Minutes

WEBSTER PLANNING BOARD MINUTES

Anthony Casciani, Chairman Mark Giardina, Secretary

Dave Malta, Vice Chairman

Derek Anderson

Peggy Maltman

Drazen Gasic

Sven Vetter

Katherine Kolich, Recording Secretary

Josh Artuso, Director of Community Development

Erika Corsi, Town Planner

Frank Ciardi, Attorney

lengthy agenda this evening so bear with us and we will get through this.

Okay, question to the board Verizon has two applications so it’s going to be lengthy a little bit

but we have like four or five sign applications, is it okay with you folks if we do those first.

Pledge of Allegiance/Roll Call

1. VERIZON- 1222 WILDFLOWER DRIVE

2. VERIZON -LAKE ROAD & MONROE

1, SUPERCUTS-WEGMANS PLAZA-900 HOLT RD-SIGN

2, PENFIELD-WEBSTER EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES- 607 PHILLIPS

ROAD-SIGN

Pg. 243 September 1, 2026 Planning Meeting

3. BLOOM & BLEND-790 RIDGE ROAD-LIGHTS

4. MONROE COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY-593 BASKET RD-SIGN

5. MCALPIN INDUSTRIES-865 HARD ROAD-SIGN

6. VITAL SIGN BUILDING ADDITION-764 RIDGE ROAD

VERIZON WIRELESS CELL TOWER “WEBSTER NORTH”: Located at 1222

Wildflower Drive. Applicant Robert Burgdorf for Bell Atlantic Mobile Systems d/b/a Verizon is

requesting PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL (

PUBLIC HEARING

) in association

with a 135-foot telecommunications tower with a 4’ lightning rod and associated ground-

mounted equipment on a 14.2-acre parcel having SBL# 065.05-1-48 located in the R-3 Single

Family Residential District under Sections 269-5 and 350-12 of the Code of the Town of

Webster.

Appearing before the board was Laura Smith and I’m with Nixon Peabody and I’m representing

this application. I know the town has received a report from their outside consultant, the RF

Engineer. I don’t know if we want t turn to that first or I’m happy to just kind of jump right into

my presentation, whichever is your preference.

So, just to remind us of where we have been with this application, this is a 135 ft tower to be

located at 1222 Wildflower Drive. This has been before the Planning Board, and I think this is our

third time before coming before the Planning Board with this application. Or I’m sorry, the second

time. There are several themes that we want to highlight as we’re going through the application

and the supplemental information. Should I move it closer? The supplemental information that we

provided on August 27", The first is to really hit home that there is a significant gap in coverage

in this area. Ad demonstrated in our exhibits, it’s F and Q of our applications and was

independently confirmed by the town’s RF Engineer. There is a significant gap in wireless

coverage in the Webster north cell.

This area is currently served by three distant and over burdened sites. It’s the Webster site, the

Four Mile creek site, and Webster Park. All three sites have terrain and foliage challenges and

result in significant gaps in both low band and mid-band coverage in this area.

Pg. 244 September 1, 2026 Planning Meeting

Moreover, the actual! utilization and data for the past year shows that several low key performance

indications have already exceeded 100% utilization. As I’m sure you can imagine that it is

Verizon’s goal to build a tower before utilization, before that 100% utilization is maxed out, before

the existing towers are exhausted. We are already there with these three towers as they serve

Webster North. So, that means that the existing network cannot meet current demand. This tower

is necessary in this neighborhood. The goal of the project is to increase network capacity, provide

reliable coverage to north central webster, and offload traffic from those existing overloaded sites.

I’]l note one of the members during a public meeting testified that she had no cell coverage in her

home and must leave her neighborhood to make a phone call. That’s the exact problem we are

trying to solve. If you’re looking through your application on exhibit F and Q, page 14 in both

exhibits show that the existing low band coverage in this neighborhood is akin to the type of

coverage one would have on a rural highway subject to variable conditions such as fading and

foliage and seasonality gaps. Page 18 of exhibit F and Q demonstrate there is little to no reliable

midband coverage in this area. And then as demonstrated on page 15 and 16 of exhibits F and Q

this project with this area will have wireless services appropriate for suburban single family

residential homes.

Next, I will note in our application, and the proposed height is the minimum necessary to provide

the effective coverage as demonstrated on page 23 and 24 of exhibit Q and was confirmed by the

town’s RF independent consultant. These supplemental propagation plots compared coverage at

the proposed 134 foot antenna center line against a reduced height of 111 feet and 91 feet. So

again, comparing what the RF coverage would be if we had a lower tower with an antenna center

line of 110 and an antenna center line of 91 feet . In each scenario, both the low band and mid-band

coverage are materially compromised due to area clutter from dense old growth forests in these

neighborhoods. The town’s independent RF consultant also confirmed that the reduced height

operations would create or expand the weak signal area to the north of the site along Schlegel

Road, Shoemaker Road to the west, and the surrounding residential neighborhoods. I'll also note

that we provided to the planning boards question, I believe at the prior meeting about why we need

to go up higher. Are the trees growing? And the answer was yes. We provided drone imagery

showing that the tree canopy and area clutter reaches as high as 110 to 115 feet in this

neighborhood. That foliage is what this line of sight needs to overcome, We need to be higher

than the tree line.

The proposed 130 foot antenna center line would pre place the antenna about 10 to 15 feet above

that tree line which is typically the minimum clearance needed to maintain the effective RF

performance which we need under these slight specific conditions. Third, I wanted to draw the

boards attention to the fact that Verizon has conducted an exhaustive search for an alternative site

and there’s no viable alternatives that exist. The record clearly demonstrates that there’s no viable

alternatives that would offer or improve visual impact and still serve our RG needs. Verizon has

worked to resolve the significant coverage gap for years, including pursuing a lease for town

owned property located in the neighborhood, and despite sustained good faith efforts, the town

board declined to lease the property to Verizon last summer. That is within their legislative

purview. They are allowed to decline leasing to Verizon. That is a different ask before you today

Pg. 245 September 1, 2026 Planning Meeting

from a zoning perspective. What was before the town board is not for a lease is not comparable to

what’s before the planning board today for zoning approvals.

Following the town boards declination to enter into a lease with Verizon, Verizon then undertook

an exhaustive site selection analysis looking at 11 parcels within and immediately outside the

search area. That was since last summer. As shown on page 12 of exhibit G, the search area is

heavily wooded. As we mentioned before, the tree cover consists of predominantly smaller

residential lots where a cell phone tower would not be appropriate to be located and there’s

wetlands which severely limit the available locations for this tower to be located. The selected site

at 1222 Wildflower Drive is the only candidate that is both technologically viable and available for

lease. The parcel also meets all applicable setback requirements, which is important when doing

an analysis for appropriateness for a tower. The remaining candidates, the remaining of those 11

candidates were eliminated due to parkland or wetland constraints, unwilling land owners, or an

inability to satisfy RF coverage objections from locations outside the search area. As you may

recall from a prior meeting, the ideal location would be to be in the center of a search area ring.

However, to ensure that we were uncovering every stone and looking at every possibility, Verizon

did Jook at sites that were outside of it’s search ring, although not necessarily assumed to be ideal

for RF. Went through a full RF analysis and confirmed those sites do not meet the coverage needs

that are necessary for this neighborhood.

Last, I’ll mention that the project will not have an adverse environmental effect. We have

previously testified on this fact and want to again stress that although there has been testimony in

the past about perceived health effects for this project for both this project and for Lake Road and

you may hear similar concerns tonight from the public, but the science and the law are very clear

on this issue. Boards are expressly preempted from denying or conditioning approvals of a

wireless facility based on health or environmental effects of RF emissions. Where the facility

complies with FCC standards. We have provided tis evidence. It is exhibit O in the application

materials that the proposed facility will operate in full compliance with all applicable FCC

regulations. That means the board is without authority to consider RF related health or

environmental concerns when reviewing this application.

Last, I will note that tree cover also provides a substantial natural screening of the tower from area

residents and the high distance of the trees really serve as a screening from the tower itself from the

residents that are immediately close to it. The project doesn’t pollute. It doesn’t create a noise. It

doesn’t increase traffic. It doesn’t create demand on governmental services, and it enhances

emergency communications for police, fire, and other first responders.

Pil conclude with the importance of wireless technology and as a designation as a public utility

under New York State Law and the federal protections that are given under the

telecommunications Act of 1996. As of December 2024, that is pursuant to an FCC order that was

released just March of this year. So, just a few months ago, the FCC noted that based on their

review, which was from December of 2024, there were approximately 390.9 million mobile voice

subscriptions in the United States. And according to preliminary data from the center for disease

control prevention as of December 2023, approximately 76% of adults were living in and relying

Pg. 246 September 1, 2026 Planning Meeting

on wireless only households with adults and lower age groups more likely to live in wireless only

households. That means 76% of Americans don’t have a home phone. And those residents that

are living in this area that do not have coverage need to be afforded the coverage to make calls, to

make emergency calls, to call family and friends. That is why we were given the protection of a

public utility. Public Utilities and infrastructure need to be in a specific place to serve a specific

function, and I think as you go through this application and hear from the Town’s independent

Engineer, you will hear that we have satisfied all of those requirements of demonstrating there is a

need. This does satisfy the need and there are no alternative ways or sites to satisfy this need.

So, with that I will pause. I know that’s a lot of information. I can take questions.

even, you know, so I spent and I’m sure some of the board members have spent most of today

going through it and trying to understand a lot of it, but a lot of the information that we’ve got is

from the consultants that have been involved and I think they’ ve done a really thorough job with it,

but there’s a lot of it here to verify what you’re saying and based on the to be honest with you, I

think we should probably slow down a little bit with this and maybe table this until everybody gets

a chance to reaily respond and understand what all the verbiage is here. It is a public hearing. We

will open it and | will acknowledge that we did get a bunch of comments from neighbors in

Wildflower area and we’ll enter that into he record. We’ll keep that for sure. But I don’t know if

any board has any questions specific you want to bring up right now.

the Planning Board to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Understand the planning board would like

more time, We would be back before the planning board at the ...oh goodness, the first week of

October. May we ask for the planning board to at least move us to the zoning board of appeals so

we can continue through the approval process and the review process while the planning board is

continuing its review of the materials.

all right to do that. Go to the zoning board.

zoning board. So, I think that would be appropriate to allow it to at least continue moving through

the process.

Board agreed.

then and then you will be back here first of the month.

Pg. 247 September 1, 2026 Planning Meeting

board?

addressed all the comments that we had before and the concerns for coverage and it really does

demonstrate that the places that were selected are the appropriate locations. Personally, I’m

satisfied with the information that we received and that it’s complete.

homework on this. Everything that you could possibly as for, I think they’ ve addressed.

what another 30 days is going to give you. Personally, I would have the same conclusion.

through it all, too because again, we just got some of the stuff today.

to review the same information, and I think we should afford that opportunity.

So, this is the first one on Wildflower. Just go up to the mic and give us your name and address. If

you have something, please do it in three minutes because after that I kind of lose track of

everybody. Okay, anyone wish to speak to us?

