WEBSTER TOWN PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
PLACE; Webster Town Board Meeting Room 1002 Ridge Road
7:00 p.m.
9 April 2024
ABSENT:
Anthony Casciani, Chairman Peggy Maltman
Dave Malta, Vice Chairman
Derek Anderson
Mark Giardina, Secretary
John Kosel
Derek Metxell
Josh Artuso, Director of Community Development
Katherine Kolich, Recording Secretary
Kyle Taylor, Attorney
Welcome to the April 9, 2024 Webster Planning Board meeting. We have a
few items on our agenda, not a very big agenda.
Please join us in the Pledge of Allegiance. Roll call
We should start with the Lochner Subdivision which was on the agenda, but
they are tabled again. They are stil! working on the drainage issues over there so we will move to
Bella Terra.
Summary overview of outcome:
TABLED MATTERS
:
LOCHNER SUBDIVISION
McMahon LaRue
** This matter is tabled until further notice; pending jurisdictional determination
on wetlands from Army Corps of Engineers**
BELLA TERRA SECTION Il
Tom Thomas
TABLED TO MAY 7" MEETING
SCHEDULED MATTERS
:
DOCK EXTENTION-1044 SUNSET TRAIL DOCK
Douglas Westerdahl
APPROVED AS PRESENTED
Pg. 42 April 9, 2024 Planning Meeting
ACCESSORY STRUCTURE-743 COUNTY LINE ROAD
Erin Ferrente
APPROVED AS PRESENTED
(Mark Giardina read the first application):
Located just west of 1854 Lake Road, Applicant McMahon
LaRue Associates is requesting PRELIMINARY/FINAL SITE PLAN & SUBDIVISION
APPROVAL (
PUBLIC HEARING
) associated with the re subdivision of a 21.8-acre parcel
into (2) 3-acre lots (to be developed with single family residences) and (1) 15.8-acre lot (to
remain undeveloped) having SBL# 037.03- 1-36 located in an LL Large Lot Single Family
Residential District under Section 269-11 and 296-15 of the Code of the Town of Webster.
Applicant requested this application be tabled until further notice. Pending jurisdictional
determination on wetland from Army Corps of Engineers.
(Mark Giardina read the second application):
Located near the southwest corner of Salt and Schlegel Roads.
Applicant Tom Thomas of 800 Phillips Road LLC is requesting FINAL SITE PLAN &
SUBDIVISION APPROVAL associated with the construction of 60 townhomes on a 26.8-acre
parcel having SBL # 065.02-1-40.222 located in an MHR Medium High Residential District under
Section 269-9 and 296-19 of the Code of the Town of Webster.
Appearing before the board was Mike Ritchie from Costich Engineering representing the owner
and developer, Tom Thomas from TRAMAC Development. We were before this board a few
months ago presenting the project and basically the biggest issue or take away from that meeting
was dedication or ownership of the road right of way; utilities; stormwater; infrastructure in the
like. Since that meeting the owner has met with town staff and to my knowledge, they have
come to an agreement that the road; the utilities and stormwater management will remain private.
They will be designed and constructed per town standard so in the future, there could be a
possibility the town could consider dedication although that is not what the town is willing to do
at this point and lime.
We did receive PRC comments and from that time, those have been addressed and subsequently
we did receive additional comments from town staff. The first was that all references to town
easements be removed from the plans which they have. The town Highway Superintendent upon
the review of the neighboring developing of the Meadows II Subdivision requested that the
stormwater management from this development not tie into that dedicated stormwater
management facilities so we revised the stormwater design for the western portion of the site, in
red shown on the bulletin board and we redesigned that to have the stormwater management
wholly contained on site and discharged into the existing ditch. Everything else from the site
plan is almost exactly as it was approved during the preliminary approval.
We did receive some additional comments from the town engineer, and I believe it was Friday
and we have reviewed those, and we don’t consider those comments to be difficult to address or
Pg. 43 April 9, 2024 Planning Meeting
to provide the town engineer with the calculations that they requested but I understand if the
board would like to give the engineer time to review that before making any decisions on the
project, I understand. So, with that being said, I think we wanted to come back and show you the
changes that have been made and ask the board members if they had any questions or comments
with the project as it currently stands.
