[0:04] Welcome everyone to the March 26th,
[0:08] 2026 meeting of the Penfield Planning Board.
[0:13] We will start with the pledge of allegiance.
[0:20] I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of
[0:23] America and to the Republic for which it stands,
[0:27] one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty
[0:32] and justice for all.
[0:39] Okay, Michelle, please call the roll.
[0:41] Knauer?
[0:42] Knauer here.
[0:43] Aiken?
[0:44] Aiken here.
[0:45] Daly?
[0:46] Daly here.
[0:47] McCooy?
[0:48] McCooy here.
[0:49] Tydings?
[0:49] Tydings here.
[0:50] Krueger?
[0:51] Krueger's here.
[0:52] Prinzing?
[0:53] Prinzing here.
[0:54] Ferrigno here.
[0:57] Thank you.
[0:58] And
[1:00] I assume everybody had a chance to look at the minutes.
[1:04] Thank you, Michelle. Nice job.
[1:06] Thank you.
[1:06] It was a longer one.
[1:10] So if there are no
[1:13] changes, corrections, questions,
[1:17] anyone move to approve? Tydings. Make the
[1:21] motion to approve. I'll second.
[1:23] Knauer?
[1:24] Knauer, I.
[1:25] Aiken?
[1:26] Aiken, I.
[1:27] Daly?
[1:28] Daly, I.
[1:29] McCooy?
[1:30] McCooy, I.
[1:31] Tydings?
[1:31] Tydings, I.
[1:35] Okay. Tonight is a work session. We have five tabled
[1:38] applications on the agenda.
[1:41] And as you know, there's one
[1:46] new business, a revised resolution,
[1:52] based on some work we did at the last meeting.
[1:55] So
[1:56] with that, Matt, take it away.
[1:59] So the first tabled application, 1320 Harris Road, the DeRoller
[2:03] Subdivision.
[2:04] We have no news from the applicant or their engineers.
[2:08] Still waiting on clarification from the New York State DEC
[2:12] on their wetland delineation.
[2:16] And so at this time, the board doesn't need to take
[2:20] any action to continue tabling.
[2:26] Okay.
[2:27] All right.
[2:28] Moving into the next one, 1384 Empire Boulevard,
[2:32] the Verizon antenna.
[2:35] We have prepared the parts two and three of the
[2:38] EAF pursuant to SEQR.
[2:41] We've also prepared a waterfront consistency
[2:45] memo,
[2:47] and an approval resolution with conditions for the approval of
[2:51] the conditional use permit.
[2:54] I don't know if the board members had any questions for any of those items that we
[2:58] prepared.
[3:00] I had just a little bit of cleanup. They
[3:03] all look good to me overall.
[3:06] Yeah.
[3:06] On the part two EAF,
[3:10] we checked the box for
[3:13] impact on human health, which was number 16.
[3:16] The proposed action may have an impact on human health from exposure to new or
[3:20] existing sources of contaminants.
[3:22] And I don't know why we checked yes there, and I would just
[3:26] propose we check no, given the-
[3:28] So
[3:30] based on-
[3:30] I might have read the part three as well.
[3:32] So based on
[3:33] their
[3:37] responses in part one, where they note that
[3:41] there are emissions during construction.
[3:47] So,
[3:48] we say that yes, there may be an impact, but all of the impacts are
[3:52] small or no impact may occur. So we are acknowledging
[3:56] that there are emissions that could be detrimental to human
[4:00] health during construction because there are emissions
[4:04] during that. But,
[4:07] when we clarify in that part two that the
[4:11] no or small impact may occur, that's where we're clarifying that even though
[4:14] there are a chance of those
[4:18] impacts to health, they're small or insignificant.
[4:22] Got it. Yeah. No, I appreciate that clarification.
[4:25] And
[4:26] overall, I'm fine with that approach.
[4:28] It seems
[4:30] extremely conservative, I guess is my reaction.
[4:34] With
[4:36] cellphone towers, you hear a lot of issues with RF and my
[4:39] understanding of the law and we can leave with the council to tell us is like, we
[4:43] can't consider that. And I don't want to suggest that the board has any
[4:47] concerns about RF or evaluated that whatsoever.
