Town Board Meeting

the town board meeting of April 2nd, 2026.

Can't hear you.

Oh boy.

It is now 7:45 p.m. I am calling to order the town board meeting of April 2nd, 2026. Would you all please rise for the pledge of allegiance? I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Miss Maher, could you do roll call, please?

Supervisor Sheldon,

here.

Councilman Cahill,

here.

Councilwoman Wright, here.

Councilman Hunter,

here.

Councilman Wagner,

here.

Attorney for the town, Taylor

here. All right. Uh before anything else, we do have a public hearing tonight on the proposed development moratorum. Um so let's see here uh for the public hearing. First up we have Marcy Veno. Are you going to call to order first?

Sorry. We are calling to order at 7:46 for the public hearing. So Marcy Vino uh this is the public hearing for the deposed the proposed moratorium only at the moment.

Oh I did forget to mention a speaker will be allowed five minutes only. I uh signed up incorrectly.

Oh, okay. Uh I'm going to guess that Marcus Veno is also signed up incorrectly. Okay.

That's a good call. That's a good call.

Okay. Okay. So, public hearing. Uh, the blahos. Are you guys here for the five minutes open to the public or the public hearing?

Uh, you're here for the mortorium or the five minutes open?

Okay. Sorry. Uh, public hearing. You know, I'm just going to state that if anybody's here for the public hearing to speak on the moratorum, would you please take the stand?

Hi, my name is John Lambino. I live at 784 Maple Drive. I'd like to commend the town board for proposing a six-month moratorum on the new construction pending the updated comprehensive plan. This is proof that our current town board is thinking about what's best for residents and developers. Actually, I'd like to see it have a moratorum for 12 months. I think that's more appropriate since we're probably six months away from actually having a comprehensive plant. Thanks.

Thank you.

All right, Gail.

I think you've got my name down there, huh, Alex?

I did. I did. But

thank you. Thank you. Should I go ahead?

Go right ahead.

Okay. I'm speaking tonight on behalf of Doy Fate. Doy and I are members of the Open Space Committee. Doy couldn't be here tonight. Uh I think you all on the board anyway know Doy and she's always well informed and has good uh responses. I'll read a little bit of what she's written. It's quite long and I made hard

copy right here. I I have hard copies to to share with everyone. Um Doy says that she's writing in support of the resolution to establish a development moratorum. Webster is at a critical crossroads. Development pressures continue to mount while our regulatory framework, our zoning ordinances, subdivision regulations, and related land use laws have not kept pace with the evolving needs of our community or with modern leading edge practices in environmental protection and sustainable planning. In their current form, these regulations do not adequately protect Webster's natural resources, open spaces, wetlands, etc. Uh, approving new developments before the comprehensive plan is finalized, locking in, it risks locking in land use patterns that are fundamentally inconsistent with where our community wishes to go. Once land is developed, those decisions are largely irreversible. A moratorum is not anti-growth. It is responsible governance. It ensures the

growth that when it occurs is thoughtful, measured and aligned with the values and long-term interests of Webster residents. Uh Doy has written a lot here, but couple of things stand out in my mind. She includes wildlife habitat, flood mitigation, rural and small town character that makes Webster a desirable and livable community. Uh they are also finite and once lost to development cannot be restored. Um she mentions environmental overlay districts. They are a deep dark secret in Webster. They're out there. There were maps. If you want to see them, good luck. So, that needs to be considered. This needs to be an open and uh the needs of the community and the the citizens. Do continues and writes, I recognize that a moratorium is not a decision made lightly. However, the permanence of land

use decisions demands that the town act from a position of deliberate communitydriven policy, not under the pressure of applications filed under regulations that no longer serve the public interest. The residents of Webster are watching and are counting on this board to protect the community they love. So, thank you.

Thank you. Thank you, G.

Is there anybody else who wishes to speak on the Well, go right ahead.

Uh, what do I have to state before I start?

Oh, just your just your name for the uh

Janice Jack.

Um, I am pleased to feel that there is a new direction taking shape in Webster as of late. With newly elected board members and a new comprehensive plan taking shape, I'm encouraged that a more balanced approach um seems within grasp. I'm choosing to speak this evening to encourage that thoughtful, ethical, and compassionate consideration be at the foreground of future decision- making regarding the solar farm proposal. The ethics that I refer or that I reference are those of care and responsibility to the common good, ethics of respect for the great community of life. I'm looking for board members and ultimately all of us to consider how we ought to relate among ourselves and with others ecologically speaking in the community of life and whether we can expand our frontier frontiers of care and responsibility. Keep in mind that modeling such care and responsibility through decisionmaking is

of much greater impact than speech alone. We must identify the components, I'm sorry, the consequences of our actions regarding this proposition and I'm happy to hear there's a moratorum which in turn ought to drive decisions and actions. Concisely speaking, um some of the anticipated consequences uh cutting 17 and a half acres of mature trees.

This is for the moratorium only right now.

Correct.

Okay.

Okay. Um loss of homes for countless species etc. Um economic sustainability is when money stays within the community. And I'm of the understanding that the solar farm would be for Buffalo and Connecticut gains. Um the solar panels of course stand high off the ground. Negative impact to community values, increased sound noise. I'm left wondering which part of this list seems would seem correct for moving forward after the moratorum. So on a final note, in order to avoid experiencing undesired social and environmental impacts, we then are dependent upon decisions made.

Janice, I I do have to stop you. You do know that the moratorium, the solar farm would not be included in this moratorium. Right.

I do not.

Okay. Sorry. No, it is um stuff that it is uh pending. Anything that has uh already begun the process of preliminary site review and anything further on would not be included in the moratorium. Now we do have large-scale solar projects included in the moratorum.

Okay.

To reference to kind of rectify where we are right now.

Can I just finish my sentence and I'll be done?

Yeah, sure.

Okay. So, good decision good decisions made by ethically, socially and ecologically um literate leaders and each one of you have that responsibility to be that. So, I'll just leave it at that and I thank you for the time to vocalize. Thank you.

Thank you.

All right. Now for the moratorum. Is anybody else here to speak for the moratorum?

Hi, I was speaking with uh communications earlier. And I just thought that uh do I need to say my name?

Name. What's the

Kevin? Please say your name for the record.

Kevin Lockheart, 100 KDburgger Park. I just thought that the town has got such a huge win from the comprehensive steering plan committee and Collers having selected the steering committee amongst yourselves or the you know the previous town that a moratorum would be the least you can do after defeating and utterly crushing ing the populace when it comes to development. In fact, I think it would be slightly rude at the very least to even suggest not moving forward with the moratorum at this point. Just to clarify, because of what a crushing defeat the taxpaying populist experienced through the very shady and very shifty formation and devastation of the steering plan committee, which prioritizes the town and the town's needs to grow the tax base as fast as possible. So to that I say just uh the very least you could do

is kindly uh forward the moratorum tonight. Thanks. Thank you. All right. Last call for the moratorum.

Moratorium. What is that? development moratorum where we uh our local law that we went over last time to discuss uh basically a slight halt to development while we finish the comprehensive plan. Chris Naka, 1065 Shoecraft Road. Um it's great to see all of you here. I hope to see some of you showing up in the future when we have these meetings. It's really great to see this many faces of Webster in the room. And as it relates to building things in Webster, my only concern when we're building things in Webster is are they going if it's a business, are they going to be paying people enough to live in this town? And if it's kind of in regards to what we were talking about earlier, purchasing land under the town's name, are we purchasing that land to conserve it only to reszone it and have it be a business in the future? But, uh, I really just wanted to get up here and say thank you guys all for coming. Didn't really have much to talk about as far as land stuff is concerned. Thank you. All right.

for the mortorium. Correct.

Yes. Great.

My name is Sally Bowman. Uh I live at 765 Blue Creek Drive in Webster. Uh I have for about 25 years seen the progress of building and the decimation of the natural uh habitat just be eroded. And it's it's really hard for me to watch what uh I came to 25 years ago and what I see now. And it has a real impact on people. That's why I'd like to see a moratorum on um development because I just spent $50 today on uh deer repellent. I have herds of deer coming through my yard all the time. I never had that 25 years ago. I beautifully landscaped and developed my property to add to um the tax base in this town and that will become uh very apparent uh

upon re-evaluation. So, I think it's very uh important for you as a board to recognize that we stakeholders in this town have a a stake and a um there's a real impact to just unrestrained development. And I'd like to see a moratorum go through to stop this comprehensive building instead of having a comprehensive plan which you should had 20 years ago. Thank you.

Thank you.

All right. Anyone else for the mortorium? Going once. Going twice. All right. It is 8:01. We are closing the public hearing on our proposed development moratorum. All right. Uh this is a long list of people here but I promise everyone will get their five minutes. Um so the open to the floor rules at this point. Uh

please

you are speaking before the board. Uh please speak to the board not the audience. Public comments are limited to five minutes as we need to keep the meeting progressing forward. At four minutes, you will see me wave my hand around like a fool. Uh, which will tell you that you have a minute left to wrap it up. Uh, we will not be answering questions. If you want your question answered, please provide your email address to the town clerk or on the sign-in sheet, which most of you already did. Um, for those of you who are here, please respect the speaker. They may not be saying something you agree with, but they have every right to say it. Um, the only thing we are saying is threatening statements will not be tolerated and may involve you being removed from the meeting. And then just one more thing, as you can hear, the audio on these mics is not great. So, everyone, please stay as close to that mic as possible. And if we can't hear you, we apologize. We'll do our best. We will get through this. It'll be a long time, but we will get through this together. And yes, these microphones are not the best. So, please, please be patient. I know it's hard to hear. I've been out there, so we understand. Thanks, Garrett. All right. Uh, up first is Brian Bixler.

Thank you. I'm Brian Bixler, 1223 Scenic Circle in Webster. Um, I'm here to discuss my opposition to the cell Tower North Webster North cell Tower, 122 Wildflower Drive. I moved to the Rochester area over 20 years ago. Uh spec specifically selected Webster versus uh towns like Henrietta and Greece because of the balanced development uh the extensive green space and and appropriate access to uh commercial items and grocery stores. Um, this this cell tower location is really directly in my backyard. Um, right in a natural wooded area. As you guys know, many years ago, the town board approved the name of the street as Scenic Circle. Um, for a very obvious reason, it's a very scenic and peaceful. Uh, this will immediately affect my property value, which is not going to immediately be offset by my tax rate, as you all know. um within that area and and nearby there are certainly commercial and otherwise existingly developed areas which could be an appropriate location for this tower. So, you know, I'd like the the board to

not move forward with this process and encourage uh them to select another location. Thank you.

Thank you.

All right. Up next, uh, if we're open to the floor, Marcy Veno.

Is it Veno or Veno?

Veno.

Okay.

Good evening. I'm Marcy Veno and I reside at 1204 Wildflower Drive. I'll be addressing one of tonight's agenda items and the proposal of a cell tower by Verizon Telecommunications being installed on the bordering property of mine at 1222 Wildflower Drive. On behalf of my neighbor and one of the other 16 residents with homes that border 1222 Wildflower Drive, who cannot be here tonight, I will read a letter to the board outlining neighborhood concerns regarding the proposed Verizon project. Dear supervisor and members of the town board, we are writing as longtime residents to respectfully object to the proposed Verizon to telecommunications tower in our neighborhood at 1222 Wildflower Drive and to request the town defer further action on this proposal pending a more comprehensive and transparent review. While we understand the importance of reliable wireless services, we believe that current record does not yet demonstrate that this particular location is the most appropriate or least impactful option for addressing any identified coverage needs. Given the proximity of this proposed tower to established

residential neighborhoods, including our own, we believe additional analysis and documentation are warranted before the project advances. Specifically, we respectfully request that the town require the applicant to provide the following information and analyses as part of any further review. One, alternative analysis. A doc detailed and documented analysis of alternative sites within the defined search area including identification of all sites considered, reasons for rejection of each alternative, and the evaluation of whether existing towers or structures could be modified or expanded to meet coverage needs. Two, coverage and technical justification. clear comprehensible RF engineering materials demonstrating existing coverage conditions in the area, the specific nature and extent of any service gap, how this proposed location uniquely addresses that gap compared to other potential sites. Three, visual impact assessments, realistic photo renderings showing the appearance of a 120 foot tower from adjacent residential properties, nearby public roadways, and any key neighborhood viewpoints. Four,

financial impact impact on adjacent residential property values. Five, neighborhood compatibility and property impact. An evaluation of the compat compatibility of this facility with the surrounding residential character, including consideration of proximity to homes, potential effects on neighborhood aesthetics, reasonable migation measures such as increased setbacks, relocation with the parcel, or enhanced buffering. and six, environmental review, seq, and through a thorough environmental review process that fully considers visual community character and cumulative impacts with the opportunity for me meaningful public input. In addition, we request that all materials submitted by the applicant both for this proposal and for the previously considered creekide trail location be made readily available to the public in electric form. We will also be submitting a request pursuant of the New York Freedom of Information Law to obtain the complete record of those prior proceedings. We further ask that this correspondence be entered into the official record for the April 2nd, 2026 meeting and forwarded to the planning board as part

of any referral for site plan review. Finally, we respectfully urge the town to ensure that any decision on this matter reflects a careful balancing of telecommunication needs with the protection of established residential neighborhoods. At this time, we do not believe that sufficient information has been provided to support the con conclusion that the proposed Wildflower Drive location represents the least intrusive or most appropriate sitting option. Thank you for your consideration of these concerns and for your service to our community. Sincerely, Edwin and Robera uh Roberto Prisabilowitz. Thank you.

Thank you. I actually had that to read in the record, so now I don't have to. No, I had her uh thing just in case no one was here.

Up next is Marcus Veno.

Hi, Marcus Veno. live at 1204 Wildflower Drive. Um, I'm also going to read uh a letter from one of our other uh residents of the seven there's 17 properties that are around this uh proposed site of uh 1222 Ver Drive. So, I'm formally I'm writing formally to express my strong opposition to the proposed cell tower construction on private land within our community. I urge you to deny the application of this project. My primary concern is the significant health and safety risks posed by the tower. Extreme proximity to establish res residential homes. Placing industry level infrastructure so close to where families live and children play is unacceptable and raise serious legitimate concerns. Documented health effects. Recent clinical clinical cases studied Harwell and Neielen have documented a rapid onset of microwave syndrome in residents living near 5G antennas. These reports specifically identify a cluster of neurological symptoms such as chronic insomnia, tonitis and severe anxiety resolved only when the

individuals are removed from the radiation source. Furthermore, peer review research and identified measurable changes in the immune markers in white blood cell counts of residents living within 60 meters of the station indicate the radiation acts as a persistent biological stressor. A study on electromag electromagnetic fields also found that younger people implement implantamatory ex conditions outdated safety limits. While the applicant may claim FCC compliance, independent risk assessments, MNICK and Musawix of 2025 indicate that federal limits are based on outdated thermal only models to prevent long-term biological stress and cancer risk on thermal levels found in residential neighborhoods. Situated very close to Mil Creek is a crucial spawning ground for salmon. damage to this delicate ecosystem. Disruption of the native navigation and spawning sanitic field to navigate their way back to the their natural spawning grounds. Peerreview research indicates that artificial potentially leading to

failed spot spawning cycles. Larae development risk spawning grounds. Spawning grounds house the most vulnerable life stages. Fit uh sensory and moto disruptions and development delays placing a high output radiation directly adjacent to Mil Creek introduces a biological stressor that threatens a significant financial threat to the property owners. Realtors say visibly tower visible towers can cut the values of a home by 20% with surveys showing 94% of buyers would pay less or avoid such properties even if the health concerns are officially disputed.

Perception of the cell tower poses the health risk is widely held and this belief alone will con will continue to suppress the property's value and deter um potential buyers from their sight. In your platform, you ran the promise of, you know, people over politics and uh and to and to save our green spaces. Town board rejected this proposal. And this letter is written by Kellen Karen Heler. She's editorial director of WebMD. So, thank you for your time. Okay. Up next is Alex.

Oh, yeah. No, this is the open to the floor. Um, this isn't separated into different sections.

Well, greetings and thank you for allowing me to uh speak to health and safety field for my whole career. I worked at Eastman Kodak for 32 years holding a variety of positions ranging from chemical process safety, employee health and safety, product safety, sustainability, and environmental remediation. I have a bachelor's degree in chemistry and a masters in industrial hygiene. I've been a certified safety professional since 1989. For the past seven years, I've owned my own consulting company. My wife, Paula, and I have been Webster residents for 31 years. We raised our two daughters here. They both graduated from Webster Thomas High School, uh, which prepared them well for college and beyond. We totally enjoyed Ro Webster's hiking and biking trails, parks, water access, and all the other Webster amenities when they were growing up. Now, unfortunately, our daughters do not live in Webster anymore. They found more opportunity in

Boston and New York City. Uh, please don't feel sorry for Plet and myself. They are only six-hour drive away and we do that quite often. My point is, how do we make Webster an even better place to live and work? A place that offers more opportunity for our children, a place that is not only self-sufficient and sustainable, but thriving. Wouldn't a growing and vibrant Xerox campus be a wonderful thing to see? But I'm afraid if we keep doing what we're doing, uh, we'll only get the same results. So today, we stand at a crossroads for Webster's future. For years, we've looked at the Xerox campus and wondered what, if anything, will will ever happen to it. Today, we have an answer that makes sense for our environment, our economy, and our community. The Webster Solar Garden Project. This project isn't just about being green, but it's about common sense. Xerox and Mante are taking 19 acres of a brownfield site, land that can't be used for housing or farming, and is turning it into a 6.5 megawatt solar farm uh that

is local and renewable energy. Why does this matter? So to start, Xerox has a stellar reputation regarding environmental and social responsibility. I'm sorry. And Xerox is and will continue to be a good neighbor. In addition, both Xerox and Mentati have been very transparent. Uh they've listened to concerns and they've responded uh appropriately and constructively. Um, this project employs smart land use. Instead of clearing woods or taking o over farmland, Xerox is utilizing its own land, which is zoned industrial, uh, to get something productive out of it with no impact to their neighbors. This project develops local energy security. By generating power right here in Webster, we reduce our dependence. we reduce our dependence on volatile outside markets and keep more control control over our energy future. It also provides accountability. This isn't a permanent fixture on our landscape. The developers have a

decommissioning plan and a bond in place to ensure that at the end of the lease, the site can be fully restored and the solar panels removed. I know there are concerns Change can be a lot to get one one's head around, but this project has been carefully reviewed, meaning strict safety and environmental regulations.