Mike at the PRC meeting and you are right, thank you for acknowledging
that. They did say it was a short notice to really do calculations and so on and so forth. On the
drainage...{ guess Josh is bringing it up there (on the screen) that design where it goes. Lots 203,
204, 5,6,7, and 8 it goes in the back of them, there is really no back yard to those things and then
on the side of lot 203 it is only like 20 feet away from the house and the structure.
And we have looked at that and it is a little misleading the way the grading is done
because the actual static of the pond is much farther in. We can look to adjust those grades.
Realistically, it is going to be about 60 feet from waters edge to the near structure which I went
back and looked at Section | was and to the pond of the nearest house was 67 feet and the next
closest was 74 so it is not a drastic change from what was previously approved but we are going
to take a another look at this to see if we can kind of tweak some of this grading to give some of
those units more usable area in the back yard.
If you can figure something out with it but again, I just touched on it with lot
201 and 202 there, I just drew a block out of that and just said those two are really crimped in
there along with others, ] know you don’( want to remove lots and understand that 100 percent
but eliminate the detention in back of the houses in back of 03,4,5,6 and then incorporate that
into one square, clean pond.
So, the issue with the drainage issue in this area is...so, lots 101 and 202 are on
the north side and a ditch, a tributary to Millcreek so that all drains to the north to the ponds
along Schlegal that ditch just to the south of those but to the right on this drawing there is a ditch
that kind of bisects it and a culver that crosses that is the whole reason there is a stormwater pond
here is because there is actually a tributary to Millcreek and bisect the whole project. Originally
it was going to go to the pond on Meadows II because we can’t cross over the creek to send it to
the stormwater pond so I think we are going to “sharpen our pencil a little bit” here to see what
we can do to...1f we have to elongate that. There is more area going to the south and maybe we
can have a couple smaller basins instead of one large one and accomplish the same goals.
1 see what you are saying, | just felt that was kind of (BOTH PARTIES
SPEAKING AT THE SAME TIME) blocking it. The rim of the pond ] was just roughly scaling
it out, it looked like it was 20 feet away from the nearest structure.
Yes, and that is kind of where the embankment slopes starts, and the water’s edge
is way further down. We understand and we want to make sure this is done right so we are going
to take another look at it and in response to the towns engineers comments, look to address this.
Pg. 44 April 9, 2024 Planning Meeting
That was the only concern I had as far as the new layout and in all honest, |
am not sure what transpired with Tom and the attorneys and so on.
Unfortunately, | was not able to make the meeting. Tom, I don’t know if you
would like to kind of summarize but from what was told to me, I think the town is in support of
this project but with it being FOR RENT DEVELOPMENT, the town does not see it as being a
good use of resources to take dedication of it at this point and time but if the situation would
change and if it were to be sold in the future and it was not to be for rent in the future that the
town would consider taking dedication of it at that time. So, understanding that and
understanding that Section one was built all per dedicated and construction standards, we want to
slay consistent with that and continue Section II that way so all the roads, gutters, stormwater, all
the storm infrastructure is all going to be all town per spec. It will look no different than any
other subdivision in the area.
Now I know back then there was an issue with the tax structure. Has that
been resol ved? I have no idea if that was discussed.
Would like to address Tom.
Nothing was discussed as far as ....except if it is considered rentals. There is
usually a...... and it’s privately owned then it is usually a cheaper tax structure then if it was all
dedicated roads so that is why I think they want the roads and everything to stay private.
Wasn’t there an issue with the last time the application was here about a HOA?
Yes, I believe if one got sold that is when you sold then you would create an
HOA.
Yes, if and when any of them got sold in the future. There would have to be an
HOA or dedicated roads.
And so, if the resolution is done, I think we need to recall that and make sure
that is entered in there. Anything else? Josh were there any other issues that you know of.
