[00:01:01]
SO THIS IS ON THE BACKSIDE BY WHERE? THE DRIVEWAY FOR THE SOUTH TOWERS.
AND THERE'S ALREADY A HOUSE ON THIS LOT, SO IT WOULD JUST BE SELLING THE EXISTING SIGNIFICANT HOME, NO NEED FOR ANY VARIANCES, RIGHT? CORRECT.
ALRIGHT, SO THEN I ALSO MAKE A MOTION TO SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE WESLEYAN REVIVE WESLEY.
SIGN THAT SOME MOTION BY BILL.
THINK THAT WAS REALLY FAR AWAY.
BUT WE'RE IN NOVEMBER, AREN'T WE? YEAH.
AND I DON'T HAVE, WE'RE FULL OF THE NEXT AGENDA.
I MEAN, I HAVE THREE, UH, JUST WHAT I KNOW OF.
SO WE SEE THE SIXTH, TAKE THE, YEAH.
SO HOW MANY DO WE HAVE ON FOR THE 15TH? EIGHT.
NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS WILLIAM NOLAN REQUESTING PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL OF A TWO LOT SUBDIVISION.
AND THAT WOULDN'T REQUIRE ANY ZONING VARIANCES OR NO.
UM, THE 90 FOOT THAT WE'RE ASKING FOR WOULD ALLOW FOR A TWO FAMILY HOME, BUT WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH FRONTAGE FOR A THREE FAMILY HOME.
WE'RE JUST LOOKING TO SPLIT IT AND SELL IT, AND THE NEW OWNER CAN IMPROVE IT.
WE'LL, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING FOR WILLIAM NOLAN'S SUBDIVISION ON DECEMBER 6TH.
SO IT'S A MOTION BY BILL, SECOND BY CAITLYN M.
IT'S JUST WAIT FOR THE PERSON AND WELL, I USUALLY, IT DON'T, WON'T HAVE ANYBODY I WANT UNTIL IT GETS LATER.
THEN EVERYBODY'S GOT ONE, RIGHT? UH, DARYL MARTIN.
NEXT ITEM IS DARRYL MARTIN ARCHITECT PC REQUESTING SITE PLAN APPROVAL AND EXTENSION FOR AUTO GLASS AT 3 9 6 8 LEGION DRIVE.
OKAY, SO THIS IS ONE THAT WE APPROVED AND IN THE PAST, CONSTRUCTION HASN'T STARTED.
IT, BUT NOW YOU WANT TO GO FORWARD WITH THE CONSTRUCTIONS, INCLUDING THE SIDEWALKS, CORRECT? CORRECT.
I BELIEVE THAT WAS CONTINGENT UPON APPROVAL LAST TIME.
SO THEY THOUGHT THE TRYING TO INCUR THE COST FOR PUTTING SIDEWALKS IN WAS A LITTLE DIFFICULT AT THE TIME, BUT NOW THEY'RE WILLING TO SIDEWALK IN.
THIS IS THE ONE THAT HAS FRONTAGE ON LEGION YEP.
SO DO WE, SO WE WOULDN'T EVEN HAVE TO SCHEDULE THIS ONE.
IF WE GIVE THEM THE EXTENSION TO GET THE BUILDING PERMIT, THEN WE'RE JUST, WE'RE DONE WITH IT.
THEY, THEY HAVE THE EXTENSION.
THEY'VE GOT EXTRA TIME TO GET THE BUILDING PERMIT.
BUT DO WE HAVE TO GIVE AN EXTENSION ON THE REGULAR MEETING? WE DID IT FOR THE PEOPLE INC.
YEAH, BECAUSE IT'S NOT ACTUALLY A FORMAL DECISION.
THEY JUST, AND ANYBODY NOT WANNA DO AN EXTENSION? NO.
SO THEN WE'LL MAKE A MOTION TO GRANT, UH, REQUESTED EXTENSION TO DARRYL MARTIN ARCHITECT PC FOR
[00:05:01]
THE AUTO GRA LA AUTO AND GLASS PROJECT AT 3 9 6 8 LEG DRIVE.YOU HAVE TIME ON THE WORK SINCE YOU KNOW, FOUR MINUTES.
WELL, YEAH, WE HAD THREE ITEMS. I WAS LIKE, OH, WE GOTTA GET STARTED.
HIT A 30 MINUTE, UH, PLANNING BOARD TRAINING HERE BEFORE THE REGULAR MEETING.
I'M STILL LIKE TRYING TO MOVE FAST FROM THE ROAD BLOCK RECORDING.
I ALWAYS LIKE TO, I NOMINATE POWER VEST ME LIFE CHARACT TO REMIND BILL TURN
[00:28:51]
FOR[00:28:51]
WHICH[00:28:52]
IT[00:28:52]
STANDS.ONE NATION UNDER INDIVIDUAL WITH LIBERTY ROUTINE.
ALL RIGHT, SO THE FIRST ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS JOHNSON LANDING, UH, PUBLIC HEARING.
THERE WAS AN ISSUE WITH THE PUBLIC NOTIFICATION.
SO WE'RE NOT ABLE TO GO FORWARD WITH THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THAT ONE TODAY.
SO WE'LL END UP DOING THAT ON NOVEMBER 15TH WITH ITS PROPERLY NOTICED.
SO, SO THAT'S THAT FOR JOHNSON'S LANDING.
UH, SECOND ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS FEED MORE WESTERN NEW YORK REQUESTING SITE PLAN APPROVAL OF A PROPOSAL TO CONSTRUCT A SEVEN 700 SQUARE FOOT FACILITY AT 4 8 3 2 CAMP ROAD.
MICHAEL VAL ASSOCIATES, UM, HERE WITH ROBERT.
[00:30:01]
UH, UH, JUST REQUESTING 40, 40 LAST MEETING DOCUMENT.UM, ALRIGHT, SO LAST TIME THIS WAS ON THE AGENDA, WE WENT THROUGH PART TWO OF THE EAF.
DID WE GET A COPY OF PART THREE? SO, SO I SENT SOME COMMENTS AND WORKED WITH ANNALISE AND JOSH ON PART THREE.
AND SO THERE'S AN UPDATE IF ANYBODY LOOK AT IT.
SO YESTERDAY WE HAVE A LITTLE BIT, UH, MORE IN PART THREE.
UM, AND THEN THEY, THEY LOOKED AT SOME OF THE, WE LOOKED AT SOME OF THE YES AND NOS ON PART TWO.
SO I DON'T KNOW IF ANYBODY WANTS TO RUN THROUGH THEM AGAIN.
DID ANY OF THE YESES OR NOS CHANGE? UH, I HAD A COUPLE OF CLARIFICATIONS ON THE TOP LEVEL OF PART TWO.
SO THERE WERE A COUPLE WHERE WE, YOU KNOW, THERE'S THE YES OR NO AT THE OVERALL QUESTION LEVEL.
AND THEN THERE'S THE SUBPARTS.
THERE WERE A COUPLE WHERE WE HAD CHECKED YES, BUT THEN THE REST WERE NO, WERE NOS AND SO THEY WERE, I DON'T KNOW, YOU GUYS WERE DOUBLE CHECKING, BUT I THINK THAT MOST OF THOSE WERE STAYING NOS.
THE ONLY ONE I DON'T KNOW THAT I WAS SURE ABOUT WAS THE TRANSPORTATION, WHICH GOT CHECKED TO NOW GOT CHECK TO NOW.
SO I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO GO OVER THAT AGAIN.
UM, YOU WANT ME TO WALK THROUGH WHAT WE ADDED ON PART THREE? YES.
SO ON PART THREE, UM, WHAT WE DID IS WE JUST PROVIDED A LITTLE BIT MORE DEPTH ON WHAT WE HAD REVIEWED IN HERE AND WHAT WE WERE RELYING ON TO MAKE THE DECISION, UM, WITH THE CONCLUSION THAT WE WERE LEADING TO A NEGATIVE DECLARATION.
SO ON THE FEED MORE FACILITY, UM, WE RECOGNIZED THAT THERE WAS GONNA BE, IT'S ROUGHLY 19 ACRES PLUS OR MINUS THERE OF AREA THAT'S BEING CONVERTED.
BUT WHAT WE HIGHLIGHTED WAS THAT THEY HAD CITED THAT TO BE PRIMARILY IN THE GRASSLAND BRUSH LAND AND AVOID THE FORESTED BLOCKS, UM, AS WELL AS AVOIDING THOSE WETLANDS EXCEPT FOR WHERE WE NEEDED THE CULVERT.
UM, AND THAT WE RECOGNIZED THAT THAT WAS DONE TO OPTIMIZE THE PLACEMENT ON THE SITE WHILE STILL MEETING YOUR DEVELOPMENT NEEDS.
AND THEN WE DID NOTE THAT ALL OF THE FULLY ENGINEERED PLANS ARE GONNA GO TO CAMMI AND THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT FOR APPROVAL AND THAT YOU GUYS WILL BE ADHERING TO A SWIP AND THAT THE SWIP IS GONNA HAVE INSPECTIONS ONGOING ON ONSITE DURING CONSTRUCTION.
UM, VERY SIMILAR RESPONSE ON SURFACE WATER.
UH, WITH, IN ADDITION TO THAT, NOTICE NOTES ON THE SWIFT WAS A COMMENT ABOUT THE CULVERT AND THAT THE CULVERT SIZING WILL BE REVIEWED BY THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT AND THAT THAT WILL BE OPTIMIZED TO MAKE SURE THAT HAVE THE MINERAL IMPACTS AND THAT DURING CONSTRUCTION WE'LL ENSURE THROUGH THE SW THAT THERE'S NO ADVERSE EFFECTS TO WATER OR SURFACE FLOW AND THAT YOU'LL HAVE WHATEVER APPROPRIATE MEASURES ARE DESIGNING, WHETHER THAT'S SOME SORT OF, UH, STILT FENCING OR OTHER MATERIALS IN PLACE.
UM, WE DID NOTE ONE OF THE QUESTIONS ON NUMBER SEVEN ON PART TWO.
SO ANY ONE THAT I HAVEN'T BROUGHT UP HERE.
SO LAND WAS ONE THAT CHECKED YES.
MAY HAVE IMPACTS SURFACE WATER WAS ONE THAT CHECKED YES.
AND THEN SEVEN WAS ONE THAT SAID, UH, MAY HAVE IMPACTS.
THERE'S OVER 10 ACRES OF GRASSLANDS THAT ARE THERE.
SO THERE WAS A YES MAY HAVE IMPACTS.
AND WHAT WE NOTED HERE IS THAT THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH DISTURBED AND PREVIOUSLY EITHER DEVELOPED OR MOWED MAINTAINED INTERMITTENTLY AREA DIDN'T PROVIDE ANY UNIQUE HABITAT, WAS CONSISTENT WITH OTHER HABITAT NEARBY AND THAT ANY OF THE SPECIES THAT WERE USING IT WERE, WERE CONSISTENT WITH WHAT ELSE IS FOUND IN A SUBURBAN DEVELOPED ENVIRONMENT.
UM, I MEAN THAT ALL SOUND LIKE IT'S IN LINE ALL THE ALL INTERIORS GUYS FILED.
AND THEN FOR 10 HISTORIC ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES, WE DEFERRED TO THE SHIPPO'S CORRESPONDENCE AND FILINGS.
UM, AND THEN IMPACT ON ENERGY.
I KNOW THAT JOSH AND ANNALISE WERE CHECKING ON THE EXACT CODE WORDING, BUT THAT YOU GUYS WOULD BE DOING THAT, UM, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STATE ENERGY CODE.
AND THAT WAS TRIGGERED BECAUSE OF THE, IS MORE THAN A HUNDRED THOUSAND SQUARE FEET CORRECT.
AND THAT THE ENGINEERED PLANS WILL BE REVIEWED BY THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT AND THAT WE DON'T EXPECT ANY IMPACTS TO REGIONAL ENERGY USE OR LIKE GREATER UPGRADES OR ANYTHING TO BE REQUIRED AS A RESULT OF YOUR, YOUR FACILITY.
SO THAT'S REVIEWING PART THREE OF THE FDAF.
UH, WE ALL HAVE COPIES OF THE RESOLUTIONS.
I MEAN WAS THERE ANYTHING ELSE THAT YOU WANTED TO ADD TO PART THREE, I GUESS IS THE ONLY OTHER CHANGE? OKAY.
