Nov 19, 2025 11-19-2025 PB Meeting

[WORK SESSION ]

[00:00:04]

DELAY. I GOTTA GO UP THERE ANYWAY. YES. WHAT. WE'RE GOING TO DO OUR WORK SESSION. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. OUR WORK SESSION SAYS THAT OAKS. THE OAKS OF SOUTH PARK IS FIRST. HOWEVER, WHAT WE'RE DOING IS WE'RE GOING TO MOVE THE PLANNING BOARD DISCUSSION ABOUT THE VARIOUS ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS FIRST, BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO BE SHORT, AND THEN WE CAN PROCEED WITH THE. CONTINUING WITH THE WORK SESSION. SO, MISTER ROGERS, COULD YOU PLEASE BRING US UP TO DATE? SURE. I WILL CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION THAT WE HAD FROM THE PREVIOUS PLANNING BOARD MEETING. JUST FOR THE RECORD, JOSHUA ROGERS, PLANNING DEPARTMENT. I ALSO HAVE JEFF SCRIPT WITH ME FROM THE CODE ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT. HE WILL HAVE SOME CODE UPDATES RELATED TO FINE SCHEDULES BEFORE HE GOES UP. I JUST WANTED TO BRING BACK, IF YOU GUYS RECALL, WE TALKED ABOUT CHAPTER 227 IN THE TOWN CODE ABOUT UNSAFE SIDEWALKS. THIS CAME OUT OF SPEAKING WITH THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, WHO BROUGHT THIS ISSUE DOWN TO CODE REVIEW OF THE NUMBER OF DAYS OR TIME FRAME THAT A RESIDENT HAS TO CORRECT SIDEWALKS WHEN THEY'RE DEEMED TO BE INSUFFICIENT. FROM THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, WE BROUGHT IT TO CODE REVIEW, WHERE THE ORIGINAL SUGGESTION FROM ENGINEERING WAS 90 DAYS. WE TALKED ABOUT IT AT CODE REVIEW, WHICH IS MADE UP OF MYSELF, PLANNING CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE ZONING BOARD, OUR DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY. IT'S A VERY DIVERSE GROUP. WE THEN SUGGESTED 180 DAYS. THE REASON FOR THAT BEING THAT A LOT OF TIMES YOU CAN'T EVEN GET A CONTRACTOR TO START EVEN LOOKING AT DOING WORK WITHIN THREE MONTHS, A LOT OF TIMES. SO WE SUGGESTED 180 DAYS. I THEN BROUGHT IT TO THIS BOARD. TWO WEEKS AGO. OUR TOWN ATTORNEY HAPPENED TO BE AT THAT MEETING, WHO THEN SUGGESTED THAT IT SHOULD BE 90 DAYS AGAIN. AND ONCE AGAIN, THIS BOARD IS RESPONSIBLE FOR GIVING A RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN BOARD FOR APPROVAL. SO I WANTED TO BRING IT BACK TO SEE, YOU KNOW, NOW THAT WE'VE HAD A LITTLE BIT MORE TIME TO DIGEST IT, IF YOU WANTED TO GO WITH THE 90 DAYS BASED OFF THE TOWN ATTORNEY, IF YOU WANT TO KEEP IT 180 DAYS IF YOU WANTED TO CHANGE IT, AND THEN THAT WOULD BE THE OFFICIAL RECOMMENDATION THAT GOES TO THE TOWN BOARD. THERE WILL BE A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ON THE DECEMBER 8TH TOWN BOARD MEETING. I'M. CAN I ADD SOMETHING TO THAT? THANK YOU, JOSH, FOR THAT EXPLANATION.

WE WERE JUST BACK IN CODE REVIEW, AND A SUGGESTION WAS MADE THAT INSTEAD OF THE 180 AND INSTEAD OF THE 90 TO GO TO SPLIT IT TO 120. SO THAT'S, THAT COULD BE OUT THERE AS WELL.

SO DOES ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANYTHING TO OFFER IN REGARDS TO THAT? MEMBER? MCCORMICK I KIND OF LIKE THE 120 IDEA. YEAH, I DO TOO. SO BRIAN, DO YOU LIKE THE MEMBERS? MEMBER MEMBER STEWART I THINK THE 120 WOULD WORK IF IT'S LET'S SAY YOUR SIDEWALK NEEDS TO BE REPAIRED IN DECEMBER AND YOU GOT THREE, FOUR MONTHS AND YOU STILL IT'S STILL TOO COLD. THEY CAN POSSIBLY DO A VARIANCE TO EXTEND IT A MONTH, TO KIND OF WORK WITH THE CONTRACTOR.

THAT'D BE MY OKAY. ANYONE ELSE? MEMBER RYAN. MEMBER RYAN I DO LIKE THE 120 DAYS BETTER. OKAY, SO WITHOUT BELABORING THE POINT, I THINK MAYBE THAT SHOULD BE I THINK WE'RE PRETTY MUCH IN AGREEMENT THEN. IS THERE ANY OPPOSITE? I CONCUR WITH 120. OKAY. MEMBER CLERK OKAY. AND THEN IS THIS BOARD COMFORTABLE WITH IN TERMS OF ASKING FOR AN EXTENSION THAT WOULD JUST BE HANDLED EXCLUSIVELY WITH THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT? WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ENFORCEMENT OF THIS, THIS CODE AND EVERYTHING? OKAY. IS THAT IS THAT COMFORTABLE FOR YOU AS WELL? OKAY, RIGHT. I DID I ATTORNEY JOSEPH COGAN, I DID DISCUSS THAT WITH KEN FARRELL AS WELL.

I DID HAVE A BRIEF DISCUSSION WITH HIM ABOUT WHETHER SITUATIONS. IS THAT SOMETHING THAT YOU WANT TO CODIFY INTO THIS, INTO THE STATUTE THAT IT'S THE DISCRETION OF THE BECAUSE OF WEATHER OR JUST LEAVE IT 120 AND THEN LEAVE IT OPEN ENDED? BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S DANGEROUS TO NOT TO HAVE IT ARBITRARY AND NOT SOMETHING THAT'S SPECIFICALLY STATED IN THE. I DON'T KNOW IF THE BOARD THOUGHT OF THAT. I'M JUST SO TO DO THE 120 WITHOUT ANY RECOMMENDATION. IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? NO, BUT HE JUST MADE A COMMENT. MR. STEWART MADE THE COMMENT ABOUT 120 DAYS, BUT IF IT'S STILL BAD WEATHER, THEY COULD ASK FOR A VARIANCE.

BUT IS THAT SOMETHING THAT YOU WOULD WANT OR AN EXTENSION OF TIME? BUT IS THERE ANYTHING IN IN THE IN THE CODE THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR THAT EXTENSION OF TIME? I THINK IT'S IN THE LANGUAGE BEHIND MEMBER MCCORMACK, ISN'T IT, IF THAT NOTICE IS ISSUED BETWEEN THESE DATES, DOESN'T THAT COVER YOUR CONCERN? YEAH, I THINK IT'S ALREADY IN THE CODE. SO THIS SAYS THAT IF THE DEFICIENCY IS ISSUED BETWEEN THE MONTHS OF NOVEMBER 1ST AND APRIL 1ST, THEN THE DATE WHERE THE 180 DAY PERIOD, WELL, WE'LL CHANGE IT TO 120 WOULD COMMENCE ON APRIL 1ST. SO THAT DOESN'T NECESSARILY SAY IF IT'S OUTSIDE OF THAT TIME FRAME OF NOVEMBER

[00:05:02]

OKAY. SOUNDS LIKE A PLAN. ALL RIGHT. THAT'S IT FOR FOR MY ZONING CODE UPDATES FOR NOW. SO I'LL GIVE IT OVER TO TO I GOTTA GET MY DIARY AND WRITE THAT DOWN BECAUSE THAT'S THE SHORTEST TALK. YOU. OH YOU'LL BE BACK. THAT'S RIGHT. MR. JEFF. ALL RIGHT, JEFFREY, SUPERVISING CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, TOWN OF HAMBURG. I HAVE FOUR. WE HAVE FOUR AMENDMENTS THAT ARE COMING UP FOR A PUBLIC HEARING DECEMBER 8TH FOR THE CODE. THE FIRST TWO ARE KIND OF TIED TOGETHER. BASICALLY, WE'RE LOOKING TO TAKE ANY CODE SECTION OUT THAT HAS A SPECIFIC FINE OR PENALTY. WHEN WE SEND SOMEBODY TO COURT. AND WHAT WE WANT TO DO IS WE WANT TO REPLACE THAT WITH A FINE AND PENALTY SCHEDULE THAT THE TOWN BOARD IS ABLE TO CHANGE AND ADJUST VIA A TOWN BOARD RESOLUTION AT ANY POINT OR TIME TO TIME, VERSUS HAVING TO GO THROUGH AND DO A LOCAL PROCEDURE TO CHANGE A FINE AMOUNT. SO THE FIRST ONE WOULD JUST ADD THE SECTION FOR SCHEDULE FINES AND PENALTIES. AND THE NEXT ONE IS GOING TO REMOVE ALL OF THE EXISTING NUMBERS IN THE CODE FOR FINES AND PENALTIES. FINES AND PENALTIES. THERE'S ABOUT THREE PAGES OF THEM. AND NUMBER THREE WOULD BE THE SAME THING FOR OUR SEWER PERMITS. OUR SEWER PERMITS ARE BASED OFF A SIZE OF WATER LINE AND TYPE OF PROJECT THAT IT IS, AND THEY WOULD HAVE TO BE CHANGED BY LOCAL LAW AT THIS POINT IN TIME TO CHANGE THE FEES FOR OUR PERMITS. I WANT TO REMOVE THAT AND THEN JUST PUT THEM INTO OUR PERMIT FEES THAT WE DO EVERY YEAR FOR THAT. AND THEN THE OTHER ONE WAS OUR CHAPTER 75 BRUSH GRASS AND WEEDS. 70 54B WAS KIND OF A RUN ON AND I JUST WANT TO SPLIT UP. IN THE MIDDLE OF THAT AND JUST HAVE MAKE THAT A SEPARATE SECTION AND ADD A SECTION C NOT CHANGING ANY WORDS, NOT CHANGING HOW IT SAYS, JUST MAKING IT MORE CLEAR OF WHAT WE DO. ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT? I WAS KIND OF JUST SO SO YOU'LL SEE ON THE SCREEN. THE REASON I DIDN'T GIVE YOU THE PAPERWORK FOR IT IS IT'S LIKE 56 SOMETHING. IT'S IT'S A LOT OF PAGES, 40 PAGES LONG ESSENTIALLY. SO I BROUGHT IT UP ON THE SCREEN. THIS WAS ALSO ON THE TOWN BOARD AGENDA. SO JEFF TOOK OUT EVERY PLACE WHERE FINE WAS IN THE CODE, AND IT'S PULLING IT OUT AND MAKING IT BY RESOLUTION, BECAUSE IF WE WANTED TO, LET'S SAY WE WANTED TO CHANGE THE CODE FOR EXCAVATION OF SOIL, WE WOULD TECHNICALLY HAVE TO AMEND TOWN CODE, WHICH TAKES A REFERRAL TO THE COUNTY. YOU KNOW, GOING THROUGH THE LOCAL LAW ADOPTION PROCESS VERSUS IF IT'S BY RESOLUTION, THE TOWN BOARD CAN DO IT BY RESOLUTION. SO THIS IS JUST A LIST OF THERE WAS A TON OF CODES THAT WERE IN THERE. I GIVE A LOT OF CREDIT TO JEFF BECAUSE HE DID IT ALL ON HIS OWN. HE DIDN'T ASK ME FOR HELP FOR THIS ONE. SO THIS IS JUST A VIEW OF ALL THE DIFFERENT CODES THAT HE DID. THAT'S WHY YOU DON'T HAVE THE PAPERWORK BECAUSE IT WAS VERY DENSE. OKAY.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION QUESTIONS? CLARIFICATIONS. MEMBER MCCORMICK I JUST WANTED TO SAY I THINK THIS IS A GOOD IDEA BECAUSE OFTENTIMES THESE LAWS DON'T GO WITH THE PACE OF INFLATION. AND THERE BECOMES A POINT IN TIME AT WHICH TIME PEOPLE JUST PAY THE FINE BECAUSE IT'S CHEAPER THAN DOING THE WORK THAT'S REQUIRED. THAT'S RIGHT. YEAH, THAT THAT WAS KIND OF THE POINT OF THIS WAS THAT IT COULD EASILY BE CHANGED TO COINCIDE WITH WHAT IT SHOULD BE. NOW, INSTEAD OF HAVING TO GO THROUGH THE WHOLE LOCAL LAW PROCESS, WHICH IS MONTHS AND MONTHS AND MONTHS. I DON'T THINK THAT THERE'S ANY. IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION OR QUESTIONS FROM ANYBODY? NO, I, I THINK EVERYONE'S IN AGREEMENT. SO IF YOU DON'T NEED ANYTHING ELSE FOR US, YOU WEREN'T. WE'RE IN AGREEMENT. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, THANK YOU.

GOOD JOB. YEAH. GOOD JOB IS RIGHT. HE REALLY. IT WAS OURS. IT WAS. IT WAS PAIN. PAINFUL, BUT A GREAT A GREAT FINISHED PRODUCT. SO OUR NEXT WE ARE STILL IN THE WORK SESSION. AND

[00:10:02]

AND THIS EVENING, I DON'T KNOW WHO'S GOING TO SPEAK IS YOU'RE GOING. OKAY. IF YOU WOULD PLEASE GRAB THE MICROPHONE, STATE YOUR NAME AND SPELL IT FOR OUR RECORD, PLEASE, AND THEN PROCEED. YOU MAY WANT TO TAKE THAT RIGHT OUT OF THE STAND. GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS JOHN BARNIAK WITH CARMINA WOOD DESIGN. THAT'S BARNIAK B A R N I A K M. YEAH, YEAH. OKAY, SO THIS EVENING WE'RE SEEKING THE MODIFICATION TO THE PREVIOUS THE APPROVED SITE PLAN. THE PREVIOUS PLAN INCLUDED A BOARD ON BOARD FENCE TO BE INSTALLED ALONG THE EXISTING VEGETATION LINE ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE SITE, INSTALLED FROM BUILDING B ALL THE WAY TO BAYVIEW ROAD.

THE VEGETATION LINE ON THE BOARD IN FRONT OF ME IS HIGHLIGHTED GREEN TO INDICATE THE EXISTING VEGETATION LINE. HOWEVER, WE'RE NOW PROPOSING TO INSTALL ONLY 96 LINEAR FEET OF FENCE BEHIND BUILDING B. WE BELIEVE THAT THE VEGETATION ALONG THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE PROVIDES SUFFICIENT SCREENING BETWEEN THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH.

THERE'S A THERE'S AN AERIAL HANDOUT THAT WAS PASSED OUT, AND IT SHOWS THE EXISTING VEGETATION IS WELL DEFINED AND IT CONSISTS PRIMARILY OF OF MATURE TREES, A MIX OF UNDERBRUSH. BUT BUT WE DO BELIEVE IT'S A WELL DEFINED AND AND IN GOOD CONDITION. WE ALSO BELIEVE THAT THE THAT THERE'S A BENEFIT TO KEEPING THE ON SITE WALKING TRAIL OPEN ON ON THE OAKS PROPERTY TO ALLOW THE NATURAL FEATURES INSTEAD OF BEING BLOCKED BY A BOARD ON BOARD FENCE. SO THIS EVENING, WE'RE JUST REQUESTING THE PLANNING BOARD'S INPUT ON THE MATTER, AND I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVE. SO I, I THINK THAT THE WE HAVE A A DRONE RECORDING OF THIS AREA, WHICH WOULD ANSWER A LOT OF QUESTIONS. AND I THINK WE SHOULD GO AHEAD AND PLAY IT. SO THAT, IN FACT IS THE TREE LINE RIGHT THERE THAT THEY'RE REFERRING TO THAT GOES ALONG AND THE WALKWAY IS IN THERE AS WELL, AND IT GOES ALL THE WAY BACK TO THE STORMWATER POND. AS MATTER OF FACT, WHEN YOU GO BACK THERE, YOU'RE NOT EVEN SURE THAT YOU'RE COMING UP WITH A STORMWATER POND BECAUSE IT'S SO OVERGROWN. AND SO, JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, THE DISCUSSION IN THE ORIGINAL SITE PLAN WAS TO PUT A FENCE AND AND THE FENCE, IN ESSENCE, WOULD AFFECT THE TREE GROWTH THAT'S THERE. AND THE BUFFER. AND YOU COULD SEE THAT THE TREES THERE ARE PRETTY THICK AS WELL AS MATURE, WHICH I WISH EVERY PROPERTY LINE WOULD BE LIKE THAT. AND THEN THE OTHER PLACE THAT WE'RE TALKING, CAN WE STOP THAT RIGHT THERE? SO IF YOU BACK IT UP A LITTLE BIT, IS WHERE THE FENCE THAT YOU'RE REQUESTING IS BEHIND THAT CONDO, IS THAT ACTUALLY IT'S FURTHER UP. OH, OKAY. GO AHEAD. IS THAT BUILDING BUILDING B IS UP TO THE RIGHT. IT'S THE FIRST. YEP. UP IN THE UPPER RIGHT HAND CORNER OKAY. GOOD THERE. YEAH YOU'RE RIGHT, YOU'RE RIGHT, YOU'RE RIGHT. YEAH. OKAY. AND IT BLOCKS IT FROM THAT PART. YEAH. THAT'S RIGHT OKAY. TO CLARIFY IS THE FENCE NUMBER MCCORMICK. YEAH. IS THE FENCE GOING? FROM HERE ALL THE WAY BACK ALONG THE ROUTE? WE JUST TALKED ABOUT NOT GOING FROM HERE TO THE FRONT FRONTAGE OF THE PROPERTY. CORRECT. THE FENCE. THE FENCE IS ADJACENT TO THE EXISTING PARKING. THAT'S OPPOSITE BUILDING B. COULD YOU POINT TO THE SURE EXHIBIT YOU HAVE? YES. IT'S HIGHLIGHTED RIGHT HERE. I GUESS, IF WE'RE LOOKING AT IT. LIKE THAT. SO YOU WANT TO INCLUDE THE RED. THAT'S THE 96. THAT'S THE NEW CONCEPT AND NOT DO ANY OF THE GREEN. RIGHT. BECAUSE THAT'S THE EXISTING VEGETATION. AND WHAT ABOUT THE GREEN FENCE NORTH I GUESS IT'S NORTH NORTH NORTH TOWARDS 62. YES. SO THE

[00:15:02]

