[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.

[5:43] 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.

Planning Board Meeting - March 26, 2026 | Work Session

Agenda

Transcript