Aug 20, 2025 8-20-2025 PB Meeting

[WORK SESSION ]

[00:00:08]

I'M GOING TO CALL THE WORK SESSION. THIS I'M GOING TO CALL THE AUGUST 20TH WORK SESSION TO ORDER. VALLEY WATER VALLEY GARDENS LLC IS THE APPLICANT HERE? WOULD YOU LIKE TO COME ON UP? BOARD MEMBERS, THIS IS REQUEST FOR A CHANGE OF USE AND A SITE PLAN. APPROVAL FOR DEVELOPMENT AT 6666 GOWANDA STATE ROAD. THE PREVIOUS PROJECT WAS BEFORE US BACK IN OCTOBER OF 2023. AND AS SOME OF YOU MAY RECALL, AND NOW THE PROJECT HAS BEEN SOLD OR THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN SOLD, AND THERE'S A NEW DEVELOPER AND THEY'RE ABOUT TO TELL US WHAT THEY'RE INVOLVED. SO WELCOME. AND YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO TALK. YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO PICK THE MIC UP TO TALK INTO IT. OTHERWISE IT'S ON YOU. BUT YOU HAVE TO TALK INTO IT BECAUSE THEY WON'T HEAR YOU. DOES THIS WORK? THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT. SO IF YOU COULD STATE YOUR NAMES AND HOW YOU'RE AFFILIATED WITH THE PROJECT. SURE. MY NAME IS DAN SMITH AND I AM ONE OF THE OWNERS OF THE LLC. I'M CAROLYN DEVAUGHN, I'M AN ATTORNEY WITH GROSSMAN, AND I REPRESENT THE APPLICANT TODAY. OKAY, SO WHO'S GOING FIRST? I'LL GO FIRST, IF THAT'S OKAY. OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

JUST KIND OF TAKING A STEP BACK. RIGHT. SO WE ACTUALLY OWN WATER VALLEY LLC, SO MAYBE A FEW YEARS AGO, MY BUSINESS PARTNER, JOE LIEBER, WHO'S NOT HERE TODAY, AND I SAW WATER VALLEY HAS A VACANT BUILDING. WE SAW AN OPPORTUNITY TO KIND OF TURN IT INTO SOMETHING A LITTLE SPECIAL. I'M CURRENTLY A RESIDENT OF OF WATER VALLEY AS WELL, SO I LIVE RIGHT AROUND THE CORNER FROM THESE PROJECTS. I WAS KIND OF SAD TO DRIVE PAST EVERY DAY AND SEE THESE OLD VACANT BUILDINGS THAT ARE REALLY HISTORIC BUILDINGS AND PRETTY BUILDINGS. SO WATER VALLEY AND WE BROUGHT BACK TO LIFE. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU GUYS KNOW IT. NOW WE HAVE A THREE BEDROOM AIRBNB UPSTAIRS, WHICH IS DOING GREAT, AND WE HAVE LADY BIRD DELI AND BAKERY DOWNSTAIRS AS A TENANT, WHICH IS ALSO DOING WELL. SO THE PEOPLE THAT ARE IN LADY BIRD DELI AND BAKERY, SHRUTI HOSPITALITY GROUP, THEY ALSO DO BRYCE SMITH BREWING IN THE CITY.

IN WILLIAMSVILLE THEY HAVE OLIVER'S RESTAURANT. THEY OWNED SIX SIX, SIX SIX STATE ROAD, WHICH I'M NOW REFERRING TO AS WATER VALLEY GARDENS. THEY DECIDED TO EXIT THEIR PLAN TO BUILD A RESTAURANT THERE, AND THEY GAVE IT TO US, TO US. AND AS A FIRST OFFER TO BE PURCHASED, MY BUSINESS PARTNER, I DIDN'T REALLY WANT TO PURCHASE IT AND TAKE ON THE PROJECT RIGHT NOW, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT DEVELOPERS, RIGHT? WE'RE JUST KIND OF RESIDENTS LOCALLY AND TRYING TO MAKE A LITTLE BIT OF AN IMPACT OR DIFFERENCE. SO BUT WE FELT IMMEDIATELY WE HAVE A CHOICE MAINLY BECAUSE OF PARKING. SO WATER VALLEY IN ITSELF HAS VERY LIMITED PARKING SPOTS AND IT'S A VERY TIGHT PARKING LOT. WATER VALLEY GARDENS HAS MUCH MORE PARKING. THERE'S ALREADY BEEN CARRY OVER PARKING. SO THE EMPLOYEES OF LADY BIRD, SINCE THEY OWN THE PROPERTY, THEY'VE BEEN PARKING OVER THERE ALREADY. SO WE FELT LIKE WE'D HAVE A CHOICE BUT TO BUY THE PROPERTY FOR FOR THE PARKING ITSELF. SO OUR GOAL REALLY IS TO, IS TO TONS OF COMMUNITY SPACE. AND THAT'S KIND OF WHAT WE CAME TO. A CONCLUSION OF IT PREVIOUSLY WAS A GARDEN CENTER FIRST, SO I THINK IT WAS CANFIELD'S GARDEN CENTER MOST RECENTLY BEFORE THEY PURCHASED IT WITH PLANS TO DEVELOP THE RESTAURANT GARDEN CENTER THERE DOESN'T NECESSARILY MAKE MUCH SENSE ANYMORE. THERE'S A LOT OF OTHER GARDEN CENTERS IN THE AREA, AND IT'S KIND OF HARD TO TO, YOU KNOW, I GUESS MONETIZE THAT AS AN ASPECT. SO WE HAVE A RETAIL STORE GOING IN THE FIRST FLOOR. SO THAT'S WHAT OUR FIRST BUSINESS PIECE IS GOING TO BE. IT'S ACTUALLY GOING TO BE BASED ON LOCAL ARTISANS. SO IT'S GOING TO BE CALLED A SHOP, 18 MILE CREEK. SHE'S ALREADY KIND OF UP AND RUNNING. AND HER GOAL IS TO GOING TO BE TO WORK WITH LOCAL ARTISANS AND ALSO DO WORKSHOPS TO SELL THEIR GOODS, AND THEN ALSO DO WORKSHOPS WITH THEM. THE SPACE ITSELF IS IS A MAIN BUILDING OUT LIKE AGAINST THE STREET FRONT. SO IT'S A MAIN BUILDING. IT'S THE FIRST FLOOR OF THAT BUILDING. AND THERE'S ALSO A 1200 SQUARE FOOT GREENHOUSE WHICH IS SET BEHIND THE BUILDING ITSELF. OUR GOAL FOR THE GREENHOUSE IS GOING TO BE MAYBE THE LOCATION THAT SHE CAN DO WORKSHOPS IN THREE, THREE SEASONS A YEAR, RIGHT? SO OUR GOAL IS WE ADDED A ROOF TO IT TO MAKE IT SAFE AND NOT REALLY TOO HOT. IN THE SUMMERTIME. WE'RE ADDING AC AND HEAT TO IT SO IT CAN BE USED NICE AND COOL IN THE SUMMERTIME, BE KEPT WARM AND HAVE A MUCH LIKE A GARDEN FEEL TO IT. THAT KIND OF LEADS OUT TO A PATIO, SO THE DOWNSTAIRS TENANT, WHICH IS RETAIL SPACE, EXISTING USE I GUESS IS GOING TO BE USING IT FOR THAT. SOME, SOME OF THE TIMES. OUR GOAL FOR UPSTAIRS TO KIND OF, I GUESS, HELP HER WITH HER RENT KEEPING LOW BECAUSE RETAIL IS VERY HARD TO MAINTAIN, ESPECIALLY IN THIS DAY AND AGE. WITH EVERYTHING BEING ONLINE, OUR GOAL IS TO HAVE AN AIRBNB UPSTAIRS. SO WE'RE CALLING IT'S AN AIRBNB, BUT IT'S REALLY A HOTEL. WE'RE USING AIRBNB TO TO RENT IT OUT ESSENTIALLY AS A TOOL. IT'S ZONED COMMERCIAL ONE. SO IT'S REALLY ALLOWED IN THAT SPACE. IT'S NOT RESIDENTIAL ONE. IT'S GEARED FOR COMMERCIAL SPACE BASED ON THE TOWN. SO OUR PLAN IS TO CHANGE THE SECOND FLOOR TO A TWO BEDROOM SUITE. IT WILL BE A SMALL HOTEL AIRBNB, AND IT'S ACTUALLY ALREADY PRETTY MUCH FINISHED. THE PRIOR OWNER IS PLANNING TO LIVE UP THERE, WHICH WAS NOT CONDUCIVE TO ZONING, BUT HE IS NO LONGER GOING TO DO THAT. SO WE'LL USE IT AS A SMALL TWO BEDROOM HOTEL, VERY SIMILAR TO WATER VALLEY AND NEXT DOOR. THEN THE LAST THING IS KIND OF HOW DO WE KIND OF BRING THIS ALL TOGETHER FOR COMMUNITY SPACE? AND OUR GOAL

[00:05:02]

SO THAT'S WHAT'S BEFORE. THAT'S THE CHANGE OF USE. THAT'S THE SITE PLAN APPROVAL. THEY MENTIONED WHAT THEY'RE GOING BEFORE THE ZONING BOARD FOR, FOR THE PARKING AND FOR THE VARIANCE, FOR BEING WITHIN 500FT OF A RESIDENCE AND SELLING SELLING ALCOHOL. ONE THING FROM FROM A SECRET PERSPECTIVE, IT'S ZONED C-1 AND THIS IS AN UNLISTED ACTION.

GOWANDA STATE ROAD IS A STATE ROAD. SO BECAUSE IT'S AN UNLISTED ACTION, THIS BOARD DOES HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO AUTHORIZE A COORDINATED REVIEW IF YOU DO WANT IF YOU WANT TO SOLICIT SOME COMMENTS FROM OTHER INTERESTED AGENCIES FOR THE PERENNIAL RESTAURANT, WE DIDN'T. BUT THIS IS A NEW PROJECT. I JUST WANT TO LET THIS BOARD KNOW THAT THAT IS A POSSIBILITY. IF YOU WANTED TO SEND IT, IF YOU WANTED TO START THE COORDINATED REVIEW FOR THIS PROJECT, YOU ARE ABLE TO DO SO. AND OTHER THAN THAT, THOSE WERE THOSE WERE ALL MY MAIN COMMENTS.

SO TONIGHT THE OUR WE'RE CHARGED WITH GIVING OUR RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD FOR THEIR VARIANCES BECAUSE WE CAN'T DO ANYTHING UNTIL THEY GO THERE. CORRECT.

SO I'M GOING TO ASK ENGINEERING IF THEY HAVE ANYTHING TO OFFER AT THIS POINT. FROM AN ENGINEERING PERSPECTIVE, WE'LL REALLY JUST BE INVOLVED IN THE PARKING LOT CHANGES AND ENSURING THAT THE DRAINAGE FUNCTIONS PROPERLY. OTHERWISE WE HAVE NO CONCERNS OVER THE BUILDINGS. OKAY, THEN I'M GOING TO OPEN IT UP TO BOARD MEMBERS IF THEY HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS, CONCERNS, COMMENTS. MEMBER CLARK. THE SHADED AREA ON THAT ONE DRAWING. THAT'S NEW PARKING SPACES YOU WANT TO PUT IN. SURE. CAN WE PULL UP JUST SO I KNOW WHAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO SPECIFICALLY? WELL, YOU WANT TO PUT A NEW PARKING. YEAH. SO WE ARE ADDING NEW PARKING. SO THE PARKING OUR STARTING POINT FOR NEW PARKING WAS ACTUALLY WHAT WAS APPROVED WITH PERENNIAL. SO PERENNIAL. PERENNIAL IS A MUCH BIGGER PROJECT THAN WHAT WE HAVE. AND OBVIOUSLY SINCE WE PURCHASED IT FROM THEM, WE HAD ACCESS TO ALL OF THEIR ALL THEIR PLANS AND WHATNOT. BUT OUR PARKING IS VERY SIMILAR TO WHAT THEY HAD, JUST ON A MUCH SMALLER SCALE FROM FROM AN ACTUAL BUILDING STANDPOINT, WE HAVE NO ADDITIONAL BUILDINGS GOING IN, NO ADDITIONAL STRUCTURE GOING EXCEPT FOR A SMALL SHED WHICH IS ALREADY THERE, WHICH WE HAD A PERMIT FOR. BUT REALLY WE'RE JUST GOING TO PIECE BACK TOGETHER WHAT'S THERE, LIVEN IT UP AGAIN, VERY SIMILAR TO WHAT WE DID WITH WATER VALLEY IN AND JUST TRYING TO BRING IT BACK TO LIFE. BUT YES, THERE IS ADDITIONAL PARKING AND WE DO NEED ADDITIONAL PARKING THERE.

THE REASON WE PURCHASED THE BUILDING, WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT YOU'RE PROPOSING AND THE PARKING THAT WE APPROVED IN PERENNIAL? I THINK WE HAVE A LITTLE BIT LESS PARKING. SO THE BIG THING THERE IS THAT THERE'S A SIDE STRUCTURE. SO IF YOU FACE THE BUILDING TO THE LEFT, THERE'S ALMOST LIKE A LITTLE SHED TYPE STRUCTURE. THEIR ORIGINAL PLAN WAS TO TEAR THAT DOWN SINCE THEY WERE ADDING MASSIVE ADDITIONS TO THE OTHER SIDE OF IT. WE'RE PLANNING TO KEEP THAT THERE. SO THEY WERE GOING TO MAKE THAT PARKING IN THE DRIVEWAY. WE REMOVE THAT PARKING, THE EXISTING PARKING THAT BASICALLY GOES ALONG SOUTH CREEK PERPENDICULAR TO SOUTH CREEK. THAT'S REALLY WHAT WE'RE KEEPING. AND THAT'S WHAT THEY HAD AS WELL. SO. THIS IS MEMBER VALENTI. HOW MANY PEOPLE CAN YOU FIT IN AN EVENT? BECAUSE ONE OF THE THINGS WE TALKED WITH ROSS ABOUT IS THAT IT WAS GOING TO BE FINE DINING. AND SO THE TABLES WOULDN'T FLIP VERY EASILY. AND SO PARKING REALLY WOULDN'T BE A WORRY. BUT NOW IF YOU'RE TELLING ME, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE BRIDAL SHOWERS AND THINGS, I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE PARKING BECAUSE WE TALKED A LOT ABOUT THE WORRY ABOUT PARKING ON SOUTH CREEK AND THE THE LOT AND THE OVERFLOW. SURE. SO SO I THINK RIGHT NOW OUR TARGET IS 30

[00:10:02]

THAT'S A NICE, ENJOYABLE SPACE FOR PEOPLE TO ENJOY, NOT TO CROWD PEOPLE IN A IN A BEER TENT. RIGHT. THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE GOING FOR. SO THIS IS MEMBER SHIMURA. SO YOU HAD MENTIONED THAT CURRENTLY WITH THE LADY BIRD OPERATION NEXT DOOR THAT YOU WERE USING OVER FOR THE EMPLOYEES ARE ACTUALLY PARKING ON THIS PROPERTY RIGHT NOW. SO IS THERE THE ABILITY TO HAVE THE EXISTING PARKING THAT'S WITH YOUR CURRENT OPERATION NEXT DOOR BE NOT NECESSARILY COUNTED, BUT A PART OF, YOU KNOW, THIS OVER POTENTIAL OVERFLOW OF 15 OR SO CARS. I MEAN, ABSOLUTELY, IT DEFINITELY WOULD BE. RIGHT. SO, YOU KNOW, DEPENDING ON WHEN THE EVENTS ARE DOING, IF LADY BIRD'S CATERING ONE OF THE EVENTS, FOR EXAMPLE, THEY MOST LIKELY WILL BE CATERING EVENTS IF THEY DO AN EVENT, LADY BIRD CLOSES AT 2 OR 3, DEPENDING ON THE DAY, AND THEY'RE REALLY QUIET AFTER 1:00. SO LADY BIRD IS REALLY A BREAKFAST AND LUNCH TYPE PLACE. I PICTURE THESE EVENTS AS MORE OF A LUNCH TO EARLY AFTERNOON TYPE THING. I REALLY WANT TO STAY AWAY FROM THE EVENINGS FOR FOR NEIGHBORHOOD REASONS, BUT LET'S

[00:15:01]

THEY'RE USING AIRBNB, BUT IT FALLS UNDER HOTEL. GO AHEAD. MEMBER MCCORMICK. SO WE'VE HAD A COUPLE OF THESE BEFORE. THERE'S THE BED AND BREAKFAST RULES. AND SO IT'S NOT UNDER THAT. WE'RE COUNTING THIS AS A HOTEL, EVEN THOUGH IT'S A SHORT TERM RENTAL WITHOUT STAFF ON SITE OR LIKE MANAGEMENT. THAT WAS THE INTERPRETATION THAT WE GOT FROM CODE ENFORCEMENT.

THAT'S WHAT WE GOT FROM CODE ENFORCEMENT THIS MORNING, BECAUSE IT'S ON COMMERCIAL BECAUSE IT'S OWN COMMERCIAL. COMMERCIAL. OKAY. THE OTHER ONES ARE ZONED RESIDENTIAL.

[00:20:03]

WHETHER WE APPROVE THE NUMBER OF SPACES OR NOT. BUT AT THE SAME TIME, PARKING IS OUR HICCUP. SO I'M NOT I'M NOT REALLY SURE WHAT TO DO IN THIS MOMENT. AND ROSS GOT THE ALCOHOL VARIANCE, DIDN'T HE? YES HE DID. ROSS WAS FULLY READY TO GO. SO HE HAD ALMOST AN IDENTICAL PARKING PLAN TO THIS WITH A WITH A FEW MORE SPACES, BECAUSE YOU TOOK DOWN ONE SIDE OF IT. I THINK YOU HAD A FEW LESS SPACES ON THE OTHER SIDE BECAUSE HE WAS ADDING MORE SPACE TO IT, THOUGH I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THEIR OCCUPANCY, WHAT THEIR PLANNED OCCUPANCY WAS, BUT I'VE SEEN THE PLANS AND I DON'T THINK THERE ARE NUMBER OF PEOPLE VISITING AN EVENT ARE MORE THAN WHAT HE WOULD HAVE IN THAT VERY LARGE RESTAURANT, WHICH IF YOU FOLLOW THE PLANS, THERE'S MULTIPLE TABLES, MULTIPLE BOOTHS, A LARGE PATIO. I MEAN, THERE'S NO WAY THAT THERE COULD HAVE TEN TABLES IN THERE. THEY'D HAVE 20 TABLES IN THERE, PROBABLY AT LEAST. AND SO THE PRIOR OWNERS, ROSS AND DAVE, WHEN THEY WERE IN THE INVOLVED IN THE PROJECT, THEY GOT APPROVAL FOR THIS PLAN IN 2023 BECAUSE OF THE 18 MONTHS IT AND THE TRANSITION NOT AND THE TRANSITION BECAUSE IT WOULD HAVE CARRIED WITH THE LAND, BUT THE WHOLE ENTIRE PROCESS FOR US TO PURCHASE. WE REVIEWED ALL OF THE SITE PLAN APPROVAL THAT WENT INTO THE SITE PLAN, THEIR PLAN AND THE ZONING AS PART OF KNOWING THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS AGAIN, BUT THAT WE KNEW, OKAY, WE IF WE ARE, HAVE A SIMILAR PROJECT BUT SCALED DOWN BECAUSE IT'S NOT A TWO STORY RESTAURANT AND BECAUSE WE'RE NOT EXPANDING IN THE SAME EXACT WAY, AND SO THAT NOT BECAUSE SOMEBODY IS THEN LIVING UPSTAIRS, THAT'S PART OF THEN WHY IT WAS A, YOU KNOW, COMFORT TO PURCHASING THE PROPERTY AND TAKING ON THE PROJECT. THE PROJECT MEMBER, SHIMURA, ACCORDING TO NOTES THAT I HAVE ON THE PERENNIAL RESTAURANT. THERE'S ALSO, I GUESS, A MEMO AS WELL, TOO, THAT THEY WERE ANTICIPATING 75 SEATED AND 20 WITH 20 IN THE LOUNGE OVER THE COURSE OF THEIR SEATING FOR THE EVENING, PLUS 8 TO 10 STAFF. OKAY. SO I THINK THE PREVIOUS APPLICANT WAS A LOT MORE. WAS A BIGGER OPERATION FROM WHAT THIS APPLICANT IN FRONT OF US TONIGHT IS DESCRIBING. YEAH, I DON'T KNOW THAT IT WAS 75 AT ONCE BECAUSE I THINK YOU COULD FIT 75 PEOPLE IN THERE. I THINK THAT'S WHERE THE FLIP. BUT YEAH, THAT'S WHERE THE FLIP UP. BUT YEAH, I DON'T KNOW. I HAVE A QUESTION, BUT WE'RE A BOARD. IT'S NOT JUST OUR ATTORNEY HERE JOE. THAT BRINGS IT BRINGS SOMETHING ABOUT A VARIANCE ON THE PROPERTY. WOULDN'T THE VARIANCE THAT THEY EVEN THOUGH IT CHANGED OWNERSHIP, WOULDN'T THE PREVIOUS VARIANCE CARRY RUN WITH THE PROPERTY NOT WITH THE OWNER? THE VARIANCE. OKAY. THE VARIANCES HAVE TO BE RENEWED. SO THE VARIANCE EXPIRED. OKAY.

I'M SORRY. OKAY. NO MICROPHONE TONIGHT BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T IMPLEMENT IT. REALLY GOING TO GIVE ME A HARD TIME TODAY TO MATCH WITH THE REST OF THE DAY THAT I HAD. NO I'M JUST KIDDING.

I'M JUST TEASING. EVEN THOUGH IT'S EARLY IN THE PROCESS WHEN THEY DO COME BACK, DOES THIS BOARD HAVE ANY THOUGHTS ON WHETHER YOU WANT TO DO A COORDINATED REVIEW OR NOT? I.

CHAIR IT MIGHT BE HELPFUL TO AT LEAST SEND SOMETHING TO THE STATE DOT TO JUST CONFIRM THEY DON'T HAVE ANY ROAD IMPROVEMENT PLANS IN THAT AREA. THAT'S THE ONE I WAS THINKING ABOUT. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE THOUGHTS. I DON'T KNOW THAT I FEEL SUPER STRONGLY ABOUT IT. MEMBER CLARK, DO YOU HAVE ANY THOUGHTS? WELL, I MEAN TO TO GO OFF WHAT CAITLIN SAID. IF THEY ARE GOING TO WIDEN THE ROAD, THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING WE'D PROBABLY WANT TO KNOW. BUT LAST TIME WE DID NOT DO A COORDINATED REVIEW. SO YOU SO GENERALLY I WOULD THINK IF WE WERE GOING TO DO IT, WE'D HAVE TO HAVE A REASON WHY WE'RE DOING IT THIS TIME. AND WE DIDN'T DO IT LAST TIME AND THAT WOULD BE INCONSISTENT WITH WHAT HOW WE RULED BEFORE. RIGHT. UNLESS WE HAD A DIFFERENT REASON. RIGHT. AND I DON'T I DON'T I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THE I DON'T KNOW WHERE THEY WOULD WIDEN THAT ROAD IN THAT AREA, TO BE HONEST WITH YOU, WHEN YOU WHEN YOU TRAVEL

[00:25:02]

YEP. SO GOOD LUCK. YOU'RE GOING TO THE ZBA AND THEN HOPEFULLY YOU'LL BE BACK. GREAT. THANK YOU OKAY. THANK YOU. OUR OUR NEXT WORK SESSION TOPIC IS THE INFAMOUS JOSH ROGERS DOING HIS SONG AND DANCE ON ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS. AND TONIGHT MISTER ROGERS IS IS DISCUSSING THE LAKEVIEW COMMERCIAL DISTRICT. IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT. OKAY. SO YOU MAY PROCEED, MISTER ROGERS, JUST TO GIVE A RECAP FOR MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE AND FOR THE BOARD OVER THE NEXT COUPLE OF MEETINGS PRESENTING ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS THAT WERE REFERRED TO THIS BOARD BY THE TOWN BOARD ON AUGUST 4TH AS A PART OF IMPLEMENTING AND REVIEWING THE TOWN'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, WHICH WAS DONE AT THE END OF 2022 EARLY 2023. THERE WERE A NUMBER OF ACTIONS REVOLVING ZONING AND A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE TOWN.

