[00:00:01]
          EVERYBODY'S MICS ON. YES, YES. ALRIGHT, WE'RE GOING TO WE'RE MISSING A COUPLE OF BOARD MEMBERS, BUT WE HAVE A QUORUM AND WE'RE GOING TO START THE WORK SESSION. SO OUR FIRST CASE IS DAVID MANKO REQUESTING PRELIMINARY. I'M SORRY. ONE WEEK REQUESTING PLAT. PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL OF A TWO LOT SUBDIVISION TO BE LOCATED ON PORTION OF LAND AT PARKER AND 4825 BIG TREE ROAD. AND YOU ARE. I AM DAVID MANKO. IS IT MIKE ON? IS THAT MICHAEL? YEP. IT'S ON. 
          OKAY, ALRIGHT. YOU HAVE TO TALK RIGHT INTO IT. OKAY, OKAY. YOU MAY PROCEED. YES. I AM REQUESTING THAT THE LAND AS DESCRIBED TO BE BROKEN INTO TWO PARCELS, A LARGER PARCEL AND A SMALLER PARCEL FOR A TWO LOT SUBDIVISION. I WENT TO CLOSE ON THE PROPERTY, AND I REALIZED THAT THE LANDOWNER HAD NOT PUT HIS APPLICATION IN FOR THE TWO LOT SUBDIVISION. SO WORKING WITH MR. HARLOFF, GARY HARLOFF AND GETTING HIS PERMISSION, WE'VE FILED THE PAPERWORK TO SEPARATE THIS PROPERTY INTO TWO LOT SUBDIVISION. AND CAN YOU IDENTIFY WHAT IT IS? WHICH PARCEL WE'RE TALKING THERE? DO YOU WANT ME TO HOLD THIS? WELL, EITHER THAT OR. YEAH. OKAY. 
          ALRIGHT. SO AS YOU CAN SEE AT THE TOP OF THE PAPER, WHICH WOULD BE THE NORTH END OF THE NORTH END, THAT WOULD BE BIG TREE ROAD OR 20 A, THERE IS A BLACK SOLID LINE RUNNING APPROXIMATELY FROM THE CENTER LINE OF THE ROAD BACK 300FT. THAT OR THAT LINE RUNS ACROSS. 
          THERE IS ALSO A CREEK THAT'S ABOUT TWO FEET WIDE, THAT RUNS ACROSS FROM ONE SIDE OF THE PROPERTY TO THE OTHER. THE CREEK DOES CROSS THE LINE LIKE A SNAKE HERE OR THERE, FROM ONE SIDE TO THE OTHER. AND THEN THE PARCEL B WOULD BE THE APPROXIMATE 35 ACRES OF LAND FOR THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION THAT WE'VE HAD IN FOR APPROVAL FOR, I THINK THE LAST FIVE YEARS WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON IT, WHICH IS LOT TWO. CORRECT. LOT NUMBER TWO. THAT IS CORRECT. SO YOU WANT TO SPLIT LOT TWO FROM LOT ONE. THAT IS CORRECT. IS THAT THE CLARIFICATION THAT WE HAVE. 
          OKAY. THIS IS MY FIRST TIME I'VE DONE THIS IN 35 YEARS OF ANY PARCELS OF LAND I'VE BOUGHT THROUGHOUT WESTERN NEW YORK. AND THERE IS TO BREAK ONE UP. I'VE NEVER DONE THIS BEFORE, SO. 
          WELL, YOU'RE DOING GREAT SO FAR. SO YOU CAN GO BACK TO THE PODIUM. THANK YOU. AND WE'LL TAKE THE SPOTLIGHT OFF OF YOU AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT. DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD? THE ONLY THING THAT WE WILL ADD IS FROM A ZONING CODE ENFORCEMENT STANDPOINT. THE SPLIT WILL. THIS PARCEL IS SPLIT ZONED R1 AND C3. SO THE SPLIT WHERE LOT ONE WILL BE THAT WILL REMAIN C3, AND THEN THE OTHER PARCEL WILL REMAIN R1. OTHER THAN THAT, FROM A CODE ENFORCEMENT STANDPOINT, AS I PUT IN THE MEMO, CODE ENFORCEMENT REVIEWED IT FOR SETBACKS. ACCESS OFF OF YOU KNOW, A MAIN ROAD HAD NO ISSUES WITH IT. AND IF COMFORTABLE, THE BOARD OBVIOUSLY CAN SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING FOR A FOLLOWING MEETING. ALRIGHT. THANK YOU. ENGINEERING. DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO OFFER? TAMMY? OH, OKAY. THE TWO LOT SUBDIVISION IN HERE. OKAY. THANK YOU. I'D LIKE TO ASK ANYWAYS. 
          OKAY. BOARD MEMBERS QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, CONCERNS. MEMBER MCCORMICK. JOSH, THAT ZONING IS WHAT WAS IN THE EYES, RIGHT. KEEPING THOSE TWO ZONES THE SAME WAY. SO THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH ALL THE SEEKER WE DID BEFORE. CORRECT. THAT'S IT. I SEE NEW FACES ON THE BOARDS. I HAVEN'T BEEN HERE IN ABOUT A NINE, 9 OR 10 MONTHS NOW BECAUSE WE'VE BEEN WAITING FOR THIS DEC DETERMINATION LETTER AND WE SHOULD HAVE ABOUT ANOTHER WEEK OR TWO BECAUSE WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THEM. SO WE SHOULD BE BACK INTO YOU RELATIVELY SOON. OKAY. SO LET'S GET THIS ONE TAKEN CARE OF FIRST AND THEN WE'LL WE'LL LOOK FORWARD TO YOUR YOUR RETURN. THANK YOU. BOARD MEMBERS. ANYBODY ELSE ANY OTHER COMMENTS QUESTIONS. OKAY. ALL RIGHT THEN WE'LL SET IT FOR AUGUST 6TH. PUBLIC HEARING. SO WE'LL SEE YOU BACK ON THE 6TH OF AUGUST. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ARE YOU AUTHORIZING THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO DO APPROVAL RESOLUTIONS FOR THE SAME NIGHT? YES I AM. OKAY. OKAY. YOU'RE ALL SET. ALRIGHT. THANK YOU. THAT LAST QUESTION WAS FOR ME. OKAY. 
          OUR NEXT CASE IN OUR WORK SESSION IS. JOHN BROCK REQUESTING A CHANGE OF USE FROM 
          [00:05:06]
INDUSTRIAL TO A PRIVATE TRAINING FACILITY AT 6302 MORTON DRIVE. THE PROPOSED ACTION INVOLVES THE CHANGE OF USE OF THE PROPERTY. CORRECT? OKAY. CORRECT. PLEASE IDENTIFY YOURSELF FOR OUR RECORDS. OKAY. AND THAT'S B R O K X. CORRECT. ALRIGHT. GO AHEAD. SO IT'S JUST I'M TRYING TO LEASE OUT THE PROPERTY AND SOMEONE CAME TO ME WHO WOULD WANT TO PUT A PRIVATE GYM FOR THEMSELVES. 
          YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO TALK CLOSER TO THE MIC. IS THIS NOT WORKING? OKAY, SO SOMEONE CAME TO ME TO LEASE OUT THIS 3000 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING. DO YOU HAVE A PICTURE OF IT? DO YOU KIND OF SEE IT? MAYBE. LET'S SEE. YES, WE'VE GOT PICTURES. WE'VE GOT. YEAH, WE'VE GOT THEM. 
          LOOKS LIKE THAT RIGHT. I'M JUST TRYING TO LEASE OUT A BUILDING. YEAH. OKAY. THANK YOU. SO IT'S JUST NOT NOT A LISTED USE. IT'S. IT'S ZONED WHAT? INDUSTRIAL? YEP. SO IT'S JUST NOT A LISTED USE ON MELOU DRIVE, WHICH IS ALSO ZONED INDUSTRIAL. THERE'S THREE PERSONAL FITNESS PLACES. 
          ON MELOU DRIVE IN ONE OF THE PLACES. THERE'S ALSO A VOLLEYBALL COURT INSIDE. IF YOU GUYS ARE AWARE OF THAT. I THINK ROGER DUFFET WENT IN HERE AND GOT APPROVAL FOR IT. SO PEOPLE ARE USING LIKE. SO THIS IS THIS IS THE IS THIS WORKING? YEP. OKAY. SO THIS IS JUST A PRIVATE FACILITY. THE ORIGINAL PEOPLE THAT CAME TO ME AND ASKED ABOUT THIS, THEY'VE MOVED ON TO ORCHARD PARK. HOWEVER I STILL WANT TO PURSUE THIS BECAUSE I NEED THIS RENTED. IT'S A LITTLE BIT CLEANER THAN HAVING INDUSTRIAL, WHICH IS WHAT HEAVY MACHINERY YOU COULD BUILD THERE, YOU KNOW, HAVE ALL KINDS OF THINGS, YOU KNOW, WITH IT, WHICH IS LOUD, YOU KNOW, IT'S ALL, YOU KNOW, PERMISSIBLE THERE EXCEPT AN EXERCISE FACILITY. SO IT WOULD CERTAINLY SEEM VERY FRIENDLY TO THE NEIGHBORS COMPARED TO SOMEONE WORKING ON TRUCKS WITH AIR COMPRESSORS AND WELDERS. RIGHT. AT LEAST I WOULD THINK SO. OKAY. ANYTHING ELSE? NO, THAT'S PRETTY MUCH IT. OKAY. 
          WE'RE NOT CHANGING THE FACILITY ON THE OUTSIDE. IT'S STAYING AS IS. THERE'S NO NOTHING HAPPENING ESTHETICALLY TO THAT OUTSIDE OF THAT BUILDING. OKAY. PLANNING DEPARTMENT. SO LIKE MR. BROCK MENTIONED, HE'S ZONED M-2, A TRAINING FACILITY OR GYM, WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CONSIDER. 
          THE USE IS NOT CURRENTLY PERMITTED IN M2. HE IS GOING TO THE ZONING BOARD FOR A USE VARIANCE FOR THEIR MEETING IN AUGUST, I BELIEVE, AND AS PROTOCOL IN THE TOWN OF HAMBURG, BEFORE YOU GO TO THE ZONING BOARD, YOU GET REFERRAL TO THE PLANNING BOARD, WHICH IS WHY HE IS HERE TODAY. JUST GIVING THE PLANNING BOARD A FIRST LOOK AT WHAT HE'S PROPOSING. AND THEN WITH YOUR RECOMMENDATION, HE WILL GO BACK TO THE ZONING BOARD FOR THEIR FIRST MEETING IN AUGUST FOR A USE VARIANCE. SO THAT'S THERE'S REALLY NO APPROVAL OR DECISION TO BE MADE FROM THE BOARD TODAY. JUST IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. BROCK TO ASK HIM BEFORE HE GOES TO THE ZONING BOARD. AND JUST TO CLARIFY, I THINK IN 2014, 2015, YOU HAD GOTTEN APPROVAL FOR LIKE A STORAGE KIND OF USE ON THIS FACILITY, RIGHT? YEAH, IT WAS MY SHOP FOR, FOR UNTIL I BUILT TO THE LEFT. RIGHT. SO IT'S JUST GOING FROM LIKE SHOP TO PRIVATE TRAINING FACILITY. RIGHT. OKAY. 
          ENGINEERING, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO OFFER SINCE HE'S NOT PROPOSING ANY CHANGES TO THE SITE, THERE'S NO ENGINEERING APPROVAL NEEDED. OKAY. THANK YOU. BOARD MEMBERS. 
          SELF-EXPLANATORY. COUNCIL MEMBER MCCORMICK. THIS AREA IS ON THE EDGE OF RESIDENTIAL, AND IT'S ZONED INDUSTRIAL. AND I'M NOT CONCERNED WITH THE USE ITSELF, BUT IS THE RIGHT ANSWER IN THIS PLACE A USE VARIANCE, OR IS IT TO REZONE SOME OF THE ITEMS IN THAT AREA TO MAKE IT A ZONE THAT'S AMENABLE IN THAT IS TRANSITIONAL TO THE ADJACENT NEIGHBORHOOD? WELL, THE DIFFICULTY WITH THAT WOULD BE THE ONLY ALLOWED USES BY RIGHT FOR A PRIVATE TRAINING FACILITY 
          [00:10:06]
OR GYM WOULD BE C1 OR C2, AND IN THIS AREA I MEAN, WOULD C1 OR C2 BLEND WELL WITH RESIDENTIAL AND INDUSTRIAL ON THE SAME AREA AS THE QUESTION? AND FOR MR. BROCK, JUST FOR EASE OF ACCESS, GETTING A USE VARIANCE BEFORE THE ZBA WAS THE ROUTE THAT HE CHOSE BEFORE BEFORE REZONING. THE OTHER TOUGH PART IS THE COMP PLAN DOESN'T REALLY HAVE MUCH RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THIS AREA. 
          IT'S KIND OF IN A WEIRD SPOT WHERE THERE REALLY AREN'T ANY GOALS OR ACTIONS OR ANY SUGGESTED ZONING AMENDMENTS. SO I THINK THAT THIS IS CHAIR MCCORMACK. I DON'T WANT TO BE THE CHAIR. IT'S BEEN A LONG DAY. I DON'T WANT YOUR JOB. I WASN'T GOING TO GIVE IT AWAY TODAY, BUT NEXT WEEK MIGHT BE NO. SO THE QUESTION THAT I HAVE IS, SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE ZONING MAP, YEAH, THERE IS A SPOT OF HOT PINK, WHICH IS THE INDUSTRIAL ZONE. YOU PULL IT UP ON OUR GIS SITE THAT IS SURROUNDED BY RESIDENTIAL. AND SO I DON'T KNOW THAT WE WANT ANOTHER INDUSTRIAL USE COMING RIGHT BACK INTO THIS AREA. SO THAT, THAT THAT'S MY ONLY I'M NOT AT ALL OPPOSED TO WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO. I'M JUST WONDERING IF I REALIZE THAT WASN'T IN THE COMP PLAN, BUT IF THIS IS AN AREA WHERE WE SHOULD BE HAVING SOME SORT OF DISCUSSION THERE, THE TOWN BOARD SHOULD BE HAVING A DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT THE RECOMMENDATION IS IN THAT AREA. DO YOU WANT TO LOOK? I KNOW HE REFERENCED MAY LOU WHERE THERE IS A SIMILAR DEVELOPMENT. THE SAME. NO, IT'S ON MONCTON DRIVE, SO IT'S SURROUNDED BY RESIDENTIAL, TWO DIFFERENT LEVELS OF RESIDENTIAL. 
          RIGHT. DON'T FORGET YOUR MIC MEMBER CLARK. SORRY. YEAH. MONCTON'S A LOT DIFFERENT THAN LOU. OKAY. SO THAT CLARIFIES THAT, RIGHT? IT'S NOT ON THERE. NOT ON MONCTON. THEY ARE ON MONCTON. YEAH, WE'RE ON MONCTON. NO. THE OTHER THE OTHER FACILITIES ARE ON MALOOF. OKAY. 
