Minutes

WEBSTER ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES

Michael Short

Corrine Volo

James Spampinato

Chris Centola

Stacie Damelio-ALTERNATE

John Accorso

John DeMarco, Attorney

Katherine Kolich, Planning & Zoning Secretary

Erika Corsi, Planner of Community Development

Josh Artuso, Director of Community Development

September 8, 2026 meeting. We have three tabled matters for tonight and we have and 5

scheduled matters for tonight. Here’s proof of publication for all items.

Call Roli/Pledge of Allegiance

Summary of Application Outcomes

WATERVIEW APARTMENTS PHASE 3-NORTHWEST CORNER OF WILLOW

POINT WAY AND NAUTICAL MILE DRIVE

PROVIDE BUFFER ON MCEWEN; NO FURTHER CONSTRUCTION OR

DEVELOPMENT ALLOWED.

VERIZON CELL TOWER-LAKE ROAD

Applicant; ROBERT BURGDORF

Pg. 159 September 8, 2026 Zoning Meeting

VERIZON CELL TOWER-WEBSTER NORTH 1222 WILDFLOWER DRIVE

1. POLE BARN-1725 STATE RD

2. POLE BARN-539 COUNTRYSIDE LANE

3. COVERED PORCH-522 HACKBERRY WAY

4, CHIKEN COOP-1054 KLEM ROAD

CLEANED UP; THERE WILL BE A ONE YEAR REVIEW.

5. ADDITION-400 LAKE ROAD

(Erika Corsi, Town Planner presented a PowerPoint Presentation for each application and

read into the record)

WATERVIEW APARTMENTS PHASE 3: Located at the northwest corner of Willow Point

Way and Nautical Mile Drive. Applicant Legacy Development Co., Inc is requesting AREA

VARIANCES to allow a front setback of 18.7’ where 75” is required and to allow a single-

family district buffer of 38.5’ where 100” is required in association with the construction of (6)

buildings plus a community center (total of 56 units), each 2 stories in height on a proposed

13.15-acre parcel having SBL# 093.06-3-64.11 located in an MHR Medium High Residential

District under Section 350-14 of the Code of the Town of Webster.

Appearing before the board was Chris Nadler, General Counsel for MarkV Enterprises and I am

here tonight with Ed Martin from Passero, our design engineer team. Our goal tonight is a

renewal of the two variances that were granted by this zoning board in November of 2024. An

18.7 front setback where 75 feet is required and a 35.8 district buffer where 100 foot is required.

Pg. 160 September 8, 2026 Zoning Meeting

As you know, this project has gone through a lot of change. A lot of reduction. In early 2024,

late 23-24,early 24 MarkV started meeting with the town and presented applications original for

two 3-story buildings with 90 units. After 4 or 5 meetings with this board and five or six

meetings with the planning board, the project was reduced in scale and now features two-story

townhouse buildings with 56 units, a single driveway to McEwen and significant landscape

buffers. This board actually required the landscape buffers at it’s meeting. I just was looking at

the findings to increase total vegetation and buffer zone and work with the town to provide

buffering in McEwen Road right of way and Ed will tell you a little about the distances involved

and I mentioned them when I was here last, but the district buffer of 38.5 feet does not really

reflect the actual distances involved. The building to the border between the district is 38.5 feet

but then there’s another 22 feet between the district buffer and the edge of McEwen making the

total distance to McEwen 58.5 feet and the total distance to the closest house 152 feet.

Currently the town houses that we have in existence in phase two are as close as 66 feet to the

houses on McEwen. So, this is again the same just a renewal of variances that were granted by

the board in December 2024. No conditions have changed. This board has received significant

correspondence from our neighbors along McEwen Road. I don’t think that changes any of the

conditions that were in place or the situation that was in place when this board considered the

variance factors and granted these variances in December 2024.

So, what we are asking for tonight is that this board confirm that no conditions have changed and

renew our two variances. I am going to turn it over to Ed to explain one why some of this time

has passed and two, some of the reductions that were made in conjunction with this board and

with the planning board.

Ed Martin, Engineer with Passero Associates. As Chris mentioned, there’s quite a history to this

project and most recently dating back to 2024. The buildings were changed, reduced in size to

go from the two-45 unit buildings to these generally 10 unit, we have one six unit off to the west,

but to be more consistent with the units that you see to the east and to the south. And our initial

layout included individual driveways for the building accessing but the feedback from the town

was they wanted it to be more single family in natures and so we reduced it to that single access

point and pushed the building further to south to increase that space and added significant

plantings. There it’s north of 80 plantings along that right of way to create a nice buffer.

There’s another critical part to this whole story that I think this board needs to realize. In

January of 2025 the DEC initiated some changes in the storm water OR I’m sorry, the wetland

regs and they were challenged by developers across the state. The DEC subsequently filed an

appeal, and they were going to fight that to keep them in place. They have since revoked their

appeal and so we are literally operating under pre-January 2025 regulations for wetlands. Why is

that important? Because if that had never been in place in the first place, they would have

pursued construction. We would avoided this whole situation. So, literally nothing has changed.

There was this delay by the DEC. We complied with the town and said we’ ll wait for their

jurisdiction to come back. And by the way, it was for a pocket wetland offsite to the west. It was

not impacted whatsoever. But because of this lawsuit that got filed, an appeal that was filed by

Pg. 161 September 8, 2026 Zoning Meeting

the DEC and subsequently revoked, we are under pre January 2025 DEC wetland regs. And so,

as Chris said, the conditions truly have not changed whatsoever. So, we’re just asking you to

more or less reinstate the variances that have already been granted. And so, at this point, we’d

be happy to answer questions that you might have.

point. I don’t know.

chance review the original application....NO? Okay. So, the board and I don’t frankly

remember how comprehensive the first presentation was of course was versus tonight which

appears to be more summary in content. That’s my sense. I’m open to be challenged on that.

But the board should be treating this as a new application. But it is generally bound by its’

administrative precedent which granted these variances. However, if the board was to find some

change of circumstance, you know, we arguably it would need to be substantial so that it wasn’t

your decision if you changed it wasn’t or is not arbitrary or capricious. The change could be in

the zoning law, could be in neighborhood density, it could be environmental, it could be traffic.

Those are all options OR if the board found that they had to correct an error that it previously

made in terms of an abuse of discretion, or the board think it misinterpreted the law. So, J just set

that out there to give you some general guidelines in the terms of how to treat this in so much as

it was previously approved.. and the applicants approval expired and essentially it’s the same

application. So, P’ll defer to council. I just want....what J want to be certain that, I don’t

remember the specifics of the last application, and I could be conflating it to some degree with

your last visit here, but my sense is it was in greater detail. Maybe staff says we have the same

materials, but the presentation was briefer.

appeared in front of this board at least four or I think five times on the original so I’ve presented

on a 90 unit project; I’ve presented on an 88 unit project; and then several meetings where it was

this design but wiggling stuff around and coming to agreements on what would be appropriate

and what would pass the variance tests and what this board was comfortable with that would

satisfy those tests. Our application materials that Passero submitted I know probably about 3

months ago are identical. This board has those in front of them. I am happy to go further into

depth. Ed and I are happy to go further into depth. I think you have pretty much what I would

present.

Pg. 162 September 8, 2026 Zoning Meeting

directed to access wise, is that the entirety of the application? Because I’m not saying council

that you need t do a full-blown presentation.

particularly those two board members that were not here for that that they were provided the

information that was within the prior application. Not the application that was changed but the

one that was approved.

and I think it was one of the questions that we had last time, this was before this board two

months ago was in trying to determine how these building fit within the character of the existing

neighborhood. And we didn’t have any front elevations of the buildings. So, can we

pull....thank you Erika. Because that was one of the big questions especially for the two

members that were not present for this. The footprint is quite different than what the neighbors

across the street have to look at every day.

driveways so or not individual driveways to McEwen.

88. Chris Centola: Across McEwen.

not talking about site wise. I’m just talking about in front of McEwen.

plantings. I’m assuming you’ re talking about the entire site. I guess the question.......

Pg. 163 September 8, 2026 Zoning Meeting

guess is the question or comment.

application shows is a separate landscape plan.

condition that to increase total vegetation in buffer zone to work I think that means and

work with town to provide buffering in McEwen Road right of way and so that increase

was made up to the 80 plantings and as we get closer to building permits, we’ li work with

the town and add plantings in the McEwen right of way.

departments at our project review committee meeting, and the sewer department

particularly expressed some concerns with planting of vegetation in the town’s right of

way especially in close proximity to underground utilities, such a sewer pipes. So,

it’s.,..while it was an initial condition of this board to encourage more buffering, the

town really doesn’t want to encourage vegetation in the highway right of way. So, I just

want to state that for the board’s consideration.

There are things we can do. We’re happy to sit down with the sewer department and say,

you know, we can map the exact location of things and exact location of where they’re

going to put their equipment of they have to dig something up and there’s plants that can

be planted. We’re happy to still have that condition to work with them and figure

something out.

from the property line, not from the road, but from the property line? And then if you can

also give it to me from the road edge as well as the property to the west as well.

Because these two are the closest and then this one’s a little further away. So, why don’t

Pg. 164 September 8, 2026 Zoning Meeting

you give me all three of them?

44.8 for the middle one; and 54.7 for the eastern one. And those are all to the right

away.

because last time we were here two months ago, whatever it was, it seemed to me that the

setback you request or the easement you were requesting, was a lot more significant than

that.

so if they’re asking for 80 you know, at the most uh...where it is 50...65 feet.

stop signs, right in this area that we requested, correct? And then another, like an area to

get out other than use McEwen.

Willow Point.

Pg. 165 September 8, 2026 Zoning Meeting

there. I mean we can push, and there’s no wetlands on that 22 acres that we own going

down to the lake. We can just expand the footprint, but I don’t think anybody wants that.

You know, it eats up a steep slope. We have room, but this is the better design that this

board wanted.

for now and bring it back. I would like to hear if anyone wants to speak for or against

this project?

Charlie Johnson at 440 McEwen Drive: I sent you guys a letter. I just wanted to clarify

or at least summarize a couple of things. When the applicant claims that this new...a

different decision would be arbitrary and capricious. New York State law is clear. If the

material facts have changed, this board is obviously legal...is legally able to make a new

decision. They haven’t much. We had a formal request a response back on August 28"

about a positive jurisdictional determination for the wetlands for this area. They came

back and said this was a class one wetland which is the highest protective classification

we have in New York State. Um....looking at the...... Hang on, let me go to my notes I

have here.

If we just look at the five statutory standards that we have when you guys grant

variances. The first one is the undesirable change to the neighborhood. Squeezing these

buildings into such a small area. Specifically cutting down or the single 61% directly

robs neighboring homeowners of their privacy, quiet, enjoyment, and property values.

The second part, feasible alternatives. A developer desires to build 56 units is a financial

goal. It’s not necessarily a physical necessity. The obvious solution is to scale back the

project. Number three, the request is obviously substantial. You're talking about a 75%

reduction for the buffer and a 61% reduction for the other section there and about the

adverse environmental impacts the project has. The DEC’s positive jurisdictional

determination proves that the regulated wetlands and state protected 100 foot adjacent

areas exist on this site, okay. Which I believe requires that automatically, I believe

triggers a special use permit. I’m asking you to dig more or at least get more information

from the developers on the status of their current wetland determination and whether

they have a special use permit application in process. And then lastly, I'll just say that the

application pretty much fails all five of the balloting criteria that you guys use to make

area variances decisions.

Pg. 166 September 8, 2026 Zoning Meeting

One it dramatically alters the neighborhood character. Two, the requests are massively

substantial. The environmental risk is validated by a positive DEC determination and

there’s obviously feasible alternatives that exist and that is all that I have.

applicant said there was a pocket wetland that was nowhere near the project. Do you

recall that?

meet the density requirements, they have to consider the wetland that’s down by the bay

there. That is the....again, I don’t know if you guys have a copy of this | can provide to

you, The date on the notice is incorrect. They said this determination shall remain valid

for five years from the date of this letter which is through 2022-2031, So I think what

they’re talking about is the area closer to they bay there.

for or against the project. No additional comments, okay. Back to the board.

don’t think I would have approved it at that time. And I understand what Mr. DeMarco

was saying about it being we might be under some obligation, but as someone that wasn’t

here, is that hold for me also.

the analogy would be, you know, someone sitting on the Supreme Court that says or a

lower court that says, I don’t, you know, I wasn’t on the bench when this higher court

made this precedent. Do I need to follow it? And short answer is yes. You don’t have

to. What I said at the beginning was we recognize the administrative precedence of the

board. So that if there’s going to be a change of this board’s determination, if the

applicant was to challenge it right, let’s not mince words. If this board was to deny this

application tonight and the applicant was to challenge it, they would challenge the

administrative precedence and say, “Look, you previously ruled on this. Now you’ re the

board, not individuals, but the board is now changing it’s ruling”. So, the question then

becomes is there change of circumstances present in the site in the application that this

board can hand their hat on and say we have now facts new circumstances and based

upon those the board can give specific reasons of our criteria that we always look at and

hang it’s hat on those factual changes. So, that’s what we’re faced with. If we want to

change, if the board changes position, ’m not saying it can’t, it can. I’m not saying it

shouldn’t but if it chooses to, it needs to articulate the change in circumstances at the site.

How is it today changed from how it was immediately prior to your last approval? Does

that make sense?

Pg. 167 September 8, 2026 Zoning Meeting

obligation I’m under. I mean, if the board as a whole approves it, can it still have a

negative vote in there?

Saw it, uh.....let me commend the applicant for changing it to our request originally and

because it...I think it does look much better, and I apologize for questioning number

trees. I was going simply by the presentation drawing which was different from the

application drawing and that’s my fault. I apologize for that. But and like I said, I think

it’s much better than it was before you made those revisions. But having a lot more time

to look at it again, I try to look at it fresh again and thinking like, well, it’s better, but it’s

not something that I still feel comfortable with but, uh......if I feel that, uh...... I just want

to make it known that It’ll be yes, but it’s a reluctant yes, but I guess it doesn’t matter

whether it’s reluctant or not. Since I did vote it originally because it was an improvement

and I still think it is an improvement over what was originally presented to this board.

But the more I look at it, the more I start thinking maybe I didn’t vote properly last time

and that’s my error, not yours. And we certainly...I don’t want to put the board in any

predicament by me having more time to look at it and potentially changing my mind.

That is more of a statement than a question to you.

response uh a two part response. One, uh and it ties into something that uh John said

earlier. This board had a lot more time to look at this application and took a lot of time.

You looked at it a ton. You looked at every single page of the application. You look, you

poured over this before and made that decision after five, four or five different meetings

and J mean I wasn’t up here I’ve been up here for 15 minutes and I was up here for an

hour and half every time with you drilling me with questions and everybody so you know

maybe you first instinct was correct because you...it did have...you did uh go deeper.

Second, and this is something MarkV does will all our projects but, uh, we’re going to

prove you wrong. If you’re hesitant about it, we will prove you wrong. This is going to

be a great project. It’s going to be buffered adequately. The neighbors on McEwen, I get

it. They don’t like it. They’re not even going to notice it three years from now. That’s

what happens with every single one of our projects. Um, I talked to board, we go back

into towns, you know, this is not our only development in the Town of Webster. I’m

going to see you in three years and you’re going to say, “oh, yeah. Yes, that’s a great

project. We will prove you wrong on that.

