WEBSTER TOWN PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
Webster Town Board Meeting Room 1002 Ridge Road
7:00 p.m.
3 September 2024
ABSENT:
Anthony Casciani, Chairman
Dave Malta, Vice Chairman
Mark Giardina, Secretary
Derek Anderson
John Kosel
Peggy Maltman
Derek Meixell
Josh Artuso
Katherine Kolich, Recording Secretary
Kyle Taylor, Attorney
Welcome to the September 3, 2024 Webster Planning Board meeting.
Pledge of Allegiance/Roll Call
We have 2 tabled matters on the agenda and one of them, The Human Bean
Drive Thru Café have asked to be tabled again. So, J] don’t know if anyone is here for that, but
this will not be heard tonight. Everything is ok but 1 would actually like to make one change, if
everyone is ok with this. The first one was Lochner, but we also have number 3 on the regular
scheduled matters, Splash Car Wash.
Summary overview of outcome:
TABLED MATTERS
:
LOCHNER SUBDIVISION
McMahon LaRue
APPROVED W/CONDITIONS: SUBJECT TO PRC COMMENTS.
1-YEAR MEANINGFUL CONSTRUCTION.
ENGINEER CERTIFICATION THAT PROJECT WAS COMPLETED PER PLAN
HUMAN BEAN DRIVE THRU CAFE
The Lambent Waft, LLC
TABLED TO THE OCTOBER 1, 2024, MEETING.
SCHEDULED MATTERS
:
708 HARD ROAD-ASSEMBLY OF GOD-SIGN:
Jamie Catalano
Pg. 125 September 3, 2024 Planning Meeting
APPROVED W/CONDITION: ADD STREET ADDRESS NUMBER TO
FACE OF SIGN
943 COPPER KETTLE ROAD-ACCESSORY APARTMENT
Thaddeus Okolowicz III
APPROVED AS PRESENTED: ACCESSORY APARTMENT AGREEMENT
REQUIRED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION
SPLASH CAR WASH-1 YEAR EXTENSION
Fox Five LLC
1- YEAR EXTENSION APPROVED; THIS WILL BE THE LAST EXTENSION
GRANTED
WATERVIEW APARTMENTS-PHASE 3
Legacy Development Co.
FEEDBACK PROVIDED; PROJECT PROCEEDS TO ZONING BOARD OF
APPEALS ON SEPTEMBER 10, 2024 FOR CONSIDERATION OF VARIANCES
(Mark Giardina read the first application):
Located just west of 1854 Lake Road. Applicant McMahon
LaRue Associates is requesting PRELIMINARY/FINAL SITE PLAN & SUBDIVISION
APPROVAL (
PUBLIC HEARING
) associated with the re subdivision of a 21.8-acre parcel
into (2) 3-acre lots (to be developed with single family residences) and (1} 15.8-acre lot (to
remain undeveloped) having SBL# 037.03-1-36 located in an LL Large Lot Single Family
Residential District under Sections 269-11 and 296-15 of the Code of the Town of Webster.
Appearing before the board was Al LaRue with McMahon LaRue Associates. We finally got the
Corp of Engineers to stipulate that the wetlands are not a jurisdictional wetland so with that we
are moving forward with the plans. We think we have addressed all the comments at the formal
meeting that we had with PRC and the formal comments that we have received and so with that,
Jeanette and Tim are here and can answer any questions that you may have from the owners so
with that I will entertain any questions that you might have.
Why don’t you just bring us up a little bit. I think we may have one new
person here since this application was in. You have lot | which is the larger one; 3 & 4 and then
where was the entrance going to be for lot 1 that was going to the west side of the property, was
it.
Yes, lot | comes directly off the private drive. We are trying to avoid any more curb
cults; counly access permits and we are trying not to overwhelm the existing private drive there
to.
Yes, we went through all this its...the issue with this is mainly the drainage
and stuff? Wasn't that the biggest thing?
Pg. 126 Scptember 3, 2024 Planning Meeting
Yes. These are alternate systems so they have to be 100 feet from the property line
and (NOT SPEAKING CLEARLY) that could cause an issue (CAN NOT UNDERSTAND
WHAT HE IS SAYING) front setback and that sort of thing so and then drainage was not much
of a problem because we had some ( NOT SPEAKING CLEARLY) so it was just the fact that
we had that they systems had to be 100 feet away from the property line.
Anybody....I know Derek, you had a couple questions last time in regard to
it. Are you ok with this?
Yes, my questions (NOT SPEAKING LOUD ENOUGH) primarily deal with
the wetland and that has been resolved.
Ok, this is a public hearing so if anyone wishes to speak for or against this
project. Ok, not seeing any, we will close the public hearing and bring it back to the board.
Derek Anderson:
MOTION FOR UNLISTED ACTION
Town of Webster Planning Board considered the request by Applicant, McMahon LaRue, for the
re-subdivision of a 21,8-acre parcel into (2) 3-acre lots and (1) 15.8-acre lot having SBL#
037.03-1-36 located in an LL Large Lot Single Family Residential District located west of 1854
Lake Road, and to provide access to 1854 Lake Road, and existing 4.375-acre parcel having
SBL# 37.03-01-035.
The Planning Board determined that the proposed action is an Unlisted Action under Part 617:
State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR).
The Planning Board determined that the action is subject to a single agency review pursuant to
Part 617.6(b)(1) of SEQR and that it is the most appropriate agency for making the determination
of significance. The Planning Board therefore designates itself lead agency for the proposed
action.