AND WE'VE GOTTEN AROUND, WE'VE HIRED OR WE'VE DONE A COUPLE OF COMMITTEES THAT ARE LOOKING AT THOSE ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS. THE FIRST PHASE OF THOSE WERE DONE AT THAT AUGUST 4TH MEETING, AND THEY'VE BEEN REFERRED TO THIS BOARD FOR RECOMMENDATION BEFORE IT GOES BACK FOR A PUBLIC HEARING AT THE TOWN BOARD LEVEL, AND THEN POTENTIAL ADOPTION AT THE TOWN BOARD LEVEL. AT THE AUGUST 6TH MEETING, I WENT OVER THE POTENTIAL REMOVAL OF M1 AND THEN SOME SLIGHT CHANGES TO OUR M2 AND M3 DISTRICTS, WHICH WE'RE GOING TO CALL LEE AND GI FOR LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AND GENERAL INDUSTRIAL. THIS BOARD DID GIVE THE BLESSING TO GIVE A RECOMMENDATION BACK TO THE TOWN BOARD WITH SOME SLIGHT CHANGES. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WAS ASKED WERE SOME SPECIAL USE PERMIT STANDARDS FOR AI DATA CENTERS AND THE GI, ALSO KNOWN AS THE M3 DISTRICT. I'M GOING TO POSTPONE THAT UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING, BECAUSE THERE ARE SOME OTHER USES THAT WE ACTUALLY PUT UNDER SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR GI. SO I WANT TO DO A COMPREHENSIVE LIST INSTEAD OF PIECEMEALING IT. SO I WILL PROVIDE THAT AT THE NEXT MEETING. SOME OF THOSE SPECIAL USE PERMIT CONDITIONS THAT WE'RE RECOMMENDING. BUT FOR THE PURPOSE OF TONIGHT, I JUST WANT TO GO OVER THE LAKEVIEW COMMERCIAL DISTRICT. THIS BOARD ACTUALLY SAW A VERY, VERY EARLY VERSION OF THIS. IF YOU GUYS RECALL, THERE WAS AN APPLICANT WHO EVENTUALLY GOT REZONED TO THE AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT, BUT HE HAD INQUIRED ABOUT BEING REZONED TO THIS LAKEVIEW COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, AS HE HAD A PARCEL THAT HE WAS MERGING IN THE LAKEVIEW AREA THAT HE WANTED TO PUT A STORAGE BUSINESS ON. WE ENDED UP LOOKING AT IT AND IT DIDN'T MAKE MUCH SENSE. BUT NOW THAT WE HAVE SOME OFFICIAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE LAKEVIEW COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, I WANTED TO PROVIDE IT FOR THE BOARD. EVERYONE SHOULD HAVE A COPY OF THE ACTUAL ZONING DISTRICT ITSELF. CHAPTER 280 LAKEVIEW ELK LAKEVIEW COMMERCIAL DISTRICT. DOES EVERYONE HAVE A COPY IN FRONT OF THEM? YES, YES. OKAY. JUST TO GIVE A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND ON INTENT AND WHERE IT COMES FROM IN THE COMP PLAN.

SO IN THE COMP PLAN, THERE ARE SOME MAPS THAT ACTUALLY POINT TO CERTAIN AREAS WITHIN THE ZONING MAP, AND I'LL TRY TO PULL THAT UP REALLY QUICKLY. SOMEWHERE. ARE SO IT'S KIND OF SMALL. BUT THIS IS THE ZONING OPPORTUNITIES MAP, WHICH IS WITHIN OUR TOWNS COMP PLAN, IF YOU LIKE I SAID, IT'S REALLY SMALL, BUT NUMBER 16, WHICH IS IN THIS LAKEVIEW AREA, AND I'LL SHOW YOU A DETAIL MAP OF THE AREA THAT I'M TALKING ABOUT. THERE'S SOME RECOMMENDATIONS OF SOME C1 AND C2 PROPERTY THAT FRONT SOUTHWESTERN IN THE LAKEVIEW AREA. IF YOU GUYS RECALL, WE HAD A PROJECT, A RETAIL STORE THAT WAS PROPOSED TO GO ON SOUTHWESTERN BOULEVARD.

BUT BECAUSE OF THE RESTRAINTS OF HOW FAST SOUTHWESTERN BOULEVARD IS NOT A LOT OF SIDEWALKS IN THE AREA, THAT PROJECT WAS TURNED DOWN. AND THROUGH THAT, ALONG WITH IT BEING CALLED OUT IN THE COMP PLAN, WE WANTED TO LOOK AT SOME OF THOSE C1 AND C2 ZONED AREAS IN LAKEVIEW, NOT JUST FRONTING ON THE SOUTHWESTERN, BUT THERE ARE SOME PROPERTIES THAT ARE AT THE BEND OF OLD LAKESHORE ROAD AND LAKESHORE ROAD, AND THERE ARE ALSO SOME PROPERTIES IN BORDERING NORTH CREEK ROAD DOWN BY THE BORDER OF THE TOWN OF EATON. SO WITH THAT, BECAUSE IT'S CALLED OUT IN THE COMP PLAN, WE WANTED TO PRODUCE A ZONING DISTRICT THAT HAD SOME LOWER INTENSITY COMMERCIAL USES. SO WE WANTED TO KEEP THE CHARACTER OF THE COMMERCIAL

[00:30:04]

WE WANTED TO COME UP WITH A ZONING DISTRICT TO POTENTIALLY REZONE PROPERTIES TO FALL MORE IN LINE WITH THE INTENT OF THE DISTRICT, AND ALSO SOME OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT COME OUT OF THE COMP PLAN. SO WITH THAT, THIS IS WHAT WE PRODUCE BEFORE YOU. YOU'LL LOOK AT THE INTENT.

IT TALKS ABOUT PROVIDING A CONTROLLED ENVIRONMENT FOR LIGHT COMMERCIAL USES THAT ARE ADJACENT TO SOME ARTERIAL HIGHWAYS IN THE LAKEVIEW AREA. THAT'S INCLUDING SOUTHWESTERN BOULEVARD AND LAKESHORE ROAD. DESIGN WILL BE IMPORTANT WITHIN THIS DISTRICT, AND IT'LL NEED TO HELP BLEND ANY USE INTO THIS NATURE OF THE LAKEVIEW AREA, WHICH DOES HAVE RURAL, RESIDENTIAL AND IMPORTANT ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES. SO THAT'S KIND OF THE INTENT BEHIND WHY WE PUT THIS DISTRICT TOGETHER. IF YOU LOOK AT THE PERMITTED USES, WE DURING CODE REVIEW, ACTUALLY WENT AROUND AND AROUND ON. WHEN WE SAY LIGHT COMMERCIAL USES, WHAT DO WE MEAN? SO WHAT WE CAME UP WITH AND WHAT WE'RE PRESENTING BEFORE YOU ARE IS YOU LOOK AT THE PERMITTED USES, PERSONAL SERVICE ESTABLISHMENTS, OFFICE BUILDINGS, LANDSCAPING, SALES, AGRICULTURAL RELATED BUSINESSES, BANKS, INSTRUCTIONAL FACILITIES, EXISTING HOMES AS THE AS OF THE DATE OF THE ADOPTION OF THIS LOCAL LAW. THE REASON WHY WE PUT THAT IN THERE IS THAT THERE ARE SOME EXISTING HOMES IN SOME OF THESE MAPPING AREAS THAT ARE EITHER ZONED C2 OR C1, SO THEY'RE ALREADY NON-CONFORMING. SO IF WE DO REZONE SAID PARCELS TO LC, WE DON'T WANT PEOPLE TO HAVE ANY ISSUES IF WE DO RESOLVE THEM TO LAKEVIEW COMMERCIAL. SO WE HAVE THAT PROVISION IN THERE THAT EXISTING HOMES AS OF THE DATE OF THIS ADOPTION WOULD BE A PERMITTED USE, MEANING THAT YOU CAN'T BUILD A NEW HOME IN THIS LAKEVIEW COMMERCIAL DISTRICT.

BUT IF YOU HAVE AN EXISTING HOME AND YOU'RE REZONE TWO LC, THAT'S A PERMITTED USE.

PROHIBITED USES. WE SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITED CAR WASHES. WE SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITED ANY USES THAT WOULD BE IN OUR LIGHT INDUSTRIAL OR INDUSTRIAL USES. AND ANY USE IS NOT EXPRESSLY OR CONDITIONALLY PROHIBITED. PROHIBITED ARE PROHIBITED IN THIS AREA. AND THEN YOU'LL SEE UNDER USES FOR SPECIAL USE PERMITS. WE DID ALLOW DRIVE THROUGH FACILITIES BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT BY THIS BOARD. AND THEN WE ALLOWED COMMERCIAL USES WITH UP TO TWO RESIDENTIAL UNITS WE TOOK A LOOK AT. THERE HAVE BEEN A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT. WE JUST HAD AN EXAMPLE OF A PROPERTY THAT HAS SOME UNITS ABOVE THAT HAVE COMMERCIAL USES ON THE FIRST FLOOR. SO WE DID WANT TO PROVIDE AN OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE SOME RESIDENTIAL ABOVE, BUT NOT, YOU KNOW, A WIDE SPREAD APARTMENTS, YOU KNOW, HAVING TWO UNITS ABOVE. AND THEN WE DID HAVE A SPECIAL USE PERMIT RENTAL STORAGE IN THIS AREA AND THEN OUTDOOR DISPLAY. WE'VE SEEN THAT THERE HAVE BEEN A COUPLE OF OUTDOOR DISPLAY USES THAT HAVE COME ABOUT. SO WE WANTED TO ALLOW THAT BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT. AND THEN FOR ACCESSORY USES THERE WILL BE CUSTOMARILY INCIDENTAL TO THE PERMITTED USES THAT ARE PREVIOUSLY LISTED. MINIMUM LOT SIZE WILL BE BASED ON THE BUILDING, PARKING AND LANDSCAPING. MAXIMUM HEIGHT WILL BE 30FT. MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE WILL BE 75%. ALL THE REQUIRED YARDS ARE SIMILAR TO WHAT ARE IN OUR C1 DISTRICT AND THEN SUPPLEMENTAL REGULATIONS, LANDSCAPING AND ARCHITECTURAL REQUIREMENTS. I'LL TOUCH ON ARCHITECTURAL REALLY QUICKLY. ONE THING THAT WE DID, WE TALKED ABOUT DESIGN AND THE INTENT SECTION OF WHAT WE WANT THINGS TO LOOK LIKE. IF WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A PROPOSED LAKEVIEW COMMERCIAL DISTRICT. AND WHAT WE SAID WAS BUILDING PLANS WILL HAVE TO BE SUBMITTED TO THIS BOARD THAT ESTHETICALLY ENHANCE THE AREA WITH, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE INTENT SECTION OF THIS CODE AND ANY APPLICABLE ZONING OVERLAYS.

BUILDING SHOULD BE BUILDINGS THAT ARE VISIBLE FROM ROUTE FIVE OR FROM ROUTE 20 SHOULD HAVE A HIGHER DESIGN IMAGE, INCLUDING PITCHED ROOFS, HIGHER QUALITY MATERIALS AND WINDOWS.

SHALL FACE ROUTE FIVE OR ROUTE 20 IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE INTENT SECTION. SO THAT'S KIND OF A HIGH LEVEL SUMMARY OF ALL THAT WE TALKED ABOUT FROM CODE REVIEW AND FROM SOME OF THE INTERNAL COMMITTEES. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OR ANY COMMENTS, SUGGESTIONS ON ALL OF THAT THAT I JUST PRESENTED? MEMBER. SURE. COULD YOU JUST CLARIFY OUTDOOR DISPLAY VERY SIMILAR TO IF YOU REMEMBER THE STURDY BUILT SHEDS PROJECT THAT WAS FROM THE CREE DISTRICT? THAT'S AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT WE MEAN BY THAT. SO THAT'S A TEMPORARY DISPLAY OF IS THERE ANYTHING THAT'S NOT ALLOWED TO BE TEMPORARILY DISPLAYED? IS THERE ANYTHING NOT ALLOWED? WELL, SO STURDY BUILT SHEDS WAS SHEDS THAT WERE PLACED THERE. SO WHAT OTHER EXAMPLES OF OUTDOOR DISPLAYS WOULD BE PERMITTED? I MEAN, I GUESS IF IT'S A SPECIAL USE PERMIT IT HAS TO GO THROUGH. I'M JUST CURIOUS AS TO LIKE WHAT ARE THE OTHER THINGS THAT IT COULD END UP. I CAN I CAN HELP WITH THAT.

[00:35:05]

SOME OF WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT WAS SO ONE, ONE OF THE USES THAT WE HAD THAT WE ENDED UP REMOVING WAS MINOR RETAIL SALES. BUT BECAUSE OF THE DISCUSSION ON NOT WANTING TO HAVE AND AT CODE REVIEW, WE THOUGHT THAT RETAIL SALES LIKE HAVING A PHARMACY OR HAVING A STORE LIKE A DOLLAR GENERAL OR ONE OF THAT SORT, WASN'T AN APPROPRIATE USE IN THIS AREA. SO WE ACTUALLY WERE WE ACTUALLY RECOMMENDED REMOVING THAT FROM THESE PERMITTED USES AND HAVING THINGS LIKE LANDSCAPING SALES, SOME LOWER INTENSITY THAN EVEN MINOR RETAIL SALES. WHAT ABOUT A FARM MARKET LIKE A FARM STAND OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT? WOULD THAT BE AN ALLOWED USE IN THIS AREA? WELL, IT SAYS AGRICULTURAL RELATED SUPPORTED BUSINESS. ONE THING THAT I WANT TO BOUNCE OFF OF THIS BOARD THAT WE'VE SEEN IN OTHER ZONING DISTRICTS, I THINK WE PUT IT IN AN M2 AND M3 IS WE HAD A USE THAT OTHER USES AS DETERMINED BY THE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER.

SO WHEN THINGS ARE KIND OF CLOUDY, THEY MAY KIND OF FIT UNDER THIS PERMITTED USE CALLING OUT WITHIN THE PERMITTED USES THAT IF CODE ENFORCEMENT INTERPRETS IT, THEN IT WOULD BE A PERMITTED USE. I THINK WE USE WORDS LIKE IF IT'S CUSTOMARILY INCIDENTAL TO ONE OF THESE USES, AND CODE ENFORCEMENT THOUGHT IT WAS AN APPROPRIATE USE. THEN THEY WOULD HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO TO INTERPRET THAT AS A PERMITTED USE IN THIS AREA. IS THAT A SUGGESTION? LIKE I SAID, WE PUT THAT IN M2 AND M3. IS THAT SOMETHING THAT YOU WOULD WANT IN THIS DISTRICT AS WELL? CHAIR GRUENHAGEN I BEING PART OF THE THIS DISCUSSION, WHAT I HAD TO KEEP REMINDING BOARD MEMBERS IN CODE REVIEW IS THAT WHEN YOU READ THE DESCRIPTION OF THIS DISTRICT, IT'S TO KEEP IT RURAL AND TO KEEP IT LOW IMPACT. SO THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE A GROCERY STORE WITH A LOT OF PARKING. THAT WAS THE WHOLE THERE ARE SOME SERVICES, LIKE A BANK, YOU KNOW, IF THEY HAD A BUILDING AND THEY HAD MIXED USE. THAT'S WHY WE HAD THE APARTMENTS UPSTAIRS. WE WERE THINKING ALONG 20. THERE COULD BE AN OFFICE WITH RESIDENTIAL UP ON TOP, BUT IT'S TO KEEP THAT RURAL FEEL NOT TO HAVE 20. AND, YOU KNOW, ROUTE 20 AND ROGERS ROAD. THAT'S WHAT WE WANTED TO GET AWAY FROM IN THIS AREA. THAT WAS THE THAT WAS THE CONSENSUS OF THE BOARD. SO I THIS IS MEMBER VALENTE. I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING AND I GET THE VIBE THERE, BUT I THINK THAT BY NAMING SOME THINGS AND NOT OTHERS, YOU'RE UNNECESSARILY LIMITING THIS, BECAUSE NOW THERE ARE NO GROCERIES AVAILABLE ON THE WEST SIDE OF TOWN, WHEREAS THEY COULD HAVE A BRAY, MILLER'S OR A FARM STAND THAT WOULD BE DIRECTLY SUPPORTIVE OF AGRICULTURAL USES AND PROVIDE FOOD CLOSE BY. SO I THINK THAT

[00:40:06]

AND I FEEL LIKE BY NAMING SOME THINGS, WE'RE INEVITABLY BECOMING TOO LIMITING BY TRYING TO BE MORE SPECIFIC. RIGHT. ONE OF THE ONE OF THE THOUGHTS WHEN WE TALK ABOUT A CODE REVIEW WAS ORIGINALLY HAD MINOR RETAIL SALES, LIKE I SAID IN AND I THINK WE LIMITED TO 2000FT■!S. O I THINK WE ACTUALLY TOOK THAT FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, WHICH I THINK IS A PERMITTED USE. ONE OF THE CONCERNS THAT WAS BROUGHT UP AT CODE REVIEW WAS, WELL, WHAT IF YOU HAVE A DOLLAR GENERAL THAT'S 2000FT■!S? HYPOTHETICALLY. WOULD THAT MAKE SENSE IN THIS AREA? OR AN ICE CREAM STAND, WHICH WOULD BE LESS THAN 2000FT■!S. BUT IN MANY KIDS WANT TO CROSS THE STREET, RIGHT? WE ARE UNDER THIS, THOUGH IT DOES ALLOW DRIVE THROUGH FACILITIES AS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT. AND I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE'S A USE ABOVE THAT.

LIKE WE'RE NOT ALLOWING RESTAURANTS. I THINK WE WE THOUGHT OF THAT BECAUSE OF NUMBER EIGHT BANKS. CAN WE BE MORE SPECIFIC THAN SURE? OF COURSE. THE OTHER THING I WOULD SAY IS THAT. THINGS LIKE AN URGENT CARE, THINGS LIKE SOME OF THE MEDICAL FACILITIES, SOME OF THE CHURCHES AND SCHOOLS, ALL OF THOSE THINGS CAN HAVE MUCH MORE HEAVY, INTENSIVE USES.

AND SO I DON'T KNOW IF WE WANT TO THINK ABOUT THE VOLUME OF PARKING OR TRAFFIC. AND I REALIZE SOME OF THOSE ARE MORE INTERMITTENT, BUT. I DON'T KNOW. THIS IS WHAT I THINK I PROBABLY HAVE TO THINK A LOT ABOUT. I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS HERE THAT THAT CAN BE MORE INTENSIVE, DEPENDING ON THE SCALE AT WHICH THEY COME IN. AT URGENT CARES ARE BUSTLING PLACES FROM AFTER SCHOOL GOES BACK IN UNTIL THE SPRING. SO I THINK THAT THERE IS A BUNCH OF THINGS THAT WE SHOULD REALLY THINK ABOUT BECAUSE LIKE, YOU COULD HAVE A BIG SPA ESTABLISHMENT THAT ALSO HAS LIKE A BUNCH OF A YOU COULD HAVE A HUGE OFFICE BUILDING. SO I THINK WE MIGHT NEED TO JUST. SO LET ME CLARIFY SOMETHING HERE. JOSH, THE AG ZONE IS WHERE SO ON THE MAP REALLY QUICK BEFORE I GO TO THE AG PART TO THE YOUR POINT ABOUT LIKE CHURCHES AND SCHOOLS, ONE OF THE OTHER DIFFICULT PARTS, RIGHT, IS WHEN YOU'RE REZONING THINGS, THERE ARE CURRENT USES, RIGHT. SO THERE ARE CURRENT THINGS IN THE C1 AND C2. AND WE TRIED TO LIMIT AS MANY NON-CONFORMING USES AS WE COULD. SO ONE OF THE EXAMPLES, THE REASON WHY WE PUT CHURCHES IS ON THIS MAP, AS YOU SEE THIS RIGHT HERE, THIS IS C2, THIS IS ACTUALLY A CHURCH. SO WE TRY TO LIKE I SAID, WE TRIED TO THINK OF USES THAT WE OBVIOUSLY WE WANTED TO MEET THE INTENT OF THE DISTRICT. WE WANTED TO MEET THE COMP PLAN AND WHAT THE COMP PLAN'S RECOMMENDATIONS WERE. WE ALSO WANTED TO TRY TO LIMIT AS MANY NON-CONFORMING USES AS WE COULD. SO THAT'S KIND OF THE BASIS FOR WHY SOME OF THESE USES ARE IN HERE. CINDY, TO

[00:45:04]

BUT NOW WE'VE GOTTEN THERE. SO NEVER MIND. AND ALSO JUST TO CLARIFY, THAT BIG CHURCH ACTUALLY WE'RE NOT REZONING IT TO LC. I CAN'T SEE BACK HERE, BUT WE'RE REZONING TO RAS WHERE CHURCHES ARE ALLOWED IN RAS. SO THAT BIG PARCEL IS GOING TO STAY. ALL RIGHT. BUT WHEN WE FIRST WENT THROUGH IT, WE ORIGINALLY WERE GOING TO REZONE IT TO LAKEVIEW COMMERCIAL, WHICH IS WHY WE INCLUDED IT AS A PERMITTED USE, BECAUSE WE DIDN'T WANT TO MAKE IT NON-CONFORMING. MEMBER MCCORMICK I IF WE'RE GOING TO DO THIS REZONING, I DO NOT LIKE THE IDEA OF ISLANDED PARCELS THAT ARE A DIFFERENT ZONE SURROUNDED BY ANOTHER ZONE. WE HAVE A LOT OF PLACES WHERE THAT ENDS UP. IT FEELS A LITTLE SPOTTY. SO IT IF WE'RE GOING TO WANT THIS AREA TO BE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL, HAVING NONCONTIGUOUS ISOLATED POCKETS OF WHERE PARCELS JUST RAS. BECAUSE IF THINGS DO BECOME THERE, I FIND THAT LIKELY THAT THERE'S A DECENT CHANCE THAT SOMEBODY COMES BACK IN AND SAYS, WELL, MY NEIGHBORS ARE ALL COMMERCIAL, WHY CAN'T I PUT IN A COMMERCIAL? SO RIGHT NOW WE'RE PROPOSING SO AND LIKE I SAID, IT'S KIND OF HARD TO TELL. BUT ALL OF THESE WERE MY CURSORS. AND IT'S LIKE I SAID, IT'S HARD TO TELL. BUT THESE THAT ARE FRONTING ON THE SOUTHWESTERN ARE PROPOSED TO BE LAKEVIEW COMMERCIAL. THIS PARCEL HERE, WHICH IS SURROUNDED BY A LOT OF RA, THIS IS BEING PROPOSED TO BE REZONE TO RA. ALL THESE PARCELS HERE WHERE THIS IS RA, ALL OF THIS THAT HAS THIS GREEN HATCHING WILL BE RA. THIS LITTLE RECTANGLE WOULD BE RA, WHICH WOULD MATCH THIS, AND THEN THIS SQUARE WOULD BE R. AND OUR REASONING FOR THAT IS THERE ARE NO. IT CLEANS IT UP. CAN WE GET A MAP THAT SHOWS WHAT THE PROPOSED END USES. AND SO THE, THE STRIPES ARE HARD TO SEE. SURE. YEAH. WE I CAN DO A MAP AS IF IT WAS REZONE JUST SO YOU CAN SEE THE, THE SOLID COLORS. I'LL DO THAT. YEAH. THANK YOU. BECAUSE I WAS HAVING A HARD TIME TELLING THAT THE PINK AND RED MAYBE ARE DIFFERENT. YEAH, YEAH. ARE YOU COLORBLIND? MAYBE.

