Minutes

WEBSTER PLANNING BOARD MINUTES

Anthony Casciani, Chairman Mark Giardina, Secretary

Dave Malta, Vice Chairman

Peggy Maltman

Derek Anderson

Drazen Gasic

Sven Vetter

Katherine Kolich, Recording Secretary

Josh Artuso, Director of Community Development

Erika Corsi, Town Planner

Frank Ciardi, Attorney

Pledge of Allegiance/Roll Call

sign. What does the board think if we have the signs first and just get them out of the way. Is

that okay with you guys?

you read off the first one.

Summary overview of outcome:

TABLED MATTERS

:

1. BLOOM & BLEND SIGN-790 RIDGE ROAD

2. 7 BREW-HARD RD

¢ Applicant shall provide updated SWPPP and comment response letter before returning

for Final Approvals.

e Plans to show on-site snow storage areas

e¢ Provide a landscaping plan and continuation of bio-retention area to the east.

Pg. 147 June 2, 2026 Planning Meeting

SCHEDULED MATTERS

:

3. LUCKY X STRIKE SIGN-2400 EMPIRE BLVD

4. JF JONES JEWELERS SIGN-1170 RIDGE ROAD

5. TEMPO SIGN-807 RIDGE ROAD

6. LEGACY GAMES SIGN-1028 RIDGE ROAD

7. DINKS AND LINKS-FIVE MILE LINE ROAD

8. BAY RIDGE CORNER RESUBSIVION

9, PERMANENT DOCK-1060 SUNSET TRAIL

10. RG&E STATION 73-891 KLEM ROAD

11. WEBSTER UNION CEMETERY-345 WEBSTER ROAD

( Peggy Maltman read each application into the record)

BLOOM & BLEND SIGN: Located at 790 Ridge Road. Applicant Alyssa Connors is

requesting SIGN APPROVAL associated with the installation of ONE (1) 32 SF wall sign,

and one (1) double-sided panel replacement on an existing monument sign on a 1.2-acre parcel

Pg. 148 June 2, 2026 Planning Meeting

having SBL# 079.17-1-15.1 located in the CO Commercial Outdoor Storage District under

Sections 265-7 of the Code of the Town of Webster.

Appearing before the board was Alyssa Connors and partner (never stated his name) This is our

first time here so are we waiting for you guys to ask us questions.

Derek Anderson:

BLOOM AND BLEND SIGN

The Town of Webster Planning Board considered the request by Applicant, Alyssa Conners to

install a fagade sign and monument sign panels for Bloom and Blend located at 790 Ridge Road

on a parcel having SBL #079-17-1-15.1.

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 26-026 Derek Anderson made a motion for TYPE II

SEQR which was seconded by Drazen Gasic.

Pg. 149 June 2, 2026 Planning Meeting

VOTE:

Mr. Casciani AYE

Mr. Malta AYE

Mr. Giardina ABSENT

Mr. Anderson AYE

Mrs. Maitman AYE

Mr. Gasic AYE

Mr. Vetter AYE

Drazen Gasic:

RESOLUTION

WHEREAS the Town of Webster Planning Board (the “Planning Board”) has received an

application from Alyssa Connors (the “Applicant”) requesting Sign Approval pursuant to §

265-7 of the Code of the Town of Webster for the installation of one (1) 32 square foot wall

sign on a 1.2-acre parcel identified as SBL# 079.17-1-15.1, located at/near 790 Ridge Road in

the CO Commercial Outdoor Storage District, Town of Webster, New York; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Board reviewed the application materials and plans submitted by the

Applicant, including the sign drawings and associated supporting information, as presented to

the Planning Board; and

WHEREAS, after due deliberation, the Planning Board finds that the proposed signage, as

presented, is acceptable and consistent with the intent of the Town’s sign regulations

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Town of Webster Planning Board hereby

APPROVES the Applicant’s request for Sign Approval

RESOLUTION 26-027 Drazen Gasic made a motion for SIGN

Applicant Alyssa Connors is requesting SIGN

APPROVAL associated with the installation of

ONE (1) 32 SF wall sign, and one (1) double-sided

panel replacement on an existing monument sign on

a 1.2-acre parcel having SBL# 079.17-1-15.1

located in the CO Commercial Outdoor Storage

District under Sections 265-7 of the Code of the

Town of Webster which was seconded by Sven

Vetter.

VOTE:

Mr. Casciani AYE

Mr. Malta AYE

Mr. Giardina ABSENT

Mr. Anderson AYE

Mrs. Maltman AYE

Mr. Gasic AYE

Mr. Vetter AYE

Pg. 150 June 2, 2026 Planning Meeting

Vital Signs is requesting SIGN APPROVAL associated with the installation of one (1) 40.75 SF

wall-mounted sign and one (1) double-sided panel replacement on an existing monument sign on a

9,19-acre parcel having SBL# 078.20-1-49.1 located in the MC Medium-Intensity Commercial

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

Appearing before the board was Steve Stanley from Vital Signs on behalf of ...

transferring up to the microphones. Could I ask you just to be quiet. Appreciate it, thank you.

over, We are proposing one set of aluminum channel! letters that are going to be lit on the face

of the building and also going to change out the pylon face and remove the current Bowlero

sign on the east end of the building.

putting new ones up and the new name.

entrance from where the current sign is.

letters.

Derek Anderson:

LUCKEY X STRIKE SIGN

The Town of Webster Planning Board considered the request by Applicant Steve Stanley of Vital

Signs to remove a replace facade sign and monument sign panels for Lucky X Strike located at

2400 Empire Blvd on a parcel having SBL #078.20-1-49.1.

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 26-030 Derek Anderson made a motion for

TYPE I SEQR which was seconded by

Drazen Gasic.

Pg. 151 June 2, 2026 Planning Meeting

VOTE:

Drazen Gasic:

RESOLUTION

Mr. Casciani AYE

Mr. Malta AYE

Mr. Giardina ABSENT

Mr. Anderson AYE

Mrs. Maltman AYE

Mr. Gasic AYE

Mr. Vetter AYE

WHEREAS, the Town of Webster Planning Board (the “Planning Board”) has received an

application from Steve Stanley (Vital Signs) (the “Applicant” ) seeking Sign Approval

associated with the installation of one (1) 40.75 SF wall-mounted sign and one (1) double-sided

panel replacement on an existing monument sign on a 9.19-acre parcel identified as SBL#

078.20-1-49.1, located at/near 2400 Empire Boulevard in the MC Medium-Intensity

Commercial District, Town of Webster, New York, pursuant to Section 265-7 of the Code of the

Town of Webster; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Board reviewed the application materials and plans submitted by the

Applicant, including the sign drawings and associated supporting information, as presented to

the Planning Board; and

WHEREAS, after review, the Planning Board finds that the proposed signage, as presented, is

acceptable and consistent with the intent of the Town’s sign regulations

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Town of Webster Planning Board hereby

APPROVES the Applicant's request for Sign Approval

RESOLUTION 26-031

VOTE:

Drazen Gasic made a motion for SIGN

Boulevard. Applicant Steve Stanley of Vital

Signs is requesting SIGN APPROVAL

associated with the installation of one (1)

40.75 SF wall-mounted sign and one (1)

double-sided panel replacement on an existing

monument sign on a 9.19-acre parcel having

SBL# 078.20-1-49.! located in the MC

Medium-Intensity Commercial District under

Section 265-7 of the Code of the Town of

Webster which was seconded by Sven

Vetter.

Mr. Casciani AYE

Mr. Malta AYE

Mr, Giardina ABSENT

Mr. Anderson AYE

Pg. 152 June 2, 2026 Pianning Meeting

Mrs. Maltman AYE

Mr. Gasic AYE

Mr. Vetter AYE

Steve Stanley of Vital Signs is requesting SIGN APPROVAL associated with the installation

of one (1) 57.5 SF wall-mounted sign on a 3.05-acre parcel having SBL# 080.09-3-1.31 located

in the MC Medium-Intensity Commercial District under Section 265-7 of the Code of the Town

of Webster.

Appearing before the board was Steve Stanley. So, we will have a C & C black acrylic letters

mounted directly to the building. No illumination and everything will be stud mounted to the facade

and there will be one small change to the ring for the O in Jones it will no longer have a card HDU

sign it will also just be black acrylic with a digital print applied to the face.

too.

Derek Anderson:

FJ JONES SIGN

The Town of Webster Planning Board considered the request by Applicant Amy Catalano of

Vital Signs to remove and replace a fagade sign and monument sign panels for JF Jones Jewelers

located at 1175 Ridge Road on a parcel having SBL #080.09-3-1.31.

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.

ESOLUTION 26-032 Derek Anderson made a motion for TYPE II

SEQR which was seconded by Drazen Gasic.

Pg. 153 June 2, 2026 Planning Meeting

VOTE:

Mr. Casciani AYE

Mr. Malta AYE

Mr. Giardina ABSENT

Mr. Anderson AYE

Mrs. Maltman AYE

Mr. Gasic AYE

Mr. Vetter AYE

Drazen Gasic:

RESOLUTION

WHEREAS, the Town of Webster Planning Board (the “Planning Board”) has received an

application from Amy Catalano (Vital Signs) (the “Applicant” ) seeking Sign Approval

associated with the installation of one (1) 57.5 SF wall-mounted sign on a 3.05-acre parcel

identified as SBL# 080,09-3-1.31, located at/near 1170 Ridge Road in the MC Medium-

Intensity Commercial District, Town of Webster, New York, pursuant to Section 265-7 of the

Code of the Town of Webster; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Board reviewed the application materials and plans submitted by the

Applicant, including the sign drawings and associated supporting information, as presented to

the Planning Board; and

WHEREAS, after review, the Planning Board finds that the proposed signage, as presented, is

acceptable and consistent with the intent of the Town's sign regulations;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Town of Webster Planning Board hereby

APPROVES the Applicant's request for Sign Approval

RESOLUTION 26-033 Drazen Gasic made a motion for SIGN

Road. Applicant Amy Catalano of Vital

Signs is requesting SIGN APPROVAL

associated with the installation of one (1)

57.5 SF wall-mounted sign on a 3.05-acre

parcel having SBL# 080.09-3-1.31 located

in the MC Medium-Intensity Commercial

District under Section 265-7 of the Code

of the Town of Webster Which was

seconded by Sven Vetter.

VOTE:

Mr. Casciani AYE

Mr. Malta AYE

Mr. Giardina ABSENT

Mr. Anderson AYE

Mrs. Maltman AYE

Pg. 154 June 2, 2026 Planning Meeting

Mr. Gasic AYE

Mr. Vetter AYE

requesting SIGN APPROVAL associated with the installation of one (1) 43.3 SF wall-

mounted sign on a 3.54-acre parcel having SBL# 079. 18-1-69.111 located in the MC Medium-

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

Appearing before the board was Jerry Fricano and I am the owner of Tempo Italian Kitchen

and Bar & Grill. We are involved with Vital Signs with this sign permit. With the sign

dimensions it’s as you see on the paper. As far as what we are trying to do, we are trying to

create a book end effect with Hooligans back lit sign that is on the east side of the plaza, and

we are going to be on the other side of the plaza, so we are trying to create that with a back lit

glowing sign as well. The letters are going to be glowing from the back. It’s not going to be

like a back lit frame sign. It’s basically just going to be the letters, that’s all.

restaurant.