Pg. 168 September 8, 2026 Zoning Meeting

town does not want the um vegetation in the right of way. Um I like hearing it, but I’ve

had salesmen sell me on things before and it doesn’t come true, right?

McEwen understand how they’re not going to notice this. And you’re right. I mean, we

poured over this and I remember us talking about can we pull the...pull that road in even

more SO we can get more vegetation, right? So, there was a lot of discussion because

asking for the setback of 35 feet, 55 feet from a 100 feet, it’s not insignificant right I

mean it’s you know so how do we.....how do you....how do we get assurances in a

comfort level um because I think the board that was here previously there were

reluctances, but we felt comfortable enough after the last time. Uh, hearing that the town

does not want the vegetation in there leaves me a little concerned. Um, because at the

end of the day, the town does have to maintain, you know, any of those utilities in there

and everything else. So, I would hate to leave here with those conditions. The town

doesn’t want it. And now all of a sudden I have three buildings on McEwen that are

visible and whatnot. So, he me understand how we’re going to get over that.

from an initial standpoint and they always, all sewer departments say we don’t want it

anywhere near our easement. Um you know some easements, they’re very familiar with.

This one down closer to the lake, they, you know, they can map it out, you know, off the

top of their head. They’re so familiar with it. This one, it’s a standard side of the road

easement. They don’t know exactly where the pipe is. They’d have to go in the file and

look for it. Um, we can work with them, our engineers, our design team will work with

the town and find places where, you know, shallow rooted plants can thrive. Um...the

answer to and I want to be clear, we’re not going to hide this, but the neighbors on

McEwen won’t notice it as, you know, uh...the threat to their way of life that they think

it’s going to be right now. Um...it’s not going to be hidden. It’s going to blend. It’s

going to become a part of this neighborhood. And ...uh, the real answer to it is we rent

these things. We have to sell them, and it sounds like a salesman, but you can’t sell

junk. You can’t sell stuff that doesn’t here..I, you can’t sell stuff on McEwen Road that

looks like an apartment complex. We’re gonna make it look like McEwen Road. That’s

the way to rent it and rent it for the you know quite frankly the prices that a great

neighborhood like this deserves.

So,...

Pg. 169 September 8, 2026 Zoning Meeting

to tenants. None of these will ever be sold. This will operate as one functional property.

erosion, can you talk about the storm water for this complex? Is all storm water going to

be handled on site?

that is not impacted by the regulation changes that I referred to earlier. Uh....prior to the

start of construction, perimeter erosion control will be put in place. A stabilized

construction entrance will be put in. Storm water management facilities installed,

including sedimentation basins, so that when storm water leaves the site, it does...it never

occurs at a rate higher than it occurs today for various storms up to and including the |—

year event, which is significant. That’s flooding. Um.....and sediment will be contained

on site. So, downstream receiving waters, offsite properties will not be impacted by that.

And then, that’s it’s subject to a weekly inspection.

construction?

I hate to say it’s you know...patients can get filled up and no longer function.

operate it in perpetuity. Um...this is an interesting one. I forgot there’s a big giant storm

chambers on this one. Um...it’s new for us. So, we'll get a tech, you know, the...you

know the technicians out and they’ll train our on-site maintenance personnel. We have

on-site maintenance personnel on site at all of our properties. They’ll lean how to do

what they have to do and then I’m assuming it has an annual or biannual bigger

maintenance that we have to hire somebody to do.

Pg. 170 September 8, 2026 Zoning Meeting

gets provided to the town and so any kind of repairs are noted in that and so they would

make them.

construction as well?

called silt fence. You’ve seen this at any construction site. Uh...and that gets again

inspected weekly.

closed out the construction portion of it. And that can only come out once all the surfaces

have stabilized either through a minimum of 80% uh...density growth or by a

construction service put down like an asphalt or concrete sidewalk.

resident. If you, I guess best way for me to put it right. Is that... So, on McEwen I’m

looking at 1,2,3,4,-8 apartments if I’m counting that correctly.

building and then 2-3 story buildings that were ridiculously long to the town houses

which are probably the least impactful other than just building single family homes that

we can come to. Um, and I also know it’s really not the privy of this board, but I don’t

like all the extra traffic that this is potentially dumping onto McEwen. Um....putting the

traffic inboard onto Willowpoint makes it, I won’t say at least...less impactful to

McEwen. It’s not ever going to be unimpactful to them. Um....I understand we have

only the one driveway coming out of the building that’s closest to McEwen, but it seems

like this whole end of the complex is going to dart out there and be a lot of extra traffic

on a street that right now has 5 houses on it, so maybe 10 cars.

was deemed to be to not have a significant impact whatsoever.

Pg. 171 September 8, 2026 Zoning Meeting

that....this board and the planning board and staff and the town’s engineers reviewed and

agreed with, I believe it said that this project will dump one car every either 8 minutes or

12 minutes and I don’t remember which it is, and I apologize for that, but it’s not one car

every minute, every two minutes. It’s one or one car every like 8 to 10 minutes.

minutes because there’s going o be a dump between say 7 and 8 o’clock and then a dump

coming in between 4 and 6 o’clock but right now I’ve got 5 house, 6 houses on McEwen

with maybe two houses and grandma and grandpa coming over on the weekends or two

cars per house. So, it is going to be an impact regardless of what the traffic study says.

That’s not going to be, you know, high volume traffic, but it’s additional traffic. And I

just...’m struggling of how do we make it attractive for people to want to go out the

Willowpoint entrance and not out the McEwen? That’s what I struggle with, and I know I

voted for this project the last time just because it’s so much better than where we started.

But it is a significant impact to the people that live there now and don’t see the other 56

residences worth of cars or even half of them. Say, half of them go in half of them. So,

what....I just ....be cognizant of that when you’re doing this, if you get the approval to

make it least impactful traffic-wise for the kids that right now probably play in the street.

I’ve seen happen, um...sometimes through planning board meetings, um...but we have

on-site property management. We also have our tenants who have children playing in the

streets. If somebody can or wants to lodge a complaint with out property on-site property

manager, and say it’s a red car, she’ll figure out which one it is, and we’ll violate them.

We'll tell them they got to knock it off or they can find somewhere else to live. Um...so

of there’s a traffic problem, uh, you know, if people are driving their through, uh, too fast

through McEwen, uh, we hope our neighbors contact us and let us know. You know,

they’re going to know if it’s turning into our, uh, complex or you know, onto Maritime

Drive and we hope they reach out and tell us.

right away, if you will.

Pg. 172 September 8, 2026 Zoning Meeting

Because I believe the rendering shows the roadway a little closer to the......

dash lines. Is that correct?

two lighter ones are easements.

property before the easement based on this plan. Am I reading that correctly? Uh...do

we have an understanding of how much space this is? Looks like 16 feet. Well, it get

worse as you get closer.

remember correctly, we asked to shorten those driveway so that they could have more

space inside the on the property instead and stay outside the easement if ] remember

correctly. Uh...back in 2024. So, there is space on the property proper to do that.

Applicants speaking to one another.

foot right away. There’s room and if they really don’t want it, we'll put the ....we’ll find

some other way to buffer that’s suit....that’s acceptable to the town. Um...but you know,

we can do uh....planting boxes, We’ve seen um....that don’t you know, dig down that

you don’t plant in the soil. You put a box and then uh.....plant a tree in that.

Pg. 173 September 8, 2026 Zoning Meeting

question I have for you. Uh.....special use wetlands permits, uh, not required. [ think it

what you were saying?

talking about the density factor of this uh....using one portion versus the wetlands portion

as I was trying to listen to it. Can you speak to any of that by any chance?

small, isolated pocket wetland that is outside that we’re not touching whatsoever. So,,

I’m not sure, cuz passive space is often used for density. I’m not sure what the concern

is.

knew when they did the density calculation. So, I’m sure that wasn’t included.

to make a motion. Any further comments?

that’s planned for the Willow Point complex, right?

RESOLUTION 26-0042 Michael Short made a motion TYPE II

Volo.

VOTE:

Mr. Short AYE

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Spampinato AYE

Mr. Accorso AYE

Mr. Centola AYE

The request is not out of character in the neighborhood. So, over the course of several years, the

applicant has looked to reduce the imposition of the high density housing on this property to

scalable residential feel so that would fit within the neighborhood itself eliminating, maintaining

the character of the neighborhood. The property itself is a wooded lot with housing on the north

side of it. So, the neighborhood itself will change, but the applicant has modified over the course

Pg. 174 September 8, 2026 Zoning Meeting

of years to come up with a design that will mimic a single family residential type look not imposing

a difference in character for the neighborhood. Determent created by...to nearby properties, this

project does include additional drive and vehicle access to nearby properties. Uh...again, the

roadways themselves um....able to handle it based on traffic reports that were provided by the

applicant previously. Uh...so limiting any detriment to nearby properties. Achievable by other

means. The property is uniquely graded so relocating moving some of the facilities elsewhere is

difficult. The applicant would have the opportunity to eliminate some of the structures to achieve

said goals um....but due to again, grading property and it ends up being difficult to achieve the

goals of the project any other way. There are no adverse physical or environmental impacts to the

site or the neighborhood based on wetland, current wetland codes and all the SWPPP storm water

practices that are being put into place for this site. There are no environmental impacts to the site.

The request is not substantial. If you look at our code, any of you are looking at a single family

home on the same property as well as looking at duplexes, multifamily dwellings on the same

property. Offsets would be 35 versus the current required 50 feet or 100 feet next to a residential

area so again the applicant is making these units look and feel like a single family type unit so the

desire, the request is not substantial.

I think I covered all of them. Anybody else want to add anything?

1. This request is not out of character in the neighborhood:

2. There will not be a detriment created to nearby properties:

3. The benefit is not achieved by any other method:

4. This request is not substantial:

5. There are no adverse physical or environmental impacts to the site or neighborhood:

6. The difficulty is not self-created:

7. This is not an undesirable change:

RESOLUTION 26-0043 Michael Short made a motion to Located at

the northwest corner of Willow Point Way

and Nautical Mile Drive. Applicant Legacy

Development Co., Inc is requesting AREA

VARIANCES to allow a front setback of

18.7’ where 75’ is required and to allow a

single-family district buffer of 38.5’ where

100° is required in association with the

construction of (6) buildings plus a

community center (total of 56 units), each 2

stories in height on a proposed 13.15-acre

parcel having SBL# 093.06-3-64.11 located

in an MHR Medium High Residential

District under Section 350-14 of the Code of

the Town of Webster which was seconded

by James Spampinato.

Pg. 175 September 8, 2026 Zoning Meeting

VOTE:

Mr. Short AYE

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Spampinato AYE

Mr. Accorso NAY

Mr. Centola AYE

CONDITIONS:

e The applicant must obtain all necessary governmental permits, including a Town

Building Permit.

e That one-year significant construction shall expire September 8, 2027

e No additional development will occur within this Willowpoint Development-this is

the final phase of development for this total property.

easy, but I appreciate. You’re going the right thing and like I said, we will do our best to prove

you wrong or prove your reservations wrong. We look to do a really good project here and keep

our neighbors as happy as we can.

issues, call the property management. Thank you. Next up we are going to start with Lake

Road. For this, we are going to have Verizon speak. Give us your thoughts, describe...um, I’m

going to have honestly both projects and then I believe we have the town consultant here and

then we'll hear from the town consultant before we go any further.

VERIZON CELL TOWER “LAKE ROAD”: Located at Lake Road and County Line Road.

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

VARIANCE for the height of a communication tower of 125ft with a 4’ lightning rod (129’) where

the maximum height allowed is 100ft on a 7.8-acre parcel having SBL# 037.03-1-44 located in the

LL Large-Lot Residential District under Sections 130-10 and 350-13 of the Code of the Town of

Webster.

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

representing this application, both the Lake Road application as well as the Webster North.

As we discussed, I’1l start with the Lake Road application. There are similarities between this

and Webster North, but ll focus on an overview of the applications in their entirety and then go

into some specifics about the Lake Road application. I first want to note we have been before

the planning board several times with this application, but I believe it’s our meeting with the

zoning board of appeals on this matter. I'l] note that wireless telecommunications are treated as

public utilities for land use and zoning purposes in New York State, which entitles them to a

dished standard of review rather than the standard criteria applicable to area variances. Under

this public necessity standard, a wireless carrie must demonstrate these, only three elements.

Pg. 176 September 8, 2026 Zoning Meeting

First, that there is a gap in wireless service. Second, that the location in the proposed facility will

remedy those gaps. And that the facility presents a minimal intrusion on the community and is

more feasible than other options. I’ll also note that wireless facilities are highly regulated by the

FCC and the Telecommunications Act of 1996 which sets out a separate standard for the concept

of effective prohibition and not permitting a wireless communication services to fill a coverage

gap. Pll not for this Lake Road application, there is a significant gap in coverage. We have a

pretty sizable application, but in demonstrated in exhibits F and Q, and as demonstrate by

Professor Johnson, the town’s independent RF consultant, there is a significant gap in wireless

coverage in this lake road south. This are is currently served by three distinct overburden sites.

The first is four mile creek. Second is East Webster and the third is Ganea . All three of these

sites are terrain and foliage challenge which results in a significant gap in both low band and mid

band coverage.

Moreover, actual utilization data for the past year shows that several key performance indicators

for these three sites have already exceeded 100% utilization. It is the goal for RF, and it is the

goal of network to ensure that we’re providing coverage in looking for land use approvals before

those KPIs are met. Here for those three sites, we are already showing overage and capacity

exceeding 100% utilization at these three sites. That means the existing network cannot meet

current demand. Josh, I know we’re going to go quickly, but 7 and eight of exhibit F. I’m sorry,

7 through 9 on exhibit F. The goals of this project is to increase network capacity, provide

reliable coverage to the Lake Road service area in northwestern Webster, and offload traffic

from those overloaded sites. And here the mid-band coverage is particularly significant. We'll

see in the other site it’s more of the low band, but here the mid band coverage is very weak in the

lake cell. What’s shown in your application is that the existing mid band coverage shows that

there is no reliable mid band coverage in this area instead and it also shows the low band

coverage is akin to a rural or suburban and incar applications. However, because that mid band

coverage has no coverage, those users then have to switch to low band showing and that results

in a very low capacity in our low band coverage. So, it is although there is low band coverage

here the lack of mid band coverage in this area is what’s over taxing and putting these sites at

over capacity for that low band coverage.

You'll hear from your independent consultants since we had the pleasure of also meeting at the

planning board last Tuesday that here there is a capacity in it a capacity issue more so than

necessarily a coverage issue. But from both the FCC’s standpoint and from case law, those two

items are treated the same when looking at is there a significant gap in coverage. Next, I'll not

that the proposed height is the minimum necessary to provide effective coverage. That’s the

item that is before the ZBA with this application. It is an area variance to seek going from the

100 foot height that’s permitted under the code to go to 125 feet for this location. This is shown

in exhibit R and V in our application and again confirmed by the town’s RG consultant that

supplemental propagation plots compare coverage at the proposed 120 feet center line against a

reduced height of 95 feet. I’m going to pause and explain that concept a little bit.

