Minutes

WEBSTER TOWN PLANNING BOARD MINUTES

Anthony Casciani, Chairman

Dave Malta, Vice Chairman

Mark Giardina, Secretary

Derck Anderson

John Kosel

Peggy Maltman

Derek Meixell

Josh Artuso

Katherine Kolich, Recording Secretary

Kyle Taylor, Attorney

us in the Pledge of Allegiance. Roll call. Before we start, there is one application for the coffee

shop thal was proposed as the last item on the agenda, they have requested to be tabled to a

future date so they will not be on this evening, ok and with that we have the other two.

Summary overview of outcome:

TABLED MATTERS

:

BIRDSONG AT CONIFER COVE SUBDIVISION

AGENCY FOR PURPOSE OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW; 30-DAY COORDINATED

REVIEW TO BEGIN; APPLICATION TABLED TO SPECIAL MEETING ON

SEPTEMBER 17, 2024 @ 7PM

SCHEDULED MATTERS

:

929 HOLT ROAD-LA FITNESS SIGN:

2195 EMPIRE BLVD-THE HUMAN BEAN-DRIVE THRU RESTAURANT

2024 PLANNING BOARD MEETING

Pg. 105 August 6, 2024 Planning Meeting

(Mark Giardina read the first 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 with BME Associates appearing tonight on behalf of

Grove Underhill, LLC who is the owner of the property and who is the developer of the proposed

property and with me this evening is Mitch Brodsky and Jeff Bell from Grove Underhill.

As you mentioned, we are here this evening as a continuation from our last appearance back on

June 4, 2024 where we brought forward the proposed preliminary and final subdivision

application for the proposed subdivision of the subject property. Just to refresh the boards

memory. What the proposal is, i's an 8 lot single family homes residential subdivision of 5.5

acres. The property is zoned R-3 Residential. The plan and development is proposed, or the plan

has been prepared and the development is proposed as a conventional subdivision per direction

we received from this board back during the concept review stage at the end of 2023.

The lots have been prepared in conformance with the R-3 zoning district criteria which includes

a minimum lot area of 22,000 square feet; minimum lot widths of 100 feet and front sctback of

50 feet and include 50 feet to NY State Rt. 250; 15 foot side setback and 50 foot rear setback.

Since our last appearance, back in June we went through the various comments that we received

from this board from that meeting atong with public comment and also with comments that were

reccived from the towns Consulting Engineer and from the towns PRC. The result of that is, is

on July £7" we submitted revised plans to this board and our goal this evening, or our purpose

this evening is to go through with you what the plan revisions are.

The primary plan revision is really which was the primary issue discussed at the June mecting

was that the plan no longer now proposes an extension of Conifer Cove Lane eastward to serve

the proposed development and connect to NY State Ri.

250. Conifer Cove Lane will remain as

is. As it is today, as a dead end street serving those existing residents on Conifer Cove Lane.

Through consultation with the Towns Highway Superintendent and town staff the designs were

prepared to looking to preserve a minimum 30 foot vegetative buffer at the end of Conifer Cove

Lance so that there is both a physical and visual barrier between the 2 streets,

So, as you can sce up on the screen the layout. The proposed Jayout now is the subdivision would

still be served by a proposed dedicated street to be named Sage Forrest Lane and we will label

the maps accordingly. That street name was just recently approved by the county 911 office. The

lay out of this strect has been reviewed with the Town Highway Superintendent and the Fire

Marshal, The road is proposed at just about 600 feet in length; it will terminate at its western end

ina T turnaround that meets the criteria of the NY State Building and Fire Code. The pavement

Pg. 106 August 6, 2024 Planning Mecting

width would be 26 feet wide plus the concrete gutters and it would be situated within a 60 foot

right of way. The proposed access point on to NY State Rt. 250 has been reviewed with the NY

State Department of Transportation and they have reviewed the access location and find it

acceptable. The access point meets the required stopping sight distance and the recommended

intersection and site distance for the proposed location and that information is all documented on

the final site plans that were submitted.

We just recently met with the town back, just Thursday, August |*' and this mecting also included

the Town Supervisor. The purpose of that meeting was to clarify the developers intent as it relates

to this subdivision as it relates to the dedication of the proposed road and it is the developers

intent and he confirmed this in this meeting, back on Thursday, that these lots are to be subdivided

for sale lots. The lots will be sold as single family lots for single family home construction. It is

not intended to be a rental community. The town made their position very clear that if it were to

be a rental community that the road would not be accepted in dedication, and it would not be a

public road. It would in turn become a private road but again to clarify, that is not the developers

intent. It is his intent for these lots for be for sale, single family home lots.

The remainder of the subdivision design is very consistent with the original application which

was presented and reviewed back on the June 4'" meeting. As we mentioned, the site has been

laid out. The subdivision has been prepared to conform to the R-3 Zoning, lot standards and

zoning criteria and the subdivision design itself has been prepared to meet the standards of the

Town of Websters design standards. These items include as the previous lot standards that have

been established. The site will be served, or the 8 proposed lots would be served by public water

and public sewer that would be extended {rom existing facilities on Conifer Cove Lane.