Barbara Robbins at 1205 Wildflower Drive: I also submitted a petition to the board to Josh on

Friday with 95 residents in our neighborhood. One of the things that we’re concerned about is

that they talk about the tree canopy. What happens as the tree canopy continues to grow? Are they

going to come in and start cutting down trees in our neighborhood so that you know the rod

doesn't have to continue to go upward? Nobody seems to be able to answer that. I know that's a

question that was asked multiple times along the way because they state right now that, you know,

it has to be a clear opening for those radio frequencies to work. That's not something that unless

you're going in and cutting down the trees completely. And our neighborhood has a lot of older

trees that are very beautiful and that’s part of the reason that a lot of the residents, you know, are

in that neighborhood when they first purchased homes. They like that. It's not like anew

development where you are going in and the trees are, you know, five, six feet high. So, that’s

something that we would like answered. If the board does approve this, are they willing to make

Verizon camouflage that tower as they've done in Pittsford where they make it into that monopine

Pg. 248 September 1, 2026 Planning Meeting

because it was just stated that we aren't going to see the tower, that’s not true. There are very few

pine trees in that neighborhood. They are all going to be bare in fall, winter, and early spring.

And I’m one of the people that will walk out of my house and be able to see that. I don’t want to

see a tower in my neighborhood. That's not why we bought our home 24 years ago. So, I think that

needs to be considered. There are people in the neighborhood that have recently put homes up for

sale and there have been neighbors that have run into individuals who were going to put in offers

on homes and they've stated, “We don’t want to put in an offer on this house, not knowing what

Verizon is going to do. If the tower is going to go in is it going to, you know, make out home

values decrease? Who's going to guarantee that that isn’t going to happen? Would you want it to

be in your backyard? Thank you.

Cameron Cox at 1257 LaBaron Circle: Opposing view. I’ve been a wireless cell phone for

probably 35 years and the last three years because of all the building. My business has suffered

because I can’t take a cell phone call in my own home, my office. I understand they’re unsightly. I

think there’s ways that they can camouflage it. But I just want to remind the board that this is

something that’s been going on for years. The need is excessive. It's damaging businesses. It’s

damaging residents. I can’t even get a hold of my parents in their 90’s in my own house. So, from

my point of view, it’s something that is infrastructure that needs to be done. That’s it.

Rick Storace at 1491 Providence Drive: Concerned about the fact that we have to continually

fight this process. We beat the cell tower last year and they keep coming back. There’s a claim,

the attorney claims that there are no health issues. We've stated; I’ve given to the board at least

50 incidences around the country where there are health issues. I am sure there are 50 or 100

incidences or research reports that show that there aren’t health issues. But we’re not sure. We

don't know. We don’t know if there’s a health problem. We'll know 50 years from now. None of

us may be here. All right? But our children, our grandchildren will be here, right. We should

worry about them. So that’s something. They also talk about coverage. They talk about coverage

over and over again. But I got three instances where they got cell towers on top of each other.

There one in Irondequoit or two; all right, Empire and Winton. All right. Right across the street,

there’s one on top of the Helendale office Building. When you’re coming down 590 or I’m sorry,

when you're coming down 104 heading east and you're crossing over 590, there's two cell towers

less than 100 feet apart. Okay! Right here in Webster. Hard Road where the buses park, there's

two cell towers in that parking lot less than 100 feet apart. What are we talking about coverage? I

think we’re being slightly misled. Can the town deny this? Yeah, I think the town has the ability to

deny this. All right. They did it before. I think they can do it again. As far as the issue of we need

the cell towers there to provide coverage because people need cell phones. People need to be able

to communicate; people make a choice. They make a choice, I’m going to have a cell phone or I’m

going to have a landline. Landlines are still available. All right. Landlines don’t hurt anybody.

Cell phones, we don’t know yet. So, we should consider that. If your business is suffering or if you

can’t get a hold of loves ones, put a landline in your house. I got one in my house. It’s available. I

use a cell phone ail the time. By the way, I live right around the corner from where the site is

proposed. I don’t have any coverage issues, and I don’t live on that street. That’s ail I got to say.

Pg. 249 September |, 2026 Planning Meeting

Please think about the residents, not about Verizon.

Christina McEwen at 1217 Wildflower Drive: You may remember me. I was 38 weeks pregnant

here last time in May. Since I had the baby and that’s part of the reason why I’m here. I just

really want to emphasize the fact that those regulations that were brought up were done in 1996.

Nothing has been updated since 1996. The laws and what's required. So, although there has been

studies done since then, the requirements have not changed, and a lot of technology has. So, I

really want to keep that in mind. Also, you can see we have so many people from our neighborhood

here. We’re really trying not to have this. We've already fought it once and we’re coming back

again, We’re very passionate about where we live. We have a great community, and I just really

want you guys to consider that like the previous residents have said. Thank you.

Justin Jenner at 1512 Providence Drive: Right next to Rick. I was here last year when this was

all going on, and I wanted to come this year. I have four kids, all under the age of seven. I realize

that the legality of this is we can’t win on the health concerns of the town’s people. However, a

couple things | just want to reiterate. On top of what Rick said and what Christina said before me,

many townships in Europe are taking a precautionary approach on cell towers because the data is

inconclusive on what it does from a health perspective to its towns people. They have more power

in the European Union to have that type of decision making. We don’t have that here, right? But

that's something that we shouldn’t dismiss because they are still looking at understanding exactly

what those health issues are that are potentially being caused by this. I have four kids and I do not

want them to grow up next to a cell tower, and they would be very close to the cell tower. I

understand that folks have issues about not having coverage and things like that. You have other

options. You can get wireless internet that'll connect to your phone to make calls. You can get a

landline. You can go with satellite cell coverage. Those are three inexpensive options and if it’s

for your business, you can write that off as a taxable deduction. Right? There’s many options. If

you put that cell tower in the proposed area, my only option if I don't want to be there is to sell my

house. And I know that there’s many people in that area that have the same exact feelings that I do

because they have young kids that do not want to grow up next to a cell phone tower. So, I

understand what the FDA says. I understand what the regulations say, but guess what, legislation

is always usually slower to the cause that what making things right than what actually is set in

stage right now right? So, if you think about lead, we used to have lead in gas. We used to have

lead in paint. You don’t have that anymore. Right? Many of many examples of things that we

originally had is products that we used readily that then we came back and said, “wait a second,

these things cause too many issues”. So, I want you to think about that. I reiterate what Rick said.

This is the town's people. I know some people want it, but the majority of us don’t because I don’t

want my kids growing up next to it. Thank you.

Dennis Gorlick and I am speaking on behalf of the Conservation Board. I know that we did a...we

typically do site reviews of places that might have some issues. Sometimes they do, sometimes the

don’t. On the 29" of April, we did conduct a site review. This site with the cooperation of

Verizon who arranged for us access to this site because it’s a private property site. And I’m not

sure if this is the appropriate time to talk about it. Maybe we wait until we get further along.

Pg. 250 September 1, 2026 Planning Meeting

review this thing too. We just....I just got this thing yesterday.

look at things like would there be a significant erosion or effect on wetlands by this site being

built? So, we do look at that and we make recommendations. We do also look at whether or not

there might be any significant damage to the mature trees and we did make a recommendation

that’s probably can be followed in terms of identifying some mature trees. When and if this is

approved. We look strictly at environmental issues. We don’t look at anything else. There are

things that the town engineer looks at and there are a lot of evidence that a lot of the trees we look

at whether the trees are used by significant groups of animals and if they are we ask that they mark

some of those trees and if at all possible, keep them there when they do construction. It look like

they’ re in the perimeter and also avoid taking any trees down during the months of the year that’s

all active.

long...

process and we had our wetland biologist member of the team look at this. So, great. Thanks.

look at them then and you did some good work on it. There’s some deep research on it for sure.

Okay, is there anyone else wishing to comment?

need for improved wireless coverage and capacity in North Webster. Tonight, the planning board

is considering preliminary site plan approval for a telecommunications tower at 1222 Wildflower

Drive in an R-3 single family residential property. I ask the planning board to focus on the

operating standards Webster has already adopted to ensure the public record contains the

evidence necessary to apply each one. The first is to establish the exact height. Section 130-10 of

the zoning code establishes a maximum cell tower height of 100 feet including antennas,

extensions, and other devices extending above the tower and that’s a recommendation by them that

the planning board does not have to approve. Verizon’s January zoning drawings identified a 135

foot monopole and a highest height of approximately 139 feet above ground level. Tonight's

planning board agenda describes a 125 foot tower with a 4 foot lighting rod. That revision needs

to be clearly established on the public record. What the question is now, is what is the exact tower

height now proposed and what is the antenna center line and what is the maximum overall height

of the tower including the lighting rod. Second, we need to establish....the planning board needs

to establish why this amount of height ts justified. Verizon has presented comparisons at

approximately 134, 111, and 91 foot antenna center lines and argues that reducing the height

materially compromises coverage, but Webster’s standard is still 100 feet. The record should

establish exactly what happens at those intermediate heights closer to the 100 foot standard and

what does Verizon achieve at 100 feet that makes it insufficient? And what about 110, 120, or 125

Pg. 251 September 1, 2026 Planning Meeting

feet? The question should not be whether a taller tower performs better, the record should

demonstrate the technical justification for the amount of height actually requested. The third issue

is the location. Section 130-12 of the zoning code establishes a preference for higher intensity

property where a technologically feasible and available alternative exists. Existing structures

suitable for collocation receive the highest preference, followed by commercial property and then

government property before residential categories. R-3 zoning is legally permissible, but it’s by no

mean preferred. Verizon said it examined I] alternative parcels and concluded that Wildflower is

the only site both technologically viable and available for lease. The public record should

demonstrate that conclusion candidate by candidate. Which preferred locations were unavailable,

which were technologically infeasible, and which simply produced les desirable radio frequency

performance. Those are different findings that the record should clearly distinguish between. The

fourth that I mentioned issue that I mentioned is the collocation. Section 130-12 states that at all

times shared use of existing towers are preferred to the construction of new towers. The code

requires an inventory of existing towers, consideration of shared use opportunities, and

documentation concerning good faith efforts to obtain shared use. So, the record should specially

establish why existing towers or structures cannot reasonably accomplish the network objective.

Ther record should demonstrate why the collocation......

been about. They have gone and we’ ve, the town has gotten, you know these outside engineers to

come in and research all of their findings and some they agree with and some they question and so

on and so forth. That’s.............

this is redundant, but I’m just pushing back to make it as difficult as possible for the planning

board to approve the project, that’s all.

Jill Marefka at 1191 Scandia Drive: We own three and a half acres, and our backyard butts up to

where they’re going to put this because it is the 1222 Wildflower Lane. So, they’re going to take

down the trees in the forest, which now is going to make if very visual for us to see, and it’s going

to be close enough to our property line that when we sit in our backyard, we're not only going to

see it, but we're also going to hear it. And we are residential. We bought our home there 13 years

ago because we were in a rural community, We had wonderful property. There’s a creek and

there's all these trees and yes, they are mature trees and if there’s a 100 foot that you’re not

supposed to go over why would we allow, why would the town allow them to just go higher than

the trees. They need to find another location. It doesn’t work there. If you have to eliminate what

is there to put this tower, then it shouldn’t be there and not only is it a residential area with this

giant tower that you’re about to put up there. It’s gong to be an eyesore for people even further

Pg. 252 September 1, 2026 Planning Meeting

because it’s going to be even bigger. And I’m sorry your don’t have service, but where this tower

is going is my backyard and I have service. We worked for, you know, the better part of COVID.

