[2. Public Hearing – 7:00 P.M., Boston State Holdings, LLC – Requesting Preliminary Plat Approval for a 2-lot subdivision for an additional single-family lot to be split from the Village at Cedar Valley at 3385 Cedar Valley Way]

FOR BOSTON STATE HOLDINGS LLC, REQUESTING PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL FOR A TWO LOT SUBDIVISION FOR AN ADDITIONAL SINGLE HOME LOT TO BE SPLIT FROM THE VILLAGE OF CEDAR VALLEY AT THREE, THREE, EIGHT, FIVE CEDAR VALLEY WAY. AND THE APPLICANT, WOULD YOU LIKE TO COME FORWARD AND BRING EVERYBODY UP TO DATE BEFORE NOW? YOU'RE JUST HERE FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING. SO IS THERE ANYTHING ADDITIONAL THAT YOU WANT TO ADD TO? WHO'S SPEAKING? HI, THIS IS DAVID BURKE, AND WITH SEAN HOPKINS ATTORNEY, I'M WITH CEDAR VALLEY HOLDINGS. I'M A PARTNER WITH THE RUSSO BROTHERS, WHO ARE ON THE BACK. AND WE'RE HERE FOR THE SINGLE LOT SUBDIVISION. OKAY. DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ADDITIONAL SINCE THE LAST TIME YOU WERE HERE TO TO ADD OR OFFER? THE ONLY OTHER THING I WOULD NOTE. DREW KNOWS THIS BETTER THAN ANYONE. THIS PROJECT WAS SUBJECT ORIGINALLY TO A VERY LONG REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCESS THAT DID INCLUDE ISSUANCE OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION PURSUANT TO THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT. IF YOU LOOK WAY BACK AT THAT DOCUMENTATION, THE DENSITY OF THIS PROJECT WITH ONE ONLY ONE ADDITIONAL SINGLE FAMILY HOME IS LOWER THAN WHAT IT WAS THEN. SO FROM A SEEKER PERSPECTIVE, YOU KNOW, THERE'S NO IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS VERY MINOR REQUEST. OKAY.

ANYTHING ELSE? ALL RIGHT. THEN I'M GOING TO HAVE MEMBER GERACI READ THE PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE.

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD WILL CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING ON A TWO LOT SUBDIVISION FOR AN ADDITIONAL SINGLE FAMILY LOT TO BE SPLIT FROM THE VILLAGE AT CEDAR VALLEY AT THREE, THREE, EIGHT, FIVE CEDAR VALLEY WAY. THE PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD ON JANUARY 7TH, 2026 AT 7 P.M. IN ROOM SEVEN A AND SEVEN B OF THE HAMBURG TOWN HALL. OKAY, GENTLEMEN, IF YOU'D LIKE TO HAVE A SEAT AND WE'LL OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING. COULD I JUST COULD I MAKE ONE OTHER COMMENT? THE ONLY OTHER COMMENT. AND AGAIN, I WELCOME DREW AND CAMMIE'S INPUT ON THIS IS TECHNICALLY BECAUSE THIS IS A RESIDENTIAL LOT. ONE THING WE WOULD LIKE TO AVOID HAVING TO DO IS GO AND ACTUALLY FILE AN AMENDED MAP COVER AT THE ERIE COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE. WE'LL DISCUSS THAT AFTER THE PUBLIC HEARING. I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT'S PART OF THE REQUEST. YOU CAN BRING THAT UP LATER. THANK YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU. I AM NOW GOING TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR BOSTON STATE HOLDINGS REQUESTING A

[00:10:03]

PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL FOR A FOR AN ADDITIONAL LOT FOR A SINGLE FAMILY HOME AT FROM THE VILLAGE OF CEDAR VALLEY. IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK? SO YOU'RE GOING TO COME UP TO THE PODIUM, YOU'RE GOING TO TALK INTO THE MIC. YOU'RE GOING TO GIVE US YOUR NAME, YOU'RE GOING TO SPELL YOUR LAST NAME, AND YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES TO DO SO.

GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS MICHAEL PACK PACK. I LIVE ON CEDAR VALLEY WAY THREE, THREE, FIVE, EIGHT, WHICH IS RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE APARTMENT COMPLEX THAT'S BEING BUILT RIGHT NOW. I DID HAVE ONE QUESTION TO THESE TWO GENTLEMEN HERE, BECAUSE I AM VICE PRESIDENT OF THE HOA BOARD. WE DO HAVE A $350 ASSOCIATION FEE. FROM MY UNDERSTANDING RIGHT NOW, THIS IS NOT GOING TO BE PART OF THE CEDAR VALLEY COMMUNITY. IT'S FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, AND I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW IF IT IS NOT, WILL THEY BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYING THE 350 YEAR? WHAT THE 350 IS FOR IS FOR THE POND MAINTENANCE. IT IS FOR THE MOWING, THE DREDGING, THE CLEANING OF THE PONDS THAT ARE USED FOR DRAINAGE IN THE COMMUNITY. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. HANG ON. WE'RE NOT ANSWERING QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME. I WAS VERY SPECIFIC ON THESE RULES. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. PEOPLE MAKE THEIR COMMENTS AND THEN WE'LL ADDRESS IT AT THE END. OKAY. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WISHES TO MAKE COMMENT? HI. GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS BRANDON ZATORSKI. S I T E K I. I LIVE AT 3357 CEDAR VALLEY WAY, WHICH IS ADJACENT TO THE VILLAGE AT CEDAR VALLEY. SO I'M RISING IN OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSAL HERE. A FEW MONTHS BACK, I REACHED OUT TO RUSSO DEVELOPMENT WITH AN IDEA FOR AN ADDITIONAL DRIVEWAY TO BE PLACED IN THE AREA WHERE THEY'RE REQUESTING THE TWO LOT SUBDIVISION TO BE BUILT. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A TRAFFIC ISSUE THROUGH OUR NEIGHBORHOOD ON COOPER RIDGE AND CEDAR VALLEY WAY, BECAUSE THEY'RE ADDING ON A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF ADDITIONAL UNITS. THERE'S ONLY ONE ENTRY WAY IN AND OUT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. TRAFFIC'S ALREADY BUSY. WE HAVE 144 HOMES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I BELIEVE THERE'S GOING TO BE ABOUT 144 UNITS WITHIN THE VILLAGE. AT CEDAR VALLEY WAY, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF INCREASE IN THE AMOUNT OF VEHICLES THERE. I HAVE CHILDREN, MANY PEOPLE IN THE AREA HAVE CHILDREN. WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC COMING THROUGH, AND WE BELIEVE THAT A BETTER USE OF THAT PROPERTY WOULD BE FOR A DRIVEWAY TO COME IN AND OUT OF THE VILLAGE AT CEDAR VALLEY WAY. SO THAT WAY THE RESIDENTS THERE AREN'T NECESSARILY JUST HAVING TO GO ONTO COOPER RIDGE AND CEDAR VALLEY, BUT SO THEY WOULD HAVE AN ENTRANCE AT THE BEGINNING TO ASSIST WITH VEHICLE TRAFFIC THROUGH THE AREA. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE? HI, I'M PETER SOMMARDACK. IT'S THE LAST NAME IS SPELLED S A M A R D A K, AND I LIVE OVER ON SYCAMORE LANE AND I TO STAND AGAINST THIS THIS ZONING CHANGE. AND I THINK THE REASON, ONE OF THE REASONS THE GENTLEMAN GAVE FOR TRYING TO RUSH THIS THROUGH IS BECAUSE THE FIRST PROCESS TOOK SO LONG, THAT HAS NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THIS AT ALL. FOR THE WAY THAT WE FEEL ABOUT THIS. I THINK BETTER USE OF THAT WOULD BE AN ENTRANCE FOR THAT LOCATION AS WELL. WITH THE ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC FROM ALL THE UNITS IN THERE, I THINK THERE'LL BE MOST MORE EXPEDITIOUS TO HAVE ANOTHER ENTRANCE AT THAT LOCATION THAN HAVE ALL THE TRAFFIC GO THROUGH WHERE ALL THE HOUSING UNITS ARE. OKAY. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE? SECOND CALL.

AS LONG AS THERE'S NOBODY. HANG ON. LET ME JUST SEE IF THERE'S ANYONE ELSE, AND THEN WE'LL. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WISHES TO MAKE COMMENT? OKAY, GENTLEMEN. SIR, YOU CAN COME BACK UP AND AGAIN. AGAIN? STATE YOUR NAME. SURE. THANK YOU. BRANDON S I E T E S K. I THANK YOU FOR LETTING ME AMEND. ONE THING THAT I FORGOT TO SAY WAS ONE OF THE REASONS THAT I HEARD THAT THEY MENTIONED THAT THEY COULD NOT PUT A DRIVEWAY IN THERE WAS IT WAS TOO CLOSE TO PLEASANT AVENUE IN THE BEGINNING OF COOPER RIDGE THERE, THAT IT WOULD BE TOO TIGHT THERE. SO THAT WAS THE REASON THAT WE WERE GIVEN THERE. SO I'M GUESS I'M JUST CONFUSED NOW HOW ADDING ANOTHER RESIDENTIAL DRIVEWAY IS ANY DIFFERENT THAN HAVING A DRIVEWAY GOING BACK TO THE TOWNHOUSES IN THAT AREA. OKAY. THANK YOU, THANK YOU.

OKAY, THIRD AND FINAL CALL FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE VILLAGE OF CEDAR VALLEY. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE SEEING NONE. I'M GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND ASK THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. MR. RILEY. IF YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ANY INSIGHT, I HAVE. NO, IT'S IT'S TYPICALLY A IT'S A SIMPLE MINOR SUBDIVISION, BUT BECAUSE THIS IS PART OF AN APPROVED OVERALL PLAN, IT MAKES IT A LITTLE MORE DIFFICULT FOR YOU TO SAY, OKAY, YOU KNOW,

[00:15:04]

ADDING ONE MORE LOT. IT SOUNDS LIKE IT'S INCONSEQUENTIAL, BUT IT WILL AFFECT PEOPLE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT THOSE ISSUES ARE ADDRESSED. THAT'S ALL WE WOULD SAY. OTHER THAN THAT IT'S A SIMPLE MINOR SUBDIVISION APPROVAL. BUT IT IS A I MEAN, THIS WAS AN APPROVED DEVELOPMENT. IT'S OVER THE YEARS, IT HAS SOME MINOR CHANGES TO IT. AND THIS IS ANOTHER MINOR CHANGE TO IT. SO IT IS SOMETHING A LITTLE DIFFERENT THAN OUR NORMAL SUBDIVISION BECAUSE IT WAS AN APPROVED PLAN, A PLAN THAT HAD GREEN SPACE ENTRANCES AND WHATEVER. WE ARE CHANGING THAT. SO JUST MAKE SURE THE PLANNING BOARD UNDERSTANDS THAT AND ADDRESSES THAT PROPERLY. OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. I'M GOING TO OPEN IT UP TO THE BOARD. DO YOU HAVE ANY. BOARD MEMBERS? BARBARA CLARK, YOU LOOK LIKE YOU'RE CONTEMPLATING. I DON'T KNOW IF I DON'T THINK THERE WAS ANY DISCUSSION ON WHAT THAT SPACE WAS A REASON FOR THAT SPACE. WHEN WE FIRST DID THOSE APPROVALS YEARS AGO. I WAS LOOKING AT THE SATELLITE IMAGES.

SO I'M JUST WONDERING IF WE CAN CHECK THE MINUTES, BUT I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANYTHING IN THERE ABOUT IT. THAT'S THAT'S WHAT I WAS CONTEMPLATING. I, YOU KNOW, IT'S FUNNY BECAUSE I WAS THINKING THE SAME THING. AND THEN I WAS HAVING SYSTEM ISSUES AND WE ONLY GOT IT ON MONDAY, SO I DIDN'T GET IT, GET A CHANCE TO GO THROUGH. BUT I WOULD LIKE TO LOOK AT THE PREVIOUS MINUTES WHEN THIS GOT GOT IN FRONT OF US. DREW, WERE YOU A PART OF THIS BACK THEN? YES HE WAS. ANYTHING OVER THE LAST 30 YEARS? WELL, NOT QUITE FOR A 30. ONLY 35 HERE. BUT ANYWAY, YEAH, IT WAS INTERESTING. IT'S NOT PART I, I LOOKED AT THE GREEN SPACE PLAN.