The project will include a comprehensive stormwater management plan that has been prepared

per the Town of Webster standards and the NY State DEC storm water management plan. The

stormwater management plan will include a stormwater management facility that will be located

up in the northwest corner of the property. It is the area highlighted in blue on the rendering.

This stormwater management plan may contains the current drainage patterns through the

property which is a south to north pattern. The facilities have been designed to provide the

required water quality treatment areas and to attenuate the water quality runoff, or water quantity

runoff, excuse me. All that design has met the standards of the DEC. This is summarized in the

Engineers Report and the Storm Management Plan that has been provided to the town for Town

Engineers and staff review. The other key component of that stormwater management plan is it

does include a construction crosion control plan to address stormwater and erosion during the

construction process.

The last thing we would Itke to address this evening as it relates to our follow up appearance here

this evening is in regard to the state environmental quality review act SEQR. As we have pul

forward that is our belief that this proposed action is an UNLISTED ACTION pursuant to NY

State part 617.4 and 617.5 in that, this proposed development does not mect any of the type |

thresholds. We do understand that the town has interpreted a memo of understanding from the

NY State Department of Health that realty subdivisions should be atype | action, We are pursuing

Pg. 107 August 6, 2024 Planning Mecting

clarifying that with the DEC, the Department of Environmental Conservation because it is the

DEC that ts actually charged with administering the SEQR regulations and instigating any

changes. We don’t have that clarification so with that being said, what we have done, we have

provided you with the resubmittal, the long form part | EAFs so that if the town does determine

that this is atype | action you can proceed with your determination because we are providing the

EAF part | as required along with our plans and the engineers report. Regardless if it is an unlisted

ora type | action, | don’t think there is a doubt that the Planning Board is the correct entity to be

the Iead agency so we would look to the Planning Board to declare their intent to be lead agency

for SEQR.

So, that ts really all we wanted to do this evening was go over the changes that have been made

since we last appeared in June which that primary focus being to the concern that was raised last

June about Conifer Cove Lane and its connectivity out to Webster Road and how the applicant

has revised his plan accordingly to address that concern raised. So, with that or myself or the

applicant we will be available to answer any questions, when you are ready.

parties here this evening that wish to speak. We will open and it is a public hearing. All that 1

am going lo ask is that you limit you time and please don’t repeat. If someone has spoken about

something, don’t repeat the same thing. We don’t need to hear it over and over, ok. Keep it

friendly and as short as we can. Now, one other thing, the letter. 1 wish I had a contact, | would

have been happy to call and sit with you to talk to you about some of the things on here but no

address, so] don’t know who to talk to. So again, you raise your hand, but it doesn’t do anything

for me this evening. However, there are some things in here that you have that are factual and

there are things that are addressed, and we agree with, and we go along with it and some of the

things that are in here, I don’t know where you got your information, on Facebook on something

but itis not factual, and you would be better contacting somebody at the town or even myself. I

would be willing to talk, and we could resolve issues before we get into a situation where

everyone is here and upset over the situation and this and that and they don’t have the facts, or

they believe they have the facts, but they don’t have them. I would rather see a group more

prepared and then come in and voice your opinion, With that, does any board members want to

say anything tn regard to what we heard from Mr. Vars?

address and speak clearly into it and keep it short.

daniece Jackman at 27 Westover Drive: This is very hard for me to speak about this property. 1

have a lot of emotions tied to it, but Twill do my best. L wish 1 could see you all clearly, but | need

these reading glasses, There is a buzz word out there have you heard it? U's a goal of 99% of the

companies in existence. Politicians speak of it; educational institutions want to be a part of it;

world leaders boast of their efforts to hit the mark in this category, but Lask you, how are Webster

policy makers doing in this regard and what is the buzz work you ask, sustainability. This moment

Pg. 108 August 6, 2024 Planning Mecting

here tonight is an opportunity to see if Webster is hitting the mark. 1 happen to know a little bit

about sustainability in addition to what we see on TY and what not that is in the media. 1 wrote

a book on this topic when 1 took a year sabbatical and | moved to South America and lived in

the country of Chili. 1 attended seminars after lecture after presentation by some of the world’s

fop experts in this field and one of the biggest take aways ts that sustainability is multi (too close

to mic-l can't understand) besides an economic aspect there are two others and the other 2/3rds

of this pie that 1 want to highlight regarding the proposed property development. The first is

societal, This property... ccc

Jantece Jackman at 27 Westover Drive: 1am not.

specifically address this project.

Janiece Jackman at 27 Westover Drive: I an.

seen before. Stick to this project please.

Janiece Jackman at 27 Westover Drive: | ain, can i continue?

Jantece Jackman at 27 Westover Drive: This property butts up to a nature trail. People in the

housing nearby can tell you it's a nature haven they themselves see the wildlife in their own

neighborhood and they love it. Hence, 1 think many of them are here. The love of the animals is

one reason we joined together. The preservation of this property and the bird trail create a

human haven of walkers, bird watchers, people in need of a respite from a busy day, an

opportunity to conmune and mediate while in nature. Destroying the wooded lot will do nothing

to help the peace and the serenity of the trail that is beloved by the Webster society. The bird

trail risk becoming a tiny sliver isolated in it’s own natural wonder. People don’t want nature

that is one foot wide to the left and one foot wide to the right. They want the full beauty feeling

like they enter a special spot in Webster where life is worth living. They can leave their cares

behind for afew moments and connect with that green thing called nantre that is a healer to all

who partake of it and again, it is not meant to be one foot to the right and one foot to the left.

