WEBSTER TOWN PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
Webster Town Board Meeting Room 1002 Ridge Road
7:00 p.m.
| August 2023
ABSENT:
Anthony Casctani, Chairman Dave Malta, Vice Chairman
Mark Giardina, Secretary Derek Meixell
Derek Anderson
John Kosel
Jennifer Wright
Josh Artuso, Director of Community Development
Katherine Kolich, Recording Secretary
Kyle Taylor, Attorney (REMOTE)
Welcome to the August 1, 2023 Webster Planning Board meeting. Please
join us in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Roll call
Ok, we have two tabled matters. Mark, go ahead and get started.
Summary overview of outcome:
TABLED MATTERS
:
PUFF N’ STUFF SMOKE SHOP-SIGN
Mohammed Alsalafi
DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; ATTENDANCE REQUIRED;
APPLICANTTO RESUBMIT APPLICATION FOR A FUTURE MEETING
1432 SCHLEGEL ROAD-ACCESSORY STRUCTURE
Joseph & Sue Trottier
APPROVED SUBJECT TO TOWN CODE SECTION 350-36; FOR PERSONAL
USE ONLY
SCHEDULED MATTERS
:
FAIRLIFE PROJECT UPDATE PRESENTATION
Fairlife Inc.
N/A
Pg. 199 August |, 2023 Planning Meeting
1770 TEBOR ROAD-BOARD N BACON/SIGN
Lisa Smith/McAllister Sign
APPROVED-SIGN TO BE 25 FEET FROM RIGHT OF WAY; NON-
ILLUMINATED; NEED ADDRESS ON BOTH SIDES OF MONUMENT SIGN
1110 CROSSPOINTE LANE, STE. D/WEBSTER PEDIATRIC DENTISTRY-SIGN
Chris McAllister
APPROVED AS PRESENTED
683 RIDGE ROAD DEVELOPMENT CONCEPTS
John Gabriele
SKETCH REVIEW-BOARD REQUESTED THERE BE COMMERCIAL USE IN
THE FRONT.
1862 LAKE ROAD/ACCESSORY STRUCTURE
Andrew Heiligman
APPROVED SUBJECT TO TOWN CODE SECTION 350-36; FOR PERSONAL
USE ONLY
(Mark Giardina read the first application):
PUFF N’ STUFF SMOKE SHOP SIGN: Located at 950 Ridge Road. Applicant Mohammed
Alsalafi is requesting SIGN APPROVAL to allow the installation of a 24.8 SF building mounted
sign within the Webster Square Plaza on a 37.91- acre parcel having SBL# 079.15-1-1.312 located
in an HC High Intensity Commercial District under Section 265-7 of the Code of the Town of
Webster. APPLICANT NO SHOW.
Ok, not seeing anyone here for the meeting. This is the third that they have
not attended, and we have tabled it three times.
Do we want to wait until the end of the meeting?
No, I don’t want to wait.
RESOLUTION 23-090 Anthony Casciani made a motion to
APPLICATION DENIED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE which was seconded by Mark
Giardina.
VOTE:
Mr. Anderson AYE
Mr. Kosel AYE
Mr. Malta ABSENT
Pg. 200 August 1, 2023 Planning Meeting
Mr. Meixell ABSENT
Mr. Casciani AYE
Mr. Giardina AYE
Mrs. Wright NAY
(Mark Giardina read the second application).
1432 SCHLEGEL ROAD ACCESSORY STRUCTURE: Located at 1432 Schlegel Road.
Applicant Joseph & Sue Trottier is requesting PRELIMINARY/FINAL SITE PLAN
APPROVAL (
PUBLIC HEARING
) associated with the construction of a 1,680 SF accessory
structure on a |.29-acre parcel having SBL# 065.02-1-3.4 located in an R-3 Single Family
Residential District under Sections 269-11 and 350-36 of the Code of the Town of Webster.
Appearing before the board was Brian White with McMahon LaRue Associates and with me is
Joseph Trottier and he is the owner at 1432 Schlegel Road. They intend to construct a 30 X 56
Pole barn on their property. We did attend and this application was tabled for Planning Board,
and we did attend the Zoning Board of Appeals on July 18"" and we were granted an area
variance for the overall size of the structure. The intent of the structure is to store their class A
motor home as well as other general storage items such as lawn equipment, storage material, and
things of that nature.
We did speak with most of the neighbors, and we have signed letters from 7 of the neighbors
which were presented at the Zoning Board as well supporting the project. We are proposing
some vegetation screening along the north easterly side of the structure and then we have also
been working with the MC DOT for a driveway entrance off of Schlegel Road. I do have a few
color samples tonight that would be a representation of siding color as well as trim. If you would
like to see those, I have them available.
Since you brought them, sure, we can pass them.
Does this have to be... you have it at 21.6 height.
That is peak. The side wall is 16 feet tall
Ok, but the peak is 21.6?
Correct
But according to the code, it says it can’t be over 20 feet under no
circumstance, so this is over 20 feet.
My interpretation of the code when there is a gable roof is that you just split the
difference in total height INAUDIBLE.... SOMEONE ELSE TALKING AT THE SAME TIME
So, you are taking mean height then
Pg. 201 August 1, 2023 Planning Meeting
And we come in just under 19 feet for that.
Alright.
That is pretty common for other towns too.
And you have a very large lot and it’s setback. It looks like it will be screened,
so. That seems reasonable.
The property was subdivided in this last March and the parcel was originally .4
acres and now it is almost 1.3 acres so we have made an effort to mitigate overall size of the
parcel to help better accommodate Zoning code.
Ok, does anyone have any questions? Is there anyone wishing to speak for or
against this application. It is a public hearing if anyone would like to speak. Ok, seeing none, I
will bring it back to the board and close the public hearing.