My husband and I both, 10 hours a day from our computers. We don’t have a landline. I have

never had a problem getting a call. And I'm like again I’m sorry you don’t but maybe is should be

closer to your house because I mean, I’m not trying to be mean...I was not like, but I mean if you

can't get it, and Iwas just saying for his coverage. I do feel back of people that don’t have

coverage with their cell phones. I know that you know the landline has been you know made a little

redundant for some people. But I just wanted to say I’m very con with this project. Thank you.

tower, The sites are selected and not by the town by any means. And if it goes here, the people

complain there. Where would you want it to go? Over there. Oh, then it’s bothering somebody

else. No matter where you put a cell tower, it’s impacting someone. And all’s we can do is the

best we can do. I should say is deal with as we just did. We hear it, we listen to it all from the

Verizon people and went to the extent of hiring an outside consultant to do all the homework on

this here look you want to see. This is just part of the papers just for this one and now there’s

another cell tower too and a lot of this we just got. I mean I can read pretty good, but I can’t read

all this in a couple hours’ time. So, it’s got to be absorbed and a lot of it are the comments, the

rebuttals from the organization that’s doing the review on it. They’re giving us the report and it’s

interesting, but it’s....there’s a lot there to be read, a lot to be understood. So, that’s why I’m

suggesting, I mean you know, that we table this thing.

the third party RF Consultant is in attendance tonight and is prepared to speak to his analysis and

findings.

William Johnson and I am Professor Emeritus from Rochester Institute of Technology. My

colleague, Professor Steven Chikarelli and I have gone over both this application and the one at

Lake Road so I would be glad to give you a quick rundown. We could spend hours doing this and

if any of my students are in the audience, I know that they’re trembling right at the moment

because they know that this could take some time. There’s a lot of moving parts to these

applications. So, fll try to focus just on the Webster North site at this point. So, as I’m listening to

the comments, and I wasn’t this isn’t part of our report, I wanted to just share this with you. I've

been through hundreds of these analysis through many municipalities throughout New York State;

Pennsylvania; and on the West Coast. One of the problems that all municipalities deal with is that

you're saddled with the burden of federal law that requires the you respond to the

Telecommunications Act of 1996 and the multiple court decisions that followed on that particular

piece of legislation. I would suggest if it’s helpful to you to refer your residents the place that they

should be registering their complaints is with the senator representatives from New York State and

the House of Representatives folks. The representatives in the house because they are the ones

who are the shepherds of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. They could change that legislation

and they could make it either easier for you to deny an application if it doesn’t fit into a community

or as is presently the case, the Federal Communications Commission has a proposed rulemaking

that would largely take all of the jurisdiction and discretion that you have to deny these sites off the

Pg. 253 September 1, 2026 Planning Meeting

table and would remove that essentially between the FCC and the service providers. They would

leave very little for you to do. Now, that has not gone to the point of being written in code and it

has not gone to Congress for legislation, but I would ask you to keep that in mind because that is

going on in the back room right now and there’s been a proposed rule making comments have

come in and gone out. There's over 3,000 comments that went to that particular piece of

legislation. So, | would respectfully suggest to the residents that are here, the place if you’re going

to speak to this board. Okay, this board has a Jurisdiction right now to look at did the applicant

identify a significant service gap; Is the proposed solution going to be something that will actually

remedy that gap? And the third thing is, is it the least intrusive approach that could be

accomplished technically feasible that includes: land control; anything you can think of in terms of

feasibility. If they have met that burden, right now, that’s what the current law requires.

So, you and I defer of course to your attorney to give you that advice. I happen to also be an

attorney, but that’s not my role here tonight. My role here tonight is to speak to you about the

technical merits of the site.

So, having said that those three thresholds the identification of a significant gap, my colleague

and I have looked at the propagation plots from Verizon, and they definitely do show a service gap

in both coverage and in terms of capacity. And what happens is when neighbor sites that are

already serving in an area have so many users that are trying receive and transmit data and

receive and make phone calls that there’s only so much bandwidth that the FCC has allocated to

the service providers. When that bandwidth is exceeded, everybody's service level starts to drop.

You try to make a phone call; it won’t go through. Even though you show five bars on your phone,

the call won’t go through because there's not available capacity at the serving site to be able to

handle the traffic.

This proposed site will drop a what's called a dominant server into the area where there currently

is very week coverage, but there's some coverage, but that some coverage is being provided by the

adjacent neighbor cells and those neighbor cells are being saturated already by users that are

trying to make and receive phone calls and receive data. So, that ‘s really what the problem is

right now. So, there's a significant gap. It's both coverage radio frequency signal and capacity

because the existing neighbor sites can't handle that traffic. Dropping a new site in would add

more capacity will place the stronger signal in the area where right now the adjacent sites are

trying to serve the area and it would solve for the time being until the demands continue to grow

and they have for the decade now. The demand has continued to grow for wireless, and I would

expect that that sort of thing would continue but that’s a question perhaps for another day.

So, this particular site is a 135 ft monopole with a lighting rod that’s on the top. There are two

different dimensions that show up in this application. I just want to be sure everybody’s clear on

what that is. There's the height of the tower and the lighting rod that goes on the top and there’s

this other thing which is abbreviated ACL. It stands for antenna center line. So, some of these

antennas are about 8 feet. Okay, from the ground to about this height above my head. Some of

those antennas are about 8 feet long. The center of that antenna is about four feet down. So, in

round numbers when Verizon runs a propagation plot, you always do it to the center of the

Pg. 254 September 1, 2026 Planning Meeting

antenna. That's the height that’s important. Although you need the whole antenna to do its job, it’s

the antenna center line just to keep it simple. So, you'll see on the propagation plots antenna

center line values, but you'll see in the application different things about the height of the tower

and the lighting rod that goes on top of it. That’s 139 feet. The antenna center lines are the ones

that are on the propagation plants. So, as I said, we looked at those materials and now those

materials are provided by Verizon. So, I already know that you are very skeptical to say you know

well here's somebody saying that they have a problem that they have to solve and how do we know

it’s actually a real problem. So, we have communicated about drive testing and about, you know,

other types of ways to ascertain whether or not that information is accurate.

As I mentioned before, I’ve been through several hundred of these sites throughout New York

State. Not all of them but a handful of them at least have had what are called monitored drive tests

where I was actually on site, check the equipment for accuracy. Had the drive test run, compared

whether or not the measurement were repeatable, and then here was the real good part, I got to

compart that data to the propagation tool that was used to make the prediction in the first place.

There’s a very good correlation these days between the propagation tool results and the drive test

that one would get if you actually ran a vehicle around the road and picked up those samples of the

signals. So, that’s kind of good news, right? Is that the computer-based analysis is very accurate.

If we were having this conversation 30 years ago, | wouldn’t be saying that. There was a big

discrepancy between what the tool actually predicted and what a drive test would show. And so, at

that time a lot of comparison was done between drive tests and simulation tools. But what I can

tell you is based on my experience for these monitor drive tests. When I’ve had the opportunity to

compare a drive test to a propagation tool result, all things being equal, it’s not exact. It never is

because trucks get in between the car and the tower. There’s other type of anomalies that happen.

But to a very good approximation, the computer-based simulation predicts very well what’s going

on.

To help you with this, there’s a website that’s called opensignal.com. Other work

OPENSIGNAL.COM. You can look on opensignal.com and you load an app on your phone and

then you can actually observe what the measured test is from multiple people who are running the

same app. It’s sending and receiving data. It’s measuring signal strength. It’s the same sort of

thing as a drive test except it’s multiple people that are actually doing this. And it’s all correlated.

It’s cold together and you can view it on the app. So, as a matter of routine, Professor Chickarelli

and I look at that information when we're going into a site. Sometimes the data is there that we

can use and sometimes it isn’t there. There is data for this particular site and perhaps at another

meeting we can talk about how that correlated but the answer is, it correlates very well. What

Opensignal.com shows is pretty much what the propagation plots that Verizon has proposed for

existing coverage show. Okay, there’s weak signal in the area that they say there’s weak signal

and there’s strong signal where they say there is strong signal. So, it’s a very good comparison

and it's certainly is an independent thin. Now, there's ways to take those measurements that

we've talked about before, but I think you'd probably be satisfied looking at that information, and I

would be happy at some point to walk you through that. I don’t have the graphics for that right at

hand. But | would glad to talk with you about that. Let me stop here for a second. That was a lot

of information probably. Are there questions that I can clarify and then I'll move on.

Pg. 255 September 1, 2026 Planning Meeting

when the code says the maximum fee should be 100 and Verizon’s code perhaps probably what a

lot of people are disgruntled about because they’!] see it above the canopy. Did you review

whether or not a 100 foot tower that would satisfy and be accomplish the same thing as a 125 or,

I’m sorry, eliminate the gap that they say they? And could a 100 foot in other works, could a 100

foot tower eliminate this gap and zoning board to your

lawyer.

sites do compromise the coverage. Now having said that could multiple sites be put in to fill in and

bolster that coverage? Sure, it could be done. Okay power

keeps growing more.......... (video keeps skipping) question for me as much and would they be will

fo accept the compromised coverage. I've had that discussion with their head RF engineer, and

they are not willing to compromise that coverage and there’s no other alternatives that he’s willing

to consider that would actually address that issue at a lower tower height but beside if you get

down below the trees. Okay, now that disrupts how the signal propagates through the trees. You

can't have antennas shooting through trees because of the radio signal just gets absorbed by the

canopy. So, that’s why the drone footage that they show in the application materials. It has to be

about 10 to 15 feet above the top of the canopy so it can skim along the top and dive in when it

needs to. So, that’s maybe the long answer to your simple question, right? At the lower heights

the coverage is compromised. Was there a follow up on that or ?

saying that the gap in the coverage can’t be satisfied at 100 feet, it has to be a 125 feet? Or not?

We’ re not sure or does it have to be 125?

they're asking for and if you go lower than that proposed height, the tree canopy, terrain, and a

host of other obstacles between the user and the base station start to cause a problem. So that’s

our opinion is that the proposed height is at or near the minimum height that could be

accomplished unless one starts breaking the system up into multiple towers and putting and these

would not be like 20 foot towers, right? I mean, you know, you're talking 70, 80 foot towers,

multiple towers in people's backyards, right? I mean, the impact of those probably is more than

the impact of his one particular tower, which goes to the chairman’s comments before.

set the height at 100 foot thinking it would reduce it and wouldn’t have such an impact on

neighborhoods and so forth. Come to find out though, you needed more of them to accomplish

the coverage, right. So, the code never got changed and, in my opinion, I think it probably

should get changed, but it is what it is today. So, therefore, an applicant is looking for variances.

applicant to come before you or before the zoning board of appeals and demonstrate need.

