Minutes

WEBSTER TOWN PLANNING BOARD MINUTES

Dave Malta, Vice Chairman Anthony Casciani, Chairman

Mark Giardina, Secretary Jennifer Wright

Derek Anderson

John Kosel

Derek Meixell

Kyle Taylor, Attorney

Josh Artuso, Director of Community Development

Katherine Kolich, Recording Secretary

Pledge of Allegiance

Casciani, He is recuperating from surgery, and I was designated to be the chairman on his

behalf. So, we don’t have a full board tonight. Every applicant is entitled to go before a full

board so if there is any applicant here that feels that they would rather wait to go till the next

meeting to go before a full board, let us know and we would be glad to table it until the next

meeting. Anyone? Ok, seeing none we will call roll.

Roll call

here for that, that is not going to be heard tonight. Mark, could you read the first one.

Summary overview of outcome:

545 BASKET ROAD-STUDCO BUILDING SYSTEMS/SIGN

1028 RIDGE ROAD-TO THE CORE PILATES/SIGN

758 RIDGE ROAD-JELLY & CO/SIGN

Status; APPROVED AS PER DRAWING V.2

Py. 20 /February 7, 2023 Planning Meeting

980 RIDGE ROAD-LILYS NAIL SPA/SIGN

700 RIDGE ROAD-ACADIA/SIGN

784 RIDGE ROAD/SIGN

ADDRESS ON SIGN

PHILLIPS NORTH/SUBDIVISION

1114 PARKSIDE DRIVE/ACCESSORY APARTMENT

FILED WITH TOWN AND COUNTY PRIOR TO OCCUPYING PROPERTY.

MUST OBTAIN BUILDING PERMITS AND COMPLETE PROJECT WITHIN ONE

YEAR

1021 FIVE MILE LINE ROAD/G & H AUTO SALES

PLANNING BOARD MEETING

1045 RIDGE ROAD/TAKE 5 OIL CHANGE

RECOMMENDATION TO BE SENT TO THE ZONNG BOARD OF APPEALS.

{Mark Giardina read the first application):

STUDCO BUILDING SYSTEMS-SIGN:; Located at 545 Basket Road. Applicant Kirk Wright

is requesting SIGN APPROVAL associated with the replacement of (3) existing building

mounted signs and (1) monument sign to reflect rebranding of the Fairfield Inn on a 2.19-acre

parcel having SBL# 079.1 1-1-21.2 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 Kirk Wright at Sign and Lighting Services, 530 St. Route 104,

Ontario, NY. A couple things, the sign that is proposed and you guys have drawings for, is

actually 31.6 square feet and | just wanted to make that clear, | am not sure where the 28 square

feet came from.

Pe. 21 /February 7, 2023 Planning Meeting

We are just looking for Planning Board approval. It is a simple non-illuminated sign trying to

identify the tenants that are in that property. So, there will be five panels that will become a

tenant panel in the future.

down... we are trying to give them enough space with the setback off Basket Road at 45 feet, you

know, if we shrunk those panels any smaller, we just don’t feel that the copy will be large

enough to be legible from the road.

the look that he has agreed upon and that he likes. We can take the address off.

PROPERTY)?

the idea of setting a precedent to do that. We have done some exceptions sometimes when they

the contour of the land drops down and if you are just going six foot off the property, it’s not

seen from the road very well, things lke that but I don’t see a need for it.

back off Basket Road is quite a ways back.

other.

one and then somcone clse comes in and says wait a minute.

Pg, 22 /February 7, 2023 Planning Meectng

is already in the process for the additional two fect .

next week so.

installed so we couldn’t support the application to the ZBA for the variance.

understanding?

Board in March.

the ZB granted the variance. You could perhaps consider, if the board desired to grant an

approval conditioned on the ZB approval on the variance but that comes back to whether or not

the board is comfortable with its review.

Derek Meixel!: I don’t see a reason for it so | would say, ] am not comfortable.

sculp of it’s review then the ZBA would be a moot point.

Py. 23 /February 7. 2023 Planning Meeting

[" to reconsider redesigning this.

RESOLUTION 23-010 Derek Meixell made a motion to DENY THE

APPLICATION FOR A SIGN which was

seconded by Derek Anderson.

VOTE:

Mr. Anderson AYE

Mr. Kosel AYE

Mr. Malta AYE

Mr. Meixell AYE

Mr. Casciant ABSENT

Mr. Giardina AYE

Mrs. Wright ABSENT

APPLICATION DENIED; EXCEEDS MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE HEIGHT

(Mark Giardina read the second application):

TO THE CORE LAGREE FITNESS SIGN: Located at 1028 Ridge Road. Applicant Vital

Signs is requesting SIGN APPROVAL associated with the installation of a 29.8 SF building

mounted fagade sign for To the Core Lagree Fitness on a 9.10-acre parcel having SBL# 079. 12-

]-20 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 Amy Catalano with Vital Signs. We are proposing an internally

lit channel letter sign for TO THE CORE to replace the non-lit stud mounted letters that they

have up there now. Standard LED; acrylic faces; taking up the same area that is currently there

and actually a little less, I think.

lot of it is going to be covered though but where the icons were, they will have to be addressed

because they don’t have those this time around.

THE CORE PILATES s0 I was just wondering what Is was.

[ Mark Giardina: Lam sorry, you changed it over, right?

Py. 24 /February 7. 2023 Planning Meeting

It is a different type of work out.

Derek Anderson:

RESOLUTION

Town of Webster Planning Board considered the request by Applicant, Vital Signs to installation

a 29.8 SF building mounted fagade sign for To The Core Lagree Fitness located at 1028 Ridge

Road on a 9.10-acre parcel having SBL# 079. 12-1-20.

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

617.5(c)(2) of the State Environmental Review (SEQR) Regulations and therefore is not subject

to further review.

RESOLUTION 23-011 Derek Anderson made a motion for TYPE

SEQR which was seconded by Derek Meixell.

VOTE:

Mr. Anderson AYE

Mr. Kosel AYE

Mr. Malta AYE

Mr. Meixell AYE

Mr. Casciant ABSENT

Mr. Giardina AYE

Mrs. Wright ABSENT

RESOLUTION 23-012 John Kosel made a motion for

Applicant Vital Signs is requesting SIGN

APPROVAL associated with the installation of a

29.8 SF building mounted fagade sign for To the

Core Lagree Fitness on a 9.10-acre parcel having

SBL# 079.12-$-20 located in an HC High Intensity

Commercial District under Section 265-7 of the

Code of the Town of Webster which was seconded

by Derek Metxell.

Pe. 25 /February 7, 2023 Planning Mecting

VOTE:

Mr. Anderson AYE

Mr. Kosel AYE

Mr. Malta AYE

Mr. Meixell AYE

Mr. Casciani ABSENT

Mr. Giardina AYE

Mrs. Wright ABSENT

APPROVED AS PER DRAWING V3

(Mark Giardina read the third application}:

JELLY & CO. SIGN: Located at 758 Ridge Road. Applicant Vital Signs is requesting SIGN

APPROVAL associated with the replacement of an existing 25 SF monument sign for Jelly &

Co. on a 0.49-acre parcel having SBL# 079.17-1-84.1 located in an CO Commercial Outdoor

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

Appearing before the board was Amy Catalano. So, this is a non-lit sign. There will be panels

going over the existing panels that Upstate Alarm had there, so we are going right over the faces

with an aluminum composite digital print, laminated. (A LOT OF PAPERS RATTLING)

Derek Anderson:

RESOLUTION

Town of Webster Planning Board considered the request by Applicant, Vital Signs to replace an

existing 25 SF monument sign for Jelly & Co. located at 758 Ridge Road on a 0.49-acre parcel

having SBL# 079.17-1-84.1.

Pe. 26 /February 7, 2023 Planning Meeting

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

617.5(c)(2) of the State Environmental Review (SEQR) Regulations and therefore is not subject

to further review.

RESOLUTION 23-013 Derek Anderson made a motion for TYPE II

SEQR which was seconded by John Kosel.

VOTE:

Mr. Anderson AYE

Mr. Kosel AYE

Mr. Malta AYE

Mr. Meixell AYE

Mr. Casciani ABSENT

Mr. Giardina AYE

Mrs. Wright ABSENT

RESOLUTION 23-014 John Kosel a made a motion for

Applicant Vital Signs is requesting SIGN

APPROVAL associated with the replacement of an

existing 25 SF monument sign for Jelly & Co. ona

0.49-acre parcel having SBL# 079.17-1-84.1

jocated in an CO Commercial Outdoor Storage

District under Section 265-7 of the Code of the

Town of Webster Which was seconded by Derek

Meixell.

VOTE:

Mr. Anderson AYE

Mr. Kosel AYE

Mr. Malta AYE

Mr. Meixell AYE

Mr. Casciani ABSENT

Mr, Giardina AYE

Mrs. Wright ABSENT

APPROVED AS PER DRAWING V.2

(Mark Giardina read the fourth application).