IT'S THE SAME DENSITY. AND THEN WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE 96FT? WELL IN MY OPINION IT'S IT'S DEFINITELY TO BLOCK THE MAIN ROAD HEADLIGHTS PRIMARILY OR NOISE FROM THE, THE NEIGHBORS DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF OR BEHIND THE. REMEMBER MCCORMICK. WE HAD A TON OF PUBLIC COMMENT. I JUST WANT TO FLAG WHEN WE REVIEWED THIS ORIGINALLY, THAT THERE WAS EXTENSIVE FEEDBACK FROM THE NEIGHBORS AND THE REQUEST AT THE TIME FOR THIS FENCING AND THIS ADDITIONAL SCREENING IN THIS AREA BUILD. IS THAT YOUR RECOLLECTION AS WELL? IT IS. AND I, I THOUGHT THE FENCE WAS ON THE PROPERTY LINE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE TREES, BECAUSE I REMEMBER WE WERE LOOKING AT THE AERIAL VIEWS AND WE THOUGHT SOME OF THE BACKYARDS WENT INTO WHERE THE FENCE WOULD GO, BUT I THINK WE WERE OKAY WITH THAT AT THE TIME. SO I'M TRYING TO LOOK AT THE OLD STUFF TO SEE WHERE THAT WAS, BECAUSE THERE'S A DOTTED LINE ON HIS PLAN THAT I THOUGHT WAS ACTUALLY THE FENCE, NOT THE GREEN LINE. THAT WAS MISS MCCORMICK. THAT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING AS WELL, IS THAT IT WAS CLOSER TO THE PROPERTY LINE. ANY OTHER BOARD MEMBER? AUGUST, WHAT IS THE ADVANTAGE OR DISADVANTAGE OF REMOVING THAT PORTION OF FENCE? I MEAN, THERE'S GOT TO BE A REASON WHY YOU WANT A PORTION OF IT REMOVED. WHAT IS THE ADVANTAGE OF IT AND WHAT IS THE DISADVANTAGE IF WE DON'T APPROVE IT? WELL, I THINK THAT THE ADVANTAGE OF, OF NOT PUTTING IN THAT FENCE ALONG THE VEGETATION LINE IS THE, THE POSSIBLE AND MOST PROBABLE DAMAGE TO EXISTING VEGETATION IN THE AREA, JUST TO PUT FENCING IN, YOU'D HAVE TO CLEAR OUT THE CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF AREA JUST TO, YOU KNOW, INSTALL A FENCE. AND I THINK THAT THAT VEGETATION IS SO OVERGROWN OVERGROWTH. I AGREE WITH YOU ON THAT PART. I WENT THROUGH THERE YESTERDAY AND IT'S IT'S PRETTY THICK. IT'S VERY ANTHONY KATAYA, THE FORMER DEVELOPER OF THE SITE. THE OPEN AREA THAT WE'RE RECOMMENDING IS OPEN TO THE HOUSES. HE HAS TO HAVE THE MIC SO THEY CAN HEAR IT. YEAH, ANTHONY KATAI IS MY NAME. IT'S OPEN TO THESE HOUSES WHERE WE'RE PROPOSING, AND IT'S THE ONLY AREA THAT'S OPEN WITHOUT MUCH VEGETATION THE REST OF THE WAY, ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THE OTHER ROAD IS THERE'S A CONSERVATION EASEMENT IN THE MIDDLE, TOO. SO THERE'S TWO REASONS. NUMBER ONE, THE VEGETATION IS VERY DENSE IN THERE. AND NUMBER TWO, THERE IS A CONSERVATION EASEMENT THERE.

SO WE'RE PROPOSING OUTSIDE OF THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT TO PUT A FENCE ON OUR PROPERTY AND TO SCREEN FROM THE OPEN AREA THAT THERE ARE BACKYARDS THAT IT'S OPEN TO. OKAY. MEMBER SHIMURA, JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, THERE IS NO EXISTING FENCE. THAT'S CORRECT. THERE'S NO FENCE THERE. SO IT'S THE ONLY THE ONLY FENCING THAT WOULD BE INSTALLED IS IN THE GAP OF THE BUFFER. RIGHT. OKAY. AND THIS IS SEAN HOPKINS, AND I WASN'T PLANNING ON SPEAKING, BUT I WAS ACTUALLY. YOU HAVE TO. CAN EVERYONE HEAR ME? I WAS VERY INVOLVED IN THE REVIEW PROCESS, INCLUDING THE MANY MEETINGS THAT WE HAD WITH THE NEIGHBORS. AND IF I ACTUALLY GO BACK TO MY MEMORY, THE PRIMARY CONCERN THAT A COUPLE OF THE RESIDENTS HAD AT THAT TIME, IN TERMS OF THE FENCE WAS BASICALLY THEY DIDN'T WANT RESIDENTS FROM THE PROJECT TRESPASSING INTO THEIR YARDS. OBVIOUSLY, THAT HAS NEVER OCCURRED. WE'RE NEARLY A DECADE LATER, AND MANY OF THE RESIDENTS ACTUALLY SAID THEY WOULD PRESERVE. THEY WOULD PREFER THAT THE EXISTING VEGETATION REMAIN. OBVIOUSLY, THAT VEGETATION HAS BECOME MORE MATURE IN THE PAST SEVEN YEARS.

SO I THINK THIS IS A COMPLETELY REASONABLE REQUEST. I ALSO WANT TO NOTE, IF YOU RECALL THE ORIGINAL PLAN, A COUPLE OF YOU MAYBE DO. WE ACTUALLY DIDN'T HAVE THAT CONSERVATION AREA.

THAT CONSERVATION AREA WAS SPECIFICALLY ADDED BASED ON INPUT FROM NOT ONLY THIS BOARD BUT THE RESIDENTS. SO I THINK THE PROJECT CAME OUT WONDERFUL. MR. KATAYA HONORED ALL THE OBLIGATIONS AND COMMITMENTS HE MADE TO THE RESIDENTS OVER THE COURSE OF MANY MEETINGS, AND THIS SEEMS LIKE A RELATIVELY INNOCUOUS REQUEST, ESPECIALLY GIVEN THAT WE'RE GOING TO PUT A FENCE IN IN THAT GAP WHERE THERE'S POTENTIALLY A VIEWSHED. NOW, WHY WHY TAKE DOWN TREES TO

[00:20:03]

CONSTRUCTION HAPPENED. THIS HAS BEEN OPERATIONAL. WHAT HAPPENED THAT THE FENCE WAS NEVER PUT IN IN THE FIRST PLACE? I THINK THAT WAS SIMPLY AN OVERSIGHT BY THE ACTUAL SITE CONTRACTOR.

THEY HAD THE FULLY ENGINEERED PLANS, AND I THINK MAYBE THEY MADE THE DECISION IN THE FIELD NOT TO INSTALL IT. WELL, I'M SORRY, BUT DIDN'T THE WAIT A MINUTE, DIDN'T THE CONSERVATION DEED PLAY THE RESTRICTION OF DEEDS PLAY INTO THIS? YEAH, THERE'S A CONSERVATION EASEMENT ON THAT PROPERTY. NO. IT'S SEPARATE. THAT WAS AS PART OF THE SITE PLAN PROCESS. WE PUT IN THE AND THAT'S A DIFFERENT PART OF THE SITE. SO I THINK THE OTHER THING JUST TO FLAG IS THAT AND THEY WERE ADDRESSED. BUT THERE WERE ALSO STORMWATER ISSUES DURING CONSTRUCTION THAT WERE MANAGED ON THAT SITE. THEY HAD CODE ENFORCEMENT, HAD TO GO OUT AND WORK ON A COUPLE OF THINGS, BECAUSE THERE HAD BEEN A COMPLAINT WHICH WAS RESOLVED. THEY DID. THEY GOT WHERE THEY WERE GOING. BUT. I DON'T DISAGREE WITH ANYTHING YOU JUST SAID ABOUT THE TREES AND THE FENCE, BUT IT'S CONCERNING TO ME THAT THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO HAVE BEEN PUT IN THERE TO PROTECT THE NEIGHBORS, AND IT WASN'T. AND THAT THAT'S A PIECE TO ME THAT IS A LITTLE BIT CONCERNING, BECAUSE THAT WAS VISUAL AND MAINTENANCE MITIGATION FOR THOSE NEIGHBORS THAT THEY HAD ASKED FOR AT THE TIME. I GUESS MY RESPONSE WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, WHAT'S THERE TODAY IS MORE THAN ADEQUATE. AND WE JUST AGAIN, IF YOU LOOK AT THE HISTORY OF THE MANY PROJECTS THAT MR. HAS SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETED IN WESTERN NEW YORK OVER THE COURSE OF THE PAST 25 YEARS, IF WE THOUGHT THE FENCE WAS NECESSARY TO PROVIDE AN EFFECTIVE BUFFER, WE WOULD JUST INSTALL IT. WE THINK IT'S NOT A GOOD IDEA FROM A PLANNING PERSPECTIVE TO GO BACK, REMOVE VEGETATION AND THEN INSTALL A FENCE. IT JUST, YOU KNOW, WE'RE INSTALLING IT WHERE THERE'S GAPS. BUT IN THIS PARTICULAR LOCATION, LOOKING BACK NOW, THAT PROBABLY WASN'T THE RIGHT DECISION. AND THAT CAN OCCUR ON PROJECTS. AND I DO WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR AGAIN, THE PLANNING BOARD, FIRST OF ALL, DESERVES A LOT OF THE CREDIT BECAUSE THEY WORKED WITH US ON THE LAYOUT, BUT WE REALLY MADE A CONCERTED EFFORT TO WORK WITH THE RESIDENTS HERE. I MEAN, AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN. THE PROJECT WAS MODIFIED TOO MANY

[00:25:01]

SO WHY IS IT I GUESS THE QUESTION IS, IS WHY? WHY NOW? IS THIS COMING TO US AT THIS JUNCTURE? WAS THAT PART OF JUST A REVIEW TO MAKE SURE EVERYTHING WAS IN THERE? I THINK ENGINEERING CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION. CAMMIE GERALD, TOWN ENGINEER JUST SO YOU'RE AWARE, IT ACTUALLY IS COMING UP BECAUSE THEY HAVE FINISHED ALL THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PROJECT. CURRENTLY, THE COMMUNITY BUILDING THAT YOU CAN KIND OF SEE JUST AT THE MIDDLE CENTER ACTUALLY STILL HAS AN OPEN SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT. AND TYPICALLY WHAT HAPPENS IS THEN ENGINEERING GOES OUT AND WE LITERALLY CHECK ALL THE LANDSCAPING TO BE SURE EVERY TREE AND BUSH AND SO ON. GOT THERE FENCES, DUMPSTERS, LIKE THOSE SITE FEATURES THAT ARE NOT REALLY PART OF YOUR BUILDING PERMIT BUT ARE PART OF THE SITE AS A WHOLE. AND SO WE HAVE BEEN OUT THERE, ENGINEERING HAS BEEN OUT THERE MULTIPLE TIMES, AND THAT'S WHERE THE FENCE ISSUE HAS REALLY COME UP FOR US. SO WE HAVE OPEN ITEMS WITH THIS SITE AND FOR THEM TO CLOSE IT, THEY NEED TO MAKE ENGINEERING SATISFY ENGINEERING UNDER THEIR SITE. AND THAT FENCE CAME UP BECAUSE WE POINTED OUT IT'S ON YOUR APPROVED SITE PLAN. YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO HAVE A FENCE. SO THAT OPENED THIS CONVERSATION, I THINK ON OUR END. YEAH. AND NO ONE'S NO ONE'S TAKING EXCEPTION WITH THAT STATEMENT. THE FENCE WAS SHOWN ON THE APPROVED PLAN. YOU KNOW, WE DON'T DENY THAT. BUT AGAIN, GIVEN THE EFFORT THAT WE MADE TO WORK WITH SO MANY STAKEHOLDERS, RESIDENTS, HILBERT MUNICIPAL BOARDS, I JUST I JUST THINK THIS IS A PRETTY MINOR REQUEST. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? MEMBER SHIMURA I UNDERSTAND THE CONCERN ABOUT THE TIMING OF THE FENCE NOT BEING INSTALLED AND ETC. BUT I THINK THAT THIS IS A MOMENT WHERE WE WORKED OUT FOR THE BETTER, AND THAT 96FT OF FENCE IS A, I THINK, A GOOD WAY TO WRAP UP THE PROJECT, AND ALSO A REALLY FANTASTIC WAY OF SHOWING THAT BUFFERING IT CAN HAPPEN AND JUST TAKES TIME, BUT IT REALLY DOES MAKE A DIFFERENCE.

I, I THINK WE SHOULD HERE SET SOMETHING UP SO WE CAN HEAR FROM THE RESIDENTS ON TWILIGHT.

THAT WAS IT WAS A BIG THING THEY WANTED. THIS WAS A VERY THIS PROJECT WAS REALLY CLOSE TO BEING A POSITIVE DECK. IT WAS A43 DECISION. IT WAS IN THE FENCE WAS PART OF THE REASONING TO NOT SEND IT THAT WAY. IF NOW, SEVEN YEARS LATER, WE DON'T THINK WE NEED IT BECAUSE OF THE WAY THINGS WORKED OUT, THAT'S FINE. BUT I THINK THAT'S THE PEOPLE I WANT TO HEAR FROM THE PEOPLE ON TWILIGHT, IF THEY BELIEVE THAT. WELL, WE COULD DO BELLS. WE'RE KIND OF TREATING THIS LIKE AMENDED SITE PLAN APPROVAL SO WE CAN HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS AMENDED SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR THIS PROJECT, WHERE WE'LL NOTICE PEOPLE 500FT FROM THE PROPERTY AND PEOPLE WILL GET A NOTICE WHO ARE WITHIN 500FT, HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING. AND THEN FROM THERE, WE CAN BASICALLY AMEND SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR THIS PROJECT SO WE CAN TREAT IT LIKE THAT. IF THAT ALLEVIATES YOUR CONCERN, MEMBER MCCOURT WOULD AGREE THAT WITH BILL'S SUGGESTION OF GETTING FEEDBACK FROM THE NEIGHBORS. CAN WE PUT IT ON THE NEXT. NO. WE HAVE TO HAVE TIME TO SEND OUT NOTICES. IF YOU AUTHORIZE IT FOR THE DECEMBER 3RD MEETING, THEN IT'LL TIME TO NOTICE EVERYBODY. YEP. OKAY. ALL RIGHT THEN, BASED ON THE RECOMMENDATION FROM TWO OF THE BOARD MEMBERS, I'M GOING TO ASK THE REST OF THE BOARD DO BECAUSE WE CAN'T VOTE. IT'S A WORK SESSION, SO WE CAN'T VOTE ON THIS, WHICH IS WHY THIS SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN IN A WORK SESSION. BUT I'LL SAVE THAT. SO HAVING NOT BEEN A PART OF THAT PREVIOUS PROJECT AND UNDERSTANDING THE DEPTH AND BREADTH OF PROBABLY PUBLIC COMMENT THAT THE OTHER TWO BOARD MEMBERS WENT THROUGH, I WOULD SUPPORT GIVING A MOMENT FOR THE RESIDENTS TO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK. OKAY. THANK YOU. OTHER INPUT I SEE. OKAY, SO WE'RE ALL IN AGREEMENT TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL RIGHT. SO WE'LL GO AHEAD WITH THE PUBLIC HEARING. THAT WOULD BE AT YOUR NEXT MEETING. WE'RE JUST TRYING TO WRAP THIS UP. YES OKAY. YEAH. YES OKAY. SO WE'LL SEE YOU BACK HERE ON THE THIRD. AND ANYTHING THAT HAS TO HAPPEN WITH ANY RESOLUTIONS WE CAN'T DO ANYTHING. IT'S IN A WORK SESSION. WE CAN'T VOTE ON IT. NO, NOT VOTING ON IT. BUT GIVING YOU LIKE CAN YOU DO YOU HAVE TO DRAFT RESOLUTIONS? DO WE HAVE TO AUTHORIZE JUST A VERY QUICK AMENDED SITE PLAN APPROVAL RESOLUTION FOR THE THIRD IF IF YOU CHOOSE TO DO SO ON THAT DATE AS WELL, YOU CAN. THAT WOULD BE GREAT. YEAH. YEP. OKAY. WE'LL DO ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. OKAY. WE'LL SEE YOU BACK ON THE THIRD. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. YOU'RE WELCOME. OKAY. OUR

[00:30:05]

TO BE LOCATED ON A 7.46 ACRE PARCEL AT ZERO LAKESHORE ROAD. SBL 150.0016.2. OKAY, GOOD EVENING, ANTHONY PANDOLFI WITH CARMINA WOOD DESIGN. AS WAS MENTIONED, WE'RE HERE TO PRESENT A SKETCH PLAN FOR SIX CONTRACTOR SHOP WAREHOUSES LOCATED ON LAKESHORE ROAD. THE PROPERTY IS ABOUT SEVEN AND A HALF ACRES. IT'S ZONED M3 SO IT IS PROPERLY ZONED FOR THIS USE.

IT'S LOCATED BEHIND. I'M SORRY, IT'S LOCATED BEHIND 33,401 LAKESHORE ROAD. WE ACTUALLY HAVE THE PROPERTY OWNER WITH US. IT HE OWNS BOTH PROPERTIES. JUST TO GIVE YOU A POINT OF REFERENCE. THAT'S RIGHT. KIND OF ACROSS FROM THE GATEWAY BUILDING. JUST TO GIVE YOU A KIND OF POINT OF REFERENCE WHERE IT IS, WE'RE JUST LOOKING FOR ANY INPUT ON THE PRELIMINARY SKETCH PLAN SO THAT WE CAN MOVE AHEAD WITH A FORMAL SITE PLAN SUBMISSION. JOHN, DID YOU WANT A COUPLE THINGS? YEAH. AND AGAIN, SHAWN HOPKINS, AND IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS THE CLIENT IS HERE AS WELL. IN TERMS OF THIS PROJECT, WE ALREADY ME. YES. CAN I GET SOME ORDER IN THE ROOM SO EVERYBODY CAN HEAR? WE HAVE A SPEAKER AT THE PODIUM. IN TERMS OF THIS PROJECT, WE ALREADY KNOW THAT THERE IS SOME RESIDENT OPPOSITION. AND I WANT TO PUT THIS A LITTLE BIT IN CONTEXT BECAUSE I THINK IT'S HELPFUL. AS ANTHONY INDICATED, THIS SITE IS ACTUALLY CURRENTLY ZONED AND HAS BEEN ZONED M3. AND WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING IS A CONTRACTOR'S BUILDINGS WILL BE DONE. WELL. THEY ACTUALLY LIVE ON THE SITE. AND WE'RE NOT SAYING THIS AS A THREAT, BUT WHAT I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO COMPARE IT TO IS WHAT ELSE IS PERMITTED IN THAT M3 DISTRICT. AND IF YOU LOOK AT THAT DISTRICT, IT WOULD EXPRESSLY PERMIT A WIDE RANGE OF WHAT I BELIEVE IS MUCH, MUCH, MUCH MORE INTENSIVE USES. IT WOULD ALLOW A CONCRETE MANUFACTURING YARD, A LUMBER YARD, MANUFACTURING FACILITIES, AUTOMOTIVE REPAIRS AND AUTOMOTIVE MANUFACTURING, NONE OF WHICH WOULD BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD. WE THINK WE'VE COME UP WITH A PROJECT THAT WILL BE RELATIVELY INNOCUOUS. WE DO NOT DENY THE FACT THAT IT WILL BE A CHANGE COMPARED TO WHAT'S THERE TODAY.