          YEAH. VOLLEYBALL COURT AND OKAY I WILL ALSO QUICKLY I ALSO I'LL, I'LL TRY TO I'M TRYING TO BRING UP THE GIS. THE MOUSE ISN'T WORKING, BUT WHILE I'M TRYING TO DO THAT I WILL SPEAK TO THAT IS SOMETHING THAT OBVIOUSLY WE CAN BRING TO THE TOWN BOARD. LIKE OUTSIDE OF THE SCOPE OF HIS PROJECT. I WILL SAY THAT IN 2024, WE DID DO SOME TOWN SPONSORED REZONINGS OF SOME FORMERLY INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY ALL THROUGHOUT THE TOWN. I KNOW WE LOOKED AT THE RAILROAD OVER IN THE LAKEVIEW AREA. I THINK ACTUALLY THE FEED MART SITE WAS ACTUALLY ONE OF THOSE REZONINGS THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY M-2. WE'VE LOOKED AT OTHER AREAS THAT WERE M-2, AND AT THE TIME, WE DID NOT IDENTIFY THIS SPECIFIC AREA AS ONE THAT NEEDED A REZONING. BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT WE CAN'T GO BACK TO THE TOWN BOARD. AS YOU GUYS KNOW, I'VE BEEN BRINGING YOU A BUNCH OF ZONING AMENDMENTS AND A BUNCH OF ZONING MAP REVISIONS THROUGHOUT THE YEAR. WE'RE ALWAYS LOOKING FOR THINGS THAT MAY NOT MAKE SENSE IF THERE'S, YOU KNOW, SOME SOME OTHER INPUT OR SOME OTHER, YOU KNOW, IF ANYONE ELSE THINKS THAT THAT'S A GOOD IDEA, THAT'S DEFINITELY SOMETHING WE COULD BRING TO THE TOWN BOARD FOR THEIR CONSIDERATION. MEMBER MCCORMICK SO THIS IS ALSO, I THINK, WORTH NOTING. SO THE M-2 IS GOING TO BE GOING AWAY UNDER THOSE POTENTIALLY COULD BE CORRECT. IT'LL MISS MOST OF THE USES WILL STAY THE SAME. IT'LL BE CALLED LIGHT INDUSTRIAL. AND LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ALLOW FOR GYM SPACE IN IT. IT DOES NOT CURRENTLY. THIS MOUSE IS TAKING TOO LONG, SO I'M JUST NOT GOING TO BRING IT UP. IT'S LIKE THE MOUSE IS MALFUNCTIONING. WHAT DO YOU NEED A NEW BATTERY. IS THAT MAYBE. WHAT THE. I MEAN, I JUST REPLACED IT. OH, IT GOES WITH THE DAY I. I'M TORN ON THIS. AND THE REASON I'M TORN. THIS IS CHAIR GRONINGEN. WE JUST GOT DONE LOOKING AT ALL THE REZONINGS AND EVERYTHING FITS IN WITH THE COMP PLAN. I CAN I UNDERSTAND WHERE MEMBER MCCORMICK'S COMING FROM. I UNDERSTAND THAT THIS PIECE OF PARCEL, OR THAT THIS PARCEL IS CLOSE TO RESIDENTIAL, BUT IT'S IN AN INDUSTRIAL USE AND WE'VE GOT ZONED THAT WAY FOR A REASON. SO I'M RELUCTANT TO SPOT REZONE OR SPOT CHANGE SOMETHING, ESPECIALLY WITH THE EXTENSIVE WORK THAT THE CODE REVIEW AND THIS PLANNING BOARD HAS LOOKED AT ZONES AND SENT TO THE TOWN BOARD. AND SO I'M NOT I'M NOT IN FAVOR AND I'M NOT AGAINST BUT I'M, I'M SWITZERLAND TONIGHT. I CAN'T SUPPORT THIS. I'M IT'S NOT BECAUSE I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF A GYM. IT'S JUST THAT I'M NOT I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF CHANGING SOMETHING THAT'S NOT IN THAT ZONE. I MEAN, WE HAVE THESE ZONES FOR A REASON. SO JUST TO CLARIFY, SO MR. BROCK IS LOOKING FOR A USE VARIANCE. SO HE'S NOT LOOKING TO REZONE. ARE YOU AGAINST. YEAH. ARE YOU AGAINST THE USE VARIANCE OR JUST YOU'RE JUST AGAINST REZONING IN THIS AREA. I WOULD BE AGAINST REZONING. REZONING JUST TO FIT SOMETHING IN. RIGHT. GOTCHA. I AGREE THAT I WOULDN'T WANT TO 
          [00:15:05]
OPEN UP THE REZONING OF THE SPACE WHEN IT'S A SINGULAR ONE OFF USE THAT FITS WITHIN KIND OF JUST IN AND OUT, JUST NOT A LOW IMPACT USE. YEAH. THE USE VARIANCE. THIS IS CHAIR GRONINGEN AGAIN THE USE VARIANC. YOU WOULD HAVE TO MEET THE CRITERIA WITH THE ZBA. ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENT. SO YOU CAN AT THIS POINT HE WOULD NEED TO GO TO THE ZBA AND THEN COME BACK TO US. IS THAT CORRECT? YES. IF HE GETS HIS USE VARIANCE, HE'LL COME BACK TO US FOR THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE CHANGE OF USE. RIGHT? OKAY, THEN THAT'S WHAT WE SHOULD WAIT FOR. FOR GO TO THE ZBA AND THEN SEE WHAT COMES UP. ANY ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANYTHING TO OFFER? MEMBER VALENTI I, I DON'T, I DON'T FEEL STRONGLY ENOUGH TO DO THIS. BUT IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE ZONING MAP, IT'S ALREADY A ONE OFF. NOTHING ELSE AROUND. THIS IS M2, THE LONG SET OF PARCELS NEXT DOOR ARE. YEAH. SO THERE'S A COUPLE OF PARCELS THAT ARE, BUT IT'S LIKE ONE STRIP OF INDUSTRIAL AND ON. SO IT'S ALREADY ZONED. BUT I GUESS JUST CHANGING ONE OUT OF FOUR OF THOSE DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE. SO WE CAN JUST REZONE. BUT IT'S A CURIOUS SET OF PARCELS TO BEGIN WITH. SO I THINK CAITLIN HAS A POINT. OH, THERE WE ARE. BUT FROM SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE EXISTING BUILDINGS, THE EXISTING BUSINESSES, THEY FIT WITHIN THAT INDUSTRIAL USE. SO JUST FOR REFERENCE, THIS AREA WAS PART OF I MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY THAT THERE WERE SOME INDUSTRIAL REZONINGS FROM THE TOWN IN MID TO LATE 2020 FOR THIS AREA IS ACTUALLY ONE OF THEM. SO THESE ARE PARCELS THAT YOU SEE THAT ARE CURRENTLY C2, INCLUDING THE RAILROAD FOR WHATEVER REASON. 
          BUT THESE AREAS THAT ARE C2 IN EARLY 2024, THESE WERE M2. THESE WERE REZONED BY THE TOWN BOARD TO C2. THE REASON THESE TWO ARE NOT C2 IS A LONG STORY. THERE'S A EXISTING CAR BUSINESS ON THIS LOT. THE SAID OWNER ALSO OWNS THE LOT BEHIND IT. THE TOWN BOARD CHOSE NOT TO REZONE THAT TO C2. I WON'T GET INTO WHY, BUT SO THOSE EXISTING M2, THESE ARE C2. SO THIS WAS A PART OF THIS INDUSTRIAL REZONING. THE TOWN LOOKED AT THE TOWN DID NOT LOOK AT THESE PARCELS AS A PART OF THAT INDUSTRIAL REZONING THEY WANTED TO FOCUS ON, ON THIS AREA. SO THAT'S WHY THERE'S LIKE A LITTLE HODGEPODGE OF C2 RA, M2, WHICH IS A WEIRD SPOT. I AGREE THAT THERE'S NO UNIFORMITY IN THIS AREA, BUT THAT'S THE THAT'S JUST A LITTLE BIT OF CONTEXT OF WHY THIS IS C2. SO THIS ALL USED TO BE M2 RIGHT HERE BEFORE IT WAS RESUMED IN 2024. REZONING MAKES MORE SENSE. 
          OKAY. SO WE'LL SEND THEM OFF TO THE ZBA AND WE'LL SEE HIM BACK WHEN HE GETS HIS APPROVAL. YEP. 
          OKAY. YEP. SO YOUR NEXT STEP IS GOING TO THE ZONING BOARD. SO YOU'RE SAYING CHANGING. NO. SO THEY NO, WE WERE JUST DISCUSSING THE ZONING OF IT. THE BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION IS FOR YOU TO GO TO THE ZONING BOARD FOR THE USE VARIANCE. AND THEN WHATEVER THE ZONING BOARD DECIDES, IF THEY GRANT YOUR APPROVAL, YOU'LL COME BACK TO THIS BOARD. OKAY? OKAY. YEAH. BECAUSE I WOULD NOT WANT TO LOSE WHAT IT IS RIGHT NOW. YEAH. WE'RE NOT. YEAH. THERE'S NO REZONING APPLICATION. YOU DON'T HAVE TO REZONE AT THIS TIME. GOT IT. OKAY. OKAY. OUR THIRD AND FINAL WORK SESSION ITEM IS THE PLANNING BOARD TO DISCUSS CHAPTER 80 BUILDINGS, UNSAFE CODE AMENDMENTS. YEAH. 
          THIS ONE SHOULD BE VERY, VERY SIMPLE. OKAY. WE'RE GOING TO TURN IT OVER TO OUR EXPERT MR. JOSH ROGERS. AND ONE SECOND IF THIS MIC WILL WORK. I MEAN THIS MOUSE. 
          OKAY. THERE YOU GO. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. COME ON. IT'S NOT WORKING THAT I'D LIKE TIMES OUT. SO 
          [00:20:12]
WE'RE HAVING A TECHNICAL DIFFICULTY. WE'RE HAVING. YOU TURNED IT OFF. YEAH, I KNOW I TRIED THAT A COUPLE TRY THAT A COUPLE TIMES AND STUFF. DOES ANYBODY HAVE A MOUSE WITH THEM? HERE'S MINE. I MEAN, IS IT AS SIMPLE AS I CAN JUST READ IT OFF OF THE. SHE CAN. YOU CAN TRY. I HAVE I'D HAVE TO PLUG IT INTO THE COMPUTER WHICH IS LOCKED. SO LET'S DO THAT WITH THAT LITTLE THING RIGHT THERE. SO I'LL JUST READ IT OFF OF THE IT'S LIKE IT'S LITERALLY SIMPLE ENOUGH TO WHERE I THINK. SO. CHAPTER 80 UNSAFE BUILDINGS WHERE THIS CAME FROM. WE DISCUSSED THIS AT CODE REVIEW. THIS IS A PROPOSED AMENDMENT FROM CODE ENFORCEMENT WHO DEALS WITH THIS CHAPTER. AND HOW IT'LL READ AND WHAT THE CODE WOULD BE LOOKING TO DO. AND THIS IS IN THE ADDITIONAL AMENDMENTS TO FROM THE SEVEN SEVEN TOWN BOARD MEETING FOLDER AND SHAREPOINT. IF YOU WANTED TO FOLLOW ALONG RIGHT NOW UNDER CHAPTER 80 BUILDINGS UNSAFE, THERE'S CHAPTER 80 DASH FIVE RECOVERY OF COSTS. AND IT REFERS TO COSTS AND EXPENSES THAT ARE INCURRED BY THE TOWN IN CONNECTION WITH THE REMOVAL TO SECURE, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ATTORNEY'S FEES AND THE COST OF INSPECTION INSPECTORS, ARCHITECTS, ENGINEERS, SURVEYORS AND THE COST OF ACTUALLY SECURING AND REMOVING SAID BUILDINGS. AND WHAT CODE ENFORCEMENT WOULD BE LOOKING TO DO TO THE CODE IS ADDING AN ADDITIONAL FEE OF 20% OF THE OVERALL COST FOR INSPECTION AND ADMINISTRATIVE OVERHEAD, WHICH WOULD BE ASSESSED AGAINST THE LAND ON WHICH A BUILDING IS BEING LOCATED. SO THIS IS FOR LIKE THE REMOVAL OF UNSAFE BUILDINGS. 
          CODE ENFORCEMENT IS PROPOSING ADDING A 20%, BASICALLY ADMINISTRATIVE OVERHEAD COST, IN ADDITION TO THE COST OF ALREADY REMOVING SAID BUILDING. SO HOPEFULLY THAT'S VERY SIMPLE. 
          JOSH, DO WE PAY FOR THE REMOVAL AND THEN BILL THE RESIDENT. YEP. OKAY. BOARD MEMBERS, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? EVERYBODY'S OKAY WITH IT. WE'RE SUPPORTIVE. WE HAVE HAD SHAKING IN A POSITIVE WAY. 
          SO EVERYBODY'S IN FAVOR OF THAT. THEY'RE KIND OF IT'S A QUIET GROUP TONIGHT. SOUNDS GOOD I WILL YOU'LL NOTICE THERE WAS ONLY ONE CODE AMENDMENT ON ON THIS AGENDA I HAVE. YEAH FIVE, 4 OR 5 FOR NEXT MEETING. SO I WANTED TO GIVE YOU A, A EASY ONE BECAUSE WE'LL HAVE A LOT TO DISCUSS AT THE NEXT BOARD MEETING. SO. OKAY. WE'RE GOOD. YEP. WELL, I CAN'T START THE MEETING. SO YOU GOT TIME TO FIX YOUR MOUSE. DO WE HAVE TO VOTE ON THIS? NO. OKAY. WE'RE GOOD. 
          CABINETS UNLOCKED. OH, I JUST DON'T KNOW WHAT. WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO FIX JOSH'S MOUSE BEFORE BETWEEN MEETINGS, BETWEEN THE STUFF. THE PEOPLE IN THE CLOUD ARE PAYING ATTENTION IN THE CLOUD. OKAY, I'D LIKE TO CALL THE JULY 23RD, 2025 MEETING TO ORDER. ALL RISE PLEASE, FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. I PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS. ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. THANK YOU. MEMBERS, WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL? YES, WILLIAM CLARK HERE. KATELYN SHIMURA HERE. KIM RYAN HERE. AUGIE GERACI HERE. CINDY GROENEKAN. PRESENT. 
          KATELYN MCCORMICK HERE. MARGO VALENTE HERE. ALL ARE PRESENT. OKAY, SO WE DO HAVE MINUTES TO APPROVE, BUT WE'LL WAIT UNTIL THE END. I THINK WE JUST HAVE ONE DATE. CORRECT OR NO, WE HAVE TWO. THE 25TH OF MAY AND THE JUNE 9TH MEETING IN JULY 9TH. WE'LL WE'LL DO THEM AT THE END, 
          [1. Public Hearing – 7:00 P.M., Tom Bollman – Requesting Site Plan Approval of a  proposal for additional parking spaces at 3651 South Park Ave (Village of Blasdell)]
IF THAT'S OKAY. WE'RE GOING TO START WITH TOM BOWMAN REQUESTING A SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR A PROPOSED ADDITION FOR FOUR PARKING SPACES AT 3651 SOUTH PARK AVENUE IN THE VILLAGE OF BLASDELL. THE APPLICANT WAS IN FRONT OF US DURING A WORK SESSION LAST MONTH. AND NOW YOU'RE BACK. AND WE HAVE AND JOSH IS GOING TO BRING US UP TO DATE ON WHAT TOOK PLACE. YEAH. 
          [00:25:02]
SO WE HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING TONIGHT, BUT BEFORE THE PUBLIC HEARING, THIS BOARD AND MR. BOWMAN ASKED FOR US TO JUST CONSULT WITH CODE ENFORCEMENT ON THEIR RECOMMENDATION FOR HOW MANY PARKING SPACES HE SHOULD DO. I SEND IT TO THE GUYS IN THE TOWN HALL WHO REVIEWED THE VILLAGE OF BLAISDELL CODE. THE CODE IS VERY BARE, BUT FROM WHAT THEY COULD DECIPHER, THEIR RECOMMENDATION WAS AND I PULLED UP THE MAP FROM MR. BOWMAN. THEIR RECOMMENDATION WAS TO REMOVE THE PARKING SPOT THAT HAS AN X ON IT. THEIR REASONING WAS FOR SITE OBSTRUCTION. REASONING. 
          IMMEDIATELY SOUTH OF THAT PARKING SPOT IS A STOP SIGN, AND THEY THOUGHT IF THERE WAS ANY PARKING SPOT TO BE REMOVED, THAT THEIR RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE THE REMOVAL OF THAT PARKING SPOT. I JUST WANT TO REMIND THE BOARD WE REVIEW THE VILLAGE OF BLAISDELL PROJECTS. WE TECHNICALLY DON'T REALLY APPROVE IT. SO WHAT YOU'LL SEE AFTER THE CONCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC HEARING IS A RECOMMENDATION, AND ULTIMATELY, IT'LL BE UP TO THE DISCRETION OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER IN THE TOWN OF HAMBURG'S BUILDING DEPARTMENT, WHO REVIEWS VILLAGE OF BLAISDELL PROJECTS. OKAY. DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO ADD FOR US THIS EVENING? I DO NOT, OKAY, SO WE ARE GOING TO HAVE OUR MEMBERS READ THE LEGAL NOTICE. LEGAL NOTICE. TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD SITE PLAN APPROVAL. PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD WILL CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING ON A PROPOSAL BY TOM BOWMAN FOR THE ADDITION OF PARKING SPACES FOR A BUILDING AT 3651 SOUTH PARK AVENUE IN THE VILLAGE OF BLASDELL. THE PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD ON JULY 23RD, 2025 AT 7:00 PM IN ROOM 7A/7B OF HAMBURG TOWN HALL. THANK YOU. I JUST WANT TO REMIND EVERYONE THAT DURING A PUBLIC HEARING, EACH MEMBER, EACH RESIDENT HAS THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK. THERE IS NOT A QUESTION AND ANSWER PERIOD. THIS IS IN ORDER TO ALLOW TIME FOR EVERYONE TO SPEAK. YOUR COMMENTS WILL BE ADDED TO THE RECORD AND THEN THE APPLICANT AS WELL AS THE PLANNING BOARD. TAKE YOUR COMMENTS INTO CONSIDERATION WHEN THE FINAL RECOMMENDATION OR DECISION IS MADE. HAVING SAID ALL THAT, I WOULD LIKE TO CALL THE PUBLIC MEETING TO OPEN. IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WISHES TO MAKE COMMENT ON THIS CASE? I THERE'S SO MANY PEOPLE HERE I CAN'T SEE THROUGH THE CROWD. THIS IS MY SECOND CALL FOR TOM BOWMAN REQUESTING SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR PARKING. 