IT WASN'T PART OF THE GREEN SPACE PLAN, BUT IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, IT WAS PART OF THE OPEN SPACE KIND OF WHEN YOU ENTER INTO THIS DEVELOPMENT, THERE IT IS. I MEAN, TAKE THE AERIAL PHOTO AND LOOK AT IT. IT'S KIND OF THIS GREEN SPACE AND NOT HAVING HOMES RIGHT UP TO THAT CORNER. I ALSO WOULD ASK TO MAKE SURE THAT BY ADDING ANOTHER DRIVEWAY THERE, THE GENTLEMAN DID MAKE A GOOD POINT. I DON'T THINK WE CAN PUT ANOTHER ENTRANCE OUT TO PLEASANT, BUT BY ADDING A DRIVEWAY THERE, ARE WE GOING TO CREATE A PROBLEM? BECAUSE WE HAVE ANOTHER DRIVEWAY AT THE MOST BUSIEST INTERSECTION? THIS ENTIRE DEVELOPMENT FEEDS OUT TO PLEASANT THERE, AND IT COULD HAVE BEEN A REASON WHY. I KNOW SOMETIMES WE HAVE SEPARATION DISTANCES FOR THE NEAREST DRIVEWAY TO AN INTERSECTION, SO IT WOULD BE SOMETHING YOU COULD ASK. JUST MAKE SURE WITH THE TRAFFIC SAFETY ADVISORY BOARD BEFORE YOU APPROVE SOMETHING, THAT THIS LOCATION HERE IS NOT GOING TO CREATE A TRAFFIC PROBLEM BECAUSE OF ALL THE ALL THE TRAFFIC THAT COMES OUT OF THIS ONE LOCATION. SO WE MAY WANT TO DO CONTACT MATT AND FROM TRAFFIC AND HAVE HIM. IT'S FINE. THIS IS A TOWN ROAD. SO THE TOWN CONTROLS THE LOCATIONS OF OF ENTRANCES ON ONTO THE ROADS. I CAN'T REMEMBER A SPECIFIC REQUIREMENT. I DID LIKE BUILD IT. I TRIED TO LOOK THROUGH THE MEETING MINUTES. IT WAS JUST THAT WAS THE PLAN. AND THERE WAS GREEN SPACE. THERE WASN'T PART OF THE GREEN SPACE PLAN. THERE WAS NO PLANNINGS THERE OR ANYTHING, BUT IT WAS JUST THAT SEPARATION BETWEEN THE DEVELOPMENT AND PLEASANT.

IF YOU LOOK AT THE AERIAL PHOTO, WHICH I THINK BRIAN WAS LOOKING AT, IT'S KIND OF LIKE, YOU KNOW, THIS KIND OF GREEN SPACE AREA AND THEN YOU TURN INTO YOU DO SEE THE FIRST HOUSE THERE, BUT IT'S, YOU KNOW, A SEVERAL HUNDRED FEET DOWN AWAY FROM THAT INTERSECTION. SO AGAIN, TRYING TO REMEMBER, YOU KNOW, HOW WE GOT TO THAT POINT, I THINK WHILE WE'RE. I THINK WE SHOULD HAVE JOSH CONTACT TRAFFIC OR I IF YOU'RE COVERING FOR JOSH UNTIL HE GETS BACK, CONTACT TRAFFIC AND ASK THEM FOR A REPORT FOR THAT CORNER ENGINEERING. DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO. TYPICALLY ENGINEERING DOESN'T REALLY HAVE COMMENTS ON A TWO LOT SUBDIVISION. BUT JUST LOOKING AT THIS IN GENERAL AND FOR THE PLANNING BOARD'S INFORMATION, WHEN A SINGLE FAMILY HOME IS DEVELOPED, WE DO ASK FOR A DRAINAGE PLAN. AND ENGINEERING DOES REVIEW THAT BEFORE IT'S CONSTRUCTED. THE TOWN'S REQUIREMENTS IS THAT ALL RUNOFF, ROOF LEADERS, SUMP PUMPS, THOSE TYPE OF DRAINAGE ITEMS GO TO AN APPROVED DRAINAGE SYSTEM, WHICH IS OFTEN INTO THE PUBLIC ROAD AND THAT STORM SEWER SYSTEM. BUT OFTEN THE REAR YARD HAS SOME KIND OF REAR YARD DRAINAGE WITHOUT HAVING THE PLANS FOR THE SUBDIVISION, I'M NOT SURE WHAT'S BEHIND THE ADJACENT LOTS OR SO ON, BUT IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD LOOK AT DURING THAT DURING THE BUILDING PERMIT PROCESS, TO BE SURE THAT THE DRAINAGE GOES TO THE RIGHT LOCATION. IN THIS CASE, AS IT WAS MENTIONED IN COMMENT, THE IF THE DRAINAGE SYSTEM GOES TO THE PONDS THAT WERE DEVELOPED AND ARE MAINTAINED BY THE HOA, IT'S SOMETHING TO BE CONSIDERED.