THE DRAFT RESOLUTIONS, UH, EVERYBODY GOT A COPY OF THOSE? OKAY.
WE'LL DO THE SEEKER FIRST AND THEN BEFORE WE GET
[00:35:01]
INTO THE OTHER ONE, WE'LL, WE'LL, IF THERE'S ANY CONDITIONS WE'LL ADDRESS IT AFTER WE DO THE SEEKER RESOLUTION.SO FEED MORE SEEKER, DRAFT RESOLUTION.
WHEREAS THE TOWN OF HAMPER PLANNING BOARD, WE SEEK RECEIVED A SITE PLAN APPLICATION FROM FEED MORE WESTERN NEW YORK FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 217,600 SQUARE FOOT STATE OF THE ART ENERGY EFFICIENT PRE-ENGINEERED METAL BUILDING FACILITY AND A 34 ACRE CAMPUS TO BE LOCATED AT 5 8 3 2 CAMP ROAD.
AND WHEREAS THE TOWN OF BR PLANNING BOARD INITIATED THE SEEKER COORDINATED REVIEW PROCESS FOR THIS TYPE ONE ACTION AND RECEIVED INPUT FROM ONE DEPARTMENTS COUNTY AND NEW YORK STATE AGENCIES AND PROFESSIONAL PLANNING PLANNING CONSULTANTS.
AND WHEREAS THE TOWN OF HAMFORD PLANNING BOARD HELD THE REQUIRED PUBLIC HEARING ON OCTOBER 4TH, 2023 AND WHEREAS THE TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD HAS REVIEWED THE EAF SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT, RECEIVED INPUT FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, RECEIVED COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC AND RECEIVED ADDITIONAL PROJECT INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT AND WHERE HAS CONSIDERED THE TOWN OF HAMBURG'S ADOPTED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND REVIEWED THE TOWN CODE.
AND WHEREAS IN ACCORDANCE WITH PART 6 1 7 OF THE IMPLEMENTING, IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO ARTICLE EIGHT STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION LAW, THE TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD HAS REVIEWED PART ONE OF THE FEAF AND HAS COMPLETED PARTS TWO AND THREE OF THE FEAF AND REVIEWED THE CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 6 1 7 0.7 OF SEEKER NOW THEREFORE BE RESOLVED.
THE TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL NOT SIGNIFICANTLY ADVERSELY AFFECT THE NATURAL RESOURCES OF THE STATE AND OR THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC AND IS CONSISTENT WITH SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS AND THEREFORE ISSUES A NEGATIVE DECLARATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH 6 1 7 0.7 OF SEEKER AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD CHAIR IS AUTHORIZED TO SIGN THE FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM FEAF PARTS ONE, TWO AND THREE, WHICH WILL ACT AS THE SECRET NEGATIVE DECLARATION.
SO THAT IS A MOTION BY BILL SECOND BY CINDY.
WE
SO BEFORE WE GET INTO THE SITE PLAN, TALK ABOUT CONDITIONS, UH, WE'VE GOT THE STANDARD CONDITIONS, YOU HAVE SIDEWALKS AND THE QUESTION MARK, THE PLAN CON THE PLAN IS SIDEWALKS ON CAMP ROAD, RIGHT? NO.
THE PLAN HAD A SIDEWALK FROM THE FACILITY TO CAMP ROAD WITH AN OPEN DISCUSSION ON REQUIRED IF, IF THE SIDEWALKS WOULD BE REQUIRED TO GO ALONG CAMP ROAD.
THAT HOW WE DISCUSS THAT, RIGHT? YOU SAID AS PART OF OUR DISCUSSIONS AND UH, SO WERE THERE PEOPLE THAT THOUGHT WE SHOULD WAIVE THEM OR EVERYBODY THINK OF IT LOSS THEY HAVE THE SIDEWALK SO THAT DOWN THE ROAD.
ALRIGHT THEN I'LL READ THE SITE PLAN SOLUTION, UH, FEED MORE SITE PLAN APPROVAL RESOLUTION, WHEREAS THE TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING DEPARTMENT RECEIVED A SITE PLAN APPLICATION FROM FEED MORE WESTERN NEW YORK FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 217,600 SQUARE FOOT STATE-OF-THE-ART ENERGY EFFICIENT PRE-ENGINEERED METAL BUILDING FACILITY AND A 34 ACRE CAMPUS LOCATED AT 4 8 3 2 CAMP ROAD.
AND WHEREAS THE TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD INITIATED THE SEEKER COORDINATED REVIEW PROCESS FOR THIS TYPE ONE ACTION AND RECEIVED INPUT FROM TOWN DEPARTMENTS COUNTY AND NEW YORK STATE AGENCIES AND PROFESSIONAL PLANNING CONSULTANTS.
AND WHEREAS THE TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD HELD THE REQUIRED PUBLIC HEARING ON OCTOBER 4TH, 2023.
AND WHEREAS THE TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD HAS CONSIDERED THE TOWN OF HAMBURG'S ADOPTIVE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND REVIEWED THE TOWN CODE.
AND WHEREAS IN ACCORDANCE WITH PART 6 1 7 OF THE IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO ARTICLE EIGHT STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
[00:40:01]
LAW, THE TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD HAS ISSUED A SEEKER NEGATIVE DECLARATION.NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THE TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD ISSUES CONDITIONAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR THIS PROJECT WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS, ONE CONFORMANCE TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE TOWN ENGINEERING MEMO DATED OCTOBER 27TH, OCTOBER 27TH, 2023, TWO REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE FINAL LANDSCAPING PLAN BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND CONSERVATION ADVISORY BOARD IN THREE INSTALLATION OF SIDEWALKS ALONG CAMP ROAD IS NOT WAIVED.
SO SIDEWALKS WILL BE REQUIRED ON CAMP ROAD.
THERE IS A MOTION BY BILL SECOND BY SECOND.
NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS AMBER CROSSINGS REQUESTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT SITE PLAN APPROVAL OF, UH, 802,554 SQUARE FOOT FIVE BUILDING WAREHOUSE PARK.
BE LOCATED AT 5 2 2 0 CAMP ROAD.
ALL RIGHT, SO THIS IS THAT BENDERSON PROJECT EVERYBODY COPIES WRITTEN RESPONSE THE BOARD IS ASKING FOR, AND I'LL GIVE YOU AN UPDATE ON WHERE WE ARE.
UM, I KNOW THE BOARD'S FAMILIAR WITH THIS SITE.
I KNOW THE LAST TIME I WAS HERE IS TALKED ABOUT THE PRIOR RETAIL PROJECT AND WAS
AND, UM, SINCE THAT TIME WE HAVE CHANGED GEARS HERE.
YOU WANT ME TO DO THAT, JACK? YOU'RE GOOD.
SO, SO I KNOW THE BOARD ASKED FOR A REVIEW OF THE HAMBURG GATEWAY REV REVITALIZATION DESIGN PROJECT FOR YOUR GATEWAY PLAN.
I TOOK HAMBURG YOUR PLAN ON PAGES 45 AND 57, ACTUALLY TALK ABOUT THIS AREA.
UM, OUR SITE'S NOT INCLUDED IN IT.
UM, IT DOES INCLUDE THE THROUGHWAY RAMP.
SO IN A MINUTE I'LL WALK THROUGH WHAT THIS AREA INCLUDES.
BUT THE THROUGHWAY RAMP IS ABOUT 15.7 ACRES.
THE, UM, THROUGHWAY AUTHORITY DID HAVE AN AUCTION PORT FOR $4.9 MILLION.
UM, AND I'LL GIVE YOU SOME REASONS WHY.
AND THEN WE, WE AND IN CONTEXT OF YOUR PLAN, WHAT'S DIFFERENT ABOUT WHAT THEY WANT AND WHAT YOU HAVE? UM, BENDERSON'S PROPERTY? OH, NOPE.
UM, CAN I MOVE AROUND SO I CAN SEE A LITTLE BETTER? BENDERSON'S PROPERTY, WE ONLY MADE TWO.
WE ONLY MAINTAIN 207 FEET ON CAMP ROAD.
OUR CLOSEST BUILDING FOR THIS PROJECT IS SET 477 FEET CLOSE TO THE CAMP ROAD BEHIND THE THROUGHWAY PROPERTY, WHICH IS THAT PROPERTY RIGHT THERE.
THAT'S THE THROUGHWAY PROPERTY.
OUR PROPERTY WRAPS AROUND IT IN THE BACK.
UM, THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR REDELL ON THE THROUGHWAY PROPERTY AS YOUR PLAN NOTES.
UM, THE THROUGHWAY WILL NOT ALLOW ACCESS AS SHOWN ON YOUR PLAN.
IT'S ACTUALLY SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDED FROM THE AUCTION.
SO THIS PROPERTY, UM, HERE, WHICH HAS YOU SHOW THE RAMP COMING IN AND COMING TEEING WITH YOUR PRO WITH THIS PROPERTY THAT'S STRICTLY PROHIBITED.
ANYONE THAT BUYS THAT PROPERTY COULD NOT DO THAT.
THEY NEED TO FIND AN ALTERNATIVE ACCESS TO THAT SITE, UM, WHICH, UM, WOULD BE ON CAMP ROAD OR IN THE FUTURE, POSSIBLY A CROSS ACCESS BETWEEN OUR SITE AND THEIR SITE SO THEY CAN ACCESS THE SIGNAL.
AND WE WOULD BE OPEN TO THAT IN THE FUTURE SO THAT THAT SITE WORKS AND HAS A SIGNAL.
UM, BENDERSON ALSO FOILED THE CAMP ROAD INTERCHANGE RECOMMENDATION REPORT.
UM, ON TEN FIVE, THAT FINAL REQUEST WAS DENIED AND THE REASON WAS THE REPORT WAS NOT COMPLETE.
SO IF IT IS COMPLETE AND YOU WANT ME TO TAKE A LOOK AT IT, I'M HAPPY TO DO THAT.
I JUST DID NOT GET A COPY OF IT WHEN WE ASKED FOR IT.
SO THAT WAS, YOU ASKED ME TO TAKE A LOOK AT YOUR PLAN.
OUR PROJECT WOULD HAVE NO NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THIS PLAN.
IT WOULD'VE NO NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THIS PROPERTY.
AND IN FACT, GOING FORWARD, I WOULD SUSPECT THAT THAT PROPERTY WILL NEED SOME RIGHTS FROM US TO GET ACCESS TO THE ROAD, ESPECIALLY AFTER WHAT THE
YEAH, AND I ALSO JUST WANNA MENTION THE RECOMMENDATION REPORT IS WHAT WE MAKE TO THE TOWN BOARD WHEN WE YEP.
SO THAT'S WHY HE, IT HASN'T YEAH, I'M ASKING.
WE JUST DID THAT TWO WEEKS AGO, RIGHT? YEAH.
AND I'M NOT SAYING ANYTHING FERRIS WAS HAPPENING.
I'M JUST SAYING I COULDN'T GET A COPY OF IT.
SO, UM, YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO GET ONE NOW.
IS IT, IS IT, DID YOU DO IT THE LAST MEETING? YEAH.
YEAH, WE EITHER DID THE LAST ONE OR
[00:45:01]
BEFORE.I THINK IT WAS THE LAST, I THINK FINALIZING THE LAST MEETING OR IS IT, WE'RE FINALIZING IT ON THE 15TH.
SO I GUESS YOU CAN'T SCHEDULE, BUT WE'LL BE TALKING ABOUT IT OUR NEXT MEETING.
I WOULD LIKE TO COME TO THAT MEETING AND I WOULD BE HAPPY TO SEE IT ONCE IT'S DONE.
UM, I DID TAKE A LOOK AT YOUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
UM, THERE ARE, THIS IS PAGE, I BELIEVE IT'S 45 OF THE PLAN.
UM, IT REFERENCES THE CAMP ROAD INTERCHANGE.
THERE ARE TWO SECTIONS THAT REFERENCE OUR PROPERTY.
I'LL JUST WALK THROUGH OUR PROPERTY.
BENDERSON HAD CONTROL 79.93 ACRES OF THAT.
WE'VE ALREADY PUT 17.4 ACRES OF THAT SITE INTO A CONSERVATION EASEMENT THAT WAS PART OF THE LAST PROJECT.
THE THROUGHWAY AUTHORITY SITE IS 15.189 ACRES THAT'S LOCATED IN THE FRONT.
