Webster Town Board
April 2, 2026
A regular meeting of the Webster Town Board was called to order by Supervisor Scialdone at
7:45 p.m. at the Webster Town Board Meeting Room, 1002 Ridge Road, Webster, New York,
with the following officials present:
Supervisor ......................................................................... Alexander B. Scialdone
Councilman....................................................................................... John J. Cahill
Councilwoman...........................................................................Jennifer S. Wright
Councilman.............................................................................. Nicholas E. Hunter
Councilman................................................................................ Garrett J. Wagner
Attorney for the Town .........................................................................Kyle Taylor
Town Clerk .................................................................................. Danene M. Marr
Department Heads Present:
Community Development Director ................................................. Joshua Artuso
Finance Director ..................................................................................Paul Adams
***
Supervisor Scialdone led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
***
Supervisor Scialdone announced a Public Hearing to consider a proposed development
moratorium.
At 7:46 p.m. the Public Hearing was opened.
John Lagambino, a Webster resident, applauded the Town Board for proposing a six-month
construction moratorium and recommended extending it to twelve months to allow time to
complete the updated comprehensive plan.
Gail Binder, a Webster resident, spoke on behalf of Dorothy Fait, who supports establishing a
development moratorium in Webster. Ms. Binder read excerpts from the letter below to the
Board, but it is in its entirety:
Dear Members of the Webster Town Board,
I am writing in support of the Resolution to establish a development moratorium for the Town of
Webster. I am submitting this letter to become a part of the public record at this Hearing. I am
unable to appear in person as I am currently out of Town. I am in support of this moratorium
and support it remaining in effect until the Town’s zoning regulations and land use laws have
been amended to reflect the vision, values and priorities expressed by Webster residents
throughout the comprehensive planning process.
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,
woodlands, or the quality of life that defines our community.
1
04-02-2026
Webster Town Board
Approving new developments before the comprehensive plan is finalized 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 moratorium is not antigrowth - it is
responsible governance. It ensures that growth when it occurs is thoughtful, measured, and
aligned with the values and long-term interests of Webster residents.
Under NYS law, zoning regulations must be in accordance with a well-considered
Comprehensive Plan. That plan is the policy foundation upon which all land use decisions
should rest. The residents of Webster have invested time and energy in the planning process
precisely because they want their voices to shape the future of this community. Allowing
development to proceed under outdated regulations, regulations that are not yet in harmony with
the direction Webster residents have expressed undermine the purpose of the planning process
itself.
A moratorium provides the Town with the necessary time to complete the comprehensive plan
and then translate the plan’s goals into updated zoning and land use regulations. Regulations that
incorporate modern environmental protections such as stronger buffers for wetlands, and water
courses, tree preservation standards, open space requirements, and low impact development
standards; and ensure that the Town’s regulatory framework truly reflects the community’s
priorities before approving further development that cannot be undone. cornerstone of sound
zoning.
A moratorium provides our Town Boards the necessary time to: complete the comprehensive
plan with full community input; translate the plan’s goals into updated zoning and land use
regulations; incorporate modern environmental protections such as stronger buffers for wetlands,
and water courses, tree preservation standards, open space requirements, and low impact
development standards; and ensure that the Town’s regulatory framework truly reflects the
communities priorities before approving further development that cannot be undone.
our woodlands, wetlands, streams, agricultural lands and open
spaces - is among our most valuable and irreplaceable assets. These resources provide clean
water, clean air, wildlife habitat, flood mitigation, recreational opportunities, and the rural and
small-town character that makes Webster a desirable and livable community. They are also
finite, once lost to development they cannot be restored.
Contemporary best practices in land use planning have advanced significantly in recent years.
Communities across the country are adopting stronger environmental overlay districts,
conservation subdivision designs, stormwater management requirements and tree canopy
ordinances. Webster’s current regulations fall short of these modern standards. Our residents
deserve a regulatory framework that rises to meet this moment and that protects what makes this
community worth living in for generations to come.
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, community driven policynot 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.
2
04-02-2026
Webster Town Board
I want to thank the Board for your time, your service, and your consideration of this Resolution.
Respectfully,
Dorothy Fait
Janice Jackman, a Webster resident, expressed optimism about Webster’s new direction and
urged the Town Board to make ethical, compassionate decisions regarding the proposed solar
farm. She raised environmental and community concerns, including tree loss, wildlife impacts,
and limited local economic benefits. Board members clarified that the current moratorium does
not apply to this particular solar project, though it covers other large-scale proposals. She
concluded by calling on leaders to act responsibly and thoughtfully in their decision-making.
Kevin Lockart, a Webster resident, commented that following the work of the Comprehensive
Plan Steering Committee, adopting a moratorium would be an appropriate next step. He stated
that some residents felt negatively affected by how the committee was formed and by its focus
on increasing the Town’s tax base. He concluded by requesting that the Board move the
moratorium forward.
Chris Nacca, a Webster resident, thanked the large number of attendees and encouraged
continued participation at future meetings. He also expressed interest in ensuring that new
businesses pay livable wages and that any Town-purchased land intended for conservation is not
later rezoned for development.
Sally Baumann, a Webster resident, described changes in Webster over the past 25 years,
expressing concern about the loss of natural habitat and the effects of increased development on
wildlife and homeowners. She asked the Board to consider a development moratorium, stating
that unrestrained growth has real impacts on long-term residents and the community.
The Public Hearing was closed at 8:01 p.m.
***
The meeting was open to the floor for public comment and the following Webster residents
appeared before the Town Board.
Brian Bixler, a Webster resident, spoke in opposition to the proposed North Webster cell tower
at 1222 Wildflower Drive, explaining that they moved to Webster over 20 years ago because of
its balanced development, green space, and peaceful neighborhoods. He stated that the tower
would be located directly behind his home in a wooded area, which he believes would negatively
affect the character of the street and reduce their property value. Mr. Bixler suggested that
existing commercial or already developed areas nearby would be more suitable locations and
asked the Board not to move forward with the current proposal.
Marcy Veno, a Webster resident, read the following: On behalf of my neighbor and one of the
other sixteen residents whose homes border this property and who could not be here tonight, I
am reading a letter outlining our neighborhood’s concerns regarding the proposed cell tower
project at 1222 Wildflower Drive. The letter states: Dear Supervisor and Members of the Town
Board, we are writing as long-time residents to respectfully object to the proposed Verizon
Telecommunications Tower in our neighborhood at 1222 Wildflower Drive and to request that
the Town defer further action on this proposal pending a more comprehensive and transparent
review. While we understand the importance of reliable wireless service, we believe the current
3
04-02-2026
Webster Town Board
record does not demonstrate that this specific location is the most appropriate or least impactful
option for meeting identified coverage needs. Given the tower’s proximity to established
residential neighborhoods, including our own, we believe additional documentation and analysis
are necessary before the project proceeds. Specifically, we request that the Town require the
applicant to provide: (1) an alternatives analysis that details all potential sites within the search
area, explains why each was rejected, and evaluates whether existing towers or structures could
be modified to meet coverage needs; (2) clear and understandable RF engineering materials
showing existing coverage conditions, the nature of any service gaps, and why this location
uniquely addresses them compared to other sites; (3) visual impact assessments, including
realistic photo renderings of the 120-foot tower from nearby homes, public roadways, and key
viewpoints; (4) an analysis of potential financial impacts on adjacent residential property values;
(5) a review of neighborhood compatibility and property impacts, including distance to homes,
potential effects on neighborhood aesthetics, and reasonable mitigation measures such as
increased setbacks, relocation within the parcel, or enhanced buffering; and (6) a full
environmental review, including SEQRA, that considers visual, community character, and
cumulative impacts, with opportunities for meaningful public input. We also request that all
materials submitted by the applicant—both for this proposal and for the previously considered
Creekside Trail location—be made publicly available in electronic form. We will be submitting
a Freedom of Information Law request to obtain the full record of those prior proceedings.