SIGN APPROVAL associated with the installation of a 17.38 SF building mounted fagade sign

for Lily's Nail Spa on a !7.03-acre parcel having SBL# 079.15-1-3.1 located in an HC High

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

Pg. 27 /February 7, 2023 Planning Meeting

Appearing before the board was Amy Catalano. So, this to is an internally lit channel letter sign

mounted to a raceway. White acrylic faces; digital print for the lily, the flower. It takes up the

same square footage as the previous tenant, DJ Nails.

one?

what the footprint is going to be or if we are going to cover but certainly, it will either be

covered, or it will probably need some touch up paint.

Derek Anderson:

RESOLUTION

Town of Webster Planning Board considered the request by Applicant, Vital Signs to install of a

17.38 SF building mounted fagade sign for Lily’s Nail Spa located at 980 Ridge Road on a

17.03-acre parcel having SBL# 079.15-1-3.1.

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

617.5(c)(2) of the State Environmental Review (SEQR) Regulations and therefore is not subject

to further review.

RESOLUTION 23-015 Derek Anderson made a motion for TYPE II

SEQR which was seconded by Derek Meixell.

VOTE:

Mr. Anderson AYE

Mr. Kosel AYE

Mr. Malta AYE

Mr. Meixell AYE

Mr. Casciani ABSENT

Mr. Giardina AYE

Mrs. Wright ABSENT

RESOLUTION 23-016 John Kosel a made a motion for

Ridge Road. Applicant Vital Signs is requesting

SIGN APPROVAL associated with the installation

of a 17.38 SF building mounted fagade sign for

Lily’s Nail Spa on a 17.03-acre pareel having SBL#

079.15-1-3.1 located in an HC High Intensity

Pe. 28 fFebruary 7, 2023 Planning Mecting

Commercial District under Section 265-7 of the

Code of the Town of Webster which was seconded

by Derek Meixell.

VOTE:

Mr. Anderson AYE

Mr. Kosel AYE

Mr. Malta AYE

Mr. Meixell AYE

Mr. Casciani ABSENT

Mr. Giardina AYE

Mrs. Wright ABSENT

APPROVED AS PER DRAWING V.3

(Mark Giardina read the fifth application):

ACADIA CANNA & KRATOM SIGN: Located at 700 Ridge Road. Applicant Vital Signs is

requesting SIGN APPROVAL associated with the installation of a 15 SF building mounted

fagade sign on a 0.46-acre parcel having SBL# 079.17-1-2 located in an MC Medium Intensity

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

Appearing before the board was Amy Catalano: So, this one is a non-lit sign panel that 1s already

installed. I think that the tenants there had your permission to install it, is my understanding but

it is a solid core composite; four inch with a laminated INAUDIBLE print.

Pg. 29 /February 7. 2023 Planning Meeting

Derek Anderson:

[ RESOLUTION

Town of Webster Planning Board considered the request by Applicant, Vital Signs to install a 15

SF building mounted fagade sign for Acadia Canna & Kratom located at 700 Ridge Road on a

0.46-acre parcel having SBL# 079.17- 1-2.

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

617.5(c)(2) of the State Environmental Review (SEQR) Regulations and therefore is not subject

to further review.

RESOLUTION 23-017 Derek Anderson made a motion for TYPE I

SEQR which was seconded by Derek Meixell.

VOTE:

Mr. Anderson AYE

Mr. Kosel AYE

Mr. Malta AYE

Mr. Meixell AYE

Mr. Casciani ABSENT

Mr. Giardina AYE

Mrs, Wright ABSENT

RESOLUTION 23-018 John Kosel a made a motion for

Ridge Road. Applicant Vital Signs is requesting

SIGN APPROVAL associated with the installation

ofa 15 SF building mounted fagade sign on a 0.46-

acre parcel having SBL# 079.17-1-2 located in an

MC Medium Intensity Commercial District under

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

which was seconded by Derek Meixell.

VOTE:

Mr. Anderson AYE

Mr. Kosel AYE

Mr. Malta AYE

Mr. Meixcell AYE

Mr. Casciant ABSENT

Mr. Giardina AYE

Mrs. Wright ABSENT

APPROVED AS PER DRAWING V-3

[

Pye. 30 /February 7, 2023 Planning Meeting

(Mark Giardina read the sixth application):

APPROVAL associated with the replacement of an existing monument sign panel for Meyer’s

RV on a 5.87-acre parcel having SBL# 079.17-1-14.1 located in a CO Commercial Outdoor

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

Appearing before the board was Amy Catalano. Yes, so this is the Johnson RV location, and we

would be swapping out their panels for Meyer's RV branding. It is an internally lit box; lexan

panels; with both opaque and translucent vinyls.

change.

Derek Anderson:

RESOLUTION

Town of Webster Planning Board considered the request by Applicant, Vital Signs to replace an

existing monument sign panel for Meyer’s RV located at 784 ridge Road on a 5.87-acre parcel

having SBL# 079.17-1-14.1.

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 23-019 Derek Anderson made a motion for TYPE II

SEQR which was seconded by Derek Meixell.

VOTE:

Mr. Anderson AYE

Mr. Kosel AYE

Mr. Malta AYE

Mr. Meixell AYE

Mr. Casciani ABSENT

Pg. 31 /February 7, 2023 Planning Meeting

[

Mr. Giardina AYE

Mrs. Wright ABSENT

RESOLUTION 23-020 John Kosel a made a motion for

Ridge Road. Applicant Vital Signs is requesting

SIGN APPROVAL associated with the

replacement of an existing monument sign panel for

Meyer’s RV on a 5.87-acre parcel having SBL#

079.17-1-14.1 located in a CO Commercial Outdoor

Storage District under Section 265-7 of the Code of

the Town of Webster which was seconded by Derek

Meixell.

VOTE:

Mr. Anderson AYE

Mr. Kosel AYE

Mr. Malta AYE

Mr. Meixell AYE

Mr. Casciani ABSENT

Mr. Giardina AYE

Mrs. Wright ABSENT

APPROVED AS PER DRAWING V-I WITH CONDITION TO PUT STREET ADDRESS

ON SIGN

(Mark Giardina read the seventh application):

Roads. Applicant 169 Phillips Rd, LLC is requesting PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN &

SUBDIVISION APPROVAL (

PUBLIC HEARING

) associated with the construction of (4)

single-family residences on an existing 10.61-acre parcel having SBL# 050.01-1-65.11 located in

an R-1 Single Family Residential District under Sections 269-11 and 296-15 of the Code of the

Town of Webster.

Appearing before the board was Don Lewis and I am with DH Lewis representing the owners of

the parcel, 169 Phillips Rd, LLC. This application was before the board last month for concept

review and comments for the four-lot subdivision at the intersection of Lake Road and Phillips

Road in the southwest/east corner. We are proposing three new residences along Phillips Road

access and then one single lot access off of Lake Road across from the Crecks Edge Subdivision

entrance. The subdivision will also have access by municipal sewers connection across Lake

Road for the sewers in Creeks Edge. The lots will all be serviced by municipal water off of Lake

Road and Phillips Road. The three lots on Phillips Road, one will have its own driveway which

is an existing driveway . The parcel already has a barn, a horse barn that was part of the

subdivision that happened in the sale a couple of years ago, so they are using that driveway to go

with the barn and new house and then the last two lots are further back off the property, off the

right of way excuse me, on a shared private drive.

Py. 32 /Pebruary 7. 2023 Planning Meeting

I did receive comments from Josh over the weekend in regard to PRC comments, so I don’t

know if you want me to go through those now.

SEE LIST OF PRC COMMENTS:

subdivision near SE corner of Lake and Phillips Roads

¢ Community Development: * Lake Road lot has already been subdivided off, subdivision

is to create 3 additional lots off of remaining lands and construct 3 new single-family

homes.

e Fire Marshal: © Driveway is 14’ wide which exceeds the min. requirement of 12’ and is

only serving 2 homes so is sufficient to meet Fire Code. © If closest point of the house is

not within 500’ of nearest fire hydrant (following the vehicular accessway), homes

must be sprinklered or a private main with hydrant must be run into the site to comply

with NYS Fire Prevention Code. ¢ Add distances to hydrants on site plan.

e Planning Board: ¢ Need to run sewer to west lot line of lot I (along south side of Lake

Rd.) to provide future connection opportunity for Lake Rd. residents. * Lot 4 is land

locked; Lots 3 & 4 should be reconfigured to be “flag lots”, each with a 15’ wide strip

connecting to Phillips Road ROW. © Provide a drawing showing how the drainage

patterns will not negatively affect neighbors to the south, as requested at sketch plan

review meeting. © Need to maintain tree buffer along southern area adjacent to existing

residential to greatest extent possible.

e Sewer Department: ¢ Should be running sewer to west lot line of lot 1, as discussed

with Sewer Department/Engineer.

e Engineering Department: ¢ 40’ width measurement of hammerhead seems to be out of

scale when comparing it to the 42’ depth label on south side of driveway. © This project

will need a SWPPP submitted to Engineering Department due to overall area of land

disturbance (approximately 3 acres). PRC Minutes January 5, 2023, Page: 3

°¢ Highway Department: ¢ General drainage patterns are north and west, no major

concerns.

subdivision actually is, and it is actually four additional fots. There are four lots all together,

instead of three.