So, the height of the tower will be at 125 feet. That’s at the very top. And then there’ll be a

lighting rod attached that’s 4 feet high. However, when we’re looking at cell phone coverage,

Pg. 177 September 8, 2026 Zoning Meeting

the measurement that is used is the antenna center line, the ACL. So, when we’re talking about

how high up the antennas need to be, the concept is an ACL line rather than necessarily the

height of the towers. So, our 120 Foot tower would have a ....I’m sorry, our 125 foot tower

would then have a 120 foot antenna setter line then comparing in order to have a 100 foot tower

that center line that ACL would then be at 95 feet. So, that’s the reasoning between those

comparisons of why although seeking 125 foot tower we compare the 120 ACL and then as

confirmed in those exhibits and as also confirmed by the town’s consultant the 90 foot ACL

tower is too low to overcome the terrain and foliage and does not allow for the necessary

coverage improvements capacity overload and network densification. Again, that’s shown in

exhibits R & B of the Lake Road application.

I'll also not that we’ ve conducted an exhaustive alternative site analysis and no viable

alternatives exist. This is an item that we have worked extensively with the planning board to

review potential viable alternative sites that could still offer that improved the coverage that we

need to fill the coverage gap and then also have the ability to provide that an improved visual

impact.

First, Verizon undertook a comprehensive site analysis evaluating a total of seven candidate

parcels within and immediately outside the search area. That’s shown on page 9 of exhibit G, and

I'll note the search area is primarily comprised of one owner. It’s a farm owned by Windmill

Farms. As documented in our March 31“, 2026 supplemental application, Verizon engaged in

extensive negotiations with the landlord for permission to be on any other location on the

landlord’s property, including two sites that were identified by the planning board. The planning

board requested Verizon to go back and have discussions with the landlord. Specifically, one

was towards the south western portion of the property so that it would be along the tree line and

less visible as cars are going past on Lake Road. The other was on the southeastern side also

along the tree line trying to move back from that corner parcel. From Verizon’s perspective, we

need to be in an area within the search area that will meet the coverage needs, and the coverage

gaps we’re trying to solve. But beyond where within the search area as long as it works for RF

needs it’s not unreasonable cost or unreasonable very clear that there are no other locations our

tenno would interrupt. There’s also some subterrain in infrastructure that they use that is not

possible to put us on another place on the farm.

Candidly, they provided a letter to the town that is more than we typically get from landlords

really. We just need to and they....we can’t force them to lease to us. So, typically once they say

no, they’re not required to explain to the town what their logic or reasoning is. But I'll note our

landlord did go above and beyond, provided a letter to the town explaining all the restrictions on

his property and the reasons that he will not lease other locations and cannot lease other locations

to Verizon. We also reviewed two additional candidates. Those are shown on exhibit S.

They’re noted as H and I also identified by the planning board, but those failed from an RG

perspective. We also re evaluated the search area as directed by the planning board. That re

evaluation is set forth in exhibit U and that was to determine whether or not there were any other

places that the search area could be expanded or moved to try to bring in new properties to

review. As shown though in exhibit U, the search are cannot be expanded and it was properly

Pg. 178 September 8, 2026 Zoning Meeting

sized in the initial analysis. The remaining property owners within the search area decline to

participate in lease negotiations with Verizon. And again, these decision are solely within the

landlord’s discretions. We have no authority to compel any property owner to enter into a lease

agreement. So, to the extent there are, where there were other opportunities to engage with the

town or I’m sorry, engage with the landlord, we did so at the town’s request. I'll also note the

landlord came in for a conversation with the town and the planning board chair and really

hammered through are there other places on that windmill farms complex that this site can be

located and that answer and the conclusion both the landlord and Verizon came to was no. That

leaves the selected site which is the only candidate that’s both technically viable and available

for lease for this particular project. We will also note that the project will have no adverse

environmental or community impacts. This is a key part of that telecommunications act of 1996.

The perceived health effects of this project and we’ll say the same for Webster North and we’ ve

heard very passionate testimony at the planning board. You may hear the similar concerns

tonight, but the science and the law are both very clear on perceived health effects for

telecommunications towers.

Local boards are expressly preempted from denying or conditioning approvals of wireless

facilities based on health or environmental effects of RF emissions where the facility complies

with the FCC standards. Here we provided that evidence to the town. It is exhibit P to the

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

regulations. The ZBA as well as the planning board and the town board is therefore without

authority to consider RF related health or environmental concerns when reviewing this

application. Moreover, we'll note that this project will not pollute. It does not create noise. It

does not increase traffic. It does not create or demand additional needs on governmental

services. It’s an inert facility that will enhance emergency communications for police, fire, and

other responders.

Last, I’ll not that the application does meet the requirements of state and federal law. Again,

going back to the opening comment about this being a public utility and a wireless facility that’s

regulated by the FCC and the Telecommunications Act of 1996. This is a public utility, and this

site is important to fill the coverage gap. As noted most recently by the FCC in an order that was

put out, it’s the matter of reducing barriers to network improvements and service changes,

accelerating network modernization, which was released on March 27". The FCC noted that as

of December 2024, there’s approximately 390.9 million mobile voice subscriptions in the United

States. And according to preliminary data from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention as

of December 2023, approximately 76% of adults were living in and relying on wirelessly

household with adults in lower age groups more likely to live in wirelessly households.

To me, even Wednesday’s storm speaks to the importance of having wireless facilities and

wireless facilities in these coverage gaps. When electricity is out, when internet is down, people

are relying on their cell phones during an emergency. And even candidly, people are relying on

cellphones because they don’t have landlines in their home. So again, the importance of this is a

public utility. It has to be located where the need is. Verizon did work very extensively with the

planning board and the town and the landlord to try to determine another location for this to be

Pg. 179 September 8, 2026 Zoning Meeting

located and are now coming with this application fully vetted by the town, fully vetted by the

town’s independent RF consultant. That there is a coverage gap. This solves the coverage gap

and there is no other feasible location where it can be located.

With that, I'll pause to take questions.

additional noise.

is under exhibit Q and there is a 50 kilowatt generator shown on the site plan.

other week. I think the typical time is Tuesdays at 9:00 a.m. It’s meant to be identified at a time

that would be the least impactful to the neighborhood. It is tested twice a week. It’s about tested

for ..... sorry, It’s tested about every other week. It’s tested for 15 minutes and then it goes off.

Certainly, during an emergency that generator is going, but several other generators are going at

that time as well.

powered. Are you planning on......

electricity.

question. Is diesel operated then? Not gas?

up to it will be designed and constructed for up to two additional carriers to be located on the

tower.

Pg. 180 September 8, 2026 Zoning Meeting

has a need and it’s required under the town code to allow two other users.

ASL but so their antennas are better than Verizon’s because they don’t need the additional

height.

network. We need to be at this location and at this height because it is the correct location

between those three sites. You know, think of cell phone coverage. It’s almost like a flashlight

going up and down. It can’t be too close to the other towers that are already existing or else

there’ll be interference. It also can’t be too high or else the signal won’t go where it’s needed

and it can’t be too low down because the signal won’t go as wide as needed. Which is how we

get to the 120 foot site. I will also note that Verizon has 60% of the market here in the Town of

Webster. So, what other cell phone carriers need is difficult. You know, I certainly can’t speak

to that.

want to hear from the expert. This way we can ask questions once.

the end of the gap and the capacity issue, my words I guess not yours, are interchangeable now I

terms of what the courts have ruled that triggers this lower standard if you will in terms of what

you have to demonstrate.

zones. What happens when the capacity breaks down like. What's the net effect of that?

and 9, They’re essentially graphs showing that the capacity utilization..............

devices trying to download from the cell phone tower then the download capacity goes

much....very slow. So, if you..........

capacity was not an issue the coverage is sufficient? In other words, do you need capacity in

your opinion to get where you want to go?

Pg. 181 September 8, 2026 Zoning Meeting

the low band is showing some coverage on the map you’ll see that it’s rural and suburban for in

car coverage. So, it’s showing if you go from yellow or I’m sorry, white being no coverage to

yellow being adequate coverage; orange being a little bit better and green being the best. I’m

sorry, no coverage is white, orange, yellow, and green is the very best.

You would still have slowed down coverage because there’s only so many users that can be on

that low band coverage. So, by having essentially because there is limited capacity on the low

band the result of that one it becomes overutilized is no coverage. So, whether you don’t have

coverage because there’s too many users, I’m sorry, regardless if you cannot connect to a cell

phone, so you’re dialing up and it says, you know, no service, whether that is due to the fact that

there’s too many users currently on that low band coverage or that there’s zero coverage

whatsoever, the impact to you is the same that you can when that low band is overutilized and

taxed out, it will either slow down so much that you can’t download materials, you know, you’re

driving down Lake Road and you’re trying to find an address and it won’t be able to connect or

you will be dropped. Your call will be dropped. There will not be sufficient coverage for your

call to go from this cell phone to the other cell phone. So, as you’re driving, right, you go from

cell phone tower to cell phone tower cell phone tower. You're passed along as you’re driving

down Lake Road. You would come from Webster speaking to someone on low band and then if

you hit this area and there is not sufficient capacity, that call will be dropped because there won’t

that it occurs at all.

dropped calls right and the goal is to identify no dropped calls before the tower is built here we

are already over utilization.

superior service, right?

Pg. 182 September 8, 2026 Zoning Meeting

five start rating for Verizon. So, I was just trying to understand on the capacity level is that a

quantitative failure point.

right and that’s something the courts haven’t spoken to. It is known as a coverage gap this is a

coverage gap, and it is the health and safety of the network to ensure that there are no coverage

gaps.

circuit court of appeals has made this standard and J don’t know if the second has or not where

we sit but they don’t quantify that bar.

show that there is a significant gap in coverage and this is the least intrusive means to fill that

coverage gap. That’s the standard that’s..............

and......... That are a coverage gap.

the capacity size there’s not a quantitative formula for that.

clear. There are standards that we can show through those KPIs that these three existing towers

are at capacity and reaching exhaustion. There is not a court case that says It’s okay if 4 calls are

dropped.

They are at capacity and those are that.....is what’s shown on the graphs within our RF

justification that those three sites.

know if that’s a term of art, but you think by any reasonable measure people would say they’ re

exhausted. ..similar experts.

calls or inability to access the network.

Pg. 183 September 8, 2026 Zoning Meeting

get our Webster North material. So, for Webster North, this is a slightly different history and

also slightly different coverage and capacity gap that I'll go into in more detail. For this Webster

North site, I first want to acknowledge that this has been before the town, and we have been

working with the town for many years to try to solve a real coverage gap in the Webster North

cell and in this neighborhood. It started about 2 years ago, maybe by now 3 years ago, working

with the town to try to identify sites that could be for locations for a telecommunications tower

that could serve and solve the coverage gap in this neighborhood. There is a town owned

property that is well suited. It’s in this neighborhood. Verizon entered into lease negotiations

with the town to lease the property from the town. Last summer, we were before the town board

to approve that lease. The Town Board ultimately decided not to lease to Verizon, but that is a

legislative act that is fully within the town board’s discretion. Just as we were talking about the

landlord for Windmill Farms having full discretion whether or not to lease to us, the town of

Webster as a landlord like wise has full discrepancy whether or not to least to us. The town board

decided voted no again complete within their right. But I do want to make that distinguishment

between what the town board decided in a legislative act whether or not to lease to Verizon

versus what is before the zoning board of appeals tonight for a zoning decision.

have to answer. The sense is that at the end of the day, if this new tower is more than likely to go

up somewhere to address this coverage area and by the town previously determining legislatively

for those not aware the first time the town had the ability to say no because it was a question

threshold question of ownership just like you said about the Windmill Farm ....somebody

doesn’t want to lease it, you can’t force them but the inevitable fact through it seems that this

tower is going to go up covering the same area that the town previously legislated and says no

we don’t want to lease it the reality of that occurring and what I suspect will be residents at the

new proposed location being as equally opposed as to the prior location that the town owned.

Has Verizon considered approaching the town again or renewing the application in light of the

town’s....... and I’m not saying that it’s a good idea, bad idea, or I have any inside baseball

information, but was that part...... I guess the town recognizing that this is going to go

somewhere, would they reconsider it given the fact that Verizon hasn’t given up, if you will, of

putting this within the same coverage area. It’s another bad questions at 9:20, but do you

understand ?

last year of that...there is a coverage gap in this neighborhood. There is a real need for a cell

phone tower. If it is not here, it will be somewhere in this search area. And the ability for the

town board to put in restrictions or concepts is available to them as a landlord that is not

available to them as a zoning authority. So, that was very clearly stated to the town board. It was

very clearly stated during all of the discussions and in going over the lease. So, to us, this was

very well explained, and it was very transparent. We were very clear with the town board. It

will go somewhere in this neighborhood.

Pg. 184 September 8, 2026 Zoning Meeting

criteria at least from your side of the ledger preferable to what you’re proposing at what’s the

second?

started out initial conversation with the town was the town offered and again, you know, it was

very collaborative relationship, and it was over a course of several years that these conversations

were happening. When the town and Verizon first started the discussions the question was only

about that parcel so there was no site selection and there was no comparison of other locations.

There were no you know, going through the analysis of is there an alternative site because the

town had offered that as an option. Now doing the comparison between the other sites. After

last summer when the town declined to enter into a lease, Verizon looked at 11 other sites within

that area and found a location that is I think preferable to Verizon to be so....certainly,

process, this was you know deemed to be a more preferable site.

the same criteria apply here that is a diminished standard of review rather than the standard

criteria set forth for an area variance. Here the significant gap in coverage and also in our

application it’s exhibit F and Q and again independently confirmed by the times RG consultant

there is a significant gap in wireless coverage in the Webster North cell. This area is currently

served by three distant overburden sites. The two are the same servicing as Lake Road. It is

Webster and Four Mile Creek. And here the third tower is Webster Park. All three sites have

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

coverage here, Moreover, as we discussed on the Lake Road site, actual utilization data for the

past year shows that several key performance indicators have already exceeded that 100%

utilization, which means the existing network cannot meet current demand. The goal of this

project is to increase network capacity, provide reliable coverage and to offload the traffic from

those overloaded sites.

Interestingly, we had one member of the public testify at a planning board meeting that she has

no cell coverage in her home and must leave her neighborhood to make a phone call. And her

testimony illustrates the exact problem that we’re trying to solve with these coverage charts. In

exhibits F and Q specifically, this is page

14. It’s showing that Webster North cell the existing

low band coverage is akin to the type of coverage one would have on a rural highway subject to

variable conditions such as fading and seasonality gaps. That means you know items such as in

home use is very difficult if not non existent in this area. Likewise, there is little to no reliable

mid band coverage in this area. And with this project, again, as demonstrated in our application,

the area would have wireless service that’s appropriate for suburban single family residential.

Pg. 185 September 8, 2026 Zoning Meeting

So, this unlike the Lake Road site, that the midband coverage was lower here in the north,

webster north cell, the low band coverage is weakier. Like the Lake Road site, we did review if

this is the proposed height is the minimum necessary to provide effective coverage. Here again

demonstrated on page 23 and 24 of exhibit Q and again confirmed by the town’s RG consultant.

The supplemental propagation plots compared coverage at the proposed 130 foot antenna center

line. So again, as we discussed, it’s a 134 foot tower. That ACL then would be at

130. We

compared the 130 center line against a reduced height of a 111 ft antenna center line and a 91 ft

antenna center line. In each scenario, both low band and mid band coverage are materially

compromised due to area clutter from the dense old growth forests in these neighborhoods.

