Welcome everyone to the March 26th,
2026 meeting of the Penfield Planning Board.
We will start with 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.
Okay, Michelle, please call the roll.
Knauer?
Knauer here.
Aiken?
Aiken here.
Daly?
Daly here.
McCooy?
McCooy here.
Tydings?
Tydings here.
Krueger?
Krueger's here.
Prinzing?
Prinzing here.
Ferrigno here.
Thank you.
And
I assume everybody had a chance to look at the minutes.
Thank you, Michelle. Nice job.
Thank you.
It was a longer one.
So if there are no
changes, corrections, questions,
anyone move to approve? Tydings. Make the
motion to approve. I'll second.
Knauer?
Knauer, I.
Aiken?
Aiken, I.
Daly?
Daly, I.
McCooy?
McCooy, I.
Tydings?
Tydings, I.
Okay. Tonight is a work session. We have five tabled
applications on the agenda.
And as you know, there's one
new business, a revised resolution,
based on some work we did at the last meeting.
So
with that, Matt, take it away.
So the first tabled application, 1320 Harris Road, the DeRoller
Subdivision.
We have no news from the applicant or their engineers.
Still waiting on clarification from the New York State DEC
on their wetland delineation.
And so at this time, the board doesn't need to take
any action to continue tabling.
Okay.
All right.
Moving into the next one, 1384 Empire Boulevard,
the Verizon antenna.
We have prepared the parts two and three of the
EAF pursuant to SEQR.
We've also prepared a waterfront consistency
memo,
and an approval resolution with conditions for the approval of
the conditional use permit.
I don't know if the board members had any questions for any of those items that we
prepared.
I had just a little bit of cleanup. They
all look good to me overall.
Yeah.
On the part two EAF,
we checked the box for
impact on human health, which was number 16.
The proposed action may have an impact on human health from exposure to new or
existing sources of contaminants.
And I don't know why we checked yes there, and I would just
propose we check no, given the-
So
based on-
I might have read the part three as well.
So based on
their
responses in part one, where they note that
there are emissions during construction.
So,
we say that yes, there may be an impact, but all of the impacts are
small or no impact may occur. So we are acknowledging
that there are emissions that could be detrimental to human
health during construction because there are emissions
during that. But,
when we clarify in that part two that the
no or small impact may occur, that's where we're clarifying that even though
there are a chance of those
impacts to health, they're small or insignificant.
Got it. Yeah. No, I appreciate that clarification.
And
overall, I'm fine with that approach.
It seems
extremely conservative, I guess is my reaction.
With
cellphone towers, you hear a lot of issues with RF and my
understanding of the law and we can leave with the council to tell us is like, we
can't consider that. And I don't want to suggest that the board has any
concerns about RF or evaluated that whatsoever.
Yeah, no. And yeah, in the, as you mentioned, the
part three, we clarify that
their reasoning for the
health effects that we are considering,
are those ones that are really only related to those
emissions.
I'm just going to double-check verse 16. Yeah.
Right. It talks about historical contamination at the site.
Right. And that there was the remediation that occurred there.
But yeah, ultimately, the
findings of the board or the findings through the SEQR review is that the proposed
development will not have an impact on human health.
Okay. Yeah, I'm fine with that, leaving it as is, as long as it
sounds like we're clear on the record on what we were talking about.
Absolutely. Yeah.
Okay.
I have one other item on cleanup.
The draft resolution overall looks good to me.
The one thing that we don't reference that to me was at
least how I approached the application and I think how the applicant approached the
application was the specific criteria for a conditional
use permit for
wireless communications facility,
whichThat
we didn't make specific findings there with respect to that section of the code.
To me, I think it's as simple as saying, in addition
to the basic findings under, what is it?
13.3, we're also found it consistent with
13.11.
Okay.
Yeah.
We can
revise the approval resolution.
Let's see.
Yeah. I suppose that would go
underneath
item 20,
on page three, where the board bases its decision to approve
its determination of environmental non-significance of the following
findings relating to chapter 250.
Related to that, for the conditional use, we would add in that
specific reference to the
article related to citing
telecommunications.
Okay. Yeah. I think that change makes sense.