The Fire Marshals comments, we provided just a wider driveway for what the owners wanted. If

we could go down to 12, we can do that as well to minimize and it will be a stone road to a

certain distance and then they will pave for when they get closer to the house, just for economics

the whole thing for the distance of the road. The owners are aware because of the distance of the

nearesl fire hydrant that they would have to sprinkler those two deeper lots which I believe are

lots three and four. The other two are close enough to the road and fire hydrant and his comment

Py, 33 /February 7, 2023 Planning Meeting

also was to add distances to the fire hydrants INAUDIBLE on the plans and there are fire

hydrants that are showing on the plans on both Philips Road and Lake Road.

Planning Board comments, | think it was located in a couple others about extending the sewer

that we are bringing across from Creeks Edge to the west so that someday it can be accessed by

the other lots to the west on Lake Road if the town ends up extending that and that 1s an casy

change to the plans. The comment about lot four being Jandlocked, it ts not. it might be a little

confusing by the line work with the easement that are on the subdivision plan but lot four is a

flag lot that goes to the back so there is an access.

incorrectly shown but on my site plans it is correct so ] will have them change that. This line

should go off to the main road so that, so | apologize for that. I just picked up on that. They did

the subdivision and survey work for me so. That can be easily changed but, on my plans, it

shows that and then I think there was one of the neighbors next door the subdivision to the south

asking and concerned about the drainage in his back yard for lot three, as he borders here.

(SHOWING ON THE PLANS) It is one of the lots around here and { explained to him that this

house here and it sits on a knob and the drainage around that house is all collected and brought

onto our property and everything else. This whole property all drains to the middle anyway.

Even with the drainage that I do and the grading changes that I do, I couldn’t do enough grading

to force water off this property if I tried. That is kind of the biggest problem and had issues with

trying to do septic systems on the properly to begin with so.

retention pond?

DOTS right of way. We have a ditch line and then an end section that goes into a structure and

the county DOT has already reviewed and understands what is going on there too and | have

their comments and most of their comments were notations in nature. By grading, we were able

to relieve the drainage issue that the center of that property has that was left over the years from

farming. Your comment their along with the grading, we are maintaining as much buffer as we

can along that southern property linc, staying out of the side or rear setback......we are staying

out of the side setback. I know we don’t want to push it any closer because the person whose,

one of the owners is building on lot three and he doesn’t want to have any more/less buffer with

the houses to the rear cither so we minimized the grading as best as we could there for the

location of the house that they wanted.

The sewer department comment, again, was much like the Planning Boards comment about

sewer extending the sewer from this manhole here (SHOWING ON THE PLANS) to over here

Pg. 34 /February 7, 2023 Planning Meeting

so there is access to those lots someday whenever there is an extension. As far as the Enginecring

Department goes, Mary's comments there, yes, | can clean that up and the sizing of the

hammerhead. They have a typical sizing there and il’s a little bit bigger just by layout and

grading, but [can make that exactly 40 feet if that is what she needs. I know there was

discussions and Josh is aware with Mary about storm water management stuff and we have

plenty of room to do that and we are going to implement what we need on this property to be

able to handle any of the stormwater stuff. It’s not a full SWPPP that you are used to ona

commercial project. We can do some grading swales and stuff like that. Green info structure to

satisfy the storm water pollution prevention controls that are required by the DEC and then the

regulations that the town has further owned but its.... There is simple implementations that we

can add to the grading plan, and | do have a meeting set up with her on Thursday to go over

exactly what she is looking for but there is plenty of room to implement all that on the property.

Again, the Highway Department, there was questions about the drainage, and we have taken care

of all of those. As Iam looking down through here, these are much the same comments that were

reiterated above. The Building Department had a comment about the rear setback, and I can

change that because everything I am developing is all well within the setbacks outside of this

property here. It’s a little tighter than the other but you need setback there (? NOT CLEAR) but

that wasn’t the one they had a question about, and I can revise the stormwater management or the

access and the utilities. Also, Fire Marshal again with hammerhead comments which we can

easily change with the sizing that is provided here in these comments. Again, the Planning Board

comment about the landlocked parcel can be changed and all the easements are easily readily

available to be provided once the alignment for the sewers are approved. With that, 1 will open

for any questions from the board.

what they are looking for in here. Josh, do you know?

farm that is no longer used as agricultural that is no longer used as agricultural land. So, we may

have to do an agriculture data statement and submit that to the county but there were no other

major concerns or objections with the project. I know that they have already been in the loop on

this as Don has been working directly with them.

back from John Raymond over at the county. He had a couple of notations and stuff, He said

submit plans for permits and [haven't gone to the board yet for preliminary and final so.

lo the public so if anyone is here and wants to speak on behalf or against this project, you can do

so. Come up to the podium and speak from the podium, give us your name and address.

Travis Lawrence at 1381 Lake Road: On your map, they still have it labeled as Lapresi

Landmark . We have been living there for about three years now, so Lam not sure why that

hasn't been updated. It's nota big deal. My question and my concern, is based on, may [use

your map? (applicant: yes) the contour map here, so my concern is, (WLEWING THE MAP)

Pe. 35 fPebruary 7. 2023 Planning Meeting

according to sheet three, the gentleman stated that he has a proposed swale drainage on lot four

but what 1am seeing on lot four on the backside, where they are proposing an exit for that parcel

that the drainage is also going to drain from the narth to my property to the three or four

adjacent properties right here because of the contour, grade and if they raive it anyniore, then

the possibility is we are going to have more water coming onto our properties and it's going to

raise our water table which | have already dealt with in the past three years of substantial

amount of water coming fron this parcel when they built the southernmost subdivision because it

is raided eight feet. So, ny concern is that our four parcels which Lam not going to speak for

them, but for my parcel alone, puts us almost two feet lower than where they are looking to build

ad house and where they have that knob. That drains right to us. So, all 1 amt asking is what they

proposed is to keep that water from draining onto our property and flooding its out.

knob that is right here, there is no grading happening here at all. This tree fine right here is where

he is cutting, here is the old tree line, so he is cutting only into this tree line for his house and

driveway and this area sits right here, this is a litle knob there and a knob back here and |

provided drainage from his house and goes around...... (RESIDENT-Travis Lawrence

SPEAKING BUT NOT CLEAR) Don Lewis: .yup, yup and this drainage comes to here and

goes back out to here and then there is a swale where it goes all the way out to here. So, anything

around...(RESIDENT-Travis Lawrence, INAUDIBLE. Don Lewis: Yes, it is very ungulated

area back in here but there is a 100 foot here that he is not touching of all these woods in here.

(RESIDENT-INAUDIBLE) Don Lewis: Yes, he doesn’t want to because initially he wanted to

put his house back here, but it is so wet back in there. (RESIDENT-Travis Lawrence: That is

what I was worried about that he was going to push back here. Don Lewis: Yes, but these are

two of the owners and this is the other owner, they are going to sale, and this is the one lot they

are going Lo sale to recoup cost. The two owners here, this one is right up on the knob, and you

can see he tried to push his close to here to try and get it out of that water and area back there.

They know it’s wet and like I said, we graded it, so we collected everything around the house;

piped it and there is a swale running from this all the way through the pipes and out to the DOT

right of way. It gets collected. (RESIDENT-Travis Lawrence: INAUDIBLE) Don Lewis: The

sewer comes from across the street and comes to this manhole here, and then they are putting

another manhole here and this is Creeks Edge here. RESIDENT-Travis Lawrence- yeah, this is a

force main. Don Lewis: No, across here they’ ve gol a gravity sewer manhole over here and we

are connecting on to that and it’s the first manhole from the intersection, So, we are running in to

here and boring across the road, manhole over here and then everybody has laterals that go to it.

That is all in the easement and that piece will be dedicated to the town. RESIDENT-Travis

Lawrence-Ok.

record this, so you have to speak at the podium and speak into the microphone. Give us your

name and address.

Jeff Mastowski at 1389 Lake Road: fs it possible for the properties on the north side of that line

on Lake Road to hook up to the sewers, on that property?

Pe. 36 /February 7, 2023 Planning Meeting

the west edge of the lot that they are developing.

the plans and discussing the sewer) Don Lewis is just reiterating what he said previously

regarding the connection of sewer.

there is any interest in having it extended.

50% approval of the neighbors that would be considering doing it.

cost, you could certainly reach out to our Sewer Department.