[4:50] Yeah, no. And yeah, in the, as you mentioned, the
[4:54] part three, we clarify that
[4:58] their reasoning for the
[5:00] health effects that we are considering,
[5:03] are those ones that are really only related to those
[5:07] emissions.
[5:09] I'm just going to double-check verse 16. Yeah.
[5:13] Right. It talks about historical contamination at the site.
[5:17] Right. And that there was the remediation that occurred there.
[5:22] But yeah, ultimately, the
[5:25] findings of the board or the findings through the SEQR review is that the proposed
[5:29] development will not have an impact on human health.
[5:33] Okay. Yeah, I'm fine with that, leaving it as is, as long as it
[5:37] sounds like we're clear on the record on what we were talking about.
[5:39] Absolutely. Yeah.
[5:42] Okay.
[5:42] Okay.
[5:43] I have one other item on cleanup.
[5:47] The draft resolution overall looks good to me.
[5:50] The one thing that we don't reference that to me was at
[5:54] least how I approached the application and I think how the applicant approached the
[5:58] application was the specific criteria for a conditional
[6:02] use permit for
[6:04] wireless communications facility,
[6:08] whichThat
[6:10] we didn't make specific findings there with respect to that section of the code.
[6:14] To me, I think it's as simple as saying, in addition
[6:18] to the basic findings under, what is it?
[6:23] 13.3, we're also found it consistent with
[6:27] 13.11.
[6:28] Okay.
[6:32] Yeah.
[6:33] We can
[6:35] revise the approval resolution.
[6:39] Let's see.
[6:56] Yeah. I suppose that would go
[6:57] underneath
[7:01] item 20,
[7:03] on page three, where the board bases its decision to approve
[7:09] its determination of environmental non-significance of the following
[7:12] findings relating to chapter 250.
[7:15] Related to that, for the conditional use, we would add in that
[7:18] specific reference to the
[7:23] article related to citing
[7:28] telecommunications.
[7:32] Okay. Yeah. I think that change makes sense.
[7:35] And then,
[7:37] otherwise, no further comments. I think they're ready to roll with
[7:40] that change.
[7:43] Sure.
[7:45] Okay.
[7:46] Anyone else?
[7:48] So I think that's three items.
[7:51] Three items.
[7:52] Okay.
[7:53] Or, sorry.
[7:54] No, go ahead.
[7:55] Just in summary, the first one would be adoption
[7:58] of parts two and three of the EAF. Item number two
[8:02] would be authorizing the chair to sign the waterfront
[8:06] consistency memo.
[8:07] Mm-hmm.
[8:08] And then the third being approving, with conditions,
[8:11] the approval for a conditional use permit with the
[8:15] recommended changes.
[8:15] With the recommendations.
[8:17] Yes.
[8:17] Okay.
[8:20] I'll make that motion as Matt just recited it.
[8:24] Thank you.
[8:24] They all have to be separate actions.
[8:26] Oh, they do? Okay. Well-
[8:28] My understanding is that we would do-
[8:30] Gee, I thought Pete called me out on that the other day.
[8:34] That's true. Yeah. Now referring back to that meeting, I think that we
[8:38] can...
[8:39] No. I'm going to say that because
[8:43] that was for...
[8:46] I'm fairly certain, at least in the past, we've always taken a separate vote
[8:50] for-
[8:51] Yeah
[8:51] ... the EAF.
[8:51] Let's do that. We don't want to-
[8:53] I think you would separate the SEQR from-
[8:54] Yeah. We don't want to muck it up.
[8:56] From the decision.
[8:56] Okay.
[8:57] Yes.
[8:57] So we're voting on the motion is for the
[9:01] EAF, parts two and three.
[9:05] I'll second.
[9:07] Kanakowar.
[9:08] Kanakowar, aye.
[9:09] Aiken.
[9:09] Aiken, aye.
[9:10] Daly.
[9:11] Daly, aye.
[9:12] McCooy.
[9:13] McCooy, aye.