That’s not a bad thing, right. So having that number in there, not a bad thing. What else can I

Pg. 256 September 1, 2026 Planning Meeting

tell you about this? You know, speaking of Webster North in particular, we did look at the

alternative sites that were listed in the application. You know, and we always ask that question

of the board. If you know of other sites which might have been better sites, they should be looked

up. I think you’ve already been asked that question because, you know, at least a couple of sites

I think were proposed by the board. So, Verizon has already looked at that. We didn’t know that.

We were not involved until you know, just last couple of months. So, you’ve already done that.

One of the items that we had as a finding and this was not directly address yet by Verizon and

you may not need it to be addressed, but we put it there because you're the decision makers.

We're just the ones who try to point these things out. There’s a process they go through to

identify land control so they, you know, they do mailings to, you know, land owners of record.

Maybe they get a response back from them, maybe they don’t. They probably follow up. I’m not

100% sure what that process is that they go through, but they haven't reaily documented that for

you. So, if you’re satisfied that they have made an adequate attempt to reach land owners where

there was no response, then out finding is mood on that particular point. You might know that

they have done that. We don't. So, that's why we put it in as a finding. But in terms of all the

other findings that we had in our preliminary report from back in August, I believe that all of

those findings have been in our opinion adequately addressed to the point that the board could

look at the results and look at the answers and then be able to weigh that to third prong of

Willith, which ts the least intrusive means to actually address the significant gap that they’ve

identified. And of course, we'll stand by to try to help you with that if we can do that.

already and your comments and your responses to the questions and so on and so forth and pretty

clear and concise. I think that’s good. I think it’s just a matter of everybody getting a chance to

review it and get up to speed with it. That’s all. I think you’ ve done a great job, Mr. Johnson.

did the bulk of the research on this and putting the findings together and then he and I hammered

it out and had some fisty cuffs to get things right, so, but I appreciated his hard work. He’s

probably listening tonight from Tennessee, by the way.

regulatory citations in your footnotes because I think it makes it easier to understand the basis of

the regulations and how they apply to some of your findings.

! appreciate it. I'll yield the podium at this point unless there’s any further questions.

in our agenda and like go to page 48 of the application. This is really more of a question to the

consultant. So, basic question, you know, we have two applications essentially before us,

Webster North and Lake Road. With kind of the gap analysis that was provided from Verizon

there seems to be some overlap between the two towers. The question being, you know, if

Webster North proceeds, does Holt and Lake really still need it? Or if Holt and Lake proceeds

Pg. 257 September 1, 2026 Planning Meeting

with the gap over lapped, is really Webster North still needed? And I was just wondering if that

was evaluated.

what you’re seeing is in that overlap is the capacity relief that the new site will bring. Because

you can’t draw traffic off of the existing sites unless that coverage ....unless the signal is

stronger. So, the phones which are in that particular location are actually drawn to the new

base station. So, the overlap is intentional and also when you’re moving on a road between two

base stations, there’s a process called handoff that occurs as one signal starts to fade and the

other one starts to pick up the mobile controller makes a decision to switch off to the other base

station at that point. You need to have a little bit of overlap for that sort of thing to happen. But

for capacity, you need to have a lot of overlap because you're trying to actually pull traffic to the

new site and leave the old site less burdened by the traffic that was there. So, the Holt site that is

up to the north is actually a small cell site that’s up on the top of a small pole. They put the pole

in for this, and it has an omnidirectional camera that’s up on the top of the pole and it essentially

is a fill in so that the proposed site doesn’t have to be quite as tall. That site is already actually

built, and it’s installed except they don’t have fiber run to it yet. They've been waiting for

whoever put the fiber in to bring it up to that particular site. So, they can’t actually use the site

yet until they get that fiber back haul in place. The back hole is where once the base station

receives the signal, all the data to and from that particular facility runs along the fiber back to a

central office essentially that.........

but I defer to the applicants. I know Tim knows the answer to that, but.........

SOMEONE SPEAKING, CAN NOT SEE OR HEAR BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT AT THE

MIC.

outside the search areas when the applicants presented to us. You know, now with the again

looking at both applications, if Holt and Lake goes in, would the alternate search areas that were

rejected H through K be something that should be considered again as an RG analysis as in, you

know, moving the tower potentially further southeast away from residences if Holt and Lake was

to be installed.

quick crack at it which is we asked the RF engineers to actually...on the propagation tool turn

Holt and Lake on because we wanted to see what its performance was because that may indeed

affect you know the other site and it doesn't right all it does is fill in an area that the proposed

site would not cover and Holt and Lake will pick up the slack on that particular area. So, | don’t

Pg. 258 September 1, 2026 Planning Meeting

know if that’s what you were gonna say.

convention that 1s not the other macro tower that is before the planning board on tonight’s agenda.

That’s Lake Road. So, I do just want to clarify that the Lake and Holt is a small cell which is

essentially as Professor Johnson was saying it fills in a hole. It’s a band-aid to be able to service a

very small but highly used and intensely used area. So, if you’ll note on the map where Holt and

Lake is, that is where Webster Park 1s. So, it’s serving, you know, events such as the Turkey Trot

or the White ...the county’s White House is there. So, it’s really supposed to be a small booster

that is allowing more individuals to connect in a very small tight space. So, I did want t clarify that

the proposal before you for Webster North is really apples and oranges to the small cell at Holt and

Lake and a different application for the Lake Road which is also before the board.

those two points too.

that the antennas must clear 110 to 115 foot clutter of function. But future collocutors in the same

application indicate would be in that range of, you know, 115 to

110. So, you wouldn’t be able to

necessarily have a future co-locater on this poll. It would just service Verizon and not anybody

else.

different providers network works, right? So, we can only look for our antenna center line to where

we need to shoot to for that line of sight. And that is to the Webster, the Four Mile Creek, the

Webster Park, Four Mile Creek and Webster Tower. Yes, I remembered them all. So those lines

of sight is what the antenna center lines shotting towards. You make a good observation of that

those two heights are the same, but we can’t at this time speak to what another carrier’s need

would be to fill in the network.

tower here as well now because I can’t co-locate.

increase the height. But I can’t speak to now what a future carrier would need. But to meet

Verizon’s need and again being respectful that we do want to have the tower at the lowest height

possible to meet the network needs that are before the board today. That is the 130 foot tower with

130 foot center line. To go up any higher for lower attachments would necessitate us asking for a

higher pole than we can demonstrate at this time.

of the stipulations is if AT& T or whoever want to come in, they co-located by code to...it’s

required that they find them a co-location on a current tower which is generally Verizon’s .

Pg. 259 September 1, 2026 Planning Meeting

Professor Chickarelli and I issued to you, finding number 12 deals exactly with your question.

There is a provision in the current FCC regulations that says that if another service provider

wants to come in that there is a provision for increasing the height of the tower to accommodate

them without pretty much this type of process. So, that’s again that’s federal law that’s not Town

of Webster code, right? So, any concerns about that need to be addressed to the folks who

actually write those things which is the US Congress.

monopole.

head but it's 10% or 10 feet or 20 feet above the top of the existing pole and is one bite of that

apple. So once that happens nobody else can do it again. Now, it has to go through the full

zoning review, but that’s in our findings because | wanted you to be aware that that’s a

possibility. Now, that doesn’t mean that I’m not suggesting that that’s a reason for denying this

application.

because right now it’s to that land owner.

exceptions of ....

capability and if the application should have accounted for that as an increase, then the location

that it’s currently cited on should be altered for that.

Derek Anderson; I don’t see that as part of this application whatsoever. We have before us is an

application for the height of a tower of a specific height.

You can’t speculate on what may happen in the future. We don’t approve based on speculation.

We approve based on the application we have in front of us.

Pg. 260 September 1, 2026 Planning Meeting

through and Mr. Johnson actually did a real good job of explaining quite a bit of that stuff too. So,

that was good. Okay, can we ask to request to table this to the next meeting then and let you keep

moving to the zoning board approving that? That way you’re still moving along to keep this

process moving.

before the zoning board.

RESOLUTION 26-062 Anthony Casciani made a motion to

TABLE APPLICATION TO 10.6.26

which was seconded by Drazen Gasic.

VOTE:

Mr. Casciani AYE

Mr. Malta AYE

Mr. Giardina ABSENT

Mr. Anderson ABSTAIN

Mrs. Maltman AYE

Mr. Gasic AYE

Mr. Vetter AYE

Applicant Robert Burgdorf for Bell Atlantic Mobile Systems d/b/a Verizon is requesting

PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL (

PUBLIC HEARING

) in association with a 125

foot telecommunications tower with a4’ lightning rod and associated ground-mounted equipment

ona 7.8-acre parcel having SBL# 037.03- 1-44 located in the LL Large-Lot Residential District

under Sections 269-5 and 350-13 of the Code of the Town of Webster

Appearing before the board was Laura Smith with Nixon Peabody representing this application. I

will try to focus on the differences between this application and Webster North but also want to

make sure we have a robust record and I’m able to address all the question that you have that are

particular to Lake Road.

As noted, this is at the corner of Lake Road and Monroe Wayne County Line road. This is a

125ft tower. So, it is a different height than the Webster North Tower. But similar to Webster

North as demonstrated in our application materials and confirmed by the town’s independent

consultant, there is a significant gap in wireless coverage in this cell as well. This area is

currently served by three distant overburden sites. It continues to be served by Four Mile Creek

and East Webster. However, this site is also served by a tower at Gennai. All three sites are

terrain and foliage challenged resulting in significant gaps in both low band and mid band

coverage Moreover, as we noted before, the actual utilization of data for the past year shows that

several key performance indicators have already exceeded 100% utilization at these other three

Pg. 261 September 1, 2026 Planning Meeting

existing towers. That mean the existing network cannot meet the current demand that is shown

in exhibit F of our application pages 7 and

9. The goals of this project are to increase network

capacity; provide reliable coverage; to the Lake Road service area in northwestern Webster, and

offload traffic from existing overloaded sites. Here, which is somewhat different than the

Webster North application, the mid band comparison is particularly significant. In addition to

the midband coverage being week, being able to put up this tower will both address the lower

mid band coverage as well as by providing significant mid or sufficient mid band coverage in

this area. It will then free up the low band congestion that’s happening at this site.

These items are demonstrated on page 18 of exhibit F is the existing mid back coverage which

shows there is little to no reliable mid band coverage in this area. Page 14 show that Lake Road

cell has existing low band coverage that’s akin to rural or suburban and incur applications. And

then page 15 and 19 of exhibit F show how those two coverage gaps would be solved with the

project as proposed. Just like in our Webster North, the proposed height is the minimum

necessary to provide the effective coverage in this area. As shown in exhibit R and B of our

application and was also confirmed by the town’s independent consult, the supplemental

propagation plots compare coverage at the proposed 100 ft antenna center line. So again, we

discussed the 125 ft tower has 120 center line against a reduced height of 95 feet, which would

be akin or close to the 100 foot tower permitted under the code. As confirmed by the town’s

consultant, a 95 foot tower is too low to overcome the area terrain and the foliage and does not

allow for the necessary coverage improvements, capacity overloads and the network

densification needed in this area.