We are just trying to create a little bit of something different in the plaza and my main concern

really was people driving by Ridge Road who are approximately 300 feet from the road, so

we don’t want to do anything to extravagant or too crazy. Just mainly to try and catch

someone’s eye when they are walking into the plaza rather than the standard signs that are in

there. I currently own the pizza shop next door.

Pg. 155 June 2, 2026 Planning Meeting

Derek Anderson:

TEMPO ITALIAN KITCHEN & BAR SIGN

The Town of Webster Planning Board considered the request by Applicant Jamie Catalano of

Vital Signs to remove and replace a facade sign for Tempo Italian Kitchen & Bar located at 807

Ridge Road on a parcel having SBL #079. 18-1-69.111.

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 26-044 Derek Anderson made a motion for TYPE II

SEQR which was seconded by Drazen Gasic.

VOTE:

Mr. Casciani AYE

Mr. Malta AYE

Mr. Giardina ABSENT

Mr. Anderson AYE

Mrs. Maltman AYE

Mr. Gasic AYE

Mr. Vetter AYE

Drazen Gasic:

RESOLUTION

WHEREAS, the Town of Webster Planning Board (the “Planning Board”) has received an

application from Jamie Catalano (Vital Signs) (the “Applicant” ) seeking Sign Approval

associated with the installation of one (1) 43.3 SF wall-mounted sign on a 3.54-acre parcel

identified as SBL# 079.18-1-69.111, located in the MC Medium-Intensity Commercial District,

Town of Webster, New York, pursuant to Section 265-7 of the Code of the Town of Webster; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Board reviewed the application materials and plans submitted by the

Applicant, including the sign drawings and associated supporting information, as presented to

the Planning Board; and

WHEREAS, after review, the Planning Board finds that the proposed signage, as presented, is

acceptable and consistent with the intent of the Town’s sign regulations;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Town of Webster Planning Board hereby

APPROVES the Applicant’s request for Sign Approval

RESOLUTION 26-045 Drazen Gasic made a motion for SIGN

Applicant Jamie Catalano of Vital Signs is

requesting SIGN APPROVAL associated with the

Pg. 156 June 2, 2026 Planning Meeting

installation of one (1) 43.3 SF wall-mounted sign on

a 3.54-acre parcel having SBL# 079.18-1-69.111

located in the MC Medium-Intensity Commercial

District under Section 265-7 of the Code of the

Town of Webster which was seconded by Dave

Malta.

VOTE:

Mr. Casciani AYE

Mr. Malta AYE

Mr. Giardina ABSENT

Mr. Anderson AYE

Mrs, Maltman AYE

Mr. Gasic AYE

Mr. Vetter AYE

requesting SIGN APPROVAL associated with the installation of one (1)13.8 SF wall-mounted

sign on a 9.1-acre parcel having SBL# 079.12-1-20 located in the HC High-Intensity

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

Appearing before the board was Anthony DeVola. (did not state his name) So, there is nothing

there currently and we are just looking to get a back lit acrylic sign to put right there above the

entrance.

Pg. 157 June 2, 2026 Planning Meeting

Derek Anderson:

LEGACY GAMES SIGN

The Town of Webster Planning Board considered the request by Applicant Anthoney Devola

Games to install a fagade sign for Legacy Games located at 1028 Ridge Road, Suite 112 ona

parcel having SBL #079. 12-1-20.

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 26-046 Derek Anderson made a motion for TYPE II

SEQR which was seconded by Drazen Gasic.

VOTE:

Mr. Casciani AYE

Mr. Malta AYE

Mr. Giardina ABSENT

Mr. Anderson AYE

Mrs. Maltman AYE

Mr. Gasic AYE

Mr. Vetter AYE

Drazen Gasic:

RESOLUTION

WHEREAS, the Town of Webster Planning Board (the “Planning Board”) has received an

application from Anthony Devola (the “Applicant” ) seeking Sign Approval associated with the

installation of one (1) 13.8 SF wail-mounted sign on a 9.1-acre parcel identified as SBL#

079,12-1-20, located at 1028 Ridge Road in the HC High-Intensity Commercial District, Town

of Webster, New York, pursuant to Section 265-7 of the Code of the Town of Webster; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Board reviewed the application materials and plans submitted by the

Applicant, including the sign drawings and associated supporting information, as presented to

the Planning Board; and

WHEREAS, after review, the Planning Board finds that the proposed signage, as presented, is

acceptable and consistent with the intent of the Town's sign regulations;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Town of Webster Planning Board hereby

APPROVES the Applicant’s request for Sign Approval

RESOLUTION 26-047 Drazen Gasic made a motion for SIGN

Applicant Anthony Devola is requesting

SIGN APPROVAL associated with the

installation of one (1)13.8 SF wall-mounted

Pg. 158 June 2, 2026 Planning Meeting

Sign on a 9.1-acre parcel having SBL#

079.12-1-20 located in the HC High-

Intensity Commercial District under

Sections 265-7 of the Code of the Town of

Webster which was seconded by Sven

Vetter.

VOTE:

Mr. Casciani AYE

Mr. Malta AYE

Mr. Giardina ABSENT

Mr. Anderson AYE

Mrs. Maltman AYE

Mr. Gasic AYE

Mr. Vetter AYE

reality is if we didn’t have this, we would have signs hanging over the express ways. People

would just go wild, flashing lights. We have a very strict code for signs and people have been

really good. That is why this went really quick. They follow it and have nice looking signs in

town now so that is a benefit to us. Okay, so that’s why it takes a little long but bear with us.

7-BREW: Located at Hard Road. Applicant Brew Team NY, LLC/Doug Beachel is requesting

PREMILINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL (

PUBLIC HEARING

) in association with the

development of a 510 SF prefabricated double drive through only coffee stand on a 0.73-acre parcel

having SBL# 079.15-1-1.313 located in the HC High Intensity District under Sections 269-11 and

350-19 under the Code of the Town of Webster.

Appearing before the board was Doug Beachel with Brew Team NY, LLC we are a franchise of

7-Brew coffee. I was not hear at the last appearance. We had a conflict, so I covered another

town and sent a proxy, a couple of gentleman so we kind of went through the initial process. What

exactly...how would you like me to present at this point?

comments that were submitted. I believe you answered several of them, but I guess Keith there

are some more that still needed to be addressed.

comments and a lot of them to do with our stormwater protection plan. My civil was out last week

and came back today so I don’t have any official comments on these last comments for tonight’s

proceedings. But they are in review and we will have a response as soon as possible.

Pg. 159 June 2, 2026 Planning Meeting

the pond; show how the drainage connects to Popeye’s ; Taco Bell and along the front there, that

was originally designed that detention area was like a little swale across the front as part of those

buildings right there and so far, it’s worked well I believe and it looks attractive too. This is going

to need to have something comparable in front of it, but I don’t know how it’s going to connect to

the Popeye’s or what but that’s....... it kind of shows a swale on there a little bit but what he’s

pointing to right now is the detention area.

lane is basically equivalent to that Popeye’s drive lane so everything we have is behind it .

be...

it to make it conform.

so to the north there is the beginnings developed with the bioretention and some how that’s

going to be continued down through property. to be continuous

through that.

and really try to mimic the look on the frontage and extended that swale.

Pg. 160 June 2, 2026 Planning Meeting

Taco Bell...is that sized to accommodate their facility to or do they still need to...

EVERYONE SPEAKING AT THE SAME TIME

accordingly.

there. I don’t know how intense they are.

between now and final.

we just have no had a chance to turn them around.

that’s masonry unit around the back of that, I believe.

Pg. 161 June 2, 2026 Planning Meeting

bio retention across the front there I guess and then addressing the additional comments. There’s

about eight or nine of them on there I believe.

related and storm water. Not really much left on site plan.

facility. They have a very standard....

need to by dimmed down.

X 17 I can approach and show them to the board. The difference between our standard LED blue

light strip and our shielded light strip. Then I have, just some examples of some other lighting in

the area just comparable to what we’re doing on the other QSR....

be accomplished. One other thing I was thinking too is do you have outdoor speakers there at all?

ordering much like Chick-fil-A. There are speakers in the canopy that play music depending on

the time of day. That can be attenuated to whichever decibel levels appropriate.

canopy. So, there is just some sort of music playing.

Pg. 162 June 2, 2026 Planning Meeting

speaker.

light are done, the lights are on, at the discretion of the board to !ook at that and say, “wait a

minute, you got to tone that down”. That’s too loud. Is that acceptable?

speak,

Snow storage was a concern last time too because I think they indicated snow storage where the

buyer retention would be, which is not something they’re going to be able to do. Has that been

addressed for where they’re going to pile snow?

perimeter of the site we’ ve got about a 3 to 4 foot kind of stone area above the curb that we use

for snow storage so we can avoid putting it in that swale. Anything above and beyond that we

would basically have a management plan and if we get a major event which obviously happens in

this part of the world. You know, we’d have it loaded and shipped out because it’s a narrow tight

site. So, we'll accommodate as much as we can on the shoulders up above the curb and then there

is a little bit of an area by the dumpster. But really if we get to the point where it’s a problem,

we’l] just have it removed and placed elsewhere.

snow, just mark it as snow storage.

Pg. 163 June 2, 2026 Planning Meeting

know where Popeye’s or any of the other places actually. They’re in the same situation, the same

size lots. I don’t know where they put their snow.

with someone designating where or what who would ever remove the snow, if necessary, off the

site.

somewhere on there.

back. Okay, you can work that out, but you need to submit something showing that. Again, this

is a public hearing. If there is anyone wishing to speak either for or against this project.

Dennis Gorlick. I’m with the Conservation Board. I’m the Chairperson of the Conservation

Board. I just wanted to mention that we did do a site review in March on the coldest day of the

year. This may have been addressed...it looked like all the areas that we had mentioned before

has been addressed already in terms of snow removal and drainage and so forth. I wasn’t sure

though since I didn’t get a chance to take a close look at the latest plans. We’d mentioned that on

the Hard Road side of all the existing businesses, the sort of strip businesses in Popeye’s, Taco

Bell and so forth, and the back on the other side, there is landscaping of some sort between the

building, the structures and Hard Road. And that was one thing that we mentioned that since there

are no other trees or shrubs in the original site, there may be some that ae put around, but

continuing that theme of some trees and shrubs along Hard Road would certainly can make that

.. have a sense of continuity and I think something that’s necessary. So, I don’t know of that been

put into the plan or not, but I want to mention that since I didn’t hear that.

Pg. 164 June 2, 2026 Planning Meeting

Derek Anderson:

TOWN OF WEBSTER PLANNING BOARD RESOLUTION

7-BREW

079.15-1-1.313

SEQR - UNLISTED ACTION

05/02/2026

MOTION FOR AN UNLISTED ACTION - NEGATIVE DECLARATION

The Town of Webster Planning Board considered the request by applicant, Brew Team,

NY/Doug Beachel to construct a 510 square foot prefabricated double drive through coffee stand

located on Hard Road on a 0.73 acre parcel having SBL# 079.15-1-1.3131 located in the HC

High Intensity District.