[9:13] Tydings.
[9:14] Tydings, aye.
[9:19] Okay, and then the second on the
[9:21] approval resolution.
[9:25] Yeah.
[9:25] And it's both-
[9:27] Waterfront cons-
[9:28] ... the waterfront consistency as well as the-
[9:30] Yes. Those we'll do together.
[9:31] Okay.
[9:31] Yeah.
[9:32] I'll move to approve the waterfront consistency determination
[9:36] as well as the approval for a conditional use permit with that one
[9:40] change I noted on the record.
[9:42] I'll second.
[9:44] Kanakowar.
[9:45] Kanakowar, aye.
[9:46] Aiken.
[9:47] Aiken, aye.
[9:47] Daly.
[9:48] Daly, aye.
[9:49] McCooy.
[9:49] McCooy, aye.
[9:50] Tydings.
[9:50] Tydings, aye.
[9:58] Okay.
[9:59] All right. So
[10:01] that takes care of 1384.
[10:05] Moving on to our third tabled application, 1315
[10:10] Sweets Corners Road,
[10:12] the Wickham Farms Pavilion.
[10:15] Also for that application, we prepared parts two and three
[10:19] EAF pursuant to SEQR,
[10:21] and then we also drafted an approval resolution,
[10:25] with the conditions for the application for preliminary,
[10:29] final, and site plan approval.
[10:33] The tabling resolution from the last application,
[10:38] or from the public hearing,
[10:41] we were looking at
[10:43] some information, some guidance from the New York State DEC
[10:47] regarding whether or not, or what the town should
[10:51] consider when recommending a
[10:54] developer
[10:56] get or request a JD. In this case, there weren't
[11:01] the informational wetlands or
[11:05] any of the previously mapped wetlands or any of the national wetland
[11:08] inventory within 100 feet of the project.
[11:12] The town took the most conservative look, or we looked
[11:16] at what the DEC
[11:20] recommended we look at, so all of those wetlands, but also
[11:23] USGS streams, drainage ways, ponds, other water bodies,
[11:28] soil mapping, poorly drained soils, or wetter drainage
[11:31] classes,
[11:33] or using aerial imagery to identify undeveloped
[11:37] areas with natural vegetation,
[11:40] and found that there were no areas within
[11:44] 100 feet of the proposed site or
[11:49] of the pavilion that would meet that classification of a
[11:53] wet area. So,
[11:56] given that
[11:58] finding that there's no wet areas in the project area,
[12:02] we aren't recommending that the applicant get that or pursue
[12:06] that JD
[12:08] request,And
[12:12] with that, that was really the only outstanding item.
[12:15] I know that we also received public comments
[12:18] regarding
[12:21] the use of the pavilion for a performance space,
[12:26] and that we looked at.
[12:29] Originally, we had discussed at the last planning board meeting having that be a
[12:33] condition, but ultimately the town already has a process
[12:37] for that. If the applicant wanted the pavilion to be used
[12:41] as a performance space, then they would have to come in
[12:44] for a conditional use permit within the mixed use district.
[12:48] Performance venues are a permitted use in the mixed use district,
[12:53] but they would have to come in for that specific conditional use permit.
[12:57] They're not asking for that at this time.
[12:59] Our understanding is that the pavilion's really only going to be used as a picnic
[13:03] space
[13:04] or just a shelter for the continuing business of
[13:09] the Wickham Farms.
[13:12] But essentially there is a process already with the town if they wanted to
[13:16] use that, but they're not asking for that at this time.
[13:20] And then as far as the maintenance of
[13:23] vehicles
[13:25] in the pavilion,
[13:27] the applicant indicated that's really just for storage of vehicles.
[13:31] We had discussed having a condition in the approval resolution where
[13:35] we would
[13:36] prohibit
[13:41] the maintenance of vehicles in the pavilion.
[13:43] Speaking with town staff, the
[13:47] pavilion is designed for any runoff
[13:51] from the pavilion to go into the storm water management facility.
[13:54] So that's really how it would be designed.