OBVIOUSLY, THAT'S THE CASE. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT, AGAIN, TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE PROPERTY OWNERS ARE GOING TO LIVE ON THE SITE. THEY HAVE A VERY VESTED INTEREST IN THIS BEING SUCCESSFUL. AND THEN FINALLY, IF YOU LOOK AT THE M3 SECTION OF THE ZONING CODE, IT HAS WHAT I CALL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS IN TERMS OF MAKING SURE THAT THE PROPERTY LINES, THERE'S NO VIBRATIONS, THERE'S NO RISK OF EXPLOSION, THERE'S NO RISK OF FIRE, ETC. ETC. WE'RE AWARE OF THOSE REQUIREMENTS WILL COMPLY WITH THOSE REQUIREMENTS. BUT AGAIN, TONIGHT IS THE FIRST STEP. WE'D LIKE TO GET ANY INPUT YOU HAVE AND THEN BRING THIS BACK IN THE FUTURE.

OBVIOUSLY TO PROCEED WITH SITE PLAN APPROVAL. IS THERE ANYTHING YOU'D LIKE TO ADD? THANK YOU. COVERED IT. WE'RE LOOKING TO DO A FLEX STORAGE BUILDINGS FOR CONTRACTORS. YOU KNOW, I THOUGHT THIS WAS A VERY LIKE HE SAID FROM A SIMPLE STANDPOINT, THERE'S A LOT, YOU KNOW, MORE INTENSE THINGS YOU CAN DO WITH THE PROPERTY. EVERYTHING'S GOING TO BE INDOOR STORAGE. SHOULDN'T, YOU KNOW, BOTHER THE NEIGHBORS. ACCORDING TO THE PLAN WE HAVE, YOU CAN TAKE A LOOK AT IT. YOU KNOW, IT SHOULD GIVE THEM PRIVACY ON THEIR SIDE AND THEN ALSO WORKABILITY ON OUR SIDE. OKAY. ANYTHING ELSE? PLANNING DEPARTMENT. CAN YOU JUST QUICKLY WHETHER IT'S ANTHONY OR OR SEAN SPEAK TO YOU GUYS DO HAVE A WETLANDS DETERMINATION RIGHT FOR THIS SITE OR HAD WETLANDS DELINEATED ON THE SITE? I BELIEVE I'LL HAVE TO DOUBLE CHECK, BUT I BELIEVE WE HAD TO WALK OVER. DONE. THERE WAS NO WETLANDS IDENTIFIED ON THE SITE.

I BELIEVE THERE WERE WETLANDS IDENTIFIED ON AN ADJACENT SITE WITH ASSOCIATED 100 FOOT BUFFER.

BUT THAT BUFFER KIND OF DIES AT WHERE RUSH CREEK IS ON, ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. SO FROM WHAT I UNDERSTOOD IS WE WON'T HAVE ANY BUFFER IMPACTS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT BECAUSE THAT BUFFER KIND OF ENDS LIKE AT THE CREEK. YEAH. SO JUST FOR ORIENTATION ON THE SCREEN, YOU'RE MR. SANTA PROPERTY ENDS BASICALLY WHERE RUSH CREEK IS HERE. AND THEN THIS BLUE DOTTED LINE IS THE 100 FOOT BUFFER FROM A WETLAND THAT'S ON AN ADJACENT PROPERTY, NOT ON HIS.

OKAY. JUST WANT TO CLEAR ON OUR PROPERTY. AND NOTHING WAS IDENTIFIED. OKAY. UNDER THE CURRENT REGULATIONS THAT WENT INTO EFFECT ON JANUARY 1ST, NOW YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT OFFSITE

[00:35:06]

PEOPLE WHO LIVE WITHIN 500FT OF THE PROPERTY LINE WILL GET A NOTICE, SO THERE WILL BE AMPLE TIME FOR PEOPLE TO SPEAK. BUT YOU CAN SUBMIT LETTERS ON THE RECORD NOW. THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION. ENGINEERING. DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING, ANY INPUT AT THIS POINT? I KNOW IT'S PRELIMINARY. NO INPUT AT THIS TIME. OKAY. THANK YOU BOARD MEMBERS. I'M GOING TO OPEN IT UP TO THE BOARD. AND DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANYTHING? MEMBER MCCORMICK I WAS WAITING TO SEE IF ANYONE WANTED TO GO FIRST. CAN YOU CLARIFY? THE APPLICANT ALSO CURRENTLY RESIDES ON THE PROPERTY. AND SO THAT HOUSE IS AN EXISTING HOUSE AND IS NOT PART OF THIS DEVELOPMENT. HOW DOES THAT WORK WITH THE M3 ZONE? SO THE HOUSE IS AN EXISTING NON-CONFORMING USE. IT'S OKAY.

AND SO THAT WOULD REMAIN INTACT WITH NO ADJUSTMENTS AND THEN WOULD REMAIN OWNER OCCUPIED.

AND THEN THE OKAY. AND THE REASON WHY WE'RE EMPHASIZING THAT HOUSE WILL STAY THERE AND THAT THE APPLICANT LIVES THERE IS AGAIN THEY HAVE A VESTED INTEREST IN DOING THIS RIGHT.

BECAUSE THEY LIVE THERE. I THINK THAT'S AN IMPORTANT POINT IN THE MEMO AND ANALYSIS THAT JOSH MENTIONED. OBVIOUSLY, WE NEED A CHANCE TO TAKE A LOOK AT THAT. I'M NOT SURE I NECESSARILY AGREE THAT THESE WOULD BE CUSTOM SHOPS, BUT OBVIOUSLY, YOU KNOW, WE RESPECT JEFF'S OPINION AND LET US TAKE A LOOK AT THAT AND WE WILL RESPOND QUICKLY. IF YOU SEND US COPIES OF ANY SUBMISSIONS FROM RESIDENTS AND PAPERWORK. YEP. CAN YOU SPEAK JUST TO THE ACCESS PIECE OF HOW YOU'LL GET IN AND OUT OF ACCESS? I KNOW HE OWNS 3401, BUT CAN YOU JUST SPEAK TO THAT? YEAH. SO THERE'S. YEAH, THERE. THE THE EXISTING SITE HAS ACCESS TO THE BACK OF 3401 BECAUSE TECHNICALLY THIS IS A SEPARATE PARCEL BEHIND 3401. SO THE EXISTING SITE, THE EXISTING 3401 HAS, YOU KNOW, PAVED AREAS UP TO THIS PROPERTY LINE THAT WE WILL, WILL JUST CONNECT IN RIGHT THERE. SO BASICALLY ACCESS IT THROUGH 3401. I ASSUME THE APPLICANT WILL HAVE TO GIVE A CROSS ACCESS AGREEMENT TO THEMSELVES, WHICH YOU KNOW WON'T BE A PROBLEM. BUT YEAH, IT'LL BE ACCESSED THROUGH 3401 LAKESHORE ROAD. AND THEN TO THE EXTENT

[00:40:04]

WE'LL TAKE A LOOK AT THAT AS WELL. ANY OTHER BOARD MEMBERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS BEFORE I START ASKING QUESTIONS, I WOULD ASSUME THIS MIGHT BE ONE OF YOUR QUESTIONS. I WOULD ASSUME AS THIS PROGRESSES, THE BOARD WOULD ASK FOR A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF LANDSCAPING IN TERMS OF BUFFERING, ESPECIALLY TO THE NEIGHBORS WHO ARE I BELIEVE THAT'S NELSON AVENUE THAT'S NORTH OF THIS. LIKE I SAID, IT'S VERY PRELIMINARY. IT'S A CONCEPT SKETCH PLAN, BUT THAT'S SOMETHING TO START THINKING ABOUT AS YOU'RE ASKING QUESTIONS. YOU KNOW, WHAT TYPE OF LANDSCAPING AND BUFFERING YOU WOULD WANT TO SEE. AND THEN OBVIOUSLY HEARING FROM RESIDENTS AND NEIGHBORS ON ON WHAT THEY WOULD BE ASKING FOR AS WELL. SO THANK YOU. MEMBERS.

MORE MEMBER SHIMURA MEMBERS. WHEN LOOKING AT THE AERIAL VIEW FROM GOOGLE MAPS, YOU CAN SEE THAT THE PARCEL HAS LIKE NO TREES ON IT, BUT YET RIGHT UP AGAINST TO RUSH CREEK. SO WAS THAT TREE CLEARING DONE BY VIRTUE OF A PERMIT? SHE READ MY MIND. WE WERE, WE WERE THEY WERE ON THE CODE. ENFORCEMENT WAS OUT THERE. WE MOWED THE PROPERTY. WE HAVE ATTRACTED WE MOLD THE PROPERTY WITH. AND THEY WERE OUT THERE AND THEY DECIDED TO GIVE ME A LETTER STATING THAT IT WAS OUT. BUT THE ACTUAL TREE CLEARING, THERE'S BEEN TREES LEFT, BUT ALL THE LARGE TREES ARE STILL ON. THERE'S JUST SCRUB BRUSH THAT DOESN'T GO DOWN. IS THERE ANY SORT OF DOCUMENTATION GOING BACK? BECAUSE IT'S LIKE QUITE BARREN IN IN CONSIDERATION TO WHERE IT IS BY RUSH CREEK. AND SO JUST WONDERING HOW THAT AND MAYBE IF THERE'S ANY DOCUMENTATION OF WHEN ALL OF THAT CLEARING MAY HAVE HAPPENED. YEAH, I GUESS SO. YOU'RE ASKING JUST TO KIND OF WHAT WE DID FOR ANOTHER PROJECT, GOING TO CODE ENFORCEMENT, ASKING IF THERE'S ANYTHING ON THE RECORD GOING BACK FOR THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY SPECIFICALLY. YES, SURE, I CAN DO THAT. THANK YOU. AND THAT'S WHAT I WAS GOING TO ASK ABOUT THE TREE CLEARING, BECAUSE SOME OF THE LETTERS THAT WE GOT, THERE WAS SOME, SOME CONCERNS ABOUT THAT. THIS LOT HAD BEEN CLEAR CUT AHEAD OF TIME. AND MY OTHER QUESTION FOR JOSH WOULD BE, I WOULD LIKE A HISTORY OF THIS PROPERTY. I'M NOT CLEAR HOW WE CAN TIE A RESIDENT, BECAUSE TECHNICALLY THE HOUSE WHERE THE HOUSE IS, EVEN THOUGH IT'S NON-CONFORMING, IT IS THAT ZONE. AGAIN, THE HOUSE IS OWNED, THE HOUSE IS STILL M3, SO. THAT'S THAT'S AN ISSUE IN ITSELF, ISN'T IT? YEAH. I, I DO WANT TO CORRECT ONE THING THAT ANTHONY SAID THAT JUST TO MAKE SURE THIS IS ACTUALLY ALL ONE PARCEL. SO THERE'S ACTUALLY NOT TWO PARCELS. THE WHOLE SITE IS ZONED M3 BUT IS IT TWO ADDRESSES OR 1 OR 1 ONE ONE PARCEL. SO IT WASN'T SPLIT. NO. AND THAT'S THE HISTORY THAT I WOULD LIKE. SO 3401 LAKESHORE AND ZERO LAKESHORE ARE ALL THE SAME PARCEL. THEY'VE BEEN JOINED TOGETHER. WE PURCHASED THE PARCEL AFTER PURCHASING THE PARCEL. THAT'S WHY I WANT THE HISTORY. IF I IF I COULD ASK, I'M LOOKING AT THE GIS MAPS THAT I'M LOOKING AT. ATTORNEY GORGONE, YOU NEED A MICROPHONE. I'M LOOKING AT THE SBL NUMBERS FOR THE LOTS. ARE YOU ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE SBL NUMBERS FOR THE TWO DIFFERENT PARCELS? WHEN DID THAT OCCUR? WHEN I PURCHASED THE PROPERTY, THEY WERE JOINED TOGETHER. 2023 OKAY. ARE YOU STILL ARE YOU STILL RECEIVING SEPARATE TAX BILLS FOR PARCELS? BECAUSE THAT'S BECAUSE I'M LOOKING AT ONE IS IS 6.1 AND THE OTHER ONE IS 6.2. ACCORDING TO GIS. CORRECT. ANTHONY'S STATEMENT. LET US TAKE A CLOSER LOOK AT THAT. I THINK WE HAVE NECESSARY, PARTICULARLY RELEVANT EXCEPT FOR THE FACT THAT, AGAIN, THERE IS A HOUSE THERE, THE HOUSE WILL REMAIN IN ITS NON-CONFORMING AND IT IS M3. IT WAS JUST FOR CLARIFICATION ON THAT POINT. IT WASN'T IT WASN'T TO MAKE A DECISION ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, HOW IT WAS BUILT, IF IT WAS PROPERLY ZONED THEN. BUT YOU KNOW, IT'S THERE. OKAY. SO I WOULD LIKE SOME HISTORY ON THE PROPERTY. WHOEVER WANTS TO GET IT TO ME, EITHER THE APPLICANT AND HIS ATTORNEY OR THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, I CAN GET YOU THE HISTORY FROM CODE ENFORCEMENT. JUST REVIEW OF, I GUESS, BOTH PROPERTIES OR ONE PROPERTY, WHATEVER IT IS. BUT THE APPLICANT WILL GET HISTORY ON IF IT'S BEEN SPLIT, IF IT'S BEEN MERGED, WHAT THE CURRENT STATUS IS. AND MY OTHER THE THE ONE BIGGER STATEMENT THAT I HAVE IN REGARDS TO THE SITE PLAN IS MY CONCERN. THE WHITE BOXES. OKAY, IS THAT THAT'S THE ACTUAL BUILDING. THOSE ARE THE BUILDINGS. I THINK THEY I PERSONALLY THINK THAT THEY'RE WAY TOO CLOSE, WAY TOO CLOSE TO RUSH CREEK. AND I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S 100 FOOT BUFFERING BUFFERING THERE, BUT THERE'S NOT 100 FOOT BUFFER IS IN RELATIONSHIP TO THE WETLANDS, WHICH YOU SAW IS THAT BLUE LINE. BUT IT ACTUALLY GOES BACK AND FORTH ON RUSH CREEK. SO THERE'S NOT 100 FOOT. NO. SO WHAT WOULD BE A PART OF OUR SITE PLAN? APPROVAL WOULD BE ESTABLISHING A BUFFERING AT RUSH CREEK LIKE WE'VE DONE IN OTHER PLAT. YES. WHERE WE SAY YOU NEED TO HAVE 50FT, YOU KNOW, OF A BUFFER FROM AN EASEMENT OR SO FORTH. SO THAT WOULD BE ANOTHER. SO

[00:45:03]

AND I'M FAMILIAR WITH THAT REQUIREMENT. YES YOU ARE I'M SURE YOU ARE. I DO WANT TO CONFIRM, AS KATE SAID, KATE ONCE SAID THE BUFFER WAS MEASURED FROM AN OFF SITE. THE WETLAND IS OFF SITE. SO WE'RE SAYING IS WE'RE NOT ENCROACHING ON THAT PORTION OF THE HUNDRED FOOT ADJACENT AREA THAT COMES ONTO OUR SITE. RIGHT. BUT I'M I'M VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE CLOSENESS TO RUSH CREEK IN THIS DRAWING. SO BUFFERING SHOULD BE OR MAYBE LOOK AT THE PARKING LOT SO IT DOESN'T GET THAT CLOSE TO THE CREEK. AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE. IT'S A CONCEPTUAL LAYOUT. DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANYTHING ELSE? MEMBER MCCORMICK I JUST WANTED TO ADD ON TO THE REQUEST YOU HAD FROM MEMBER SHIMURA TO GO BACK AND PULL THE ADDITIONAL SITE AERIAL IMAGERY, NOT JUST THE THING, BECAUSE THE BING'S MAPS ARE ALSO DATED 2025, AND THEY SHOW WHAT I WOULD CONSIDER TREED VEGETATION ON THAT SITE. WHILE THE GOOGLE MAP AERIAL IMAGERY MUST BE MORE RECENT AND THAT SHOWS THE CLEARED AREA. SO IT WOULD BE GOOD TO GET SOME RECENT YEARS. YOU KNOW, YOU CAN GET THEM OUT OF GOOGLE EARTH OR VARIOUS PLACES FOR THAT AREA, BUT IT LOOKS LIKE THE CLEARING WAS MORE SUBSTANTIAL THAN SHRUBS AND SCRUBS AND IT'S PRETTY SUBSTANTIAL. AND I AM ALSO WANT TO ECHO WHAT MEMBER SHIMURA SAID IS THAT WE WOULD NEED A HEALTHY BUFFER. AND I HAVE CONCERNS THAT IN THE INTERIM, AHEAD OF ANY DEVELOPMENT, THAT THE LACK OF VEGETATION THAT IS GOING UP TO THE SIDE OF THE CREEK IS GOING TO CAUSE POTENTIAL INSTABILITY THERE, BECAUSE THOSE ROOTS WOULD HELP HOLD ALL THAT VEGETATION AND THAT SHORELINE IN PLACE. AND IF THERE IS SOME SORT OF MAJOR STORM EVENT OR FLOODING OR OTHER THINGS THAT ARE HAPPENING THAT THAT COULD CAUSE ADVERSE EFFECTS AS WELL AS RUNOFF INTO RUSH CREEK, WHICH I KNOW IS A WE'VE HEARD ON MANY CASES, CONCERNS ABOUT RUSH CREEK IS A TRIBUTARY TO OBVIOUSLY TO LAKE ERIE, BUT IT'S ALSO KEY HABITAT. AND I DO BELIEVE THERE ARE SOME TMDLS FOR RUSH CREEK AS WELL. SO MAKING SURE THAT ALL OF THAT IS MANAGED IN THE INTERIM HERE, EVEN OUT OF A SITE PLAN. OKAY, ALONG RUSH CREEK THERE IS MANY LARGE TREES STILL ALONG THE CREEK. GOTTA USE THE MICROPHONE. SORRY. ALONG RUSH CREEK THERE IS MANY TREES THAT LINE THE EDGE OF THE CREEK ALL THE WAY DOWN THE LINE. FROM END TO END IT DROPS DOWN. I THINK THAT SPOTTED LINE ALONG THE CREEK. THERE'S ACTUALLY A LOWER PLATEAU. IT'S 15 FOOT DROP FROM WHERE THE BUILDINGS ARE TO WHERE THE CREEK IS, AND THERE'S MANY TREES ALONG THAT EDGE TYING IN THE BANK 50 TO 100FT IS WHAT I WOULD HAVE RECOMMENDED MAINTAINED AS BUFFER. I BET YOU THERE'S CLOSE TO THAT ALONG THE CREEK. WELL, AND WE'LL TALK ABOUT IT. AND THEN AS YOU GET READY TO COME BACK WITH US. NOW, THESE ARE THE THINGS THAT THE THIS BOARD HAS BEEN LOOKING AT. BOARD MEMBERS, IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE THAT YOU WOULD LIKE? CAN I JUST ASK A QUESTION WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THIS BUFFER FROM THE CREEK, WHAT WHAT ARE YOU REFERRING TO? BUFFER FROM THE WATER LEVEL. BUFFER FROM THE TOP OF BANK. WHAT? WHERE DOES THAT BUFFER START? MEMBER MCCORMICK I WOULD RECOMMEND TOP OF BANK. OKAY. THAT HASN'T ALWAYS BEEN WHAT'S BEEN USED. I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT STATEMENT, BUT IF YOU'RE ASKING FOR MY OPINION OFF THE CUFF I WOULD SAY TOP OF BANK. NOW THAT I KNOW THAT WE CAN GO ON TO THE PROPERTY FOR VISUAL SIGHT, I'LL BE OUT THERE AND THEN I CAN GIVE YOU MY ANSWER. OKAY, I CAN'T DO IT FROM THIS DRAWING. IT'S THERE'S IT'S TOO GRAY FOR ME. OKAY. SO SO IS THE BOARD'S INCLINATION TO CONTINUE BECAUSE AGAIN, BEFORE WE PROCEED WITH ANY KIND OF ENGINEERED PLANS, OBVIOUSLY WE DID RECEIVE A LOT OF INPUT THIS EVENING. COULD WE LEAVE THIS AS A WORK SESSION AGENDA AND COME BACK NOW THAT WE HAVE ALL THIS INPUT AND PRESENT AN UPDATED PLAN BEFORE WE START GOING DOWN THE PATH OF ENGINEERING? ARE YOU ASKING TO COME BACK AS SKETCH PLAN AGAIN? WELL, I GUESS WHAT I'M WONDERING IS THAT THE IS THAT THE BOARD'S PREFERENCE? I WOULD RATHER HAVE ALL THE INFORMATION IN FRONT OF US, NOT HAVE. I WOULD RATHER HAVE ALL OF THE INFORMATION IN FRONT OF THIS BOARD SO WE CAN BE AN INFORMED BOARD, I GUESS WHAT? I GUESS NOT TO PUT WORDS IN YOUR MOUTH, BUT ARE YOU ASKING TO COME WITH LIKE ANOTHER KIND OF HIGHER LEVEL CONCEPTUAL PLAN, NOT A FULLY ENGINEERED, SO NOT A FULL SITE PLAN APPLICATION, BUT A FURTHER CONCEPT PLAN TO THEN SHOW IN A WORK SESSION AGAIN.