That wooded property adjacent to the bird trail is so vitally important to the preservation of this

nature which fulfills this part of the societal aspect of sustainability. It’s a place where people

go and conunune and feel better, It's where they see nature. That is good for society. The other

problem with sustainability is simply environmental. This ix clearly a moment for you to consider

this aspect as one of great importance. ft is an area that ought to be protected. It is full of

wildlife. His a haven of original woods uot to be replaced by a tree planting here and there.

These are values that offer value as carbon?» Much needed in fighting the global warming

Pg. 109 August 6, 2024 Planning Mecting

we are all experiencing. These trees provide a home to countless species, and we keep leaving

habitat less by over building. Certainly, the wellbeing has to be considered. There are living

creatures that survive and thrive by being separate from humans in their own space. We mutst

provide it to them as good stewards of the land. “Pm on my last page”: LT hope you would

consider this key topic that everyone else is desperately to prove that they are in that arena.

Webster, make a choice tonight to add sustainability and think about the environment and the

societies needs not just economic goals. Be courage’s webster board in front of me. Your town

will thank you for it.

property has been there, right, it’s next to the bird sanctuary, what would you propose we do with

it.

Janiece Jackman at 27 Westover Drive: Do you want my honest answer?

Janiece Jackman at 27 Westover Drive: My honest answer is to have the courage to leave it

along.

We get this all the time. You know, ma and pa had a farm and you or others have worked at

Xerox, Kodak, Bausch & Lomb and had pensions and everything else but ma and pa worked the

farm their whole life and now they are 65-70 years old, and they want to retire. That property is

their pension, The zoning allows precisely what the applicant is looking for so would you teil

that farmer that he can’t sell his property?

Someone from the audience yelling out..........

No body said it was a farm. It’s a piece of properly. My point is, that piece of property was

owned by someone, who for whatever reason, wants to sell it. Now, anyone could have bought

the parcel. This board docs not distinguish between whose right or whose wrong or anything like

that. It is who owns the property and does it meet the requirements of the zoning. Does it meet

the requirements of zoning? Is it an allowed use, yes, it is. We can not say, you cannot develop

a picce of properly. There is a criteria and restrictions for it, yes absolutely but we cannot say

that you can not develop it. Tam not saying itis a farm by any means, but itis a parcel of land.

and it is developable and thats it. Anyone could buy a parcel. That is what you do if you want

il, you buy it. 1 don’t know how many people are familiar, the Town of Webster bas more open

space park land than anyone in Monroe County.

Janiece Jackman at 27 Westover Drive: If 1 can just say, that seems funny to me. As everywhere

drive there is either a for sale sien on the land, which you are saying, they are entitled to but

there are somany housing developments, and Lam a teacher. 1 know a lot of community members,

Pg. 110 August 6, 2024 Planning Mecting

alot of parents, a lot of families, a lot of teachers. No one can believe, NO ONE CAN BELIEVE,

the over development of this town. So, if you say to me oh, we have more park space than any

other town, T find that hard to believe unless you are talking about all ef Lake Road and alt of

that.

Janiece Jackman at 27 Westover Drive: This is not even; however, this is just not even a piece of

land, it’s natural, original, woods and it’s home to a: so many species; b: it borders a natural

trail;

Janiece Jackman at 27 Westover Drive: Then is it your zoning code that is improper. Can I ask

that.

Janiece Jackman at 27 Westover Drive: When was the last time it was looked at and changed.

someone clse want to speak and please stay on the specific project.

Dorothy Fait at 742 Hightower Way: ( PLEASE SEE ATTACHED CONCERNS)

was just saying. Part of the proposal is for a SEQR review, which is an environmental review.

That is increasing everything. The drainage, air quality, lighting, everything. So that is correct

and as far as the trees, that is standard also. The trees get marked, 8 inch trees-10 inch depending

on the subdivision and what they look like, but you are on que with that and that is a ligament

request.

Elizabeth Decker at 726 Bel Arbor Trail: ( PLEASE SEE ATTACHED CONC ERNS) So, what 1

would propose ty that we be allowed to offer a fair or above market value and keep the entire

area wild. Somehow make them an offer and make it a park or just protect it forever wild. Is

that possible.

ask the Engineers. I don’t believe...

Elizabeth Decker at 726 Bel Arbor Trail: [have pictures of the piles of the trees they just left.

Pg. II) August 6, 2024 Planning Mecting

bony. rat tt J4Z OWE ag (UGS) Vb Ly

;

Planning Board Members thank you for the

opportunity to share my concerns about this

development as it is currently presented. My

primary concern is that this property is adjacent

to Bird Song Trail and as presented will adversely

impact this trail by removing significant wildlife

habitat. Chapter 296, section 19 C, under

subdivision plan approval in our town code

indicates that the board can impose additional

conditions if the board finds the project would

have an adverse impact on adjacent land uses.