The only other issue that I can think of is the connection between Meadows II and
Bella Terra where it is going from public to private. Is there going to be any plan for a
turnaround for the town trucks for the public portion?
] just discussed it with Tom, and this was one of the town comments that came up.
(showing on the plans) So this area here, it is the end of Arrowwood Trail/Meadows II.
Originally, everything was proposed to be dedicated at this point. The end of the dedicated road
will end at the property line so what we looked into and what we are going to provide is
essentially a turnaround back into Arrowwood Trail to allow snowplows to adequately maneuver
Pg. 45 April 9, 2024 Planning Meeting
and turn back around and exit through Arrowwood Trail. We will work with the town engineer
and highway superintendent.
Now, are these lots in the first section they are all individual lots and individual tax
numbers is that the same situation?
Yes. There will be a filed subdivision map with a private road and all individual
lots with individual addresses and tax account numbers.
Ok, any other comments? All we had were a couple of comments the last
time. Anyways, at the PRC, highway department, sewer department, engineering wanted to have
a chance to review the calculations on the drainage and water and so on and so forth to make
sure it met the standards. Ok, so do you want to ask to table it then?
Yes, we would like to request to table until the next meeting. We are working on
the responses now and I will work with Josh, and we will get revised material and submit to the
town with enough time to review them.
RESOLUTION 24-0010 Mark Giardina made a motion to TABLED
APPLICATION TO MAY 7, 2024 MEETING-
Board to follow up if the homes are sold
an HOA would be needed. Applicant agreed to
put a turnaround in for the snowplows on
Arrowwood 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 ABSENT
(Mark Giardina read the third application):
1044 SUNSET TRAIL DOCK EXTENSION: Located at 1044 Sunset Trail. Applicant Douglas
Westerdahl is requesting WATERFRONT CONSISTENCY REVIEW & DOCK APPROVAL
associated with the addition of a 4’ wide by 30’ long dock extension on a .56-acre parcel having
SBL # 078.18-1-69.11 located in an MHR Medium-High Residential District under Sections 331 -
4 and 350-30 of the Code of the Town of Webster.
Appearing before the board was (NEVER GAVE HIS NAME OR ADDRESS) Douglas
Westerdah!. My existing dock is 4 foot wide by 56 foot long. At the end of the season last year,
the water was less than 2 feet at the end of my dock which is where my boat hoist is. The water
Pg. 46 April 9, 2024 Planning Meeting
was so low I could not get my pontoon boat off without four people pushing it off my hoist. We
could not get the hoist low enough in the water. In doing so, we tore all the electric lines out from
underneath my pontoon boat so that helps explain the need for this extension where that should
eliminate the end of the season when the water get very shallow with the existing dock .
Ok, so you are putting on 30 feet so additional dock. And that would be a
question, why 30- feet and you just explained that so that is good. The dock comes right straight
off, so it doesn’t infringe on or in front of a neighbors house or anything like that. You can see
the dock (shown on screen)
I don’t recall if the... my neighbors docks are shown in that drawing. Each
of their docks are considerably further out in the water than my dock is right now. F
Actually, do you have a copy of this?
I forgot to print it out, but I have a copy.
Now, there was a response from a neighbor who I guess is a little bit away from
you was concerned about boats in general and so on and so forth, boar traffic and adding onto the
dock and it was going to be in front of her house. So, long story short and after going back and
forth and we looked at this thing, it really doesn’t look a whole lot of credence and I see no issue
with this at all. You have your permit already from DEC, correct?
DEC, Army Cor of Engineers, and NY State NYSOGS and I don’t remember
what that stands for, but they said that a permit was not required.
Alright, you are good.
Derek Anderson:
RESOLUTION
Town of Webster Planning Board considered the request by Applicant, Douglas Westerdahl to
construct a 4-foot wide by 30-foot-long dock extension on a 0.56-acre parcel having SBL
#078.18-1-69.11 located at 1044 Sunset Trail.