The Planning Board determines that the proposed action is an Unlisted Action.

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

Part 617.6(b)(4) 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 considered 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

1 dated February 9, 2026,

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

May 5, 2026, 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 project 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

Pg. 165 June 2, 2026 Planning Meeting

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

Teasons, issues a NEGATIVE DECLARATION as evidence of its determination.

NOTICE OF DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE

The Planning Board has reasonably concluded the following results for 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 quantity since the proposed action does not include on site wells or septic

systems.

3. The proposed action will not have a substantial impact on water supply since it will

connect to the public water system which has adequate capacity to supply the action.

4, The proposed action will not have a substantial impact on the sanitary sewer system since

it will connect to the public sewer system which has adequate capacity to convey

wastewater from the site.

5. The proposed action will not have a substantial adverse change in potential for erosion,

flooding, leaching or drainage problems. Construction practices will conform to accepted

storm water management and controls.

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

production since the proposed action does not substantially increase solid waste

producing activities on the site when compared to the similar establishments.

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

light since the structures are consistent with the character of the surrounding area and

includes downward directed exterior lighting. A temporary increase in noise levels

consistent with normal construction activities is anticipated during construction.

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

traffic since the proposed action provides internal traffic control that prevents stacking on

public thoroughfares.

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

Section 617.7(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.

Pg. 166 June 2, 2026 Planning Meeting

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

617.7(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

does not require an upgrade to the electrical distribution system.

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

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

project includes engineering controls that help prevent the release of cleaning solutions

off the site.

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

the types of structures already located in the overall commercial development. The

action is consistent with the existing community character, and the Town of Webster

2008 Comprehensive Plan.

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

compared to taking no action since the action since the action, by its design, is a drive

through structure with limited parking.

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

617.7(c)(1)(x), (xi), and (xii) of SEQR.

RESOLUTION 26-024 Derek Anderson made a motion for TYPE II

SEQR which was seconded by Drazen Gasic.

VOTE:

Mr. Casciani AYE

Mr. Malta AYE

Mr. Giardina ABSENT

Mr. Anderson AYE

Mrs. Maltman AYE

Mr. Gasic AYE

Mr. Vetter AYE

Drazen Gasic:

RESOLUTION

WHEREAS, the Town of Webster Planning Board (the “Planning Board”) has received an

application from Brew Team NY, LLC / Doug Beachel (the “Applicant” ) requesting

Preliminary Site Plan Approval (Public Hearing) for the development of a 510 square foot

prefabricated double drive-through only coffee stand on a 0.73-acre parcel identified as SBL#

079.15-1-1.313, located on/near Hard Road in the HC High Intensity District, Town of

Webster, New York, pursuant to Town Code § § 269-11 and 350-19; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Board reviewed the application materials, preliminary site plans, and

supporting documentation submitted by the Applicant, as presented to the Planning Board; and

Pg. 167 June 2, 2026 Planning Meeting

WHEREAS the Planning Board held a duly noticed Public Hearing on the application on June

2, 2026 and considered all comments received; and

WHEREAS, after due deliberation, the Planning Board finds that the proposed preliminary site

plan, as presented, is acceptable and consistent with applicable Town requirements,

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Town of Webster Planning Board hereby

GRANTS PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL for the project described above, subject

to the following conditions:

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

Landscaping Plan. The Applicant shall submit a final landscaping plan (including plantings,

screening/buffering, and any required maintenance notes) for review and approval by the

Town/Planning Board or its designee prior to Final Site Plan Approval and/or issuance of any

permits, as applicable.

Snow Storage. The Applicant shall identify and provide adequate on-site snow storage areas or

provide a snow management removal plan to the Town of Webster.

Subject to PRC Comments

Subject to a Letter of Credit posted with the Town of Webster

Subject to Monroe County Water Authority comments

All the improvements shall be constructed according to the specifications 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 sitework is to be in compliance with the standards of the Town of Webster

Final Site Plan Approval Required. This approval is preliminary only.

RESOLUTION 26-025 Drazen Gasic made a _ motion for

PREMILINARY SITE PLAN

Applicant Brew Team NY, LLC/Doug

Beachel is requesting PREMILINARY

SITE PLAN APPROVAL (PUBLIC

HEARING) in association with the

development of a 510 SF prefabricated

double drive through only coffee stand on a

0.73-acre parce] having SBL# 079.15-1-

1.313 located in the HC High Intensity District

under Sections 269-11 and 350-19 under the

Code of the Town of Webster which was

seconded by Dave Malta.

PRELIMINARY APPROVAL CHECKLIST

1. Subject to PRC Comments

2. Subject to a Letter of Credit posted with the Town of Webster.

3. Subject to Monroe County Water Authority comments

Pg. 168 June 2, 2026 Planning Meeting

4, All the improvements shall be constructed according to the specification of the Town of

Webster.

5. All roadway construction to be in accordance with the specification and regulations set forth

by the Town of Webster.

All sitework is to be in compliance with the standards of the Town of Webster.

Preserve all mature trees on site, where possible, and mark said trees by the developer’s

engineer prior to the commencing of any site work.

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

Address drainage, lighting, signage, and landscaping, buffering, berming and snow storage.

0. The landscape, hardscape, site accessories, and associated finished grading design for the

development must be prepared by a NYS licensed Landscape Architect. The final landscape

plans shall bear the seal and signature of the Landscape Architect.

11. Approvals are subject to Drawing No: Dated: 1.29.26

12. Proceed to Final Approval

13. This is only preliminary approval only.

14. Needs snow storage, the applicant shall identify and provide adequate on-site snow storage

areas or provide a snow management removal plan to the Town of Webster. And then we

discussed also landscaping plan. The applicant shall submit a final landscaping plan and storm

water management facility.

mm

met

additional comments 24-31, I believe it was. And the speakers are to be controlled, volume controlled and

also the lighting. That was he other thing we had. To be able to for you to dim them down. You said you

have shields for them?

a disco. So shielding is a much better option.

back in July for final.

VOTE:

Mr. Casciani AYE

Mr. Malta AYE

Mr, Giardina ABSENT

Mr. Anderson AYE

Mrs. Maltman AYE

Mr. Gasic AYE

Mr. Vetter AYE

requesting PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN/SUBDIVISION APPROVAL (PUBLIC

HEARING) associated with resubdivision of land and development of an approximately

39,100 SF indoor/outdoor recreation facility on a 9-acre parcel having SBL# 079.10-1-1.11 and

Pg. 169 June 2, 2026 Planning Meeting

SBL# 079.10-1-2.3 located in the HC High-Intensity Commercial District under Sections 269-5,

296-14 and 350-19 of the Code of the Town of Webster

Appearing before the board was Joe Catalani. I am here again representing Dinks and Links.

We’ ve been here for I don’t know, six, eight months now and move things around a few times.

We are looking to construct and get preliminary approval for approximately 40,000 foot building

on 9 acres on the south side of the service road between Lowe’s and BJ’s.

that’s been requested?

That’s how we ended up on the south side. The DEC wanted us to put everything down. We agreed

to, you know, to do what they wanted us to do. We came before the town and there was a little bit

of an issue with getting a permit and so the last three times, we were not able to come before you

because we didn’t have a permit. And then come to find out the DEC did reach out and spoke to

them saying, “Hey, they can do the permit, but they need a SEQR first”. That they’ ve gone through

the process with us and they have gone over it, but they needed a SEQR, which is provided in the

town’s preliminary and final approval before they can issue said permit. And I would say to you,

you know, this seems to be a big, you know, to-do, right? I’m not a social media person at all. But

I got calls today at my office that, OH, there’s all these people online and you know that they’re all

the negative people regarding Dinks and Links. And so, I would say to you, you’ve got 20 people

in a town of 50,000. When we did the Lowe’s, and I think you were still there, we had to shut down

that building and come here because there were so many people that were against the Lowe’s. And

now you see those people shopping there. It’s a piece of property t hat was zoned for stuff like this.

And we’ll develop the property anyways into something. But this is a personal passion of mine.

You look next door at what’s going on outside right now. It’s the coolest thing in the world. You

got 15-25 families out there at a baseball game sitting down with their kids talking to each other. I

mean, if you want another Applebee’s or another clothing store or another U of R Medical Center,

which there’s nothing wrong with that, that’s great. That’s not what this is. This is something

about community. And where you can meet your neighbor out on a Wednesday night or a Thursday

night and each week, you can get a little exercise in. You can watch you kids. You can sit and have

dinner while your kids are out playing miniature golf or something and actually talk to each other.

It’s not this disastrous thing that people come, I think we need more of this not less of this today.

As far as outdoor noise which is what people will speak to. We have no problem with the town

coming in there and looking at you know decibel ratings. I’ve given an audio report to the town

regarding how loud things are. And with regards to...we have one....the trailer park that’s next to

us and we understand their thoughts and we’ll fence the back end of that lot, and we’ll put an

acoustic fence up there if they want. But the audio levels that are supplied show it as a mild whisper,

not as this uncontrollable loud noise. It’s just not what it’s said to be. It’s all, I think, you know,

the sky is falling.

Pg. 170 June 2, 2026 Planning Meeting

outstanding issues that apparently with Engineering detail were not addressed fully.

you that a seeker has to be granted prior to them giving you a JD.

project. From their perspective, they though any potential impacts from the project would be mostly

jocal in nature. So, they wanted to Planning Board to take the lead, be the lead agency for seeker.

Normally, they’! do their own seeker for wetland permit issuance. But with the court ruling from

April 8" of this year, this property is no longer under the DEC’s jurisdiction. So, when those new

wetland regulations were annulled, that actually pulled their jurisdictional authority off of this

project.

Ido have an email from them that J believe I provided to the board directly from the DEC explaining

their support for the project and willingness to issue a permit if one was required but future

subsequent direction from the DEC has indication that they’re currently going back to the old

wetland maps that existed prior to the more recent regulations. So, therefore, there are no

jurisdictional wetlands from the DEC’s perspective at this point and time. There are also claims

that the entire site is covered under federal wetlands. That is also simply not the case. In 2023

there was a court ruling regarding the definition of public waters of the United States and therefore

it has to be contiguously connected to a larger water body to be under the federal wetland

jurisdiction.

Therefore, there are no wetlands under both federal or state jurisdiction at this location at this time.

the boundaries and vegetations that’s on the south side?

we still respect their judgement, and they wanted us to put it down here. So, we’re good with that.

They specifically wanted it to be south of the service road. Most of the so-called wetlands that they

believe are wetlands are tied between that filed that’s open and the tree to the east. There’s a slice

of wet property that goes through there and that’s what they had, you know, previously thought of

as wetlands. And we’re not opposed to keeping that, you know, that vibe going. We don’t ... were

not here to....