Also, confirmed by the town’s independent RG consultant that the reduced height operates

would create or expand even a weak signal area north of the site along Schlegel Road to the east,

Schumacher Road to the west, and within the surrounding residential neighborhoods. This is

because in that neighborhood there is significant tree coverage and we demonstrated in our

application. We had a drone go up to measure actually where the tree canopy is. And the

surrounding tree canopy and area clutter reaches as high as 110 to 115 ft in this neighborhood.

The proposed antenna is necessary to get above that foliage so that we can get across the clutter

and provide sufficient coverage to this area. It is the minimum clearance that’s needed to

maintain the effective RF performance under these sight specific conditions.

As we discussed, Verizon did conduct an exhaustive alternative site analysis after the town board

declined entering into a lease with Verizon last summer. We went through a site selection

analysis evaluating 11 candidates 11 parcels within and immediately outside the search area.

Interestingly, I’m sure you’re familiar with these areas. These parcels are usually residential

parcels. They’re quite small. There are wetland considerations back in along the creek that’s

going up though the neighborhood. So, there are a lot of sight constraints when looking at how

to service and how to best serve coverage in this neighborhood. And this is all shown again in

exhibit G that the search area is heavily wooded and consists predominantly of those smaller

residential lots and wetlands which again severely limit the available options in order for a site to

be placed to meet the setbacks. The selected site at 1222 Wildflower Drive is the only candidate

that’s both technically viable from an RG perspective and was available for lease. This parcel

also meets all the applicable setback requirements. The remaining candidates, so those other 10

candidates were eliminated due to parkland or wetland constraints. The landowners were

unwilling to enter into negotiations, or they weren’t able to satisfy the RF coverage objections

from the locations and those candidly are predominantly the areas located outside the search

area. They were not sufficient to meet the RF needs.

We've collaborated with municipal staff and stakeholders over several years and conducted an

exhaustive search that extended beyond the defined search area and identified and evaluated

every technically feasible site that we could locate in the vicinity. The record contains no

evidence of alternatives sites that have not already been thoroughly reviewed and considered. As

we discussed for the Lake Road site the project will have no adverse environmental or

community impacts. Again, local boards are expressly preempted from denying or conditioning

approvals of wireless facilities based on health or environmental effects of RF emissions where

Pg. 186 September 8, 2026 Zoning Meeting

facilities comply with the FCC standards. Here those standards similar to the other application

are evidence in exhibit O to the application.

We'll also not that that tree height that mature tree cover that is necessitating needing this area

variance to go up to the 135 ft tower that also provides coverage through and screening of the

tower from residents. If you think when you’re in a densely forested area or an area that has a lot

of tall tree growth, when you are in the neighborhood itself, you will be looking up through the

trees, which will certainly screen the effect of looking at the antenna when you’re actually

located in the neighborhood. As shown in those photo simulations, you will be able to see the

tower from a distance, but from the neighborhood itself, that tree coverage should provide some

substantial natural screen of the tower from the area residents. Again, like the road site, the

project will not pollute, it does not create noise, it does not increase traffic, it does not create a

demand on governmental services. It is an alert facility that enhances emergency

communications and allows the residents to make a call from their house and really solve a

coverage gap that is real and existing in this neighborhood and has been an area we’ ve been

working on for many years.

Do you have any questions on this particular application?

going to the simulations, the image simulations?

There’s two red balloons between the two trees. Right in the middle.

second balloon is actually where the tower height wiil be. So, it’s the top balloon is just holding

up this the second balloon, but the second balloon is where the........ (recording skipping and

board member speaking at the same time) is up there first.

simulating the height of the tower. Again, it’s that second balloon down that showing that tower

height. And then the following page is a phot simulation of what the cell phone tower would look

like shown at that height from that distance. And then that’s repeated from different angles.

Thank you. Yeah, different angles and where the locations of the photos are taken is on the first

page of the exhibit K.

given the tree, the canopy....the tree canopy and what happens if the tree canopy gets higher?

Pg. 187 September 8, 2026 Zoning Meeting

reflective of tree heights that are no longer prevalent. I am not an arborist. I don’t know what

the extent of the tree height would be. There’s only so much higher that we can do and

demonstrate that need. I’m certain we would welcome a taller tower at this time but, you know,

we are trying to be respectful and mindful of only ask for the height that is needed to meet the

RF needs and the coverage gap that exists today. So, the 135 ft is demonstrating what is needed

to meet the RF coverage today. I don’t know what the future is 20 years from now if it will need

to be extended, but certainly from today’s RG needs. Being below that tree line is not meeting

the RF coverage. Being at 100 feet is not meeting the RF coverage. Being at that 135, that’s

what’s going to provide a meaningful RF coverage solution for many years to come.

showing this is needed. Firsthand experience, used to live in this neighborhood, don’t live in this

neighborhood anymore. Used to call Verizon on a regular basis. No cell phone service. Their

response was, “you have perfect cell phone service. You shouldn’t have an issue. I had to go

and I had to leave my house, go down to the end of the street to get cell phone service.” So,

what...you are not telling me they don’t have cell phone service, you know they don’t have

coverage. They were telling me they did have coverage. Which is it right, I mean I guess is

where my struggle is to have a corporation tell me which you should be fine there shouldn’t be

any issues. Well, now they want something and now they’re here saying, well we don’t have

coverage. So again, years have passed right. So, I understand that there’s more cell phone usage

now. The technology has changed. I get all that. But help me understand how they go from it’s

no problem, which I could ...I can tell you completely different from drop calls and everything

else to now they want something and now they need it.

very different even where we were 5 years from now. You know, I don’t want to speak to what

the answer was when you called the salesperson, right? That’s our villain today, right. But here,

you know, we do have an RF need. We have an RG coverage gap. We have that evidence before

the ZBA. We have the evidence that it was then supported by the RF consultant. But you’ re

exactly right to ask those questions. Those are very typical of a municipality to ask. It is what

the planning board asked of why should we believe you? We’re just looking at your data and

that’ exactly why the planning board and then the planning board asked the town board and then

the town board engaged an independent RF consultant for that exact question. It is typical of

municipalities to ask, it’s certainly a fair question to ask, but that has resulted in the RF

consultant being engaged by the town. Why you were told there was coverage year ago, I don’t

know, but I can very confidently say, as you experience. You’re not being gaslight. There is a

coverage problem in this neighborhood . You are correct.

Pg. 188 September 8, 2026 Zoning Meeting

town expert.

colleague, Professor Stephen Chikarelli and I, we don’t advocate for towers. We also don’t

lobby against them. We try to make sure that the planning boards and zoning boards having the

information in a factual manner that allows them to then do an even handed analysis of the

situation. I wanted to go back to attorney DeMarco’s question. I just want to be sure that was

answered. You asked the question about the Lake Road site that if capacity had not been the

issue would there be a need for a tower at this site. The answer to that is no but that’s not the

situation. The situation ts there is a capacity issue and the number of users in that area are over

using the existing adjacent sites. So, in order to fix that problem, it isn't adding radio frequency

coverage. That's a solution. It’s drawing traffic from those sites to a more localized tower

which will then support those particular users. So, I hope that perhaps you had your question

answered but I wasn’t sure that it was put in those sort of terms.

there is one or it’s kind of you know it when you see it type of thing.

of a soft failure. Okay, it isn’t like all of a sudden you have no service at all, but when you start

hitting capacity at a site, everybody has to share the same bandwidth, which means everybody

gets less time on that particular base station. And then when that gets to be too reduced, that’s

when this saturation problem starts to happen. So, it’s possible in both of these locations that at

times during the day particularly talking about webster north site, there is no strong server in

that area either at low band or mid band but that doesn’t mean that somebody might be able to

getacall. They may be holding their phone to the right ear and the base station’s over here

whereas if they spin around, they're going to be facing the base station. So, the cranium does

absorb some of the electromagnetic energy and can make a difference between a call that goes

through or doesn’t go through. If you're sitting in an automobile trying to make a call, of

course, with your hands-free device, a truck or another vehicle pulls up alongside you waiting at

an intersection, that may be the difference between a call that it goes through or doesn’t go

through. So, it’s a soft failure that occurs. So, it’s....there’s no hard and fast rule, but the

metrics that come out of those soft failures are what are documented on those plots, right.

You're seeing times that it spikes and you’re seeing times that it drops down again below the

100% level. So, it ....you know, it doesn't mean it’s always impossible to make a call. It’s just

that it becomes less and less likely to get that kind of reliability.

(LAUGHTER)

staff....yeah, so I guess we will just leave it at that. We won’t go too deep. So, attorney Smith

has made a very good presentation. I was hearing a lot of the jargon that was in my report, and

Pg. 189 September 8, 2026 Zoning Meeting

you know of course it's a common, you now wireless is something that they work in every day

and something that professor Chickarelli and I work in every day too. So not surprising that

there's some connection between these two. It probably would be easiest if you had questions for

me that I can try to answer. I have no disagreement with anything that attorney Smith told you.

Professor Chickarelli and I have looked at the changes in height for the proposed tower. We

have met twice online with Verizon's radio frequency engineers and we talked engineering,

right? What can be done? What’s going on? Where's the really important non negotiable areas?

And, you know, some of that is actually on the shore of the lake. If I had a flashlight and I was

trying to shine it over a piece of furniture, if I was close to that piece of furniture, I really don’t

have to go very high. But if I get back away from that escarpment and I try to reach over the top

of that sofa. I have to get higher in order to do that. Terrain is certainly an issue. Loss of signal

inside foliage that’s around where the tower is located, that’s an issue. All those things are

called clutter. So, terrain and obstacles are clutter to the radio frequency signal. It has to get

up above those in order to be very effective in terms of collocation. The sites are being built to

have two co locators. Very perceptive question and I forgot who asked that question. That

means that if someone comes in to co locate they’re going to have to go lower. And you will see

the effect in the propagation plots of what that looks like. It reduces the footprint, the area that

the base station can service, and they would have to deal with that, or they would have to

propose another tower or put an extension on the existing tower to get it up above so that they

would get a bigger footprint and that would be a question for the planning board. It would be a

question for you to go and look through this again to try and figure out what’s appropriate to do.

Are there other way that these could be solved? If you were in an airplane and you were looking

at you know from 20,000 feet up you would see a bunch of base stations that are you know,

scattered throughout the area. There’s nothing that says you could put 7,10, 15,100 foot towers

90 foot towers in an area. It would be essentially the same cost per tower to put that in. So, I’m

not going to get into the finances of it. Okay, but you’re putting, you know, you're not ....you’re

not putting something just on a pole that’ s 10-15 feet up in the air. You're putting a tower that’s

probably going to be up in the 80 to 90 foot range to cover a parochially small area because of

the trees and because of the radio frequency obstacles. And every single one of those sites,

you’re going to be having a hearing like this and you’re going to have opposition from residents

for those. So, you know, minimum impact on the community, and possibly the feasibility of doing

something like I just described, those have to be balanced, and they have to weigh on. Okay, this

site is a single site. It will provide the coverage that Verizon needs to have. There is a gap

whether it's capacity or coverage in both of those locations. And the heights that Verizon is

proposing from an engineering point of view looking at the propagation plots seems to be that

those are the minimum heights that they actually need to get those kind of service. And one last

comment before I stand by, the question is is there really a gap here or is because we're looking

at Verizon’s information, right? We're looking at propagation plots. We're looking at

information that comes from about the key performance indicators. There’s a lot of that

information that you or I can’t independently generate. Okay, I don’t have access to get inside

their switch. I wish I did, but I’m not a hacker. But if I could get in there and look at those key

performance indicators myself, then my guess is | would probably see what they presented to us

tonight. There is a website that’s called OPENSIGNAL.COM All one work, open signal. And

Pg. 190 September 8, 2026 Zoning Meeting

you can load that onto your smartphone and there are features on that where you can actually

look at a map and see what the coverage is for the various carriers. So, Professor Chickarelli

and I did that because we just do that as a matter of course trying to look to see, you know, is

there an independent confirmation? It matches pretty well to what's happening in Webster

North. Now, we don’t have that information at Lake Road and County Line Road and that’s

because there already are some existing sites that are there. So, there are actually some calls

that are actually going through there is radio frequency coverage, but what I can tell you is the

Webster North site shows.....1 actually put their propagation plot and the information from

opensignal.com over the top of each other and it almost predicted what Verizon has produced.

So, professor Chickarelli and I, even though he's not here tonight, I’m going to speak for him

that we're very convinced that the information you're looking at is valid information and it could

be independently confirmed, but I don’t think you need to do that. I’ve been involved with doing

this type of work probably for the last 30 years or so, and early on it that propagation tools were

not very accurate. Uh, currently the propagation tools compared to an actual drive test where

you put an antenna on the roof of a car and run it around the roads. We can’t get into people's

backyards, but we can be on the main roads. If you put those things over the top of each other,

like the opensignal.com exercise that I described, you see a very good correlation in present day

between what is being shown in the simulation and what’s actually real work measurements. If

we were having this conversation 30 years ago I wouldn’t be able to be quite that authoritative

about it. There was big discrepancies between the propagation tools and the actual

performance. But these days, the reliability of that information is pretty good. So, | hope that

helps you and I be happy to answer questions if you have them.

where did you get the data from? Okay, came from Verizon. But you were able to at least one

of the sites do an independent confirmation and that lined up pretty well. Over the course of your

career doing this, how well does Verizon’s data play nicely or line up? You know, follow what

I’m asking?

engage with the technical folks at on the other side of the fence with Verizon you do develop with

some familiarity with who the people are that you're dealing with. So, we do have some very

honest conversations about these sort of things about how accurate ts this and where are things

settling in. Verizon has been very good you know at least at talking to their technical folks which

is you know where professor Chickarelli and I spend our time is talking to their engineers,

There has always been a collaborative you know pretty much; they're not scared to show us

what they can show us. You know, sometimes they show us some good stuff that you know,

perhaps wasn’t actually entered into the record. Like we've seen the video for the drone flight,

right? It was not still photographs, but it was actually a rotating drone video that showed us

what the tree heights were, which is why we're fairly convinced that to go lower than that

proposed height would now Start to put those antennas down into the tree line. You've got four

Photographs. We've got a north south east and west photograph but those are very

representative of what the actual video shows but I don’t think they can easily put that video into

record to do that but professor Chickarelli and I did look at those things and there’s other things

Pg. 191 September 8, 2026 Zoning Meeting

like that that we try to just cross check so I have a very high confidence that the material that

you've been provided is good not that just for this particular case but for the last couple of

decades they’ve been very straightforward.

anyway. Tower height and the lease. Ultimately, take the lease aside, regardless of if Verizon

decides to lease out or not, the height that is proposed is the height that is necessary for the

coverage that has been identified to be able to um. ....to increase coverage, to increase capacity.

Correct? Anything lower really isn’t going to meet the needs of the area.

the record so that you had it so that you could also see the comparison, but that’s the same

materials we looked at. We didn’t look at anything different than what you're seeing.

necessarily for the densification of the network.

know, I try to fudge that just a little bit, right? It if was two feet lower or two feet higher, it’s not

going to make a huge difference, right? That antenna center line is what they need off load the

adjacent sites for capacity issues, but particularly in Webster North to provide new coverage

because there’s areas there that just don’t have any coverage at all.

are cell towers that have provided awful aesthetic but aesthetic enhancements to try and hide

them, Um.....do those enhancements affect the coverage area?