AND THE TOTAL DEVELOPMENT AREA BETWEEN THOSE TWO PROPERTIES IS ABOUT 77 ACRES.
UM, BASED ON YOUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, BECAUSE IT TALKS ABOUT BOOKING AT LANDS TO THE NORTH OF IT OWNS INDUSTRIAL, IT DOESN'T HAVE A MAP HERE.
UM, IT LOOKS LIKE, UM, IT COULD BE A LITTLE MORE LAND THAN THAT, BUT I WAS UNABLE TO DETERMINE THAT ANDERSON PROPERTIES, WE MAINTAIN A LIMITED BIT OF FRONTAGE ON CAMP ROW AND ONLY 270 SOME FEET WITH THE MAJORITY OF WHICH BEING
DESPITE NATIONWIDE MARKETING AND WE'VE BEEN MARKETING THE SITE SINCE I HAD THAT SITE PLAN, WE'VE HAD NO INTEREST IN RETAIL, RESTAURANTS, HUB, HOSPITALITY OR ENTERTAINMENT.
WE ARE THE LARGEST PRIVATE WE HAVE IN THE COUNTRY.
WE MARKET THIS SITE NATIONWIDE WITH THE TRAFFIC COUNTS FROM LOCAL, LOCAL TENANTS ALL THE WAY TO THE BIG NATIONAL TENANTS.
TENANTS THAT ARE NOT EVEN WESTERN NEW YORK HAVE BEEN SHOWN.
THIS SITE, INCLUDING
UM, WE HAVE TRIED, THERE HASN'T BEEN THAT KIND OF INTEREST IN THIS SITE IN SINCE 2008 WHEN THAT PROJECT WENT DOWN.
UM, ALSO WE HAVE LOOKED AT THE SITE FOR AN OFFICE COMPONENT.
UM, BUT SINCE COVID THERE'S BEEN A SIGN SIGNIFICANT DECREASE IN STANDALONE OFFICE BUILDINGS.
A LOT OF OURS ARE BEING USED LESS THAN THEY ORIGINALLY DESIGNED FOR.
SO WE ARE IN THOSE GROUPS OF USES, WHICH YOU TYPICALLY SEE COMING OFF A THROUGHWAY.
UM, THERE ISN'T A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF INTEREST, UM, IN THE SITE IF NO INTEREST.
SO GOING THROUGH YOUR CONCIERGE PLAN, THERE'S A SECTION THAT SAYS, UM, THAT THIS SITE SHOULD BE DESIGNED TO BUFFER THE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.
UM, WHY I HAVE NOT BEEN HERE SINCE MARCH IS I HAVE SPENT THE LAST SIX MONTHS MEETING WITH THE NEIGHBORS WHO BOUGHT THIS PROPERTY.
AND WE'VE HAD A NUMBER OF MEETINGS AS RECENTLY AS MONDAY NIGHT.
WE MET WITH THOSE NEIGHBORS AND WE HAVE WITH THEM, WE DESIGNED THE PLAN, UM, AND THAT WE WERE WORKING WITH A GROUP THAT REPRESENTS THE NEIGHBORS ALONG THE STREET THAT DIRECTLY ABOUT THE PROPERTY.
AND WE MADE A LOT OF IMPROVEMENTS.
I'M JUST GONNA WALK THROUGH THOSE 'CAUSE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT BUFFERING THE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.
AND THIS PROJECT HAS ACTUALLY BEEN DESIGNED TO DO THAT ON THE WESTERN PROPERTY LINE THAT'S OVER HERE.
WE HAVE THE 150 FOOT CONSERVATION EASEMENT.
WE THEN HAVE A 250 25 FOOT, 225 FOOT BUFFER FROM HERE TO THE EDGE OF CURB.
WE HAVE A 300 FOOT SETBACK FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE TO THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING.
AND WE HAVE A 500 FOOT SETBACK FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE TO THE FIRST LOADING DOCK.
SO, AND THEN ON THE NORTHERN PROPERTY LINE, WHICH IS DOWN HERE, WE HAVE A HUNDRED FOOT CONSERVATION EASEMENT, A 200 FOOT BUFFER FROM THE CURB TO THE PARKING LOT, A 275 FOOT SETBACK FROM THE FACE OF THE BUILDING AND 575 FITS SETBACK TO THE LOADING DOCKS.
UM, WE HAVE WORKED TO EXTEND THOSE BUFFERS THAT'S BIGGER THAN THE INITIAL PROJECT, ALMOST, ALMOST BY A HUNDRED FEET IN SOME LOCATIONS.
WE ALSO, WE'RE NOT TOUCHING ANY OF THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT SO THAT THAT'S BEEN SET.
SO WE'RE NOT TOUCHING ANY DISTRICT VEGETATION.
BUT THERE IS AN AREA UP HERE IN THE NORTHWEST THAT IS CONCRETE.
SO IF YOU GO TO CONSERVATION, HE'S ABOUT 75 FEET OF HIS TREES.
75 FEET OF IT IS AN OLD PARKING LOT.
UM, THE NEIGHBORS WITH THEM WORKED UP WITH US.
THEY WOULD LIKE US TO REPLANT THAT.
SO THAT COULD BE A CONTINUED BUFFER INSTEAD OF HAVING SPACE.
UM, AS PART OF OUR IMPROVED BUFFERING, WE'RE NOT GONNA TOUCH ANY VEGETATION IN THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT.
WE'RE GONNA INFILL THE EASEMENT IN THE NORTHWESTERN CORNER, AS I DISCUSSED, WITH NO LESS THAN 25 CONIFERS AND 20 CONSID TREES.
WE'RE GONNA ADD 105 TREES IN BETWEEN THE CURB AND THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT.
UM, THOSE ARE GONNA BE, UM, SIX TO EIGHT FEET CONIFERS AND SIX TO EIGHT FOOT DECIDUOUS TREES.
AND THEY'RE GONNA BE SPLIT 105 CONIFERS AND 50 DECIDUOUS TREES.
AND WE'RE GONNA INSTALL ON THE CURB LINE, WE'RE PROPOSING TO INSTALL A FOUR FOOT HIGH BERM AT AN EIGHT FOOT HIGH SOLID WOOD FENCE LOCATED AT THE TOP OF THE BER.
SO THE VISIBLE BARRIER WILL BE 12 FEET AND THAT BERM IS GONNA START AT THE EDGE OF THE PAVEMENT AND GO IN THAT DIRECTION AND END WHERE THE TREES START.
UM, THAT'S WHAT WE WORKED WITH THE NEIGHBORS.
THE NEIGHBORS ALSO ASKED US, SORRY, CAN I YEP.
IS THE PROPERTY LINE, IS THE PROPERTY LINE UHHUH AND
[00:50:01]
THEN THERE'S THE RED THAT LOOKS LIKE IT'S THIS.THOSE ARE THE TREE, THE RED TREES.
THERE'S A TINY CUTOUT AT THE BOTTOM.
IS THAT NOT YOUR PROPERTY? WHERE, WHERE, YEAH, WHERE DOPE DOWN THAT, THAT LITTLE THING RIGHT THERE.
THAT'S THE THROUGHWAY AUTHORITY.
IT'S, IT'S A LITTLE, THAT LITTLE RED, UM, RECTANGLE RIGHT THERE.
IT'S A LITTLE EXTENSION FROM THE THROUGHWAY AUTHORITY.
I, I DON'T KNOW WHY THEY HAVE IT.
AND THEN YOUR PROPERTY EXTENDS UP, IS THAT COMMERCE PLACE RIGHT THERE? UP OUR, OUR PROPERTY ENDS RIGHT THERE.
SO THIS IS COMMERCE COMING IN? YEP.
AND OUR PROPERTY ENDS RIGHT THERE.
WHAT ABOUT THAT? WHAT, WHICH, WHERE ARE YOU LOOKING AT THIS? RIGHT, RIGHT IN THE PARKING LOT.
SO WE'RE NOT TOUCHING THAT EITHER.
WE'RE LEAVING THAT, UM, THOSE TREES THERE AS A BUFFER.
UM, WE WORKED WITH THE RESIDENTS TO, UM, THEY, WITH THEM NO LIGHTS, THEY'LL EXCEED 30 FEET IN HEIGHT.
THEY'LL ALL BE NIGHT SKY COMPLIANT AND THEY'LL ALL HAVE SHIELDS FACING RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORS.
SO THERE WILL BE NO LIGHT IN THAT AREA.
UM, WE AGREED THAT NONE OF THE BUILDINGS FACING THE RESIDENCE, AND THIS IS A UNIQUE DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE THE WAY WE DESIGNED THIS, AND I WENT OVER IT LAST TIME, IS THAT WE, WE DESIGNED IT SO THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING FACES THE NEIGHBORS.
SO NO LOADING DOCKS FACES THE NEIGHBORS.
THE PRIOR PROJECT, WHICH WAS, ALTHOUGH OUR SHOPPING CENTER LIKE TYPICAL DEVELOPMENT, ALL THE LOADING DOCKS FACE THE NEIGHBORS.
SO WHEN THE TRUCKS CAME RUN IN AND OUT, THOSE TRUCKS WOULD PASS BY THE NEIGHBORS.
WELL, THE WAY WE DESIGNED THIS SITE IS THAT THE FRONT OF THE BUILDINGS FACE THE NEIGHBORS, WHICH CREATES A BARRIER.
UM, SO YOU DON'T HAVE ANY TRUCK TRAFFIC BACK THERE.
THE CLOSEST TRUCK ROUTE TO THIS SITE IS 500 FEET ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THIS BUILDING.
SO NO TRUCKS WILL BE BETWEEN THOSE TWO BUILDINGS, BETWEEN THE TWO BUILDINGS.
SO BASICALLY THE TRUCKS WILL COME IN, THEY'LL CIRCULATE IN HERE.
IF THEY NEED TO GO AROUND, THEY'LL COME BACK OUT AND THEY'LL COME DOWN THIS WAY BETWEEN THE BUILDINGS.
THAT'S HOW THE SITE'S DESIGNED.
IT, THE PARKING LOT HERE HAS BEEN DESIGNED SPECIFICALLY TO PROHIBIT TRUCKS WITH TIGHT, TIGHTER TURNING RACES.
AND THE TRUCKS WON'T GO BACK THERE ANYWAY 'CAUSE THEY WON'T PASS THE DOCKS THAT IN THIS AREA.
THE BENEFIT OF THAT, AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE NOISE STUDIES I SUBMITTED MARCH, IS THAT IT CONTAINS ALL THE NOISE AND THE, THE BUILDINGS ACT AS A SOUND BARRIER, A LARGE SOUND BARRIER.
UM, THE FRONT OF THE BUILDINGS ALSO FACE THE THROUGHWAY AUTHORITY PROPERTY AND CAMP ROAD.
SO WE TRIED TO MAKE THE FRONT OF THE SITE ATTRACTIVE BY NOT HAVING ANY LOAD DOCKS IN THAT DIRECTION.
SO YOU SEE FRONT OF THE BUILDINGS HERE, FRONT OF THE BUILDINGS HERE, AND ALL THE LOAD DOCKS ARE HID BEHIND THE BUILDINGS.
UM, OTHER CONDITIONS THAT THE NEIGHBORS ASKED FOR, WHICH WE, WE HAVE AGREED TO, IF THIS PROJECT GOES FORWARD, IS WE'LL HAVE NO EXTERIOR PUBLIC ADDRESS SYSTEMS. UM, THE BUFFER, INCLUDING THE PLANTINGS BERM FENCE WILL BE INSTALLED BEFORE, BEFORE THE ISSUANCE OF ANY BUILDING PERMIT WE EVER GET THAT FAR.
AND IF THE PROJECT IS PHASED, WE WILL AGREE TO, UH, BUILD ONE OF THE BACK BUILDING FIRST SINCE THAT IS THE SOUND BARRIER BEFORE WE BUILD ANY FRONT BUILDING.
SO THERE'LL BE NO DOCKS FACING THE NEIGHBORS.
WE AGREE TO BUILD ALL THE BUILDINGS COVER THERE WAS EARTH TONE AND THAT WE WOULD NOT HAVE ANY DUMPSTERS BEFORE 7:00 AM BUT THAT POINT DID NOT MAKE THE SLIDE.