AT THE PLANS}

information on what you need to do but it is possible and that is why we are requesting that line

to be over there.

hearing and bring it back to the board.

developed. There is relicf in the regulations, the SWPPP regulations with residential situations

like this, 1Cs five acres under five lots....five lots or less ] should say, and the maximum of five

acres of development combined. Because like I said, these lots have more but these lots have

Py. 37 /February 7. 2023 Planning Meecung

way less as far as disturbance total, but the disturbance total is just about three acres, so it doesn't

fall under the full SWPPP requirements. There are some reliefs to all of the stuff you would

have to submit to the state. You can do. You can use the grading plan with erosion control

notes. A lot of notes that you put on a standard SWPPP plan, but you don’t have to go through

the full NOT to the state you would do a smaller NOI to the state. It stall gets watched and

monitored by the town and their SWPPP officials, but it doesn’t go to the full extent of the post

construction features that you would see in a typical bio-retention ponds all that kind of stuff.

They don’t. That stuff isn’t required, is more construction related storm water controls, the

erosion controls; the temporary seeding; stone check dams all that kind of stuff to kind of

minimize and control erosion on the site during construction. You just don’t have all those post

construction features, that stulf get eliminated as long as the disturbance is all taken care of then

we met with the INAUDIBLE. (Someone else talking at the same time)

County because developers do this situation so they can stay under that and they like the larger

estate lype lots like these are.

possibility they will end up changing? Impacting the layout that they show?

add features to the swales to help again, minimize to get under certain thresholds for the amount

of impervious and that is what they are always looking at. For the post construction it is always

the amount of impervious so there is some simple features J can add to this but again, Mary

knows that it is not post construction it’s more pre and during construction that they are focused

on with these smaller residential five lots under five acres disturbance projects, but it still gets

filed with the state until it is completed.

drawing, right?

Pg. 38 /February 7, 2023 Planning Meeting

are the same drawings. Like I said, it is a matter of depiction. The long line needs to be added to

show that itis a flag lot that is all.

and utility easement for those two lots and the common drive.

Clerks Office.

slightly different. So, 1am assuming that the configuration on sheet three is the final one.

the reason why it doesn’t get picked up on the utility plan because there 1s an easement that cuts

off that lot too. It lays right on top of that same alignment and kind of makes it look tike that to,

so it looks a bit confusing when it comes to the easement work so.

final? Preliminary is fine but....

Derek Anderson:

MOTION FOR UNLISTED ACTION

Town of Webster Planning Board considered the request by Applicant, 169 Phillips Road, LLC,

subdivide a single 10.61-acre parcel having SBL# 050.01-1-65.11 located in an R-1 Single

Family Residential District into four parcels and construct four (4) single-family residences.

The Planning Board determined that the proposed action is an Unlisted Action under Part 617:

Stale Environmental Quality Review (SEQR).

Py. 39 fFebruary 7, 2023 Planning Meeting

The Planning Board determined that the action is subject to a single agency review pursuant to

Part 617.6(b)(1) of SEQR and that it is the most appropriate agency for making the determination

of significance. The Planning Board therefore designates itself lead agency for the proposed

action.

The Planning Board has given consideration to the criteria for determining significance as set

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

1. considered the information contained in the Short Environmental Assessment Form Part

| dated December 15, 2022,

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

February 7, 2023, and

3. completed Parts 2 and 3 of the Environmental Assessment Form.

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

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

the environment for the reasons set forth in the attached Notice of Determination of Non-

Significance; be it further,

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

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

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

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

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

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

meeting, that the proposed action WILL NOT result in any significant environmental impacts, be

it further,

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

DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE, be it further,

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

issues a NEGATIVE DECLARATION as evidence of its determination.

PHILLIPS NORTH SUBDIVISON

NOTICE OF DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE

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

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

1. The proposed action will not have a substantial adverse change in air quality since it does

not include a regulated emission source.

2. The proposed action will not have a substantial adverse change in ground or surface

water quality or quantily since the proposed action includes septic systems designed to

current Department of Health Standards.

3, Water will be supplied by the Monroe County Water Authority which has adequate

capacily to support the action.

Py. 40 /February 7, 2023 Planning Meeting

4. Wastewater will be treated by the Town of Webster which has adequate capacity to

support the action.

5. The proposed action will not have a substantial adverse change tn potential for crosion,

flooding, leaching or drainage problems. Development of individual parcels will

conform to NYSDEC for storm water management and control.

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

production since the action is for the subdivision of residential properties that will

produce solid wastes in quantities typical of single-family residences.

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

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

A temporary increase in noise levels consistent with normal construction activities 1s

anticipated when during construction on the subdivided lots.

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

since the proposed action creates five new residential parcels from an existing residential

parcel. Traffic generated is anticipated to be minimal.

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

Section 617(c)(1)(ii) of SEQR because no habitats or threatened or endanger species were

identified on or contiguous to the proposed site.

10. The proposed action is not located in an area designated as a Critical Environmental Area

by the Town of Webster or New York State pursuant to subdivision 617.14(g) of SEQR.

11. The proposed action is not in material conflict with the Town of Webster 2008

Comprehensive Plan.

12. The proposed action will not create an impairment of the criteria listed under Section

617(c)(1)(v) of SEQR since the action is not located in or adjacent to the listed resources

and is in character with the surrounding community.

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

is for the subdivision of three parcels into five parcels and the construction of nine, single

family residences. Single family residents would not require an upgrade to existing

power distribution system infrastructure.

14. The action will not create a hazard to human health since it does not contain nor is it

located adjacent to an existing sources of hazardous substances or contaminants. The

project does not contemplate the use of hazardous substances or contaminants.

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

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

Webster 2008 Comprehensive Plan.

16. The action will not attract a Jarge number of people for more than a few days when

compared to taking no action since the action involves the creation of nine new parcels

and does not create areas that will attract a large number of people.

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

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

RESOLUTION 23-021 Derck Anderson made a motion for UNLISTED

ACTION which was seconded by Derek Meixell.

Pe. 41 /February 7. 2023 Planning Meeting

[

VOTE:

RESOLUTION 23-022

Mr. Anderson AYE

Mr. Kosel AYE

Mr. Malta AYE

Mr. Meixell AYE

Mr. Casciani ABSENT

Mr. Giardina AYE

Mrs. Wright ABSENT

Dave Malta a made a motion for

PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN & SUBDIVISION

of Phillips and Lake Roads.

Applicant 169 Phillips Rd, LLC is requesting

PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN & SUBDIVISION

APPROVAL (

PUBLIC HEARING

) associated

with the construction of (4) single-family residences

on an existing 10.6/-acre parcel having SBL#

050.01-1-65.11 located in an R-1 Single Family

Residential District under Sections 269-11 and 296-

15 of the Code of the Town of Webster which was

seconded by John Kosel.

CONDITIONS:

Se

. All the improvements shall be constructed according to the specification of the

Town of Webster.

All roadway construction to be in accordance with the specification and

regulations set forth by the Town of Webster.

All site work ts to be in compliance with the standards of the Town of Webster.

Comply with all requirements of any State, County, or Town agency.

Address drainage, lighting, signage, landscaping, buffering, henning, and snow

storage

Proceed to Final approval.

The final plan to show the sewers extended onto Lake Road to the westerly lot line

on lot one and also show the lines that lot four is a flag lot.

. Preliminary approval granted subject to PRC comments.

VOTE:

Mr. Anderson AYE

Mr. Kosel AYE

Mr. Malta AYE

Mr. Meixell AYE

Mr. Casciani ABSENT

Mr. Giardina AYE

Mrs. Wright ABSENT

Pe, 42 /February 7, 2023 Planning Meeting

(Mark Giardina read the eighth application):

1114 PARKSIDE DRIVE ACCESSORY APARTMENT: Located at 1114 Parkside Drive.

Applicant Michael Kadysh is requesting PRELIMINARY / FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL

AND ACCESSORY APARTMENT WAIVERS (

PUBLIC HEARING

) associated with the

legalization of an existing accessory apartment and waiver request for overall size and to

maintain access to unit from existing door at the front of the structure on a 0.73-acre parcel

having SBL# 093.07-1-53.1 located in an R-3 Single Family Residential District under Sections

269-41 and 350-50 of the Code of the Town of Webster.

Appearing before the board was Michael Kadysh at 67 Horizon Drive. Iam asking for 1114

Parkside Drive to legalize single family home with an accessory apartment, Just to be legalized

and leave third door as it 1s on the building.

go back and get a licensed engineer to draw a set of plans that we could work with and see what

is going on here. The understanding is that the only people that are going to be living in this are

family members and il is certainly not going to be a rental unit outside of that. The question

about the doors, my question was do we need that center door in the hallway, and can we

eliminate one of the doors and the Fire Marsha! felt that it should stay the way it is because of the

configuration of the floor plan. His concerns were any residents were being able to get out and

get oul quickly. So, that was his comment to me about that. Does anyone have any questions

before we open it up?

easily not have it be a family member right, tf 1 recall.

want three kitchens. We didn’t want it shown to be a three family, so they drew it without the

kitchen in the lower Jevel and the main house is the matin house and the accessory building is the

accessory building. My understanding, this accessory apartment was built several years back .

members there just did it themselves for other family members if | remember it correctly.

town’s attention.