Additionally, we ask that this correspondence be entered into the official record for the
April 2, 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 carefully balances
telecommunications needs with the protection of established residential neighborhoods. At this
time, we do not believe sufficient information has been provided to conclude that the proposed
Wildflower Drive site is the least intrusive or most appropriate location. Thank you for your
consideration of these concerns and for your service to the community. Sincerely, Edwin and
Roberta Przybylowicz.
Marcus Veno, a Webster resident, read a letter from another homeowner among the seventeen
properties surrounding the proposed cell tower site at 1222 Wildflower Drive. The letter
expressed strong opposition to constructing a cell tower on private land within the community
and urged the Board to deny the application. The writer stated that the tower’s close proximity
to residential homes presents health and safety concerns, arguing that placing industrial-level
infrastructure so near where families live and children play is unacceptable. Citing clinical case
studies, the letter referenced documented neurological symptoms associated with microwave
syndrome near 5G antennas, changes in immune markers in residents living close to transmission
stations, and concerns that FCC safety limits rely on outdated thermal-only models. The writer
also noted the tower’s location near Mill Creek, a key salmon spawning area, expressing concern
that electromagnetic disruption could affect navigation and spawning cycles, potentially harming
vulnerable life stages of fish. In addition, the letter cited research and real estate data suggesting
that visible cell towers can reduce nearby home values and deter potential buyers due to widely
held health-risk perceptions. The letter concluded by reminding the Board of its platform
commitments, including prioritizing people over politics and protecting green spaces, and
respectfully requested that the proposal be rejected. The letter was written by Karen Heller, a
Webster resident and Editorial Director at WebMD.
4
04-02-2026
Webster Town Board
Alex Lantuh, a Webster resident, with a professional background in health, safety, and
environmental fields spoke in support of the Webster Solar Garden Project proposed for the
Xerox campus. He described his 32-year career at Eastman Kodak and current consulting work
and noted their long-term residency in Webster. Mr. Lantuh stated that the project repurposes 19
acres of brownfield land for a 6.5-megawatt solar installation, avoids impacts to wooded or
agricultural areas, and provides local renewable energy while reducing dependence on external
markets. He added that Xerox and the project developers have been transparent, responsive to
concerns, and have a decommissioning plan to restore the site at the end of its use. He
acknowledged that change can be challenging but said the project meets safety and
environmental standards and represents a positive step toward a cleaner, more resilient future.
Mike Byrne, a Webster resident, commented on the proposed Webster Solar Garden Industrial
Use Permit, noting appreciation for revisions that removed solar panels from the capped landfill
but expressing concern about whether the project was properly planned from the outset. Mr.
Byrne questioned the project’s viability following the change, raised environmental concerns
about the removal of approximately 17 acres of trees and associated impacts on wildlife and
drainage, and described the effect the loss of wood landscape would have on nearby
homeowners. He also questioned the public benefit of the project, the use of incentives, and the
selection of this particular site given alternative areas on the Xerox campus. Mr. Byrne noted
that many community members have consistently expressed similar concerns and urged the
Board to vote against the permit based on environmental, neighborhood, and planning
considerations.
Bob Marefka, a Webster resident, has lived in the proposed cell-phone tower neighborhood for
13 years, spoke in opposition to the proposed cell tower, stating that he purchased their home in
a residential area and are concerned about the tower’s proximity to nearby houses, potential
impacts on wildlife, and possible effects on property values. Mr. Marefka described the location
as approximately 100 yards from their home and noted that the area currently provides natural
views and wildlife activity. He characterized the project as a commercial use within a residential
neighborhood and asked the Board to stop the proposal.
Lynne Bresnahan, a Webster resident, spoke in opposition to the proposed cell tower, stating
that the structure would be directly visible from their backyard and would replace the natural
wooded view they currently enjoy. She expressed concern about the permanent change to the
landscape and the impact on their home and neighborhood. She asked Board members to
consider whether they would want a cell tower placed in their own backyard and urged the Board
not to approve the project.
Jane Bashaw, a Webster resident, stated that their home is the closest to the proposed solar
garden and requested that the Town Board provide written clarification on the rationale used to
classify the project as an industrial use, given that the generated energy would serve only a
subset of eligible residents. She also asked the Board to clarify whether the Town’s solar energy
law was evaluated for applicability to the project and, if so, to provide the determination and the
basis for that conclusion.
5
04-02-2026
Webster Town Board
Edwin Bashaw, a Webster resident, living near the proposed solar project spoke in opposition,
noting their home is among the closest to the site and expressing agreement with concerns raised
by other neighbors. He referenced issues previously discussed, including tree removal, wildlife
disruption, noise, potential health concerns related to the asphalt cap, and effects on property
values, as well as concerns about the project’s placement near a residential area on the Xerox
campus. He also questioned aspects of the project’s planning process and stated they had lost
confidence in the stakeholders involved. Mr. Bashaw emphasized that the primary issue is the
project’s location relative to nearby homes and urged the Board to consider its impact on
surrounding residents.
Elaine Johnson, a Webster resident, spoke regarding the Webster Solar Garden Project,
referencing examples from other New York municipalities where limited environmental review
led to long-term issues, and urged the Town Board to ensure thorough due diligence. She asked
the Board to provide written clarification on how the project meets Industrial Use Permit criteria
related to the health, safety, and welfare of residents, particularly given unresolved concerns
about audible and low-frequency noise, groundwater impacts, and the applicability of sections of
the town code. She questioned whether the project has been adequately reviewed under SEQRA
and whether the Town is fully prepared to move forward.
Jerri Breschard, a Webster resident, referenced comments made at the November 18, 2025,
Planning Board Preliminary Approval Hearing and reiterated concerns about the removal of 17.5
acres of trees on a site containing known wetlands, noting potential impacts on groundwater
levels and the functionality of existing pump systems and monitoring wells. She stated that the
developer’s response—that grass seed would replace the trees—did not adequately address water
absorption differences and questioned the level of review conducted by the Planning Board. She
requested that the Town Board provide a written explanation of its reasoning for determining that
no further analysis of groundwater impacts is needed for the project to be considered safe.
Monica Gorlick, a Webster resident, briefly expressed support for the Webster Solar Garden
Project, stating that they gave up other plans to attend the meeting and wished to keep their
remarks short. They urged the Board to vote in favor of the project and noted that they respect
the differing opinions shared by others.
Bob Schiesser, a Webster resident, shared their long-term experience with residential solar
energy, describing how they previously installed solar panels, transitioned to electric heating,
and achieved significant energy savings over time. They explained that their current home
cannot accommodate rooftop solar due to HOA restrictions, which led them to sign up for an
off-site solar program at a smaller discount. He expressed support for the local solar project and
noted broader concerns about increasing electricity demand. He also stated that Federal agencies
have indicated support for installing solar panels on capped landfills because such land cannot be
used for other purposes.
David Blaho, a Webster resident, spoke in opposition to the proposed solar project near the
Xerox campus, stating that months of discussion have raised significant community concerns
that they believe outweigh the project’s benefits. The speaker noted recent residential and
commercial development in the surrounding area and emphasized that the 17 acres of mature
trees slated for removal currently serve as a visual and sound buffer between homes and the
6
04-02-2026
Webster Town Board
existing industrial campus. He also questioned the financial implications, suggesting that
potential declines in nearby property values could exceed projected tax revenues from the
project. He concluded by urging the Board to prioritize the interests of Webster residents and
vote against the proposal.