Derek Anderson:
RESOLUTION
Town of Webster Planning Board considered the request by Applicant, Joseph & Sue Trottier to
construct a 1,680 SF accessory structure located at 1432 Schlegel Road on a 1.29- acre parcel
having SBL# 065.02-1-3.4.
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 23-092 Derek Anderson made a motion for TYPE IT
SEQR which was seconded by John Kosel.
VOTE:
Mr. Anderson AYE
Mr. Kosel AYE
Mr. Malta ABSENT
Mr. Meixell ABSENT
Mr. Casciani AYE
Mr. Giardina AYE
Mrs. Wright AYE
Pg. 202 August 1, 2023 Planning Meeting
[
|
RESOLUTION 23-093
VOTE:
Mr
Mr
Mr
Mr
Anthony Casciani a made a motion for
PRELIMINARY APPROVAL Located at 1432
schlegel Road. Applicant Joseph & Sue Trottier is
requesting PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN
APPROVAL (
PUBLIC HEARING
) associated
with the construction of a 1,680 SF accessory
structure on a |.29-acre parcel having SBL#
065.02-1-3.4 located in an R-3 Single Family
Residential District under Sections 269-11 and
350-36 of the Code of the Town of Webster.
which was seconded by John Kosel.
. Anderson AYE
. Kosel AYE
. Malta ABSENT
. Meixell ABSENT
Mr. Casciani AYE
Mr. Giardina AYE
Mrs. Wright AYE
RESOLUTION 23-093
Anthony Casciani a made a motion for FINAL
APPROVAL Located at 1432 Schlegel Road.
Applicant Joseph & Sue Trottier is requesting
PRELIMINARY/FINAL SITE PLAN
APPROVAL (
PUBLIC HEARING
) associated
with the construction of a 1,680 SF accessory
structure on a |.29-acre parce! having SBL#
065.02-1-3.4 located in an R-3 Single Family
Residential District under Sections 269-11 and
350-36 of the Code of the Town of Webster.
which was seconded by Mark Giardina.
J. Significant construction shall occur within one year, as deemed by the Planning
Board, to expire on 8.1.24
2. The Engineer for the proposed project shall provide a Letter of Certification that
all proposed work was completed, as per Planning Board resolution of final
approval before a Certificate of Occupancy will be issued.
3. Approved subject to Town Code Section 350-36; For Personal Use Only.
Pg. 203 August |, 2023 Planning Meeting
VOTE:
Mr. Anderson AYE
Mr. Kosel AYE
Mr. Malta ABSENT
Mr. Meixeil ABSENT
Mr. Casciani AYE
Mr. Giardina AYE
Mrs. Wright AYE
(Mark Giardina read the third application):
Located east of Tebor Road.
Applicant Fairlife, Inc. requests to give an update presentation to the Planning Board
associated with the construction of a proposed 745,000 SF dairy processing facility on a
combination of portions of 5 lots totaling approximately 106-acres having SBL#s 066.03-1-
28.111, 066.03-1-28.113, 066.03- 1-18.11, 066.03-1-20.1 and 066.03-1-27.214 located in an
IN Industrial District. (DEREK ANDERSON RECUSED HIMSELF FROM THIS PORTION
OF THE MEETING)
Appearing before the board Darren Ward, Director of Engineering for the Fairlife Organization
and we have come here this evening to give the board an update on where we are with out plans
and just to let you know that we continue to work with our neighbors and local community to
make sure that we incorporate their thoughts and concerns when it comes to the design and J will
hand over to Josh with Haskell to give you an overview of the updates, thank you.
Joshua Hough with Haskell Company. So, what 1 would like to do is kind of walk through the
site plan and give you guys some updates and changes that have happened since the submittal
since July
11. I am going to start with the overall site plan that you see on the screen. First of
all, we have been meeting with the residents and some of the property commercial owners that
are adjacent to the property and so I am going to 200m in right here at the auto parking. So, one
of the changes that we have made recently, we have changed the decadent fence that currently
runs around this west side of the property and a section of it from here down to here is going to
be changed to a horizontal wood fence. So, we have been working with Jerry Keebler who is at
(his property here and this is where his business is located (SHOWING ON THE PLANS) After
coordinating with him, it has come to light that there is some concerns about visual and some
securily issues, so we have relocated the fence to the property line and then also put in this
horizontal wood slat fence to provide some screening between the two properties. We do
understand that moving the fence to the property line does require another variance so when we
submit for the variance, we will be submitting that one for an additional variance request.
Zooming back out, when we came before you guys in June, we had not completed all the studies
so but now that we have completed all the studies, we had determined that the sound wall that we
are going to be placing over here, on the east side, is a height of 14 feet. So, we have a berm at 5
Pg, 204 August 1, 2023 Planning Mecting
6 feet and a sound wall at 14 feet and that height of the wall was determined based on the
acoustical study that was completed and there is two characteristics that we had to meet or
requirements and first of all, it was that we had a sound of 50 decibels at night at the property
line and that we didn’t increase the sound over 5 decibels from ambient so that is what
determined the height of that wall all along this eastern side.
In addition, to you will see that we have added some berms along the south side and here and
also along the southeast corner and that was at the request of some of the other residents and to
provide some screening from
104. The other change that you will see on this site plan is that this
area right here, this is in our tank are right here and you will see that it has grown a little bit to
the south as we completed our design, and we are walking through design we realized for
construct ability there are a few reasons we had to grow that area so we can access it for
installation of the tanks, So, continuing to go through design and work with the different
departments and the residents, but those are the major changes that have happen since the 11".
We are here to answer any questions you might have.