DO YOU WANT TO BORROW THESE? MAYBE. OKAY. YEAH, I CAN DO THAT. SORRY. YES. THAT'S WHY I WAS CONFUSED. I THOUGHT WE WERE KEEPING THE ANYHOW. YES, I GOT IT. SO THIS WAS JUST ONE MAP.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THIS MAP? I'LL PRODUCE A VERSION THAT HAS JUST THE SOLID COLORS JUST FOR YOU GUYS, SO THAT'LL MAKE IT A LITTLE BIT EASIER. HOLD ON. MAYBE USE A DIFFERENT COLOR. NO PINK AND RED EXISTING, RIGHT? NO, I KNOW, BUT IT JUST IT'S I MEAN TO MAKE IT MORE VISIBLE SO EVERYBODY CAN SEE IT. I MEAN, I KNOW IT BECAUSE I'VE BEEN PART OF IT, BUT I CAN SEE WHERE THERE WOULD BE CONFUSION. I CAN SEE WHY YOU DID IT THE WAY YOU DID IT. RIGHT. I UNDERSTAND WHY YOU DID IT. SO THIS GOES TO THAT POINT WHERE I SAID ANOTHER AREA THAT WAS POINTED OUT IN THE COMP PLAN IS SOUTHWESTERN BOULEVARD AND NORTH CREEK ROAD. SO THIS WAS AN AREA THAT WE LOOKED AT MAYBE POTENTIALLY BEING PART OF THIS LAKEVIEW COMMERCIAL. BUT AS WE LOOKED INTO IT, NONE OF THESE PARCELS ARE ACTUALLY BEING PROPOSED TO BE REZONED TO LAKEVIEW COMMERCIAL. WE ARE ACTUALLY PROPOSING EVERYTHING THAT YOU SEE WITH THAT HATCHING IS BEING PROPOSED TO BE REZONED TO RA. A LOT OF THESE LOTS ARE EITHER EXISTING HOMES WHICH ARE ZONED C-2. THERE ARE NO COMMERCIAL BUSINESSES IN THIS AREA, AND ANYTHING THAT WE NOTED. SO WE

[00:50:06]

THIS IS AT THAT OLD LAKESHORE AND LAKESHORE BEND. SO THESE ARE EXISTING C-1.

YOU'LL SEE EVERYTHING THAT HAS THE HATCHING WE'RE PROPOSING TO REZONE TO R-1 BECAUSE THERE ARE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND ALL THE PARCELS THAT HAVE THE HATCHING, ARE THERE NO EXISTING BUSINESSES? YOU'LL SEE THE TWO PARCELS THAT WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY HATCHING ON THAT ARE STILL C-1.

THAT IS A SUBWAY AND A PET GROOMING BUSINESS. BUT IT'S SO FAR AWAY FROM ALL THE OTHER PARCELS, WE DIDN'T THINK IT MADE SENSE TO BE LAKEVIEW COMMERCIAL, SO WE PROPOSED TO LEAVE IT AS C-1. DOES ANYBODY HAVE A PROBLEM WITH ANY OF THAT? NO. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. AND THOSE ARE ALL THE PROPOSED REZONINGS. SO YOU'RE JUST GOING TO BRING A MAP BACK TO US WITH ALL THE STRIPES. YEP. OKAY. AND THEN FOR THE NEXT MEETING WE WILL TOUCH ON ALL THE OTHER VARIOUS ZONING AMENDMENTS THAT ARE PHASE THREE OF ALL THESE ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS. OKAY. OKAY.

JOSH, THANKS FOR YOUR TIME AS ALWAYS. GOOD. GOOD JOB. THANK YOU. WE'LL GIVE MISTER ROGERS A MINUTE TO GET BACK TO HIS SEAT. AND I DON'T KNOW IF THE ATTORNEY WANTS TO MOVE IN WHERE.

SO HE'S ON CAMERA. YOU JUMP RIGHT INTO THE MEETING OR THE SHORT VERSION? I WASN'T GOING TO TAKE A SHORT BREAK. SO WHILE HE'S MOVING, I WILL OFFICIALLY CALL THE AUGUST 20TH PLANNING BOARD MEETING TO ORDER. WOULD YOU PLEASE ALL RISE 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 MEMBERS. WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL? WILLIAM CLARK HERE, KATELYN SHIMURA HERE. KIM RYAN HERE.

AUGIE GERACI HERE. CINDY GROENEKAN HERE. KATELYN MCCORMICK. PRESENT. MARGOT VALENTE HERE. OKAY, SO WE HAVE A FULL BOARD THIS EVENING. I WILL MENTION THAT IN OUR AGENDA, THE LAKESHORE DEVELOPMENT, WHICH IS CASE NUMBER FOUR, HAS ASKED FOR A POSTPONEMENT.

THERE'S SOME CHANGES ON THE PROJECT. AND SO THEY ASKED THEY WERE NOT READY FOR THIS EVENING.

I CONTACTED OUR PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND ASKED TO BE POSTPONED SO THEY WILL BE BACK.

WE'RE NOT SURE WHEN. CORRECT, JOSH, BUT WE DON'T HAVE A DATE. I KNOW THEY ASKED FOR SEPTEMBER

[1. Public Hearing – 7:00 P.M., RMV Holdings LLC – Requesting Preliminary Plat Approval of a 2-lot subdivision to be located at 4021 Jeffrey Boulevard (Part 1 of 2)]

[00:55:05]

AND I BELIEVE YOU ALSO REQUESTED THAT. AND WE WOULD APPRECIATE THAT. AND APPROVAL RESOLUTION MAY BE PREPARED. WE'RE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. AND WITH THAT I'LL RETURN IT TO YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU. IF YOU'D LIKE TO HAVE A SEAT, WE TONIGHT IS A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS PROJECT. MEMBER SHAMARA, WOULD YOU LIKE TO READ THE NOTICE? SURE. LEGAL NOTICE. TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD WILL CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING ON A TWO LOT SUBDIVISION PROPOSED BY RMMV HOLDINGS, LLC, TO BE LOCATED AT 4021 JEFFREY BOULEVARD. THE PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD ON AUGUST 20TH, 2025 AT 7:00 PM IN ROOM 7A/7B OF HAMBURG TOWN HALL.

THANK YOU. AND THIS IS FOR THOSE IN THE ROOM. A PUBLIC HEARING IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE COMMUNITY TO SHARE INFORMATION ON HOW THEY ARE IMPACTED BY THIS PROJECT. A THREE MINUTE RULE WILL APPLY. IT IS NOT A QUESTION AND ANSWER PERIOD. ALL STATEMENTS MADE DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING, AS WELL AS WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED FOR THIS PROJECT BEING SENT TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, WILL BE REVIEWED BY THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE APPLICANT. SO I NOW CALL THE THE PUBLIC HEARING. IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WISHES TO MAKE COMMENT ON THIS CASE? RMB HOLDINGS PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL AT 4021 JEFFREY BOULEVARD. IS THERE ANYONE THAT WISHES TO MAKE COMMENT ON THIS CASE? SECOND, CALL FOR ANYONE THAT WISHES TO MAKE COMMENT FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING ON RMB HOLDINGS, LLC. SEEING NONE AT THIS, THE THIRD AND FINAL CALL FOR MVM HOLDINGS LLC. PUBLIC HEARING SEEING NONE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. BOARD MEMBERS, WE DO HAVE A RESOLUTION IN FRONT OF US. IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION QUESTIONS CONCERNS IN REGARDS TO THIS PROJECT? QUIET BOARD TONIGHT. CHAIR. DID YOU GET AN ANSWER TO NUMBER FOUR ON THE SBL NUMBERS? ON THE CONDITION UNDER PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL? SO MEMBER MCCORMICK IS REFERRING TO CONDITION REFERENCING SBL 159.16-12-2 HAS BEEN SPLIT AND WE'LL HAVE A NEW SBL NUMBER. DO WE HAVE THE NEW SBL NUMBER? SO I PUT THAT YOU'LL SEE IN THE CONDITIONS I PUT A COUPLE. ONE WAS THE INSTALLATION OF SIDEWALKS I BELIEVE AREN'T WARRANTED BECAUSE IT'S ON JEFFREY BOULEVARD. TWO IS I THINK WE HAD IT ON THE PREVIOUS ONE. SEEKER WILL BE DONE ON ANY PROPOSED PROJECT THAT IS ON EITHER ONE OF THE VACANT LOTS. WHEN IT COMES BEFORE US, THE OTHER ONES THAT I PUT ON THERE AS QUESTION MARKS WERE I KNOW WE'VE DONE THIS PREVIOUSLY BEFORE, BECAUSE THIS IS NOW THE SECOND TIME THAT THIS AREA HAS BEEN SUBDIVIDED. IF THE BOARD WAS GOING TO CONSIDER OR WANTED TO PUT A CONDITION ON, NO FURTHER SUBDIVIDING. AND THEN I ADDED CONDITION NUMBER FOUR, WHERE THE SBL NUMBER FOR 4091 JEFFREY BOULEVARD, THAT HAD BEEN SPLIT BY THIS BOARD. I BELIEVE THERE ARE TWO NEW SBL NUMBERS THAT ARE GOING TO BE COMING FOR THOSE LOTS. BUT ONE OF THOSE LOTS IS NOW BEING SPLIT AGAIN. SO I DON'T KNOW.

WE JUST WANTED TO CONDITION KIND OF SPEAKING TO THAT POINT, JUST BECAUSE RIGHT NOW, I DON'T BELIEVE THE SBL NUMBERS HAVE BEEN UPDATED ON THE COUNTY'S WEBSITE YET OR NOT. SO I BELIEVE THAT THE I'M SORRY, CAN YOU COME UP TO THE MICROPHONE AND PLEASE. I DO BELIEVE THAT THE SBL NUMBER THAT WAS USED IN THE APPLICATION IS THE NEW ONE. WE WERE PROVIDED THAT BY EITHER I THINK IT CAME THROUGH ENGINEERING, BUT ULTIMATELY THE SOURCE WAS THE COUNTY. I DO BELIEVE THAT SBL IS THE NEW SBL. BUT TO YOUR POINT, ONCE IT'S SPLIT, THEN AT LEAST ONE OF

[01:00:02]

THAT'S YOU JOE. USUALLY WHEN YOU DO A THE TRANSFER TAX, SOMEBODY GIVE HIM A MICROPHONE, PLEASE. WHEN YOU DO THE REAL ESTATE FORMS THAT GO WITH A FILING THE DEEDS AT THE ERIE COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE, YOU CAN EITHER MARK ONE PARCEL OR PART OF A PARCEL. THIS IS PART OF A PARCEL. THERE'S A SECTION ON THE FORM. YOU PUT THE SBL NUMBER, BUT YOU DON'T HAVE AN SBL NUMBER YET. YOU ONLY HAVE THE SBL NUMBER FOR THE EXISTING PARCEL. SO IT'S IT'S UP TO THE COUNTY TO PROVIDE IT AS I MEAN, YOU CAN RECORD IT, BUT YOU CAN RECORD IT WITHOUT HAVING THE NEW INDEX NUMBER. THE NEW SBL NUMBER. YEAH. BECAUSE I MY QUESTION IS HOW WOULD WE WE DON'T HAVE IT. SO ON THE ON THE APPLICATION THEY DO HAVE 159.16-1-2.2 WHICH IS DIFFERENT THAN 159.16, DASH 1-2.2. SO WE DO HAVE IT AND THAT AND THAT MUST BE A NEW SBL NUMBER.

ATTORNEY JOSEPH COGAN I'M ACTUALLY ON THE GIS INTERACTIVE MAPPING VIEWER RIGHT NOW. AND THAT SBL NUMBER IS NOT SHOWING UP AS AS AN ACTIVE PARCEL, SBL YET. SO IT'S IT'S PROBABLY STILL IN TRANSITION. AND JOSH, COULD YOU READ IT TO ME ONE MORE TIME? 159.16. DASH ONE.

DASH 2.2. YES. SO DEFINITELY I AGREE WITH AND IT'S STILL SHOWING NO PARCELS WERE FOUND THAT MATCH THAT SPECIFIED CRITERIA. SO IF I SEARCH THAT SBL NUMBER ON THE ERIE COUNTY NEW YORK INTERACTIVE MAPPING VIEWER FOR THE PARCELS, IT'S IT'S NOT UPDATED YET. I DON'T THINK THE COUNTY'S GIS WILL UPDATE UNTIL 2026 ANYWAYS, BUT THEY YOU GUYS HAVE PAPERWORK THAT HAS THIS NEW SBL NUMBER THAT'S BEEN CREATED BY THE COUNTY. SO COVER FILED. SO THE FIRST STEP TO THAT, I THINK WE'RE IN AGREEMENT. THE FIRST STEP TO THAT IS THE FILING OF THE MAP COVER. THEN THE COUNTY ASSIGNS A NEW SBL NUMBER. WE GOT THAT I BELIEVE IT WAS BOBBY, AND I GOT THAT THROUGH THE COUNTY AND IT WAS ASSIGNED. NOW WHEN THIS GETS FILED, ANOTHER ONE WILL BE ASSIGNED. AND AS YOU'VE NOTED, THE ERIE COUNTY GIS MAPPER, IT'S IT'S ALWAYS AT LEAST SIX MONTHS BEHIND NEW FILINGS. BUT THIS WAS CONFIRMED IN AN ADDRESS. ALSO ALSO GET GETS ASSIGNED. AND OF COURSE WHATEVER WE NEED TO GO WITH WE WILL DO. AND WE EVEN BOBBY AND I WENT THROUGH WHAT THE ADDRESS IS ROBERT AND I SORRY WENT THROUGH WHAT THE ADDRESS IS WOULD BE ON THIS SIDE OF THE STREET AND IN RELATION TO THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STREET. SO WE I THINK WE'VE DONE A THOROUGH JOB WITH IT, AND I KNOW THAT IT HAS BEEN ASSIGNED AN ADDRESS AND AN SBL, AND THIS NEW SPLIT WILL BE THE SAME, BUT IT CAN'T OCCUR UNTIL THE SPLIT ACTUALLY IS FILED. WELL, RIGHT. SO I MEAN, IF WE DO THE SPLIT THEN THAT'S AUTOMATIC, RIGHT? IT'S NOT THAT IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. RIGHT. SO SO AGAIN, MY QUESTION IS HOW DO WE CLEAN UP THE VERBIAGE ON THAT. NUMBER FOUR I THINK WE CAN. WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO SAY IN NUMBER FOUR. DO WE NEED NUMBER FOUR AT ALL. WHAT WHAT ARE WE TRYING TO SAY. NUMBER WE CAN I THINK WE CAN GET RID OF NUMBER FOUR BY PUTTING UNDER THE SBL NUMBER TO BE LOCATED AT 42, 40, 21 JEFFREY BOULEVARD. AND THEN ADDING THE NEW SBL NUMBER, WHICH IS 159.16, DASH ONE, DASH 2.2, WHICH WILL THEN TAKE CARE OF NUMBER FOUR. SO WE CAN JUST REMOVE IT. OKAY. THAT'S FINE.

I'M SORRY, IS THE BOARD IN IN AGREEMENT TO THAT. YES. YES OKAY. YES. HOW DOES THE BOARD FEEL ABOUT THE NO FURTHER SUBDIVISION CONDITION. IS THAT SOMETHING YOU WANT TO ADD? I WOULD BE SUPPORTIVE OF THAT. I WOULD TOO. THE LOTS OUT HERE ARE PRETTY LARGE, AND I DON'T THINK WE WANT TO GET DOWN. SPEAKING OF COMMUNITY, CHARACTER AND ZONING, MAINTAINING LARGE LOTS IN THIS INDUSTRIAL AREA, I THINK TRYING TO KEEP THINGS AS THE BIGGER LOTS ALLOW MORE SUBSTANTIAL BUSINESSES. THERE'S NOT A TON OF PLACES IN THE TOWN THAT CAN DO THAT. SO AS THE PROPERTY OWNER, CAN I CAN WE SPEAK TO THAT FOR A MOMENT? SURE. WE WE CERTAINLY HAVE NO PLANS AT THIS TIME OF ADDITIONAL SUBDIVISION. THERE ARE NO PLANS OF THAT. AT THE SAME TIME, IT IT IS AN APPROVED, LONG STANDING BUSINESS PARK AND ALLOWED

[01:05:02]

THERE'S ALSO THE THE ISSUE OF ENFORCEMENT. SO WE PUT THAT CONDITION ON IT DOESN'T REALLY MEAN NO FURTHER SUBDIVISION. IT JUST MEANS NEXT TIME THEY WANT TO SUBDIVIDE, THE PLANNING BOARD IS GOING TO SEE THAT AND THINK, OH, THE PLANNING BOARD BACK IN 2025 DIDN'T WANT IT SUBDIVIDED. WHAT'S GOING ON NOW TO MAKE IT SO WE WOULD DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT THAN THEY WOULD HAVE DONE THEN. SO IT DOESN'T IT DOESN'T ACTUALLY PRECLUDE THEM FROM MAKING AN APPLICATION. IT JUST MAKES IT HARDER WHEN THEY DO MAKE THAT APPLICATION AND IT MAKES THAT FUTURE BOARD LOOK AT IT MORE STRENUOUSLY, WHICH I THINK IS THE POINT, BECAUSE. YEAH, I THINK THAT'S THE POINT. STOP THERE. OKAY, I GOT THE POINT GIVEN ON THAT DISCUSSION. I WOULD SUPPORT THAT REQUEST AS WELL, BEING THAT IT'S NOT LIMITING THE USE OF THE PROPERTY IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM. AND IT FORCES I MEAN, YOU MAY NOT YOU OWN IT FOR ANOTHER 50 YEARS IN 50 YEARS. AND THIS DOCUMENTS WHAT NEEDS TO TAKE PLACE. SO I JUST THINK IT PROTECTS THAT IN THE FUTURE, ESPECIALLY SINCE WE HAVE HAD SOME CASES THAT DIDN'T FOLLOW THE PROCESS. AND THEN WE HAD A MESS ON OUR HANDS. SO IT DOESN'T PREVENT YOU FROM DIVIDING IT IN THE FUTURE. IT JUST FORCES WHOEVER OWNS THIS PROPERTY AND THEY DECIDE TO DO ANOTHER SUBDIVISION THAT THEY HAVE TO. THEY HAVE TO COME IN FRONT OF THE TOWN OR THE PLANNING BOARD TO FOLLOW IT. AM I SAYING THAT CORRECTLY? YEP. THE PLANNING BOARD WILL HAVE TO TAKE. THE PLANNING BOARD WILL SEE THAT CONDITION SAYING NO FURTHER SUBDIVISION. BEFORE THEY APPROVE ANYTHING. THEY WILL ASK AND GO THROUGH THE MINUTES AND ASK WHY ARE THEY

[01:10:03]

THERE SHALL BE NO FURTHER SUBDIVISIONS. JUST DEFER TO THE ATTORNEY OR EVEN OR EVEN A OVER A PERIOD OF TIME FOR BECAUSE I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH ANY. IF I MAY, THE APPLICANT MENTIONED IN OTHER TOWNS, AND UNFORTUNATELY NO TWO TOWNS HAVE THE SAME CODE. THEY THEY DEVELOP AND HAVE THEIR OWN LIFE AS TIME GOES ON. BUT I'M NOT AWARE OF ANYTHING IN OUR CODE. JOSH, ARE YOU OF ANY RESTRICTION ABOUT. TIME FRAMES BETWEEN MULTIPLE APPLICATIONS FOR SUBDIVISIONS? YEAH, I DON'T RECALL ANY. SO WE DON'T HAVE THAT IN OUR CODE. AND SO IT WOULD BE THE PREROGATIVE OF THE BOARD TO MAKE THAT ONE OF THE CONDITIONS OF THE OF THE SITE PLAN TO PREVENT THAT ABUSE. WHICH THE ABUSE WOULD BE. WHAT. THE ABUSE WOULD BE OF THE DIFFERENT REQUIREMENTS BETWEEN A MINOR SUBDIVISION AND A MAJOR SUBDIVISION, THERE ARE THERE ARE MORE STRINGENT REVIEW. IT'S A MORE STRINGENT REVIEW PROCESS FOR MAJOR SUBDIVISION. AND SO DOING A MINOR SUBDIVISION, THEN WAITING TWO YEARS AND DOING ANOTHER MINOR SUBDIVISION, IT CIRCUMVENTS IF YOU GET 2 TO 5 BECAUSE IT'S FOUR OR LESS, IF YOU GET TO FIVE NOW, YOU'RE CIRCUMVENTING THAT PROCESS. YEAH. AND WE WE WANT TO WORK WITH YOU. AND IF WE COULD JUST DISCUSS THIS FOR, FOR ANOTHER MOMENT. AGAIN, THERE ARE NO PLANS AT THIS AT THIS POINT.

IT'S AN EIGHT AND A HALF ACRE PARCEL AND WE'RE SPLITTING IT ROUGHLY THREE AND A HALF, 5 OR 3 AND A FIVE, YOU KNOW. 2.5M OR SO. IT'S GOING TO LEAVE A PRETTY GOOD SIZED LOT. IT'S GOING TO LEAVE A LOT. THAT'S THAT'S A VERY HEALTHY SIZE AT THIS POINT. WE WOULD HAVE IF WE INCLUDE THE ORIGINAL PARCEL THAT THAT MATT PURCHASED FROM IS ONE LOT RIGHT NOW HAS THE SECOND LOT. THIS SPLIT WOULD CREATE THREE AND A FOURTH US ONE MORE SPLIT, WHICH WE'RE NOT PROPOSING NOW, BUT WE'D LIKE TO HAVE THAT NOT RESTRICTED. THAT WOULD STILL KEEP US AT FOUR BY ALL READINGS THAT I'M FAMILIAR WITH, FOUR AND UNDER IS A MINOR SUBDIVISION. AND WE ALSO SO WE WOULD BE WILLING TO I BELIEVE AND PLEASE STOP ME IF, IF, IF YOU WISH. BUT I BELIEVE WE WOULD BE WILLING TO STIPULATE THAT OR TO RECOGNIZE THAT ONE MORE SPLIT WOULD BE A MINOR SUBDIVISION, AND WE WOULD HAVE TO COME TO THE BOARD FOR ANY SPLITS, WHETHER IT BE A MINOR SUBDIVISION OR A MAJOR. AND CERTAINLY WE WOULD ALSO STIPULATE THAT IF THERE WERE EVER ANOTHER SPLIT, WHICH WOULD BE HIGHLY UNLIKELY, THIS LAND IS RELATIVELY NARROW FRONTAGE AND DEPTH. SO WHILE WE DON'T EVEN SEE THIS SPLIT IN THE IN OUR FUTURE RIGHT NOW, IF IT WERE SPLIT AGAIN TO TRY TO DO THAT ANOTHER TIME AND CREATE A FIFTH LOT DOESN'T SEEM VERY PRACTICAL TO THIS USER AT THIS TIME, WE WOULD STIPULATE THAT WE RECOGNIZE ONE MORE SPLIT WOULD BE STILL A MINOR SUBDIVISION, AND WE WOULD HAVE TO COME HERE, AND ANY SPLIT AFTER THAT WOULD BE A MAJOR SUBDIVISION, AND WE WOULD HAVE TO COME HERE AND WE'D BE HAPPY TO MAKE TO STIPULATE TO THAT AND ALLOW IT ON RECORD. AND IF YOU WANT IT AS A DEED RESTRICTION. WELL, I THINK THAT DOESN'T RESTRICT. WE COULD BE STANDING HERE TODAY ASKING WE'RE NOT AND WE DON'T HAVE A PLAN. AND I DON'T THINK YOU'RE GOING TO SEE US AGAIN FOR A LONG TIME, OTHER THAN FOR THE SMALLER PARCEL HERE. BUT TO ARBITRARILY, IF I CAN USE THAT WORD, SAY, WE DON'T WANT YOU TO SPLIT IT AGAIN, THAT'S DOESN'T SEEM TO BE BASED ON ANY FACT OR WITHIN YOUR CODE. MEMBER MCCORMACK HERE I, I WOULD PUSH BACK AGAINST THE WORD ARBITRARILY. ONE AND YOU JUST ALLUDED HERE TO, WELL, WE WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK AND THEN IT WOULD BE A MAJOR SUBDIVISION. WELL, WE DIDN'T GET YOU'VE ALREADY MADE ALL THE OTHER LOTS, SO YOU OPTED US OUT OF THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW AS A MAJOR SUBDIVISION AT THE FRONT OF THE PROCESS. AND NOW WHAT I'VE, I'VE HONESTLY THINK I'M A LITTLE BIT MORE CONCERNED THAT THERE MAY BE EVEN MORE PLANS TO SUBDIVIDE NOW. AND I, I HAVE CONCERNS THAT WE'RE PIECEMEAL WORKING THROUGH THIS PROCESS, AS OPPOSED TO DOING A FULL, COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF THE

[01:15:01]

IT'S NOT IN THE SUBDIVISION SECTION. BUT THEN IF YOU GO TO SECTION 281, 76, WHICH IS THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS, THAT GETS MORE INTO WHAT IS REQUIRED IN A MINOR AND MAJOR. SO ALL OF THE POINTS STAND. IT IS DEFINED. IT IS SPLIT UP BY FOUR AND FIVE. THEY ARE POTENTIALLY CIRCUMVENTING A MAJOR SUBDIVISION BY DOING THEM ONE AT A TIME. BUT THERE IS A NUMERIC MARKER. SO SO SORRY BUT THERE THERE WAS AN ANSWER. NO I APPRECIATE YOU LOOKING THAT UP.

