Minutes

WEBSTER TOWN PLANNING BOARD MINUTES

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

June 4, 2024 Webster Planning Board meeting.

Please join us in the Pledge of ANegiance. Roll call

Summary overview of outcome:

SCHEDULED MATTERS

:

WEBSTER FITNESS COMPANY-SIGN-855 PUBLISHERS PARKWAY

VISION NISSAN-ADDITION-785 RIDGE ROAD

e The site is currently packed full of cars, how will addition fit?

e Cars are being parked in the rear buffer that borders residential areas; Cars being

unloaded on Ridge Road.

e Identify location for on-site loading/unloading of cars.

Contact the landowner next door regarding lease/purchase of additional lands.

PIPELINE WAY-IN LAW SUITE-504 PIPELINE WAY

MUST COMPLY WITH ALL OTHER REQUIREMENTS OF TOWN CODE SECTION

350-50

Pg. 76 June 4, 2024 Planning Meeting

BIRDSONG AT CONIFER COVE SUBDIVISION

Status; TABLED TO JULY 2, 2024, MEETING

APPLICANT TO EXPLORE DESIGN THAT DOES NOT CONNECT ROAD TO

EXISITNG CONIFER COVE LANE

(Mark Giardina read the first application):

Levine is requesting SIGN APPROVAL associated with the installation of a 68.73 SF internally

lit building mounted facade sign for Webster Fitness Company (rebranding from Gold's Gym) on

a 44.14-acre parcel having SBL # 079.06-1-32.11 located in an OP Core Area North Office Park

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

Appearing before the board was Todd Levine and | am representing Webster Fitness Company.

I am here tonight seeking the boards approval for replacing the sign approximately 68 square

feet; box sign and back lit for the front of the building.

than the letters is black, so it won't give off much light.

Derck Anderson:

RESOLUTION

Town of Webster Planning Board considered the request by Applicant, Todd Levine to install a

66.73 square foot internally illuminated fagade sign for Webster Fitness Company located at 855

Publishers Parkway on a 44.4-acre parcel having SBL #079.06- 1-32.11.

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

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

lo further review.

Pg. 77 June 4, 2024 Planning Meeting

;

RESOLUTION 24-0024

VOTE:

RESOLUTION 24-0025

VOTE:

Derek Anderson made a motion for TYPE 11 SEQR

which was seconded by Derek Meixcell.

Mr. Anderson AYE

Mr. Kosel AYE

Mr. Malta AYE

Mr. Meixell AYE

Mr. Casciani AYE

Mr. Giardina AYE

Mrs. Maltman AYE

John Kosel made a motion for SIGN APPROVAL Located

at 855 Publisher’s Parkway. Applicant Todd Levine is

requesting SIGN APPROVAL associated with the

installation of a 68.73 SF internally Jit building mounted

facade sign for Webster Fitness Company (rebranding from

Gold’s Gym) on a 44,14-acre parcel having SBL # 079.06

1-32.11 located in an OP Core Area North Office Park

District under Section 265-7 of the Code of the Town of

Webster which was seconded by Derek Meixell.

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):

requesting SKETCH PLAN REVIEW associated with the construction of a 1,400 SF building

addition for an enclosed service entrance area and associated facade improvements to an existing

car dealership on a 2.43-acre parcel having SBIL# 079.17-1-20 located in an MC Medium Intensity

Commercial District under Sections 269-5 and 350-18 of the Code of the Town of Webster.

Appearing before the board was Linc Swedrock with BME Associates here tonight on behalf of

Vision Auto Group. We are requesting a sketch plan review for a 1400 square foot building to the

existing Vision Nissan Car Dealership. We also have improvements to the site. We included some

parking: additional signage for customers and some access improvements to make sure we have

Pg. 78 June 4. 2024 Planning Meeting

access around the addition for emergency vehicles; some restriping; parking improvements as well

as the building addition.

We provided you with building elevations and floor plans for the proposal. The addition is

basically for to receive maintenance, to add a maintenance area for them to pull the car in and go

to maintenance desk and drop the car off. So, this is something that the improvements and the

maintenance thing 1s something that Vision Nissan themselves ts looking to do a lot of their

operations so. With that, | am here to answer any questions for sketch plan tonight.

no parking pavement mark there?

bunch of cars? Right now, you are showing single parking all along that line, correct?

are nol supposed to be there in the first place.

I could barely get back in there and turn around to get out. The back area, you guys have got cars

parked within the 100-foot buffer right in the back there. They are not supposed to be there. This

has got some major issues. This AM you had a delivery truck there, this is stupid. Every project

has to have a way for a delivery truck to unload. You are coming in here tonight and you have a

truck parked on a road, unloading cars. Not to cool! This has some serious issues. I think what you

need to do with this, is show where you are parking the cars now and again, you have a double

row along the side of the building there and on your new drawing you are showing | row of cars

and not even half of the number of parking spaces. That thing is maxed out. If there was a fire

truck, you couldn't even get it back there, ok and that to me is all a problem. Now, a solution to

it, next door there is a piece of property that belongs to MARK IV, that vacant piece in there, |

think what Vision should do is negotiate a deal with them because there is nothing in there; nothing

proposed for it right now and see if they can make arrangements to use that for parking. If they

can do that, then you can come back, and I think you have a better chance of looking at this

addition.

| don’t know about the board, that is just my opinion. Going through this site, there is your site

right there, do you want lo see it.

