WEBSTER PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
Webster Town Board Meeting Room 1002 Ridge Road
7:00 p.m.
7 July 2026
ABSENT:
Anthony Casciani, Chairman
Dave Malta, Vice Chairman
Mark Giardina, Secretary
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
Welcome to the Planning Board meeting of July 7, 2026. Okay, it’s about
one minute to seven so we can get started a little early.
Pledge of Allegiance/Roll Call
We have six items on the agenda this evening.
Summary overview of outcome:
TABLED MATTERS
:
SCHEDULED MATTERS
:
1. INVIO SIGN-855 PUBLISHERS PARKWAY
STEVE STANLEY
APPROVED AS PRESENTED (AS PER V.2 DRAWING)
2. BAY-RIDGE CORNER RESUBDIVISION 423,425 & 429 RIDGE RD AND 1036 &
1036A
SCOTT MEASDAY
APPROVED AS PRESENTED
3. 7 BREW-HARD ROAD
BREW TEAM NY, LLC/DOUG BEACHEL
APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS: VOLUME CONTROL; LIGHTS
SHIELDED; SUBJECT TO SUBMITTING SIGN PACKAGE; NO PLANTINGS
IN THE SWALE.
Pg. 204 July 7, 2026 Planning Meeting
4. ACCESSORY STRUCTURE-1052 LAKE RD
Applicant. AMANDA COSTANZA
APPROVED WITH CONDITION: NO CONSTRUCTION UNTIL THE
THE LOTS ARE COMBINED.
5. SIENNA RESERVE-ORCHARD RD
INSITE LAND DEVELOPMENT, INC.
EXTENTION GRANTED-TO EXPIRE 7.7.27
6. BURGER KING SIGN-940 HARD RD
JP LANGHENRY
APPROVED AS PRESENTED
(MARK GIARDINA read each application into the record)
Located at 855 Publishers Parkway. Applicant Steve Stanley, Vital Signs, is
requesting SIGN APPROVAL associated with the installation of one (1) internally
illuminated 60 SF wall sign on a 44.14-acre parcel having SBL #079.06-1-32.11 located in
the OP Office Park District under Section 265-7 of the Code of the Town of Webster.
Appearing before the board was Steve Stanely with Vital Signs at 764 Ridge Road. As the
gentleman just stated, a 60 SF internally lit channel letters with lexan face with applied translucent
applied to the faces. Construction from aluminum and internally lit with LED modules mounted
flush to the building and that’s pretty much it. And that one small change, from the original design
from the customer is the color of the vinyl. (NOT AT THE MIC. PASSING UPDATED
CHANGE OUT TO THE PLANNING BOARD)
A lighter blue and then the automation will be perforated vinyl so during the day it will!
show black and at night when it’s illuminated it will show white.
If you didn’t give us this, I would not have known the difference.
LAUGHTER. [have a question; this is the Calvary building?
Correct. It’s the old Calvary robotics building.
Is it the same company or what’s the deal?
I believe they sold or bought, but they are rebranding.
But it’s still the same company. Same owners?
I cannot speak to it if it is the same owners. I am not a 100% sure they were either
bought or sold. It was Calvary.
Pg. 205 July 7, 2026 Planning Meeting
Same type of manufacturing?
I believe so, yes.
Could you tell me about the sign located to the right on the top there. I am curious
as to why it’s all the way over to the right.
That is exactly where the placement of the current sign is.
Are you comfortable with that Josh? It’s the same type of an operation.
Yes, as long as the material nature of the business isn’t changing that’s fine.
And you have it according to code so. Alright, anybody have any questions
on that?
Derek Anderson:
INVIO SIGN
The Town of Webster Planning Board considered the request by Applicant Steve Stanley from
Vital Signs to install one (1) internally illuminated 60 SF wall sign on a 44.14-acre parcel having
SBL #079.06-1-32.11 located at 855 Publishers Parkway.
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 26-043 Derek Anderson made a motion for TYPE II
SEQR which was seconded by Mark Giardina,
VOTE:
Mr. Casciani AYE
Mr. Malta AYE
Mr. Giardina AYE
Mr. Anderson AYE
Mrs. Maltman AYE
Mr. Gasic AYE
Mr. Vetter AYE
Pg. 206 July 7, 2026 Planning Meeting
RESOLUTION 26-044 Mark Giardina made a motion for
SIGN APPROVAL as per drawing
V.2: Located at 855 Publishers
Parkway. Applicant Steve Stanley,
Vital Signs, is requesting SIGN
APPROVAL associated with the
installation of one (1) internally
illuminated 60 SF wali sign on a 44.14-
acre parcel having SBL #079.06-1-
32.11 located in the OP Office Park
District under Section 265-7 of the
Code of the Town of Webster which
was seconded by Dave Malta.
(APPROVAL AS PER DRAWING V.2 DATED 7.2.26)
VOTE:
Mr. Casciani AYE
Mr. Malta AYE
Mr. Giardina AYE
Mr. Anderson AYE
Mrs. Maltman AYE
Mr. Gasic AYE
Mr. Vetter AYE
Located at 423, 425 & 429 Ridge Rd and 1036
and 1036ABay Rd. Applicant Scott Measday, LS. is requesting FINAL 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. §8-2 -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 with DSB Engineers and with me is Scott
Measday, the surveyor for the project. As the board will recall we were here last May with a
couple revisions that had to be done and prior to that meeting and we received preliminary
approval in May with the condition that we go to the Zoning Board and seek the variances
which were noted on the plan based on the fact that the property lines from 1920’s, 1930’s
somewhere around there go right through buildings so. Obviously in order to sell the property
the property lines had to be corrected so we were calling it a lot line revision/adjustment, and
we showed that on the maps. We did receive preliminary from the Planning board with the
condition of going to the Zoning Board, which we did last month. We were at the ZBA, and
they agreed with all the revisions that we proposed so they also gave us a final approval for
that and the condition with the Planning Board is we had to come back after the Zoning Board
Pg. 207 July 7, 2026 Planning Meeting
meeting for final approval, site plan approval and then ah, we can take the map to the county
for filing and get the lot lines corrected.