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 24-0011 Derek Anderson made a motion for a TYPE IT
SEQR which was seconded by Mark Giardina.
Pg. 47 April 9, 2024 Planning Meeting
VOTE:
Mr. Anderson AYE
Mr. Kosel AYE
Mr. Malta AYE
Mr. Meixell AYE
Mr. Casciani AYE
Mr. Giardina AYE
Mrs. Maltman ABSENT
RESOLUTION 24-0012 Dave Malta made a motion for DOCK
EXTENSION APPROVAL Located at 1044 Sunset
Trail. Applicant Douglas Westerdahl is requesting
WATERFRONT CONSISTENCY REVIEW &
DOCK APPROVAL associated with the addition of
a 4’ wide by 30° long dock extension on a .56-acre
parcel having SBL # 078.18-1-69.11 located in an
MHR Medium-High Residential District under
Sections 331-4 and 350-30 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 ABSENT
Where do | obtain the permit from the town?
You can go and see Josh.
(Mark Giardina read the fourth application):
Located at 743 County Line Road.
Applicant Erin Ferrente is requesting PRELIMINARY / FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL
(
PUBLIC HEARING
) associated with the demolition of an existing detached garage and the
construction of an 848 SF accessory structure on a 2.5-acre parcel having SBL# 066.03-!-46
located in an LL Large Lot Residential District under Sections 350-13 and 350-36 of the Code of
the Town of Webster.
Appearing before the board was Bryan White from McMahon and LaRue Associates. | am here
tonight with the property owner; Kirk Willis and we are here tonight presenting a pole barn
structure as mentioned previously and proposed to be 848 sf and we did appear before the Zoning
Board of Appeals on March 14" and received a side setback variance for the accessory structure
Pg. 48 April 9, 2024 Planning Meeting
at 5.1 feet and we are here tonight seeking approval for this structure. The unique characteristics,
the majority of this property is within the 100-foot floodplain and the northwest corner of this
structure is shown to be mapped within that area. We have made a revision since our Zoning
Board application. The footprint and overall size has remained the same, but we did elevate the
finished floor of the structure by one foot to be above our floodplain requirements, We previously
had flood vents showing on the building and now we have elevated it 12 inches so now we don’t
need those flood vents any longer. Outside of that, the structure is not to exceed 19° and the existing
structure is 22’ 6”. I am available to answer any question that you may have.
Now that footprint is existing is 431, right?
That ts correct.
So, your actual addition is the balance.
So, we are proposing to demolish the existing structure and then rebuild a new pole
barn to include a portion of the previous footprint.
Ok, so basically that is the footprint of the new building?
That is correct, yes.
And that is currently where the existing is obviously. Alright, does anyone have
any issues?
No, | am pretty familiar with that property especially the property next to it. I don’t
see any issues with putting that accessory building there. It is surrounded......... it use to be the
Union Hill Fire Department fairgrounds and it’s probably going to end up going into some kind of
commercial or industrial use before it’s all done so it doesn’t bother any of the residents anywhere
and it’s a good fit for the area,
Four Mile Creek, that is designated and then you have the other one limited of
the 100-year floodplain, does that have any impact on the building?
Yes, so they are both regulated the floodway and the floodplain are both regulated
areas but the floodway is more regulated so we are not going to encroach within that area, but we
are going to encroach on the 100-year floodp!ain and that will require a floodplain development
permit from the town and as well as a notation of the two-foot freeboard requirement for New
York State, so we have accommodated for the design to work within the floodplain.
So, that is taken care of in-house Josh by you guys?
Yes, we would review
Pg. 49 April 9, 2024 Planning Meeting
Ok, so nothing we would have to deal with as far as that.
Correct.
John Kose!: Is the siding on this going to match the existing house?
Yes. I do have a few colors if you would like to see them, but the end goal is to
have the siding of the pole barn match the color scheme of the house.
Is there electricity, heat, or water out there?
I don’t believe there is going to be a water service but there will be electricity.
I think, somewhere I read, you are going to use it for a workshop or something
in there?
