridge for the boat sometime

will stay for 20 minutes before you can get out from the street because there was so much traffic

on McEwen Drive in Bay Road, so they got another street to all these people to get out, if it’s an

emergency; t's a fire; how do people they going to get out.

onto the private drive.

Pg. 205 November 12, 2024 Planning Meeting

McEwen Drive if you have seen it in person. The road itself is a very intimate road and even if

you were to take out those stx driveways the amount of traffic you're going to end from the top

entrance way and the bottom entrance way is too nutch for that road too hold. It iy a very

intimate road, You can barely fit one car going down one way and one up the other way. So, 1

just invite like Pwotld invite you all to actually, like if you haven't already, go to visit the space.

traffic you’re adding into that road [think it’s to much for that road, so my question is what

would you be doing to add more. Would you be able to widen the road; how does that tmpact

the town's property on the other side but alyo just the idea again of the intimacy of that

neighborhood and that is very residential. What does that do to the integrity of the residential

aspect of itand also the safety of that road of McEwen, we have children on that road.

something that comes up at every mecting. Every subdivision, everyone is a shangra la, we

understand at] that, but the road is there. It’s a dedicated road. We have to work with it.

concerned about and the safety of...

20 feet. If you look at it, it is barely enough for two cars to go up and down in the sane

direction, So, I'm just looking at more or less like the safety aspect of it and now there two

different directions happening even if there weren't the six driveways and the impact that that

has on the people who are already living there and the safety for our children.

Karen Jenner at 444 McEwen Drive: My concern ts just what Sarah was saying.

things. | don’t want to repeat everybody saying the same thing. We got the picture. Everyone

has a concern for the parking.

Pg. 206 November 12, 2024 Planning Mecting

I just wanted to open it and get a few comments to see where we stood and not to get a whole

dialogue going. Anyway, so there we are. Where do we go from here. We are all set with it. I

guess lead agency were taking that. I guess we are all done.

(Mark Giardina read the third application)

Cove Lane and Webster Road. Applicant Grove Underhill, LLC is requesting PRELIMINARY

/ FINAL SUBDIVISION AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL (

PUBLIC HEARING

) associated

with the creation of 9 lots for construction of 8 single family residences and an associated

stormwater management facility on a 5.55-acre parcel having SBL# 065. 18-1-27 located in an R

3 Single Family Residential District under Sections 269-11, 296-20 and 350-12 of the Code of

the Town of Webster.

Appearing before the board was Peter Vars from BME Associates appearing tonight on behalf of

Grove Underhill Properties LLC. Also in attendance is Mitch Brodsky the owner of Grove

Underhill Propertics LLC. As mentioned, we are here this evening to continue, and we hope

complete the SEQR review and the subdivision and site plan review for Birdsong at Conifer Cove.

It is a proposed single family residential for sale subdivision and proposing 8 single family

residential lots plus an additional 9" parcel that would be town parcel for the storm water

management area all to be situated on 5.5 acres in a residential R3 zoning. We have appeared

before this board several times over the past several months and back at your August 6" Planning

Board meeting at that point and time we presented to this board the revised plan where we

disconnected. I’m going to say the public street and from Conifer Cove Lane with just an access

out to Route 250 and we had addressed the Planning Board; Town Engineer and PRC comments

with the revised plans submission. It should also be noted that with that time we also updated the

SEQR documentation providing the full EAF part 1 as the board classified the action as a type |

action and subsequently declared their intent to be lead agency. Back in September on September

18'" the Planning Board did declare themselves lead agency for the purpose of SEQR and initiated

the coordinated review.

On October 22™' we provided you updated materials as a result of our appearance before the board

in August and September and it consisted of three primary things based on comments that had

Pg. 207 November 12, 2024 Planning Meeting

been received. First of all, we provided you information and a memo that the projects

conformance with the provision of Town Code section 396 which governs the subdivision of

land within the Town of Webster. We also provided you an updated plan set of the final

preliminary final subdivision and site plans that address the most recent comments from the Town

Engineer, MRB Group and PRC. It also included drawing number 12 in that set where we did

provide the results of the requested tree survey that this board asked where we identified trees

greater than 8 inches in diameter. We identified those trees in the area outside of the development

footprint as discussed and directed by the board acknowledging that the development are from

the rear of the houses through the right of way to the rear of the houses across the street would be

developed as part of the residential subdivision. We located basically the trees around the

perimeter. The trees were primarily locust and poplar trees and there were some ash trees and

several dead and diseased ash trees what we did also, we did confirm that property is not part of

an environmental protection overlay district or a woodlot protection overlay district that was

confirmed with town staff and it is also to be clearly known that the R-3 zoning district does not

require any buffering provisions as it relates to adjoining properties but with that being said what

we did do, what the applicant is proposing is we have modified the rear yard grading such that

we are pulling it into the lots as it is the developers intent to save those trees greater than 8 inches

in diameter around the perimeter of the property primarily along the south and north property

lines and those have identified on the grading plan that’s within the drawing set. These trees will

be saved and identified for saving during the construction process and in addition we’ ve identified

a handful of other trees and what would be the future rear yard areas. The developers intent is to

keep those trees until the time of house construction/house design given basically the future

homeowner the ability that if they choose a house design where that tree could be saved it’s there

to be saved in Jeu of just cutting the rear yards free of the trees to maximize the building lot so

that is something that they are willing to do. In addition, we did provide you a proposed landscape

plan proposing an additional 20 trees along the route, the east property line the route 250 frontage

creating a landscape buffer . It will supplement the existing maples that are along the route 250

right away also additional trees and shrubs in the northwest corner around the west property line

to demarcate this subdivision from the Conifer Cove Lane properties to the west. In addition to

those two items, we also provided you information as it concerns to SEQR. We provided you

responses to the 18 questions that are contained in the part 1] EAF that this board needs to review

in order to make their SEQR determination. The information we provided to you was based upon

the design information presented in the preliminary and final site and subdivision plans that you

have before you; information provided in the Engineers report that was submitted OR prepared

and submitted in support of the information in the EAF and as presented on the design plans. We

also compieted it as it relates to the information provided on the part | EAF also from the EAF

mapper from the DEC website. That gives us information on natural features, habitats, and natural

resources and also based on agency review comments we've reccived to date. The Monroe

County Water Authority; The County Health Department and New York Department of

Transportation. In preparing that information we all also utilized guidance provided in the New

York State DEC environmental assessment form workbook which is provided to provide

guidance in order to assess potential impacts as it relates to those !8 questions. It has the

thresholds to be reviewed so that you can make a determination to the potential significance of

any impact.

Pg. 208 November 12, 2024 Planning Meeting

Based on the information that we have provided to you we believe it does support a determination

that the project does not result in any potential significant impact. Any potentia! impacts are

being addressed through the project design such as the storm water management plan; the

construction erosion control plan; the traffic information provided to the state DOT and along

consistency with Community Land Use Plan and character of the surrounding area and it’s

compliance with the comprehensive plan. Several comprehensive plans of the Town of Webster

has consistently identified this 5.5 acre parcel as designated for residential development. The R-

3 residential zoning that’s proposed; the plan is prepared in compliance with that zoning criteria

as it relates to lot size and lot width setbacks. There are no variances for waivers from any of the

lot standards being requested. So, with that, we just wanted to give you that update on what we

have done since we were last here back in September and we can answer any questions that the

board may have on that information.

website and everything.

that were requested. There were 18 different comments that were requested and there is a file.

I'd suggest probably be put on site; don’t you think so people could see it if they wanted to see

it. But everything has been addressed we have looked at it, read il, I’ve made notes on it and so

on and I don’t know what more we could do with that. The letter from the attorneys Hercrest and

Emory, they took specific things, legal matters and they addressed those on their letterhead too.

So, we have covered everything for these 8 homes on the site. | see nothing further that

really....that I see can be changed at this point but, it is a public hearing . If anyone wants to get

up and speak you are more than welcome to come up and speak. We are going to limit this to 3

minutes. Last time we mad it 5 minutes there is no need for 5 minutes. Three minutes and it will

be no longer than three minutes.

Audience member speaking out loud. NOT AT THE MIC. Walks up to mic and speaks.

here tonight to speak on behalf of the Webster Citizens for the Birdsong Tratl area in opposition

to the site plan and subdivision applications for the Birdsong at Conifer Cove project.

The project is proposed to be located on a heavily forested parcel containing extensive vegetation

and mature trees that the conservation board recommended retaining. Significantly the project

is adjacent to town property and parkland that contains the bird sanctuary trail in Millcreek . 1

am going to talk briefly about non-conforming issues and uses and conditions. As a preliminary

matter site plan and subdivision approval cannot be granted because the town code does not

allow issuing such approvals when doing so would create a non-conforming ses or conditions.

We see that in 296-10 C and 296-19 C. Here the project weidd create non-conforming uses or

conditions and therefore variances are required for the following reasons and Hl highlight just a

couple.

Pg. 209 November 12, 2024 Planning Meeting

One, the project would establish a new structure and use, Le... The stormwater management

facility in an R-3 district where such uses and structures are not permitted under the town code

that’s 350-12a. Additionally, the code requires a mininuun rear setback of 50 feet for all lots in

R-3 district but here the proposed project sites the stormwater management facility less than 50

feet from the rear of the property line. Again, that’s a variance issue and the third variance that

fwant to talk about is because the code requires a minimum front yard setback of 50 feet on

corner lots on major highways. That is town code 350-12 b 5 a 2 and here the project proposes

to create lot 4 at the corner of route 250 which is a major highway as defined by the town code

section 350-3 but lot 4 only provides a 40 foot front yard setback which is 10 feet less than what

is required. Accordingly, several variances would be required for this project which | go into

more detail into my letter. Therefore, site plan and subdivision approval cannot be granted

without conditioning such approvals on obtaining the requtred variances and SEQR has to

involve a coordinated review with the Zoning Board and consider those cumulative impacts. PU

touch briefly on the SEQR issues now because [ know the chairman and attorney were discussing

SEQR on the last application.

like him to continue.

without these discretionary approvals that I discussed the variances, the SEQR review of the

project has to involve this coordinated review and that has to involve the interested and involved

agencies before determination of significance ts made that’s why I was saying you have to

coordinate with ZBA on these several variances that haven't been even requested at this point

and then you have to do the cunutdative impacts review moreover because the board already

determined that it’s a TYPE I ACTION there is a legal presumption that it will require a POS

deck and preparation of an EIS. So, | am not going to go over all the reasons why T think a POS

deck is required but Lwant to highlight some of the high points, so 1 keep a good use of your time

tonight, First the impacts on plants and animals....(THIS IS ALL IN THE LETTER ATTACHED)

Which he goes inte detail,

The second issue that I think ts really important is the degradation of aesthetic resources from

the project. The fact that the project adjoins this parkland raises serious concerns because the

project would significantly change the character of those aesthetic resources by eliminating the

buffer and natural screening between the natural resources and the road homes and residential

features associated with the project by removing so much of the vegetation and trees that from a

core part of the character and aesthetics of this area. The BME report actually admits that if the

approved it says quote, the project site may be viewed through both routine day-to-day traffic

and recreational uses of the Birdsong sanctuary trail. You don't want to be seeing developments

when you are in the middle of parkland or on a tratland that’s why preservation of those aesthetic

resources is so important and indeed iy articulated in SEQR, in town code, in Comprehensive

Plan as things that need to preserved and Iwant to just ...... one more thing Twaat to hit on real

Pg. 210 November 12, 2024 Planning Meeting

a

7

H gj mk 300 State Street, Suite 502

i V4 » Rochester, New York 14614

585.434.0790 phone

GROUP 585.563.7432 fax

www. zoglaw.com

VIA E-MAIL [PLANNING-ZONING@WEBSTERNY.GOV} AND FIRST CLASS MAIL

November 11, 2024

Planning Board of the Town of Webster, New York

1000 Ridge Road

Webster, New York 14586

FOR BIRDSONG AT CONIFER COVE PROJECT (SBL # 065.18-1-27) IN R-3 DISTRICT

Dear Chairman and Honorable Planning Board Members:

| write to you on behalf of my client, the Webster Citizens for the Bird Song Trail Area,

which is composed predominately of Webster Residents who live in the vicinity of the proposed

project area and who would be impacted by the approvals sought and the Project proposed.