And then,
otherwise, no further comments. I think they're ready to roll with
that change.
Sure.
Okay.
Anyone else?
So I think that's three items.
Three items.
Okay.
Or, sorry.
No, go ahead.
Just in summary, the first one would be adoption
of parts two and three of the EAF. Item number two
would be authorizing the chair to sign the waterfront
consistency memo.
Mm-hmm.
And then the third being approving, with conditions,
the approval for a conditional use permit with the
recommended changes.
With the recommendations.
Yes.
Okay.
I'll make that motion as Matt just recited it.
Thank you.
They all have to be separate actions.
Oh, they do? Okay. Well-
My understanding is that we would do-
Gee, I thought Pete called me out on that the other day.
That's true. Yeah. Now referring back to that meeting, I think that we
can...
No. I'm going to say that because
that was for...
I'm fairly certain, at least in the past, we've always taken a separate vote
for-
Yeah
... the EAF.
Let's do that. We don't want to-
I think you would separate the SEQR from-
Yeah. We don't want to muck it up.
From the decision.
Okay.
Yes.
So we're voting on the motion is for the
EAF, parts two and three.
I'll second.
Kanakowar.
Kanakowar, aye.
Aiken.
Aiken, aye.
Daly.
Daly, aye.
McCooy.
McCooy, aye.
Tydings.
Tydings, aye.
Okay, and then the second on the
approval resolution.
Yeah.
And it's both-
Waterfront cons-
... the waterfront consistency as well as the-
Yes. Those we'll do together.
Okay.
Yeah.
I'll move to approve the waterfront consistency determination
as well as the approval for a conditional use permit with that one
change I noted on the record.
I'll second.
Kanakowar.
Kanakowar, aye.
Aiken.
Aiken, aye.
Daly.
Daly, aye.
McCooy.
McCooy, aye.
Tydings.
Tydings, aye.
Okay.
All right. So
that takes care of 1384.
Moving on to our third tabled application, 1315
Sweets Corners Road,
the Wickham Farms Pavilion.
Also for that application, we prepared parts two and three
EAF pursuant to SEQR,
and then we also drafted an approval resolution,
with the conditions for the application for preliminary,
final, and site plan approval.
The tabling resolution from the last application,
or from the public hearing,
we were looking at
some information, some guidance from the New York State DEC
regarding whether or not, or what the town should
consider when recommending a
developer
get or request a JD. In this case, there weren't
the informational wetlands or
any of the previously mapped wetlands or any of the national wetland
inventory within 100 feet of the project.
The town took the most conservative look, or we looked
at what the DEC
recommended we look at, so all of those wetlands, but also
USGS streams, drainage ways, ponds, other water bodies,
soil mapping, poorly drained soils, or wetter drainage
classes,
or using aerial imagery to identify undeveloped
areas with natural vegetation,
and found that there were no areas within
100 feet of the proposed site or
of the pavilion that would meet that classification of a
wet area. So,
given that
finding that there's no wet areas in the project area,
we aren't recommending that the applicant get that or pursue
that JD
request,And
with that, that was really the only outstanding item.
I know that we also received public comments
regarding
the use of the pavilion for a performance space,
and that we looked at.
Originally, we had discussed at the last planning board meeting having that be a
condition, but ultimately the town already has a process
for that. If the applicant wanted the pavilion to be used
as a performance space, then they would have to come in
for a conditional use permit within the mixed use district.
Performance venues are a permitted use in the mixed use district,
but they would have to come in for that specific conditional use permit.
They're not asking for that at this time.
Our understanding is that the pavilion's really only going to be used as a picnic
space
or just a shelter for the continuing business of
the Wickham Farms.
But essentially there is a process already with the town if they wanted to
use that, but they're not asking for that at this time.
And then as far as the maintenance of
vehicles
in the pavilion,
the applicant indicated that's really just for storage of vehicles.
We had discussed having a condition in the approval resolution where
we would
prohibit
the maintenance of vehicles in the pavilion.
Speaking with town staff, the
pavilion is designed for any runoff
from the pavilion to go into the storm water management facility.
So that's really how it would be designed.
So the initial concern of runoff going into
areas where it shouldn't, or going into the wetland areas, it really
is designed to go into the storm water management facility.