AND THE ONLY REASON I'M SAYING THAT IS BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF MY CLIENT, THE PROPERTY OWNER, WE DON'T WANT TO SPEND THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS ON PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING, DRAINAGE PLANS, ETC. ETC. WE'D RATHER COME BACK AND SEE IF WE

[00:50:03]

BECAUSE OUR OUR SHUTOFF DATE IS THE THURSDAY BEFORE THE MEETING. ALL THE PAPERWORK HAS GOT TO BE IN BEFORE THE MEETING. AND THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN THIS MEETING. SO AND I HEARD ABOUT IT. SO WE'RE GOING TO REALLY ENFORCE THE CUTOFF DATE FOR PAPERWORK FROM APPLICANTS. SO OKAY WE'LL SEE YOU ON THE 17TH THEN. OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU OKAY. IT IS 725. AND I WOULD LIKE TO OFFICIALLY OPEN THE NOVEMBER. I'M ALRIGHT. I'M LOOKING AT ALL THESE DATES, THE NOVEMBER 19TH MEETING TO ORDER. 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. THANK YOU. MEMBER SHIMURA, WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL? WILLIAM CLARK HERE, CAITLIN SHIMURA HERE, AUGIE GERACI HERE.

CINDY GRONINGEN, PRESENT. CAITLIN MCCORMICK HERE. KIM RYAN HERE. BRIAN STEWART HERE.

OKAY. THANK YOU. OUR FIRST. I DON'T KNOW IF WE HAVE PEOPLE LEAVING OR COMING, SO MAYBE I'LL WAIT UNTIL EVERYBODY SITS DOWN. OUR NEXT PUBLIC HEARING IS FOR THE WATER VALLEY GARDENS

[1. Public Hearing – 7:00 P.M., Water Valley Gardens LLC – Requesting Site Plan Approval for an amended proposal of a development at 6666 Gowanda State Road ]

[00:55:04]

DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO OFFER BEFORE YOU TONIGHT? YOU HAVE A DRAFT APPROVAL RESOLUTION. LITERALLY THE ONLY CHANGE WAS SAYING ONE DRIVEWAY INSTEAD OF TWO. NOW, OTHER THAN THAT, THERE IS NO OTHER COMMENT FROM ME. OKAY. THANK YOU. MEMBER SHIMURA, WOULD YOU LIKE TO READ THE PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE? SURE. THANK. LEGAL NOTICE. TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD SITE PLAN. APPROVAL NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD WILL CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING ON A PROPOSAL FOR AMENDED SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR A DEVELOPMENT AT 6666 GOWANDA STATE ROAD. THE PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD ON NOVEMBER 19TH, 2025 AT 7:00 PM IN ROOM 77B OF HAMBURG TOWN HALL. THANK YOU. A PUBLIC HEARING IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE COMMUNITY TO SHARE INFORMATION ON HOW THEY ARE IMPACTED BY THE 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 REGARDING THE PROJECT, IS SENT TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND WILL BE REVIEWED BY THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE APPLICANT. SO AT THIS TIME, I WISH TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

GENTLEMEN, IF YOU'D LIKE TO HAVE A SEAT, IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WISHES TO MAKE COMMENT ON THIS CASE? SECOND, CALL FOR WATER VALLEY GARDENS, LLC. IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WISHES TO MAKE COMMENT IN REGARDS TO THE CHANGE IN THE ADDRESS OR CHANGE IN THE DRIVEWAY? SORRY. THIRD AND FINAL CALL FOR PUBLIC HEARING TO FOR WATER VALLEY GARDENS AND THE CHANGE IN THE DRIVEWAYS. SEEING NONE, I'M CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING BOARD MEMBERS IN FRONT OF US. WE HAVE A RESOLUTION, A DRAFT OF A RESOLUTION. I KNOW IF YOU GUYS HAD TIME TO REVIEW IT, ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS OR ARE YOU HAPPY WITH IT AND WE CAN PROCEED. KAMI, IS THERE A NEW ENGINEERING COMMENT LETTER FOR THIS? DO YOU KNOW THE DATE? 1114? MEMBER MCCORMICK THE THE ONLY CONCERN I WOULD HAVE IS THAT I WOULD LIKE TO ADD SOMETHING THAT JUST SAYS THAT NO FURTHER REDUCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF PARKING WOULD BE ALLOWED. WE'VE REALLY COME DOWN SUBSTANTIALLY OVER A BUNCH OF THINGS THAT, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT IF FOR SOME OTHER REASON, SOMETHING WERE TO HAVE TO CHANGE AS PART OF THIS SITE PLAN DEVELOPMENT, THAT THEY NEED TO KEEP THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES THAT THEY HAVE NOW WITH THIS REDUCTION, AND IT SHOULDN'T GO ANY LOWER. SO IS IT SIMILAR TO WHAT WE DID WITH THE TRACK DRIVEWAY, WHERE IN THE EVENT YOU NEED A MIC? SIMILAR TO WHAT WE DID WITH THE DRIVEWAY, THAT IN THE EVENT THERE'S ANY REDUCTION THAT WOULD HAVE TO COME FOR A REVISED SITE PLAN. OH, THAT IF THERE'S IF THERE'S A REDUCTION IN THE PLANNING THAT IT OR THE IN THE PARKING WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK. YEAH. WELL WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK IN FRONT OF US. I'M CONCERNED THAT THAT ALREADY HAPPENED ONCE. SO WHAT I WOULD SAY THAT THERE'S, THERE MUST BE AT LEAST X NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT SHOULD BE THE CONDITION AND THAT THEY, THEY ENSURE THAT THERE'S AT LEAST X NUMBER OF SITES ON THE PARKING SPACES ON THE SITE. YOU CAN WHAT THEY'RE CURRENTLY SHOWING. YEAH, IT'S UP TO YOU GUYS. BUT YOU CAN EITHER QUANTIFY IT LIKE MEMBER MCCORMACK SAID, OR YOU CAN PUT IN LANGUAGE LIKE WE HAD LAST TIME OF IF THERE IS REDUCTION THAT IT COMES BACK TO YOU. BUT YOU CAN YOU CAN QUANTIFY IT IF YOU WANT TO. CHANGES, COMES BACK ANYWAY. RIGHT. IT'S GOTTA COME BACK ANYWAYS REGARDLESS WHAT THE IF. SO THE PARKING CHANGES. IT'S GOTTA COME BACK IN FRONT OF US.

I JUST DON'T WANT TO SEE IT GO DOWN AGAIN, IS MY CONCERN. JUST THERE'S A LOT OF USES HAPPENING.

IT'S TIGHT PARKING. I KNOW THEY GOT THE ADJACENT. I JUST DON'T WANT TO SEE IT GO ANY LOWER THAN THEY'RE CURRENTLY PROPOSING IN THE FUTURE. IF IT WERE TO COME BACK AGAIN, I FEEL LIKE WE'VE DONE DONE OUR PIECE OF THAT IN THERE. THE FUTURE PLANNING BOARD CAN IGNORE IT.

THEY COULD, BUT THEN AT LEAST SAYS IT. IT WAS AT LEAST DOCUMENTED THERE. THEY SAID,

[01:00:04]

BECAUSE IT WOULD BE EXPENSIVE. MY CONCERN IS THAT SOMETHING ELSE HAPPENS. SOMETHING ELSE HAS TO GET ADDED IN ANOTHER DUMPSTER, SOME SORT OF OUTDOOR DISPLAY, SOME SORT OF OTHER ITEM COMES IN THERE AND THAT WE LOSE EVEN MORE PARKING ON. WHAT'S A CONSTRAINED AREA? AND NOT ALL OF THOSE THINGS, IF YOU HAVE NOT LIKE, MAY NOT NECESSARILY BE DONE. COMING BACK TO THIS BOARD, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DON'T END UP WITH A POINT WHERE ALL OF A SUDDEN WE HAVE AN ENCROACHMENT OF ADDITIONAL USE OR CHANGE OF USE, BECAUSE THERE ARE SOME PLACES WHERE THAT THAT HAS HAPPENED IN THE TOWN WHERE THEN WE DIDN'T HAVE ENOUGH PARKING.

OKAY, THAT'S WAY TOO RESTRICTIVE, BECAUSE IF THEY WANTED TO PUT A CART TO SELL FLOWERS AND PUT IT IN ONE OF THE PARKING SPACES, YOU'RE SAYING NOW THAT WE'D SEND CODE ENFORCEMENT OUT TO SMASH THE CAR? I DID NOT SAY ANYTHING ABOUT SMASHING A CAR. I JUST SAID THAT WE SHOULD. BUT STILL, I'M JUST SAYING THAT WE SHOULD MAINTAIN THE PARKING IN THAT WE DID A LOT OF WORK TO IDENTIFY THE MINIMUM AMOUNT OF PARKING THAT THEY PROVIDED BASED ON THEIR ANALYSIS, AND THAT WE SHOULDN'T LET THINGS HAPPEN TO REMOVE THE PARKING THAT WE ALL AGREED WAS REQUIRED. WELL, THE ONLY THING I'M GOING TO SAY, WELL, IT'S NOT THE ONLY THING THAT I'M GOING TO SAY TONIGHT, BUT I'M GOING TO SAY THIS BASED ON THE PREVIOUS DISCUSSIONS THAT WE'VE HAD AT THIS TABLE THAT ARE NOW A PART OF THE RECORD, NUMBER ONE, NUMBER TWO, BASED ON THE TRAFFIC REPORT THAT INDICATED THE NUMBER OF PARKING PLACES THAT THEY SAID, WHICH IS 24. NUMBER THREE, BASED ON THE SITE PLAN, IT'S ALL STATED THAT IT'S 24. IF ANYTHING CHANGES, IT'S GOT TO COME BACK IN FRONT OF THE BOARD AND WE CAN PUT THAT. I'M LEERY ABOUT PUTTING NUMBERS ON FOR THE FUTURE. I I'D RATHER HAVE IT COME BACK IF THERE'S A CHANGE AND HAVE THE BOARD LOOK AT IT, THEN SAYING, OH, YOU'RE DOWN TO 22. AND NOW I MEAN, WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO, CLOSE THEM DOWN? I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE LEGAL END OF IT IS IF THEY DON'T HAVE 24 PARKING PLACES, BUT IF THEY CHANGE THEIR SITE PLAN, IT WOULD BE WITH US. IF THEY REDUCE PARKING, IT WOULD COME BACK TO THIS BOARD. YEAH. SO EITHER WAY IT'S GOT TO COME BACK. IT'S UP TO THE SEVEN OF YOU TO DECIDE HOW YOU WANT THE CONDITION TO SAY, OKAY, WELL THAT'S MY INPUT. AND I, I THINK MEMBER CLARK'S ON THE SAME PAGE. I WOULD NOT HAVE THAT AS A CONDITION. YES. YEAH. I WOULD NOT PUT THE NUMBER. I CONCUR. YOU HAVE TO GRAB YOUR MIC AND SPEAK UP THERE. YOUNG LADY. MEMBER RYAN. MEMBER. RYAN, I AGREE WITH YOU, CHAIR. OKAY.

THANK YOU. MEMBER. STEWART GO AHEAD. STEWART I CONCUR ALSO. ALL RIGHT. BUT YOU DO WANT A CONDITION THAT SAYS PARKING WILL HAVE TO COME BACK TO THE PLANNING BOARD FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL. I YES, CORRECT. BUT I'M. I DON'T WANT TO PUT NUMBERS RATHER THAN REDUCTION ANY CHANGES BECAUSE THAT PRESUPPOSES THAT THEY WOULD PRESUME THAT THEY WOULD REDUCE IT. AUGUST. BASED ON PREVIOUS PRESENTATIONS BY THE DEVELOPER WITH THEIR PLAN FOR WHAT THEIR INTENTION OF DOING WITH DIFFERENT THINGS OCCURRING AT DIFFERENT FOR DIFFERENT PURPOSES, THEY STATED THAT 24 PARKING SPACES ARE GOING TO BE SUFFICIENT FOR THEM TO ACCOMPLISH WHAT THEY ARE TRYING TO DO, SO I DON'T THINK IT'S I DON'T SEE I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THEY'RE PLANNING ON LOOKING AT THEM, COMING BACK TO GO THROUGH THIS AGAIN TO MAKE A CHANGE FOR

[01:05:01]

YEAH. DOES THE CONDITION ON THE SCREEN. SO ANY CHANGES IN PARKING SHALL REQUIRE THE APPLICANT TO RETURN TO THE PLANNING BOARD FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL. I THINK THAT ADDRESSES THE CONCERN. OKAY. WE'RE GOOD. WHO WANTS TO MAKE A MOTION? OH, I WAS GOING TO GIVE IT TO MEMBER STEWART. OH. I'M SORRY. SECOND. I THINK YOU GOT A LITTLE HOMEWORK TO DO THERE FIRST. YOU HAVE TO SAY START. START RIGHT FROM THE BEGINNING AND READ THE WHOLE THING. WATER VALLEY GARDENS LLC 666, SIX. GO ON TO STATE ROAD. AMENDED SITE PLAN APPROVAL RESOLUTION.

WHEREAS THE TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING DEPARTMENT RECEIVED AN AMENDED SITE PLAN APPLICANT APPLICATION FROM WATER VALLEY GARDENS LLC, INC. TO REDEVELOP A 0.72 ACRE PARCEL CONSISTING OF THE RENOVATION OF THE MAIN BUILDING FOR LOCAL ARTISTS AND GOOD RETAIL SPACE, AND A SECOND FLOOR AIRBNB, AS WELL AS RENOVATION OF THE EXISTING GREENHOUSE FOR EVENT SPACE AT 6666 GOWANDA STATE ROAD. AND WHEREAS, THE TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD PREVIOUSLY APPROVED A SITE PLAN AT THE LOCATION ON OCTOBER 1ST, 2025 THAT INCLUDED TWO PROPOSED DRIVEWAYS ONTO GOWANDA STATE ROAD, AND WHEREAS. DURING ENGINEERING REVIEW, THE NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RELIED TO THE APPLICANT THAT ONLY ONE DRIVEWAY CAN BE UTILIZED OFF OF GOWANDA STATE ROAD, WHICH REQUIRED A CHANGE TO THE SITE PLAN. AND WHEREAS THE TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD HELD THE REQUIRED PUBLIC HEARING ON THE REVISED SITE PLAN ON NOVEMBER 19TH, 2025, AND WHEREAS, THE TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD HAS REVIEWED THE PROJECT AGAINST THE TOWN CODE, HAS RECEIVED INPUT FROM THE TOWN DEPARTMENTS AND OTHER AGENCIES, HAS HAS RECEIVED ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REPORTS FROM THE APPLICANT, AND PROVIDED INPUT TO THE APPLICANT THAT HAS RESULTED IN AMENDED PLANS ADDRESSING THE PLANNING BOARD'S CONCERNS. AND WHEREAS, UPON FURTHER REVIEW OF THE AMENDED PROJECT, THE TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS A TYPE TWO ACTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH PART 617 OF THE IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO ARTICLE EIGHT. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT, ALSO KNOWN AS SEEKER OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION LAW, AND NO FURTHER SEEKER ANALYSIS IS REQUIRED. WHEREAS THE PROJECT REQUIRED FIVE AREA VACANCY VARIANCES FOR ALCOHOL SALES, PARKING SETBACKS AND DUMPSTER LOCATIONS, AND THOSE VARIANCES WERE GRANTED BY THE HAMBURG ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ON SEPTEMBER 2ND, 2025. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, THE TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD ISSUES CONDITIONAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR THE SITE PLAN DATED OCTOBER 24TH, 2025, WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ONE. APPROVAL IS CONTINGENT UPON THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT COMMENT LETTER DATED NOVEMBER 14TH, 2025. THE MAP ON THE SCREEN.