          WELL, THREE PARKING PLACES AT 3651 SOUTH PARK AVENUE AND THIRD AND FINAL CALL FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR MR. BOWMAN. SEEING THAT THERE ARE NO NO ONE, THERE IS NO ONE HERE TO MAKE A COMMENT. WE'RE GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AND SINCE THIS IS MY FIRST VILLAGE OF BLASDELL, WE JUST MAKE THE RESERVATION, THE MAKE THE RECOMMENDATION, WHICH YOU ALREADY HAVE. YES. SO. I DON'T EVEN KNOW, BILL. I DON'T EVEN KNOW HOW MANY TIMES DURING YOUR CHAIRMANSHIP, HOW MANY TIMES WE HAD A VILLAGE OF BLAISDELL PROJECT. BUT I TALKED WITH THE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER WHO REPRESENTS THE VILLAGE. HE SAID ALL HE NEEDED FOR HIS RECORDS WAS JUST SOMETHING IN WRITING FROM THE BOARD THAT JUST BASICALLY SAID THEY REVIEWED IT, KIND OF WHAT THE SECRET ACTION WAS, WHETHER IT WAS TYPE TWO, UNLISTED, WHATEVER. AND THEN BASICALLY JUST LANGUAGE. THAT SAID, THE BOARD HAD NO OBJECTIONS TO IT. SO I JUST WROTE WHAT I THOUGHT MADE SENSE. WE CAN CHANGE IT, OBVIOUSLY, BUT THIS IS THIS IS BASICALLY JUST FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT RECORDS SO THAT WHEN MR. BOWMAN DOES THE PROJECT, HE HAS SOMETHING THAT HE CAN HE CAN POINT TO THAT THE BOARD REVIEWED THE PROJECT. OKAY. BOARD MEMBER, I'M GOING TO RETURN IT BACK TO THE BOARD TO SEE IF THERE'S ANY COMMENT IN REGARDS TO THE. AND YOU'LL SEE IN THE HARD COPY. I JUST MADE THE REVISION AT THE TIME. OBVIOUSLY WE SUGGESTED FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT MADE A RECOMMENDATION, SO I'M JUST CHANGING THE RESOLUTION TO THREE. OKAY. I DON'T HEAR ANYTHING. I WE HAVE TO VOTE ON THIS OR I DON'T EVEN THINK WE HAVE TO VOTE ON IT. THERE'S REALLY NO APPROVAL POWER. IF EVERYONE FEELS THIS RECOMMENDATION IS SUFFICIENT, THEN WE CAN JUST END THE RECORD. SAY THAT YOU HAD THIS RECOMMENDATION AND WE'LL SEND IT TO CODE ENFORCEMENT. I DON'T EVEN KNOW IF WE NEED TO REALLY READ IT OR NOT. I DON'T KNOW, BASED ON THE RECOMMENDATION THAT HAS BEEN PREPARED TO US, FOR US FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND THE SILENCE FROM THIS PLANNING BOARD, WE ARE GOING TO MOVE WITH YOUR RECOMMENDATION TO BE FORWARDED TO BLAISDELL. OKAY. SO YEAH, LIKE I SAID, IT'S THERE'S NO APPROVAL FROM THIS BOARD. SO I DON'T KNOW IF I THINK WE VOTED ON SENDING THE RECOMMENDATION. 
          OH, YEAH, WE COULD DO THAT. SO WE SHOULD VOTE. I THINK WE'VE DONE THE 2 OR 3 OTHER TIMES. 
          THANKS. JOSH. JOSEPH GOGUEN ATTORNEY FOR THE PLANNING BOARD. I WOULD JUST RECOMMEND THAT THE MEMBERS ACKNOWLEDGE, HAVING READ THE RECOMMENDATION AND THEN VOTING TO SEND IT, AND THAT 
          [00:30:02]
SHOULD BE SUFFICIENT. SO THERE'S NO MOTION INSTEAD OF READING IT. SURE. THERE'S NO MOTION. OKAY. 
          HAS EVERYONE READ THE RECOMMENDATION IN FRONT OF THEM. YES YES YES OKAY. AND THERE'S NO OBJECTION TO FORWARDING THIS TO BLAISDELL FOR WITH OUR RECOMMENDATION. CORRECT? NO. 
          CORRECT. OKAY. IT'S BEEN ALL APPROVED. PERFECT. SOUNDS GOOD. AND, MR. BOWMAN, I'LL WORK WITH YOU AFTER THE MEETING ON WHAT TO DO NEXT, OKAY? YEP. OF COURSE. GOOD LUCK. OKAY. OUR NEXT CASE 
          [2. Public Hearing – 7:00 P.M., Towne Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram – Requesting ReApproval for a Site Plan and Special Use Permit Application for a new 4,473 square  foot addition to their building located at 5130 Camp Road]
IS. A PUBLIC HEARING FOR TOWN. CHRYSLER. DODGE. JEEP. RAM. ARE THEY HERE? IS THE APPLICANT HERE? NOPE. DOESN'T LOOK LIKE IT. DID WE HEAR ANYTHING FROM THEM? HE DIDN'T SAY THAT HE WOULDN'T BE HERE. WE HAVE APPROVED PROJECTS IN THE PAST THOUGH, ESPECIALLY FOR RE-APPROVAL WITHOUT THE APPLICANT BEING PRESENT THOUGH. SO I THINK WE SHOULD MOVE AHEAD ON THIS BECAUSE THIS IS THE SAME THING. THERE'S NO CHANGES. CORRECT? CORRECT. I ACTUALLY THIS IS THE SAME APPROVAL RESOLUTION, EVEN DOWN TO THE OTHERS QUESTION MARK THAT WE USUALLY LEAVE. SO THE ONLY THING OBVIOUSLY THAT CHANGED IS I ADDED TO THE SEEKER RESOLUTION THAT SINCE THE PREVIOUS APPROVAL WAS NOT ACTED UPON AND HAS SINCE EXPIRED, THAT WE HELD A REQUIRED PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE APPROVAL OF TODAY, AND THEN EVERYTHING ELSE IS STILL THE SAME. LIKE I SAID, EVEN DOWN TO THE CONDITIONS THAT SAY OTHERS QUESTION MARK. RIGHT. SO TONIGHT. SO I DO HAVE TO WE HAVE TO FOLLOW THROUGH WITH THE PUBLIC HEARING FIRST. CORRECT. 
          OKAY. MEMBER SHIMURA, WOULD YOU LIKE TO READ THE PUBLIC NOTICE? SURE. LEGAL NOTICE TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD SITE PLAN AND APPROVAL. PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD WILL CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING ON A PROPOSAL BY TOWN. CHRYSLER DODGE JEEP RAM FOR A NEW 4473 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO THEIR BUILDING, LOCATED AT 5130 CAMP ROAD. THE PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD ON JULY 23RD, 2025 AT 7:00 PM IN ROOM SEVEN A, SEVEN B OF HAMBURG TOWN HALL. OKAY. THANK YOU. SAME RULES FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING. THREE MINUTE RULE FOR EACH RESIDENT WHO WANTS TO SPEAK. IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WISHES TO MAKE COMMENT ON THIS CASE? SECOND CALL BECAUSE I KNOW IT'S TAKEN A WHILE TO COME FROM THE BACK OF THE ROOM BECAUSE THERE'S SO MANY PEOPLE HERE. SECOND, CALL FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR TOWN AND CHRYSLER. DODGE. JEEP. RAM SEEING THERE'S STILL NO RESPONSE. THIRD AND FINAL CALL FOR THE TOWN CHRYSLER. JEEP. DODGE. JEEP. RAM SEEING NONE, I'M CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING. 
          BOARD MEMBERS, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO OFFER OR ANY COMMENTS? THAT'S I HAVE HAD SHAKING. NO, NO, I NEED A I NEED SOMETHING, I NEED NOSE IN THE MIX PLEASE. OKAY, SO WHO WOULD LIKE TO READ OUR SEEKER RESOLUTION BEFORE WE DO IT? CAN I JUST I'M ASSUMING WE'RE JUST GOING TO REMOVE OTHERS. I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY OTHER SPECIAL USE PERMIT CONDITIONS THAT WE WANT TO ADD. IT'S THE SAME THING. SO JUST FOR THE RECORD, I'M REMOVING WHERE IT SAYS OTHERS UNDER THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION. AND THEN CAMI DID YOU ISSUE A NEW ENGINEERING LETTER FOR THIS PROJECT? I DID JULY 18TH JULY 18TH OKAY. JOSH, ON THE FRONT ON PART TWO UNDER THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT. IS THAT STILL THE CORRECT SITE PLAN DATE? IT SAYS TWO 2124. IS THERE AN UPDATED SITE PLAN? THEY SUBMITTED THE SAME ONE AGAIN THIS TIME. SO I DON'T KNOW IF WE WANT TO CHANGE IF WE CAN CHANGE THE DATE THEY RESUBMITTED THE SAME ONE. SO IT SHOULD JUST BE WHATEVER THE DATE IS ON THAT SITE PLAN. I CAN PULL IT UP IF YOU LOOK. SURE. I THOUGHT IT WAS FEBRUARY 21ST. YEAH, IT'S FEBRUARY 21ST. IT'S 24. THEY DIDN'T THEY DIDN'T CHANGE THE DATE ON THE SITE PLAN. RIGHT. THAT'S FINE. ANYTHING ELSE? OKAY. DOES THAT MEAN MEMBER MCCORMICK WANTED TO READ THE SEEKER? WAS THAT YOUR WAY OF VOLUNTEERING? I THINK IT WAS MEMBER MCCORMICK. YOU WOULD WANT TO READ THE FIRST SECTION, PLEASE. I'M GOING TO START WITH A MOTION ON SEEKER. WHERE IS THE TOWN OF HAMBURG? RECEIVED A SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND SITE PLAN APPLICATION FROM TOWN CHRYSLER DODGE JEEP RAM TO APPROVE A PROPOSAL TO CONSTRUCT A 4473 SQUARE FOOT STEEL FRAME BUILDING ADDITION AT 5130 CAMP ROAD. AND WHEREAS THE PROPOSED PROJECT HAS 
          [00:35:05]
BEEN CLASSIFIED AS AN UNLISTED ACTION UNDER THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT, AND THE PLANNING BOARD PREVIOUSLY ISSUED A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THIS PROJECT ON FEBRUARY 21ST, 2024, AND WHEREAS THE PREVIOUS APPROVAL WAS NOT ACTED UPON AND HAS SINCE EXPIRED, AND WHEREAS THE HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD HELD THE REQUIRED PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE APPROVAL OF THIS PROJECT ON JULY 23RD, 2025, AND WHEREAS, THE HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE NEW YORK STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT, HAS DONE A THOROUGH REVIEW OF THE PROJECT AND HAS DETERMINED THAT THERE ARE NO SIGNIFICANT CHANGES TO THE PROJECT. AND NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, THAT THE TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD HEREBY DETERMINES THAT THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY ISSUED ON FEBRUARY 21ST, 2024 IS STILL APPLICABLE. IT'S BEEN MOVED. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND? IT'S BEEN MOVED BY MEMBER MCCORMICK, SECOND BY MEMBER CLARK. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? I ANY OPPOSED? MOTION. 
          PASS RESOLUTION PASSES. NO. NO. OPPOSITION. NUMBER TWO. THE SECOND ONE IS ABOUT THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT. SO A MOTION WHEREAS THE TOWN OF HAMBURG HAS REVIEWED THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION FROM TOWN CHRYSLER DODGE JEEP RAM FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 4473 SQUARE FOOT STEEL FRAME BUILDING ADDITION AT 5130 CAMP ROAD. BASED ON A DETERMINATION BY THE TOWN CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER. AND WHEREAS, THE HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD HELD THE REQUIRED PUBLIC HEARING AND RECEIVED NO COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC. AND WHEREAS, THE HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD, IN REVIEWING THE PROPOSED PROJECT SPECIAL USE PERMIT HAS DETERMINED, IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 280 312 AND 280 327 NEW OR USED MOTOR VEHICLE SALES AND SERVICE THAT ONCE THE PROJECT WILL BE IN HARMONY WITH THE PURPOSES AND INTENT OF SECTION TWO 8312 SPECIAL USE PERMITS. 
          TWO THE PROJECT WILL NOT CREATE A HAZARD TO HEALTH, SAFETY AND GENERAL WELFARE. THREE THE PROJECT WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, NOR WILL IT BE DETRIMENTAL TO ITS RESIDENTS, FOR THE PROJECT WILL NOT OTHERWISE BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND WELFARE. FOR NEW OR USED MOTOR VEHICLE SALES AND SERVICES. A THIS PROJECT HAS FRONTAGE ALONG CAMP ROAD, NEW YORK ROUTE 75 BETWEEN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE NEW YORK STATE THRUWAY, I-90, AND THE RAILROAD TRACKS NORTH OF NASH ROAD B. THIS PROJECT DOES NOT INVOLVE THE OUTDOOR STORAGE OF ANY JUNK OR UNREGISTERED VEHICLES. C THE TOWN BUILDING INSPECTOR SLASH CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER SHALL MAKE PERIODIC INSPECTIONS OF EACH OPERATING FACILITY TO ENSURE THE PROPER STRUCTURAL MAINTENANCE OF ALL STRUCTURES AND THE ADEQUATE CLEANUP OF LITTER AND MOTOR VEHICLE PARTS. D THE SIZE, LOCATION AND MATERIALS USED IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF OFF STREET PARKING FACILITIES SHALL BE DETERMINED BY THE PLANNING BOARD, BASED ON THE INTENSITY OF USE OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD HEREBY DETERMINES THAT THE PROPOSED SPECIAL USE PERMIT IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE TOWN OF HAMBURG, AND THEREFORE, A SPECIAL USE PERMIT IS HEREBY ISSUED WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ONE. APPROVAL IS BASED ON THE SITE PLAN APPROVED BY THE PLANNING BOARD DATED FEBRUARY 21ST, 2024, WITH ANY CONDITIONS ATTACHED TO THAT PLAN. IT'S BEEN MOVED. THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION HAS BEEN MOVED. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND? I'M SORRY. ONE MOMENT. AUGIE MEMBER SHIMURA. 
          THE ACTUAL THE DATE OF THE PLANS. PART OF THE SITE PLAN IS DATED DECEMBER 19TH, 2023. 
          THERE'S THE RESOLUTION STATES PLANNING BOARD DATED FEBRUARY 21ST, 2024. ATTORNEY JOSEPH HOGAN. SO MY QUESTION MY QUESTION WOULD HAVE BEEN IS THE FEBRUARY 14TH DATE THE DATE THAT THE BOARD APPROVED IT, OR IS THAT THE DATE OF THE PLANS, THE RESOLUTION MEMBERS, THE RESOLUTIONS IN THE FOLDER DO NOT HAVE A DATE ON THE RESOLUTION. SO THE SITE PLAN BEING REFERENCED, THE PLAN ITSELF. RIGHT. AND MY COMMENT IS THE LANGUAGE IS CONFUSING BECAUSE AS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING BOARD DATED FEBRUARY 21ST, SO IS THE PARENTHESES DESCRIBING THE DATE IT WAS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING BOARD OR THE DATE OF THE SITE PLAN? BECAUSE YOU'RE CORRECT, THE SITE PLAN IS DATED DECEMBER 19TH. FEBRUARY 21ST WAS A WAS A PLANNING BOARD MEETING THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY THE DATE THAT WE APPROVED IT. SO IT SAYS APPROVAL IS BASED ON THE 
          [00:40:04]
SITE PLAN APPROVED BY THE PLANNING BOARD DATED. IT DOESN'T SAY SO. THEN MAYBE MAYBE JUST ADD THE WORD ATTORNEY JOSEPH GOERGEN. MAYBE JUST ADD THE WOR. A APPROVED APPROVAL DATED FEBRUARY 21ST IN THE PARENTHESES. JUST TO CLARIFY WHAT THAT DATE IS REFERRING TO. 
          MAY I MODIFY MY MOTION? MEMBER MCCORMICK. YES YOU CAN. I'D LIKE TO MODIFY THE CONDITION. RED. 
          ONE SHOULD SAY APPROVAL IS BASED ON THE SITE PLAN APPROVED BY THE PLANNING BOARD ON FEBRUARY 21ST, 2024 IS THE DATE OF THE APPROVAL WITH ANY CONDITIONS ATTACHED TO THAT PLAN. 
          ALL RIGHT. NOW, MEMBER TORRISI, WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION ON THAT? SECOND? I MEAN, SECOND, I'M SORRY. SECOND THE MOTION. I'M SORRY. ALL GIVE YOU A SECOND. OKAY. JOSHUA. GOOD. 