The Planning Board has given consideration (o the criteria for determining significance as set
forth in Section 617.7(c)(1) of SEQR, and has
1. considered the information contained in the Short Environmental Assessment Form Part
I dated October 17, 2023,
2. considered public comments directed to the Planning Board during the Public Hearings
on November 7, 2023 and September 3, 2024, and
3. completed Parts 2 and 3 of the Environmental Assessment Form.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the TOWN OF WEBSTER PLANNING
BOARD hereby determines that the proposed action will not have a significant adverse effect on
Pg. 127 September 3, 2024 Planning Mecting
the environment for the reasons set forth in the attached Notice of Determination of Non
Significance; be it further,
RESOLVED that the TOWN OF WEBSTER PLANNING BOARD is authorized to take all
actions reasonable and necessary to file the Negative Declaration and discharge the TOWN OF
WEBSTER PLANNING BOARD’S responsibility as lead agency for this action, be it further,
RESOLVED that the TOWNOF WEBSTER PLANNING BOARD, based on the information
and analysis above, the referenced supporting documentation, and discussions of the action by
the TOWN OF WEBSTER PLANNING BOARD as documented by the Minutes for this
meeting, that the proposed acion WILL NOT result in any significant environmental impacts, be
it further,
RESOLVED that the TOWN OF WEBSTER PLANNING BOARD, therefore makes a
DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE, be it further,
RESOLVED, that the TOWN OF WEBSTER PLANNING BOARD, based on the above reasons
issues a NEGATIVE DECLARATION as evidence of its determination.
LOCHNER SUBDIVISON
NOTICE OF DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE
The Planning Board has reasonably concluded the following results from the proposed action,
when compared against the cnteria in Section 617.7(c):
1. The proposed action will not have a substantial adverse change in air quality since it does
not include a regulated emission source.
2. The proposed actionwill not have a substanuial adverse change in ground or surface
water quality or quantity since the proposed action includes septic systems designed to
current Department of Health Standards.
3. Water will be supplied by the Monroe County Water Authority which has adequate
capacity to support the action.
Wastewater will be treated by individual on-site septic systems.
The proposed action will not have a substantial adverse change in potential for erosion,
flooding, leaching ordrainage problems. Development of individual parcels will
conform to NYSDEC for storm water management and control.
6. The proposed action will not have a substantial adverse change in existing solid waste
production since the action is for the subdivision of residential properties that will
produce solid wastes in quantities typical of single-family residences.
7. The proposed action will not have a substantial adverse change in existing noise, odor or
light since the action ts being developed in accordance with Town of Webster standards.
A temporary increase in noise levels consistent with normal construction activities is
anticipated when during construction on the subdivided lots.
Sloe
Pg. 128 September 3, 2024 Planning Meeting
8. The proposed action will not have a substantial adverse change, or cumulative change
since the proposed action creates five new residential parcels from an existing residential
parcel. Traffic generated is anticipated to be minimal.
9. The proposed action will not have a substantial adverse impact on the criteria listed under
Section 617(c)(1)(ti) of SEQR because no habitats or threatened or endanger species were
identified on or contiguous to the proposed site.
10. The proposed action is not located in an area designated as a Critical Environmental Arca
by the Town of Webster or New York State pursuant to subdivision 617.14(g) of SEQR.
1f. The proposed action is not in material conflict with the Town of Webster 2008
Comprehensive Plan.
12. The proposed action will not create an impairment of the criteria listed under Section
617(c)(1)(v) of SEQR since the action is not located in or adjacent to the listed resources
and ts in character with the surrounding community.
13. The action will not result in a major change in the type or use of energy since the action
is for the subdivision of three parcels into five parcels and the construction of nine, single
family residences. Single family residents would not require an upgrade to existing
power distribution system infrastructure.
14. The action will not create a hazard to human health since it does not contain nor is it
located adjacent to an existing sources of hazardous substances or contaminants. The
project does not contemplate the use of hazardous substances or contaminants.
15. The action will not create a substantial change in use of the land since the action is
consistent with zoning for the land, the existing community character, and the Town of
Webster 2008 Comprehensive Plan.
16. The action will not attract a large number of people for more than a few days when
compared to taking no action since the action involves the creation of nine new parcels
and does not create areas that will attract a large number of people.
17, The action wilk not create a cumulative impact on the environment as listed under
61 7(c)(1}(x), (xi), and (xii) of SEQR.
RESOLUTION 24-0037 Derek Anderson made a motion for an
UNLISTED ACTION which was seconded by
Derek Meixell.
VOTE:
Mr. Anderson AYE
Mr. Kosel AYE
Mr. Malta AYE
Mr. Mcixell AYE
Mr. Casciani AYE
Mr. Giardina AYE
Mrs. Mattman AYE
Pg. 129 September 3, 2024 Planning Meeting
[
RESOLUTION 24-0038 Dave Malta made a motion to PRELIMINARY
SITE PLAN & SUBDISIVION APPROVAL
Located just west of 1854 Lake Road. Applicant
McMahon LaRue Associates is requesting
PRELIMINARY/FINAL SITE PLAN &
SUBDIVISION APPROVAL (PUBLIC
HEARING) associated with the re subdivision of a
21.8-acre parcel into (2) 3-acre lots {to be
developed with single family residences) and (1)
15.8-acre lot (to remain undeveloped) having SBL#
037.03-1-36 located in an LL Large Lot Single
Family Residential District under Sections 269-11
and 296-15 of the Code of the Town of Webster
which was seconded by John Kosel.
RELIMINARY APPROVAL
OMA s wo Mo
a
Subject to PRC comments
Subject to Conservation Board comments.
. 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.