WHAT I WAS GOING TO SAY IS THAT GIVEN THAT THE APPLICANT HAS OFFERED THE VERBIAGE FOR THE CONDITION AND THAT WOULD BE THAT IF ANY FURTHER SPLITS ON THIS PROPERTY ARE TO TAKE PLACE, THAT THEY RECOGNIZE, THEY HAVE TO COME TO THE BOARD IN FRONT OF THE PLANNING BOARD FOR APPROVAL. AND ANY SPLIT AFTER THE FOURTH WOULD BE CONSIDERED MAJOR SUBDIVISION. MY MY MEMBER CLERK, I'M PREPARED TO VOTE ON THE RESOLUTION THAT'S ON THE SCREEN. AND I THINK IF WE'RE NOT GOING TO VOTE ON THAT RESOLUTION, WE SHOULD TABLE IT. SO I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE.

IS THERE A SECOND? I WOULD SECOND THAT BECAUSE I WOULD I DON'T WANT TO MAKE CONDITIONS TOO COMPLICATED. AND WE SHOULD TAKE SOME TIME TO THINK ABOUT IT MORE THOUGHTFULLY IF THERE'S ANY ADDITIONAL ADJUSTMENTS MADE. SO THERE'S A MOTION BEFORE THE BOARD TO TABLE THIS CASE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF TABLING THIS CASE FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION, SAY, I, I, I ALL THOSE OPPOSED TO THAT RECOMMENDATION OR TO THAT MOTION SAY I, I, I I SO YOUR MOTION FAILS. SO AGAIN I'M GOING TO GO BACK TO THE SUGGESTION OF WHAT THE APPLICANT SUGGESTED. I DON'T SEE WHAT THE DIFFERENCE IS. IT SPELLS IT OUT AND IT HANGS THAT IF SOMEBODY CAN TELL ME WHAT'S WRONG WITH THAT RECOMMENDATION AGAIN. WHEN IT COMES TO CONDITIONS THAT THE BOARD PUTS ON A RESOLUTION, IF IT DOESN'T CONFLICT, YOU KNOW, JUST BECAUSE THE LAW IS SILENT DOESN'T MEAN IT CONFLICTS WITH IT. SO HOW WOULD THAT WOULD BE INTERPRETED? I'M NOT THE JUDGE.

THAT'S THE PROBLEM. MY JOB IS TO PROTECT THE TOWN FROM BEING SUED BECAUSE OF INTERPRETATION OF THE LAW THAT I'M. THIS IS MEMBER VALENTI. I'M WITH JOE. I DON'T WANT TO ADD A CONDITION INTERPRETING THE DEFINITION OF THE CODE. IF WE'RE GOING TO MAKE A REFERENCE TO THE FOUR AND FIVE IN THE NUMERIC IN THE DEFINITION, I JUST WANT TO REFER TO THE CODE. SO HOW ABOUT OR NOT SAY ANYTHING AT ALL. DO YOU HAVE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE VERBIAGE ON THAT CONDITION? NOT A MOMENT. SO MEMBER MCCORMICK MY CONCERN WITH THAT VERBIAGE IS THE MORE WE ADD INTO IT, THE MORE CONFUSING IT GETS AND THE HARDER IT IS TO ENFORCE. AND I THINK ONE OF THE CHALLENGES THAT EXISTS WHEN PEOPLE HAVE SUBDIVIDED A LOT AND THEN IT GETS LOST, IS THAT AT SOME POINT PEOPLE DON'T REALIZE HOW MANY TIMES SOMETHING HAS BEEN SUBDIVIDED.

AND SO I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE EXTREMELY CONFUSING FIVE YEARS FROM NOW, TEN YEARS FROM NOW, EVEN TO STUFF THAT HAPPENED AT THE BEGINNING OF MY TIME. OR THIS IS BILL'S SECOND TERM AT THE BEGINNING OF HIS TERM. IT'S THINGS CHANGE A LOT. AND I THINK THAT IF WE HAVE TO RELY

[01:20:03]

OVER AND OVER AGAIN. IT'S IT'S UP TO THE BOARD TO REVIEW THE INTENT OF THE APPLICANT AND WHETHER WHETHER WHAT YOU'RE GETTING IS THE APPLICATION IS WHAT REALLY IS HAPPENING WITH THE PROPERTY OR THERE'S SOME OTHER INTENT TO SUBDIVIDE, SUBDIVIDE, SUBDIVIDE A PATTERN CAN CERTAINLY GIVE THE BOARD THE IMPRESSION OF, YOU KNOW, THAT IS THOSE ARE FACTS. THAT IS EVIDENCE THAT THE BOARD CAN USE FOR OR AGAINST WHETHER THEY THINK IT'S JUST THIS ONE SUBDIVISION OR THERE'S A BROADER SCHEME TO CIRCUMVENT. WELL, THE ONLY THING I'M GOING TO SAY RIGHT NOW, FOR THE RECORD, IS THAT THE REASON WHY THIS DISCUSSION IS GOING ON IS BECAUSE IT'S HAPPENED IN THIS TOWN, AND I'VE ONLY BEEN ON THIS BOARD FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS, AND I'VE SEEN IT. AND AND TO MEMBER MCCORMICK'S POINT, IT GETS BURIED AND THEN IT'S A NIGHTMARE. SO I'M GOING TO GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL. THE ORIGINAL RESOLUTION THAT'S IN FRONT OF US. DOES SOMEONE WANT TO READ IT? AS IT STATED THE WAY IT IS NOW? DOES SOMEONE WANT TO MAKE A MOTION? WELL, NUMBER THREE NEEDS TO BE CLARIFIED BECAUSE IT JUST SAYS NO FURTHER SUBDIVISION. YOU MEAN THE ONE THAT'S UP ON THE SCREEN AT THE MOMENT? YEAH. I DON'T KNOW WHAT MORE CLARIFICATION NEEDS TO BE THERE THAT WE HAVE BOARD MEMBERS THAT HAVE GIVEN STATEMENT. HANG ON, HANG ON, YOU'RE OUT OF ORDER. LET THE BOARD HAVE THE DISCUSSION. THE BOARD HAS CLEARLY STATED THEY DID NOT WANT SPECIFICS ON THAT CONDITION. SO WE HAVE NO FURTHER SUBDIVISION. I'M ASKING FOR WHAT IS THE BETTER VERBIAGE AND I'M NOT GETTING ANY ANSWERS. SO THE ATTORNEY HAS SAID NOT TO MAKE IT COMPLICATED. MEMBER MCCORMICK HAS SAID NOT TO MAKE IT ANY COMPLICATED. I WANT CLARIFICATION OF WHAT'S NOT GOING TO MAKE THIS THIS RESOLUTION COMPLICATED THERE. MEMBER VALENTI THERE ARE THERE ARE TWO SEPARATE THINGS HAPPENING RIGHT NOW. OKAY. THAT NUMBER THREE RIGHT NOW IS A PROHIBITION. JUST A HARD PASS ON THEIR ALLOWABILITY. I'M SLEEPY AND I DON'T HAVE GOOD VERBIAGE. DON'T PUT THAT IN THE MINUTES. ON THERE. BEING ABLE TO SUBDIVIDE THEIR PROPERTY LATER. TELLING US THAT THAT IS CONTRADICTORY LANGUAGE OF OUR CODE. SO YOUR SUGGESTION WAS TO WRITE IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE CODE. SO THEN WE LANDED AT NOT WRITING IT IN.

BUT THERE ARE TWO SEPARATE THINGS. THERE IS STILL A QUESTION IN FRONT OF US ON, DO WE WANT TO ALLOW THIS APPLICANT TO SUBDIVIDE THEIR PROPERTY A FOURTH TIME AS A MINOR SUBDIVISION, OR DO WE WANT TO PROHIBIT ANY FURTHER SUBDIVISION BASED ON WHATEVER OUR RATIONALE IS? THAT'S THE QUESTION, WHICH IS WHY WE DON'T HAVE WORDS, BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T ANSWERED THAT AS A BOARD. AND AGAIN, ATTORNEY JOSEPH COGAN, IF I CAN JUST ADD TO WHAT. YEAH.

PLEASE DO. YEAH. SO I BELIEVE YOU'RE CORRECT. NO FURTHER SUBDIVISION. YOU YOU COULDN'T FIND THE WORDS, BUT IT CREATES A PERPETUAL CORRECT PROHIBITION FOR THE FOR THE SUBDIVISION.

AND THAT'S NOT RIGHT EITHER. OBVIOUSLY, OVER TIME A DEVELOPER HAS THE OPPORTUNITY OR WHOEVER THE NEW OWNER IS HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO SAY, HEY, I BOUGHT THIS PROPERTY. IT'S TEN YEARS FROM NOW. I WANT TO SUBDIVIDE IT. AND OF COURSE THAT HAPPENS ALL THE TIME. BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT THE CONCERN IS. THE CONCERN IS, YOU KNOW, EVERY EIGHT MONTHS COME BACK AGAIN WITH WITH A BROADER PLAN. SO. MAYBE JUST SOMETHING THAT RESTRICTS IT TO WITHOUT FURTHER REVIEW OF THE, YOU KNOW, JUST SOMETHING THAT'S SHORT ABOUT THE BOARD'S REVIEW OF THE NUMBER OF DIVISIONS. YEAH. OR IF WE WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE IT BUT NOT HAVE A PROHIBITION. I'M JUST SPECULATING HERE. WE HAVE TO DECIDE THIS AS A BOARD. BUT, YOU KNOW, NOT MAKING IT A CONDITION BUT DOING. THE HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THIS IS THE THIRD SUBDIVISION OF THIS PARCEL AND HEREBY, IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, AND HEREBY GRANTS WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS. ATTORNEY JOSEPH COGAN AND I DO THINK THE TIME FRAME IS IS EVIDENCE IS FACTUAL ABOUT, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING THAT CAN BE USED BY THE BOARD IN, IN THEIR ANALYSIS. IF IN OTHER WORDS, IF IT'S 15 YEARS FROM NOW, JUST LIKE, JUST LIKE. USE VARIANCES EXPIRE, IF THEY'RE NOT USED WITHIN A YEAR, JUST THINGS EXPIRE IF IT'S NOT USED. WELL, THE SAME THING WITH THIS, WITH THIS APPLICATION FOR A MINOR SUBDIVISION, AFTER A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME, PRIOR ACTIONS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE

[01:25:05]

THAT IS CIRCUMVENTING THE CODE. AND THE BOARD DOES HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO, I THINK, MAKE THAT PART OF THEIR ANALYSIS. NOT SAYING DENY IT, BUT AT LEAST MAKE IT PART OF THE ANALYSIS. SO I THINK THAT MEMBER VALENTI MIGHT BE ON TO SOMETHING. ON WHAT SHE SAID ABOUT NOTING IN NOT MAKING IT A CONDITION. AM I REPEATING WHAT YOU SAID, BUT TO PUT IT AS PART OF THE HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD HEREBY GRANTS THIS THIRD? YEAH, I HAVE I JUST HAVE, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN WRITE IT HOWEVER YOU WANT, BUT THE HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD NOTES OR ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THIS IS THE THIRD SUBDIVISION OF THIS PARCEL WITHIN. IF YOU WANT A TIME FRAME BECAUSE YOU THINK IT WOULD BE HELPFUL. XXE MONTHS AND YOU KNOW AND THEN WE MAKE REFERENCE TO THE PURSUANT TO. YEAH IN ACCORDANCE WITH OR PURSUANT. WELL IT'S NOT PURSUANT TO BUT IN ANY EVENT WE MAKE REFERENCE TO THE SECTION SO THAT A LATER PLANNING BOARD WILL BE ABLE TO LOOK AT THIS RESOLUTION AND BE LIKE, OH, OKAY, NOW THIS IS OUR FOURTH SUBDIVISION. LET ME CHECK WHAT SITE THEY'RE REFERENCING AND HAVE THE DEFINITION THAT SAYS AFTER FOUR. IT'S MAJOR. I FULLY SUPPORT THAT APPROACH TO REVISING THE RESOLUTION. WHERE ARE THE OTHER BOARD MEMBERS ON THIS END? ARE YOU IN SUPPORT OF I. I'M SUPPORTIVE INTO THE MIC, PLEASE. SORRY. MEMBER RYAN, I AM IN SUPPORT OF THAT MEMBER. JURY MEMBER SUPPORTS THAT. OKAY.

SO CHAIR MEMBER MEMBER MCCORMICK I AGREE WITH THIS ADDITION. I DO HAVE RESERVATIONS AND I DON'T KNOW IF MAYBE A NO ADDITIONAL SUBDIVISIONS WITH A SUNSET CLAUSE FOR SOME DURATION OF TIME. MY CONCERN IS, IS THAT WE'VE GOTTEN A WHOLE BUNCH OF THESE IN A SHORT SPAN OF TIME, AND THAT WE WOULD HAVE EVALUATED SEEKER A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENTLY HAD WE HAD THEM ALL AT ONCE AND HAD A BROADER PLAN. SO NOW IT IS SEGMENTED, ESPECIALLY EVEN WITH THE PLAT APPROVAL REQUEST. BUT YES, WE'LL STILL NEED TO DO THE SEEKER, BUT WE WOULD HAVE MAYBE APPROACHED THIS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENTLY FROM A HOLISTIC PERSPECTIVE. SO I DON'T KNOW IF THIS BOARD WOULD BE AMENABLE TO THIS. THIS BOARD IS, YOU KNOW, WANTS A PERIOD OF NO ADDITIONAL SUBDIVISIONS. MAYBE THAT'S FIVE YEARS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, BECAUSE WE WOULD HAVE LOOKED AT THIS DIFFERENTLY, RESPECT THE OPINION OF THE APPLICANT, THAT THEY DON'T WANT AN IN PERPETUITY CHALLENGE. BUT AT THE SAME TIME, THEY'VE CHANGED FUNDAMENTALLY HOW WE WOULD HAVE REVIEWED THIS. I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN PUT A TIME SPAN ON THE NEXT SPLIT, CAN WE? ATTORNEY GOGGIN? THAT'S GREAT. NO IDEA. RIGHT? I'M NOT AWARE OF ANYTHING FOR OR AGAINST THAT IN ANY LEGAL ACTION. THAT WOULD BE MY ONLY POINT OF REFERENCE. BUT A SUNSET IS MORE REASONABLE THAN JUST A FLAT PROHIBITION, BECAUSE THEN YOU'RE YOU MAKE A GOOD POINT THAT WE WOULD HAVE LOOKED AT SEEKER SEPARATELY, AND WE DON'T WANT TO RUN THE RISK OF SEGMENTATION. OKAY. SO WHAT DO YOU HAVE FOR US? MR. RECOGNIZED? WELL, HOW DO PEOPLE FEEL ABOUT THE SUNSET PROVISION? WELL, I'M WRITING MEMBER, I SUPPORT IT. I THINK THAT'S A A BETTER SOLUTION. AND WE'VE SPELLED IT OUT AND WE'LL END AND WE'VE SPELLED IT OUT A LITTLE MORE. THE THE MINUTES OF THIS MEETING SHOULD SPELL OUT EVERYTHING WHAT THE INTENT OF THIS BOARD WAS. WELL, AND I THINK WE HONESTLY COULD DO DO BOTH. BILL, DO YOU WANT TO ADD SOMETHING? OUR ATTORNEY SAYS THEY DON'T KNOW IF IT'S LEGAL. THAT'S KIND OF WORRISOME TO VOTE ON SOMETHING THAT WE JUST WERE TOLD. WE'RE NOT SURE IF IT'S EVEN SOMETHING WE'RE ALLOWED TO DO TO DO A SUNSET. RIGHT? RIGHT. THE PROBLEM IS IF IT'S NOT, IF IT'S NOT SUBJECT TO REVIEW AN ACTUAL REVIEW BY THE BOARD, THEN IT'S ARBITRARY. IT'S JUST JUST SETTING A TIME LIMIT THAT'S NOT IN CODE IS IS ARBITRARY. IT'S NOT YOU KNOW, IT DOESN'T GIVE THE BOARD A CHANCE TO LOOK AT IT AND REVIEW IT BASED ON THE MERITS OF THE APPLICATION. IT'S JUST AN ARBITRARY DATE. I'M GOING TO SAY THIS ARBITRARY ISN'T ALWAYS GOOD UNLESS IT'S IN THE CODE WHERE THERE'S A DATE SPECIFIC IN THE CODE, AS OPPOSED TO A BOARD MAKING A DECISION THAT'S ARBITRARY. SO I KIND OF AGREE WITH MR. I'M GOING TO SAY THIS TONGUE IN CHEEK, AND I HOPE EVERYBODY CHUCKLES. BUT FOUR DAYS AGO WHEN I SAID, WHY CAN'T WE PUT MUST COME BACK TO THE BOARD FOR FURTHER REVIEW. AND EVERYBODY SAID, OH, YOU CAN'T DO THAT. BUT HERE WE ARE, WHY

[01:30:05]

THEY'LL HAVE TO COME BACK AND THEN IT'S GOT TO GET LOOKED AT, COME BACK ANYWAY. RIGHT. BUT THIS ONE IT'S BUT WE WOULDN'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DO A MORE THOROUGH REVIEW. WE WOULDN'T HAVE IT ANYWAYS WOULD WE. WOULD. ALL RIGHT. BUT WE'RE NOT SAYING THAT THEY COULD NOT GET TO A MAJOR SUBDIVISION, THOUGH. I THINK THAT WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS, IS IT SEEMS LIKE THIS COULD CONTINUE. NO IT CAN'T. WHY CAN'T IT. BECAUSE IT CAN'T AFTER FOUR, IF WE STATE THAT THEY'RE ALREADY THREE AND THEN THERE'S ONE MORE, THEN THAT'S TRIGGERING THE PROCESS THAT'S PUT IN THE CODE. ATTORNEY GOGAN. THANK YOU. ATTORNEY JOSEPH GOGAN AS AS MISS VALENTI DID READ THE SECTION OF THE CODE. THE CODE DOESN'T SAY THAT. THE CODE SIMPLY DEFINES A MINOR SUBDIVISION AND A MAJOR SUBDIVISION. AND ONCE THE PROPERTY IS DIVIDED, IF YOU WANT TO SPLIT A PARCEL INTO TWO PIECES AGAIN, THAT'S ANOTHER MINOR SUBDIVISION, AND THEN TWO MORE IS ANOTHER, ANOTHER MINOR, TWO MORE. EXACTLY RIGHT. CODE ISN'T CLEAR ON CUMULATIVE VERSUS NOT. IT JUST SAYS YES. SUBDIVISIONS OF FIVE OR MORE LOTS AND SUBDIVISIONS NOT CONTAINING SUBDIVISION, CONTAINING NOT MORE THAN FOUR LOTS, NOT MORE THAN FOUR LOTS.

CORRECT. BUT THIS THAT WOULD BE A SEPARATE SUBDIVISION. EACH ONE IS REVIEWED INDIVIDUALLY.

ONCE YOU'VE SUBDIVIDED, IT HAS A SEPARATE SBL NUMBER. AND THEN THAT THAT RESETS THE CLOCK ON THE COUNTER SO THAT IF THEY SUBDIVIDE, THEY MAKE THESE TWO LOTS AND THEN THEY SUBDIVIDE IT AGAIN. THAT'S JUST A MINOR SUBDIVISION. THAT'S JUST ONE SUBDIVISION. AND THEN SO IF THEY WANTED TO COME AGAIN THE CLOCK RESETS AGAIN. AND THEY CAN JUST IN THEORY CONTINUE ONWARD. WE'RE ONLY REVIEWING A TWO LOT SUBDIVISION, NOT A THREE. CORRECT. WELL, WE REVIEWED THE FIRST ONE RIGHT. SO BUT IT WASN'T REVIEWED BUT IT WASN'T REVIEWED AS A THREE.

IT WAS VIEWED AS A TWO. SO EVERY TIME THERE'S A TWO WE USE THE STANDARD OF THE TWO. RIGHT.

AND EVENTUALLY WE'RE DOING EIGHT. BUT WE ONLY DID THE STANDARD. NO, I, I GET WHAT YOU GET WHERE YOU GUYS ARE GOING WITH IT I HOW DO WE GET TO THE RESOLUTION. WELL HAVE YOU WALKED INTO THE CONDITION THAT ANY SUBSEQUENT SUBDIVISION SHALL BE REVIEWED AS A MAJOR SUBDIVISION? I DON'T THINK SO EITHER. LISTEN, IT'S A HOLE IN HIS HEAD. IT'S A HOME RULE STATE. WE CAN MAKE ALL KINDS OF RANDOM INTERPRETATIONS. WE CAN'T. WE CAN'T CHANGE THE LAW.