There are a lot of stealth sites that are in the area at low band. Now when you go to the mid

banc, it’s higher frequency. So, putting the artificial limbs on the trees and putting leaves out in

Front of the antennas. So, you know these are plastic, right? So that they don’t actually absorb

the energy, but it turns out that those do enough things with refraction of the radio waves to

disrupt how the antenna was designed to perform. So, there is some degradation, and we have

Verizon, | say we, Verizon put a site in in Pittsford. It’s a stealth site that in a bell tower in the

Town of Pittsford and was a very nice site and works pretty well for low band, but for the

midband there are some problems. There's problems when you have a dielectric material, plastic

material;, and you try to shoot a signal sideways through that material. If you’re shooting

straight on, it’s radar systems, you see those rotating, you know, radar beams or the big domes

that are the weather radar, that signal is shooting straight through that plastic material, but

when it shoots through at an angle, there’s very bad things that happen to the radio signal but

that’s part of the RF engineering and that’s one of the reasons why stealth sites are not

preferred. But if they're necessary, there’s some degradation in technical performance for the

Pg. 192 September 8, 2026 Zoning Meeting

advantage of an aesthetic improvement. A 135 foot artificial tree, okay, maybe a little bit

questionable. OR 125 foot artificial tree might be a little bit questionable standing by itself, but

that’s a matter for the planning board and for you folks to consider.

going to stick out as fake tree anyhow. In my opinion, worse than a monopole would be, but

that’s an opinion, not a question.

this project. Can I have them come up and just specify which site John?

them separate for the public hearings.

Geraldine Breschard at 632 Pinelakes Trail (DID NOT SIGN IN) I’m here tonight to speak on

behalf of Webster Presbyterian Church. They have heard of the opposition to this cell phone

tower. No one really wants it in their backyard. They understand that and they are very

sympathetic to the community and they would like to make this offer to both the town, zoning, the

planning board and Verizon that the Webster Presbyterian Church located at 550 Webster Road

would be very open to the cell phone tower being put on their property. With that, I hope you

consider. They have a decent sized piece of property, and it would really virtually affect very

limited amount of houses. I think only one home and even that’s questionable. So, I hope this

board takes that into consideration and Verizon does as well because this is a very generous

offer from my church and it might help alleviate some of the anxiety that homeowners are

having. Thank you for your time.

Barbara Robbins at 1205 Wildflower Drive: I had submitted a petition with 95 signatures to the

town planning board, and I actually was the only person who walked around the neighborhood

and spoke to all the residents and obtained signatures from people. And the individuals that had

problems with their cell phone coverage were all Verizon customers. There were no other

carriers that expressed individuals that expressed issues with their coverage other than Verizon.

I know a few people, after talking with Verizon, they offered them the additional boosters to put

into their homes so that it would help them. There were other individuals that said no matter if

they had something in their house or not, if they stood in the corner, they couldn’t get coverage

unless they walked out their front door. It’s not that we don’t want people in our neighborhood

Pg. 193 September 8, 2026 Zoning Meeting

to have coverage because I feel that’s important for anybody who wants to have a cell phone, but

our neighborhood is made up of very large trees. And that is part of why we purchase the home

that we did 24 years ago. My husband, when we were looking to move from the Maplewood

neighborhood out here to Webster, he didn’t want to look for a new development because we

didn’t want a six foot tree in our yard, we wanted a tree that was taller than our home. And we

don't want to see, you know, the trees be cut down or in a few years if this tower that’s 139 feet

you know, 39 feet above what the town has right now as the height for towers and things. Are

they going to have to go in and cut down trees? The gentleman over here, John, he asked

attorney Smith a question about what happens when the trees continue to grow. It really meant

that Verizon didn’t need to come back and ask for additional approval if the height of the tower

or the pole was increased. It would be that they could just increase it at random. When I walk

out my front door at 1205 Wildflower Drive, I’m going to see that tower across the street. We

thought that having it camouflaged was going to be an option. We had not heard nor have I read

anything where it ever stated, you know, that it impeded the radio frequency. So, that in and of

itself is another concern. I know people that live up the street from us, and they have a pool in

their backyard. Um.....this tower is going to be right off the side of their yard. They own about

three and half or 4 acres and it’s just not something that’s really conducive. We don’t even

realize if where this tower is looking to be built, are they going to be clearing out a lot of the

trees that are in that property in order to get this back in there?

back to the zoning board to go taller because the motion will be for us for this particular tower

will be for a height of it was I think it’s a 139 feet...Um. So, if they want to another 10 feet taller

because the trees have grown they will have to come back to the zoning board for that. They

probably don’t have to go to the planning board, but they will have to come back to the zoning

board because the height.....the zoning board is restricting it to that height.

give them approval to trim down the trees whatever heights they want but that would be between

Verizon and the land owner, but it’s unlikely that they would.

Barba Robbins at 1205 Wildflower Drive: I would very much encourage though for them to look

at the Presbyterian site. I mean, we do walk around the block and probably something that still

could be seen, but it wouldn't be in the direct area, and it wouldn’t have all kinds of forest that’s

going to affect it.

boards can do whatever they want around here? I haven't seen this many theatrics around a

town board in well, probably a few weeks. But you guys are doing this big theatrical

performance tonight, I guess about whether to approve a 39 foot variance or an area variance.

You guys know what you have to do because the town code dictates what your decisions have to

be. So, I knew the outcome of this meeting prior to coming into this meeting, and you guys know

Pg. 194 September 8, 2026 Zoning Meeting

the outcome of this meeting prior to coming into this meeting. So, why the 3 hour long theatrical

performance, I suppose, is my question. It’s not really being fair to folks. Now, we do have to

make sure that we supplement the record and that it's diligently pursued, for lack of a better

term. So, I think that you guys are required to go and inspect the Presbyterian Church on

Webster Road to determine whether it’s less intrusive. There’s a real hardship here regarding

the residents over on Wildflower. All the neighboring houses are going to have their property

values diminished because of the aesthetics and because of the perception of the cell phone

tower, So, the least that you could....that you folks can do, and I know there’s a lot of talking

from Verizon. There’s....we have an independent contractor with lots of information. But what

you guys need to do is actually very simply, which is deny the height variance for these folks

because I’m looking at you guys and I’m thinking these guys work for the developers. That’s

what I think when I see you guys here and I look at you guys. I think these folks work for the

developers because it’s so clear in our town code that there is a maximum height allowance of

developments in the town of Webster for 100 feet but somehow the town code doesn’t apply to

Verizon Wireless. And there's a discussion; well, more micro towers produce more hardship if

they build micro towers to fulfill to fill in the coverage gap. I don’t think that’s the point that the

resident are trying to make. I think they’re saying first of all, follow the town code as it's

written, which is really like you number one job description and follow the town code. Second,

fulfill....make sure to diligently fulfill the record, which yea, i.e. go and inspect the press. I think

you’re actually required to go and inspect the Webster Road Presbyterian church site at this

point. So, when you know.......g0 and do that, please. Because if that results in less hardship,

that’s what you need to be doing. The third issue, and I’m just going to restate it before closing,

is as far as the 39 foot height variance we should end that argument, end that whole discussion

right now. Absolutely not. Because again, our town code says 100 foot max. So, what's the deal?

Why are you having this argument saying the developers and you guys shouldn’t have to follow

our town code? It is so....it could not be clearer. Follow our town code. And guess what? We're

going to have to change our town code so that cell towers cannot be built on residential

properties because that’s what cased this whole dilemma for these residents to begin with. For

some reason, the town code says that the cell towers can be built on residential properties.

10:

10. We can call the meeting rather than have the public be heard. So just keep your

comments limited to the application. It would be helpful.

would....

Pg. 195 September 8, 2026 Zoning Meeting

for us?

Mark Robbins at 1205 Wildflower Drive: I’m Barb’s husband. And I just wanted to clarify

something for John. You asked a question earlier about the town’s location on Wildflower

Drive. I guess there’s a water treatment plant that was originally considered. That's only about

250 or so feet away from what's being proposed now. And it’s not clear to me and I would like

an answer specifically why the town rejected that. I mean, it’s their right, you know, it’s, you

know, as was stated legislatively, but we didn’t get an answer technically why that was turned

down from that particular site initially. So, I just wanted to clarify that. It’s only a few hundred

feet away from what's being proposed.

give his or her reasons, right? My guess is if you went back and you looked at the tape, you

could probably surmise, if not individually, collectively what the stated reasons were. And it

may very well be if you were to call the individual town board members, at least two of which

are new, I believe, I don’t believe voted on that. So, three of them, if you were to call them and

ask them, they may tell you. I don’t know whether they will or not. But the reason why I had

asked the question was if the town considered to revisit it and I’m not saying that they’re

interested or not interested, how it compares with the proposed site. And I guess for whatever

reason, I was surprised to learn that apparently the proposed site from Verizon standpoint and

coverage and capacity apparently is superior. I don’t know by how much, it’s just slight or it’s

significant to what they’re proposing now.

SOMEONE FROM THE AUDIENCE SPEAKING OUT AND I CAN NOT HEAR VERY

WELL......... at this Wildflower site. I think there was a difference of 10 feet, wasn’t there?

questions that they choose to.

North. Um.....let’s see, (CONVERSATIONS BEING HELD BETWEEN MICHAEL SHORT

AND JOHN DEMARCO. ...can not really hear it) Let me ask the board. Does the board want to

hear comments for the other...... Lake Road? Again, I’m trying to get all the comments in so

wee can move this along.

Pg. 196 September 8, 2026 Zoning Meeting

why don’t we switch gears and let the public speak on the other site. So, at least if we have to

close the public hearing because of the lateness of the hour, we can do that and hopefully the

applicant will have enough time this evening or if not, at the next date to answer any concerns.

But I think.....1 don’t know if the public wants to come back again. To me it would make more

sense to let them speak now.

determination to close the public hearing for the Wildflower Drive and then go into the Lake

Road.

session for Webster North. Will open up public comments for Lake Road. So, does anybody

want to speak for or against Lake Road? Come on up.

one more.

David Rasmmanson at 1090 Lake Road: I’m an attorney and I’m representing my daughter-in-

law and son, Kelly and Daniels Rasmmanson and they live at 1890 Lake Road. Kelly’s here in

the audience. They live at 1890 Lake Road which is directly across the Lake Road proposed

facility, Um....couple comments and I recognize the lateness of the hour. The planning board is

still deliberating on this. Council made a comment that has been fuily vetted, and I don’t know if

she intended it, but I think that the insinuation was that it’s all done before the planning board.

It isnot. It is being vetted. It is being argued. It is still being presented and there has been no

decision made. So, I would suggest to you that any decision by this board at this point would be

premature and unless and until the planning board make some deliberation or some decision on

it or if you were to make a decision that you would do so conditioned upon what the planning

board may or may not do. I certainly wouldn’t want anything prejudicial to happen here with

respect to the planning board’s deliberative process. Now, one of the test that council and I

agree with her that they have to meet is that the project as proposed must have a minimal

intrusion on the community. They haven't even addressed that. They are so far from being able

to establish minimal intrusion on this site. This site has maximum intrusion. It’s out in the open.

It’s out there for the whole neighborhood to see. There are no trees, no buffering, no nothing on

it. Plus, it’s situated right on the corner of the National Scenic By way, the Great Wake Scenic

Trail. It is a National Scenic Highway, and this is going to be built right on it. Now, the scenic

byway is administered by the New York State Department of Transportation. I’ve spoken to

them... I’ve given the information to Mr. Artuso, and I believe he has reached out to DOT.

They're concerned about it. They have concerns about this being on the National Scenic Byway.

Also, when there’s an intrusion on an aesthetic resource such as this, the National Scenic Byway

is defined as an aesthetic resource. The DEC strongly recommends that any deliberative process

include a visual impact study that's very detailed to minimize the visual impact of the project.

Pg. 197 September 8, 2026 Zoning Meeting

That hasn't been done as far as I know. The lead agency in the secret process would take

responsibility for that and I think it should be done here.

Finally, I think Windmill Farms controls the search area. I think more inquiry needs to be made

into what availability they have. They've cited a conservation easement. I’ve researched the

conservation easement. It doesn’t preclude this use. It could be taken out of the conservation

easement, and this use could be put farther back on the property. So, I think a lot more due

diligence needs to be done on this search area. So, with that, I’ll close my comments for tonight,

thank you.

Bob Jansen at County Line Road: I live directly across from where this is going to be. If you

could fine the picture, I think it's either 140 or 125 in the pages. Um...give you a sense of what

I'll be looking at. Um...it is a visual intrusion. Um....In 1996, 30 years ago, the Federal

Communications Commission has hearings and came up with recommendations um....on cell

phone tower placement. Um....their recommendation 30 years ago was 1,600 feet from a

residence. My house will be about 300-325. Uh....the Rasmmanson’s probably about the sane

given where they’re going to locate this thing right at the corner. Um....the issue of coverage,

Um... have the exact difference from what your coverage is. I’ve got Verizon telling me I don’t

have coverage and I have coverage every day. I use my phone all day long. I was out on my

mower all afternoon, got headphones on, Wi-Fi and I'm listening to music off Verizon. I’m a

Verizon customer. So, I don’t understand and my neighbors tell me they use their phones, they

work from home, they’re getting coverage all day long. So, the idea that there’s no coverage is

kind of specious. Most importantly, if you look at the maps they’ve got, um you look at their

marketing map, they tell everybody that wants to buy Verizon, we got great coverage. 5G, I’m

sitting in 5G and 4G is all the area south and east of me. All of in Ontario, the other side of

County Line Road from where this tower is going to be. And if we look around, we’ve got a

tower on Dean’s Parkway. Milk Plant's got a tower; Boulter’s got a tower; Four Mile Creek’s

got a tower; Ganea’s got a tower; if they build a tower at the corner of Lake Road, 50% of the

coverage for that tower is Lake Ontario. Not many people out there.....1 realized it from Boers

probably needed maybe an emergency, but the reality is 60 maybe more percent is south and

east of where the maps show that...what they want to call a dead zone. But you can’t have it

both ways. You either have coverage and the maps they market it with and sell with say fine, we

got all the coverage you need till you buy the coverage and it's oh well you don’t have coverage

there. And I think it’s time to get that straight. I’m not quite untechnical, but I don't know low

band, mid band, and I doubt that any of you do really understand it either. I was out in my yard.

I have five acres. I’m surrounded by trees, a lot them dead ash, but I’ve got a lot of huge

cottonwood trees, big ones, tall ones and I never lost coverage once. I can drive around in my

car all the time out there and I can have all the coverage I want. I think the argument that

there’s no coverage and it’s maxed out and it’s not available just and I understand there’s been

a study done looked at Verizon's data. Well, if you’re looking at their data, what do you expect

to find? You're going to find them saying this is the problem. And I’m not saying they’re lying,

but I’m not saying either that it’s true. I think there needs to be an actual coverage done and

Pg. 198 September 8, 2026 Zoning Meeting

check it. Take their word for it. That’s fine. But I think they did it by having all the equipment.

Let's get someone to do it and show with real equipment. Yes, they're absolutely right but I can

tell you I use my phone all the time; my neighbors do; and they all tell me they use good

coverage. And something's wrong. I don’t know who to believe, but it’s not Verizon.