THIS WOULD HAVE TO BE INDEPENDENT. IF NOT. SO THAT'S JUST KIND OF GENERAL NOT HAVING

[00:20:05]

PLANS IN FRONT OF ME. OKAY. THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THAT UP. BOARD MEMBERS, ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANYTHING? NO, I, I WAS OUT THERE A COUPLE OF TIMES, ACTUALLY, AND I FEEL LIKE IT'S PRETTY TIGHT. I, I THINK THAT FOR ME AND IF BOARD MEMBERS WOULD ECHO MY SENTIMENT, I THINK THAT WE SHOULD HAVE THE OLD MINUTES AND LOOK AT IT. ALTHOUGH YOU SAID YOU DID LOOK AT THEM AND COULDN'T FIND ANYTHING. I REMEMBER LOOKING AT THE AT THE MINUTES BEFORE AND I COULDN'T FIND ANY. YEAH, EXACTLY. AND THEN I WOULD LIKE A TRAFFIC STUDY BY OUR TRAFFIC DEPARTMENT BEFORE WE GO ANY FURTHER. AND THEN DOES EVERY. IS EVERYBODY IN AGREEMENT TO THAT PART I AM YES. OKAY. YES. OKAY. WHEN YOU SAY TRAFFIC STUDY, IS IT LOOKING AT THE IMPACT OF THE DISTANCE OF THE PROPOSED DRIVEWAY FOR THE ONE? JUST TO BE CLEAR, IT'S NOT LIKE A FULL BLOWN TRAFFIC STUDY. IT'S JUST FOR THAT PARTICULAR LOT AT THAT INTERSECTION. RIGHT? YES. THE SINGLE. YEAH. GENERALLY JUST SO EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT WHEN WE CONTACT TRAFFIC, THEY USUALLY CONTACT ME FOR CLARIFICATION OR THEY'LL CONTACT JOSH AND MYSELF AND TELL US AHEAD OF TIME OR IF THEY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS AFTER THEY'VE BEEN OUT THERE TO, YOU KNOW, WHAT, THEY'RE WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR. AND WE'LL RELAY THAT TO THEM WHEN THEY GO OUT.

OKAY. SO THE APPLICANT YOU HAD SOMETHING TO ADD ABOUT SEEKER, MR. HOPKINS? ONLY IN TERMS OF SEEKER THAT IT'S A REDUCTION COMPARED TO WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY APPROVED. I ACTUALLY HAD A CHANCE TO LOOK BACK AT THE MINUTES, AND I WAS ACTUALLY AT THOSE MEETINGS AND SO WAS DREW.

THERE'S NOTHING THAT TALKS ABOUT THIS SPECIFIC PORTION OF THE PROJECT SITE. IT WAS JUST SHOWN AS GREEN SPACE. IT IS PROPERLY ZONED FOR THIS USE. AND AGAIN, WELL, I KNOW SOME PEOPLE MAY NOT LIKE THE MULTIFAMILY. THAT WAS ALWAYS PART AND PARCEL OF THE OVERALL PROJECT. AND THEN SECONDLY, THERE WAS A QUESTION ABOUT THIS LOT BECOMING PART OF THE HOA. I THINK THE CLIENT WILL CONFIRM THEY'RE CERTAINLY OPEN TO THAT. WE'D HAVE TO WORK OUT THE MECHANICS WITH THE AG'S OFFICE. BUT ABSOLUTELY, WE'RE NOT TRYING TO SHORTCHANGE THE EXISTING ASSOCIATION IN TERMS OF THEIR ANNUAL ASSESSMENT. THE OTHER THING I WOULD NOTE IS I DO BELIEVE DAVE HAS CONTACTED THE ERIE COUNTY DIVISION OF SEWAGE MANAGEMENT, OR THE RUSSOS HAVE, AND THEY HAVE NO CONCERNS IN TERMS OF SANITARY SEWER CAPACITY. AND I DO WANT TO RESPOND TO THE ONE RESIDENT, YOU KNOW, WHY CAN'T THIS BE A DRIVEWAY FOR THE MULTIFAMILY PROJECT VERSUS A SINGLE FAMILY HOME? IT'S SIMPLY A DIFFERENCE IN THE MAGNITUDE OF TRAFFIC IMPACTS. ONE SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON THIS LOT IS NOT GOING TO RESULT IN ADVERSE TRAFFIC IMPACTS. THE TRAFFIC IMPACTS OF THE REMAINDER OF THE PROJECT HAVE BEEN EXTREMELY WELL VETTED PURSUANT TO SEEKER, AND THERE WAS A TRAFFIC STUDY THAT WAS PREPARED. OKAY. ANYTHING ELSE? MR. BURKE, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO OFFER? OKAY, OKAY. SO WE'RE GOING TO TABLE TO THE NEXT MEETING, WHICH IS THE DATE, THE 21ST, 21ST. WE'LL GET IN TOUCH WITH OUR TRAFFIC PEOPLE AND PRELIMINARILY DRAFT A RESOLUTION. OKAY. SO WE'LL HAVE THAT ON STANDBY AND IN THE RESOLUTION BECAUSE I DID TALK TO JOSH THAT WE NEED A PART OF THE CONDITION THAT ONLY ONE HOME WILL BE BUILT ON THE LOT. OKAY. SO WE'LL SEE YOU GUYS BACK ON THE 21ST. THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YOU'RE WELCOME. THANK YOU. OKAY. MOVING RIGHT

[3. Public Hearing – 7:00 P.M., Tom Gorczyca – Requesting Preliminary Plat Approval of a 3-lot subdivision to be located at 3189 Pleasant Ave]

ALONG. WE HAVE OUR NEXT PUBLIC HEARING FOR TOM GORCYCA REQUESTING PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL FOR A TWO LOT SUBDIVISION. WE'RE RUNNING A SPECIAL ON TWO LOT SUBDIVISIONS TONIGHT TO BE LOCATED AT 3189 PLEASANT AVENUE. MR. GORCYCA IS HERE. MR. RILEY, WHO IS OUR HISTORIAN, WILL HELP US WITH THIS LOT, BECAUSE I DID TALK TO JOSH BEFORE HE BOARDED THAT PLANE AND SAID, BYE. SEE YOU. AND HE WANTED DREW TO MAYBE GIVE A BRIEF SYNOPSIS. OKAY.

THE OPERATIVE WORD BRIEF AND HELP THE APPLICANT, BECAUSE IT GOT A LITTLE CONFUSING HERE THE LAST TIME WHEN WE ALL TALKED. AND THERE'S A LOT OF HISTORY. WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE FORMER HISTORY. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WHAT IT IS THAT WE'RE WHAT THE PLAN IS IN FRONT OF US.

DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? THAT'S INCORRECT. I'M SORRY. THE HIGHLIGHT. THAT'S THE HOUSE TO THE. YEAH. WE ALWAYS PUT THAT UP THERE AND IT'S ALWAYS WRONG REAL QUICK. AND I'LL GIVE THE 30S SYNOPSIS, WHICH I THINK YOU HEARD, IS THAT THESE LOTS WERE POTENTIALLY GOING TO BE BUILT YEARS AND YEARS AND YEARS AGO, BUT THERE WAS A SEWER PROBLEM, AND THEY DIDN'T WANT TO EXTEND

[00:25:04]

THE SEWERS AT THE TIME. THE COST OF EXTENDING SEWERS. THAT PROBLEM, MY UNDERSTANDING, CAMMIE, HAS BEEN RESOLVED. THERE'S SEWERS IN THIS AREA. WHAT HAS HAPPENED, WHICH HAPPENS A LOT, NOT ONLY IN THE TOWN OF HAMBURG, BUT IN A LOT OF PLACES. AND THAT'S, YOU KNOW, YOU HEARD SEAN HOPKINS REQUEST ABOUT NOT FILING PEOPLE. FILE MAP COVERS ALL THE TIME, NOT REALIZING IT NEEDS WHETHER THEY REALIZE OR NOT, REALIZING IT NEEDS LOCAL APPROVAL. WE HAVE APPROACHED THE COUNTY ON THAT ISSUE AND SAID THE FORM INCLUDES WHEN YOU FILE A MAP COVER, TO HAVE A HAVE A PROPERTY DIVIDED, YOU HAVE TO CHECK ON THE BOX. DOES THIS REQUIRE SUBDIVISION APPROVAL? AND UNFORTUNATELY, A LOT OF PEOPLE DO NOT CHECK THAT BOX.

BUT THE COUNTY STILL ACCEPTS IT. AND AS YOU CAN SEE, THOSE LOTS WERE FORMED AND PUT ON THERE.

DOES THAT MAKE THEM LEGAL? LOTS. WHEN THEY COME IN AND TRY TO GET A BUILDING PERMIT, WE TELL THEM THAT DID NOT RECEIVE SUBDIVISION APPROVAL. SO THAT'S HOW WE'VE GOTTEN HERE TODAY. SO THERE WAS A LONGER HISTORY ABOUT THESE WERE PROPOSED IN THE PAST, BUT NO SEWERS. THE SHORTER HISTORY IS SOMEHOW THEY GOT ONTO THE COUNTY'S MAP AND FILED, BUT THEY AREN'T BUILDING LOTS BECAUSE THEY WEREN'T APPROVED BY YOU. SO CAN YOU SHOW US ON THE. BECAUSE I KNOW THAT THAT GREEN HIGHLIGHT IS INCORRECT, IS INACCURATE. CAN YOU SHOW US THESE ARE THE TWO LOTS. HERE'S THE. THESE ARE THE TWO. THIS IS ONE LOT RIGHT NOW. THESE ARE THE TWO LOTS BEING PROPOSED RIGHT HERE. I'M TRYING TO MAKE A LOT. THE LOWER LOT HAS WETLANDS ON IT. RIGHT RIGHT THERE. AND IT WASN'T A SEWER. SIR, IF YOU'RE GOING TO TALK, EXCUSE ME. YOU GOTTA BE IN FRONT OF THE MIC BECAUSE IT'S GOT TO BE A PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD. YES, TOM GORSUCH, I'M TRYING TO MAKE ONE BUILDING LOT OUT OF THOSE TWO PROPOSED LOTS. THE BOTTOM LOT HAS WETLANDS ON IT. SO I JUST TURN IN SOME PAPERWORK HERE THAT I'M WORKING WITH SCOTT LIVINGSTONE, AND WE'RE MOVING FORWARD WITH THE DECK TO ENCROACH 100 FOOT, I BELIEVE THEY CALL IT THIS CAME OFF MY TODAY 100 FOOT ADJACENT AREA IS WHAT IT'S CALLED BY THE BDC THAT CAME OFF THE BENCH TODAY. SO AND SO WHAT'S BEING PASSED, ATTORNEY JOSEPH GOGUEN. WHAT'S BEING PASSED AROUND NOW IS PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT. IT SHOWS IT'S A DIAGRAM THAT SHOWS THESE TWO LOTS HERE. OKAY.

SO THIS IS HIS LOT. THE FLAG LOT IS HIS LOT. AND THEN THESE ARE THE TWO OTHER LOTS THAT WOULD BE SUBDIVIDED. THE DOCUMENT THAT'S BEING PASSED AROUND NOW SHOWS THAT THIS LOT HAS THE WETLAND ON THE BOTTOM HALF OF THAT OF THAT PARCEL. HALF OF IT. YEAH. OR THE PROPOSED PARCEL. YEAH. HALF OF THE LOT. THAT WETLANDS. THE BOTTOM HALF. OKAY. SO MOVING FORWARD WITH THE DECK AND I TURN IN SOME PAPERWORK TODAY AND SCOTT LIVINGSTONE IS FILING ALL MY PAPERWORK TO ENCROACH THE WETLANDS. OKAY. WELL, TONIGHT WE'RE GOING TO DO THE DO THE PUBLIC HEARING. OKAY. SO IF YOU'D LIKE TO HAVE A SEAT. OKAY. WE'LL GET STARTED ON THAT.