SO ON YOUR CONSERVATION, ON YOUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SECTION ABOUT BUFFERING FROM THE AUSTRAL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, I DON'T THINK THERE'S A PROJECT THAT'S BEEN APPROVED OR THAT IS IN THE APPROVAL PROCESS THAT HAS THE BUFFERS THIS PROJECT HAS, OR THE DESIGN SO THAT THERE ARE NO DOCKS FACING ANY RESIDENCES.
AND IF IT WAS A RETAIL PROJECT OR SOMETHING DIFFERENT, EVERYTHING WOULD FACE THE FRONT AND ALL THE, THE DOCS WOULD FACE THE NEIGHBORS AND WE'D BE WORKING WITH A LOT OF ISSUES RELATED TO THAT.
THE OTHER SECTION WAS YOUR CONFERENCE PLAN MENTIONS THAT NEW ZONING DISTRICT TO BETTER REPRESENT THE AREA, QUOTE, POTENTIALLY ELIMINATE INDUSTRIAL ZONING.
AND WHILE I HAVE NOT SEEN, UM, DRAFT ZONING, THIS WAS ADOPTED ABOUT A YEAR AGO, THE EXISTING ZONING FOR THE SITE IS STILL C TWO.
UM, THE SURROUNDING ZONING IS C ONE M, C TWO, M TWO, AND R TWO.
UM, THERE'S NO NEW ZONING PUT IN PLACE AT THIS POINT.
THERE'S NO MORATORIUM ON THIS DEVELOPMENT.
AND THE PROJECT IS PERMITTED UNDER THE CURRENT ZONING.
I ALSO WOULD ARGUE THAT THIS IS NOT TYPICAL INDUSTRIAL ZONING.
UM, WE'RE NOT LOOKING, AND WE WOULD AGREE TO HAVE NO MANUFACTURING USES, NO USES THAT WERE SMOKE SEX THERE USES THAT REQUIRE NO, UM, NOISE OUTSIDE THE BUILDING.
WHAT THIS IS IN THE, IN THE COMMERCIAL LINE, THIS IS CALLED FLEX SPACE.
SO WE EXPECT FIVE TO 25% OF THESE OF THIS SITE WILL BE OFFICE, RIGHT.
AND THAT WILL BE AN OFFICE ASSOCIATED WITH BUSINESSES.
AND I JUST DID ONE OF THESE, A A SMALL BUILDING IN ORCHARD PARK.
AND ONE OF THE TENANTS WAS A, UM, A HUNDRED THOUSAND SQUARE FOOT COMMUNICATIONS TENANT.
THEY TOOK 40,000 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE SPACE WHERE YOU CAN COME IN AND MEET WITH THEM.
AND IT'S FOR BUSINESSES WHERE YOU CAN BUY YOUR EQUIP, WHERE YOU CAN GO THROUGH YOUR PLAN FOR YOUR BUSINESS.
THEY DO EVERYTHING AND THEN THEY STORE THE MATERIALS THAT THEY GO OUT AND DO THE BUSINESS FROM THAT SITE.
SO THEY TOOK A HUNDRED THOUSAND SQUARE FEET, 40 OF IT WAS OFFICE, 60 OF IT WAS, WAS STORAGE.
THAT'S WHAT WE'RE SEEING WITH THIS KIND OF USE.
WE'RE NOT DOING INDUSTRIAL ZONING.
IT'S NOT, WHILE IT COULD, LIKE ANY SITE, IT COULD BE OPEN 24 HOURS.
A LOT OF THESE USES OPERATE FIVE,
[00:55:01]
YOU KNOW, NINE TO FIVE PEOPLE COME TO WORK, THEY GO HOME.WE DO SEE SOME DISTRIBUTION OF THESE SITES, BUT THAT'S NOT THE MAJORITY OF WHAT WE'RE SEEING.
UM, AND THEN I PUT WHAT REPRESENTS THIS AREA, UM, THE SOUTH OF THIS PROPERTY, AND ARE THE BOARDS FAMILIAR WITH IT? ARE THE HOTELS IN THAT AREA AND THE, AND HOWARD HANNA.
UM, TO THE NORTH WE HAVE THE BUS GARAGE AND THEN A WHOLE BUNCH OF, UM, AUTO RELATED USES.
I THINK THERE'S AN ENTERPRISE UP THERE AND SOME OTHER CAR USES.
UM, AND TO THE WEST WE HAVE THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY.
UM, AND, AND I, I WOULD BELIEVE THAT THE, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE, WE COULD, WE, AND WE'RE OPEN TO WORK ON THIS AS FAR AS, YOU KNOW, THE LOOK OF THE BUILDINGS AND THE LANDSCAPING AND THE BUFFERING.
BUT I THINK AS FAR AS THE USE, IF YOU LOOK AT THE ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES, THIS IS LESS IMPACTFUL THAN WHAT WE GOT APPROVED BEFORE.
SO I THINK THIS CAN WORK WITHIN THE, THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE FUTURE ZONING OF THE SITE.
UM, AND HERE, I KNOW THAT YOU SHOWED ON YOUR GATEWAY PLAN, YOU SHOWED A HOSPITAL, UM, LOOKS LIKE AN ATHLETIC HEALTH RELATED USE IN THIS AREA THAT COULD WORK THERE.
UM, BUT IN THE FUTURE, IF YOU SAW MORE WHAT'S TYPICAL COMING OFF A THROUGHWAY RAMP, WHICH WOULD BE RETAIL USES, RESTAURANT USES AND HOTELS, I JUST LAID THAT PLAN OUT.
SO IT'S PURELY SPECULATIVE, BUT THAT WOULD WORK AND COULD TIE INTO THIS SITE RIGHT THROUGH HERE TO GET TO THE SHOPPING CENTER.
UM, I BELIEVE THIS PROJECT COULD COMPLY WITH THE FUTURES ZONING, AND I HAVEN'T SEEN THAT YET.
THE PROJECT DOES, DOES IT ADDS A SIGNIFICANT PROJECT TO THE TAX ROLLS.
SO CURRENTLY THIS, THIS PROJECT SITS VACANT.
UM, IT PUTS NO BURDEN ON THE SCHOOL SYSTEM.
SO IT WILL ADD TAXES TO SCHOOLS, BUT NOT RESULT IN ANY TAX IMPACTS, ANY IMPACTS TO THE SCHOOL SYSTEM.
IT'S GONNA PROVIDE EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES HERE.
UM, IT DOES PROVIDE BUFFERS AND SETBACKS WHICH EXCEED ALL THOSE REQUIRED IN THE CURRENT ZONING CODE.
I DON'T KNOW ANY ZONING CODE REQUIREMENTS THAT PROVIDE THESE SETBACKS.
RIGHT? IT WILL WORK WITH THE FUTURE DRAMA OF THE THROUGHWAY LANDS AS I'M SHOWING.
IF YOU'VE GOT YOUR HOSPITALITY, RESTAURANTS AND RETAIL THAT'LL WORK HERE.
IF YOU END UP WITH A REGIONAL HEALTHY LIVING CAMPUS SPORTS, RECREATION, MEDICAL THAT ALSO WORKS ON THIS SITE, OUR PROJECT WILL NOT IMPACT THAT.
AND WE'RE OPEN TO DESIGN CHANGES.
WE COULD, WE COULD, YOU KNOW, WE MADE THE BUILDINGS LOOK LIKE OFFICE BUILDINGS WITHOUT THE WINDOWS, BUT WITH THE SAME MATERIALS.
AND, AND THE GOAL IS TO HAVE AN ATTRACTIVE PROJECT.
UM, WE ARE OPEN TO ADDITIONAL GREEN SPACE AND REDUCING PAVEMENT FURTHER ON THIS SITE.
I PUT THAT ALL IN WRITING FOR YOU.
AND THAT'S OUR PROJECT UPDATE.
BUT I HAVE SPENT THE LAST SIX MONTHS MEETING WITH, WITH THE NEIGHBORS ON THIS PROJECT.
ALL RIGHT, SO THIS IS THE PROJECT WHERE THEY ASKED FOR THE EXTENSION BECAUSE THEY HADN'T BEEN IN FRONT OF US FOR A WHILE AND WE DENIED THAT.
UM, I THINK THE, THE, OUR THINKING AT THE TIME OF THE DENIAL WAS WE WANTED TO REZONE THIS AS PART OF THE NEW ZONING CODE FOR THAT AREA.
WE WANTED MORE SPACE IN THE NEW ZONING CODE.
SO IF DEVELOPERS WANTED TO BUILD SOMETHING WITH A CAMPUS TYPE FIELD, THERE WAS THE, THE SPACE TO DO IT.
AND WE FELT LIKE THIS PROJECT WAS INCONSISTENT WITH THAT.
UM, I THINK NOT THAT THE REPRESENTATIVE FROM PETERSON HAS SAW, HAS SEEN OUR RECOMMENDATION ON THAT ZONING CODE, BUT BASED ON SOME OF HIS COMMENTS WHEN HE CAME IN, I THINK YOU MAY ARGUE THAT WE'RE GONNA HAVE A HARD TIME GETTING SOMEBODY TO BUILD THOSE TYPES OF USES.
AND I, AND I'LL JUST SPEAK, WE DO COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT.
I MEAN, YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH WHAT, AND IF YOU SEE SOME OF THE PROJECTS WE'RE RECENTLY DOING IN AMHERST, I I KNOW AND YOU ALSO HAVE A LARGE MALL THAT USED TO BE REDEVELOPED IN THIS TOWN, RIGHT? SO YOU LOOK AT, THIS IS A LARGE SITE.
YOU HAVE THE MALL THAT IS LOOKING REDEVELOPED.
I'M GOING TO TELL YOU THAT FROM A DEVELOPER'S PERSPECTIVE, THOSE TYPES OF USES ARE GONNA GO ONE OF THOSE PLACES, RIGHT? AND, AND WHERE THEY'RE PROBABLY HEADED IS TO THE MALL.
AND WE ARE NOT GONNA SEE THAT KIND OF DEVELOPMENT ON SITE.
WE HAVE, WE HAVE MARKETED THIS SITE FOR RETAIL, RESTAURANT, MOVIE THEATERS, YOU NAME IT.
IF WE CAN GET THE TENANTS, WE WOULD HAVE THEM.
I WOULDN'T, I WOULDN'T, WE WOULD'VE BUILT THE OTHER PROJECT OR BUILT SOME VERSION OF THE OTHER PROJECT, RIGHT? WITH MIXING USES, RIGHT? THAT, THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT WE DO.
THE OTHER SITE HAD THREE HOTELS ON IT.
IN 2007, I COULD HAVE BUILT THREE HOTELS, RIGHT? BECAUSE THEY WANT TO BE THERE.
FAST FORWARD PAST THE RECESSION.
COVID, WE'RE NOT BUILDING ANY HOTELS.
YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT DOING LARGE COMPLEXES.
WE'RE NOT, WE'RE NOT, WE'RE NOT EVEN DOING, YOU KNOW, I'VE DONE SOME SMALL PROJECTS WITH SECOND STORY.
[01:00:01]
GONNA BE SMALL PROJECTS THAT WOULD FIT ON THE THROUGHWAY AUTHORITY PROPERTY.YOU'RE NOT GONNA FILL THE 77 ACRES IN THE BACK WITH THAT TYPE OF PROJECT.
THAT KIND OF LARGE DEVELOPMENT IS, IS PASSED.
SO, I MEAN, A LOT OF TOWNS ARE GOING WITH FORM BASED ZONING.
FORM BASED ZONING IS, THEY'RE NOT AS TIED INTO THE USES IN THE BUILDINGS, BUT THAT THE PROJECT IS ATTRACTIVE, LOOKS GOOD, MEETS THE GREEN SPACE, HAS ARCHITECTURAL INTERESTS.
ALL OF THAT WE COULD DO WITH THIS PROJECT.
BUT IF, IF YOU REZONE IT TO TO TO THOSE USES, IT'S JUST GONNA SIT VACANT IN.
THAT'S THE, I JUST BECAUSE YOU CHANGED THE ZONING DOESN'T MEAN THOSE TENANTS ARE GONNA COME.
THIS IS NOT THE FIRST PROJECT WE HAD.
SO, SO WHEN I USED TO BE A TOWN ATTORNEY, WE, I WAS INVOLVED IN SOME CODE CHANGES IN LONG ISLAND.
YOU GOTTA LOOK AT THE MARKET AND, AND THAT'S WHERE WE ARE AT THIS POINT.
AND, AND THIS PROJECT PUTS NO STRAIN ON, ON THE TAX BASE WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT.