[13:56] So the initial concern of runoff going into
[14:01] areas where it shouldn't, or going into the wetland areas, it really
[14:05] is designed to go into the storm water management facility.
[14:09] And then also, there were concerns from staff of adding in a condition
[14:13] about the maintenance of farm operation vehicles in the approval
[14:17] resolution, given that the board has limited jurisdiction
[14:21] to limit farm operations,
[14:27] given the
[14:29] preemption of ag and markets
[14:32] on
[14:33] those
[14:34] concerns and those protections on farm operations.
[14:37] So given those considerations from the public comments that we
[14:41] got at the public hearing, town staff determined that
[14:45] we likely shouldn't add those conditions
[14:49] into the final approval resolution.
[14:52] And so that's how we came to the draft that we prepared for
[14:56] you tonight.
[14:58] So,
[14:59] I don't know if we have any questions based on that discussion or...
[15:05] Thanks, Matt.
[15:06] Yeah.I just wanted to note the other public comments we heard were around
[15:10] noise.
[15:11] Yes.
[15:11] And
[15:12] I know in the resolution you did evaluate
[15:16] the proximity of the next
[15:20] residential space to-
[15:22] Right... where this facility will be. But was there any further discussion
[15:27] in the
[15:29] review meeting or otherwise, or thoughts on that?
[15:32] No,
[15:34] we looked at the existing buffering.
[15:38] So they're not proposing any additional buffering, right?
[15:42] There is existing buffering on the nearest property line directly to
[15:46] the
[15:48] west, and then to the south there is the berm and
[15:52] also vegetation along there.
[15:55] But again, the distance from
[15:58] that pavilion to
[16:01] those property lines seems
[16:05] sufficient for that type of buffering.
[16:08] And then, yeah, consideration that
[16:11] the bounce pads or the use of that
[16:14] space was already for the
[16:19] business or for the operation of it, and it's not
[16:22] fundamentally changing by putting the pavilion there.
[16:26] And so that's where we came to the conclusion that the
[16:30] buffering from
[16:32] just in the space, but also the vegetative and the
[16:35] topography, the berm that they have there, we feel is sufficient
[16:39] buffering for any nominal noise. Ultimately,
[16:43] our understanding is there's no noise being created
[16:48] just from the
[16:50] pavilion itself.
[16:52] Thank you.
[16:53] Yeah.
[16:53] Yeah, that's a pretty substantial berm.
[16:56] You can see it-
[16:57] Yeah
[16:57] ... even from Sweet's Corners looking across there, and that's got to
[17:01] be, I don't know, 1,200, 1,500 feet back.
[17:05] Mm-hmm.
[17:05] So...
[17:07] Thank you.
[17:17] Okay. So any other
[17:20] discussion
[17:22] on the
[17:24] approval resolution?
[17:30] No? Okay.
[17:32] Motion to approve?
[17:34] So first can we have a motion for the adoption of
[17:38] parts two and three of the EAF?
[17:39] Oh, I'm sorry. I missed that.
[17:43] Okay.
[17:44] I move to approve parts two and three of the EAF.
[17:50] I'll second.
[17:52] Kauer?
[17:53] Kauer, aye.
[17:54] Aiken?
[17:55] Aiken, aye.
[17:56] Daly?
[17:56] Daly, aye.
[17:57] McCooy?
[17:58] McCooy, aye.
[17:59] Tydings?
[17:59] Tydings, aye.
[18:03] Okay. And then the
[18:06] resolution, I'll move to approve.
[18:13] I'll move to approve the resolution.
[18:15] Or you moved?
[18:17] Bob moved it. Second.
[18:18] Thank you.
[18:20] Kanakow?
[18:21] Kanakow, I.
[18:21] Aiken?
[18:22] Aiken, I.
[18:23] Daly?
[18:23] Daly, I.
[18:24] McCooley?
[18:25] McCooley, I.
[18:26] Tydings?
[18:26] Tydings, I.
[18:32] All right.
[18:36] Moving into the fourth tabled application,
[18:39] 480-484 Plank Road, the Malcho's building
[18:43] addition.