John Kose]: That fence 14 feet, is that made out of concreate? Like along you see on
expressways.
That is correct. We are still trying to determine the exact design of that fence and
that wall, and it will be a sound wall so and it will be a concrete, but we will, but we are looking
at some lightweight concrete that actually absorbs the sound and it also has different textures so
that it doesn’t cause the sound to reverb out off of it.
I was thinking the same thing, is there or will it be decorative at all? OR will it
just be a 14-foot concrete barrier?
That is a good question. There are different textures that we can put on it and
different colors that so that 1s something that we are looking at and I am trying the best way to
blend into the sight lines but also not just make it a just a smooth concrete wall. A smooth
concrete wall doesn’t work well for controlling sound, so we are making sure we take all that
into consideration in addition on the resident side, we are planning landscaping. So, there is
going to be a mixture of decidual and evergreen trees that are going to be planted on that side so
that will also break up that view of the wall so it won’t just be a direct view of the wall there will
be trees in front of it.
So, at this point, approximately height of the berm is what? I know you
changed the height of the berm some.
It is 5-6 feet now that we have done the grading.
And then the wall on top of that?
Pg. 205 August 1, 2023 Planning Mecting
!4 feet. So overall from existing, it’s about 20 feet,
The biggest conversation that ] am hearing, a lot of it I should say, is the
traffic. We did get a comment from the neighbor, and we put that into the record but is it 200
trucks a day. Is that 200 trucks total or is it 400?
It is 200 trucks a day.
That’s total right, 100 in and 100 out basically.
It is 200 trucks in and out.
Ok, I just wanted to get that corrected because the thought was maybe it was
400. So, it is not that number ?
No.
Ok, I just wanted to get that clear. The road connection over, that is going to
be with Monroe County, | guess right with the Salt Road. That will have to be something we
will have to deal with later on, I guess. So, hopefully they are reviewing that stuff.
Yes, a referral has been submitted and it is currently under review.
With traffic devices. I can’t think of anything else other than what we
already got here and what we have already spoken to.
When you say 200 trucks in and out is that at maximum capacity or is that what you
are going to start out as?
No that is correct, that is maximum capacity.
How long do you anticipate before you get to maximum capacity once you go
online?
It is hard to say sir, it depends on volume. | mean, I can look at projected volumes
for the current sales vs the future sales 1 would say we are probably 4-5 years away.
There is, well several actually, comments from PRC, project review
committee, but not to address them tonight because you are just getting them now so those are
things you will deal with or enter into your drawings and so forth when you come in again.
Yes, we just received those, and we will be reviewing them and addressing them
on the plans.
Pg. 206 August 1, 2023 Planning Meeting
Again, I am not going to drag this out because it is not a public hearing it is
just them telling us where they stand right now but it anyone wants to, and you have a comment
or something you want to add to this we will open it for just a couple people , anybody?
Chuck Davies at 227 Woodsview Drive: which is off of Salt Road, north. There is a lot of foiks
out there and houses. We all drive through Salt Road multiple times a day and I am also
muerested in the traffic impact analysis. I am still kind of confused on what the current status of
that is. L read in your document Josh, in the July 11" letter of intent, that you guys are going to
do an in-depth traffic impact analysis so has that been done? Or are you guys going to do that?
Yes, that has been completed.
Chuck Davies at 227 Woodsview Drive: So, I wonder, | mean, we would like to see the results of
that somewhere, publicly maybe.
You want to address it up this way instead, I guess. Yes, they do have an
impact statement done and a traffic study and so on but there are things in there that will
probably have to change to. Like I was saying, there are comments that Monroe County still
needs to address as far as signalizing some of the intersections and so forth and so on. That is
the only parcel done and that is why it is just a review right now and not anything that is locked
right down.
Chuck Davies at 227 Woodsview Drive: Because 200 tanker trucks is different than 200 cars
from the impact and also building houses on Salt Road , off of Salt Road, did you know?
That is part of the reason and concern over it.
Chuck Davies at 227 Woodsview Drive: So, when it is done, we would like to see it as a group to
understand and that you guys are planning for the future and not just the current, right, so
We are hoping that the county and actually the state also come up with some
solutions and answers so that it is acceptable to everybody.
Chuck Davies at 227 Woodsview Drive: Because it could have an effect on everyone. I mean,
are we studying the impact on RT. 104 as well? I mean tractors coming in. Has there been an
analysis of the 200? When is 200? Are they 2:00 o'clock in the morning or is it...
There are different routes they would be taken, and which one would they be
locked into supposedly that they would take. That is another issue that is going on right now.
How do we guarantee this route and not that route. There are still things that need to get
addressed.
Chuck Davies at 227 Woodsview Drive: Where will 1 hear the final results?
Pg. 207 August 1, 2023 Planning Meeting
They will be doing all this stuff now as it goes along. So, they have a little bit
to go yet and then it will be a public hearing and then you can......actually, they can address what
you are talking about.
Chuck Davies at 227 Woodsview Drive: Ok, great.
Ok, Joe you all set? You want to come up?
Joe Marrapese at 675 County Line Road: Just a couple of questions or things to point out. This
is 200 trucks a day at maximum capacity so it would be 400 passes, truck in truck out is
400. Is
this design maximum capacity or is there room for future expansion because there ts quite a bit
of green space that is not being developed on. So, is this at maximum capacity or is there room
for growth 5 years down the road.
I can answer that for sure. The traffic study is based on full expansion of four
production lines today to begin with will be three production lines and the traffic analysis was
done out at full build out for four production lines.
Ok, your study is based on full build out.
Yes
Joe Marrapese at 675 County Line Road: I didn’t ask about the study, I asked if there was room
for future expansion on this site?