NO, NO. AND THIS IS NOT CLEARLY WRITTEN ON CUMULATIVE VERSUS NOT. AND WE NEED TO LOOK AT CODE ENFORCEMENT WOULD INTERPRET THE LAW NOT US TO CORRECT. SO EXCUSE ME IF I CANNOT SPEAK RIGHT NOW. HANG ON. WHAT? WHERE DO YOU WANT TO GO WITH THIS? WELL, THEY JUST WALKED ME OUT OF MY SOLUTION. SO WE'RE BACK TO ONE AT A TIME. IT'S JUST COMPLIMENT. THERE'S HIS COMMENT. OH, GOING TO RESOLVE WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT OKAY. GO AHEAD MATT GREGORY AGAIN I SO THE ISSUE IS IS WE NOW HAVE A 2.5 ACRE LOT AND A 6.1 ACRE LOT. SO TO SAY

[01:35:04]

AND THAT'S WHY I KEEP SAYING THIS HAS HAPPENED IN THE PAST IN THE TOWN OF HAMBURG. SO MY YOU'RE NOT GOING TO LIKE WHAT I'M GOING TO SUGGEST, BUT I THINK WE SHOULD TABLE THIS AND RESEARCH. LET THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT RESEARCH THIS. IF WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS TRUE, THAT AFTER THE FOURTH LOT YOU'RE SAYING OR AFTER THE THIRD LOT, IT COULDN'T BE ANY FURTHER, FURTHER DEVELOPED. THEN I WOULD TABLE THIS UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING, HAVE OUR PLANNING DEPARTMENT MAP IT OUT AND SEE IF THAT IS ACCURATE. IT CAN'T JUST BE A STIPULATION WITH THE FOURTH, AS LONG AS YOU'VE HEARD ABOUT THE LEGALITIES OF IT. I CAN'T, I CAN'T, WE CAN'T. WE ARE MORE THAN HAPPY TO STIPULATE THAT WE WOULD NOT DO MORE THAN ONE MORE SPLIT, WHICH WOULD GIVE ONLY A TOTAL OF THREE ON THIS PARCEL, WHICH WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THE ZONING AND WOULD BE ENTIRELY CONSISTENT WITH THE THE SUBDIVISION CODE. WE'RE MORE THAN HAPPY TO STIPULATE TO THAT. WE DO HAVE, YOU KNOW, BUSINESS MATTERS OF AN EXPANDING BUSINESS WITH EMPLOYEES, WITH WORK THAT HAS TO MOVE FORWARD. WE'VE BEEN COMING HERE FOR THE BETTER PART OF A YEAR, HALF A DOZEN TIMES. WE DON'T FEEL AS AS YOU'VE AS YOU'VE SAID, MADAM CHAIR, RESPECTFULLY, IF IF ANY OF YOU OWNED SIX AND A HALF, SIX ACRES AND WITHOUT SUBSTANTIVE REASON, YOU SAID YOU CAN NEVER SPLIT IT. AND WE WE'VE WE HAVE THE ATTORNEY OPINION THAT DOING THAT IN PERPETUITY IS EITHER A BAD IDEA OR MAYBE WORSE. WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR ANYTHING MORE THAN THAT. YOUR CODES ARE WRITTEN WELL WRITTEN, CONSISTENT WITH OTHERS. WE UNDERSTAND THAT THE IT MAY NOT BE CLEAR ON THE CUMULATIVE NATURE, AND WE'RE HAPPY TO STIPULATE TO THAT. AND WE CAN STIPULATE TO THAT. YOU KNOW, WE'RE WILLING TO DO THAT, AND WE'RE WILLING TO PUT IT AS A RESTRICTION, EITHER IN THE APPROVAL OR ON THE PROPERTY ITSELF, THAT WE WOULD COME BACK AND BE SUBJECT TO MAJOR SUBDIVISION REVIEW IF, IF IT EVER WERE SPLIT, THIS PARCEL WERE EVER SPLIT INTO MORE THAN THREE, WHICH IS LESS, WHICH IS MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN YOUR CODE IN ALL APPLICATION THAT WE'VE JUST TALKED ABOUT FOR THE LAST SERIOUS AMOUNT OF TIME. WELL, I DON'T KNOW THAT WE CAN. I JUST WANT TO EMPHASIZE IT IS VERY TIME SENSITIVE TO ALLOW THEM TO MOVE FORWARD. I DON'T KNOW THAT WE CAN RESTRICT THREE LOTS. GO AHEAD. YEAH. CHAIR, I JUST WE'RE GETTING ASKED FOR A LOT

[01:40:02]

I JUST DON'T KNOW WHAT WE PUT IN THE CONDITION IN A WAY THAT MEETS THE NEEDS OF THE THE ATTORNEY. AND, AND IF THEY'RE NOT THE PROPERTY OWNER ANYMORE. AND SO THEY HAVE AGREED THEY HAE JUST SAY THAT THE APPLICANT AGREED TO WHAT HAPPENS WHEN SOMEBODY ELSE IN FRONT OF US? I JUST DON'T KNOW. I JUST FEEL LIKE WE'RE GETTING THIS GOT A LOT MORE COMPLICATED THAN I WAS EXPECTING, I GUESS IS WHAT I'M SAYING. IF I MAY SAY SOMETHING. MEMBER. TRACY. GO AHEAD. I LIVE NOT FAR AWAY FROM WHERE THIS INDUSTRIAL PARK IS LOCATED, AND THIS PROJECT OR THIS INDUSTRIAL PARK STARTED 30 YEARS AGO WHEN IT FIRST, THE PLANNING FIRST CAME UP VISIBLE TO ANYTHING THAT THAT THAT WAS JUST FOREST LAYING 35 YEARS AGO. AND IT'S IN MY RECOLLECTION IT HAS TAKEN PROBABLY MORE THREE PRIVATE OWNERSHIPS OF THAT DEVELOPMENT TO GET IT AS FAR AS IT HAS COME THUS FAR. AND I AGREE WITH MR. CURRY THAT THEY DO HAVE AN INVESTMENT INVOLVED. AND UNFORTUNATELY, IN THE DAY AND AGE WE LIVE IN, TIME IS MONEY AND IT IT GETS BIGGER AND BIGGER AS THE DAYS GO BY. MORE MONEY IS GOING TO BE INVOLVED. AND THEN UNDOUBTEDLY THEN YOU WILL PROBABLY SEE ANOTHER DEVELOPER COME AND BUY THE PROPERTY AGAIN AND START THIS WHOLE PROCESS THAT STARTED 30 PLUS YEARS AGO. AND I THINK WE NEED TO COME TO THE RESOLUTION TONIGHT AND GET IT RESOLVED. THEY'VE AGREED NOT TO SUBDIVIDE. THEY'RE PROBABLY THE NEXT TIME THEY WOULD COME AND PLAN ON COMING HERE IS WITH THEIR DEVELOPMENT AS TO WHAT THEY'RE STARTING TO BUILD AND PLAN FOR THE TWO LOTS INVOLVED. AND I'M DONE. ANYONE ELSE? IT STILL DOESN'T GIVE US THE VERBIAGE THAT NEEDS TO BE IN THE CONDITION. SO I WANT TO GET A RESOLUTION AS MUCH, BUT. AND I DON'T FEEL LIKE WE'RE BEING PRESSURED. I FEEL LIKE WE ARE TRYING TO GET DO OUR DUE DILIGENCE IN GETTING THE RIGHT, THE CORRECT EXPLANATION IN THIS RESOLUTION. SO. AGAIN, I'M GOING TO ASK ATTORNEY GOERGEN IF HE HAS ANY SUGGESTIONS ON THAT ONE LINE THAT. I AM NOT COMFORTABLE. AS STATED BY OTHERS, I AM NOT COMFORTABLE DRAFTING SOMETHING SITTING HERE AT THE TABLE WITH A GUN TO MY HEAD, I'M NOT. OKAY. SO ON THAT NOTE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF POSTPONING THIS UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING, WHICH IS WHEN? SEPTEMBER 3RD. SEPTEMBER 3RD, SAY I. I I WHO HAS SOMETHING TO ADD? GO AHEAD. WHAT HAPPENS IF WE JUST LEAVE THE RESTRICTION ON THERE? THAT WOULD PROBABLY BE THE BEST THING TO DO AT THIS POINT. ARE YOU WILLING TO DO THAT? NO FURTHER SUBDIVISION. WE BELIEVE THAT A REASONABLE

[01:45:12]

ABSOLUTELY. OKAY. BUT NOBODY CAN. IT NEEDS SOMETHING THAT'S NOT ARBITRARY. THAT IS BASED ON.

FACTS EVIDENCE. ABSOLUTELY. MAY I PLEASE OFFER SOMETHING. SURE. AND THIS IS ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT INITIATED BY THE APPLICANT. WELCOME. AND WE WOULD ASK YOU TO INCLUDE IT IN AN APPROVAL. AND WE WOULD BE HAPPY TO PUT IT AS A RESTRICTION, NOT JUST FOR THIS OWNER, ANY FUTURE OWNERS GENERATION FROM NOW, FOR MANY, MANY YEARS FROM NOW. WE ARE HAPPY TO STIPULATE UPON OURSELVES THAT ANY SPLITS, ALL ALL SPLITS WOULD BE SUBJECT TO SUBDIVISION LAW AND ANY SPLIT BEYOND THREE, WE WOULD DO MAJOR SUBDIVISION AND WE ARE HAPPY TO STIPULATE TO THAT. AND IN A SENSE WE'RE AGREEING EXTREMELY WITH THAT COUNT. THE FIRST ONE.

NOW WE'RE AT FOUR. BUT THE TIMING OF IT IS VERY IMPORTANT AND IT MATTERS TO PEOPLE. YOU KNOW, IT'S OUR BUSINESS PEOPLE. I'VE WORKED WITH THEIR EMPLOYEES ON A DAILY BASIS AND FEEL THIS MATTERS. AND WE'RE AGREEING TO EVERY RESTRICTION YOU HAVE, AND EVEN MORE SO, AND WE'RE PUTTING IT ON OURSELVES. THAT'S HOW IMPORTANT THIS GRACIE ABSOLUTELY SAID. THAT'S HOW IMPORTANT THE TIMING IS. AND WE WILL NOT BE BACK FOR ANOTHER LIKE, YOU REALLY THINK WE'RE GOING TO COME BACK VERY SOON? OKAY. WE WILL NOT BE BACK FOR ANOTHER SPLIT ANYTIME SOON, BUT WE DO NEED TO MOVE THE PROJECT FORWARD. WE HAVE MEETINGS WITH WITH BANKERS. WE HAVE MEETINGS WITH. WE TRY TO GET THIS MOVING FORWARD. AND WHAT YOU'RE IMPOSING ABOVE AND BEYOND YOUR CODE IS A HARDSHIP ON THIS, ON THIS COMPANY. AND WE APPRECIATE YOUR CONSIDERATION AND ALLOWING US TO PUT GREATER RESTRICTIONS ON OURSELVES THAN WHAT YOUR CODE DOES. BUT I GOT A QUESTION FOR FOR JOE. SORRY, ALREADY HANDED OFF THE MIC MEMBER CLARK, AND HOPEFULLY YOU CAN ANSWER IF THERE WAS A DEED RESTRICTION. THAT SAID, WE IDENTIFIED THE SIX ACRE LOT AND PUT IN A DEED RESTRICTION THAT SAID ONLY ONE FURTHER SUBDIVISION, WOULD THAT BE ENFORCEABLE? YES. THAT DOES NOT STRIKE ME AS ENFORCEABLE. RIGHT. THAT'S MY QUESTION WOULD BE MY AND THAT WOULD BE MY ANSWER. THANK YOU. I WOULD I THINK IF I HAD A MOMENT, FIVE, TEN, 15 MINUTES, I THINK I COULD DRAFT SOMETHING THAT WOULD SATISFY THE CONCERNS. BUT AGAIN, AS THIS IS SPINNING AROUND THE ROOM, I, I DON'T HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO. SO DO YOU DO YOU WANT TO ARE YOU RECOMMENDING IF WE TAKE A 15 MINUTE BREAK, THAT YOU FEEL THAT YOU COULD COME UP WITH SOMETHING, TO CALL IT BACK LATER IN THE MEETING AND JUST MOVE ON TO SOMETHING ELSE AND THEN BRING THIS BACK TO THE, YOU KNOW, REMOVE IT FROM THE TABLE. I THINK A MOTION CAN BE MADE TO DO THAT IF THAT'S THE SITUATION. OKAY. SO WHO CAN MAKE A MOTION THAT WE WHAT'S THE VERBIAGE THOUGH TO POST TO TABLE UNTIL THE END OF THE MEETING. YOU CAN EVEN JUST LEAVE IT OPEN. YES. HANG ON. WELL I'M JUST THINKING OUT LOUD ABOUT YOUR POINT. LIKE I AGREE WITH THE MOTION AND WE SHOULD DO THIS. WE SHOULD LET THIS DOWN. BUT I MEAN, YOU CAN PUT RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS ON ALL KINDS OF THINGS LIKE DON'T FILL IN MY POND. RIGHT. SO LIKE, MAYBE YOU CAN PUT A COVENANT ON TO THIS TO PRECLUDE SUBDIVISION.

I JUST WONDER IF IT'D HAVE TO BE AN EASEMENT. BUT ANYWAY, THIS IS A RABBIT HOLE. BUT OKAY, LET'S GO. ONE LAST QUESTION FOR ATTORNEY BOGAN BEFORE WE GO, MEMBER MCCORMICK. THEY ALSO CAN'T STIPULATE TO SAY THAT THEY WANT US TO DO SOMETHING THAT WE DON'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DO. SO I WOULD AN ILLEGAL SO I THEY CAN'T SAY THAT, BUT WE CAN'T DO MAJOR SUBDIVISION REVIEW ON SOMETHING THAT'S ONLY 3 OR 4. I SAID THAT BEFORE. THAT'S WHY I THINK THAT'S WHY I WOULD BE INTERESTED TO SEE WHAT YOU SAY. BUT THAT LANGUAGE FLAGGED TO ME BECAUSE THEY CAN'T SAY, WELL, WE'LL LET YOU DO THIS IF WE DON'T AREN'T LEGALLY ALLOWED TO DO IT RIGHT. IT DOESN'T FIT INTO THE CODE. SO WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO IS WE'RE GOING TO GIVE THE ATTORNEY, YOU GUYS CAN GO IN THE BACK AND HAVE A BREAK. WE'RE GOING TO LET JOE ATTORNEY GOGUEN WORK ON THIS, AND WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON TO THE NEXT CASE. AND THEN WHEN WE GET DONE

[01:50:01]

WE MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE RMV HOLDINGS. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? OH WAIT. I'M SORRY. IS IT IS THERE A SECOND? THERE'S BEEN A MOVED. AND SECOND, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF TABLING THIS, I. ANY OPPOSED? NONE OPPOSED. OKAY. SECOND MOTION TO REMOVE FROM THE TABLE. NO NO NO NO, WE DO IT FROM THE TABLE WHEN, WHEN WE WHEN WE CALL IT. OKAY. SO WE MAKE THAT MOTION AT THE END OKAY. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. YEAH. ALRIGHT. SO WE'LL TALK TO YOU IN A BIT. THANK YOU.

OH IN ABOUT AN HOUR OKAY. OUR NEXT CASE. OUR NEXT CASE IS BENDERSON DEVELOPMENT.

[2. Benderson Development – Requesting Site Plan Approval of a proposal for parking adjustments at 3670 McKinley Parkway]

EVERYBODY IN THE BACK OF THE ROOM. THE MEETING IS GOING ON, AND THERE'S MICS ON. SO. THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MAKE ADJUSTMENTS TO THE EXISTING PARKING FIELD AT 3670 MCKINLEY PARKWAY TO ACCOMMODATE A NEW TENANT IN THE BUILDING. THE PROPERTY IS ZONED C2. THIS IS A TYPE TWO SEEKER ACTION, AND IN FRONT OF US THIS EVENING IS MATTHEW OATES WITH BENDERSON DEVELOPMENT. WITH ME THIS EVENING AS WELL IS AMY DAKE. WITH PASSARO. WE HAVE BEEN IN FRONT OF THE BOARD A COUPLE TIMES PREVIOUSLY. AT THE LAST MEETING, THE BOARD REQUESTED THAT WE HAVE A TRAFFIC ENGINEER EVALUATE OUR PROPOSAL, PROVIDE THEIR INPUT ON THE. YOU MAY WANT TO HAVE TO PICK BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT GOING TO HEAR YOU AT HOME. OKAY. SO SO AT THE LAST MEETING, WE WERE REQUESTED TO HIRE A TRAFFIC ENGINEER TO HAVE AMY EVALUATE OUR DESIGN, PROVIDE ANY RECOMMENDATIONS THAT THEY MAY HAVE, AND AND PROVIDE THAT TO THE BOARD. SO WE HIRED AMY AND PASSARO AND HAD THEM EVALUATE THE DESIGN WE HAD PROPOSED HERE, GO OUT TO THE SITE, REVIEW THE TRAFFIC, AND THEN ALSO THEY REVIEWED A WEGMANS IN THE ROCHESTER AREA AS WELL THAT HAS A SIMILAR DESIGN. AND FOR THAT I'LL TURN IT OVER TO AMY. YEP. GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS AMY DAKE, SENIOR MANAGING TRAFFIC ENGINEER WITH PASSARO ASSOCIATES. AS MATT INDICATED, WE DID REVIEW THE EXISTING SITE AND THE PROPOSED CHANGES. WE ALSO REVIEWED A WEGMANS ON HOLT ROAD AND WEBSTER, WHICH IS IN THE ROCHESTER AREA THAT HAS A VERY SIMILAR DESIGN. WE MADE SOME RECOMMENDATIONS TO BENDERSON FOR SOME ALTERATIONS TO THEIR INITIAL PLAN THAT MATT HAS SHOWN HERE, AND WE BELIEVE THAT THIS PROVIDES A SAFE AND EFFICIENT ALTERNATIVE THAT WILL MAXIMIZE PARKING AND PROVIDE AN EFFICIENT INTERSECTION AND SAFE INTERSECTION. ARE YOU PREPARED TO DISCUSS OR EXPLAIN THOSE ADDITIONS? SURE. SURE. SO WE ARE RECOMMENDING SOME PAVEMENT MARKINGS TO BETTER DEFINE THE INTERSECTION, INCLUDING A STOP BAR FOR ENTERING TRAFFIC, AS WELL AS THE LANE LINE AND THE PAVEMENT MARKINGS THAT SHOW THE ACTUAL MOVEMENTS FOR THE THROUGH AND THE LEFT TURN IN THE ONE LANE, AND THEN A RIGHT TURN LANE. THE STOP BAR SHOULD BE RELOCATED. CURRENTLY, IT'S WAY BACK HERE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE POPEYES DRIVEWAY, SO WE'RE RECOMMENDING MOVING THIS STOP BAR CLOSER TO THE INTERSECTION SO THAT IT'S MORE CLEAR TO DRIVERS WHERE THEY SHOULD BE STOPPING. I'VE NOTICED WHEN WE WERE OUT THERE DOING OUR FIELD REVIEW THAT PEOPLE WOULD STOP AT THE STOP SIGN, STOP BAR WAY BACK HERE, AND THEN COME TO THE INTERSECTION. AND THERE WAS A LOT OF CONFUSION. SO THIS WILL CLARIFY THAT. WE'RE ALSO RECOMMENDING MOVING THE STOP BAR THAT'S BACK BEHIND THE STARBUCKS DRIVEWAY SO THAT IT'S CLOSER TO THE INTERSECTION. AND THAT WILL REALLY CLARIFY THINGS FOR MOTORISTS. OKAY. AND THEN WITH THAT, JUST TO GO BACK THROUGH THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL, WE WERE LOOKING TO DO THIS TO HELP PICK UP ADDITIONAL PARKING IN THIS SECTION OF THE SITE. IT ALSO GIVES US A CHANCE TO ADD IN ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPE ISLANDS RUNNING THROUGH THIS SECTION AS WELL, AND HOPEFULLY PROVIDE BETTER OVERALL VEHICULAR CIRCULATION THROUGH THAT THROUGH THAT AREA. SO I BELIEVE THOSE ARE THE MAIN QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS THAT THE BOARD HAD LAST TIME. SO HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT THE BOARD

[01:55:05]

CONCERNS. MEMBER FINLEY I WOULD THIS IS MEMBER RYAN. I'M SORRY. SORRY, I JUST GOT MARRIED. I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THANK YOU FOR THE MOVING OF THE STOP SIGNS. I WAS JUST THERE RECENTLY AND THAT WAS ONE OF MY CONCERNS, SO THANK YOU. MEMBER I ALSO AGREE WITH MEMBER RYAN. THOSE STOP SIGNS CLOSER TO THAT INTERSECTION ARE DEFINITELY SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE A LONG TIME AGO, BUT THANK THE PUTTING THEM THERE NOW. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. MEMBER MCCORMICK I HAVE ONE REMAINING QUESTION, AND MAYBE THE TRAFFIC ENGINEER IS THE PERSON TO ANSWER IT.

THERE IS ONE SET OF ISLANDS THAT PEOPLE WOULD COME STRAIGHT THROUGH THAT INTERSECTION. AND SO THERE'S NO STOP SIGNS GOING FROM WHATEVER'S TO THE RIGHT OF THE MASSAGE ENVY LOGO. STRAIGHT DOWN THERE'S THERE'S A PATH, THERE'S A CONDUIT THAT SOMEONE COULD COME DOWN, TURN DOWN THAT AISLE OF TRAFFIC AND KIND OF GET TO THAT INTERSECTION. AND THE ONE THING THAT I JUST AM A LITTLE BIT NERVOUS ABOUT, I CAN COME POINT, IF THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL, I THINK I SHOULD PROBABLY. SO I'M WORRIED ABOUT THIS ONE. YEP. SO WE DO THEY WE DO. SO WE CAN ADD A STOP SIGN THERE AS WELL IN ADDITION TO THE STOP BAR. YES. YEAH WE CAN FOR SURE. ANYTHING. YEAH IT'S JUST A BAR. SO I WAS JUST BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO TRY TO GET OUT AS FAST AS THEY CAN.

YES WE CAN. YES. SO WE COULD DO A STOP SIGN THERE AS WELL. YEP. ABSOLUTELY. THE OTHER QUESTION I HAVE IS MEMBER MCCORMICK IS HOW ARE YOU PLANNING TO HANDLE NO STORAGE? I GO OFTEN OVER INTO THIS PLAZA IN THE WINTER. AND IT IS A CHALLENGE AT ANY TIME. THERE IS SNOW TO PARK AND PREVIOUSLY SNOW WAS KIND OF MOUNDED IN OR THEN IT WAS PUSHED UP ADJACENT TO WHERE THAT WAS. SO WHAT IS YOUR WINTER SNOW STORAGE PLAN? BECAUSE THAT, UNFORTUNATELY FOR YOU, DRAMATICALLY AFFECTS THE NUMBER OF AVAILABLE PARKING SPACES. WELL, THE THE GOOD THING IS IT'S, IT'S IT'S A PLAZA THAT IS BUSY. SO THAT MAKES THE SNOW STORAGE MORE NOT AN ISSUE. BUT IT IT PUTS THE FOCUS MORE ON JUST FROM PILING IT UP IN CERTAIN SECTIONS OF THE PARKING LOT TO TRY TO GET IT TO THE PERIMETER, IF NOT ALSO THEN CONTINUE TO MOVE IT TOWARDS BEHIND THE PLAZA OR AT TIMES EVEN TRUCKING TRUCKING IT OUT. SO NOW THE FACT THAT WE HAVE THIS OPEN AND IT'S NOT JUST A DEAD END, BASICALLY A CANOE THERE THAT WILL STOP ANY SNOW FROM THERE. SO THE THOUGHT WOULD BE TO PUSH IT OUT TO THE SIDES, OR THEN EVEN PUSH IT TO THE BACK AND TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE BACK AND KIND OF DO IT IN A STAGED MANNER. SO THERE IS A ROAD THAT PEOPLE USE REGULARLY BEHIND THE PLAZA. YEAH, PEOPLE USE THAT TO AVOID COMING BACK ONTO MCKINLEY PARKWAY, GOING FROM LIKE HOME DEPOT TO WEGMANS OR WHEREVER. AND THEN THAT IS A A TRAFFIC LANE AS WELL, ADJACENT TO TJ MAXX THERE. YEAH. SO MY ONLY CONCERN IS THAT THERE'S THERE'S NOT REALLY A LOT OF PLACES TO MOVE THAT SNOW. IT'S GOING TO TAKE UP AVAILABLE.

PARKING IS IN THE MIDDLE. WHERE'S IT GOING AND HOW DOES THAT AFFECT THE FLOW. AND A LOT OF TIMES IT ALSO WOULD IT'LL ALSO THEN GET MOVED OR PUSHED ALL THE WAY INTO THE BACK OR THAT'S MOVED OFF SITE. AND IT'S IT KIND OF GOES TO THE MANAGEMENT WE HAVE. IT'S A LOT OF DIFFERENT PLAZAS THAT REALLY THAT WE HAVE. AND IT'S ONE OF THE CHALLENGES FOR OUR PROPERTY MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT. AND IN THE END, THE TENANTS ALSO SPECIFICALLY DON'T WANT IT THERE. SO THEY KIND OF TAKE IT ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS. HOW MUCH SNOW IS THERE? 3 TO 4IN OF SNOW GETS MANAGED DIFFERENTLY THAN WHEN THERE'S TWO FEET OF SNOW. AND THEN WHEN THERE'S ALREADY BEEN ANOTHER FOOT OF SNOW ON TOP OF THAT AS WELL. SO I CAN SAY WE WOULD NOT REALLY AT THIS POINT BE LOOKING TO BE PUTTING ANY SNOW IN THIS SECTION. ONE OF THE MAIN DRIVERS OF THIS WAS TO GET MORE PARKING IN THIS AREA TO KEEP THE TRAFFIC FLOW OPEN AND GOOD.