That was raised up to the elevation it is. If the roadway wasn’t there, years ago when Lowe’s was

Pg. 171 June 2, 2026 Planning Meeting

built, there was no water in there. It’s trapped in there right...so now, so now some of these things

we’re calling wetlands were farmed 16-18 years ago. The part that gets me is I see these things on

social media, and somebody is putting the wrong information out and everybody’s sucking right

onto it. Everybody’s sending letters and they say the same damn thing.

now. So, it is a habitat.

same source and they’re not correct as Josh just explained. Incorrect information. These guys are

spending hours ad day, your taxpayer dollars, going through this stuff to address some of these

things that are above and beyond what is necessary.

like the DEC. They give you the guidance. Just follow it. They are very well schooled, that’s all

they do.

What was their issue?

I apologize.

his....who’s got the pointer? So, in between where that field is and then where that tree area starts

to the east, right there is that wet area and so they don’t want anything near there, That’s you know

and okay even though now after the court ruling that’s changed, I’m still deferring to them, They’ re

still smarter than me when it comes to habitat. And if they want me to put it on the south side, I’m

good with it. We moved things around and we made it work. And we moved the building three

times to make them happy and make the town happy, too.

agree to some fencing or...

there.

I’m trying to be a good neighbor here, one of the gentlemen that’s right next door had a shed out

Pg. 172 June 2, 2026 Planning Meeting

there, has chairs out there, he enjoys it right? I don’t want to wreck that. There’s no reason to do

that. So, my thought is we build it and if it’s a problem, we’ll do that. But if we do that, we take

that away from him. And I don’t think that there’s a reason to do that. I'll stipulate that I'll do it.

I'll put the fence up, I'll put the acoustic fence wrap on it but again, I think all this noise stuff is pie

in the sky and you’re going to take this guy’s backyard away from him. And I just...if it was me,

I'd be a litte bummed out.

here, you’ ve got a plan showing what you’ re actually fully proposing to do.

CANNOT HEAR, BOTH PARTIES SPEAKING AT THE SAME TIME.

Anthony Casciani:....... Neighbor wants and this one and who wants this and who wants that. It’s

got to get finalized.

properties and general public. Well, that’s what we’re referring to. The adequacy of all temporary

and permanent provisions to control erosion from the site and maintain existing vegetation and

wildlife habitat. You were going to saver trees that would be saved, you know, for your park area,

like where your outdoor activity. Okay, well, those trees would have to be marked and saved. Well,

that’s got to get done.

once we get into it, the Engineers supplied, you know, circles around different areas, whether they

be storm water, piping or water piping or sewer that we have to stay away from because we’re

digging in there. And then outside of that bubble, anything that we find that’s healthy, that’s large,

that’s, you know, a reasonable tree, we keep. I mean, we’re building a courtyard for people.

That’s standard anyways. But in this case, you’ve got an area where you’re having a park or

whatever recreational area. Then where the building is, no question. You have to take the trees

out, you know. But in that area, you can....they can measure off and mark the trees in there that

can be preserved. Number one, the other thing, too, is fire hydrants. Have to go in there. I guess

the Fire Marshal is...

Pg. 173 June 2, 2026 Planning Meeting

is on site, and does it indicate a clearing limit, and does it indicate an LOD limits of disturbance the

project is going to have? These were all requirements as part of the sketch plan review. Same thing

with an earthwork calculation to indicate how much earth work is being performed on site.

existing...

set is blurry. I couldn’t determine the existing grades, proposed grades, or any line limits. If you

zoom in on what you’re showing right now. I mean, I can’t read this.

405 just to do east of the south east comer of the building is a proposed contour and the squiggly

lines that are running around are the existing contours right in there.

cursor. Now, right there is a proposed so that we can get the thing to drain.

that I just listed off that were part of the sketch plan approval that were needed to be provided on

the drawing set that I have not seen. So, the other thing I wanted to mention, Joe, you mentioned

you want to be a good neighbor. Is there a reason that the orientation of the volleyball courts and

the pickle courts are not set back farther away from the neighbors to the south that have the concerns

with the project more to the east where the mini golf course is shown and the golf course is not

moved to the south? So that way you have that additional barrier between the land owners and

Pg. 174 June 2, 2026 Planning Meeting

what you’re looking to do.

volleyball by the......

golf. No problem. We can do that. The pickle ball courts I really can’t move around. But I can

move the volleyball courts away and put the miniature golf down there.

emphasis is to preserve as much of the existing vegetation as there is, that could be a visual screen.

It will also act as a noise barrier, too. But like you said, if you provide a wall barrier, noise barrier,

I think that would be appreciated by the land owners to the south as well as a good neighbor.

a problem. And moving on the volleyball court, swapping them out with miniature golf. Not a

problem. I just want the miniature golf so that...there’s a little top area there out by the patio, too,

so that for the 5 year olds, there’s a little dirt area there within a guardrail that they can, you know,

we’ ll supply little Tonka trucks and stuff like that where the younger kids can play while the parents

eat. And the older kids, I want moms to be able to see their kids. And so, certainly if I move that

down there, they’d be able to see them. It’s important that they be able to see their kids while

they’re enjoying themselves. So yep, I’ll commit to moving those volleyball in where the mini golf

is and putting up the acoustic fence.

months. Why didn’t we bring this up before?

if Josh could show the aerial photograph of the parcel and the property line. I understand that parcel

boundaries shown on tax maps do not constitute survey information. But when you zoom in to the

low area there, I see a structure that’s directly on a parcel line. I see a shed, a fire pit and so forth

that is on your property. And trying to be the good neighbor. I take it, you’re just going to let that

stay where it is or is that going to get removed?

Pg. 175 June 2, 2026 Planning Meeting

about that, put the fence up and then that would not be available.

but it’s going to take all of that away if they have to put up the fence.

_ to put this fence..........

land that they do not own. It’s nice that he’s looking at it and saying, “Okay, he’s got this area. He’s

enjoying in the back. I'll allow him to do that. But if we put in the fence, that’s all going to do

away and it’s not going to be 15 ft off the guy’s trailer, which is very close to the property line. As

these are show, these things could be what, any within 10, 15 ft where they actually are.

manholes and, on the survey, we’re you know 5-6 feet from the manholes our property line.

I am looking at this and saying it’s very nice of you to offer to all him to continue in the space and

putting up the fence, and now you are gonna take that away and now you have stuff that shouldn’t

have been there in the first place.

for us.

the steam. It’s not in the area where we would be doing anything because of the easements and the

stream. And also, earlier back in October, November, Joe was meeting with my CAD person,

Patricia, who has 37 plus years of experience drawing alternatives for DEC. DEC, whenever you’re

doing something, we want to see every alternative. And that’s how we got this final design. We

were on the northeast side, building there, parking there. How much wetlands disturbed? How much

wetlands disturbed? How much buffer is disturbed, and DEC final said we like this layout. So,

from an Engineering standpoint the town wanted this loop road. Now we have the loop road, and

it comes right into he fire tane by the building. We are going to bring water from the north side

from the 12 inch and put a hydrant right as you come into our property and that hydrant will be

about 25 feet off the corner of the building where the fire department connection will be the Siamese

the FDC. There are two fire hydrants within 400 ft, so they meet NFPA 13 for fire hydrants. There

are actually 3 existing fire hydrants within 500 ft. So that’s the road, 1:08:54 so that’s the water.

The sewer we’re connecting, as your sewer department asked, to a manhole at the lowest point

Pg. 176 June 2, 2026 Planning Meeting

where the stream is actually going up, the sewer is going down. So, we have plenty of clearance

going over and tying into the manhole over at BJ’s drainage. We have a very elaborate SWPPP. I

think we’re over $15,000 of SWPPP of all the different alternatives and we meet the most current

regs with the SWPPP. And lastly, traffic was done by Amy over at Passero. So, you know, the big

five, road, water, sewer, drainage, and traffic. From an engineering standpoint, they’re solid. And

I've been doing this for it’ ll be 48 years in July. Time to retire!

So, if you have any questions, I wrote Sunday, all day long. I wrote 6 pages response to all the

questions. I assume you were provide those. If you have any questions about those.

preliminary site plan that need to be addressed. I don’t wat to go through them all, but there’s like

one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, eight items. That need to be addressed. Like storm

water drainage. Do you have final drawings for all that. Is that all set up?

BOTH PARTIES SPEAKING AT THE SAME TIME.

SWPPP. It is not complete.

Josh, yourself... .I think getting a meeting together with representatives from Hegadorn Holdings or

whatever that is there and resolve some of the other issues also that go along with this one being

the cut through road from BJ’s gas. You cannot get through there during the day...That thing is

that road is filled with cars trying to get gas. The road needs to be continued parallel with it next

to it for cars to go on the existing road that cuts through currently an extension of that. There’ a

few different things that need to be resolved in the whole situation here.

think we talked about that.

Pg. 177 June 2, 2026 Planning Meeting

Hegadorns, you know, and we can discuss this in that meeting, but that retention pond that goes to

that on their parcel north of BJ’s that goes out to a curb cute that is a right lane only. And so, if you

were to make that both lanes get a traffic light there, the Hegedorns were okay with running a road

straight down there and then coming down past BJ’s and make a circle right where all these property

lines mix and you could avoid, you know, the BJ’s gas you know, disaster there.

You got a pond right there. So, it would run right along that straight across there and then come

down right where that loop right there and you put a traffic circle there. Now, You’ve gone by

BJ’s, and you’ ve taken traffic to a traffic light, and you got rid of that right only that everybody’s

taking a left on anyways. Anyways, that’s a potential possible way of you doing it. I don’t see

another way of getting through all those restaurants in a straight line.

probably be fair if there’s anyone who wishes to speak wither for or against this project. If you’d

like to come up. Now, well, hold on. We’re going to set some rules. This isn’t going to be a

shouting match and it’s not going to be for 15 minutes up there talking. Keep it to 3 minutes and

that’s it. If you can’t say it in 3 minutes, I don’t know what you’re saying after that. So, who wants

to go first? Just give us your name and address and information.

John L. Gambino at 784 Maple Drive. Destroying a wetland and mature trees for a pickle ball

court displays poor judgement. Pickle ball is a short-lived trend. Who remembers the tennis club

of Webster on Phillips Road? That business went through many sports trying to survive, but it

didn’t work. The reason pickle ball is short-lived trend is because it’s marketed heavily to senior

citizens. Nationally, there are about 25,000 emergency room visits annually due to pickle bali

injuries. And 91 % of those visits are for people over the.age of

50. Info about the sports hazards

will catch up and people will start...stop taking the risk. It'll disappear like the boom we saw in

cigar lounges in the 90’s. Remember where those are? A pickle ball facility is just the flavor of the

month and it’s a boondoggle that's not worth destroying a wetland and forest. I don't see this

business surviving five years, but it would make more sense to consider the recently vacated Meyers

RV location. Thank you.