Jen Blaho, a Webster resident, spoke in opposition to the proposed solar project, noting that
many residents have attended meetings, submitted petitions, and written letters expressing
ongoing concerns. She stated that project representatives have, in their view, provided
inconsistent or incomplete information on issues such as expected noise levels, long-term tax
impacts, and the loss of 17.5 acres of mature trees and wildlife habitat, which they believe will
significantly affect nearby homeowners. She also raised concerns about private meetings
between the developer and individual Board members, asserting that this limits opportunities for
public questioning. Ms. Blaho emphasized that the Board now has more information than the
Planning Board had at the time of its vote and argued that the project’s impact on the
environment, neighborhood character, and property values justify denying the permit. She
concluded by urging the Board to vote no on the solar project, stating that such a decision best
reflects the interests of Webster residents.
John Lagambino, a Webster resident, spoke in opposition to the proposed solar garden,
expressing concern that the project surrounds an area labeled as a capped inactive landfill. He
noted that the original proposal included the landfill and questioned how the Town can be certain
that no contaminants are leaching from the site. He requested that the project be tabled until a
full list of landfill contaminants is made public and assurances are provided regarding long-term
containment. He cautioned that without this information; the community could face unforeseen
environmental risks in the future.
Mary Durand, a Webster resident, spoke to request clarification regarding the permitting
process for the proposed solar project, noting that the applicant’s own environmental impact
statement referenced a Special Use Permit and lot-coverage thresholds that appear to align with
requirements in the Town’s solar energy code. She asked the Town Board to provide a written
explanation of who determined that the project was exempt from the solar code and the rationale
for that decision, given ambiguities in the zoning code and questions about the appropriate
permitting pathway. She further questioned whether a vote should proceed before these issues
are formally resolved. Mrs. Durand, who has lived in the area for 47 years, added that the
project’s approval would lead them to consider relocating despite their long-standing ties to the
community.
Mark Williams, a Webster resident, raised several concerns regarding the proposed solar
project, referencing a November 18, 2025 Planning Board Hearing where the developer initially
stated that nearby homes would not hear project noise, a claim later revised to an estimated 42
dB, prompting questions about why no noise study was required. He also questioned whether
the planning process sufficiently evaluated the construction of the asphalt cap, noting
discrepancies between statements made at a workshop and information they obtained from the
DEC about the materials used. Mr. Williams expressed concern that these issues reflect a
broader lack of due diligence and additionally cited recent financial downgrades and leadership
changes at Xerox as reasons to question the project’s stability. He asked the Town Board to
provide written clarification on these matters and concluded by urging a vote against the project.
7
04-02-2026
Webster Town Board
Kevin Schulte, a Webster resident, works as the CEO and owner of Green Park Solar, a large
solar installation company, spoke in support of the proposed solar project. He noted that his firm
employs hundreds of workers across New York and has installed numerous community solar
farms, including one in Webster. He stated that Montante Solar, the project developer, is a
reputable and ethical company with a strong track record of projects Statewide, including work
on affordable housing. He explained that concerns raised by residents about noise, chemical
risks, and landfill impacts are, in his view, based on misunderstandings, and stated that projected
noise levels would fall below typical suburban ambient sound levels.
Mr. Schulte added that solar panels are constructed from common, non-toxic materials and that
capped landfills and brownfields are commonly used for solar development because they lack
alternative productive uses. He noted that community solar can provide economic benefits by
helping stabilize local electricity rates, particularly as statewide energy demand is expected to
rise due to data centers and other large users. He concluded by emphasizing the broader energy
and financial benefits of community solar.
Christina McEwen, a Webster resident, expressed strong opposition to the proposed cell tower
across from her residence. She cited concerns about uncertain long-term health impacts of
radio-frequency exposure, particularly for children and pregnant women, noting that current FCC
guidelines date from 1996 and do not reflect more recent scientific questions. She also
referenced studies suggesting potential reductions in nearby property values and stated that the
proposed location conflicts with the purpose of the adjacent Mill Creek Preserve land. Ms.
McEwen said nearby residents were not adequately informed and raised concerns about the
timing of public discussions occurring during holiday periods. She urged the Board to reject the
proposal or relocate the tower farther from homes and sensitive populations.
Kevin Lockart, a Webster resident, commented on the large public turnout and expressed
concern that Town leadership appeared more responsive to developers than to long-term
residents and taxpayers. He urged the Board to prioritize community interests when making
development decisions. He then raised issues related to public records requests, stating that the
Town’s FOIL responses were often vague, overly broad, or improperly denied. He noted
difficulties obtaining items such as police body-worn camera footage, and emphasized that FOIL
requires detailed, statute-based justifications for withholding records. He requested improved
transparency and responsiveness from the Town regarding future FOIL requests.
Bob Hunt, a Webster resident, stated he has lived in Webster for 56 years and recently
purchased a home in the area. He expressed concern that, had he known about the solar farm
under discussion, he may not have moved there, noting potential impacts on the Town’s tax base
if others make similar decisions. He emphasized that the Board must determine whether the
proposed action is appropriate for the specific location and stated his view that the location is
unsuitable. He shared his long-term connection to Webster, noting he built multiple homes in
Town and chose to remain here because his family values the community. He urged the Board to
apply logical judgment, emphasizing local environmental conditions and the limited sunlight in
the area during much of the year.
8
04-02-2026
Webster Town Board
Rick Storace, a Webster resident, stated that the previous Town Board had already rejected the
proposed cell tower and questioned why the issue was being revisited. He urged the Board to
respect residents’ objections and prioritize protecting the character of Webster rather than
pursuing additional revenue.
He also expressed concerns about proposed solar panel installations, arguing that the location
would require significant tree removal and is not suitable for solar efficiency in upstate New
York. He encouraged the Board to consider alternative sites.
The speaker then raised broader concerns about Town priorities, noting unresolved issues such as
frequent loud fireworks and unauthorized motocross tracks in green spaces. He urged the Board
to focus on addressing existing community problems rather than creating new ones and reiterated
that residents do not support the proposed cell tower.
Bill Ernst, a Webster resident, stated opposition to the proposed cell tower at 1222 Wildflower,
noting that the surrounding neighborhood contains mature trees and wildlife, which were key
factors in choosing to live there. He argued that the tower represents commercial development
that does not belong in a residential area. He suggested that residents with poor cellular service
could use alternative technologies that rely on existing infrastructure. Mr. Earnst expressed
concerns about potential reductions in property values, environmental impacts, and possible
health effects on residents and wildlife. He stated that he sees no benefit to nearby homeowners
and asked the Board not to refer the proposal to the Planning Board for further consideration.
Ann Ernst, a Webster resident, stated that she previously opposed an earlier Verizon cell tower
proposal near Scenic Circle and is even more strongly opposed to the new proposed location at
1222 Wildflower. She argued that the earlier site was rejected for valid reasons and expressed
concern that the new site would be on private property surrounded by the neighborhood, with the
benefits going to a single landowner rather than the Town. She requested that the Board not
refer to the proposal for further review, noting that many nearby residents only learned of the
new plan days earlier and were unable to attend the meeting. She stated her belief that the
proposal would face significant opposition if it advanced further.
Sean Hanna, a Webster resident, noted that this was his third time addressing the Board
regarding the proposed solar project. He previously spoke as a former Regional Director of the
Department of Environmental Conservation, outlining environmental concerns, and later as a
former elected official, arguing that prioritizing the developer’s interests over those of residents
would be a failure of public duty. He reaffirmed those positions and stated that he was now
offering legal perspective as an attorney.