SO THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WE WANT TO RESTRICT IN THE WINTER JUST BECAUSE THERE'S SNOW. AND IT MIGHT BE EASY FOR SOMEONE TO PLOW. SO A LOT OF TIMES WHAT WE'LL TELL THEM IF YOU HAVE TO MOVE IT TO THE SIDES, THEN YOU ALSO THEN HAVE TO MOVE IT TO THE BACK. AND IF YOU HAVE TO MOVE IT, PLOW IT 3 OR 4 DIFFERENT TIMES. KIND OF IS IT IS WHAT IT IS. IT'S THE COST OF DOING BUSINESS. CHAIR GRONINGEN I'M I'M GOING TO PLAY DEVIL'S ADVOCATE BECAUSE I HAVE TO SAY THAT SOME OF THESE PARKING LOTS, AFTER THESE SNOWSTORMS, THEY PILE THEM SO HIGH. AND THEN YOU GOT A VISIBILITY PROBLEM WHICH LEADS TO A SAFETY ISSUE. SO AND THIS IS MY FIRST. WELL NOT

[02:00:04]

I THINK WE HAVE A COUPLE VACANT TENANTS SPACE. THIS IS NOT COMPLETELY GOING WITH JUST ANOTHER BUSINESS. THIS IS SO THIS SECTION OF THE PLAZA HAS MORE PARKING AND IS MORE MARKETABLE. THERE'S NOT AN ADDITION EXPANSION ASSOCIATED WITH THIS. NO. SO THERE'S NOT ANOTHER BUSINESS COMING IN. NOT WHEN YOU'RE. WHEN I SAY EXPANSION, THERE'S NOT ANOTHER BUSINESS WITHIN THE BUILDING GOING IN ASSOCIATED WITH THIS PROJECT. NO. HOWEVER WE DO, BUT WE HAVE AVAILABLE SPACE IN THE PLAZA THAT'S STILL AVAILABLE FOR LEASE. BUT WE ARE NOT SPECIFICALLY DOING THIS IN ASSOCIATION WITH, SAY, A, A SPECIFIC TENANT. BUT WE'RE LOOKING BECAUSE WE HAVE OTHER AVAILABLE SPACE WE NEED TO MAKE MAKE IT MORE MARKETABLE. AND THAT'S BEEN A CONCERN WITH TRYING TO GET THE REST OF THE SPACE LEASED. IS THIS SO IT'S AN OVERALL IT'S AN OVERALL IMPROVEMENT WE'RE LOOKING TO MAKE TO THE PLAZA. SO TO MAKE IT MORE ATTRACTIVE, SAYING THAT THAT WE WOULDN'T, COULDN'T OR HAD TO TRUCK IT OFF SITE, I THINK WOULD BE DIFFICULT. BUT WHAT WE CAN STIPULATE TO IS THAT ANY OF OUR SNOW REMOVAL WOULD SPECIFICALLY BE ANY SNOW PILES WOULD BE EXCLUDED FROM THIS SECTION OF THE DRIVE LANE, AND WE CAN PUT THAT AS PART OF SITE PLAN APPROVAL. SO THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT HAS THE ABILITY TO GO OUT THERE AND TICKET US AND SAY, YOU'RE PROHIBITED FROM YOUR SITE PLAN, FROM HAVING IT UP BY THE DRIVE LANE FOR YOUR EXACT REASON. THERE BEING A SAFETY ISSUE, THAT'S NOT A PROBLEM AT ALL. AND I CAN LET OUR PROPERTY MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT KNOW TOMORROW. HEY, FOR YOUR SNOWPLOW CONTRACTS, WHEN YOU DO IT, THEY HAVE TO KNOW YOU CAN'T PUSH SNOW RIGHT UP TO THESE ISLANDS AND PILE IT UP RIGHT AT THE END OF THE DRIVEWAYS. NO, NOT TO TEN FEET. AND THEN YOU CAN'T SEE. AND THAT AND THAT IS NOT THE AREA. THAT'S THE WHOLE SAFETY CONCERN, RIGHT. CORRECT. YES. EXACTLY. WHICH YEAH WE CAN DEFINITELY STIPULATE TO THAT.

THAT'S NOT A PROBLEM OKAY. THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT'S BACK. SO LET'S SEE IF WE CAN GET HIM TO JOIN US. WELCOME BACK. DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD? WE'RE ON THE BENDERSON PROJECT. AND I KNOW YOU THOUGHT THAT WE'D BE DONE BY NOW WHEN YOU CAME BACK, BUT DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO ADD? THE ONLY THING THAT I WOULD ADD IS OBVIOUSLY YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THEM IN A WHILE, SO WE DID NOT WE WEREN'T AUTHORIZED TO PRODUCE ANY APPROVAL RESOLUTIONS. THEY'RE COMING BACK BEFORE YOU, BUT OBVIOUSLY AND WE'VE ALREADY HAD A PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS. SO BASED OFF OF THE INFORMATION THEY WERE PROVIDED, IF YOU ARE COMFORTABLE MOVING FORWARD, THEN YOU CAN AUTHORIZE US TO DO SO. IF YOU NEED MORE INFORMATION, YOU CAN DO THAT AS WELL. BUT WE DID NOT PRODUCE ANY APPROVAL RESOLUTIONS FOR TONIGHT FOR THIS PROJECT. OKAY.

SO BOARD MEMBERS, DOES ANYBODY ELSE DO ANYBODY. DOES ANYONE I CAN TALK. DOES ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANYTHING. ANY COMMENTS QUESTIONS CONCERNS. ARE WE OKAY WITH HAVING JOSH DO A RESOLUTION. CREATE A RESOLUTION FOR THE NEXT MEETING. I GOT SHAKING HEADS. MEMBER MCCORMICK WOULD INCLUDE WHAT THE APPLICANT JUST PROPOSED FOR THE SNOW NOT BEING AT THE ISLANDS.

OKAY, I WAS GOING TO ASK IF THEY'RE GOING TO ADD THE STOP SIGN. REMEMBER MCCORMICK THAT WE TALKED ABOUT TO THE SITE PLAN? CAN YOU ALSO LABEL SNOW EXCLUSION AREAS WHERE SNOW CAN'T BE STORED? THAT'LL MAKE IT EASIER FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT AND PROBABLY YOUR PROPERTY MANAGER. AND WE CAN MAKE A RESUBMITTAL TO JOSH PRIOR TO THE NEXT MEETING AS WELL. SO YOU'LL HAVE THOSE PLANS THAT SHOWS IT BEFORE YOU GO. THAT'S NOT A PROBLEM. YEP. IN ADVANCE OF THEM COMING BACK, CAN WE THINK OF ANY CONDITIONS THAT WE WOULD POTENTIALLY WANT ON SAID APPROVAL RESOLUTION? NO FUTURE SPLITS. BOOTS, THE SNOW REMOVAL ONE. THE SNOW REMOVAL. WHAT'S THE CONDITION OKAY. YEAH. SO I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S A CONDITION OR HOW YOU READ IT IN BUT SNOW REMOVAL. WELL WE'LL ALSO WE'RE GOING TO PUT IT. SO WE'LL WE'LL HIGHLIGHT ON THE PLAN TWO NO SNOW PILES IN THIS AREA. SO THEY'LL ACTUALLY BE AT THE FINE SECTION ON THE PLAN TOOTH. SO IT'LL ALMOST GO TO SITE PLAN APPROVAL THEN AT THAT POINT TOO IN CODE ENFORCEMENT LIKES IT BETTER IF IT'S ON THE PLAN I AGREE. SO I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT NEEDS TO BE A CONDITION THEN. OKAY. SOUNDS GOOD. WE'VE GOT IT SPELLED OUT ON THE PLAN. SO YEAH, THE SUBDIVISION THING. I DON'T THINK WE HAVE TO HAVE THAT EITHER, BUT THEY ARE ADDING A STOP SIGN. SO I AND YOU ARE OUT OF THE ROOM. WHEN IS IT GOING TO BE A PART OF THE NEXT, WHICH IS GOING TO BE A PART OF THE NEXT ONE? OKAY. YEP. SO YOU'RE ALL SET. SO YOU'RE TAKING IT TO THE THIRD AND YOU'RE AUTHORIZING ME TO DO SEEKER AND APPROVAL RESOLUTIONS THE 3RD OF SEPTEMBER. YES. SOUNDS GOOD PLEASE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH EVERYONE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

THANKS FOR GETTING THE TRAFFIC LOOKED AT. YES, ABSOLUTELY. IT'S GOING TO BE BETTER. THERE

[3. Corey Tyger – Requesting Site Plan Approval of a pole barn for storage purposes on a merged parcel at 6722 Southwestern Boulevard]

[02:05:07]

YEAH. AS YOU GUYS KNOW, HE HAS A BUSINESS. HE IS VERY BUSY. HE DIDN'T ASK TO BE TABLED. BUT AFTER SPEAKING WITH CAMI AND I, HE DOES HAVE A LOT THAT HE STILL NEEDS TO WORK OUT. HE JUST GOT THAT WETLAND MAP DONE BY LABELLA, AND HE IS WORKING ON A WETLAND REPORT BY LABELLA, WHICH I THINK WILL ANSWER SOME OF THIS BOARD'S QUESTIONS ON HAVING AN OVERLAY OF THE AREA WITH THAT WETLAND MAP TO SHOW IF HE'S HOW HE'S GOING TO AVOID THE WETLANDS. SO, ON BEHALF OF MR. TIGER, I GUESS WE CAN TABLE HIM TO THE THIRD, AND I'LL REACH OUT TO HIM AND MAKE SURE HE'S COMFORTABLE COMING TO THE THIRD. AND IF NOT, HE CAN BE TABLED INDEFINITELY UNTIL HE'S READY TO COME BACK. OKAY. AND SO JUST SO FOR THE RECORD, MR. TIGER IS NOT PRESENT IN THE ROOM, RIGHT? BASED ON THE INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, WE ARE GOING TO TABLE THIS CASE. I DON'T KNOW, JOSH, THAT WE SHOULDN'T DO IT INDEFINITELY FOR THE AMOUNT OF WORK THAT HE'S GOT. AND IF YOU WANT TO REACH OUT TO HIM TOMORROW AND VERIFY THAT AND THEN WE'LL PICK A DATE. HOW'S THAT? SOUNDS GOOD. OKAY. YEP. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

AS STATED, OUR NEXT CASE OF 3556 LAKESHORE DEVELOPMENT IS BEING TABLED UNTIL. IS THAT INDEFINITE? I'M SORRY, I KNOW I ASKED. NO, THEY'RE COMING BACK SEPTEMBER 3RD. SEPTEMBER 3RD.

OKAY. SO IT'S 20 TO 9. HOW ABOUT CAN THE BOARD ENTERTAIN A FIVE MINUTE BREAK AND THEN.

OKAY. THANK YOU. I'M I'M GOING TO ENTERTAIN A FIVE MINUTE BREAK. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE.H BILL I SHOULD HAVE BROUGHT A THERMOS OF COFFEE TOO, BECAUSE HE. OKAY. BREAK'S OVER. WE'RE GOING TO CALL THE MEETING BACK TO ORDER. IF EVERYBODY WANTS TO HAVE A SEAT. GOOD MORNING.

[5. 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]

THAT IS IT WAS WITH THE BUILDING AND WAS SORT OF USED TO DO MAINTENANCE ON TRUCKS THAT WERE BACK IN THERE. THE APPLICANT WILL BE REDOING THAT. SO IT'S GOING TO BE A NEW

[02:10:01]

AND THEN THAT WAY, YOU KNOW, ITEMS CAN BE ADDED TO THE THAT DUMPSTER OR THE TRAILER, AND THEY ARE PROTECTED FROM ANY PRECIPITATION. DIFFERENT ANGLE BUT SAME, SAME TRAILER DISCUSS.

AND THAT KIND OF JUST KIND OF GIVES YOU AN IDEA OF THE DOORS JUST KIND OF PEELING BACK. AND YOU CAN GET THAT TRAILER PRETTY CLOSE UP TO THE BUILDING. AND I BELIEVE THAT WAS YOUR SUBMISSION FOR. SO ARE YOU READY FOR THE LBP COMPONENT? YES. SO WE DID FINALLY. GET THE RESPONSE FROM, I HOPE THAT EVERYBODY GOT IT AND HAD TIME TO REVIEW IT. THERE'S A COUPLE OF THINGS I THINK I'M GOING TO TURN IT OVER TO JOSH. SURE. JOSH IS GOING TO GIVE US SOME HIGHLIGHTS, ESPECIALLY SOME COMMENTS THAT WERE IN THE THAT HIM AND I MET WITH THE CODE REVIEW, NOT CODE REVIEW. I'M SORRY I KEEP THE THE ORDINANCE OFFICE CODE OFFICER, CODE ENFORCEMENT, CODE ENFORCEMENT. AND WE WANTED CLARIFICATION SO THE BOARD WOULD BE CLEAR. SO I'M GOING TO TURN IT OVER TO JOSH. SO FOR EVERYONE ON THE BOARD DOES EVERYONE HAVE THERE'S A TON OF PAPERWORK BUT THEY'RE ALL RELATED TO NOT ONLY. YOU SHOULD HAVE A COPY OF THE COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATION, YOU SHOULD HAVE COPIES OF SECTION THREE AND SECTION FOUR OF THE LW. AND THEN YOU SHOULD HAVE YOU SHOULD HAVE A SECTION OF 275 FROM THE CHAPTER 270 WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION CODE. OKAY. FOR STARTERS. SO WE GOT THE LWP RECOMMENDATION. AS THIS BOARD KNOWS, THIS IS THE BOARD THAT MAKES A COASTAL CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION. SO THE COMMITTEE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAKING A RECOMMENDATION. THIS BOARD IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAKING THE DETERMINATION THAT THE ACTION IS CONSISTENT WITH THE LW, AND IS ALSO RESPONSIBLE FOR MAKING A SECRET DECISION. IF YOU LOOK AT CHAPTER 275, I KIND OF HIGHLIGHTED WHAT THE COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATION PURVIEW IS AND THEN WHAT THIS BOARD'S PURVIEW IS. SO THE COMMITTEE, THE RECOMMENDATION ALONG WITH THE RECOMMENDATION, IT SAYS THEY SHALL NOT, SHOULD SO SHALL, ALONG WITH THE CONSISTENCY RECOMMENDATION, MAKE SUGGESTIONS TO THE AGENCY CONCERNING MODIFICATION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION, INCLUDING CONDITIONS TO MAKE IT CONSISTENT WITH THE LW POLICY STANDARDS. SO IN THE RECOMMENDATION THAT WE RECEIVED FROM THE LW COMMITTEE, WE ALSO SHOULD HAVE RECEIVED RECOMMENDATIONS OR MITIGATIONS OR CONDITIONS AS SUGGESTIONS TO MAKE THE ACTION CONSISTENT WITH THE LW RP. SO KEEP THAT IN THE BACK OF YOUR MIND AS WE GO ON. IF YOU CONTINUE TO LOOK AT CHAPTER 270, WHAT THE AGENCY SHALL CONSIDER IS THE CONSISTENCY RECOMMENDATION FROM THE LW COMMITTEE, WHICH WE HAVE THE APPLICANT'S WATERFRONT ASSESSMENT FORM, WHICH IS IN YOUR SHAREPOINT, WHICH EVERYONE HAS, AND ANY OTHER RELEVANT INFORMATION, THINGS LIKE THE PICTURES THAT WE'VE GOTTEN, ALL THE DIFFERENT SITE PLANS, ALL THE DIFFERENT DOCUMENTATION WHEN MAKING OUR DETERMINATION OF CONSISTENCY. AND THEN WHAT'S KEY IS NO APPROVAL SHALL BE GIVEN FOR AN ACTION IN THE WATERFRONT WITHOUT A WRITTEN DETERMINATION OF CONSISTENCY HAVING BEEN RENDERED BY A TOWN AGENCY. SO THAT'S YOU GUYS. SO WITHOUT A WRITTEN DETERMINATION FROM THIS BOARD THAT YOU BELIEVE THAT THIS ACTION IS CONSISTENT WITH THE LW RECOMMENDATION, THERE CAN BE NO APPROVALS GIVEN FOR THIS PROJECT. EVERYONE UNDERSTAND THAT THAT POINT. THAT MAKES SENSE. SO CONTINUING IN CHAPTER 270, WHAT THE LW RECOMMENDATION WAS BASED ON IS SECTION THREE, THE POLICY SECTION OF THE HAMBURG WRP. THAT'S THE 2012 ONE. EVERYONE KNOWS WE'RE WORKING ON ONE CURRENTLY, BUT THE 2012 ONE IS THE ONE THAT HAS ADOPTED. SO THAT'S WHAT WE GO OFF OF. AND THEN THE LW. RP ALSO LOOKED AT SECTION FOUR OF THE HAMBURG LW, WHICH DEALS WITH LAND USES, WATER USES AND PROPOSED PROJECTS. SO THAT'S WHAT THE LW BASED THEIR RECOMMENDATION ON. WITH THAT, I WANT TO JUST ALSO POINT OUT TO 276. ONCE AGAIN, I'LL JUST REITERATE NO ACTION WITHIN THE WATERFRONT THAT IS SUBJECT TO REVIEW CAN GO FORWARD UNLESS

[02:15:05]

WE'RE JUST SAYING WE'VE GOT RULES ON WHAT CAN GO ON THE WATER, AND WE DON'T SEE HOW THIS FITS INTO THOSE RULES. OKAY. MEMBER SHIMURA, ALSO, HOW IS THE FACT THAT IT'S IDENTIFIED AS PART OF THE HAMBURG WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION BOUNDARY, THE COASTAL SUB AREA AS WELL TOO? SO DOESN'T THAT THEN WITH I GUESS I'M JUST WONDERING LIKE HOW COASTAL SUB AREA VERSUS BEING PART OF. YOU KNOW, NOT NECESSARILY THE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, BUT IT'S STILL CONSIDERED A PART OF THE PURVIEW OF THE LW. CORRECT.

WHICH IS WHY THEY REVIEWED IT. YEP. SO THIS IS IN COASTAL SUB AREA ONE, WHICH IS FROM WOODLAWN, I THINK, TO ATHOL SPRINGS IS THE BORDER OF SUB AREA ONE. GOING ON TO THE THE COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATION. CAN I RAISE ONE MORE ZONING POINT? SURE. I'M LOOKING AT THE TOWN

[02:20:04]

AND I DON'T SEE THAT AS PART OF THE RECOMMENDATION EITHER. SO IT'S M3 WITH AN OVERLAY OF ROUTE FIVE AND THE LW RP REQUIREMENTS. CORRECT. GOT IT. THE THE THE COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATION THEN GOES INTO THE ACTUAL POLICY THAT BRINGS UP POLICY ONE, SUBSECTION 1.1 SUB POLICY. POLICY ONE TALKS ABOUT FOSTERING A PATTERN OF DEVELOPMENT IN THE TOWN THAT ENHANCES COMMUNITY CHARACTER, PRESERVES OPEN SPACE, MAKES EFFICIENT USE OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE BENEFICIAL USE OF WATERFRONT LOCATION, AND MINIMIZES ADVERSE EFFECTS OF DEVELOPMENT. SUBSECTION 1.1 TALKS ABOUT CONCENTRATING THAT DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT IN ORDER TO REVITALIZE DETERIORATED AND UNDERUTILIZED USES TO STRENGTHEN THE TRADITIONAL WATERFRONT FOCUS OF THE AREA, ESPECIALLY IN SUBAREA ONE, AND THEN WITH THE RECOMMENDED COMMITTEE TALKED ABOUT WAS IN 1.1, PARAGRAPH TWO. THERE ARE SPECIFIC LANGUAGE THAT SAYS THE REVITALIZATION EFFORTS IN THE TOWN SHOULD FOCUS ON PHASING OUT EXISTING AND FORMER INDUSTRIAL USES IN SUBAREA ONE. AND THEN IT SAYS IN PARTICULAR, THE BUFFALO CRUSHED STONE SITE AND SNYDER TANK PROPERTIES COULD BE REDEVELOPED WITH USES THAT ARE MORE COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA. IN THAT, LIKE I SAID, I DON'T I DON'T HAVE A I DON'T HAVE A VOTE ON THIS. I'M KIND OF JUST KIND OF PRESENTING THIS TO THIS COMMITTEE OR TO THIS BOARD, BECAUSE YOU ARE THE ONES WHO HAVE TO MAKE THAT CAUSAL CONSISTENCY, DETERMINATION. I GUESS I'M POSING IT TO THE BOARD. ARE THERE ANY THOUGHTS ON THAT RECOMMENDATION FROM THE BOARD AND THAT PULLING OUT OF THAT, THAT LANGUAGE THAT SAYS THAT THE TOWN SHOULD FOCUS ON PHASING OUT EXISTING AND FORMER INDUSTRIAL USES IN SUB AREA ONE, AND IT SPECIFICALLY DOES CALL OUT THE BUFFALO CRUSHED STONE SITE. BILL, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN NOT PUT YOU ON THE SPOT, BUT KIND OF ADD I KNOW YOU'RE ON THE COMMITTEE, KIND OF ADD SOME OF THE THINKING BEHIND SOME OF THE POLICIES AND WHY THEY WERE PULLED OUT AND WHY THEY WERE MENTIONED. WELL, WE TRIED TO HIGHLIGHT WHAT WE THOUGHT, ADDRESSED IT. I MEAN, THIS WAS I FEEL LIKE THE LW RP HAS MADE RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE PAST. THIS ONE, FOR SOME REASON HAS BEEN THE MOST PROBLEMATIC. AND I GET A LOT OF I'M NOT THE CHAIR OF EITHER COMMITTEE, BUT I GET A LOT OF INCONSISTENT REPORTS LIKE HE SAID, SHE SAID. AND EVERYBODY LIKE, WHAT ARE WE SUPPOSED TO DO? WHAT ARE WE NOT SUPPOSED TO DO? SO WE WE THOUGHT WE I'D GO THROUGH THE WE IDENTIFY THE ASPECTS OF THE LW THAT WE THINK APPLY TO THE PROJECT. WE WRITE A MEMO AND WE GIVE OUR OPINION. SO THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO DO. THEN YOU HAVE TO HAVE SOME TYPE OF DIFFERENT DIRECTION, I GUESS. BUT IT'S IT WAS PART OF THE DELAY WAS CONFUSION BECAUSE DIFFERENT PEOPLE WERE HEARING DIFFERENT THINGS ABOUT WHAT WAS EXPECTED. IN THAT RECOMMENDATION. AND AS I READ WHAT'S FROM CHAPTER 270, WHICH KIND OF GUIDES WHAT THE COMMITTEE IS SUPPOSED TO DO, TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, WERE THERE ANY MITIGATIONS OR CONDITIONS THAT WERE OFFERED DURING DISCUSSION, AS YOU GUYS RECOMMENDED THAT IT WAS INCONSISTENT WITH THE LW RP? THE ONLY MITIGATION THAT WE COULD POSSIBLY OFFER WOULD BE A DIFFERENT USE, BECAUSE IF THE USE IF OUR OPINION IS THAT THIS USE IS NOT A WATER DEPENDENT USE, SO THEREFORE IT DOESN'T QUALIFY FOR THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AND DIFFERENT EXCEPTIONS AND THE FOCUS OF THE LW, RP IS TO CHANGE THE FOCUS OF THAT AREA OF THE TOWN TO THINGS THAT ARE WATERFRONT USES THAT BENEFIT THE PUBLIC. WHAT MITIGATION COULD WE OFFER OTHER THAN HOW ABOUT INSTEAD OF DOING WHAT YOU WANT TO DO, YOU PUT IN A BOAT LAUNCH AND THAT'S WE'RE NOT GOING TO TRY AND DO SOMETHING THAT RIDICULOUS. WE DON'T SEE HOW THIS COULD EVER FIT IN. WHAT THE LW WANTS TO DO IN THAT AREA. REMEMBER, THIS IS ON THE LAKE. I DO WANT TO HAVE ONE COMMENT. SO THE LAKE FRONTAGE OF THIS GATEWAY PARK, I MEAN, HE'S LEASING MORE INTERNAL, BUT THERE IS A WINDMILL. YEAH ON THE WATER FRONTAGE. SO I, I WOULD SAY THAT WOULD BE A BIG DETERRENT FOR ANY FUTURE JUST WITH HIGH POWER ELECTRICAL. AND I MEAN THOSE. YOU DO WANT SOME CLEARANCE AWAY FROM THOSE. I'M GOING TO COMMENT MEMBER MCCORMICK THAT PEOPLE WHO FARM WHO HAVE A WIND TURBINE ON THEIR PROPERTY CAN FARM AND WORK RIGHT UP TO THE BASE OF THE TURBINE. SO I RECOGNIZE THAT THERE ARE CERTAIN THINGS THAT YOU ARE GOING TO WANT TO