Sean Whipple at 898 Ridge Road. I own Sunset Valley. I guess some people refer to it as a trailer

park, but for everyone in here, it’s a senior citizen community. You have to be over the age of 55

to live there. And my average age of resident is in the 70’s. If I could ask you real quick to pull up

the map of the trailer that is on the line and if you could zoom in that so that everyone can see. This

home is on the boundary line and yes, there’s some sheds and landscaping that is not on the

Pg. 178 June 2, 2026 Planning Meeting

property. I understand that. But what everyone has to understand tonight is that 50 feet off the red

line are going to be volleyball and pickle ball courts. The last time I was in here, you had had 8

pickle bail courts. Now it’s up to nine. It keeps growing and it keeps changing. So, I just don’t

understand why you wouldn't put it on the other side of the BJ’s-Lowe’s road or if the developers

are reluctant to do that, why can they not move the pickle ball and volleyball courts away from the

boundary line? 50 feet off that red line, you’re going to have basically high mark stadium. You're

going to have lights. You’re going to have volleyballs that could actuaily hit the house. And it will

be very, very disruptive. And I know the developer has mentioned, okay, we'll put up some fencing.

What he’s reaily saying is if we encourage him to put up that fencing, he’s going to put it on that

lot line. I'm just...P’m not here to stop the project. I just would like to be a good neighbor. And if

I could ask the board to look at repositioning so the pickle ball or the volleyball is away from that

end of the trailer park and I still think you could look at the other side of the access road. I don’t

know why you have to put it in there. And I encourage everyone on the board to do a Google search

on picklebail noise. Nine courts. There’s going to be leagues. And sure, there might be families

and all that, but it’s going to be a league. The league's going to drive revenue. And you know,

there's hours of operation. And lastly, the developer said, “Well, I'll move the mini golf”. Well, is

the mini golf just going to be flat like putting greens or are there going to be structures? Structures

such as windmills, volcanoes, or stairs? It’s, you know, everything is vague and I encourage the

board to look at the developer and look at, you know, how much development the developers done

and try to be a little more specific on everything instead of just rushing this through. I know this

has been going on. Again, I think, you know, SO feet to have volleyball, it’s going to be leagues.

I’m not opposed to alcohol, but you know, people are going to be having a good time yelling and

screaming and pickle ball is very loud.

Christine Whipple at 898 Ridge Road. I’m Sean's wife and also the owner of the property. I don’t

want to reiterate everything. But the developer did say he wants to be a good neighbor. And I’m

confused that Sean did mention it. All the drawing that have been presented, everything's on the

one side of the water retention. And if we are going to then because we want a berm and want

things moved, we’re also going to move a wall over. I don’t see how that’s a good neighbor. There

is a neighbor here that would like to speak, but a proposal that we would love to see is moving the

building closer to the homes because that would then create a buffer of the noise. If you guys have

ever been by pickle ball, right now it is the number one sport that’s having lawsuits, whether it’s a

town or a community, because of the noise. You can Google that, you can chat it, anything you

want to do. As a result, they're asking people to move those away from the residential areas. And

that’s what we're asking. Move the building closer to the residential area. Move the pickle bail

and beach volleyball up towards the roadway. That way, it’s eliminating the volume that’s going

to be close to the residents. They are seniors. Not that they all go to bed early, but a lot of the

pickle ball event area do have leagues that play late at night. So, not only in the noise, but sorry,

also the lighting is going to affect those if all that's going on and they’re trying to go to sleep. We

don’t get a lot of warm day here in Webster, New York. So, people are going to have their windows

opens and they don’t want to hear that constant high-pitch noise that that’s constant. It’s not like

a whistle at a soccer game. So, just some thoughts for the Planning Board. I hope you would

Pg. 179 June 2, 2026 Planning Meeting

recommend before you give them approval or anything moving things around.

Mike Ritter and I do live in the park where Sean owns. The two things that were brought up tonight

which was kind of unique with the DEC saying that I guess the original program was going to be

on the other side and then was going to be on the north side of the road. And since DEC is not

involved anymore and they don’t care about anything anymore and they’re and they're not part of

that, that’s not a bad idea to put it back where it came from over on that side. But if that doesn’t

happen, instead of maybe fencing three, there are landscape things that could be done such as giant

greens. It’s like an arborvitae but it’s deer resistant. So maybe two or three rows giant greens

could be planted instead of a fence. Just something to keep in the back of your mind or the planters

mind, you know, and it still looks green and they look beautiful. I don’t know if anybody really

knows what a giant green is, but you know, they grow tall and fast and they’re and their deer

resistant.

with them. You know......

eat them.

this is a little bit premature because the town comprehensive plan which regulates the zoning and

the town code and the 15-year vision of Webster indicates that this is going to be converted the

parcel in question if I’m not mistaken is going to be converted to.....Do you guys know what it’s

going to be converted to very shortly...at the end of this New York State DOS project once it’s

completed mixed use...right? Am I mistaken? It’s going to be mixed use right so we’re talking or

we’re having a conversation about high intensity commercial development. Two days before a

moratorium is put into place. So, from the town’s perspective all of this whole discussion... what is

this about a site plan approval? The site plan approval, if we just put it off 2 days, it’s going to

probably be illegal to develop this development in a mixed use district. Because it’s being converted

from a high intensity commercial district on the zoning map to a mixed use district and then you

got to make the case that this is and then there’s a big moratorium. So, the moratorium 6 months,

we’d have to kick it. If you don’t make the decision tonight to approve it, it’s going to get kicked

down the line 6 months. Potentially another 3 months after that for 6 months for a year, if you’re

following me. And then, they're going to have to make the case that this is this pickle ball facility

is appropriate for a mixed use development. Mixed use being defined as commercia and residential

being developed harmoniously together. But the key point I think is that our town code needs to be

sufficient to address the concerns of residents. Because the number one concern that I have is

customer satisfaction. i.e. increasing resident satisfaction in the town. And the way we do that

neutrally and objectively is through the....? I’m trying to get some feedback here. Is through the

Pg. 180 June 2, 2026 Planning Meeting

Tony or Frank is through the neutral town code, a zoning map that everybody steers and agrees on

because it’s objectively.......

legal standpoint, the comprehensive plan has-begun, but it’s not done. Right now, we have this

property zone in a particular way and there’s an application that’s been applied for this particular

parcel. We have to legally follow what it currently is. And I understand where you’re going, but

there is an application that’s been put before the board.

now when the moratorium gets becomes activated...

same time.

if it pertains. He says, no conflict of interest.

going to make an objective standard that I end now?

to, but you.............

much.

is that the applicant has not met the basic standards for preliminary site plan approval. That

concerns of the town have not been addressed and regardless of everything else, this alone means

that approval should not be granted tonight. Thank you.

inaccurate. It’s 100 ft right now. The 50 foot buffer is there and then there’s another 50 ft before

the volleyball courts. And we’ve already agreed that hey, we’ll move those for them right. Pickle

ball also is not a fad. It is the number one sport in the world right now. It’s grown 311% per year,

which no sport has ever attained. The average age is not senior citizen. The average age is 33 years

Pg. 181 June 2, 2026 Planning Meeting

old. The title last year went to a woman that was 17 years old. First place.

there. That works, show me.

easier to have those pickle ball courts to the north of the building and moving everything down. I

mean, I’m just thinking from... don’t have a vote. I’m just thinking from a legal aspect of where

your lines, your property, your borderline issues that you’re going to run into the putting a fence on

that property, cutting off your property putting a fence for putting the fence or putting the fence

right next so somebody else’s property.

where there’s a legal issue there.

You cannot put the fence up, not put junior arborvitaes there, green, you know, not giants because

they...

EVERYONE SPEAKING AT THE SAME TIME.

We need to show something on there. Number one, the other issues we’ ve got, that are outstanding,

the SWPPPs and so forth, we need to have a more clearly defined track with this. And I believe

the first thing we need to do is have a meeting set up with the current owners of the property and

move on from there because we’re...we’ve been going in circles on this thing. As far as the trees,

misinformation is ridiculous. I mean where that feeds from I don’t know but anyways. The trees

can be marked out area where you’re proposing the outdoor activities and so on. I think that can

be done that can be accomplished.

The Fire Marshal had comments about the fire hydrants. You’re saying there is already something.

I don’t know what the deal is with that. That’s something we have to get.

that s 475 ft to our building over at BJ’s where we’re showing our sanitary lateral there’s a hydrant

right inside the Monroe County Water Authority easement move up...move up...go left.... The

Pg. 182 June 2, 2026 Planning Meeting

hydrant right there under 400 feet. There’s also one if you go up into the Lowe’s parking lot, you

see right there right at that jiggy jog in the property line.

hazard zone. This is no Eastland Kodiak chemical processing. Residential subdivisions is typically

500 ft. For this type of commercial, it’s

400. Joe Catalani: The Fire Marshal there, too

that distance by 50% . So, in my letter here, I said I'd like to sit down and meet with the Fire

Marshal.

now, not from the east. We’re going to bring it from the north and set a hydrant just as at the corner

right as you’re pulling into the parking lot. That was in my letter from Sunday night when I was

looking at how can we adjust the engineering. Backing up, the only comment I have was on the

SWPPP was that pond, the central pond, the central pond on the central pond on the north section

was mislabeled.

Engineer; HARD TO HEAR WHAT HE IS SAYING...NOT CLOSE TO THE MIC....... pond

five when it’s really on four, but it’s correct in the routing. And now that we’re talking about

moving things all round, the storm sewers are going to change, the routing is going to change, the

acreage is going to change, and we’ll be in SWPPP version

4. What won’t change is the parking lot

, plunge pool, the bio retention, and what’s going on up north. If we slide the building down and

we move the volleyball up by the road and we take the mini golf and we wrap it along the stream,

route it, you know, out and back. Routing it along the stream and then adjust some other things in

the courtyard. Totally different plan. The other thing I want to say is for anybody really old like me,

Bright and Sound, we used to do sound reinforcement, and my dad was faculty at Fisher and one

year they had Bright and Sound in there for commencement and he said it was amazing. We could

actually hear because it wasn’t loud, it was volume. So, if you’ ve got proper sound, it’s not pushing

out loud. It’s just creating volume. Again, that’s not my problem if it blue grass all to............

sounds like we need to table this, and we still have four applications to go through tonight.

on this?

Pg. 183 June 2, 2026 Planning Meeting

thing is tabled, does that cause it to fall under the moratorium?

in that meeting? We can...I’m not opposed to moving some of those things for the neighbors. The

building has been moved three times, four times. That’s pretty much where it is.

order for us to vote on a preliminary and then eventually start seeker on it.

know how you say that is shouldn’t go there. We’re putting a moratorium on building. This is

something that’s already started and got a project that’s underway. Doesn’t make sense to me to

stop it.

ago or so and actually met with the developer outside and told them our concerns. And at that time,

he told us it was going to be addressed. We’ ve been into the town numerous times. None of that

stuff has been addressed on any of this. He knew what was going on with this meeting. He knew

that in a couple days that moratorium was going to go into play. So, that was his choice not to come

prepared and have the town have the information. Moving that building could help eliminate some

of that noise. And Josh, if you could pull up the one where it’s kind of larger, if you can see where

the water retention is, he is developing on the other side of that. So, I don’t understand why that’s

all of a sudden changing and the footage and all that changing when that’s where he was initially

going to do the....So, you see the pickle ball which is extremely loud.

which is 53 residents that are living in affordable housing which you don’t want to lose.

agree with you. I’m not disagreeing. What I’m simply saying is there are so many other things in

here. That’s one of them. We’ve already discussed that. We said we would try and resolve that

and come up with something with that. But now we’re getting into other things here. And where

do we stand is beyond me.

because a lot of the questions have not been answered that were asked three months ago. All of

these were brought to his attention. He has not given that information. We’ve given suggestions

how we could move stuff around, but he’s never changed anything. This is what I saw three months

ago.

