Town Board closes environmental review of the Xerox-area road project, 4-0

The Webster Town Board voted 4-0 Thursday to issue a negative declaration for the Webster Transportation Infrastructure Project, closing environmental review of the road and trail package tied to the Xerox campus redevelopment without an environmental impact statement. A negative declaration means the board finds the project will not have a significant adverse environmental impact.

The vote came after Town Engineer Keith Mortimer told the board, "I'm not in a position to fully answer" questions a board member had sent that afternoon. The attorney for the town told the board a negative declaration "could be determined tonight without any disruption to the determination of the alienation issue," and said, "I haven't been privy to the study or the substance or the merits of it."

All nine items on the agenda passed 4-0. Councilwoman Jennifer Wright was absent, and the roll call on each item named four members: Supervisor Alex Scialdone, Councilman John Cahill, Councilman Nick Hunter and Councilman Garrett Wagner. Five people spoke during Open to the Floor.

How the board reached the vote

The chair opened item 7 by saying the town engineer had received questions that afternoon, and invited a response. Mortimer said they arrived "about 5:00" and that "we've not had an opportunity to complete our responses." A board member apologized, saying the questions had been written Tuesday and were found still sitting in a drafts folder. "Should we reschedule this?" a board member asked.

The open question was whether the trail in the project is parkland subject to alienation, which a board member called "a fairly legal nuance thing." Mortimer said, "I'm not prepared to answer that tonight," and told the board nothing new was being presented and the project's scope was unchanged.

The town received no comment on Parts 1 and 2 of the environmental assessment "from either the public or from the board itself," Mortimer said, and impacts were found to be "no or small." Delay would carry a cost, Mortimer said: "an effect on the town being reimbursed for monies that we have spent" through the grant.

The attorney for the town said the alienation issue "was not brought to my attention," and described having had "a brief opportunity to look at it during the public comment." Of the study behind the determination, the attorney said, "I haven't been privy to the study or the substance or the merits of it." A negative declaration "could be determined tonight without any disruption to the determination of the alienation issue," the attorney said, provided the change to the trail is minor.

Asked what would follow if the board got it wrong, the attorney for the town said that as long as the board follows the review's procedural steps "you're fine," and that otherwise "there'll be some type of action, Article 78 or otherwise." A board member replied that an Article 78 proceeding "would bring this to a halt."

Mortimer said the town has met formally twice with the Friends of Webster Trail, and that the proposed alignment "received concurrence" from the group and its trail steward. A board member noted the stewards' comments are "but one factor," and that the board "still has to determine independently ... what level the impact is."

A board member said that if timing matters, "especially in the potential reimbursement for the town," it was "important for us to move forward with the vote this evening." Shortly before the motion the board was told the project had had "a very in-depth review that we've been going through with you guys in that presentation a few weeks ago." The board classified the action Type I, a classification corrected on the record before the motion, and voted to issue the negative declaration. Scialdone, Wagner, Cahill and Hunter each voted aye.

The objection from the floor

Earlier in the evening a speaker had urged the board not to issue the declaration, arguing that the state's review law requires a lead agency to "take a hard look" at the areas of environmental concern and give "a reasoned written explanation for its determination."

The objection was to how the town packaged the work. The town has treated the transportation work as one project, the speaker said, and the Chiyoda Drive extension should be examined on its own. That piece "does remove a significant wooded parcel that acts as a wildlife corridor." Culverting and diverting the stream in the project's path "permanently alters the natural ecosystem" and raises water temperatures downstream, the speaker said, identifying the stream as a Mill Creek tributary. The filing the Ledger reviewed does not name the stream, so that identification is the speaker's.

The speaker also argued that the project's traffic findings would put users of the Bird Song Trail at increased risk, that the comprehensive plan's goal of reducing curb cuts along Route 404 should apply to entrances on Route 250, and that the town should weigh whether the new connection is necessary at all.

"A positive declaration would not stop the project," the speaker said. "It would ensure that alternatives, mitigation measures, and public comments are considered before the town commits to an infrastructure program that may shape the corridor for decades."

The town's filing describes the same work. Supplemental responses say the two road extensions will clear about 4.11 acres of wooded area, and that a culvert would enclose 800 square feet of an existing streambed. The stream falls under federal jurisdiction as a Water of the United States, and an application has been submitted to the Army Corps of Engineers. NYSDEC classifies the stream Class C. The stream is not subject to state Protection of Waters permitting.