AND IT'LL GENERATE A LOT OF TAXES FOR THE TOWN.
AND IT, IT, IT IS SET WAY BACK FROM THE ROAD.
AND AT THIS POINT, SOME OF THE NEIGHBORS IN THE MEETING SAID TO ME ON MONDAY, AND WE'RE GONNA SIGN AN AGREEMENT WITH THEM IF WE GO FORWARD WITH THIS PROJECT THAT ALL THIS GOES IN SAID THEY WOULD RATHER SEE THIS IN A BIG SHOPPING CENTER OR ALL, OR, OR HAVE ALL SORTS OF USES.
THERE WE WE'RE, THERE'S TONS OF OPEN AREA AND PARKING AND EVERYTHING ELSE.
SO THAT WAS AS CLOSE AS MONDAY.
AND I'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THOSE NEIGHBORS FOR SIX MONTHS, WHICH IS WHY I ASKED FOR THE EXTENSION.
SO FORTUNATELY, AS FAR AS THE ZONING GOES, ULTIMATELY THAT'S GONNA BE THE PLANNING, UH, THE TOWN BOARD'S DECISION, NOT OURS.
SO WE DON'T HAVE TO CONSIDER ALL OF THOSE FACTORS, BUT WHAT WE DO HAVE TO CONSIDER IS WHAT WE WANT TO DO WITH THIS PROJECT WHILE WE'RE WAITING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THE TOWN BOARD IS GONNA DO WITH THE ZONING.
I MEAN, I, I DON'T KNOW HOW TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION, BUT THIS IS A LOT OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.
THE WHOLE NEW LAYOUT AND THERE'S A LOT TO THINK ABOUT.
I DEFINITELY, WE NEED TO HEAR FROM THE, WE'VE HEARD YOUR REPRESENTATION ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED WITH THE LANDOWNERS.
AT SOME POINT WE NEED TO HEAR WHAT THE NEIGHBORS THINK WE'RE IN THE PROCESS OF SIGNING BETWEEN US.
SO IF THIS IS A, DO WE HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS? IN THE PAST WE DID NOT.
SO WE HAVEN'T EVEN HAD A PUBLIC HEARING.
SO WE HAVE, SO WE'LL HAVE THAT OPPORTUNITY TO DO THAT.
UM, WHEN DENNIS HAS SUGGESTED TABLE IT, UM, AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT BENDERSON IS ASKING FOR AT THIS POINT, IS FOR US TO NOT GET RID OF IT, BUT TO TABLE IT.
WE WOULD GRANT THE EXTENSION AND TABLE.
WELL NOW YOU DON'T, YOUR EXTENSION WAS 'CAUSE I DIDN'T APPEAR IN 90 DAYS.
SO NOW TECHNICALLY YOU DON'T NEED TO GRANT AN EXTENSION 'CAUSE I'M HERE, WE'RE JUST TABLING IT.
OH, YOU JUST NEED TO TABLE IT.
THIS IS TECHNICALLY HIS APPEARANCE FROM HIS REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION WHEN IT WAS DENIED, HE'S RETURNED.
SO I DON'T NEED AN EXTENSION REQUEST.
WE JUST NEED TO, SO, I MEAN, I THINK MY ASK AT THIS POINT IS I NEED TO, TO THINK ABOUT THIS.
AND I'M, I'M SURE, I MEAN, SO I HEAR YOUR POINTS.
I PROBABLY WOULDN'T HAVE SOME COUNTERPOINTS.
THE, THE REZONING, WE'RE FINALIZING THAT AT THE NEXT MEETING.
AND THE TOWN BOARD IS GONNA HAVE TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING.
AND WHAT'S THE TIMEFRAME WE THINK ON THE TOWN BOARD'S DECISION? JANUARY 20, 24.
ONLY TWO MORE TOWN BOARD MEETINGS AFTER THE SIXTH.
DOES THE TOWN BOARD NEED OUR REPORT BEFORE THEY CAN HOLD THE YES.
SO I THINK THAT WE WOULDN'T WANNA DO A PUBLIC HEARING UNTIL AFTER THAT IF WE WANT TO HAVE ANY MORE MEETINGS ABOUT IT BEFORE THAT.
UM, WHAT'S YOUR POSITION? UH, I I I'VE GIVEN YOU A LOT OF INFORMATION.
INCLUDING, ORIGINALLY I UPDATED ALL THE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTS TO MATCH THE PRIOR PROJECTS.
SO YOU CAN SEE RIGHT? THE, THE, THE, THE, THE BIG, THE BIG BEHIND THE, THE, THE, I I HAVE SPENT SIX MONTHS WORKING WITH THE NEIGHBORS.
SO KICKING IT OFF TILL PASS WHEN THE TOM MOORE MAKES A DECISION IS NOT REALLY WHAT I'M LOOKING AT.
YOU KNOW, I UNDERSTAND TABLING IT TODAY MM-HMM
BUT THERE IS NO MORATORIUM, THERE'S NO NEW ZONING.
AND EVEN IF THERE IS NEW ZONING, YOU KNOW, WE'RE GONNA HAVE LEGAL RIGHTS THAT, THAT ARE, WE'RE GONNA PURSUE ON THIS.
UM, YOU KNOW, AND, AND I'M ALSO GONNA SPEAK AT THE TOWN BOARD MEETING BECAUSE REZONING, YOU KNOW, THE SUMMARY I JUST GAVE IS YOU CAN REZONE EVERYTHING YOU WANT.
I WOULD EXPECT THAT YOU, I WOULD SUGGEST THAT MAYBE WE GET SOME TIME TO DIGEST THIS AND SEE IF HE MAYBE COME BACK IN DECEMBER.
WE CAN TALK ABOUT WHAT OTHER ADDITIONAL INFORMATION WE MIGHT NEED AND OTHER QUESTIONS WE MIGHT HAVE AND BE PREPARED TO DIGEST.
DOES THAT THE FIRST WEEK IN, IN DECEMBER WOULD BE BUYING A BANK.
[01:05:01]
ON THAT.SO WE'VE GOT ROOM FOR ONE MORE DECEMBER 6TH OR DECEMBER 6TH.
YEAH, I MEAN THAT WOULD BE MY RECOMMENDATION IS THAT WE TAKE SOME TIME TO DIGEST THIS.
WE CAN ALL COME BACK WITH SOME, SOME SPECIFIC THOUGHTS OR QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVEN'T ALREADY PROVIDED, UH, ANNISE HAS A COPY OF THIS PRESENTATION.
THIS IS IN THE FOLDER, ISN'T IT? MINE, YEAH.
THE GOOD AMOUNT OF TIME WORKS.
I DON'T THINK WE HAVE ALL THE ANSWERS, SO WE CAN COME UP WITH MORE.
I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE HAMBURG CROSSINGS TO DECEMBER 6TH.
THAT'S A MOTION BY BILL, SECOND BY CINDY.
WE QUESTION, UH, YOU CAN PROBABLY ASK OUR CONSULTANTS AFTER THE MEETING QUESTION GO TO HIM THAT, OH, WELL YOU CAN ASK HIM.
YEAH, BUT NOT, NOT DURING THE MEETING.
YEAH, YOU, YOU CAN LIKE, YOU CAN GO TALK TO HIM NOW, BUT NOT AS PART OF THE MEETING.
SO I'LL ALSO SAY THAT THE, THE PLANNING BOARD CAN, WE'LL TAKE COMMENTS AT A PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS PROJECT WHEN WE HAVE IT.
BUT YOU COULD ALSO SUBMIT QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS VIA EMAIL TO THE, THE, THE PLANNING BOARD.
AND THOSE COME TO US BETWEEN MEETINGS AND WE WILL GET SEE THAT AND WRITE IT.
SO IF YOU WANNA SEND EITHER A LETTER TO THE TOWN HALL OR IF YOU WANNA SEND AN EMAIL, UM, AND JOSH OR ANNALISE CAN GET YOU THE INFORMATION TO SEND THAT IN.
WE DO REVIEW ALL THOSE COMMENTS AS THAT INFORMATION COMES IN.
SO IF THERE'S ANYTHING YOU'D LIKE TO SAY, IF YOU CAN PUT IT IN WRITING AND SEND IT, I'LL HAVE, ALRIGHT, SO NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS PLANNING BOARD TO REVIEW.
NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS PLANNING BOARD TO REVIEW THE SUBMITTED SCOPING DOCUMENT FOR CAR WASH PROJECT BY MOD WASH.
BE LOCATED AT 5 3 6 3 SOUTHWESTERN BOULEVARD.
SO WE'VE GOT A PROPOSED SCOPING DOCUMENT.
WHAT IS THAT? THIS IS THE PROJECT WHERE WE YOU GONNA BRING IT UP? YEAH, THAT'S ROAD WASH.
IT'S, I DON'T KNOW IF WE GOT SLIDES ON THIS ONE.
SO THIS IS THE ONE ON SOUTHWESTERN THAT WAS NEAR THE ONE RESIDENTIAL HOME, WELL I GUESS NEAR A FEW RESIDENTIAL HOMES.
THAT WE DID THE POSITIVE DECK ON.
SO THEY'RE NOW COMING BACK TO GO THROUGH THE FULL SEEKER PROCESS.
UM, WE HAVE A DRAFT SCOPING DOCUMENT.
OUR NEXT STEP IS TO HOLD A PUBLIC SCOPING SESSION SO THE PUBLIC CAN COME IN AND MAKE COMMENTS ON THAT SCOPING DOCUMENT.
I DON'T KNOW IF ANYBODY HAD ANY COMMENTS THEY WANTED TO GET INTO BEFORE WE SCHEDULE THE PUBLIC SCOPING SESSION.
UH, TO SOME EXTENT IT'S PROBABLY BETTER THAT WE WAIT TO HEAR FROM THE PUBLIC, SO THAT WOULD BE REASONABLE.
SO I'M GONNA MAKE A MOTION TO SCHEDULE AN OFFICIAL RESOLUTION THAT YOU ALSO NEED YOU TO AUTHORIZE THIS TO.
OBVIOUSLY DISTRIBUTE THAT TO HELP ON THE SESSION AS WE ISSUE THE PRODUCT, DO WE HAVE A SECRET TIMELINE THAT WE'RE REQUIRED TO HIT? YEAH.
SO THE TIMELINE THAT WE'RE TRYING TO AIM FOR IS WE'RE CALLING FOR THE SMOKING SESSION ON THE 15TH AND THEN WE'RE TRYING TO ISSUE THE FINAL SCOPE EITHER AT THAT FIRST MEETING IN DECEMBER OR THAT SECOND MEETING DECEMBER.
WELL HE'S ALREADY GOT, YEAH, IT'S GONNA HAVE TO BE THE SECOND MEETING OF DECEMBER.
WELL, THE SECOND MEETING OF NOVEMBER FOR THE PUBLIC SCOPING SESSION.
THE SECOND MEETING OF DECEMBER FOR THE ADOPTION, THE VOTE ON ADOPTION, BECAUSE WE FILLED UP THE FIRST MEETING IN DECEMBER.
ALSO, THEN KEEP IN MIND THAT YOUR SECOND MEETING IN DECEMBER IS THE WEEK OF CHRISTMAS.
WE'RE GETTING GOOD TO HAVE SOME, SOME PRETTY LONG AGENDAS AGAIN BECAUSE WE SHOVING THINGS IN ON WEEKS THAT WE ARE ALREADY FULL.
SO JUST WANTED TO KEEP IT A MONTH.
BUT FOR NOW, WE'RE JUST DEALING WITH THE PUBLIC SCOPE SESSION.
SO WHEREAS THE TOWN OF HAM PLANNING BOARD RECEIVED THE SITE PLAN AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION FROM MOD WASH LLC TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF A CAR WASH AT
[01:10:01]
5 3 6 3 SOUTHWESTERN BOULEVARD.AND WHEREAS THE PLANNING BOARD REVIEWED THE APPLICATIONS AND REVISIONS TO THE APPLICATIONS AT MEETINGS FROM FEBRUARY, 2023 TO JULY, 2023.
AND WHEREAS IN ACCORDANCE WITH PART 6 1 7 OF THE IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO R EIGHT STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION LAW, THE HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD INITIATED A SECRET COORDINATED REVIEW PROCESS FOR THIS UNLISTED ACTION AND ESTABLISHED THE PLANNING BOARD AS LEAD AGENCY.