Comply with all requirements of any State, County, or Town agency.
Address drainage, lighting, signage, landscaping, buffering, berming, and snow
storage
Approvals are subject to Drawing No: cad file 1451-00
Proceed to Final approval.
VOTE:
Mr. Anderson AYE
Mr. Kosel AYE
Mr. Malta AYE
Mr. Meixell AYE
Mr. Casciani AYE
Mr, Giardina AYE
Mrs. Maltman AYE
Pg. 130 September 3, 2024 Planning Meeting
[
RESOLUTION 24-0039 Dave Malta made a motion to FINAL SITE
PLAN & SUBDISIVION APPROVAL Located
just west of 1854 Lake Road. Applicant McMahon
LaRue Associates is requesting
PRELIMINARY/FINAL SITE PLAN &
SUBDIVISION APPROVAL (PUBLIC
HEARING) associated with the re subdivision of a
21.8-acre parcel into (2) 3-acre lots (to be
developed with single family residences) and (1)
15.8-acre lot (to remain undeveloped) having SBL#
037.03-1-36 located in an LL Large Lot Single
Family Residential District under Sections 269-1 1
and 296-15 of the Code of the Town of Webster
which was seconded by Derek Meixell.
FINAL APPROVAL
AWA wWNo
7
Subject to ProjectReview Committee comments
Subject to Parks.and Recreation fees.
Subject to Prelimmary Approval conditions.
Subject to all applicable governmental! fees.
Subject to Department of Public Works approvals.
Significant constmction shall occur within one year, as deemed by the
Planning Board, to expire on 9.3.25
The conditions ofPreliminary and Final approval are depicted on the cover
page of the final
designed plans.
The Engineer forthe proposed project shall provide a Letter of Certification
that all proposed work was completed, as per Planning Board resolution of
final approval before a Certificate of Occupancy will be issued.
VOTE:
Mr. Anderson AYE
Mr. Kosel AYE
Mr. Malta AYE
Mr. Meixell AYE
Mr. Casciani AYE
Mr. Giardina AYE
Mrs. Maltman AYE
(Mark Giardina read the second application):
Located at 2195 Empire Blvd. Applicant The
Lambent Watt, LLC (Torance Washington) is requesting SKETCH PLAN REVIEW
associated the construction ofa proposed 600 SF drive through coffee shop and walk-up cafe on
a |.10-acre parcel having SBL# 078.20-1-75 located in an MC Medium Intensity Commercial
Pg. 131 September 3, 2024 Planning Mecting
District under Section 269-11 and 350-18 of the Code of the Town of Webster.
APPLICANT REQUESTED TO TABLE.
(Mark Giardina read the third application):
Located at 708 Hard Road. Applicant Jamie
Catalano of Vital Signs is requesting SIGN APPROVAL associated with the construction of an
approximately 30 SF monument sign on a 2.20-acre parcel having SBL# 064.15-2-19 located in
an R-3 Single Family Residential District under Section 265-7 of the Code of the Town of
Webster. ‘
Appearing before the board was Josh Palmer with Vital Signs representing Webster Assembly
of God. It’s 708 Hard Road. It’s pretty cut and dry. We are just proposing a 6 foot tall
structure aluminum sign pushed through acrylic; internally lit letters; so, the face of the sign is
aluminum on both sides and would be opac and basically only the letters light and would kind
of be an edge lit affect with'the translucent film on the face of it.
Is that pretty much the color you are using on that right there?
It’s pretty much what you see right there.
Is there going tobe a street address on there? I think we should.
That’s a good point.
I can put one, a vertical one maybe on the butt end, facing the road and running
down ward. We can do some dimensional letters on that.
John Kose]: On both sides?
This would be facing the road.
I think that 1s ok.
Ht sits back that] think you should be able to see it.
Ok, that’s good.
Pg. 132 September 3, 2024 Planning Meeting
Derek Anderson:
RESOLUTION
The Town of Webster Planning Board considered the request by Applicant, Jamie Catalano of
Vital Signs to construct an approximately 30 SF monument sign on a 2.20-acre parcel having
SBL# 064.15-2- 19 located 708 Hard Road.
The Planning Board classifies the proposed action to be a Type II Action under Section
617.5(c}(2) of the State Environmental Review (SEQR) Regulations and therefore is not subject
to further review.
RESOLUTION 24-0041 Derek Anderson made a motion for TYPE II
SEQR which was seconded by John Kosel.
VOTE:
Mr. Anderson AYE
Mr. Kosel AYE
Mr. Malta AYE
Mr. Metxell AYE
Mr. Casciani AYE
Mr. Giardina AYE
Mrs, Maltman AYE
E RESOLUTION 24-0042 John Kosel made a motion Located at 708 Hard
Road. Applicant Jamie Catalano of Vital Signs is
requesting SIGN APPROVAL associated with the
construction of an approximately 30 SF monument
sign on a 2.20-acre parcel having SBL# 064. 15-2-
19 located in an R-3 Single Family Residenttat
District under Section 265-7 of the Code of the
Town of Webster which was seconded by Mark
Giardina.
CONDITION:
Add street number to sign.
VOTE:
Mr. Anderson AYE
Mr. Kosel AYE
Mr. Malta AYE
Mr. Meixell AYE
Mr. Casciani AYE
Mr. Giardina AYE
Mrs. Maltman AYE
[ Pg. 133 September 3, 2024 Planning Meeting
(Mark Giardina read the fourth application):
Located at 943 Copper Kettle Road. Applicant
Thaddeus Okolowicz III is requesting an ACCESSORY APARTMENT WAIVER
APPROVAL (
PUBLIC HEARING
) associated with construction of a 420 SF addition, and
use of 574 SF of space from existing residence to create a 994 SF accessory apartment on a
0,35-acre parcel having SBL# 064.19-t-29 located in an R-3 Single Family Residential District
under Sections 350-12 and 350-50 of the Code of the Town of Webster.