Pg. 79 June 4. 2024 Planning Meeting

there. You have 3 rows of cars. Anyways, what do you want to do?

I would suggest you talk to them and see if they can negotiate a deal about getting that over there

because the way it stands right now, and now another thing, they will have to show where they can

come in with a truck to unload jike they were supposed to in the first place. Right now, you can’t

even get a bicycle through there.

THE SAME TIME...INAUDIBLE)

where they can come up with something different.

hazard like you can’t believe.

side and in the back and just a suggestion, try and negotiate with MARK 1V for that piece of land,

is right there next to them, it’s ideal. Now, that is not zoned for automotive, it's commercial but

I think something could be worked out between the town and Vision. I suggest you take that avenue

right now. | was not too happy with what I was secing there.

(Mark Giardina read the third application):

requesting ACCESSORY APARTMENT WAIVER APPROVAL associated with the

construction of a 1,072 SF attached accessory apartment addition to an existing single-family

residence on a 0.69-acre parcel having SBL# 066.01-23.3 located in an R-3 Single Family

Residential District under Section 350-50 of the Code of the Town of Webster.

Appearing before the board was Ed Matthew with Spartacus Construction. | am here for the

owners; they are out of Lown, We are just looking for approval from the board to add an in-law

Py. 80 June 4, 2024 Planning Mecting

suite for Matt Berry's mother to move in, She is moving in to more of a handicapped need at this

point and | know a varrance 1s needed so we are just looking for the towns approval on that.

feet-750 square feet which ever is less. It exceeds that, What is the square footage on that Josh, |

forgot.

feet.

know, I can’t even see it on the drawing. Where... you are going to have one service, servicing the

whole house right?

section.

way, ok. 1 wrote some notes down. So, prior to a C of O, the owner shall deliver to the town an

agreement as per Lown’s requirements, going to the county and so on. You will have to do that.

can change that. Go ahead and take a look at it and come up with something.

on Schlegel Road but that house is about 3 houses in from Schlegel, so 1] don’t understand where

that was coming from.

ATTACHED LETTER) I don't think you are going to be running any pipelines.

Pg. 81 June 4, 2024 Planning Mecting

peoy |abajyos 2891 “SSOJPPY

uIMp|eg BJPUeS “BWEN

jnoA yuRyL

*sp1090.1 SuQv0uL JO j.1ed sv papnyoul pue Siaquie,] preog

o}eLidoidde ayy yjIM paleys oq Way) [JIM S}USUTUIOD ANOX

*SUQI9UI JY] JO Avp ay} uo ‘urd OF: ue

19}e] OU UsY) WuUIqns ssea|d ‘syUsUIIIOD SUTVIe_] prvog 104

‘MoLADY Japuy ALiodoig & 10 Ura]

epussy Suno9,{ prvog ev SurpieZaa1 savy nod suogsanb

10 SJUIUITIOD AUB JIUIGNS 0} MO[Aq WLIO] ayy asn asea[g

‘squapIsoy

WJO4 JUSLULUOT) Buleayy pueog

<SrAuiaysqam Gy jOxA> YyIjoy suvayyey/<sn-Auyaysqaw i @osnyel> osnuy ysor:<sn-Auiajsqam 19 @sucijerunwwos> ssad3y 3)qeD Jasqanr:o1