Py. 43 /February 7. 2023 Planning Meeting

to speak, please go to the podium and stale your name and address.

John Falco at 1099 Parkside: T have a couple of pictures to help with a fittle visualization of the

property if that is ok. (HANDS OUT PICTURES OF PROPERTY) You spoke just a little about

the last planning meeting in September and I believe the tistructions for 114 (1141 T think he

meant to say) was to have an open structure that may accommodate like an in-law apartment;

only two front doors; the one utility service; and almost like an open wail use of the house so it

wasn’t segregated to a separate family unit. Looking over the plans, | interrupt, | am looking ata

two bedroom; two bathroom; two complete kitchens; Lam sorry, two full baths; one room

storage and mystery two back rooms. | am not sure if there is going to be further bedrooms or

whatever, but this looks like to me, a complete separate apartment. It’s a large house, Twill

admit that, but we have to look at the wrongs of the past and present. Two, three wrongs don’t

make aright. The fact ts it is zoned for single family residential district. If looks like to me; the

left side of the garage was boarded up that you can see in the pictures; a full wall separates it

from the main house, and we have a stand-alone apartment that is at least two bedrooms and two

baths and two mystery rooms in the back.

You can’t send a message to the netghborhood that any of us can close off our garage; put up

some walls; remodel and now have income property. | would certainly like to have income

property, but Pcannot. It is because it is net zoned for that and it wouldn't be hard to convert my

2200 square foot split with a 600 square foot garage, close it off and I have income property and

f have neighbors with bigger splits than me. What is to stop them or the next owner from doing

that. You can not send that message to the neighborhood. [am also concerned with sometime in

the future, this family that we talk about, grows, moves, or wins the lottery and takes off. The

neighborhood is stuck with an apartnent for anyone to rent. [tis no longer defined as family.

So, again, lets take out the emotions, stick with some facts. It’s a single-family residential

district and it can not be changed. The house was sold, was vacant and boarded up for six years

or eight years, don’t know how long. twas sold last year. Ht had two garages: doors in the

front, ne other door, It had a living accommodations for a family. That is net what is on the

table right now, The other thing | wanted to mention, ts the application says, existing accessory

apartment and existing exterior door. 1 know the definition of existing, but it didn’t exist last

year, it does exist now, but it didn’t exist last year, So, we have not stopped what we were

Pe. 44 /February 7. 2023 Planning Meeting

supposed to do and keep it as a single family. So again, let me just reiterate, take the emotion

out, it's single-family resident and you must not take the proposal or waiver. Thank you,

there for over 50 year. This is a single-family residential area. We can not allow apartinent to

be there, as simple as that. Thank you.

is the existence of being able to have an accessory apartment. We have single family homes all

over this town with accessory apartments and it’s for in-laws and family members, so it is not a

two-family zoning, but single family does allow for accessory apartment. The question I have I,

this addition was built 12 years ago. No permits, no neighbors mentioned any, and you didn’t

have any concerns at the time?

Michael Wojcik at 1111 Parkside Drive: The apartment used to be a garage so that whole side

as you are looking at that house to the right, used to be the Tamino's and they used to race a lot

of cars back in the, we have to be talking 60-70s. They got out of car racing business and the

town was very happy because they made a lot of noise with the cars. Out of the car business, one

of then had a child that needed a place to site, they put a couple of walls up; puta couple beds

in there and that was the starting of the apartment as we say. After they left out, TP think there was

a mother in-law that moved in and stayed there until the house was vacant. So, that is the history

of how that got done.

was already an apartinent and we moved in, in

95. Just two questions, very siniple. Pm sure you

can answer it ina minute. The difference between an RI Single Family and R3 Single Family.

of the setbacks and things of that nature.

every other sentence. They were using the terminology, accessory apartment. [Is there any

difference between the two terminologies or are they the same?

apartment.

Py. 45 /February 7, 2023 Planning Meeting

Meghan Scott at 1109 Parkside Drive: 1 just have a couple questions on the plans so, in the back

you know, you walk down the hall and there are tose two areas stated as rooms. So, what will

those two are they... and I know that a bedroont has to have a closet in it, correct? Is that what

constitutes a room when you are doing architectural plans is a closet?

designated as part of the main structure so it could be a den; another family room; that type of

thing but that is designated to be part of the main structure. The other room, it could be a living

room; they have a kitchen and I think that, that backroom would probably suffice as a living

room,

what, E think it was like 800 square feet?

floor area of the main house or 750 square feet. Which ever is less. So, this is a fairly large

house, 35 % of the gross floor area of the house would allow them to have up to 1508 square

feet. However, what is being proposed is 1042 square feet which is over the maximum of 750,

an accessory apartment. That ts a whole separate unit.

two rooms that back up INAUDIBLE located rooms, there is another hook up for a bathroom

right there. There is another hook up for a full kitchen. All those lines are in place. How is the

fown going to insure that it remains a single family and in in-law and that it doesn’t get it turned

into, you know, three separate apartments which was the original plan before the neighbors got

wind that this was trying to be done without legal permits from the town.

agreement that states who is living in the structure and that will have to get filed with Monroc

County Clerks office and now obviously if owners change or the occupants of that apartment

change, then they are required to notify the town in the event that it didn’t take place, | am pretty

confident that we would get calls from neighbors to notify us and then we would take the

appropriate action.

apartment? Is that included in the square footage?

Pg. 46 /February 7. 2023 Planning Meeting

accessory apartment?

lo be easier that they have a play area and bathroom right there (SON SPEAKING): and

everything and there is no hook up for another kitchen. The inspector has been to the place, and

he has seen there is no way to do an additional kitchen over there and we did not run any water

lines. Where it use to be, the third kitchen, it is out, it is no more. We are not doing it so.

wouldn’t do it ok, but it is existing, and [ am very hesitant to talk about tearing the building

down or apart in order to accommodate the situation.

have the authority to act upon that violation.

they would have to come to court.

of the people in the main part of the house?

access in between the two. So that it doesn’t lend itself to that sort of situation.

occupancy and | know the last time we were here, there was kind of conflicting stories as to who

was actually going to be living in the main quarter and then who was going to be living in the

other quarters because we did google searches and 87 Horizon, 67 Horizon Drive, it’s a LLC

that is used to register, | think, seven different properties and then the other address in

Webster...there is another address for your brother that | think is used to register another four

properties within Monroe County. So, that is part of our concern is that obliviously you

Pg. 47 /February 7, 2023 Planning Meeting

gentleman,..God bless you, EL wouldn't want to be responsible for any other property besides

mine, but you guys have nudtiple properties within the City of Rochester and that ts where are

neighbors are really concerned is what's not to say that this is just going to become another

property where, [think the board has brought that concern to the attention. Like how are we

going to know or how are we going to prevent ok you live there for a year and peace P'm out and

you sale it to someone else and now we have two apartments in our neighborhood and just

speaking from personal experience, fam a family of law enforcement. f have seen what happens

to house, right on Old Ridge that are three, four-bedroom apartments. It’s not pretty and we are

glad that you fixed up the house, it looks wonderful. We are real appreciative to that but want to

make sure that we are maintaining the integrity and character of the neighborhood. You know

ay friends come over and they are astonished and amazed about how many people are out

walking and that is really what we are trying to preserve and just adding two separate

apartments could be detrimental in a lot of ways to this neighborhood. So, we just want to assure

that it is going to be owner occupancy and that it is going to be a family members that are

residing in that other side of the house and you know we are relying on the town to help us with

that because we are stuck, and this ts out voice tonight and after that let bygones be bygones.

What is going to be done is going to be done but we are hoping that you hear outside of the story

and you guys hear our side of the story. We are not jerks, we are not mean, like | said, we will

sit down, drink Vodka and have beers, whatever. We just want to make sure that this is going to

be a positive situation for everybody involved. You know, lwas....... The last guy that was up

here, with the neighborhood. The guy had a question, he came up and explained and everything

was good. Like I said, the trust initially was kind of rocked a little bit and we want to be able to

trust at what you are telling us is the truth.

whole week of work but yes, we are in the Real Estate business, and we never said we don’t. |

have lived in my house for over 25 years right now at 67 Horizon. My son, lives in Webster

from the moment we bought the house and we rehabilitated and from that moment, he stayed in

that house. Also, it is very close to our houses this location and you as neighbors see how much

we pul only for outside, we are not going to do that for rental property. It’s Just so much money

that we put in it for outside design and taking the water out of the house; concrete floor with

three concrete trucks we put there and all this beautiful landscape, not cheap, we put it there. For

rental?

INAUDIBLE and we do have rentals in suburb areas, you guys are welcome, and we would take

you for a tour just so you Know how we are as landlords. There are landlords and then “there are

landlords”. INAUDIBLE what we do but this particular property ts for our brother, and it nyakes

no financial sense INAUDIBLE to this property INAUDIBLE.

occupant?