Um....I do have a question, Steve, right.

Is that Mr. Jensen?

100 foot towers they’d have to put more in basically to hit the same coverage. I know.....I’m

pretty sure we weren't ...you weren’t asked to study how many more towers, but you’ ve done

this a long time. If you were to throw a dart at a wall, how many more towers would be

necessary to make the same coverage? Again, it’s a guess and I understand that, but how many

more towers?

this is for any of the carriers, right? If they have one particular tower, what they would do is

lower the height of that tower and put six more around the periphery. So, you know, lacking

information, right? That probably we would take one tower and make it into seven.

is less impactful then seven towers at 100 feet. So, okay.

too which you know, something you need to consider because they are public utility and there is

case law from the New York court of Appeals that speaks to those kind of issues. It was about a

nuclear power station that was never built but a municipality wanted to do some improvements

to that particular power station. It increased the cost to I think 20% more than what it was being

proposed. New York Court of Appeals struck that down. The site was never built okay but that’s

probably the closest we have to you know something dealing with a public utility and the

increased cost. Would a 5% increase be reasonable? I don’t really know the answer to that

question. That’s all speculation.

ever...... I think you may have spoke in your first presentation about that there’s a trust factor.

Have you ever had an occasion to request the data that would address the figures that they’re

showing in the exhibits?

Pg. 199 September 8, 2026 Zoning Meeting

20 years ago. There was a site that was being proposed in the town of Lockport out to the west

of here. It was a huge tower. If | remember right, it was about 150 feet-180 feet tall and the

propagation plots that were supplied were not convincing me that actually....that that was what

was needed. And I pushed back on that quite a bit and it was an attorney who was representing

the site from out of the area and a different RF engineer than who was involved here and I got a

phone call one day from one of the other RF engineers and said he was taking over that site and

I asked him, you know, what had happened? Why are you, you know, swapping in and things?

He said, “Let's just leave it at the fact that I'm on the case now.” And he sent me some

propagation plots and if I’m going to remember, it was like 120 feet, maybe 110 feet was what

they were going to propose because that would actually accomplish the goal.

readily for a minute. Have they been provided to you?

lower height analysis.

earlier about data that you were relying on that you didn’t have visibility to. Right? Which data is

that?

particular comment. My report said that there is ubiquitous coverage of 700 megahertz. That's

low band but at times, capacity for the number of users that are trying to use that particular

spectrum is being exceeded. So, right now he'd be drawing signal off of one of the adjacent

towers. When you’re listening to music, there’s a buffering that occurs, right? Is that when the

system is available to do it, it will download, you know, ahead of where you're actually listening.

And then, when there’s a drop, the buffering actually starts to catch up with the point where the

Phone has stopped downloading that information, but the music keeps playing but during that

period of time, it can re-buffer when the system becomes available, and it will buffer some more

a little bit further out. So, from a user’s point of view, it may not be all apparent that the

connection was dropped for a substantial period of time.

Pg. 200 September 8, 2026 Zoning Meeting

receive or has not asked for?

typically asked for. We asked for cleaners plots because we wanted to be able to read the

captioning. We wanted to actually see what the numerical information was, and they provided

cleaner plots of those data, but it wasn’t different data.

verified you were not without any of the underpinning if you will, the data upon which

conclusions were.

that raw data is plotted on those plots.

that data as you did 20 years ago with the other project.

for any additional information because the information that you had, you were able to verify at

least the one site which gave you a comfort level for both sites.

empirical data to compare it to. We're looking at the information. When you have saturate

sites, and this is a very typical scenario on a lot of locations, when you have saturated sites, you

start to see those key performance indicators start to ramp up and start to either go over or

substantially go over the 100% mark.

open.....readily available data as well.

mentioned,

crowdsource data you're calling a lot of information from a lot of users to try to

establish....okay, what's the typical statistical performance of the system in that area. We

couldn’t see the type of information we'd have liked to see for Lake Road from open signal

however, when I looked at open signals information for Webster North, there was almost a

match,

Pg. 201 September 8, 2026 Zoning Meeting

Miss Smith, this minimal intrusion does.....is that part of your expertise or is it not?

necessarily your daily wick.

really great cell service.

area where that’s lacking the capacity and the coverage and then there’s a second tier at the

actual site that was determined to be minimally intrusive how minimally intrusive it is what

they’re putting up and but on the first tier that is in your wheelhouse, right?

establishment of a significant coverage or service gap in the area. That's what Professor

Chickarelli......

how many there were to choose from, but you’re opining that the sites that were here for tonight

were the most minimally intrusive of ..........

at, there was only one that was viable either technically or landowner agreement. Right, so we

pushed them on that particular point. In fact, in our first report, we moted that the boards were

being presented with only one option that there were no other options. And when you’re talking

about something being minimally intrusive, 1 mean, the implication is you’re comparing it to

something, right and there’s nothing else to be comparing it to because that was the only site

that was available. Now there comes the question is the minimally intrusive height is that the

minimum height for performance? So, we looked at that, and we gave you a finding on that.

this minimally intrusive? You probably have a list that you want to go and respond to what I’m

assuming.

Pg. 202 September 8, 2026 Zoning Meeting

intrusive following up on what Mr. Johnson just said, if there was a site where you couldn’t get a

lease, maybe you didn’t want to pay what the land owner wanted is a take away possibly that that

site could have been less intrusive but for Verizon’s unwillingness to pay a price? I don’t know if I

did a good job with that question.

maybe I'll say it differently, right? I think there’s no disagreement that being on the tree line in the

back of the farm would be less intrusive than the site that’s being proposed. Right, so there is, you

know, I don’t believe that we take issue with that of having the tower so abuts the tree line would be

a better position for it to be in and candidly, we don’t want a controversial site, right? We would love

to go where it is easier to build but the landlord declined and said we couldn’t go there for farming

operations or conservation easement operations. So, you know, from Verizon’s perspective, we want

to be in easy sites. We want to be in sties that are easy for a planning board to say yes to or easy for

the ZBA to say yes to.

or the....it was blocked because of other reasons not dollars and cents. It was a conservation

easement; there is some other reason.

using right ....... we have more reasoning on the Windmill farms.

deferring to the landlord, but Verizon was making a business decision. I don’t want to ...... we don’t

want to pay X. The land owner wants too much.

why those choices declined to lease with us. Often they don’t want to engage in lease negotiations.

There are instances where they never respond when you knock on the door and leave a card and send

a certified mail. So, they are for a variety of reason that are not just.............

negotiate based upon terms.

were on instances that .... I’m saying that in a negative way. Either the landlords did not respond or

did not engage in negotiations with Verizon. They said no in this particular instance.

reserves the right that even though a location might be less intrusive, they reserve the ability not to

Pg. 203 September 8, 2026 Zoning Meeting

be required at that location based upon the three criteria that you gave us if they are paying a price

they don’t’ want to pay.

above market rates or something that does not make the business case work. Whether it’s a lease a

length term that’s not acceptable. If it’s a rent that’s above market. So yes, there is strong case law

that says and I’m saying this to be transparent, not in a negative way, but a zoning board can’t dictate

business terms that a telecommunications provider goes with.

because it was greater than market rate.

understand this more refined. I just wanted to see whether.............

Nico Facey (DID NOT SIGN IN) Ihave the unfortunate job of trying t find sites. I think what you’re

trying to ask was there another, you know, landlord interested but wasn’t able to get a deal because

of finances. The short answer is no. The farm is the only interested party. We contact people the

same way. Everyone is the same. Knoeck on the doors; we leave letters in their mailboxes; we send

certified mail. People who aren’t interested, they just most times they don’t contact you. People who

have some interest, they’ll call you. They’li try to solicit more information and then the ones that

are interested, they’ll call you right back and say, “Hey, let’s talk about this”. But in this case, the

only interested party was the Windmill farms, so the short answer is no. There was no one else that

was interested and we couldn’t get a deal done because of finances.

at. Everybody turns Verizon down. How do you start back at square one?

away. And you know, case in point, Webster North has been around for we’ ve been trying to solve

it for.....we’ve been working with the town for three years. So, because the problem exists, it’s not

going to go away. So, Verizon kind of has to fix it. So, short answer is, we have to stay you know.

We go back and we try again you know, maybe somebody sells their property...you have a new

owner someone e you know, may be interested at a later time. So, some sites take longer but we...it

just...the problem doesn’t go away. It doesn’t solve itself so we have to kind of stay on the case until

we can find something.

Pg. 204 September 8, 2026 Zoning Meeting

represents the ideal location. Somewhere inside that red circle represents the ideal location for the

cell tower. Is that correct?

Church, the Presbyterian Church was outside of that red circle. So, it was not in an ideal location for

the Verizon tower.

working on the site for so long for Webster specifically, we looked at multiple locations outside of

the search area, which we typically do not do. But that church was vetted by our RF engineer and it

simply doesn’t work. It’s way too far outside the area.

PEOPLE FROM THE AUDIENCE SPEAKING OUT.......... 0... ccccccccceeeecseeeeeeeesaseeeeeeeaes

took a look to see where the Presbyterian Church was in relation to that circle and it didn’t.....that

circle didn’t cross

250. John Accorso: I have a question regarding the conservation area. Did you...I don’t know if this

gentleman that spoke a while ago said that you can build a cell tower in a conservation area. I don’t

know whether that’s true or not. I’m basing it on what he just said, and I don’t know if you know if

that’s true or not. But if....I’m thinking that if the farmer is of the opinion that he can’t do anything

with that because it’s a conservation area. I’m wondering if this gentleman over here is correct,

could we have a discussion? Is it possible to have a discussion because it....everybody seems to have

admitted that the conservation area would be a better location for the tower.

his entire property. So, I mean Verizon can’t force him to put us in a location, right? We’ re leasing

a small area of his property and where we are is the only area that he has available for lease.

correctly, he may not think that he can lease that piece of that conservation area to you because it is

in fact a conservation area.

already asked him multiple times about that areas and he said no.

bouncing around. Exhibit K of the Lake Road application and in no way do I want to minimize the

testimony that you heard but I do want to note that the area that this is located does have a significant

Pg. 205 September 8, 2026 Zoning Meeting

amount of electrical utilities. Um...transversing the area. So, this is not.....you know, I guess I also

don’t want to give the impression of there is nothing on this parcel but for the cell phone tower that’s

about to be there. There are other utilities that are located on this site and that is part of the view

shed when one is driving down Lake Road. So, it’s not um....it’s not uncluttered. It is a cluttered

area where a cel] phone tower will also go in to the extent of you know landscaping around the base

to hid the equipment that is done routinely. But you know when looking at these various sites I do

just want to raise that note of its not a completely empty field and the cell phone tower is the only

thing that will be in it. There are other utilities and electrical lines that are in that viewshed.

and there and there will be something there.

this parcel.

pOMEeN It’s a 7.8 acre plot at the very end of the farm. It’s leased out every year to another farmer

for planting. Worst comes to worst...I didn’t get a chance to show you the picture that I’1l be looking

at. Talk about intrusion. This tower could easily be moved south 100-200 feet more where it doesn’t

sit right next to the road it doesn’t intrude exactly in our 125 feet.

ae te tet members of the farm to not have to look at that tower. Well,

that’s...they dumped it off to us. And from the minimal intrusion issue, the real estate hit the people

who live right next to that tower is estimated to run from 10 to 30% of the value of their property.

In my case, that’s 20 to 150,000 when I go to sell my home. So, there is a maximum intrusion. It’s

going to affect all values. One developer has already lost one sale of the development that’s trying

to do on Lake Brook right across the street. There’s a lot of impact here. It isn’t that we don’t want

a tower............

Um...... other questions from the board. I don’t mean to cut you off but obviously.....it’s late right?

Pg. 206 September 8, 2026 Zoning Meeting

conservation easement issue with the Planning Board. We have taken the Planning board’s

comments about the conservation easement which was very extensively explained in a letter to that

board. We have taken that and met again with the property owner on site to try to see if there was

any way that we could move that tower. We have gone above and beyond. We have taken the

property owner to meet in a work session with the chairman of the Planning Board, the town

supervisor with Verizon and he has extensively explained why he cannot put this tower on any other

portion of his property. We have tried; we have tried multiple times. It is not a financial issue. There

are things that you cannot see that are in the ground related to irrigation that prevent this from going

anywhere else. We have exhausted that conservation easement. Out attorneys have looked at it. We

have spoken extensively with all of the parties about it. Obviously we wouldn’t be here for either

one of these facilities if it wasn’t necessary. Verizon doesn’t expend the capital on something that

isn’t necessary.

understand that we have already met with the town, ....

do.

we’re performing our due diligence.

researched that conservation easement.

area i$ not .........

all explained in the letter. Was that supplied to this board?

st. So, that’s the letter from the landlord.

so that he could explain.

Pg. 207 September 8, 2026 Zoning Meeting

says, but the crux of the letter is there’s infrastructure in the ground. There are farm operations that

they are renting right, leasing to us. They will never lease to us in an area that will impede their

farming operations. That’s their going concern. They also have conservation easements I believe

both with the USDA and then also with private companies that they contract with. I think they

mentioned KURG Dr. Pepper is one of the entities that they contract with and they have to abide by

certain standards and certain procedures.

and then they would lose that....whatever the benefit of that is.

want to speak to that, but I can’t imagine leasing to Verizon and they would make that business

decision vs KURG Dr. Pepper or you know a 100 by 100 foot lease area versus KURG Dr. Pepper

or the conservation easement. So, I guess I wouldn’t want the impression of they can’t break the

conservation easement or it is in such a way that it can’t be interpreted one way or the other but

(BOTH PARTIES SPEAKING AT THE SAME TIME} there’s no business case for that.

board wants to.

up nicely.

was a question of how many trees are potentially going to be cut down to accommodate the cell site.

There, it was chosen on the site....there’s a clearing on the site. So, it was chosen on the site to

minimize the tree clearing was cited in such a way and the goal is not to cut down trees. The goal is

to preserve the trees. It’s an.....candidly, an additional expense to remove trees. So, the goal of the

construction is always to make as little impact as possible.

Pg. 208 September 8, 2026 Zoning Meeting

were to be removed. There were a handful. Not very many at all.

that has with New York State. I’m assuming, some due diligence has happened by Verizon. Can

you explain that?

Trying to see my tile straight.

assessment form, we do supply a visual addendum...............

can’t pull that up right now.

the byway, but there is other infrastructure that’s in the byway and would be part of the SEQR

determination, which is their potential for significant adverse environmental impact on a protected

viewshed and for small portion and again, I’m not minimizing the impact felt by the neighbors but

to the small portion of the national byway of having one of very many cell phone towers. The Ganea

Tower is also visible from there the byway. It is one of the areas we’re trying to serve. From the

visual addendum to me the only logical conclusion would be there is no potential for significant

adverse environmental impact to that view shed but. That is something that would be considered as

part of the SEQR determination.

a site. It’s generally a roadway, Route 66 or the Seaway trail where it’s sequential. And if you’re

traveling at it at 55 miles an hour, there’s a lot different visual impact than if you’re living across the

street from it. So, that’s the basis for when you determine something in a byway, not necessarily if

you stop and look at it. Its what’s the impact as you’re going with the speed limit up and down the

road.

improvements. Um, right. So, being out in an open field, is there screening, whether it be vegetative

Pg. 209 September 8, 2026 Zoning Meeting

screening or other types of screening that would be utilized to help improve visual impacts,

uh....specifically for Lake Road because Webster North is going to be surrounded by vegetation.