WY PL:OL p20z/2/9 uns

<Worsnda1aAn@A|daiou> woo'snjdsialn@Ajdaiou

et —__J

°SS900.1d UOISSTUIGNS 34} 39}]3,duUI0d

0} MOP WoyWN® LINANS IG} Oo Yoyo

asvo]d ‘s}UsUIUIOD ANOA pod] savy NOA 39UQ

UMpeg UYyor pue Bupues

‘NOA yUBLL

‘yoqonysu0s Buuinp panowaes ae aul) Aedosd ey) seAc Buiu0s

pury Aue jo sadid afbeuresp wuoys Aue yeu) 482 PINOM apj

‘aul AUedosd eu) eeu al ay

2 payeunjes Aqueysuod que Seale JeujO eoyOU em se ALedold

Jno oyu! yam sadid eBeureup aaey Aew aurjedigq uo sawoy ou}

JO JapyING eu aAatjeq AAA ‘AUadoud tno oul Jayem jo jeep yeolb e

Bunng.ujuos peung edid payebnuos wep Wwo}s eB sem (Ayedold

JNO OJUI! 799} OZ) ‘(PUE UMOP 388] 0} OMY 0} BUD PSISAODOSIP SAA

$931) Paap

awos yno Bueslo ayym Avedoud sno uo auljadig UC SaLWCY

SU} PUIYaG SUCHE] JaUJO UL! PUB aWOY auy pulyaq Aadoid

INO OJ 9S) OZ JNoge jem AyUe}SUCS SEM }I JEU] PaooU

am yor SIBOA Ma} YY “SUIadig POS pulyag ApoaJIp payeo|

si ey) Ayadoud uno oyu! eBeuesp jnoge peujaques ayy aA

*sjuauavinba,

Buiuoz sjeow 11 se Buc] os uonippe s,Aueg eu} WIM Wajqoid

ou eazy pue sioguBieu uno awoojem | pue uyor pueqsnyH AW

ALINS MVTNI AVM ANFIAdlId

Woo -Ws]saysqMulmp|eqs

:MoO|eq XOq Bu} Ul

SJUSWILUCD INOA adh; esea|d

:uQ Buljuswiiw0s ue

nOA o1do]_ 40 Way epuaby

‘LONPUUOJU] JORJUOD

AT THE SAME TIME)

just for the waiver of the size?

following the regulations set forth in that code section but because they are exceeding the size

allowance, that is what wiggered the need to come before this board.

AT THE SAME TIME) INAUDIBLE coming in.

Anthony Casciant; Ok. Alright it would just be for the size then and that’s it. That's simple and

then as far as....that’s interesting because...so you will have to review and make sure everything

INAUDIBLE passageways and so on and so forth.

iL is not written into the meeting agenda that | just read a few minutes ago.

Pg. 82 June 4, 2024 Planning Meeting

Derck Anderson:

RESOLUTION

Town of Webster Planning Board considered the request by Applicant. Mat Berry for a waiver to

construct a },072 square foot attached accessory apartment addition to an existing single-family

residence located at 504 Pipeline Way on a 0.69-acre parcel having SBL #066.01-23.3

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 24-0026

VOTE:

RESOLUTION 24-0027

VOTE:

Derek Anderson made a motion for TYPE II

SEQR which was seconded by Mark Giardina.

Mr. Anderson AYE

Mr. Kosel AYE

Mr. Malta AYE

Mr. Meixell AYE

Mr. Casciani AYE

Mr. Giardina AYE

Mrs. Maltman AYE

Anthony Casciani made a motion for ACCESSORY

APPROVAL Located at 504 Pipeline Way. Applicant Matt

Berry is requesting ACCESSORY APARTMENT

WAIVER APPROVAL associated with the construction of

a 1,072 SF attached accessory apartment addition to an

existing single-family residence on a 0.69-acre parcel having

SBL# 066,01-23.3 located in an R-3 Single Family

Residential District under Section 350-50 of the Code of the

Town of Webster which was seconded by Mark Giardina.

Mr. Anderson AYE

Mr. Kosel AYE

Mr. Malta AYE

Mr. Meixell AYE

Mr. Casciant AYE

Mr. Giardina AYE

Mrs. Maltman AYE

Pe. 83 June 4, 2024 Planning Meeting

peoy |aBajyos 2891 ‘SSauppy

UuIMp|eg Bipues :aWeN

jnodA yueyL

*Ssp10001 SuQI0UI Jo JAed se papnypaul puke S1saquiayy preog

o7eLIdoidde at] YIM paieys aq Way) [[IM S}USUIUIOD NOX

*SUQIIUI 9y} JO Aep oy} uo ‘wid O€:€ ueIy

I9}¥| OU UI9Y] WUIQNS osva|d ‘s}USsUIUIOD SuUQVIa] pivog 104

*‘MOLAZY Jopuy Ayodoig & 10 WI39}]

epuesy Sunsop preog & SurpseZai1 savy nod suogsanb

IO S}UWIUIWIOD AUB JIUIGNS 0} MO[Aq ULIOJ VY} VSN asea[d

‘s]USpIsoy

WJO4 JUSLULUOZ) Buijeaay) pueog

<srrkuaysqam l2@yaOxy> YOY auvsuyey‘<smAuyajsqam'2@osnyel> osnuy ysor'<smAwuajsqam DOsuoyjesunuwor> ssary aged Jaysqayy:01

WY PLOL pede/2/9 UNS

<WOr'sn|draiAn@Aidaiou> wor snjdsiain@A|dasou

Leda) a

WATVER FOR OVERALL SIZE OF 1,072 SF APPROVED AS PRESENTED; MUST

COMPLY WITH ALL OTHER REQUIREMENTS OF TOWN CODE SECTION 350-50

(Mark Giardina read the fourth 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 Fred Shelley (DID NOT SIGN IN) with BME Associates

representing the applicant, Grove Underhill, LLC. also with us is Mitchell Brodsky and Jeff Bel!

from Grove Underhill, LLC and also Abbey D’ Angelo with BME as part of our design team.