Pg. 184 June 2, 2026 Planning Meeting

don’t think that’s fair to the residents of Sunset Valley or all the other people in Webster. So, I

hope you really think of that.

Yeah, we sat out there and I gave you the plans. I never said I was going to move the building. I

never said I was going to move anything. So anyways.... AUDIENCE MEMBER KEPT

SPEAKING.

comments, we’ ve came back and addressed every...all of those comments a number of times. Now,

just because we’ re going to, you know, on the eve switch a few things to make some people happy

shouldn’t push us out if that’s that case.

but there are other concerns here too with the town that have yet to be addressed. Some of these

things right here: SWPPPS, issues you have right, correct yet to be addressed. I think this ...if this

project falls in an area where it can continue on without falling under this new programs for stopping

the development. I’m okay with table bling this thing and saying let’s keep it going. That’s up to

the Town board. I don’t know where they stand with that or how that’s going to be acted. This is

something that’s been in and to me it’s something that should not be stopped.

accept.

(both parties speaking at the same time)

stopping this there’s just issues that have been set forth that ...I mean no, we’re not stonewalling

you. I get it’s not bad faith and all, but we’re just trying to make sure that.......

to set up a meeting.

necessarily specific to this project or any other.

Pg. 185 June 2, 2026 Planning Meeting

and if not then don’t approve us for final. But we’ve been here many times for preliminary, new

comments have come up. We’ve changed things. We changed the SWPPP four times. We've

changed and understand. Okay, each time maybe there’s something that’s not, you know, perfect,

okay, we’ll address that. But why not do preliminary and then if we don’t show the proper few

items that are remaining then don’t give us final approval.

understand the proposed building’s going that’s nothing there are other areas but the area we’re

showing is recreational area. It’s quite a large area. It’s probably have the parcel and required for

preliminary approval. I don’t know. Ican’t....we’re trying to work with you on it. Ican’t see how

we can. I’]l put it up to the board. I mean, you folks tell me what you think.

incorporated in the preliminary in order for this to proceed through preliminary approval.

Board agreed.

we probably ought to read them into the record.

that’s continuing, you know, going on and not be held up now for...if it was a project that just came

in, yeah understand that. But when a project is gone to the extent and the dollars that this has cost

already. I mean, I don’t think it’s fair to say we’re stopping you I don’t think that would be...

on Thursday, there is an existing provision in the proposed language that would allow for an

applicant to apply from relief due to extenuating circumstances and that would be up to the Town

Board.

as Tony Said, you spent time and money relative to that and hopefully there would be some kind

of escape from the moratorium that could be provided as a waiver. But you have, I think we’re

crossing hurdles, we can talk about that. Probably in another time, but it doesn’t make sense right

now with these outstanding issues. But it’s up to you; the applicant if he want to have us continue.

for Dorschel Lexus when Toyota announced the Lexus product, and we had Rick Dorsel’s site plan

into the Henrietta Planning Board.

Pg. 186 June 2, 2026 Planning Meeting

while Rick’s application was active and there was a lawsuit and Rick got to build his Lexus.

provision in the moratorium......

Charlotte Kabili at 651 Cumberland Way (DID NOT SIGN IN) I ama conservation board member,

and I wanted to mention that the conservation board goes out to each site at the sketch plan review

phase and we give recommendations to the Planning Board in a number of criteria including

wetlands, trees, erosion, visual impacts, and other environmental protections like habitat. So, I

wanted to make sure it’s very clear to the group here in the room that we have provided input to

the Planning Board and some of that input is already being reflected into discussions and that’s

great. So, one of the things I wanted to mention was that anytime a conservation board goes out

on site we are there with the site plan with us and we can see the markings, and it is that nuanced.

So, things like buildings moving arounds, courts, positioning changing, that will affect how the

conservation board makes recommendations to the Planning Board to account for environmental

sensitivities. That’s really important. So, I just wanted to echo some earlier remarks that at final-

preliminary site plan in a good stage is very helpful for the environmental protections as well.

Dennis, feel free to add if you’d like.

hear is about we did notice there area a number of large trees that were marked on there in the

areas that’s not going to have a building. You’d mentioned having those marked so that they can

be identified and kept as well as they can be. I’m concerned about a mechanism to make sure that

who marks them, who checks them, who makes sure they stay in. It seemed very nebulous to me.

I’m not sure what the protocol is, but it needs to be a pretty strict protocol because we did identify

a lot of them. And if there’s big changes, we probably should do another site review.

Pg. 187 June 2, 2026 Planning Meeting

Mike Marinaccio at 11 Westover Drive: (DID NOT SIGN IN) So, this doesn’t really affect me, but

I love pickle ball. I play Dinkers all the time. I think it’s a great sport, but I think the noise issue ts

huge. And I think those courts need to be moved away from the people because here’s a recording.

This is from Clarance where they just added pickle ball courts. This is 11:00 at night. I’m probably

like 300 feet and it’s loud. And if you’re talking about how many courts there are......

Mike Marinaccio at 11 Westover Drive: It’s going to be loud, and people are going to be yelling

and screaming and having fun. So, the other questions, or concern I would also add, is what time

would they be shut down?

put something in the resolution. Make a motion to table it for further information, I guess. Results

of a meeting between the town and the developer, right? What do you think?

Talking from the audience

to be a finished product. I want to keep the meeting open but I’m asking you please refrain for a

little bit. We won’t close the public hearing when this comes back. Then will have a continuation

of the public hearing and that’s my intent to do this. Okay, so please bear with me now. Okay, all

right.

RESOLUTION 26-028 Anthony Casciani made a motion to

TABLED THE APPLICATION until

there’s further review between the Town

Administration, Town and Engineering

Department, the Developers, and TO July

7, 2026 which was seconded by Dave Malta.

VOTE:

Mr, Casciani AYE

Mr. Malta AYE

Mr. Giardina ABSENT

Mr. Anderson AYE

Mrs. Maltman AYE

Mr. Gasic AYE

Mr. Vetter AYE

Pg. 188 June 2, 2026 Planning Meeting

a meeting, get things resolved, and maybe get things changed around, fixed up and where it’s

more acceptable to everyone. Thanks for coming in, folks.

and 1036A Bay Rd. Applicant Scott Measday, LS. is requesting PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN

APPROVAL in association with a proposed re-subdivision (lot line adjustments) of 5-single-

family residential lots into 4-single-family residential lots on 2.5 acres having SBL# 078.18-2-9,

SBL# 078.18-2-10.2, SBL# 078. 18-2-10.1, SBL# 078.18-2-11.11 and SBL# 078. 18-2-11.2

located in the R-3 Single-Family Residential District under Sections 269-11, 296-14 and 350-12

of the Code of the Town of Webster.

Appearing before the board was Walt Baker, DSB Engineers. I am here on behalf of FC Martin

LLC for the properties mentioned now in the corner of Bay and Ridge Road. As the board will

recall, this application was in front of you back in April and at that time it was tabled, and we do

have five lots and as the board will recall the lot lines for these buildings basically 3 out 5 go through

the buildings. These properties were actually subdivided and deeded back in the early what 50,60

years ago. So, our proposal is to re subdivide the lots and clean up the property lines basically.

And as you recall, there’s five lots. And 2 months ago, there was concerns with the two large or

the one .... Two larger pieces actually on Bay Road, 1036 and 1036A. How that got subdivided,

we’ re not quite sure, but there was a house towards the front of Bay Road, and then behind it was

a guest house and the utilities, as we discussed. Well, you discussed, I wasn’t here at that meeting

two months ago. I was called in after the tabling effect and the utilities for that rear building are

actually situated inside the basement of the front building. So, it was built as a guest facility, a

guest house if you will with the utilities in the front building and they ran to the rear building and

obviously making the subdivision with five lots brought on some difficulties. I contacted RG&E

and moving the utilities would be pretty difficult and expensive to do. So, we discussed it with the

developers and proposed going to four lots and leaving the larger lot at 1.8 acres with the two

structures on it, the main house and the guest house. So that kind of resolves the major issue about

the utilities on Bay Road and they are also on septic system where the three houses on Bay Road

or I’m sorry, three houses on Ridge Road are all on public utilities, water and sewer, electricity, all

separate, but the tow on Bay Road have the septic system designs from back in the 1930’s and 40’s.

He asked us to locate those which we had Dean Bay, who everybody’s familiar with Dean Bay in

town. He’s a premier septic system installer. So, we contacted Dean and he located the facilities.

We had the surveyor go out there and located them and put them on the map which you requested.

And also, there was an issue with drainage with the neighbor to the south and he’s here tonight. If

you have any questions for him and I think he’d like, make a statement but he had drainage issues

where the water’s ponding with that southern access road that goes towards the back building. So,

with the developer Jim Guck, we had a contractor go out there and installed a 15 inch drainage

culvert underneath that driveway and it completely drained the dead spot on the neighbor’s property

so we corrected that, located the septic systems, and we’re proposing the four lots instead of five

and the map you see has the best we could do with locating property lines, so they don’t go through

buildings. Obviously, we’re needing to go to the Zoning Board to get variances because we can’t

comply with the R-3 zoning which came about. I’m not exactly sure what the new R-3 was put

into effect. It’s gotten updated over the years. I think last time it was updated was 1990, but the 15

Pg. 189 June 2, 2026 Planning Meeting

foot side setbacks, the existing buildings, like I mentioned, were built over 50 years ago and we

tried to located them. So, we’re going to need to go to the Zoning Board to get the variances to try

to balance the best lot line we can because they’re existing properties, existing tax account numbers,

and so we need relief on the setback variances. Do you have any questions

I believe, didn’t they?

and inspected them and located the leech lines and I guess there was concerns from one of the

neighbors about...are they in good working order and found out that the septic tank at the rear

structure was bad. It was an old steel tank. Remember those, Jen, yeah, back in the day they used

to have steel. So, now he took it out and put a new concrete septic tank in.

out originally and god knows how that ever got approved.

that down to four by just making them one large with the frame metal barn and one story frame

house in the back metal building. Anybody any concerns with that? We had...we locked at it before.

done a pretty good job on this.

which was lot two and three. On the north end of that, but on the south end the way the buildings

were positioned like I said over 50 years ago. We basically have like 15 feet between buildings, so

we split that and try to get a balance of 7 4 feet.

that will be the end of it.

helpful. I think the only question I had was just the ...not sure how to verbally explain this, but

there’s a frame barn on the northwestern has a utility line that goes to a pole, then a metal barn. So,

you have power coming from a parcel going to a parcel that isn’t part of the parcel anymore. Does

that make sense. So, Josh, do you see where the two utility poles are ? Move your cursor a little bit

more to the northeast there. Nope, east. Keep going right. Right there, so you have two poles right

there. I wish there was a take control feature here. The dark squares. So, those are two poles. See

how there’s electrical line that goes to the metal barn to the right, but it coming from a framed barn

to the left and they’re on two separate parcels.