Appearing before the board was Terry Okolowicz III at 943 Copper Kettle Road.
So, you are putting this in-law apartment in for one of your parents I’m
assuming.
Yes, there is a 600 sq ft, approximately already there that was an addition and
then we are going to add to that another 400 sq ft. approximately to get that
994. Anthony Casciani: I was looking at it the other day and I am sure it’s ok, where is the entrance
for this? Is that the....coming off of the porch?
Yes
So that ts the entrance going into the apartment section?
Correct.
Ok, I see it now and the new section would be just crawl space underneath?
Yes
And I think in your paperwork there is nothing at the front, no front doors or
anything like that going out to address this particular unit.
No and from the front you probably won’t be able to notice anything. It is
just going to be in the back of the residence, and it is basically going to go straight out for the
added square footage.
There is an interior door between (NOT SPEAKING LOUD ENOUGH) the
spaces correct, the existing and the apartment?
Yes, that would be his cut through there which meets code.
Yes
Pg. 134 September 3, 2024 Planning Meeting
So, you have access to the port and the building itself (NOT SPEAKING
LOUD ENOUGH)
| see no issues with it.
Is this here because it is larger than 750 sq ft.
Yes, it’s an addition to the addition that was already existing so. It’s for one
of your parents, | am assuming.
Yes, this is my mother.
Derek Anderson:
RESOLUTION
The Town of Webster Planning Board considered the request by Applicant, Thaddeus Okolowicz
III to construct a 420 SF addition and use of 574 SF of space in an existing residence to create a
994 SF accessory apartment on a 0.35-acre parcel having SBL# 064.19- 1-29 located 943 Copper
Kettle Road in an R-3 Single Family Residential District.
The Planning Board classifies the proposed action to be a Type Il Action under Section
617.5(c)(9) of the State Environmental Review (SEQR) Regulations and therefore is not subject
to further review.
RESOLUTION 24-0043 Derek Anderson made a motion for TYPE II
SEQR which was seconded by Mark Giardina.
VOTE:
Mr. Anderson AYE
Mr. Kosel AYE
Mr. Malta AYE
Mr. Meixell AYE
Mr. Casciani AYE
Mr. Giardina AYE
Mrs. Maltman AYE
Josh, you are ok with this.
Yes, the only thing that will be required 1s an accessory apartment agreement. Once
it’s built, we will need the applicants to sign off on an accessory apartment agreement.
Pg. 135 September 3, 2024 Planning Meeting
For the county
Correct.
It is to conform to chapter 225 code for an accessory apartment. Accessory
apartment should be limited to a maximum of 35% of ....lam not going to read all that it is not
necessary. Why don’t we say that we accept it and that it meets...the application is meeting the
requirements of 225-49-1| of the code of Town of Webster.
Tony, just to let you know, the ordinance number changed. It is section 350-50.
And significant construction should be done within a year
RESOLUTION 24-0044 Anthony Casciani made a motion to Located at
943 Copper Kettle Road. Applicant Thaddeus
Okolowicz III is requesting an ACCESSORY
APARTMENT WAIVER APPROVAL
(
PUBLIC HEARING
) associated with
construction of a 420 SF addition, and use of 574
SF of space from existing residence to create a 994
SF accessory apartment on a 0.35-acre parcel
having SBL# 064.19-1-29 located in an R-3 Single
Family Residential District under Sections 350-12
and 350-50 of the Code of the Town of Webster
which was seconded by Mark Giardina.
VOTE:
Mr. Anderson AYE
Mr. Kosel AYE
Mr. Malta AYE
Mr. Meixell AYE
Mr. Casciant AYE
Mr. Giardina AYE
Mrs. Maltman AYE
(Mark Giardina read the fifth application):
SPLASH CAR WASH 1-YEAR EXTENSION; Located at 1013 Ridge Road. Applicant Fox Five LLC)
is requesting a 1l-YEAR EXTENSION OF FINALSITE PLAN APPROVAL (
PUBLIC HEARING
)
associated with the construction of a 7,000 SF car wash on a 2.16-acre parcel having SBL# 079.15-1-
16.003 located in an MC Medium Intensity Commercial District under Sections 269-17 and 350-18 of the
Code of the Town of Webster.
Appearing before the board was Anne Riley and I am here representing the owner of the
property. You might remember, we came here last year for an extension as well. We are still in
Pg. 136 September 3, 2024 Planning Meeting
litigation. | thought we were getting close and then the attorney for Splash left and a new
attorney came and trying to gel up to speed. So, we need to get another extension because we
don’t want to lose our approvals, We are probably going to be marketing the property again
once we resolve this litigation.
You are aware....actually why this is put in the code years ago because of
things changing. Since this was in, we have had a couple new ones in the general area of car
washes. I am ok with giving it another year extension, but I think this should be the last one
after this because there has been significant changes in regard to car washes so, if everyone is in
agreement with that, we can give them another year extension. Ok, that will work. You can tell
them, it’s only fair. That was the reason for that part of the code so. If they come in again, that
would be 3 extensions. That is a little extensive.