I'M SORRY. THE REST OF THEM ARE UP ON THE SCREEN FOR YOU. OKAY, THE FINAL LANDSCAPE PLAN WILL BE APPROVED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. THREE LIGHTING SHALL BE SHIELDED AND DARK SKY COMPLIANT AS SHOWN ON THE PLANS FOR. SIDEWALKS ARE WAVED AS THEY ALREADY EXIST ON GOWANDA STATE ROAD AND FIVE. ANY CHANGES IN PARKING SHALL REQUIRE THE APPLICANT TO RETURN TO THE PLANNING BOARD FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL. IT'S BEEN MOVED BY A MEMBER. STEWART. IS THERE A SECOND MEMBER? RYAN SECONDS IT. IT'S BEEN MOVED. AND SECOND, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR I I ANY OPPOSED? NONE OPPOSED. YOUR RESOLUTION IS CLEAR. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. GOOD LUCK.

CONGRATULATIONS. SEE YOU IN TWO WEEKS. OKAY. OUR NEXT CASE IS. JOE CULLEN. REQUESTING

[2. Joe Colern – Requesting Preliminary Plat Approval of a 3-lot subdivision to be located at Hazelwood Terrace and Lake Shore Road]

CORRECT. YEAH, I WAS AUTHORIZED. COMMENTS? YEAH. WE RECEIVED COMMENTS FROM A NUMBER OF NEIGHBORS, NOT ONLY THROUGH LETTERS AND EMAILS, BUT ALSO DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING THAT

[01:10:01]

AS JOSH MENTIONED, OUR FIRM DID SUBMIT A LETTER ADDRESSING SOME OF THE PUBLIC COMMENTS THAT WERE MADE BOTH DURING THE TWO PUBLIC HEARINGS AS WELL AS, AS YOU MENTIONED, EMAILS AND LETTERS. I CAN GO INTO ANY DETAIL, ANY FURTHER DETAIL, IF ANY OF THE BOARD MEMBERS HAD ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT OUR RESPONSES. BUT BASICALLY, YOU KNOW, THE PROPERTY IS ZONED R-2.

IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES AND THE TOWN'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. IT'S GOING TO REMAIN ZONED R-2. ANY FUTURE DEVELOPMENT ON THESE PROPERTIES WILL BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH R-2. I DON'T KNOW IF. MATT, YOU DO YOU WANT TO ADD ANYTHING? BUT YEAH, I MEAN, ANTHONY IS PRETTY MUCH COVERED IT AS WE COVERED AT THE LAST MEETING. THIS IS A PERMITTED USE. IT'S A THREE LOT SUBDIVISION FOR INTENDED TO BE PERMITTED USES WITHIN R-2, AND WE BELIEVE IT IS FULLY COMPLIANT AND WILL BE IN KEEPING WITH THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. OKAY. THANK YOU. I DID ALSO JUST WANT TO MENTION FOR THE RECORD THAT THIS BOARD DID ASK FOR ME TO SUBMIT THIS PROJECT TO SHPO AND DEC FOR COMMENT. IT CAME BACK CLEAN FROM SHIPPO. THERE WAS A LETTER OF NO EFFECT OR NO ADVERSE IMPACT, BASICALLY STATING THAT THERE WOULD BE NO IMPACT TO HISTORIC OR ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES. WE ALSO THEN DID GET A COMMENT LETTER BACK. SO THIS WASN'T AN OFFICIAL COORDINATED REVIEW.

THIS WAS JUST SENDING THINGS FOR COMMENT FROM DIFFERENT AGENCIES. DC DID COME BACK WITH A COMMENT STATING THAT THEY DID BELIEVE THAT PART OF THIS PROPERTY MAY BE WITHIN, OR MAY HAVE SOME FRESHWATER WETLANDS, AND THAT ANY DEVELOPMENT ON THIS PROJECT. SO EVEN IF THEY DO GO FOR BUILDING PERMITS FOR A SINGLE FAMILY HOME OR A DUPLEX WOULD BE REQUIRED TO MEET THE STATE'S ARTICLE EIGHT FRESHWATER WETLANDS REGULATIONS, WHICH I DID AS A CONDITION AND AS A CONDITION TO THE APPROVAL RESOLUTION. SHOULD THIS BOARD ACT ON IT, THAT WE WOULD JUST STATE IN THE CONDITIONS THAT ANY DEVELOPMENT, WHETHER IT'S A SINGLE FAMILY HOME OR A DUPLEX, WOULD STILL BE ENTITLED TO MEET THOSE REGULATIONS. AND THAT'S ALSO FROM JEFF, WHERE THEY'VE SEEN NOW, THEY'VE BEEN TOLD FROM THE STATE, WHETHER IT'S A FENCE OR A DECK OR A SINGLE FAMILY HOME, THAT THEY HAVE TO MEET THOSE, THOSE WETLANDS REQUIREMENTS. SO I DID PUT THAT CONDITION FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES. IF YOU DO CHOOSE TO ACT ON THE RESOLUTION, OKAY.

THANK YOU. JOSH. ENGINEERING, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO OFFER? ENGINEERING HAS NO COMMENT.

SINCE IT'S A SUBDIVISION OF LAND, THERE'S NO ENGINEERING IMPACT. OKAY. IT'S ALWAYS NICE TO ASK THOUGH. I APPRECIATE BOARD MEMBERS. ANY FURTHER COMMENTS, QUESTIONS CONCERNS? KUDOS. ANYTHING. MEMBER MCCORMICK. NO. YOU CAN GO AHEAD. THE ONE CONCERN THAT I WOULD HAVE BASED ON THE DECK LETTER AND I REALIZED THAT IT'S A TOUGH TIME OF YEAR TO MAKE THIS ASK, IS THAT WE MAY WANT TO REQUEST A WETLAND DELINEATION OR A WALK OVER TO IDENTIFY DECK IDENTIFIED POTENTIAL WETLANDS AT THE SITE. I DON'T BELIEVE WE HAVE ONE HERE, BECAUSE WHAT I WOULD NOT WANT TO DO IS END UP WITH A NON BUILDABLE LOT BASED. IF THERE WERE SOME SORT OF WET AREA ON THERE. WE'VE HAD OTHER FOLKS HAVE TO DO THIS BEFORE ON PAST CASES THAT WHAT WE WOULD WANT TO DO IS MAKE SURE THAT WHEN IN THE EVENT THAT YOU'RE SUBDIVIDING THAT THOSE LOTS ARE ABLE TO BE SOLD AND BE ABLE TO BE DEVELOPED ON WITH REGARD TO THE WETLAND, AND THAT YOU DON'T END UP WITH A WETLAND THAT COVERS ALMOST THE ENTIRE SITE AND LEAVES YOU NOT ENOUGH WITH SETBACKS AND OTHER CONSTRAINTS THAT IT WOULD NOT BE BUILDABLE. YEAH, I, I GUESS I'D JUST TO RESPOND TO THESE LOTS AREN'T BEING SOLD TO BE BUILT. THE OWNER WILL BE BUILDING THEM THEMSELVES. SO I MEAN, THAT'S I THINK KIND OF KNOWS WHAT HE'S TAKING ON. WE DID GET AN EMAIL FROM SCOTT LIVINGSTONE JUST THIS AFTERNOON. HE DID DO A WALK OVER. HE HASN'T PREPARED A FORMAL LETTER, BUT HE DID NOT IDENTIFY ANY WETLANDS ON THE SITE. SO I JUST ALSO WANTED TO ADD THAT. JUST FOR A QUESTION, FOR CLARIFICATION, IT WOULDN'T IT HAPPEN AS EACH SITE ONCE THEY'RE SPLIT AND THEN IF ONCE THEY SUBMIT A SITE PLAN, WELL, THEY WON'T SUBMIT A SITE PLAN.

SO IF THEY BUILD A HOME OR A DUPLEX THAT DOESN'T COME TO THE PLANNING BOARD, BUT WHEN THEY DEAL WITH THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT, THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT CHECKS FOR FOR WETLANDS AT THAT POINT. BUT IT DOES GET LOOKED AT AT WHEN THEY'RE BUILDING. CORRECT? YES.

BUT I THINK TO MEMBER MCCORMICK'S POINT, SHE'S JUST ASKING BEFORE YOU DO APPROVE A

[01:15:03]

IF FOR SOME REASON MR. LIVINGSTONE, THE WETLAND CONSULTANT, WAS INCORRECT AND IT WAS NOT BUILDABLE, THERE WERE WETLANDS, WHICH I'M FAMILIAR WITH MR. LIVINGSTONE IN HIS WORK. I DON'T BELIEVE THAT'S LIKELY. I THINK IF HE DOESN'T IDENTIFY WETLANDS THERE AREN'T. THE OWNER COULD THEN RECOMBINE THE PARCELS TO SELL THEM IF THAT WOULD MAKE THEM MORE SALABLE. SO I THINK THE FACT THAT NEW WETLANDS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AFTER WETLAND WALK OVER AND THE OWNER WILL BE RETAINING CONTROL OF THESE AND WOULD WANT TO MAKE THEM USABLE FOR HIMSELF, THAT MITIGATES THAT RISK, I THINK. I DON'T DISAGREE WITH YOU, AND I AGREE I'M FAMILIAR WITH HIS WORK, BUT WE JUST DON'T HAVE IT IN THE FILE THAT THAT'S, YOU KNOW, THE POINT I'M AT. AND IF I I'LL DEFER TO THE CHAIR AND THE REST OF THE BOARD ON THE OTHER THOUGHTS THERE. BUT THAT'S ONE OF THE CONCERNS THAT I WOULD HAVE SAID IS TO BE MITIGATED BASED ON THE DC COMMENTS. I. DOES ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENT? I, I DON'T KNOW THAT IN THIS SITUATION, GIVEN THE LETTER, PLUS THE FACT THAT WE HAVE AN APPLICANT THAT'S WORKING ON ALL THREE PROJECTS AND HE'S HAD AN EXPERT BASED ON TESTIMONY GIVEN HERE TONIGHT, THAT THEY DID A WALKTHROUGH, I DON'T THINK THAT THEY'RE GOING TO MISREPRESENT IT, BECAUSE AT SOME POINT IT'S GOING TO GET CAUGHT. AND IF HE WANTS TO GO THROUGH, I MEAN, THERE DOESN'T SEEM TO ME LIKE REASONABLE THAT WOULD BE REASONABLE TO GO SAY THERE'S NO WETLANDS, ONLY TO HAVE TO GO THROUGH THIS ALL OVER AGAIN. I KNOW WE'RE A GREAT BOARD, BUT COME ON, YOU KNOW, THERE'S ONLY SO MUCH TIME YOU CAN SPEND WITH US. SO I DON'T AGREE. I DON'T I DON'T THINK IT'S NECESSARY AT THIS POINT TO DELAY THE SPLIT. I THINK THAT I PERSONALLY, I AS A MEMBER, THINK THAT IT SHOULD MOVE, MOVE FORWARD AND HAVE AND THE ONUS WOULD BE ON THE APPLICANT GIVEN THE. AGAIN, I WANT TO CLARIFY, GIVEN THE TESTIMONY THAT WAS GIVEN HERE TONIGHT, THAT'S MY OPINION AND I DON'T NECESSARILY DISAGREE WITH YOU. THAT WAS JUST NEW INFORMATION THAT WE DID NOT PREVIOUSLY HAVE BEFORE MR. PANDOLFI SHARED IT. YEAH, I, I DIDN'T WANT TO I DIDN'T REALLY LIKE IT. WE DON'T HAVE A FORMAL LETTER. WE JUST GOT AN EMAIL. I WASN'T GOING TO BRING IT UP UNLESS IT WAS BROUGHT UP. SO WE DON'T HAVE A FORMAL LETTER.

THAT'S WHY I DIDN'T WANT TO MENTION IT. BUT, YOU KNOW, I, I AGREE TO, TO DELAY THIS PROJECT, TO WAIT FOR THE FORMAL LETTER TO DELAY IT ANOTHER TWO WEEKS. I MEAN, I THINK WE'RE JUST DELAYING THE INEVITABLE AT THIS POINT. BUT, YOU KNOW, I THINK IT'S KIND OF A MOOT POINT, REALLY. THE ONUS, AS YOU MENTIONED, WILL BE ON THE OWNER SLASH DEVELOPER TO ENSURE THAT THESE LOTS ARE BUILT. OKAY. ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY. ANY OTHER ANYTHING ELSE TO TO OFFER? NO. MEMBER SHIMURA'S GOT A QUESTION. IS THERE ANY HAVE WE EVER DONE THIS BEFORE THAT BY PUTTING A CONDITION WITH RESPECT TO I MEAN, I KNOW THAT THERE ARE SIDEWALKS OR SIDEWALKS, SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. BUT FOR ANY OF THE BUFFERING, YOU KNOW, WITH RESPECT TO THE EXISTING VEGETATION THAT'S ON THE SITE, HAVE WE EVER DONE ANYTHING ALONG THOSE LINES? YEAH, WE HAVE BEFORE. RIGHT. BECAUSE THE A LOT OF THE CONCERNS HAVE BEEN ABOUT, YOU KNOW, EXTENSIVE CLEARING THAT WOULD BE HAPPENING WITH THE THREE LOTS AND SO FORTH. BUT THEN ALSO WE'RE NOT GOING TO SEE A SITE PLAN IN ORDER TO KIND OF PUT BACK LIKE ANY SORT OF LANDSCAPING PLAN AND SO FORTH. SO IS THAT SOMETHING THAT THE BOARD WOULD ENTERTAIN TO HAVE A CONDITION WITH RESPECT TO ANY SORT OF LEAVING, ANY SORT OF BUFFERING OR I DON'T KNOW IF I CALL IT EASEMENT BECAUSE THAT'S TOO HARSH. BUT IN RESPONSE TO THE PUBLIC COMMENT, I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT'S IN OUR LANE. IS IT? I'LL DEFER TO ASKING THE QUESTION. YEAH, I DEFER TO JOE ON WHETHER I ASKED THAT LAST AT THE LAST MEETING ABOUT. YEAH, I'M NOT SURE IF THAT'S WITH A SPLIT. I DON'T THINK THAT'S OUR WITHIN OUR JURISDICTION TO PUT THAT KIND OF WE'RE ONLY APPROVING THE SPLIT OF THE LOTS. SO WE HAVE MINOR SUBDIVISION.

[01:20:02]

UNFORTUNATELY, I DON'T HAVE. UNFORTUNATELY, I DON'T HAVE THAT ANSWER OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD. I CAN'T COMMENT ON IT AT THIS TIME. I WOULD ADD THAT I THINK THAT THAT MAY POSE SOME CHALLENGES. I, I DON'T KNOW, OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD KNOW WHAT THE SETBACKS ARE, BUT BY THE TIME YOU GET TO THE REAR OF THE ONE LOT THAT IS CLOSER TO THE NEIGHBORS, IT'S ONLY 84FT WIDE. SO DEPENDING ON HOW YOU'RE SIZING THE VEGETATION AND THE THE SETBACK THERE, I THINK GOING BACK TO THE BUILDABLE PIECE, I THINK THAT THAT COULD MAKE THAT CHALLENGING FROM A DEVELOPMENT PERSPECTIVE HERE. I THINK THAT TYPICALLY WE'VE ADDED IT AT THE BACKSIDE OF LOTS WHERE THERE WAS A FEATURE OR OTHER THINGS. I JUST DON'T. IT AGAIN, IS A LITTLE BIT. I'M NOT SURE HOW YOU YOU DO THAT AND IT IS THE SAME. ANOTHER HOUSE IS THE SAME AS THE ADJACENT USE. WELL, I CAN SAY FROM THE APPLICANT'S PERSPECTIVE, HE HAS LET ME KNOW THAT HE DOES PLAN TO LEAVE A VEGETATION STRIP OF THE MATURE SCREENING THAT IS ALREADY IN PLACE. I DO AGREE WITH COUNCILWOMAN MCCORMICK THAT IT OR MEMBER MCCORMACK THAT IT IS.

YOU WOULD NEED TO BE CAUTIOUS ABOUT IMPOSING ANY KIND OF SPECIFIC STRIP TO KEEP IT BUILDABLE. YEAH, BECAUSE THE LAST THING WE WANT TO DO IS CREATE SOMETHING THAT'S NOT IN OUR LANE ON TOP OF IT. BUT JUST FOR THE RECORD, OBVIOUSLY TOTALLY SEPARATE PROJECT, BUT THERE WAS A SUBDIVISION THAT WE APPROVED IN 24 AT HAZELWOOD TERRACE. IT WAS A FOUR LOT SUBDIVISION AND WE DID PUT 100 FOOT, BUT WE PUT A CONSERVATION EASEMENT BECAUSE IT BORDERED LAKESHORE ROAD, AND WE DID ASK FOR THAT TO BE SHOWN ON THE FINAL PLAT. BUT THAT WAS THAT WAS A CONSERVATION EASEMENT. SO BECAUSE OF THE TREES THAT WERE ON THE PROPERTY, YEAH, IT WAS A LARGER SO AND IT WAS A HEAVILY WOODED AREA. CORRECT. AND IT WASN'T CLEAR CORRECT AT THE TIME. THAT'S WHY WE WE RECOMMENDED THAT BUFFER. BUT THERE WAS MORE PROPERTY INVOLVED THAT IT WASN'T GOING TO INHIBIT ANYBODY FROM BUILDING. CORRECT. SO I AGAIN, I'M NOT COMFORTABLE WITH PLACING A BUFFER ON A RESIDENTIAL LOT. PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE LIVING THERE. AND I THINK THAT THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE A SENSE OF PRIDE OF THEIR HOME. SO I, I'M NOT COMFORTABLE DOING THAT. I DON'T KNOW HOW EVERYBODY ELSE FEELS. MEMBER CLARK, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING? NO. MEMBER SHAMARA THAT'S WHY I JUST ASKED THE QUESTION. IF IT IS SOMETHING THAT CAN BE ENTERTAINED. BUT, YOU KNOW, HEARING THE SENTIMENTS OF THE DEVELOPER, THAT I THINK THAT IT'S FINE TO MOVE FORWARD. OKAY. WE HAVE A RESOLUTION IN FRONT OF US. MEMBER OR CHAIR, CAN I. YES, SUGGEST WHAT I THINK IS PROBABLY A LOW STAKES ADDITION TO THE CONDITIONS? CAN WE ADD CONDITION THREE THAT THE APPLICANT WILL FILE A COPY OF THEIR WETLAND DOCUMENTATION, THEIR WETLAND REVIEW DOCUMENTATION WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT FOR THE FILE? SURE. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. WHEN YOU SAY WHAT LAND DOCUMENTATION ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? THE EMAIL THAT THEY REFERRED TO TONIGHT? NO, THE REPORT FROM THE WETLANDS.