          OKAY. THIRD AND FINAL. WE NEED TO VOTE. OH. I'M SORRY. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, I ANY OPPOSED? NONE. ALRIGHT, THIRD AND FINAL SITE PLAN. HOME STRETCH. REALLY? THE THIRD MOTION IS ON SITE PLAN. WHERE IS THE TOWN OF HAMBURG? PLANNING DEPARTMENT RECEIVED A SITE PLAN APPLICATION FROM TOWN CHRYSLER DODGE JEEP RAM FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 4473 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING ADDITION AT 5130 CAMP ROAD. AND WHEREAS THE TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD HELD THE REQUIRED PUBLIC HEARING, AND WHEREAS, THE TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD HAS REVIEWED THE PROJECT AGAINST THE TOWN CODE AND HAS RECEIVED INPUT FROM TOWN DEPARTMENTS AND OTHER AGENCIES AND PROVIDED INPUT TO THE APPLICANT THAT HAS RESULTED IN AMENDED PLANS ADDRESSING THE PLANNING BOARD'S CONCERNS. AND WHEREAS, IN ACCORDANCE WITH PART 617 OF THE IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO ARTICLE EIGHT, STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION LAW, THE TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROJECT IS AN UNLISTED ACTION, AND NO FURTHER SEEKER ANALYSIS IS REQUIRED. THE HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD, AS LEAD AGENCY, CHOSE NOT TO SUBMIT A COORDINATED REVIEW AND NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, THE TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD ISSUES CONDITIONAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR THIS PROJECT WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS. ONE. APPROVAL IS CONTINGENT UPON THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT COMMENT LETTER DATED JULY 18TH, 2025 TWO. THE FINAL LANDSCAPE PLAN WILL BE APPROVED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. THREE ANY LIGHTING SHALL BE SHIELDED AND DARK SKY COMPLIANT AND SHOWN ON THE PLANS. FOUR SIDEWALKS ARE NOT WARRANTED AS THEY ALREADY EXIST ALONG CAMP ROAD. IT'S BEEN MOTION'S BEEN MADE BY MEMBER MCCORMICK. IS THERE A SECOND? MEMBER? RYAN SECONDS IT. IT'S BEEN MOVED BY MEMBER MCCORMICK, SECOND BY MEMBER RYAN. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? I NOT OPPOSED. SO THE RESOLUTION FOR TOWN CHRYSLER DODGE JEEP RAM HAS BEEN APPROVED. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THAT WAS A LONG ONE. YEAH, THAT WAS ALMOST LIKE WAR AND PEACE. 
          ALMOST. OKAY. SO JOSH WILL NOTIFY THEM THAT THAT WENT THROUGH. THANK YOU. OUR THIRD 
          [3. Lardon Disposal Services – Requesting Site Plan Approval of a proposal to operate a C  & D transfer facility on the west side of Woodlawn Avenue, north of 1st Street]
AND FINAL CASE THIS EVENING IS LARDEN DISPOSAL SERVICES IS COMING BACK AND BE BEFORE I CALL THE APPLICANT UP HERE. DO YOU WANT TO GIVE US AN UPDATE ON A COUPLE OF THINGS? SURE. SO WE'VE REVIEWED THIS PROJECT OVER A NUMBER OF MANY MONTHS. AS YOU GUYS KNOW, THE BOARD IS STILL RESPONSIBLE FOR MAKING A SECRET DECISION. BEFORE WE CAN DO THAT, WE NEED A COASTAL CONSISTENCY RECOMMENDATION FROM OUR TOWN'S COMMITTEE. THEY'RE MEETING JULY 24TH AT 7 P.M, SO HOPEFULLY WE GET A RECOMMENDATION FROM THAT COMMITTEE SO THAT WE CAN POTENTIALLY MAKE A SECRET DECISION ON AUGUST 6TH. IF YOU RECALL FROM THE LAST MEETING, WHAT THIS BOARD ASKED FOR ME TO DO WAS PRODUCE A DRAFT PART TWO OF THE FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM FOR SECRET PURPOSES. I SENT THAT TO THIS BOARD LATE LAST WEEK. IN THE EMAIL THAT I SENT TO THE BOARD, I REMINDED THE BOARD THAT WHEN WE DO PART TWOS AS TOWN PLANNER, I TAKE THE INPUT THAT I RECEIVED FROM THE BOARD, FROM THE APPLICANT, FROM PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS AND FROM THE INFORMATION PROVIDED AND DO A DRAFT. THE PART TWO WILL BE, IN THE OPINION OF THE ENTIRE BOARD AS A WHOLE. SO THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THIS DRAFT PART TWO THAT I PROVIDED TO THE BOARD IS 
          [00:45:03]
THE END ALL BE ALL. FEEL FREE TO CHANGE IT. CHECK. YES. CHECK. NO. WE CAN GO THROUGH SOME OF THE IMPACTS THAT I HAD CHECKED YES TO. WE ALSO HAVE THE APPLICANT HERE TO SPEAK ABOUT SOME OF THE MITIGATIONS THAT THE APPLICANT IS GOING TO BE PROPOSING. AND THEN WE'RE THERE'S NO DECISION TO BE MADE ON SEEKER YET BECAUSE WE STILL DON'T HAVE THAT COASTAL CONSISTENCY RECOMMENDATION FROM THE COMMITTEE. AND THAT'S REALLY THAT'S REALLY WHERE WE ARE RIGHT NOW. DO YOU WANT TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE ABOUT THE COMMENTS THAT WE RECEIVED? YES. SO. WE RECEIVED SOME COMMENTS FROM LEONA. I DON'T KNOW IF LEONA WANTS TO COME UP AND SPEAK ON A QUESTION THAT WE HAVE OR I HAVE AS PLANNER, IS LEONA. THE COMMENTS THAT YOU SENT ON BOTH THE PROJECTS, WERE THEY FROM WHERE THEY WERE YOU AS A RESIDENT OR WERE THEY FROM THE ENTIRE CONSERVATION ADVISORY BOARD? YEAH, YEAH. THE COMMENTS THAT YOU THAT YOU RECEIVED, THE FIRST YOU HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL YOU GET TO THE MIC, PLEASE. OKAY. THE MIC, THE CONSERVATION ADVISORY BOARD. THE FIRST COMMENTS THAT WE SENT YOU, WE PUT THOSE TOGETHER ESSENTIALLY THERE WERE THREE OF US, BUT THE REST OF THE BOARD HAD A CHANCE TO LOOK AT IT. AND EVERYBODY SEEMED TO BE OKAY WITH IT. AND THEN I SENT YOU TWO OTHER COMMENTS THAT WERE IN A LIKE EMAIL MEMO. THOSE WERE IN RESPONSE TO. THE. LATEST SUMMARY MITIGATION MEASURES. SO I SENT TWO OF THOSE. THE SECOND ONE, I THINK, CLARIFIED MORE IN HONED IN ON SOME OF THE SPECIAL THINGS WE'RE INTERESTED IN. AND THE OTHER TWO MEMBERS WERE WITH ME ARE OKAY WITH THAT. AND THEY SUPPORT IT. OKAY. SO IT DIDN'T GO. SO IT CAME FROM THE THREE OF YOU, NOT THE ENTIRE CONSERVATION BOARD, THOUGH. JUST FOR REFERENCE, THE ENTIRE CONSERVATION BOARD SAW THE FIRST MEMO. OKAY, BUT NOT THE SECOND ONE. OKAY. YOU MEAN THE COMMENTS ABOUT THE MITIGATION MEASURES THAT WAS BETWEEN THE THREE OF US? OKAY. JUST FOR PUTTING IT ON THE RECORD, NOT RECEIVED A COMMENT BACK. OKAY. AND I USUALLY ASK FOR. IF YOU'RE HAPPY WITH IT. RIGHT. SO YOU'D LIKE TO. SO THOSE ARE WE YOU WANT THOSE COMMENTS TO BE TREATED AS THE CONSERVATION BOARD'S COMMENTS FOR THE BOARD TO CONSIDER. OKAY. JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, AND I'M ESPECIALLY INTERESTED IN THE LAST ONES BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, WE HAD A CHANCE TO LOOK AT THE FIRST ONE, WHICH WENT THROUGH EVERYTHING. FOR POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS. AND THIS THE LAST ONE THAT I SENT, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE MITIGATION IDEAS. THAT I BELIEVE ARE IN RESPONSE TO OURS AND EVERYBODY ELSE'S COMMENTS. AND I DON'T KNOW IF EVERYBODY HAS A COPY OF THAT, BECAUSE THERE WERE SOME NEW ITEMS THAT WERE BROUGHT UP IN THE MITIGATION LETTER, FOR INSTANCE, THE FACT THAT THEY WERE GOING TO HAVE A HOLDING TANK WITH A DRAIN IN THE. BUILDING FOR FLUIDS AND WATER. 
          THAT WAS NEW. AND I BELIEVE THEY MENTIONED USING WATER TO KEEP DOWN THE DUST CLOUDS, BUT NOW THEY'RE ACTUALLY ANTICIPATING THE DUST CLOUDS AND THE WATER. AND THE OTHER THING WAS IN MITIGATION LETTER, THEY WERE SUPPOSEDLY GOING TO HAVE 48 TRUCK TRIPS A DAY, AND SUPPOSEDLY BASED ON THE WAY THAT THE MITIGATION LETTER WAS WRITTEN, THERE ARE NOW 40 TRUCKS A DAY. AND SO I'M WONDERING IF THEY HAVE ANY PICTURES OF WHAT THE TRUCKS BROUGHT IN FOR THEIR LAY DOWN FACILITY. I'VE ACTUALLY SEEN THE RADAR FACILITY PRETTY CLOSE TO IT. AND. AND SAID, WELL, SO IS KIM, SHE SAID ON THE BOARD. OH, AND HERE'S THE OTHER THING. THE DUMPSTER LOADS, BECAUSE THERE'S BEEN A CONCERN ABOUT THE TRUCKS. THAT WOULD BE IDLING 48 TRUCKS A DAY. 48 I DON'T KNOW IF THEY'RE ALL GOING IN OR COMING OUT, BUT THERE WILL BE A LOT OF TRUCKS POTENTIALLY THERE COULD BE IDLING, WHICH COULD BE A PROBLEM WITH THE EXHAUST AND THE NOISE. AND SO 
          [00:50:04]
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WAS NOT MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY IN THE. EAF, WHAT. SO NOW THEY'RE GOING TO DUMP DUMP THE STUFF AND THEN LEAVE. AND THEN LATER I GUESS THEY WILL TAKE THE WASTE THAT'S BEEN DUMPED. AND I WOULD THINK BRINGING IT TO THE SORTING FACILITY, WHICH WOULD MEAN THERE WOULD BE SOME OUTSIDE DUMPING PERIODICALLY. BUT I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WOULD COVER. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU ALSO HAVE THE RESPONSE TO THE MITIGATION. WE HAVE IT. SO MY QUESTION IS, IS IF THIS IS THIS IS WHERE I'M CONFUSED BECAUSE IT CAME FROM A PERSONAL EMAIL. SO IF IT'S FROM THE CAB, ISN'T THERE A FORM THAT THEY NEED TO. YEAH, THERE'S A CAB PROBLEM. BUT I CAN TELL YOU ON THE BOARD THAT WOULD BE THAT'D BE GREAT. OKAY. I DON'T MAKE THE RULES. I JUST HAVE TO FOLLOW THEM, UNFORTUNATELY. SO. GREAT. OKAY, I, I WOULD BE I THINK THAT THE IT WOULD BE EASIER FOR THE BOARD TO FOLLOW ALONG. RIGHT. SO IF WE CAN GET THAT IN THAT FORM AND THEN WE KNOW THAT IT'S FROM THE CAB, RIGHT? IN THE CORRECT FORM. YEP. YES, PLEASE. OKAY. YEP. THAT'S IT FOR YOU. YES. THANK YOU. DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO OFFER OTHER THAN THAT? NOTHING ELSE. 
          IT'S BEEN A LITTLE WHILE SINCE WE WENT THROUGH A PART TWO OF AN FAF, BUT I KNOW THE APPLICANT IS ALSO HERE. YES, I SEE HER OUT IN THE BACK, SO SHE WOULD LIKE TO COME UP AND ADD ANYTHING ELSE AT THIS POINT, RIGHT? OKAY. HELLO CHARLOTTE CLARK WITH ROO. HI. BACK AGAIN. I GUESS IN TERMS OF ADDING ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, I CAN EITHER RESPOND TO THE MOST RECENT CAB COMMENTS OR IF THERE'S ANY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS. BOARD HAS WHATEVER YOU HAD PLANNED WHEN YOU CAME HERE, WHEN YOU WALKED IN THE DOOR. GO AHEAD WITH THAT. AND THEN IF YOU WANT IF YOU IF YOU'RE PREPARED TO ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS, THAT'S FINE. OKAY. YEAH, I THINK TO CLARIFY, I KNOW WHEN WE FIRST PRESENTED TO THE WRP IN THE CAB, 48 TRUCKS PER DAY GOT THROWN AROUND. I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY WHERE THAT NUMBER CAME FROM. IT WAS THE INITIAL SUBMITTAL TO NEW YORK STATE DEC. AND IT WAS, YOU KNOW, TALKING WITH JOHN ABOUT WHAT HE OPERATES AT NOW AND WHAT HE THINKS ONCE HE'S GOT THIS FACILITY UP AND RUNNING, WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE. AND, YOU KNOW, HE TOLD ME HIS NUMBERS THAT HE'S OPERATING AT, AND I ADVISED HIM TO GO A LITTLE BIT HIGHER. THAT WAS JUST ON THE NEW YORK STATE DEC PERMIT SIDE OF THINGS. YOU DON'T WANT TO YOU DON'T WANT TO BE BUTTING UP AGAINST THEIR LIMIT FOR THE FOR THE PROPERTY OR FOR THE PERMIT. 
          SO I ADVISE HIM FOR THE MAXIMUM POSSIBLE TO BUMP THAT UP A LITTLE BIT. WE'RE HAPPY TO CHANGE THAT, TO BE A LITTLE BIT MORE REALISTIC TO WHAT'S ACTUALLY HAPPENING ON SITE, WHICH RIGHT NOW IS ABOUT 30, 30 TRUCKS PER DAY. KEEP IN MIND THAT'S PLUS MINUS TEN. AND ON ANY GIVEN DAY, DEPENDING ON LOADS AND HOW BUSY HE IS. I DO JUST WANT TO CLARIFY FOR THE BOARD IN TERMS OF SECRET PURPOSES, APPLICANTS ARE ABLE TO GIVE THRESHOLDS AND AS WE AND WE'LL I'M SURE WE'LL GO THROUGH IT IN THE PART TWO OF THE FIF. YOU CAN GIVE THRESHOLDS. YOU DON'T NEED THE MOST CONCRETE NUMBERS. BUT IF THAT 48 IS A THRESHOLD OF THE MAXIMUM, THEN THAT IS AN ACCEPTABLE RESPONSE FOR THE FIF. PART ONE FROM AN APPLICANT. OKAY. GO AHEAD. I THINK THAT WAS THE BIGGEST THING WE WANTED TO CLARIFY WAS, YOU KNOW, THE 48 KEEPS GETTING THROWN AROUND. AND I WANTED YOU GUYS TO UNDERSTAND WHERE THAT NUMBER CAME FROM. AND, YOU KNOW, AFTER GOING THROUGH THIS SECRET PROCESS, KIND OF WE UNDERSTAND THE CONCERNS OF THE COMMUNITY. 
          AND, YOU KNOW, MAYBE WE WERE ASKING ME A LITTLE BIT HIGH. WE JUST DIDN'T WANT TO WE DIDN'T WANT TO LOCK HIM INTO A NUMBER AND GET SLAPPED WITH A FINE. IF ON ONE GIVEN DAY, DC SHOWED UP AND, YOU KNOW, HE WAS SLIGHTLY OVER. UNDERSTOOD. OKAY, THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION. I HAVE A QUESTION TO ASK OF THE APPLICANT. IF I CAN GO AHEAD, JUST FOR THE RECORD AND JUST FOR TRANSPARENCY SAKE, CAN YOU ONCE AGAIN CLARIFY, YOU KNOW, FROM ONE OF THE COMMENTS THERE WAS TALK OF DUMPING AND DIFFERENT WASTE AND RUN OFF INTO LAKE ERIE AND THE ADJACENT CREEKS. CAN YOU JUST ONCE AGAIN CLARIFY WHAT THE PURPOSE OF THE DUMPSTERS WILL BE, WHETHER THINGS WILL BE ENCLOSED OR NOT, WHAT KIND OF WASTE MATERIALS WILL BE BACK IN THOSE DUMPSTERS, AND THEN WHAT THE MITIGATIONS ARE FOR PREVENTING ANY OF THAT RUNOFF INTO THE LAKE, JUST FOR TRANSPARENCY SAKE. SO YEAH, PRIMARY WASTE WILL BE C AND D CONSTRUCTION DEMOLITION DEBRIS. 