Also, like Webster North, we have conducted an exhaustive alternative site analysis and no

viable alternatives exists. The record clearly demonstrates there are no viable alternatives sites

that would offer an improved visual impact while still meeting Verizon’s RF needs. 1f you recall

from our prior meetings, I believe back in March that Verizon undertook the comprehensive site

selection analysis in it’s initial application evaluating a total of seven candidate parcels within

and immediately outside the search area. As shown on page 9 of exhibit G and as appropriately

noticed by the Planning Board at the March meeting, the majority of the properties located

within the search area are owned by our currently proposed Jandlord Windmill Farms.

As discussed with the Planning Board in March and documents in our March 31, 2026

supplemental application, we did engage in extensive negotiations with the landlord for

permission to be on any other location of the landlord’s property both in addition to the property

the location on the property requested by the planning board as well as just blanket can we be

anywhere else. For those reasons though, as we were included on our March 31* supplemental

application, if you recall, it was a letter from the landlord. It was exhibit T of the application.

The landlord could not permit Verizon to be located anywhere else on the property due to

conservation easements and then the working operations of the farm. Verizon also reviewed two

additional candidates identified by the board. If you recall on our prior exhibits, we were calling

them H and IJ but those two locations which were outside search ring failed from an RF

perspective. We also asked our site selection analysis and RG to re-evaluate the search area,

which candidly is an unusual step for Verizon to take, but certainly want to be responsive to the

Pg. 262 September 1, 2026 Planning Meeting

planning boards requests. However, after researching and redetermining the search area, again,

that materials presented to you as exhibit U, it was determined the search area really had to be in

the location and that it was presented in the original search.

The remaining property owners within the search area, so those other six of the original

candidates, declined to participate in lease negotiations. In these decision, we’ll want to note,

and I know this is certainly top of the mind for the board, but we can’t force people to lease to

us. So, to the extent that there are other locations, we are happy to look at the other locations.

We did so during Lake Road, but the decision to enter into a lease is purely the landowner’s

discretion. We cannot command a landowner to enter into a lease with us. That leaves only the

selected site at the corner of Lake Road and County Line Road is the only candidate that’s both

technically viable and available for lease. Much like the Webster North Project, this project will

also not have an environmental or community impact.

As we also noted on the Webster North project, and we did hear similar concerns tonight, you’ll

hear similar concerns in October. And not to...these are deeply held feelings by the individuals,

and we respect those deeply held feelings. But the law is very clear here. Science is clear. There

is no harmful effects of RF radiation. In the law as it stands and right, wrong or indifferent as

one might feel about the law, the law expressly preempts boards from denying or conditioning

approval of a wireless facility based on health effects. This field is entirely preempted as long as

we do our due diligence and demonstrate to the board that we meet the FCC requirements and

the regulations which have been presented to the board of exhibit P. Again, this is not to speak

to people’s deeply held beliefs in and understanding of what they feel is the RF effects, but I

want to be very clear that the law is strong on it and science in my opinion is very strong on it.

The FCC believes that the science is very strong on it as is the FDA and the WHO. That there

are no negative health effects of RF emissions and cannot be considered as part of this

application.

Much like Webster North, this project will not pollute, will not create noise, will not increase

traffic or create a demand on governmental services. It is an inert facility that is located on the

corner of or near other public utility infrastructures located on the corner as well. There’s

electrical wires and telecommunications wires transversing the parcel. I’ll also note like Webster

North, this application meets the requirements of state and federal law. I was struck as we are

hearing the public comments from before and likely we’!l hear from this group that there is a

reason these are protect as public utilities or the reason New York State has recognized them as

public utilities. There’s a reason there’s a telecommunications act of 1996. Popular things do not

need federal law protecting it. This is a difficult decision. The federal government recognizes

this is a difficult decision, That is why it has put protections in place and protections in place

and preemptions in place to ensure that there can still be a rapid deployment of wireless

telecommunications facility across the country while still being mindful of the areas and

concerns raised by local boards. That’s the same reason we have a shot clock. If this was an

easy decision, the federal government would not have to put in restrictions on how quickly a

board has to act in making a decision. I think although we can discuss the policies and should

one reach out to Congress to go through a change of the law, the law is what it stand, and the law

Pg. 263 September 1, 2026 Planning Meeting

is there because this is a hard choice and is meant to protect the type of public infrastructure that

is needed to ensure people to have an ability to communicate.

I can pause there or I can also go through the legal standards for that public utility standard and

the telecommunications act, or I can pause and let Mr. Johnson come and give his report.

of what we talked about previously, right? We have looked at the various heights. The proposed

height is what's needed because the coverage footprint draws back when we go to a lower height

terrain and foliage and other obstacles in the area. I didn’t comment about the human exposure

issue on Webster North, but we'll take a moment to do that here. In both applications there is an

exhibit produced in one case by (Sear set?) in Webster North site and that showed less

than 1% of the FCC threshold. The FCC established a 100% threshold for general population.

That site is below 1% of that threshold. So, it’s almost imperceptible in terms of it’s intensity.

Aerosmith produced the report for the present site for Lake Road, and the maximum theoretical

exposure would be 3.27% of the FCC’s threshold. So again, very, very low emissions and

toward that end what I would caution people is that the cell phone is actually going to produce

more electro magnetic energy when you hold this to the side of your head and make a phone call

or even if you're not making a phone call that the phone is occasionally talking to the base

Stations to report it’s location. This is where the exposure is coming from. So, if people are

concerned about exposure at the levels that the base stations have been analyzed, that’s nothing

compared to what you're getting from the actual cell phone. There’s also radio and TV signals

that are in the air and I don’t have specific numbers for those for this area, but generaily much

stronger than what you'd be getting from base station.

Having said that, the same issue regarding the alternate sites. You know, we don’t have

documentation about what attempts were made to contact unresponsive land owners if any of

those sites were viable, but it sounds like most of the alternative sites are owned by the same

landowner and you know, he’s already precluded the use of other locations on his property. So, I

think unless there were further questions specific to Lake Road, I'd be finished with what I had to

say.

for the applicant, you know, dates and persons they contacted in that area, and I would testify

that I spend some time with Mr. Burgdoff myself and trying to contact people in that area to see

if there was another place for it. And all due respect to them, there was nothing. So, right back

to the original spot. And on that spot as well all know, we tried to relocate the tower further back

in and for reasons of the land owners, they couldn’t do that and we understand that. So, again, I

think you did a pretty thorough job with this too here.

capacity driven ?

Pg. 264 September 1, 2026 Planning Meeting

different bands. We look at the ow band which is about 700 megahertz that is already there but

there’s very limited capacity. When these sites were first put in back in the 1980 and 1990's

there weren't a lot of people using cell phones so that bandwidth was quite sufficient but now we

heard some figures from attorney Smith about how wireless devices have proliferated and ow

more bandwidth is needed to service that many users simultaneously to these sites. So, low band

is covered. The low band signals from the mobile phones are trying to reach out to the adjacent

neighbor sites, and there’s not enough capacity there to accomplish that. So, putting another site

in the general area where the search ring is located would draw traffic away from those sites,

service if at the new base station, and the new base station would have much more band with at

the mid band and then at C band. Okay, we consider that all kind of one band, but there’s hugs

amounts of bandwidth that are available with that new spectrum. And I say that now 20 years,

30 years from now, someone will be quoting me and saying, “well, that wasn’t huge. This is

hug” Right? So, the demand continues to grow, and this site would actually supplement what's

happening in the existing coverage right now. So, thank you for your question.

no mid band or any usable midband at this location. So, there will be new capacity but there’ il

also be new spectrum at midband which opens up more bandwidth for folks that are connecting

to this particular base station.

out to anyone in Ontario? The town of Ontario to see if they have land available anywhere in

this area or is it all residential owned or owned by the windmill or it is ....

residential in that area as well.

since I’m the attorney for the board relative to our requirements that it’ll be as less...I see this

project as different than the north project and then visually it’s not in the tree line. It’s not

covered. You can see it on Lake Road un; and the code again specifically indicates that we have

the right to have some type of camouflage or have an aesthetically landscaping and you have

those covered and specifically written in the code. How have other towns in your experience

dealt with that? And have other towns required like stealth designs, designs that don’t make the

tower look well, sometimes they look like a tree. 1 saw on the throughway on the way here, I

think. Saw one that looked like a tree. And I guess in your opinion, how because I see this is

different. This is not in a tree line. This is right smack on Lake Road. How would this board

consider something like that?

not a landscape architect. But 1 have been enough of these hearings to hear some of the things

that landscape architects and others have suggested. So, I'm glad to share what I’ve heard and

Pg. 265 September 1, 2026 Planning Meeting

what I’ve seen. So, tree canopies in this area are around 65 to 75 feet tall and kind of the shorter

end of things. Here you’ve got some much taller trees. And, you know, here’s a problem that I

experienced on my property, which is somebody prior to my buying my property had actually

cabled a big maple tree. It was a beautiful tree, but it had these huge limbs that kind of went out

and what I learned from an arborist is when you cable those things, the tree will grow now, you

know, 10 to 20 % tall than it actually should be and now it’s really unstable in it’s roots. So,

sometimes you get really tall trees like that that have you know been cabled or you know for

some reason are up on a null or something and they grow taller. But typically, you know 65-70-

80 feet kind of is where the canopy stops in this particular area. Getting up above that is going

to be necessary, but now trying to disguise something that’s up at 125 feet. So, you know, that’s

going to be a clear 20 to 30 feet above existing canopy, even if there were trees around, And

there have...there are some humorous photographs, and actually I’ve seen some of these. A

friend of mine who travels the country sends me photographs of these when they run across

them. But you know, making a tree look like or a cell tower look like a huge cactus or making it

look like a huge tree in the middle of you know, a desert you know there’s questions in my mind

as to whether or not that actually is a successful stealth approach. The Town of Pittsford

recently stealthed a site that was... want to say it’s 110 feet and it looks like a pine tree.

Depending upon which direction you approach it, it blends in and some other directions it’s

clearly something that head and shoulders above the rest of the canopy, but you know, perhaps

that’s not as big a deal. You know, I think when people are driving down Lake Road, they’re

probably not going to be taking your eyes off the road too long, you know, too look and see what

the stealth tree looks like or what the tower looks like. But that’s always the problem trying to

stealth something that is higher than the canopy. Often times draws more attention than it

Should. It can be done though. It certainly can be done. Now when you stealth a tree or stealth

a cell tower it limits | what you can do in terms of collocation on that sire, The branches

themselves that are artificial tree now produce wind load and torque. So, when the wind blows

off the lake, whatever we’re going to call it, then it will force the torque at the bast of the pole to

be greater than it would be without those particular branches on there. So it limits how many

antennas you can put on because a lot of the wind load has already been taken up by the stealth

branches and if you bury antennas inside of the stealth branches at 700 megahertz, that's not so

much of a problem. But as I was explaining earlier, when you go to mid band those are higher

frequencies, the higher frequencies are very much disrupted by the extra obstacles that are right

in front of the antenna, It changes how the antenna patter works. It’s less efficient and

ultimately the propagation from that stealth site may be substantially less than what it would be

otherwise. But it’s a trade- off, right? If you're trying to balance aesthetics against technical

performance, stealth approaches are used, you know, fairly regularly at sites. Usually though,

they're not applied at things that are 125 feet. or, you know, in that range. That doesn’t say it

couldn't be done.