You are at four minutes.

It represents a bridge from our past to a cleaner, more resilient future. Thank you for your attention.

Thank you. Uh please remember to respect the speakers.

Uh up next is Mike Burn.

Well, I guess this is point counterpoint, right? Um, here we go.

Good evening. Uh, my name is Michael Burn. My wife and I live at 1496 Grand Meadows Way in Webster. I'm speaking tonight prior to your vote on the industrial use permit for the proposed Webster Solar Garden by Xerox and Monte Solar. I want to start by acknowledging that the product project has been modified. The plan no longer places solar panels on top of a capped hazardous waste landfill. I appreciate that change and I appreciate that members of the community planning board and town board raised concerns that led to that. However, the revision raises a larger issue for me. Whether this project, excuse me, was properly planned from the beginning. At the November 18th, 2025 planning board meeting, representatives of the solar garden team stated that moving panels off the landfill may make the project less viable and there were few if any alternative locations. That leads to a excuse me, a fundamental and still unanswered question. Has removing the panels from the landfill affected the viability of this project? And if it has not, why was development on a hazardous waste landfill proposed at all? That alone gives me concern

about the overall approach taken with this project. My next concern, and one shared by many residents and board members, is the environmental impact of removing approximately 17 acres of trees and brush from the site. This is not a ma minor or temporary impact. Clear-cutting this amount of land will displace wildlife, including deer, foxes, rabbits, and other species that inhabit the area. It may also disrupt natural drainage patterns that affect surrounding properties. For those of you who haven't seen it, I urge you to review the drone photos included in pages 83 and 84 of the March 26th application materials. They clearly show the full extent of the clearing that is proposed, and it's big. While the developer has agreed to replace some trees along portions of the site's edge, the reality is the overall loss of trees and vegetation far exceeds what will be replaced. This represents a permanent environmental change to that area. I'd also like to briefly speak about the impact on nearby residents. I purchased my home in 2021, paid extra to face the wooded area adjacent to the site. I understand this is not my land

under review, but the loss of the wooded landscape directly affects my home, my quality of life, and the character of the neighborhood. Many of my neighbors are facing the same impact. I apologize for my voice cracking. Another important issue is hands to receive sign % of the electrical output. At the same time, the project is el as a taxpayer. I believe res residents deserve meaningful input into how public incentives are used, especially when those projects result in substantial and potentially supported by public funds. When I look at the broader Xerox not raise the same environmental, wildlife and residential concerns, that makes the choice of this particular site especially troubling. Finally, I want to emphasize that I am not alone in raising these concerns. As members of the board have already noted, a large and consistent group of residents has come forward over an extended period of time to express serious concerns about the project. Those concerns have not gone away even with the revisions to this plan. In closing, I respected respectfully urge you to vote no on the

industrial use permit for this site, the loss of extensive tree cover, the displacement of wildlife, the negative impact on nearby residents, and the unresolved questions about project planning and public benefit all weigh heavily against approval. Please prioritize the long-term environmental health, neighborhood, character, and residents of town of Webster. Thank you. Thank you.

All right. Up next, I am going to butcher this name, so I apologize. Bob uh Mora Morfka. Boba.

Bob Morfka. First of all, thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to speak to you on this subject. My name is Bob Rafku. I live at 1191 Scandia Drive in Webster. I've been here for 13 years, uh, I'm opposing the cell tower. And the reason why I'm opposing the cell tower is when I moved here like 13 years ago, I bought into a residential area, right? And you've already seen people who have disagreed with the cell tower and this seems to be kind of a workaround if you ask me. They kind of went and bought uh bought into this property and they're like, "Hey, we're going to build a cell tower here." I I I totally disagree with it. First of all, it's like right behind my house, like 100 yards behind my house. Every morning I get up, I see deer, I see wildlife. It's a beautiful area to live here in Webster. I don't want a cell tower. I don't I don't want to deal with the uncertainty of, you know, is this, you know, what are they going to do to the land? How is it going to affect the land? Honestly, how's it going to affect my property value? So, it's pretty simple. I don't have a lot of really long- winded things. Stop this. I'm asking to stop this. This is a

a a commercial endeavor on a residential piece of property. Not to mention, it's in the middle of a neighborhood. I You wouldn't allow me to put up a oil, Derek, would you? So, stop this cell tower. This is just ridiculous. We've already talked about it.

By the way, you guys are doing a great job. I really appreciate the way you've moderated this. I am complete. Do have a good evening. Thank you.

Thank you.

All right. Up next, Lynn Bashan.

Get some resan. I'm sorry.

It's okay. I get it all the time. So, I'm uh hear about the cell Tower. Um I live at 1225 Scenic Circle. Um we've lived there quite some time and uh our backyard is beautiful. The bad thing is my backyard backs up right to the property of 122 Wildflower like right there. Um, if I'm sitting on my back porch, I'm not looking at my beautiful woods in the fall. I'm not looking at them in the winter. I'm going to be looking at a cell tower. So, um, really, really concerned about it and, uh, opposed, very opposed. I mean, you buy a piece of property and I know that land doesn't belong to me. Um, but it's beautiful. You put a cell tower in there and it's it's gone. You can't remove it. It's gonna be there forever. Um I will say if you guys um I'm just saying I'm thinking like if you bought a piece of property, would you want a cell tower in the middle of your backyard? Because it's going to be in the middle of middle middle of my backyard and uh I don't want that. So

I'm opposed. Thanks.

Thank you very much. Up next, Jane Bashaw. Hello board. My name is Jane Bashaw. I live at 1492 Grand Meadows Drive

and I have the dubious honor of being the closest house to the solar garden. Could the town board please clarify in writing what rational basis was used to determine that this project was for industrial use given that the energy being generated will not be provided to the wider Rebster public but only a subset of eligible residents? Could the board also clarify in writing whether the town's solar energy law was evaluated for applicability to this project? And if so, what was the determination and basis for that conclusion? Thank you.

Thank you. Sorry, just writing that down.

Thank you.

Uh, up next is Edwin Bashoff. Thanks for the opportunity to speak tonight. I live at 1492 Grand Motives Meadows Way as well with Jane.

I live at 1492 Grand Meadows Way with my wife Jane with the dubious honor of being closest to the solar farm. I agree with the people with the cell tower for the same reason. At the beginning of the session, we recited the pledge of allegiance, one nation under God. Does God's living word provide any relevant information? I was looking uh doing some reading and I found in 1 Kings 12:7. For context, King Rayoboam, the son of the great king Solomon, is asked by the people to help to make their lives easier. Rayoboam asked the wise advisors for advice. Then King Rayobam consulted the elders who stood before his father Solomon while he still lived. And he said, "How do you advise me to answer these people?" And they spoke to him, saying, "If you will be a servant to these people today and serve them and answer them and speak good words to them, then they will be your servants forever." Well, he didn't listen to his wise counterparts. Turns out that uh the people revolted,

which I'm not advising anyone here to do, and King Rayabom had to leave the northern part of Israel. You already heard from my neighbors about the problems associated with the solar project, so I'm not going to reiterate these all over again. Um myself and our neighbors Dave and Debbie are closest to this site. The the arguments that have been presented so far revolved around the deforestation with its disruption to the ecosystem and animal habitat, noise pollution, potential health issues due to the asphalt cap and the negative impact on property values. The fact that this is located on a northwest corner of the Xerox campus is a great concern as this is the only populated area on the Xerox campus next to a residential neighborhood. I've seen him on the throughway before. I've never seen him in residential neighborhood. Initially, I heard from Monte that the project was a done deal and would start in the spring. And though I raised a concern about that location, you know, nothing came of that. Next, they planned to start the project without DEEC approval

and it had to be changed to incorporate a balance system um for the fencing. The asphalt cap was the latest concern. My neighbor Mark presented facts regarding the potential hazard of this cap. These potential hazards were not considered by the town planning committee or Monte and Xerox. Mark was able to find them on his own. They should all be ashamed for not performing due diligence before proving this. Our main concern was for our grandsons Asher and Finn who Jane refers to as your son and moon and for the neighbor our granddaughters of uh David and Debbie Theo, Alice, Patrick and Casey. The almighty dollar took precedence over this over the health concerns based on what was occurred. I felt this insufficient thought was used for planning this project and I've lost all confidence in the stakeholders Xerox and Monte. If serious issues arise, I suspect neither of them will come to the rescue. The residents of Meadows would suffer the consequences. I recently heard some talk about the decision for the location is one decision that belongs to Xerox

since they own the land. I'll tell you a little story. Four minutes. Gotcha.

My daughter lives in Rush and she she has solar panels on the front of her ground. She also has a large garden and a chicken coupe with about 20 freeranging chickens loaded right behind the panels. This is highly visible to everyone driving down the road. When you own 10 acres of land, it doesn't really bother anybody because they don't see it. Everybody going down the road does. And it didn't pose a problem. However, if I put the same thing up in my front yard, it wouldn't affect any of you. Nobody's close enough. Vast majority of Webster would be apathetic to it. But my neighbors would walk by, every one of them, as I would their property, and say, "It smells. There's, you know, it's noisy. Uh, it's going to affect our property values." and you would make me take it down understandably. So, I'd argue that ownership is not the basis of the issue.

It's location and the people around it.

Thank you.

Up next is Elaine Johnson. Hi, Elaine Johnson, 626 Pine Lakes Trail. I'm speaking about the I'm

I am talking I'm speaking about the Sierra Solar Garden. I want to open with a quote um by Ben Franklin. By failing to prepare, you're preparing to fail. There are several good examples in New York where a seeker negative um declaration or exemption like the solar farm resulted in a city or town not taking a good hard look at that project before approving it when there were strong indicators of significant impact on the environment and the result as you would expect was environmental risk. The Buffalo Hickory Woods um division is a good example of that. Another project that you may know is a hotel Canondagua known as the bird cage or um the mistake on the lake um where inadequate project project vetting resulted in years of delays and required intervention from the town for through tax breaks and grants in order to complete the project. I've been thinking about those things as I think about this project. Have we done our due diligence to ensure that this project is is good for the health, safety, and welfare of our Webster residents? So, as the board is has a task tonight to determine whether the final site plan approved by the planning board meets the industrial use permit criteria for being consistent with health, safety, and welfare Webster

residents. I'm asking that the board clarify in writing its rationale for determining how unresolved concerns regarding audible noise, inaudible lowfrequency noise, groundwater effects on site mitigation, and the failure to to subject this project to the proper section of their code do not altogether compromise the health, safety, and welfare of our residents. Are we truly prepared for this project? Thank you.

Thank you. Up next, Jerry Bashard.

Thank you.

Jerry Bashard, 632 Pine Lakes Trail.

Okay.

At the November 18th, 2025 primary approval hearing for this project, Mr. Gassic asked for clarification on how the removal of 17.5 acres of trees on a site with known wetlands will result in increased groundwater and the potential impact on this functionality of the pump system and monitoring wells on the site. The response from Monte was their project supervisor didn't think this was an important issue and that grass seed would be planted to replace the trees. Common sense indicates that grass absorbs far less water than trees. Yet the planning board did not do due diligence regarding this issue. Could the board please explain in writing its reasoning that no further analysis is required on increased groundwater infiltration due to removal of existing vegetation in order for this project to be considered safe.

Thank you.

Maybe sir that needs to be your job. You can be the full-time mic guy here. Maybe it's your full-time job now. Every two weeks, you can come and help with the mic.

I'm good with it.

We'll bring snacks.

I'm good with it.

All right.

You can sit with Chris.

You had me at snacks.

Uh, up next, Monica Gorlick.

We're going in order. My husband and I gave up Oh, it's Monica Gorick at Tall Birch Trail. We gave up our Seda tonight because this was important to be here. I'm going to make it really short.

That's I apologize because that's really rare because my husband's always saying I'm talking too loud. Um I'm going to make it short. I say vote yes on the um solar garden panel. That's it.

That was short.

I have respect for everybody's opinions. So, yes.

Thank you, Monica. Okay, we are moving on to page two. Up next, and I am again going to butcher a name here, so I'm sorry. Uh Bob Schiffessor. I thought that was going to come out different. A little pause in there. I was getting a little nervous. I trying.

I'm Bob Sheerer. Live at 49 Autumn Leaf Trail, Webster. I'm back in Webster. I lived here for 27 years between 1973 and 19 or 1976 and 2003. At that point, my wife and I moved to Senica Lake where we had a small home um u summer home and my wife was retiring and we decided to live there and put an addition on and start a bed and breakfast. So after about three years, I realized that um I've I've always been concerned about uh ecology and so forth. Uh I started researching solar and at that time you were limited to only putting enough solar panels in that would result in paying and using uh 10% of the electricity or supplying 10% of electricity you're using. But that changed in 2013.

They allowed solar panels to be remotely located and to net meter. So I was on the planning board at the time and some people there said, "You're crazy because it's going to be 17 years before they're paid for." And I said, "Well, during those 17 years, I'm not going to be using fossil fuel." So as I went forward, I found that because it was a business, there was federal grants and also Naerta and New York State chipped in. So the solar panels cost me out of pocket about a third of what the project cost. And as a result, I put in uh heat pumps as my furnaces uh failed or began to fail and uh did some other things. So I became an almost electric house or facility I should say and I ended up paying for those panels in four and a half years. So since that time, I've been getting

free electricity. And this year, with the new rates that went in effect last year for NYAG, I saved almost $5,000. I'm now my um my home there is now owned by my son and they drive two electric vehicles and are still have not exceeded their solar panel output. So it's um it's free once you get the panels installed that energy is free. And so I when I heard there was a solar project up here, I've signed up uh because I can't have solar panels on my house because I'm in an HOA and they won't allow that. Uh and I had already put a heat pump in rather than uh gas heat. And um so I was I've signed up for solar panel someplace uh but I only get a 10% discount. So that I'm still going to be paying out of pocket quite a bit of money for my electric energy. But in the long run,

um, we've got to realize, uh, I went to an energy conference in in or energy summit so-called in 1st of December in Geneva.

You are at four minutes.

Pardon? Four minutes. Okay.

So, I guess what I'm saying is we're going to be running out of electricity uh, no matter what we do. um especially with the onset of this AI. I don't know if anybody's done any research on that, but um uh that's going to use a ton of electric energy and we got to get it from someplace. So uh now the other thing is I heard about capping putting solar panels on the cap u infrastructure here. This is a problem. Well, the the DEC not the environment environmental um the government EPA has stated that they prefer solar panels on capped um landfills because it doesn't it doesn't hurt there's no farmland involved and it's can't be used for anything else.

Thank you.

Okay.

Sorry.

Thank you. All right, up next is David Blahu. I'm gonna get these names right one day.

Good luck.

Believe in me.

Good evening. Thank you for having us out here to have our say. I'd like to thank everybody for coming out here tonight.

My name is David Bllejo.

My name is David Bllejo. I live with my wife Jennifer at 617 Pine Lakes Trail. I've lived in the Webster community, not this spot, but I've owned at least four homes in Webster for just over 34 years. We picked Webster because we've been to many other communities and Webster is where life was worth living. However, lately it seems to be a little out of control. Regarding the Xerox Solar Farm, we have spent months pointing out all of the issues, concerns involved in approval of this site. is the opinion of numerous Webster residents that the issues and concerns largely outweigh the benefits. On top of that, the residents of Webster in the immediate area of the proposed site have already seen overdevelopment. by that. In the past eight years, I've seen the storage units go up on Phillips Road, the town houses off of Schlaggel Road, the residential development on Terra Vera Vera Way, the major Ryan Homes

development off Salt Road which replaced part of a golf course, the Ryan Homes of Aberdine Estates, which is currently being created. did. And this is just the past eight years. And that's a very tight area that I point out. It's probably within a mile. The 17 plus acres of mature trees that Montante wants to remove is the only sight and sound buffer to the sadly to say unsightly industrial park of Xerox buildings and parking lots. Monti stated that they will pay you $119,500 in taxes over the cost of 15 years regarding the solar farm. If you look if you I'm sorry if you took just 1.5% loss of assessed value of just our subdivision which is just 125 homes.

you lose over $260,000 over the course of 15 years. Mathematically, that's $140,000 loss for you. And that doesn't even include obviously the taxes going up, so on and so forth. There are several residential subdivisions in that immediate area. And I'm talking tightknit. I'm not going five miles. not going three miles, basically a mile or so. We can go beyond that, but just to keep it real. The first mistake was to allow Xerox to create a brownfield. That should have never happened. Somebody apparently was asleep at the wheel, I guess. Now, do you really want to compound the existing issues by destroying land and putting in the equivalent of 15 football fields worth of solar panels? Unsightly, I may add. I'd like to close with this. Each of you were voted into office by

the residents of Webster. Your obligation is to the residents of Webster and not to not to Monte Solar. The negatives outweigh the positives. Whether it's a loss of land, wildlife, the visual serenity to the surrounding communities, sound issues, possible contamination, the visual buffer, and we could go all night with this list. The residents of Webster are not your adversaries. We're not. We want you to do the right thing. We want you to make decisions that benefit our community. This solar farm just happens not to be one of them. I appreciate the time to allow us to have here. And uh I hope you vote no. Thank you. UP next is Jen Bllejo.