The proposed Birdsong at Conifer Cove project (the “Project”) secks to subdivide a 5.5-acre lot

into 9 lots to allow for the construction of 8 single-family residences and an associated

stormwater management facility ina manner that would disrupt the heavily forested/wooded

area, significant vegetalion, mature trees, and wildlife who rely on those important

environmental features. The Project is proposed to be located at the east end of Conifer Cove

Lane and Webster Road on a wooded/forested parcel in a R-3 Single-Family Residential District

having SBL #065.18-1-27 (the “Property”).! The Conservation Board previously indicated that:

© ithe Property is a heavily treed parcel;

© several Maple trees are located on the Property that should be retained:

e the natural buffer should be preserved: and

@ the storm water management facility should not be sited in the proposed location.

The Developer, Grove Underhill, LLC (the “Developer” or the “Applicant”} has applied to

the Planning Board for preliminary and final subdivision ancl site plan approval for the Project

‘The Developer admitted in the Full Environmental Assessment Form (“FEAR”) for the Project

that the current land uses at the Property include “Forest” and “Residential (Suburban).” See

PEAR at page 9, $€.1.a. The FEAF Further admits that the Property currently has “5.5” acres of

“Forested” land, and that after the Project is completed the Property will have "0" acres of

“Forested” tand, which represents 100% deforestation of the Property. fe

The basis of this belief are statements made at the Town Planning Board’s September 2024

meeting concerning He Town Conservation Board’s Project Review Report for this Project.

(the “Applications”). | write in opposition to the Applications and to urge the Planning Board to

carefully consider the impacts of this Project on the environment, as it is legally and duty-bound

to do under SEQRA, and to impose meaningful mitigation measures and conditions to protect

the environment, the surrounding residents, and the fidelity to the Town Code and

Comprehensive Pian.

{ also urge the Planning Board to carefully consider and deny the Application because it

would adversely impact adjacent properties, harm the neighborhood character, be inconsistent

with the Comprehensive Plan, and cause significant environmental problems.?

| further urge the Planning Board to carefully scrutinize and deny the Application

because the Developer certified to inaccurate information in its FEAF for SEQRA for the Project.

For example, the Developer falsely checked “NO” in response to the FEAF question on page 11

at section E.2.h.ii, which asks, “Do any wetlands or other waterbodies adjoin the project site.”

The Developer's “No” response is inaccurate and false because the Property adjoins the Bird

Sanctuary Trail/Park property (065.17-1-94) (the “Bird Sanctuary Parcel”),4 which contains

portions of Mill Creek, which is undeniably a waterbody. That question should have been

answered “Yes.” The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation’s

Environmental Assessment Mapping tool shows that the Bird Sanctuary Parcel:

e Contains wetlands or other waterbodies;

e Adjoins wetlands or other waterbodies;

e Certain wetland or waterbodies within or adjoining the Project site are regulated by a

federal, state, or local agency;

e Such regulated streams include “845-2” and “845-10,” both of which have a

classification of “C.”

e Waterbodies onsite are listed in the most recent compilation of NYS Water quality-

impaired waterbodies (including Mill Creek).

e lsinadesignated floodway.

3 The Town Code unambiguously provides that neither subdivision approval nor site plan

approval may be granted where code violations are present until all necessary variances and

permits are obtained. Town Code § 296-10 (C); 296-19(C). New York State Courts have similarly

held that, where the applicant submits a “subdivision layout containing lots that do not

conform to ... requirements of the zoning ordinance, the approval will be annulled...” Penfield

Panorama Area Community Inc. v. Town of Penfield Planning Bd., 253 A.D.2d 342, 347 (4th

Dep’t 1999). See MacFarlane v. Town of Clayton Planning Bd., 216 A.D.2d 860 (4th Dep't 1995)

(any approval of a substandard lot, or one that does not strictly conform to the requirements of

the Zoning Code, should be reversed by a court.)

4 The BME Letter admits that “Lands to the South are the Bird Sanctuary Trail Parcel, owned by

the Town of Webster.” See BME Letter at page

5. I

L

e Isin the year-year floodplain.

e (sin the 500-year floodplain.

e = Is within 2000 feet of a site (828178) listed in the NYSDEC Environmental Remediation

database.

e ts within a local or regional special planning district (NYS Heritage Areas” West Erie

Canal Corridor).

The Developer's failure to accurately respond to that question led to additional

inaccurate responses on its FEAF, inclucling the verifiably false response in response to question

E.2.h.it that no waterbodies adjacent to the Project Site (the Property) are regulated by any

fecleral, state, or local agency. in facl, state regulations clearly show that Mill Creek, which is

jocated on the Town-owned Bird Sanctuary Parcel adjacent to the Property, is regulated by

New York State. 6 NYCRR Part 845 (Classification C}. That question should have been answered

“Yes.”

Additionally, the Application cannot be granted at this time because SEQRA has not

been complied with, yet. The Project is a Type | Action under SEQRA (as the Planning Board

already determined) because it is “substantially contiguous to any publicly owned or operated

parkland recreation area or designated open space” (i.e., the Bird Sanctuary Parcel where the

Bird Sanctuary Trail is located) and “exceeds 25% of any threshold in” 6 NYCRR §617.4(b}. The

Bird Sanctuary Parcel is owned by the Town. And Town planning documents confirm that the

Bird Sanctuary Parcel is a publicly owned or operated parkland, recreation area, or designated

open space.’

* A further basis of this belief are admissions made at the Town Planning Board’s August 6,

2024, meeting regarding the Project explaining that Bird Sanctuary Pateel is parkland. See

August 6, 2024, Planning Board Mecting (“That's parkland back there.” )

Wy

Park.

=f oa ae 4

1 i

a

.-!

"ae

1

. ae

«*

of a

a? Fl x

*

.

* + -*

- i ie or

ft Ps a aT

i =-= weal = 5

‘ s 4

wos o +.

oy ek a rl

a r *

1 ‘

aed '

’

ia ang -*

t byl '

1 : a .

‘ 1 yea 4

a a

d a

.

4 ra Z

: :

Wabster Comprehensive

Plan Update

Parks, Trails & Open

Space Plan

Figure 4

kegure

pee ggg Tae Mears Re

fae apr brad Pa WO se

Puget) ED tue regis ee

Areles

Camere atc. fate tat

atl tes

Tae ad's age Bondy

fH

1:40,000

a : a

Siersa PEE

Gecember 200d

The Town’s Comprehensive Plan likewise identifies the Bird Sanctuary Parcel as a Public

Figure ?

| funre Land Use P an

> 4 4 wt

Fd i

= on}

‘ t

’ ‘

a z

t * : bole cm

( cs

\ ‘

\

\ ‘

Ng acl , i }

\ & ae ;

oy Z ’ “g F

\. . ——— —_—i___i... = — - ar

Deen I a Nin dns earth

One such threshold for Type | Actions is “the physica! alteration of 10 acres.” Twenty-

five percent of 10 acresis 2.5 acres. Here, this Project proposes the physical alteration of 5.5

acres®, and so exceeds the 25% threshold, rendering this Project a Type | Action under SEQRA,

and meaning that this Project is “more likely to require the preparation of an EIS than Unlisted

action” and “carries with it the presumption Unat it is likely to have a significant adverse impact

on the environment and may require an EIS.” 6 NYCRR §617.4(a). The Planning Board has

already correctly classified this Project as a Type | Action uncer SEQRA.

Because this is alype | Action under SEQRA, the Planning Board must conduct an

environmental review Lo determine whether the Project as a whole MAY cause even a single

POTENTIALLY significant adverse environmental impact. Here, the Project seeks to establish a

new, denser and more intensive use at the Property, which will obviously impact mature trees,

vegetation, preen space, a Town trail/Park (including the Bird Sanctuary Parcel and Bird

Sanctuary Trail) and cause other potentially sipaificant adverse environmental Project impacis,

mecluding Town Code violations and inconsistencies with the Town's plans and goals.’

"The October 21, 2024 Letler from BME Associates to the Planning Board (the “BME Letter’)

admits that the progect volves the physical alteration of land See BME tetter at Page |

Project impacts will inevitably be impacted by the number of people attracted by the Project

50 close to the Birdsong Trail/parkland, which is not just a function of the Project’s maximum

capacity, bul also is a function of the number of living units available, the number of residents

5

Accordingly, for the following reasons, the cumulative impacts of the Project indicate

that it may cause one or more potentially significant adverse environmental impacts, and so a

Positive Declaration of Environmental Significance (“Pos Dec”) must be issued, and an

Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”) must be prepared.

We therefore urge this board to fully comply with the provisions of the New York State

Environmenta! Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) to ensure that any potentially significant adverse

environmental impacts from the Project are evaluated and mitigated to the maximum extent

possible, and to deny the Application.

If the Application is not denied, we ask the Planning Board to impose concrete and

enforceable conditions to ensure compliance with the Town Code and planning documents, and

to require Project meaningful modifications and/or the imposition of significant mitigation

measures to address such adverse impacts, including mitigation measures specifically designed

to preserve vegetation, green space, trees, public property, public trails, public resources, the

Bird Sanctuary Parcel, and Mill Creek.

THE PLANNING BOARD MUST ISSUE A POSITIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL

SIGNIFICANCE FOR THE PROJECT UNDER SEQRA AND REQUIRE PREPARATION OF AN

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT,

This Project is a Type | action under SEQRA because it meets the definition of a Type |

action as listed in 6 NYCRR §617.4 and does not meet the definition of a Type Il action under 6

NYCRR §617.5. Accordingly, the Project requires a “determination of significance” by comparing

the potential impacts of the Project with the criteria listed in 6 NYCRR 617.7({c).®

Accordingly, SEQRA mandates that the Proposed Action be assessed for potential

environmental concerns, and these concerns must be further evaluated to determine whether

a significant environmental impact may result.? Here, the cumulative impacts of the Project

clearly establish that one or more potentially significant adverse impacts may result from the

Project, and therefore a Pos Dec must be issued and an EIS must be prepared.

in each unit, and the average number of daily guests or visitors to such units, Thus, potentially

significant adverse environmental impacts from the Project must consider the number of

people who will be altracted to the Property by the Project, as well as physical alterations that

will affect the Birdsong Trail/Park, all of which willincrease Project Impacts.

8 Matter of Sierra Club v Village of Painted Post, 26 N.Y.3d 301, Matter of Citizens for

Responsible Zoning v. Common Council of City of Albany, 56 A.D.3d 1060.

° Matter of Chatham Towers Inc. v. Bloomberg, 6 Misc. 3d 814, Matter of Munash v. Town Bd.

of E. Hampton, 297 A.D.2d 345, Soule v. Colonie, 95 A.D.2d 979.

in Making its Determination Of Significance Under SEQRA, The Planning Board Must Consider

The Cumulative Impacts Of The Project As A Whole.

The Lead Agency must issue a Pos Dec if it determines that the proposed action “may

have a significant adverse impact on the environment.” 6 NYCRR 617.7(b}(3). "Because the

operative word triggering the requirement of an EIS is ‘may,’ there is a relatively low

threshold for the preparation of an EIS." Omri Partners, L.P. v. County of Nassau, 237 A.D.2d

440, 442 (2d Dep't 1997) (citations ontitied) {emphasis added).

In making its determination of significance, SEQRA repeatedly commands agencies to

consider the cumulative impacts of a proposed action.

For example, 6 NYCRR §617.7(c)(1) states that, when making a determination of

significance, agencies are duty-bound by law to consider whether “two or more related actions

undertaken, funded or approved by an agency, none of which has or would have a significant

impact on the environment, but when considered cumulatively would meet one or more of the

criteria in this subdivision.”

Likewise, the lead agency must also consider reasonably related long-term, short-term,

direct, indirect and cumulative impacts, including other simultaneous or subsequent actions

which are: (i) included in any long-range plan of which the action under consideration is a part:

(ii) likely to be undertaken as a result thereof; or (iii) dependent thereon. 6 NYCRR 617.7 (c}{2).

This Project includes multiple actions, including, at minimum these Applications for

subdivision and site plan approval (for which SEQRA has nol been conducled yet). A careful

review of the Project suggests that additional approvals, inclucting variances, may be required

from the Town Zoning Board of Appeals. Accardingly, in making ils determination of

significance, the Planning Board must consider the Project as a whole, which means it must

consider the impacts from this Application together with the impacts from all other Project

related applications.

Given the scale and nature of the Project— converting a Forested area with mature trees

and significant vegetation adjacent to a Public Trail/Park (the Bird Sanctuary Parcel) and an

imporkant waterbody (Mill Creek) into several homes with a stormwater management facility

it is likely to have significant environmental impacts, thus necessitating a positive declaration of

environmental significance, and preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement, for the

reasons stated below!