The applicant is requesting preliminary and final subdivision approval for this project which was

previously before the Planning Board for a sketch plan in December of 2023. The project is an 8

lot single family residential subdivision located on 5.5 acres and is located on the west side of

Webster Road and east of the dead end of Conifer Cove lane where there is a temporary turnaround

and it’s north of and adjoining the Webster Conservation Brid Sanctuary trail. The project is

currently vacant and includes sessional growth vegetation and the applicant proposed conventional

development of the property meeting the underline residential R-3 zoning requirements that was

suggested by the Planning Board during the sketch plan review. The development will include, as

I stated, 8 single family lots. One parcel will be proposed to be conveyed to the Town of Webster

for a storm water management facility and then there is also the public road connection and

extension that will connect Conifer Cove Lane on the west side if the project to Webster Road

NYS RT

250. The roadway access point on 250 does meeting the required site distances and the

applicant 1s under way with the coordination of permitting with the NY State DOT.

Also included in the project, is the extension of public utilities including public sanitary and public

sewer which will connect to Conifer Cove existing sanitary sewer; water main connection which

is under the jurisdiction of the Monroe County Water Authority. There will be a connection in

Conifer Cove right of way as well as a connection on RT

250. Lastly, there will be a proposed

stormwater maintenance area and stormwater management practices which will include the

construction of the dry pond: a bioretention area; both of those practices are proposed to mect the

NYS DEC requirements for green infrastructure, there is stormwater permitting and then there will

also be public sanitary storm sewers installed within the right of way and through out the site to

collect storm water run off and direct it to the stormwater facility,

The design of the project 1s intending to comply with town and state requirements as | mentioned

with, he stormwater, the design requirements and the site runoff generally will come into the sitc

cither from the west from the two properties on Conifer Cove Lane and then also the majority of

the site run off that is coming from off site is coming from the sanctuary trail. Site drainage is

Pg. 84 June 4, 2024 Planning Meeting

generally contained with the development area and the runoff will be collected by storm sewers

and directed to the facilities where iW will be treated for water quality and quantity. It will be

discharged at rates that will reduce under existing conditions.

Plan sets also include the landscape plan. Lot 4 of the project which is the adjoining on the south

side of the road that adjoining state road 250 includes a vegetated berm for buffering from the state

road. There is landscaping proposed in and around the stormwater facility further increasing the

buffer from the site and the design also includes a general lot landscape theme of 2 trees per lot

and the developer plans to coordinate the individual plantings as provided based on place holders

and the final locations will be coordinated through construction. The home construction.

One last item on landscaping, the vegetation, is that the developer will also look to preserve sclect

trees within the site, where il is available if it’s a significant tree or a tree in good health and the

grading and site disturbance will allow for preservation of those trees. The project will require

review and approval from the Monroe County of Public Health for the proposed water main and

sanitary sewer extensions. It requires approval from Monroe County Water Authority for the water

main extension and then the DOT also has a permitting process for connection of the subdivisions

straight to RT 250 as well as the water main connection to the existing utilities on state RT

250. The applicant will continue to coordinate the agency review and approval throughout the towns

approval phase as well. The applicant has received comment letters from the residents at Conifer

Cove and also the town Engineer. Recently the applicant has provided the response letter to the

neighbors and that was copied to the town for the towns fife. We will also provide responses to the

town Engineers comments afier this meeting. Both the neighbor letter and the town Engineer letters

included comments on the anticipated traffic within the site and not necessarily whether there will

be a large generation of trips from the proposed 8 lots, it is more of a consideration to potential

changes in the distribution of traffic between the existing development to the north of the property

and the property itself,

We have been contact with (own staff'and we are working to refine the scope as far as to determine

the scope of that study to figure out and come up with some anticipated distribution for the project

and we will continue to work with the lown as we come up with more information. There were

also comments pertaining both in the town Engineer tetter and the neighbors letter that requested

that the applicant consider the site runoff . We do acknowledge that there are some areas that

have saturated soils on site. Just in regard to this, we have proposed out storm water management

facilities again per the DEC regulation. These are intended to reduce the runoff from the developed

site and then will discharge it ata rates at or below existing conditions. The site discharges at the

northwest corner of the project into an existing swale which leads to a storm water culvert within

an easement to the Town of Webster and that is located on property at 1291 Foothills Circle.

The developer also views the project focation relative to the same sanctuary trail as an appealing

feature and desire to preserve much existing vegetation along that south line of the project where

it adjoins the towns property and will work with the applicant as far as identifying any significant

trees that should be retained in there. Generally speaking, on our plans, we have proposed a swale

along the back property line, and we will look to increase that vegetative buffer as much as we can

Pg. 85 June 4, 2024 Planning Meeting

while maintaining the swale to provide proper drainage for the fots. Lastly, we did receive

correspondence from the town today, which raised the question of whether or not this project

would qualify for the proposed project would qualify fora TYPE | SEQR action and we are not

aware of any recent or new SEQR regulations or revisions recently and we are confident that the

project would be considered an UNLISTED ACTION under SEQR. We do acknowledge though

that the State Department of Health has issued letters recently that [ believe was in February of

this year which indicated realty subdivisions qualify as a TYPE | ACTION however, that TYPE

1 ACTION is included within the list that is maintained by the New York State Department of

Health as that is within the states list and just a couple of things to keep in mind, number one it is

defined in the NYS DOH code not the SEQR code , the NYS Department of Health ts not involved

or interested party in this project as this is a realty subdivisions are typically taken care of through

the towns subdivision code of 296 and also with Monroe County Department of Health. This is

further supported by the distribution of the DOH letter to Wayne, Ontario, and Yates County which

cach of these countics or none of these counties have a local or a county wide health department

so In the cases the NYS Health Department addresses SEQR, and they have their own TYPE 1 list.