Yes, we had this a few times and it’s something that was done years ago
and God only knows how they came up with the design of that thing. I think one of the biggest
concerns that we had was the septic systems and you re did them all. That’s all in good shape
now and other than that, I don’t have any concerns. Does anyone ?
There was an issue with the drainage to the south property owner....
What’s that??
The guy to the south had concerns because he had ponding in his yard, so we met
with him and we revised that and put a culvert under our driveway to drain into the creek
channel, and the gentleman is real happy now.
Okay. You got all your variances and everything, so you are set with that.
Yes.
Alright, this is for final, so we don’t need to do a SEQR on it. Does
anybody have any concerns or does someone want to make a motion for approval on this?
RESOLUTION 26-045 Anthony Casciani made a motion for
FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL:
Located at 423, 425 & 429 Ridge Rd and
1036 and 1036ABay Rd. Applicant Scott
Measday, LS. is requesting FINAL
SITE PLAN APPROVAL Jin
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 Mark Giardina.
Pg. 208 July 7, 2026 Planning Meeting
VOTE:
Mr. Casciani AYE
Mr. Malta AYE
Mr. Giardina AYE
Mr. Anderson AYE
Mrs. Maltman AYE
Mr. Gasic AYE
Mr. Vetter AYE
7-BREW: Located at Hard Road. Applicant Brew Team NY, LLC/Doug Beachel is
requesting FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL 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. Here seeking final site plan approval for our 7 Brew Coffee Shop on Hard Road.
We have made some modifications since out last appearance with the bio-retention facility in front
and a couple other Engineering concerns that we believe we have addressed early with the
Engineering staff.
There were...I don’t know, we want to go through them all, but I guess Josh as
far as the PRC Comments, they sent back all the revisions and modifications. Is Engineering all
okay with that stuff.
Yes, the understanding is the Engineering Department has accepted the responses and
the additional information that was provided.
And with that, has anybody gone through....are you alright with them. I was
over there the other day after we had that heavy rain and that swale that is in the front that goes
across the properties, I wanted to see how that was working. And I went there Sunday morning
after Saturdays rain and it was working. The water had subsided. This is nothing to do with you
but the project next door Popeyes there, they have white birch trees, beautiful trees probably 3 or 4
inch caliper and they planted them right in the center at the bottom of the swale. Why is beyond
me. And the water was laying there; they are not going to survive. They are going to die, I’m sure.
They are setting right in water. Now, back to yours, hope your not doing the same thing.
No, our revision in that added landscaping to that has additional trees to sort of
mimic what they’re doing but they’re on an up slope.
On the sides.
Yes.
Pg. 209 July 7, 2026 Planning Meeting
And then part of what Popeyes did actually, they infringed onto your site
by...gosh, I don’t know, probably like 20 feet or so with there landscaping. If you look at it and
look where the lot line is, it’s about 20 feet of it.
Yes, ultimately, we are going to connect...
Yeah, see it right there.
Yes, so there’s other trees that do spill over.
So now your site is going from there and going down just continuing
landscaping but nothing in the bottom of the swale. Right?
Correct. There will be a structure in, down there with a pipe that connects over to
the structure to the north of Popeyes.
Have we got a landscape drawing of that. Has that been presented? I think it
was something we asked at preiiminary that should be done for final.
I sent the most up to date version of these plans to all of the Planning Board members
via email, so you should have received that.
I think it’s right there. Then there is a table to the right, that identifies...
Yep, yep, okay.
I think there is actually...I think we had a revision past that, that we sent that showed
at least 4 trees in the front and we eliminated some of that landscaping around the berm in order
to....at the end of the drive thru to kind of accommodate larger trees. That may or may not have
been submitted.
When that whole project initially came in with Dairy Queen; Taco Bell and so
on, that was one of the things Engineering showed was that swale going through there and
landscaping it and so far, it’s looking pretty decent. I’m okay with that, are you guys okay with it?
They have addressed all the Engineering details. Oh, I got a couple of things. I was...we brought
up at preliminary. The lights are extremely bright.
What we have now is we have shielding so it’s basically sort of an aluminum shield
that goes over the front of those so that will make it down lit. We can no longer dim them because
they flicker with that particular LED module, so the shielding is used and the municipalities like
the less bright option and those. ...that detail is typically on our elevation drawings and it is on these,
I checked last week. However, I would make that a condition of our building permit that they’re
captured in the building drawings.
Pg. 210 July 7, 2026 Planning Meeting
And also, I think we brought up the speakers. You can dial those down if they
become extremely concerned by people because with car dealers, when they used to put the
speakers. ..you know, Charlie, we need you. Blah, blah, blah, and everyone around the site would
say what’s going on with this. So, that all got changed so the bottom line is ....... everyone is kind
of queued up with that so you will do the same?
Yes.
Okay, that’s great. I guess were good with it.