Hi. Yes, I'm Jen Blleo. Um, I live on Pine Lakes Trail and my husband just had major shoulder surgery Monday, but we're here tonight because that's how important this solar issue is to us and to the countless other residents who are here and have spoken out against it, signed petitions against it, or sent letters and emails against it as well. As so many speakers have already pointed out tonight, there are abundant unanswered questions and concerns surrounding this project, which absolutely should be preventing any vote from even taking place, let alone anyone considering a possible yes vote. What I hope you understand is that the people from Monte are salespeople really, and that's okay. That's their job. Their purpose is to sell this project. But you have a different responsibility here, and that is to see through what is an obvious sales pitch. Of course, these salespeople are only presenting the supposed positives. Um, when in reality, they're simply hiding things or spinning reality, even having individual meetings with some board members to apply pressure or twist facts with no opportunity for counterpoints or questions. like the outright lie that they told at the November 18th planning board meeting, which I was in attendance

at with my husband, where they stated no when very specifically asked by Mr. Kosani if the closest home would hear any sound from the project and have now been forced to disclose and admit that the truth actually is a very clear yes. They went from a no to the reality that there actually will be a considerable constant droning tonal noise of around 45 dB. incredibly disturbing for the homeowners who live there and currently only hear birds chirping or simple silence when enjoying their homes. And shouldn't you be asking that if they lied about that, what else might they be lying about or misrepresenting? There's also smoke and mirrors like the slide in their presentation on March 5th showing how supposedly lucrative it will be for the town to acquire so much more tax money on this land if this project goes through when in reality it's a completely insignificant benefit for the town spread out over 15 years and is nothing compared to the actual loss in tax money which was pointed out previously. Thank you honey for doing that. when the surrounding home values go down. And even if they do go down minimally, it far outweighs any misrepresented gains. But they conveniently left that part out for you. The idea that you should disregard those

17 and a half acres of mature trees and wildlife habitat. They're going to completely destroy that. But don't worry, they said they'll plant a strip of tiny trees that they're going to try to convince you will make up for it when you know it unquestionably will not. The wildlife has nowhere to go. And the homeowners who bought those lots to build their retirement homes on with the intention of relaxing in peace, watching the wildlife, watching the trees change in the fall and blossom in the spring. You, the board, are being told not to worry about any of them. It's more deception on Monte's part to twist the facts. The bottom line is this. Any one of you can fully explain a no vote to anyone who asks. If someone from the planning board approaches you questioning a no vote, you can simply respond that they didn't have all the facts at the time of their vote. But now that so much has been brought to your attention, you are now obligated and responsible for correcting the crucial error in this even getting this far. If a Webster resident questions your no vote incorrectly, thinking that this is simply about solar energy or making use of unusable land because they're coming in at the 11th hour and simply unaware of the history of exposures of the undeniable issues

with this location, you can clarify for them that you needed to vote ethically considering the many concerns on this project and that you would do the same for them if something so negatively affected them. If someone from the county or state government questions your no vote because they had an expectation of a yes

simply because they wanted initiatives or to get incentives, you can remind them that you don't answer to them, but to the people in your town who voted you into your positions with the expectation that you would keep your word and vote in their best interests and who can also vote you out in the next election if you go back on your word. So to anyone who may ask, you each have an exhaustive list of explanations for a no vote. But what you don't have is even one legitimate explanation to any of us for even considering a yes. So in closing, we all just ask that you remember that and please vote no to the solar project. Thank you.

Thank you.

All right. Up next is again John Lagambino. Yep. Up for a second round. I'm John Lagiamino. I live in West Webster. I've been there for 35 years and man have I seen a lot of uh destruction in the environment here. Um regarding the solar garden, great marketing campaign by the way. We must have used AI for that. I really like that. But we've seen the diagram for the placement of the panels. It surrounds the location labeled capped inactive landfill. The first proposal included the landfill as part of the solar farm, but now that area is excluded. Xerox monitors the area and must know what toxic chemicals are contained there. The current plan is based on the premise that the landfill is completely contained. How do we how do we know that there is no leeching from the landfill? To ensure the safety of Webster residents, the town should table this request indefinitely until a full list of contaminants are presented to the

public and an explanation of their permanent and secure containment. We don't want to find out after the solar project has begun or 40 years from now when Xerox is no longer a Fortune 500 company. that we have Webster's version of Love Canal on our hands. Thank you very much. Thank you. Up next, Mary Durand. Good evening. Thank you. I'm Mary Durand, 628 Pine Lakes Trail in the Meadows. my property backs right up to the meadows. It's why we built there. On the applicant's environmental impact statement, they note that they are seeking a quote special use permit, something they told residents at the first HOA meeting. The site plan furthermore specifies that the project falls just under 20% of the total lot coverage. Both factors relate specifically to requirements within the town's code section on solar energy. And

yet this project has been from the beginning has been treated by the town as though it isn't as though its industrial use exempt exempts it from the town's solar code. Could the town board please clarify in writing who made the initial determination that this particular large-scale array was not also subject to the section of Webster's code pertaining to largecale solar arrays and what was the rationale rational basis for the determination given the identified ambiguity in the zoning code and the questions around applicable permitting pathways. Is it appropriate for the board to proceed with a vote before those issues are clearly resolved and on record? On a personal note, I've lived in the area for 47 years. Um, all three children went through Webster schools. I love the area. If this project goes through, I would consider moving. I love my neighborhood and I don't want to do that. Thank you.

Thank you. Up next, Mark R. Williams, because as I have learned, there are two Mark Williams in the neighborhood.

Thank you.

Hi, I'm Mark Williams. I live at 1448 Quail Creek Trail and at the November 18, 2025 preliminary approval hearing for this project, Chairman Kashani asked Montante whe uh whether if you were the closest house to that property, would you hear this? And Monte responded, "No." The planning board simply accepted this rather than doing due diligence and requiring a noise study. Montante has subsequently admitted that the noise at the nearest property will be 42 dB which is very audible. So the current projected sound is 42 dB. Per DEC rules more than six dB increase uh from the current level is too much. We need to understand that the that change to no resident impact in DEEC compliance. Could the board please clarify in

writing why no noise study was subsequently required of the developer despite known inverter noise levels and community concerns. And I've got more. While I understand that uh the a decision was made to uh not put solar panels on the cap, I have what I believe is another example of a lack of due diligence. During the March 5th town board workshop, a Webster planning board member said there is a membrane water can can't penetrate per the asbuilt drawing that I provided to the board on March 19th. And I got that drawing uh from the DEEC. Uh the membrane is geotech textile fabric. It's it's weed fabric. Water goes right through it. It was used just to separate soil from the uh uh stone uh gravel subbase. The planning board member also said that information that the information he was referring to was provided in a packet to the board members. I obtained my information from the DEEC project engineer for the Xerox site. Uh I'm wondering uh where uh where did this packet of information that was

distributed to the uh board members come from and it did it include the uh drawing that I that I obtained. Uh, I don't believe I'm so I'm using this example because I don't believe that the planning board did due diligence to review the construction of the ashvalt cap which has me concerned that there may have been uh also uh a lack of due diligence regarding other aspects to the uh of the project. And another issue is Xerox is in deep financial trouble. On March 13th, Moody's downgraded Xerox's credit rating to CAA2. Obligations rated CAAA are judged to be of poor standing and subject to very high credit risk. The uh uh CEO just this past Monday walked off his job immediately. uh he uh Xerox has lost almost no as of today 95% of the value of their of their stock over the past 5 years. So I have a question. Does it make sense for the town of Webster to uh partner with a company that appears to be in dire financial condition?

Uh please vote no on this project. Thank you. THANK YOU. Up next is Kevin Schult.

Thank you.

Good evening all. Thank you for the opportunity to speak here today. My name is Kevin Schulty. I am uh resident 151 Salt Road here in Webster. I've got uh two young boys in Willink Middle School, play baseball in Lacrosse. Uh been an active community member for 15 years now. Uh I'm also the CEO and owner of Greens Park Solar, which is New York's largest solar energy contractor. Um, we employ 150 people in here in Monroe County, another two to 300 union workers around New York State on any given day to install community solar farms in communities all across uh, New York State. Um, solar in my life. I have solar on my garage, both sides. I have a solar canopy over my patio. I have two electric cars at my house. Um, I have solar at my office. I have solar at my manufacturing facility in Massiden. Um I have installed 30 solar farms in the greater Rochester area, including the only one here on the ground in Webster. Um which is going on 10 years old now. Um I have to say that um Dan and I, Dan Monte and I are actually competitors. uh

we collaborate at the New York State Solar Energy Industries Association, but in general, we are competitors. So, one of the problems I have with this project is that I didn't find it first because I do think it's an excellent use for Xerox's property uh to install solar on this location. And um one of the reasons that Dan and I have become friends on the near decade that we've collaborated at the state level is because Dan represents and Monte Solar represents one of the most honorable and ethical solar businesses in the state of New York. So much so that I invited uh my competitor into a collaborative group that I am on the board of called the Amicus Solar Cooperative which a national network of solar businesses whose intention is to bring honor to the solar business. And because of the wonderful work of Monte on many affordable housing projects and solar farms around New York State, we said come on in and join our collaborative group. So, I offered to my neighbors here in Webster that um Monte Solar represents the best of the best of developers, honorable people, honest people, and um what would represent a very good neighbor to our community from

a solar industry perspective. Um, I will as a neighbor say that I'm a little bit saddened by um the level of misinformation that uh some of my neighbors have bought into related to noise at solar farms, related to leeching of chemicals from solar panels. These sort of things are simply and categorically not true. The amount of sound in a quiet suburban neighborhood ambient is 45 dB. So 42 dB is actually not adding sound to the neighborhood. Solar panels that are being used on this project are made of glass, aluminum, copper, and plastic. All things that we carry in our pockets with us every day. So we are not talking about a project that is bringing toxic chemicals. Landfills. We've built 12 landfill and brownfield solar projects around New York State. represent the best opportunity for us to install solar on land that has absolutely no other value. There is no other value of development. There is no other way to bring tax revenue off land like this. Um and so for the town of Webster to get pilot payments and host community benefit

payments, payments to the school district, um represents really the only opportunity to bring in economic value from that uh type of property. Um, community solar benefits us in in a lot of ways that we may not see. Thank you. Um, but one what what I what I want my neighbors to understand is I study the energy industry every day and what I'm afraid of for Rochester and Webster is that um New York State is planning to increase its total uh consumption of electricity by nearly 20% with data centers. We do not have central station generation power to power those things. So, but because there's such large loads, they will buy the cheapest power and make it more expenses expensive for residents to pay for their electric bill. Community solar represents the cheapest form of electricity available to the New York grid and will help in our communities to keep our um electricity rates reasonable. A greater penetration of community solar here in Webster and all across Monroe County and RG territory will actually decrease your cost of electricity. Um there are studies out there that show that. Um again, I thank you for the opportunity to speak here today.

Thank you. That is exactly five minutes. Up next is Christina Mchuan. Hello. Can everyone hear me? Okay. Hi. Good evening. I'm Christina Mchuan. I live at 1217 Wildflower Drive and I'm here to strongly oppose the cell tower that is going to be uh going up across the street directly across the street from my house. This is not a small decision. It is a permanent change that affects the health, safety, and financial stability of every family in this neighborhood. Let me start with what matters most, our children like my young daughter and pregnant women like myself. Federal and scientific agencies acknowledge that there are still uncertainties around long-term exposure to radio frequency radiation, especially when it comes to cumulative exposure. And that uncertainty is exactly the problem. Children's bodies are still developing and research shows that their

brains and biological systems are more vulnerable to environmental exposures including electromagnet uh electromagnetic radiation. We are being asked to accept constant 24/7 exposure with no long-term data proving it is safe for developing bodies or unborn children. And let's be clear about the regulations that everybody's been pointing to. The FCC safety limits were established in 1996 and are largely based on preventing short-term heating effects, not long-term biological impacts. Even the federal court has pushed for further review of these standards because of evolving science and the 30-year age gap from when these last limits were established and thoroughly completely reviewed. So, when we are told that this is safe by our Verizon lawyers right over here, what we're really being told is that it meets outdated regulations that do not fully account for long-term exposure or vulnerable populations like children. Furthermore, independent analyses and surveys show that a large majority of

buyers are less willing to purchase a home near cell towers and in some cases property values have dropped by 20%. That's quite a bit. Families invest their life savings into home into their homes. This decision puts that that investment at risk overnight. The tower is being proposed directly next to Mil Creek Preserve Land, an area meant to protect natural space and maintain the character of our community. Approving industrial infrastructure in the setting directly contradicts that purpose. And not for nothing, the neighbors of Mil Creek were not properly informed. There was no meaningful opportunity for early input. Decisions that impact families at this level should not be made without transparency and community involvement. The last time we fought this and won was on a July 4th weekend around that time, a time when families were busy and traveling. Now, is is it a coincidence or malicious intent that when it's time for discussing this proposal again, it's another holiday weekend, spring break, when families are traveling and they're unable to represent for themselves here tonight. This board, you seven representatives

have a responsibility to protect our residents of Webster, especially the Mil Creek community. Right now, you're being asked to approve something with uncertain long-term health effects, documented financial consequences, clear conflict with preserved land values, and a lack of community engagement. This is really not responsible planning. It's not about a tower. It's about whether we prioritize infrastructure over families. I really urge you to reject this proposal or at the very least relocate it away from homes, children, and pregnant women like myself and many more to come. Thank you.

Thank you.

Up next, Kevin Lockheart. Hi, Kevin Lockhart from 100-2 KDER Park. I'm so glad to see everybody here tonight. It's so obvious that these taxpaying citizens, so many people who have lived here for so many years and decades or their whole lives have come out today to lobby the board and ask you all to lean in their favor tonight. The board and the town crushing folks with the comprehensive steering plan. I see it in your eyes. you are loving the developers being here tonight. You see all that money and you just want to bring it in and grow the tax base as fast as possible, but these folks here tonight are the number one priority. They're the number one concern. They're the culture of Webster. They're the people of Webster. They're the tax base that gives you your salaries and elects you and so on and so forth. And it's just upsetting, I guess, to see the board just kind of dazzled and try to figure out like do you go with the developers who I'm sure they make plenty of good points and then there's all these uh you know constituents and taxpayers and residents here who also have very good concerns and who at the

end of the day who's to say who is right and wrong on this whole issue. I'm not really certain uh about everything because there's so much going on. But um I mean at the end of the day, we got to create a Webster that we all are okay with living in. And it seems more so on an ongoing basis that the town is veering away from the public and focusing more on what the town can do for the town and the businesses and this the growing the tax base and saying yes to all the developers and all these weird things. Um, so that's my thought on that. But the issue that I actually wanted to address is more of a issue with the public records. So, I'm going to go a little off base and uh veer into this public records because I've been discussing with the town the public records requests. I send over public records requests from time to time to get different things. For example, the environment overlay map uh which you guys gave me in physical form. So, we have the environmental overlay map if anyone wants to see that that's available. And there's uh I also if there's like a critical public safety incident for example that I want to review the bodywn camera footage is generated. This has created some

contention with the town because I don't expect the town to necessarily know a lot about um foil law because I mean who would know you know such int intricacies about freedom of information law anyway? I foiled I I really wanted to address this tonight with you all because I foil things and the town is weird about the responses sometimes. For example, I just foiled a um a body warn camera, two bodywn camera videos generated in this case obviously by the police department uh concerning some incidents and the town came back with a no right, you denied it, which is kind of standard for in most cases, but I very clearly articulated that there is a broad presumption of access to town records under foil law. The burden is on the town to justify a lawful basis for withholding public records requests generated by the town. You like to send me blanket denials to my requests, but the town must foil law says the town must release all non-exempt portions of records using specific justification.

The denials must be detailed and tied to a statute and not vague or conclusory. The exemption me broad conclusory denials to my foil requests. It kind of drives me nuts because how maybe Thank you. But I am so specific about when I send you these long emails in a blanket denial and I say here's ABCD XYZ all the reason here's all the laws by name that they can send me a blurred out muted 7hour body camera video where it shows essentially nothing under foil. So I emailed Kyle about this. I emailed the supervisor about this. I don't know what a guy's got to do if I got to file an article 78. Very interested in and that I work with with all sorts of jurisdictions and administrations and um I just expect that you guys will be more responsive to me in the future. Uh because quick question, John, we're not going to

Are you fing Are you f filing appeals when you're denied?

Of course. Yeah, of course. Thank you.

All right.

Bob Hunt is up next. in the Meadows, too. I have uh lived in Webster for 56 years, not counting the six years between kindergarten and sixth grade when we moved to Oranquay because my father was a trick worker and he couldn't he got tired. There was no Bay Bridge. He got tired of driving around that bay. Uh reason I'm here is because I just bought and moved into a house was going to happen. I might not have done that. Now, the reason I bring that up is it's probably going to be a lot. There's part of your tax base that you may not get. And the other one other thing I want to mention, this is not a and it's upon you to determine if it's good or bad in this location. And this location is bad. Okay? Plain and simple. I might add, I worked at Xerox for 34. We love this town. I've built five houses in this town. West Webster, all over the town. Only 13 years did I work at the Webster campus. I worked for while in Henrietta, but I stayed here because my wife and I

and our two daughters love this town. So, the question to you and my request is be logic comment. Uh, did you look out the window today? I didn't see the sun. Did you look out the window? I don't buy that. Okay. half the year we don't have much sun here at all. Sorry, just the way it is. Thank you for your time. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you.

My name is Rick Stacy.