He cautioned the Board that Article 78 legal challenge was likely and emphasized that
procedural issues would be central in any litigation. He stated that the application had been
mischaracterized early in the process and argued that a recent material change to the project—
removing solar panels from a hazardous waste site—requires the application to return to the
Planning Board before any Town Board vote. He stressed that voting contingent on later
Planning Board action would constitute a procedural error, citing a past case involving the State
Assembly where similar sequencing issues led to litigation and a court ruling against the
governing body.
9
04-02-2026
Webster Town Board
Mr. Hanna urged the Board to follow the required legal process regardless of their views on
environmental or policy arguments. He stated that the proposal should not be voted on until all
procedural steps are completed and advised that, if a vote were to occur that night, the Board
should vote no to protect the Town’s legal interests.
Chris Nacca, a Webster resident, commented on both the cell tower and solar project proposals,
noting that residents have presented differing scientific perspectives but emphasizing that
community members live experiences and concerns should guide decision-making. He
expressed appreciation for the strong public turnout, stating that it reflects meaningful civic
engagement, and encouraged the Board to recognize that residents are not obligated to justify
their discomfort to developers seeking approval. He argued that the Town should be selective
about projects it accepts and avoid proposals that negatively affect neighborhoods, regardless of
broader industry or economic pressures. He concluded by expressing hope that the Board would
respect the concerns voiced by residents and affirmed his appreciation for the community’s
participation.
Christine Zane, a Webster resident, described her long family history in the neighborhood and
expressed strong concerns about the proposed solar project’s impacts on noise, quality of life,
and the surrounding environment. She noted that past developments near her property had
caused unanticipated disturbances despite assurances to the contrary, and she compared the
expected sound from project equipment to the continuous noise of a generator. She also
referenced prior issues such as light pollution from nearby facilities, the loss of trees that
currently provide sound buffering, and historic contamination in the area that had already
affected residents. She urged the Board to consider how constant noise and environmental
disruption would affect homeowners and asked members to reflect on whether they would want
such conditions near their own homes.
Brian Ocello, a Webster resident, reiterated previous concerns about the proposed solar project,
emphasizing that issues raised by supporters of the project were being taken out of context. He
stated that the fundamental problem is not with solar energy itself but with the proposed location
and the resulting noise from multiple inverters near homes. He urged the Board to distinguish
between general support for solar power and the specific impacts of this project on nearby
residents. To illustrate his point, he described how the same technology can have very different
implications depending on placement and concluded by playing an audio clip representing the
noise level residents might experience.
Roy Dylanbeck, a Webster resident, stated that although the project is described as producing 45
dB of noise, allowable limits permit sound levels up to 10 decibels higher, which he argued
would be disruptive for nearby residents. He emphasized that the proposed location is the
primary concern for both immediate neighbors and surrounding areas, noting continued strong
community opposition. He concluded by urging the Board to act in the best interest of the
community and reject the project.
James Annis, a Webster resident, noted that a previous cell tower proposal in the same
neighborhood was rejected last August 2025, and stated that all the concerns raised at that time
still apply. He argued that the newly proposed location would affect far more homes, pointing
out that visual renderings show the tower would be visible from a wide distance, including areas
near the Presbyterian Church at Route
250. He expressed concern about both perceived and
10
04-02-2026
Webster Town Board
actual reductions in property values for nearby and surrounding neighborhoods and emphasized
that some residents may not yet be aware of the proposal. He stated his opposition to the cell
tower and, after hearing earlier comments, also expressed opposition to the proposed solar
project.
Dennis Gorlick, a Webster resident, identifying as a scientist and former business professional
in scientific industries, commented on the community discussion surrounding the proposed solar
project. He stated that while many residents’ concerns are understandable, he cautioned against
relying on questionable or controversial data when expressing opposition. He suggested that
arguments based simply on not wanting a project in one’s backyard are more straightforward and
constructive than disputing scientific claims without verification. Mr. Gorlick also emphasized
that projects are typically initiated by applicants, not the Board, and encouraged residents to
consider the broader implications of suggesting alternate locations, acknowledging that moving
the project could shift the burden onto another neighborhood. He urged residents to think about
the larger context when offering comments.
Peter Latragna, a Webster resident, expressed frustration that the proposed solar project offers
no clear benefit to residents, stating that only Xerox and the developer would gain while
taxpayers bear the cost. He noted ongoing issues such as deteriorating road conditions on
Phillips Road and frequent power outages, arguing that these basic infrastructure needs should
take priority. He concluded by calling the use of taxpayer funds for the project inappropriate and
unacceptable.
***
Resolution No. 133: MOTION by Supervisor Scialdone, seconded by Councilman Cahill, to
approve the March 19, 2026 Town Board Workshop Meeting Minutes as submitted by the Town
Clerk.
Vote on motion:
Supervisor Scialdone .......... Aye
Councilman Cahill ............ Aye
Councilwoman Wright ....... Aye
Councilman Hunter ........... Aye
Councilman Wagner ........... Abstain
Motion carried ................... 4-0-1
***
Resolution No. 134: MOTION by Supervisor Scialdone, seconded by Councilman Hunter, to
approve the March 19, 2026 Town Board Meeting Minutes as submitted by the Town Clerk.
Vote on motion:
Supervisor Scialdone .......... Aye
Councilman Cahill ............ Aye
Councilwoman Wright ....... Aye
Councilman Hunter ........... Aye
Councilman Wagner ........... Abstain
Motion carried ................... 4-0-1
***
Resolution No. 135: MOTION by Councilman Cahill, seconded by Councilwoman Wright, to
approve the bills as submitted in Warrant #0426 by the Director of Finance.
11
04-02-2026
Webster Town Board
Fund
General (A,B) #1080-1250
Highway (C,D)
Sewer (G)
Library (L)
Park Districts (P)
Special Districts (N,Q,S)
Water Districts (R)(R/SW)
Trust & Agency (T/A,N/SF,T/T, WEMS)
Capital Projects (H) #019-023
H229 Vosburg Pump Station
H231 WWTP Upgrade Phase II
TOTAL
Vote on motion:
Supervisor Scialdone .......... Aye
Councilwoman Wright ....... Aye
Councilman Wagner ........... Aye
Inside
130,019.62
419,083.05
49,526.45
20,760.68
2,320.00
2,705.50
0.00
0.00
Outside
23,094.70
760.35
2,182.67
885.36
0.00
0.00
1,118.75
208,738.40
24,824.45
842,326.83
1,491,566.58
0.00
0.00
235,661.48
Card/ACH
7,079.83
5,476.69
1,430.81
219.05
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Total
160,194.15
425,320.09
53,139.93
21,865.09
2,320.00
2,705.50
1,118.75
208,738.40
0.00
24,824.45
0.00 842,326.83
14,206.38 1,741,434.44
Councilman Cahill ............ Aye
Councilman Hunter ........... Aye
Motion carried ................... 5-0
***
Resolution No. 136: MOTION by Supervisor Scialdone, seconded by Councilman Hunter, to
approve the prepaid vouchers included in Warrant #0426 by the Director of Finance in the
amount of $235,661.48. [Included in the summary of vouchers approved in Resolution #135]
Vote on motion:
Supervisor Scialdone .......... Aye
Councilman Cahill ............ Aye
Councilwoman Wright ....... Aye
Councilman Hunter ........... Aye
Councilman Wagner ........... Aye
Motion carried ................... 5-0
***
Resolution No. 137: MOTION by Supervisor Scialdone, seconded by Councilman Cahill, to
approve purchase orders as submitted by the Director of Finance.