Tony, he has also mentioned that we want to make sure that any approval, if there is
an approval, that we mention that right revision because the updated plans that Erika
circulated. ....again, those berms in the back, they are not there but there are four trees and then he
also has a storm piping to collect the snow storage which is the part that we asked him to count for
so there is extra piping there where the curb is and a catch basin there as well so that’s why there is
not landscaping, small berms there. So, I just want to make sire that we say it’s revision....I think
it’s 5 is the most up to date version that accounts for the updated landscaping plan.
Okay, you are good with that then. Alright, anything.
No
ESOLUTION 26-047 Dave Malta made a motion for FINAL SITE
requesting FINAL SITE
PLAN APPROVAL in association with the
development of a 510 SF prefabricated double
drive-through 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
Which was seconded by Drazen Gasic.
FINAL APPROVAL CHECKLIST WITH CONDITIONS:
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 7.7.27
The conditions of Preliminary and Final approval are depicted on the cover page of the
final designed plans.
Aw fbwWhH =
a
Pg. 211 July 7, 2026 Planning Meeting
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 shal! 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.
13. Approvals are subject to Drawing No:____ Dated: 6.29 REVISED DATE.
14. No outdoor volume
15. Lights shielded.
16, Applicant must submit sign package.
17. No plantings in the swale.
I have a minor point, is there a sign for 7 Brew and if there is, can we have a
numerical number or address put on it.
Do you have a sign application too?
Typical the sign package is our building mounted signs, is there a request of an
address. I think that we have an addressed assigned to this, so we have to research that because
there is gap between us and popeyes and then it goes from 929 to
935. So, this individual parcel,
as far as I can tell, doesn’t have an address.
What does the rest of the board think? You should make an effort ?
I don’t know Josh, have a separate...
So yes, since they are not proposing a monument sign there is a requirement
anyway for emergency services that the address be located somewhere on the front of the
building and once the assessor officially assigns the address that would be a requirement
anyway.
So, what do we now in regard to the sign then.
Well, it doesn’t necessarily have to be on the sign.
But the sign is already included, isn’t it....we don’t know,
The sign on the building, correct?
Right, that’s what I’m talking about. What does sign on the building actually
look like.
Pg. 212 July 7, 2026 Planning Meeting
They are on the E elevation drawing. Part of the initial application. I am not sure
if the are part of the revised so yes, there is a circular sign on he front of the building and there’s
a sign on each side of it and then there is a couple of directional signs down low that you see
typically and then there’s these chevrons on two sides of the building that are basically an arrow
that are directional as well and they say this way for cawfee. I forget what they say now to me
honest. fam drawing a blank. But there’s two of those and typically they don’t usually factor in
the calculations.
Should we ask the applicant to come back in with a drawing so we can get an
idea of what it looks like.
EVERYONE SPEAKING AT THE SAME TIME
A 1.1 aand A 1.2
Okay, that’s the sign that’s going to be going on the building?
Yes.
Okay and you have one on either side.
Yes, if you scroll down to the next page there is one on both sides. The side
entrances and then if you scroll up again,...
Are they meeting code or are they excessive by code.
In terms of the size in relation to the facade of the building, we’d have to do some
calculations to confirm.
Generally, you are going to need a sign showing entrance, you know,
exit...different signs. Like fast food place has. Maybe we should have, you know, just approve
that as a separate package.
Is that separate then building permit? For signage, is there a separate permit
then...
I think you can....BOTH PARTIES SPEAKING AT THE SAME TIME. We
could give a final approval but just make it subject to... within the next month, just send a
drawing to the town of whatever signs, because I don’t know how many you’ ve got there, it’s
hard to tell. Where you are going to place them.
I have a package J can put together.
Okay, let’s do that.
Pg. 213 July 7, 2026 Planning Meeting
Show square footage and where they are on the particular site plan.
So, in the resolution there’s no signage included Dave, right?
Right.
We had landscaping. Snow storage? We ask for that.
There’s snow storage along the perimeter of the property basically we put a
gravel shoulder between the curb and the property and then we have an underdrain that will
help with the mitigation and the dispersions of water. And then we have a note on the site plan
and for, right there circled in red basically saying that if there’s any time that the lanes are
blocked or excessive snow, there would be loaded and trucked of sight.
Alright, anything else.
Just one thing, the new landscaping plan does have a birch tree in the swale. Just
cause you mentioned it. I’m bringing it up. If you want to move it outside of the swale area but
right now you have two trees that are right in the swale area.
BOTH PARTIES SPEAKING AT THE SAME TIME.
Maybe you should put that in there. No plantings directly in the swale.
I thought they were on the first Topel line, I guess ....
Okay, that’s a motion?
VOTE:
Mr. Casciani AYE
Mr. Malta AYE
Mr. Giardina AYE
Mr. Anderson AYE
Mrs. Maltman AYE
Mr. Gasic AYE
Mr. Vetter AYE
Yeah, if you can just get your signage plan in and give it to Josh prior to.
Yes, I can bring those around.
How’s everything going there?
Yes, Saturday was our caffeine for a cause day, and we give away free drinks in
Pg. 214 July 7, 2026 Planning Meeting
exchange for donations. I haven’t followed up with the results of that and I’m not sure of what
the local charity was.
This is free commercial time.
The technical day is the 13".