The board took up the packaging point during its discussion: under the way the grant is written, the town is "avoiding segmentation by including it in and not calling it out as its own separate project." The board did not take up the speaker's other arguments, among them the stream, the Bird Song Trail crossing, the curb cuts and whether the connection is necessary.

Other business

Item 1 took only the Aug. 20 workshop minutes. The chair said the town's regular attorney needed "to weigh in on a couple changes" and is on vacation, so the draft meeting minutes will be published online and go to the board at the next meeting.

Item 8 authorized the supervisor to sign a benefits contract for Police Capt. Mark Reed. A board member said the captain's post was created by resolution a few years ago and is not a union position, so it lacked "the same benefits, longevity benefits that a union position would have." The resolution mimics union benefits to encourage a captain "who is potentially up for retirement next year to stay with us."

Item 9 approved recycling a Dell monitor from the Assessment Department. Items 2 through 6 were bills, a prepaid warrant, purchase orders and the 2026 budget transfers and amendments.

The other four speakers

A student described growing in her faith and "learning what it means to live as a Christian young woman." No school or district was named. The Town Board does not set school policy, and the floor rules the chair read set no limit on subject. What has been difficult, she said, is "going to school every day and constantly seeing pride and LGBTQ related messages around me." She told the board, "I understand that other people have different beliefs than I do and I'm not asking anyone to change who they are or what they personally believe." Her ask: "I'm not asking my school to promote my beliefs over someone else's. I'm asking that my beliefs be given the same consideration and respect."

A second speaker, who said, "I'm a combat veteran and proud resident of the town of Webster," spoke about humility in leadership, applied to a pride flag raised at Town Hall that later came down. "When the government chooses to recognize a particular group by displaying its symbol, it also creates an expectation around that recognition," the speaker said. "The division was not simply created by removing the flag. The government placed itself in the position when the decision was originally made to raise a flag representing one particular group."

The speaker credited a resident who spoke at the board's last meeting, a retired priest who said he and his husband live in Webster. "I totally see people's point that it was misplaced in either taking the place of the American flag or being higher than it," the priest told the board Aug. 20. "The optics of taking it down has been received by the LGBTQ plus community as a sign that some of our neighbors don't think that we belong here."

"If a standard is established for one group, we have to be willing to apply that same standard fairly to everyone," the speaker added. The American flag "does not represent one race, one religion, one political party, one sexual orientation or one particular cause," the speaker said. "It represents all of us."

The board adopted a flag policy on a 3-2 vote June 4, according to the town's adopted minutes. Resolution No. 211 made the American and New York State flags the only flags to be displayed on town-owned property, and by its terms took effect June 5. The only basis the resolution states is that the town "does not currently have a defined flag policy." The resolution does not mention the pride flag, and the same minutes record no separate vote to remove it.

A fourth speaker asked whether the board had taken recent action on legalizing recreational marijuana. Under the floor rules the chair read, questions are not answered the same night and speakers are asked to leave their information with the town clerk. The chair answered this one anyway: "We are not answering questions at this time, but no, I will state that for the record. No, Webster is not opting in, nor do we have intentions to bring it up." The speaker, a retired pharmacist practicing in Rochester since 1968, asked the board to weigh "what is the socially redeeming value of this" if the question returns for a vote.

A Birch Trail resident asked the board to revisit a renewable natural gas project at the town's water resource recovery facility, which would have captured and sold biogas from the plant's anaerobic digesters. The project "came to an end due to questions regarding the contract with an outside vendor," the speaker said, and "would have been a money maker for Webster." The speaker recalled it being voted down 3-2 and asked the board to take it up again. On July 2 the board voted 3-2 on Resolution No. 242 to immediately cease all work by third-party vendors on the project and rescind payment authorization for work not yet performed, with $165,474 to be returned to the town, according to the town's adopted minutes.

The board's last action was a 4-0 vote to go into executive session under Public Officers Law §105 on personnel. The invitation named the town board, the attorney for the town, HR Director Kelsey Feeney, Police Capt. Mark Reed and Police Chief Dennis Kohlmeier.

AI tools were used in drafting and research.