Py. 48 /February 7. 2023 Planning Mecting

in.

board.

modified by a previous owner a long time ago and the map and I really don’t know the history of

this survey map because this looks like it is copied off of the original subdivision drawing for it

and it is dated 1965 and has notes on it about existing additions; existing accessory apartinents;

so, when you go and look at this map, it’s dated 1965. It shows that anything that is sticking off

the back side of the house were additions that were put on al some point, including the two

rooms that people have been having a concern about. They were put on the back behind the

garage at some point so one of the things that I find really incredible is, is my understanding is

no building permits were ever issued for this scale of construction on this house and how do we

actually rectify that. Unfortunately, you bought a mess. How we as a board fix this, it is more of

an administrative procedure then anything else. There should have been property permits issued.

The addition on the back where it is saying room number one is considered part of the primary

building, well that’s not truc. It show on the map of the supposed parcel that they were additions

off the back. So, the square footage of this addition is huge. I mean, I have heard stories of

those additions along the back was actually put in to try and get house to meet the code. When

the code says the accessory apartment, you ave to have an internal access from one building ¢

another and it was some persons creative way of wrapping around the garage of tying the two

houses together. 1:32:00 so it turned out to be an addition instead of an accessory apartment but

regardless, the layout of this plan there is much more square footage on here as an accessory

building and it kind of leaves us in a position of is this really to a point , the size wise to make it

legalized. Are we able to grant a waiver or does this have to go to the Zoning Board to get a

variance for its size to make truly legal. The other question that I have on it too, is that 1 do

Pe. 49 /February 7, 2023 Planning Meeting

know from the pictures from the things I have seen, and you look on Google earth you see the

iwo garage doors and then the one garage door disappeared after you purchased it and then the

interior wall that is showing on the drawing prepared by Dave Chandler, that wasn’t existing

when the house was purchased. That was constructed as part of renovations that ultimately

started this whole thing. There were two garage doors and I have seen, | think in your previous

application before, it looks like someone had converted one of the garages al some point to live

in a garage and it had a galley kitchen off the back of it.

was sealed in the back . There is a wall and so that is why we move.

layout of this thing it was done as way to make it conform to the code. You have this hallway

from the center door that comes in. The thing you have to understand with this house is it’s a

split level on one side, not split level, raised ranch and so the stairs up are going to the second

level down to the first level, so this hallway connects those things and connect into room one.

Room one in the back that was part of an addition according to this thing. They tie together and

wrap around the garage. It’s a creative way to interconnect and make it conform with the code.

As Dave mentioned, the Fire Marshal, the question about the three doors on the front, it does

look funny. It winds up being from the Fire Marshals perspective, it ends up being an egress

method. You know, people in the house, distance to the door.

apartment, the doors can’t be on the front, but they can be on the side, and you can get

permission to do otherwise. This particular thing, it wouldn't accommodate a door on the side,

and we have waivers on that. What Iam wondering though, this is more...what did you figure,

| 000-1100 square foot addition?

garage, and I don’t know the answer to this. | have to ask, for this size are we as a board able to

grant a waiver or does this have to go to the Zoning Board to get a variance?

Planning Board, So, unless it is a setback variance this would not require any variances from the

Zoning Board,

lines are considered the side lots, which is the rear line because that would change the amount of

space for the setback and whether or not this parcel would have to have a setback variance . For

example, is the south property line, is that considered a side lot line or ts it considered a rear lot

fine. Considering this is an odd lot on a corner and the house ts at an angle. If that is considered

Pg. 50 /February 7, 2023 Planning Meeting

a side lot, then yes it needs a setback variance if the setback requirements is considered a rear lot

line, then you have to have 50 feet there and it will need a variance.

shaped lots, there is a couple different ways you can consider it but since the way i Is situated on

the lot facing Parkside rather than Tyra, | considered the south property line to be the side and

the east property would be the rear and the western portion would be the front and then it extends

from the side walls of the house. So, that is kind of how you determine front side rear for these

very uniquely shaped lots.

record of this property and unfortunately that ts the only...... I don’t believe you received a

survey map when you purchased it through the auction, so this is the only map that was readily

available if this property.

property per say but it was in our inventory of survey maps.

this parcel?

which has the dimensions of the footprint and various notations over the years. I believe it was

actually our Assessment Department that discovered these additions that were constructed

without permits. There was a notification sent to the Building Department at that time and for

whatever reason it doesn’t appear to have been acted upon at that time unti! these genldeman

came along .

when it was first discovered. The additions that were added without permits.

when I look at it, | see a property....... at the last mecting you came in with various requests and

one of them was to do away with the one door, the Fire Marshal likes the door. We requested

the removal of one of the kitchens to make it, so it is a specific single-family home in the main

Structure and also made sure that the accessory permil was a truce accessory apartment.

son of Michael Kadysh: We took two bedroom and converted it into one upstairs in the main

building to make like a master bedroom, if you sec it over there.

Pe. 51 /February 7. 2023 Planning Meeting

plans were prepared by a licensed architect who has been tn the house, It meets what we asked

for before, but I guess just personally, the size and again, iUs an administrative thing we do have

the ability to do the waiver on it, so.

wall at this point, like to prevent what the concern is that this is going to get sold at some point,

which it will, it’s a house. So, this will get sold at some point and become rental property like

two distinct non-family properties which would be super-duper easy with this. Just close that

wall out between the two back rooms.

and no one would know from the outside. How would you protect against that?

it is discovered. Plus, they have to file an affidavit with the town and the county that it is an

accessory apartment. If they sell the property, the new owner also has to file the same affidavit

so somebody can’t say, well, I thought it was a two family and that is what I’m using it as. It is

an accessory apartment, and that affidavit has to follow.

the house.

that they are not doing things that are detrimental. They have done a good job cleaning this mess

up and this has been an eye sore for years and years and years. As long as they are going to use

it the way that they said that they are going to use it and they should be really good neighbors.

gone.

Applicant and son)

copper is gone. Was there any wire left?

everything.

Pg. 52 /February 7, 2023 Planning Meeting

for us to put electric boards, that was the only reason but when we were told no, so that is when

we installed gas furnace and air conditioner.

size. Just to clarify again, in that 1042 square fect total, I did include both of the back rooms as

part of the accessory structure so that square footage is reflective of those two spaces. If the

board feels that one or more of those rooms belong to the other part, that would change the

overall size but the way that I viewed it was that it was part of the accessory structure.

the motion.

RESOLUTION

Town of Webster Planning Board considered the request by Applicant, Michael Kadysh to

legalize an existing accessory apartment, a waiver request for overall size, and to maintain access

to the unit from an existing door at the front of the structure located at 1114 Parkside Drive on a

0.73-acre parcel having SBL# 093.07- 1-53.14.

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

617.5(c)(2) of the State Environmental Review (SEQR) Regulations and therefore is not subject

1o further review.

RESOLUTION 23-023 Derek Anderson made a motion for TYPE II

SEQR which was seconded by John Kosel.

Pe. 453 /February 7, 2023 Planning Meetung

VOTE:

Mr. Anderson AYE

Mr. Kosel AYE

Mr. Malta AYE

Mr. Meixel! AYE

Mr. Casciani ABSENT

Mr. Giardina AYE

Mrs. Wright ABSENT

RESOLUTION 23-024 Dave Malta a made a motion for

PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN

APPROVAL AND ACCESSORY

Parkside Drive. Applicant Michael Kadysh is

requesting PRELIMINARY SITE

PLAN APPROVAL AND ACCESSORY

APARTMENT WAIVERS (PUBLIC

HEARING) associated with the legalization of an

existing accessory apartment and waiver request for

overall size and to maintain access to unit from

existing door at the front of the structure on a 0.73

acre parcel having SBL# 093.07-1-53.1 located in

an R-3 Single Family Residential District under

Sections 269-11 and 350-50 of the Code of the

Town of Webster which was seconded by Mark

Giardina.

CONDITIONS:

1.

2.

10.

1]

The lot is restricted to one accessory building

The building is to conform to the size and location presented on the plan

. 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 shal! 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 February 7, 2024

. Comply with all requirements of any State, County, and Town agency

All site work 1s to be in compliance with the standards of the Town of Webster

Subject to all engineering and governmental approvals

. Subject to all appropriate governmental fees

12.

13. Subject to resolution of final approved minutes

A waiver for size and the third front door is needed

Py. 54 /February 7, 2023 Planning Meeting

VOTE:

Mr. Anderson AYE

Mr. Kose} AYE

Mr. Malta AYE

Mr. Meixell AYE

Mr. Casciani ABSENT

Mr. Giardina AYE

Mrs. Wright ABSENT

RESOLUTION 23-025 Dave Malta a made a motion for

FINAL APPROVAL AND ACCESSORY

Parkside Drive. Applicant Michael Kadysh is

requesting FINAL SITE

PLAN APPROVAL AND ACCESSORY

APARTMENT WAIVERS (PUBLIC

HEARING) associated with the legalization of an

existing accessory apartment and waiver request for

overall size and to maintain access to unit from

existing door at the front of the structure on a 0.73-

acre parcel having SBL# 093.07-1-53.1 located in

an R-3 Single Family Residential District under

Sections 269-11 and 350-50 of the Code of the

Town of Webster which was seconded by Mark

Giardina.