RESOLUTION 24-0045 Anthony Casciani made a motion for 1-YEAR
EXTENSION OF FINALSITE PLAN APPROVAL
Located at 1013 Ridge Road. Applicant Fox Five
LLC) is requesting a 1-YEAR EXTENSION OF
FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL (PUBLIC
HEARING) associated with the construction of a
7,000 SF car wash on a 2.16-acre parcel having
SBL# 079.15-1-16.003 located in an MC Medium
Intensity Commercial District under Sections 269-
17 and 350-18 of the Code of the Town of Webster
(this will be the last extension )which was seconded
by Derek Meixell.
VOTE:
Mr. Anderson AYE
Mr. Kosel AYE
Mr. Malta AYE
Mr. Meixell AYE
Mr. Casciani AYE
Mr. Giardina AYE
Mrs. Maltman AYE
(Mark Giardina read the sixth 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 the proposed construction of (2) 3 story, 45-unit apartment
buildings on a 13.52-acre parcel having SBL# 093.06-3-64.11 located in an MHR Medium-
High Residential District under Section 350-14 of the Code of the Town of Webster.
Appearing before the board was Chris Nadler and 1am general counse] for Mark Four
Enterprises, and ] am here tonight with Chris Demarso, President and owner of Mark Four and
Pg. 137 September 3, 2024 Planning Mecting
David Cox from Passcro, our design engineer.
As many of you may have remembered this project was approved in the 1980's for an 8 story,
150 unit midrise apartment building. We have come back multiple times since then and most
recently in 2017 for a scaled down 5 story apartment building. At that time, we submitted a
traffic study that showed that the proposed development would not have a noticeable impact at
McEwen and Bay and would not have noticeable impact at Willowpoint and Bay. We have
submitted a line of site study in 2017 showing that no views would be impacted with a 5 story
building as well as many other environmental reports and I am sure the town has them on file
and will be updating as needed.
We have met with the town supervisor and the town planner and are here today to present a
much a significantly reduced project, 2-3 story buildings with 90 apartment units and we are
proposing to create a thirteen acre parcel on which the 2 -45 units would be located. It’s 6.8
units per acre which is allowed by the MHR zoning code. A primary access will be onto
McEwen Drive. David Cox from Passero is here to present the technical details and then we
can both answer questions and get the boards feedback and any suggestions.
So, as Chris mentioned, that original plan was for a bunch
of town houses in the front of the property and then that large 8 story building or 7 story
building in the back here so that was always part of the overall planned development for this
project so, it was to be broken up in phases. This last piece in the back was phase 4 and that
was the last phase and that is why we are here for is to complete that last phases.
From the beginning it was always contemplated to have a larger building back here and this
plan actually has a 158 units in this big building in the back here. On the aerial photo, you can
see all the town houses have already been developed and that last piece is what it’s still vacant
and that is where....you know, instead of having one large building 150 units, now it’s just two
buildings with 45 units each for a total of 90 units and a definite decrease and also just 3 stories
so bringing it down from 7-8 stories, down to 3 stories and a 158 units down to 90 units and
also there are other projects in Webster that I have personally designed over my years and I just
wanted to take a look at those and see and they are actually somewhat similar. So, thts is Picture
Parkway (HE IS SHOWING PLANS FOR PAST PROJECTS HE HAS DONE) This is off of
Hard Road here where there is a bunch of 4-plex’s and surrounded by a large building and it is
72 units so a very similar project where we have smaller buildings and a larger building up
front. We have Winding Creek Woods, very similar where we have a bunch of town homes
down here and then we have a grouping of larger buildings. So, these are 5 buildings and there
is a 130 units in this area and a pretty dense, pretty small area and we have a 130 units grouped
there, so similar and then we have Webster Green behind Brusters and once again, we have
town homes and then two larger buildings in the back here and each of these were approved for
60 units so a $20 units right here in this tight little area and this actually got approved at 12
units per acre. So, that is almost double at what we have at 6.8 units per acre, So, just on these
projects, ] personally designed a very similar style of nothing smaller, townhomes or buildings
like that, 1-2 or 5(1 CAN NOT REALLY HEAR HIM. NOT USING THE MIC) larger more
Pg. 138 September 3, 2024 Planning Mecting
dense units. So, a little blow up area here. We have McEwen Drive to the north here so there is
already an existing access point off of McEwen which we will be utilizing for our access that
comes into the property and we have Maritime Drive that is the one that ties into McEwen, so
we are going to tie into that for the first building. We have parking on two sides. These
buildings to have garages and we have (10) garages, so they have (5) on each side so there is
some garage space for these units which is a very nice amenity, These are higher end market
rale apartments and then the other building, lower building will come off of Willow Point Way
and have an access there and providing parking on two sides again. Same thing with those
garages.
So, we are at about !.6 parking spaces per unit, and [ will point out that the original design up
here has planned for 1.5 spaces per unit so that is very much in keeping with what we have
proposed here and then as far as, just kind of an elevation view, here is a rendering of what the,
you know, conceptually of what the buildings will look like so a nice modern style looking
building and we do have a flat roof so that will be a very similar height to a 2 story single
family house with a pitched roof or a 2-story town home with a pitched roof so really similar
height in keeping with surrounding buildings in the neighborhood as well as fits in with code.
So, code is a max of (3) stories so we are within code of that so no issues there and really
tonight we are at the conceptual sketch plan, so we really wanted to get feedback from the town
and that is why we are here to see if we needed to make any modifications, changes and really
looking for the boards input on this, but this is a great project and there is definilely a need for
diversity of housing stock. [know Webster a growing area and a great place to live. 1 moved
here in 2015 because it is just a “really where life is worth living” and a great town. A lot of
trees, the bay, the lake. Webster has a lot to offer, and I think people Know that and like to
move here so with that, we can take any questions that you may have.