1491 Providence Drive. I've been a Webster resident for 20 years. Um, coming up again. This cell tower was defeated by the previous board. So, is this board gonna just keep bringing it up and voting until you get a yes? That's not acceptable. So, I'm I'm I'm very concerned about that because you've heard all the environmental issues. You've heard the people that live in the town saying, "This is not what we want." The board is there to protect the integrity of Webster. That's your job. All right? Not to bring more tax money in. is to protect what need more industry industry okay so be careful with that the solar thing I worked in electronics industry for 48 years we did a lot of studies my company was based in California I didn't own the company like one of the guys that was here all right but it wasn't a solar company but we did electronics to try not bad in Florida about 30% efficient not in upstate New York right so be careful about what people are telling us All right. And why would you put a solar panel and cut down 17 and 12 acres of trees? That doesn't make sense, right? When you got all of

that dead space in between the buildings where people that live around that area are not going to see it if you're in between the buildings. All right? So, you guys need to think this thing through. All right? But listen to the residents of Webster. They're And you know what? A lot of people are saying, "We plead with you. we ask you to do this. The reality is you guys work for us. All right? So, we're not pleading with you anymore. We're telling you we don't want this. So, get rid of the cell tower deal. All right? That was already done in the same area. It was defeated last year. There's no reason to bring it back. All right? That's bad. The solar panels, not a good not a good place to be cutting down trees and hurting the environment for what, $119,000? It's crazy. It doesn't make any sense, right? Just two more things. Um, you know, the town board or the the town board and and the town of Webster, the police department, there's been a lot of things going on lately in the in the town. Um, fireworks that are like bombs. Nobody's taking care of it. What's going on with that? Okay, that's one thing. The other thing is the green space that we have in our town. There's some people

that are trying to create motocross tracks. The town's got pictures of it. The the police, the fire department have been there. They don't fix it. But you guys are focusing on things that the people don't want. Why don't we fix the problems that we have and stop making more problems. That's all I got to say. Thank you for the time. Thank you. Up next is Bill Ernst. All right. Uh, good evening. My name is Bill Ernst. I reside at 1207 Imperial Drive. Um, I've lived in Webster for over 40 years. Um, my wife and I purchased our first and only house here back in 2003 on Imperial Drive. Um, I'm here this evening to oppose the construction of the cell tower at 1222 Wildflower, uh, which sits in a neighborhood full of mature trees and and wildlife. And that's part of the reason that we we purchased our home here. Um, this commercial development simply does not belong in a residential neighborhood.

For the residents in the area that are unhappy with their cellular service, there are other much less invasive technologies uh that can leverage existing infrastructure to receive telecommunication services in their homes. Similar to many other residents here, I am very concerned about the decrease in our property values, further destruction of our natural environment, and the potential negative health impacts to residents and wildlife in the area. I do not see any benefit to me or my neighbors from the installation of this tower and request that you do not refer this to the planning board for further consideration. Um, thank you all for your service to our town and um maintaining Webster where uh life is worth living.

Thank you. Up next is an Ernst.

Am I getting the last name right?

Yes. Thank you.

Yes, I got one. Hi, I'm Ann Ernst. Um, unsurprisingly following my husband, Bill Ernst. Uh, we do live at 1207 Imperial Drive. So, our home is across the street from the homes that are bordering the 1222 Wildflower property. Um, and we were previously opposed also to the um, there was the previous uh, proposal that was defeated that was for this Verizon cell tower to go in on some land uh, that's accessed from Scenic Circle in our neighborhood. Um, and we are yet even further opposed to this um, this new idea to have it be a 1222 Wildflower. The previous site was defeated for many reasons um which others have stated. Um this in my opinion is even worse because it's not even going on the town anymore and having the town benefit from this tower. This is someone's private property who has a parcel of land that is in between and surrounded by the rest of our neighborhood. Um and so it just goes to

that um home homeowner I believe. Um, so I do request that you please do not refer this for any further consideration and just stop before any parties are and time is wasted on doing site reviews of this land. Um, you know, to see where else that this could go. Many of the neighbors I myself just became aware of this days ago and I was then trying to reach out to other people that I'm neighbors with who um in my community just to say, "Hey, did you know that this is the new idea that they're proposing?" and many people were not even aware um and did not even get the chance to be able to come out tonight. Um so it's also my opinion that if this was to go further, it's going to meet further uh trouble down the road um and greater opposition in the future. Um again, thanks for your time and service and thanks everyone for listening.

Thank you. Up next is Janice Jackman. I know she spoke during the public hearing or did she leave already? Okay, so we are moving on to our final page. Up next is Sean Hannah. Good evening. Thank you for having me. This is the uh third time I have been before the board uh to talk to you about this uh about this issue, the solar panel issue, and I'm grateful for each and every opportunity. I really do appreciate it. The first time was a couple of months ago. I came as the uh former regional director of the Department of Environmental Conservation and I explained to you why I thought that this application was really lousy for the environment. The next month, uh, I came as a former elected official and I explained to you why I thought that putting the interests of a penny stock Connecticut corporation above the interests of the people in this room constituted a dereliction of duty. I believe both of those things

then and I believe both of those things now. But tonight, I want to put on my attorney hat and give you some free legal advice. We all know that an article 78 action is coming down the is coming down the pike. You're all going to get sued. Okay? And during the course of that litigation, the courts will look at all the issues that these people have brought up and they'll give them great consideration. But those issues are going to be framed and they are going to be illuminated and they're even going to be dwarfed by issues of procedure and procedural issues have plagued this application from the very beginning. It started when this application was characterized improperly as a general industrial use instead of a special use under the solar uh farm act of the Webster town code that was written precisely for this type of development. Okay, that's going to be that's going to be the first problem. Now, tonight you're going to be asked to commit another procedural error. You're going to be asked to do something out of sequence. The law is written as it is with certain sequences planned out

because they mean something. They have to be followed. When this application was amended in a material fashion by taking the solar panels off the hazardous waste site, that is a material change. And when you have a material change, it has to go back to the planning board before you guys can vote on it. And the reason is that the code is written because the planning in a way that the planning board is supposed to question and investigate and use their expertise and then report to you and then you're supposed to actually consider what it is that they say before you vote. You can't vote on something and say, "Well, it's contingent upon what the planning board may do later on." That is a procedural error and it's been committed by others before. My former colleagues in the New York State Assembly once were presented with an opportunity to put a measure on the ballot for a constitutional amendment. But the law provides that before they can do that, they had to have an opinion from the New York State Attorney General's office that the proposed amendment would be constitutional. They didn't wait for that. They did what

you're being asked to do tonight. They voted on it and said, "Well, it's contingent upon the attorney general finding that it's okay." Not surprisingly, it went to litigation. Uh, it went before a New York State Supreme Court judge, who, by the way, was a Webster native, and he said, "You can't do that." And he was right. You can't do that. You have to follow the law. The law as it's written. It's written that way for a reason. And if you don't learn it tonight, you're going to learn it later. If you don't care about the environmental arguments we've made, that's fine. If you don't care about my perception of what your duties are as elected officials, okay? But please, I implore you, if you do nothing else, consider the legal implications of what you do. Consider the legal interests of the town that you're elected to represent. There should not be a vote on this before all of the proper procedures are followed. This has to go to the planning board first and so there should not be a

vote on it tonight. If there is going to be a vote on it tonight, you should vote no. Thank you. Thank you, Sean. Thank you. Up next is Claire Bolan. Claire, are you still here? I think I'm pronouncing that correctly from 1220 Wildflower.

Oh, she left. Okay. Uh, then we have Mr. Chris Naka. Chris Naka, 1065 Shoecraft Road. Um, I'm here today to reach out to you about your car's extended warranty. Um,

thank you for the levity.

No. Um, it's not about that this time, unfortunately. We'll catch you on another day. Um, we have people coming to us wanting things from us. And there's a lot of science that points in either direction, whether it be for the cell towers or whether it be for the solar garden. And um on the topic of the the cell phone towers, I'm really really happy to see this many people here um talking about it. I really thought it was just going to be a dead issue that I might bring up occasionally to the four other people in this room, but it's it's great to see people coming in here and speaking their opinion on that. And it it makes me think a little bit about um what is useful and what is going to get us the outcome that we are searching for. And we can come up here and we can tell the people that are coming to us for things, not the other way around. Why we don't want these things, the things that make us nervous, this, that, and the other. But I feel like what that does a lot of the time is just open you

up for cynical condescension from the people that are trying to sell you things. And at the end of the day, whether the science is in your favor or the science is in theirs, it's irrelevant if you as a taxpayer are coming home and are being affected by these things. whether the science is real or the science is not. The placebo effect is real. You are affected by these things. And going from a room of four people in here most days to seeing this entire room packed. Um I haven't been feeling good the last couple weeks. I almost didn't make it today, but I just had to see. I had to I had to see if, you know, the jaded side of me was going to have the my confirmation bias confirmed or if the hopeful part of me would. If the board members tonight would spit in the face of the people that are opting not to be on their keyboards complaining about this topic, but rather coming into a public setting and voicing their concerns respectfully. and uh actually participating in their community in a real way.

I was wondering if those people's efforts were going to be tossed aside or if you know they would be validated in the people that are coming out here taking time out of their day to voice their concerns whether it be beneficial or not. You know getting into the specifics of everything because really at the end of the day we owe these people nothing. They're coming to us for something. We're not coming to them. We're we we are not obligated to explain anything to them other than no thank you, move along. I've said this before and it maybe it's a little bit crass, but Webster is the pretty girl at the dance. We don't have to, you know, say yes to every suitor that comes our way. And I understand that as a town, we're looking for industry and we don't have Xerox and the capacity it once was and we're, you know, we don't have all the thriving businesses that we once had. And I think part of that is due to, you know, the constant building of minimum wage jobs. I think that hurts us. And it's sad to have to say no or have negative feelings towards these bigger, more high functioning projects. And um

you are at four minutes, Chris.

I think um you're right that this isn't about whether solar panels are good or healthy or any of that. It's not about that. It's about where they're being put up. And uh it really is a it's it's unfortunate that um I don't know actually, you know, it's not unfortunate. I'm really happy to see all of you here and this is great. No matter what happens, I love all of you and I'm happy to share this room with you every two weeks and um hopefully we see you often. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, Christine Zave or Zer, I can't tell if it's an honor or a Z. Good evening. Um, my name is Christine Zayn. I live at 603 Phillips Road and unfortunately I win the prize for the closest residential home to this project. I live directly across the street from the Northwest Joint Fire Department that was built directly across the street from us. Uh just a little backstory, the house that I'm living in right now is a family homestead. My husband's parents bought that house, I believe, in 1962. So, there has been a Zane living in that house since that time frame. I can tell you that when I first started dating my husband in ' 85 84, we drove out here. He took me over to meet his dad and I said, "Who lives out here? Where do you people get a pizza? What what there was no Wegman's on Holt Road. Nothing was developed in that area at

all. It was farmland. Although I will say that I didn't have the the pleasure of meeting my mother-in-law. She passed away my husband's senior year of high school. But I will tell you that many times I sat in that kitchen with my father-in-law at the end of a long day after serving. He he was an Aronai policeman. uh stories of Xerox in its infancy, how their property got the road expanded because Xerk was going to expand down the road. Eminent domain came in, they took the frontage from the property, widened the road. Every time something happened around us, we were promised, "Oh, don't worry about it. It's going to be no impact for you." Okay? when they built the fire department across the street from me. Oh, they're going to be positive neighbors. I have the the fire department's driveway is almost in line with my house. So, I get the headlights, the fireside rent coming out. I didn't buy that property because of what was there. That was a homestead property. Now, you're talking about the the sound,

the the sound or the decibb. I didn't come here with a million facts, okay? But I can tell you if anybody's ever been camping, do you ever camp next to somebody who's got a camper with a generator running? This is what you're asking all these people to hear a groaning, moaning noise all the time. We were all a lot of us maybe even were here when they when they presented that tomato farm and it was all like, "Oh, it's not going to impact the area." Whatever. I can stand in my driveway and see the eBing glow of that tomato farm from miles away. Okay? And as someone else eloquently put it as well, you take down all those trees, you're not going to have a sound barrier or anything. It's going to be really loud. I can hear when they're playing baseball in the fields up by the rec center and I I I go crazy because I always say to my husband, "Oh my gosh, why didn't somebody turn those lights off? That game ended an hour ago. They're wasting energy." Blah blah blah. So, I mean, it's not a question of do we want solar power. We're not going to benefit from

that power is from what I understand. And the other thing I want to throw out there just on a personal note is they were everybody in that whole area like if you have to picture in your mind where all these people are living in the meadows and all that those were all family farms. I have all these if I would have thought about it I could have dug through the archive and pulled out all these pictures of all these farms that were surrounded by us. Okay. And all those farms got sold.

You are at four. Okay. Uh I remember every single house in that area was on a well. Okay. Our house was on a well. All those people that lived across the street of us, Xerx went and bought all those parcels of land. They said it was for the expansion, but it was also because that's where all the contamination was. Okay. Our house across the street, we got brought on to county water as well. But I will tell you that there was a cluster of women that lived down that road that we knew that all passed away from some form of cancer. Now this was back in the early 70s when they didn't know about toxic chemicals and all that stuff. So when they took all those farms, all those people were promised all that land was never going to be developed because they contained it. So, I doubt that a situation would happen like this up at Love Canal where all the things are fenced off. The difference is we've got trees. Okay. So, I just ask this board to think hard and long about would you want that noise? Would you wake up in the middle of the night hearing this worring noise and and think, "Oh, it's

not that intrusive." It is intrusive. It's quality of life for everyone that's here.

Thank you.

All right. Thank you very much. All right, that was the last person on the list, and I may regret this, but is there anybody else that would like to speak during this time that did not sign in.

Oh, yeah. Go right up.

Thank you. I I didn't prepare anything tonight, but uh just standing there, some things came to me. Brian O Salom at 1479 Grand Meadows. You've heard my arguments before with this, and I had just a few things to say. one um the word deception has come up tonight and um I think it's a powerful word because deception can be built on halftruths and there was definitely some halftruths tonight and the other word that's tied to this is context. Now we've had some respected people talk tonight on the opposite side of this and I do respect them. There's no animosity here. Um, we've had a consultant, we've had a business owner speak, but if you take the truths that they bring to the table out of context, that's where you have a problem. And the problem is not with solar energy, although we can even make a some some questionable things with that. But the the question is where are we putting this thing? That is the issue. So with the same consultant and the same business owner, um I would like to give them an opportunity in the near future to go deeper into the things and the concerns that we have because I can guarantee you

the gentleman that listed all the solar that he has on his house doesn't have 14 inverters humming and buzzing in his ear at night. So context is very important. This is about where the placement is and it does not have to be there. So the other thing is the last thing to drive this point home. Actually two more things is an ice cream truck. Think about an ice cream truck and we all you know we think you know we got kids we got grandkids and the ice cream truck is going through the neighborhood and we think that's a great thing. It's an ice cream truck. No one would no one would want uh you know would would poo poo on a on an ice cream truck coming through the neighborhood. But you have that same ice cream truck and then an ice cream man inside saying I'd like to spend a little time with your kids in this ice cream truck or let me take them around the block for you with the little girls and the little boys. That's becomes a whole different thing. That's what I'm saying with context. And that's the context that we're talking about tonight is the difference between where it's being placed. And the last thing I'll do is I'll take the rest of my time for a moment of silence. And I'll just play this.

This is the sound of 14 inverters. This is 45 dB. Thank you.

Thank you.

Anybody else uh would like to speak right now?

Hello. My name is Roy Dylanbeck. I live at 626 Pine Lakes Trail. Just to sum everything up tonight, what a lot of people don't realize, even though they're talking about 45 dB, they're allowed to go 10 over that. And a lot of people don't realize or understand that that's even a little a little louder. What you just played, I don't think you'd want that in your backyard. And as everybody discussed tonight, we should be really quite clear to you guys and everybody in the board. the location itself is a is is a major concern for everybody in the area, not just the people in in right right next to it, but also surrounding areas as well. Um, long story short, none of us want it. We strongly oppose this and we really want you to do the right thing for everybody in the community. That's all I got to say. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Up next, Dennis. Yeah, go get in line. Dennis,

uh Jim Annis, 1222 Imperial Drive, Webster, New York. Uh 14580.

Um here to talk about the cell phone tower. Uh cell phone tower was originally squashed back in August. Um all the same comments and and thoughts that went into that. uh to get that squash should be put into this right now. Um because it all applies. It's the same neighborhood. All the same concerns are there. Uh except now like I'm going to guess where it was lo once located where they proposed to have it built before maybe had like five adjacent budding property uh properties. All right. that would be affected. Now, it's much more than that because it's like a a 14 or 16 acre property with surrounding neighborhood around all of it. I also saw drawing renderings today that say that you're going to see this thing uh even farther. Uh there's a metalbrook

drawing that's pretty far away and you can clearly see in your drawing renderings that you're going to see that from from that far away. Um that's almost at the Presbyterian Church at 250 in uh Imperial or Metobrook. Um, so not only you going to have property loss from the adjacent properties that butt up to it or the ones that and the ones that that are like directly in front of it, but you're going to have it as far as that. So, not to mention the neighborhoods that don't even know about it because it's it's, you know, they may not have been made aware yet. So, um perceived property loss uh actual property loss will happen. Um you know, people see these uh cell phone towers and it's going to take a long time to sell a house. Your property value will go down during that time. Uh so I oppose that and after hearing everybody's comments about the uh um uh

the uh help me out here people

uh the solar uh plans. Uh I oppose that as well.

All right. Thanks. Thank you. All right. Dennis Gorlick. I was determined to just sit and listen tonight. Um, and I also thought I would respond to some of the facts that have been quoted because I spent my whole life as a scientist. But I'm not going to go there because when you quote data, you have to prove the data to me. I don't have to to defend it to you, especially when I I think a lot of it needs a little more study. Um, but beside being a scientist, I worked for a number of uh multinational companies that did both uh science products and lab products and a lot of other things. So, I've always been involved with science, but not as an academic, often as a a business person. Um, multi-billion dollar companies. and also just research at universities.