And then also, there were concerns from staff of adding in a condition
about the maintenance of farm operation vehicles in the approval
resolution, given that the board has limited jurisdiction
to limit farm operations,
given the
preemption of ag and markets
on
those
concerns and those protections on farm operations.
So given those considerations from the public comments that we
got at the public hearing, town staff determined that
we likely shouldn't add those conditions
into the final approval resolution.
And so that's how we came to the draft that we prepared for
you tonight.
So,
I don't know if we have any questions based on that discussion or...
Thanks, Matt.
Yeah.I just wanted to note the other public comments we heard were around
noise.
Yes.
And
I know in the resolution you did evaluate
the proximity of the next
residential space to-
Right... where this facility will be. But was there any further discussion
in the
review meeting or otherwise, or thoughts on that?
No,
we looked at the existing buffering.
So they're not proposing any additional buffering, right?
There is existing buffering on the nearest property line directly to
the
west, and then to the south there is the berm and
also vegetation along there.
But again, the distance from
that pavilion to
those property lines seems
sufficient for that type of buffering.
And then, yeah, consideration that
the bounce pads or the use of that
space was already for the
business or for the operation of it, and it's not
fundamentally changing by putting the pavilion there.
And so that's where we came to the conclusion that the
buffering from
just in the space, but also the vegetative and the
topography, the berm that they have there, we feel is sufficient
buffering for any nominal noise. Ultimately,
our understanding is there's no noise being created
just from the
pavilion itself.
Thank you.
Yeah.
Yeah, that's a pretty substantial berm.
You can see it-
Yeah
... even from Sweet's Corners looking across there, and that's got to
be, I don't know, 1,200, 1,500 feet back.
Mm-hmm.
So...
Thank you.
Okay. So any other
discussion
on the
approval resolution?
No? Okay.
Motion to approve?
So first can we have a motion for the adoption of
parts two and three of the EAF?
Oh, I'm sorry. I missed that.
Okay.
I move to approve parts two and three of the EAF.
I'll second.
Kauer?
Kauer, aye.
Aiken?
Aiken, aye.
Daly?
Daly, aye.
McCooy?
McCooy, aye.
Tydings?
Tydings, aye.
Okay. And then the
resolution, I'll move to approve.
I'll move to approve the resolution.
Or you moved?
Bob moved it. Second.
Thank you.
Kanakow?
Kanakow, I.
Aiken?
Aiken, I.
Daly?
Daly, I.
McCooley?
McCooley, I.
Tydings?
Tydings, I.
All right.
Moving into the fourth tabled application,
480-484 Plank Road, the Malcho's building
addition.
Going through the tabling resolution, there was
concern about any
spill or remediation information tied to this site.
We were able to look closer and just at
the history of the site and find that there was a spill record that
dated back to 2004. But the DEC records and
town records indicate that all of the required remediation was
completed in 2006, and there haven't been any other
spill records since that time. So we feel that at this time there's no
other required remediation based on
the town's knowledge and from what the DEC has reported.
The one thing that we are following up on is
there was also concerns about what prior approvals were tied
to the 24/7 operation of the
gas station convenience store. And we looked at the
2013 conditional use permit and found
that there were certain details of the
approval of the conditional use permit.
Two, in particular,
the conditions stated that they would not change the
means of ingress and egress, and they wouldn't
add any additional lighting. So with those, we're
considering that the conditional use permit will need to be
either
modified or expanded based on the
road vies or with the submission of this site plan.
So, we are working with the town attorney as well as
the ZBA because this was a conditional use permit
issued by the Zoning Board of Appeals.
And so we're discussing with the town attorney and the zoning
board liaison to figure out if this will go
to the zoning board who originally cited, or
the planning board now being the board of jurisdiction over this
application for preliminary final site
plan. And so,
pending those decisions or pending more information, we recommend no
action at this time considering we're still waiting for all the materials from
the tabling resolution from the last meeting.
Okay.
Yeah. A motion to keep tabled. We can just take no action. Okay.
Yeah, because it's the same terms of the last- Okay ... tabling resolution.
Can I make one comment?
Sure.