          SO CONCRETE BUSTED UP CONCRETE DRYWALL YOU COULD GET, YOU KNOW, HUGE CARDBOARD BOXES THAT GET 
          [00:55:03]
BROKEN DOWN. MINIMAL TRACE AMOUNTS OF RECYCLABLES. YOU KNOW, SOMEONE COULD, AS JOHN'S DISCUSSED IN PREVIOUS MEETINGS WITH THE TOWN PLANNING BOARD, YOU KNOW, SOMEONE COULD THROW IN THE OCCASIONAL TIRE. SO WE DID INCLUDE THAT ON THE LIST. MUNICIPAL SOLID OR PROTRUSIBLE, WHICH IS JUST MEANS FOOD WASTE. ANYTHING THAT COULD ROT OR CREATE A LEACHATE IS NOT GOING TO BE ACCEPTED. HE HIS PERMIT WON'T ALLOW IT. HE DOESN'T WANT IT. IT'S A NUISANCE ODOR, THE WHOLE SHEBANG. SO IT WILL BE. I MEAN, HE WILL BE TRACKING HIS LOADS AND WHAT COMES IN AND CHECKING AND REJECTING LOADS THAT DOES HAVE THAT IN IT. AND RUNOFF, I GUESS, YOU KNOW, IT'S JUST GOING TO BE RUNOFF OFF OF CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS. SO SAME AS IF IT'S SITTING AT YOUR HOUSE AND IT RAINS AND IT RUNS ONTO YOUR LAWN. BUT THERE'S NO CHANGE TO THE GRADES. YOU KNOW, STORMWATER IS GOING TO FLOW AS IT CURRENTLY DOES. ANYTHING ELSE? I DON'T KNOW IF I ANSWERED, I GET EVERYTHING. YEAH, THE ANSWER TO ANSWER MY QUESTIONS. JUST FOR MORE CLARIFYING QUESTIONS. THERE'S NO CONSTRUCTION OF A BUILDING OR ANY CONSTRUCTION OF ANY BUILDING ON THE PARCEL, RIGHT? YOU'RE GOING TO BE USING EXISTING BUILDING AND THEN DUMPSTERS WILL BE BROUGHT IN, BROUGHT OFFSITE. SO THERE'S NO CONSTRUCTION OF A BUILDING CORRECT ON SITE. OKAY. 
          I THINK THOSE ARE MY CLARIFYING QUESTIONS FOR THE BOARD. JOSH, I HAVE A CLARIFYING QUESTION. 
          SURE. IF YOU DON'T MIND. YEAH. SO AND THIS IS ACTUALLY IT WAS IN YOUR IN YOUR MITIGATION LETTER. AND I'M GOING TO READ IT OUT LOUD IF YOU DON'T MIND. YEAH. ACCEPTED WASTE WILL BE LIMITED TO WOOD CONCRETE DRYWALL METAL AND TO LESSEN EXTENTS RECYCLABLE TREES AND NON NON-FOOD WASTE. MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE. WASTE THAT HAS BEEN SORTED WILL BE STORED WITHIN THE BUILDING. SO I'M GOING TO STOP RIGHT THERE BECAUSE WE HAD SOMEONE SAY YOU'RE DUMPING OUTSIDE. AND I WANT TO CLARIFY THAT. IS THERE ANY DUMPING OUTSIDE WHATSOEVER. NO. OKAY. 
          NO. AND DUMPSTERS THAT ARE OUTSIDE, THEY'D BE SORT OF MATERIAL THAT'S GOING TO BE COVERED. THAT'S A REQUIREMENT FROM DC. SO THE MATERIAL WILL BE IN IN A CONTAINER AND IT'S GOING TO BE COVERED. OKAY. AND NYS DEC PERMIT REQUIRES A FLOOR DRAIN BE INSTALLED AND CONNECTED TO A HOLDING TANK. CAN YOU CLARIFY THAT FOR US? YES. SO WE HAD A MEETING WITH DEC EARLY JULY AND WE WALKED THEM THROUGH THE WHOLE PROCESS AND THEY UNDERSTOOD THE WAYS THAT WAS ACCEPTED. THE DRAIN WAS NOT A WORKAROUND FOR THEM. THEY JUST SAID IT'S PART OF THE PERMIT. WE REQUIRE IT FROM ALL TRANSFER FACILITIES ACROSS THE BOARD. SO THE JEFFERSON FACILITY WOULD THEY WOULD HAVE TO HAVE THEM. THEY ACCEPT MUNICIPAL. THEY UNDERSTOOD. THEY SAID, YOU REALLY AREN'T GOING TO HAVE LEACHATE. IT'S JUST PART OF THE PERMIT. WE HAVE TO HAVE IT AS A REQUIREMENT FOR YOU. AND HOW OFTEN WOULD THAT TANK BE CLEANED? WE ARE IN THE PROCESS OF DESIGNING IT. SO I MEAN, IT'S GOING TO BE BUILT AND MAINTAINED TO SPECS WRITTEN OUT BY THE NEW YORK STATE DC AND THAT PART 360. SO THIS IS THIS IS MONITORED BY THE NEW YORK STATE. YEAH. LIKE IT WOULD BE PART OF HIS ANNUAL REPORTING TO THEM AS WELL AS PART OF THE PERMIT HE HAS TO REPORT. AND, AND DO THEY COME AND INSPECT THE BUSINESS THROUGHOUT THE YEAR OR ONCE A YEAR OR IN ORDER TO? IS IT LIKE YOU GET A PERMIT AND THEN YOU HAVE TO CLARIFY THAT, BUT IT'S NOT LIKE A SET THING. THEY'LL JUST DROP IN AND DO A SITE INSPECTION, BUT THEY DO AN ANNUAL REPORT AS PART OF THE PERMIT THAT YOU HAVE TO SUBMIT EVERY YEAR, AN ANNUAL REPORT THAT IS SUBMITTED ON A YEARLY BASIS, AND THEN THEY COULD DROP IN AT ANY POINT IN TIME TO INSPECT THE BUSINESS. CORRECT? OKAY. THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO CLARIFY WHEN I SAW ABOUT THE DRAINAGE IN THE FLOOR. I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING ELSE. IN ADDITION, I THINK MCCORMACK HAD A QUESTION. OKAY, I DID REMEMBER MCCORMACK. I DID JUST WANT TO CLARIFY. SO FIRST YOU SAID THAT EVERYTHING WAS GOING TO BE IN BUILDINGS, BUT IT IS IN BUILDINGS OR OUTDOOR STORAGE IN COVERED DUMPSTERS. SO THERE IS OUTDOOR STORAGE. THERE'S SOME MATERIAL AND IT'S JUST THE DUMPSTER LIDS THAT ARE THE COVER. CORRECT. AND DO WE HAVE ANY INFORMATION ON THE PLACEMENT AND ORIENTATION OF THOSE DUMPSTERS AND THE LIDS? AND THE CONCERN I HAVE IS, IS THE WIND, AS EVERYONE KNOWS, COMES STRAIGHT ACROSS THE LAKE. AND I THINK ALL OF US WITH TRASH CANS AND HAMBURG KNOW THAT THERE'S TIMES WHERE THOSE, THOSE LIDS AREN'T CUTTING IT. SO YES. SO FOR THE STORAGE OUTSIDE, IT IS GOING TO BE RESTRICTED TO DEC. DID AGREE TO HAVE IT BE METAL. 
          SO BE HEAVY HEAVY MATERIAL NOT LIKELY TO BLOW AROUND, BUT IN THE DUMPSTER. IN THE DUMPSTER. 
          NO ON DUMPSTER MATERIALS AND METAL. ONLY IN THE DUMPSTERS. YES. YEAH. WE'LL HAVE WE'RE GOING TO PUT TOGETHER A REVISED SITE PLAN, WHICH WE'RE GIVING TO DC AS WELL. AND IT'S GOING TO SHOW WHERE EACH TYPE OF MATERIAL IS BEING STORED ON SITE ONCE IT'S SORTED. THAT WOULD BE 
          [01:00:02]
HELPFUL IF WE COULD SEE THAT. YEAH. CHAIR, I THINK THAT THAT DIAGRAM WOULD NEED TO BE INCLUDED AS AN APPENDIX TO OUR SEEKER. SHE JUST SAID THAT SHE WAS GOING TO PROVIDE IT. SO I THINK WE NEED TO HAVE THAT THOUGH BEFORE WE CAN MAKE A SECRET DECISION. WELL, WE'RE NOT MAKING A DECISION TONIGHT. YEAH, BUT I AGREE. YEAH I THINK THAT'S IN PROCESS. WE CAN GET THAT TO YOU ASAP. OKAY. I THINK WE'RE A LITTLE AWAY FROM. OKAY. DID YOU HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? NO. I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT BECAUSE I HEARD ONE THING AND THEN THE OTHER. RIGHT. ANYONE ELSE? MEMBER. IS THERE? ARE THERE OTHER TRANSFER FACILITIES LOCATED IN ERIE COUNTY OR WESTERN NEW YORK? I KNOW THE JEFFERSON ONE IS. YOU MAY KNOW MORE THAN I DO, BUT I IN TERMS OF JUST STRICTLY C AND D, I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY OTHERS EXIST. WELL, MY CONCERN IS 30 DIESEL OPERATED TRUCKS A DAY GENERATE A LOT OF FUMES. ARE THEY GOING TO BE SPACED OUT AS THE TIME THEY'RE ALLOWED TO COME AND MAKE THEIR DROP OFF? OR ALL 30 WILL JUST RANDOMLY START PILING IN? I HAVE JOHN JUST CLARIFY THE NUMBERS, BUT HE'S GOT WHAT, 50 SOME DUMPSTERS AND THEN THE TRUCKS THAT ACTUALLY MOVE THE DUMPSTERS ARE LIMITED TO SIX OF THEM. SIX. SO I MEAN THAT'S GOING TO CREATE A DISTANCE DISTANCING OF WHAT COMES IN AND OUT OF THE SITE TIMING WISE, JUST IN TERMS OF THE TRUCKS AVAILABLE TO MOVE THE DUMPSTERS. MY CONCERN IS ALL OF THEM SHOWING UP AT THE SAME TIME. GOTCHA. I MEAN. SORRY, JOHN PALMER, NO, I DON'T THINK THAT WOULD EVER HAPPEN BECAUSE THEY ALL START AT DIFFERENT TIMES AND BECAUSE OF OUR PICKUP SCHEDULES, WE DO SCHEDULE THEM OUT SO THAT THEY'RE NOT ALL AT LIKE THEY'RE AT THE JEFFREY BOULEVARD TRANSFER STATION. WE DON'T WANT THEM ALL SITTING IN LINE WAITING THERE ALL AT ONCE. 
          YOU KNOW WE WANT THEM. SO WE SPACE THEM OUT AND START EVERYONE AT DIFFERENT TIMES IN THE MORNING. SO OKAY. AND THE ONLY WAY TO GET INTO THIS FACILITY IS OFF OF ROUTE FIVE. 
          THAT ONE ROAD THAT COMES IN THE BACK SIDE, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE GOING THROUGH RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD AT ALL, CORRECT? YES. THE PRIVATE ROAD I THINK THE OTHER ROAD IS GATED OFF. ALL RIGHT. MY QUESTION. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER, FOR THAT. YOU KNOW GO AHEAD, MEMBER FINLEY OR MEMBER RYAN. SORRY. CHANGE. STILL GETTING USED TO IT. JOSH, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU. I KNOW WE'RE STILL WAITING ON THE HOW MUCH WEIGHT DOES THEIR RECOMMENDATION COME WITH? HOW MUCH DOES IT CARRY THAT WE USE TO MAKE OUR DECISION ON, YOU KNOW, THIS PROJECT OR OTHER PROJECTS THAT THEY WOULD WEIGH IN ON? I WOULD SAY IT WOULD BE EQUAL TO THE OTHER ADVISORY BOARDS THAT WE HAVE WITHIN THE TOWN, SUCH AS TRAFFIC SAFETY OR THE CONSERVATION BOARD. I WILL SAY, IF I WERE TO RANK IT, IT HAS A LITTLE BIT MORE WEIGHT BECAUSE WITH THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS, IF THIS BOARD DISAGREES WITH, LET'S SAY, FOR EXAMPLE, THE LBP COMMITTEE DEEMS THIS PROJECT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE POLICIES OF THE LW AND THIS BOARD DISAGREES OR DISAGREES WITH THAT DECISION. WE WOULD HAVE TO PUT IN WRITING THE REASON FOR THAT DISAGREEMENT ON WHY THIS BOARD FELT THAT THE PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE LW POLICY. SO BECAUSE OF THINGS LIKE THAT, I WOULD SAY THAT THERE'S A DECENT AMOUNT OF WEIGHT TO COME WITH THAT LW COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION. SO IT'S REALLY NOT JUST ANOTHER OPINION AS IN CAB OR ANYTHING, RIGHT? IT WAS A LITTLE BIT MORE THAN A TYPICAL ADVISORY BOARD. I WOULD SAY. THANK YOU. YEP. ANY OTHER BOARD MEMBERS OKAY. DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO OFFER TO US TONIGHT? NOT AT THIS TIME UNLESS THERE'S OTHER SPECIFIC QUESTIONS. I KNOW IT'S A LARGE BREATH. THERE'S A LOT. YES. SO I THINK THAT MAYBE WHAT WE COULD DO IS START GOING THROUGH THIS. WOULD WOULD THAT BE ALRIGHT? GOING THROUGH THE SEEKER, THE PART TWO. SURE. HOW, HOW I ENVISION GOING THROUGH IT IS FIRST THAT EVERYONE GET A CHANCE TO TAKE A LOOK AT IT. SEE IT. I HAVE AN EXTRA COPY IF SOMEBODY WANTS A HARD COPY, BUT THERE ARE OBVIOUSLY 18 DIFFERENT IMPACTS THROUGH THE FAA. PART TWO. LIKE I SAID, I TOOK A FIRST SHOT AT BASED OFF OF ALL THE DISCUSSION AND ALL THE DOCUMENTATION THAT WE HAVE ON RECORD OF CHECKING OFF BOXES. YES, THAT MAY HAVE A MODERATE TO LARGE IMPACT. HOW WE DO THE FAA PART TWO IS THAT THERE ARE THRESHOLDS. AND TYPICALLY WE CHECK YES, IF WE FEEL ONE OF THE IMPACTS LISTED IN THE SUBSECTIONS MAY HAVE A MODERATE TO LARGE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. AND THEN OBVIOUSLY WHEN WE DO THE PART THREE AND BEFORE YOU GUYS MAKE A SECRET DECISION, IT'S UP TO THE APPLICANT TO PUT INFORMATION ON RECORD THAT IF YOU WERE GOING TO 
          [01:05:04]
ISSUE A NECDET, WHILE YOU GUYS BELIEVE THAT THERE WILL NOT BE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT. SO I GUESS IN TERMS OF THE FORMAT OF HOW WE CAN GO ABOUT THIS, IF EVERYONE HAD A CHANCE TO LOOK AT IT, ARE THERE ANY IMPACTS THAT I CHECKED? YES, I THINK THE ONES THAT I CHECKED, NO. IF ANYONE HAS ANY, IF ANYONE DISAGREES WITH THE ONES THAT I CHECKED, KNOW THAT WE COULD START THERE. AND IF THERE AREN'T ANY DISAGREEMENTS THAT WE CAN GO OVER THE ONES THAT CHECKED. YES. SO DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY DISAGREEMENTS WITH ONES I CHECKED? NO. YES. MEMBER. CLARK. BILL CLARK, CAN WE MAYBE JUST GO THROUGH THE FORM IN ORDER TO TALK ABOUT EACH OF THEM? YEAH, 117 THERE'S 18, I KNOW, AND I HAVE ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE. I'LL TRY TO FIND IT. NINE. I WANT TO TALK ABOUT NINE. I DON'T KNOW WHICH ONE IS FOR SURE, BUT WE CAN START WITH BILL'S MEMBER CLARK, WHY DON'T YOU GO AHEAD? ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. SO 17 IS CHECKED. NO. 17 C MENTIONS CONSISTENCY WITH LOCAL PLANS. I DON'T SEE HOW THIS PROJECT MEETS SECTION 4.1 AND 4.3 OF THE CURRENT LWR. AND THE OTHER QUESTION I HAD ON 17 WOULD BE 17 D TALKS ABOUT COUNTY AND OTHER REGIONAL PLANS. DID WE REVIEW ANY COUNTY OR REGIONAL PLANS THAT DEAL WITH THE WATERFRONT? BECAUSE THIS IS THE DIFFERENT THING WITH THIS PROJECT IS IT'S SO CLOSE TO THE WATER. IF IT WAS NOT CLOSE TO THE WATER, THERE'S A LOT LESS PLANS THAT WE HAVE TO REVIEW. SO WHAT DID WE LOOK AT BEFORE WE DECIDED NO ON 17 D? AND JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, 17 READS CONSISTENCY WITH COMMUNITY PLANS. SO THE PROPOSED ACTION IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE ADOPTED LAND USE PLANS. AND TO REMEMBER MEMBER CLARK'S POINT, HE'S ASKING, WHAT HOW DID WE DETERMINE THAT IT THAT IT IS CONSISTENT, THAT IT'S NOT NOT CONSISTENT. SO TO ANSWER YOUR FIRST QUESTION FOR 17 D OUTSIDE OF THE TOWN'S LW, RP, I'M NOT SURE WHAT COUNTY PLAN REFERENCES THIS THIS AREA. SO TO ANSWER THE QUESTION, WE DIDN'T LOOK AT ANY COUNTY OR REGIONAL PLAN. I'M NOT SURE WHICH ONE WOULD REFERENCE OR HAVE ANY RECOMMENDATIONS OR HAVE ANY BEARING ON THIS PROJECT. IF THERE IS ONE, OBVIOUSLY WE CAN REVIEW IT, BUT I'M NOT SURE OF ONE THAT SPEAKS TO THIS AREA OR TO THIS PROPOSED PROJECT IN REFERENCE TO THE LW RP, WHICH IT DEFINITELY I KNOW FOR SURE REFERENCES TO THIS AREA. I WENT OFF BASED OFF OF THE INFORMATION THAT THAT I HAD, I BEING ONE THAT WORKS ON THE CURRENT LW. I KNOW A LOT OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT THE LW RP ARE FOR WATER DEPENDENT AND WATER ENHANCED USES. I THINK BECAUSE OF AT LEAST IN LIKE I SAID, THIS IS MY OPINION. IT'S THE BOARD'S OPINION TO PUT ON THE PART. TWO THIS USE IS NOT ONLY IS IT ZONED INDUSTRIAL, BUT WHEN WE THINK OF WATERFRONT PROPERTY IN TERMS OF WATER ENHANCED USES AND WATER DEPENDENT USES, IF IT WASN'T THERE, WHAT WOULD WE. I GUESS MY QUESTION WOULD BE WHAT? WHAT USE WOULD GO THERE THAT WOULD, IN YOUR OPINION, MAKE MEET THE POLICIES OF THE LW RP IN AN AREA THAT'S ALREADY ZONED INDUSTRIAL. 