How many bedrooms are these units going to have?
How many variances?
Bedrooms.
It will be a mix of 1,2 and possibly a few 3 bedroom units.
Because with | point whatever car spaces per unit and if you have a 3 bedroom one
and you have a couple living with two of their kids, there could be 4 cars there, possibly 4 cars.
That is possible, and we actually regulate that through the terms of our lease
where we are not going to allow a couple to Iet there adult children with vehicles
without....they would have to get a separate unit. We regulate that through our lease.
Interestingly we did a parking analysis of our properties and there is 2000 units throughout the
county and what we need for our tenants and guests and service providers are 1.2 spaces per
unit and this project we are supplying 1.5, oops... 1.6.
Pg. 139 September 3, 2024 Planning Meeting
It is a high ratio of (1) bedroom apartments.
The colored sketch of the apartments that you are planning, those are the colors
that you are going to use. The black and orange, excuse me, yellow/orange referring to this.
(HOLDS UP THE PICTURE OF THE APARTMENTS)
I] think some of that ts wood, wood feature not orange.
I think by the time this project gets there it will look a little different than
this. So, lets leave it with that. To me, the biggest issue with this is going to be the variances
that you are going to need. You will need variances on this. That one part, what was that about
8 foot or something or 16 foot from the property line, that Is going to be an issue. We met last
week when and we did discuss and there was a little controversy going on about the number of
units per acre. You are combing the two parcels of land, and I know that I wasn’t positive on
how that worked in a situation like this. I did do a little research on it and actually you are
correct, in saying that, yup, because looking up the Town Engineer in the past has looked at
Sites like this in similar situations and has agreed that you use the entire parcel, even though it is
not usable, it’s wetlands; epode; this that and the other .... DEREK ANDERSON SPEAKING
OVER. Is there a written policy on that?
I don’t know if there is a policy on that but that ts what the town accepted on
other projects.
| realize that is what they accepted in the past.
The Town Board never changed it.
| know the actual wording literally says, maximum 5 units per acre. It doesn’t
say average. It says maximum.
Per acre.
They are saying that they have 8 units per acre. So, that is greater than
5. Anthony Casciani: What do you have, 13.5 acres,
We have 13.1 acres.
But the code specially says maximum of 5 untts per acre.
It is 8 units per acre.
Pg. 140 September 3, 2024 Planning Meeting
Which is what you have which is greater than
5. The code says 5 units per
acre.
No, it says 8,
Yes, [am pretty sure it says
8. Chris Nadler: Either way, one of the nice things about this, is that the development is focused
up at the top of the hill, completely away from the environmentally sensitive areas.
DAVID COX APPROACHED THE BOARD TO SHOW WHAT THE CODE SPECIFICES.
So, that is different than what is on line.
| printed this from home.
If that is how it is now, when I looked at it earlier, the version that I saw
online literally said 5. 1 don’t know why because we don’t have a printed book anymore, we
only have what is available on line. But, if you specially add 8, that exact number .
We are at 6.8 and we are allowed
8. Derek Anderson: Right but what you are doing is averaging it over the entire parcel. So, my
question is, this thing says 8 per acre, the way | read that when il says 8 per acre is that’s it and
you said you have 13.1 acres, but you are doing an average of 13.1. You have a parcel, but it
says maximum per acre, 8 per acre TWO PARTIES SPEAKING AT THE SAME TIME
It is not 13 acres. You can’t, you are....it’s the way that it’s written, it says 8 per acre itis not an
average of 8 per acre it says a maximum of 8 per acre. What you are doing is an average of 8
per acre. You are taking the entire 13 acres, and you are saying 18 and therefore I get 90 units
or whatever, I can put in there and 1 am only putting in half of that. That is actually an average
of the entire acreage that is covered. The way the code is written it says
8. So, what Tam
asking, is even though the town has done this before is there been any kind of written policy
that says we have administratively determined that when if says maximum that we actually
mean average. I have not seen anything that supports that.
1 will tell you it’s NY State case law that defines tt per parcel essentially, ] guess
what you are defining it as, as an average but I think...I am sure Mr. Taylor and Mr. Genesse
can work that out.
We would need something that supports that because I understand that it has
been allowed in the past and had higher densities on other areas but with the way the wording
actually is it says a specific number per acre. What you are giving us is an average for this
entire development. Then the other question I have in relation to that is that the back portion of
this parcel, when this original development has come in and by the way, | have never seen it,
Pg. 141 September 3, 2024 Planning Mecting
any previous approval drawings even though I requested them, I have never seen any of the
previous approval drawings phase for this project. This project is from 1988, things have
changed significantly environmental wise. You have an environmental protection overlay
districts that cover the CAN NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT IS BEING SAID this entire parcel.
You have a forested protection area that also covers most of this parcel. You are also still in,
you are now in the waterfront, the LWRP which is also new from when this thing was done in
1988, so you have a whole new set of environmental regulations that have to be complied with,
with this development. So, the other discussion is, is that all this area in the back that they are
claiming is that you can do an average of development on it’s really not developable. So, does
that really count for the total......
The Town Engineer said that the issue was discussed at a conceptual stage,
the town has to look at the entire site in the MHR zoning district. It is not like eliminating
wetlands; steep slopes; as far as establishing density.
I don’t know what that is in regard to.
What’s that.
What is that in regard to.
It was some minutes from another meeting.
Ok, I don’t know the context of that.
This is what it is saying...
This board right now, for the application as it is in front of us, it seems to me
that we have to take into consideration if there is a huge portion of the parcel, you really only
have about 3 acres of this thing that is not in this area that is now protected by the various
overlay districts and so forth within the land and the town has given me copies of those overlay
districts.