Located at 1052 Lake Road. Applicant Amanda Costanza,
AIA is requesting PRELIMINARY/FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL (PUBLIC
HEARING) in association with the construction of a 615 SF accessory building on a 0.55-
acre parcel having SBL #049.11-1-15 located in the R-1 Single-Family Residential District
under Section 350-36 of the Code of the Town of Webster.
Appearing before the board was the home owners. We are Kim and Wayne Gandy. Amanda
Costanza is our Architect who is in Hawaii celebrating her mothers birthday today so. We
didn’t make her come here so hopefully we can answer all of your questions effectively.
Wish her well for us.
So, the project consists of demolishing the existing two story structure at 1052
Lake Road and combining the lot with our lot at 1050 Lake Road and building an accessory
structure using part of the foundation and of the existing home in a much smaller format. We
have already received review by the Army Corp as well as the permit from the DEC and
Amanda has worked very closely with the town regarding the various variances that we have
to get and we were before the Zoning Board in May and got those variances approved so now,
we are here at the Planning board to get this approved as well.
Okay, anybody any issues with that? What is it, 600 and some sf I think it
was. Applicant: Yes, the indoors.
Speaking but not close enough to the mic.
Okay, are the materials on it similar to the house?
Yes
And it is strictly for storage? And things like that?
Yes
Pg. 215 July 7, 2026 Planning Meeting
No apartment or any living space or anything like that.
No and that’s one of the reasons why we were interested in purchasing it. Just to
prevent an Airbnb from taken over,
This application is a public hearing.
Are you okay with it? And you guys are all right with it too. Again, this is
a public hearing. So, if there is anyone here, neighbors or anyone wishing to speak for or
against it. Not seeing anybody. Then we’ll close the public hearing and bring it back up to the
board. It looks good to me. Nice area. The only thing I'd suggest, is probably have to....you’re
going to demolish the house, the current house. Then you’re going to combine that to lot 1050
okay and then you’re going to start the project. So, you really should combine it because you
can’t put this thing on that lot as it stands today.
Right.
So, you’re going to need to combine the lots together and then you can put
the building up.
The landscaping boulders that are being put in are those in the water as in you’re
going to be doing work in the water or outside the water?
This is on the south side. So, actually were taking the driveway out so there’ Il
be actually more green space. So, there’ll be less water runoff. So, that’s another add.
Derek Anderson:
1052 LAKE ROAD
The Town of Webster Planning Board considered the request by Applicant Amanda Costanza,
AIA to construct a 615 SF accessory building on a 0,.55-acre parcel having SBL #049.11-1-15
located at 1052 Lake Road in the R-1 Single-Family Residential District.
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 26-049 Derek Anderson made a motion for TYPE II
SEQR which was seconded by Mark Giardina.
Pg. 216 July 7, 2026 Planning Meeting
VOTE:
Mr. Casciani AYE
Mr. Malta AYE
Mr. Giardina AYE
Mr. Anderson AYE
Mrs. Maltman AYE
Mr. Gasic AYE
Mr. Vetter AYE
PRELIMINARY and/or FINAL APPROVAL
1. The lot is restricted to one accessory building
2. The building is to conform to the size and location presented on the plan
3. The placement of the building shall conform to all setback requirements
Is that building going to be placed closer to the road than you house?
No
4.
eons
9. The building shali not be placed nearer to the front property line than the rear
line or footprint of the main building or residence upon the lot.
No point on the building will be higher than the existing structure
No commercial use shall occur on the parcel
The accessory building shall be used for personal use only, as defined by Town
Code
Significant construction shall occur within one year, as deemed by the Planning
Board, to expire on 7.7.27.
Comply with all requirements of any State, County, and Town agency
10. All site work is to be in compliance with the standards of the Town of Webster
11. Subject to all engineering and governmental approvals
12. Subject to all appropriate governmental fees
13. Subject to resolution of final approved minutes.
You probably should put in there, Dave, that no construction of the building
until the two lots are combined.
14. No construction until lots are combined.
RESOLUTION 26-050 Dave Malta made a motion for
PRELIMINARY APPROVAL:
Located at 1052 Lake Road. Applicant
Amanda Costanza, AIA is requesting
PRELIMINARY APPROVAL
Pg. 217 July 7, 2026 Planning Meeting
(
PUBLIC HEARING
) in association
with the construction of a 615 SF
accessory building on a 0.55-acre
parce] having SBL #049.11-1-15
located in the R-1 Single-Family
Residential District under Section
350-36 of the Code of the Town of
Webster which was seconded by
Mark Giardina.
FINAL APPROVAL as
1. Subject to all preliminary approvals.
VOTE:
Mr. Casciani AYE
Mr. Malta AYE
Mr. Giardina AYE
Mr. Anderson AYE
Mrs. Maltman AYE
Mr. Gasic AYE
Mr. Vetter AYE
RESOLUTION 26-050 Dave Malta made a motion for
Located at
1052 Lake Road. Applicant Amanda
Costanza, AIA is requesting FINAL
APPROVAL in association with the
construction of a 615 SF accessory
building on a 0.55-acre parcel having
SBL #049.11-1-15 located in the R-1
Single-Family Residential District
under Section 350-36 of the Code of
the Town of Webster which was
seconded by Dave Malta.
VOTE:
Mr. Casciani AYE
Mr. Malta AYE
Mr. Giardina AYE
Mr. Anderson AYE
Mrs. Maltman AYE
Mr. Gasic AYE
Mr, Vetter AYE
Pg. 218 July 7, 2026 Planning Meeting
Located on Orchard Rd. Applicant Insite Land Development, Inc. is
requesting a 1-year FINAL SITE PLAN AND SUBDIVISION APPROVAL
EXTENSION (
PUBLIC HEARING
) associated with the creation of ten (10) single-
family lots on a 5.94-acre parcel having SBL# 080.05-2-2.1 located in the R-3 Single
Family Residential District under Section 269-10, 296-27, and 350-12 of the Code of the
Town of Webster.