We have prepared a long form, EAF as requested by the town, and we are happy to provide thal to

the town tonight. However, we do not believe that this would be considered a TYPE | Action

under the SEQR regulations. So, with that, ] would be happy to entertain any comments or

questions from the board as we go through this.

you guys in the past here, there was a lot of concern about traffic coming from Holley Road and

down Balsam Lane and making it a cut through. We kind of just breezed over it well, | kind of

spent a little time looking at it and kind of understanding it better, in my opinion anyways. Today

as I was going through it and talked to the Highway Superintendent because generally when you

gct a hammerhead like that the intent was for that road to go through that was the intent for this

thing but looking at this, in my opinion, I think...the Highway Superintendent is ok with leaving

it the way itis, as it is, a dead end and my feeling is for these 8 homes, they are going to rental

units, that is what I heard last time anyways.

but it is not oul intent to rent all of the houses and we don’t know what the market will bare at that

price level.

a private drive and dead end i, the same as Conifer Cove. You can make that a private road; you

can make it.... don’t know if it can be dedicated, It would be dedicated, just make tt a private

drive and leave it as a complex of its own. It think that is my thought on it. Highway

Superintendent was alright with i because traffic would....) can see that being a serious cul

through there. Somebody brought that up at the last meeting and | thought, well you know...but

then after looking at it, | could see where that would possibly be. How long has Conifer Cove been

there, how long has folks been there?

Pg. 86 June 4, 2024 Planning Mecting

give us your name and address. You have to go up to the microphone.

Isabel Kaplan at 1278 Clear Pond Lane: Which is on the other side of the bird sanctuary trail

from this development. | would just like clarification of what you were talking about the dead-end

street. Are you proposing to have a circle at the end and not have it go through?

Iyabel Kaplan at 1278 Clear Pond Lane: Yes

have nothing to do with Conifer Cove. It would be a separate parcel.

Isabel Kaplan at 1278 Clear Pond Lane: Are you saying a road would cut through and intersect

250?

development would have a private drive more than likely and you wouldn’t have to put a turn

around in. Just for those 8 houses it would be separate and going out to

250. Isabel Kaplan at £278 Clear Pond Lane: Well, | guess | am still confused. When you say go our

to 250, do you mean one could be at the corner of 250 and this new extension? OR are you saving

traffic would have to go back, go west and then

Ok, they would just go out to 250.

lsabel Kaplan at 1278 Clear Pond Lane: Oh, so there would be access to

250. Anthony Casciani: They would exit out onto

250. They would not be connected another words.

lam trying (o............

Isabel Kaplan at 1278 Clear Pond Lane: (LOOKING AT Till PLANS IN FRONT OF

AUDIENCE) Only these would be to 250? (NOT USING THE MIC)

fsabel Kaplan at 1278 Clear Pond Lane: (NOT AT THE MIC) Another question, the storm water

management facility, does that invelye pumps and noise, any kind of activity like that?

Pe. 87 June 4, 2024 Planning Meeting

Cecilia Rubella at 1291 Foothills Circle: (DID NOT SIGN IN) f have not heard about whether or

not you are dynamiting for basements, so please tell us that. f have a few questions so fb will stay

here until they answer then: alll.

Cecilia Rubella at 1291 Foothitls Circle: Are they dynamiting for basements?

are the other questions, any other ones?

Cecilia Rubella at 1297 Foothills Circle: There is wildlife out there, has the DEC been contacted?

It's the time where the fawns; the foxes with their kitts... lave they contacted the DEC to decide

when would be an appropriate time to start?

Cecilia Rubella at 1297 Foothills Circle: Well, it might not be a requirement, but they live on this

earth, and E would like to understand more about the drainage. I went back when they were doing

the perk test and we didn’t have a large snow pack this year and Lam sure they have the figures,

F would like to know if the extrapolating for the drainage for when we have a normal snowpack

and rain and when it's above normal because right now, that lands floods my back yard. Those

are my questions, thank you.

swales; drainage pipe storm sewer running to the pond. That pond is engineered, they don’t just

dig a whole and say here's the pond. That is engineered to take care of what the flooding would

be in a situation with the residents with the impervious surface that would be there. That is how

that is controlled.

Cecilia Rubella at 1291 Foothills Circle: [understand and that is why they did the perk test to

figure out about the water, but tis was an abnormally dryer year, So, Pdon'twant them just using

those nunbers for engineering for this year, but extrapolating those numbers for when we have

regular snow and rain fall and when we have above regular rainfall.

Cecilia Rubella at 1291 Foothills Circle: Ok, well b dida't know that, That is why 1 ani asking.

which we get 3 times a years now but that is what it is based on.