You know what, this............ BOTH PARTIES SPEAKING AT THE
SAME TIME
Can those overlay districts really be counted towards... ..1t’s not developable
land
This is a question.,..actually, you brought this up and | am just looking at it
here. Mr. Anderson raised a question about the density of the development.........
| have always questioned it, and [never really got an answer mainly because
we were never given the final approval plan for phase |, 2, and
3. We have never seen any of
Pg. $42 September 3, 2024 Planning Mecting
those things even though they have been requested but as a board we have not received any of
those things. So, we don’t have anything to go on.
Chris Nadler; Derek, you are looking at me like I failed to give you
No, I am just letting you know because you are the applicant.
I don’t have stuff from 1985.
You have that one plan which is very interesting because we have never seen
that before. The other thing [ do notice, because I have driven in the area and took a look at it is
that it looks very much like you have this parking lot for eastern unit right in the middle of the
storm water detention pond for the rest of the facility. There is an outlet structure there is
cattails and that doesn’t show up on your plans. That is another change that has happened since
1988 is all the stormwater protection requirements. If your remember back then, that stuff was
not really in place.
Ok, why don’t we do this, you have some good points, and I think maybe
the thing to do 1s maybe why don’t you outline them, take them into consideration at this point
and then we can address these things because there are some unknowns here that we are just
bewildered with.
I think as a board we have to have an understanding and discussion amongst
ourselves to about we have these areas that have been identified as places that should be
protected. How as a board are we going to have interpretation to work towards this.
Well, the areas to be protected that certainly are...this here, the upper flat
plateau of the overall parce! which goes all the way down to Irondequoit Bay. That is an epode,
wetland and everything else. That is all protected area. So, there is nothing going in that area.
Right, but what they are doing is they are claiming acreage lo apply towards
the total development. So, the ultimate question is, is that legitimate? You can’t develop it so
why would it count. BOTH PARTIES SPEAKING AT THE SAME TIME. ..clarification of
Based on past in an MHR, we have accepted it so that is where Iam going
with this. Is it right, 1 don’t know.
But we have never had this type of environmental overlay.
Correct, so that is why I am saying......
This is unique, so this is something...
Pg, 143 September 3, 2024 Planning Meeting
Why don’t we let them check into that and come up with a solution to that.
Would that be the answer.
Derek, your point is noted and certainly the applicant and council and [ can take
up that conversation and get a resolution.
Good. Alright, | know there are some neighbors here | am assuming. This
is not a public hearing............
Well, there is one another point though, in the presentation you referenced the
traffic study that was done on the previous 2017 plan, that traffic study showed that this
intersection fails and at that time the argument was made that it failed so therefore we can put
whatever we want because it’s fatled anyway. That is not a legitimate argument.
The traffic study and what we said about it, what the traffic study says is that, in
2017 and I am assuming it has been corrected but ] may be wrong, the east bound lane failed
not the intersection.
The intersection coming out of Willow Point failed going into Parkside.
It did not say that.
That was definitely a take away from that traffic study and anyone who
travels up and down Bay Road and tries to get in and out of Parkside and tries to get in and out
of Willow Point, they know it has failed because you can sit there for 5-10 minutes trying to
make a left and turn out of there before you get a chance to get out of there. So, that intersection
has failed. BOTH PARTIES SPEAKING AT THE SAME TIME
We will take a look at that. BOTH PARTIES SPEAKING AT THE SAME
TIME.
The recommendation 1s not simply it failed so there for we can make it fail
worst.
I think ultimately there is going to need to be a traffic study done.
Yes, we are going to.
That many units and that much traffic. I] think we are all in agreement to
that. That would be down the road. Good points that were brought up. You know what, this is
not a public hearing for the record so it’s not open for public speaking, however, 1 know there
are some people here and are interested in the site...if a few on you want to come up, 2-3
people and I just don’t want to gel repetition going. Come up and just give us your name and
address and maybe you can help us out to.
Pg. 144 September 3, 2024 Planning Meeting
Dave Grier at 400 McEwen Lane: | am a direct neighbor to the property. Lam very concerned
at exactly what Mr. Anderson talking about with grouping, grouping for convenience sake with
all the acreage together but then not being able to utilize the acreage and actually that property
with all the overlay zones. There is a beaver pond at the bottom and a run off that is going to
come off of that and Lam very concerned about shoe herning the property of the building inte a
much smaller area. [know the Planning Board is really concerned about the esthetics of the
project and Lam concerned that it will not reflect well on what we are trying to do in Webster
because we are jamming inas many units ay possible. The last attempt that Legacy put in,
submitted was for 98 units, this attempt is for 90 units and a lot of concern about parking. The
town code as you know, is two units plus no over flow parking so 225 units of parking and they
are looking at a 144 units for parking and I am not sure where those other 81 people go but I
am concerned it will be by Mr. Johnson's and my home, so 1 am concerned about the esthetics
and of course how many tnits they are trying to jam in this area. If we went with how big this
area is 3.76 acres, we really should be looking at putting something like 30 units in that area
and that should be the maximum.
Ok, thank you.
Charlie Johnson at 440 McEwen Lane: Which is directly behind the property. Acttatlly, it is the
last property right before the pumping station. (VIEWING PLANS ON THE SCREEN) So,
obvisioyly we are looking directly out at the back of this structure. Again, | am not expert at
reading these but in terns of the tree line itself and in terms of what they were taking down and
what they were going to keep, that existing tree line stops, | think, at the measurement they have
for the property next door to mine and maybe you would have te zoom in there. So obviously
what | am talking about is what we are actually looking at. We also have children, two
children that have to walk up Mc Quen Drive to Bay Road to take the bus everyday just like Mr.