Bird Song Trail is an important wildlife corridor

connecting large parcels of undeveloped

properties.

| would ask the Board to consider the character of

this mature treed lot and require the developer to

consult with an arborist and present a plan that

not only marks all mature healthy trees, defined

by Webster code (chapter 296 section 15A, item

19), as 8” in diameter, but presents a plan that

preserves these trees and the existing vegetation

vital to wildlife habitat

Webster’s Comprehensive plan may have been

completed in 2008 but it was prepared by a

committee consisting of Webster Citizens and

Town officials. It included a future land use plan

and recommended cluster developments.

However, according to the plan the space created

in the “open” portion of the cluster was to

preserve wildlife habitat, reduce erosion and

enhance scenic and aesthetic qualities (pg 3). All

our Town departments and Boards should be

using the Comprehensive Plan as a road map in

their own long-range planning. | ask this Board to

honor our Comprehensive Plan’s intent and hold

the developer to these objectives.

| would further encourage the Board to consider

requesting a more in depth SEQR review as this is

an ecologically sensitive area. Our

Comprehensive Plan (pg 30) does indicate that

the Planning Board should utilize this tool to

protect development in Webster. This property

has areas of standing water and does filter to Mill

Creek, an important watershed to protect. |

would propose that this property as such

provides critical habitat. A retention pond as

proposed and specimen landscape plantings

does not protect or provide appropriate cover for

most wildlife. This is also a an important wildlife

safe corridor Pag between Charles Sexton Park

and less developed properties to the East. |

would ask the Board to consider the

environmental pressure it has already placed on

the Bird Song Trail with its prior approval of the

cluster development located at the Orchard

St/Holt Rd entrance to the trail.

| would contend that there is a silent majority of

Webster residents who view the preservation of

mature undisturbed treed lots as critical to the

aesthetic qualities of Webster. This large parcel

was designated as a parcel of interest in prior

commissioned studies by the Town and as such

the developer should be held to the higher

standards that are available within our current

code.

PD. No

Hello, my name is Elizabeth Decker. | live at 726 Bel Arbor Trail in Webster. | have been here in

NY since Nov., 2022. | wouid like to open by expressing a heartfelt “thank you” to the Board for

your faithful service to this Town. It is wonderful to have an opportunity to address you. | am so

grateful that you are willing to listen to the concerns of Webster residents.

My journey to Webster involved an exhaustive search for a home. We spent months looking

everywhere from Irondequoit Bay all the way through Wayne County. Someone told us Webster

is “A town where life is worth living”. We managed to purchase a home here in a difficult market

and are happy to agree with that assessment. Our home has direct access to the Bird

Sanctuary Trail by bike or on foot from

250. The trail is the reason | can get anywhere in town

and to the lake in full shade and protected from cars. In the world of real estate, livability scores

are given partly on the basis of whether one can get around without driving. So far, this town

should have a high score.The connective nature of the trail system here is excellent and highly

used. This is the reason ! agree with the town motto and was willing to pay an inflated price for

a modest home with a minuscule lot.

The specific issue | would like to address tonight is the decimation of the bird trail | have

observed in the past week. What | saw made my stomach turn and my blood boil. There were

two buildozers driving down the trail. They crossed the creek and clearcut a path the size of a

road on the North side of the creek, maybe 100 feet long or more. From there they cleared a

swath directly North to a clear area with a cement culvert for water drainage. It looked like a

build site. The sound of the cracking of healthy trees and foliage was heart wrenching. The

machines left a huge pile of healthy trees and plant debris in a heap, ripped up both sides of

the trail and left three additional wide areas of total carnage in their path between where they

crossed the creek and Orchard, approximately half a mile from the main road.

| cannot prove these machines work for the builder of the new home project near Orchard and

North of the trail, but if this is any indication of how the trail is regarded by builders, we cannot

expect much code compliance on the part of a builder whose only goal is profit. | understand

the original proposal included rental homes. So | ask you, why would a builder not consider the

impact their proposed project has on the livability of its neighbors? Why would a builder not

consider what gives the neighboring properties higher value? Why would a builder choose to

clear cut the smallest strip of forest and habitat on the most used trail in our town in order to

build?

’ Profit.

| propose the code regarding preservation of vegetation and habitat is much too lenient in its

verbiage, providing too much discretion on the part of the builder. | have witnessed first hand

and given testimony to the utter disregard for the trail, the woods and the law by men and their

machines. You, the Board, are the only thing standing between the builders’ desire for profit

and your communities’ quiet enjoyment of our own properties.

Elizabeth Decker at 726 Bel Arbor Trail: It was there, and it was devastating. Last week, last

Thursday, Friday.

Anthony Casciani; Ok ve gotcha. I believe what you are saying. Mr. Vars would you just

address. | don’t believe the Engineer or developer would even attempt to go in there and do

anything like that.

piece of property on the trail.

SOMEONE FROM AUDIENCE SPEAKING OUT, NOT AT THE MIC.