CONDITIONS:

1.

2.

3. The building shall not be placed nearer to the front property line than the rear

7,

8.

9. The lot is restricted to one accessory building

The building is to conform to the size and location presented on the plan

line or footprint of the main building or residence upon the lot.

4. No point on the building will be higher than the existing structure

5.

6. The accessory building shall be used for personal use only, as defined by Town

No commercial use shall occur on the parcel

Code

Significant construction shall occur within one year, as deemed by the Planning

Board, to expire on February 7, 2024

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

10. Subject to all engineering and governmental approvals

11.Subject to all appropriate governmental fees

12. Subject to resolution of final approved minutes

13.A waiver for size and the third front door is needed

Py, 53 /February 7, 2023 Planning Meeting

VOTE:

Mr. Anderson AYE

Mr. Kosel AYE

Mr. Malta AYE

Mr. Meixel] AYE

Mr. Casciani ABSENT

Me. Giardina AYE

Mrs. Wright ABSENT

(Mark Giardina read the nineth application):

1021 FIVE MILE LINE ROAD G & H AUTO SALES: Located at 1021 Five Mile Line

Road. Applicant DSB Engineers is requesting SIGN APPROVAL to allow a 28.3 SF building

mounted fagade sign & SKETCH PLAN REVIEW associated with the construction of a 6-

space front parking / display area for G & H Auto Sales on a 0.74-acre parcel having SBL#

079,18-1-1 located ina CO Commercial Outdoor Storage District under Sections 265-7 & 269-5

of the Code of the Town of Webster.

Applicant requested that this application be tabled to the March 7, 2023 meeting.

(Mark Giardina read the tenth application):

TAKE 5 OIL CHANGE: Located at 1045 Ridge Road. Applicant Woods Oviatt Gilman LLP is

requesting SKETCH PLAN REVIEW associated with a proposed 1,600 SF oil change facility

and related site improvements on a 1.25-acre parcel having SBL# 079.15-1-8.009 in an MC

Medium Intensity Commercial District under Section 269-5 of the Code of the Town of Webster.

Appearing before the board was Betsy Brugg, I am with Woods Oviatt Gilman, and it is a

pleasure to be here. Last on the agenda and with me, Brian McKinnon for the property owner.

Iam assisting Quatro Development with their project and they are interested and have under

contract this small piece of property at 1045 Ridge Road. Brian knows more about it as he is the

properly owner. He has been here previously with, most recently with the Self-Storage that was

constructed right behind, not exactly essentially, but right behind his property. This is really the

last remaining piece that the property owner has there,

What we are proposing is for construction of a TAKE 5 Qil Change. It | sort of a unique piece of

property, and they have had it on the market and Brian can tell you more, for quite some time.

There has been very little interest in the property for a typical type of retail and [am sure you are

all familiar with it. It’s a little bit down the street but not too far from the town hall so hopefully

you all had a chance to look at it before tonight. We are starting tonight with the concept

application. We wanted to bring this in and get some feedback from the board before we got into

full design and engineering so, we have not retained a Civil Engineer yet to start working on this

project. I wanted to get some feed back in terms of how the board feels about the use on this

property and kind of an idea of how this would fit and how the site plan would lay out.

So, as you Know, you approved a Self-Storage Facility back in 2021. You might have secn that

this application came in and then it was withdrawn. That is because Quatro Development, my

client was not...... There was a disconnect and they were not aware that the Planning Board has

Pg. 56 /February 7. 2023 Planning Meeting

placed a condition on the approval for the self-storage that this property would not have its own

curb cut and would share access through the Bruster’s driveway. So, as a result, | pulled their

application and original site plan and they have now submitted a plan that utilizes shard access

and consistent with some of the goals of the Comprehensive Plan to have access management

and address some of the issues with the smaller properties on Ridge Road. A desire to seek cross

access between properties and desire to see fewer curb cuts. So, I believe that was a condition

that we need to deal with, with this parcel which makes it somewhat less desirable for some other

retailers that you might find on Ridge Road. This property sits next to Brusters. Between

Brusters and ESL and it is about | 4 acres is size and in the MC zoning district and kind of in a

mixed-use area.

The plan that we submitted has a perpendicular building orientation and you all have a copy I

assume in your packets. We went with that orientation because that has generally been the

preference of the board in the past. We did receive some PRC comments and I did note, I think

someone involved in the PRC... we did get the PRC comments, why don’t I just go through

them. (SEE PRC COMMENTS ATTACHED BELOW)

1045 Take 5 Oil Change:

Community Development:

© Initial proposal submitted in December but was withdrawn.

® Revised proposal submitted shows elimination of Ridge Rd. curb cut and connection

fo Bruster's driveway, per a past Planning Board condition of approval (Life Storage)

and re-orientation of building so that bay doors do not face Ridge Road.

© Application for sketch plan review was resubmitted for 3-bay oil change facility and

will be presented on at the February 7th Planning Board meeting.

© Differing opinions amongst staff on building orientation; some think bays should

face Ridge Road, while others disagree.

Planning Board:

° Ridge Road facade is unattractive, lacks detail; needs to be significantly dressed up

with faux window(s), relief, or other architectural elements such as stone, accentuating

landscaping, etc.

© Low impact use in terms of traffic generation.

© Notin favor of red band being shown on elevation drawings

type of operation that the vehicle pulls in and the customer stays in car and they are there for a

very short time. It is a very low traffic generating use which is what makes it so perfect for this

location. It is complimentary to the area and that is a low traffic generating use, 30-40 customers

a day if they do well. Let’s see, so we gave you the corrected plan and submission that you have

in terms of the required shared access. (A LOT PAPERS RATTLING, NOT APPLICANT) there

were some different opinions among staff on building orientation. Some things they should face

Ridge Road and I did bring a plan with me today, if you would like to see that. We did throw

that option together and it actually would have been the preference of TAKE 5 but we went with

the perpendicular orientation because generally that has been the preference of the Planning

Board, but we are completcly flexible.

Pg. 57 /February 7, 2023 Planning Meeting

The Ridge Road fagade, there are some comments on the architecture and again, they haven't

retained a full design team on this project. I just got these comments Friday or yesterday, Lam

not sure when [ got them. I just got them so, I quickly let them know that they did give me an

elevation that [can share with you. Again, we are completely flexible about making some

changes to the architecture. They went with a brick building. That is generally Planning Boards

preference. They have tried to add some architectural elements to kind of spruce it up and dress

up the building. They are absolutely open to doing more to look the way you would want it to

look.

Again, just in response to your comments, again, this can be refined after an architect is brought

in. There was a comment about the traffic. Yes, this is a low traffic generating type of use and

there were some comments about the red band being shown on the elevations. That is just a

branding element. Again, this is a concept plan, and we certainly look at what other options there

are and take any feed back that the board may have on what you would like to see. I would say,

the red band kind of goes with what Brusters has on the adjacent property and really not all that

different from what Brusters has and that is in a nutshell about 16...yeah, the building is

relatively small and about 1600 feet; three garage bays; there hours of operation are typical not

full retail hours but it’s 7-8 Mondays thru Friday; 7-7 on Saturdays; 9-5 on Sundays. Some like

a daytime type of operation (Board members speaking loudly while applicant is presenting.

Hard to hear) Services are somewhat limited. Oil changes; tire pressure checks; topping off of

fluids; coolant; air cabin filters; and wiper blade replacements. So, that is sort of the menu of

what they offer. There is definitely a demand in the market. That is how these uses end up

looking for locations on Ridge Road.

We are sort of in a mixed use and mixed zoning kind of area. The site has been on market for

some time and one of the reasons and I think Brian has more experience with the marketing of

the property, but we are not on a traffic signal; we don’t have our own driveway and relatively

small; it’s not surrounded by the newest types of retail uses, We have Brusters next door, a

bank. A lot of retailers are looking for certain criteria when they chose a site. They are looking

for that traffic signal, they are looking for corner, they are looking for tenants that will

compliment their business and I think for that reason the property sits vacant today and hasn't

been picked up before this. It seems to be a great location for what TAKE 5 wants to do. Again,

it is a low traffic generating use and they are obviously willing to work with the Planning Board

to give you the site plan that you would like to see. This isn’t preliminary, again, it’s just a

concept plan. So, we are here for your feedback and your comments and thoughts.

of the building? The red roof and the red stripe?

say this is this, ] just want to see what other people think.