But it's interesting to me that um I would be more convinced by many of the comments. I think a lot of them are very valid. And if you are concerned about something in your backyard and would like to be someplace else, then that should be the I would appreciate those kind of arguments if the argument was don't build it in my backyard because I don't want it in my backyard without bringing up um data that's not valid data that's controversial. So the what we used to call nimi not in my backyard phenomenon is a real phenomenon because you often don't want things in your backyard. But I believe that it would be better put if that was the main argument rather than coming back after the board and this project. Some of these projects have been in the works for a long time and uh saying that they haven't considered them without knowing where they started and what they went through and the fact that often a project is brought up by someone who wants the project there. It's not the board saying we want these projects. They consider

what comes in and try to look at those projects and see what the values are. So, just to summarize, besides going up over all the stuff I've seen, I do want to say, Chris, that I have been getting your uh your your notes about my insurance on my car, and I'll get back to you on that. Um, but just to sum it up, because I don't I know it's pretty late, and I tend to talk a long time, but I won't. um arguments that focus on what your real feeling is rather than trying to bring in data that may not be valid data um is something that I would appreciate and I think many people would appreciate. My other suggestion is if you don't want it in your backyard, whose backyard do you want it in? Um, I'm wondering if if the solar farm was moved between where it is and off the area that has contamination, between where it is and where your houses are, which brings it closer. It solves all the problems, but it makes it a bigger problem for your backyard. So, just think about that big picture as you come up with uh comments. Okay. Thanks.

Thank you.

All right. One more. Any other citizens?

You will have your chance, Bob, when your agenda item is up.

Can I just add one thing?

No. Unfortunately, we are going to stick to the rules though, unfortunately.

All right. Going once, going twice.

Oh, yeah. There's already construction stuff at the site on Caracus Drive. But why I'm up here?

Why I'm up here? I heard before a lot about progress. This was at the last meeting.

I don't know. For the record, please.

Huh?

Can we get your name for the record, please?

Peter Latra.

Thank you.

1444 Quail Creek. Um I don't see where there's any progress in in this. I mean, taxpayers are paying for it. Xerox benefits, Montana benefits from it. Nobody else, not a single person. Yet, I got to drive down Philips Road and dodge potholes all over the place. My my power is going off constantly because the infrastructure is so bad. But you're going to spend the taxpayers dollars on this, which to me is absurd. It's criminal. That's all I got to say.

Thank you. All right. With that, we are moving on to our regular town business.

Um,

could we take a short recess before we start? Would that be possible?

Five minutes.

Quick. Five minutes. Because we've been

five minutes. Run to the bathroom.

Yeah, we've been an hour and a half. We probably have another hour and a half to go.

Find that vending machine. I'm starving.

You want some muffins?

No, no, I app I get it.

All right, we are on to regular town business at this point. Um, I have reviewed the minutes from the March 19th work.

Just bang that. There you go.

Thank you. We're back.

I'm afraid I'm going to crack this thing. Did you break that?

You want me to try?

No.

I asked you if you just did.

All right. On to regular town business. Uh, I have reviewed the minutes from the March 19th workshop and I would I would make a motion to approve the minutes.

Second.

Supervisor Sheldon.

I.

Councilman Cahill.

I.

Councilwoman Wright.

I. Councilman Hunter,

I.

Councilman Wagner,

I abstain. That wasn't there, right?

Oh, that's right.

Thank you.

Um, I have also reviewed the minutes from the March 19th uh town board meeting and I would make a motion to approve said minutes.

Second.

Supervisor Sheldon. I

Councilman Hunter I.

Councilman Cahill. Hi.

Councilwoman Wright I. Councilman Wagner,

abstain. John, you had the honors this month.

Yes, I did review the bills, found them to be in order, and I would move that we approve the bills as submitted by the director of finance.

Second. Councilman Cahill,

I.

Councilwoman Wright,

I,

Supervisor Sheldon,

I,

Councilman Hunter,

I,

Councilman Wagner,

I.

I would like to make a motion to approve prepaid warrant as submitted by our director of finance. Second.

Supervisor Sheldon.

I.

Councilman Hunter.

I.

Councilman Cahill.

I.

Councilwoman Wright.

I. Councilman Wagner.

I.

I would also like to make a motion to approve purchase orders as submitted by the director of finance.

Second.

Supervisor Sheldon.

I.

Councilman Cahill.

Hi.

Councilwoman Wright.

I.

Councilman Hunter.

Hi.

Councilman Wagner.

Hi. All right, up next, Monte has a few things to say before we start asking questions. So, Katie and Dan and I forget your lawyer's name. The floor is yours.

How long?

H

five minutes.

We're going to give

whatever they need.

Few minutes. There's no there's no presentation. So,

okay.

Hi, good evening. Thank you for having me here tonight. I'm here tonight seeking approval of the industrial use permit for the proposed solar project on the Xerox campus. My name is Dan Montante. I'm president of Monte Solar. Um we are based in Buffalo and we focus exclusively on commercial and industrial solar projects. Um most of our development and construction activity is on industrial sites and landfills and rooftops. That's just the the uh market segment that we play in. We like it. This is a private property industrial zone site where the owner is seeking to make a permitted fully reviewed investment that brings tax revenue to the town at no cost. The question before the board is not whether solar is perfect, but whether the town should allow a lawful, compliant use of private property that meets every regulatory standard and benefits the tax base. I'm not here alone tonight, obviously. I want to

introduce some of my colleagues. Uh first of all, Katie Sosa is our director of development. Uh Wendy Latco is vice president at Xerox, uh vice president of environmental health, safety, and sustainability. Kim Nason is our land use attorney from Philip Slidle. Uh and I finally want to introduce Steve Irk who's our uh vice president. Um Steve's teams are charged with building projects in the field. That's where uh that's where Steve comes in. He's going to update the group today on our site plan and how on our updated site plan and talk about the ashalt cap.

Thank you, Dan. Uh again, Steve Irk, vice president of Monte Solar. Uh in addition to being vice president of Monte Solar, I am a Webster native. My parents moved here in 1980. I was born here. I was raised here. Uh I have a lot of fond memories of this town. My parents still live here 46 years later. Uh, and I'm here on a regular basis bringing my two kids to visit their grandparents. So, I have a vested interest in this town. Um, we've listened to the comments from the town and from the town residents. And although Monte, Xerox, and the DEEC all maintain this project meets the applicable environmental and health and safety requirements, we have elected to remove the solar from the asphalt cap. This will reduce our overall project size. And with that, we also that means fewer deliveries to site. It means fewer man-hour on site, means less impact overall during construction. In addition to that, over the long term, fewer inverters, noise was a concern. This will reduce the noise. Um, but things that aren't changing, the screening, the things to the north side helping to um protect the viewsheds of the adjacent residents. So, with these changes, we do believe that it is a better project and we look forward to your vote tonight. Uh thank you guys for having me here

today. I know that um I've I've talked to you all before and and again appreciate your your time and consideration. Um I know that there was a lot of um comments from the public about uh environmental impact um and habitat things like that. Um so we've already um belabored the point that we have gone before DEEC the Bureau of Hazard and Waste uh Management and received the approval even with the asphalt cap which we have now um decided to remove. Um I do want to talk about some of the other approvals that we maybe haven't talked a lot about to the board and how u much review um went into this with uh other agencies. Um from a uh a wetlands perspective um I heard some comments about wetlands. Um there are no DEC wetlands on this site. We have a delineation saying so that was submitted to the the planning board um from the DEEC US Army Corps of Engineers. There are very limited um federal wetlands on the site. They will be impacted less than.1 acre by this project, meaning it doesn't even need a permit from uh Army Corps and Engineer. And again, we have that letter from them stating that um that was given to the planning board as well. Um I heard some um questions or concerns about water drainage patterns and things like that.

Um this project did submit a full SWIP review. Um that SWIP review was reviewed by the town engineer and signed off on by the town engineer. Again, that was even before we removed the um solar from the asphalt cap. Um the uh town of Webster uh planning board did a lot of due diligence on this project. They met with the uh DEEC behind the scenes, asked a lot of questions. There was a lot of vetting that was done. Um the town engineer has reviewed the project. The town uh the planning board um voted that this was a type two seeker action. Um a disturbance of under 25 acres on industrial or other disturbed property. Um and in addition to that, we did voluntary reviews that we did not have to do as part of this project. We reached out to the New York State uh historic preservation office or shipbo. Um again got a negative declaration there. And then we also had a US Fish and Wildlife study done. No one threat no threatened uh or endangered species were found to be affected. The monarch butterfly was found to may be affected. We opted to plant uh monarch uh milk milkweed throughout the project. um which is not something that we had to do for this project, something that we chose to do for this project because we

are trying to um embed this property. The property in consideration is private property. It's industrialzoned with long-term ownerships uh by Xerox that have previously been developed and disturbed and continues to be managed by DEEC. Wildlife presence does not equal habitat quality. While wildlife may be present as a transient or incidental use, this does not mean any accepted ecological or regulatory definition of prime habitat nor open green space. This is a brownfield that is industrial zoned and not accessible by the public and never will be accessible by the public because of the DEC legacy here. Um, I'm going to turn it over to my colleague Wendy to talk about some of the financial assurity um that this project is uh already has and even more financial assurity that we're going to bring to it as well. So, Xerox has been a long-standing member of the Webster community. Our first building on the Webster campus was constructed in 1956 and we have continuously operated as an industrial manufacturing site for 70 years. Our remediation investigation began in the 1980s. This was embarked on voluntarily by Xerox when there were concerns raised about potential contamination in the ground and Xerox

conducted the investigation and self-reported their findings to the New York State DEEC. As a result of that, we worked with the DEEC to develop a remediation plan which now is operated under permit from the from the DEEC. And if the board has had a chance to look at the site management plan, which you requested from us, you'll see that it's over 2,000 pages. It's a very detailed plan and specifies pretty much every nitpicky thing you could imagine that we might have to do or might come across on the site. You know, one one thing that has happened because of all that investigation and our nearly 40 years of remediation at the site is we have a lot of data. We the site is very well characterized. We have sampling and monitoring every year. We submit port reports to the DEEC. We have hydrogeeologists and other professionals who are studying everything that's happening on the site. So, it's very well characterized. we understand where the contamination is and and its behavior. I know there are concerns about financial responsibility and that the town may end up being on the hook for

something related to this project. That is absolutely not the case. There's no upfront cost to the town whatsoever and there is no uh scenario where the town would would bear any financial responsibility either for the remediation activity at the site or for any associated with the solar panels. Xerox bas bears financial responsibility for remediation activity at the site and we will continue to do so. There are multiple layers of protection built in to protect the town and other stakeholders from any financial liability. Xerox has a hazardous waste insurance policy which would cover any upset conditions that contributed to environmental damage. And I've heard concerns about Webster's financial or Xerox's financial solveny. Uh the DEEC requires us to have to demonstrate financial assurance and we do that through a 30-year shity bond. This bond is in the amount that it's expected to cost to continue remediation at the site for at least 30 years. So there is no, you know, risk there. That bond is the beneficiary of that bond is the DEEC. If something were to happen to Xerox, the DEEC would get that money and they would take over remediation at the site. As Katie mentioned, uh, Monte also has

layers of financial protection. There is a they will be getting a pollution liability insurance policy for this product project and also there is a separate decommissioning plan and bond for this project. This was done at the request of the town. The town is the beneficiary of that and again that is in the amount of the full amount that is expected to take to uh decommission and remove the the project at the end of its life. So again no financial liability there. You know, we see this project as a win-win. This helps Xerox with our environmental goals and reduces our electricity costs, but it also pro provides the town with additional revenue, reduced electric costs for low and moderate income residents, and an intentional pollinator habit habitat.

Thanks.

Thank you, Wendy. Um, I'm going to spend a few moments talking about community engagement. Um, I mentioned when I started that we typically focus on industrial sites and rooftops and and that is the case and one major reason for that is because solar and you know often is controversial, but it's typically not controversial when it's cited on rooftops and and landfills or in old industrial sites that have been uh remediated or have not been remediated. Um, our community, our our engagement with the community began about six months ago in late September when we met with the uh the HOA from the Meadows of Webster. And, you know, part of that, you know, part of the feedback we received during that meeting was there was concern about sight lines. Would people be able to see this project? Well, that commenced what we now call the caution tape experiment where what we did was we went out with caution tape uh um and put caution tape up at the edge of the tree lines um at the highest level that highest height that you would see the solar project uh from various parts of the community around the um

around the meadows of Webster. Um, this caution tape was was taped up around the perimeter of the solar site, proposed solar site. And from there, we took pictures and drone shots of the um of the experiment and submitted that package as part of our package to the planning board uh during their site plan review. None of the caution tape was visible from any viewshed uh during that experiment. Even though we did confirm that there would be no sight lines um visible from you know from the HOA I'm sorry from the um the community. Uh we did also agree to add two rows of evergreen trees um and and specifically are utilizing species that were requested by one of the members of the HOA uh specifically Norway spruce and eastern red cedars. Each tree will be 10 feet tall and there'll be a total of 40 trees. When we turned into the new year, uh the new supervisor asked us to do two things. The first was to establish a web page and the second was to host a community meeting. Um, our web page for

the the Webster Xerox the Webster Solar Garden went live on January 22nd and it hosts all the information in one concise place including a response to all the questions that were raised by the HOA. So on this website you'll get information on the site background, DEEC's role in their operite of the landfills, the solar project design, and then again we included the responses to all the questions that we had received from the HOA. As of this morning, that website's been visited over a thousand times and um you know, the vast majority of those hits have been in the Webster and Rochester area. uh onto the community meeting. Um so ensuring that communities closest to the project were specifically invited to the community meeting, what we did is we reached out to the heads of the HOA who confirmed that two notices were digitally um sent out to the residents of the Meadows. On the 27th, January 27th, we hosted the community meeting where community members had direct access to major project stakeholders, including live access to interact and ask questions of the DEEC. Speakers included myself as president

Monte Solar, Wendy Latco as vice president of environmental safety and health at Xerox, and Haley Aldrich, uh, the engineering firm that does testing on the site on a on a very regular basis. And then in addition, DEEC's site stewards Lynn and Kevin were also attended virtually. Um my belief is that the majority of those who tend who attended the community meeting left feeling like they had their questions answered and and many concerns alleviated. In addition, at that community meeting, uh we did distribute a fact sheet about about the project and the site. Again, much of this information or all this information is also included on the web page. Finally, even though the DEEC's, an agency whose sole purpose is designed to protect human and environmental health, safety, and well-being, signed off on the 6.6 megawatt project after hearing the intense community push back uh specifically around the ashvalt cap, our team decided to modify our site plan to remove solar from that controversial area. We're trying to demonstrate to the town of Webster and their residents that we're trying to be community partners as

we have in all of our projects that we've ever developed in our 15 years of building solar projects in New York. So, with that, I'm going to ask my colleague Kim to come up and talk a bit about uh where we are in our summary of approvals.

Sneaking up behind you.

Did you say summary of the rules?

Hi there.

Okay.

So, I just want to um kind of provide some context. I know there were some comments on it. Um, and and make sure everyone's on the same page kind of of where we're at procedurally, what the project has been through, what's required, and what we're before this board for today. I know I touched on that at the work session, but just want to make sure we're covering it again. This project was covered under the town solar code. It has been reviewed under the town solar code. The solar code provides that at this site, solar is permitted. It's a permitted use upon site plan re review by the planning board. So that is the review under the solar code for a project here. It is permitted and that constitutes a legislative finding by the town that this use is appropriate at the site and in harmony with the surrounding area just by nature of it being a permitted use. But again, site plan review was required. So the project went through that process as I know everyone here is familiar with the planning board preliminary site plan approval. Um and

then ultimately the planning board issued um classified as a type two action under seeker and issued final site plan approval for the project. Um another part of their review come is connected to this review that we're here for today. The industrial use permit. So the industrial use permit applies to any use that's permitted in that I in district. So anything that's listed as a permitted use goes through this industrial use permit process which is the town board as you know direction to the building inspector whether or not to issue an industrial use permit and the town board involves the planning board in that process. So that was also part of our site plan review process. Um the planning board was asked to make a recommendation on the industrial use permit and when final site plan approval was issued that planning board did also recommend approval of the industrial use permit that the town board direct the building inspector um to issue the IUP. You know since that time um we have as has been discussed here multiple times made a revision to the project in response to public feedback. We have reduced the overall size of the project and as everyone has already heard removed the panels from that asphalt cap

because of the concerns that were noted again DEEC has approved it. Our position remains that it is safe but we want to be responsive and a good partner with the community. So that project change did occur. So we have submitted um an application to the planning board. There is a provision in the code that allows for a minor amendment to final site plan approval um in instances like this where the project is being reduced in size that it does not require that the applicant to then go back to the town board. Also, we heard some some feedback on on the order of process. There actually are is a code provision that contemplates IUPs, industrial use permits being issued prior to final site plan approval. So, we've laid this out in our filing that we submitted in March 26, but I just wanted to be clear from a procedural perspective um that this application has gone through the solar code through its site plan process. It is here on an IUP process that applies to all permitted uses in the in district, which is a direction to the building inspector on the issuance of that permit. The code has relevant standards and requirements um that apply to IUPs. There's a list of several of them. We provided a full analysis again

in that March 26 correspondence and have talked uh through it at prior meetings. But this project's passive solar use does not impact the types of of impacts that are part of that IUP review that are typically associated with your more largecale industrial development that would be permitted at that site. sewer, water use, traffic, odor, dust. Um, and again, we've we've talked about the record and we can answer questions again on impacts from noise, aesthetic impacts. There are significant setbacks at the site meant to mitigate any potential impacts um from this project. But again, it is a permitted use of the site and has gone through the solar uh code portion. So again, just want to reiterate the ask this evening is on the issuance of the IUP. Um and again also the host community agreement that was included um in that March 26th agreement as well. So, just to kind of bring us back around before we get into questions and answers, I I we Monte appreciates the public comment, the public participation. As Dan reiterated, we have tried to be responsive to all the comments that we have received both at meetings and in writing, making sure we're capturing all the questions, making them publicly available, and providing responses to the questions,

and then modifying the project in response to some of the things that we have heard along the way. Um, we've taken extra time to provide thorough documentation and to answer the questions that have come before us. So, at this point, we are requesting that the town board issue the IUP.