Ken Yankloski at 768 Bel Arbor Trail: The only thing that I can add, is I understand the board in

not maybe being able to stop this project but you can put limitations on it so the front setback is

set for 50 feet right now, reduce that down and move the house closer to the road which you will

have more open space towards the trail. Also, you can put a limit on the size of the dwelling. Let's

say the houses can’t be bigger than 1500 square feet. Now, you open up more open space because

the foot print is much smaller and that’s really all 1 have to say.

your points, but you are saying 1500 feet, the code allows in an R-3 zone, I believe 2200 what is

the size?

fect.

by that to, and the developer is going to put something up that is going to put something up....the

neighbors that are in the area wouldn’t want to see something less expensive than their houses, |

am sure. If there are any of the local residents around the existing subdivisions around there. You

would want to have normal size houses.

Cecelia Robello at 1291 Foothill Circle: The development backs up to me and so does the pond.

Twill take a small piece of a house compared to 2200 square feet and save the wildlife.

Diana Davis at 942 Gaywood Lane: One of the writers of the letter that you received, not the

person who sent tf to the town, Apologies that there were no contact details. We were not trying

to be incognito, Ok, so think one main point to say ts Edo think that the wild life is on everyone's

mind, and | think that, that is probably more significant to the neighbors in the area than the size

of the house and how nice the house looks. f think it definitely impacts upon the home values; it

definitely impacts upon the adjacent land use for the Birdsong Trail. That piece of property, even

though it is not even an official parkland has kind of been functioning as parkland and for a tot

Pg. 112 August 6, 2024 Planning Mecting

of people in the area there is trails where people walk their dog; it's a buffer to the trail itself. 1

understand that that is not...you can't just argue because people are using it therefore the person

that owns the land doesn’t get to sell it but as the Planning Board, as we have mentioned, you

are entitled to place restrictions on it that is outside of, that are out of the R-3 zone. The zoning

in not all you have to work with for the R-3. You can also work with the subdivision zoning

which is why we put those tems in the letter which pertain to not just the preservation of trees

that are greater than 8 or 10 inches but also just a consciousness right, of the wildlife itself and

I do take your point that R-3 zoning allows up to, [don’t know what it is, up to 2200 square feet

or something like that and I don’t know how much remit you have to say that the house itself has

to be smatter but surely the setback could be reduced. 1 actually think that is a pretty brilliant

idea and just saying no clear cutting. Tmean there are actually....development in Webster has I

think historically been such a problem right because we have had a lot of developments that have

been this sort of clear cutting; sweeping lawns; tumbleweeds weeds going across the prairie kind

of style thing but not every development in Webster have been like that. I am think of a couple

that are off of Holt and I used to actually DoorDash as one of my 80 million jobs and there are

some really nice developments in Webster that left. There are like old mature trees and Gasberry

Lane is another one that I am thinking of, and they are beautiful, So, | am just thinking, if you

are not going to have the houses be for sale and not for rent, you are selling them to people that

want to be life long, theoretically residents, they are going to want to pay for access to that wild

life. If they will buy wood lots you are not going to be losing out on profit as a developer if you

make these houses basicaily in a wood lot. Um, and just to speak to overall, you know 1 think the

context that we are talking about, [ do think that the other development that has been approved

at the other end of the trail...1 think unfortunately it’s kind of like with Webster developments that

have come before even though it ts no where written officially into the code, you know, you don’t

want & Walmart’s right, even though something might be zoned, and a Walmart might want to

come in. You have to think about things in context because that one came on the other end; it's

now made this one a lot more sensitive and dicer and a hot topic because of the impact that it is

going to have on wildlife and everybody that lives in that area cares about the wildlife. I have

gone door to door talking to people, they all care it is just not about the peace and the tranquility

that the nature affords. They connect with the little doe s in their back yard and little squirrels

and everything else. So, 1 think it should be as Dottie said, held to a higher standard because of

that. Um, 1 do want to say, the damage that we were talking about it’s kind of like a secondary

topic right because there is no guarantee this Engineer could as easily stand up and say our guys

won't do that out right but [think it is just an example of how close the development is to the trail

really and how the are just right up against each other so therefore the utmost standards | think

by your guys, you are the buffer between what could be a beautiful developinent with lots of trees

and all the residents around the area are happy and the trail is still preserved and yeah,

everybody gets to buys wood lots and what could be just like a clear cut nightmare and everybody

is really upset about it, Like 7 think that there is an argument to say that some of the things that

the applicant hasn't done yet, need to be done. So, Lam not going to read the letter back to you

but that 296-15a, giving the plan for the preserving the existing vegetation not clear cutting and

planting a few things and then right, 296-16 a you guys basically requiring them to maintain

existing vegetation and wild habitats within the site right, so anyway.

Pg. 113 August 6, 2024 Planning Mccting

but those are the itcms that we do look at, ata final approval for projects. You can look at minutes

of other mectings in the past of wooded areas like that. We have preserved trees, we worked

around trees, we have done everything you can possibly do. Who is thinking that we are

annihilating woods. That is the stuff that just gets frustrating for this board because it is not

factual stuff,

Diana Davis at 942 Gaywood Lane; I think the concern was because tonight's application is for

preliminary and final subdivision and plan approval and the current plat doesn't have anything

related to what we would want to see I think as a community in terms of like, tree preservation.