The future expansion is on the site plan, and it is identified.
And that would...so your traffic study is already including that expansion if
and when. Correct?
Yes sir.
J think you are referring to area to the south?
Joe Marrapese at 675 County Line Road: Yes, that is what | am referring to. I know you put the
sump pump up around there and nothing is being developed in the area so there is a concern
there. What do we see down the road?
The sound buffer does go all the way down to the south. That was the request of
one of the property owners on County Line, so we did extend that. Originally it stopped at this
corner (SHOWING ON THE PLANS) right here, the sound buffer and berm stopped right here.
After we met with the neighbors, we did extend it down and after some concerns were made
about the property owners currently here. There are currently no plans for this area at this time.
Pg. 208 August |, 2023 Planning Mecting
Joe Marrapese at 675 County Line Road: Is there room for future expansion, is the question on
this site?
If you were to look at the property it would look extremely disjointed from the rest
of the property if we were to go ahead and I can not imagine what we would do with our current
operation where we could put something in that space. It doesn’t make sense and it is quite a
distance from the main building so ] think what we would do to make that happen.
So, right now, there is no plans for expansion?
No
Joe Marrapese at 675 County Line Road: So, you could look to that area for possible change in
traffic flow on that site to move it from some of the residential areas, if it's not being developed
then,
The reason for that road looping around that way it does is to ensure, and it
doesn’t matter how much traffic is coming in, it may be at peak at time that we keep it all off the
public roads. So, we looped it around the property on purpose to ensure that we take as much as
that traffic off the road immediately as soon as possible and that is the reason for the wrap
around.
Alright, thank you,
When this gets to be full operation is this going to be a 24/7 operation?
Yes sir,
And there will be trucks coming in 24 hours a day?
Yes
7 days a week?
Yes
Ok, anybody else or any questions? Ok, I guess you guys are good for
tonight until you fellows get beat up some more by all the engineering. (LAUGHTER) Good
luck with the project. Hopefully we see you soon and everything is in good shape, and we keep
moving. Thanks for coming in.
Pg. 209 August |, 2023 Planning Meeting
(Mark Giardina read the fourth application):
Located at 1770 Tebor Road. Applicant Lisa Smith/McAllister
Sign is requesting SIGN APPROVAL to allow a 24 SF monument sign and an 11.5 SF building
mounted sign on a 1.82- acre parcel having SBL# 066.03-1-23.2 located in an [N-Industrial
District under Section 265-7 of the Code of the Town of Webster.
Appearing before the board was Cris McAllister with McAllister Signs. Thank you for having
me back. Tonight, 1 am representing Board N Bacon Charcutier on Basket Road. She currently
has an existing building there and there is no signage there for her business. She has actually
been in business for quite a few years without any signage and because of the former people here
she has decided it is probably time to get her presence out there.
As far as ] can tell, we are well within our code, and we have proposed installing it 20 feet from
the right of way on both the south and the west side of the corner . This is going to be a non-
illumined post and panel sign and it would be double sided,
John Kose]: Can they put the address on there with the street number ?
We don’t show it on there, but we can certainly add it on there.
Anybody have any questions?
I have one comment, the code actually requires that it be 25 feet from the right of
way rather than 20, so if it could be scooted back 5 more fect that would be perfect.
You got it.
Monument sign is ok, sign on the building. This looks good actually.
Derek Anderson:
RESOLUTION
Town of Webster Planning Board considered the request by Applicant, Lisa Smith of McAllister
Sign to construct a 24 SF monument sign and an 11.5 SF building mounted sign for Board N
Bacon located at 1770 Tebor Road on a 1.82- acre parcel having SBL# 066.03-1-23.2.
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.
Pg. 210 August |, 2023 Planning Mecting
[
RESOLUTION 23-096
VOTE:
RESOLUTION 23-097
VOTE:
Derek Anderson made a motion for TYPE II
SEQR which was seconded by Jennifer Wright.
Mr. Anderson
Mr. Kosel
Mr. Malta
Mr. Meixell
Mr. Casciani
Mr. Giardina
Mrs. Wright
AYE
AYE
ABSENT
ABSENT
AYE
AYE
AYE
Jennifer Wright a made a motion for SIGN
APPROVAL Located at 1770 Tebor Road.
Applicant Lisa Smith/McAllister Sign is
requesting SIGN APPROVAL to allow a 24 SF
monument sign and an 11.5 SF building mounted
sign on a 1.82- acre parcel having SBL# 066.03- 1-
23.2 located in an IN-Industrial District under
Section 265-7 of the Code of the Town of
Webster which was seconded by John Kosel.
Mr. Anderson
Mr. Kosel
Mr. Malta
Mr. Meixell
Mr. Casciani
Mr. Giardina
Mrs. Wright
(Mark Giardina read the fifth application):
AYE
AYE
ABSENT
ABSENT
AYE
AYE
AYE
Located at 1110 Crosspointe
Lane, Suite D. Applicant Chris McAilister of McAllister Sign is requesting SIGN
APPROVAL (to allow a 19.8 SF building mounted fagade sign on a 1.97- acre parcel having
SBL# 080.09-3-1.111 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 Chris McAllister of McAllister Signs and with me tonight is the
owner of the business, this is Lisa, and she has never been to a town meeting before, so she
decided to join us to see what it was all about. So, she is in the process of doing the build out
there.
Pg. 211 August 1, 2023 Planning Meeting
So, ] am a pediatric dentist, and I am the owner of Webster Pediatric Dentistry, and we are
currently located in the Village, and we are moving to 1110 Crosspointe Lane to have a larger
facility to offer more services to our patient population. So, we will need a new sign for the new
location and Chris has been very helpful in moving this along for me and so it is replacing the
current sign on the fagade with our logo and office name and maintaining the same footprint that
is currently there. It will be a non-illuminated sign and the dimensions are stated in the
application.