Pg. 190 June 2, 2026 Planning Meeting

removed. So, there’s no power to the barn.

drainage for the neighbor to the south. So, we looked into that and had the surveyor do some,

limited topo out there and he was able to verify where the best location was to put a cross cover

culvert for that driveway and eliminate that problem.

neighbors that have any concerns or issues, okay, I’m not seeing any. We will close the public

hearing and bring it back to the board. Everybody’s pretty much satisfied, I believe, with what

they’ ve done, right?

it is simply the adjustment of lot lines when it boils down to that level that’s all it’s really being

done as changing in lot lines So that in mind it winds up being a TYPE II action. So....

BAY-RIDGE CORNER RESUBDIVISION

The Town of Webster Planning Board considered the request by Applicant Scott Measday, LS to

re-subdivide five single family parcels located at 423,425 and 429 Ridge Road and 1036 and

1036A Bay Road into 4-single family parcels on 2.5 acres having SBL numbers 078.18-2-9,

078-18-2-10.2, 078. 18-2-10.1, 078.18-2-11.11 and 078.18-2-11.2 in an R-3 single family district.

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

1 dated May 11, 2026, and

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

June 2, 2026

The Planning Board has determined that the action involves the granting of individual setback

and lot line variances and adjustment and does not involve permits.

Therefore, the Planning Board classifies the proposed action to be a Type II Action under

Section 617.5(c)(16} and (25) of the State Environmental Review (SEQR) Regulations and

therefore is not subject to further review.

RESOLUTION 26-034 Derek Anderson made a motion for TYPE IT

Pg. 191 June 2, 2026 Planning Meeting

SEQR which was seconded by Drazen Gasic.

VOTE:

Mr. Casciani AYE

Mr. Malta AYE

Mr. Giardina ABSENT

Mr. Anderson AYE

Mrs. Maltman AYE

Mr. Gasic AYE

Mr. Vetter AYE

Drazen Gasic:

RESOLUTION

WHEREAS, the Town of Webster Planning Board (the “Planning Board”) has received an

application from Scott Measday, LS (the “Applicant” ) requesting Preliminary Site Plan

Approval (Public Hearing) associated with a proposed re-subdiviston (lot line adjustments) of

five (5) single-family residential lots into four (4) single-family residential lots on a 2.5-acre

area comprised of parcels identified as SBL# 078.18-2-9, 078.18-2-10.2, 078.18-2-10.1, 078.18-

2-11.11, and 078.18-2-11.2, located at/near 423, 425 & 429 Ridge Road and 1036 & 1036A

Bay Road in the R-3 Single Family Residential District, Town of Webster, New York, pursuant

to Town Code § § 269-11 , 296-14, and 350-12; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Board reviewed the application materials, preliminary site

plans/subdivision materials (as applicable), and supporting documentation submitted by the

Applicant, as presented to the Planning Board; and

WHEREAS the Planning Board held a duly noticed Public Hearing on the application on June

2, 2026 and considered all comments received; and

WHEREAS, after due deliberation, the Planning Board finds that the proposed preliminary site

plan/resubdivision, as presented, is acceptable and consistent with applicable Town

requirements

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town of Webster Planning Board hereby

GRANTS PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL (

PUBLIC HEARING

) for the Bay-Ridge

Corner Resubdivision, subject to the following conditions:

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

Subject to PRC Comments.

Subject to the requirements/approval of the Monroe County Department of Health (as

applicable).

Locate septic, water, and electric lines on the plans, as applicable.

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

Subject to Zoning Board approval for lot line variances

Approvals are subject to Drawing No:_ Dated: January 15 2026 revised April 30 2026

RESOLUTION 26-035 Drazen Gasic made a motion for

425 & 429 Ridge Rd and 1036 and 1036A Bay Rd.

Pg. 192 June 2, 2026 Planning Meeting

Applicant Scott Measday, LS. is requesting

PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL in

association with a proposed re-subdivision (lot line

adjustments) of 5-single-family residential lots into

4-single-family residential lots on 2.5 acres having

SBL# 078.18-2-9, SBL# 078. 18-2-10.2, SBL#

078.18-2-10.1, SBL# 078.18-2-11.11 and SBL#

078.18-2-11.2 located in the R-3 Single-Family

Residential District under Sections 269-11, 296-14

and 350-12 of the Code of the Town of Webster

which was seconded by Dave Malta.

VOTE:

Mr. Casciani AYE

Mr. Malta AYE

Mr. Giardina ABSENT

Mr. Anderson AYE

Mrs. Maltman AYE

Mr. Gasic AYE

Mr. Vetter AYE

requesting PRELIMINARY / FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL AND AN LWRP

CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION in association with a 4’ wide x 50’ long (200 SF)

permanent dock on a 0.5-acre parcel having SBL# 078. 18-1-63 located in the MHR Medium-

High Residential District under Sections 269-11, 331-4, 350-14 and 350-30 of the Code of the

Town of Webster.

Appearing before the board was Michael Julian and we are here to seek a final site plan approval

for 40 by 50 foot 4 x 50 foot dock, permanent dock.

You got good water there?

(YOU TUBE VIDEO GREYED OUT AND COULD NOT HEAR ANYTHING) Recording

started back up and was clear.

permit for it. Most of them were just putting docks in without getting a permit.

Pg. 193 June 2, 2026 Planning Meeting

project? Okay, nothing. We will close the public hearing.

Derek Anderson:

1060 SUNSET TRAIL PERMANENT DOCK

The Town of Webster Planning Board considered the request by Applicant Michael Julian to

remove an existing 4-foot by 48-foot seasonal dock and construct a permanent dock measuring

4-feet by 50-feet on Irondequoit Bay and located at 1060 Sunset Trail on a parcel having SBL

#078.18-1-63.

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

617.5(c)(2) and (9) of the State Environmental Review (SEQR) Regulations and therefore is not

subject to further review.

RESOLUTION 26-036 Derek Anderson made a motion to TABLE

APPLICATION TO JUNE 2, 2026 which

was seconded by Drazen Gasic.

VOTE:

Mr. Casciani AYE

Mr. Malta AYE

Mr. Giardina ABSENT

Mr. Anderson AYE

Mrs. Maltman AYE

Mr. Gasic AYE

Mr. Vetter AYE

Drazen Gasic:

RESOLUTION

WHEREAS, the Town of Webster Planning Board (the “Planning Board”) has received an

application from Michael Julian (the “Applicant” ) requesting Preliminary / Final Site Plan

Approval and an LWRP Consistency Determination in association with construction of a 4-foot

wide by 50-foot long (200 square foot) permanent dock on a 0.5-acre parcel identified as SBL#

078.18-1-63, located at/near 1060 Sunset Trail in the MHR Medium-High Residential District,

Town of Webster, New York, pursuant to Town Code § § 269-11 , 331-4, 350-14, and 350-30; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Board reviewed the application materials, plans, and supporting

documentation submitted by the Applicant, as presented to the Planning Board; and

WHEREAS the Planning Board held a duly noticed Public Hearing on the application on June

2, 2026 and considered all comments received; and

Pg. 194 June 2, 2026 Planning Meeting

WHEREAS, after review, the Planning Board finds that the proposed dock and associated site

plan, as presented, and the request for an LWRP Consistency Determination are acceptable and

consistent with applicable Town requirements,

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Town of Webster Planning Board hereby

GRANTS PRELIMINARY / FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL AND AN LWRP

CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION for the project described above, subject to the following

conditions:

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

Comply with all requirements of any Federal, State, County, or Town agency having jurisdiction

(including any required permits/approvals for work in or near waterbodies), prior to

commencement of work.

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

Subject to all engineering and government approvals

Approval is limited to the dock dimensions and configuration as presented (4° x 50’, 200 SF);

any material change shall require further review by the Town, as determined by the Planning

Board or its designee.

RESOLUTION 26-037 Drazen Gasic made a motion for PRELIMINARY

Applicant Michael Julian is requesting

PRELIMINARY / FINAL SITE PLAN

APPROVAL AND AN LWRP CONSISTENCY

DETERMINATION in association with a 4’ wide

x 50’ long (200 SF) permanent dock on a 0.5-acre

parcel having SBL# 078.18-1-63 located in the

MHR Medium-High Residential District under

Sections 269-11, 331-4, 350-14 and 350-30 of the

Code of the Town of Webster which was seconded

by Sven Vetter.

PRELIMINARY APPROVAL CHECKLIST

Subject to PRC Comments

Subject to a Letter of Credit posted with the Town of Webster.

Subject to Conservation Board comments

Subject to Monroe County Water Authority comments

Subject to the determination of the ZBA for requested variances.

Address any land to be conveyed to the Town.

Address any recent subdivision approvals of adjacent lands.

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.

10. Ali sitework is to be in compliance with the standards of the Town of Webster.

11. Preserve all mature trees on site, where possible, and mark said trees by the developer’s

engineer prior to the commencing of any site work.

Pg. 195 June 2, 2026 Planning Meeting

SOA AW EWN

ad

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

13. Address drainage, lighting, signage, and landscaping, buffering, berming and snow storage.

14. The landscape, hardscape, site accessories, and associated finished grading design for the

development must be prepared by a NYS licensed Landscape Architect. The final landscape

plans shall bear the seal and signature of the Landscape Architect.

15. Approvals are subject to Drawing No: Dated:

16. Proceed to Final Approval

VOTE:

Mr. Casciani AYE

Mr. Malta AYE

Mr. Giardina ABSENT

Mr. Anderson AYE

Mrs. Maltman AYE

Mr. Gasic AYE

Mr. Vetter AYE

RESOLUTION 26-038 Drazen Gasic made a motion for FINAL AND

Sunset Trail. Applicant Michael Julian is

requesting PRELIMINARY / FINAL SITE PLAN

APPROVAL AND AN LWRP CONSISTENCY

DETERMINATION in association with a 4’ wide

x 50° long (200 SF) permanent dock on a 0.5-acre

parcel having SBL# 078.18-1-63 located in the

MHR Medium-High Residential District under

Sections 269-11, 331-4, 350-14 and 350-30 of the

Code of the Town of Webster which was seconded

by Mark Giardina.

FINAL APPROVAL CHECKLIST

AwbwWN>

9. Subject to PRC comments.

Subject to Parks and Recreation fees (if applicable)

Subject to Preliminary Approval Conditions.

Subject to all applicable governmental fees.

Subject to Department of Public Works approval

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

on :

The conditions of Preliminary and Final approval are depicted on the cover page of the fina!

designed plans.

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.

A Letter of Credit to the Town for the project shall include the fee for the Engineer’s final

certification inspection of the site.

10. All storm water facilities are to be constructed first

11. All downspouts to be connected to the storm sewer system.

Pg. 196 June 2, 2026 Planning Meeting

12. Subject to resolution of the final approved minutes.

have two separate resolutions. That’s okay, were good. Preliminary and final has been granted

for the dock, and you are all set.