Again, this is also a public hearing and I don’t....if we table this also I think we should keep the

public hearing open for preliminary. We’ve not closed the public hearing. So, if there’s any new

information, you all can come back and still speak again. We won’t stop that.

Pg. 266 September 1, 2026 Planning Meeting

earlier we said capacity was a driving force. Is coverage gap also a factor. I know you said

midband would be on flight. The reason I’m asking is, you know, is a 125 ft macro tower the

appropriate solution rather than like smaller cell towers that Verizon has used on Gravel Road or

Holt and Lake and other areas.

Verizon as to why they chose this particular approach because whatever approach they choose

needs to meet the third prompt. Identify a gap; does the proposed site fill and mitigate the gap?

And third, is it the least intrusion on the community? So, their burden is to show you that what

they have proposed of all the possible technical solutions that are out there and wherever they

can get land control that this ts the least intrusive way to actually address their coverage gap,

and could I just add, you know since we’re talking about low band is already covered in this

particular area. So, there is no radio frequency signal coverage gap but there is a gap at mid-

band frequencies. So there no service that's useful at those frequencies and when capacity of

sites is reached that’s as good as not having enough signal because you still can’t make a phone

call and you can’t transmit the data right so I started using the term somewhere along the line

instead of just saying gap I talk about a service gap and a service gap could be caused by no

radio frequency signa at all or it could be caused by having radio signal but not enough

capacity. Both of those accomplish exactly the same thing, which is you don’t get your call, and

you don’t get your data to go through.

it’s another question for another time. Is you know, if capacity is a driving factor here, what is

the definition of need under you know, the federal effective prohibition standards that cover

this? And the shock clock and everything else. Like if capacity is the driving force and it’s not

really a low band cellular need, out of those three, which is the one that’s actually providing this

need on the federal jurisdictional level?

question. Let me just look at it real quick here. I just need to go back to our original

preliminary report that was August 3” ..

technologies potentially that could address not necessarily 125 ft tower. That capacity factor

could be something smaller if the intent is to address capacity or midlevel.

The Federal Communications Commission actually...oh you know, I'll bet you it’s on the RG

Justification of the application but in Verizon's materials but the Federal Communications

Commission did make a regulation so there’s laws that Congress passes and then the FCC

develops regulations to implement those laws. So that’s not really law but it’s something that

until it’s challenged it stands. The FCC said that a service provider can densify their network,

which is what we're talking about. We're adding capacity. They can densify the network

Pg. 267 September 1, 2026 Planning Meeting

using...and the reason for doing that could be any one of a number of things. It could be no

radio signal. It could be base stations that can’t handle the traffic, or it could be the

implementation of new services and new spectrum. So as far as the FCC is concerned and I will

defer to that because that’s not the law that’s a regulation the FCC has promulgated that they

‘ve said that you can justify a gap in service right by any one of those or more of those particular

aspects. I can get you that that citation if ....

neighborhood wishes to

Justin Jenner at 1512 Providence Drive: Again, I understand the fact that the health issues are

not something that we can stand on from a legal perspective but a couple things that I just want

to make sure I clarify specifically on the scientific research. The first thing ts there’s many

schools of thoughts on this, right? Firstly, low radiation levels sporadically are not going to be

harmful. However, what has not been studied is consistent low radiation levels that could be

harmful. And the jury’s still out on that. Yes?

prove.

Justin Jenner at 1512 Providence Drive: So, my point is we can’t continue to sit here and say

the science is behind us because this is not.

something that was already brought up and it does not become an issue for this board to have to

deal with.

Justin Jenner at 1512 Providence Drive: So...

incident.

Justin Jenner at 1512 Providence Drive: So here’s the other piece of this, right. So, | agree with

the fact that yes, we could lobby our congressmen. Verizon donates $30 million a year to

lobbying, right? To the FCC, to the government. There’s nothing that I’m going to be able to do

that’s going to be say, “Hey, Congressmen, XYZ, go change this cuz I can’t do it.” That’s why

Pg. 268 September 1, 2026 Planning Meeting

I’m coming here to the town, maybe not to you guys, but maybe to the board to say, “Hey, at

some point someone's got to make a stand. | can’t do it myself. I got a job. I got kids I got to

feed. I'm looking to you guys to help that.”

has to go up above us. We’re in the same boat.

capable of going.

to go through that with us is my point. The third and final thing that I want to say is that there’s

other institutions like International Firefighters Association who banned cell phone towers being

put on their buildings because of everything we’re talking about here. Right. So, I respect it. I

understand the law. I appreciate the time and you letting me talk about this, but at some point in

time, there's only so much that we can do as citizens, and we need support of our elected

officials to help us with that.

Tim Lochner at 1854 Lake Road: I'm across the road from the proposed tower site. | would

just like to comment really quickly about it’s a horrible spot to put that. I mean, just absolutely

horrible. The financial impact for us across the road is going to be just unbelievable. And I can

tell you really quickly, I have a couple building sites over there and I had a purchase offer last

week and as of yesterday it was cancelled. So, there is a financial impact. I’ve got a couple

million dollars in this property across the road and I live there as well. I love the area, but I

think that it’s going to be a big problem financially for everybody, not just me, all my neighbors.

And my neighbors are very important to us as well. I just feel as if......... I’m not opposed to a

tower by any means. It’s just the wrong spot for it. There’s got to be a corner somewhere that

that can go. Thank you, have a good night.

David Rasmusen and I’m an attorney. I’m representing Daniel and Kelly Rasmussen under

1890 Lake Road directly across from the proposed facility. The piece that I'd like to comment on

is the site selection issue. There was a letter submitted by Windmill Farms back in with the

March 31° submission and in that letter you know Windmill Farms as attorney Smith has aptly

noted controls most of the land within the search area and they want it on that site because that’s

Pg. 269 September 1, 2026 Planning Meeting

a piece of land they don’t otherwise have any use for and they can make money on it and I get

that but their commentary of why they can’t site it in other location within the search area I think

is disingenuous. They recite the USDA conservation stewardship program as being prohibitive of

the use. That’s not really the case. They haven’t that....the conservation stewardship plan is a

five-year commitment. We don’t know how far into the commitment they are. They could be four

and half years for all we know. And they could remove a piece from the conservation stewardess

program. It’s right in the website for the program. So, I think...I don’t think they’ve really given

us the whole story on that. Then they talk about a contract they have with Kurig, Dr. Pepper.

They don’t tell us what's prohibited. They don't tell us the duration. They don’t tell us the

consideration. They don’t tell us there’s a penalty if they remove it from the site. They’ve really

given us no information about that at all to why that’s prohibitive in some respect.

Same thing, they talk about a contract with KDP which hasn’t even started yet. Their own letter

says it starts sometime in 2026. They don’t tell us when, they don’t tell us the duration. They

don’t tell us what's prohibited. So, they've really given us nothing other that a representation

that it would...that they don’t think they can do it. But they need to prove it. We need to....1

would urge you to dig deeper into that letter and the representations They're making.

Now, there’s also been a request to expand the search area. I don't know if Mr. Johnson’s

analysis has covered that issue, whether an expansion of the search area would meet the criteria

and solve Verizon's purposes. I don’t know how deeply he’s gone into that. If he hasn’t, I would

ask if he do that as well. Thank you very much.

we tried to get that to move back by the woods, you know, move it back in, and there was issues

with underground tile and the conservation easement they had with whoever. Well, I don’t know

if oe...

SOMEONE FROM AUDIENCE SPEAKING OUT...that’s my point. They’ ve made those

representations, but I think they got to go a little deeper.

ability to do that. Okay, appreciate it. Thank you though.

capacity densification project rather than a basic coverage project, has Verizon demonstrated

that 125 foot macro tower is the least intrusive means reasonably capable of solving that

capacity problem, which I think is a question you guys brought up understandably. Okay,

thanks.

Ellen Lindall at 1886 Lake Road: I wasn’t going to get up here, but I just had to. I wanted to

eche a little bit of what of what Mr. Rasmusen just said and I! would agree that, you know, I think

the Windmill Farms letter very eloquent, articulate, and lengthy, had ail these justifications. But

Pg. 270 September 1, 2026 Planning Meeting

I agree that it probably was somewhat disingenuous but does that even matter? Because as the

Verizon rep said, you can’t force people, private land owners, to agree to this and I get that, but

I guess the question, one question I would have was or is, you know, can Verizon sweeten the

deal? And I don’t know how that works. I know ballpark what these lease arrangement are and

what private land owners can make off of them, but can Verizon go back to them and say, you

know, instead of $1,500 a month we're going to pay you $4,000 a month and maybe then a

corner of the property would open up because when you go, you know, they've. They own like

130 acres on one side and 136 acres on the other side and there's a lot of corners. I drive up and

down that road everyday and I’m always looking because of this very issue. There’s a lot of

other places that this could go. They may choose not to and that’s up to them, but this is

certainly the path of least resistance and least difficulty for Verizon because it’s right there at the

corner and they don’t have to have...create a new road or egress or you know route in to get toa

place that’s a couple hundred yards away. But I just go back to the meeting in March and you,

you know, the chair said this, you know, we don’t want, we don’t want it right there at the corner

of Lake Road. That’s our scenic Seaway Trail and it can’t be there. Look what they did at Pellet

Road and they pushed it back. There’s one also at Lake and Slocum Road that is pushed back at

bit, And I think that the...some of the commentating was, you know, the different towers that

we're tapping into. One was at Ganae but the one at Slocum Road is quite a bit closer than

Ganae so I don't know if there’s consideration that’s been given to that. And the final point I

just want to make is and this was asked by the consultant in terms of the due diligence that

Verizon really did with this. You know the....] think it was site G,E, Dand C. We don’t know

what that due diligence was. They said they reached out to these folks and just didn’t get a

response. But I think it’s important that we know, you know when was that outreach? How

frequently was that outreach? Was it written? Was it phone? And what were the details of that

because I think they owe it to us and when I look at the map too again being intimately familiar

with this neighborhood to the east of site D there’s a big piece of this circle that isn’t even

labeled as an option and I would think that there’s you know somebody owns that property and

that is north of Lake Road and it’s a pretty big hunk of that circle if you pull it up where would

be a potential spot. Who owns that? That’s not...1 don’t believe that’s D, you know, east of D

and C I, you know, there’s nothing there. There’s a lot of woods. Perhaps there's wetlands, but I

just think that they need to demonstrate due diligence that they really have done adequate

outreach to the other options before it gets plunked in this horrific spot.

height of the tower and the fall line, those would not even be sized enough to do it.

jrom where this ugly tower is going to be. I’ve said this before to the board. Given what's going

on in real estate and what we know has already happened, I ant looking at a $50 to $150,000 hit

when we tried to sell our house. This house....this tower will be 300 to 350 feet from my house.