Um....but is there anything being provided for visual impact support for Lake Road?

pointed out we can’t screen right the entire tower but it very common to put landscaping around the

equipment location. There. ..it will be screened by a fence, but additional vegetation arborvitaes can

be planted on the exterior of the fence to help even further mitigate that visual impact. So, certainly

that’s something that is done with regularity. Um...I can’t point you exactly whether it is proposed

here but could be a condition of an approval to have that screening put in as a vegetative screening

around the equipment.

you know, you see a 120 foot tower with uh....sparsely...uh placed branches uh sticks out like a

sore thumb, but so does a gray tower. Um, I don’t know the answer to this other than so, I’m going

to ask it. Does color help with cell tower or um, aesthetics if you will, as you’re driving by on a

byway?

camouflage. It is....it does typically blend into our gray sky. So, the galvanized, that color is chosen

to blend in with the gray sky. I can’t think of a color that would be less intrusive than that. And of

course, at night time, you wouldn’t see it. It’s not lit; it’s not over 200 feet. I think from....I think

Kathy’s going to speak to this from a stealthing perspective, I think Kathy’s heard every choice or

question under the sun. It is difficult to identify a structure that is actually stealthed and then the

added weight of the tree infrastructure makes it bulkier.

actually going to put 10 feet more onto the height of the tower because you have to make the tree

look realistic with a cone above the antennas. So, you’re adding 10 feet to the top of the structure

automatically. And that’s a pretty tall tree to begin with. Um.....so that’s it doesn’t really, I don’t

think, jive with what you are trying to accomplish. Stealthing is very specific to the situation. It

only works in certain instances.

board doesn’t feel comfortable making a decision tonight that we table this until the next meeting,

at this point, the questions are repeating. So, if no decision, if the board’s not comfortable, I request

that we table until next month’s meeting.

questions first. Um...at this point, the public...public session is closed. Um...does the board have

any additional questions that they want to ask tonight?

Pg. 210 September 8, 2026 Zoning Meeting

what the pianning board is, what planning board changes might be occurring to the site which might

impact any decision we make tonight if we were to vote on it.

have been answered. Are there.....does the board have other questions that they want to ask? If so,

then I would agree that we should table the remaining portion of this till the next meeting.

planning board has to say about it.

hearing. ...public comment has been closed on both. Um....we are going to table this until next

month’s uh....so October’s meeting. So, I make a motion to table the Verizon Cell Tower, Lake

Road and Verizon Cell Tower Webster North until October 14%,

January. We have extended until I believe after the town board meeting in October with the

expectation of returning to the planning board and then perhaps the ZBA meeting this. We also need

a special permit from the town board. So, you’ ve tracking.

TIME) The planning board is October

6. Laura Smith: I’m sorry, the second town board meeting of the month.

would be the Tuesday before the ZBA meeting. We have agreed to extend the shot clock to after

the second town board meeting of the month in October but do request and we’ll note we expressed

this at the planning board meeting that the FCC and the Telecommunications Act of 1996 is put into

place because this is a difficult choice, right? It’s put into place because this is a controversial topic.

But congress and the rules promulgated by the FCC, the goal of the Telecommunications Act was to

encourage rapid deployment of telecommunications facilities across the country. So, we have things

like preemption for RF or perceived health effects of RF on health. That’s been fully preempted

because that is an area that the telecommunication that congress and the FCC have identified as this

Pg, 211 September 8, 2026 Zoning Meeting

is something that is universal across the country and something that cannot be addressed. So, the

shot clock is one of those items of............

applicant to stay extended.

of the town continuing to move through this process and request it continues at a good clip as this

has been.

RESOLUTION 26-0044 Michael Short made a motion to TABLED

TO 10.14.26 which was seconded by: John

Accorso,

VOTE:

Mr. Short AYE

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Spampinato AYE

Mr. Accorso AYE

Mr. Centola AYE

VERIZON CELL TOWER “WEBSTER NORTH”: Located near 1222 Wildflower Drive.

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

VARIANCE for the height of a communication tower of 135ft with a 4’ lightning rod (139’) where

the maximum height allowed is 100ft on a 14.2-acre parcel having SBL# 065.05-1-48 located in

the R-3 Single-Family Residential District under Sections 130-10 and 350-12 of the Code of the

Town of Webster.

RESOLUTION 26-0045 Michael Short made a motion to TABLED

TO 10.14.26 which was seconded by: John

Accorso.

VOTE:

Mr. Short AYE

Mrs. Volo AYE

Pg. 212 September 8, 2026 Zoning Meeting

Mr. Spampinato AYE

Mr. Accorso AYE

Mr. Centola AYE

VARIANCE to allow a side yard setback of 12ft where 15ft is required in association with the

construction of a new garage on a 0.68-acre parcel having SBL# 081.03-1-21 located in an LL

Large-Lot Single-Family Residential District under Section 350-13 of the Code of the Town of

Webster.

Appearing before the board was Robert Bingham Jr. at 1725 State Road. Basically, my project

consists of I took down my old, dilapidated garage. It was falling apart. It had a bunch of holes

in the foundation. It would be to repair than it was to replace it. So, I’m coming here today to

seek a variance to go, 2 feet closer OR 3 feet closer to my property line making so that I can

make my pole barn attached to the house 40 x 40, which is a more conventional size. It was

easier to order that way and more room for the stuff that I have. And that’s it basically what I’m

here for today. Seeking that variance to go closer to my property line.

think.

garage. So, just the electric. I’m going to put a couple outlets out there.

Pg. 213 September 8, 2026 Zoning Meeting

be the metal pole barn? Are you going to side it similar to the house or ?

siding to it in the coming years, next year or two. The siding on my house is not the best. So, I

figured I'd get the barn where I wanted it and then attach the siding up to that.

I don’t drive in the winter and a plow truck that I just like to keep inside and four-wheelers and

stuff like that. I am running our of room at my old place.

this project. Please come on up. Seeing none, I will bring it back to the board. Any other

questions for the board?

property line? I didn’t write it down.

RESOLUTION 26-0046 Michael Short made a motion TYPE II

Centola.

VOTE:

Mr. Short AYE

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Spampinato AYE

Mr. Accorso AYE

Mr. Centola AYE

The proposed action, if approved, will not result in a change in the essential character of the

neighborhood. I don’t think it will create a detriment to nearby properties. You’re replacing an

existing garage in at best fair condition with a new pole barn and he stated that he will try and

match the siding with the house when he resides the house. Based on the applicants proposed he

choosing the size based on the commercial availability and the need to store additional and

personal items. So, there’s not any real alternates considered for this because there was an available

one and it needs to go where the garage is currently. The variance isn’t substantial in any way,

shape or form. It’s similar to other garages in the general area as far as setback 12 feet off the side.

There aren’t any potential impacts or physical or environmental conditions based on the provided

material. And while the project is self-created there’s no really other place to put a pole barn the

size he needs to meet his requirements any other way.

Pg. 214 September 8, 2026 Zoning Meeting

property is in a more agricultural area of the town of Webster.

replacing the existing attached garage to the house. It’s just larger.

1. This request is not out of character in the neighborhood:

2. There will not be a detriment created to nearby properties:

3. The benefit is not achieved by any other method:

4. This request is not substantial:

5. There are no adverse physical or environmental impacts to the site or neighborhood:

6. The difficulty is not self-created:

7. This is not an undesirable change:

RESOLUTION 26-0047 Michael Short made a motion to Located at

1725 State Road. Applicant Robert Bingham

Jr. is requesting an AREA VARIANCE to

allow a side yard setback of 12ft where 15ft

is required in association with the

construction of a new garage on a 0.68-acre

parcel having SBL# 081.03-1-21 located in

an LL Large-Lot Single-Family Residential

District under Section 350-13 of the Code of

the Town of Webster “which was seconded

by Corrine Volo.

VOTE:

Mr. Short AYE

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Spampinato AYE

Mr. Accorso AYE

Mr. Centola AYE

CONDITIONS:

e The applicant must obtain all necessary governmental permits, including a Town

Building Permit.

e That one-year significant construction shall expire September 8, 2027

requesting an AREA VARIANCE to allow a front setback of 49.2ft where 60ft is required on a

corner lot in association with the construction of a garage addition on a 0.84-acre parcel having

SBL# 063. 14-2-30 located in an R-2 Single-Family Residential District under Section 350-11 of

the Code of the Town of Webster.

Pg. 215 September 8, 2026 Zoning Meeting

Appearing before the board was Dominic Zicari and I own 539 Countryside Lane. I am looking

for an area variance of 49 feet and 2 inches where 60 feet is required. I’m on a corner lot, so I

have two fronts for all practical purposes I’m trying to put an addition on my existing of 30 x

48. It’s going to blend in with the neighborhood and I’m going to use the existing vinyl siding

and math the metal roof that I already have on my house.

height of this building? Is it one story or two stories?

facing well, the siding will be on Bay Road. There’s a 5 foot berm with mature pine trees on the

back corner and other pine trees lining up on Bay Road. So, that’s why I figured the best place to

put it will be shielded pretty well. So, it’}l blend right in with the rest of the house and the rest of

the neighborhood and having those mature pine trees, the neighbor behind me won’t be able to

see it. My other neighbor on the opposite side won’t be able to see it. So, it'll just be well, the

people across the street really won’t be able to see it out there because it’s covered by pine. So,

itll only be coming from the lake down Bay Road and on the countryside.

project, please come on up. Seeing none will bring it back to the board. Any other questions? I

want to thank you for getting support from your neighbors. It’s greatly appreciated having these

letters in here. So, thank you for that.

RESOLUTION 26-0048 Michael Short made a motion TYPE II

Centola.

VOTE:

Mr. Short AYE

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Spampinato AYE

Mr. Accorso AYE

Mr. Centola AYE

Pg. 216 September 8, 2026 Zoning Meeting

It will actually look good with that size of a building going up and being hidden by Bay Road.

There are not many alternatives where that, I will say building can go due to the jocation in the

corner lot. There is not much of a significant setback from 60 feet and you’re going down to 49

Correct. There’s no potential impact for any physical or environmental conditions and although it

is self-created it does improve his home and makes senses for what he needs it for the extra storage.

It’s only required because Bay, the side, what’s traditionally the side setback is also considered a

front setback because it’s on Bay Road and it meets the front and rear setback. So, that’s the only

impact.

This request is not out of character in the neighborhood:

There will not be a detriment created to nearby properties:

The benefit is not achievable by any other method:

This request is not substantial:

There are no adverse physical or environmental impacts to the site or neighborhood:

The difficulty is not self-created:

This is not an undesirable change:

ee

RESOLUTION 26-0049 Michael Short made a motion for AREA

Lane. Applicant Dominic Zicari is requesting

an AREA VARIANCE to allow a front

setback of 49.2ft where 60ft is required on a

corner lot in association with the construction

of a garage addition on a 0.84-acre parcel

having SBL# 063.14-2-30 located in an R-2

Single-Family Residential District under

Section 350-11 of the Code of the Town of

Webster of which was seconded by Chris

Centola.

VOTE:

Mr. Short AYE

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Spampinato AYE

Mr. Accorso AYE

Mr. Centola AYE

Pg. 217 September 8, 2026 Zoning Meeting

CONDITIONS:

e The applicant must obtain all necessary governmental permits, including a Town

Building Permit.

e That one-year significant construction shall expire September 8, 2027

requesting an AREA VARIANCE to allow a rear setback of 43ft where 50ft is required in

association with the construction of a covered porch on a 0.34-acre lot having SBL# 065.02-5-10

located in the LMR Low-Medium Residential District under Section 350-15 of the Code of the Town

of Webster.

Appearing before the board was Dean Salvaggio (DID NOT SIGN IN) I was under the

impression that the builders or the engineers were going to be here to present. I am the father of

the owner. He’s on his way here from work. Should be here momentarily.

My name is Dean Salvaggio.

until he gets here.

not.

to his three kids right now.

are not here right now.

Pg. 218 September 8, 2026 Zoning Meeting

and Sandy want to come on up. {GO DOWN/T11054 KLEMROAD APPLICATION)

Austin Salvaggio and I just purchased the home. Builders told us it would be no problem to put

an addition onto the property. Obviously finding out that there’s a variance for everything.

Thankfully, my dad knows a little bit about this, but we got young kids and just want more space

in the house. It’s more important to us than having outside space because we don’t get to use it

all the time.

addition.

Austin Salvaggio:: We knew it was too small and they’re were like, “hey, yeah, we can put this

addition on, no problem. So, fun news.

Austin Salvaggio:: And with no builders to show up. I love that.

Austin Salvaggio:: We plan to screen it in eventually. They’re just going to cover it though.

Austin Salvaggio:: Yes.

Can you elaborate a little bit more on that.

Austin Salvaggio:: I mean the house....I don’t want to sound like that but it’s 1500 square feet.

We moved from a house that was 1500 feet. It’s the same exact size and it’s split differently.

Pg. 219 September 8, 2026 Zoning Meeting

not what you’re doing now, but that’s...

Austin Salvaggio:: Yes. Maybe finish it. I don’t know, whenever.

or against this project? NO... have you had any discussion with any of your neighbors? I drove

through the neighborhood. It is definitely very visible where it is. So, any dialogue with any of

your neighbors?

Austin Salvaggio:: I haven’t really. I mean, we just moved in and we have one neighbor to our

side at the moment and seems nice, but.

think he’d even be here.

particular home, but when we get this type of subdivision, typically that little covered porch is part

of the back of the home on I'll say 80% of them. And I imagine this won’t be the last one that we

see within this subdivision. Even if you look down Arrowwood, there’s a couple of them already

that already exist. Um, but because it’s a corner lot, which makes the backyard smaller than normal,

there’s nothing that this applicant could add here without a variance.

RESOLUTION 26-0050 Michael Short made a motion TYPE II

Volo.

VOTE:

Mr. Short AYE

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Spampinato AYE

Mr. Accorso AYE

Mr. Centola AYE

FINDINGS OF FACTS:(CORRINE VOLO)

I’m going to say that the request is not of character in the neighborhood and that some of the homes

already on Arrowwood have that feature built in, an external covered porch. There will not be a

detriment created to nearby properties. Right now, that side of the street is fairly unbuilt. It looks

Pg. 220 September 8, 2026 Zoning Meeting

like they’re working on developing it, but it’s not going to impact anybody. It’s certainly not going

to hurt anybody’s line of sight. It’s not too close to anybody’s house. Achievable by any other

method ? No, not in this instance. In that the um....the back of the house is the logical location and

it’s a very short backyard. Um...no adverse physical or environmental impacts to the site or to

neighborhood. That’s as stated. Um...the difficulty is or is not self-created. I’m going to say it’s

really not self-created in that it’s the size of the lot. Um.....and the builder obviously didn’t include

it because he didn’t want to come here and get a variance before he built the house. So,

um....certainly not an undesirable change. We get such a short season that you want to be able to

have a covered area to be able to enjoy a little bit more of the non-snow weather without rain or

excessive...not that we get excessive sun, but it does make sense. So, anything else anyone would

like to add to that?