So, we talked about doing this similar to the existing sign that you may or may
not be familiar with, it’s been there since 2011. It is going to be a carved dimensional sign and
again, non-illuminated and there are no sconces on the building so that would be our same square
foot existing.
So, it is just a building mounted sign basically. Alright, I don’t see any big
issues with that.
| do have a questions, why a bee?
So, our current logo is kind of some non-descriptive people, so I thought a bee was happy,
a bee was kind of reflective the community that we have in our office and just something happy
and kid friendly. I decided to rebrand as well as relocate.
Thank you.
Derek Anderson:
RESOLUTION
Town of Webster Planning Board considered the request by Applicant, Chris McAllister of
McAllister Sign to construct a 19.8 SF building mounted facade sign for Webster Pediatric
Dentistry located at 1110 Crosspointe Lane, Suite D, on a 1.97- acre parcel having SBL# 080.09
3-111.
The Planning Board classifies the proposed action to be a Type II Action under Section
617.5(c)(2) of the State Environmental Review (SEQR) Regulations and therefore is not subject
to further review.
RESOLUTION 23-097 Derek Anderson made a motion for TYPE II
SEQR which was seconded by Jennifer Wright.
VOTE:
Mr. Anderson AYE
Mr. Kosel AYE
Mr. Malta ABSENT
Pg. 212 August 1, 2023 Planning Meeting
Mr. Meixell ABSENT
Mr. Casciani AYE
Mr. Giardina AYE
Mrs. Wright AYE
RESOLUTION 23-098
John Kosel made a motion for
MODIFICATION APPROVAL Located at
1045 Ridge Road. Applicant Evan Gefell is
requesting SIGN APPROVAL to allow the
installation of (2) building mounted facade signs,
(1} monument sign and instructional / directional
wayfinding signage associated with the
construction of a Take Five Oil Change facility on
a 1.25-acre parcel having SBL # 079.15-1-8.009
located in an MC Medium Intensity Commercial
District under Section 269-1] and 265-7 of the
Code of the Town of Webster which was
seconded by Mark Giardina.
VOTE:
Mr. Anderson AYE
Mr. Kosel AYE
Mr. Malta ABSENT
Mr. Meixell ABSENT
Mr. Casciani AYE
Mr. Giardina AYE
Mrs. Wright AYE
(Mark Giardina read the sixth application):
Located at 683 Ridge Road. Applicant
John Gabriele is requesting SKETCH PLAN REVIEW associated with (3) potential
development concepts for an | 1.80-acre parcel having SBL# 078.20-1-43 located in an MC-
Medium Intensity Commercial District under Section 269-5 of the Code of the Town of
Webster.
Appearing before the board was Al LaRue with McMahon LaRue Associates and John Gabrielle
is with me tonight. As requested, we decided that the best approach was to decide how to
develop this property was to create three different sketch plans. One is showing commercial out
front which is part of zoning code is commercial and then because the neighbors are more to the
back and what not, we decided to do a sketch plan showing four residential 10 unit structures,
apartments so then if I figure out how to get to the next one, and then we decided well! if the town
is interested, in just commercial, then this B plan has just that and the various buffers and that
Pg. 213 August |, 2023 Planning Meeting
sort of thing. So, that was the B plan and again, the same frontage up on Ridge Road with the
commercials buildings, they are the same and the main front building is very similar to each
other. This one right next to Johns dealership, Marian Dodge so it is very similar to that. So,
concept C is all residential with multi family so that is the mix. We are looking for input on
what the board would like and what is your pleasure.
Well, we did look at the one day when we were all together. Whatever you
do in the front remember we were talking, that drops, and I am sure you are aware of it now. It
drops right down.
We are in the middle of that study right now. We still think, as we discussed, I think
it is going to be about. I think Brian said about a foot, actual flood foot instead of the 7 feet.
10 inches.
A] LaRue: In that regard, so we are going through that plan right now INAUDIBLE (board
members having a conversation) for submitting to FEMA for change of the floodplain.
Well, the zoning is commercial.
Yes
ok, there is not a whole lot of commercial happening in my opinion. It would
be nice to have the front piece commercial but with residential in the back , if that commercials
was something that addressed the project sort of speak, that would be good.
Can you elaborate? What do you mean addressed the project?
Well, another words, a litte convenient store. Something that the people in
the back could go to or whatever, that type of thing. Other than that, I just think residential is
going to be less impact than...
So then maybe give the board a little background because the Chairman and Josh
had a chance to sit with myself, Al, and Brian. We acquired the property from Mr. Harry Meyer
who owned it since 1973 just before the end of last year and we bought it as a long-term
potential investment. We are looking at and the first thing we were addressing is obviously the
fact that the whole flood plain and it is something that had not been addressed in that area for
well over 50 years. A lot of the data that Brian was looking at dates back to quite aways ago so
in what he has shown and what he had shown when we bought it that the numbers were
significantly off in terms of the impact based off, I think of a 500-year storm. He can probably
explain it better than I can.
Pg. 214 August 1, 2023 Planning Meeting
So, that was one of the first things and then we started looking at the potential for the
development was and the fact that ] think you alluded to Tony, commercials right now has
become more challenging. | think my partners and I kind of look at this as a long-term potential
investment. I mean we have been in the town for a long time in the automobile business, but we
were looking for something as a long-term investment and the multi family residential we
thought would probably make the most sense for that property. It borders to the south residential
and then even years ago on Ridge Road, it was all residential or farmland. From a commercial
standpoint, it is still potentially an option and I think if we were to do that, it would probably be
more if we had a potential tenant. At least an INAUDIBLE tenant that was interested.