[02:25:04]

LW, RP, WHAT THE LW RP SAYS AND ONLY FOCUS ON THAT. WE CAN WE COMING BACK LATER PENDING THIS, YOU WOULD LOOK AT THE ZONING AND YOU LOOKED AT THE OTHER PIECE AS PART OF SEEKER. BUT RIGHT NOW WE'RE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT TO DO ABOUT THE LW PIECE. WE SHOULD REALLY ONLY BE FOCUSING ON THE LW, RP, NOT ANY OF THESE OTHER PIECES. I THINK WE JUST NEED TO FOCUS OUR DECISION IN TO MAKING THE DECISION TO THE SCOPE THAT WE HAVE. HERE IS THIS FIRST POINT, WHICH I THINK JOSH INDICATED EARLIER WAS A GATING ITEM, RIGHT? THE RECOMMENDATION DIDN'T GOES INTO SECTION FOUR, WHERE THE COMMITTEE BRINGS UP. SECTION FOUR PROPOSED LAND USES AND WATER USES SUBAREA ONE, PARAGRAPH NINE, WHICH MARGOT JUST REFERENCED, WHERE IT SAYS IN GENERAL, THE INDUSTRIAL USES IN SUBAREA ONE WEST OF LAKESHORE ROAD SHOULD BE PHASED OUT AND GUIDED TOWARD NEIGHBORHOOD, COMMERCIAL OR WATERFRONT RELATED COMMERCIAL USES IN SUPPORT OF SUB POLICY 1.1. AND THEN IT KIND OF GOES INTO THE UNDERUTILIZED SITES AND SUBAREA ONE COULD BE REVITALIZED WITH MARINE, COMMERCIAL, OR MARINE RELATED RECREATIONAL USES TO IMPROVE AND PROMOTE PUBLIC ACCESS AND RECREATIONAL TOURISM. IT SAYS

[02:30:04]

THAT IS. SEEMS TO BE SUPPORTIVE OF THE DETERMINATION THAT THE THE COMMITTEE CAME TO IN THEIR RECOMMENDATION. ALSO AS A PART OF SECTION FOUR, SUB AREA ONE, WHICH IS ONE OF THE SHEETS THAT YOU GUYS HAVE, IT SAYS THE BUFFALO CRUSHED STONE PARCEL AT THE NORTHERN BOUNDARY OF THE AREA IS ABANDONED, BUT THERE ARE ISSUES OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION AND SITE ACCESS THAT HAVE STYMIED THE POTENTIAL REDEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY. BUFFALO CRUSHED STONE AND THE BETHLEHEM STEEL COMPLEX WERE IDENTIFIED IN THE ORIGINAL 1987 AS A PROPOSED WATER ORIENTED MIXED USE AREA, WHICH COULD INCLUDE A MARINA, RESTAURANTS, OFFICES AND LAKESIDE HOUSING.

THE TOWN ALSO SEES THIS SITE AS A POTENTIAL FOR WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT OR LIGHT INDUSTRY.

THE PRIMARY OBJECTIVE IS TO GET THE PROPERTY BACK IN USE. THEREFORE, A SUITABLE PLAN FOR EITHER COMMERCIAL OR LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE FOR THE FUTURE USE OF THIS AREA. THIS PROPERTY IS IN USE. SO THIS PROJECT WOULDN'T BE GETTING IT BACK IN USE. IT'S ALREADY EXISTS, IT'S ALREADY BEING USED. AND THAT'S A DISTINCTION THAT I THINK THE LW MAKES BETWEEN AN AREA THAT IS NOT BEING USED AND ONE THAT IS BEING USED AS FAR AS NEW USAGES GO. I THINK THE OTHER THING THAT'S PROBABLY WORTH NOTING IS JUST BECAUSE SOMETHING GOES TO COMMERCIAL USE, AND I THINK I BROUGHT THIS UP AT A PRIOR MEETING, IS THAT THERE ARE A NUMBER OF LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL WATER DEPENDENT OR WATER ENHANCED USES. AND I THINK THAT THAT IS SOMETHING THAT I KEEP COMING BACK TO IS THIS DOESN'T. HAVE EITHER, BUT I RECOGNIZE THAT THIS SAYS BUT YEAH, AND THE REST OF THE RECOMMENDATION JUST GOES JUST NAMES THE THE 13 DIFFERENT POLICIES. AND THEN THE OPINION OF THE, THE OFFICIAL OPINION OF THE COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATION WAS THE PROPOSED USE OF THE EXISTING FACILITY TO ADD SORTING OF CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS WITHIN THE EXISTING BUILDING IS A COMMENDABLE ACTIVITY WHICH HAS POSITIVE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS BY RECYCLING AND REDUCING. I THINK THAT'S SUPPOSED TO SAY DEBRIS AND LANDFILLS. LAADAN IS AN ACTIVE, ONGOING CONCERN WITHIN THE TOWN OF HAMBURG, CREATING JOBS AND PAYING TAXES. HAVING NOTED THAT LAADAN IS A GOOD CORPORATE CITIZEN, IT REMAINS THAT THE PROPOSED ACTIVITY DOES NOT CONFORM WITH EXISTING TOWN ZONING CODE AND POLICIES CITED WITHIN THE. AND THAT'S THAT WAS A BIG THING THAT WE DISCUSSED. I MEAN, LAADAN IS A THEY'RE A GOOD NEIGHBOR TO HAVE IN HAMBURG AND WHICH IS IN IT'S NOT LIKE WE WANT TO OH, WE WANT TO SCREW SOMEBODY OVER. WE LOOKED AT IT, WE APPLIED THE CRITERIA WE'RE DIRECTED TO APPLY, AND WE DON'T THINK IT FITS ON THE WATER. WE'RE NOT SAYING WE THINK IT'S A BAD PROJECT. WE'RE NOT SAYING WE THINK THEY'RE BAD PEOPLE. THIS DOESN'T GO ON THE WATER. I DO HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE OPINION BECAUSE IT DOES IT DOES STATE NOT CONFORM WITH EXISTING TOWN ZONING CODE. SO WOULD THE ZONING CODE BE THE M3, SHOULD THAT NOT BE INCLUDED IN THE FINAL OPINION VERSUS. WELL, THE ZONING CODE IS IS THE ENTIRE ZONING CODE. SO THE LW, RP AND THE ROUTE FIVE OVERLAY WOULD BE PART OF THE ZONING CODE AND AN ADDITION TO THE ZONING MAP FOR THE TOWN AS WELL. RIGHT? OKAY.

SO SO IN ORDER FOR IN ORDER FOR US TO SAY THAT IT WAS CONSISTENT, IT WOULD HAVE TO MEET ALL OF THE CRITERIAS OF ALL OF THE THINGS THAT APPLY, NOT JUST FIND ONE THING THAT APPLIES AND SAY IT MEETS THIS ONE. THEREFORE WE DON'T REMEMBER THE REST OF THEM. SO THE BOARD HAS TWO OPTIONS. EITHER THE BOARD AGREES WITH THE LW RECOMMENDATION, AND THE PROJECT CANNOT MOVE FORWARD UNTIL THIS BOARD IS COMFORTABLE THAT THE ACTION EITHER BECOMES CONSISTENT WITH THE LW, OR IF IT'S NOT, THEN WE CAN TALK ABOUT WHAT THAT MEANS OR THE BOARD CAN DISAGREE WITH THE LW RP RECOMMENDATION, BUT THIS BOARD WOULD THEN HAVE TO PUT IN WRITING WHY IT DISAGREES WITH THE RECOMMENDATION, AND WHY IT FEELS IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE LW. THOSE ARE THE TWO OPTIONS. DOES ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANYTHING TO OFFER AT THIS POINT? ANY OTHER COMMENTS? NO, I YEAH, AND WHILE YOU'RE LOOKING AT THAT CAN I DO YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO.

WELL TO BILL'S POINT THOUGH, THEIR CONCLUSION IS BASED ON ALL OF THE ZONING CODE. THE LW COMMITTEE IS ONLY GOING TO REVIEW THE LW. WE DID NOT LOOK AT THE ROUTE FIVE OVERLAY.

[02:35:06]

SO WELL MARGOT WAS SAYING THAT THAT WE LOOKED AT ALL OF IT AND THEN TRYING TO CLARIFY WHAT THE THERE'S THE CONFUSION BECAUSE THERE'S THE REFERENCE TO THE WATERFRONT COMMERCIAL. AND THEN JEFF, CLARIFY THAT IT'S ACTUALLY M3. SO WE'RE KIND OF TALKING LW, RP AND M3 AT THE SAME TIME. SO I THINK WE SHOULD SEGMENT THESE UP THOUGH, BECAUSE I THINK WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO GET TO IS WHERE WE GET TO SEEKER IS WE HAVE TO FIND IF IT'S NOT CONSISTENT WITH ALL OF THEM, THEN THAT WOULD DOESN'T MEAN THAT'S A NO. IT MEANS, WELL, IGNORING THE LW, RP, THE OTHER ONES YOU WOULD MOVE TO MITIGANTS, YOU'D GO TO PART THREE, YOU'D DO AN EIS.

BUT I THINK THE ISSUE IS THAT WITH THE LW, I THINK THAT COMING UP WITH THAT ANSWER, I THINK WE NEED TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION BEFORE WE ADD IT. LAYER ON THE OVERLAY DISTRICTS AND THE M3 THAT THAT'S MY THOUGHT. WHY THE M3 IS ISN'T A DEAL. I THINK IT DOES COMPLY WITH M3. I DON'T THINK THERE'S A QUESTION. SO AND I DON'T KNOW THAT THE ZONING CODE, I AGREE THAT IT'S SEPARATE FROM THE RP AND WE SHOULD TALK ABOUT THEM SEPARATELY, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT THE ZONING CODE HINGES ON SEEKER. THEY HAVE TO MEET THE ZONING CODE ON ON THE MERITS REGARDLESS OF SEEKER. YEAH, THAT WOULD BE SITE PLAN. IS IT MY TURN YET? SURE. THANK YOU.

SORRY. THAT'S OKAY. I HAVE A LOT TO SAY. FIRST OF ALL, I HAVE TALKED TO A LOT OF PEOPLE ABOUT THIS PROJECT, AND I'M NOT GOING TO BE NICE TONIGHT. I'M JUST GIVING YOU A HEADS UP. I HAVE GOTTEN MORE COMPLAINTS AND MORE MISINFORMATION AND MORE MISGUIDANCE. AND I'M GOING TO START FROM THE BEGINNING. I'M NOT THE ONLY ONE. AND YOU'RE NOT ALONE. REMEMBER, CLARK, WE'RE GOING TO START FROM THE BEGINNING. WE GOT THE WRONG ADDRESS. WE HAD THE WRONG DIRECTIONS. THE APPLICATION WASN'T COMPLETE. IT WENT TO THE LW. THERE WAS MISSING INFORMATION. WE DIDN'T KNOW THAT THIS WAS THAT THERE WAS AN EXISTING BUSINESS. I'M DOING A RECAP FOR EVERYONE THAT'S HERE AND LISTENING BECAUSE MY PHONE RINGS AND I GET EMAILS AND I GET COMMENTS AND I GET STOPPED AT THE GROCERY STORE, I GET STOPPED IN THE PARK, AND I'M ADDRESSING EVERYTHING THAT I'VE HEARD FROM RESIDENTS, EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE NOT IN THE PUBLIC HEARING. THERE HAVE BEEN NUMEROUS COMPLAINTS ABOUT THE TRUCKS. THIS BUSINESS SUPPOSEDLY HASN'T STARTED YET. HOW CAN WE TALK ABOUT TRUCKS AND COMPLAIN ABOUT THE TRUCK TRAFFIC WHEN THIS BUSINESS HASN'T STARTED YET? WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO THE EXISTING BUSINESS THAT'S THERE THAT WE DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT WHEN THIS WAS FIRST BROUGHT UP TO US? THERE ARE OTHER EXISTING BUSINESSES IN THE SAME AREA THAT HAVE A NEGATIVE IMPACT. BASED ON THE COMMENTS AND THE CONCERNS OF THE RESIDENTS, IT'S THE OTHER BUSINESSES THAT ARE NEGATIVELY IMPACTING THIS, THIS AREA, THIS BUSINESS HASN'T STARTED YET. WHAT WHEN ASKED ABOUT BUFFERING OR OR PROTECTING THE CREEK. AND I'M REFERENCING BECAUSE WE GOT THE LETTER ASKING ABOUT THE BUFFERING. THE APPLICANT SAID, I'M LEASING THE PROPERTY AND THEREFORE I HAVE NO INTENT ABOUT BUFFERING, BUT THIS IS A CONCERN THAT WAS BROUGHT UP BY AND JOSH, HELP ME OUT. IT WAS THE COUNTY OPR, OPRHP STATE PARKS. PARKS. OKAY. THANK YOU. SO EVEN THOUGH YOU'RE LISTING THE PROPERTY, YOU STILL HAVE TO MEET THOSE REQUIREMENTS. THERE SEEMS TO BE INCONSISTENCIES WITH DUST, NOISE, TRAFFIC TRUCKS, AGGRAVATION TO THE NEIGHBORS, VISIBILITY, NOT VISIBILITY. ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY. BUT I STILL GO BACK TO THE INCONSISTENCY THAT THERE'S OTHER BUSINESSES OPERATING ON THAT ROAD. AND I'M BRINGING. I HAVE A POINT WHY I'M BRINGING THAT UP. WE STILL HAVE TO DO SEEKER. I DON'T AGREE WITH THE LW RP, AND I'LL TELL YOU WHY. BECAUSE THE INFORMATION THAT WE GOT FROM THE, IN MY OPINION, IS INCONSISTENT. WE WERE LED TO BELIEVE THAT IT'S AN M2. IT'S NOT AN M2, IT'S AN M3. THIS IS AN EXISTING ZONE. IT'S IN. IT'S APPROVED. IT'S ALLOWED IN THE EXISTING ZONE. I'M JUST LOOKING AT THE M3 ZONE. NOW WE FIND OUT THAT WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THE ROUTE FIVE OVERLAY, WHICH I DIDN'T EVEN THINK ABOUT. AND I THINK AT ONE POINT I ASKED ABOUT IT, BUT WE BUT THERE WAS SO MUCH MISINFORMATION AND INCONSISTENCIES THAT WE DIDN'T NEED TO DO THAT. I THINK WE NEED TO PULL THAT IN AND AND START LOOKING AT THAT BEFORE WE GO ANY FURTHER TO FIND OUT WHAT ELSE IT DOESN'T MEET. THE OTHER THING THAT THIS M3 THING. SO WHEN JOHN, WHEN JEFF WROTE THIS LETTER AND HE, HE EXPLAINED TO ME BECAUSE I CALLED HIM AND I AND HE SAID, IT'S IN AN INDUSTRIAL ZONE, IT'S ZONED FOR THIS, IT'S ZONED FOR THIS USE. HOWEVER, THIS LETTER THAT SAYS ANYTHING EXCEPT TRUCK TERMINALS, TRUCK TERMINALS AND DISPATCH AND TRANSFER FACILITIES, THEN

[02:40:04]

AND SO THAT ADDS TO MORE CONFUSION. AND I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY YOU GUYS WEREN'T TOLD THAT OR WHY YOU WEREN'T GIVEN THAT INFORMATION. SO. BUT IT'S IN THE IT'S IN THE WATERFRONT AREA, NOT IN THE WATERFRONT DISTRICT. AND CORRECT ME IF I'M SAYING THAT WRONG, MR. MEMBER CLARK. WELL, THERE'S A THERE'S A WATERFRONT COMMERCIAL ZONE. YES. IT IS NOT IN THAT. IT'S NOT. IT'S IN THE WATERFRONT AREA WHICH FALLS UNDER THE LW PURVIEW. HANG ON, HANG ON. MEMBER MCCORMICK, YOU'LL GET YOUR TURN. SO I NEEDED TO CLARIFY THAT BECAUSE WHEN THIS WAS LOOKED AT, WAS IT LOOKED AT WITH THE THOUGHT. AND I DON'T MEAN TO PUT YOU ON ON ON ON THE SPOT. BUT WHEN THIS WAS LOOKED AT, WAS THIS LOOKED AT BECAUSE WE THOUGHT IT WAS IN THE WATERFRONT COMMERCIAL, IT WAS CLEAR THAT IT WAS ONLY IN THE ONE. THEY ARE SEPARATE.

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

WE CAN DISAGREE WITH THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE MFP. RIGHT. BUT THEN WE WOULD HAVE TO SAY, OKAY, POLICY ONE SAYS FOSTER PATTERN OF DEVELOPMENT IN THE TOWN OF HAMBURG THAT ENHANCES COMMUNITY CHARACTER. WE BELIEVE THIS DOES THAT POLICY TO PRESERVE HISTORIC RESOURCES IN THE TOWN OF HAMBURG. WHY DOES THIS PROJECT DO THAT? WE'D HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE LWP THE WAY THE COMMITTEE WOULD AND SAY WE FIND IT DOES MEET THE CRITERIA. AND THAT'S DIFFERENT THAN DISAGREEING WITH THE LW. WHAT THE LW WROTE, RIGHT. YEAH. OKAY.

CAN I JUST ADD A LITTLE BIT OF CONTEXT ON WHAT THE LW RP IS AND HOW YOU GET THERE? AND I THINK THIS IS HELPFUL FOR PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND. THE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT IS A FEDERAL ACT THAT THEN COMES TO THE STATES AND THEIR COASTAL ZONES THAT ARE DESIGNATED IN EACH STATE. THERE IS A COASTAL ZONE ALONG THE GREAT LAKES THAT INCLUDES COASTAL ZONE HERE. SO THAT IS THAT IS MANAGED THERE. WHAT WE HAVE. SO THERE ARE ENFORCEABLE POLICIES AT THE

[02:45:02]

THOSE ARE SEPARATE THAN THE LW REQUIREMENTS. SO I FEEL LIKE THROWING OUT AND YOU'RE ENTITLED TO YOUR OPINION. YOU CAN DO WHATEVER YOU WANT. THIS IS WHY WE VOTE AS A BOARD. BUT THROWING OUT THE ENTIRE LW P ANALYSIS BECAUSE THEY MISSTATED THE ZONING CODE, WHICH WE'VE HAD CORRECTED BY THE TOWN OFFICIAL, IS THROWING THE BABY OUT WITH THE BATHWATER BECAUSE WE CAN ALL AGREE THAT IT MEETS THE UNDERLYING ZONING CODE, BUT THEY ALSO HAVE TO MEET THE OVERLAY DISTRICT, AND THEY ALSO HAVE TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE EACH THING NEEDS TO BE MET. WHEN I SAY I DON'T MEAN TO THROW IT OUT THE DOOR AND NOT LOOK AT IT, I AND LET ME CLARIFY WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT I'M NOT IN AGREEMENT WITH THIS BECAUSE OF THE INCONSISTENCIES THAT I SAW IN THE REPORT. THAT'S WHERE I STAND AND THAT WE NEED TO LOOK AT EVERYTHING ELSE BESIDES, AND THAT THIS IS JUST AN ADVISORY REPORT TO US. AND IN ORDER FOR US TO MAKE A DECISION THAT WE NEED TO LOOK AT THE ENTIRE PICTURE, THAT THIS ISN'T THE BE ALL, END ALL OF THE FINAL DECISION. SO IT COULD BE BECAUSE IF THEY DON'T MEET THE LW, IF THEY ARE INCONSISTENT, THE PROJECT CANNOT GO FORWARD, RIGHT? CORRECT. SO IT COULD BE DISAGREE WITH ME IF YOU WANT. I DON'T THINK CINDY'S SAYING SHE BELIEVES THAT IT CONFORMS TO THE LW RP. NO, I DON'T THINK SHE'S SAYING SHE WANTS TO DO HER OWN ANALYSIS. SURE, ABSOLUTELY. WHICH IS WHAT WE DO. RIGHT? RIGHT. YEAH. I'M I CAN'T BE SWAYED. I MEAN, THEY IT'S THEIR OPINION AND YOU'RE RIGHT. SO THIS IS THEIR OPINION. AND I THINK THAT THERE'S OTHER INFORMATION THAT WE NEED TO GATHER. I MEAN, I UNDERSTAND THAT WE HAVE A PROCESS THAT WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH ON THE LW. WE CAN DO THAT TONIGHT, OR WE CAN ADD THAT OVER THE ROUTE FIVE, OVERLAY THAT INFORMATION SO WE CAN FIGURE OUT BECAUSE HERE'S THE REASON WHY. IF WE LOOK AT THE IS YOU CAN'T THE PROCESS ADDING THE OVERLAY. JOSH SAID EARLIER TODAY THAT IF THIS BOARD WAS THAT WE'RE SAYING WE HAVE TWO OPTIONS, RIGHT? RIGHT. WELL, WE SAID IF THIS BOARD DOESN'T FIND IT CONSISTENT WITH THE LW RP, RIGHT. IT CAN'T BE APPROVED.

RIGHT? IT CAN'T GO ANY FURTHER. SO SO IF WE DO THE LW RP AND WE REACH THAT CONCLUSION THEN IT STOPS. THEN WE DON'T DO WE DON'T DO ANYTHING ELSE I UNDERSTAND. SO SO THAT'S.