All right. If that's all from you, let's uh take some questions. Garrett, you want to start us off?

Sure. Um, first, thank you for everything. I mean, you know, you've givenly given me a reason to read excessively lately with with all the documents. And I appreciate, you know, the goal is it's not whether solar is good or bad, you know, how do we make the right decision for the community? And I appreciate those efforts of wanting to be a good partner with us in working together. And I think my first question is given the sheer volume of information, even the pack you sent over last week, you know, we haven't had time to fully review all those aspects as a town as a town attorney. I know you got back to us today with more questions, more responses to our questions from the workshop as well. I'm I'm pretty sure not everyone had a chance to review all of those because those are quite intensive. You know, in the interest of being a good partner, would you guys be willing to push this off two weeks so we have a better chance to review all those documents and work with you to have our questions answered more fully so we're not rushed? So, I I'll just say that the filing that we submitted on March 26th, while there were a few components in there that were responsive to some of the things that we heard at the work session, the the entirety of that filing is references to items that were already in the record um and questions that have been addressed

and referencing documents that had already been filed. I think there was the full version of the HCA submitted and then obviously the the shorty information from Xerox as well. But at this point even the the questions that um were provided that we did provide responses for you'll see many of those responses throughout are referencing places in the record where the information has has been for some time. So we want to answer any questions if there are additional questions. Um, we want to, you know, be able to address anything and new that exists or any other additional questions that may come. Um, but from our perspective, the questions it it's been some of the similar questions that we've answered in the past on the record.

All right, we'll keep going then. Um, you know, you mentioned less impact with the panels being off the cap, but I'm understanding that's only a 5% reduction. So is is there more or less work going in because it's just that 5% less panels on the cap. Is that really significant? You know, can I reconcile 5% seems small or is it a significant reduction in components for that 5%.

Yeah, it it was more than 5%. We went from

6.6 to 5.2 megawatts. So it is almost a 20% reduction in size. So that's the pardon.

Yeah. Um, so that does mean fewer trucks delivering materials to site. That does mean fewer workers coming to to site for more days, things like that. The impact during construction will be less as a result of removing the solar from the asphalt cap. Council Wagner, if I may, I think what the councilman's asking is the sorry, the reduction in the number of solar panels was approximately 5 to 6%. And and I I believe I don't want to speak for you. What he's asking is how does that translate to a 20% reduction in the the output?

Yeah, we're trying to reconcile that. Yeah. Is it 5%? Is it 20%? What's the

Sorry, I don't know that we're familiar where the 5% number came from. We're just looking at the two system sizes originally proposed and currently proposed.

That could be our lack of that could be a misinterpretation on our side. Then

it it was based on the number of solar panels that were removed from the asphalt cap as the as a percentage of the the original number that was proposed.

Wattage.

Yeah.

Okay.

I can you go.

All right. Um so solar panels you your quantity may not always equal your same system size. Like sometimes you'll have a panel that's 500 watts, sometimes it's 600 watts. So when we look at it as far as coverage on the site, whatever panel we may be using, if it's a higher wattage, we'll have fewer of them. We're looking at it as a percentage of the site being covered, not necessarily a count of the number of panels. So that could explain the discrepancy between system size as measured by megawatts versus system size as measured in number of panels. Yeah, I think that was just our interpretation on our side, which has some differences there, right, of panel number versus overall size. Okay. So overall, you're saying it's a 20% reduction in overall footprint and and work in everything or Yeah, the 20% is a reduction in megawatts and that will directly equate to square footage of coverage on site. There's almost a direct linear correlation there. Um the bigger the solar panel, the fewer of them you need to cover the same amount of area. So we

do believe that it's maybe not a direct 20% reduction in manh hours but it's a noticeable amount.

So with this the total trying to like is the total scope of the project down 20% then

the total output of the project will be down by 20%.

And the footprint and like the work that goes into it is that

the footprint will be down by 20%.

Okay. Um, Army Corps of Engineers. Do you need updated approval from them with the change in the site plan?

Uh, we are going to be sending uh Army Corps of Engineers an update for with the site plan. Yes. Again, it is a reduction and not an increase. So, it's just a notification.

Okay. And then you mentioned like there's no wetlands and is that, you know, trying to get into the specifics. Is that just federal wetlands, DC wetlands? What?

Yeah. technical definition of wetlands does that fall under?

Sure. So, there are two different types of wetland studies that we had to move forward with for this project. Um, first is DEEC wetlands. That's a new uh there have been a lot of DEC rule changes um that came out and went into effect as in 2025. Um, we did uh review this site uh with new uh with New York State DEEC. There are no DEC wetlands on this site. We have submitted that documentation to the town. Army Corps of Engineering uh is the federal wetland uh delineation. There are limited federal wetlands on the site. We have submitted our project to Army Corps where we have said that uh where they have agreed that our project will impact less than 0.1 acres meaning that we do not even need a permit from Army Corps of Engineer. However, even though we do not need a permit from Army Corps of Engineer, we still are following the nationwide permit 51 requirements.

Okay. Um, another question. You know, reading through those documents and kind of understanding the financial side from Xerox, I can't remember your name. I'm sorry.

Wendy.

Wendy. Um, the bond, the financial bond that Xerox has with the DC, that's the one that's for $6 million. Am I remember right?

Yes. And my understanding reading that that bond covers if Xerox fails to fund the closure or if or if a failure after a formal DC order a court action. Those are the two situations where the bond would kick in.

Yes. Say that again, please.

The bond says it it funds if Xerox fails to fund the foreclosure or if there's a formal DEC order or court action. Those are the two situations where that bond takes into effect. The bond also references um some other like a trust and and some other terms. Are there other lay documents as part of that package that we just don't have?

No.

Because it refers to a trust and it mentions the commissioner has to approve the cancellation of the bond, but the the bond doesn't

the pre we so we get a new one every year.

Yeah.

So I think that refers to the previous year's bond gets cancelled and we get a new one for the current year.

But even like it doesn't define the commissioner. So just for us to understand who has the right who oversees the cancellation of that bond. It doesn't def that term that bond itself doesn't define the term commissioner. Can you provide that?

That's New York State.

Commissioner

I mean that that's my hypothesis but you know

No, that's correct. It's Yeah. So

Okay. And is there a separate trust set up because it references a separate trust? Yes, those are connected. Trust they're connected. It's part of Yeah, it's part of the New York state regulations on what you need to do for financial insurance.

Could you even want to send us the details on the trust?

Yeah.

We don't have the details on the trust, just the bond.

I I will review it.

Okay. Uh, another question, two more and then I'll let the other people go. And I've got other questions, but we'll keep it on point here. Um, for the the the site survey, did you guys do leaf on and leaf off or just leaf on in the fall?

It would have been late October. I can't tell you if the leaves were on or leaves were off. We did not do the pre and post.

Okay. Thank you. And then um the technical weeds we all just love so much. Um so you were saying this this was reviewed and processed under the town solar code.

Correct.

Okay.

Yes. So the solar code provides um that it is permitted upon issuance of site plan approval by the planning board. So the code contemplates that the site plan review process is the review process under the solar code unless you're in a residential district. If you're in a residential district, then it is a special use permit process as well covered in that solar section of the code.

Okay. Thank you. I've got some some other separate questions, but I'll let everybody go directly to their reply to keep it on point.

So, Jen,

I had one question, but and it was answered in the question and answers. I just have one slight clarification because Xerox is responsible for the the land and Monte is responsible for the solar panels. What if there's an issue with the land that was caused by the solar panels? Is there a scenario where Xerox will be looking to Monte and Montante will be looking to Xerox for any type of um issue with the the ground or the land. I'll I'll just step in quick quickly and if anybody from Xerox I don't want to speak for you guys but as part of the DEEC review process um DEEC reviews the lease that covers this arrangement. So ultimately Xerox remains responsible for everything at the site. I think we've talked about that um at prior meetings in terms of their obligations to the DEEC, but as we provided in our materials, Monte is responsible for the

panels and how the panels are operating on the site, but the review of that arrangement between the two entities was part of the DEC review. They had asked to review the lease and signed off on it.

I don't know if there's anything specific.

So, I have a hypothetical situation for you that happened downstate um I think last week. So, the panels are up. They're on Xerox's property. There's a massive hail storm. Every single panel over there is damaged and now is sitting on or partially in the ground. Who's responsible for the cleanup? That's an insurable event. Um so every project that we own and operate is insur is is fully insured against those types of those types of happen stance.

Okay. So your insurance would cover it.

The pro like the the project own like the the com project company's insurance. Yes.

Okay. And didn't you tell me that there's a new LLC for this specific project?

Yes.

Okay. Is that typical for

Yes.

this sort of stuff? Okay. Uh, solar projects are typically owned by project companies. So,

okay,

that's all I have,

Nicholas.

I'm all set. Thank you so much.

Um, my question is just regarding the HCA. Um, obviously, you know, things changed. Um, I would like our assessor just to have another looks and I know that a lot of this hinges on whatever pilot you may or may not get with COMA. So, um, pending any approval of an industrial use permit may be contingent upon, uh, a new HCA to the town satisfaction. Is that agreeable to you?

Yes, it is.

Okay.

Alex,

would you just explain to the audience what an HCA is?

An HCA, for those unaware, is just a host community agreement. Um, it's what we're going to be using to take taxes basically for the full evaluate for the full taxation of them. um them entering into a pilot with comedy gives them gives us the opportunity to take it off the assessment role. Um if there are various different kinds of HCAs as uh Kyle has explained to me that it could be just a lump sum, it could be a donation to this, but it is basically the money that the town will pay us for the full valuation of their panels. Um and we are working with our assessor. we would like our assessor to um take a crack at everything also because we're now in the 26 tax role and not the 25 tax role. So um that's all I would ask but Garrett you had more questions.

I mean I think just you know overall for the board to to think about with this and consider this is a big decision. Clearly the residents are here. We we've talked about this before. I don't think any of us hopefully don't take this lightly. Um and one of the things Monte said over was like other projects and I I proved it quickly. Um you guys have done a project what was it called? PineAV near the Niagara Falls airport you know and read about that you know kind of the talking about what made that success was just the truthfully in-depth work that went into ahead of time to understand it its planning its risks and the followup. And you know I commend that. I think that's why we're here. We're asking these questions why we're talking about this for us to decide like what's that what does this mean for the town? What are the risks? There's so many moving pieces we need to look through and I understand you want to keep this ball moving and but I feel like for us as a town there's several things and that you sent over the last week that we have not seen before including the HCA the full decommissioning pan the the bond shorty pieces that we need to kind of get into and and wrestle with was like what does it mean you know we had a conversation where asking the town attorney to weigh in on those documents in a little more detail for us to understand like Jennifer like you said where does the risk lie between all these moving pieces is and what can possibly fall back in

the town or not because it's very very complex and like there's just so many moving pieces that go into it that we need to understand the town before we rush into this because I think too like you know once this happens it's hard to undo it and even something like the sound study you know we're not all sounding engineers and we're trying to like you know you hear everybody has their opinion on what the sound is or isn't and without a formal sound study we're all just kind of guessing and trying to do our best which isn't ideal Um, yeah, clearly we talked about the host community agreement that needs some work to figure out that scope, the decommissioning plan, you know, I think that really needs to best practices to be reviewed by someone outside the town because it's complex and that's our main assurance if something goes wrong, what does it mean? You know, I don't think anybody inside the town or at this board up here has experience as an engineer in reviewing those type of agreements. Like that needs to be looked at because that's as you talked about, that's our main like way to know how much assurance do we have. What's going on here?

I do just want to clarify that an outside engineer did take a look at the decommissioning plan as part of the planning board review. So, I just want to clarify that. Thank you.

Was it was the outside engineer hired by you or the town?

Town.

Town. Thanks.

There wasn't a board member though, right? I don't I I was told it was a town engineer or an engineer by the town. So I don't know who it was.

So we do have an engineer on the town or on the planning board.

We have a few speak to

Yeah, we'll have to see clarity and that's part of the challenge in this that between like the old administration and the new one. There's a lot of moving pieces that we clearly are need to do a better job staying on top of. So I think some of the things we got to really think about host community agreement decommissioning plan Xerox bond and insurance framework understanding where that responsibility lies between Xerox Monte worst case with things fall back to us. Um talk about this community agreement. I'm trying to go through my notes quickly here because it's late and I apologize.

We said we weren't going to go past 11 and clearly that's that's not

said that

we were joking me and Kyle and Nick in the bathroom

at our at our restaurant. Can I ask um Josh a question while you're looking through this?

Yes, go ahead.

So Josh, I know that uh this um this project is classified as a type two. Correct.

That is correct.

So which is not as comprehensive as the other type. Correct.

Yes.

Now could the planning board have asked for a more comprehensive in that we're they're proposing to clearcut almost 20 acres? Could the town planning board have asked for that? This I'm just curious.

Do you want to me

time it?

Okay. So, by statute, it's it's defined as a type two action. This particular type of activity as a a large scale solar panel less than would you like to

was it less than 25 acres?

Less than 25 acres.

Yeah. But that's not my question. And my question is, could the town planning board have requested a more comprehensive or or because it's a statute? The answer is no.

No, because it's it's defined as a type two action. So in the in the statute that pertains to part type one, it explicitly says that a type two cannot be reclassified as type one, right? And so a type two action is presumed to have no environmental effect. And so there's no further just

and and just to go

absurd.

Sorry to interrupt. Ju just to go to the point a little bit more of of whether or not it's a a more wholesome review or a more limited review. When something is added to the type two list, um like solar projects and these types of sites were added several years ago, that has to go through a comprehensive review process in order for the DEEC to make this determination. It's a predetermination that there are not significant adverse environmental impacts from projects that are on the type two list. So DEEC undertakes that analysis itself at a higher level and they actually do a

this is where it gets very layered. They do an environmental impact statement on changes to the type two list. So they do a seeker review on changes to the seeker review. So there is a review that's done on the overall concept of solar projects on these types of sites by the DEEC before something is even added to the type two list.

Right. But the DEEC did not go out to this specific site. Correct. and do

we don't need to

a comprehensive study of what species were out there, what the travel pass are for the deer for um

correct it is a very broad

it is a very high burden for an item to be added to the type two list that takes years and years for those changes to go through in most part and it's because DEC has done evaluation to make a determination that these projects do not have significant adverse environmental impacts specifically here when we have a solar project an industrial area under that threshold. So that's just on the on the establishment of the type two list.

And then just on the habitat and species, we did do a threatened and spec uh endangered species studies for this specific parcel. So I know that your question was about seeker, but we did do a study specifically for this parcel and that wasn't even a required study.

You said that was the endangered species

threaten. Yes, it's called a US fish and wildlife study. What about the current not non-endangerous?

Uh, it's

like deer.

Uh, the study was submitted to the to the town. It is on file with the with the town planning board. Um, and I'd be happy to send you a copy as well if you'd like.

Other than the endangered species, correct? Is that what you're saying?

Uh, there are no endangered species. The the one species that is considered may be considered threatened. It's still on the list um of uh is the monarch butterfly. and we had to do no habitat um uh remediation or correction. However, we opted to voluntarily do that for this project.

Yeah. And thank you for that. I was I'm more concerned with the the indigenous wildlife that's out there right now. We're taking 20 acres away from that area. So, it's definitely it will have an impact for sure. And and again I I think you know our our perspective is wildlife presence does not equal habitat quality and the transient or incidental use of this property does not meet any definition of a prime habitat or open green space.

Have you been out there?

I have.

With snow on the ground and saw and you've seen the tracks and where the trails are going.

I've been out there several times at several times of year. Yeah.

Right. But have you seen literally the deer tracks and the trails that they're they're taking right now?

I have not followed any deer deer trails. I've definitely seen the deer tracks and things like that out there.

Yep.

Thanks. Um I actually have a question for our building inspector if he's uh Kevin, you still over there.

Can you step up for a minute? Now Kevin, you we this this is not us issuing the industrial use permit. This would be you, us allowing you to issue it, right?

Correct.

Does that mean that your job is basically on the line if this is incorrect and we do a bad job?

Right. If the planning board has reviewed it and approved it and the town board approves it, then is my job to issue the

But that would still fall on you if there was some level that did not get caught up or did we not did not catch?

Well, I guess so. I guess it would.

What's your opinion on this since you're the final person? So everything I've heard so far, it would I would have to see all of it in front of my desk, but yes, so far everything's in line.

Okay. And so I know you take your job very seriously. I appreciate you for that. But

thank you.

I mean, I think just, you know, our role as board members as we think about this, the community, we weigh the pros and cons to ensure we've taken steps to demonstrate this project, you know, is adequate, consistent with safety, health, and welfare of the community. and just had time to actually all of us should really have read and reviewed all those documents that we got last week and that came in today and understand what's going on and in several areas you know environmental liability the site conditions the financial risk of the town you know I don't think the record clearly demonstrates the risk is fully understood and appropriately allocated at this time that's why I think we need to do more due diligence with this that's my opinion

I appreciate it

with all due respect though not much of this has changed um this has been on How long has this plan project been going on?

Uh I I believe in July we uh and I'm sorry

from your guys in Xerox perspective prior to coming before the town board for the first time.

Three and a half years in the making.

Three and a half years.

Yeah.

Okay.