OH, WHEN THEY GET THE REPORT. SURE. OKAY. I JUST DON'T KNOW IF IT'S GOING TO BE WHAT THEY'RE GONNA CALL IT. SO JUST THEIR THEIR DOCUMENTATION OF THEIR WETLAND REVIEW FROM THE, FROM THE BIOLOGIST OR THE, THE, THE COMPLETED IT WITH A QUALIFIED PROFESSIONAL. YOU SAID FROM A WETLAND PROFESSIONAL. YEAH. SO THIS DO YOU HAVE AN EXTRA? SO I DON'T CALL YOU TO READ IT. DOES THAT WORK FOR EVERYONE? THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE A WETLAND WALKOVER FROM A WETLAND PROFESSIONAL TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO BE ADDED TO THE PROJECT FILE. YES. YES. REPORT OR. FILE DOCUMENTATION FOR WETLAND WALKOVER. SO I'M NOT GOING TO FILE THE WALKOVER. I JUST THINK IT'S FILE 11 WALKOVER REPORT REPORT. THANK YOU. OKAY. OKAY. OKAY. SO WE HAVE IT IN FRONT OF US. MEMBER RYAN, WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE

[01:25:11]

COLEMAN, THREE LOT, SUBDIVISION, 6014 LAKESHORE ROAD. NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND APPROVAL RESOLUTION NOVEMBER 19TH, 2025. SEEKER. IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE NEW YORK STATE SEEKER LAW, THE TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD HAS RECEIVED THE THREE LOT SUBDIVISION PROPOSED BY JOSEPH COLON TO BE LOCATED AT 6014 LAKESHORE ROAD, SBL NUMBER 193.00-431.2. BASED ON THE PRELIMINARY PLAT REVIEW OF THE SUBMITTED MATERIALS AND INPUT FROM THE OTHER DEPARTMENTS, THE PLANNING BOARD HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION IS NOT ANTICIPATED TO RESULT IN ANY SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, AND THAT THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS HEREBY ISSUED AND THE PLANNING BOARD CHAIR IS AUTHORIZED TO SIGN THE EAF, WHICH WILL ACT AS THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION, PRELIMINARY PLAT STOP THERE AND THEN THE MOTION. THAT'S YOUR FIRST MOTION. OKAY. SO A MOTION HAS BEEN MADE BY MEMBER STEWART. HAS IT BEEN SECOND? IS THERE A SECOND SECOND BEEN SECOND BY MEMBER SHIMURA? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE, AYE. ANY OPPOSED? OKAY. THAT FIRST MOTION PASSED. GO AHEAD. PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL. THE HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD HEREBY GRANTS PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL FOR THE JOSEPH COLON THREE LOT SUBDIVISION WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS AND WAIVERS ONE. THE INSTALLATION OF SIDEWALKS IS NOT WARRANTED. TWO ANY DEVELOPMENT SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, DUPLEXES, ETC. ON ANY LOT CREATED BY THE SUBDIVISION WILL BE SUBJECT TO ARTICLE 24 OF THE NEW YORK STATE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION LAW, IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS. FINALLY, THE HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD WAIVES THE COMPLETION OF A FINAL. THERE'S A THERE'S ONE MORE THAT WE JUST ADDED. IT'S GOING TO ADD THE OTHER THE NUMBER THREE. IT'S ON THE ON THE SCREEN. OH I'M SORRY. NUMBER THREE THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE A WETLAND WALKOVER REPORT FROM A WETLAND PROFESSIONAL TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO BE ADDED TO THE PROJECT FILE. AND FINALLY, THE HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD WAIVES THE COMPLETION OF A FINAL PLAT. AND THE HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD CHAIR IS AUTHORIZED TO SIGN THE PRELIMINARY PLAT. ONCE THE TOWN ENGINEER SIGNS OFF ON THE PLAT. SO MOTION MADE BY MEMBER STEWART IS THERE A SECOND, SECOND, SECOND MADE BY A MEMBER? GERACI. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE.

ANY OPPOSED? NONE. YOUR RESOLUTION HAS BEEN GRANTED. OKAY. THANK YOU. GOOD LUCK.

HAPPY THANKSGIVING. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. IT'S 8:00. I'M GOING TO CALL FOR A FIVE MINUTE RECESS AND. WHAT? THE BATHROOM. OH, I'M GOING TO CALL FOR A FIVE MINUTE RECESS. WE'LL BE BACK HERE AT LIKE. I'M CALLING THE MEETING BACK INTO ORDER. AND OUR NEXT CASE

[3. Benderson Development – Requesting Site Plan Approval for a proposal to construct an 8,020 sq-ft multi-tenant outparcel building with a drive-thru lane to be located at 5400 Southwestern Boulevard ]

[01:30:02]

OVERALL, IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE REST OF THE DESIGN OF THE PLAZA. WHAT WAS SHOWN FOR THE TEXAS ROADHOUSE? AS I SAID, FOR THE ARCHITECTURE, IT IS SIMILAR TO THE BUILDING THAT'S ALREADY BEEN BUILT. WE THINK THOSE ARE HIGH QUALITY MATERIALS. WE THINK THAT BUILDING LOOKS REALLY NICE AS WELL. SO WE'RE EXCITED TO ALSO KIND OF BOOKEND THE PLAZA WITH THAT BUILDING OVER HERE, HAPPY TO RUN THROUGH ANY OF OUR CHANGES, THE ARCHITECTURE, ANY QUESTIONS THAT THE BOARD HAS. OKAY. THANK YOU. PLANNING DEPARTMENT, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD TO.

ONLY THING I'LL ADD IS THIS REVIEW WILL BE VERY SIMILAR TO WHAT WE DID FOR THE TEXAS ROADHOUSE. I DID ASK MATT AND HIS TEAM OVER AT BENDERSON TO PROVIDE VIEWS FOR YOU GUYS OF THE PROJECT JUST ITSELF, AND THEN ALSO THE PROJECT JUXTAPOSED WITH THE TEXAS ROADHOUSE, JUST SO THAT YOU HAVE A FEEL FOR THE ENTIRE OUTPARCEL, BECAUSE WE'RE USED TO IT BEING VACANT, AND NOW IT HAS TWO NEW RESTAURANTS WITH WITH PARKING IN THERE. SO FROM THERE, WITH THE TEXAS ROADHOUSE, WE DID NOT DO A COORDINATED REVIEW AT THAT TIME FOR THAT PROJECT, BUT I'LL ASK THIS BOARD TO CONSIDER WHETHER THEY WANT TO DO ONE FOR THIS PROJECT.

THE ONLY APPROVAL IS SITE PLAN APPROVAL FROM THE BOARD. SO THERE REALLY AREN'T MANY AGENCIES INVOLVED WITH THIS, BUT FROM THERE, ASKING ANY QUESTIONS AND THEN IF YOU FEEL COMFORTABLE SCHEDULING A PUBLIC HEARING BECAUSE THEY HAVE PRODUCED A FULL SITE PLAN. SO THIS IS NOT SKETCH PLAN. I DIDN'T HEAR THAT LAST PART. THIS IS NOT SKETCH PLAN. THIS IS FULL SITE PLAN. SO THEY CAN GO MOVE ON TO THE PUBLIC HEARING PHASE IF YOU FEEL THAT THEY'RE COMFORTABLE IN DOING SO. ALL RIGHT. ENGINEERING, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO OFFER. SO FROM THE ENGINEERING PERSPECTIVE ON THIS. SO WE HAVE ALREADY RECEIVED FULL ENGINEERING PLANS ON THIS AS WELL AS AN ENGINEER'S REPORT. SO I DID DO AT LEAST A HIGH LEVEL REVIEW TO SEE. AND SO FOR THE HISTORY FOR REFRESHER FOR THIS BOARD AS WELL AS NEW MEMBERS, THIS SITE WAS ORIGINALLY APPROVED. AS IT CURRENTLY STANDS, A LOT OF THE DRAINAGE, THE SETUP FOR THE PARKING LOT AND THE POND, WHICH IS THE IMPORTANT THING I WANT TO TALK ABOUT, WAS ALREADY DONE IN ADVANCE OF INDIVIDUAL BUILDINGS COMING IN. SO WHAT WE DID FOR THE TEXAS ROADHOUSE AND WHAT I'M GOING TO REQUEST HERE, IS JUST ASK FOR A SUMMARY ON HOW THIS PROJECT CONTINUES TO MEET THE STORMWATER DESIGN, WHICH WAS APPROVED AND PART OF THE STATE PERMIT, AND EVERYTHING THAT GOES WITH THAT TO ENSURE THAT AS THEY GO THROUGH AND DO THESE BUILDINGS, WE DON'T RUN INTO AN ISSUE AS FAR AS THE STORMWATER DESIGN. SO TEXAS ROADHOUSE HAD MINOR MODIFICATIONS. THEY PROVIDED A SUMMARY OF HOW IT WAS JUST A VERY MINOR INCREASE TO THE STORMWATER. THIS HAS MINOR MODIFICATIONS. CURRENTLY, THE ENGINEER'S REPORT HAS ABOUT 2 OR 3 SENTENCES ON STORMWATER THAT JUST SAYS STORMWATER WILL BE COLLECTED IN CATCH BASINS AND PIPED TO THE EXISTING SYSTEM. THAT'S NOT GOING TO BE GOOD ENOUGH. I'M GOING TO NEED AN ANALYSIS ON THE STORMWATER SIDE TO SHOW WHERE OUR NUMBERS AT FOR THIS SITE AS A WHOLE,

[01:35:05]

WHAT IS GOING TO BE THE RESTAURANT WITH THE DRIVE THROUGH? BECAUSE SOME THINGS NEED MORE STACKING THAN OTHERS. SO WE DON'T HAVE A SPECIFIC TENANT YET FOR THE END CAP OF THAT SPACE. SO RIGHT NOW WE ARE SHOWING IT WITH TEN DEDICATED STACKING SPACES, SPECIFICALLY WITHIN THAT DRIVE THROUGH WHICH WE THINK IS SUFFICIENT FOR MOST USERS WHO WOULD GO INTO THAT END CAP SPACE. MEMBER MCCORMACK I WOULD SAY THAT IF YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE A MAJOR COFFEE CHAIN THAT TENDS, STACKING SPACES WOULD PROBABLY NOT BE ADEQUATE BASED ON SOME OF WHAT WE'VE SEEN ELSEWHERE. SO HAVING A BETTER IDEA OF THE USER SO WE CAN FIGURE OUT WHAT WHAT'S NEEDED THERE. I THINK, YOU KNOW, THE CHICK FIL A WAS ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF WHERE WE NEEDED IT.

WE HAD AN INCIDENT WITH A WHERE WE DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THE USER WAS, AND WE HAD STACKING GOING OUT ONTO A ROAD. THAT WOULDN'T BE THE CASE HERE, BUT IT COULD COMPLETELY IMPEDE YOUR FLOW WITHIN THE WITHIN THE SITE. I DON'T EXPECT THAT IT WILL GO ALL THE WAY BACK OUT, BUT IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO HAVE A BETTER IDEA OF WHAT TYPE OF A USER OR WHAT USER, OR WHAT THAT'S BEING MARKETED TO, AND SO THAT WE HAVE A BETTER IDEA OF STACKING. I CAN PROVIDE MORE INFORMATION, I CAN PROVIDE A SPECIFIC USER BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE ONE. AND IT KIND OF BECOMES A LITTLE BIT OF A CHICKEN AND THE EGG. A LOT OF USERS AND LIKE END USERS, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO SIGN ON NECESSARILY TO A PROJECT UNTIL WE GET MORE THROUGH APPROVALS AND THEN AT TIMES START CONSTRUCTION. I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND WHAT THE WHAT THE BOARD'S CONCERNS ARE. WHAT I CAN SAY IS THERE ARE USERS CHICK FIL A, THE UNNAMED NATIONAL COFFEE CHAIN. THEY HAVE SPECIFIC STACKING REQUIREMENTS THAT THEY LOOK FOR WHEN THEY'RE COMING TO SITES THAT THIS WOULDN'T BE. SO REALLY BASED ON WHAT WE'RE WHAT WE'RE BUILDING, IT WOULD BE A USER WHO WOULD LOOK AT AND SAY, WE FEEL THAT THE STACKING SPACES IS SUFFICIENT. WE'RE NOT LIKE OVER AT MCKINLEY PLAZA. WE DON'T NEED 18, 17 SPACES THERE.

WE DON'T NEED TO EXTEND IT TO A DOUBLE LANE. SO IT KIND OF IT GETS BUILT. AND THEN THE USER SORT OF BACKFILLS INTO THE SPACE BASED ON HOW MUCH STACKING IS THERE. BUT I CAN PROVIDE PROBABLY A LITTLE MORE DETAIL AS TO SORT OF WHAT TYPES OF USERS WE'RE LOOKING AT. IT'S NOT NECESSARILY A HEAVY DRIVE THROUGH USER BECAUSE IT IT ALSO MAKES THE REST OF THE BUILDING MUCH MORE DIFFICULT. SO IF YOU HAVE A USER SAY THAT WRAPS AROUND AND STACKS HERE, YOU'RE THEN NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO LEASE THE REST OF THE SPACE. SO IT ALSO WORKS INTO THE BUSINESS MODEL AS WELL, WHERE YOU CAN'T BLOCK OFF ACCESS TO THE REST OF THE BUILDING. SO IT KIND OF SELF-REGULATES, BUT I ABSOLUTELY GET THE CONCERN AND WE'LL DO OUR BEST TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AS BEST WE CAN WITH THAT. THANK YOU. AND THEN JUST WE'LL UPDATE THE DRAINAGE REPORT. WE'LL KIND OF HAVE CARMINA UPDATE THE TEXAS ROADHOUSE REPORT THAT THEY DID AND JUST EXPAND UPON THAT ONE AS WELL. ANYONE ELSE MEMBER SHIMURA, COULD YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN MORE? COULD YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN WHAT NOTE 64 OR IF THAT'S SUPPOSED TO BE A NOTE ON THE PLAN IS TO REFER TO OH, THAT'S THE TOTAL NUMBER OF THAT WOULD BE THE TOTAL NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES IN THIS PORTION OF THE SITE. THE 64, THERE WAS 64 HERE. AND THEN THERE'S 156 IN THAT AREA. IT WAS JUST BREAKING IT UP INTO THE TWO SEPARATE AREAS. REALLY INTERESTING LOCATION FOR THE NUMBER. SO MY MY COMMENT RELATES TO MY PREVIOUS COMMENTS WITH RESPECT TO THE TEXAS ROADHOUSE AND THE CONNECTIVITY WITH SIDEWALKS, AND THAT ALLOWING FOR THERE TO BE A CONNECTION, A PEDESTRIAN CONNECTION KIND OF TO THE MAIN PARCEL AND BE ABLE TO HAVE. ACCESSIBILITY TO YOUR FRONT DOOR. SO, RIGHT, YOU'VE GOT THE EXISTING SIDEWALK THAT IS AT YOUR EXISTING CURB CUT. BUT AND I SEE YOU'RE PUTTING IN THAT STOP MIDWAY UP INTO THAT INTERSECTION. BUT YET YOU ARE THEN HAVING YOUR PEDESTRIANS TURN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION FROM YOUR PROPOSED RETAIL RESTAURANT. I WOULD REQUEST TO

[01:40:04]

DOOR. RIGHT? BECAUSE RIGHT NOW, IF YOU WERE TO JUST EXTEND NORTH AND CROSS AND THEN LOOK AT YOUR BUILDING AND GO STRAIGHT ALONG THE SIDE, THAT'S ONE CROSSING OF A OF A ROAD.

WELL, THEY COULD GO OFF THE ROAD THOUGH, COULDN'T THEY. WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO PUT A PEDESTRIAN IN DANGER TO BE WALKING. NO, NO. ISN'T THAT THE SIDEWALK? FEELS LIKE THIS IS THE EXISTING SIDEWALK HERE. YEAH. ISN'T THIS SIDEWALK HERE? YES. BUT HOW HOW WOULD A PEDESTRIAN HOW WOULD A PEDESTRIAN SAFELY ACCESS THE FRONT DOOR? THE FRONT FACE OF THIS BUILDING? SO YOU SO BUT I GET I GET YOUR POINT. SO YOU WERE SAYING THEN HERE BASICALLY COME UP AND THEN DOWN THERE AND OVER. CORRECT. HOWEVER, WHEN YOU'RE GOING IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION, YOU'RE COMING HERE, YOU'RE COMING UP. AT THAT POINT YOU'RE HIDDEN BY THE BUILDING BASICALLY UNTIL YOU STEP INTO THE DRIVE THRU LANE. SO THEN YOU HAVE SO BY PUTTING THEM OUT HERE, I GET IT. IT'S KIND OF BALANCING. EITHER YOU'RE CROSSING THE DRIVE LANE OR YOU'RE CROSSING THE DRIVE AND IT'S JUST THERE'S MORE VISIBILITY HERE TO DO IT. WE CAN LOOK AT BOTH OF THEM. WE CAN SEE WHAT'S BETTER. WE JUST HAVE TRIED. WE WE VERY MUCH TRY TO NOT DO PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS WHERE YOU'RE KIND OF COMING OUT BLIND AND SOMEONE MIGHT NOT FROM A DRIVE THROUGH. YEAH, BUT YOU HAVE A STOP SIGN AT THE DRIVE THROUGH AND THEN YOU'RE ENCROACHING INTO AN INTO A INTERSECTION. SO THE ONE THING IS THAT WHAT YOU CAN DO IS SHAVE OFF A BAY AND SHAVE OFF PARTIAL OF THE BUILDING IN ORDER TO ALLOW FOR ACCESS. AND THEREFORE, WHEN YOU CROSS ONE DRIVE, LANE, ONE DRIVEWAY, YOU ARE THEN ON THE ISLAND SAFE AND ABLE TO THEN ACCESS THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING. I MEAN, WE CAN WE CAN LOOK AT IT, I DON'T LIKE, LOOK AT IT AND SEE AND COME UP WITH WITH AN OPTION. GREAT. YEAH. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMENTS. CONCERNS. MEMBER MCCORMICK. MCCORMICK. BUILDING ON WHAT MEMBER SHIMURA SAID WOULD ANOTHER ALTERNATIVE BE WHAT I THINK CHAIR CRONICAN WAS SAYING TO COME. THERE'S A SIDEWALK THAT'S ALONG THE ENTRANCE ROAD. COULD YOU ADD A PEDESTRIAN ACCESS SO THAT INSTEAD OF WALKING INTO THE SITE AND AROUND THE BUILDING, SOMEBODY JUST COMES DOWN ALONG THE DRIVE ROAD AND THEN ENTERS THE FRONT THAT WAY? RIGHT. SO YOU WOULD HAVE THE ABILITY TO ACCESS FROM HERE THE WE CAN'T PROVIDE ACCESS THERE BECAUSE OF THE GRADE. AND THIS AS YOU'RE COMING IN, THIS WINDS UP BEING LOWER. SO YOU COULDN'T JUST GET A STRAIGHT OH OKAY. THAT'S KIND OF WHY THIS SIDEWALK THEN PUSHES OUT AND THEN COMES BACK IN THAT DIRECTION. BUT WE'LL WE'LL TAKE A LOOK AT ALL DIFFERENT OPTIONS, SEE IF THERE'S SOMETHING ELSE WE CAN DO. MAYBE WE BRING IN WE COULD BRING SOMETHING IN MORE FROM OVER HERE AND OVER. AND LIKE WE CAN KIND OF WORK WITH THE GRADE AS WELL. WE'LL WE'LL TAKE A LOOK AT ALL DIFFERENT OPTIONS AND SEE WHAT WE CAN MAYBE TURN THE BUILDING THAT WOULD THEN GO BACK TO FACING THE BUILDING IN.