Vote on motion:
Supervisor Scialdone .......... Aye
Councilman Cahill ............ Aye
Councilwoman Wright ....... Aye
Councilman Hunter ........... Aye
Councilman Wagner ........... Aye
Motion carried ................... 5-0
***
Representatives from Montante Solar, Xerox, and affiliated consultants presented a
comprehensive case for approval of an Industrial Use Permit (IUP) for a proposed solar
installation on the Xerox Webster campus—an industrial property with a long history of
environmental oversight. The speaking points were framed around legal compliance,
environmental review, community concerns, and financial protections, all within the context of
significant public controversy.
12
04-02-2026
Webster Town Board
Dan Montante, President of Montante Solar, opened by emphasizing that the proposal involves a
permitted industrial use on private, industrial-zoned land, and that the Board’s role is not to
judge the broader merits of solar technology but to determine whether a compliant project on
private property should proceed. He introduced a multidisciplinary team: project development
leaders, Xerox’s environmental and sustainability leadership, environmental attorneys, and
construction experts.
A major point of contention—the proposed placement of panels on an asphalt-capped brownfield
area—was addressed by Steve Irk, Vice President of Montante Solar and a Webster native. He
explained that although Montante, Xerox, and the NYS Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC) maintained the original design was safe and compliant, the solar array had
been removed from the capped area in response to intense community concern. This change
reduces the project’s size, delivery traffic, construction duration, noise, and disturbance, while
leaving screening measures intact.
Further technical justification was provided by Katie Soscia, Montante project representative,
who detailed the layered environmental reviews already completed. These included wetlands
delineations showing no DEC-regulated wetlands and less than 0.1 acres of federal wetlands
affected; stormwater (SWPPP) approvals by the Town Engineer; extensive engagement between
the Planning Board and the DEC; and classification of the project as a Type II SEQR action,
reflecting minor disturbance on an already industrial site. Additional voluntary assessments
included New York State Historic Preservation Office review and U.S. Fish & Wildlife analysis,
which found no threatened or endangered species impacts. Though monarch butterflies might be
affected, the team voluntarily committed to planting milkweed to support the species. The
property being discussed is privately owned industrial-zoned land, long held and previously
developed or disturbed by Xerox. It is currently managed by DEC. The presence of wildlife
does not indicate high-quality habitat; any wildlife observed is likely transient and does not meet
ecological or regulatory definitions of prime habitat or public green space. The site is a
brownfield industrially zoned, not open to the public, and will not become publicly accessible.
Wendy Latco, Xerox’s Vice President of Environmental Health, Safety, and Sustainability,
presented the historical and financial context. She noted Xerox’s 70-year industrial presence in
Webster and its multi-decade voluntary investigation and remediation of site contamination
beginning in the 1980s. The company maintains extensive monitoring, a 2,000-page site
management plan, and annual reporting, resulting in a well-characterized site. Ms. Latco stated
clearly that the Town bears no financial risk, as Xerox holds hazardous waste insurance,
maintains a 30-year DEC-required surety bond for remediation (transferable to the DEC in event
of Xerox insolvency), and Montante Solar will also maintain pollution liability insurance and a
decommissioning bond for full removal of the array at end-of-life. She framed the project as
mutually beneficial: supporting Xerox’s environmental goals while generating municipal
revenue, lowering electricity costs for low- and moderate-income residents, and creating
intentional pollinator habitat.
The team also stressed their history of public engagement, beginning six months earlier with the
Meadows of Webster HOA. Early concerns about visibility led to a “caution-tape experiment,”
where tape was placed at maximum panel height around the project perimeter; photographs and
drone images showed no visible sightlines. Despite this, Montante committed to planting two
rows of 40 evergreen trees (Norway Spruce and Eastern Red Cedar) at the HOA’s request. A
13
04-02-2026
Webster Town Board
project website with extensive documentation has logged over 1,000 views. A January 27th
community meeting included live participation from DEC site stewards and technical
consultants, and the team reported that many attendees left with concerns alleviated. The later
revision removing the asphalt-cap installation was presented as further evidence of
responsiveness to resident pressure.
Finally, attorney Kim Mason outlined the regulatory pathway. Under the Town Solar Code,
solar is a permitted use in this Industrial District, subject to Planning Board site-plan review.
The Planning Board classified the project as Type II under SEQR and issued final site-plan
approval, while also recommending approval of the Industrial Use Permit. The subsequent
reduction in project scope qualifies as a minor amendment, not requiring renewed Board review.
Ms. Nason emphasized that the IUP process applies broadly to permitted industrial uses and that
the solar project’s passive nature avoids the typical impacts—such as sewer load, water demand,
odor, dust, or high traffic—associated with heavy industry. She reiterated that the evening’s
request was strictly for issuance of the Industrial Use Permit and acknowledgment of the
associated Host Community Agreement (HCA).
The team closed by reaffirming that they had taken extensive steps to document, respond to, and
incorporate public concerns, and that they were formally requesting the Town Board to approve
the IUP for the downsized, reconfigured solar project.
Councilman Wagner asked that given the large volume of information that was provided—and
the fact that the Town and Attorney for the Town have not yet had adequate time to fully review
the materials, including your recent responses—would you be willing to postpone this by two
weeks so we can thoroughly review the documents and work with you to have our questions
fully answered without feeling rushed? Kim Mason responded that the March 26 filing mostly
referenced information already in the project record, including previously submitted documents
like the full HCA and Xerox materials. While some parts addressed concerns raised at the work
session, most of the responses pointed back to existing materials that have been available for
some time. The team was willing to answer any new or additional questions, but from their
perspective many of the questions being raised are ones they have already addressed previously
in the record.
Councilman Wagner looked for clarification as the project representatives mentioned that
removing panels from the cap results in only about a 5–6% reduction in the total number of solar
panels, yet this is described as translating into roughly a 20% reduction in output. How does a
change that small lead to such a large decrease in energy production? Is the impact truly 5–6%,
or is it closer to 20%? Steve Irk clarified that they are unsure where the 5% figure came from,
noting it may stem from counting the number of panels removed rather than comparing system
sizes. He explained that the number of panels doesn’t directly correlate to total system capacity
because panels can have different wattages. Instead of counting panels, they evaluate system
size based on the percentage of site coverage and total megawatt output. This difference in
measurement methods likely explains the discrepancy between a small percentage change in
panel count and a larger change in system output.
14
04-02-2026
Webster Town Board
Councilman Wagner asked given our interpretation about the difference between panel count and
overall system size, are you saying there is a 20% reduction in the overall footprint and the
amount of work involved? Steve Irk explained that the 20% reduction refers to a decrease in
megawatt capacity, which closely corresponds to a similar reduction in the square footage of site
coverage. Because higher-wattage panels require fewer units to cover the same area, the
relationship isn’t based on panel count. While the reduction may not translate directly into a full
20% decrease in labor hours, it is still expected to produce a noticeable reduction in work.
Councilman Wagner reiterated the question again, is the total scope of the project down 20
percent? Steve Irk answered, the total output of the project will be down by 20 percent.
Councilman Wagner asked the footprint and the work that goes into it? Steve Irk answered that
the footprint will be down by 20 percent.
Councilman Wagner asked if they need updated approvals from the Army Corps of Engineers
with the change to the site plan? Katie Soscia responded indicating they will be sending the
updated site plan to the Army Corps of Engineers, noting that the changes represent a reduction
rather than an increase, so the submission is simply a notification.
Councilman Wagner asked when you say there are no wetlands on the site, which specific
definition are you using? Are you referring to Federal wetlands, DEC-regulated wetlands, or
another technical classification? Katie Soscia responded, there are two types of wetland reviews
that were conducted for the project. Under the updated 2025 New York State DEC regulations,
no DEC-regulated wetlands were found on the site, and that documentation has been provided to
the Town. Federal wetland delineation by the Army Corps of Engineers identified only limited
wetlands, with the project impacting less than 0.1 acres—below the threshold requiring a permit.