Grier indicated, just from a pure volume standpoint, even now trying to make a left turn onto
Bay Road going to work every day and every morning ts a challenge. | don’t know what is
going to happen with Willow Point but if the are saying that McQuen is the primary road that
they want to use, that has avery high impact on quality of life. The last part is, and lam not
sure how this works but access to the interior parts of the building. If there ts an isstte in-
between those buildings, | don't know how emergency equipment gets in there.
That is resolved with the Fire Marshal.
Charlie Johnson at 440 McEwen Lane: With that structure, do that go through that little peak
there or do they come back to McQuen...how would they access that?
That would have to be controfled by the Fire Department. They would have
to review that part.
Charlie Johnson at 440 McEwen Lane: And then niy last question, it’s more of a zoning or
VETTANCE ISSUE.
Pg. 145 September 3, 2024 Planning Meeting
We don’t have a measurement to our property to the back of the dwelling, so I don’t know if
that is a 100 feet or if it's the property line or if it is the actual dwelling itself that is a 100 feet
from the next district.
Ok, thank you. [think the best way to handle this is to review some of these
questions that were brought up and address. We have done this in the past I don’t know if we
were wrong in doing it, | don’t know by including those parcels into the overall equation and
then using part of it. [know that in a cluster development you don’t add that land in but my
understanding in an MHR you do add it in. I don’t know if lam right or wrong. That is my
understanding of what we have done.
I will tell you as we have reviewed the code entirely, after our meeting because it
came as a surprise to me, it is in compliance with code to use the entire 13.1 acres. It is what
your code says so you can’t read anything else, developable acres, you can’t read in the stuff we
want to develop or not want to develop, it’s just what the code says and they way you have been
doing it apparently is the right way and it is what your code says and that is all you are allowed
to follow. No matter what you want.
And I can say, from the 3 projects that I have previously did, none of the wetland
areas, all 3 of them had wetland areas, the wetland areas were not taken out of that calculation.
In this type of case like the MHR ?
Correct and all 3 were in the MHR.
Well again, | am reading, and this was one of the comments from the Town
Engineer at the time stating that and that is what we based our information on but lets get it
clarified 100 % and you can talk to our town attorney and see if you can get some
documentation on this. Another thing I would like to before I forget, is coming off of Willow
Point Way and I know there was an issue with people in there something a law suit or
something whether you could use it or not. 1 know it can’t be blocked but that was the last that
I understood.
The town ordered that it not be blocked. We have access to a public road that is
sufficient, and we will show that with an updated traffic report.
Ok, f think those are the fittle things that we need.
So that would give them permission to build across private property?
Excuse me?
| am thinking back to the conmment, the biggest argument that the people at
Willow Point have was that this is our private property and that you are proposing a
Pg. 146 September 3, 2024 Planning Meeting
development that goes through our land and again, the last time I was here it was never totally
resolved so I’m curious, by some kind of agreement, lawsuit, court order, given permission to
go through Willow Point?
What I said was, we have access to a public road, McEwen that ts sufficient to
handle all of the traffic from this.
Right, what about limiting access to going through Willow Point?
That ts not our intent,
Your second building exclusively goes on Willow Point Way from what I can
see.
We own Willow Point Way at that point .
So that parcel back in the 80’s when this was originally approved, the
entrances were off of Willow Point. They have had to been. Also, McEwen but....right?
That is exactly correct.
Alright, if you can just get some documentation showing that.
Sure, we can absolutely do that.
| see what you have their Dave, but I think you should do something in the
letter form, a checklist of different items.
Ok, we can do that. Well, thank you very much.
Tony, ] just want to confirm that you are looking for...Planning Board members and the
other staff from the town to provide any follow up comments/concerns so that the applicant can
address them?
Yes
I just wanted to be sure we were clear on that as well.
lam sure that Engineering is going to have some....Is there a PRC meeting
this week so more than likely this would be part of it.
Yes
Pg. 147 September 3, 2024 Planning Mecting
So, there would be further comments coming to you. More than what was already
discussed. So, I just wanted to make sure that we identified that those comments would
becoming to you so you could address them and either on the drawing and as well, written
form.
Great, thank you very much. We appreciate it.
Ok what else, are you scheduled for the Zoning Board?
Scheduled for the Zoning Board next weck.
Well, I guess that is all we can really do tonight. I think we have a start in a
direction. I think we just have to verify it that’s all.
I think there is a lot of information that a full set of site plans would tell this
board that will elevate a lot of concern. An updated traffic report I think that will elevate a lot of
concerns and we will go from there.
Thank you for coming. Now the way this process will go is when they come
in again, I don’t know, the next stage maybe just another review like this. Ultimately than there
is a preliminary hearing and if and when it gets to that stage, that is the public hearing and that
is when you can get up and speak and so on but then we will all know a little bit more of what is
going on.
Audience member speaking out loud, NOT AT THE MIC regarding lots.
No Minutes were approved.
With no other applications before the Board this evening Anthony Casciani concluded tonight’s
meeting al 8:30 PM.
Respectfully Submitted,
sina M4, / Smet _ _ Dated A/oV (2, 2O2€
Mark Giardina, Secretary
Katherine Kolich, Recording Secretary
NOV 14°24 PH?! 40
FILED WEBSTER TWN CLK
Drone (V WWladL
Pg. 148 September 3, 2024 Planning Mceting