We don’t want to see approval go forward before like that, you know, site plan gets changed to

reflect some actual effort to like keep the woods.

staff and this was the outcome of it. Lets hold on that because it really has some environmental

issues. We are aware, everybody here is aware of it and lets address them. So, that is why tonight,

and I don’t think we are moving forward with preliminary and final approval because it is going

to be gone through the SEQR process. So, determination, what is the significance of it, probably

] guess, Josh, it’s going to be a TYPE I?

that we can probably do here tonight and correct me if Lam wrong is our board takes lead agency

to the project, am I correct? We would be lead agency for the project, we would get information

and anybody else that would want to take it which we doubt very much that anybody is, you know

the county isn’t going to want it, the state isn’t going to want it, so the town is stuck with it. So,

we end up being Icad agency to the project and then there is a 30 day period where information

and so on and so forth can come in and then so on and then we move forward with that and then

items like what you folks were saying, those are the items that are addressed with this. So, this is

no where near being done by any stretch.

Diana Davis at 942 Gaywood Lane: understand I guess 1 still would have the concern that once

you give approval there is less remit within the SEQR process to for instance require a

preservation of a certain amount of trees. Who is going to be the one pushing on that?

trees On a property, you take an area where a sewer linc; a gas line; a water line have to service

this house. That take out 99% of the trees in the front. The best place that they can be preserved

is the back which where we generally and what we do is try and save the trees along the back and

the Birdsong project if you wil, the parkland actually has a 100 foot buffer of parkland that is

adjacent to this piece of project.

Pg. 114 August 6, 2024 Planning Meeting

Diana Davis at 942 Gaywood Lane: So, are we saying that on the current subdivision or on the

current plan, that sort of light green here (showing on the map) that this is inaccurate? But

where is the 100 year buffer.

Diana Davis at 942 Gaywood Lane: That is not quite the same thing. So, 1 just have one more

question and then I won't take up any more of you time. So, my understanding and I did get in

touch with a lawyer. Just to check that 1 had this understanding right. The sections of the code

require the developer to submit the location of proposed development of all buffers location

existing trees particularly notion, prior to approval. These contents are nat optional. So not only

have but for you to then insure right 296-16a_ that existing vegetation and wildlife habituates are

maintained when the plan quite clearly doesn't address that. For that to say, well that going to

be done at the level of SEQR you are approving it before you have done those two items so that

tome...what Lwas advised, by the lawyer that I consulted is that those two itemy are not optional.

and if they are not attended to prior to approval it opens us up to an article 78 appeal.

Tony is referring to is, in working with a devcloper and addressing....EVERYONE IN THE

AUDIENCE YELLING OUT.

Diana Davis at 942 Gaywood Lane: So, you are saying SEQR process is not going to issued

tonight it is just going to be designated a TYPE 1 SEQR.

through the SEOR process....

Diana Davis at 942 Gaywood Lane: But you are not granting approval tonight?

Diana Davis at 942 Gaywood Lane: | am going to go and sit down then.

with the developer and the engineer and then take that feed back and amend their plans and then

resubmit at a later date after the SEQR process has run it’s coarse.

SOMEONE FROM AUDIENCE SPEAKING OUT.

Pg. 115 August 6, 2024 Planning Meeting

much as we would want lo say, god this ts a beautiful piece, add it to the park. Well, whose going

io add it to the park. Talk to the town and tell them to buy it. The town has bought it. They are

nol going to buy ever piece of land to appease every person,

SOMEONE FROM THE AUDIENCE SPEAKING OUT.

SOMEONE FROM THE AUDIENCE SPEAKING OUT.

Isabel Kaplan at 1278 Clear Pond Lane: I have a question about the map. I need some

clarification. WALKS OVER TO THE MAP ...the L shaped green strip, is that part of this lot?

fsabel Kaplan at 1278 Clear Pond Lane: So, it’s actually not a buffer zone to 250 or anything

like that.

land and 1's just the way the land is because there is an owner right next to it. The gray spot

fsabel Kaplan at 1278 Clear Pond Lane: Twas wondering if that could be preserved somehow as

woodlands.

oniginally, what they were going to do there was to make a parking lot for the Birdsong Sanctuary.

Well, the adjacent neighbors were not to thrilled with that making it a parking lot, rightfully so

the developed said ok, we will just leave it the way it is, and it wil be part of the lot and that is

that.

Kevin and If live over on Kittle Berger Park: (NEVER SIGNED IN) From what f am hearing

tonight is that the people want a comprehensive plan for the town to steer more towards open

green space and preserving green space and they are concerned about the interests Planning

Board and so, 1 think we just have to have some clarity on...not only on the comprehensive plan

and prioritizing for people here in Webster clearly want to preserve the open space and green

space but also reflect that in the zoning map becatuse we are very cognizant of what is happening

in Penfield. They changed the comprehensive plan and shifted the whole plan of the zoning map

and now they are building a Costco and ruining that whole beautiful stretch of land. From what

f hear from the people hear, it sounds like we are all worried about that happening here. So, we

just want to grasp onto eur comprehensive plan and have a good sense that the people here are

at least going to agree on the document and that we are going to have some ability to negotiate

on behalf ef nature with this board because you may see a growth in the tax base and want to

enlarge in the tax base or whatever; sell to developers, however that all works and do the business

Pg. 116 August 6, 2024 Planning Mecting

and if you are good at the business than that will be growing, However that works but that’s all

I wanted to say.

this as residential R-3 years ago. So that is why it is what it is, and we just go by book. If it was

zoned for an apartment that would be another whole story if the zoning, got changed and I don’t

think anyone would like that so anyways that’s what it is and that is what we deal with.