Tonight, I thought, based on a conversation we had in a meeting with yourself and the town
engineer at the time and Josh and Supervisor, we thought we would bring the board here three
different concepts to see if we could get some input as to what, from a planning standpoint,
would be more favorable specifically that would cause a change of use from commercial to
multi-family but I think that or I would hope would be acceptable.
And we understand that, that it is a commercial zone right now so the residential is
not permitted in a commercial zone and it would have to be special combination for that, so we
understand that.
It is in the back and tucked away. J] am looking at all three and I am trying to
picture driving down Ridge Road in a somewhat commercial area and see a multi-family
building/housing...I am saying the option that is all residential and I] can see how the option of
all commercial would be problematic because it’s big and you have big buildings and keeping
them occupied might be a challenge which is why I like the option of the mixed use having
commercial in the front because that doesn’t....it wouldn’t , the housing wouldn’t stand out as
odd on Ridge Road and then the housing is kind of down and tucked in the back so it almost
reminds me of the preservation trail so there kind of housing but they are tucked in the back and
you have the dentist office around it and that is kind of what it reminds me of. That seems to
make the most sense to me. I imagine there has to be engineering work or whatever...I’m just
imagining fire trucks trying (o get in there and turning around and stuff, but I know this is just a
concept.
Yes, we know what the code is for fire access, and this complies with it right now and
this use. It is sort of a hybrid and one of the things this does provide is, if there are small shops
in the smaller building, ice cream shop or whatever, where people can walk to or get some
groceries and not have to go out onto Ridge Road, sometimes Ridge Road is a litle bit tuff.
Al, what is the width of the property? Looking at what you are showing as a
commercial building up there, what is your frontage along Ridge? I guess 4-500 feet. Well,
anyway the reason I am asking that is because, if that was....it wouldn’t have to be some big
commercial building something that is commercial along the road to stay in with what is there
now.
Pg. 215 August 1, 2023 Planning Meeting
J think it is about 300 feet. It is in that range.
I kind of looked at the plaza that is on the corner next to the store and I think it
was about a 1.28-acre parcel that was kind of left over after they realigned Shoecraft with Hard
Road and that seemed to have worked fairly nicely with the way it has.
That looks good, that is what I am talking about. Something ...
Something like that would go nicely up in the front and then in the back to put
commercial buildings back there wouldn’t make sense but multi-family.
That is the problem with that piece of land. So, if someone owns that piece of
land, what is it going to do. You can’t even farm it back there. Like Harry did, he had a little
garden back there.
Actually, this is the property that is just west of Country Max, right? So, this is
the property when Country Max came in and they had to do a whole bunch of work with the
flood plane and you mentioned that to but this parcel here is also one of the few parcels, actually
the only parcel left on Ridge Road that if you look at the Monroe County inventory of Agric
parcels it is in the agric district. So, it is a designated agriculture parcel in the Town of Webster.
It is listed so it is something that you are going to address and look at the project going forward.
Yes, we will.
One of the things that came up with Country Max is there is a 100 strip of
widened land behind Country Max and it’s town property and considered a park and suppose to
be green space between Country Max and if you keep going...
That was when that development went in back there and they were not
supposed to cut all the trees out, but they did .
Yes, they encroached quite a bit on it. That was a different application. Just
more to appear of that you are technically next to a park and in an agricultural district and a flood
plane. This area does flood quite a bit, like every year. The entire lot has standing water in it.
It used to, but it doesn’t now and especially with the amount of rain that we get.
If you go back there and look, it’s ...
Somewhere they must have done some work downstream. I am going to have
to guess this, because that ....if you had a canoe, you could have canoed in it. Seriously, there
was that much water in there. It used to flood but then one time, ] remember this several years
going back, it flooded really, really bad, and apparently back in where theatre is over there and |
think I mentioned this to you, there was a beaver damn and built, they actually built a damn and
Pg. 216 August 1, 2023 Planning Meeting
it flooded and it obviously took care of that, DEC did. But it hasn’t and I am guessing they
must have done some work down stream at Shipbuilders or something because it hasn’t flooded
like that over several years now,
Like you said though, the floodplain was INAUDIABLE at some point and if
you could demonstrate that it is outside floodplain then that is what you will have to do as part of
the ....
We are doing the analysis right now of the entire area and the entire contributary area
and it just doesn’t support the FEMA floodplain the way it is drawn today and so it is just going
to be numbers because so much can get across Ridge Road, Empire and Old Ridge and Empire
in those culverts and that sort of thing so maybe it had been a change there and maybe there was
detention. We know that there is a large development to the south and there is detention and that
sort of thing, and it may have assisted with that. So, there just may have been big mistake to in
the calculation but if it flooded it at some time, it certainly hasn’t done it recently with some
pretty serious storms that we have had.
Because it would have been associated with the Country Max, they had to
reroute the stream that goes back there around the back side of the lot to bring it over.
Maybe a map amendment and they didn’t actually change the floodplain which is
what we are doing.
Well, they re-routed the stream, didn’t they?
Yes
1 think the plan was we were going to tie in, in the back where they rerouted it
and bring it across the property to move it from that creek that is closer to the front of the
property so it would be more in the middle which would give you a good delineation the
commercial and the residential.
Is that about where you show a storm line INAUDIBLE. (Al LaRue speaking
over)
If you look at the...J am becoming an expert on stormwater detention ponds.