[18:45] Going through the tabling resolution, there was
[18:49] concern about any
[18:53] spill or remediation information tied to this site.
[18:56] We were able to look closer and just at
[19:00] the history of the site and find that there was a spill record that
[19:04] dated back to 2004. But the DEC records and
[19:08] town records indicate that all of the required remediation was
[19:11] completed in 2006, and there haven't been any other
[19:16] spill records since that time. So we feel that at this time there's no
[19:20] other required remediation based on
[19:25] the town's knowledge and from what the DEC has reported.
[19:29] The one thing that we are following up on is
[19:33] there was also concerns about what prior approvals were tied
[19:38] to the 24/7 operation of the
[19:41] gas station convenience store. And we looked at the
[19:45] 2013 conditional use permit and found
[19:49] that there were certain details of the
[19:53] approval of the conditional use permit.
[19:55] Two, in particular,
[19:58] the conditions stated that they would not change the
[20:02] means of ingress and egress, and they wouldn't
[20:06] add any additional lighting. So with those, we're
[20:10] considering that the conditional use permit will need to be
[20:14] either
[20:16] modified or expanded based on the
[20:21] road vies or with the submission of this site plan.
[20:25] So, we are working with the town attorney as well as
[20:29] the ZBA because this was a conditional use permit
[20:33] issued by the Zoning Board of Appeals.
[20:35] And so we're discussing with the town attorney and the zoning
[20:39] board liaison to figure out if this will go
[20:43] to the zoning board who originally cited, or
[20:47] the planning board now being the board of jurisdiction over this
[20:52] application for preliminary final site
[20:55] plan. And so,
[20:58] pending those decisions or pending more information, we recommend no
[21:02] action at this time considering we're still waiting for all the materials from
[21:06] the tabling resolution from the last meeting.
[21:09] Okay.
[21:09] Yeah. A motion to keep tabled. We can just take no action. Okay.
[21:13] Yeah, because it's the same terms of the last- Okay ... tabling resolution.
[21:16] Can I make one comment?
[21:18] Sure.
[21:20] Can the town provide that remediation history to the
[21:23] applicant?
[21:24] Yeah. Yes.
[21:25] I think it's important that they're aware of that.
[21:28] Yes.
[21:29] It didn't come up on
[21:34] the
[21:36] EAF mapper. And
[21:39] we're thinking that it didn't do that for one or two
[21:42] reasons. One being, it was tied to, I believe it
[21:46] was 1640 Empire Boulevard. And when the
[21:50] Malcho station was approved,
[21:53] I believe it was with that approval that they changed the address to the
[21:56] 480 Plank Road. And then also,
[22:00] the remediation was completed in 2006.
[22:03] So we're thinking that the EAF mapper just didn't
[22:07] identify it either because the address wasn't quite right, hoping
[22:11] it's not just that. But it could have just been because
[22:15] remediation is complete, and it wouldn't trigger any additional review because
[22:19] of that.
[22:22] But yes, we'll provide that. And
[22:26] the decision on whether or not it goes to ZBA or planning board,
[22:31] definitely
[22:32] we want to have that well understood before we
[22:36] notify the applicant of what their next steps are, because then they'll have
[22:39] certain deadlines for getting to a public hearing before the
[22:42] ZBA or the planning board.
[22:50] Okay.
[22:52] So moving into our
[22:55] fifth tabled application, 1801.
[23:00] So the
[23:04] planning department prepared a lead agency letter to send
[23:07] out to Ag and Markets, New
[23:11] York State DEC,
[23:13] the
[23:14] New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation,
[23:19] and Monroe County Department of
[23:20] Planning and Development,
[23:24] Monroe County Water Authority, Penfield Town Board, and the Webster Central School
[23:28] District,
[23:30] where the planning board declares its intent to serve as lead agency
[23:34] for this project.
[23:36] And we also have a tabling resolution
[23:40] reflecting the board's intent to serve as lead agency.
[23:47] Okay, any discussion on that?
[23:51] Okay. I will
[23:54] take a motion to move that.
[23:59] Second.
[23:59] Sorry. Again, we want to keep the SEQR-
[24:02] Keep them separate
[24:03] ... table resolution separate.