Jeanette Chambers at 1474 Oakmonte Blvd: I grew up here and I love this little town. [respect

the fact that this person bought that land, {| get it and what you said about the older couple having

property, my parents were those parents, and he needed to sell his property, and it wasn’t here it

was in Ontario, butt get it. My concern here is what I heard the woman say earlier not about

this property but about the property where she was out for a walk and met a bulldozer. Arve there

guardrails around when this person does bring in and start developing housing that we can

prevent meeting a bulldozer on the trail. Is there something.

is that they will have to be putting fencing around. It won’t be barb wire anything like that, but

they will have to mark off the perimeter for erosion off the property and so on and they will not

go onto the parkland by any means.

Jeanette Chambers at 1474 Oakmonte Blvd: Ok, 1 appreciate that, and I really want to have the

utmost faith in this person who bought the land that they respect Webster. They came here to

build in Webster because they obviously see value in it and 1 know there is a fot of profit and

other people are talking about that, but T want to hold in my heart somewhere, they want to hold

the integrity of Webster. Thank you.

bring it back up to the board. I guess tonight, basically what the decision was what we were going

to do is move forward with SEQR on this project tonight.

assuming we will gct a summary or will get the mecting minutes and probably what we will do

is we will request a meeting with PRC, and we will hash through these just like we did before,

and we will find out the path forward. Thank you for your time this evening.

ALL BOARD MEMBERS SPEAKING

Py. 117 August 6, 2024 Planning Meeting

Derek Anderson:

MOTION FOR A TYPE 1 ACTION - NEGATIVE DECLARATION

Whereas the Town of Webster Planning Board (Planning Board) considered the request by

Applicant, Grove Underhill, LLC to create a 9 lot subdivision consisting of 8 single family

residences and an associated stormwater management facility located between the east end of

Conifer Cove Lane and Webster Road on a 5.55-acre parcel having SBL# 065.18-1-27 and in an

R3 single family residential district under Sections 269-11, 269-20 and 350-12 of the code of the

town of Webster.

Whereas at August 4, 2024 meeting, the Planning Board determined that the action is a Type I

action, and that the action is subject to a single agency review, that it was the most appropriate

agency for making a determination of significance and dectared itself lead agency. The planning

Board received no objections to tts declaration of lead agency.

Whereas the Planning Board has given consideration to the criteria for determining significance

as set forth in Section 617.7(c)(1) of SEQR, and has

1. considered the information contained in the Full Environmental Assessment Form Part 1,

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

and

3. completed Part 2 of the Environmental Assessment Form.

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

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

the environment for the reasons set forth in the attached Full Environmental Assessment Form,

Part 3 — Evaluation of the Magnitude and Importance of Project Impacts and Determination of

Significance; be it further,

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

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

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

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

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

the TOWN OF WEBSTER PLANNING BOARD as documented by the Minutes for this and

other meetings, that the proposed action WILL NOT result in any significant environmental

impacts, be it further,

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

DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE, be it further,

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

issucs a NEGATIVE DECLARATION as evidence of its determination.

Pe, 118 August 6, 2024 Planning Meeting

NOTICE OF DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE

The Planning Board has reasonably concluded the following results from the proposed action,

when compared against the criteria in Section 617.7(c):

sl

9. 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 proposal action will not have an impact on the drinking water since the cight

residential parcels will be supplicd by the Monroe County Water Authority, which has

adequate supply capacity.

The proposed action will not have an impact on the sewerage or treatment system since

the proposed eight residential lots will connect to the Town of Webster sewage system

which has adequate collection and treatment facitities to serve the development.

The proposed action will not have a substantial adverse change in potential for crosion,

flooding, leaching or drainage problems. Development will conform to NYSDEC for

storm water management and control.

The proposed action will not have a substantial adverse change in existing solid waste

production since the action does not contain processes that will significantly increase the

amount of solid waste being sent to local landfills.

The proposed action will not have a substantial adverse change in existing noise, odor or

light since the action is being developed in accordance with Town of Webster standards.

A temporary increase in noise levels consistent with normal construction activities 18

anticipated during construction.

The proposed action will not have a substantial adverse change, or cumulative change in

traffic since the proposed action only serve eight new residential parcels.

The proposed action will not have a substantial adverse impact on the criteria listed under

Section 617(c)(1)(1i} 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(c)(E)(v) of SEQR since the action ts not located in or adjacent to the listed resources

and is in character with the surrounding community.

. The action will not result in a major change in the type or use of energy since the action

is for eight residential houses.

. The action will not create a hazard to human health since the residential properties will

not produces non-houschold hazardous waste.

. The action will not create a substantial change in use of the land since the action is

consistent with zoning for the land, the exisung community character, and the Town of

Webster 2008 Comprehensive Plan.

Pg. 119 August 6, 2024 Planning Meeting

[

[6. 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 eight residential parcels.