And I know someone said, “would you want this in your backyard?” I doubt it. I think someone

said, maybe Mr. Casciani that someone had spoken to the attorney about relocating this tower

even on that 7.4 acre site and there not willing to do that. I mean, it’s come down to the point

that the farm’s dictating the future for all of us, and it seems absolutely unwilling to understand

Pg. 271 September 1, 2026 Planning Meeting

what their neighbors are going through. And that’s unfortunate at best. Not good neighbors.

We put up with all the spraying all summer because we have to now we're going to have a tower

to look at that's going to kill us financially. The issue of the health effects I understand you can’t

deal with. Please know that there was a feral court case in 2023and the courts ordered the FCC

to re-evaluate the information available. They have failed to do anything. It’s under an

administration that’s not willing to change anything that would not benefit the public. I think

maybe in a couple of years we might see a difference, and I think that’s something you need to

consider. This tower is going to go up with the understanding that it fills a gap. Right now,

they’re filling a gap by putting satellites up. And they're putting up a thousand more satellites

every year. These tower are not going to be needed. And that’s probably a lot sooner than

you're thinking. Probably within five years. It’s my understanding from Mr. Johnson's report

that Verizon has to provide you with an information of new towers that might be needed in the

next two years. I haven’t had a chance to read the supplement. I’ve read his report and that

what I can glean ts in that report there are significant deficiencies in the information that may be

all addressed in the supplement which I haven’t had a chance to look at yet. As for the issue of

settled science, it’s not settled. It’s settle but it’s not settled the way they want you to believe.

And in 2023, that’s why the court decided, send it back for review. We want a new evaluation.

We're going to get that eventually, and by that time, this will be too late. My wife and I both

have leukemia and this tower will be 24/7 RG communication radiation to our house. That's

what I don’t kneed and neither do the children that live across the street at the Rasmussen’s and

if the people can buy this property now that’s for sale on Lake Road, that seems unlikely given

what we're going to hear with the scare with that. It sounds to me like they’ve backed everybody

into a corner. Verizon doesn't give a dame about us. They are going to put this tower up.

You're going to end up having to approve it because there really doesn’t seem to be any

alternative and no one’s willing to budge on the other side. But as residents and we have to live

with it. We’re going to tale the hit. Not Verizon, not the farm. They’re going to just go merrily

along, take their money every year with inflation adding to it every year while we suffer and

while the town suffers because if my value goes down, you take a tax hit. You’re going to take a

tax hit on 26 properties within 500 feet. Keep in mind that the quote all the time about the

Telecommunications Act of 1996, the recommendation at that time was a 1600 foot differential

between the tower and residences. We’re nowhere near that. They're not even trying to live

with that. That hurt us and ultimately it’s going to hurt the town because people are not going to

buy homes near these towers. You’re going to end up with neighborhoods that get deserted.

this board has gone above and beyond as best we could on this site. I mean, you all know that we

tried to get it located back in the woods. Josh, we met with them supervisor at a meeting and we

tried to relocate the thing somewhere where it wouldn’t be so obvious and we got nowhere with

it. That was the bottom line with Verizon. They literally made the circle, and we talked about

other areas across the road and every which way, and I understand what you’re saying, and I

can’t fault you for feeling that way but tell me what we can do.

PUSHING IT BACK AS FAR AS POSSIBLE ???

Pg. 272 September 1, 2026 Planning Meeting

do it. All right, anybody any further questions? I mean, I don’t know what more we can do with

this until we review this. That may be something that could be done again is to try and recontact

them and see if there’s some possible way to renegotiate that site. I don’t know. I'll make that as

a Suggestion to the town, and we’ll do our best to try. That’s all I can do.

A ROAD???

underground piping.

be willing to sit with them again. (oTdBS GET SEIS BING GRA BTEC OMB

spoken to the supervisor, and they've never gotten a word. I know they talked to Alec, the

supervisor it was necessary though (video was skipping and greyed out) town inside that did not

contact the town.

want to be clear, I hope I was not representing, we did contact the town, and we did confirm on

the zoning map that those are residential properties as well, so they’re not ideally situated for a

higher intensity use.

these cell towers usually have generators with fuel tanks. What is typically like the testing

schedule on those and then expected runtime and noise like is there any concern of noise from

those generators going through the neighbors just because it’s open in that corner?

is a slight hum, but it is no more than a dryer or a typical hum of testing the generator. But yes,

generators are tested about once a week for a half an hour period.

generator.

volume of the tank.

Pg. 273 September 1, 2026 Planning Mecting

RESOLUTION 26-063 Anthony Casciani made a motion to TABLE

APPLICATION TO 10.6.26 which was

seconded by Dave Malta.

VOTE:

Mr. Casciani AYE

Mr. Malta AYE

Mr. Giardina ABSENT

Mr. Anderson RECUSE

Mrs. Maltman AYE

Mr. Gasic AYE

Mr. Vetter AYE

any new information or whatever, it’s still open for discussion with the town. Okay.

Actually, fighting this in court and there's a court case Omni point Communications

Incorporated versus City of White Plains that the Court of Appeals upheld, and it seems to

indicated that we could possibly fight Verizon Wireless in court and possibly have the denial by

the planning board upheld in court. Something to consider. I encourage you guys to look into

that as a possibility.

a case. I don’t see how they don’t know. But anyways, we’ll see what happens with this for

moving along.

Cunningham of Vital Signs is requesting SIGN APPROVAL in association with the installation

of one (1) 14.89SF non-illuminated sign on a 1.68-acre parcel having SBL# 065.01-1-28.1

located in the I-N Industrial District under Section 265-7 of the Code of the Town of Webster.

Appearing before the board was Steve Stanely on behalf of Mike from our shop for the EMS

building. It’s rather straight forward as was just described. We have a flat panel ACM placard

with a digital print. On front if it will be mechanically fastened to the building as mentioned the

total square footage for the project is 14.89 square feet. This sign will be none lit as well.

Derek Anderson:

Pg. 274 September 1, 2026 Planning Meeting

PENFIELD-WEBSTER EMS SIGN

The Town of Webster Planning Board considered the request by applicant Michael Cunningham

of Vital Signs to install one (1) 14.89 square foot sign for Penfield-Webster EMS located at 607

Phillips Road on a |.68-acre parcel having SBL# 065.01-1-28.1.

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 26-064 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

RESOLUTION 26-065 Anthony Casciani made a motion for

SIGN APPROVAL Located at 607

Phillips Road. Applicant Michael

Cunningham of Vital Signs is

requesting SIGN APPROVAL in

association with the installation of one

(1) 14.89SF non-illuminated sign on a

1.68-acre parce] having SBL# 065.01

1-28.1 located in the I-N Industrial

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

Pg. 275 September 1, 2026 Planning Meeting

Mr. Gasic AYE

Mr. Vetter AYE

requesting SIGN APPROVAL in association with the installation of one (1) 28SF internally

illuminated sign on a 28.47-acre parcel having SBL# 079.12-1-6.211 located in the HC High-

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

Appearing before the board was Josh Palmer with ID Signs/Vital Signs. Requesting

permission for this face lit with channel letters on a raceway at Holt Road Wegmans Plaza. I

think we just removed the previous, whatever the previous hair cut place was and similar in

size going back up. Just standard channel letters with white acrylic face.

Derek Anderson:

SUPERCUTS SIGNS

The Town of Webster Planning Board considered the request by applicant Peter Derse of ID

Signsystem to instal! one (1) 28 square foot sign for Supercuts located at 900 Holt Road on a

28.47-acre parcel having SBL# 079.12-1-6.211.

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 26-066 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

RESOLUTION 26-067 Sven Vetter made a motion for SIGN

APPROVAL Located at 900 Holt

Road. Applicant Peter Derse of ID

Signsystem is requesting SIGN

APPROVAL in association with the

installation of one (1) 28SF internally

illuminated sign on a 28.47-acre parcel

Pg. 276 September 1, 2026 Planning Meeting

having SBL# 079.12-1-6.211 located in the

HC High-Intensity Commercial District

under Section 265-7 of the Code of the

Town of Webster which was seconded by

Drazen Gasic.

VOTE:

Mr. Casciant AYE

Mr. Malta AYE

Mr. Giardina ABSENT

Mr. Anderson AYE

Mrs. Maltman AYE

Mr. Gasic AYE

Mr. Vetter AYE

Tony Snow of Gupp Signs is requesting SIGN APPROVAL in association with the installation

of one (1) 18SF non-illuminated sign on a 42.7-acre parcel having SBL# 066.01-2-6.1 located in

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

Appearing before the board was Tony Snow with Gupp Signs and we are proposing to erect a

free standing road side sign, double sided so it’s visible from both north and south traffic just to

identify our location and address number and water authority logo. Not lit, just fabricated.

mentioned this at one of the other meetings recently. It’s like what are we doing this for, like a

simple thing. If we didn’t have this, at least everyone that applies for a sign, they pretty much

are aware of what our code calls for and the fall into queue with it. If you don’t have a plan of a

sign, the height, size, and lighting, we would have lit up signs all over town. Flashing lights and

everything else and all different locations and I wouldn’t be surprised if you seen some across

Ridge Road ultimately. So, that’s why. It’s a simple thing but at least we have it under control

where people queue up and we get a good product out of them. These are all nice looking signs.

Derek Anderson:

MONROE COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY SIGN

The Town of Webster Planning Board considered the request by applicant Tony Snow of Gupp

Signs to install one (1) 18 square foot non-illuminated sign for Monroe County Water Authority

located at 593 Basket Road on a 42.7-acre parcel having SBL # 066.01-2-6.1.

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

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

to further review.

Pg. 277 September 1, 2026 Planning Meeting

RESOLUTION 26-068

Derek Anderson made a motion for TYPE II

SEQR 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

RESOLUTION 26-069 Sven Vetter made a motion for SIGN

Applicant Tony Snow of Gupp Signs is

requesting SIGN APPROVAL in association

with the installation of one (1) I8SF non-

illuminated sign on a 42.7-acre parcel having

SBL# 066.01-2-6.1 located in the I-N Industrial

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

Signs is requesting SIGN APPROVAL in association with the installation of three (3) internally

illuminated wall-mounted signs, two (2) wayfinding signs and one (1) monument sign totaling

366.13SF on a 25.65-acre parcel having SBL# 079.06-1-32.123 located in the OP Core Area

Appearing before the board was Steve Stanley with Vital Signs along with Matt McAlpin from

McAlpin Industries. As described, we are proposing 3 building mounted channel letters; two way

finding directional signage and one free standing internally lit monument at the roadside. The

channel letters are basic with aluminum construction and internally lit and they also will be face

lit as well both on the east side of the building and then the south side and the north side. Also,

Pg. 278 September 1, 2026 Planning Meeting

with that, we will have stud mounted aluminum letters that will be non-illumined on the east side

of the building as well and for the house number 865 for Hard Road. The total square footage was

declared earlier of 366.13 and that does include all of the signs that we are proposing tonight.