AND WHEREAS THE HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED APPROVAL OF THE SITE PLAN AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT IN CONSTRUCTION OF A CAR WASH MAY INCLUDE THE POTENTIAL FOR AT LEAST ONE SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND THEREFORE ISSUED A POSITIVE DECLARATION.
AND WHEREAS THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROCESS WOULD START ONCE THE APPLICANT SUBMITS THE A DRAFT SCOPING DOCUMENT AND SUCH DOCUMENT HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY THE TOWN NOW THEREFORE BE RESOLVED THAT THE HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD ACCEPTS THE DRAFT SCOPING DOCUMENT SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT AS IT MEETS THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS OF SEEKER LAW AND SETS A PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING ON THE DRAFT SCOPING DOCUMENT AT HAMBURG TOWN HALL, 6 1 0 0 SOUTH PARK AVENUE, HAMBURG, NEW YORK, 7:00 PM ON NOVEMBER 15TH, 2023.
AND HEREBY AUTHORIZE MY DEPARTMENT TO COMPLETE THE APPROPRIATE NOTICES AND MAILINGS.
SO THAT ISN'T MOTION BY BILL SECOND BY SECOND, CINDY, ALL IN FAVOR? AYE.
SO WE WILL HAVE THE PUBLIC SCOPING SESSION ON THE MOD WASH WHERE THE PUBLIC CAN COME IN AND TALK ABOUT THE SCOPE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ON NOVEMBER 15TH.
WHY DID DAN ABSTAIN? UH, HE HAS A CONFLICT.
SO YOU DISCUSSED IT WITH JENNIFER AND HE'S GONNA ABSTAIN ON THE THIS ONE AND THE NEXT ONE.
COULD HAVE SAID THAT YOU'RE SORRY.
WE STILL RECORDING? UH, JACK? YES.
THIS THE LAST TIME WE GOT YEP.
NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS ROYAL WASH REQUESTING REZONING A A QUARTER ACRE LOT AT 3, 2, 3, 1 AND 3 2 3 3 LAKESHORE ROAD FROM M THREE TO C DUKE ANNISE.
GOOD, GOOD MORNING BOARD MEMBERS.
I'M DAVID COX WITH PASTOR ASSOCIATE, THE CIVIL ENGINEER FOR THE PROJECT, AND ALSO WITH ME, IT'S ANTHONY, DANIELLE HAVE ROYAL WASH DEVELOPMENT.
UM, AND WE'RE HERE FOR, UH, RECOMMENDATION OF THE TOWN BOARD FOR A REZONING OF THIS PROPERTY FROM FROM M THREE TO C TWO.
UM, SO JUST A QUICK BRIEF BACKGROUND WHERE WE'VE BEEN PRESENTED TO THE CODE REVIEW COMMITTEE ON JULY 19TH.
PRESENTED TO THE PLAIN BOARD ON JULY 19TH.
TOWN BOARD REFERRAL TO THE PLANNING BOARD ON SEPTEMBER 11TH.
PRESENTED TO THE PLANNING BOARD ON OCTOBER 4TH.
UM, AND THEN WE'RE HERE TONIGHT.
SO I'VE BEEN HERE A COUPLE TIMES.
UH, DON'T NEED TO GO THROUGH THE FULL PRESENTATION.
UM, BUT WE ARE REQUESTING A, UH, A DOWN ZONING OF THIS PROPERTY.
SO DOWN ZONING WOULD BE FROM A MORE INTENSE USE OR ALLOWED USES TO LESS INTENSE, UH, USES.
SO IT IS SURROUNDED BY A, UH, AN INDUSTRIAL, UH, COMPLEX.
AND WE HAVE TWO, UH, BOTTLE RETURN AND AN OLD BUILDING HERE.
SO WE ARE LOOKING TO REALLY KIND OF DRESS THIS SITE UP AND, UH, TURN IT INTO SOMETHING THAT, UM, IS A LITTLE MORE AESTHETICALLY PLEASING TO THE EYE, ADDS A LITTLE MORE GREEN SPACE, A LITTLE MORE LANDSCAPING, UH, WELL MANICURED, NICE LOOKING BUILDING.
UM, AND THEN WE HAVE, UH, PROVIDED ALL THE, UH, REQUESTED, REQUESTED DOCUMENTS AND INFORMATION FROM THE, UH, LAST MEETING THAT WAS REQUESTED.
AND, UH, WE CAN ANSWER ANY SPECIFIC QUESTION IF THERE WAS ANYTHING THAT CAME UP.
DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THOROUGH? WE ALL HAVE DOING THE SEEKER AND WE'RE JUST PROVIDING RIGHT? WE, WE ALL COPIES OF THE MEMO.
ANY ISSUES WITH THAT MEMO? ALL RIGHT.
THE ONLY OTHER QUESTION I HAVE IS THAT, SO THEY ARE GONNA THEN COME BACK TO US SITE PLANS IF WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON SPECIFIC LAYOUT OUT LIGHTING.
THEY ADDRESS THAT IF, IF THE PROJECT IS REZONED, RIGHT?
[01:15:01]
RIGHT.SO WE'VE GOT A MEMO RECOMMENDING THAT THE TOWN BOARD REZONE IT.
UM, SO I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE ADOPT THE MEMO WE WERE DISTRIBUTED AND SEND THAT TO THE TOWN BOARD.
SEND A MOTION BY BILL SECOND BY DENNIS.
ALL IN FAVOR? A ABSTENTION AND ONE ABSTENTION YOU.
WE DO JUST NEED TO DELETE THE, THERE WAS A SPOT FOR ANY OTHER CONDITIONS IN THERE.
SO YOU CAN JUST STRIKE WHERE IT SAYS OTHERS.
OH, YOU ONLY HAVE THAT PROBABLY THE LAST BULLET THERE.
ASSUMING NO ONE HAD ANY OTHER CONDITIONS SINCE WE JUST
GO TO THE TOWN BOARD FOR THE REZONING.
NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS ALLIANCE HOMES REZONING REQUESTING REZONING OF VACANT LAND AT HOWARD ROAD IN SOUTHWESTERN BOULEVARD FROM C ONE TO R THREE TO MATCH THE REMAINDER OF THE PARCEL ZONED R THREE.
DIDN'T WE GET 30 MINUTES EARLY? YEAH, THEY SENT EARLIER, BUT THEN YOU PRINT OUT.
FEW MINUTES YOU'RE CRANKING THROUGH TODAY I DO THE PEANUT GALLERY BRIEF WITH THAT ASSESSMENT.
I TRY TO DO IS THAT, IS THAT BETTER EVENING EVERYONE? GILBERT FROM ALLIANCE HOMES.
WE'RE HERE WITH ANDREW ROMANOWSKI.
UM, WE DON'T HAVE THE LIBRARY OF HAVING SEAN HOPKINS ABOUT ONE THE PROJECT RIGHT TODAY.
WE'VE ALREADY DISCUSSED THE PROJECT, UM, QUITE A FEW TIMES.
SO, UM, JUST JUST TO HIGHLIGHT, UH, WE HAVE A 13.12 ACRE SITE AT THE NORTHEASTERN CORNER OF SOUTHWESTERN BOULEVARD AND HOWARD ROAD.
UM, THE SITE IS CURRENTLY SPLIT ZONED R THREE AND C ONE COMMERCIAL, SO WE'RE LOOKING TO DOWN ZONE THE C ONE COMMERCIAL PORTION OF THE SITE TWO R THREE TO MATCH THE REMAINING PORTION OF THE SITE AND KEEP THE SITE CONSISTENTLY ZONED.
UM, SUBJECT TO THAT REZONING, WE ARE PROPOSING A 60 UNIT RESIDENTIAL PROJECT.
IT IS FIVE TWO STORY BUILDINGS CONSISTING OF 12 UNITS EACH.
UM, SINCE OUR LAST MEETING WE HAVE PROVIDED A A LETTER TO THE NEIGHBORS, GIVING 'EM AN UPDATE ON THE CURRENT SITE PLAN THAT WAS ALREADY PROVO PROVIDED TO, UH, OR PRESENTED TO THE BOARD ON OCTOBER 4TH.
UM, ALL THAT CULMINATED IN SOME REZONING CONDITIONS THAT WE'VE ALREADY DISCUSSED.
UH, BUT I'LL JUST HIGHLIGHT THE, THE BULLET POINTS.
SO WE HAVE BUILDING HEIGHTS THAT WE LIMITED TO TWO STORIES.
UM, PROPERTY LINE SCREENING THAT INCLUDES THE SIX FOOT FENCE THE ENTIRE WAY.
UM, FROM THE HOWARD ROAD TO THE EASTERN IMPACT LIMIT.
UM, WE HAVE PROVIDED DUMPSTER LOCATIONS ALONG WITH A 100 FOOT SETBACK RESTRICTION.
UM, MINIMUM BUILDING SETBACKS.
UH, SO THE MINIMUM BUILDING SETBACK FOR THE CURRENT ZONING IS 40 FEET.
UM, IF THE PROPERTY WERE TO BE DOWN ZONE TO R THREE, THAT RESTRICTION WOULD INCREASE TO 50 FEET.
AND WHAT WE PRESENTED HERE IS 65 FEET JUST TO PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT OF EXTRA SPACE BETWEEN OURSELVES AND THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.
UM, WE'VE LIMITED THE MAXIMUM DENSITY WITH THAT ZONING CONDITION TO 60 UNITS AND UM, ALSO IMPLEMENTED AN OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENT FOR THE NORTHEASTERN SECTION OF THE SITE THAT WE WOULD PROPOSE TO REMAIN, UM, OPEN SPACE VIS-A-VIS A DEED RESTRICTION, UM, KEEPING THAT SPACE OPEN, UH, AND UNDEVELOPABLE.
SO WITH THAT, IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, WE'RE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANYTHING.
ALRIGHT, SO WHAT WE DID WAS WE ASKED TO GET, UH, TWO MEMOS.
ONE WHERE WE RECOMMEND THE REZONING TO THE TOWN BOARD AND ONE WHERE WE DON'T RECOMMEND IT.
ULTIMATELY IT'S GONNA BE THE TOWN BOARD'S DECISION.
UM, THE ONE WHERE WE DON'T RECOMMEND IT, WE WOULD RECOMMEND THAT IT REMAIN THE COMMERCIAL ZONING THAT IT IS CURRENTLY.
SO I GUESS I WILL DO A POLL TO SEE WHICH ONE MORE PEOPLE WANNA VOTE ON IT.
SO YOU WANNA START DENNIS? SURE.
I'M GONNA ABSTAIN BECAUSE I'M NOT HAPPY WITH C ONE OR R THREE.
ALRIGHT, WHAT WE NEED FOUR TO PASS ALL.
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANNA GO NEXT CALY OR I'M IN FAVOR.
I WAS GONNA HAVE MOVING FORWARD WITH THE RECOMMENDATION OVER THE REZONING.
[01:20:05]
OH, CINDY, I'M IN FAVOR OF RE RESULTING TO ARTHUR.I'M IN FAVOR OF REZONING TO ARTHUR THREE.
YEAH, I'M IN FAVOR OF RE REFERRING TO ARTHUR THREE.
UM, ACTUALLY I FAVOR COMMERCIAL, BUT, OH, SO, BUT THAT'S ALL RIGHT.
THAT WAS WHAT I WAS WORRIED ABOUT
SO 'CAUSE MOST OF THE MEMOS SIMILAR EITHER WAY.
UM, IT'S JUST THE FINAL RECOMMENDATION.
SO, UH, THEN I WILL MAKE A MOTION WELL, SORRY, SORRY.
BEFORE WE, CAN WE JUST GO THROUGH, DID ANYBODY HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS ON THIS MEMO OR REGARDLESS OF HOW YOU'RE VOTING, ARE THERE ANY SPECIFIC THINGS THAT YOU WANT US TO MAKE SURE THAT THE TOWN BOARD CONSIDERS DENNIS ON THIS PROJECT? YEAH, I, I'D LIKE THEM TO CONSIDER THE ROAD THAT THEY'RE GOING TO USE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND WHERE IT COMES INTO HOWARD ROAD AND HOW CLOSE THAT ROAD IS GONNA BE TO THE OTHER SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.