Can the town provide that remediation history to the
applicant?
Yeah. Yes.
I think it's important that they're aware of that.
Yes.
It didn't come up on
the
EAF mapper. And
we're thinking that it didn't do that for one or two
reasons. One being, it was tied to, I believe it
was 1640 Empire Boulevard. And when the
Malcho station was approved,
I believe it was with that approval that they changed the address to the
480 Plank Road. And then also,
the remediation was completed in 2006.
So we're thinking that the EAF mapper just didn't
identify it either because the address wasn't quite right, hoping
it's not just that. But it could have just been because
remediation is complete, and it wouldn't trigger any additional review because
of that.
But yes, we'll provide that. And
the decision on whether or not it goes to ZBA or planning board,
definitely
we want to have that well understood before we
notify the applicant of what their next steps are, because then they'll have
certain deadlines for getting to a public hearing before the
ZBA or the planning board.
Okay.
So moving into our
fifth tabled application, 1801.
So the
planning department prepared a lead agency letter to send
out to Ag and Markets, New
York State DEC,
the
New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation,
and Monroe County Department of
Planning and Development,
Monroe County Water Authority, Penfield Town Board, and the Webster Central School
District,
where the planning board declares its intent to serve as lead agency
for this project.
And we also have a tabling resolution
reflecting the board's intent to serve as lead agency.
Okay, any discussion on that?
Okay. I will
take a motion to move that.
Second.
Sorry. Again, we want to keep the SEQR-
Keep them separate
... table resolution separate.
Okay. So first we'll declare the planning board as
lead agency.
And I'll
make that motion.
I'll second. Thank you.
Knauer?
Knauer. Aye.
Akin.
Akin. Aye.
Daly.
Daly. Aye.
McCooey.
McCooey. Aye.
Tydings.
Tydings. Aye.
And then the second motion is for the tabling resolution.
Yes, table pending written responses to the-
Pending responses-
... pending resolution
... as described.
Yeah.
And I'll make that motion.
Second. Thank you.
Knauer.
Knauer. Aye.
Akin.
Akin. Aye.
Daly.
Daly. Aye.
McCooey.
McCooey. Aye.
Tydings.
Tydings. Aye.
And as Bob mentioned at the beginning of the meeting, just one last new business
item.
So at the March 12th meeting, we
discussed the Bramble Ridge application
at,
sorry, 35 Apollonia Lane. And we
voted on the chairman to sign the
revised plat map, but we also wanted to take
action to amend the approval resolution
from November 13, 2025. So the approval
resolution before you mentions how the applicant submitted a letter and a
revised subdivision plan to the board, requesting an amendment to the original
approval resolution,
allowing for the merger of the proposed residential lot
404 and the remaining lands, lot 405,
changing the approval resolution from five
lots to four. There's no change to the number of
single-family dwellings on the
subdivision.
We also mentioned that
it complies with all dimensional requirements of a rural
agricultural two zoning district, and the town engineer
indicated a preference for the stormwater detention area to be
on the residential lot rather than on the remaining lands
lot.
And so, yeah, we're just looking for the board to
vote on approving the amended approval resolution.
All right.
Any discussion?
No. I'm just curious as I know that they were supposed to
fix the roads and all the stuff.
Yes.
Where are we with that?
I guess I don't know. I know that is
one of the conditions in the original approval resolution.
Right.
And this approval resolution doesn't
modify that.
Okay.
So
it is compliance with
the
conditions approval of the seeker findings and the original approval resolution
and these.
Yes, I know that's something they've been working on and something that we've
been,
yeah, trying to
require them or get them to address a number of years.
But no, I don't have the latest on that, but I can follow up with the board on a
condition of that.
Yeah. Okay. Great.
Yeah.
Okay.
Okay, with that, I'll
make
a motion to
revise the original
approval resolution as noted.
I'll second. Thank you.
Knauer.
Knauer. Aye.
Akin.
Akin. Aye.
Daly.
Daly. Aye.
McCooey.
McCooey. Aye.
Tydings.
Tydings. Aye.
Okay. Anything else before the board?
That was all the business I had for the board this evening.
Okay. Thank you everyone.
I'll call this meeting adjourned.