Cecilia Rubella at 1291 Foothills Circle: Ok, what about basements? And what about dynamiting ?

Pg. 88 June 4, 2024 Planning Meeting

there is any reason for dynamiting there, is there?

Applicant answering but not at the mic: INAUDIBLE ONCE AGAIN, SPEAKING FROM THE

AUDIENCE AND NOT AT THE MIC.

Greg Mishler at 1271 Conifer Cove Lane: | have been here since 1990 and I was like the 3% or 4!"

house built on the lane. 1 just wanted to comment on your proposal that we keep the dead-end

street exactly the way it is today, and I think that it is an excellent idea because we have been living

essentially, People have bought houses essentially on a dead end cul de sac type street and to take

it through 250 just presents a whole hose of problems. We would have more traffic; it’s a straight

road to you know, people tend to go faster when it’s straight and the rest of the development, north

of us, has all curves in it so that is just an issue that l guess f would like to reinforce is that Frealtly

like the idea that if you are going to take those & homes and just put them onto 250 and that would

be ifand no throughway traffic, that would be greati!!! There was an original, and there is just

one question, there was in the original plan, well, actually, 2 don't think that matters

anyniore.,..no, it doesn't, thank you.

Mark Nicholson at 1274 Clear Pond Way: | have clear view of this, and Tam also Chairman for

the Village Zoning and Planning Boards, so 1 have been through this once or twice. 1 have taken

a close look at this, and this has two issues for me. [think you have addressed both of them. One

you told, what it looked like in the plans here was that there was going to be a connection to

Conifer Lane. What lam hearing now is that there is not going to be a connection to Conifer

Lane, but we are still going to put 8 houses to exit out at onto 250...that one | kind of ??? and 1

have to use that myself ou the regular basis. There is anywhere from usually 6 to & cars waiting

to get out onto

250. Why wouldn't they turn this right around and take it back in, and [think the

name of the road is Mill Creek. That is just one idea that fT have. if you are going to limit it to & 1

am not sure how that works. The other one ts, this is “cheap counting” lets say, 1 did this for my

back porch but there is anywhere between 75 and 150 people that use that bird sanctuary trail and

what we have done at the end of this and 1 think, the original plan I saw either took the trail through

or didn't go through and 1 have looked at some zoning maps, it’s not clear to me but there is

something going on there and the state has put ina road or a connection between the Chiyoda

frail or whatever they call the one at Xerox, | apologize and the bird sanctuary trail so that thing

runs around north ponds park, through the bird sanctuary trail and then over to the Chiyvoda Trail

and all the way over to the rec center and turns around and comes back.

What fF haven't heard is confirmation that this board has decided that this is the end of

development,

Mark Nicholson at 1274 Clear Pond Way: What fam saying is, where else do we go if vou take @

look at the maps, vou have a 100 feet...

Pe. 89 June 4, 2024 Planning Meeting

Mark Nicholson at 1274 Clear Pond Way: [am talking about Webster. We can make a decision

on what we zone that, and we can also make a decision on how many more houses we are going

to put back there. E don’t know if you have any roon for anymore and what I was hoping the board

would do is stand up and say is we don’t have any more, we need to go to the Zoning Board, go te

the Planning Board, vo to wherever we need to, INAUDIBLE...

Mark Nicholson at 1274 Clear Pond Way: And by the way, 1 can help you with that.

help with this.

Mark Nicholson at 1274 Clear Pond Way: f appreciate that.

just a separate parcel of land. Itis zoned residential. The developer is proposing residential, end

of story. It has nothing to do with Birdsong or the sanctuary or anything. It doesn’t impact that

whatsoever. Now, if | understood you right, you don’t want anymore cars going oul onto

250. Mark Nicholson at 1274 Clear Pond Way: Nope.

Conifer Cove and out the other way, is that correct?

Mark Nicholson at 1274 Clear Pond Way: LAUGHTER, that was an option. | don't know what

the right option ix. (BOTH PARTIES SPEAKING AT THE SAME TIME) | appreciate your

CORNNCHIS,

with those 8 houses”

Mark Nicholson at 1274 Clear Pond Way: Well, would take thent into Conifer Cove. It’s 8 hauses,

how much traffic is that goie to put out and really stop Ut.

onto 250, Ok, Lappreciate your comments. Is there anything else you want to give us?

Mark Nicholson at 1274 Clear Pond Way: Apparently not.

Pe. 90 June 4, 2024 Planning Meeting

Jason Breen at 1259 Conifer Cove Lane: (DID NOT SIGN IN) L have some questions; can you jist

explain the process of how it is going to vo from here. Like what the next steps are.

even know what the board wants to do. They still may want to connect it; ] don’t even know. My

thought was just to eliminate the problem, the guys have been there forever, why change il...Jeave

the road as it is and just make those 8 houses to go out onto 250 .

Jason Breen at 1259 Conifer Cove Lane: L only speak for nity family; 1 think we would be on board

with that,

Jason Breen at 1259 Conifer Cave Lane: Understood.

don't believe we ready to do a preliminary and final.