Chinese Staff & Workers Ass'n v. New York, 68 N_Y.2d 359, City Council v. Town Beb., 3 NLY.34d

408.

~J

A Pos Dec must be issued for the Project because it may cause one or more potentially

significant adverse environmental impacts. SEQRA regulations (6 NYCRR §617.7(c)) deem

certain project criteria to be “indictors of significant adverse impacts on the environment”, such

as impacts to plants and animals; inconsistency with comprehensive plan and/or zoning code;

impacts on aesthetic resources; “a substantia! adverse change in existing ... ground or surface

water quality or quantity ...; a substantial increase in solid waste production; a substantial

increase in potential for erosion, flooding, leaching or drainage problems;” etc. Here, because

the Project has the potential to cause substantial changes in these areas (6 NYCRR

§617.7(c}(1)(i)), a Pos Dec must be issued and an EIS must be prepared.

a. Impacts on Plants Or Animals: An indicator of an adverse environmental impact is

“the removal or destruction of large quantities of vegetation or fauna.” 6 NYCRR

§617.7(c)(1}(ii). Here, there is no denying that the Project anticipates the removal! of

multiple trees in the area in an area adjacent to the Bird Sanctuary Trail/Park. The

Project is proposed to be sited on a Property that currently has significant mature

trees and vegetation, and so the Project would require the removal or destruction of

large quantities of vegetation or fauna, including any animals that reside thereon.

The felling of mature trees is particularly significant because of the location of the

trees on this Property near the trail/park on the Bird Sanctuary Parcel, especially

given provisions of the town code that require protection of wooded or forested

parcels. See. e.g., Town Code § 186-3 (Environmental Protection Overlay Districts

(EPODS)) (explaining that “Woodlots” are “Environmentally sensitive areas within

the Town, such as steep slopes, watercourses, floodplains and woodiots where

certain activities are regulated through a permit process”); Town Code § 350-9 (E)(1)

(“The purpose of the Woodlot Protection District is to preserve and

protect woodlots.”)'? The Town has clearly established a policy and goal of

preserving such forested lots and mature trees. The fact that the Project is ina

wooded area demonstrates the significance of these trees and indicates the

environmental significance of removing them is more than if the trees were

removed from a property that is not wooded/forested for which the Town Code

anticipates additional protections.

SEQRA recognizes that such local code provisions are significant. Indeed, 6 NYCRR

1 The Town Code ( § 350-9 (A}(2}) further explains that “the regulations contained in each

Cnvironmental Protection Overlay District (EPOD) are not intended to be substituted for other

general zoning district provisions and should be considered as additional requirements to be

met by the applicant or developer prior to project approval. The purpose of the overlay districts

is to provide the Town with an additional level of review and regulation that controls how land

development permitted by the Town's primary zoning districts should occur in sensitive or

unique environmental areas.”

§617.7(c)(1) (i) expressly identifies “the impairment of the environmental

characteristics of a Critical Environmental Area” as an indicator of an adverse

environmental impact that warrants issuance of a Pos Dec. Here, there is no denying

that chopping-down trees on a wooded/forested parcel adjacent to the Bird

Sanctuary Trail/Park on the Bird Sanctuary Parcel impairs the environmental

characteristics which the Town sought to protect. Indeed, the Town Code (§350

9(A)(1)} unequivocally states that such Woodlot clistricts “and the regulations

associated within them are designed to preserve and protect unique environmental

features, including the steep slopes and woodlots .... They are also intended to

prevent the irreversible loss of natural resources and the loss of property values,”

The impacts of the Project on such trees, vegetation, and animals indicate that this

Project will have significant adverse impacts on the environment, including natural

resources, ancl so a Pos Dec must be issued and an EIS must be prepared.

Accordingly, this SEQRA factor therefore weighs in favor of issuing a Pos Dec and

requiring an Es.

Inconsistency with Community Plans or Goals: SEQRA also considers “the creation

of a material conflict with a community's current plans or goals” as an indicator of a

potentially significant adverse environmental impact for which a Pos Dec must be

issued and a ElS preparect. Here, the Project will be inconsistent with the Town's

Code and Comprehensive Plan, which renders it in conflict with the community's

current plans/goals.

The Project is inconsistent with the Town Code (the “Code”} because the Cade

requires a minimum lot area of 22,000 Square Feet (not including the flag portion of

any flag lot for residential lots in an R-3 Single Family Residential District). Here, the

Project proposes the ercation of a Flag Lot (Lot 3} that does not conform to the

minimum fot area requirements because the lot coverage of the flag portion of lot 3

(excluding the pole portion of lot 3} is about 18,804 SF. Accordingly, subdivision and

site plan approval cannot be granted without conditioning such approvals on

obtaining an area variance far lot 3 because lo clo so would creale a nonconforming

lot condition in violation of the Town Code.

The Project is further inconsistent with the Town Code because the Code requires a

minimum front yard setback of SO fect on corner ots on “major highways” under

Town Code § 350-12 (B)(5)(a}(2). The Town Code defines the term “Major Highway”

to include “All state and county roads plus all town roads indicated on the Town of

Webster Major Highway List.” Town Code §350-3. The Applications for the Project

propose to create Lot 4 at the corner of New York State Route 250 aka Webster

Road, which is a major highway under the Towr Code because ibis a stale road) and

Sage Forest Lane, with a 40-ioat setback in the front yard. However, because Lot 4 is

a corner lot located on a major highway (i-¢., NYS Route 250), a 50-foot front yard

setback is required. Therefore, subdivision and site plan approval cannot be pranted

3

L

without conditioning such approvals on obtaining an area variance for lot 4 because

to do so would create a nonconforming lot condition in violation of the Town Cade.

The Project ts likewise inconsistent with the Town Code because the Code requires a

minimum side yard setback of S feet for driveways in an R-3 District. Town Code

§ 350-12 (B}{5}(b){2]. But here, the Project proposes the siting of the driveway for the

stormwater management facility less than 5 feet from the side yard property line

shared with Lot

1. Therefore, subdivision and site plan approval cannot be granted

without conditioning such approvals on obtaining an area variance for the

stormwater management facility lot’s driveway (the side yard setback) because to

do so would create a nonconforming lot condition in violation of the Town Code,

The Project is likewise inconsistent with the Town Code because the Code requires a

minimum rear yard setback of 50 feet for all lots in an R-3 District. Town Code §350

12(8)(5)(c). But here, the Project proposes the siting of a stormwater management

facility that is less than 50 feet from the rear property line. Therefore, subdivision

and site plan approval cannot be granted without conditioning such approvals on

obtaining an area variance for the stormwater management facility lot because to

do so would create a nonconforming lot condition in violation of the Town Code.

The Project is also inconsistent with the Town Code because it would establish a new

structure and use {i.e., a Storm Water Management Facility use) in an R-3 district,

where such uses are not permitted under Town Code § 350-12 {A).!2 Therefore,

subdivision and site plan approval cannot be granted without conditioning such

approvals on obtaining a use variance for the stormwater management facility

because to do so would create a nonconforming use in violation of the Town Code.

Project inconsistencies with the Town Code must also be considered as part of

SEQRA, and also justify denial of the Application or mitigation of its adverse impacts.

The Project is also inconsistent with the Town’s Planning Board Design Guidelines, as

follows:

¢ Overall Design Objective E encourages the Town to “Foster the preservation

and enhancement of significant views and characteristics of the natural

landscape including important topographic, watercourse, and viewscape

features.” See Town of Webster, New York Planning Board Design Guidelines,

dated August 2, 2007, prepared by Roger Johanson, AlA, FJF Architects, LLP

(the “Guidelines”) at page 3, §3(e).

© But here, the Project destroys rather than preserves natural

” The BME Letter admits that the Project involves an “on-site water volume control facility

consisting of adry pond and a filtering bioretention area.” See BME Letter at page 3.

10

landscape (including the vegetation, forest, and mature trees on the

Properly) without providing any public views of important

topographic, watercourse, and viewscape features. The Project

therefore conflicts with Overall Design Objective E.

Overall Design Objective F encourages the Town to “foster the aesthetic

appeal of spaces around and between buildings for the visual enjoyment of

pedestrians.” See Town of Webster, New York Planning Board Design

Guidelines, dated August 2, 2007, prepared by Roger Johanson, AIA, FIF

Architects, LLP (the “Guidelines”’) at page 3, §3(f).

This Project destroys the natural aesthetic appeal of the forest

around and between buildings at the Property by recucing the forest

from 5.5 acres to Oacres. It therefore detracts from the visual

enjoyment of pedestrians by replacing living, vibrant lees with

single-family homes.

Overall Design Objective H encourages the Town to “encourage

opportunities to allow pedestrian accessibility to areas with strong natural

features such as meadows, wooded areas, wetlands and watercourses, by

the attainment of public rights-of-way for public access. See Town of

Webster, New York Planning Board Design Guidelines, dated August 2, 2007,

prepared by Roger Johanson, AJA, FJF Architects, LLP (the “Guidelines”) at

page 3, §3{h).

This Project does nothing to create opportunities to allow pedestrian

access to areas with strong natural features. To the contrary, the

Project reduces opportunities to allow pedestrian access to such

features by removing the forest located on the Property (thereby

destroying any opportunity to allow public access thereto). It further

reduces opportunities for public access to the Bird Sanctuary Parcel

(Trail and Park} because the Project does not propose any rights-of-

way for public access to the Bird Sanctuary Parcel from the Property,

even though doing so would satisfy a design objective by providing

access to Mill Creck (a watercourse), wetlands, and wooded areas

located on the Bird Sanctuary Parcel.

Site Design Characteristic B states, “Important natural characteristics or site

features should be preserved and enhanced where possible. Important

features may inelucle, but are not limited to, trees and vegetation,

topography, watercourses and views. See Town of Webster, New York

Planning Board Design Guidelines, cated August 2, 2007, prepared by Roper

Johanson, AIA, FIF Architects, LEP (the “Guicdclines’) at page 6, §6(h).

2 This Project is inconsistent with this design characteristic because the

Project does nol atlempt to preserve impartant natural

characteristics or site features, such as the Forest, the mature ices,

or the robust vegetation located on-site.

grading should be designed

to visually and audibly screen

activities

from adjacent districts.” 2008

| Comp Plan at page 28 (Goal

| “ensure that new

developments will not result

| in the unnecessary removal

of topsoil or trees.” 2008

Comp Plan at pages 28-29

(Goal F}.

Protect wildlife, including:

wild birds, by “Optimiz[ing]

nesting areas for desirable

species, especially migratory

songbirds

and waterfowl, e.g.,

contiguous grassland habitat,

wetlands, forest edges,

deciduous and

coniferous woods, nesting

and feeding shrubs.” 2008

| Comp Plan at pages 31-32

_ (Goal K).

Figure 4 of the

Comprehensive Plan! shows

the existing Bird Sanctuary

Trail and identifies the

properly on which the trail is

| located as a “Town Park.”

Figure 2 of the

Project will undeniably result

in the removal of trees (5.5.

| acres of Forested Land) from

the Property, to be replaced

with O acres of Forested land

| at the Property.

Eliminating 5.5 acres of

Forested Land adjacent to

the Bird Sanctuary Trail/Park.

| Project does not treat Bird

Sanctuary Trail property as a

Town Park containing an

existing trail

Project does not treat Bird

| Comprehensive Plan™ shows | Sanctuary Trail property asa

the existing Bird Sanctuary

| Public Park

? Figure 4 of Comprehensive Plan available at

https://websterny.gov/DocumentCenter/View/96/Figure4 ebidld= (showing the Birdsong Trail

as an “existing trail” and identifying the property that the Birdsong Trail is located on as a

“Town Park.”

4 Figure 2 of Comprehensive Plan available at

Require project modification

or impose SEQRA mitigation

measures to preserve trees

and topsoil.

Eliminating wild bird nesting

areas and forests adjacent to

the “Bird Sanctuary Trail” and

related parkland.

Project would eliminate

buffer between residential

neighborhood and Bird

Sanctuary Trail / Park

property.

Project would eliminate

buffer between residential

neighborhood and Bird

httpos://websterny.gov/DocumentCenter/View/94/Figure2 ?bidid= (showing the property that

the Birdsong Trail is located on as a “Public Park.”

14

Trail and identifies the Sanctuary Park property on

property on which the trail is _ which the Bird Sanctuary

located as a “Town Park.” | Trail is located.

d.