Although a permit is not required, the project will still follow the applicable Nationwide Permit
51 requirements.
Councilman Wagner discussed the financial assurance mechanisms associated with the Xerox
site. Questions were raised regarding the $6 million DEC Financial Assurance Bond, including
the conditions under which the Bond is triggered—specifically, failure by Xerox to fund closure
activities or action initiated through a formal DEC order or court process. Clarification was
requested on references within the Bond to a “Commissioner” and a related trust. Project staff
confirmed that the Commissioner referenced is the New York State DEC Commissioner and that
the Bond is renewed annually, replacing the prior year’s Bond. It was also noted that a separate
trust exists as part of State financial assurance requirements. The applicant agreed to review the
materials and provide additional details regarding the Trust.
Councilman Wagner asked for the site survey, did you conduct both leaf-on and leaf-off
assessments, or only a leaf-on survey in the fall? Steve Irk responded, 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.
Councilwoman Wright asked, if an issue with the land occurs that is caused by the solar panels,
how would responsibility be handled between Xerox and Montante? Could there be a situation
where each party looks to the other for accountability regarding damage to the ground or site
conditions? Kim Mason explained that the DEC reviewed and approved the lease outlining the
responsibilities of Xerox and Montante. Xerox remains fully responsible for all site obligations
under DEC requirements, while Montante is responsible for the solar panels and their operation.
15
04-02-2026
Webster Town Board
The DEC specifically requested and reviewed the lease between the parties as part of its
oversight and formally signed off on the arrangement.
Councilman Cahill asked, if a major hailstorm damages all the solar panels on Xerox’s property
and the broken panels end up on or partially in the ground, who is responsible for the cleanup?
Dan Montante explained that damage from a hailstorm would be considered an insurable event.
The project owner’s insurance policy would cover the damage to the solar panels.
Supervisor Scialdone asked, given that circumstances have changed, and considering that our
Assessor would like to review the Host Community Agreement again—especially since much
depends on any potential PILOT with COMIDA—would you agree to making approval of an
Industrial Use Permit contingent upon providing a revised HCA that is satisfactory to the Town?
Katie Soscia answered yes.
Councilman Wagner emphasized the magnitude and long-term impact of the decision before
them, noting strong public interest and the complexity of the proposal. He referenced examples
shared by the applicant highlighting the importance of thorough advanced planning, risk
assessment, and follow-up in successful solar projects. Board members expressed concern that
numerous key documents—such as the Host Community Agreement, the full decommissioning
plan, and financial assurance materials—were only recently provided and require more detailed
review. The Board discussed the need for additional legal and technical analysis, including an
independent review of the decommissioning plan and a formal sound study, given the many
interrelated risks and the Board’s limited technical expertise. Councilman Wagner stressed that
the Town must fully understand all implications before moving forward, as reversing the
decision later would be extremely difficult. Katie Soscia clarified that an outside engineer did
take a look at the decommissioning plan as part of the Planning Board review.
Councilman Cahill asked since this project is classified as a Type II action, which is less
comprehensive than other classifications, could the Planning Board have required a more
in-depth review given that nearly 20 acres are proposed to be clear-cut? Attorney for the Town
Kyle Taylor responded, No. Because the project is defined as a Type II action, the statute for
Type I actions explicitly states that a Type II action cannot be reclassified as Type I. A Type II
action is legally presumed to have no environmental impact. Kim Mason further explained that
although Type II actions receive a more limited project-specific review, the DEC conducted a
comprehensive environmental analysis before adding solar projects on these types of sites to the
Type II list. This included a full environmental impact statement on changes to the Type II
category itself. Because of that prior high-level review, projects on the Type II list are
predetermined by DEC to have no significant adverse environmental impacts.
Board members engaged in an extended discussion regarding the issuance of the Industrial Use
Permit (IUP) for the proposed solar project. The Building Inspector confirmed that the Town
Board’s role is to authorize him to issue the permit, and that he would ultimately be responsible
for issuing it once all required reviews are complete. He stated that, based on what he has seen
so far, the application appears consistent with requirements, though he emphasized the need to
review all materials formally once submitted to his office.
16
04-02-2026
Webster Town Board
Several Board members stressed their responsibility to thoroughly evaluate the project’s
implications for safety, health, environmental liability, site conditions, and potential financial
risks to the Town. Members noted that numerous documents, including the Host Community
Agreement, the full decommissioning plan, and financial assurance materials—had been
provided only recently, leaving insufficient time for full review. They expressed concern that the
record does not yet clearly demonstrate that all risks are fully understood or properly allocated
and urged additional due diligence before making a final determination.
It was acknowledged that the project has been in development for approximately three and a half
years, and Board members openly recognized that delays were partly due to internal
miscommunication and challenges in managing the process. The applicant emphasized that they
have consistently agreed to delays, responded promptly to all requests, and provided responses
referencing existing materials already in the record. They expressed the view that the record is
complete and stated concern that the most recent questions were submitted to them only shortly
before the meeting.
Board members reiterated the need for time to responsibly review the applicant’s responses,
regardless of whether the applicant considered certain documents relevant. They emphasized the
importance of due diligence considering public concern and the long-term implications of the
project. Community engagement was acknowledged as significant, and it was noted that resident
concerns—particularly regarding safety and comfort—have shaped previous revisions to the
project, including the decision to avoid locating panels on the landfill cap.
The applicant reiterated that oversight from the DEC, environmental easements, and multiple
layers of regulatory review provide protection for the Town. The Board, however, maintained
that additional time is needed to review all recent materials before making a final decision.
Resolution No. 138: MOTION by Supervisor Scialdone, seconded by Councilman Hunter, to
approve an Industrial Use Permit (IUP) for the Webster Solar Garden project at the Xerox
Campus, located at 750 Phillips Road, 139 Caracus Drive, 1460 Caracus Drive, TAX ID
#065.02-1-40.11.
WHEREAS, Xerox Corporation owns Tax Account Number 065.02-1-40.11, Town of Webster;
and
WHEREAS, TM Montante Solar Development LLC seeks to construct a large-scale solar project
on Tax Account Number 065.02-1-40.11 in the Town of Webster; and
WHEREAS, the affected lands are in an Industrial District (“I-N”); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Webster Town Code 350-22(D) an Industrial Use Permit is required for
any use within an I-N district; and
WHEREAS, Webster Town Code, Section 350-22(D)(2) requires referral of applications for
Industrial Use Permits to the Town Planning Board; and
WHERAS, the Town Board referred this application to the Town Planning Board for review of
the requested Industrial Use Permit by Resolution dated August 11, 2025; and
17
04-02-2026
Webster Town Board
WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board, as part of its review of this application, declared itself
lead agency for purposes of SEQR review and classified this action as a Type II action; and
WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board reviewed this application at its regularly scheduled
meeting on November 18, 2025, and provided preliminary site plan approval; and
WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board reviewed this application at its regularly scheduled
meeting on January 12, 2026, and provided final site plan approval and provided its
recommendations to the Town Board that it approve an Industrial Use Permit:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
1. The proposed project is classified as a Type II action under SEQR.
2. The Town Board having reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Town Planning
Board, finds that:
a. The proposed project encourages sound development in the interest of safety and general
welfare of the public.
b. The proposed project is in harmony with and promotes the purpose and intent of the most
recent Comprehensive Plan of the Town and the Zoning Ordinance and meets all the
conditions of Webster Town Code Section § 269-21 and § 350-22 (D).
3. The Town Board approves the applicant’s request for an Industrial Use Permit and directs
that a permit for the proposed uses be issued subject to the following conditions.
a. The Planning Board approve the amended final site plan reflecting the removal of the
solar panels from the asphalt cap, specifically plan dated March 18, 2026, Project
Number 0205399.
b. Final agreement of a Host Community Agreement (HCA) with the approval of the Town.
c. Full review of the Decommissioning Plan.
d. Any agreement terms that require Legal review.