          IT HAS A WIND TURBINE ON IT ON THE SAME PIECE OF PROPERTY. SO I'M NOT SURE. YOU KNOW, A LOT OF THE GOALS AND ACTIONS ARE GETTING PEOPLE TO THE WATERFRONT, WANTING TO INCREASE ACCESS DOWN TO THE WATERFRONT. THERE REALLY IS NO WATERFRONT ACCESS ON THIS PARCEL. PEOPLE CANNOT AND SHOULD NOT WALK ON THIS PARCEL, AT LEAST IN MY OPINION. SO BECAUSE OF BECAUSE OF THAT, I INITIALLY CHECKED IT. NO, BUT LIKE I SAID, THIS IS NOT MY DOCUMENT. I TOOK A FIRST SHOT AT IT AND I'M UP FOR THE BOARD TO SAY YAY OR NAY ON ON DIFFERENT IMPACTS. AND WE CAN CHECK. YES, DEPENDING ON WHAT YOU GUYS THINK. MEMBER CLARK, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING? I JUST HAVE MY OPINION ON THAT. IT'S NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE CURRENT LW SECTIONS. 4.1, 4.3. I MEAN, I LOOKED AT THE LW RP IN DETAIL. THERE IS A SECTION THAT TALKS ABOUT INDUSTRIAL USES ON THE FORMER BETHLEHEM STEEL SITE, BUT I DON'T THINK THIS PROJECT APPLIES BECAUSE THAT SECTION REFERENCES VACANT PROPERTIES AND BECAUSE THIS IS A CHANGE IN USE, THE EXISTING USE. IT ALREADY HAS AN EXISTING USE, SO IT'S NOT VACANT. SO THE SECTION THAT WOULD SAY YES, I DON'T THINK APPLIES. AND THE SECTIONS THAT SAY NO I THINK DO APPLY. MEMBER MCCORMICK I WOULD AGREE WITH BILL THAT I DON'T THINK THIS IS A WATER DEPENDENT OR WATER ENHANCED USE. SO I WOULD THINK THAT. WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE DOCUMENTING IT AND THAT THAT IS TALKING ABOUT WHAT WE THINK. THAT'S NOT TO SAY THAT IT'S A VOTE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, BUT THAT I DON'T THINK 
          [01:10:06]
THAT IT'S CONSISTENT. AND SO YOU ASKED THE QUESTION ABOUT WHAT IS A WATER DEPENDENT OR WATER ENHANCED USE. THERE'S A NUMBER OF INDUSTRIAL USES, WHETHER THAT IS INVOLVING BARGE TRAFFIC, MARINAS, IF SOMETHING WERE TO NEED COOLING WATER OR OTHER WATER INTAKE TO USE THE WATER. 
          BUT THERE'S A I MEAN, I COULD PROBABLY GET YOU A LIST, BUT THERE ARE A LOT OF INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL THAT ARE NOT NECESSARILY PUBLIC ACCESS USES THAT COULD BE WATER ENHANCED OR WATER DEPENDENT AS A PART OF THEIR USE. SO I, I SHARE MEMBER CLARK'S CONCERN. OKAY. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE? DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO OFFER? MEMBER CLARK IT'S ONE THING TO JOSH'S POINT, DO WE HAVE TO COME UP WITH AN ALTERNATIVE USE? BECAUSE AND I DON'T THINK WE DO, BUT THERE WAS ONE PLAN THAT WAS REVIEWED THAT DIDN'T GO ANYWHERE, THAT HAD A BOAT LAUNCH ADJACENT TO THIS PROPERTY THAT WOULD USE THAT ROAD. AND YOU, A PERSON COULD ARGUE THAT THAT PLAN DIDN'T GO ANYWHERE BECAUSE THERE'S CURRENT INDUSTRIAL USES. AND IF THAT INDUSTRIAL USE WASN'T THERE, IT MIGHT BE A LOCATION FOR A BOAT LAUNCH THAT WOULDN'T NEED TO BE DREDGED TWICE A YEAR, LIKE THE CURRENT ONE WE HAVE. SO THERE ARE THINGS THAT COULD GO THERE. POSSIBLY. 
          WOULD THEY GO THERE? HOW SPECULATIVE THAT IS. WE'RE GETTING PRETTY FAR OUT INTO THE WEEDS. BUT. THERE ARE POSSIBILITIES. AS A FOLLOW UP IN THE PART THREE, OBVIOUSLY, IF WE CHECK SOMETHING AS AS YES OR MODERATE TO LARGE IMPACT IN IN THE PART TWO AND THE PART THREE, WE, WE TALK ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THERE ARE ANY MITIGATIONS ON WHETHER WE STILL THINK IT IS GOING TO HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT. IF WE AND I DON'T LIKE I SAID, I DON'T DISAGREE OR AGREE WITH, YOU KNOW, CHECKING OFF 17 OR 17 D IF WE CHECK THEM BOTH OFF, WHAT MITIGATIONS WOULD THE APPLICANT BE ABLE TO DO OR OFFER THAT WOULD ESSENTIALLY ADDRESS THE CONCERNS OF NOT MEETING THE OR ANY OTHER REGIONAL PLANS? MEMBER MCCORMICK I DON'T KNOW THAT IT IF IT'S INCONSISTENT. YOU KNOW, I THINK, YOU KNOW, I HAVE DREW IN MY HEAD THAT IS TELLING ME THAT THE ONUS IS ON US AND THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO ON THEM TO GET BACK IS ON US. 
          CORRECT. AND THAT THERE'S A HIGHER THRESHOLD OF CERTAINTY, THE MOVING FORWARD WITH ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION. I THINK THIS COMES BACK TO LIKE IF SOMETHING IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE PLAN OR INCONSISTENT WITH WHERE WE'RE TRYING TO GO, WHAT DO YOU DO WITH THAT? SOMETIMES THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY SOMETHING THAT MITIGATION CAN ADDRESS, RIGHT? RIGHT. AN EXAMPLE OF WHEN WE DEALT WITH THAT WOULD BE THAT DOLLAR GENERAL THAT WAS PROPOSED ON SOUTHWESTERN. WE THOUGHT IT WOULD BE DANGEROUS FOR PEDESTRIANS BECAUSE THERE WAS NO LIGHT AND NO CROSSWALK. AND THE APPLICANT DIDN'T HAVE CONTROL OVER SOUTHWESTERN, SO THEY WERE NOT ABLE TO MITIGATE THAT. SO SOME SOME THINGS CAN BE MITIGATED AND SOME THINGS CAN'T. BUT. DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE IN YOUR LIST THAT YOU LOOKED AT. NOT ON MY LIST, NO. OKAY. THANK YOU I THIS IS MEMBER VALENTI. I WILL ADD ONE TO BILL'S LIST. OKAY. THERE IS THE. ERIE COUNTY WATERFRONT ACCESS AND TRAILWAY PLAN THAT OUTLINES A PLANNED TRAIL SYSTEM FROM NIAGARA DOWN TO PAST BENNETT. AND THEY SPECIFICALLY WANT TO LINK ALL OF THE STATE OWNED BEACHES. AND SO THIS THIS SITE AND WOODLAWN ARE PART OF THIS PLAN, BUT I DON'T HAVE THE TIME TO GET INTO IT RIGHT NOW. BUT SO THERE IS AT LEAST ONE COUNTY PLAN THAT WE NEED TO BE CHECKING FOR CONSISTENCY. I WOULD, IF I MAY, MEMBER MCCORMICK. WHAT MARGOT SAID THAT WAS ONE OF THE ONES ON MY LIST WAS ITEM 11 B. SO IT IS ALSO A PLAN, BUT IT IS ALSO I HAD FLAGGED THAT IS ABOUT FUTURE RECREATIONAL USES ON THAT FORM. 
          AND BECAUSE OF THAT TRAIL, MY QUESTION IS, IS WHETHER OR NOT WE NEED TO CHECK YES OR IF WE'RE MAKING A DECISION THAT'S TO UNDERSTAND HOW THAT TRAIL WOULD INTERPLAY IN THIS AREA WITH THAT. AND I THINK THAT TRAIL, FOR EXAMPLE, IS AN ENHANCED A WATER ENHANCED USE. SO THAT WOULD FALL UNDER 11 B AS WELL AS UNDER THE 17. CAN. CAN I INTERJECT SOMETHING HERE? SO OBVIOUSLY THE PEOPLE TO MY LEFT HAVE BEEN DOING SEEKER A LOT LONGER THAN I HAVE, EVEN THOUGH I'VE BEEN ON ZONING AND PLANNING, BUT NOT IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK. THE THING THAT I 
          [01:15:03]
HAVE A PROBLEM WITH, WITH THIS PART TWO, IS THAT THIS PROPERTY IS ZONED. INDUSTRIAL. CORRECT. 
          SO I DON'T KNOW HOW THE HOW WE CAN DECIDE THAT WE'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT WITH THESE COMMENTS BECAUSE THIS IS OUR THIS IS NOT A NEW PIECE OF PROPERTY, A NEW A BRAND NEW PIECE OF BUSINESS THAT'S COMING IN. AND THEY WANT TO CREATE SOMETHING THAT WOULD HAVE A NEGATIVE IMPACT. THIS IS AN EXISTING BUSINESS THAT'S HAS A SIMILAR USE. SO I'M CONFUSED AS TO HOW WE CAN WE THIS BOARD CAN SAY, OH NO, NO, NO, NO YOU CAN'T DO THAT. WELL FROM A FROM A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE. AND TO KAITLIN, IN BOTH BILL'S POINT, IF A PROJECT IS INCONSISTENT AND NUMBER 17 TALKS ABOUT COMMUNITY PLANS, IF A PROJECT IS DEEMED INCONSISTENT WITH SAID LOCAL PLAN, WHAT'S THE LW OR THAT COUNTY PLAN? THAT COUNTY RECREATIONAL PLAN THAT MARGOT BROUGHT UP, AND THAT'S A MODERATE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT THAT THIS BOARD WOULD HAVE TO HAVE THE APPLICANT OR THE APPLICANT WOULD HAVE TO PROVE THE BURDEN OF WHY THEY OR PROVIDE INFORMATION ON WHY IT'S EITHER A SMALL OR NON-SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT. SO I, I GET THE I GET THE QUESTION. I WOULD SAY THAT FROM A SECRET PERSPECTIVE FOR AN INCONSISTENT PROJECT THAT'S INCONSISTENT WITH A LOCAL PLAN OR A WATERFRONT PLAN OR AN AREA COUNTY PLAN, IF IT'S DEEMED A MODERATE TO LARGE IMPACT, THEN YOU CAN, YOU KNOW, THAT'S SOMETHING TO CONSIDER AND SOMETHING FOR THE APPLICANT TO PROVIDE MORE INFORMATION ON. BUT MY POINT IS WE DON'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION. AND SO I DON'T KNOW HOW WE CAN HOW WE CAN MOVE ON ANY FURTHER IF THAT, BECAUSE I CAN SEE IF TO MEMBER VALENTI'S POINT, IF THIS PLAN THAT THE COUNTY HAS, WE DON'T KNOW IF THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY IS INCLUDED IN THAT PLAN. I CAN SEE WHERE THE PROPERTY CLOSER TO THE LAKE MAY BE INCLUDED WITH THE TRAILS, BECAUSE I KNOW WHAT SHE'S TALKING ABOUT WITH REFERENCE TO THAT, AND I CAN UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S GOING TO COME THROUGH EVERYBODY'S INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY IN THAT AREA AND SAY, OH, WELL, WE'RE WE'RE PUTTING UP, WE'RE PUTTING A PATH HERE. RIGHT. SO AND I'M NOT TRYING TO BE I'M JUST NOT CLEAR. SO HELP ME OUT. CAN I HELP JOSH. YEAH. THIS IS MEMBER VALENTI. SO I THINK THAT THERE'S MINE DOESN'T COME OFF. SO I THINK THERE'S A COUPLE OF JUST SORT OF THINGS TO, TO PUT AT PLAY HERE THAT WILL MAKE THIS MAKE SENSE TO YOU. OKAY. SO ALL THE THINGS RUN PARALLEL BUT CONCURRENTLY. AND SO OUR, OUR REQUIREMENT UNDER SEEKER IS TO TAKE A HARD LOOK. WE ARE JUST ASSESSING ALL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS IN ADDITION TO COMMUNITY CHARACTER ALL OF THOSE THINGS RIGHT. IT IS UNRELATED TO THE UNDERLYING ZONING. THEY CAN MEET THE UNDERLYING ZONING CODE AND STILL FAIL AT SEEKER. BUT SEEKER IS NOT A YES NO DECISION RIGHT NOW. IT'S A IS THERE A POTENTIALLY ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT? OKAY. OR IS THERE NOT? AND IF THERE IS, THEN THEY PRESENT TO US THEIR MITIGATIONS AND THE MITIGATION MIGHT BE WILL THE TRAIL DOESN'T ACTUALLY TOUCH OUR PROPERTY. OKAY COOL. THERE ACTUALLY ISN'T AN IMPACT. OUR GOAL RIGHT NOW IS TO DO THE INVESTIGATION AND TO ASK ALL THE QUESTIONS. SO THEN TO ASK FOR A COPY OF THAT TRAIL TO FIND OUT, TO GET TO GET THAT INFORMATION FROM THE COUNTY, TO SEE IF THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY. I JUST EMAILED YOU THE PLAN. OKAY. SO WE CAN. YEAH. SO I THINK RIGHT NOW I'M A LITTLE BUSY. I DIDN'T SEE MY EMAIL. SO I THINK JUST RIGHT NOW AND CORRECT ME IF ANYONE THINKS WE'RE WRONG. THE EXERCISE THAT CAITLIN'S GOING THROUGH AND BILL'S GOING THROUGH IS TO IDENTIFY THE FLAGS WHERE WE NEED MORE INFORMATION. WE STILL HAVE QUESTIONS. WE THINK THERE MIGHT BE A RISK WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE THIS CONVERSATION. WE'RE JUST AT THE BRAINSTORM STAGE, IF YOU WILL. 