These facts establish that the Project may be in material conflict with the

community’s current plans or goals, which indicates that the Action has the potential

for one or more potentially significant adverse environmental impacts, and so a Pas

Dec and preparation of an EIS are required.

impairment of Existing Community or Neighborhood Character: Another indicator

of an adverse environmental impact is “the impairment of the character or quality”

of “existing community or neighborhood character.” 6 NYCRR §617.7(c)(1)(v). Here,

the Project will cause a detriment to nearby properties as explained herein,

including the adjacent Bird Sanctuary Parcel (Trail/Park}, and alter the essential

character of the R-3, single-family residential neighborhood in a manner that is

inconsistent with the Town's current plans and goals and in a way that impairs the

character and/or quality of the existing community and or neighborhood character.

The Project will detrimentally impact the adjacent Bird Sanctuary Parcel (Trail/park

area}, and as a result negatively impact the neighborhood character and existing

community. The introduction of higher density uses by the Project in Forested area

near a Town Trail/park area and near Mill Creek will alter the neighborhood's

character, potentially leading to conflicts with existing uses and the Town's

comprehensive plan. This weighs in favor of issuing a Pos Dec and requiring the

preparation of an Els.

environmental impact is “the impairment of the character or quality” of “historical,

agricultural, architectural, or aesthetic resources.” 6 NYCRR §647.7(c}(1}{v). Here,

the Project would be bordering the Town's Bird Sanctuary Parcel that both the Bird

Sanctuary Trail/Park and portions of Mill Creek are located on,'> and so the Project

would undeniably impact the Bird Sanctuary Trail/Park and Mill Creek’s aesthetic

and natural resources.'? Moreover the Project would significantly change the

character of those resources by climinating the buffer and natural screening

“ BME Associates agreed thal “the Town of Webster property containing the Birdson Sanctuary

irail adjoints the Project Site.” See BME Letter at page

6. The FEAF prepared and signed by the Developer concedes that “the Project is within 5 miles”

of any officially designated and publicly accessible scenic or aesthetic resources, including but

not limited to the “Great Lakes Seaway Trail” and the “State Scenic Trail.” Sec FEAF at page

13. See also MBE Letter at page 5 (admitting that the Project is within five miles of the “Great Lakes

Seaway Trail, a scenic byway") Inexplicably, though, the Developer failed lo identify the

Birdsong Trail in response to FEAF pape 13, Question £.3.h.

is

between those natural features surrounding the park/trail and creek, the road,

homes, and residential features associated with the Project by removing significant

vegetation, trees, and other items that form a core part of the character and

aesthetics of the area. The BME Report admits that, if approved, “the Project site

may be viewed through both routine day-to-day traffic and recreational uses of the

Birdsong Sanctuary Trial.”!? This is a significant impact to aesthetic resources. The

construction of a new residential development so close to the Bird Sanctuary

Trail/Park and Mill Creek will adversely impact the Trail/Park’s and Mill Creek's

aesthetic resources and existing community/neighborhood’s character. These

impacts must be considered, and the Project must be revised to mitigate the

adverse impacts on the trail, creek, and park by requiring additional trees and

vegetation to be preserved, and by adding trees, vegetation, and additional

screening to buffer the aesthetic resources (the trail/parkland and creek) from the

residential uses. Therefore, this factor weighs in favor of issuing a Pos Dec and

requiring the preparation of an EIS.

e. Water Impacts: The Project may cause a substantial change in ground or surface

water quality and may increase erosion, flooding, leaching or drainage problems. #8 It

may also have unforeseen impacts on Mill Creek, which drains to Lake Ontario.!9

The Project contemplates eliminating trees on the Property which will reduce green

space, and which may increase runoff and erosion, and may decrease water quality.

This is troubling given Mill Creek’s current impaired water quality condition

according to the NYSDEC’s database. The physical alteration of at least 5.5 acres of

17 BME Letter at page 6.

18 The Project proposes lo collect stormwater from the Property and then discharge it north of

the Properly. See BME Letter at page 4 (conceding that the Project will “discharge storm water

to the existing drainage swale to the North of the Property, near the northwest corner of the

Property.”) The Board should carefully consider the environmental impacts of collecting and

diverting stormwater from the 5.5-acre Property onto the neighboring property to the North,

and how that may impact the adjoining parcels.

19 The BME Letter admits that the “Project will involve grading and earthwork operations on

land approximately 1,300 feet from Mill Creek.” See BME Letter al Page

3. The Board should

consider how the close proximity of the Project to Mill Creek may impact water quality nearby,

in Mill Creek, and in Lake Ontario. And given the proximity of the Property to a parcel known by

the DEC to be contaminated, the Board should consider whether grading and earthwork

operations so close to Mill Creek may disturb (directly or indirectly) any affected soils or

groundwaters, causing them to flow into Mill Creek. See DEC Letter to MRB Group dated August

12, 2024 at page 2 (The “DEC Letter”) (“Potential impacts to sediment quality should be

considered prior to the reuse or placement of excavated soils from the surrounding areas as

upland fill.”}

16

land contiguous to the Town's Bird Sanctuary Parcel, containing the Bird Sanctuary

Trail/Park and portions of Mill Creek, should be carefully reviewed to determine how

the Project will negatively impact the public’s right of access to the trail, related

parkland, and Mill Creek.’" The felling of several mature trees will negatively impact

surface and ground water, erosion, flooding, and draining problems, and therefore

has a greater likelihood of negatively impacting the public’s use of the Bird

Sanctuary Trail, parkland, and Mill Creek Taken together, these are significant

adverse environmental impacts that warrant a Pos Dec and preparation of an EIS.

f. Traffic and Parking: The Project will cause an increase in traffic and parking demand

in the area compared to existing levels. Currently there are no traffic or parking

demands on the Property. The Project proposes to significantly increase parking and

traffic demancls above existing levels for a property that adjoins a Major Highway.

g. Increased Solid Waste Generation: It is undeniable Lhat the conversion of vacant

land into several single-family residential homes will substantially increase the

production of solid waste over current levels. Solid household waste from 8 singie-

family homes will be generated at the Property for the first time and will result in

more waste per square footage of land than existing conditions. The increase in solid

waste is particularly significant because the Project is contiguous to the Bird

Sanctuary Trail/Parkland and Mill Creek and is located on a lot that currently

contains robust vegetation and environmentally valuable mature trees. Residential

waste could also be quite substantial, especially if it migrates off-site onto the Bird

Sanctuary Parcel, onto the Bird Sanctuary Trail or its parkland, or contains organic

materials, which could attract critters and rodents to the residential area, which also

raises public health concerns as such critters often carry or spread disease. Likewise,

if waste from the Project finds ils way into Mill Creek, it could adversely impact the

already-impaired water qualily in Mill Creek, which could then impact Lake Ontario.

Waste entering Mill creek could also create blockages in Mill Creek leading to

flooding and damage al up gradient locations. Therefore, this factor weighs in favor

of issuing a Pos Dec ancl requiring the preparation of an EIS.

h. Infrastructure Strain: The tncreased use of the Property from the Project, and the

connection of several new single-family homes to the Town's utilities infrastructure,

will put additional strain on locat infrastructure, including water, sewer, and

stormwater systems. Historical issues with drainage exacerbate the concern about

adverse Impacts lo infrastructure

i. Change in Energy use: Another indicator of an adverse environmental impact is a

Ihe BME Letter admits that the Project aivolves the physical alteration of fancd and that “oa

perched water table is within three feet of existing or proposed grace.” See BME Letter at Page

1. The Board should consider these facts when determining iPacdverse impacts may result.

7

“major change in the use of either the quantity or type of energy.” 6 NYCRR

§617.7(c)(1}(vi). This Project involves a major change in the quantity of energy used

when compared to existing conditions because the quantity of energy used would

increase from about zero (for the vacant, undeveloped property) to a significant sum

of energy consumed as a result of the addition of 8 Single-Family Residential units

and a stormwater management facility. This weighs in favor of issuing a Pos Dec and

requiring the preparation of an EIS.

Change in Ability To Support Existing Uses: The impacts of the Project on the

adjacent Bird Sanctuary Parcel (Trail/Park area) and Mill Creek will undermine the

ability of those properties/aesthetic resources to support existing uses by

eliminating the mature trees, vegetation, and buffering between such existing uses

and residential uses. The Project will create new uses and more intense uses that

will interfere with the Bird Sanctuary Parcel’s (Trail/Park) capacity to allow for

passive and active recreation, open space, and/or aesthetic enjoyment. And Project

impacts on Mill Creek could negatively impact its current, existing use for conveying

away stormwater, thereby decreasing or eliminating the Mill Creek’s existing

environmental benefits.

Change in the Number of People Attracted to An Area: Another indicator of an

adverse environmental impact is “the encouraging or attracting of a large number of

people to a place or places for more than a few days, compared to the number of

people who would come to such place absent the action.” 6 NYCRR §617.7(c)(1}{ix)

(emphasis added). Currently, the unused and vacant parcel does not attract any

residents, guests, or patrons because it is unoccupied private property. But the

conversion of this empty land into several single-family homes is specifically

designed to attract people to the Property as renters and guests for more than a few

days. Accordingly, this Project would draw a large number of people to the Property

compared to the number of people who would come to such place in the absence of

such action (which is currently close to zero). This weighs in favor of issuing a Pos

Dec and requiring the preparation of an EIS.

For these reasons, the Project may cause significant adverse environmental impacts, as

evidence by the above-referenced indicators of an adverse environmenta! impacts, and soa Pos

Dec should be issued for the Project and an EtS should be prepared.

Even if none of the Project impacts alone has a significant impact on the environment,

such impacts may still be considered an indicator of a potentially significant adverse impact

requiring a Pos Dec and an EIS if “changes in two or more elements of the environment, no one

of which has a significant impact on the environment, but when considered together result ina

substantial adverse impact on the environment.” 6 NYCRR §617.7(c}{1}(xi). The Planning Board

must therefore consider those impacts together with the other indicators of significant adverse

impacts when making its determination of significance under SEQRA.

18

Likewise, even if this Application alone would not have a significant adverse impact, it is

considered an tndicator of a potentially significant adverse impact requiring a Pos Dee and an

EIS 7, “when considered cumulatively would meet one or more of the criteria” described above,

This means that the significance of the Project must be determined by considering all the

project impacts cumulatively, and without scgregating the review for this action from the other

Project-related action. The impacts from this action (the site plan and subdivision application to

the planning board) and any subsequent action for this Project must therefore be considered

cumulatively in determining whether one or more POTENTIALLY significant aclverse

environmental impact MAY result from the Project.

Here, the sheer volume of indicators of adveise environmental impacts, when

considered together with the impacts that may result from the Project, demonstrate that at

least one potentially significant acverse environmental impact may result from the Project, and

50 a Pos Dec and EIS are required by SEQRA.

The Project Impacts Are Significant

To determine the significance of these Project impacts, they must be assessed in

connection with the impacts’ setting, probability of occurrence, duration, irreversibility,

geographic scope, magnitude, and the number of people affected. 6 NYCRR §617.7(c){3). Here,

the Project impacts are significant under SEQRA because:

e Setting: The setting of the Project is a forested loi in a suburban, R-3 Single-Family

Residential district directly adjacent to Town-owned Property (the Bird Sanctuary

Parcel) containing a Public Town Trail, park area, and portions of Mill Creek. The

Property currently contains extensive vegetation, buffering, and mature trees, which

will be lost if the Applications are approved ancl the Project Proceeds.

e Probability of Occurrence: There is a high probability thal the Project impacts described

above will occur, particularly tie adverse impacts to community plans, the

neighborhood, trees and vegetation, open space, public trails, Mill Creek, and the

creation of inconsistency with the code anc comprehensive plan.

than the life of the Project.

e Irreversible: Once the changes are made, they cannot be undone. The forest, once

removed, willbe pone forever. The precedent will create a slippery slope, leading to

further adverse project impacts like these, and accelerating the loss of vegetation, trees,

and natural and gesthelic resources inthe Town.

® Geographic scope: The peograplhic scope of these Project impacts will be significant and

outsized in comparison to other nearby lots because this Property is currently forested,

is larger than many other lots in the area, is adjacent to the Birel Sanctuary Parcel

19

{containing a Town Trail/parkland and portion of Mill Creek). This suggests that the

adverse impacts will be significant.

e Magnitude: The magnitude of these Project impacts will be significant, especially when

they are viewed together and cumulatively with the other actions and approvals related

to this Project. The magnitude is considered substantial because of the impacts on trees,

vegetation, Mill Creek, and the Bird Sanctuary Parcel (Park Area and Trail).

e Number of People Affected: This Project will impact more people than most actions in

the Town because it affects both (i) the neighbors in the community, (ii) the users of the

Bird Sanctuary Trail, (iii} the new residents of the proposed single-family homes and

their guests, (iv} those who use Mill Creek or benefit from the environmental features

and benefits that Mill Creek provides, and {v) the genera! public who will suffer from the

adverse impacts of this Project.