Yeah. And I don't think we've helped them with that managing it well of how we've managed this process and stayed on top of it. like we've let it kind of snowball and you're seeing all these questions and this disconnect. We definitely could have better done a better job managing that to make it a quicker process for them. But we're here where we are today and we would all like it to have already been addressed. You know, that's obvious. Um yeah, Alex, but there's still some new things we've got to figure out that came up we want to get into. But I agree, we would like to get this to move forward in a timely way and not drag out for other 12 months. I agree with that. W with all due respect, I do just want to I do just want to say Monte at every step of the way when we have been asked to to delay or we have been asked to provide additional opportunities for public input, we have said yes every time. We have never hesitated to slow down the process to make sure that questions are answered. As I mentioned, a lot of the information that's being discussed here not only has been submitted to the town for some time, but also as Katie mentioned, has been reviewed by several other agencies. I absolutely understand the town's concern to want to make sure that any issues at the site, especially given the nature of the site as a remedial site are

addressed and that there is, you know, financial assurance where all of that is covered. But that is specifically why there is a very detailed DEC process ongoing oversight. the environmental easement that will run with the land with any future land owner. There are layers of protection that are in place and have been reviewed by other agencies as well. So I understand that we want to address all the questions. We want to make sure that the board feels comfortable that they have you all have had your questions addressed. We tried we got those answers into the questions this morning. We just received those answers or those questions I should say and we tried to put those responses together as quickly as we could. Um but we were referencing a lot of things that were already in the record. We've provided additional information above what is required on the code um to make sure that we are providing the board with that information. So I I absolutely understand wanting to make sure there's a wholesome understanding and that everything has been vetted. But we we have not rushed this through. We have provided a response at every stage to make sure that we are addressing everything and that the record is complete.

So with that, like you said though, you you've pushed back, you've helped and been responsive, but now you're you can't wait two more weeks at this point to iron these things out. That was your earlier stance, right? just confirming that, right? You've been patient, but now you're

So, um, with all due respect, Councilman, we received a list of questions from you at Tuesday evening at 5:30 p.m. We got them turned around as quickly as we could, which was just over 24 hours, um, sending some in business terms, uh, sending something back. Um, we have been asking the town for these questions for weeks. And I believe if they would have been submitted sooner to us, we would have submitted the answers back just as quickly and there would have been a lot of time to review this. Um, we feel that we have um been a community partner every step of the way. Um, and you know, we feel that the record is complete.

Well, let me respond to that really quickly because that's an important part. I agree those questions should have gone out to you weeks ago and that was a simple that was a board miscommunication error that they didn't go out. You know, I think we all thought they did but they didn't. So, and I appreciate your quick turnaround with that and that situation that I agree those should have gone out weeks ago. So to to your point and um

you did a fantastic job turning them around as quick as you did,

but there's there's a list of files that I started going through as soon as I realized I had the email. I I still have not gone had the opportunity or time to go through all your responses. So I think it would be irresponsible for this board even though you had stated that a lot of that information had been previously I get that but as a board member I want to go through the questions and your responses just to be responsible and to do my due diligence.

Yes sir. I would like to just respectfully comment though that of the documents that you requested or that we provided, I believe the only new ones were the site management plan, the annual reports for remediation um and other things related to the related to the overall remediation program at Xerox. The scope of this discussion tonight is not the overall remediation program at Xerox. It is just the solar project, right? So I I believe those documents are actually irrelevant to this conversation. It's under the DEEC's purview whether the site management plan and annual reporting is adequate and it's not this board's purview to evaluate that.

Wow. Well, just to respond to your response.

Okay. We asked a bunch of questions were submitted. You did a fantastic job turning them around. Whether you feel they're relevant or irrelevant, it's my responsibility as a board member to review your responses. I think you would at least agree with that. We we asked the questions, you provided the answers. Now I just want time to review your responses

because I didn't see

in looking at the responses all virtually all of them are pointing back to documents that we already have received. There are answers to all of the questions.

I I

and I'm not discounting that. I'm just saying I haven't had an opportunity to go through all of them yet. And I I understand that and I think, you know, as when I'm when I'm referencing the fact that we have agreed to slow things down every time we've asked we've been asked to, it's because we want to make sure that we're addressing everything. And you know, to your point, Council Member Wagner, of

Sorry, I wasn't smirking you. My mother just left. I clearly had dragging on too long. Yeah, she's she's done.

Um,

didn't say bye. to your point on on why why now why not two more weeks at at this point if there are new questions and new issues we are ready and available to to address them but from our perspective the questions that have come up are questions that have already existed and have been answered so that's why at this point the request is is for the determination on the IUP

I'm going to say that I I appreciate the concerns that have been brought forward by members of the community and the demand for proper due diligence here I I really do in invite everyone and encourage you to bring this energy and engagement to all town matters whether we agree or not um because the voices do need to be heard um concerning this project specifically. I I mean I've made it clear very many times um that this project made people feel uncomfortable and unsafe in their own homes. That's why I had that meeting with you in January and why I demanded that you educate these residents and despite the fears you we said I advocated for what everyone wanted in the beginning. let's not put this on a landfill. And you did. You didn't put it on the landfill. And I I appreciate that. I I have made this as safe as possible for everyone that I can. When we obtain this, when we got this project, it had already been several months into it. I believe the due diligence is done. And with that being said, I'm going to make a motion that we approve the industrial use permit for the Webster Solar Garden project at the Xerox campus located at 570 Phillips Road tax ID number 65.02-1-4.111 contingent on a final agreement of an HCA to the town's uh liking and an amended site plan approval from the

planning board.

I second that motion. Supervisor, I would suggest that if you're going to make that motion with the contingency of approval of the amended site plan that the actual number of that plan be identified in the contingency. Do you guys have that

number on you?

No, the number of the sheet. You could also reference the plan that was Sorry.

You could also reference just the plan that was submitted to the planning board on the 17th. I believe

the the amended site plan.

Yes.

Okay. Josh, do you have that?

But I'm still trying to get the plan number just in case. Okay.

Readily available. No. I just want to make sure that it conforms to the materials provided to the town board. Yeah, that was submitted on uh March 17th. All right. Of the amended site plan approval for the uh planning board that was submitted on March 17th, 2026 by Monte.

I second.

And I would recommend we add the full review of the decommissioning plan and any agreement of terms that might be come from the law legal review as well.

Sure. And Kyle, is there anything else we need to put in there to give us flexibility when you finish your review of those documents for changes so we're not hamsting?

Decommissioning agreement will come back to the town board.

That's what you're referencing, correct? Correct. Both of those will come back to the town.

And I'm saying, but I'm saying, is there anything else we need to put in in case there's other changes from your review to these documents? I just want to make sure we have flexibility if when we complete our review something else comes up we're not hamstring we can't

no address that the uh condition that you're requesting is appropriate

okay

and add the decommission in plan

still second for

supervisor Sheldon

I

Councilman Hunter

I

Councilman Cahill

nay

councilwoman Wright

I like to explain you can vote and then Um, we'll explain.

I will explain.

She has a right to explain.

Okay.

Yeah, I can wait. You

I will explain. I'm a 45 year resident of Webster. Everybody's giving their how long they've lived in Webster. My parents have lived in Webster since 1972. So that would be I guess 54 years I've seen Webster go from what it is today. Back when I was in high school, there was one one street light at Five Mile Line in Ridge Road. So, you know, the the town has changed over time. I still choose to be

gentlemen, please.

And I care about the community very deeply as much as everybody else. and

and guys

and

the town attorney has advised that we are following procedures. All of my notes here are not in any particular order. This application was in process prior to the proposed moratorum where solar um projects will be involved will will be reviewed and certainly the town code can be um reviewed as part of the comprehensive plan. But as of today, this project meets those meets all of the code requirements. There is um there is a great distance between this. I've been on the town planning board also for eight years. This project is a great distance from the the residents. They are maintaining a 100 foot buffer. They are planting additional trees. So they are doing what they need to do.

Well, you know, it's it Dennis said that as well. It's very difficult and it's very emotional when something is in your backyard. I understand this is Xerox's private property and they are working with another entity on a project that is an allowable use in that space and they have met all of the code requirements. They have come before this board. They have answered all of our questions. They went above and beyond with remediating. I walked back there maybe illegally. I'm sorry, but I had walked back there. So, I I I looked at all of the trees myself. I walked back there and I actually walked back there with Councilwoman Wagner and Councilman Councilman Wagner and Councilman Cahill. I'm sorry. That just always trips me up. No offense.

It is 17 acres of trees.

Many of them are small. They're tiny little trees. And I understand tiny trees become big trees, but tiny trees don't become big trees when they're all bunched up. And there is there is it is not a dense forest back there. And it's Xerox's Xerox has the right to clear those trees if they want to clear those trees. We may not like that they want to clear those trees, but they have every right to clear those trees. And nobody here would want somebody coming to them when they wanted something in their yard or if you wanted to take down trees. I know I wouldn't appreciate it if somebody came to me told me I couldn't take down trees in my yard because they like my trees that are really right now I have to pay $5,000 to remove trees because they're they're at they're risking my barn. So that's going off on a little bit more of a tangent, but it is an allowable use. this will benefit Webster through the HCA agreement. Is is it going to make or break the town? No, it's not. It's a very small amount of incremental tax money, but that is additional money that will be coming to the town on a piece of land that is otherwise not usable. So,

at the end of the day, this is going to decrease the burden on the grid for Xerox and any other companies that come into that property. We want that industrial space to be as vibrant as it was back in Xerox's heyday. And that is our plan through the Fast New York grant and doing the work that is going to get that property up to where it needs to be to allow for that use. So at the end of the day, if you're worried about your power outages, this is only going to help the grid in our area. Maybe it's not a huge benefit, but there is there is a benefit. Um, I talked about that. that I talked about and the town board does have a responsibility and we sat and listened and I sat and listened to all of your concerns and I I I understand I understand that it's very frustrating and it might be unsettling to have something like this in their backyard. But as as council men and women for the town of Webster, we have a responsibility to all Webster residents, not just the Webster residents that have a project in their backyard that they just might not want

to have there. But this project and the noise, I I will say I went as far as going to another solar garden on County Line Road in 441 to listen to the noise. There's I I I had to illegally again on the record walk listen to what the noise was and there like it when you step away you cannot hear the noise of the solar garden of a over a car going by. So I

I and and somebody else said um that we're going to lose tax that we will we we are not going to lose tax money from having this project because the town doesn't spot assess and come around and say these properties are now worth less so we're going to collect less tax dollars. That that that's not how that's not how that works. So, you know, for all of the reasons that I have mentioned, I know it's not maybe a popular decision for the folks in this room,

but those are all of the reasons why I'm voting yes for this project.

Thank you, council.

If I if I could just add a quick update here, it the plans are dated 318, not 317 for the condition.

Okay. 318.

All right. What's next? Jennifer, thank you for sharing how you feel about that. I know that was that was a lot. And for everybody here, like no matter how you feel about this,

no matter whether it's this or something else, let's just treat each other with respect. We're going to disagree on things and that's okay. We can still treat each other with respect. So, I appreciate you taking your time to share. You want to say my vote is nay.

I agree with um with what Garrett said. We are not going to always agree, but if we can disagree with respect and I appreciate you articulating your position, um Jennifer, you always do a very good job of that. Um I just look at it in a different light and I disagree with you with respect to the forest out there too. But we can do it with a smile on our faces. Yes, we can and vote and vote our conscience. So

that's what we got elected to do in my opinion. So thanks. All right, up next, but thank you guys.

Up next, we have uh a uh the resolution for the proposed cell tower, which should be good.

This is going to be fun, too.

I am so thirsty now. I ate those two bars.

Do you need more?

What?

Do you need more?

No, I need water. No, no, but I have more.

John, where you going?

Yeah.

Okay, get your

I've heard this before.

What's he doing?

He's getting water.

He's going to drink.

Okay, Bob, you are welcome to wait until it quiets down, but we You are You have our ears. Thank you.

Um, just let this uh them clear out. Monica, would you please sit?

Thank you. Sorry.

Do you want a snack now?

I'm good. I'm good.

I don't need candy.

I left this bars.

I'm not hungry. It's been a rough week.

Are we waiting on Councilman Cahill?

No, no, no. He said to go on without him.

Okay. Okay. Uh again for the record uh Robert Burgdorf for the law firm of Nixon Peabody here tonight on behalf of Verizon Wireless uh for the 135 ft seller monopole application 122 Wildflower Drive uh which is being proposed in order to provide coverage to the Webster North South

uh pursuant to Verizon's FCC license and pursuant to federal and state laws of public utility. All that's detailed in the application very late. I'm not going to go unless the board wants. I'm not going to go through the application you've been through before. Um the limited flexibility, how a search area works, and there'll be plenty of time for that at subsequent meetings. Um so again, unless you want, I won't belabor that. It's all in the application. We will have that chance again, but happy to do that, including going through the search area if you'd like. Um is anybody still here for the cell tower? Because we lost most of the people, I think, who had questions, right? Nobody's really left. Okay. A lot of this was for them. I'll just hit the history. Um, we started this project about four years ago and the town asked Verizon Wireless for this search area to go to Creekide on town property. We worked with the town for over two years to try to accommodate that request, but when it came time to approve the tower, uh, three of the five town board members elected not to proceed with a lease. Now, we thought there was a good site, but it's not up to us. And we don't frankly care where we are as long as it works without unreasonable cost or unreasonable delay. That's the law. Town had an absolute right as a landlord to

say no. An absolute right. That was its decision and we respect that. Does not have the right to refuse to zone a site. However, um the lease was was denied and that's fine. Um but zoning is different. Zoning has certain federal and state protections. And by denying the lease on the town site, this board understood that we would be back with a private site. And we talked about the search area. This is a tough search area. There is there are wetlands all over the place and it is filled with just residential small residential lots. So we are extremely limited as to where we could go. Um but in the end um that was the town's decision. So we came back with a private site as was clear what happened. So really just two things I think I'll hit tonight um because of the late hour. One was is effective prohibition and the other is I'm going to touch on the health effects one last time and then we're done with that one. Um effective prohibition. You know a number of folks came out tonight and they said just turn it down. You know we don't want it. I think somebody even said you know we're the pretty girl at the dance. We can say no. It doesn't work that way. That is not the law. Uh what they don't

understand is that is not an option for municipality and they should not hold that against you. Your hands are tied by federal and state law to a large degree. Essentially, it's the same under both federal law as an FCC licensed carrier and under state law as a public utility. A municipality cannot prohibit the carrier from having a site that works in the coverage area. However, it may reasonably regulate. That means two things. One is on site. It can impose reasonable regulation. You know, whatever that may be. We move move sites around. We land so forth on the site. Reasonable regulation. The second is it can pick between viable sites. And this board did that. This board denied the first site and it knew that we would end up in back to what was really uh the last viable site that we could find. That search area has been scrubbed well. And that's all in in the materials. And about everybody who stood up tonight and complained about cell towers has a cell phone. And they all rely on them. They expect them to work when they want them to work. And under Verizon Wireless's FCC license, it must provide adequate service. It has no choice. They don't work on magic. They only function by a network of very carefully placed location sensitive towers that

are not too tall, not too short, not too close to the neighboring cells, and not too far away from the neighboring cells. It's a nightmare for the RF engineers. The courts have consistently held that community opposition is not a valid basis for denial. Citing the Bible, that's irrelevant. You can have as many names on a petition as you want. That's irrelevant. And the public should understand that that's what you're facing. And I understand that's tough um for board um on the health effects number of folks are continuing to raise them and we're going to see it again because we know back in July at the previous site we had a lot of people coming out on on perceived health effects and make two points on that topic. The first again this is fully preempted by federal law from being considered in any local zoning process. Period. Entertaining or allowing exploration of this topic is a violation of federal law. It's not a topic for this board and Brien Wireless will enforce its rights in that respect. But I hate to leave it at that because some people actually believe this and I don't want them to be concerned when there is no basis for it. If anybody's actually interested in the science, we had some somebody got up here and said, "Look, facts don't

matter. We feel that it's bad. That's all that matters." That's not how it works. The facts are, and we submitted this, and we'll incorporate it by reference to the record. We submitted it back with the other uh application last summer, we gratuitously, because it's preempted, we don't have to submitted information in this regard. And anybody's interested in those facts, we invite them to look at it. But the point I'll make, second point I'll make here on health effects and which always make most sense to me and it's just basic common sense is this is a radio signal. That's all it is. We've been broadcasting them for over a hundred years. The only difference between this and any other run-of-the-mill radio signal is this is extremely extremely weak. We've gone through that as to why it has to be weak. Sometimes they only cover a mile in in in either direction. They've got to stop. They can't go further. They can't overlap and interfere with the neighboring cells. extremely weak. So if somebody gets up here and says they're concerned about this, they better be far more concerned about every TV station, every radio station, some are operating in megawws, uh, every police dispatch, every tow truck, all operating at much stronger powers than this. One woman stood up here tonight and said she was concerned about it and she was using her phone. I'm sure she's never checked the power density of pressing a phone to your head

versus a cell tower. So, a lot of facts are just being ignored here. Um, it violates common sense. Um, we had neighbors come out the last time with all kinds of odd arguments talking about asbestous, finding weird maja sites saying that they cause cancer. I've had three towns in the last few years where people have gotten up and said cell phones cause COVID. There is no basis for that. These are the kinds of things that come up. So, we're done talking about it. We are going to rely on federal law. Is a violation of federal law to entertain it or to explore it. It would be reversible error. There's nothing more we can add. Nothing more we're going to add on on that topic. And I think the last last point I want to make is is Miss Dino still here? Did she leave?

Address the board, please.

Is Miss is Miss Veno still here? I just want to

She had some comments.

Can you make me follow the rules, please?

Yes, please address the board.