AND I'LL JUST LIKE I, I UNDERSTAND I WANT TO MAKE SAFE PEDESTRIAN ACCESS AND I WANT TO HAVE PEDESTRIAN ACCESS. DESIGNING AROUND PEDESTRIAN ACCESS IN A SHOPPING CENTER, THOUGH I DON'T THINK LEADS TO THE BEST OVERALL DESIGN FOR THE CENTER, BECAUSE IT'S WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE HAVING HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE WALKING THERE. LIKE IT WOULD BE MORE LIKE IN THE DOWNTOWN VILLAGE. NOT THAT WE DON'T WANT TO DO PEDESTRIAN ACCESS, BUT I DON'T

[01:45:05]

I'M REFERRING TO PEDESTRIAN ACCESS. WILL WILL NEVER PUT PEDESTRIAN SAFETY BELOW THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE BUILDING OR THE LOOK. BUT IF SOMEONE HAS TO WALK AN EXTRA 30 OR 40FT, RIGHT, THAT WOULD BE IT. BUT BUT SAFETY IS. I WANT TO BE CLEAR. SAFETY IS THE TOP PRIORITY FOR US. WE DO NOT WANT TO DESIGN SOMETHING THAT IS UNSAFE. SO BUT WE'LL WE'LL LOOK AT ALL DIFFERENT OPTIONS AND SEE WHAT'S BEST. BUT THERE'S PLENTY OF ROOM IN THIS SIDEWALK CAN EASILY BE HERE, AND THERE'S PLENTY OF ROOM IN THIS AREA TO MAKE SOMETHING WORK. SO I THINK GETTING PEDESTRIAN ACCESS FROM FROM POINT A TO POINT B, THERE'S NO ISSUES. IT'S JUST LOOKING AT THE AT THE DESIGN AND MAKING SURE WE DO IT THE BEST AND SAFEST WAY POSSIBLE.

SO DO YOU WANT TO COME BACK WITH YOUR WITH YOUR OTHER IDEAS, OR DO WE WANT TO SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING? I, I KNOW I ORIGINALLY SAID FOR TEXAS ROADHOUSE, WE DIDN'T DO A COORDINATED REVIEW AFTER DISCUSSION BECAUSE THIS PARCEL WOULD BE THE SECOND RESTAURANT IN THIS AREA, AND IT'S CLOSEST TO SOUTHWESTERN BOULEVARD. MIGHT THE BOARD WANT TO SEND IT AT LEAST TO DOT FOR COMMENT AND A COORDINATED REVIEW FASHION INSTEAD OF JUST TYPICAL COMMENT, JUST TO SEE MAKE SURE DOT IS COMFORTABLE WITH TRAFFIC COMING OFF OF SOUTHWESTERN INTO THIS PLAZA SINCE IT'LL BE TWO RESTAURANTS, WHEREAS TEXAS ROADHOUSE WAS JUST THE ONE AND A SEA OF PARKING. NOW WE HAVE TWO RESTAURANTS. JUST A THOUGHT FOR THE BOARD'S CONSIDERATION, BUT THERE STILL IS AN APPROVED 7000 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING THAT SITS HERE. JUST TO BE CLEAR, IT'S NOT A NEW RETAIL RESTAURANT. IT'S JUST I DON'T KNOW THAT WE NEED DOT RETAIL RESTAURANT DEAL. I HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION. ONE SECOND. IS THERE ANY NEED ON SOUTHWESTERN BOULEVARD FOR ADDITIONAL TURNING LANES? TIMING CHANGES AT THE LIGHTS? HAVE WE HAD ANY COMPLAINTS IN THIS AREA ABOUT ACCESS? THAT WOULD BE THE ONLY REASON I WOULD KNOW. SAY TO REFER TO DOT IS IF THERE WERE EXISTING CONCERNS HERE WHERE WE WOULD WANT THEM TO TAKE A LOOK AT LIKE LIGHT DURATION SIGNALING, TURN LANES OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. NOT TO JUMP IN AND ANSWER. BUT WHAT I CAN SAY IS WHEN THE PROJECT WAS INITIALLY APPROVED, THE TRAFFIC WAS ACTUALLY LOOKED AT. I WANT TO SAY IT WAS LIKE 100, 120,000FT■S BECAUSE IT WAS REVIEWED FOR THIS BUILDING HERE, THIS BUILDING HERE. PLUS AT THE TOP WHERE THE POND IS, THERE'S ALSO ANOTHER BUILDING THERE AS WELL. SO ALL THE TRAFFIC AND ALL THE INFRASTRUCTURE WAS DONE FOR THE FULL BUILD OUT OF THIS. WHEN WE DID ALL THE ROAD WORK AS PART OF THAT. AND THEN FOR SIGNAL TIMINGS, I THINK THE DOT GENERALLY IS ALWAYS KIND OF LOOKING AT THAT. AND EVEN WHEN WE DO TRAFFIC STUDIES, WE MAKE A RECOMMENDATION. IT'S ALWAYS LIKE, WELL, YOU COULD MAKE THESE CHANGES AND IT'S LIKE WHATEVER THE DOT KIND OF THINKS, YOU GUYS CAN DO WHAT YOU WANT.

AND THEY NEVER SPECIFICALLY LISTEN TO OUR ENGINEERS WHEN WE DO THAT. OTHER INPUT FROM BOARD MEMBER SHIMURA. HOW ARE YOU PLANNING TO DEAL WITH GARBAGE? THERE'S A DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE OVER HERE, SO WE WANTED TO MAKE IT ACCESSIBLE, BUT NOT CLOSE. OKAY. THAT'S ALWAYS THE DIFFICULT THING. WHERE CAN YOU PUT DUMPSTER ENCLOSURES SO THEY'RE EASY TO GET TO AND HARD TO SEE? OKAY. YEAH. NO. OKAY, I GOT IT. THANK YOU. OKAY. YEP. IS THERE A CONSENSUS ABOUT JOSH'S JOSH'S SUGGESTION ABOUT GOING TO DOT. SO I THINK THE BOARD WAS SAYING NO.

COORDINATOR REVIEW SIMILAR TO TEXAS ROADHOUSE. YEAH, WE CAN DO THAT. THAT'S THAT'S THE KIND OF SILENCE I GOT. OKAY. SO MY QUESTION THEN IS DO WE WAIT FOR THE CHANGES IN THE DRAWING OR SHOULD WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THE PUBLIC HEARING. WHAT DO WE HAVE ON THE THIRD, DO YOU THINK YOU CAN MAKE THE THIRD? CORRECT THAT. THAT'S WHAT I HEARD PREVIOUSLY. THE DATE FOR THE THIRD. YEAH. I MEAN, SO I'M GOING TO SAY NO. OKAY. SO RACING THROUGH AND NO NO THAT'S FINE I, I JUST SO THE 17TH DID WE GET MANY COMMENTS ON TEXAS ROADHOUSE. NO. DO WE HAVE ANY COMMENTS. NO MONEY OKAY. BECAUSE I WAS GOING TO SAY THAT IF WE WERE EXPECTING THERE TO TO BE COMMENTS, IT MIGHT BE WORTH ONLY HAVING YOU REVISE THE PLANS ONCE. BUT IF WE

[01:50:02]

OKAY. DON'T FORGET YOUR SANTA SHIRT. WE'LL HAVE UGLY SWEATER CONTEST THAT NIGHT. OKAY. SO WE CAN SEE YOU ON THE 17TH. AND THEN FOR OUR PUBLIC HEARING. FOR PUBLIC HEARING. AND YOU'LL HAVE YOUR NEW DRAWINGS AND WE'LL JUST SEND IN THE UPDATED JUST THE SITE PLAN FOR RIGHT NOW KIND OF WORK THROUGH THE PEDESTRIAN ACCESS SITE PLAN. YEAH. DRAINAGE STUDY SITE PLAN.

YEP. OKAY. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ALL RIGHT. YOU DO THE SAME. THANK YOU.

[4. Boston State Holdings, LLC – Requesting Approval for Minor Site Plan Modifications for the Village at Cedar Valley to be located at 3385 Cedar Valley Way]

AND THAT ARE ABLE TO ACCOMMODATE THE TENANTS THAT ARE CURRENTLY THERE. WE ALSO ON THE THE NEXT HANDOUT, WE'RE IN HOPES OF GETTING AN APPROVAL FOR. A AN ADDITIONAL DUMPSTER AREA. AND WE WILL PROVIDE THE APPROPRIATE SCREENING FOR THAT. THAT WOULD BE AT THE BACK CORNER. UPPER LEFT HAND SIDE, LOWEST RED CLOUD. THAT WOULD BE RIGHT THERE. AND THEN LAST BUT NOT LEAST, WE'D LIKE TO HAVE THE APPROVAL FOR A SINGLE FAMILY HOME SITE TO BE ADDED ON WITH ITS ACCESS RIGHT OFF OF COOPER RIDGE. ANYTHING ELSE? NO, THAT WOULD BE IT. OKAY.

PLANNING DEPARTMENT. SO MR. BURKE SENT THIS OVER TO MYSELF. I REVIEWED IT WITH OUR SUPERVISING CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, AND I ALSO BROUGHT IT TO CAMI. THEY SUGGESTED THAT IT BE BROUGHT TO PLANNING, TYPICALLY FOR, LIKE, DOING A MAINTENANCE BUILDING OF A SMALLER SIZE. WE WOULD CONSIDER DOING A SITE PLAN WAIVER, BUT BECAUSE IT'S A 30 BY 32 BUILDING, ALONG WITH MOVING A DUMPSTER PAD, AND REALLY IT'S THE ADDITION OF A SINGLE FAMILY LOT, WHY WE WANTED TO BRING IT TO THIS BOARD. OBVIOUSLY, THE VILLAGE AT CEDAR VALLEY HAS HISTORY AND WANTED TO BRING IT TO THIS BOARD FULL OF FULL PLANNING BOARD REVIEW. INSTEAD OF DOING A SITE PLAN WAIVER FOR ALL THREE OF THE ISSUES. SO THAT'S WHY IT'S HERE BEFORE YOU TONIGHT. CAMI, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANT TO SPEAK TO, LIKE, OUR CONVERSATION THAT WE HAD OF WHY WE WANTED TO BRING IT BECAUSE WE REVIEWED IT, BUT. WELL, I, I THINK JOSH HIT ON IT PRETTY WELL. AGAIN, A NEW MAINTENANCE BUILDING WOULD JUST BE A SITE FEATURE. WE COULD HANDLE THAT, YOU KNOW, AS PART OF BUILDING PERMIT AND SO ON. BUT ADDING A SUBDIVISION. AND THEN WE ALSO KNOW THAT DUMPSTERS ARE OFTEN CONVERSATION HERE AT THE PLANNING BOARD AND AN INTEREST WITH THE NEIGHBORS AND ENSURING THAT THEY'RE PUT IN THE CORRECT LOCATION. THEY DON'T IMPACT PARKING, THEY DON'T IMPACT ACCESS. SO WE JUST FELT THERE WAS TOO MUCH GOING ON FOR THIS

[01:55:01]

RIGHT? YEP. THE LOT ITSELF IS 70 FOOT WIDE. IF YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THE THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE CORNER OF THE LOT AND THE CORNER OF THE ROAD, IT'S SIGNIFICANTLY WIDER THAN THE 70 FOOT. I THINK THAT WOULD BE ONE THAT WOULD JUST BE GOOD TO, YOU KNOW, AS YOU WE GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS JUST TO ADD THOSE. YEAH. THAT THAT'S A NUMBER THAT'S EASILY OBTAINED.

ANYONE ELSE. MEMBERS. MEMBER SHIMURA AND LOOKING AT WHAT'S BEEN BUILT. OH NO I'M ALL BACKWARDS NOW. SO ON YOUR SITE PLAN, HAS BUILDING C BEEN BUILT? AND THEN LIKE THE. OR ARE WE SEEING. I THINK THAT THAT'S. EXCUSE ME. MY DRAWING ISN'T I THINK THOSE TWO ON THE IT'S JUST THESE TWO OKAY. OKAY. THAT'S FINE. I'M JUST TRYING TO GET ORIENTED AS TO WHERE THAT DUMPSTER, WHERE THAT DUMPSTER IS GOING TO BE LOCATED. THAT'S FINE. THE THREE BUILDINGS CLOSEST TO THE DUMPSTER ARE CURRENTLY FRAMED IN. WE DO NOT HAVE A CFO FOR THOSE THREE BUILDINGS. ALL THE NEW BUILDINGS ARE STARTING AT THAT POINT RIGHT NOW, AND WE'RE MOVING TO THE TO THE OPPOSITE END OF THE SITE. SO THIS. I WAS OUT THERE AND I HAVE TO SAY THAT I WAS SHOCKED. FIRST OF ALL, THE BUILDINGS ARE LOVELY, BUT THAT'S NOT WHY I WAS SHOCKED. I WAS SHOCKED BECAUSE I COULDN'T GET ANY FURTHER BECAUSE OF THE AMOUNT OF FENCING AND I COULDN'T SEE THE WHOLE, THE WHOLE, WHICH IS UNFORTUNATE. I WANTED TO DRIVE AROUND AND GET A FEEL AND I COULDN'T. SO. I'M CONFLICTED ABOUT THE ADDITIONAL HOUSE BEING ADDED ONTO THIS PROPERTY. WE'VE HAD OTHER CHANGES ON THIS, ON THIS PLAN BEFORE. CORRECT.

WE HAVE THE HOME ITSELF WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED A PART OF THIS COMMUNITY. THAT WILL BE A

[02:00:08]

WOULDN'T IT BE A SEPARATE. SUBDIVISION? I'M SORRY IF IT'S IF IT'S NOT PART OF THE THE PROJECT, WOULD IT NOT BE A SEPARATE SBL NUMBER. WOULD IT NOT BE A SUBDIVISION ATTORNEY? JOSEPH GOERGEN ATTORNEY FOR THE PLANNING BOARD? JUST JUST THE QUESTION IF THAT IF THAT'S GOING TO BE A SEPARATE UNIT, A SEPARATE DWELLING? YES. IT WOULD BE SOLD OFF AS A SINGLE FAMILY HOME. SO THAT WOULD THAT WOULD NEED TO BE SUBDIVIDED. YES, SIR. SO IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WITH THE TOWNHOMES TAKING US BACK. LET ME KNOW IF I GET THIS WRONG. THIS IS WHY THEY KEEP US ON LONG TERMS. I BELIEVE THAT THOSE ORIGINAL LOTS AND THIS PHASE HERE WERE ALL PART OF THE LONG TERM PHASE BUILD OUT FOR THIS BROADER DEVELOPMENT. SO MY RECOLLECTION IS THAT THE SUBDIVISION, THE RESIDENTIAL SOLD LOTS THAT ARE TO THE NORTH. RIGHT. AND THIS WERE ALL PART OF A BIGGER MAJOR MASTER PLAN WITH A BROADER ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS THAT WENT WITH IT HOLISTICALLY. THEY CAME BACK TO US, AND THIS AREA WAS MODIFIED AS A LATER BUILD OUT. SO I THINK THE REASON THAT IT WOULD BE INCLUDED HERE IS BECAUSE ALL OF THIS WHOLE BUILD OUT WAS ONE BIG ANALYSIS TO BEGIN WITH. YEAH, PUT IN THE MEMO. I BELIEVE IN 2013 THERE WAS A NECK DECK ISSUED FOR DEVELOPMENT THAT WAS 30 SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED HOMES, 80 PATIO HOMES, AND AT THE TIME 168 MULTI-FAMILY UNITS, WHICH WAS THEN THE NUMBERS WERE DOWN 144.

BUT SECRET WAS DONE, I BELIEVE, ON AN ENTIRE DEVELOPMENT, INCLUDING PATIO HOMES, SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND APARTMENTS. I BELIEVE THAT'S THE CASE. SO THEN IT WOULD TAKE IT UP TO 145 HOME NUMBER OF HOMES, CORRECT? WELL, THE UNITS WERE, I BELIEVE, APARTMENTS. NO. SO SEAN HOPKINS, I WAS INVOLVED WITH THAT PROJECT AS WELL. BELIEVE IT OR NOT, YOU'RE HERE AND WE CAN'T KEEP YOU AWAY FROM THE MICROPHONE. THAT GOES ALL THE WAY BACK TO 2009. AND WHAT JOSH IS STATING IS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT THAT WE'RE STILL SUBSTANTIALLY LOWER THAN THE DENSITY, AT WHICH POINT THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION WAS ISSUED. AND MR. MCCORMICK IS CORRECT AS WELL. ORIGINALLY, THIS WAS REVIEWED AS ONE OVERALL PROJECT, AND THAT'S WHAT THE TOWN ASKED FOR US TO DO. IT WAS SUBJECT TO A REZONING. IT HAD VARIOUS CONDITIONS. THEN SUBSEQUENTLY WE CAME BACK AND REDUCED THE DENSITY OF THE MULTIFAMILY PROJECT TO THE CURRENT PLAN BECAUSE WE THOUGHT IT WAS MUCH BETTER. AND IT IS MUCH BETTER THAN WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY SHOWN.

SO WE APPROVED ORIGINALLY 30 SINGLE HOMES, AND THIS IS ONE OF THE 30 HOMES THAT WAS ORIGINALLY APPROVED. AM I UNDERSTANDING THAT CORRECTLY OR IS THIS GOING TO MAKE IT 31? I, I THINK THAT THIS LOT IS PROBABLY ADDITIONAL, BUT IT WOULD BE A MODIFICATION OF THE ORIGINAL BROADER BUILD OUT. THAT'S WHAT I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT AS WELL. BUT I THINK THE KEY IS THAT IN TERMS OF IMPACTS, IT'S LESS. WELL, YOU CAN LOOK AT IT THAT WAY, BUT I'M SITTING ON THIS SIDE OF THE TABLE AND I GOT TO LOOK AT IT A DIFFERENT WAY, RESPECTFULLY. SO I'M TRYING TO GET IT IN MY HEAD. ARE WE CHANGING NUMBERS. AND ACCORDING TO WHAT IS WRITTEN HERE WE ARE. YEAH. WHAT IMPACT DOES THAT HAVE FOR THIS BOARD? I MEAN, IT'S WEIRD BECAUSE IT'S IT WAS A WHOLE HUGE DEVELOPMENT AND THEY'RE ASKING FOR AN ADDITIONAL SINGLE FAMILY LOT, WHICH IN ESSENCE, I GUESS IS ADDING ANOTHER HOME. RIGHT? BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT. BUT YOU'RE LOOKING TO BUT YOU'RE LOOKING TO SUBDIVIDE IT OFF THOUGH.