Jason Breen at 1259 Conifer Cove Lane: Ok, my only other comment, iy if, the developer would

like to talk to some of the residents to have some of our input, offline, we would be open to that

too. Just sit down and do that. 1 just wanted to make tt clear that we would like to sit down with

him too.

Hugh Lee at 1290 Conifer Cove Lane: with my wife Grace and first let me say, | appreciate the

opportunity to open this up to the floor. 1 also appreciate the communications that we have had

but 1 most appreciate the suggestion that you just made Mr. Chairman. That world

solve..... (BOTH PARTIES SPEAKING AT THE SAME TIME)

Hugh Lee at 1290 Conifer Cove Lane: | would hope that you would consider that because that

takes care of niany of the issues you saw in the letter as well as some of the concerns fT personally

have ranging from the traffic and that solves that problem to issues EP would have in terms of rental

changing and the potential character of our conununity of the transition isstres; any concerns |

would have over the retatnment area. fF think the traffic area more than and overcome those

concerns that are in the letter so | would speak to some of my fellow neighbors that support any

discussion further and consider to encourage you strongly going mito 250 as an exif and entrance.

Thank you.

Pe. 91 June 4, 2024 Planning Meeting

it's a win-win for this particular development because they are not going to have tons of car driving

through there as well. It’s the right way to go.

open,

lsabel Kaplan at 1278 Clear Pond Lane: Can you talk about the implications of the rental

properties vs residential owner properties, What....f don’t know anything about what restrictions

there might be or what requirements there might be, 1 just never encountered this. My other

question is, if you make this short road that goes from 250 all the way 3 or 6 or & houses down, is

there going to be a turn around so a garbage truck can come in and get out again? This is a dead

end, right?

Isabel Kaplan at 1278 Clear Pond Lane: Yeah, so it’s wide enough?

Isabel Kaplan at 1278 Clear Pond Lane: f am just curious about all these things. Ok, so can you

talk about the difference from rental properties, the restrictions vs ownership.

rent them. Just like you have your house, if you wanted to rent, you could rent your house.

fsabel Kaplan at 1278 Clear Pond Lane: [don't believe so, not in my neighborhood.

lsabel Kaplan at 1278 Clear Pond Lane: I don’t think that is true.

exception. So, if the development said, we don’t allow homes owners to rent the property and you

buy your properly, you are buying according to that but that is not the norm. The norm is, if you

own a property, you certainly have the right to rent itand this is going to be new construction and

at the cost at What it is for new construction today, the rental on a house like that would probably

be 3,500 a month.

lsabel Kaplan at 1278 Clear Pond Lane: Well, that may not be an issue for some people but that

ty not my concern, My concern ts if there are other factors that would be positive or negative for

the neighborhood. That's uty concern and I don’t know what the rules are for the town.

Pg, 92 June 4, 2024 Planning Meeting

Wendy Jones at 760 Webster Road: [live right down from there and a big concern is left-hand

traffic turning into these drives. Right now, what we get is...Bell Arbor is right there. People are

waiting to turn into Bell Arbor; cars are going off the shoulder to go around especially at

high... 5:00 o'clock; peak traffic times, now you are going to have another street onto 250 with

people narning left, waiting to get in and that is my concern. This many streets that people are

trying to turn into, and these cars are just flying down

250. It's pretty scary sometimes. So, L would

like just to put that out there.

but now if we connected tt through, could you imagine how many more cars would be going down

there.

Wendy Jones at 760 Webster Road: No, | iumderstand but Iwas hoping like a dead end.

Pat Stephens at 1291 Conifer Cove Lane: Lam directly adjacent to this property. | think Tony what

you put together addresses most of my concerns and our bigeest concern was the connection to

250, I did through a couple of numbers together and they mentioned the straight away and the

speeding, T took a look at all the connections to 250, all down through, the longest one other than

then this one that was proposed, unless the board takes your soltution, was about 650 feet. The

straight away off of 250 with ne intersections or no curves for what is proposed here is about 1300

feet. So, that iy across about 20 streets that connect to 250 within the Town of Webster so this

would be twice as long of a straight away than any other street that is in town and I can certainly

tell you that the speeding and other issues are major so what you proposed would address that

and then just to talk about the rental use. New construction that tistantly goes into rental, certainly

within everyone's right to put a single-family home into a rental ifthe market supports it, which I

think it very well may but what you can’t do in that situation is have public utilities to those

properties. The roadways, the drainage, the stormwater facility, if your are renting or have a rental

conmiuuty or rental properties, that you are developing new, that stuff should remain private not

maintained by the other taxpayers, if you are running a profitable business with theses new

developments. So, most of the other sniff you addressed, and I think the takeaway of the connection

addresses most of my other concerns or major concerns anyway, We hope to continue talks with

the developer about possible purchase of the property and you talked about it, the only way you

can deal with it is to purchase it and we have tried but currently that ts not something folks are

open to so, Hope we can progress otherwise, what you are proposing that you mentioned, makes

alotof sense.

track from Balsam Lane all the way to 250 would be one straight shot.