THAT'S A THAT'S A START. SO THE OVERLAY DISTRICT IS NOT PART OF THE LW RP. SO WE HAVE TO PUT THE M3 AND THE OVERLAY DISTRICT ASIDE. I THINK WHAT WE HAVE TO DO IS MAKE A DECISION. AND WHAT I WOULD IT'D BE HELPFUL FOR ME TO UNDERSTAND CINDY, WHETHER YOU WOULD LIKE THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT OR SOMEONE TO DO ADDITIONAL RESEARCH TO HELP YOU UNDERSTAND THE POLICIES. I HAVE LOOKED AT THEIR CONCLUSIONS AND ACKNOWLEDGED THAT. I CAN SEE WHY YOU MIGHT FIND SOME CONCLUSION. I. I AGREE WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE THE COMMITTEE, SO I WOULD I WOULD GO WITH THAT. BUT I WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO UNDERSTAND IS WHAT WHAT WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR YOU TO DO YOUR OWN ANALYSIS. IS IT SOMETHING THAT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO DO. HOW DO YOU

[02:50:05]

I DON'T KNOW WHERE THEY STAND. SO I GUESS I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW YOU WANT US TO WORK THROUGH THE PROCESS. SO ACTIONS IN THE WATERFRONT AREA THAT NEEDED CONSISTENCY, DETERMINATION FROM THIS BOARD ARE ON SECTION THREE. THE POLICIES AND SECTION FOUR, WHICH IS LAND USES, WATER USES AND PROPOSED PROJECTS. THOSE ARE THE PARAMETERS OF WHAT THIS BOARD MAKES ITS COASTAL CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION ON, ALONG WITH THE APPLICANT'S WATERFRONT ASSESSMENT FORM AND ANY OTHER RELEVANT INFORMATION THAT THE APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED, WHETHER THAT BE A SITE PLAN, PICTURES OF THE SITE, THE NOISE LEVELS, THE WASTE LEVELS, ALL OF THE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION, THOSE FOUR THINGS. SECTION THREE OF THE LW, RP, WHICH IS 13 POLICIES. SECTION FOUR, WHICH TALKS ABOUT LAND USES, WATER USES AND PROPOSED PROJECTS. THE WATERFRONT ASSESSMENT FORM, WHICH THE APPLICANT SIGNED AND SUBMITTED AND WAS REVIEWED BY THE COMMITTEE, AND THEN ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT THEY PROVIDED, INCLUDING THE SITE PLAN, ALL THE ADDENDUMS THEY'VE SUBMITTED. THOSE ARE WHAT THIS BOARD HAS TO CONSIDER WHEN MAKING A COASTAL CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION. ONCE AGAIN, THERE'S TWO OPTIONS. EITHER YOU AGREE WITH THE LW RECOMMENDATION AND THE PROJECT DOESN'T MOVE FORWARD UNLESS THIS BOARD. ALSO, THERE'S ALSO THE OPTION FOR THE BOARD TO OFFER CONDITIONS AND MITIGATIONS TO WHERE THIS BOARD WOULD FEEL COMFORTABLE THAT THE ACTION IS CONSISTENT WITH THE LW RP. THAT'S ALWAYS AN OPTION. OR IF YOU FEEL IT IS, YOU AGREE WITH THE LWP LW COMMITTEE AND FEEL THAT AS A BOARD IT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE LW RP, THEN THE PROJECT DOESN'T MOVE FORWARD. OR IF YOU DISAGREE WITH THE LW RP RECOMMENDATION AND YOU GUYS BELIEVE THAT IT IS CONSISTENT, WE HAVE TO PUT IN WRITING FOR EACH OF THE 13 POLICIES AND FOR SECTION FOUR, WHY WE BELIEVE IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE LW. SO THE THE PARAMETERS, I THINK IT WOULD BE EASIER IF I ASKED THE ENTIRE BOARD OR YOU TOOK A LIKE A PENCIL VOTE. I HAVE A POINT TO MAKE BASED ON WHAT JOSH SAID, RIGHT? SECTIONS THREE AND SECTION FOUR OF THE LW, RP. THOSE AREN'T THE SECTIONS WHERE I'VE HEARD ABOUT INCONSISTENCIES OR DISAGREEMENTS WITH THE OPINION OF THE LW COMMITTEE. I HAVEN'T HEARD ANYBODY SAY THAT ANYTHING THAT WAS IN THAT PART IS IS INCONSISTENT WITH OR EVEN DISAGREEABLE. SO WHAT I WAS GOING TO SAY IS THAT TO TAKE A PENCIL VOTE TO SEE WHERE THE BOARD IS AT THIS POINT, IF THEY WANTED TO, WHERE THEY STOOD, IF THEY WERE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE LW REPORT. AND WE I THINK THIS IS A CLARIFICATION THAT RATHER THAN SAYING THAT IN AGREEMENT WITH THE REPORT, IS IT THAT WE BASED UPON THE INFORMATION AHEAD OF US, THAT WE UNDERSTAND THAT THE PROJECT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE LW? I THINK THAT'S YES. YEAH, I THINK THAT'S THAT'S THE VOTE. YES, YES. THERE'S NOT THERE'S NO AGREEMENT. THERE'S NO PROBLEM.

RIGHT. IT IS. IT IS THE PROJECT CONSISTENT OR INCONSISTENT WITH THE LW? RP BASED UPON THE INFORMATION PROVIDED TO IS CORRECT? YES. CORRECT. THAT'S THE PENCIL VOTE. THAT'S THE PENCIL VOTE. CORRECT. OKAY. SO I'M GOING TO START WITH NUMBER. WOULD YOU SAID REMEMBER WHAT YOU HAD SAID EARLIER CINDY, ABOUT ALL OF THE CONFUSION THAT HAS OCCURRED FOR THE PAST THREE MONTHS WITH THIS PROJECT AND NOT HAVING ANY JUSTIFICATION OF ALL OF THE CRITICISM? I AGREE WITH YOU. THE LW. CONCERNING THE WATERFRONT IS AN IMPORTANT DOCUMENT. AND AGAIN, FROM MY OBSERVATION OF THE AREA INVOLVED, THERE QUITE A DISTANCE. TO ME PERSONALLY, THEY'RE QUITE A DISTANCE AWAY FROM THE WATER. I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE MATERIAL

[02:55:09]

AND THE FACT OF THE RELATIONSHIP TO THE WATER. I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY HOW FAR IT IS ON THE WATER OR HOW FAR OFF, BUT RIGHT NOW, EVERYTHING IS WHAT IT'S IT'S PRIVATELY OWNED PROPERTY. SO HOW DO WE TELL A PRIVATELY OWNED PROPERTY PERSON WHAT THEY CAN OR CAN'T DO WITH A PROPERTY THAT IS ZONED AT THIS POINT? OKAY. MEMBER SHIMURA MY VOTE IS THAT THE PROJECT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE LOCAL LOCAL WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION PROGRAM. POLICIES AND USES OF PROPOSED PROJECTS. MEMBER. VALENTI. I AGREE WITH MEMBER SHIMURA THAT THE AS RIGHT NOW THE PROJECT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE POLICIES OF THE WRP, AND I WANT TO STATE FOR THE RECORD THAT. WITH REGARD TO THE OTHER MEMBERS COMMENTS ON DISTANCE TO THE WATER, THE CRITERIA WE ARE LOOKING AT NOW IS A PRESCRIBED ZONE THAT HAS BEEN DETERMINED UNDER THE RMA AND BY THE STATE AND THE TOWN, AND WE ARE WITHIN THAT ZONE.

AND THE CRITERIA APPLIES TO THE WHOLE ZONE. WHEN YOU'RE SAYING ZONE JUST FOR THE NEW MEMBERS, IT'S FOR THE LW, THE WRP BOUNDARY AREA. OKAY. THANK YOU. MEMBER MCCORMACK, TO JUST FINISH WHAT MEMBER VALENTI SAID. SO IT'S MAPPED AND THE AREAS OF THE LW, THE LW ITSELF INCLUDES A MAP IN IT, BUT IT ASCRIBES TO THE BOUNDARIES OF THE COASTAL ZONE THAT IS MAPPED. SO THERE IS MAPPING AVAILABLE THAT'S DESIGNATED AND THAT IS OUT OF OUR JURISDICTION. BUT I WOULD AGREE WITH MEMBER VALENTI, MEMBER SHIMURA THAT IT INCONSISTENT WITH THE THE PLAN.

I BELIEVE THAT THIS PROJECT IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE LW. IS NOT CONSISTENT. RIGHT OKAY.

IT'S NOT CONSISTENT. SO THE LW WOULD SAY DON'T DO THIS PROJECT. SO WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE FOR THAT'S FOR THAT'S FOR THAT'S 6512345 THAT'S SIX. SO. SO CAN I HAVE A MOTION I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT THE LARDEN PROJECT IS THAT WE MAKE A DETERMINATION THAT THE LARDEN PROJECT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE TOWN OF HAMBURG'S CURRENT LOCAL WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION PLAN.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. OH, I NEED A SECOND. I SECOND THE MOTION. MEMBER. OKAY. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE, AYE. ANY OPPOSED? YES. ME OKAY, SO IT DOESN'T MOVE ANY FURTHER. CORRECT? CORRECT. SO AT THIS POINT, YOUR PROJECT HAS BEEN BASICALLY DENIED. IS THAT IS THAT THE CORRECT. IT'S INCONSISTENT WITH THE LW RP. SO WE CAN'T MAKE A SECRET DECISION. IT DOESN'T GO FORWARD FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL UNLESS THIS BOARD LIKE I SAID, UNLESS THIS BOARD WANTS TO OFFER A CONDITIONS OR MITIGATIONS TO WHERE IT WOULD FEEL COMFORTABLE THAT IT IS

[03:00:01]

HE'S NOT OPERATING THE TRANSFER FACILITY. RIGHT. SHE THERE ARE A NUMBER OF POLICIES. AND I DON'T KNOW THAT THIS BUSINESS MOVING WOULD CHANGE MY DECISION BASED ON THE OTHER POLICIES THAT WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE DETERMINING THAT A PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH. SO I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT WOULD CHANGE MY DECISION, BUT THIS BOARD MADE A DECISION BASED ON THE CRITERIA WE HAD IN FRONT OF US. AND WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THAT. WE HAVE TO FOLLOW THE THE PROTOCOL AND THE PROCEDURE. SO I THINK THAT'S THAT'S WHERE WE'RE AT. AND TO GAIN YOUR SUGGESTION OUT, WE ACTUALLY ARE AMENDING OUR CURRENT LW. SO IF YOU WERE TO DO THAT, YOU WOULD BE BANKING ON THE NEW LW HAVING THAT PROVISION IN IT, WHICH HASN'T BEEN PASSED YET, HASN'T BEEN APPROVED, HASN'T EVEN BEEN FINISHED BEING WRITTEN. SO IF THE NEW ONE DIDN'T HAVE THAT, THEN YOU WOULDN'T. AND SO SO THERE'S THAT. THERE'S A LOT OF POLICIES. YEAH. I WILL JUST SAY FOR THE RECORD, THE 2025 HAMBURG LW, RP HAS TO BE ADOPTED BY DECEMBER OF 2025. SO IT WILL BE ADOPTED BY THE END OF THIS YEAR AT THE END OF THE YEAR. YES. SO IT'LL BE A DIFFERENT SET OF RULES THEN. OKAY. AND WILL THERE BE A DRAFT BEFOREHAND JUST TO GET AN IDEA OR. RIGHT NOW THE DRAFT IS IN THE HANDS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE. WHAT I CAN SAY IS THAT THE POLICIES FROM THE 2012 TO THE 2025 DRAFT HAVE WENT FROM 13 TO 44. OKAY, SO THERE ARE 31 NEW POLICIES AND THEY TOUCH ON A LOT MORE COMPONENTS OF THE WATERFRONT AREA. SO THERE WILL BE A PUBLIC HEARING ON IT IN LATE FALL, EARLY WINTER OF THIS YEAR BEFORE DECEMBER. SO THERE WILL BE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC APPLICANTS TO SEE THE THE NEW THE THE PUBLIC HEARING. SO THERE WILL BE A TIME FOR FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. CAN YOU LET US KNOW WHEN THAT IS? WE'LL DO BECAUSE I'LL BE LEADING IT. SO LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING YOU ON AN EXTRA NIGHT. OKAY. THANK YOU. SO I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION TO REMOVE RMB HOLDINGS LLC FROM THE TABLE. I SECOND THAT MOTION. IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED TO REMOVE RMB HOLDINGS FROM THE TABLE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? I ANY OPPOSED? NONE. SO WE WOULD LIKE TO GET RMB TO COME BACK.

[1. Public Hearing – 7:00 P.M., RMV Holdings LLC – Requesting Preliminary Plat Approval of a 2-lot subdivision to be located at 4021 Jeffrey Boulevard (Part 2 of 2)]

[03:05:03]

THE RECOMMENDATION OF TO HAVE THAT TO ADD THE WORD CUMULATIVE. OH YES, WE CAN I CAN ADD IT TO CODE REVIEW. I MIGHT HAVE TO SWITCH OVER TO MY LAPTOP BECAUSE THIS MOUSE IS LIKE DEAD.

AND IF WE VOTE ON THAT AND APPROVE IT, THEN THE TOWN CAN JUST DO IT WITHOUT IT COMING BACK TO US. THAT MIGHT BE AN IDEA. WHEN WE'RE DONE WITH REGULAR BUSINESS TODAY, CAN WE JUST ADD INTO YOUR LANGUAGE, JOE, LIKE A PARENTHETICAL SITE THAT JUST SAYS, SEE 280, WHATEVER THAT REFERENCES THE DEFINITIONS JUST SO THAT THERE'S A LIKE A BREADCRUMB TRAIL THAT LEADS TO WHY WE PUT THAT IN THERE REAL QUICK BEFORE I HAND IT OVER. MY ONLY CONCERN WITH THAT IS BECAUSE WE ARE AMENDING, AS YOU GUYS KNOW, SOME OF THE ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS THAT I'LL BE PROVIDING LATER DOWN THE LINE ARE WE'RE AMENDING THE SUBDIVISION CODE. AS YOU GUYS KNOW, A LOT OF TIMES IN THE CODE WHEN WE CHANGE THINGS, THOSE NUMBERS CHANGE. SO PUTTING IN I THINK WE COULD MAKE REFERENCE MAYBE TO LIKE SAY SUBDIVISION OF LAND AND NOT PUT THE CHAPTER. I DON'T KNOW HOW WE CAN GO ABOUT THAT, BUT OUR ARTICLE CHANGE CHAPTER CHANGE ALL THE TIME. AND THEN WE RUN INTO THE PROBLEM OF IF WE PUT IT IN THE RESOLUTION, THEN WE SAY 280, WHATEVER, AND THAT CHANGES. WELL, THEN WE'RE KIND OF SCREWED BECAUSE IT REFERENCES SOMETHING THAT'S NOT THE SUBDIVISION OF LAND. SO I WOULD JUST CAUTION ON ADDING ARTICLE NUMBERS OR CHAPTER NUMBERS BECAUSE THEY CHANGE SO OFTEN WHEN WE DO CODE AMENDMENTS. ARE YOU ABLE TO PULL UP THE SECTION OF CODE FOR THE TITLE OF THE SECTION? MAYBE IF WE REFERENCE IT BY THE TITLE, I KNOW IT'S DEFINITIONS OF HOLD ON. I STARTED TO, BUT HE HANDED ME THE MICROPHONE BACK. I THINK WE'RE GETTING THERE. THANK YOU.

WHAT IS WHAT'S THE WHAT IS IT? CURRENTLY IT'S TWO 8080. IT'S IS. DO THE OLD CODES GET SAVED? CHAPTER 230. THEY DO NOT. IN FACT, WE HAD THE PROBLEM WITH THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE COMMISSION BECAUSE THEY CHANGED THE CODE SO RAPIDLY THAT THE PRIOR CODES GOT DELETED AND DISAPPEARED, AND I HAD TO DO SOME FORENSIC WORK TO FIND THE OLD CODE. SO

[03:10:02]

ARTICLE THREE. AND THEN IT'S. AND THEN DOES IT SAY IS IT HEADED DEFINITIONS DEFINITIONS.

SO IT WOULD BE, IT WOULD BE AS DEFINED SUB. YEAH. YOU KNOW IN THE IN THE CHAPTER OF SUBDIVISION OF LANDS DEFINITIONS. YEAH. WELL WHY DON'T WE JUST DO IT THE WAY OUR ATTORNEY PROPOSED IT AND THEN ASK THE TOWN TO AMEND THE CODE TO FIX THE ISSUE? AND IF THEY IF THEY AGREE WITH US THAT IT'S IT COULD BE PROBLEMATIC. THEY CAN FIX THE ISSUE BY THE TIME IT COMES BACK. AND THEN WE DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT IT, AND WE DON'T HAVE TO TRY AND DO REFERENCES TO STUFF THAT'S MOVING PARTS. BECAUSE IF IF THE TOWN BOARD THINKS I'M NOT WORRIED ABOUT THAT, THEN IT'S REALLY NOT OUR POSITION TO WORRY WOULD BE MOOT ANYWAYS.

CORRECT? I MEAN, IF YOU GUYS WOULD PREFER TO DO THAT, THAT'S FINE. I WAS JUST THINKING THE POINT WAS TO. BUT WE DON'T LEAVE THE WHY WE'RE LEAVING BREADCRUMB TRAIL. IN FACT, ATTORNEY JOSEPH GOGUEN AGAIN ONE JUST TO MAKE THE COMMENT WHEN I DISCUSSED IT WITH JUDGE JOSH, I USE THE EXACT SAME EXPRESSION, A BREADCRUMB TRAIL, EXACTLY THE SAME. SO IT'S THE SAME. WE'RE ON THE SAME PAGE. WHAT I WILL SAY IS GOING BACK TO THAT ARTICLE POINT IS OBVIOUSLY WE'RE AMENDING THE SUBDIVISION OF LAND. WE'VE ACTUALLY GOTTEN CAMMY'S COMMENTS ON IT. WE'VE GOTTEN COMMENTS ON IT. I THINK I PRESENTED IT TO THIS BOARD A COUPLE OF TIMES RIGHT NOW IN OUR PROPOSAL. WE ARE KEEPING IT SO WE'RE NOT CHANGING. CHAPTER 230. SO CHAPTER 230 WILL REMAIN SUBDIVISION OF LAND. SOME OF THE ARTICLES MAY CHANGE, BUT CHAPTER 230, CHAPTER TWO 3230 WILL STAY THE SAME. IT'LL STILL SAY CHAPTER 230 SUBDIVISION OF LAND, BUT THE ARTICLES WILL CHANGE. SO MAYBE WE DON'T REFERENCE THE ARTICLES, BUT WE JUST SAY REFER TO CHAPTER 230 SUBDIVISION OF LAND. YEAH THAT'S FINE, THAT'S FINE. OKAY, SO I'LL PULL UP THE WORD DOC AND THEN JOE, YOU MIGHT HAVE TO HELP WORDSMITH. WELL, WHILE YOU'RE DOING THAT, YOU KEEP DOING THAT, I'M GOING TO FILL SOME AIR. I DO JUST WANT TO NOTE FOR THE RECORD THAT IF YOU SAID THAT THE REQUIRED ROAD FRONTAGE WAS 40FT, I JUST AM CORRECTING THE RECORD THAT THE APPLICANT SAID THAT BASED ON THE FRONTAGE, THEY DIDN'T THINK THEY COULD SUBDIVIDE IT MORE THAN ONCE, AND THE LARGER PARCEL WILL HAVE 328FT OF FRONTAGE, WHICH WOULD ALLOW ONLY LOOKING AT FRONTAGE. I'M LOOKING AT ANYTHING ELSE MORE THAN ONE SUBDIVISION, OBVIOUSLY, AND SAME WITH THE SMALLER LOT. SO I DO JUST WANT TO FLAG THAT.

IF 40FT IS THE REQUIRED FRONTAGE, MORE THAN ONE SUBDIVISION IS ALLOWED ONLY BY THE FRONTAGE CRITERIA. NOT LOOKING AT THE REST OF IT, BUT YOU WOULD NEED TO MEET ANY OF THE OTHER LOT SIZE AND REQUIREMENTS FOR IT. THERE'S THERE'S ZERO FOOT SETBACKS FOR THE SIDES. SAYS WE GOT TWO HOURS, THREE MINUTES. YEP. OKAY, SO I DELETED ONE CONDITION THREE AND FOUR. JOE, YOUR LANGUAGE WOULD GO UNDER JUST CONDITIONS. SO THE PRELIMINARY PLAT FORMAL SUBDIVISION WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS WAIVERS AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS OKAY. SO. I WAS LOOKING. CONDITIONS. COMMON WAIVERS. ONE AND TWO WOULD STAY THE SAME.

AND THEN THREE ACKNOWLEDGES THAT 4091 GEOFFREY BOULEVARD WAS SUBJECT TO AN APPLICATION FOR. LOTS.

[03:15:13]

AUGGIE, I LIKE BILL. I NEVER EVEN GOT TO SING HAPPY BIRTHDAY. WHAT THE HECK? DID YOU JUST LISTEN? YOU GOTTA BE THE FAVORITE. THAT I HAVE TO BE WHERE I HAD TO BE ON MY BIRTHDAY. SO THEY TRIED TO MAKE IT AS PLEASANT AS POSSIBLE. OKAY. YOU GUYS, LIKE, EVERY THREE YEARS, BIRTHDAY GIRL. SO THERE'S THAT. SOUNDS AWFUL. SO IT'S LIKE, HOW DO YOU CELEBRATE? YEAH, IT WAS GOOD. IT WAS GOOD FRIDAY THIS YEAR. I WAS LIKE, WHO WANTS DRINKS? GREAT. NEVER TOLD ANYBODY. OH, NO, THAT WAS NOT SMART OF YOU. I'M GOING TO. OH I JUST I WAS GOING TO GET UP AND MOVE IT. I'M NOT TELLING YOU JUST IN CASE IT HAPPENS AGAIN. THE GOOGLE MACHINE IS ABOUT TO HELP ME WITH YOU. I'M GOOD. THANK YOU. SO YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE DINNER BEFORE I.

OH, YEAH. YOU FALL IN FIRST OR THIRD WEDNESDAY. SO IT'S NOT LIKE CUPCAKES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE AT 10 P.M. YOU KNOW, WOULD YOU LIKE TO KNOW I'M GOING TO COME TO YOU.

I'M COMING HERE BECAUSE THERE'S ONLY ONE THAT LEFT THAT I WANT. VANILLA. I LIKE A CHOCOLATE WITH A VANILLA TOP. ALL RIGHT. LOOKS GOOD. JUST DIDN'T WANT THE TOP VANILLA WITH VANILLA TOP. SO I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE. YOU HAVE TO READ IT. YOU HAVE TO READ THE WHOLE THING. AND RMB HOLDINGS LLC TWO LOT SUBDIVISION 4021 JEFFREY BOULEVARD. NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND APPROVAL RESOLUTION. AUGUST 20TH, 2025. SEEKER. IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE NEW YORK STATE SECRET LAW, THE TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD HAS REVIEWED THE TWO LOT SUBDIVISION PROPOSED BY RMV HOLDINGS LLC, TO BE LOCATED ON 4021 JEFFREY BOULEVARD, SBL NUMBER 159 .16-12.2. THIS PROJECT IS LOCATED WITHIN THE RAVENWOOD NORTH INDUSTRIAL PARK, WHICH HAS WHICH WAS THE SUBJECT OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT BASED ON THE PRELIMINARY PLAT REVIEW OF THE SUBMITTED MATERIALS AND INPUT FROM OTHER DEPARTMENTS, AND REVIEW OF THE PREVIOUSLY COMPLETED EIS. THE PLANNING BOARD HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FINDINGS, AND IS NOT ANTICIPATED TO RESULT IN ANY SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT, AND THAT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS HEREBY ISSUED AND THE PLANNING BOARD CHAIR IS AUTHORIZED TO SIGN THE EAF, WHICH ACTS AS THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION. SECOND, IT'S BEEN MOVED. AND SECOND, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? I PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL. THE HAMBURG TOWN, THE HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD HEREBY GRANTS PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL FOR THE RMV HOLDINGS LLC TWO LOT SUBDIVISION WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS, WAIVERS AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. THE INSTALLATION OF SIDEWALKS IS NOT WARRANTED. SEEGER WILL BE COMPLETED ON ANY PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IN THE FUTURE ON THE VACANT PARCELS CREATED BY THE SUBDIVISION. THE HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD ACKNOWLEDGES THAT 491 JEFFREY BOULEVARD WAS SUBJECT TO AN APPLICATION OF MINOR SUBDIVISION ON MARCH 5TH, 2025 AND APPROVED ON MAY 7TH, 2025, AND THE CURRENT APPLICATION WAS SUBMITTED ON AUGUST 6TH, 2025. FINALLY, THE PLAN HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD WAIVES THE COMPLETION OF THE FINAL PLAT, AND THE HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD CHAIR IS AUTHORIZED TO SIGN THE PRELIMINARY PLAT. ONCE THE TOWN ENGINEER SIGNS OFF ON THE PLAT, IT'S BEEN MOVED. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND? IT'S BEEN MOVED IN SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? I MOTION PASSES. THANK YOU.

[03:20:04]