UM, UH, UH, IS IT OKAY IF I ADD SOME BULLETS AND ON THIS REPORT, JUST ONE ON THE ROAD, BUT THEY SAID THAT DOT WON'T GIVE THEM THE CURB CUT FOR SOUTHWESTERN, BUT I DON'T KNOW HOW HARD THEY TRIED.
SEAN SAID, WELL YOU WANNA TRY, GO AHEAD.
SO, AND THE OTHER THING SEAN MENTIONED WHEN I SAID THAT I WENT TO THAT DEVELOPMENT AND WERE NO RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY HOMES IN THAT AREA, HE TRIED TO CORRECT ME AND SAID THERE ARE, BUT YOU'RE HERE.
THERE'S NOT ONE SINGLE FAMILY HOME IN YOUR DEVELOPMENT THERE RIGHT NOW? ACTUALLY, ACTUALLY THERE ARE SO ON, ON WHAT ROAD NOW? ON BIG TREE ROAD.
SO, OKAY, SEE NOW, OKAY, BIG TREE ROAD.
I'M TALKING ABOUT YOUR DEVELOPMENT.
I'M NOT SURE I FOLLOWED THE QUESTION THOUGH.
THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, THE PROPOSED NO, I, BUT I MADE THE POINT THAT THE OTHER ONE, THEY'RE NICE, THEY'RE NOWHERE NEAR A REI A A SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND SEAN SAID THERE ARE AND I WENT THROUGH THERE.
SO RIGHT ALONG CALIFORNIA ROAD AND BIG TREE ROAD, WE BACK RIGHT UP TO A OF RESIDENTIAL.
YEAH, IT'S VERY SIMILAR TO HOW WE BACK UP TO RESIDENTIAL.
IT'S NOT HOW YOUR DEVELOPMENT, SO THAT'S THE POINT I WAS MAKING.
SO I JUST WANNA SAY, YEAH, I THINK WHAT SEAN WAS SPECIFYING WAS IT'S VERY SIMILAR TO HOW WE BACK UP TO RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORS TO THE REAR OUR PROPERTY LINE WE DO IN THE DEVELOPMENT THAT YOU'RE REFERENCING AS WELL.
WELL THAT'S WHAT I SAW, BUT HE DIDN'T SAY, ADD A STATEMENT THAT SAYS THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDS THE TOWN BOARD CONSIDER THE ROAD LOCATION AND ACCESS ONTO HOWARD ROAD AND ANY APPROPRIATE CONSIDERING LIKE AND CONCERNS RAISED BY THE PUBLIC.
WE WILL ALSO BE ATTACHING MINUTES AS WELL, JUST AS A REFERENCE, JUST SO EVERYONE'S AWARE.
SO I DON'T THINK THAT, I DON'T, I DON'T, I MEAN IT, WE CAN ASK THEM TO CONSIDER ANYTHING BUT JUST GONNA, OR BE AWARE THAT THERE WERE, I DON'T KNOW.
I WOULD SAY THERE THAT WAS A COMMON COMMENT.
ANYBODY HAVE ANY OBJECTION OF THAT BEING ADDED? THE SENTENCE I WROTE SAYS THE PLANNING BOARD NOTES THAT MANY COMMENTS WERE RECEIVED AND ROAD ACCESS ON HOWARD GROVE.
ALRIGHT, WELL THE ATTACHMENT ARE, YEAH, DIFFERENT, THE ATTACHMENTS IN THERE ALREADY FOR THE 10 FORM'S, A DIFFERENT SENTENCE THAT, THAT ADDRESSES THE MINUTES.
SO I WOULDN'T PUT THAT IN THERE.
SO I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO ADOPT THE MEMO RECOMMENDING THE REZONING FOR ALLIANCE HOMES WITH THE MO THE AMENDMENT WE JUST DISCUSSED.
NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS A LS FAULT ISSUANCE OF SEEKER FINDING STATEMENT AND SITE PLAN APPLICATION DETERMINATION.
[01:25:01]
OKAY.SO I'M GONNA START OFF WITH A SUMMARY OF THE PROCESS AND THE HISTORY OF THIS PROJECT.
SO THIS APPLICATION ORIGINALLY CAME BEFORE THE BOARD IN 2019 FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A HOT MIX ASPHALT PLANT.
PROPOSED AT 5 6 9 0 CAMP ROAD.
THE PLANNING BOARD ACTED AS LEAD AGENCY IN THE SECRET REVIEW PROCESS.
THE PLANNING BOARD CLASSIFIED THE ACTION AS UNLISTED AND CONDUCTED A COORDINATED REVIEW OF THE PROJECT'S POTENTIAL FOR SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS.
UH, THAT PROCESS IS GONNA BE OUTLINED IN OUR RESOLUTION.
LEMME BACK AND PUT IT ON THE TOP OF MY FILE.
UH, SINCE THAT TIME, THE TOWN HAS WORKED UPDATES COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, WHICH WE STOPPED IT OF JANUARY OF THIS YEAR.
THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OVER MANY MONTHS SINCE THE APPLICANT FIRST SUBMITTED THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TO THE PLANNING BOARD.
WE HAVE MADE EVERY EFFORT TO ENGAGE THE APPLICANT IN THE SEEKER PROCESS AND WORK COOPERATIVELY TO PREPARE THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THIS PROJECT.
A REVISED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT RECEIVED IN APRIL, 2023 WAS MOVED FORWARD TO THE PUBLIC REVIEW IN MAY OF 2023 WITH THE BOARD NOTING A NUMBER OF REMAINING DEFICIENCIES.
TWO PUBLIC HEARINGS WERE HELD ON JUNE 14TH AND JULY 12TH, 2023 TO RECEIVE PUBLIC COMMENT AND COMMENTS WERE ALSO ACCEPTED IN WRITING.
IN ADDITION TO THE MANY COMMENTS FROM COMMUNITY MEMBERS, THE BOARD RECEIVED COMMENTS FROM THE D ON THE DEIS FROM OTHER INTERESTED AND INVOLVED AGENCIES SUCH AS NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION, ERIE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT PLANNING, WHICH ECHO THE BOARD'S CONCERNS THAT THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT CONTAINED A NUMBER OF DEFICIENCIES.
THE PLANNING BOARD HAS DEVOTED SIGNIFICANT TIME AND ENERGY TO THIS MATTER AND HAS WORKED ALONGSIDE ITS CONSULTANTS TO MOVE THE SECRET PROCESS FORWARD DESPITE A LACK OF MATERIAL ASSISTANCE FROM THE APPLICANT AND THE APPLICANT'S CONTINUED REFUSAL TO MEETING FULLY PARTICIPATE IN THE PROCESS PLANNING BOARD AS LEAD AGENCY ISSUED A FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THIS PROJECT AT HIS LAST MEETING ON OCTOBER 18TH.
AS SUCH, THE BOARD NOW MUST ISSUE ITS SEEKER FINDINGS AND ULTIMATELY A DETERMINATION ON THE PROJECT.
AND WE HAVE BEFORE US A DRAFT RESOLUTION AND DRAFT FINDINGS.
SO I'LL HAVE, UH, OUR ATTORNEY ON THIS MATTER.
KIM, DISCUSSED EXACTLY WHAT WE'VE GOT IN THIS
HI, KIM MASON, SPECIAL COUNSEL TO THE TOWN ON THIS PROJECT.
SO AS BILL MENTIONED, THIS BOARD IS LEAD AGENCY ISSUED A FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AT ITS LAST MEETING ON OCTOBER 18TH.
SINCE THAT TIME, THE REQUIRED 10 DAYS HAS PASSED SINCE THE FILING.
THE REGULATIONS REQUIRE THAT THE LEAD AGENCY WAIT AT LEAST 10 DAYS BEFORE ACTING, BUT ALSO REQUIRE YOU TO ACT WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THAT ISSUANCE OF THE FEIS.
SO WE'RE IN THAT WINDOW TO ACT RIGHT NOW.
UM, AS YOU KNOW, SEEKER REQUIRES A LEAD AGENCY PRIOR TO APPROVING A PROJECT OR FUNDING OR A DISCRETIONARY DECISION BEFORE IT TO WEIGH AND BALANCE PUBLIC NEED, ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL CONSIDERATIONS AGAINST THE POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF A PROJECT.
SO THE FBIS AS YOU'LL RECALL DISCUSSING IN THE LAST MEETING, NOTED THAT THE PLANNING BOARD COULD NOT CERTIFY THAT CONSISTENT WITH THESE CONSIDERATIONS WITH SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS THAT THE PROJECT AVOIDS OR MINIMIZES ITS ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PRACTICABLE.
AND THAT IS ESSENTIALLY THE STANDARD UNDER C WHEN YOU'RE MOVING THROUGH AN EIS PROCESS.
SO BEFORE YOU TONIGHT, YOU HAVE A PROPOSED RESOLUTION WITH SOME ATTACHMENTS THAT I'LL JUST DESCRIBE LEVEL.
UM, THE RESOLUTION ACCEPTS PROPOSES ACCEPTANCE OF THE ATTACHED FINDINGS AND ISSUES, A SITE PLAN DETERMINATION AS WELL.
THE ACTUAL FINDINGS, WHICH IS THE, UM, ATTACHMENT A, YOU SEE RIGHT THERE.
UM, HAVE THE FEIS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ATTACHED.
AND THEY ALSO HAVE A LETTER FROM THE BOARD'S TRAFFIC CONSULTANT ADDRESSING THE INFORMATION WE WERE GIVEN FROM THE APPLICANT ON OCTOBER 18TH, THE DAY THE FBIS WAS ADOPTED.
UM, THE FINDINGS MEET THE SEEKER REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS AND INCLUDE A CERTIFICATION THAT THE PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS OF SEEKER HAVE BEEN MET BY THE LEAD AGENCY.
AND I'LL JUST TOUCH HIGH LEVEL, UM, THE PROPOSED FINDINGS THAT YOU HAVE STATE AS DRAFTED A NUMBER OF THINGS.
FIRST, THE APPLICANT HAS NOT COMPLIED WITH THE SUBSTANTIVE AND PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS OF SEEKER NEXT.
DESPITE THIS BOARD'S GOOD FAITH EFFORTS, THE DEIS AND FBIS DO NOT CONTAIN INFORMATION NECESSARY TO EVALUATE THE PROJECT'S ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS.
[01:30:01]
ON A FEW SPECIFIC AREAS, STORM WATER, AIR, TRANSPORTATION, NOISE, ODOR, CONSISTENCY WITH COMMUNITY PLANS, AND ULTIMATELY PROPOSED MITIGATION.THE FINDINGS ALSO NOTE THAT THE PLANNING BOARD IS UNABLE TO ASSUME BURDEN TO RECTIFY THE DEFICIENCIES BECAUSE YOU WOULD NEED INFORMATION THAT IS ONLY OBTAINABLE FROM THE APPLICANT.
AS SUCH, THE FINDINGS IN THE END INCLUDE THAT GIVEN THE SIGNIFICANT DEFICIENCIES IN INFORMATION, THE PLANNING BOARD CANNOT MAKE THE REQUIREMENT CERTIFICATION UNDER SEEKER THAT THE PROJECT AVOIDS OR MINIMIZES ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS TO THE GREATEST EXTENT PRACTICABLE.
SO THAT'S WHAT'S SUMMARIZED IN THE FINDINGS.
AND THEN GIVEN THE FACT THAT YOU HAVE PROPOSED NEGATIVE FINDINGS, WHICH MEAN YOU ARE SAYING THAT YOU CANNOT MAKE THAT REQUIRED CERTIFICATION, THE PROPOSED RESOLUTION ALSO INCLUDES A DENIAL AT THE SAME TIME.
SO ANY QUESTIONS? UM, SO TYPICALLY I I DID NOTICE THAT TOO.
SO TYPICALLY WE SPLIT THEM UP, BUT THERE'S NO REASON WE CANNOT COMBINE BOTH SEEKER AND THE SITE PLAN INTO THE SAME RESOLUTION.
AND THOSE SOLUTIONS ARE SO, UM, WE'VE GOT SOME BLANKS ON THIS FIRST PAGE HERE.
DO WE HAVE TO ADDRESS THOSE? THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY THE BLANK BY YOU CHAIR.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO READ THAT PART.
THAT'S JUST THE ONE YOU FILE FOR YOUR RECORDS.
SO YOU, SO WE JUST NEED TO, AND WE HAVE READ, ARE WE GONNA GIVE THIS RESOLUTION A NUMBER? WE USUALLY DON'T, BUT NO, WE DON'T USUALLY GIVE IT A NUMBER.