I JUST HAVE A CLARIFICATION BECAUSE I KEEP HEARING, JUST SO THE PUBLIC KNOWS FOR SURE. ARE YOU STILL PROPOSING THESE TWO LOTS OR ARE YOU GETTING RID OF THIS ONE AND JUST DOING ONE LOT NOW, A LOT IN ANOTHER DIRECTION? IT WASN'T A SEWER. THERE WASN'T. THERE WAS THE WATER LINE. SO BUT YOU'RE NOT PROPOSING THESE TWO. THIS IS WHAT'S MAPPED RIGHT NOW. YOU'RE PROPOSING JUST ONE LOT BECAUSE THIS IS ALL WETLANDS. AND IF YOU NEED 100 FOOT ADJACENT AREA, IT'S GOING TO COME UP HERE. YOU'RE PROPOSING ONLY TO BUILD ONE. SO THIS IS NOW A TWO LOT SUBDIVISION. IT'S ONLY TWO LOTS BECAUSE HE'S NOT DOING THESE TWO. IT WOULD BE A THREE LOT ONE TWO, THREE. BUT NOW IT'S ONLY OR WHATEVER THE MAIN PARCEL IS. DID I GET THAT RIGHT? I'M SORRY. YOU WERE AT THE LAST MEETING. YOU GUYS WERE AT THE LAST MEETING? NO, BECAUSE MY QUESTION IS. SO THE FLAG LOT, ARE THESE TWO LOTS GOING TO BE PART OF THE FLAG LOT OR ATTORNEY JOSEPH GOGUEN? THOSE TWO LOTS ARE TECHNICALLY, AS FAR AS THE TOWN IS CONCERNED, PART OF THE FLAG. FLAG. THEY'VE NEVER BEEN PROPERLY SUBDIVIDED. IF IT WAS, IT WAS DIVIDED INTO INTO THREE PARCELS. IT WOULD BE A THREE PARCEL SUBDIVISION, CORRECT. THE FLAG LOT AND THE TWO OTHER LOTS. WHAT I'M UNDERSTANDING NOW, AND THIS IS NEW FROM THE FROM THE LAST MEETING, IS THAT BECAUSE OF THE WETLANDS ON THAT LOWER PARCEL, IT WON'T BE A THREE LOT SUBDIVISION. IT'LL BE A TWO LOT SUBDIVISION BECAUSE YOU NEED THE THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING FROM I'M GETTING A NOD AND IT'S NOT GOING TO BE A PART OF THE FLAG LOT. IT'S GOING TO BE A SEPARATE LOT FROM THE FLAG LOT. CORRECT? CORRECT. OKAY. BECAUSE THAT'S NOT WHAT WAS SAID LAST MEETING, REMEMBER? AGREED. BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS NOW BECAUSE OF THAT DOCUMENT THAT WENT AROUND, IT'S GOING TO BE A SEPARATE SBL NUMBER. YES. AND IT IT ALWAYS. YES OKAY. OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. WHY DON'T YOU HAVE A SEAT AND WE'LL. I'M SORRY AUGIE. THE PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD WILL CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING ON A

[00:30:05]

THREE LOT SUBDIVISION TO BE LOCATED AT 3189 PLEASANT AVENUE. THE PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD ON JANUARY 7TH, 2026 AT 7 P.M. IN ROOM 7A7B OF THE HAMBURG TOWN HALL. OKAY, IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WISHES TO MAKE COMMENT ON THIS CASE? SECOND, CALL FOR ANYONE WHO WISHES TO MAKE COMMENT ON THE TOM GORCYCA PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL FOR A TWO LOT SUBDIVISION LOCATED AT 3189 PLEASANT AVENUE. THIRD AND FINAL CALL. I'M CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING. SO. I WANT TO SAY THAT WE CAN MOVE FORWARD. BUT WITH THIS INFORMATION THAT WE HAVE, CAN WE? MR. GOGAN, THE ATTORNEY, WILL HAVE TO LOOK INTO THAT. I MEAN, WE ADVERTISE THE THREE LOT SUBDIVISION. OBVIOUSLY, WE'RE GOING LESS THAN THAT. WE HAVE TO HOLD THE PUBLIC HEARING. WE DIDN'T HEAR FROM ANYBODY FROM THE PUBLIC TONIGHT. HE IS AMENDING HIS APPLICATION NOW BASED UPON THE WETLANDS PROBLEM, TO JUST CREATE ONE ADDITIONAL LOT. SO IT'S A TWO LOT SUBDIVISION. SO WE'LL HAVE TO HAVE THE DRAWING AMENDED. AND AND I DON'T THINK BUT I WON'T PUT YOU ON THE SPOT JOE. YOU CAN LOOK INTO IT. I DON'T THINK WE'LL HAVE TO HOLD THE PUBLIC HEARING BECAUSE IT'S LESS OF, OF THE LOTS THAN WE'RE APPROVING. SO YOU COULD AUTHORIZE US TO PREPARE WORK JUST TO MAKE SURE, PUT THE RIGHT LANGUAGE IN THERE. YOU COULD ALWAYS JUST TABLE IT THE NEXT MEETING. BUT YOU HAVE NEW INFORMATION TONIGHT, JUST AS I HAVE NEW INFORMATION TONIGHT. MEMBER SHIMURA, THE. IT SAYS A TWO LOT PUBLIC HEARING. 7PMA2 LOT SUBDIVISION IN OUR. DOES THAT MEAN THAT THE PUBLIC NOTICE THAT THREE LOT THE PUBLIC NOTICE THAT THREE LOT THE PUBLIC. OKAY. I'M SORRY BECAUSE IT WAS NOTED IT WAS IN OUR AGENDA. IT SAID TWO LOT. BUT THE NOTICE THAT THREE. SO THAT'S WHERE THE ISSUE IS OKAY.

I THINK IF THE BOARD IS COMFORTABLE WITH THIS BECAUSE WE DON'T FIRST OF ALL, DOES ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR NEED CLARIFICATION. ARE WE CLEAR ON EVERYTHING.