Sam Kaplan at 1278 Clear Point Lane: Why haven't you considered the possibility of not having

a connection from 250 to this development and forcing evervone to drive the other way around.

Pe. 93 June 4, 2024 Planning Meeting

That would also elevate the traffic but would not have another entry way into 250, ts that a

possibility as well,

Sam Kaplan at 1278 Clear Point Lane: 1 am saying to keep the dead end so you cannot enter from

250. The cars in the new development have to go out the same way as the cars...that the houses

are currently in that development.

DAVE MALTA AND APPLICANT SPEAKING AT THE SAME TIME. INAUIDBLE houses

and going all the way through.

Sam Kaplan at 1278 Clear Point Lane: Would that be an equal solution.

Anthony Casciani; No. Again, as Mr. Stephens just said, “to which is a good point. That would

definitely be a racetrack right up through there. The cars would go with a straight shot through.

Why would you want to connect them into there? These houses....Where do you live, I'm sorry,

Sam Kaplan at 1278 Clear Point Lane

they live there. (BOTH PARTIES SPEAKING AT THE SAME TIME) 55:47

Sam Kaplan at 1278 Clear Point Lane: 1 thought they would like another way of looking at it

because of the complaint from turning from 250 into this area and the cars that speed pass vou

while you are trying to make a left nen.

wouldn't happen. That would definitely not be good planning.

Sam Kaplan at 1278 Clear Point Lane: dust extending that road a little bit into Conifer Cove Lane.

You just extend that a little bit but have a dead end before

250. Anthony Casciani: | see what you are saying

Steve Minnamon at 1279 Conifer Cove Lane: 1 just wanted to thank everyone here today and f jist

wanted to agree with your sugeestion, That 7 think that is a good plan for everyone on Conifer.

separate, right.

your comments and your input on the project. The applicant would consider that disconnection

Pg. 94 June 4, 2024 Planning Mecting

from Conifer Cove, however, the developer would prefer to maintain that road as a dedicated

roadway. So, one of the things with that is that if we go to a dedicated roadway, if you recall back

from the sketch plan, we had presented a cluster development and then also the conventional, we

went conventional based on the feedback that we were getting at that time and I guess | would ask

the board if they would be open to reconsidering the potential for cluster development so that

number one, we can maintain a public dedicated road; but one of the things that I see is, that could

be problematic is if we have a cul de sac or a hammerhead turn around at the end of the drive that

is dedicated to the town, we are going to lose some lot areas. Our lots right now, we have got

minimum lot sizes right now based on the current code so that would be one of the reasoning’s

for pursuing the cluster development,

calculations that are required through the town code, it allowed a nine-lot development.

lo maintain the stormwater maintenance all on one parcel so while this project does meet the size

requirements for nine lots, we did lose that one building lot for the stormwater management area

so that is some of those things that we need to keep in mind if we are changing those layouts or

changing the configuration of the roadway. Another consideration, and it doesn’t happen very

often but maybe just a consideration by the town. The hammerhead turnaround takes up less room

then a conventional cul de sac docs so that might another ask to the conventional OR the cluster

development perhaps to get some waiver for that. | have to admit not to keen or (oo update on the

towns development right as it pertains to hammerheads vs cul de sacs, but we would like to explore

that.

on that and see how that would work out. | understand what you are saying, a hammerhead would

be basically the same as Conifer Coves.

iwo parcels. What do you think Pat?

PAT SPEAKING FROM THE AUDIENCE... INAUDIBLE.

Pg. 95 June 4. 2024 Planning Meeting

(ANTHONY CASCIANI SPEAKING OVER)

would work but if you can combine it and just make one.

would be ok with it, that is something that you can negotiate with the town. I] mean a cul de sac in

there is kind of ridiculous actually. Alright, as far as being a dedicated or private road those are

things we will have to get together and figure out what the requirements would be. Again, get

one....What, getting one more Jot in there maybe.

there $0.........

really make it different then what you folks have as far as.......

SOMEONE SPEAKING FROM THE AUDIENCE. ..INAUDIBLE

AT THE SAME TIME) and we will carry on with town staff.

further discussion. The applicant has not agreed to the cul de sac yet bul is in consideration.

RESOLUTION 24-0029 Anthony Casciani made a motion for TABLED TO

JULY 2, 2024 which was seconded by Mark

Giardina.

Pg. 96 June 4, 2024 Planning Meeting

VOTE:

Mr. Anderson AYE

Mr. Kosel AYE

Mr. Malla AYE

Mr. Meixell AYE

Mr, Casctani AYE

Mr. Giardina AYE

Mrs. Maltman AYE

SOMEONE SPEAKING FROM THE AUDIENCE-INAUDIBLE.

(Mark Giardina/Anthony Casciani )

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

mecting at 8:15 PM.

Respectfully Submitted,

sme (ial Dr — Durea Wey 2, 2027

Mark Giardina, Secretary

Katherine Kolich, Recording Secretary

FIL 5 "24 paaa5

FILED WEBSTER THN CLE

Pg. 97 June 4, 2024 Planning Mecting