For these reasons that Project impacts identified above must be considered significant

under SEQRA, and so a Pos Dec and EIS are required.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we request that the Planning Board conduct a coordinated

review with the involved agencies; make a positive declaration of environmental significance;

and require preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement.

Following the completion of SEQRA, we further request that the Planning Board deny

the Application or impose significant modifications and mitigation measures to prevent the

above-referenced adverse impacts from occurring to the maximum extent practicable.

Please provide a copy of this letter to ail Planning Board members, file it in the Town

Clerk’s Office, and make it a part of the administrative record of this Application.

Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Jacob H. Zoghlin

cc: Town of Webster Town Clerk (townclerk@websterny.gov)

20

qitickly is the water quality issues right so the close proximity of the project to Millcreek which

drains into Lake Ontario combined with the known presences of contaminated soils nearby and

the admission that there’s a peered water table within 3 feet of existing or proposed grade

indicates that the lead agency should take a hard look at whether the project may impact those

water resources. When this project is reviewed cumulatively as a whole under SEQR tt becomes

clear that it will create non-conforming property conditions and non-conforming uses and

significant adverse environmental impacts that have not been considered and mitigated to the

maximum extent practicable. These facts warrant, as the board has already observed during

coordinated review but also warrants issuing a positive declaration of environmental significance

and requiring preparation of an ELS. For all of those reasons and those stated in our letter the

application should be denied, or significant mitigation measures should be imposed, or changes

should be required. If that can't happen then the project should be denied. Thank you for your

time and attention and if there are any questions from the board I will take them, otherwise, We

will rest on our papers.

to any of those.

we will have no problem doing. Just a couple of things thought, ] would point out. All uses

proposed are conforming uses with the R-3 zoning district, there’s no dispute in that. A storm

water management facilily is not a structure as defined by the town code as it relates to zoning

and setback within the R-3 district going through the definitions. Storm water management is also

NOT a non-conforming use or a non-allowable use. Storm water management is required by the

Victor town code and by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. The

Town of Victor codes has their drainage ordinance which we are required to comply to. The

stormwater management plan has been prepared in compliance with the Town of Webster

drainage ordinance , the New York State Stormwater regulations as confirmed by the Town

Enginecr based on their review of the submitted storm water management design. So, all

of....without reading it, any reference to the stormwater management plan needing to conform to

setback or not being an allowable use are in correct, and J think the town code is very clear on

that. With regards to variances, as stated, there are no variances required and that has been vetted

through the PRC and through this board as it relates to the one setback that was identified, the

50ft setback is provided to Route 250 as required but the code also allows per 350-12 BS A2 ,

corner lots are allowed a 40 foot setback and that’s why we have a 40ft front setback to the

subdivision street but the 50{t setback to 250 trumps that for lack of a better term. So, those are

things just off the top of my head with regards to SEQR as we mentioned in the information that

we have provided, going through the thresholds, you are able to see the thresholds established

through the EAF workbooks established by DEC that we do not exceed any of the thresholds that

go into moderate to large potential impacts that are not mitigated through the design that’s been

provided. So, I will allow the board to decide on what they want to do in reference to this

information and if they request a written response from the applicant, we will do that for you.

Pg. 211 November 12, 2024 Planning Meeting

Dorothy Fait at 742 Hightower Way: (SEE ATTACHED FOR PRESENTATION)

I] have never seen a project with just 8 houses take so damn long to get approved. This is a very

simple operation and I’m getting the picture that people just don’t want it and that’s the bottom

line of this thing. I am sorry to say, and I don’t want to be crass on this thing again but that is

what the bottom line of this is. People are just pissed off because there’s houses going there.

There are a couple of people in here that wrote letters, and their houses don’t even have grass

growing on them yet and they’re bitching about this project going in. You know that, are you

aware of that. Their lots are smaller than these lots are and in all my years here, my 40 some

years on this board, ] have never seen such resistance to something like this and if there is

something to be opposed to, ] will be the first one to go into your team and I see none of that here.

None of it, this is bull.

This applicant has gone through hoops every which way for 8 stinking houses. It is an approved

site. You can tell me what you want about the code, you can tell me about the.. anything you'd

like about this thing, but you know what, it meets everything that’s in this town code. This has

been gone through, the attorneys have reviewed it. Whatever you want to do after this, God bless

you, but }am ready to just move forward with this thing and that is it. If Derek is willing to do...

AUDIENCE MEMBER YELLING OUT. NOT AT THE MIC

AUDIENCE MEMBER STILL YELLING OUT. NOT AT THE MIC

you. Enough is enough. Everybody has become an expert. We have Engineers, we have attorneys

everybody looking into this, so this has been researched, We are going no different than any

project getting a full required view from everybody and that’s what this has been gone through.

Tam willing to move forward with this, but you have to do SEQR first.

contacted involved and interested agencies as required by SEQR. We worked with all those

agencies, none of them had any significant comments about the project. None of the invo!ved or

interested agencies provided comments to this board regarding the project that had any kind of

impact on the decision we also had before us a part two of the environmental assessment form

and we will go through this. As a board we all have copies of the form that was completed, and

I think it’s worthwhile going through.(PROCEEDS TO GO THROUGH AND READ) SEE

ATTACHED.

SOMEONE FROM AUDIENCE YELLING OUT. NOT AT THE MIC

Pg. 212 November 12, 2024 Planning Meeting

the development adjacent to Bird Song Trail | would ask that the Planning Board utitize all

tools available within its purview to direct the future development in Webster, and contrary

to what | have heard at these meetings the town zoning code is not the only tool available.

Our town’s Comprehensive Plan is a document that citizens participated in developing and

the Town adopted and as such should continue to be utilized as a guiding document for

framing Webster’s development. | would contend that many of the goals and directions put

forth in that document continue to be relevant and | ask this Board to utilize it. Specifically,

it recommends that the town Planning and Zoning Boards use such tools as conservation

easements and environmental protection overlay districts to protect Webster’s natural

resources. Also, the Board has code under residential subdivision chapter 296 sections 15

and 16 that addresses concerns about a developments impact on adjacent properties.

f Planning Board members thank you for the opportunity to present my concerns regarding

As we move through the SEQR process | would assert the Environmental Assessment Form

(EAF) submitted to date is not adequate for this project to move forward. | would ask the

Board to review the EAF part | as ! dispute the developer’s answers on this document.

- The developer failed to address section C. Planning and zoning specifically section

C.2. Webster’s Comprehensive Plan. Preservation of Open Space was not

addressed. Our Comprehensive Plan included reference to an existing list of

properties of value and interest. It was developed in 1973 and included 600 parcels

| the list was prioritized in 2003. It was recommended that it be updated periodically.

This is a living document, and as such, itis an ongoing part of Webster’s

Comprehensive Plan. The Town has periodically revamped the list and the current

property was included on the updated parcel list.

- EAF section E.1.c this property is currently utilized by members of the community

as evidenced by the numerous unofficial trails throughout the 5 acers.

- Section E.2.h (water bodies adjoin the property) Millcreek flows close to this

property, and according to BME engineering report of 5/13/24 (pg 6) the storm water

flow traveling to Millcreek is documented.

- Section D.1.c. indicates that the project to be 12 months. | believe that this form

should include an estimate of the time before all sites are built out. This would

mean a considerable amount of time of ongoing disturbance to citizens who used

the Bird Song trail and animals that use it as habitat.

Secondly as | review the updated site plan my concern is that it appears from the

developer’s tree census that too few are being marked for preservation. Also, it appears

[L that the area determined to be the roadway is marked to be filled to its point of highest

elevation. My question is, will the Bird Song Trail be lower than this proposed road and will

then these who buy lots want to fill their lot to the elevation to meet the road?

Utilizing the toots the Board has available | would propose that the Board coutd mitigate the

above by the following:

(1) request that the developer accept conservation easement on all lots that are

adjacent to Bird song trail to move forward. That would help preserve habitat.

{2) | would also ask that the Board require that a majority of the sites have earnest

money ptaced on them before the developer begins construction of the roadway

thereby reducing the time the area will remain disturbed.

(3) Also addressing fill levels of each lot to prevent tree death from smothering tree

roots or causing flooding issues to adjacent properties.

thaveattacted EAP parttcompteted by tte cevetoper for your reference. | would ask the

Board to request an updated Part | EAF, as | have highlighted sections that 1] believe are

inaccurate. | would also note that a FOIL request review shows that the Board has

completed Part! and {I of the short form EAF not the long form that is required by SEQR type

I. Filling out my own based on the presented EAF Part | would expect that the Board will

clearly be able to make a positive declaration.

| would also like to note that the minutes to the August 6 meeting were approved on

September 10. | would ask the Board to review and consider an amendment/correction to

those minutes. | attended that meeting and have reviewed the video on numerous

occasions. | contend that Mr. Derek Anderson did not present a motion to accept a

determination of non-significance/ negative declaration regarding the Bird Song

development. | would also note that this would have been premature according to required

SEQR steps. A negative or positive declaration cannot occur untit completion of EAF part II

and Ill. The short form of EAF part Il and Ill is not permitted for Type | action per SEQR

regulation. Also following completion of Part Il and II! a 30-day comment period and

Public Hearing should occur. According to SEQR the Board must consider public input

when completing Part Il and lit which was not received until 9/17 and continues to be

provided in this extended Public Hearing.

Ld o q

associated with the plans.

anyone has any questions or discussions we can talk about it.

detail and there are several pages here . Everyone of these 18 items is addressed in detail.

job of going through the individual items with... for part IT that the completion of this is based on

our interpretation of the environmental assessment of the property relying on information

provided not only by BME but also by the other involved agencies in the project that may have

involved comments such as you know, the Town of Webster Conservation Board they gave

concept review comments for this regarding the project. So, the conclusions reached on the part

I] form are those conclusions of the board with reliance and information provided by others.

AUDIENCE MEMBER YELLING OUT. NOT AT THE MIC.

in my opinion, that what Derek just read entailed everything, EVERYTHING, EVERYTHING

that was asked for by all your clients, your associates whoever, and I think with that, I am prepared

to move forward with this project. Simple as that. There’s never becn one that’s been as lengthy

with such a minimal impact on environment, the town, highways, anything. With that, I suggest

we go ahead, and we prepared a determination for SEQR if you want to do that Derek,

CHAIRPERSON AND ATTORNEY HAVING CONVERSATION.

can read it later and they can move forward with whatever plan they have but, in my opinion, this

firm has covered everything between he attorneys and the engineers and | am prepared to move

forward with this project. Simpie as that.

AUDIENCE MEMBER YELLING OUT. NOT AT THE MIC.

Pg. 213 November !2, 2024 Planning Mecting

I don’t know when it was actually received if it was received.

AUDIENCE MEMBER YELLING OUT. NOT AT THE MIC

AUDIENCE MEMBER YELLING OUT. NOT AT THE MIC,

AUDIENCE MEMBER YELLING OUT, NOT AT THE MIC.

that on the record. |] did not receive a letter.

AUDIENCE MEMBER YELLING OUT. NOT AT THE MIC.

AUDIENCE MEMBER YELLING OUT. NOT AT THE MIC.

letter at this meeting that our part IT review of the entire project has address all of your concerns

that you raised in that letter.

were in error. It is 40 foot setback on the corner, so he was right again.

AUDIENCE MEMBER YELLING OUT. NOT AT THE MIC.

Josh Artuso;: And right, route 250 is the major highway. Sage Forest Drive is a town road. It

would not be considered a major highway.

AUDIENCE MEMBER YELLINGOUT. NOT AT THE MIC.

AUDIENCE MEMBER YELLING OUT. NOT AT THE MIC.

Pg. 214 November 12, 2024 Planning Mecting

L

AUDIENCE MEMBER YELLING OUT. NOT AT THE MIC.

this board has taken a hard look at this application, and | think this evening represents our fifth

or sixth public hearing before this board. We have reccived input from the public; input from

involved and interested agencies; input from town staff, and the board itself. This plan has gone

through several iterations of submissions of information back and responding to every comment

that this board deemed necessary for us to respond to so while on one hand we could say we have

been here a year. The fact of the matter is, it epitomizes the fact that this board has taken a hard

look at all of the issues. All of the information has been provided to you in a timely fashion and

when not this board has delayed action or delays meetings until you have had time. Coming here

this evening is the culmination of all that effort and application so that is all 1 would add.

are willing.