17. The action will not create a cumulative impact on the environment as listed under

617(c)(1)(x), (x1), and (xii) of SEQR.

RESOLUTION 24-0033 Derek Anderson made a motion for TYPE I

SEQR which was seconded by Mark Giardina.

the record that the board was declaring it as a TYPE IL, but I think we need to clarify that it's

a TYPE I.

269. Board: He did say 269,

VOTE:

Mr. Anderson AYE

Mr. Kose] AYE

Mr. Malta AYE

Mr. Meixell AYE

Mr. Casciani AYE

Mr. Giardina AYE

Mrs. Maltman AYE

8" roughly which is 2 days after the next Planning Board mecting, so Lam proposing that we

potentially hold a special mecting later in September once the 30 day clock is expired as to not

delay them to the October meeting. So, if you are looking for a date. | believe it is Tuesday.

EVERYONE ONE ON THE BOARD TALKING... JOSH SAID A SPECIAL MEETING

Pe. 120 August 6, 2024 Planning Mecting

ourselves as lead agency with single agency review.

review, the 30 days does not hold.

MARK AND DEREK SPEAKING AT THE SAME TIME.

You know, this 1s literally a single agency review,

maybe a coordinated review.

go. So yeah, it would be a coordinated review.

30 day actually necessary because in the regulation it talks about 30 days for coordinated review

NOT SPEAKING LOUD ENOUGH and that for when there is multiple agencies involved as

lead agent.

Kyle Taylor; NOT SPEAKING LOUD ENOUGH... you declaring yourself as lead agency and

they have 30 days to respond.

Josh Artuso; Right and they rarely do but that is how we anticipated moving forward on this.

e 5 o

Pg. 121 August 6, 2024 Planning Mecting

application.

RESOLUTION 24-0034 Anthony Cascianit made a motion to PLANNING

BOARD DECLARED THEIR INTENT TO

BECOME LEAD AGENCY FOR PURPOSE OF

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW; 30-DAY

COORDINATED REVIEW TO BEGIN;

APPLICATION TABLED TO SPECIAL

MEETING ON SEPTEMBER 17, 2024 @ 7PM

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

(Mark Giardina read the second application):

APPROVAL associated with the installation of 2 building mounted fagade signs (one being 275

SF and the other being 173 SF) and tenant panels on existing monument signs to reflect the name

change from Esporta Fitness back to LA Fitness on a 5.58-acre parce) having SBL# 079.12-1

19.001 located in an HC High Intensity Commercial District under Section 265-7 of the Code of

the Town of Webster.

Appearing before the board was Randy DiNatale and my address is 2900 Hunters Lane, and [am

representing LA Fitness, and I am here before the board as requested.

and forth but i€s going to be LA Fitness again.

Pe. 122 August 6, 2024 Planning Mecting

existing, and they are all pretty much the same thing.

engineering wise.

to have the second sign location so that would remain.

Derek Anderson:

RESOLUTION

The Town of Webster Planning Board considered the request by Applicant, Randy DiNatale to

install two building mounted facade signs (one being 275 SF and the other being !73 SF) and

(enant panels on existing monument signs to reflect the name change from Esporta Fitness back

to LA Fitness located at 929 Holt Road on a 5.58-acre parcel having SBL# 079.12-1-19,001.

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

617.5(c)(9) of the State Environmental Review (SEQR) Regulations and therefore is not subject

to further review.

RESOLUTION 24-0035 Derck Anderson made a motion for TYPE H

SEQR which was seconded by Derek Meixcll.

VOTE:

Mr. Anderson AYE

Mr. Kosel AYE

Mr. Malta AYE

Mr. Meixell AYE

Mr. Casciani AYE

Mr. Giardina AYE

Mrs. Maltman AYE

RESOLUTION 24-0036 John Kosel made a motion for SIGN APPROVAL

Located at 929 Holt Road. Applicant Randy

DiNatale is requesting SIGN APPROVAL

associated with the installation of 2 building

Pg. 123 August 6, 2024 Planning Mecting

mounted fagade signs (one being 275 SF and the

other being 173 SF) and tenant panels on existing

monument signs to reflect the name change from

Esporta Fitness back to LA Fitness on a 5.58-acre

parce] having SBL# 079.12-1-19.001 located in an

HC High Intensity Commercial District under

Section 265-7 of the Code of the Town of Webster

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 third application):

THE HUMAN BEAN DRIVE THRU RESTAURANT: Located at 2195 Empire Blvd.

Applicant The Lambent Waft, LLC (Torance Washington) is requesting

PRELIMINARY/FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL (

PUBLIC HEARING

) associated the

construction of a proposed 600 SF drive through coffee shop and walk-up cale on a 1.10-acre

parcel having SBL# 078.20-1-75 located in an MC Medium Intensity Commercial District under

Section 269-1] and 350-18 of the Code of the Town of Webster.

Applicant requested that the application be tabled to the September 3, 2024 Planning Board

meeting.

(Giardina/Casciant)

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

meeting al 8:15 PM.

Respectfully Submitted,

Mark Giardina, Secretary oe

Katherine Kolich, Recording Secretary

Pg. 124 August 6, 2024 Planning Mecting

SEP 18°24 pu2:17

FILED WEBSTER TWN CLK