[24:03] Okay. So first we'll declare the planning board as
[24:08] lead agency.
[24:10] And I'll
[24:11] make that motion.
[24:13] I'll second. Thank you.
[24:16] Knauer?
[24:17] Knauer. Aye.
[24:17] Akin.
[24:18] Akin. Aye.
[24:19] Daly.
[24:19] Daly. Aye.
[24:20] McCooey.
[24:21] McCooey. Aye.
[24:22] Tydings.
[24:22] Tydings. Aye.
[24:27] And then the second motion is for the tabling resolution.
[24:30] Yes, table pending written responses to the-
[24:33] Pending responses-
[24:34] ... pending resolution
[24:34] ... as described.
[24:36] Yeah.
[24:37] And I'll make that motion.
[24:39] Second. Thank you.
[24:42] Knauer.
[24:43] Knauer. Aye.
[24:43] Akin.
[24:44] Akin. Aye.
[24:45] Daly.
[24:45] Daly. Aye.
[24:46] McCooey.
[24:47] McCooey. Aye.
[24:48] Tydings.
[24:48] Tydings. Aye.
[24:54] And as Bob mentioned at the beginning of the meeting, just one last new business
[24:58] item.
[25:00] So at the March 12th meeting, we
[25:04] discussed the Bramble Ridge application
[25:07] at,
[25:10] sorry, 35 Apollonia Lane. And we
[25:14] voted on the chairman to sign the
[25:18] revised plat map, but we also wanted to take
[25:22] action to amend the approval resolution
[25:26] from November 13, 2025. So the approval
[25:29] resolution before you mentions how the applicant submitted a letter and a
[25:33] revised subdivision plan to the board, requesting an amendment to the original
[25:37] approval resolution,
[25:39] allowing for the merger of the proposed residential lot
[25:42] 404 and the remaining lands, lot 405,
[25:46] changing the approval resolution from five
[25:50] lots to four. There's no change to the number of
[25:53] single-family dwellings on the
[25:57] subdivision.
[25:59] We also mentioned that
[26:02] it complies with all dimensional requirements of a rural
[26:06] agricultural two zoning district, and the town engineer
[26:10] indicated a preference for the stormwater detention area to be
[26:13] on the residential lot rather than on the remaining lands
[26:17] lot.
[26:19] And so, yeah, we're just looking for the board to
[26:23] vote on approving the amended approval resolution.
[26:28] All right.
[26:30] Any discussion?
[26:32] No. I'm just curious as I know that they were supposed to
[26:36] fix the roads and all the stuff.
[26:38] Yes.
[26:38] Where are we with that?
[26:41] I guess I don't know. I know that is
[26:46] one of the conditions in the original approval resolution.
[26:49] Right.
[26:50] And this approval resolution doesn't
[26:54] modify that.
[26:57] Okay.
[26:57] So
[26:59] it is compliance with
[27:01] the
[27:02] conditions approval of the seeker findings and the original approval resolution
[27:06] and these.
[27:08] Yes, I know that's something they've been working on and something that we've
[27:12] been,
[27:14] yeah, trying to
[27:18] require them or get them to address a number of years.
[27:22] But no, I don't have the latest on that, but I can follow up with the board on a
[27:25] condition of that.
[27:27] Yeah. Okay. Great.
[27:28] Yeah.
[27:28] Okay.
[27:31] Okay, with that, I'll
[27:33] make
[27:38] a motion to
[27:40] revise the original
[27:44] approval resolution as noted.
[27:48] I'll second. Thank you.
[27:51] Knauer.
[27:52] Knauer. Aye.
[27:53] Akin.
[27:53] Akin. Aye.
[27:54] Daly.
[27:55] Daly. Aye.
[27:56] McCooey.
[27:56] McCooey. Aye.
[27:57] Tydings.
[27:58] Tydings. Aye.
[28:04] Okay. Anything else before the board?
[28:07] That was all the business I had for the board this evening.
[28:09] Okay. Thank you everyone.
[28:12] I'll call this meeting adjourned.