ATTACHED) 1 also have attached to the resolution the list of determination of significance

notice a determination of non-significance traditionally we just tncorporate this by reference, if

thal is acceptable. We will! do that instead of reading through the whole list again. Ok and so

that is the resolution.

RESOLUTION 24-0060 Derek Anderson made a motion for TYPE II

SEQR which was seconded by Mark Giardina.

VOTE:

Mr. Anderson AYE

Mr. Kosel AYE

Mr. Malta ABSENT

Mr. Meixell AYE

Mr, Casciani AYE

Mr. Giardina AYE

Mrs. Maltman AYE

As Raja would always say, you had to do and we will base that one, we do have some PRC

comments, and | believe you did have those and those were addressed

Pg. 215 November 12, 2024 Planning Mecting

TOWN OF WEBSTER PLANNING BOARD RESOLUTION

BIRDSONG AT CONIFER COVE SUBDIVISION

SUBDIVISION & SITE PLAN APPLICATION

SBL #065.180-01-027

11/12/2024

SEQR —- DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE RESOLUTION

WHEREAS, the Town of Webster Planning Board (hereinafter referred to as Planning Board), is considering a

Subdivision & Site Plan to develop a new public right-of-way and +610” roadway extension from Webster Road (NYS

Route 250), and a proposed subdivision consisting of eight (8) single-family residential lots and one (1) lot to be

dedicated to the Town of the Town of Webster for the ownership and maintenance of a proposed stormwater

management facility located on Tax Map Number 065.180-01-027, in the Town of Webster, Monroe County, New

York, and as described in the Site Plans dated May 14, 2024, last revised October 22, 2024 and all other relevant

information submitted as of November 12, 2024 (the current application); and

WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined the above referenced Action to be a Type | Action pursuant to Part

617 of the State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) regulations and NYSDOH requirements for Reality

Subdivisions; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Board determined that said Action to be subject to a coordinated review and approval by

other involved agencies under SEQR Regulations; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Board has been designated the lead agency, under the provisions of Part 617.6 (3) and (4)

of article 8 of the State Environmental Conservation Law; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Board has given consideration to the comments provided by the involved agencies and

interested agencies at tonight’s meeting; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Board has given consideration to supplemental information provided by the applicant

regarding the Full Environmental Assessment Form Part 2 and had completed its review of Parts 2 and 3 of the Full

Environmental Assessment Form (EAF); and

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

Section 617.7 (c) of the SEQR Regulations and the information contained in Parts 1, 2 and 3 of the Full EAF.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Board hereby accepts the findings contained im Parts

2 and 3 of the Ful! EAF and directs the Planning Board Chairperson to sign and date the Full EAF Part

3. BE IT FORTHER RESOLVED, based upon the information and analysis above, the supporting documentation

referenced above and for the reasons set forth in the attached Notice of Determination of Non-Significance that the

proposed Action WILL NOT result in any significant adverse environmental impacts and will NOT require an

environmental impact statement.

BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the Planning Board does hereby make a Determination of Non-Significance

on the proposed development, and the Planning Board Chairman is hereby directed to sign the Full Environmental

Assessment Form Part 3 and issue the Negative Declaration as evidence of the Planning Board’s determination.

TOWN OF WEBSTER PLANNING BOARD RESOLUTION

BIRDSONG AT CONIFER COVE SUBDIVISION

SUBDIVISION & SITE PLAN APPLICATION

SBL #065. 180-01 -027

11/42/2024

SEQR — DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE RESGLUTION

NOTICE OF DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE

The Planning Board has reasonably concluded the following results for the proposed action, when compared

against the criteria in Section 617.7(c):

1,

10.

11.

12.

13.

14. 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 does not include on site wells or septic systems.

The proposed action will not have a substantial impact on water supply since the Monroe County Water

Authority has adequate capacity to supply the action.

The proposed action will not have a substantial impact on the sanitary sewer system since the Town of Webster

collection system and treatment plant has adequate capacity to support the action,

The proposed action will not have a substantial adverse change in potential for erosion, flooding, leaching or

drainage problems. Construction practices will conform to accepted storm water management and controls as

required by the New York State Department of Environmenta! Conservation.

The proposed action will not have a substantial adverse change in existing solid waste production since the

proposed action includes eight residential parcels that will produce residential household waste consistent with

residential developments.

The proposed action will not have a substantial adverse change in existing noise, odor or light since the action

does not include new public lighting. Individual properties may include on-site residential lighting that complies

with Town Code.

The proposed action will not have a substantial adverse change, or cumulative change in traffic since the

proposed action limits traffic to eight residential properties directed to NYS Route

250. The proposed action will not have a substantial adverse impact on the criteria listed under Section 617.7(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 will not create an impairment of the criteria listed under Section 617.7(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 resuit in a major change in the type or use of energy since the action does not require an

upgrade to the electrical distribution system.

The action will not create a hazard to human health since it does not contain nor is it located adjacent to existing

sources of hazardous substances or contaminants.

TOWN OF WEBSTER PLANNING BOARD RESOLUTION

BIRDSONG AT CONIFER COVE SUBDIVISION

SUBDIVISION & SITE PLAN APPLICATION

SBL #065, 180-01-027

11/12/2024

SEQR — DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE RESOLUTION

15. The action will not create a substantial change in use of the land since it is consistent with the types of

structures already located in adjacent residential. The action is consistent with 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 since the action is for eight single-family residential properties.

17. The action will not create a cumulative impact on the environment as listed under 617.7(c)(1}(x}, (xi), and (xii) of

SEQR.

;

RESOLUTION 24-0061 Anthony Casciani made 4a motion

for

PRELIMINARY APPROVAL Located between the

east end of Conifer Cove Lane and Webster Road.

Applicant Grove Underhill, LLC is requesting

PRELIMINARY / FINAL SUBDIVISION AND

SITE PLAN APPROVAL (

PUBLIC HEARING

)

associated with the creation of 9 lots for

construction of 8 single family residences and an

associated stormwater management facility on a

5,55-acre parce] having SBL# 065. 18-1-27 located

in an R-3 Single Family Residential District under

Sections 269-11, 296-20 and 350-12 of the Code of

the Town of Webster which was seconded by Mark

Giardina.

PRELIMINARY _ APPROVAL

wR YN

oe

Subject to PRC comments

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

Subject to Conservation Board comments.

Subject to MCWA comments.

Subject to the determination of the ZBA for requested variances. No variances

requested so we don’t need that.

Address any land to be conveyed to the Town, Which would be the drainage

section

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 the mature trees on the site, where possible, (these were

accomplished in their environmental impact statement and shows on

their drawings where trees are being preserved) and mark said trees by

the developer's engineer prior to the commencing of any site work.

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

12. Applicant has addressed drainage, lighting, signage (No signage we haven’t

done anything with signage.), landscaping, buffering, berming, and snow

storage. We have covered that and covered it well.

. 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

Pg. 216 November 12, 2024 Planning Meeting

14. Approvals are subject to Drawing No:2910 (and this project has complied to all

town codes) One thing I would like to put in there,

addition to it is, if there is a proposal to sell

any lots to individual developers that there is

unity in the development. Another word,

elevations are to be maintained finished floor

elevations. Whatever that drawing shows, that’s

what it has to be. Somebody isn’t going to just

go down halfway and raise the house and that

kind of thing, so I want to see that in your final

drawings.

15. Proceed to Final approval.

VOTE:

Mr. Anderson AYE

Mr. Kosel AYE

Mr. Malta ABSENT

Mr. Meixell AYE

Mr. Casciani AYE

Mr. Giardina AYE

Mrs. Maltman AYE

RESOLUTION 24-0062 Anthony Casciani made a motion for FINAL

APPROVAL Located between the cast end of

Conifer Cove Lane and Webster Road. Applicant

Grove Underhill, LLC is requesting

PRELIMINARY / FINAL SUBDIVISION AND

SITE PLAN APPROVAL (

PUBLIC HEARING

)

associated with the creation of 9 lots for

construction of 8 single family residences and an

associated stormwater management facility on a

5.55-acre parcel having SBL# 065.18-1-27 located

in an R-3 Single Family Residential District under

Sections 269-J 1, 296-20 and 350-12 of the Code of

the Town of Webster which was seconded by Derek

Meixell.

on there.

FINAL APPROVAL

1. Subject to Project Review Committee comments

2. Subject to Parks and Recreation fees. (which would be determined by the town

board)

Pg. 217 November 12, 2024 Planning Meeting

Subject to Preliminary Approval conditions.

Subject to all applicable governmental fees.

Subject to Department of Public Works approvals.

Significant construction shall occur within one year, as deemed by the

Planning Board, to expire on November 12, 2025

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

of the final designed plans.

8. The Engincer 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 tssued.

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. (that’s all your drainage

swales and so on)

11. All downspouts to be connected to the storm sewer system,

12. Subject to resolution of final approved minutes,

13. Approvals are subject to Drawing No: 2910

Dw sw

VOTE:

Mr. Anderson AYE

Mr. Kosel AYE

Mr. Malta ABSENT

Mr. Meixell AYE

Mr. Casciani AYE

Mr. Giardina AYE

Mrs. Maltman AYE

some that it didn’t work out the way everybody wanted but we did what we have to do, J am

going to call for a 5 minute recess.

(Mark Giardina read the fourth application)

Dobbins is requesting PRELIMARY/FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL (PUBLIC

HEARING) associated with the demolition of an existing garage and shed to be replaced with

the construction of a new 22 x 30 (660 SF) detached garage structure on a 0.25-acre parcel

having SBL# 065.18-1-9 located in an R-3 Single under Sections 269-1 | and 350-36 of the Code

of the Town of Webster.

Appearing before the board was Thomas Dobbins. We got Zoning Board approval for this. We

are moving the garage over and 3 feet off the property line and making sure it 1s 6 feet back from

the house. A number of the properties in the area have larger garages than the 500 sf that we are

asking for, Presently we can’t really move it up much further because there is a handicapped

Pg. 218 November 12, 2024 Planning Mecting

ramp there if you look at the picture there and we presently build wheelchairs for handicapped

children, and we have done about 3,000 of them so far. The garage is in poor repair. It doesn’t

really have a good foundation under it, and it just needs some more storage space.

with it. You received your variances. Anyone have any questions about this. THE BOARD

RESPONDED NO. And you are going to make it to match the house. Similar to what the house

is.

house.

the existing garage door on the new building. It’s an old garage door.

there was no tape location map for the property. We did a tape location map, so the town has one

now. | did provide a number of properties in the area that have larger.............

buy it back. I got your message. (LAUGHTER)

RESOLUTION 24-0063 Derek Anderson made a motion for TYPE II

SEQR which was seconded by Derck Meixell.

VOTE:

Mr. Anderson AYE

Mr. Kosel AYE

Mr. Malta ABSENT

Mr. Meixell AYE

Mr. Casciam AYE

Mr. Giardina AYE

Pg. 219 November 12, 2024 Planning Mecting

[

Mrs. Maltinan AYE

RESOLUTION 24-0064 Anthony Casciani made a motion for FINAL

APPROVAL Located at 786 Webster Road.

Applicant Thomas Dobbins is requesting FINAL

SITE PLAN APPROVAL (

PUBLIC HEARING

)

associated with the demolition of an existing garage

and shed to be replaced with the construction of a

new 22 x 30 (660 SF) detached garage structure on

a 0.25-acre parcel having SBL# 065.18-1-9 located

in an R-3 Single under Sections 269-11 and 350-36

of the Code of the Town of Webster which was

seconded by Mark Giardina.

CONDITIONS:

e Has received variances from the ZBA

°® The building will be built pole barn style with the same type garage door in the front and

color is basically going too match the house

VOTE:

Mr. Anderson AYE

Mr. Kosel AYE

Mr. Malta ABSENT

Mr. Meixell AYE

Mr. Casciani AYE

Mr. Giardina AYE

Mrs. Maltman AYE

(Mark Giardina read the fifth application)

Benny Tortorici is requesting PRELIMINARY/FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL (PUBLIC

HEARING) associated with the installation of 4 Level 3 DCFC electric vehicle charging stations

within Towne Center Plaza ona [5.14- acre parcel having SBL#079.16-1-2.11 located in an HC

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

of Webster.