For general storage and a workshop.
This is a public hearing. Is there anyone wishing to speak? Seeing none, I will
close the public hearing and bring it back up to the board.
Derek Anderson:
RESOLUTION
Town of Webster Planning Board considered the request by Applicant, Kirk Willis to demolish
an existing detached garage and construct an 848 square foot accessory structure on a 2.5-acre
parcel having SBL #066.03- 1-46 located at 743 County Line Road.
The Planning Board classifies the proposed action to be a Type II Action under Section
617.5(c)(12) of the State Environmental Review (SEQR) Regulations and therefore is not subject
to further review.
RESOLUTION 24-0013 Derek Anderson made a motion for TYPE IT
SEQR which was seconded by Derek Meixeil.
VOTE:
Mr. Anderson AYE
Mr. Kosel AYE
Mr. Malta AYE
Mr. Meixell AYE
Mr. Casciani AYE
Mr. Giardina AYE
Mrs. Maltman ABSENT
Pg. 50 April 9, 2024 Planning Meeting
[
RESOLUTION 24-0014
Dave Malta made a motion for PRELIMINARY
Located at 743 County Line Road.
Applicant Kirk Willis 1s requesting
PRELIMINARY / FINAL SITE PLAN
APPROVAL (
PUBLIC HEARING
) associated
with the demolition of an existing detached garage
and the construction of an 848 SF accessory structure
on a 2.5-acre parcel having SBL# 066.03-1-46
located in an LL Large Lot Residential District under
Sections 350-13 and 350-36 of the Code of the Town
of Webster which was seconded by John Kosel.
ae
cn ae
nun
9.
10.
11
The lot is restricted to one accessory building
The building is to conform to the size and location presented on the plan
The placement of the building shall conform to all setback requirements
The building shall not be placed nearer to the front property line than the rear
line or footprint of the main building or residence upon the lot.
No point on the building will be higher than the existing structure
No commercial use shall occur on the parcel
The accessory building shall be used for personal use only, as defined by Town
Code
Significant construction shall occur within one year, as deemed by the Planning
Board, to expire on April 9, 2025.
Comply with all requirements of any State, County, and Town agency
All site work is to be in compliance with the standards of the Town of Webster
. Subject to all engineering and governmental approvals
12.
13.
14,
Subject to all appropriate governmental fees
Subject to resolution of final approved minutes
Applicant has received a variance for the side setback
VOTE:
Mr. Anderson AYE
Mr. Kosel AYE
Mr. Malta AYE
Mr. Meixell AYE
Mr. Casciani AYE
Mr. Giardina AYE
Mrs. Maltman ABSENT
Pg. 51 April 9, 2024 Planning Meeting
RESOLUTION 24-0015 Dave Malta made a motion for FINAL
[ APPROVAL Located at 743 County Line Road.
Applicant Kirk Willis is requesting FINAL SITE
PLAN APPROVAL (
PUBLIC HEARING
)
associated with the demolition of an existing
detached garage and the construction of an 848 SF
accessory structure on a 2.5-acre parcel having SBL#
066.03-1-46 located in an LL Large Lot Residential
District under Sections 350-13 and 350-36 of the
Code of the Town of Webster which was seconded
by Mark Giardina
CHECKLIST FOR FINAL APPROVAL
1. Subject to all preliminary statements.
VOTE:
Mr. Anderson AYE
Mr. Kosel AYE
Mr. Malta AYE
Mr. Meixell AYE
Mr. Casciani AYE
Mr. Giardina AYE
Mrs. Maltman ABSENT
Minutes were approved for March 5, 2024. (Kosel/Malta)
With no other applications before the Board this evening Anthony Casciani concluded tonight's
meeting at 7:30 PM.
Respectfully Submitted,
CZ Jtad— pares 1
Mark Giardina, Secretary
Katherine Kolich, Recording Secretary
HAY 10 '24 av6:02
FILED WEBSTER TWN CLK
S sual, We Magu)
[ Pg. 52 April 9, 2024 Planning Meeting