1. This request is not out of character in the neighborhood:

2. There will not be a detriment created to nearby properties:

3. The benefit is not achievable by any other method:

4. This request is not substantial:

5. There are no adverse physical or environmental impacts to the site or neighborhood:

6. The difficulty is not self-created:

7. This is not an undesirable change:

RESOLUTION 26-0051 Corrine Volo made a motion for AREA

Way. Representing agent Mike Ritchie, P.E is

requesting an AREA VARIANCE to allow a

covered porch area that has a rear setback of

43ft where 5Oft is required in association with

the construction of a covered porch on a 0.34-

acre lot having SBL# 065.02-5-10 located in

the LMR Low-Medium Residential District

under Section 350-15 of the Code of the Town

of Webster of which was seconded by

Michael Short.

VOTE:

Mr. Short AYE

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Spampinato AYE

Mr. Accorso AYE

Mr. Centola AYE

CONDITIONS:

e The applicant must obtain all necessary governmental permits, including a Town

Building Permit.

e That one-year significant construction shall expire September 8, 2027

Pg. 221 September 8, 2026 Zoning Meeting

requesting a SPECIAL USE PERMIT to allow a6’ X 9’ chicken coop and no more than 8 hens on

a 2.2-acre parcel having SBL# 064. 16-1-3 located in an R-2 Single-Family Residential District under

Section 350-40 and 350-103 of the Code of the Town of Webster.

Appearing before the board was Angel and this is Sandy Lagares. We’re just applying for a

permit to have some chickens.

7. Michael Short: So, you have the

7. I have been to the property. I am asking the questions so I

can bring it out to the public is what it is. But yes, Okay. So, the coupe is a pre-existing coupe.

It’s there currently. Questions from the board?

one of the neighbors and there’s like a tarp on the front of it are you going to re-do that and clean

it up, so it looks a little tidier?

Pg. 222 September 8, 2026 Zoning Meeting

on top of that and make it look cleaner.

either side of you . So, just cleaning it up and they were making....I’ll say chicken noises when I

was there, but it was not............

applicants mention the noise and I wasn’t that far away. I don’t think I would have heard it if I

were in the driveway.

LAUGHTER. .............0000008

to the public if anyone would like to speak for or against this project? Nope. Back to the board.

Any other questions?

that they were in support of the chickens. But I think there was one cleanup item from the barn.

I think once your accessory building was complete, you were going to eliminate the old building

in the back.

and the chicken coop is in front of it. Correct?

RESOLUTION 26-0052 Michael Short made a motion TYPE II

Centola.

VOTE:

Mr. Short AYE

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Spampinato AYE

Mr. Accorso AYE

Mr. Centola AYE

Pg. 223 September 8, 2026 Zoning Meeting

FINDINGS OF FACTS OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT (CORRINE VOLO)

(1)The use will not prevent the orderly and reasonable use of adjacent properties or of properties

in adjacent use districts.

(2) The public health, safety, general welfare or order of the Town will not be adversely affected

by the proposed use in its location

(3) The use will be in general harmony with and promote the general purposes and intent of the

most recent Comprehensive Plan of the Town and the Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 350).

(4)The proposed use will not interfere with the preservation of the general character of the

neighborhood in which such building is to be placed, or use is to be conducted and that the

proposed use will, in fact, be compatible with its surroundings and with the character of the

neighborhood and of the community in Sars particularly with Se to visibility, scale and

overall appearance.

(5) The physical characteristics and topography of the proposed site make it suitable for the

roposed special use.

(6)The proposed special use provides appropriate landscaping and/or other forms of buffering to

protect surrounding land uses.

(7)The property has sufficient, appropriate and adequate area for the use, as well as reasonably

anticipated operation thereof.

(8)Access to facilities is adequate for the estimated traffic generated by the proposed use on

public streets and sidewalks so as to assure the public safety and to avoid traffic congestion.

(9) Adequate parking and internal traffic circulation can be accommodated on the property in

compliance with other sections of the Code, taking into account adequate buffering and

landscaping.

(10)Adequate facilities exist or can be integrated into the site development to properly deal with

stormwater runoff, sanitary sewers, fire protection, electrical power needs, refuse or other waste

that may be generated, odors, noise or lights which may go beyond property boundaries.

(11)The natural characteristics of the site are such that the proposed use may be introduced on

the property without undue disturbance or disruption of important natural features, systems or

processes and without negative impact to groundwater and surface waters on and off the site.

Pg. 224 September 8, 2026 Zoning Meeting

(12)The proposed use can and will comply with all provisions of this chapter and of the Code

which are applicable to it and can meet every other applicable federal, state, county and local

law, ordinance, rule or regulation.

RESOLUTION 26-0053 Corrine Volo made a motion for SPECIAL

USE PERMIT Located at 1054 Klem Road.

Applicants Angel and Sandy Lagares are

requesting a SPECIAL USE PERMIT to

allow a 6’ X 9’ chicken coop and no more than

8 hens on a 2,2-acre parcel having SBL#

064.16-1-3 located in an R-2 Single-Family

Residential District under Section 350-40 and

350-103 of the Code of the Town of Webster

of which was seconded by Chris Centola.

VOTE:

Mr. Short AYE

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Spampinato AYE

Mr. Accorso AYE

Mr. Centola AYE

have.

applicant will come back to this board after that one year and if the use works with the

neighbors and no complaints then at that time you can apply to have it extended. The maximum

the permit can go for is 5 years before you would have to reapply for it.

CONDITIONS:

e To have no more than 7 hens on a 2.2 acre parcel.

e The applicant at no time will have any roosters. It will be just chickens on the

property.

Roof will be reconstructed and cleaned up so that it just blends a little bit better.

* Applicant to return after one year.

Pg. 225 September 8, 2026 Zoning Meeting

AREA VARIANCE to allow the alteration or extension of a pre-existing non-conforming single-

family home in association with the construction of a 460SF addition on a 0.45-acre parcel having

SBL# 063.06-1-19.1 located in an R-1 Single-Family District under Section 350-10 and 350-95 of the

Code of the Town of Webster.

Appearing before the board was Mark Loweguth at 400 Lake Road. We are asking for a

variance to put an addition on a pre-existing non-conforming single family home which we

constructed in 2011. We’ve taken considerable pains to blend the addition into the rest of the

house. We’ve done setbacks that are further from the property line. There was non-conforming

on the south side as well as on the lakeside. And the finishes with the designer and the architect

wili match the roof line as well as the materials with stucco stone and wood so it does not look

like an addition. The lower floor would be a screened in porch and a storage room. And the

upper floor, which is contiguous with the rest of the house, would be a laundry room, kind of a

flex room, and some closet space.

bedroom suite then?

unfortunately he had a fire in his cabin last night which was destroyed which he just built and so

he is not here. The next neighbor is my other brother. And on the other side there’s a home

which nobody has lived in over 15 years.

would approve.

you can’t see ...... you would not be able to see it from the west side. You won’t be able to see it

on the south side. Really the only area you will be able to see it from is the lake and my

brother’s home would be able to see a portion of the roof when the leaves are off.

project?

Philip Migloioratti at 382 Lake Road: I am about 5 houses to the west of the Loweguth residence

going on Oklahoma Beach. I’ve lived there about 10 years. Loweguths are good neighbors and

they have a lovely property. I have no concerns over what they're doing. It’s not going to affect

anybody. Not going to affect anybody’s lake views, which everyone is always concerned with

Pg. 226 September 8, 2026 Zoning Meeting

down there. And lastly, if there is any while the work is being done, construction work, if there is

they are....we are on a common driveway there, If the truck has to get in there and is going to be

blocking for any more than a few minutes, I’m more than happy to my gate on my.....1 have a

private driveway that goes out to Lake Road and I’m more than happy to open the gate so other

residents have access or for emergency access. Thank you.

opportunity to read it. I submitted a response online and I dropped another item off this morning

at the main desk.

the screen.

years. I have owned it for 40 years. Over my time there, I worked a number of years ago with

Katherine Thomas to help in the sewer project. The initial request was not approved. So, I was

part of a small group to go out in campus homeowners in the Oklahoma Beach area in the

sandbar area to get additional votes to get the sewers approved. I was involved in getting

Senator Schumer down to Oklahoma Beach because we are suffering severe erosion problems. I

started in 1992 to try to work with the Department of Transportation so the Oklahoma Beach

property owners could acquire the abandoned railroad. And when those options were made,

that opportunity was made by the Department of Transportation, four of us and the addresses

from 390 to 390 whatever. Those offers were rescinded because two property owners refused to

sign a release document.

So, we're in a situation and I hope to, I guess create a condition as their grandfather wanted to

do and that is to get access to the railroad property because for me in the years that I’ve been

there it’s been a very, very difficult situation. If you read the letter or look at pictures, we got

flooding in the yard. When I came here with a request to expand the property, and I have a

picture to show you. The board suggested or they told me that I couldn’t get closer than 15 2

feet to the access road because I would block the view of my neighbor looking her kitchen

window. So, for me, it’s been a very, very difficult and long tenure. At 390 Lake Road and I feel

I deserve the same opportunity that other people along the Sandbar and those at Oklahoma

Pg. 227 September 8, 2026 Zoning Meeting

Beach and that is to acquire the railroad property.

you tie those together? (APPLICANT COULD NOT HEAR QUESTION) Given the comments

that you’ ve made tonight, how do those relate to the applicants request for the variance this

evening?

document so we could acquire the railroad property. The railroad property offer was

extended......

application?

who refused to sign a release document allowing four of us to acquire the railroad company.

That’s correct.

applicants request this evening.

thing that I would like and that is at my age I had no idea whether or not Sarah is going to

remain in the property, but I would like to eliminate some of the issues that we’ve been dealing

with. If you take a look at the pictures we get our driveway and parking area flooded 2/3 coming

up. So basically, I don’t have a good place to park in storms. If I acquired the railroad property

it would give me an option to park on the south side of the road.

what I would have to get and that is a release signature by the two bothers that said in fact we

can acquire the railroad property.

else you want to add after both of the residents made comments.

property has been very nebulous. I think my grandfather actually spearheaded much more than I

believe he did. But I don’t want to argue about that. With regard to the neighborhood itself, I

would say that is certainly anything we’re going to do is only going to enhance the overall

Pg. 228 September 8, 2026 Zoning Meeting

quality of the neighborhood. The landscaping will be as appropriate as the rest of the house is.

You were there yourself. You know, it’s a nice home and we tend to keep it consistent with the

rest of the house.

about signing it.

with the railroad?

well,

was looking for.

Pg. 229 September 8, 2026 Zoning Meeting

property that’s across from the lane that goes to the houses along Oklahoma Beach, which has

allowed some of them to actually do a driveway through to get them to Lake Road or extend the

building of their house or give them additional spaces to park when the lake does come up

because the lake does come up and the shoreline gets a little bit smaller every year. So, my

concern when I visited the property, the construction is actually going to be on the side of your

house that is away from the access to the remaining 13 addresses on Oklahoma Beach. Is there a

means for construction crew to make sure that they don’t block that bridge and that access?

on the entrance road to the property, which is about 300 feet . It’s mowed on both sides and

when we constructed the home, when Phil constructed his home, then there’s been three other

homes constructed there in recent years, that where people park. So, if somebody ...we do have a

good construction manager as well as a good contractor who make sure if...I mean they’re very

attentive to peoples needs. If a trucks going to be there more than 5 minutes, they’ ll move it.

Phil said if there was an emergency, they would open his driveway as well.

response point of view was.

around that corner. And even when we had construction that we had a dumpster there, they

came down to make sure that they could get underneath the underpass and around the corner.

what would happen to the bank, and the top is blocked off.

property because it is a little. It’s old. It’s old and it just look like there were pieces of it that

could fall.

have to maintain the metal or the wall could collapse.

Pg. 230 September 8, 2026 Zoning Meeting

property become available, would you sign off on those properties being able to purchase that?

Again, it’s al hypothetical at this point.

know why they couldn’t before. So, I don’t want to speak to something I don’t know. I really

don’t know anything about that. As I said, when I talked to Josh, my grandfather acquired their

property in bits and pieces over the years. So, the original house was where out home is and then

he acquired and one piece and then another piece and then another piece over the course of 50

years.

RESOLUTION 26-0054 Michael Short made a motion TYPE II

Centola.

VOTE:

Mr. Short AYE

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Spampinato AYE

Mr. Accorso AYE

Mr. Centola AYE

The addition will not impact the essential character of the neighborhood or be a detriment to nearby

properties. It jnostly won't be’visible to the general public at all and

if approved. Based on the applicants needs, there were no other real alternates because it needed

to go as an expansion of the master bedroom suite and then using the space underneath it as a

covered porch area. So there really were no other alternatives considered. The request is not

substantial or contextually significant from the zoning required. It will not increase any type of

adverse effect or impact the physical environmental conditions in the neighborhood or the district

and more importantly to the immediate neighbors. And although the difficulty is self-created, it is

the minimum relief necessary to allow the applicant to do what he needs to do with his property.

variance being provided. The addition is not going to be visible from basically any other properties,

surrounding properties. It'll be at the property to the, I guess it would be the southeast we’ll be

able to see the roof of the addition that the variance is being required for. The location of the

addition is limited to the location that it’s at just due to the unique shape of the property as well

and how close it is to the water’s edge not being able to provide, get any closer to the water’s edge

as well. This is a non-conforming building. Does anybody want to add anything else to it?

Army Corps of Engineers yet?

Pg. 231 September 8, 2026 Zoning Meeting

we deliberately set it back 6 feet from the existing north wall of the existing house which would

...was where the exact two inches inside of where the existing....the original house were two

inches inside of that and now were 6 feet back from that.

construction the construction manager and the owner are responsible for maintaining drive the

drive access through the property.

This request is not substantial:

The difficulty is not self-created:

This is not an undesirable change:

iy a ge ie LS be

RESOLUTION 26-0055

VOTE:

This request is not out of character in the neighborhood:

There will not be a detriment created to nearby properties:

The benefit is not achievable by any other method:

There are no adverse physical or environmental impacts to the site or neighborhood:

Michael Short made a motion for AREA

Applicant Mark Lowenguth is requesting an

AREA VARIANCE to allow the alteration or

extension of a pre-existing non-conforming

single-family home in association with the

construction of a 460SF addition on a 0.45-

acre parcel having SBL# 063.06-1-19.1

located in an R-1 Single-Family District under

Section 350-10 and 350-95 of the Code of the

Town of Webster of which was seconded by

Chris Centola.

Mr. Short AYE

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Spampinato AYE

Mr. Accorso AYE

Mr. Centola AYE

Pg. 232 September 8, 2026 Zoning Meeting

CONDITIONS:

e The applicant must obtain all necessary governmental permits, including a Town

Building Permit.

e That one-year significant construction shall expire September 8, 2027.

Approval of minutes for August 11, 2026 (VOLO/SPAMPINATO)

VOTE:

Mr. Short AYE

Mrs. Volo AYE

Mr. Spampinato AYE

Mr. Accorso RECUSE

Mr. Centola AYE

Since there are no further applications before the Board, Michael Short adjourned tonight’s

meeting at 11:00 PM

CA A OA

Corrine Volo, Secretary

Katherine Kolich, Recording Secretary

OCT 14 "26 av10:19

FAILED WEBSTER THN CLK

cae \

{ ns (\

(Pate Nee y \\ \ Yorn

Pg. 233 September 8, 2026 Zoning Meeting