Appearing before the board was Mike Bogojevski with BME Associates with me tonight also is
Rudy Neufeld from Insight Land Development. The summary of the project covered it pretty
well. Rudy’s looking for a one-year approval extension. The Sienna Reserve was a 10 lot
subdivision that was approved in August of 2025 and he’s basically just looking for the approval
extension just to allow his construction scheduling to work out for them... So, no changes to the
project are proposed. Just looking for the approval extension tonight.
That project was under an HOA homeowners association, wasn’t if. I
believe?
(from the audience) Yes
And the sewer, you’re okay with all the sewer connection coming though.
You got all that.
Yep. That’s
So, you’re good with that? All right.
No changes to the site.
There’s nothing other than just a one-year request for extension. Anybody
any issues?
SOMEONE SPEAKING FROM THE AUDIENCE AND CAN NOT HEAR.
Well, it’s not a public hearing, but if you want ...
It is a public hearing.
I’m sorry, it is. [ take that back. It is.
Cliff Kane at 781 Blue Creek Drive: And I have some questions as far as the water in the
retention pond here and then also they have a spillway and also where is the waste water ?
Where ts that going? Because right, currently the way it is right now if we have excessive rain
we've got excessive flooding in our backyard so, how....when you look at this spillway and also
Pg. 219 July 7, 2026 Planning Meeting
this retention pond and then the spillway, it actually will spill right over into those properties on
Linda Lane and it’s already a swamp back there when we get excessive rain. So, has that been
addressed?
Boy, I don’t recall off the top of my head now with it but had to have been
addressed somewhere back in there. But you’re bringing up a legitimate question.
Cliff Kane at 781 Blue Creek Drive: Because at the past two years, we've had two floods in our
backyard where we get 3 of water and the water gets within about 15 feet or our house.
Okay, so part of that would be resolved by the development of the detention
pond. That’s the purpose for the pond. You probably got more water running off of the property
right now than once that pond is developed because that’l! hold the water. It’! fill and release it
slower than what it was.
Cliff Kane at 781 Blue Creek Drive: So, you think there’s going to be less water going towards
our property then?
It’ll go slower. It’s going to be as much water ultimately.
Cliff Kane at 781 Blue Creek Drive: Because it looks as though they're grading the whole...all
the homes are being graded towards that. So, my concern is that now...that is how it is currently
graded? And then when they change the grading, will that even increase the amount of water
that’s going towards those properties? I don’t have the answer to that, but that’s just a question
I have.
We could have your Engineer respond to it.
Cliff Kane at 781 Blue Creek Drive: The other question just had to do with the storm drain
where they tie into the storm drain because we have a storm drain at a corner, back corner of
our property and then when we get that excessive rain, that storm drain can’t handle it and
that’s where we get the flooding. So, | was wondering if you're tying into the existing storm
drains also that could be problematic with heavy rains also.
So, the subdivision design that was approved back in August includes a storm
water management facility in that northwest corner. That is basically designed...it’s to handle
the storm water runoff for the proposed subdivision but also work with the existing draining
patterns. So, we’re not changing existing drainage patterns. But we are proposing the storm
water facility to handle any of the runoff from the roadway and new houses that are proposed.
Eventually it does go to the northwest. I believe there’s an existing storm sewer and section that
it all flows to that’s in the rear yards of some of the houses on Blue Creek Drive. But that’s not
being connected to. The pond itself will discharge daylight into the existing swale, but then it
flows north into that existing storm sewer to the north. And those. The SWPPP...the storm water
Pg. 220 July 7, 2026 Planning Meeting
pollution prevention plan along with the design of the pond was all reviewed back with the
original approval.
SOMEONE OUT IN THE AUDIENCE SPEAKING BUT CAN NOT HEAR.
Cliff Kane at 781 Blue Creek Drive: When you put in these properties, you’re putting in roads
and driveways and you’re taking away a lot of the green that’s right now that prevents some of
the probably some of the flooding, I think you’re just going to exasperate the issue with rain and
water going towards Linda Lane and where in the back of those properties on Blue Creek where
we're already having water issues when we get excessive water, especially, you know, springtime
when you get the winter melt and then heavy rains. So...thank you.
That pond should take care of the drainage from that site. That was the
purpose.
Kevin Lockhart at 100-3 Kittleburger Park: I see that the development is adding a new Street,
Whispering pines...what is it called? So, I think what a lot of people are sensitive to was the
proximity to the bird sanctuary trail. I know when you walk down the sanctuary trail that the
developments can affect the sanctuary trail and is the town, | believe that is the towns property,
the sanctuary trail.
Yeah, we’re not open dialogue. You can just say whatever you’ ve got to say and
then we’re not going to answer questions, but if you....it’s an open forum. You can say
whatever you need to say. We’ll take that into consideration.
What was your question? Is bird sone the part. Is that parkland?
Kevin Lockhart at 100-3 Kittleburger Park: Yes. So, I suppose what people are sensitive to is
the proximity of the development. The geometry of the development or cuts into or at least is
adjacent...runs directly parallel to the bird song trail and so I just wonder if there’s enough
scrutiny being looked into the setbacks and the....