That's right. I well let me let me mention that she had some very good um comments and I just wanted to address those because she asked appropriately that we supply an alternate uh an alternatives analysis we call site selection analysis that's been supplied that's here in detail in exhibit G where we scrubbed um the site she asked that we provide engineering RF engineer analysis that's exhibit F in detail She asked if we provide visual impact statements. Those are in here K with a photo. The only reason I raise that is I hope somebody will get this to her or anybody else. It sounds like the public is not aware of this submission and that's why I raised it. So if there's anybody in the audience who is connected with most of the people, I hope they can get that message out. A lot of it's here. She asked about property values and financial input. That is not in there because it's legally irrelevant and we're not going to put it in there. She might have asked about health effects. Again, legally irrelevant. We're not going to put in there. She did ask about enhanced buffering. That is a legitimate issue and we'll deal with

that at the planning board level presumably and we are happy to entertain any reasonable mitigation efforts uh that are sight specific. And I think the last thing she raised and I just thought she really hit a lot of good points um was the the creek side uh site. And again, this is just a good example. that she thought the creek side site was better. And what often happens in these sites and again a long time is we end up trading one set of neighbors for another. And the board has to make the hard decision of which set of neighbors it's going to disappoint. But in the end, we can't go away. We won't go away. And the law allows us to have a site in the search ring which works from technical standpoint that is available without unreasonable cost and without unreasonable delay. Um I'm not going to go any further. It's late. Um we're going to get another bite at the apple here with this um when we come back to this board and I know we've got to go to planning and uh zoning. Um I just want to get those and again a lot of the folks here who raise issues are not here to hear any of that unfortunately. Uh so I don't know if the board has any questions um tonight before we go to the planning board. I'm happy to answer them now. Obviously um happy to uh respond

information that's also sent to us by the town as we've done in the past. Um and let's leave it at that for the night unless you've got any questions.

Nick John said

I mean another great packet. A thrilling read. Just super exciting. Not a question, just food for thought because it's getting late. Just encourage you to in hearing the resident's thoughts, you know, consider lower tower height, distributed small cell deployment, minimum visual impact, setbacks, buffering, potential stealth, or you said it a little bit of magic. Just, you know, think about those things you can do to make this less intrusive to res Webster residents as it goes.

Yeah. And I think that's we'll go through that. That's typically a planning board thing.

That's why I just want to throw it out there.

Yep. Yeah, you made reference to some couple of residents concerns that didn't really feel you needed to address them because it wasn't legal. You might want to reconsider that statement.

I'm sorry. I could I'm sorry, Mr. I couldn't hear you.

Something that's not in your opinion legal, you might want to consider, you know, addressing those. If it's not strictly legal,

I'm sorry, I don't follow.

All right, never mind. I'm I'm I'm h happy to respond to it. I just didn't Are you suggesting we supply information that's not legal? I mean,

you're you're saying that some of the questions that were posed I feel bad

weren't legal, in other words, field of law. So, you're just going to ignore them. You may want to reconsider that.

Well, we did. I mean, the health effects for instance,

right,

are not legal. We have provided extensive information as you may recall from the previous

All right. because I maybe I misunderstood you because I thought you said

you're not going to address those. So maybe I misunderstood.

We did already. We are we are I think we are done going into you know unless the board has has a question. We are done addressing the health effects with the public. We provided the information. Nobody's reading it. We were at the at the other uh meeting where nobody read any of the stuff we submitted and apparently nobody's read any of this.

What what meeting are you referring to?

Um I'm on this site we provided health information. at the previous site which I've incorporated by reference the records all there extensive stuff.

Okay.

And and apparently they they have not nobody's looked for this information either which we spent a lot of time obviously

I don't have it

and addresses a lot of the concerns that were raised in your packet.

Pick it up.

Let me ask you a question of Kyle. So from a procedural standpoint goes from here down to the planning board and it comes back here.

That is correct. Okay. Tonight is just an administrative referral. Um it's a quirk in the code. It's got to come here for referral to the planning board. Planning board will uh do site plan review and then send it back if they approve it with their recommendation on both the uh site plan and the special use permit.

Thank you.

Yeah. If there's nothing else, I will All right. I will make a motion to refer the proposed Webster North cell tower at 122 Wildflower Drive, tax ID number 65.05. 05-1-48 to the planning board for the purpose of conducting site plan review.

I'll second.

Supervisor Sheldon,

I.

Councilman Hunter,

I.

Councilman Cahill,

I.

Councilwoman Wright,

I. Councilman Wagner,

hi.

Thank you. One one procedural question. Does this town typically do single agency review with the boards or coordinated review under Seeker?

Uh, coordinated review. coordinated and and typically the lead agency is

is the planning board. So as

planning board

as part of the resolution, bear with me here.

Come on guy.

Yes. That the the town board will consent to the uh planning board being the lead agency for purpose of secret review. That should be part of a well if the board elects to that should be part of the uh motion.

So is that part of this resolution as a matter of

that's I'm recommending that you amend the resolution to consent to the planning board. Yeah, I will amend uh conducting site plan review. All right. That the town an amendment that the town board consents to any request of the town planning board that the town planning board be designated the lead agency for coordinated review procedures under the proposed action under the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act.

Great.

Thank you.

Good night or good morning almost.

We're almost there.

All right. Next, I request that we move up item number 14, the DC grant because Chip and Lucille Coons are back there. They've been here since 6:30 to wait on that. It is 11:30.

I would like to get them out.

I will I have the power. I will take the executive privilege to move this forward. Does anybody on this board have any questions further since our workshop?

No.

I'd like to make a motion to approve the resolution to authorize Do I have to read the whole thing out?

Was that Do I have to read the whole thing out? It's been a while.

Yeah. I want to hear

uh to authorize the submission of the Department of Environmental Conservation Open Space Conservation Grant for two open space parcels located at 959 5mile line road known as tax account and part of 799 Holt Road known as tax account etc.

Second.

Councilman Wagner

I.

Councilman Cahill.

Hi.

Supervisor Sheldon.

I.

Councilwoman Wright I.

Councilman Hunter.

Hi. All right. So, that's all set. Uh, now moving forward is uh the Fast New York project that Councilwoman Wright mentioned earlier. So, I would like to invite up uh WEDA's executive director, Leanne Kimber

to give us a very brief overview of this contract that came in very late, but Kyle and the village attorney, Don White, has been working on.

Can we table some of these items?

No, we're just going to get them done. You're what? Let's do them.

We ready?

We can get through all of this.

Okay.

Hi everyone. My name is Lean Kimber. I'm the uh interim executive director of the Webster Economic Development Alliance. Um most of you know that in April 2025, we applied for a $9.8 million FAS New York grant. That is an Empire State Development funded grant um to support um economic development by making sites like the Xerox campus more shovel ready for development or redevelopment. Um, in August 2025, that grant was awarded um to WEDA with the town and the village listed as beneficiaries of the grant, recognizing that the grant is um in order to improve roadways that will ultimately be dedicated to the town and the village um in the vicinity of the Xerox campus. Um so in December 2025 we issued an RFP with the input of Keith um for the town engineer um and Jake Swingley the um village um DPW commissioner. Um the proposals were received in January of 2026. Um we received six proposals in total. Um one

was for Costage Engineering $770,000. Um Labella $900,000 GPI 2.2 million LU Engineers 2.2 2 million Ty Lynn T 2 2.3 million so six proposals in total. Uh we had a selection committee that reviewed the proposals that included um Josh Artuso Keith Mortimer from the town um Jake Swingley from the village. Um also the deputy mayor uh Jerry Epelo from the village myself and the WEDA board president Barry Howard. Um so we reviewed and scored the proposals. We shortlisted three firms TY Lin Kitch and GPI. We held a series of interviews with those firms um in February. Um ultimately that grant the contract was awarded to Kostage Engineering. Um some of the reasons I'll just I know it's really late but um some of the reasons why we um selected Kostage um of course other than the price points that I just stated for the six proposals that we received. Um it wasn't just that it was the lowest bid um but more so that this firm had the most balanced approach to um timeline schedule um reasonleness of design fee to maximize construction dollars recognizing that the $9.8 million grant includes both their design fee and the money that we

have left over for construction. Um we felt that their approach to design made a lot of sense. They did the most due diligence of any of the firms to um provide presematic cost estimates of what they thought the roadway reconstructions and new construction would take. Um identifying places where they felt like the cost was going to be too high and then providing other solutions that they would recommend um for making the scope of work fit within the budget that we've been awarded through the grant. Um so for all of those reasons um that was the firm that was selected by the committee. Um, so tonight we are Oh, and I also want to note that um the town in the this was the same firm that did the town's um sewer replacement recently just to the north of the Xerox campus. They had a very you all had a very positive experience with Kasich. Found them very attentive, responsive, and on site regularly. Um they also included this was part of it wasn't unique to them. I just want to note that um the RFP did include the inclusion of supporting the bidding process once we finish design and are looking for a contractor to do the construction. Um it also supports um construction administration. So being on being available at hand during the construction process and also construction inspection, so actually observing the construction in progress

to make sure that what's being constructed is exactly what was designed. Um, so that's all included in their base scope at around $770,000. So, um, over the last month or two, um, the attorneys for the town and the village as well as myself have been going back and forth with Classic to come up with a contract that everyone, um, is comfortable with. Um, so that's the contract that you all have before you tonight to pass. Um, I think I'll leave it there, I guess, if there are any other questions that you have for me. I I I don't have any questions at this time because I just got this contract this afternoon. I have not read it. I'm not prepared to ask questions and I'm most certainly not prepared to vote this up or down.

Uh I have just a quick question is did you guys resolve that there is no liability to the town or village in terms of the environmental easement?

I feel that that's been resolved.

Okay. Kyle,

I just I just want to add a couple things. Okay. First of all, well just one thing really. I have an incredible amount of respect and faith in you and Don White, but I'm not going to be voting on something I haven't reviewed and I haven't weighed in on and I haven't had an opportunity to ask any questions even if I have any questions. So, that's that's where I'm coming from. I mean, I agree, John. Tremendous respect for for Kyle and for Don. I've known Don a very very long time, 10 plus years. But yeah, I will admit when it came in today around 1ish, I did not have time to to read it.

Kyle, do you want to explain the time-sensitive nature of this?

I I don't believe I'm the best person to explain that. Lean, I don't know if you can when you can explain the time.

Well,

so yeah, I think everyone maybe not aware this is a very time-sensitive project. Um, we have about a year to complete this design, complete all agency reviews in order to be able to go out to bid by January 2027. Um, even by going out to bid at January 2027, there are still things that could go wrong. Um, I think this project is critical to the future success of the Fair Life operations. They're getting ready to open their doors. We'll be fully operational this year. Um, and are expecting 200 plus trucks coming in and out of that site every year. The roadway improvements that are being designed through this grant and that would be would begin in earnest because of the approval of this contract um are quite necessary in order to ensure that those traffic impacts are not felt by the town um in a timely manner. Um we are accelerating the design schedule of this project as much as we possibly can in order to be able to go out to bid and do construction in 2027. If we miss that window, we risk not being able to construct this until 2028. So that's a full two years.

When is the when is the village board voting on this?

Next week, Thursday.

So I I understand what you're saying.

Yeah.

Did Did you have Did you have Did I cut you off?

No. Go ahead.

So I I understand what you're saying is timesensitive.

Well, I'm thinking this has been worked on by both parties for a while. And I think if you knew it was time sensitive, not I'm not pointing my finger at you, believe me. But the parties involved, if they knew it was that time-sensitive,

I would have thought they would have gotten it to this board for review earlier than the day we were supposed to vote on it. I just think it's And I don't know what happened. And I I honestly

I don't mean to be callous.

Yeah. And I really I don't want to say I don't care, but we I need these contracts not the day of the vote. So, I'm the type of person I'm going to I'm going to read the contract. I'm not I'm not a lawyer, but I do know this. We've got two sets of eyes that are lawyers looking at this. It never hurts to have two more sets of eyes or five more sets of eyes to catch something. It's pretty comprehensive um contract here. So I I I it's like I have a choice. I can either vote no because I can't review it. That's that's the only or you can give us some additional time to take a look at it.

Kyle, what are the options for if the When's the village board voting on this?

Thursday. The

next Thursday.

Yeah, the nth.

They were actually going to do it last Thursday. You know, Kyle, what are the the options for us to vote on it as close to next Thursday as possible?

I don't think that would be possible because we wouldn't have time to publish. Um,

okay. That's what I'm asking. Yeah.

We would not be able to do that.

Uh, well, to get it out uh,

no less than five, no more than 10 days. Yeah. And get it into the Webster Herald. It just there's not enough time to get it on next week. And that would then push us into our normally scheduled meeting.

Yeah. Yeah, I mean I I understand like it's just a tough situation of like I I trust Don and Kyle, but I'd also like to read it

before I vote on it. Do you understand what's in there? And and sometimes things get missed. There's a different set of eyes. So, it's just that like you know what's our role?

I've had that happen before.

Yes.

When I was mayor,

something I was told the contract's fine to go and I did find something.

J, you got something?

No. I I I I I was at the WEDA board meeting this morning. I do understand the absolute time necessity of this contract though. Um so I am going to make a resolution that we award costs engineering the contract for the Webster transportation infrastructure project and the fast New York grant.

Alex, have you read this all 73 pages?

No.

Okay.

Have you read this?

Not in its entirety.

How much? I don't believe the board's job is to review every single contract and every single term and condition and and it's great to have the due diligence to do that but that's what we have attorneys for

and this is this is with WEDA this is 100% this is grant funding correct like we will upfront the cost but we will be reimbured through this very important

the town and the village um will be paying the invoices until such time as the environmental review is completed which will be around 30% design completion. Um, after that point, the money will be paid directly by an an account coming from ESD directly to the the design firm. So, this is in the short term really.

So, you got a motion. I maintain my motion to award.

So, you got a motion in a second. Let's just vote and get out of here.

Supervisor Sheldon,

I.

Councilman Hunter,

I.

Councilman Cahill,

nay.

Councilwoman Wright,

I. Councilman Wagner,

nay. All right, we did this when it was a workshop. So, John, it's all you. We got any questions?

No, I I don't have a resolution in my packet for this though

for the usage of his contingency budget.

Yeah,

you explained this one to mayor earlier about the resolution. Does it need to be

Well, yeah, it's

kind of should be.

It's just a resolution to to authorize the use of the budget as presented.

All right. So I can make up my own as far as not the amount not to exceed.

Yeah, correct. And we'll go right ahead and then we'll memorialize it into the resolution based off.

All right. Going forward, can we have the resolutions in the packets spelled out though? Is that okay?

Well, I mean, we can have this conversation later, but I I think it might be helpful to discuss that point.

All right, sounds good. So, I'm going to move that we um spend not an amount not to exceed $462,788 of the contingency budget for the sewer department um regarding the NAV test project.

Second, you can go to Johnny.

Councilman Cahill. Hi,

Councilwoman Wright. I supervisor Sheldon. Hi,

Councilman Hunter.

Hi,

Councilman Wagner.

Hi.

All right, Rick, it's all sewer for the next three.

Do you Do we have to go through this again? Because he did a workshop on it.

Is there a way to just make a resolution to authorize the change?

Yeah.

Yeah. I just did one. I'm gonna do another one. By the time we get to the third one, we'll be a pro.

Yeah, go for it.

Yep.

All right. So, I'm going to move to authorize to unfund one full-time deputy commissioner of public works position and establish one full-time wastewater treatment plant operator uh position.

Second.

Councilman Cahill.

I,

Councilwoman Wright,

I.

Supervisor Sheldon.

Councilman Hunter.

Hi.

Councilman Wagner.

Hi.

So, quick question. Mhm.

We're eliminating this position with the sewer department.

Is Kelsey still here?

We're defunding. We're defunding.

Unfunding.

The word abolish was just to abolish it from the 2026 authorized position list.

Okay. So, we don't have to create another position down the road in the event that we want you decide we want to redo. Okay. All right. Want to do 10 now?

Yes, please.

All right.

I'll move to abolish one part-time maintenance mechanic position and establish one part-time wastewater treatment plant operator at the sewage treatment plant.

Second.

Councilman Cahill.

I.

Supervisor Sheldon.

I.

Councilwoman Wright.

I. Councilman Hunter.

Hi.

Councilman Wagner.

I. So, next I'll move to abolish one full-time maintenance mechanic position and establish one full-time sewer foreman position at the sewage treatment plant.

Second.

Councilman Cahill.

Hi,

Councilman Hunter.

Hi,

Supervisor Sheldon.

Hi,

Councilwoman Wright.

I Councilman Wagner,

I.

Josh, do you want to give us the spiel? Uh, I'll leave it up to the board if uh

it's very late. I've I've I I understand the position for this

um request. It is a proactive request in support of the town comprehensive plan because in looking at the number of hours that were um spent on the project the percentage of hours is a little higher than the percentage where we are in the town comprehensive plan. Um, Caliers did a few extra I guess they performed extra tasks associated with the the comprehensive plan for public meetings, five of them. I thought it was one. So, thank you for that clarification. There was multiple meetings and they took the open space and incorporated that into the survey. So, um, this is more of a preemptive um, resolution and I appreciate Josh bringing it forward preemptively because we've had conversations in the past where we we get to a position in a project where we're asked to spend more money after all of the work is done and now we're doing it before the work is done. So, um, with all of that, I move to authorize the town supervisor to sign a supplemental agreement with Calier's engineering and design for additional work associated with the comprehensive

plan update.

Second,

Councilwoman Wright,

I,

Councilman Cahill,

I,

Supervisor Shaone,

Councilman Hunter,

I,

Councilman Wagner, or or or you got one more, Jen, got one more. Um resolution. I I move to approve the following item for recycling from the highway department. A wheel balancer um as a tag 2356.

Second.

Councilwoman Wright.

I.

Councilman Hunter.

I.

Supervisor Sheldon.

I.

Councilman Cahill.

Hi.

Councilman Wagner.

Hi.

All right. Now, um do you guys want your roundt?

No.

Okay. Well,

we still have an executive session.

We do. We do actually have an executive session still. Um,

so I would uh

I need a ride home. Can you go Can you drive me home?

Yes.

Can somebody drive home? It's

right there.

You can I You can go. You don't have to sit. It's going to be a while. You can go home.

I don't think it should be too long, but uh

I'm glad to give you a ride home.

We're going to go into executive session. Uh 105.

She said 5 minutes. You promised.

I 1051F uh for employment motions

matters. matters.

Second.

Uh, and I would like to invite the town board, the town attorney, uh, the director of human resources, the chief of police, uh, Captain Reed, and everyone else is free to go home.

I I'm going to get a ride. You can go home. I'm sorry you stayed this long. I appreciate