(LAUGHTER) If you look where the stormwater detention pond is the game plan is to bring the
line from where it comes off of Country Max through a pipe into the stormwater detention pond
and the runoff will go there and then that will hold it and then there will be another pipe that will
take it to the back of Cuccaro’s property and tie in over there. It will then take it up to Ridge
Road so and the way that you would have to rework the land to create that stormwater detention
pond, it’s so large a lot of the fill would then be utilized provided that added depth off the
Pg. 217 August 1, 2023 Planning Meeting
property so that none of this would be susceptible to flooding at that point because it would be
built up.
And we purposely left...made that...proposed stormwater management facility over
sized for whatever run off will have that’s for sure.
Ok so, board what do you feel? Residential to the back and some commercial
to the front, along the highway?
That is what I think.
I feel the same.
John Kose}: When you say residential is that apartments or single-family homes.
So residential below and some commercial along the front like you were
saying, four units are whatever.
And we will work with he town to the mechanism of how to make that happen,
whatever it is.
Anthony Casciani; The only issue I have, and | mentioned this when we met is coming up out of
there and obviously you have to change that grade and have it flat because you can’t be parked
on a hill going out because that is right off the road, and it immediately drops going down.
So, let me ask you a question, you mentioned a 100-foot buffer, would it be
possible to have somehow from Shoecraft because you said that borders the back of Country
Max somehow to gain access to that property then off of Shoecrafi to.
That 1s when we were talking, | was hoping that there was some way of a
connection back there, I don’t know. I don’t know who has the property. Is it the town?
It is a town park, but they cut all the trees down.
The neighbors did.
It belongs to that subdivision
INAUDIBLE Country Max and there is no room behind of the actual Country Max.
INAUDIBLE and then it drops.
Now as far as the access to Ridge Road, are proposed front commercial building is
going to be up and that level so when we come up that hill...
Pg. 218 August 1, 2023 Planning Meeting
How are you going to put it at that level? The road?
Yes
It drops right down
A] LaRue: I know but the whole front of that would be filled so that the building, the front
building, it would be level with the road or just a foot above it so when you come up the hill then
you are level off onto a flat area before you enter Ridge Road. So, it is just a matter of earthwork
and design and making sure you have the INAUDIBLE slopes and that sort of thing.
But that is going to....yeah, I agree and that is the way I visualize it but how .
You are going to put a lot of fill in there.
And there second level, the back where we have INAUDIBLE (board members
speaking at the same time) where we have the parking lot in the back, it’s a lower level from the
top so you have the upper level and then you have a lower level like a walk out. If you take a
house and you are coming out of the parking lot , the lower parking lot, then you have shops
there in the lower level.
On a smaller scale actually is what you are talking. It would be similar to the
project; it use to be Rochester Linoleum and Tile. The front is, you know where it is, it is a little
bit lower than the road and parking is in the front and then in the back, it drops off and there is
storage or whatever they use it for underneath in the back so, that could be done yes but .
You are going to be almost INAUDIBLE going back to the different
commercial buildings by the time you get to the residential.
They will be and the challenge here is that we need to get back to the residential so
you can’t just drop right off the road because you can’t access the road safely. So, you really
have to......but thal is engineering, and we know what to do there.
Josh, are the going to have to deal directly with FEMA on this or is the town
designated?
The town would have to sign off 1 believe on some of the application material that
they are pursuing.
The answer is yes
The flood plain administrator for the town, right.
Pg. 219 August 1, 2023 Planning Meeting
That was part of the presentation that we made to the town. The calculations.
From my understanding, there is some grant money out there for converting agg because this
property is in that revitalization area for the town as far as our commercial development along
Ridge Road in that area so that was another INAUDIBLE behind that and then also [ found that
intriguing what you said about that {00 foot strip that is suppose to be a park because one of the
questions that came up when we had that meeting was if there was some way we can have an
egress off of Shoecraft of ] mean, INAUDIBLE
That is what I was hoping we could come up with but
I don’t know if that is something that could be explored further with the town. |
guess we could talk about it. Josh?
I think if it is truly designated park land, it would require alienation which would be
an act of state legislature which is a lengthy process.
Yes, that was an issue with the piece in back of the plaza over here where
Van Ingen Drive comes in, remember?
It is an interesting concept and definitely has to have the flood plain issued
and nailed down and buttoned. Because otherwise, the most expensive properties are in the
flood plain right now as that map is drawn and the people that are building these places are going
to be paying more for flood insurance than the mortgage on the house.
It’s a long-term investment and we are working on that and have spent quite a bit
of time and money on doing our due diligence, but I have a lot of confidence. It won’t only
benefit that parcel; it will benefit a lot of the other properties that presently are considered in the
flood plain.
Everyone speaking out al once.
INAUDIBLE will not be in it any longer.
It does back up to the town to the parts where the baseball fields are.
It’s going to affect that ...
That area that the project go shut down because of the wetlands there. They
had to modify part way through. They clear cut the whole area and got shut down because they
didn’t address the wetlands.
I think something else that you might want to check, and I am just thinking,
that project on Salt Road, what is that? A housing development.
Pg. 220 August |, 2023 Planning Meeting
Aberdeen Estates.
Yes, Aberdeen Estates. They had one entrance going in there for the houses,
fifty some houses,
79
Yeah, and they were required to put another...so I don’t know what the
requirements are for something like this. This is a private drive or how that works.
We are under the requirement for two entrances.
70 residents or less.
Because I was going to say, somebody better check.
We are exempt from that.
Because it’s a private drive Al, is that the reason?
No, because of the number of units.
How many units?
We have 40 apartments.
Ok, you have it figured out then. I guess you have a direction ahead now.
Yes, thank you. This has been very helpful.
Ok, good juck with it.