CORRECT. SO IT THERE'S A LOT OF PARTS. MIGHT NOT HAVE RELATIONSHIP. THAT'S WHAT I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH. I HAVE I HAVE A SUGGESTION. MAYBE IT'S THE SAME SUGGESTION. MY SUGGESTION WOULD BE THAT WE WOULD NEED TO DO SOME SORT OF A FORM RELATED TO SEEKER, TO SHOW WHETHER OR NOT THIS WAS CONSISTENT WITH THE ORIGINAL FINDING STATEMENT, WHICH SHOULD ADDRESS THE NUMBER OF TOTAL HOUSING UNITS. SO THAT WOULD I WOULD RECOMMEND A STEP ONE. I THINK THAT IF THAT WOULD BE A SUBDIVISION OFF, WHETHER THAT COUNTS AS A MODIFICATION TO THE MAJOR SUBDIVISION OR WHATEVER OCCURRED ORIGINALLY, OR A MINOR FROM WHERE IT'S AT HERE, I WILL LEAVE THAT TO AN ATTORNEY, BUT I THINK THAT THE OTHER TWO PIECES WE SHOULD LOOK AT AS A

[02:05:05]

MAINTENANCE IS ONE. AND THEN THIS HOUSE IS SOMETHING ELSE. I THINK THEY SHOULD ALL GO WITH THE SAME FINDINGS ANALYSIS THOUGH, BECAUSE I AGREE WITH THAT. BUT DO YOU SEE WHAT I DO? YOU SEE WHERE I'M COMING FROM. IS THERE AN ORDER OF MAGNITUDE THAT WOULD END UP TRIGGERING NEEDING TO DO THIS ADDITIONAL REVIEW LIKE. RIGHT. SO IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AN ORIGINAL PLAN OF 168 MULTI-FAMILY UNITS, THAT THEN WAS BROUGHT DOWN TO 144 UNITS, GREAT. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT, BUT NOW WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ONE PLOT, ONE SINGLE FAMILY HOME. THE 144 I THINK WAS THE THE APARTMENTS THOUGH. BUT I MEAN, FROM AN OVERALL STANDPOINT, IT'S LIKE LESS THAN 1% OF A IMPACT DEPENDING UPON IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT UNITS OR LIKE SQUARE FOOTAGE OR SOME SOMETHING THAT IT'S VERY MINIMAL. MEMBER MCCORMACK, ARE YOU ASKING FOR A REVISED LIKE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM BECAUSE THERE WASN'T AN EIS DONE ON THIS PROJECT. SO WHAT WOULD FINDINGS? THERE WAS A THERE WAS AN ISSUE.

YEAH. JUST DO A FIND IT. WE SHOULDN'T THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, WHETHER OR NOT WE FIND THIS CONCURRENT WITH THE STATEMENT THAT WE MADE. SO OKAY, SO THERE WAS NO FINDINGS FOR THIS ONE.

AND THEN IT WOULD JUST BE INTRODUCED AN ANALYSIS OF THE MEANING, MEANING IT FALLS WITHIN THE CONFINES OF THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION, WHICH IT DOES FROM A, FROM AN IMPACT PERSPECTIVE. IT CLEARLY DOES. AND THEN I DO WANT TO SAY THAT I AGREE WITH MISS MCCORMACK BECAUSE AGAIN, I WAS INVOLVED. ULTIMATELY, THERE WAS A SITE PLAN APPLICATION FOR THE APARTMENTS AND A SUBDIVISION REVIEW AND APPROVAL FOR THE SUBDIVISION. SO I THINK THIS IS HOW IT SHOULD BE TREATED. MINOR SUBDIVISION APPROVAL. WE'RE ONLY CREATING ONE LOT. AND THEN WHAT I WOULD CALL A MINOR SITE PLAN AMENDMENT. THAT'S THAT'S WHAT I WAS GETTING AT. YEAH.

OKAY. CLEARLY NOT A MAJOR SUBDIVISION. WELL NO NOT A MAJOR BUT. IF WE WERE I GUESS THERE'S A QUESTION FOR JOSH MEMBER MCCORMACK. IF WE WERE TO SEPARATE THE TWO ITEMS BECAUSE THEY'RE DIFFERENT PROCEDURES, WOULD THE DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE AND MAYBE NOT BECAUSE OF THE SIZE OF THE MAINTENANCE BUILDING, BECAUSE THAT'S A DECENT SIZE. IT'S NOT LIKE A SHED, DO WE WHAT ARE THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE SITE PLAN WAIVER PROGRAM UNDER 1000FT■S, NOT VISIBLE FROM THE ROAD, IN CONCURRENCE WITH ENGINEERING PLANNING BOARD CHAIR, PLANNING DEPARTMENT CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER. SO IT WOULD IT WOULD. SO WHEN WE ORIGINALLY LOOKED AT IT, WE THOUGHT IT MET THE SITE PLAN WAIVER COMPONENT. IT WAS THE ADDITION OF THE SINGLE FAMILY LOT THAT MADE US BRING IT TO THE PLANNING BOARD. IF WE SEPARATE THE TWO, WE WERE OF THE OPINION AND CAN CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG. WE WERE OF THE OPINION THAT THE DUMPSTER LOCATION MOVE AND THE ADDITION OF THE 30 BY 32 MAINTENANCE BUILDING, WHICH IS UNDER 1000FT, WOULD QUALIFY FOR OUR SITE PLAN WAIVER. SEE, AND I THINK THAT'S I THINK IT SHOULD BE SPLIT. GO AHEAD. I WOULD AGREE FROM AN ENGINEERING PERSPECTIVE THAT THE DUMPSTER AND MAINTENANCE BUILDING WOULD QUALIFY UNDER SITE PLAN WAIVER. I THINK ADDING THE HOUSE TO THIS IS JUST COMPLICATES IT AND THAT THE ONE COULD HAVE BEEN WAIVED. WE WOULD HAVE ALL BEEN IN AGREEMENT TO THAT AND WOULD HAVE GONE ON. AND THEN WE COULD JUST LOOK AT THE HOUSE. CAN'T WE STILL DO THAT? BECAUSE ONE NEEDS SUBDIVISION? NO, I THINK WE CAN. I'M JUST I JUST WANT A CLARIFICATION. I, I WANT IT ON THE RECORD THAT WE CLARIFIED AND HAD A DISCUSSION ABOUT IT ON HOW WE GOT TO WHERE WE ARE. THAT'S ALL FROM THE APPLICANT'S PERSPECTIVE. THAT MAKES ACTUALLY A LOT OF SENSE. SO TECHNICALLY WE'RE GETTING A MINOR SUBDIVISION APPLICATION OF WHAT'S TECHNICALLY GOING TO BE A TWO LOT SUBDIVISION OF A LOT BEING SPLIT OFF FROM THIS OVERALL SUBDIVISION DEVELOPMENT. OKAY. I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY WHAT WE'RE DOING. OKAY. SO TWO LOT SUBDIVISION. SO AN ATTORNEY JOSEPH GOGAN, CONSISTENT WITH WHAT MISS MCCORMICK SAID ABOUT TYING IT INTO THE ORIGINAL SEEKER DETERMINATION WITH THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION. AND AGAIN, THIS IS UP TO THE BOARD TO DECIDE. I'M NOT THE BOARD. I'M JUST, YOU KNOW, RECOMMENDING WHAT THE BOARD NEEDS TO DECIDE ON VOTE ON WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE, THAT THE ADDITION OF AN ADDITIONAL HOUSE, A SINGLE FAMILY UNIT DOESN'T AFFECT THAT ORIGINAL SEEKER DETERMINATION.

THAT THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH IT. AND I GUESS THAT WAS WHAT MISS MCCORMICK SAID, THAT THAT WOULD BE JUST A SMALL STATEMENT THAT IT'S IT'S STILL CONSISTENT WITH THE ORIGINAL, THE ORIGINAL FINDINGS. REMEMBER THAT SINGLE FAMILY HOME IS GOING TO BE BUILT WITH ALL THE EXISTING FAMILY HOMES. SINGLE HOMES HAVE ALREADY BEEN BUILT, SOLD IN THERE. SO IT'S JUST ANOTHER

[02:10:02]

IT'S AN ADDITIONAL HOME WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION COMPONENT, RIGHT? OKAY. YEAH.

NOTHING. NOTHING PARTICULARLY THAT MUCH OUT OF THE ORDINARY. BUT THIS HOUSE SPECIFICALLY IS BEING SPLIT OFF FROM A PARCEL. A PARCEL IS BEING SPLIT OFF FROM THE OVERALL. OKAY. YEAH.

SO IT'S TREATED DIFFERENTLY. THAT'S THE THAT'S THE WHAT I'M TRYING TO GET AT. THAT'S WHAT I WANT ON THE RECORD. IT'S NOT JUST A PART OF THE SUBDIVISION. IT'S NOT A PART OF THE ORIGINAL.

RIGHT. IT'LL BE SPLIT. IT'S SPLIT OFF. CORRECT. OKAY. YEAH I WOULD ACKNOWLEDGE THAT REQUIRES MINOR SUBDIVISION APPROVAL UNDER THE CODE. YEAH. SIMILAR TO THE ALL THE OTHER, WHICH IS WHAT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED WHEN THE MAJOR SUBDIVISION AND THE THOSE LOTS WERE ALL SOLD OFF AS WELL. OKAY. SO JOSH, WHAT DO WE HAVE TO DO HERE TO DO SO I WILL PREPARE SITE PLAN WAIVER FORM FOR YOUR REVIEW COMMITTEES, REVIEW MY REVIEW AND JUST REVIEW WHICH WILL BE HANDLED SEPARATELY. AND THEN IN TERMS OF WHAT'S COMING BEFORE THE BOARD, WE WILL NEED A MINOR SUBDIVISION APPLICATION FOR THE SPLITTING OF THIS LOT FROM THE MAJOR SUBDIVISION FOR CEDAR VALLEY WAY. OKAY. WE'RE IN AGREEMENT TO THAT. WE DON'T HAVE TO VOTE ON THAT. RIGHT.

THAT'S BASED ON OUR DISCUSSION. OKAY. AND WE AGREE WITH THAT APPROACH. DOES THAT DO YOU PLAN ON. WELL, I MEAN, YOU CAN'T REALLY MAKE THE THIRD. DO YOU PLAN ON WANTING TO MAKE DECEMBER 17TH MEETING? YEAH. OKAY. IF THAT'S FINE WITH THE BOARD. HOLIDAY SWEATERS REQUIRE OKAY. ALL RIGHT. YES, YES. SO WE'RE GONNA BE WE'LL SEE YOU BACK ON THE 17TH. THANK YOU.

OKAY. ACTUALLY, WE'RE GONNA SEE YOU AGAIN IN FIVE SECONDS. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YOU'RE CERTAINLY WELCOME. HAPPY THANKSGIVING ON PROJECTS THAT ARE NOT BEFORE YOU. THAT GUY AT THE WHERE THERE'S A MICROPHONE. YEAH, EXACTLY. PAST COMING TO HAUNT YOU. OKAY. OUR FINAL CASE

[5. Updates to the David Manko Parker Road Subdivision/Glenn Wetzl Rezoning and multifamily development project]

[02:15:06]

AND I ALSO WANT TO NOTE THIS IS A STRANGE ONE IN THAT THE AS OF RIGHT PLAN IS ACTUALLY MORE USED. OKAY. IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDED? JOSH, DO WE HAVE AN ESTIMATE IN TERMS OF EITHER FEES, WHETHER IT'S FOR PARKER OR WETZEL, WHEN THAT'LL WHEN WE SHOULD EXPECT IT, OR IS IT KIND OF JUST WORK IN PROGRESS? I'D LIKE TO HAVE THEM IN BEFORE IN ADVANCE OF YOUR MEETING ON THE THIRD LINE. SO SO YOU WOULD WANT TO BE ADDED TO THE DECEMBER 17TH MEETING POTENTIALLY. LET'S FOLLOW UP. OKAY. YEAH. OKAY. YOU HAVE UNTIL THE THIRD. YOU WON'T BE ISSUING AN FIS. IT WOULD JUST BE HEY CURIOUS. RIGHT. BECAUSE THIS WILL BE IN THIS BOARD'S OPINION OF WHAT THEY IT'S ALL THE RESPONSES THAT ARE COMING BACK TO OUR ORIGINAL. OKAY. YEP. DRAFTS OF THE DOCUMENTS FOR BOTH OF THEM. RIGHT. WE GO BACK TO THE PARTIES, GO BACK TO THE DRAWING. OKAY. THEN WE'LL SEE YOU BACK ON THE 17TH THEN. THANK YOU.

CHAIR, I'M. I'M SORRY. MEMBER MCCORMACK HAS A QUESTION. OH, I WAS JUST GOING TO DISCLOSE FOR THIS BOARD BECAUSE IT'S CHANGED A LOT. THE ERIC KRULL IS A DISTANT RELATIVE ON MY MOTHER'S SIDE. SO JUST FULL DISCLOSURE, LIKE, KNOW WHO THE GUY WHO DID THE WETLAND DELINEATION. OH. OH OKAY. OKAY. YEAH. YEAH. HE'S MY MOM'S COUSIN OKAY. ALL RIGHT. ANYTHING ELSE? WE'LL SEE YOU BACK ON THE 17TH. OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, BOARD MEMBERS, TOMORROW YOU'RE GOING TO GET AN EMAIL FROM JOSH IN REFERENCE TO THE UPDATE FOR WETZEL AS WELL. I'M SORRY. OH I'M SORRY OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. THIS ONE, THIS ONE I DON'T BELIEVE I GOT A PDF OF THIS. I ONLY GOT PARKER ROAD.

YEAH, WE'LL MAKE SURE YOU GOT IT. OKAY. SO JUST SO YOU KNOW. SO WETZEL IS THE EXACT SAME SITUATION. BASICALLY, WE HAD TO GO BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD. THIS WAS DONE BY SCOTT LIVINGSTON. GO BACK OUT AT THE SITE, MEET WITH THE DECK AND THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS.

THIS ONE HAS SOME LARGER WETLANDS. AS YOU RECALL. THERE'S A WETLAND HERE THAT'S APPROXIMATELY SEVEN AND A HALF ACRES IN SIZE. THE DECK IS GOING TO TAKE JURISDICTION OVER THOSE AREAS. THEY'RE NOT CHANGING THE WETLAND MAPPING. THEY'RE JUST CHOOSING TO ASSERT JURISDICTION. SO NOW WE WILL HAVE SOME ADDITIONAL ADJACENT AREA IMPACTS. SO WE'LL BE UPDATING THE PLAN. OUR PREFERENCE STILL AT THIS POINT IN TIME WE'LL WORK WITH THE DECK IN TERMS OF WHAT THE REQUIREMENTS WILL BE TO NOT MODIFY THE PLAN, BUT ACKNOWLEDGE THE FACT THAT THERE WILL BE IMPACTS TO THE WETLANDS, BUT TO THE ADJACENT AREA TRIGGERS AS A RESULT OF THE NEW WETLANDS. I'M SORRY, DID WE GET THIS? WE DIDN'T GET THAT. YOU WALK THIS WAY, ANTHONY. YEAH, JUST JUST SO EVERYONE KNOWS, YOU'VE SEEN THIS PLAN BEFORE.

CHRIS JUST HAS TO OVERLAY THE FACT THAT THERE'S NOW ADJACENT AREAS. YES. THESE ARE THIS IS THE WETLAND BOUNDARY NOW. SO WE'LL BE 100 FOOT BUFFER IMPACTS ALL AROUND HERE NOW OKAY. WE JUST DON'T KNOW RIGHT NOW PERMITTING IN ORDER TO HAVE ANY DISRUPTION FROM THE BUFFER.

YES. OKAY. DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE OFF THE TOP OF YOUR HEAD, WHAT THE MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS ARE FOR IMPACTS TO THE BUFFER WETLAND BUFFER. THAT STILL IS NOT CLEAR YET. THERE'S TALK OF THERE BEING GENERAL PERMIT, MEANING YOU GO UP TO A CERTAIN AMOUNT WITHOUT HAVING TO GO THROUGH THE TYPICAL WETLAND PERMITTING PROCESS. BUT THAT'S STILL A WORK IN PROGRESS. BUT THE TIME HAS COME FOR US TO MOVE THIS FORWARD. NOW THAT WE ACTUALLY KNOW WHAT THE WETLANDS ARE. SO THIS IS COMING BACK ON THE 17TH AS WELL, OR IT WON'T BE READY BY THEN. OKAY? OKAY THEN WE'LL SEE YOU BACK THEN. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. YOU TOO. HAVE A GOOD HAPPY THANKSGIVING. SO, BOARD MEMBERS, BEFORE WE ADJOURN THE MEETING, I JUST WANTED TO LET YOU GUYS KNOW THAT YOU'RE GOING TO GET AN EMAIL FROM JOSH INVITING YOU TO THE FIRST ANNUAL PLANNING BOARD CHRISTMAS PARTY. SO DETAILS. AND IF YOU COULD RESPOND TO HIM QUICKLY ON WHEN YOU WILL BE AVAILABLE, HE'LL GIVE YOU SOME DATES SO WE CAN PLAN ACCORDINGLY. AND ON THAT

[Additional Item]

[02:20:05]

NO. SHE'S BEEN HERE SINCE JANUARY. YEAH. THAT'S RIGHT. SURE. OKAY. SHOULD WE TRY THIS AGAIN? IT'S BEEN MOVED BY A MEMBER. RYAN, IS THERE A SECOND? THERE'S NO SECOND. IT'S BEEN MOVED. AND SECOND, THAT THE MAY 2020. MAY 5TH. RIGHT. MAY. MAY 7TH, 2020 FIVE MINUTES HAVE BEEN APPROVED. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, HI. MINUTES APPROVED. TWO ABSTENTIONS. SORRY. MEMBER.

STUART. MEMBER. MCCORMICK. OKAY, NOW. AUGIE. OKAY. MEMBER. I MAKE A MOTION TO ADJOURN THIS EVENING'S MEETING. SECOND, IT'S BEEN MOVED IN. SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. MEETING

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.