Well Kevin, those are good points, but these are all the issues when this thing
came in time after time after time to reach this point and it received final approval. So, right
now, that’s all been approved. And again, this is like any other subdivision. You know, we all
love the trees but, there’s......
NO ONE IS WAITING FOR OTHERS TO FINISH SPEAKING.
I think the other thing to note there is that they did voluntarily add a conservation
easement on that site, a 65 ft conservation easement. They did that back then. Exactly, so
there’s that built in as a buffer and protection against the trail.
Pg. 221 July 7,2026 Planning Meeting
And that was the purpose. Good point too. That was the purpose when we
approved it to save that piece. All those lots go back, but they can’t build anything in there on
them. If you see the drawing, you see that space in the back.
Yeah, they have physical markers at the property lines indicating a conservation
easement that you’re not allowed to clear or build anything in that conservation easement. And
that’s 65 feet from landowners property line inwards.
Kevin Lockhart at 100-3 Kittleburger Park: Great, so I will let people know that you guys did
your due diligence not to encroach on the bird song trail.
No, it won’t do that at all. Okay, thanks, Kevin. Okay, anybody else?
Dan Drmacich at 789 Blue Creek Drive: neatly buffering the Sienna project. So, I’m not raising
any additional issues because my understanding is that everything is pretty much remaining the
same. However, the issue that Cliff is raising in terms of the flood, possible flooding, I get
flooding as wee. My understand from Rudy, with the initial plans was that the retention pond
would deal with the overflow of water that I currently get right now from right through the
woods. You know, it just pours in so that...I’m pretty close to what Cliff is describing as far as
water in the backyard. So, I guess I’m up here for the purpose of clarifying a definitive answer to
Cliff’s concern is indeed, and if Rudy could respond to this or one of the engineers, will indeed is
the response to that concern that the retention pond will deal with the overflow or are we subject
to the possibility that it could still flood. How are we going to be sure that all that water is taken
care of, that we won’t be flooding again? So, that’s the question. And I think before you move on
to another agenda item, that question should be dealt with.
Okay, thank you. Do you want to address that. There’s kind of a berm going
across there. It’s at 390 at the high side and it’s all pitching down toward the pond which is like
38 like 388 or something. It’s dropping down. So, the water is flowing to the pond according to
what I’m looking at. And again, this got beat up pretty good back then and that’s why we
designed it the way we did that. A lot of that woods is till there. The trees will still be in there.
They won’t be cut down, and the pond should technically take care of the flow from that site and
contro! the outflow.
That is correct. The main thing to consider is the storm water facility is
designed to handle the runoff from the subdivision itself. It’s not designed to handle the runoff
from the existing houses. There are existing swales and storm sewer end sections that receive
some of that run off around those rear yards of the existing subdivision to the north. The main
factor for the proposed subdivision is the runoff from the new houses and roadways, and the new
development is mitigated with the proposed storm water facility. That facility is meant to handle
the runoff from the development and then release it at slower rates like you said. So, there’s a bit
of a...there’s two factors to consider the runoff from the proposed development and then existing
runoff from the existing subdivision to the north as well. The pond itself is designed to handle
the runoff from the subdivision and then maintain existing drainage patterns,
Pg. 222 July 7, 2026 Planning Meeting
And just to note, what you mean by that is you’re detaining the water to existing
flows or less from what if was before. You have a deep pool system here with aquatic benches.
So, it’s going to store water on site permanently too over time, to some extent. But something to
note is just...like you mentioned, you’re managing looks like stuff items that are the water
quality, water quantity that’s within your footprint of your project. But there is like you
mentioned a bypass swale that is an existing swale...last name is Gentle and Flammia out there
on the west side that goes all the way to the road. So, it looks like there’s an existing swale there
already that has drainage coming from the road bypassing your buyer retention and then going to
those neighbors that are here with the concern of flooding too. So, I. yeah....
SOMEONE FROM THE AUDIENCE SPEAKING OUT AND CAN NOT HEAR.
Yeah, I am not sure if you can see it up in the screen right next to the bio
retention. You’ll see the contours there, the lines. It’s a swale it looks like right there that goes
all the way from the road and then goes up that way.
Actually, this came in and was allowed to build with the smaller lots and that’
how we created that conservation easement in the back on both sides and the pond falls into
under the HOA’s jurisdiction to maintain. That’s why we allowed that pond to be on those
combined lots. Like there were there with more than a lot, but...
That’s correct. And part of utilizing...so it was a cluster subdivision. Part of
utilizing that cluster subdivision was to maintain the wooded buffers on either side. That
clustering helps to reduce the overall footprint of the development, thus also helping to reduce
some of the runoff. It’s one of the design factors of the subdivision.
I believe is this....did you see them on there? Similar drive. I think we had
markers for the
BOTH PARTIES SPEAKING AT THE SAME TIME
Yes, there open space markers.
Okay. Because that....the idea of those markers is to preserve that land. So,
nobody that buys a house in there is going to go beyond that and start increasing their yard.
Even though they own the piece of property, they can’t go in there and cut the trees. Okay. All
tight. So, anyways, the whole purpose of this evening is a one-year extension request.
SOMEONE FROM THE AUDIENCE SPEAKING OUT. CAN NOT HEAR.
Wait a minute, if you want to talk, first of all, you have to come up to the
microphone. But we’re not going to redesign this whole project. It’s been done and we’re
rehashing old stuff now.