Vote on motion:
Supervisor Scialdone .......... Aye
Councilman Cahill ............ Nay
Councilwoman Wright ....... Aye
Councilman Hunter ........... Aye
Councilman Wagner ........... Nay
Motion carried ................... 3-2
***
Robert Burgdorf, representative of the law firm Nixon Peabody, spoke on behalf of Verizon
Wireless recounted the long history behind the proposed 135-foot monopole at 1222 Wildflower
Drive. He explained that the project began over four years earlier at the Town’s request, when
Verizon was asked to pursue a tower on Town-owned Creekside property. Verizon spent more
than two years working with the Town on that option, but when the lease came up for approval, a
majority of the Town Board declined to proceed. Because the Town has the absolute right as a
landlord to reject a lease, Verizon respected that decision and began searching for a private
property alternative. Mr. Burgdorf noted that the search area is technically difficult due to
18
04-02-2026
Webster Town Board
wetlands and small residential parcels, leaving very few viable options. The private site now
proposed is, according to Verizon, one of the only workable locations left within the required
coverage area.
Mr. Burgdorf emphasized that Federal and State Laws governing wireless carriers significantly
limit a municipality’s discretion. Under the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) license
and public utility regulations, Verizon must provide adequate service, and municipalities cannot
prohibit a carrier from constructing a technically necessary site. While towns can impose
reasonable regulations on placement and design, or choose among technically viable alternative
sites, they cannot deny a site solely due to community opposition, petitions, or personal
preferences. He reiterated that many who spoke against the tower rely on the very cellular
coverage Verizon is legally obligated to provide. Mr. Burgdorf stressed that courts have
repeatedly found that widespread public opposition is not a valid legal reason for denial, and that
the Board’s “hands are tied” more than some residents may realize.
He also addressed recurring concerns about health effects, stating that Federal Law completely
preempts municipalities from considering radiofrequency emissions in zoning decisions.
Although Verizon has no obligation to provide scientific information on this topic, he said they
had previously submitted supporting materials to dispel misconceptions. He argued that the
radio signals from a cell tower are extremely weak compared to everyday sources like radio and
TV broadcasts, police communications, or even a smartphone held to one’s head. He then
responded to a resident’s earlier requests, explaining that Verizon has already provided detailed
alternatives analyses, engineering studies, and visual impact assessments, though issues like
property values and health effects are legally irrelevant and will not be included. He concluded
by noting that many residents who raised concerns had already left, reaffirmed Verizon’s
willingness to consider reasonable buffering or mitigation, and indicated the discussion will
continue at upcoming Planning and Zoning Board meetings.
Resolution No. 139: MOTION by Supervisor Scialdone, seconded by Councilman Hunter, to
refer the proposed Webster North Cell Tower at 1222 Wildflower Drive, Tax ID #065.05-1-48 to
the Planning Board for the purpose of conducting site plan review.
WHEREAS, Robby and Dina Villa own property with a Tax Account No. 065.05-1-48, at 1222
Wildflower Ln., Town of Webster; and
WHEREAS, Verizon Wireless, seeks to construct a communications tower on the aforesaid
property; and
WHEREAS, the affected lands are in a R-3 Single Family Residential District; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Webster Town Code § 130-8 a special use permit is required for a
communication tower proposed to be located in a R-3 Single Family Residential District; and
WHEREAS, Webster Town Code § 130-11 requires referral of applications for a Special Use
Permit to the Town Planning Board; and
WHEREAS, the Site Plan and application have been received by the Town Board; and
19
04-02-2026
Webster Town Board
WHEREAS, an Environmental Assessment Form has been received and reviewed by the Town
Board; and
WHEREAS, after referral from the Town Board to the Town Planning Board, Webster Town
Code, Section § 130-11 requires the Town Planning Board to review the application and
supporting documentation and submit a report back to the Town Board regarding its findings and
recommendations on the application:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
1. That the application, together with all supporting documents be referred to the Town of
Webster Planning Board for its review and recommendation.
2. That the Town Planning Board as soon as practicable, after completion of site plan review
procedure under Webster Town Code Chapter 269, shall submit a report of its findings with
its recommendation for approval, conditional approval or disapproval of a Special Use
Permit to the Town Board.
3. That the Town Board consents to any request of the Town Planning Board that the Town
Planning Board be designated as lead agency for coordinated review procedures for the
proposed action under the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act.
Vote on motion:
Supervisor Scialdone .......... Aye
Councilman Cahill ............ Aye
Councilwoman Wright ....... Aye
Councilman Hunter ........... Aye
Councilman Wagner ........... Aye
Motion carried ................... 5-0
***
Resolution No. 140: MOTION by Councilman Wagner, seconded by Councilman Cahill, to
authorize the submission of a Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) Open Space
Conservation Grant Application.
WHEREAS, the Town of Webster desires to apply for $1,205,563.00 in financial assistance
through the 2026 Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) Open Space Conservation
Grant Program, performance payments grant, involving interim payment from DEC for the Town
to use as upfront land and closing costs and a contract term of three years; and.
WHEREAS, the bid proposes funding for acquisition of land to for the purposes of protection
from development and for public benefit of all New Yorkers; and
WHEREAS, the property located at 595 Five Mile Line Rd. (Tax Parcel ID #079.09-1-37.11)
and is available for fee title acquisition and the landowner wishes to sell the land to the
municipality for the purpose of establishing a community forest; and
WHEREAS, the DEC will hold 10% of the total land cost in retainage at the closing until
recorded deed and final title insurance is received by DEC; and
20
04-02-2026
Webster Town Board
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town Board of the Town of Webster
approves and endorses the bid for the 2026 DEC Open Space Conservation Grant Program and,
recognizing this is a performance-based payments grant that may require minimum amounts of
funding upfront, which are reimbursable under the grant, and an order of operation for closing
requirements.
Vote on motion:
Supervisor Scialdone .......... Aye
Councilman Hunter................... Aye
Councilman Cahill .............. Aye
Councilman Wagner ................. Aye
Councilwoman Wright ....... Aye
Motion carried .......................... 5-0
***
Resolution No. 140A: MOTION by Councilman Wagner, seconded by Councilman Cahill, to
authorize the submission of a Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) Open Space
Conservation grant application.
WHEREAS, the Town of Webster desires to apply for $1,345,158.00 in financial assistance
through the 2026 DEC Open Space Conservation Grant Program, performance payments grant,
involving interim payment from DEC for the Town to use as upfront land and closing costs and a
contract term of three years; and
WHEREAS, the bid proposes funding for acquisition of land to for the purposes of protection
from development and for public benefit of all New Yorkers; and
WHEREAS, the property located at 799 Holt Rd. (including portions of Tax Parcel ID
#079.08-1-12 and #079.08-1-13), and is available for fee title acquisition and the landowner
wishes to sell the land to the municipality for the purpose of establishing a community forest;
and
WHEREAS, the DEC will hold 10% of the total land cost in retainage at the closing until
recorded deed and final title insurance is received by DEC; and
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town Board of the Town of Webster
approves and endorses the bid for the 2026 DEC Open Space Conservation Grant Program and,
recognizing this is a performance-based payments grant that may require minimum amounts of
funding upfront, which are reimbursable under the grant, and an order of operation for closing
requirements.