Mark Giardina read the seventh application):
1862 LAKE ROAD ACCESSORY STRUCTURE: Located at 1862 Lake Road. Applicant
Andrew Heiligman is requesting PRELIMINARY/FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL
(
PUBLIC HEARING
) associated with the construction of a 1,700 SF detached accessory
structure on a 3.63-acre parcel having SBL# 037.03-1-39.2 located in an LL Large Lot
Residential District under Section 350-36 of the Code of the Town of Webster.
Appearing before the board was Andrew Heiligman, AJ from 1862 Lake Road. So, J am
planning on building an accessory structure. So, the proposed plan is to build an approximate
1700 square feet accessory structure. It is not a pole barn, it will have a true foundation, stick
built and will be used for personal use only. Vehicles, four wheelers, snowmobiles, workshop,
Pg. 221 August 1, 2023 Planning Meeting
and the current site plan is to have it within the required setbacks as you can see on the survey so
I believe I would meet all criteria’s to fit on the lot.
The intent of the exterior is to match the current home we have on the property. Same siding,
same color, same stone, same garage doors, same elevation for the garage floor and the
landscape to match the house so basically have the same look and feel as the house we just
completed and moved into.
Seems like there is a running trend of gorgeous garages on Lake Road. You are
maybe like the fourth one.
A couple neighbors just completed them also.
According to the code it says, in no circumstance or event shall such building
exceed 20 feet in height. I am ok in what you are doing but...
Again, our walls are 11 feet and then the peak you take the average and it
would be below that.
Anthony Casciani; This should be changed in the code if we are going to go by thal. Mean
height is says under no circumstances exceed 20 feet in height.
But if you look at the definition of roof height, it spells it out.
It does have it in there...] didn’t know that. Ok, good. Anyone have any
questions?
Is there going to be a loft up there, is there going to be living space?
No living space just a pull-down door on the northern section and then the
southern section, will be a vaulted ceiling.
Is there going to be water or electricity out there?
There will be water and electricity out there, correct.
Again, it is a public hearing, but | don’t see anyone here in regard to this. Ok,
we will bring it back to the board and close the public hearing. Does anyone have any concerns ?
I was down there looking at it and other neighbors have similar things.
No, it’s a nice project.
Pg. 222 August 1, 2023 Planning Mceting
Just a quick follow up, you said in here that you will have water and electricity
to it, is it going to have sewer to it?
It will not have sewer, no.
Do you, it indicates you have an intension of installing solar panels on this, do you
have any idea where or how many or how large they would be?
They would be on the southern roof and the plan would be to maximize that
roof structure minus the three-foot fire required setbacks and that would be on a separate permit.
Ok.
Not part of this.
Ok, because solar panels installations require Planning Board approval, so I figured
if you were at a point of ...
No, we are not there yet so that would be totally separate.
Ok.
Derek Anderson:
RESOLUTION
Town of Webster Planning Board considered the request by Applicant, Andrew Heiligman (o
construct a },700 SF detached accessory structure located at 1862 Lake Road on a 3.63-acre
parcel having SBL# 037.03-1-39.2 .
The Planning Board classifies the proposed action to be a Type If Action under Section
617.5(c)(9) of the State Environmental Review (SEQR) Regulations and therefore is not subject
to further review,
RESOLUTION 23-099 Derek Anderson made a motion for TYPE II
SEQR which was seconded by Mark Giardina.
VOTE:
Mr. Andersen AYE
Mr. Kosel AYE
Mr. Malta ABSENT
Mr. Meixell ABSENT
Mr. Casciant AYE
Pg, 223 August 1, 2023 Planning Meeting
Mr. Giardina AYE
Mrs. Wright AYE
RESOLUTION 23-100 Anthony Casciani a made a motion for
PRELIMINARY APPROVAL Located at 1862
Lake Road. Applicant Andrew Heiligman is
requesting PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN
APPROVAL (
PUBLIC HEARING
) associated
with the construction of a 1,700 SF detached
accessory structure on a 3.63-acre parce] having
SBL# 037.03-1-39.2 located in an LL Large Lot
Residential District under Section 350-36 of the
Code of the Town of Webster which was seconded
by Jennifer Wright.
VOTE:
Mr. Anderson AYE
Mr. Kosel AYE
Mr. Malta ABSENT
Mr. Meixell ABSENT
Mr. Casciani AYE
Mr. Giardina AYE
Mrs. Wright AYE
RESOLUTION 23-101 Anthony Casciani a made a motion for FINAL
APPROVAL Located at 1862 Lake Road.
Applicant Andrew Heiligman is requesting
FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL (PUBLIC
HEARING) associated with the construction of a
1,700 SF detached accessory structure on a 3.63-
acre parcel having SBL# 037.03-1-39.2 located in
an LL Large Lot Residential District under
Section 350-36 of the Code of the Town of
Webster which was seconded by Mark Giardina.
1. Significant construction shall occur within one year, as deemed by the Planning
Board, to expire on 8.1.24
2. For personal use only.
Pe. 224 August !, 2023 Planning Meeting
VOTE:
Mr. Anderson AYE
Mr. Kosel AYE
Mr. Malta ABSENT
Mr. Meixell ABSENT
Mr. Casciani AYE
Mr. Giardina AYE
Mrs. Wright AYE
Minutes were approved for June 6, 2023 and July 11, 2023.
With no other applications before the Board this evening Anthony Casciani concluded tonight’s
meeting at 8:00 PM.
Respectfully Submitted,
Sign al, Sux hi~— Dated elf [2023
Mark Giardina, Secretary
Katherine Kolich, Recording Secretary
SEP 24°23 an7?:07
FILED WEBSTER TWN CLK
Dowbiy A. Magu
Pg. 225 August 1, 2023 Planning Meeting