WE DON'T USUALLY GIVE IT SO WE'LL JUST, ALL RIGHT.
IF WE WANTED TO, WE COULD USE IT AS OUR AGENDA NUMBER FOR IT COULD BE SEVEN.
THAT WOULD BE A LITTLE WHILE THERE.
SO WE'RE JUST, SO JUST TO BE CLEAR, ARE WE READING THE ENTIRE RESOLUTION OR WE'RE JUST READING THE FRONT PIECE? SO YOU CAN READ THE RESOLUTION.
YOU DO NOT NEED TO READ THE ATTACHED FINDING SO IT'S DRAFTED AS A RESOLUTION.
SO WE JUST, YEAH, I WASN'T GONNA READ 200 PAGES HERE.
YOU DON'T NEED TO READ THE RESOLUTION ITSELF.
WE CAN WRITE, SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO READ THE RESOLUTION AT ALL.
YOU TYPICALLY, BUT THIS BOARD DOES TYPICALLY READ THE SOLUTION.
ARE YOU GOOD? YOU READY? WE WANT TO TAKE TEAM.
RESOLUTION TO THE TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD AS LEAD AGENCY PURSUANT TO THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT TO ADOPT NEGATIVE FINDINGS AND FINAL DECISION TO DENY THE SITE PLAN APPLICATION FOR AL ASPHALT CORPORATIONS PROPOSED HOT MIX ASPHALT PLANT AT 5 6 9 0 CAMP ROAD.
LEAD AGENCY TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD HEREAFTER REFERRED TO AS PLANNING BOARD 6 1 2 2 SOUTH PARK AVENUE, HAMBURG, NEW YORK, 1 4 0 7 5 LEAD AGENCY CONTACT PERSON WILLIAM CLARK.
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR, UH, PROJECT NAME, HOT MIX, ASPHALT PLANT PROJECT OR ACTION PROJECT SPONSOR AL ASPHALT CORPORATION HEREAFTER REFERRED TO AS PROJECT SPONSOR OR APPLICANT.
SECRET CLASSIFICATION IS UNLISTED.
LOCATION OF THE ACTION IS 5 6 9 0 CAMP ROAD, AMBER, NEW YORK 1 4 0 7 5 HEREAFTER REFERRED TO AS SITE.
WHEREAS THE TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD RECEIVED A SITE PLAN APPLICATION FROM AL ASPHALT CORPORATION IN JUNE, 2019 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A HOT MIX ASPHALT PLANT AND RELATED ACCESSORY USES AT 5 6 9 0 CAMP ROAD IN THE TOWN OF HAMBURG.
AND WHEREAS IN COMPLIANCE WITH ARTICLE EIGHT OF THE NEW YORK STATE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION LAW AND ITS IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS AT SIX N-Y-C-R-R PART 6 1 7, COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT, THE PLANNING BOARD CLASSIFIED THE PROJECT AS AN UNLISTED ACTION, PROPERLY ESTABLISHED ITSELF AS LEAD AGENCY AND CONDUCTED A COORDINATED REVIEW OF THE PROJECT'S POTENTIAL FOR SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS.
AND WHEREAS THE PLANNING BOARD DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED PLANT MAY INCLUDE THE POTENTIAL FOR AT LEAST ONE SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND THEREFORE REQUIRED THE PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT.
AND WHEREAS THE PLANNING BOARD RECEIVED A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PREPARED BY THE APPLICANT ON AUGUST 5TH, 2022 AND WHEREAS THE PLANNING BOARD OF ASSISTANCE FROM ITS CONSULTANTS AND OTHER TOWN DEPARTMENTS DETERMINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 6 1 7 0.9 SECRET REGULATIONS THAT THE DEIS WAS INCOMPLETE AND BY RESOLUTION DATED SEPTEMBER 21ST, 2022, THE PLANNING BOARD REQUESTED THE APPLICANT MAKE CERTAIN REVISIONS TO THE INITIAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND ATTACHED A COPY OF THE SCOPING DOCUMENT CHECKLIST AND A DOCUMENT ENTITLED INAC INADEQUACIES
[01:35:01]
SLASH DEFICIENCIES OF THE AL ASPHALT DEIS TO ASSIST THE APPLICANT WITH THE COMPLETION OF THE REVISED DEIS.AND WHEREAS THE PLANNING BOARD RECEIVED A REVISED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PREPARED BY THE APPLICANT AND SUBMITTED ON APRIL 5TH, 2023 AND WHEREAS THE PLANNING BOARD REVIEWED THE REVISED DEIS WITH ASSISTANCE FROM CONSULTANTS AND OTHER TOWN DEPARTMENTS AND DETERMINED AND IN COORDINANCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 6 1 7 0.9 OF SECRET REGULATIONS TO ACCEPT THE REVISED DEIS FOR PUBLIC REVIEW SUBJECT TO THE LIST OF DEFICIENCIES CONSISTENT WITH THE RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE PLANNING BOARD ON ITS MAY 3RD, 2023 MEETING AND WITH A NOTICE OF COMPLETION OF THE DEIS ISSUED BY THE PLANNING BOARD DATED MAY 4TH, 2023.
AND WHEREAS THE PLANNING BOARD WITH THE MINIMUM POSSIBLE DELAY AND WITH ASSISTANCE FROM CONSULTANTS AND OTHER TOWN DEPARTMENTS BUT WITHOUT ANY MATERIAL ASSISTANCE FROM THE APPLICANT, THE APPLICANT WAS INVITED BUT DECLINED TO PARTICIPATE IN ANY MEANINGFUL WAY PREPARED THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE PROJECT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SIX N-Y-C-R-R 6 1 7 0.9 AND WHEREAS THE PLANNING BOARD ACCEPTED THE FEIS ON OCTOBER 18TH, 2023 ISSUED NOTICE OF COMPLETION OF THE FEIS IN ACCORDANCE WITH SIX N-Y-C-R-R 6 1 7 POINT 12 ON OCTOBER 20TH, 2023 AND THE STATUTORY 10 DAY WAITING PERIOD PASSED ON OCTOBER 30TH, 2023.
AND WHEREAS THE PLANNING BOARD AS LEAD AGENCY FINDS THAT THE PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS OF SEEKER HAVE BEEN MET AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH SEEKER, THE PLANNING BOARD MUST ISSUE FINDINGS BASED ON THE FEIS AND WHEREAS THE FINDINGS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE BASED ON THE FEIS AND THE FULL RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND SUBMISSIONS THAT WERE PRESENTED TO THE PLANNING BOARD AND ARE INCLUDED AS PART OF ITS ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD.
COLLECTIVELY, THE ENVIRONMENTAL RECORD NOW THEREFORE BE RESOLVED BY THE MEMBERS OF THE TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD AS FOLLOWS, SECTION ONE, BASED UPON A THOROUGH REVIEW AND EXAMINATION OF THE FBIS AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL RECORD, THE PLANNING BOARD MAKES THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS ATTACHED TO THIS RESOLUTION AS APPENDIX A WITH RESPECT TO THE PROJECT SECTION TWO, BASED UPON THE PLANNING BOARD'S REVIEW OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL RECORD AND CONSIDERING THE RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS DISCLOSED IN THE FEIS AND WEIGHING AND BALANCING RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS WITH SOCIAL, ECONOMIC AND OTHER CONSIDERATIONS, THE PLANNING BOARD FINDS THAT IT CANNOT CERTIFY THAT CONSISTENT WITH THE SOCIAL, ECONOMIC AND OTHER ESSENTIAL CONSIDERATIONS FROM AMONG THE REASONABLE ALTERNATIVES AVAILABLE.
THE PROJECT IS ONE WHICH AVOIDS OR MINIMIZES ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PRACTICAL AND THAT THE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS WILL BE AVOIDED OR MINIMIZED TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PRACTICAL BY INCORPORATING AS CONDITIONS TO THE DECISION THOSE MITIGATIONS MEMBERS MEASURES WHICH WERE IDENTIFIED AS PRACTICAL.
ACCORDINGLY, THE PLANNING BOARD HEREBY ISSUES NEGATIVE FINDINGS SECTION THREE, BECAUSE THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT IT MUST ISSUE NEGATIVE FINDINGS, THE SITE PLAN APPLICATION IS HEREBY DENIED.
SECTION FOUR, THE PLANNING BOARD HEREBY CERTIFIES THAT ITS RESOLUTION SATISFIES THE REQUIREMENTS UNDER PART 6 1 7 OF THE CA REGULATIONS.
THE PLANNING BOARD STAFF ARE HEREBY AUTHORIZED AND DIRECTED.
SECTION FIVE, THE PLANNING BOARD STAFF ARE HEREBY AUTHORIZED AND DIRECTED TO DISTRIBUTE COPIES OF THIS RESOLUTION WITH APPENDIX A TO THE APPLICANT AND TO PERFORM SUCH ACTS AS MAY BE NECESSARY TO COMPLY WITH SIX NY CRR SIX SEVEN POINT 12 OR OTHERWISE REQUIRED TO IMPLEMENT THE PROVISIONS OF THIS RESOLUTION.
SECTION SIX, THE RESOLUTION TOGETHER WITH FINDINGS ATTACHED HERE, TWO APPENDIX A, WHICH ARE ADOPTED BY A MAJORITY VOTE OF THE PLANNING BOARD SHALL SERVE AS THE FINDING STATEMENT AS DESCRIBED IN SIX N-Y-C-R-R 6 1 7 FOR THE PROJECT AND ARE ISSUED BY THE PLANNING BOARD PURSUANT TO AND ACCORDANCE WITH SEEKER AND SHALL TAKE EFFECT IMMEDIATELY.
BEFORE WE CAN DO THE ROLL CALL VOTE, WE HAVE TO DO THAT SO NO.
SECOND WE DO A MOTION BY BILL SECOND BY KAITLYN M UH, THEN ACCORDING TO WHAT WE WROTE HERE, IT'S GONNA BE A ROLL CALL.
I'LL GO IN ORDER HOW IT'S WRITTEN.
UM, MARGO VALENTI IS ABSTAINING AND IS NOT HERE.
SO THAT IS SIX A, THE RESOLUTION PASSES AND SO THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION IS THEREON DECLARED DULY ADOPTED.
[01:40:01]
THAT.OKAY, SO WE MINUTES THAT CAME IN FROM SARAH FOR THE MEETING.
I BELIEVE IT WAS NOVEMBER 18TH.
DID ANYBODY HAVE ANY COMMENTS ON THE MINUTES FROM THE NOVEMBER 18TH MEETING? I DO.
SO, UM, LET ME JUST PULL IT UP WITH THAT AGAIN.
SO IT'S IN REGARDS TO, UM, THE WEST, HER, UM, WHERE KAITLYN M ASKED ABOUT THE SECURITY LIGHTING.
AND I ASKED HER AND INDICATED TO HER THAT I THOUGHT THAT THAT WAS BROUGHT, UH, AT THE PREVIOUS MEETING AND, UM, FOR SECURITY REASONS, THAT'S WHY THEY COULDN'T SHUT THE LIGHTS OFF.
AND I THINK IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT CAITLIN C CONCURRED WITH MY STATEMENT AND THAT'S NOT IN ADD IN THOSE
I THINK WE CAN MAKE A MOTION TO AMEND WITH THAT SENTENCE ADDED AND THEN STILL PROVE THE MINUTES TODAY.
SO I THE MINUTES WITH THAT STATEMENT.
EVERYBODY WANTS TO SECOND, SECOND.
SO WE HAVE A MOTION BY CINDY TO AMEND AND A SECOND BY CAITLYN C TO AMEND.
WE ALL HEAR THAT MEETING RIGHT? OKAY.
SO DO WE, OH, DO WE HAVE TO MAKE ACCEPT A MOTION TO APPROVE? YOU HAVE TO MAKE ACCEPT A MOTION BECAUSE YOU JUST MADE A MOTION TO AMEND.
I MAKE THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS A AMEN.
SO IS A MOTION BY KAY M SECOND.
AND THAT'S THOSE THE ONLY MINUTES WE HAVE, RIGHT? YEP.
OKAY, SO MOTION BY DAN, SECOND BY SECOND.
YOU NEED TO GO OUT? I CAN SIGN.
PETER, IF THERE IS ANYTHING YOU CAN, UH, PAPER FOR CLASS SIGN.