Appearing before the board was Benny Tortorict with PISO, Design Engineer and I am here with

Ginger Beaudoin, ChargePoint Representative and as we described, we are looking to put in 4

chargers. The entire system will consist of uulity transformer; a switchboard; two cabinets to

serve the 4 chargers and then the 4 chargers themselves. Bollards will be on the 4 chargers as

listed in the drawings and bollards covering the entire transformer surroundings. This particular

section doesn’t interrupt any of the existing landscaping, but it is also utilized in a manner that it

doesn’t make tt terribly obvious that they're there.

Pg. 220 November 12, 2024 Planning Meeting

greenery and fortunately that is space we can use it to our advantage. If signage is required

elsewhere to kind of let people know that is where the chargers are located, we can do that but

generally that’s the entirety of the project that we’re seeking to install.

well fit.

additional lighting is required, we can certainly put one more pole in just to add to the lighting

but there us sufficient lighting that exists there now.

How do you....do you have to run electric out there or....

image, there is an existing transformer just on the other side of the road that is there. We work

with RGE who are willing to pull off an extra set for us off of that transformer that feeds our

location. We would be separate metered, so they don’t have an issue with that, and we would be

the only people, tenant on that.

drawing we have it just shows the location but what not where about.

these whole things are new so they are not specifically named in the town code so ] guess my

question is that would we as a board consider it more or less equivalent to a gasoline charging

station. Like a gas station from perspective of providing fuel to a vehicle this case clectricily.

Because that makes it, so is covered underneath the Zoning for the property because right now

when you look at the zoning for each of the parcels that we have for the different classes we have,

electrical substation or clectrical charging stations aren’t addressed. The closest thing which is

allowed in this area is a gasoline station.

to similar use in the areca because that’s one thing that the code says if we consider it equivalent

then.

Pg. 221 November 12, 2024 Planning Mccting

it is not listed surprisingly right now on the current SEQR documents. The last update they had I

was surprised that they didn’t do it.

RESOLUTION 24-0067 Derek Anderson made a motion for UNLISTED

ACTION NEGATIVE DECLARATION which

was seconded by Derek Meixell.

VOTE:

Mr. Anderson AYE

Mr. Kosel AYE

Mr. Malta ABSENT

Mr. Meixell AYE

Mr. Casciani AYE

Mr. Giardina AYE

Mrs. Maliman AYE

opened it to the public.

close the public hearing.

somebody does someone want to make a motion for preliminary.

RESOLUTION 24-0065 John Koset made a motion for PRELIMINARY

Applicant Benny Tortoric) is requesting

PRELIMINARY/FINAL SITE PLAN

APPROVAL (

PUBLIC HEARING

) associated

with the installation of 4 Level 3 DCFC electric

vehicle charging stations within Towne Center

Plaza on a 15. f4- acre parcel having SBL# 079.16

{-2.11 located in an HC High Intensity Commercial

District under Section 269-11 and 350-19 of the

Code of the Town of Webster which was seconded

by Derek Meixell.

Pg. 222 November 12, 2024 Planning Mecting

VOTE:

Mr. Anderson AYE

Mr. Kosel AYE

Mr. Malta ABSENT

Mr. Meixeil AYE

Mr. Casciani AYE

Mr. Giardina AYE

Mrs. Maltman AYE

RESOLUTION 24-0066 John Kosel made a motion for FINALAPPROVAL

Located at 1058 Ridge Road. Applicant Benny

Tortorici is requesting PRELIMINARY/FINAL

SITE PLAN APPROVAL (

PUBLIC HEARING

)

associated with the installation of 4 Level 3 DCFC

electric vehicle charging stations within Towne

Center Plaza on a 15.14- acre parcel having SBL#

079.16-1-2.1! located in an HC High Intensity

Commercial District under Section 269-11 and 350-

19 of the Code of the Town of Webster which was

seconded by Derek Meixell.

FINAL APPROVAL

1. Subject to Project Review Committee comments

2. Subject to Preliminary Approval conditions.

3. Subject to all applicable governmental fees.

4. Significant construction shall occur within one year, as deemed by the

Planning Board, to expire on November 12, 2025

5. Subject to resolution of final approved minutes.

VOTE:

Mr. Anderson AYE

Mr. Kosel AYE

Mr. Matta ABSENT

Mr. Meixell AYE

Mr. Casciani AYE

Mr. Giardina AYE

Mrs. Maltman AYE

(Mark Giardina read the sixth application)

requesting PRELIMINARY/FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL (

PUBLIC HEARING

)

associated with construction of a 22° x 28° (672 SF) detached pole barn garage on a 0.52-acre

parcel having SBL# 063.19-1-9.1 located in an R-3 Single Family Residential District under

Pg. 223 November 12, 2024 Planning Mecting

Section 269-1! and 350-36 of the Code of the Town of Webster.

Appearing before the board was Ray Schlegel.

us about it.

house. (PASSING OUT THE SAMPLES OF WHAT THE APPLICANT PROVIDED)

28. Ray Schlegel: 24 x 28

originally 30 was it.

28. Anthony Casciani: And the Jocation doesn’t conform for an accessory building, but] guess you

received the variances on it right.

Pg. 224 November 12, 2024 Planning Meeting

regard to this, Ok, no one will close the public hearing.

RESOLUTION 24-0067 Derek Anderson made a motion for TYPE II

ACTION which was seconded by Derek Mcixell.

Environmental Qualily Review

VOTE:

Mr. Anderson AYE

Mr. Kosel AYE

Mr. Malta ABSENT

Mr. Meixell AYE

Mr. Casciani AYE

Mr. Giardina AYE

Mes. Maltman AYE

RESOLUTION 24-0068 John Kosel made a motion for PRELIMINARY

PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL

(

PUBLIC HEARING

) associated with

construction of a 24° x 28° (672 SF) detached pole

barn garage on a 0.52-acre parcel having SBL#

063.19-1-9.) located in an R-3 Single Family

Residential District under Section 269-11 and 350-

36 of the Code of the Town of Webster which was

seconded by Mark Giardina.

Pg. 225 November 12, 2024 Planning Meeting

1. Subject to PRC comments

2. He has obtained all the necessary variances

3. All the improvements shall be constructed according to the specification of the

Town of Webster.

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

[ PRELIMINARY APPROVAL

VOTE:

Mr. Anderson AYE

Mr. Kosel AYE

Mr. Malta ABSENT

Mr. Meixell AYE

Mr. Casciani AYE

Mr. Giardina AYE

Mrs. Maltman AYE

RESOLUTION 24-0069 John Kosel made a motion for FINAL

APPROVAL ~— Located at 751 Maple Drive.

Applicant Ray Schlegel is requesting FINAL SITE

PLAN APPROVAL (

PUBLIC HEARING

)

associated with construction of a 24’ x 28’ (672 SF)

| detached pole barn garage on a 0.52-acre parcel

having SBL# 063.19-1-9.1 located in an R-3 Single

Family Residential District under Section 269-] |

and 350-36 of the Code of the Town of Webster

which was seconded by Derek Meixell.

FINAL APPROVAL

1. Subject to Project Review Committee comments

Subject to Preliminary Approval conditions.

Significant construction shall occur within one year, as deemed by the

Planning Board, to expire on November 12, 2025

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

of the final designed plans.

5. Subject to resolution of final approved minutes.

VOTE:

Mr. Anderson AYE

Mr. Kosel AYE

[ Mr. Malta ABSENT

Pg. 226 November 12, 2024 Planning Meeting

Mr. Meixell AYE

Mr. Casciani AYE

Mr. Giardina AYE

Mrs. Maltman AYE

(Mark Giardina read the seventh application)

Farrow is requesting PRELIMINARY/FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL (PUBLIC

HEARING) associated with the interior fit out of a new grocery store in Webster Plaza including

minor exterior changes on a 17.03-acre parcel having SBL# 079.15-1-3.1 located in an HC High

Intensity Commercial District under Section 269-11] and 350-19 of the Code of the Town of

Webster.

Appearing before the board was Ivan Hinoy and | work for Greenberg Farrow who’s the architect

for Grocery Outlet. ] could give a brief description of Grocery Outlet. They are a bargain market

which is a full service grocery store which offers the very best fresh produce, meat, and organic

products. They carry NASH which is an abbreviation for natural organic specialty and healthy

discounted food. The project includes a full tenant buildout for the interior. The existing space

from our understanding has been empty for 10 plus years. All interior construction and finishes

will be brand new, and we are doing a few minor exterior improvements which include new

automatic sliding entry doors with protective bollards; new overhead roll up door for on grade

receiving; anew metal canopy over that roll up door, and painting of the exterior as we show on

the exterior elevation. ] can answer any questions about the drawings.

vendor. It’s not included as part of this application.

parking. How do you designate the parking in there. Is there...like you know that color me thing

there, do they get designated parking spots, or you don’t know maybe.

{cnant space, so you know, whatever parking is already there is assumed to be enough. I will say

that all of the loading will be at the back of the building. We are not going to cause any further

congestion and do to that, we don’t believe it 10 be an issue because generally speaking, the

grocery outlet customers are not occupying the parking lot for a long period of time. The average

customer goes in and out quick out of the building fairly quickly.

Pg. 227 November !2, 2024 Planning Meeting

actually the loading dock for the adjacent tenant which if. | believe it’s...I forgot what it is but

.. Savers, exactly. Ours is slightly above that. Yes, that space where you have the mouse over

right now. That is just on grade loading.

It is shown directly in front of the space.

looked at anything like Aldi’s. I think that is one of the nicest setups. Where people put a quarter

and get il because this parking lot, you surely don’t want to have carts left out in the parking lot.

They don’t have the area at least I didn’t see it. They used to have it at the side of the building

by the front door and there is nothing there. People were taking the shopping carts and going to

their cars.

the...... EVERYONE SPEAKING AT ONCE.

Augusta wind’s are going to blow a shopping cart into the side of the car and scratch it all up and

you are going to have a lot of upset people.

do they do with it then.

the owners will put that in after the fact.

(NOT SURE IF IT’S Peggy Maltman SPEAKING, CAMERA IS ON THE PLANS): Yes,

Pe. 228 November 12, 2024 Planning Mecting

because I] don’t know where they are going to fit in this parking lot.

need more than just (wo spaces to put a cart in as your leaving because as I said again, you’re

going to end up in a Situation where cars are going to get damages because someone left a cart

out and the wind gust blew it into the side of the car and scratched it up or did more serious

damage.

of money spent per customer on average they only spend about $30.00 dollars per visit which in

some, you know most cases wouldn’t even require you to use a shopping cart, so they typically

don’t have too many of those cart corrals and we’re hoping it won't be an issuc.

I think that’s what my wife carries when she goes shopping and instead of the carts have the carry

bags.

grocery outlets right now isn’t there.

doing on in Irondequoit I believe that’s how it’s pronounced.

the carts there.

parking lot but we do also have that one on the sidewalk that we are showing there which you

know, should be able to fit all the carts necessary for the store.

spaces there for the carts. At least one to start with if you need to have 2 you might have to, we

don’t know.

them and the other are on....Josh, have you got a picture of that front again and just...there is not

an overhead of it is there. Pm just curious, how big is that sidewalk in the front where they

can....another works, if you put carts is there sull room to negotiate walking...there you go. So,

Pg. 229 November 12, 2024 Planning Meeting

that would be in that corner maybe.

to the right of the entry.

it figured out and there’s room there just how to lay it out. Anybody, any other issues. I think that

was a good one...was the parking though. Is there anyone here wishing to speak wither for or

against this. I don’t want you girls arguing. If you want to come up you can.

SOMEONE IN THE AUDIENCE YELLING OUT TO SWITH THE PLANS ON THE SCREEN

TO THE “COLORFUL” ONE. ASKING ABOUR WHEELCHAIR ACCESS.

Anybody any concerns with this.

is no issues with it. Is an existing building and the building is in great shape and it’s good to

see the building occupied too. That’s a plus for it. Alright, go ahead and do a...

(SEE ATTACHED)

RESOLUTION 24-0070 Derek Anderson made a motion for UNLISTED

ACTION which was seconded by Derek Meixell.