LET'S START THERE. CLEAR NOW. YEAH. BILL'S GOT THAT LOOK ON HIS FACE. IT JUST MIGHT BE MY FACE. YEAH, I DON'T THINK SO. I'VE KNOWN YOU FOR A WHILE NOW. I THINK FOR THIS, THE RESOLUTION. MAYBE WE JUST ADD A MAP. YEAH. YEAH, WE WOULD HAVE TO. ANYWAYS, THE A DESCRIPTION IS, IS VERY CONFUSING IN THIS. AND EXACTLY IS WORTH A A MILLION WORDS IN THIS CASE. AND BY THE WAY, ON THIS ONE YOU'LL NOT BE ABLE TO WAIVE THE FILING OF THE MAP COVER. THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO FILE THE MAP COVER BECAUSE IT'S GOT A QUICK CORRECT WHAT'S NOW SHOWN IN THE COUNTY'S DATABASE. RIGHT. SO THE MAP COVER WILL HAVE TO BE FILED. SO I'M GOING TO AUTHORIZE THE DRAFTING OF THE RESOLUTION. YOU GUYS GET WITH JOE WITH ATTORNEY GOGAN TO MAKE SURE THAT THINGS ARE CLARIFIED. VERIFY THAT WE DO NOT HAVE TO RELIST IT BECAUSE IT WAS ADVERTISED INCORRECTLY FOR A THREE LOT INSTEAD OF A TWO LOT, BECAUSE IT'S LESS. AND SO THEN WE'LL TABLE TO THE 21ST. WE OKAY WITH THAT MEMBER? YES I AGREE OKAY. MEMBERS. AT THIS END. MEMBER RYAN I AGREE OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO THAT'S WHAT WE'LL DO. SO WE'RE GOING TO TABLE THIS TO THE NEXT MEETING. WE'RE GOING TO GET SOME CLARIFICATION HERE. AND SO WE'LL SEE YOU BACK ON THE ON THE 21ST OKAY. REMEMBER WHAT I SAID EARLIER. WE ONLY INVITE PEOPLE BACK THAT WE REALLY LIKE AGAIN ATTORNEY JOSEPH GOGAN JUST TO EXPAND ON THAT, MAKE SURE THAT THE BOARD UNDERSTANDS WHAT I'M GOING TO BE LOOKING FOR. AND I'LL TELL YOU MY MY PERSPECTIVE ON THIS IS THAT THIS IS A MINOR SUBDIVISION. THE RULES FOR MINOR SUBDIVISION ARE DIFFERENT THAN A MAJOR SUBDIVISION, AND WE'RE NOT GOING FROM A MINOR SUBDIVISION TO A MAJOR SUBDIVISION. MY FIRST IMPRESSION ON THIS IS THAT THE NOTICE IS GOING TO BE SUFFICIENT. AND IF THAT'S REALLY WHAT I'M LOOKING AT, OR IF THAT'S WHAT THE BOARD WANTS ME TO ADDRESS SIMPLY ON THE NOTICE, JUST SO I KNOW WHAT WHAT CLARIFICATION YOU'RE LOOKING. THAT'S WHAT THAT'S WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR. YEAH OKAY. YEAH. SO WE'LL PUT THAT WE'LL ATTEND THAT. WE'LL ADDRESS THAT AT THE NEXT MEETING. YEAH OKAY. MY FIRST IMPRESSION IS THAT IT'S A DE MINIMIS ISSUE. IT IS MINE TOO. BUT I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE GOT IT ON RECORD OKAY. WE'LL SEE YOU BACK ON THE 21ST. YES. JOSH WILL BE BACK FROM VACATION. JOSH WE WE HAD WE HAD TO GIVE HIM SOME TIME OFF. THE REASON WHY I DIDN'T LEAVE UNTIL AFTER CHRISTMAS IS BECAUSE NOBODY COULD FIND THE KEY FOR HIS ANKLE CHAIN. POOR KID. HE

[00:35:04]

DOES DO A GREAT JOB, AND WE DO MISS HIM ALREADY. HE'S ONLY BEEN GONE HALF A DAY. OKAY, SO

[4. 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 ]

OUR NEXT CASE IS BENDERSON DEVELOPMENT. REQUESTING SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR A PROPOSAL TO CONSTRUCT AN 8020 SQUARE FOOT MULTI TENANT PARCEL BUILDING WITH A DRIVE THRU LANE LOCATED AT 5400 SOUTHWESTERN BOULEVARD. THAT'S A MOUTHFUL. IT IS. OKAY, SO YOU HAVE SOME UPDATES TO GIVE US, CORRECT? NO, NO. OKAY, SO THE LAST TIME I WAS HERE WAS INVITED BACK. SO I'M ASSUMING YOU, LIKE ME, WAS THE PUBLIC HEARING. THERE WASN'T ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS. AND WE HAD ADDRESSED THE BOARD IN REGARDS TO THE DRIVE THROUGH. AND WE HAD STATED THAT THE PLAN WAS WE WERE THINKING IT WAS GOING TO BE A BANK OR LIKE A CAFE TYPE, AND THEN WE WOULD ACCEPT THE CONDITION THAT IF IT WAS MORE OF A FAST FOOD USER, WE WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK TO THE BOARD TO DISCUSS THAT. THE REVISED PLANS WE HAD SUBMITTED HAD SHOWN THE SIDEWALK CONNECTION GOING TO THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING AS WELL. SO THERE WAS NO, FROM MY RECOLLECTION, NO ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO ADDRESS FOR THE BOARD. OUR DRAINAGE ENGINEER, CARMINA WOOD, WHO DID THE ORIGINAL SITE DESIGN DRAINAGE SYSTEM, IS WORKING ON AN UPDATED DRAINAGE REPORT THAT STILL HAS TO BE SUBMITTED TO CAMI SO SHE CAN REVIEW IT, VERIFY THE DRAINAGE SYSTEM IS IN COMPLIANCE AS WELL. BUT BESIDES THAT, THERE WASN'T ANYTHING ELSE FOR US TO ADDRESS FROM MY UNDERSTANDING. I HAVE A QUESTION FOR DREW. SO OVER THE HOLIDAY I WENT TO THE TIM HORTONS ON MCKINLEY AND 20. AND THIS IS RELATED TO STACKING. OKAY. AND THERE'S A COUPLE OF PLACES THROUGHOUT HAMBURG THAT WHEN I GO, I'M LIKE, WHAT WERE THEY THINKING ABOUT WHEN THEY DID THIS STACKING BECAUSE IT YOU'RE PULLING IN, THERE'S CARS PARKED HERE. THERE'S CARS PARKED THERE. THIS THE LINE'S NOT MOVING THAT QUICKLY. NOBODY CAN BACK OUT BECAUSE YOU CAN'T MOVE THROUGH THE LINE. HOW DO WE IMPROVE ON THAT? ESPECIALLY WITH A NEW PROJECT? EXCELLENT QUESTION. FIRST OF ALL, FOR TIM HORTONS, DOT HAS THEIR OWN GENERATION OF TRAFFIC NUMBER.