Derek Andersom So, | have a couple things | want to talk about. Since you started the building,

one thing I think as a board, it would be great if we can have shown on these drawings is

Py. 58 /February 7, 2023 Planning Meeting

acellular exterior lighting, so you don’t wind up with something like what we had on Ridge Road

for the outline of the building, the Country Max. When they forget to turn off their lights on at

night and you have the entire building lit with Christmas Tree lights surrounding the entire

outside perimeter of it and then don’t get into the situation where there ts interior lighting, like

some car washes that may be in the area that wind up lighting the whole entire neighborhood. It

is not stuff that gets caught as a lighting plan We ask for a Betsy Brugg: So, I explained why it

was withdrawn. It is a three bay oil change facility. It is the type of operation that

plan and it winds up being interrupted of where light poles go but we have enough buildings that

started going up and this light beam coming off he is building, these extreme down lighting from

underneath caves and stuff. I think these plans, mu opinion...ought of start showing that type of

information beyond packet lights on the side. INAUDIBLE so you can see it from ten miles

away. It does take you by surprise because it is not something that we ask about or even think to

ask about. The red, the colors like that it is not really consistent with what we like seeing in the

town INAUDIBLE other people talking. One thing I do.....the site plan itself, I have a slightly

different recollection of this then you do and I am looking at the board and I think Dave would

have probably been part of the conversation and John and yourself, that is all that is left right

now that the site has been through multiple, multiple iterations of ownership over the years and

so INAUDIBLE approved was the self-storage building and I specially remember during the site

plan reviews for that, that this parcel had been sub-divided administratively before the self-

storage building even came in and I remember it because I wasn’t too happy about it because it

was done something.. you know, here as a Planning Board we had an idea of what this site was

supposed to be over the years and then all of sudden this parcel is subdivided off separately and

there has been over the years and also associated with the self-storage the driveway. What

driveway is being used for the access to the facilities and to the west of Brusters that driveway al

one lime was going to be three and half four lanes wide. It was going to serve this entire

commercial complex in the back. Various approvals had been given, actually Brusters driveway

to go away and have access to this new driveway going off the road. No consideration to what is

going on here. This configuration | don’t ever remember discussions about. | think you are off

one parcel in those notes. The access was supposed to be the main access coming into the sel f-

storage facility and that was going to be shared by Brusters. When yours came in for subdivision

they changed it again. So, you had your own driveway, and you did want to make sure to

maintain parking in the back and you worked with them on that. Also, off of that driveway there

is another lot that 1s to the west that at one time il was an eye doctor or something that came in...

SOMEONE FROM THE AUDIENCE SPEAKING OUT, NOT AT THE MIC.

the self-storage area. That was all part of preliminary plans on it. If you want to go back far

cnough the self-storage area when the original approvals were given before the self-storage the

previous lot before that, that had access to easements and everything on it and showing

connection over to behind Wendy’s . The Engincer or the owner at that time never filed that

paperwork . Its one of those casements where they are supposed to have been there and they

disappeared. Because your lot and sclf-storage was supposed to be tied over to that secondary

road that has been extended across but people didn’t file the easements. They said they were

Pg. 59 ‘February 7, 2023 Planning Meeting

going to, but they didn’t do it, doesn’t matter on this but F think this concept of having this

driveway going into Brusters, this is an absolutely no go because Brusters...l wouldn't want to

see your business wind up using Brusters driveway because of the access to Ridge Road.

Green Apartments and subdivided and sold to Conifer for the senior apartments. We are on the

same team the property line for this subject parcel and their site runs right in the middle of the

driveway so when we asked for the boards support for the self-storage, that lot that you describe

on how that was administratively done, that was before out time so when we were looking to do

the self-storage we had already met with Brusters and we have got a great relationship and we

said listen, we are going to put a small little curb cut off of Ridge Road just for the self-storage

And the Dr, Giangreco to the extent that he ever develops his building, he will have the use of

that and then we have given them an easement for that.

SAME TIME)

have paid for all of that, but he’s got a curb cut. We got together with Brusters and the board

basically told us , we want to limit curb cuts on Ridge Road so we agreed and probably didn’t

have a lot of choice but that is fine but we are happy with out project and it turned out really nice

and we went to Brusters and said listen, we have this fot line that runs right down the middle of

our properties, we are going to use that to access this parcel in question tonight because we are

not going to come in and ask for a second curb cut for our own parcel because it 1s so marrow and

so small and the board at the time that we did the self-storage, encouraged us to use that shared

access with Brusters. So., we got tighter and said, we both win. We improve the access; we

don’t have another curb cut for this tiny litle Jot and now we found someone, as she said it is

very difficult to market it. We found someone now that says I don’t need my own curb cut. |

am happy going in off of Brusters and turning left, so that is the history to it,

board with it. Because | kind of remember it being a little bit different.

and worked il out. The egress INAUDIBLE to cycle around ......By the way, Mary Amato,

Brusters Ice Cream, 1041 Ridge Road. You can go in with Life Storage if we ever had

emergency vehicles or anything else coming around there not going to get tramped behind the

store on a short one way. They can now come up Life Storage, exit our driveway or up our

driveway and exit Life Storage. So, il’s safety of everyone involved and I was really happy when

] saw the original plans with the curb cut and then it was withdrawn and | was like yes, they saw

the casement.

Pg. 60 /February 7, 2023 Planning Meeting

Mary Amato, Brusters Ice Cream, 1041 Ridge Road: [ have one question I would like to ask

them. INAUDIBLE knows about the property because ] want to know and | think Brian will

understand, where your building ts going to sit in relation to my building and what the setback is

going to be . Are we going to be equal in setback or if it’s standard, am I going to be blocked,

that kind of thing and so that is my concern. Totally off INAUDIBLE but LOVE THE RED

STRIPE!

Mark Giardina; The second question that I have about the building. I will feave the red stripe

along. I notice you have, which I believe they are lights. They are little black squares

surrounding and it’s on page Al.o0. Are those lights? And if so, how bright are they ? Are they

shinning straight out or are they down?

of what the building could look like and certainly the lighting will be satisfactory to the Planning

Board.

backing on the columns there, my guess would be they would be lights that reflect up and down

to kind of give it that elegant look, if you will. The way stone reflects with light. That is what I

think they are trying to portrait there.

tree.

never straight up.

lights and where they were going to be shinning.

see il. We rotated the building if you wanted to.

(A LOT OF PAPER RATTLING)

parallel.

Pg. 61 fFebruary 7, 2023 Planning Meeting

Ridge Road or having what is depicted here.

doors. That is my opinion. I think the original option INAUDIBLE (A LOT OF PAPERS

RATTLING) in the front where it looks like the second somewhat parallel with the road, I think

now you have a giant parking lot in the front. Personally, I like the first option better.

assumed they figured the cars can turn into the side limits.

in properly.

ils not constructed yet. They are going to be relatively new to the market, but I can get you some

information on where the closest may be and photos for you.

they do that. You sit in the car, and they go through everything, then you pay them, and you are

gone. So, you don’t have to get out of your car. The configuration of the building, I] could go

either way, The doors facing Ridge Road or this new facade that they face on Ridge Road.

Pg. 62 /February 7, 2023 Planning Meeting

with delivers and the hauling of the waste oil, is that a tractor trailer or a smaller vehicle?

are closed?

that sign yet and depending on the architecture, we don’t have out sign package for the building

yet.

very good business. So, having something a little more subdued, it’s not going to hinder either

one. So, I like the use.

we do need a use variance in the MC zoning district .

here first and get some feedback.

gel a really nice quality building and make this a really nice asset to Ridge Road.

Pg. 63 /February 7. 2023 Planning Meeting

the building and that roof but it’s a minor thing.

back to the client to think about different ways to get their corporate color them on the building

because it is an identifiable feature of their business in multiple locations and cities. I guess if

Brusters likes red . You are going to get all the foot traffic from people getting their cars done so

but if that is a consideration for the board, I think the client would appreciate that they could use

their corporate color if you will.

wanted to bring you so.

this is how are buildings look in Cincinnati and Paduka and all that and we tell them no, it

doesn’t fit it with the scheme of Webster and | am not saying your building doesn’t, it is just that

color.

SPEKAING LOUD ENOUGH AND A LOT OF PAPERS RATTLING)

that may not last for very long?

in building new sites and new locations and the last time I checked, we are all driving, well, ] am

driving an old-fashioned vehicle these days, but I think they are confident that there is a market.

They have done their research in selecting a site.

regardless of what the movement is towards electric vehicles. It would take years and years. Any

other comments? We will give you what we can give you at this point.

comments; thank you for sending a letter to the Zoning Board . | think that is an tmportant next

step for us to proceed with the Zoning Board application. We look forward to sceing you in the

near future with a site plan application.

Pg. 64 February 7, 2023 Planning Meeting

With no other applications before the Board this evening Dave Malta concluded tonight's

meeting at 9: 15 PM.

Respectfully Submitted,

Signed V4 a me Dated afer

Mark Giardina, Secretary

Katherine Kolich, Recording Secretary

MAR 10 ‘23 an7: 15

FILED WEBSTER THN CLK

Pg. 65 /Pebruary 7. 2023 Planning Meeting