VOTE:

Mr. Anderson AYE

Mr. Kosel AYE

Mr. Malta ABSENT

Mr. Meixell AYE

Mr. Casciani AYE

Mr. Giardina AYE

Mrs. Maltman AYE

RESOLUTION 24-0071 John Kosel made a motion for PRELIMINARY

APPROVAL Located at 980 Ridge Road. Applicant

Cindy Caltlaghan/Greenberg Farrow is requesting

PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL

(

PUBLIC HEARING

) associated with the intertor

fit out of a new grocery store in Webster Plaza

including minor exterior changes on a 17.03-acre

parce] having SBL# 079.15-1-3.1 located in an HC

Pg. 230 November !2, 2024 Planning Meeting

High Intensity Commercial District under Section

269-1] and 350-19 of the Code of the Town of

Webster which was seconded by Derek Meixell.

PRELIMINARY APPROVAL

. Subject to PRC comments

2. All the improvements shall be constructed according to the specification of the

Town of Webster.

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

A space for grocery carts potentially more in the parking lot.

5. Proceed to Final approval.

i

si

VOTE:

Mr. Anderson AYE

Mr. Kosel AYE

Mr. Malta ABSENT

Mr. Meixell AYE

Mr. Casciani AYE

Mr. Giardina AYE

Mrs. Maltman AYE

RESOLUTION 24-0072 John Kosel made a motion for FINAL APPROVAL

Located at 980 Ridge Road. Applicant Cindy

Callaghan/Greenberg Farrow is requesting FINAL

SITE PLAN APPROVAL (

PUBLIC HEARING

)

associated with the interior fit out of a new grocery

store in Webster Plaza including minor exterior

changes on a 17.03-acre parcel having SBL#

079.15-1-3.1 located in an HC High Intensity

Commercial District under Section 269-11 and 350

19 of the Code of the Town of Webster which was

seconded by Derek Meixcll.

HECKLIST FOR FINAL APPROVAL

1. Subject to Preliminary Approval conditions.

2. Subject to all applicable governmental fees.

3. Significant construction shall occur within one year, as deemed by the

Planning Board, to expire on 11.12.25

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

of the final designed plans.

5. Subject to resolution of tinal approved minutes.

Pg. 231 November 12, 2024 Planning Mecting

VOTE:

Mr. Anderson AYE

Mr. Kosel AYE

Mr. Malla ABSENT

Mr. Meixell AYE

Mr. Casciani AYE

Mr. Giardina AYE

Mes. Maltman AYE

(Mark Giardina read the eighth application)

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

Epps, Brickwood Management is requesting SKETCH PLAN REVIEW associated with the

construction of a 3 story / 47-unit market rate residential apartment building on a 5.0-acre parcel

having SBL# 079.15-1- 8.003/SEN2 located in an MHR Medium High Residential District under

Section 269-5 of the Code of the Town of Webster.

Appearing before the board was Jake Calabrese with Marathon Engineering and Luke Von Epps

with Brickwood Management and we are here to present the Cobblestone Phase II project. To

give you a little background before we jump into it is it was previously designed by Passero

Associates as a senior 2-phase facility. As you can see up on the screen, phase 1 was completed,

or I believe approved by the board around 2015 and as well with phase II, but the existing

developer was only able to get funding for tax credit purposed for the senior living for phase I.

So, that is why they have parceled off kind of the 2 buildings as you can see the existing and the

proposed and yeah, thanks Josh for outlining the new property line. So, we are now proposing to

take that building layout, and we are going to do a 3 story 47 unit apartment complex with... it

will be market rate and no age restrictions in the new proposed building . The variances, just to

kind of walk through them that were approved in 2015. I'll just run through kind of the code as

well as the others. So, the units per the town code is 8 units per acre. Initially back in 2015 it was

approved for 12 units per acre and now we are going below that to a 9.4 units per acre. It’s a5

acre just lo give you a little reference. Parking as well and the code is 2 spots per unit and then

back in 2015 it was approved at 1.1 spaces per unil, and we are going to propose a 1.8 spots per

unit and then kind of to go back to that property line that was newly formed that is going to be a

variance thal we are going to necd to go to the Zoning Board for. It is going to be considered a

front setback. It is roughly at 17 feet with that being said it’s very similar to....actually, the

building that we are proposing is in within reason the exact same building layout as it was back

in 2015, so it is kind of a mirror image across thal access road.

Stormwater, that was planned for in the Passero plans back in 2015, so we are just going to utilize

that and send all our stormwater to that treatment facility, and | believe on our end, that is all I

got. Do you have anything to add at this point.

SOMEONE SPEAKING, NOT USING THE MIC: Originatly, I believe this building was

approved...

Pg, 232 November 12, 2024 Planning Mecting

apartments for senior living and we have reworked it to be a mix of 80% 2-bedrooms and 20%

1- bedroom and that a brought the unit countdown to 47 and as far as the parking issues there ‘s

also, in the building, or the first level there are also garages as for some of the units and there are

10 garages as well to add to the parking which [ don’t believe is included in that 1.8 count so that

is a litte additional parking on top of that as well.

so we are going to be at 84, sorry. 84 spaces plus the 10 within the building.

limit the amount of pavement so on the and it would be the east side and we kind of bumped back

that buffer as well from the south of the property. Yes exactly, so those areas are from the 2015

plans. Those have been expanded to have a little bit more green space.

amenity | mean or benches; tables or anything.

pul like a gazebo and some picnic tables. The sites a little limited by but we try to utilize the

green space as much as possible and we usually do that, and we are also a construction company,

but we are also the management company as well. So, we'll be managing this property after the

fact, so we typically try to put as many amenitics in the space as possible.

them at all. There are only a few of them. | don’t know if you have a copy of then. Here, I can

give you this, Here you can take them and address them... there’s nothing earth shattering there

under.

and I think we're proposing 25 but again, we have good real estate to get that done that should be

no issue and I know during our initial conversation with the town is that the water was brough up

on whether that will be private or not and we'll work with the water authority to try and have

them take over ownership but if not, we'll have to just do similar to what was done | believe for

Pg. 233 November 12, 2024 Planning Mecting

phase I which is hot box and have that piped and then and as it says here, we can work on trying

to keep those or we can get those manholes to remain private. I believe those manholes are going

to be sanitary.

owner and then they just parceled it off.

like it would be their road to access your development.

Ravenside, sorry Ravenside Lane and then we will have the vehicle, sorry, the emergency vehicle

access throughout the entire site so as you can sec there’s kind of a loop road around the building.

there is any kind of restrictions or things we should be aware of from the original approval that

may impact this.

or 50 year agreement that the former, the original developer engaged in with the federal

government for the tax credits and there was some language that it had to be age and income

restricted for a period of 40-50 years. So, when we brought that to the real estate agent who was

marketing the property's attention, they went back to VOA, and they provide confirmation that

the original agreement had been amended to exclude the remaining lands that never got built

upon. So, that is the only thing that I was aware of.

Pg. 234 November 12, 2024 Planning Meeting

will puta site for garbage and a dumpster utility area.

about or is there an option to have a generator for power in case power goes out especially if this

is for people, my age.

can look into it to see if that 1s something that we can add to it.

WANT TO TALK.

Mary Randall at 1023 Cobblestone Lane: in apartment 307 so | am up in the birds nest. We have

alot of concerns. The concerns are, | believe the eldest person in our place is 90 years old and

she uses a rolator. A lot of us use canes and rolators to go io our cars. This is going to be family

structure with children. And are they going to have bicycles and skateboards.

Mary Randall at 1023 Cobblestone Lane: This is a problem. Bicycles and schoo] buses and when

you look at...there’s a lot like I said, there’s a lot of concerns. We get a lot of deliveries. Every

day Amazon is in there; Fed-Ex, all kinds of deliveries. Food deliveries.

AUDIENCE MEMBERS TALKING OUT LOUD.

1. Mary Randall: I have done this sort of thing over the years. My father was an attorney, and my

husband was on a board on a village board so I have done a lot of this but anyhow, sce that first

curve, that 90 degree curve coming in, you can’t get a car and there is parking spaces there and

people do park there whether they're visitors or whether they live there. You can’t get a FedEx

van and a car around that corner at the same time. You go down to the other end and there’s

another one. There’s a, what is it, the U-Haul place there so there’s another 90* turn there. You

can’t get acar and a van around that we have those problems all through that particular area even

on, what is il, coming in, Harmony, there is a 90* turn there. If you get those big honking pickup

Pg. 235 November 12, 2024 Planning Meeting

trucks and all sorts of things and you get people walking. There’s kids that walk home from

schoo] there, ] mean we got a lot of traffic in that area and all you're doing here is again, adding

more traffic and it’s going to cause a lot of unhappy people in there because of it being elderly.

We are used to it being quiet . I live in the front side of Ravenside up on the 3™ floor. I get to

see the deer and Hank and Millie the gophers.

so they'll redesign, and they will change things. This is just.a sketch of what they are proposing.

o'clock, they’ tow our cars away out here.

AUDIENCE MEMBERS SPEAKING OUT.

AUDIENCE MEMBERS SPEAKING OUT.

AUDIENCE MEMBERS KEEP SPEAKING OUT.

Anthony Casciant; Thank you ladies. Have a good night. Is there anything else. She brought up

a point about the curve in the road there . It looks like a standard ordinary curve though isn’t it.

know if it necessarily falls on our design unfortunately.

for...

Pg. 236 November 12, 2024 Planning Mecting

upcoming or the 19 so we will get on that and then probably soon after give more of a

preliminary final application in the next couple months. Awesome and thank you very much for

your time.

(Mark Giardina read the eighth application)

SKETCH PLAN REVIEW associated with the construction of a 1,400 sq. ft (50 x 28) enclosed

addition for vehicle service area entry and building facade improvements on a 2.4-acre parcel

having SBL# 079.17-1-20 located in the MC Medium-Intensity Commercial District under

Section 269-5 of the Code of the Town of Webster.

Appearing before the board was Linc Swedrock with BME Associates. ['m not going to talk a

lot, and Pi] talk quick and do my best here. So, we were here back in June for this project, and it

hasn’t ...basically, you had a lot of concerns, and the town had a lot of concerns about the site

and the operation of the site. The applicant has since purchased additional property and moved

100 cars off the site and is loading and unloading at the other location now NOT loading and

unloading on Ridge Road which is one of the concerns that the town had. This is a new owner,

they purchased it in September 9, 2022 so they are trying to work with the town trying to make

sure that they are listening and doing the things that the town is looking for. We met staff out

there for a meeting out there in September and went through the concerns that the town had.

This plan had been revised to sort of further delineate access around the building and how we are

delineating for the new building edition. This building addition is for dropping off vehicles so

people when they’re dropping off their vehicles for service they know where to go because right

now a lot of confusion and congestion is coming because they don’t know where to drop their

vehicles off. This gives them somewhere to go. Pult in the garage and get out of your car; give

their keys to the desk; drop their car off for service and then they can go on their way with their

day.

So, this is the same we are just doing facade improvements; and that building addition which is

just mainly for, like I said, dropping off cars for service. There were formerly variances granted,

the 50 ft rear setback line was granted by the ZBA in August of 2017 and then there was another

variance that was done on the property line to the west to reduce that setback that the ZBA

granted a variance for that’s on the approved original site plan. We have tried to....we’re trying

to honor the setbacks that were originally approved, and we did go back and look at that back

area there is a berm that’s there is between that residential area and there is a good buffer there

and it does look like there some stone that gocs over that buffer that we are planning to remove

and then we’ve tried to delineate all this on the site plan, and this is the sketch plan. So, if you

think we're going in the right direction. I'll stop talking and well come back for site plan and

answer any question you gol.

Pg. 237 November 12, 2024 Planning Meeting

was the buffer in the back and they do meet the buffer in the rear and it’s heavily vegetated. You

can’t even see through it there and apparently the applicant has bought another piece of land

somewhere because one of the issues we always had were vehicles parked there you know on the

road unloading and now there is no unloading of vehicles.

showing where the 25 foot pass way is there this is a whole lot better than when they first came

in with it,

plan as well.

pine maintenance agreement.

other parcel. ] don’t know what kind of agreement there was for the whole thing. That is quite a

large detention pond right there.

Anybody any concerns or question on that. Do you have the PRC comments on it?

have missed a few.

Pg. 238 November 12, 2024 Planning Meeting

times over the years and at one time they were going to put a bump out on the east side of the

building.

rebuilt.

be il.

it goes all the way down.

inside at one point. | just don’t ever remember it being built.

I don’t know if that was done for the service space.

17, 2024; and October |, 2024

(M. GIARDINA/J. KOSEL)

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

mecting at 10:05 PM.

Respectfully Submitted,

Signed Leds AF t—~_ Dated JAW 7, ore

Mark Giardina, Secretary

Katherine Kolich, Recording Secretary

Pg. 239 November 12, 2024 Planning Meeting