Pg. 223 July 7, 2026 Planning Meeting
Gregor Schuler at 793 Blue Creek Drive: I have concern if you’re going to be regrading the
trees that you're trying to save, you put dirt over their root system, they die over time. So, how
are you going to regrade without killing the trees that we're trying save?
Because there’s no grading being done back there whatsoever.
Gregor Schuler at 793 Blue Creek Drive: Then all the water is going to keep coming into my
yard and my neighbors yard because we're like this much higher...lower than the property. So,
it’s just....if you’re not going to grade it, it’s just going to come in.
Thank you. Is there any thing else you have other than to add on? Perfect, thank
you. Okay, you have a one minute comment. We’re not going to answer questions. Just a quick
comment.
Kevin Lockhart at 100-3 Kittleburger Park: In the interest of preserving these people's interests
and their home values and so on and so forth on Blue Creek. It occurred to me that there does
not appear to be a gradient map and so when they talk about there....when they talk about the
grades and the gradients. I can’t reaily follow along but I think because there’s no gradient map.
The maps show all of that stuff. There’s elevations all over the maps.
Kevin Lockhart at 100-3 Kittleburger Park : While I’m looking at this...oh wait, is this not
uploaded to the agenda packet for tonight? So, is that not...I’m not looking at that. I’m looking
at something very similar to that. So, where would people be able to access that same document.
EVERYONE SPEAKING AT THE SAME TIME.
We’re not going to answer any questions. We got your concern. Is there any other
concern that you’d like to make?
Kevin Lockhart at 100-3 Kittleburger Park: Yeah, my concern is that I’m not sure where people
would be able to....like let’s say these residents want to go back home to Blue Creek and they
want to examine the gradient map. Where could they gain access to that?
We’re not answering questions. I know your concern.
Kevin Lockhart at 100-3 Kittleburger Park: That’s fine. I appreciate you, Frank. But can you
make sure that these folks get a copy of that just for their reference?
If there’s anything that they’re interested in, they can go up to the town hall
and see Erika, maybe in this case and she will show you the map. But the thing is, it’s already
been an approved subdivision. Nothings going to change.
Pg. 224 July 7, 2026 Planning Meeting
Kevin Lockhart at 100-3 Kittleburger Park: Well, if it’s approved, why was it approved if they
still have concerns tonight?
They had concern before and they had to address them.
Kevin Lockhart at 100-3 Kittleburger Park: Did you guys properly address their concerns?
We’re going to stop. We’re going to stop. Do you have anything else to add.
Kevin Lockhart at 100-3 Kittleburger Park: Yeah, I want to just make sure that these folks
concerns with the gradients, and the drainage is being properly addressed by you guys prior to
moving forward.
Okay, thank you.
Just to comment on the whole process of the decision making and what we
could label I guess unintended consequences that we're not really sure you know if this is going
to work 100% in terms of preventing the runoff and increasing the water that will be in our
backyard. So, I guess what I’m warning you about as a Planning Board is the unintended
consequences. And if they happen, who's going to be responsible for dealing with those. Is it
going to be the HOA? Is it going to be Rudy and his company? OR is it going to be the Town of
Webster that’s going to come in and say, “well, we need bigger sewer drainage, I guess, in terms
of going out, you know, toward Lake Ontario or whatever.” But somebody should be asking that
question in terms of unintended consequences of more water being in our backyard.
These questions were questions that were answered at sketch plan;
preliminary and final approval which were several meetings along the way. All these things. I
don’t know if you attended them. Were you living there at the time too or...Okay, they you
probably were here. Well, I probably was.
I was definitely
It’s the same drawing
BOTH PARTIES SPEAKING AT THE SAME TIME
(NOT CLOSE ENOUGH TO THE MIC) I would hope you as......we heard
you with concerns that citizens have and as opposed to putting us down and saying that’s a good
question. We ought to be able to deal with that as....that’s all I’m saying.
Thank you. Anybody else? Nothing, okay I’m going to close the public
hearing and bring it back up to the board.
Pg. 225 July 7, 2026 Planning Meeting
I’m going to look to the board for...if you guys have any questions that you
want me to get addressed, further details, if there’s any other questions on Rudy’s construction
schedule, the original approved plans, anything like that.
Well, I think we spent a lot of time when this was approved. I remember that.
There were a lot of concerns, a lot of questions asked and a lot of redesigning and so on and so
forth. And the size of that pond was to control the water flowing off that property. Now,
elevations and stuff, I’m sure they’re accurate and the low point is right where the pond is so,
that’s the generic of the little bit of review I’m looking at right now.
On a time scale, when do you think the pond....will the pond be done within the
year extension or when do you...is there a time period for when the pond starts?
I think you put in the resolution all infrastructure to be put in before you start
building.
Yeah, and so from a construction sequencing standpoint, I think this might
answer your question a little bit better. From a construction sequencing standpoint, the pond is
the first thing to go in.
And I understand that you have a time period right now maybe to alleviate some of
the concerns of the people that are living there, especially right now actually had a pretty rainy
summer to begin that pond. Is there any time schedule?
I believe with the approval extension that would allow Rudy to get into
construction within the next year.
So, you don’t have....next month or you don’t have anything set right now.
I think that’s really why he’s here tonight to ask for the extension, so it allows
him to work out his construction schedule.
Does he intend to break ground within the year extension?
Yes.
Okay but Frank, yeah, that pond would be one of the first things to go in
I was hoping that perhaps they had...
EVERYONE SPEAKING AT THE SAME TIME.