Vote on motion:
Supervisor Scialdone .......... Aye
Councilman Hunter................... Aye
Councilman Cahill .............. Aye
Councilman Wagner ................. Aye
Councilwoman Wright ....... Aye
Motion carried .......................... 5-0
***
Leigh Ann Kimber, Interim Executive Director of the Webster Economic Development Alliance
(WEDA), provided an update on the $9.8 million Empire State Development FAST NY Grant
awarded in August 2025 to support economic development and roadway improvements around
the Xerox campus. Although WEDA is the grant recipient, both the Town and Village of
Webster are listed as beneficiaries because the improved roads will ultimately be dedicated to
them.
21
04-02-2026
Webster Town Board
In December 2025, WEDA issued a Request for Proposals (RFP), developed with input from the
Keith Mortimer, Town Engineer and Jake Swingly, the Village DPW Commissioner. Six
engineering firms submitted proposals, with cost estimates ranging from approximately $770,000
to more than $2.3 million.
A selection committee—comprised of representatives from the Town, the Village, WEDA
leadership, and the WEDA Board President—reviewed and scored all proposals. Three firms
were shortlisted for interviews. Following this process, the committee selected Costich
Engineering.
Ms. Kimber noted several reasons for the decision: Costich offered the most balanced
combination of timeline feasibility, design-to-construction cost management, and detailed
upfront analysis of project costs and alternatives. She also referenced the Town’s recent positive
experience with Costich on a sewer replacement project near the Xerox site. The firm’s scope
under the contract includes design, bid support, construction administration, and construction
inspection.
Over the past two months, attorneys for the Town, Village, and WEDA have worked with
Costich to finalize a contract acceptable to all parties. That contract was presented to the Board
for approval tonight.
The project must complete design and all regulatory reviews within roughly one year to allow
bidding by January 2027. Even meeting that timeline carries risks. The improvements are
considered critical to support the fairlife facility, which will be fully operational this year and is
expected to generate more than 200 truck trips daily. The grant-funded roadway work is
intended to manage these traffic impacts and prevent negative effects on the Town. The design
schedule is being accelerated to enable construction in 2027. If the project misses the January
2027 bid window, construction may be delayed until 2028, pushing completion nearly two years.
Resolution No. 141: MOTION by Supervisor Scialdone, seconded by Councilman Hunter, to
authorize the Town Supervisor to sign a contract with Costich Engineering for engineering
design services related to the FASTNY Grant.
[Contract to be filed in Town Clerk’s Office]
Vote on motion:
Supervisor Scialdone .......... Aye
Councilman Cahill ............ Nay
Councilwoman Wright ....... Aye
Councilman Hunter ........... Aye
Councilman Wagner ........... Nay
Motion carried ................... 3-2
***
Resolution No. 142: MOTION by Councilman Cahill, seconded by Councilwoman Wright, to
authorize the usage of the Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrade Project Contingency Budget for
the proposed items outlined in the workshop presentation in an amount not to exceed
$462,788.00.
22
04-02-2026
Webster Town Board
Vote on motion:
Supervisor Scialdone .......... Aye
Councilwoman Wright ....... Aye
Councilman Wagner ........... Aye
Councilman Cahill ............ Aye
Councilman Hunter ........... Aye
Motion carried ................... 5-0
***
Resolution No. 143: MOTION by Councilman Cahill, seconded by Councilwoman Wright, to
un-fund one full-time Deputy Commissioner of Public Works position and establish one fulltime Wastewater Treatment Plant Operator position.
Vote on motion:
Supervisor Scialdone .......... Aye
Councilman Cahill ............ Aye
Councilwoman Wright ....... Aye
Councilman Hunter ........... Aye
Councilman Wagner………Aye
Motion carried .................. 5-0
***
Resolution No. 144: MOTION by Councilman Cahill, seconded by Supervisor Scialdone, to
abolish one part-time Maintenance Mechanic position and establish one part-time Wastewater
Treatment Plant Operator position.
Vote on motion:
Supervisor Scialdone .......... Aye
Councilman Cahill ............ Aye
Councilwoman Wright ....... Aye
Councilman Hunter ........... Aye
Councilman Wagner………Aye
Motion carried .................. 5-0
***
Resolution No. 145: MOTION by Councilman Cahill, seconded by Councilman Hunter, to
abolish one full-time Maintenance Mechanic position and establish one full-time Sewer Foreman
position.
Vote on motion:
Supervisor Scialdone .......... Aye
Councilman Cahill ............ Aye
Councilwoman Wright ....... Aye
Councilman Hunter ........... Aye
Councilman Wagner………Aye
Motion carried .................. 5-0
***
Councilwoman Wright presented the following Resolution as a proactive funding request related
to the Town Comprehensive Plan. It was noted that the consultant, Colliers Engineering &
Design, has completed a higher percentage of work hours than anticipated at this stage due to
additional tasks, including five public meetings and the integration of open space considerations
into the community survey. The Resolution was presented in advance to address expected cost
increases before the project’s completion, rather than after the work is finished.
Resolution No. 146: MOTION by Councilwoman Wright, seconded by Councilman Cahill, to
authorize the Town Supervisor to sign a supplemental agreement with Colliers Engineering &
Design for additional work associated with the Comprehensive Plan Update project. In an
amount not to exceed $25,000.00.
[Agreement to be filed in Town Clerk’s Office]
23
04-02-2026
Webster Town Board
Vote on motion:
Supervisor Scialdone .......... Aye
Councilwoman Wright ....... Aye
Councilman Wagner………Aye
Councilman Cahill ............ Aye
Councilman Hunter ........... Aye
Motion carried .................. 5-0
***
Resolution No. 147: MOTION by Councilwoman Wright, seconded by Councilman Hunter, to
approve the following item for recycling from the Highway Department:
• Wheel Balancer
Vote on motion:
Supervisor Scialdone .......... Aye
Councilwoman Wright ....... Aye
Councilman Wagner………Aye
Asset Tag #2356
Councilman Cahill ............ Aye
Councilman Hunter ........... Aye
Motion carried .................. 5-0
***
At 11:48 p.m. Supervisor Scialdone called for an Executive Session.
Resolution No. 148: MOTION by Supervisor Scialdone, seconded by Councilman Cahill, to
enter into Executive Session pursuant to New York State Public Officer’s Law §105(1)(f) to
discuss matters regarding medical, financial, credit or employment history of a particular person
or corporation, or matters leading to the appointment, employment, promotion, demotion,
discipline, suspension, dismissal, or removal of a particular person or corporation.
WHEREAS, New York State Public Officers Law provides that the Town Board may enter into
Executive Session to discuss certain subjects or matters:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That the Town Board enter into an Executive Session pursuant to New York State Public
Officer’s Law §105(1)(f) to discuss matters regarding medical, financial, credit or employment
history of a particular person or corporation, or matters leading to the appointment, employment,
promotion, demotion, discipline, suspension, dismissal, or removal of a particular person or
corporation.
That the following persons were authorized to attend: Kyle Taylor, Attorney for the Town,
Dennis Kohlmeier, Police Chief, and Mark Reed, Police Captain, Kelsey Feeney, Personnel
Director, and Danene Marr, Town Clerk.
Vote on motion:
Supervisor Scialdone .......... Aye
Councilman Cahill ............ Aye
Councilwoman Wright ....... Aye
Councilman Hunter ........... Aye
Councilman Wagner………Aye
Motion carried .................. 5-0
***
Resolution No. 149: MOTION by Supervisor Scialdone, seconded by Councilman Cahill, to
return to regular session at 12:01 a.m.
24
04-02-2026
Webster Town Board
Vote on motion:
Supervisor Scialdone .......... Aye
Councilwoman Wright ....... Aye
Councilman Wagner………Aye
Councilman Cahill ............ Aye
Councilman Hunter ........... Aye
Motion carried .................. 5-0
***
There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at
12:01 a.m.
____________________________________
Danene M. Marr, Town Clerk
25
04-02-2026