          OKAY. I THINK TO ADDRESS YOUR QUESTION CHAIR, ABOUT IT BEING EXISTING USE AND HOW DO YOU CHANGE IT. SO THEY'RE ASKING TO CHANGE THE USE. SO WE HAVE TO LOOK AT IT UNDER OUR CURRENT RULES. WHEN THEY FIRST DID THIS THERE MAY HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT RULES OR DIFFERENT PLANS OR DIFFERENT PEOPLE LOOKING AT. SO IF THE CURRENT USE THEY'RE GRANDFATHERED IN. WE HAVE NO IMPACT ON THAT. BUT A CHANGE IN USE JUST BY THE FACT THAT IT HAS TO COME HERE AND GO THROUGH SEEKER MEANS WE'RE REQUIRED TO DO ALL THIS STUFF AGAIN. AND TO LOOK AT IT TODAY, NOT LOOK AT IT WHILE IT WAS BACK THEN AND NOW. THAT'S WHY THERE'S THE CHANGE, IN MY OPINION. AND YOU BRING UP A POINT AND YOU REMINDED ME WE ASKED FOR THE ORIGINAL SITE PLAN FOR THIS PROJECT, AND WE STILL DIDN'T GET IT FROM THE PROPERTY ON THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY. WE DID BECAUSE WE ASKED FOR THE SITE PLAN OF THIS EXISTING BUSINESS AND DID NOT GET IT BECAUSE I THINK WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND THAT THIS WAS A ONE. WE HAVE TO EVALUATE IT NOW. BUT I THINK THE OUTSTANDING QUESTION IS, IS WAS IT EVALUATED BACK THEN? WAS THIS USED RIGHT? WHAT WAS THE PROCESS. BECAUSE WHEN THIS WHEN THIS BUSINESS THIS IS THE GRAY AREA. SO WHEN THIS BUSINESS STARTED IT WAS STILL IN 
          [01:20:04]
THE WRP. CORRECT? I DON'T KNOW BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE THAT SITE PLAN. BUT IF WE HAVE THE SITE PLAN THEN WE COULD FIND THAT OUT. AND THE QUESTION THAT CAME UP WHEN WE ASKED FOR THAT, HOW LONG HAVE THEY BEEN DOING THIS USE? DID THEY GET A CHANGE OF USE WHEN THEY STARTED USING IT? AND THEN THE PREVIOUS SITE PLAN WOULD HELP US ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS. WHAT WAS APPROVED THEN? WHEN WAS IT APPROVED? AND I THINK WE STILL NEED TO GET THAT INFORMATION. I THINK THAT'S I THINK THAT'S VITAL TO THE TO THIS PUZZLE. SO I SPOKE WITH CODE ENFORCEMENT AND THROUGH OUR DIGGING, TO MY KNOWLEDGE, I HAVE NOT SEEN A SITE PLAN ON FILE IN RECENT YEARS FOR THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY. I DON'T KNOW IF THE AND HOW MANY YEARS AGO WE'VE BEEN OPERATING THREE YEARS. 
          THAT'S ALREADY LAID OUT IN THE ORDER TO LAY DOWN. YEAH. SO FROM 2022 TO 2025 THERE HAS NOT BEEN OBVIOUSLY BEFORE THIS BOARD. THERE HAS NOT BEEN A SITE PLAN. EVEN WHEN THEY FIRST STARTED, THERE WASN'T A SITE PLAN PRESENTED TO THIS BOARD, MEANING I'M ASSUMING CODE ENFORCEMENT SAID THIS IS A CONTINUANCE OF USE FROM A PREVIOUS OWNER AND DIDN'T REQUIRE IT TO COME TO THE PLANNING BOARD. SO I DON'T THINK AT LEAST, THOUGH I HAVE NOT SEEN A SITE PLAN ON FILE FOR ANY PREVIOUS OWNER. I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, WAS A SITE PLAN AND APPROVAL FOR THIS USE EVER? GRANTED? WE DON'T KNOW. WE DON'T KNOW. SO THIS SITE WAS THE SITE OF THE BLACKTOP PLANT THAT RAN DOWN AT THAT SITE THAT RAN MANY YEARS AGO. I WAS AS A KID. I WENT IN THERE AND GOT STONED FROM THE SLAG. SO THE, THE, THE ACTUAL BUILDING THAT WE'RE DOING THIS IN WAS THE BUILDING THAT WAS CONNECTED TO THE BLACKTOP PLANT. SO WHEN THAT GOT REMOVED, I DON'T KNOW WHEN THAT GOT REMOVED. I DON'T QUITE REMEMBER, BUT THAT'S WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY THERE. AND EVERYONE KNOWS I DON'T OWN THIS LAND. RIGHT. THAT IT'S A LEASE. I LEASE IT. RIGHT. OKAY. AND THE PORT OF BUFFALO OR NOT SO NEW ENTERPRISE STONE LINE. NOW THEY'VE USED IT FOR WHAT I AM USING IT FOR, FOR AS LONG AS I CAN REMEMBER. SO I DON'T KNOW ABOUT ANYTHING THAT'S BEEN CHANGED FROM ANY USE. SO I JUST I DON'T KNOW IF THAT HELPS CLARIFY ANYTHING, BUT THE USE IS WHAT IT'S ALWAYS BEEN. SO THAT'S. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. WELL THAT THOSE ARE MY I, I NEEDED TO GET THAT OUT AND GET THAT CLARIFIED AND GET DIRECTION AS TO MEMBER CLARK, YOU DID MENTION ABOUT THE LEASE. AN AREA OF THE TOWN THAT'S NOT PART OF THE LWR, WOULDN'T HAVE ANY OF THE ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS THAT I'M TALKING ABOUT RIGHT NOW. AND SO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT HE'S SAYING. SO HE'S SAYING THAT IF YOU PICKED A DIFFERENT AREA FOR THE BUSINESS, THAT IT WOULDN'T BE WE WOULDN'T IT? WE'D STILL BE MAYBE POSSIBLY GO THROUGH SEEKER THROUGH SEEKER WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO LOOK AT THE LWR BECAUSE IT WOULDN'T BE PART OF THE LW RP, BECAUSE IT'S NOT THAT CLOSE TO THE SHORE. IT AND THERE'S A MAP ACTUALLY OF THE COASTAL ZONE FOR THAT. SO ANYTHING THAT IS IN THE TOWN, IN THE STATE'S COASTAL ZONE, WHICH IS ALONG THE LAKE, WOULD BE WHAT WOULD BE WITHIN THE LWR. WHAT DOES REMIND ME? SOMETHING OF WHAT YOU SAID, JOSH, WHEN YOU TALKED ABOUT MITIGATION GENERALLY, WE CAN'T SUGGEST AN ALTERNATIVE LOCATION AS A MITIGATION, BUT THERE'S ONE EXCEPTION, AND THAT'S IF THE APPLICANT HAS CONTROL OF A DIFFERENT PROPERTY WITHIN THE TOWN THAT WOULD MITIGATE THE ISSUES. TRUE. SO OKAY, SO WE HAVE MORE TO DISCUSS. WHO WANTS TO GO NEXT WITH THEIR LIST MEMBER MCCORMICK. FIRST QUESTION I HAD WAS UNDER FIVE. SO IT LOOKS LIKE WE HAVE TRIGGERED. 
          YES. WITH REGARD TO THE 100 YEAR AND 500 YEAR FLOODPLAIN DOES. MY QUESTION IS, I GUESS FOR JOSH ONE WE NEED TO I WOULD I WOULD CONCUR TO THAT, ESPECIALLY WITH THE EFFECT AND EVERYTHING COMING IN FROM THE LAKE. I THINK THAT NEEDS A ROBUST WRITE UP AND MAY WARRANT ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION ABOUT HOW THAT'S MANAGED IN STORM EVENTS. BUT MY OTHER QUESTION IS, IS ARE THERE ANY FLOODPLAIN PERMITS OR APPROVALS THAT ARE REQUIRED THAT NEED TO ACCOMPANY THE SITE PLAN FOR THIS, FOR PUTTING NEW INFRASTRUCTURE IN, EVEN IF IT'S JUST DUMPSTERS OUT THERE BECAUSE IT'S IN THE FLOODPLAIN, WHAT YOU DON'T WANT IS AN IMPACT. IF THERE IS AN EXTREME WIND, WATER 
          [01:25:04]
MOVEMENT EVENT OR SOME SORT OF WILD STORM THAT THAT COMES INTO THE LAKE OR OTHER AREAS. SO I WOULD JUST BE INTERESTED IN WHAT WE NEED TO COMPLY WITH FROM THE TOWN'S CODE. WITH REGARD TO THE FLOODPLAIN REQUIREMENTS. OKAY. YOUR NEXT ONE, NEXT ONE. I'M I'M FROM FIVE DOWN. SO THE NEXT ONE I HAVE A COMMENT ON IS SIX. AND SIX IS WITH REGARD TO I THINK THAT WE NEED TO TALK SOMEWHERE ABOUT FUGITIVE DUST, SINCE THAT'S COME UP A LOT, THAT I THINK THAT IF IT DOESN'T OTHERWISE FIT UNDER SOME OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR PARTICULATE MATTER OR OTHER THINGS, I THINK WE SHOULD BE ADDING UNDER SIX FUGITIVE DUST AND WEIGHING IN SOME SORT OF DISCUSSION THERE. 
          OBVIOUSLY, THEY'VE PROPOSED MITIGATION IN TERMS OF THE WATER. I THINK WE JUST ALSO NEED TO IF THEY'RE GOING TO BE SPRAYING WATER DOWN, MAKE SURE THAT WE UNDERSTAND IF THE RAMIFICATION OF THAT MITIGATION HAS ANY POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON SURFACE WATER AND DRAINAGE FROM THE ADDITIONAL WATER USE. SO THOSE ARE THAT'S THAT ONE. AND THEN IF SOMEBODY HAS ANYTHING BETWEEN NOW AND THEIR MY NEXT ONE IS ON 13 NUMBER 13. YEAH OKAY. GO AHEAD. COMMENT IS ON 13 A I AGREE WITH THE ASSESSMENT THAT THAT WAS YES AND MODERATE TO LARGE. AND THAT THAT WARRANTS A LITTLE BIT MORE ANALYSIS BECAUSE I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE THAT ROAD IS NOT ACTUALLY DESIGNED FOR HEAVY TRAFFIC. OKAY. AND THEN ON ITEM 15 I AM WONDERING WHETHER OR NOT WE NEED ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION AND ANALYSIS ON 15 A WITH REGARD TO DUMPING OR TRUCK MOVING, OR IF THERE'S ANYTHING WE NEED TO ADDRESS, IT MAY BE OKAY, BUT THE NOISE STANDARDS, ESPECIALLY IF THERE'S ANY POTENTIAL FOR BREAKING UP CONCRETE OR OTHER LARGER MATERIALS THAT COME IN THAT MIGHT NEED MODIFICATION BEFORE MOVING OFF SITE. OKAY, I KNOW THAT THAT WAS A YES, BUT NOTHING WAS CHECKED. YES UNDER D. OR E, SO THAT JUST NEED TO CLARIFY. ANYTHING ELSE UNDER 16 I HAD QUESTIONS ABOUT I AND L AGREED WITH THE MODERATE TO LARGE ON I AND THEN I THINK WE NEED ADDITIONAL WRITE UP AND DOCUMENTATION ABOUT THE LEACHATE ITEM, WHICH I THINK MIGHT HAVE BEEN L WITH REGARD TO THE MITIGATIONS THERE. IT MAY BE A NEEDS TO BE. WE JUST NEED TO LOOK AT HOW THAT IS. BUT THAT'S ONE THAT I THINK WARRANTED. I THINK ALL OF THESE WARRANT A WE HAVEN'T SEEN PART THREE YET. OBVIOUSLY I, I'M A LITTLE BIT CONCERNED. I DON'T THINK THE FORM IS THE RIGHT PLACE TO START TALKING ABOUT THESE IMPACTS AND DOING AN ANALYSIS, WHETHER THAT'S IN AN APPENDIX OR A WORD DOCUMENT. I THINK MORE OF A NARRATIVE RATHER THAN BULLETS IS WARRANTED. AND THEN THE ONLY OTHER ITEM I, I THAT CAME UP IN DISCUSSION IS, IS THERE WAS A LOT OF DISCUSSION ON THE DECK PERMITS, THE BUILDING DESIGN, THE REQUIRED DRAINS. ALL THOSE SPECS AND REQUIREMENTS NEED TO EITHER BE APPENDED OR ATTACHED AND INCLUDED AS PLANS ATTACHED TO THIS SECRET ANALYSIS THAT SUPPORT AND WEIGH IN AS THE MATERIALS ON THE RECORD TO SUPPORT THE DOCUMENT. THAT'S WHAT I HAD. SO THE LETTER THAT I MY QUESTION TO MEMBER MCCORMICK, YOU SAW THE MITIGATION LETTER. I THINK THAT'S PRETTY DETAILED. CAN WE ADD THAT ALONG WITH THE OTHER STUFF INTO. I THINK THAT THAT'S A START, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT'S ADEQUATE GIVEN THE NATURE OF WHAT THEY'RE DOING AND THE AMOUNT OF CONCERNS AND QUESTIONS WE'VE HAD FROM THE PUBLIC, I THINK WE WARRANT A MORE SUBSTANTIAL ANALYSIS AND REVIEW AND ITEMIZATION. AND THEN SHE INCLUDED. BUT I THINK THAT THAT IS A START AT IDENTIFYING THE MITIGATION MEASURES AND ITEMS THAT GO IN THERE. I THINK THAT GIVES US A GREAT STARTING POINT. OKAY. DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE ON YOUR LIST? THAT'S IT. OKAY. OTHER MEMBERS. MEMBERS, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING? NO, NOT AT THIS TIME. NO. OKAY. WELL I THINK THIS PUTS IN. YEAH. SO WE HAVE OUR HOMEWORK. YEAH. I APPRECIATE LIKE I SAID, I APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS ON LIKE I SAID, THAT JUST TOOK A FIRST STAB AT WHAT WE HEARD. AND OBVIOUSLY THE POINT OF THIS MEETING WAS TO GET THE BOARD'S OPINION BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO BE THE BOARD'S OPINION ON ON THE PART TWO. AND TO MEMBER MCCORMICK'S POINT, THE REASON I DIDN'T DO THE PART THREE IS BECAUSE I WANTED TO HAVE THE DISCUSSION OF THE PART TWO. THE PART THREE, AS YOU GUYS KNOW, HAS ALL OF THIS WRITE UP AND THE NARRATIVE. WHAT I TYPICALLY DO IS I DO A PART THREE BACK UP DOCUMENT THAT HAS AND WE CHECK OFF EVERY IMPACT THAT WE CHECKED OFF. YES, WE HAVE A NARRATIVE AND OBVIOUSLY WE'LL USE THAT. 
          THE INFORMATION THAT WE RECEIVE FROM THE APPLICANT AND ALL THE INFORMATION THAT WE HAVE ON 
          [01:30:05]
RECORD THAT SPEAKS TO SOME OF THESE MITIGATION POINTS THAT WE TALKED ABOUT. IT SPEAKS TO THE CONCERNS THAT THIS PLANNING BOARD HAD, AND WE WILL PRODUCE THAT FOR OUR FOLLOWING MEETING. 