VOTE:

Mr. Casciani AYE

Mr. Malta AYE

Mr. Giardina ABSENT

Mr. Anderson AYE

Mrs. Maltman AYE

Mr. Gasic AYE

Mr. Vetter AYE

RG&E STATION 73: Located at 891 Klem Road. Applicant Eric Thorne is requesting FINAL

SITE PLAN APPROVAL in association with the modernization of an existing RG&E

electrical substation on a 0.77-acre parcel having SBL# 064. 14-2-17 located in the R-2 Single

Family Residential District under Sections 269-11 and 350-11 under the Code of the Town of

Webster.

Appearing before the board was Eric Thorne. Thank you planning board for meeting with us

today as it pertains to the final site plan application for the proposed upgrade and modernization

of the RG&E substation located at 891 Klem Road. I am Eric Thorne and I am part of the

permitting team at RG&E and with me I have Reneer Garnica and he is the project manager

on the project. Following the preliminary meeting that was held April 7". RG&E has since

gone before the Zoning Board of Appeals in which variances were granted, and we received

the official approval notification on April 14 of 2026. RG&E also did receive the preliminary

approval letter from the Planning Board from the April 7" meeting in which conditional items

were outlined, and they were considered by the project team and updates to the site design and

were completed accordingly.

These include extending the landscaping on the east side of the station, providing a reference

to signage on the substation fence, updating the proposed flow path for the perimeter drainage,

and including a reference for dewatering during construction. The concern regarding

vegetative screening along Hojack Trail was also addressed in those updates and updated

package has been provided with the final site plan application as well as a revised render set

and a letter of response to those conditions outlined in the preliminary approval.

One point of note, it was recently identified to us that the updated landscape plan had been

Pg. 197 June 2, 2026 Planning Meeting

accidentally left our of the original final application submittal. That drawing was shared

electronically on Friday at 5/29 to the Town of Webster for consideration with this application.

Additionally, on May 28", RG&E did receive the latest PRC comments and those are currently

under review. However, due to the tight turnaround before today’s meeting the relevant

drawing updates you know were not able to be addressed and provided for this discussion

today.

I am happy to run through each of the design updates one by one, but I first wanted to turn the

conversation over to the board to see if there were any specific comments or questions that you

wanted to start with.

preliminary was to, you know, create a hip roof on the ends instead of the gable ends to kind

of take the height out of it, but that never happened, I guess.

was the choice for the gable roof, which was part of the original sketch plan and comments

that we received from the board. It was considered to be the most appropriate solution for the

small scale building. As it offers a cost efficiency, construction simplicity and reduce

maintenance without compromising property functionality, and performance of the building.

Related to the cost efficiencies, a simpler design allows for fewer matertals, less labor and

faster and easier to construct and reduce construction time which minimizes potential errors

during construction. And just the fewer ridges with the gable roof along with joints and

connection points certainly allow for fewer problems such as leaks to develop which is

important when we’re dealing with electric infrastructure. And inspections and repairs are

certainly more straightforward from a maintenance perspective.

So, therefore, you know, we did take the hip roof into consideration, but we still feel that the

gable roof is a better design for the small scale building.

residential houses? We talked about that. I guess you got that in there.

Pg. 198 June 2, 2026 Planning Meeting

Drazen Gasic:

RESOLUTION

WHEREAS the Town of Webster Planning Board (the “Planning Board”) has received an

application from Eric Thorne (the “Applicant” ) requesting Final Site Plan Approval in

association with the modernization of an existing RG&E electrical substation on a 0.77-acre

parcel identified as SBL# 064.14-2-17, located in the R-2 Single Family Residential District,

Town of Webster, New York, pursuant to Town Code § § 269-11 and 350-11; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Board reviewed the application materials, final site plans, and

supporting documentation submitted by the Applicant, as presented to the Planning Board; and

WHEREAS the Planning Board held a duly noticed Public Hearing on the application on June

2, 2026 and considered all comments received; and

WHEREAS, after due deliberation, the Planning Board finds that the proposed Final Site Plan,

as presented, is acceptable and consistent with applicable Town requirements,

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Town of Webster Planning Board hereby

GRANTS FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL for the project described above, subject to the

following conditions:

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

Subject to PRC comments.

Subject to Parks and Recreation fees (if applicable).

Subject to Preliminary Approval Conditions (if applicable).

Subject to all applicable governmental fees.

Subject to Department of Public Works approval.

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

on June 2 2027.

The conditions of Preliminary and Final approval are depicted on the cover page of the final

designed plans.

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.

A Letter of Credit to the Town for the project shall include the fee for the Engineer’s final

certification inspection of the site.

Subject to resolution of the final approved minutes.

RESOLUTION 26-040 Drazen Gasic made a motion for FINAL

Road. Applicant Eric Thorne is requesting

FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL in

association with the modernization of an

existing RG&E electrical substation on a

0.77-acre parcel having SBL# 064.14-2-

Pg. 199 June 2, 2026 Planning Meeting

17 located in the R-2 Single Family

Residential District under Sections 269-

11 and 350-11 under the Code of the

Town of Webster which was seconded by

Dave Malta.

FINAL APPROVAL CHECKLIST

Subject to PRC comments.

Subject to Parks and Recreation fees (if applicable)

Subject to Preliminary Approval Conditions.

Subject to all applicable governmental fees.

Subject to Department of Public Works approval

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

on .

7. The conditions of Preliminary and Final approval are depicted on the cover page of the final

designed plans.

8. 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.

9. A Letter of Credit to the Town for the project shall include the fee for the Engineer’s final

certification inspection of the site.

10. All storm water facilities are to be constructed first

11. All downspouts to be connected to the storm sewer system.

12. Subject to resolution of the final approved minutes.

OF) CA ee

13. Approvals are subject to Drawing No: Dated:

VOTE:

Mr. Casciani AYE

Mr. Malta AYE

Mr. Giardina ABSENT

Mr. Anderson AYE

Mrs. Maltman AYE

Mr. Gasic AYE

Mr. Vetter AYE

is requesting PRELIMINARY / FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL in association with the

addition of 1,740 graves and an associated road on an 18.4-acre parcel having SBL# 050.03-

1-24 located in the R-1 Single-Family Residential District under Sections 269-11, and 350-10

under the Code of the Town of Webster.

Appearing before the board was George Baker, Webster Union Cemetery. We’re trying to

expand a cemetery. We’re getting low on inventory and if we don’t have inventory, we don’t

have a business.

Pg. 200 June 2, 2026 Planning Meeting

says we have to come and ask the town if it’s okay to expand the cemetery, to do what we want

to do. So, that’s why I’m here.

(screen greyed out 2:20:42 back on)

RESOLUTION

WHEREAS, the Town of Webster Planning Board (the “Planning Board”) has received an

application from George Baker (the “Applicant” ) requesting Preliminary / Final Site Plan

Approval in association with the addition of 1,740 graves and an associated road on an 18.4-

acre parcel identified as SBL# 050.03-1-24, located atfnear 345 Webster Road in the R-I

Single-Family Residential District, Town of Webster, New York, pursuant to Town Code §§

269-1I and 350-10; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Board reviewed the application materials, site plans, and supporting

documentation submitted by the Applicant, as presented to the Planning Board; and

WHEREAS, after due deliberation, the Planning Board finds that the proposed site plan for the

cemetery expansion, as presented, is acceptable and consistent with applicable Town

requirements

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Town of Webster Planning Board hereby

GRANTS PRELIMINARY / FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL for the project described above,

subject to the following conditions:

Josh, can you zoom in on bottom right please. 2532 C dated: 5/8/2026 revised 5/15/2026

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

Comply with all requirements of any Federal, State, County, or Town agency having jurisdiction

(including but not limited to permits/approvals related to grading, drainage, and any regulated

areas), prior to commencement of work.

All the improvements shall be constructed according to the specifications of the Town of

Webster.

All roadway construction shall be in accordance with Town specifications and regulations, as

applicable to the proposed internal road improvements.

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

Applicant to provide a copy of the SEQR to the Town of Webster.

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

on June 6 2027

RESOLUTION 26-042 Drazen Gasic made a motion for

Pg. 201 June 2, 2026 Planning Meeting

Road. Applicant George Baker is

requesting PRELIMINARY / FINAL

APPROVAL in association with the

addition of 1,740 graves and an

associated road on an 18.4-acre parcel

having SBL# 050.03-1-24 located in the

R-1 Single-Family Residential District

under Sections 269-11, and 350-10under

the Code of the Town of Webster which

was seconded by Dave Malta.

PRELIMINARY APPROVAL CHECKLIST

a aS

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16. Subject to PRC Comments

Subject to a Letter of Credit posted with the Town of Webster.

Subject to Conservation Board comments

Subject to Monroe County Water Authority comments

Subject to the determination of the ZBA for requested variances.

Address any land to be conveyed to the Town.

Address any recent subdivision approvals of adjacent lands.

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 sitework is to be in compliance with the standards of the Town of Webster.

Preserve all mature trees on site, where possible, and mark said trees by the developer’s

engineer prior to the commencing of any site work.

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

Address drainage, lighting, signage, and landscaping, buffering, berming and snow storage.

The landscape, hardscape, site accessories, and associated finished grading design for the

development must be prepared by a NYS licensed Landscape Architect. The final landscape

plans shall bear the seal and signature of the Landscape Architect.

Approvals are subject to Drawing No:___ __ Dated:

Proceed to Final Approval

VOTE:

Mr. Casciani AYE

Mr. Malta AYE

Mr, Giardina ABSENT

Mr. Anderson AYE

Mrs. Maltman AYE

Mr. Gasic AYE

Mr. Vetter AYE

Pg. 202 June 2, 2026 Planning Meeting

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER:

e Approval of minutes for: May 5, 2026. Motion: (MALTMAN/GASIC)

Mr. Malta AYE

Mr. Giardina ABSENT

Mr. Anderson AYE

Mrs. Maltman AYE

Mr. Gasic AYE

Mr. Vetter AYE

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

meeting at 9:30 PM.

Respectfully Submitted,

Signed C oazcher ra C Kantcpind ( ALB gh f. ss) Dated Le L4 x

Mark Giardyha, Secretary

Katherine Kolich, Recording Secretary

JUL 10°26 pHl:37

Jan. WEBSTER THN CLK

Pg. 203 June 2, 2026 Planning Meeting

A 1 . - = - "1

‘ee «7 : me |

- = r

P 1

72. P| I Z ; 7 7

a a a i a : - I a - 7 lies % |

I rf, I / 2,1 =

i ee am FRE aw aT Si) 12 ait = i

- ' 1 t ; ims =

7 a a! »

T i ns OU I 7

: _ min ** “I

i ss ’

hn! I

| : 7 ' ; 7 I 7 a 2

i ‘ge aie f- ; “. nie = 4— “At vs ria) oe

|] i 7

Cie yt

la - # ul ‘. ; -

7 ae | ; : : 7 i a

a = “os we CU : et 7 =I MK nat 1

it) - W i it

|, :

lw - cars :

| ta tis Fe :

! wu jy o-— ” oh ; ; I

I

T 1 -

-

L.

: 7 rs i

1

Z 7 I 7

:: ee ae

fee ==

1 4" a = nd oe

Z :

~ ee 5 o Sages i= 5