There is a few questions that we have for the board in regard to the placement of the monument

sign. I know there has been some back and forth with the U of R and we would like to see if we

can get some of that hashed out today.

are separated. If would have been nice if they could have been combined or side by side or one

over the other or something. Because, where the sign is going to be...you know how you have

that box, what ever that electrical, hot box right out there in front, that is actually blocking one of

the signs.

a stacked version of that sign and I believe those conversations were over time.

were going to make other arrangements on their property. We did have a number of conversations

about putting the monument sign together with them and they are not interested in doing that.

and cleaner.

hotbox.

building, and I don’t have any issues. The only one J had concern with was that monument sign

and you explained it.

Derek Anderson:

MCALPIN INDUSTRIES SIGN

Pg. 279 September 1, 2026 Planning Meeting

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

Signs to install three (3) internally illuminated wall mounted signs, two (2) wayfinding signs and

one (1) monument sign totaling 366.13 square feet for McAlpin Industries located at 865 Hard

Road on a 25.65 acre parcel having SBL # 079.06-1-32.123.

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

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

to further review.

RESOLUTION 26-070

VOTE:

RESOLUTION 26-071

VOTE:

Derek Anderson made a motion for TYPE I

SEQR which was seconded by Drazen Gasic.

Mr. Casciani AYE

Mr. Malta AYE

Mr. Giardina ABSENT

Mr. Anderson AYE

Mrs. Maltman AYE

Mr. Gasic AYE

Mr. Vetter AYE

Sven Vetter made a motion for SIGN

Applicant Steve Stanley of Vital Signs is

requesting SIGN APPROVAL in

association with the installation of three (3)

internally illuminated wall-mounted signs,

two (2) wayfinding signs and one (1)

monument sign totaling 366.13SF ona

25.65-acre parcel having SBL# 079.06-1-

32.123 located in the OP Core Area North —

Office Park District under Section 265-7 of

the Code of the Town of Webster which

was seconded by Dave Malta.

Mr, Casciani AYE

Mr. Malta AYE

Mr. Giardina ABSENT

Mr. Anderson AYE

Mes. Maltman AYE

Mr. Gasic AYE

Mr. Vetter AYE

Pg. 280 September 1, 2026 Planning Meeting

8.5 feet and the distance from the property line to the access road is going to be 16.5 feet. I

know for residential typically you have to have your structure 6 foot from the property line and

the distance from the property line...I’m sorry, the access road to the property line is going to be

16.5 feet and we would like to make sure that we put that in the proper space the first time so

splitting that difference is that option? Do you guys have any preference on where that gets

dropped?

that said what distance from your property line that a monument sign can even be. It will be 25

feet from the road, I saw that but the distance from your property line, I need some guidance on

that.

appropriate.

to you if it has to be here or there. Obviously, you are not going to put it up tonight . Okay?

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

requesting FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL in association with the installation of 36 feet of

decorative exterior lighting on a 7.2-acre parcel having SBL# 079.17-1-15.1 located in the CO

Commercial Outdoor Storage District under Section 269-10 of the Code of the Town of Webster.

Appearing before the board was Alyssa Connors and I am one of the owners of Bloom & Blend.

We are just looking to see if we can get approval to put up lights on northeast facing side of our

building just to try and get customers attention.

Pg. 281 September 1, 2026 Planning Meeting

company, the way that they showed it to me, it kind of looks like an extension of a gutter, but it

can be taken down. We mad sure of that because if we don’t stay with out current landlord and

stay at this property, we want to be able to move it with us because we’re putting money into it.

you shining like to the east?

the planning guidelines, one of the things that is very strict on there when this was done was the

kind of lighting and so on and so forth. There’s certain situations through, in my opinion, you’ re

sitting in the back of the building over there. You are not out on the highway with bright lights or

anything.

I did make sure of that with the company that we are going to be using. And it is something that

we can control through an app on our phone as well so we can change the colors of it depending

on the season, holiday, things like that, but it won’t be flashing lights; it won’t be moving lights.

The first one was at Seven Brew. We approved the lights on that. You know, because that’s their

style and so on. And we did ask them to have a dimmer because if they’re bright or gets too much

noise or so on so forth that we have the ability to control that.

Pg. 282 September 1, 2026 Planning Meeting

green for Christmas, it would just stay as red and green. It wouldn’t be like red, green, red, green.

an email from Mark Giardina.

saying that it would be an invoice totaling 4,950.00 dollars.

less than a grand for us to install.

receive emails that are posed from the Town of Webster.

SOMEONE FROM THE AUDIENCE SPEAKING OUT

formal one on lighting, we do have chapter 222 of the outdoor lighting code and based on the

description that is in here about pointing the lights down and keeping it away from nuisances to

the neighboring properties, it to me at least it does appear to conform with that section of the code.

Pg. 283 September |, 2026 Planning Meeting

in front like more.

Derek Anderson:

The Town of Webster Planning Board considered the request by applicant Alyssa Connors to

install 36-feet of decorative exterior lighting for Bloom and Blend located at 790 Ridge Road on

a 7.2-acre parcel having SBL # 079.17-1-15.1.

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 26-072 Derek Anderason made a motion for TYPE

IIT 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

RESOLUTION 26-073 Sven Vetter made a motion for SIGN

Applicant Alyssa Connors is requesting

FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL in

association with the installation of 36 feet of

decorative exterior lighting on a 7.2-acre

parcel having SBL# 079.17-1-15.1 located

Pg. 284 September 1, 2026 Planning Meeting

in the CO Commercial Outdoor Storage

District under Section 269-10 of the Code of

the Town of Webster 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

this isn’t for a sign. This is for a building. Then we should go right back up to the top again.

Thomas Fitzgerald, is requesting PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL (PUBLIC

HEARING) associated with the construction of a 15,000 SF one-story addition to an existing

11,000 SF building on a 4.21-acre parcel having SBL #079. 17-1-8.1 located in the CO

Commercial Outdoor Storage District under Sections 269-5 and 350-20 of the Code of the

Town of Webster.

Appearing before the board was Thomas Fitzgerald with MRB Group and I am here on behalf of

representing our clients Glenn Development and Vital Signs. We are here for the preliminary plan

review and hopefully get approval tonight. From the comment letters we’ve gotten as of dated

from August 28". We’ve addressed most all the comments. We did get a response back from the

town engineer earlier today with regards about doing a SWPPP. After some back and forth, we

did agree we would do the SWPPP in regard to the drainage situation they had with locating on

the pond on the north side of the site. We’re willing to prepare a SWPPP report for drainage

calculations for them to explain how the drainage for the in pervious area will not impact the pond

itself. I know the grade will have to get adjusted during final approval. It’s slowly going into the

pond, but we will adjust as it is needed. Aside from that, that kind of where we are right now so

if there’s any further questions for the preliminary process, we’re more than welcome to...

fiving us a notice here. There’s several things. He wants you to go through the process, you

know, with.....he’s got a whole bunch of plans....not demonstrate ADA compliance sidewalks so

Pg. 285 September 1, 2026 Planning Meeting

forth. Plans must clearly identify all points of ingress and egress. A fire sprinkler system will be

required. Remove all references. Did you get this?

August 28" is the one we sent last week.

drain.....onsite drainage going to the north. Now, where does it go from there. I mean, I remember

years ago those were...it was like a stretch like a swale of water through there for all those

properties that are there.

Glenn Development speaker (?) never stated name: So, based on what our review was originally

it’s all impervious surface that we’re touching sort of speak so there’s no additional impervious

surface being created. Therefore, the sheet drainage to the north has always existed, When we

began out review. So, to hear that some things changing was part of the comments from the town

engineer which were agreeing to dig deeper via a SWPPP report and essentially recalculate what

the requirements are and make any adjustments as necessary, which has been the latest point of

conversation with them. So, we are in agreement with the town engineer.

Glenn Development speaker (7?) never stated name: Yeah, so we’re saying that we’re agreeing that

we will do SWPPPS as requested by the town engineer.

guys get together, resolve all the issues and I know you want t get going with it. If you can get

this done with engineering, I mean, that’s the holdup for us. We’re okay with the building and so

on and so forth. If you can get this project under your belt with the town engineer and you come

in next meeting for your preliminary and you could get your final at the same time. Wouldn’t be

holding you up or anything. You'd still........ one more meeting.

straightened out and then you can get preliminary and final the same evening.

Pg. 286 September 1, 2026 Planning Meeting

received after the first meeting or prior to the first meeting did not address some of these things.

So, there was a feeling that there were additional comments made after sketch plan approval which

didn’t allow us proper time to address these prior to this meeting. So, respectfully, there are some

frustrations on our end. So, if you as a planning board are willing to work with us, we’re in

agreement that we will handle these with the town engineer and hopefully we can address them

and receive final site plan approval next meeting. Is that fair to say?

of the cell towers. LAUGHTER

wanted to get the signs out of the way. Probably could have done yours too but that might not

have made everybody happy. So, is that working okay with you fellas? Request to table it?

requirements of the town engineer and if you’re saying that we can get final next meeting

then.... BOTH PARTIES SPEAKING AT THE SAME TIME.

and that should be...because it’s all engineering detail.

couple weeks ago because that’s when we first got notification that we should take a look at that.

I think that you’re saying that all of the items that are being addressed to satisfy the town engineer

are the same items that we mentioned in the conservation board.

those.

an agreement. When then do we get to make sure that or we discuss with you whether or not these

have been the same?

come up. The reason ]’m not bringing them up, I know we’ ve got them. You did give them to us

and like I said, you guys did a great job with them, too. But that’s all stuff that we’re not going to

Pg. 287 September 1, 2026 Planning Meeting

deal with tonight anyway. We just got the paperwork and that thing is 8 pages of work you guys

got there to deal with. We could spend a whole night just dealing with that.

RESOLUTION 26-074 Anthony Casciani made a motion to TABLE

APPLICATION TO 10.6.26 which was

seconded by Drazen Gasic.

VOTE:

Mr. Casciani AYE

Mr. Malta AYE

Mr. Giardina ABSENT

Mr. Anderson RECUSE

Mrs. Maltman AYE

Mr. Gasic AYE

Mr. Vetter AYE

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER:

e Approval of minutes for: August 4th, 2026. Motion: (CASCIAN/MALTMAN)

VOTE:

Mr. Casciani AYE

Mr. Malta ABSTAIN

Mr. Giardina ABSENT

Mr. Anderson ABSTAIN

Mrs. Maltman AYE

Mr. Gasic ABSTAIN

Mr. Vetter AYE

Pg. 288 September 1, 2026 Planning Meeting

e Amendment of October 5, 2021. Motion: (CASCIANI/MALTA) cut and paste error on a

resolution was duplicated.

VOTE:

Mr. Casciani AYE

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 9:35 PM.

Respectfully Submitted,

Signed Xe 14 Me Udrrexc, Dated | O -G ~2O026

Maerk-GtardinasSecretary

Katherine Kolich, Recording secret GIF Mae Liman

OCT 7°25 awS:4S

TLED WEBSTER THN CLK

aN Nega

Pg. 289 September 1, 2026 Planning Meeting