          AND THE OTHER REASON WHY WE HAD THIS MEETING GOING OVER THE PART TWO IS THAT IT GIVES THE APPLICANT A CHANCE TO PRODUCE THE INFORMATION THAT THIS BOARD HAS REQUESTED FOR, FOR THEM TO ADDRESS. SO WE'LL WE'LL TAKE ALL OF THIS. I WILL AMEND THE I THINK I GOT ALL OF THE YESES FOR THE PART TWO ON THIS BOARD'S OPINION. WE WILL REVISE THAT AND CIRCULATE THAT. AND THEN HONESTLY, I DON'T THINK I SHOULD START THE PART THREE OR PART THREE ANALYSIS UNTIL WE HAVE FINAL INFORMATION FROM THE APPLICANT TO ALL THE MITIGATIONS. AND ONCE WE RECEIVE THAT, THEN WE'LL WE'LL PRODUCE A PART THREE. HOPEFULLY, ALONG WITH THE PIECE COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATION, BECAUSE THAT'LL BE ANOTHER PIECE THAT WE'LL HAVE TO TALK ABOUT AND ADDRESS. AND THEN WE'LL GO FROM THERE. DO YOU THINK THIS CAN ALL BE DONE BY AUGUST 6TH? I WOULD DEFER TO THE APPLICANT FIRST TO SEE, OH, WE'RE IN PROCESS ON A LOT OF THOSE. AND I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY, IN TERMS OF THE MITIGATION ITEMS THAT WERE WERE GOING TO BE PROVIDING. SO IT'S A SITE PLAN SHOWING EXACTLY WHERE THE DUMPSTERS ARE GOING TO BE AND WHAT THEY'RE STORING. AND THEN WAS IT A MITIGATION. AND THAT'S THE THAT'S THE SITE PLAN. THAT'S THE SITE PLAN YOU'RE SHOWING. YOU'RE ALSO REVIEWING WITH DECK. RIGHT. THAT THAT'S THE PLAN OKAY. YES. WE'RE ALREADY IN, YOU KNOW, PROCESS OF ANSWERING THEIR COMMENTS AND ANSWERING THOSE. SO THAT AND THEN WE'RE ALSO WORKING ON THE HOLDING TANK DESIGN. SO THAT'LL BE SUBMITTED AS WELL. SO WOULD YOU BE READY BY THE 6TH OF AUGUST OUR NEXT MEETING. OR DO YOU WANT TO POSTPONE IT UNTIL CAN. I WILL TRY MY HARDEST. AND IF WE'RE A WEEK OUT AND I JUST DON'T THINK WE CAN MAKE IT, I CAN REACH OUT TO JOSH. OR IS THIS A TONIGHT DECISION? HOW MANY DO WE HAVE FOR THE NEXT MEETING? I'VE INCLUDED THEM SO. AND IT GIVES US HOW MANY? SIX. OKAY. CAN I ASK A QUESTION? SO, MEMBER MCCORMICK, WE'VE REQUESTED A WHOLE BUNCH OF INFORMATION. NOT ONLY DO WE NEED THEM TO DO THAT, THEN WE NEED JOSH TO PREPARE THE PART THREE. SO I THINK THEY'RE GOING TO PROVIDE US A BUNCH OF INFORMATION. I THINK WE'RE ALSO LOOKING FOR INFORMATION ON THE VOLUME OF WATER TO BE SPRAYED FOR FUGITIVE DUST, WHERE THAT'S EXPECTED TO FLOW OR NOT FLOW OFF THE SITE. INFORMATION ON NOISE AND WHETHER OR NOT THERE'S ANY CRUSHING OF ASPHALT OR OR STONE OR MATERIAL OR ANY OTHER PROCESSING THAT WOULD GENERATE NOISE ON THE SITE. AS WELL AS THE ANALYSIS RELATIVE TO THE TRAIL AND SOME OF THAT, AND HOW THAT WOULD INTEGRATE WITH THE PROPERTY. SO I THINK THERE'S A BUNCH THERE. BUT THEN JOSH NEEDS TIME TO PREPARE A PART THREE. SO EVEN IF THEY'RE DONE FOR THE MEETING, I DON'T THINK THAT THAT'S ADEQUATE TIME FOR JOSH TO DO SECOND WEEK IN AUGUST. YEAH. AUGUST 20TH SECOND MEETING TO CLARIFY. SO WE ARE ALSO PULLING TOGETHER THAT BIKE PATH PLAN REVIEW. I WOULD SUGGEST THAT YOU DO. SO YOU SO WE'RE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE. YEP. ONE ADDITIONAL MEMBER CLARK. THAT SITE PLAN THAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR, HOW DO WE PROPOSE WE GO ABOUT FINDING THAT THE APPLICANT IS JUST LISA. SO HE WOULDN'T HAVE ACCESS TO SOMETHING THAT OLD JOSH HAS ALREADY LOOKED AND COULDN'T FIND IT. WHAT ARE OUR OPTIONS? I DON'T KNOW THAT WE HAVE ANY AT THIS POINT. I MEAN, WE BROUGHT IT UP, WE DISCUSSED IT. WE KNOW THAT THERE ISN'T A THING BASED ON THE INFORMATION GIVEN BY THE APPLICANT. THIS BUSINESS HAS BEEN AROUND A LONG TIME. WE WERE UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT IT JUST STARTED, BUT EVIDENTLY THAT'S NOT ACCURATE. I'M TALKING ABOUT THE BUSINESS THAT YES, IT'S BEEN THERE FOREVER. THAT IT THEN IT WOULDN'T IT MAY NOT EXIST. AND THEN AT ONE TIME THAT WHOLE COMPLEX WAS ALL PART OF BETHLEHEM STEEL, RIGHT. SO THAT IT MAY NEVER HAVE BEEN REVIEWED. I MEAN, GOING BACK TO THE 1900S. 
          WELL, I DON'T THINK IT WAS. NO, BECAUSE THE ASPHALT PLANT WAS THERE. SO WAS THAT PART OF OR THE RIGHT YOU SAID THE ASPHALT WAS THERE. SO ASPHALT, NOT ASPHALT ASH. OH YEAH. OKAY. 
          THAT'S FINE. IT'S THE SLAG, THE WASTE FROM THE STEEL PLANT THAT BUILT LAND OUT THERE. SO THAT MIGHT JUST ALL BEEN PART OF BETHLEHEM STEEL, RIGHT? SO THERE MIGHT NOT BE ANYTHING IN EXISTENCE, WHICH MEANS THERE WOULD NEVER PRIOR APPROVALS. RIGHT? SO IT NEVER GOT LOOKED AT. AND WHEN DID THE LWR COME INTO EXISTENCE THROUGH THE STATE. THE FIRST ONE WAS LIKE THE FIRST ONE WAS LIKE 1980. YEAH. AND THE CURRENT ONE IS AS RECENT AS 2012. AND THEN WE'RE UPDATING ONE CURRENTLY RIGHT NOW. SO 1980 WOULDN'T THAT. RIGHT. IT WOULDN'T HAVE IT 
          [01:35:05]
WOULDN'T HAVE FIT INTO THAT. SO IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO OBTAIN. 
          OKAY. SO I THINK THE SECOND MEETING IN AUGUST, MEMBER MCCORMICK SORRY TO ADD TO YOUR LIST WHILE YOU'RE WRITING DOWN. SO I DID PULL UP THE TOWN FLOODPLAIN REQUIREMENTS. SO THAT'S CHAPTER 115, ARTICLE IV. BUT ONE OF THE THINGS UNDER THERE, SO IT'S STARTING AT 115 DASH 12. SO FOR A BUILDING THAT HAS GOT SUBSTANTIAL IMPROVEMENT, AND I WOULD PERHAPS THINK THAT THIS IMPROVEMENT OF THE WHOLE DRAINAGE SYSTEM IS SUBSTANTIAL IMPROVEMENT. THAT IS STILL, IT APPEARS, REQUIRES A FLOOD FLOOD PLAIN PERMIT FROM THE TOWN. BUT THERE ARE A LIST OF PROPOSED ELEVATIONS AND APPLICATION. AND I THINK FOR A STRUCTURE SUBSTANTIALLY BEING IMPROVED, WE MIGHT WANT TO UNDERSTAND HOW THE ELEVATIONS OF THE FLOOR, THOSE REQUIREMENTS, HOW THOSE DRAINS ARE RELATIVE TO THAT. I THIS IS SO YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT FLOOD ELEVATION CERTIFICATE. OR FLOOD SURVEY STRUCTURE. NO. HOW THE THEIR STRUCTURE IS DESIGNED AND WHERE THAT HITS RELATIVE TO THE FLOOD ELEVATION AND WHERE THE DRAIN IS AND HOW THAT ALL WORKS. THEY SHOULD TAKE A LOOK AT SECTION ONE 1513 OF UNDER THE FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION CODE OF THE TOWN. WOULD ANY WOULD THE AGE OF THE BUILDING GRANDFATHERED THEM IN AT ALL? IN TERMS OF, IT SAYS, SUBSTANTIALLY IMPROVED? WOULD IT WOULD BE A PICKLE. THAT'S THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT IT ALSO WAS A SUBSTANTIAL IMPROVEMENTS ARE APPLICABLE MEMBER. IS THERE A DEFINITION OF SUBSTANTIAL IMPROVEMENT. THAT WOULD DEFER THAT TO OUR COUNCIL AND THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO TAKE A LOOK INTO. BUT IF THEY'RE PUTTING IN A WHOLE DRAIN SYSTEM THAT IS BELOW THE FLOOD ELEVATION, THAT SEEMS TO BE THINKING ABOUT MEMBER SHIMURA, BUT A SUBSTANTIAL IMPROVEMENT, RIGHT? YOU ARE CHANGING YOUR BUILDING ENVELOPE. YOU'RE ADJUSTING YOUR STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS WITHIN A BUILDING. OR IT COULD BE CHANGING THE LAY OF THE LAND. THAT ARE BEING ALTERED WOULD THEN, IN MY OPINION, WOULD TRIGGER A SUBSTANTIAL IMPROVEMENT OR RENOVATION. 
          PUTTING IN A NEW DRAINAGE SYSTEM. I DON'T KNOW IF WOULD TRIGGER THAT, SO I WOULD JUST ASK BEFORE GOING THROUGH THE FLOODPLAIN DAMAGE PREVENTION CODE AND CERTIFICATION PROCESS THAT WE GET THAT DEFINITION. I CONCUR WITH MEMBER SHIMURA. I DON'T I DON'T KNOW THAT THE DRAINAGE WOULD BE SUBSTANTIALLY IMPROVED. IT HAS TO GET PERMITTED BY. I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, IS SO IT'S NOT JUST ANY DRAINAGE, IT IS A LEACHATE SYSTEM THAT REQUIRES HAVING A PERMIT FOR. SO THAT TO ME IS MORE THAN JUST SOMEBODY MAKING, I DON'T KNOW, I, I'M NOT THE EXPERT. I DEFER TO SOMEBODY ELSE WHO I DON'T I DON'T ATTORNEY JOSEPH COGAN I WAS JUST GOING TO COMMENT THAT SUBSTANTIAL IMPROVEMENT IS DEFINED IN SECTION 115 FOUR. A LITTLE TOO LENGTHY FOR ME TO READ HERE, BUT THE MEMBERS CAN FIND IT THERE. 115 415 DASH FOUR. DASH. PRESENT THE PRIOR ARTICLE, RIGHT. 
          I THINK WE'D NEED SOME HELP FROM THE APPLICANT TO ANSWER THAT TEST, ESPECIALLY WITH REGARD TO THE MARKET. OH, YOU. UNLESS YOU THINK THAT A MIGHT BE APPLICABLE, CAN YOU PUT THAT UP? SUBSTANTIAL IMPROVEMENT PLEASE. 
          CAN YOU MAKE THAT A LITTLE BIGGER, PLEASE? FOR THOSE OF US WHO DIDN'T BRING OUR SEEING EYE DOG IN. JUST A LOT BIGGER BECAUSE WE'RE NERDS. DOES NOT, HOWEVER, INCLUDE EITHER ANY PROJECT IMPROVEMENT OF A STRUCTURE TO CORRECT EXISTING VIOLATIONS OF STATE OR LOCAL HEALTH, SANITARY OR SAFETY CODE SPECIFICATIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED BY LOCAL. SO 
          [01:40:02]
THAT'S SAYING THAT NOT SO THAT AGAIN 30 JOSEPH CODE. BUT THAT ONE DOES ALSO SAY LIVING CONDITIONS. SO I DON'T KNOW. SO THE RULE IS SIMPLY EQUALS OR EXCEEDS 50%. NOT INCLUDING THOSE CHANGES THAT WERE REQUIRED. SO THOSE WOULD BE DEDUCTED FROM THAT INCREASE IN VALUE BECAUSE THEY WERE REQUIRED BECAUSE OF SOME VALUATION OR SOME MAINTENANCE OF A HISTORIC STRUCTURE. FOR EXAMPLE, HOW DO YOU READ THE. AND FOR THE LAST PART. SO A IS THE CODE BUT AND OUR MINIMUM OR THE MINIMUM NECESSARY FOR LIVING CONDITIONS. SO THE AND MEANS IT NEEDS TO PASS BOTH RIGHT. I MEAN I ALSO WOULD ALMOST DEFER. WE'RE NOT WE CAN'T INTERPRET THE CODE REALLY. 
          CODE ENFORCEMENT ARE THE ONES WHO INTERPRET THE CODE. SO WE CAN HAVE CODE ENFORCEMENT TAKE A LOOK AT IT AND GIVE THEIR OPINION OF IT. WE'RE NOT OFFICERS OF ZONING OFFICERS, SO THAT'D BE MY RECOMMENDATION. I WOULD ADD THAT TO OUR LIST OF THINGS TO DO, PLEASE, SO WE CAN GET A CLARIFICATION ON THAT. AND THEN AND THE BUILDINGS AREN'T HISTORIC. SO OKAY. SO WE'RE GOING TO MOVE IT TO THE SECOND WEEK IN AUGUST, WHICH IS THE 20TH OF AUGUST. IF YOU HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT INFORMATION THAT WE WERE LOOKING AT SPECIFICALLY TO WHAT MEMBER MCCORMICK ASKED ABOUT, PLEASE REACH OUT TO JOSH. HE'LL GUIDE YOU. AND BY THAT TIME, WE SHOULD HAVE KNOCK ON WOOD, WE SHOULD HAVE ALL OF THE INFORMATION THAT WE ARE LOOKING FOR BY THE 20TH. 
          SO I THINK BY THAT TIME, BECAUSE THERE'S NO SENSE IN BRINGING YOU BACK HERE ON THE SIXTH AND WE'RE STILL TRYING TO GET INFORMATION. LET'S, LET'S GET IT TOGETHER AND THEN WE'LL, WE'LL GET IT MOVED. 
          MOVING. OKAY. DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR US. NO THAT'S OKAY. SO AND YOU KNOW HOW TO GET IN TOUCH WITH JOSH. YEAH OKAY. YOU HAVE HIM ON SPEED DIAL. YEAH. OKAY. THEN WE WILL SEE YOU BACK ON THE 20TH. OKAY. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, SO WE HAVE MINUTES TO APPROVE. MAY 25TH, 21ST, 21ST. MAY 21ST. DOES ANYBODY I WOULD LIKE TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION FROM SOMEONE. 
          ARE YOU PULLING THEM UP? ARE YOU THINKING? DO I SPEAK TONIGHT? DID EVERYBODY GET A CHANCE TO REVIEW THE MINUTES? LET'S START THERE. YES. OKAY. SO WHO WANTS TO MAKE THE MOTION? MEMBER? RYAN, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS PRESENTED. PLEASE, YOU GOTTA PRESENT THE DATE. OH, I'M SORRY. I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM FIVE 2125. AS PRESENTED. 
          IT'S BEEN MOVED. IS THERE A SECOND SECONDS? OKAY. IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED. ANY CHANGES OR ALTERATIONS? SEEING? NONE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? I MINUTES FROM MAY 21ST APPROVED THE SECOND SET OF MINUTES. MEMBER. RYAN. ARE YOU. ARE YOU WILLING TO DO THAT? SURE. MEMBER. RYAN, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM SEVEN 925 AS PRESENTED. IT'S BEEN MOVED. IS THERE A SECOND? MEMBER? ABSTAINS. AS I WAS NOT HERE, I WAS NOT PRESENT FOR THE WORK SESSION SECTION OF THE MINUTES. OKAY. OF THE MEETING AND MEMBER. MEMBER ABSTAINS FROM APPROVING THE MINUTES OF JULY 9TH, 2025. OKAY, SO SECOND, IT'S BEEN MOVE. AND SECOND BY MEMBER CLARK. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? I MINUTES OF JULY 9TH. I WAS GOING TO OFFER A SUGGESTION FOR AMENDMENTS THIS TIME. OH. ALL RIGHT, I'M SORRY. IT'S OKAY, I WOULD MY COMMENT WAS GOING TO BE THERE WAS ONE QUESTION IN RESPONSE THAT I THOUGHT WAS WARRANTED ON THE DISCUSSION ON THE NINTH, WHICH WAS ABOUT THE GATEWAY PROJECT. AND I THOUGHT THAT OUR ATTORNEY HAD ASKED THE IMPORTANT QUESTION ABOUT THE COMMERCIAL USE ON THE ROOF, COMMERCIAL ROOFTOP USE AND WHICH WAS ONE OF THE CONDITIONS OF THE TOWN BOARD. AND WE KIND OF GOT AN ANSWER THAT ON THAT, THAT KIND OF SAID THAT THEY 
          [01:45:03]
WEREN'T ASSUMING A THAT THE ROOFTOP USE HAD TO BE COMMERCIAL. AND WE CAN CLARIFY THAT, THAT WITH THEM AT THE NEXT MEETING. I THINK THAT THAT WE I WOULD BE HAPPY TO REOPEN AND JUST RECONFIRM THAT WITH THEM AT THE NEXT MEETING, RATHER THAN ADJUSTING THE MINUTES HERE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE PROPERLY GETTING THAT ANSWER ON THE RECORD. WE'VE ALREADY GOT THAT ON THE LIST OF TO CLARIFY, BECAUSE IT WAS A QUESTION FOR THEM THAT THEY WERE CONFUSED ABOUT. OKAY. OKAY, WE'RE ALL SET. I WOULD LIKE TO ENTERTAIN ANOTHER MOTION. I MAKE A MOTION TO ADJOURN SECOND. ALL RIGHT. IT'S BEEN MOVED IN SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. MEETING ADJOURNED.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.