There would be no sense in putting a pond in and going in disrupting the soil
now just to put a pond in.
Pg. 226 July 7, 2026 Planning Meeting
As far as the existing drainage patterns to the rear yards to the north, the pond
itself is designed to handle the runoff from the development itself. There are other drainage
patterns to the west, to the north that don’t come into play with the proposed development.
There is as mentioned, the culvert under Orchard Road to the west of the development that’s not
being changed. That flows to the north to those rear yards as well and theirs drainage from the
east to the north of the property that flow from the existing subdivision to the rear yards goes
into the existing storm system as well. So, this development, the proposed development itself,
has been designed to handle it’s own storm and then not discharge above existing rates to the
north. So, hopefully that helps kind of answer that question.
Just hoping all the engineering was done properly to alleviate any of the
drainage. And again, that was one of the issues that came up when the project was is the proper
drainage of that site to that pond. So, ! have to assume that is what the current engineering is
about. So, based on that, the applicant again is in here for one-year extension on this site.
Anyone want to make a motion to that?
RESOLUTION 26-051 Anthony Casciani made a motion for FINAL
Located on Orchard
Rd. Applicant Insite Land Development, Inc. is
requesting a l-year FINAL SITE PLAN
APPROVAL EXTENSION (PUBLIC
HEARING )associated with the creation of ten
(10) single-family lots on a 5.94-acre parcel
having SBL# 080.05-2-2.1 located in the R-3
Single Family Residential District under Section
269-10, 296-27, 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 AYE
Mr. Anderson AYE
Mrs. Maltman AYE
Mr. Gasic AYE
Mr. Vetter AYE
Located at 940 Hard Road. Applicant JP
Langhenry is requesting SIGN APPROVAL associated with the installation of three (3) wall
signs totaling 73.65 SF on a 17.03-acre parcel having SBL #079.15-1-3.1 located in the HC
High-Intensity Commercial District under Section 265-7 of the Code of the Town of Webster.
Pg. 227 July 7, 2026 Planning Meeting
Appearing before the board was Rana Cassiss at 6699 Old Thompson Road. I am here
representing Cassiss Pier Designs and we’re going to be doing the work installing the signage.
We’re working with Blair Image Elements and Burger Kin. Basically, it’s just a rebranding of the
store and just updating the signage to their new branding look. They currently have two sets of
illuminated channel letters. We'll be replacing it with one set of channel letters, adding a building
logo to the east elevation. Adding a building logo sign facing the street where there isn’t signage
now. Just one internally illuminated logo with an embossed face. The amount of light that goes
though the face rather that a regular channel letter face. Then on both sides of the building, there’s
going to be adding a crown fixture, light fixture, light fixture to each side as well. And then they’re
going to be replacing the drive-through elements just to update the, you know, technology inside
of those because they’ve been up for a long time. Pretty much like for change, just updated
technology on the inside so.
Looks attractive. Are they changing any of the exterior of the building or you
don’t know that?
I think they are modifying it slightly. If you see that elevation. They’re changing
some stuff where that building logo goes. There is going to be a wall instead of having that window
there.
Okay, does anybody have any issues with the sign? We got enough paperwork
here. This looks like.... LAUGHTER thought Fairlife was coming back. Anybody any concerns
about the sign? It’s just an improvement on it. It’s modification. Same building, same
everything.
Derek Anderson:
BURGER KING SIGN MODIFICATIONS
The Town of Webster Planning Board considered the request by Applicant P Langhenry to
install three (3) wall signs totaling 73.65 SF on a 17.03-acre parcel having SBL 079.15-1-3.1
located at 940 Hard Road in the HC High-Intensity Commercial District.
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 26-054 Derek Anderson made a motion for TYPE II
SEQR which was seconded by Mark Giardina.
Pg. 228 July 7, 2026 Planning Meeting
VOTE:
Mr. Casciani AYE
Mr. Malta AYE
Mr. Giardina AYE
Mr. Anderson AYE
Mrs. Maltman AYE
Mr. Gasic AYE
Mr. Vetter AYE
Just changing some signs and color and so on and so forth. Anybody?
RESOLUTION 26-055
Drazen Gasic made a motion for SIGN
Located at 940 Hard Road.
Applicant JP Langhenry is requesting SIGN
APPROVAL associated with the installation
of three (3) wall signs totaling 73.65 SF on a
17.03-acre parcel having SBL #079. 15-1-3.1
located in the HC _ High-Intensity
Commercial District under Section 265-7 of
the Code of the Town of Webster. which was
seconded by Mark Giardina.
VOTE:
Mr. Casciani AYE
Mr. Malta AYE
Mr. Giardina AYE
Mr. Anderson AYE
Mrs. Maltman AYE
Mr. Gasic AYE
Mr, Vetter AYE
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER:
e Approval of minutes for: June 2, 2026. Motion: (CASCIANI/MALTA)
Mr. Casciani AYE
Mr. Malta AYE
Mr. Giardina AYE
Mr. Anderson AYE
Mrs. Maltman AYE
Mr, Gasic AYE
Mr. Vetter AYE
Pg. 229 July 7, 2026 Planning Meeting
With no other applications before the Board this evening Anthony Casciani concluded tonight’s
meeting at 8:10 PM.
espectfully Submitted,
s
Dated “y ih 2026
Mark Giardina, Secretary
Katherine Kolich, Recording Secretary
Sig
AUG 6 *26 a9:23
_-FILED WEBSTER TWN CLK
Pg. 230 July 7, 2026 Planning Meeting