NOW THEY REALIZE THEY GENERATE AN INORDINATE AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC AND WHATEVER. SO THEY ACTUALLY HAVE THEIR OWN. SO IF YOU WERE TO PUT A TIM HORTONS IN, WE'VE LEARNED THAT DOT ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THEY'RE THEY'RE STACKING HAS TO BE A LOT MORE. YOUR NEXT QUESTION IS RELATED TO DESIGN.

YOU'RE RIGHT. IN THE OLD DAYS, THEY DID THE STANDARD DESIGN WHERE THE DRIVE THROUGH WENT THROUGH THE PARKING LOT. THERE WASN'T A DEDICATED DRIVE THROUGH WITH AN ESCAPE LANE.

YOU EVER BEEN CAUGHT IN A DRIVE THROUGH AND YOU CAN'T ESCAPE FROM IT? SO DOES THIS. AND I HAVEN'T LOOKED. DOES THIS ACCOMPLISH THAT OR WHATEVER WHERE YOU STILL HAVE A DRIVE THROUGH, GOING THROUGH A PARKING LOT WHERE YOU'RE RIGHT. IF I'M SITTING IN, I GOT CAUGHT IN A PARKING SPACE AND A TIM HORTONS WHERE I'M SITTING IN A PARKING SPACE AND THE BACKUP BACKED UP PAST ME AND I COULD NOT BACK OUT OF MY PARKING SPOT. I HAD TO WAIT UNTIL THE LINE GOT SMALL ENOUGH WHERE I COULD BACK OUT OF MY PARKING SPOT. SO YES, THEY'VE LEARNED A LOT IN PARKING LOT DESIGN, ESPECIALLY WITH DRIVE THRUS, THAT THE STACKING SHOULD BE CLEAR OF OTHER PARKING. SO DOES THIS DESIGN ADDRESS SOME OF THAT CONCERN? YES, BECAUSE OUR EXPECTATION IS IT'S A LOW IT'S GOING TO BE A LOW VOLUME DRIVE THROUGH USER AND NOT SOMETHING LIKE A TIM HORTONS OR A STARBUCKS. THOSE USERS ALSO HAVE THEIR OWN STACKING REQUIREMENTS THAT THEY LOOK FOR AS WELL. SO BASED ON THE DESIGN AND WHAT WE HAVE HERE WITH THE MULTI-TENANT BUILDING, THE END USER, WE WOULD EXPECT SOMETHING MORE ALONG THE LINES OF OF A BANK SAY THAT WOULD HAVE THAT BEING A DRIVE UP ATM THAT MAY HAVE 1 OR 2 CARS, AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, TO THE BOARD, IT'S KIND OF UNTIL WE HAVE THE BUILDING BUILT, WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE A TENANT FOR IT. OUR EXPECTATION SINCE BENDERSON WE'VE DONE MANY DRIVE THRUS IN THE AREA IS THIS IS WHAT THE USER THAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR IN THAT END CAP WOULD REQUIRE. SO BASICALLY, WE'RE BUILDING THIS WITH THE EXPECTATION THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO MARKET THAT TO A TENANT THAT SEES THAT DRIVE AND WAS LIKE, YES, THAT IS SUFFICIENT. AND THAT'S GOING TO COME. I'M SORRY, I'M SORRY, BUT THAT'S GOING TO COME BACK BEFORE US. SO WHAT WE DID, WHAT WE HAD DISCUSSED WAS A LOW GENERATING DRIVE THROUGH USER, LIKE A BANK OR SOMETHING LIKE LIKE A LOW LEVEL, LIKE A, LIKE A CAFE OR SOMETHING, OR LIKE A PICKUP LANE, LIKE THE CHIPOTLE.

THAT'S NOT A TRADITIONAL DRIVE THRU WOULD BE OKAY. BUT IF IT WAS SOMETHING ELSE THAT THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT OR THE TOWN FELT WOULD BE A HIGHER GENERATOR USER, THAT THEY FELT THAT THE BOARD WOULD WANT TO RELOOK AT, THEN WE WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK FROM A MARKETING STANDPOINT AS WELL, PUTTING SOMEONE IN THERE THAT WOULD SAY GENERATE A 15 CAR STACK WOULD ACTUALLY BE A NEGATIVE FOR US IN THAT BUILDING, BECAUSE THEN THE REST OF THE BUILDING SPACE WOULDN'T REALLY BE MARKETABLE. SO LIKE, SAY WE PUT A TIM HORTONS IN AT THE END OR

[00:40:03]

ANOTHER USER THAT WOULD GENERATE 15 OR 20 CARS WHEN YOU WENT TO TRY TO MARKET THE REST OF THE SPACE, THE TENANTS WOULD BE LIKE, WELL, THERE'S NO ROOM THAT'S THERE. DRIVE THROUGH LANE. WE DON'T HAVE PARKING ANYMORE. SO THAT'S SO IT KIND OF IT MARKETS AND KIND OF TENANTS OUT ITSELF TO TO WORK WITH WHAT'S WHAT'S BUILT THERE. OKAY. WELL I'M GLAD I ASKED THE QUESTION AND WE'VE GOT THAT ON RECORD. SO DO WE PUT THAT AS PART OF THE CONDITION THAT WE CAN LOOK AT IN THE EVENT THAT THE, IN THE EVENT THAT IT'S RENTED TO A DRIVE THROUGH, THAT IT SHOULD BE ADDED TO THE RESOLUTION. YEAH, DEFINITELY. WITH PLAZAS WHERE YOU DON'T HAVE USERS PUT A CONDITION ON WHAT YOU ASSUME TO BE THE USERS AND CLEARLY ARTICULATE TO THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT. IF THOSE USERS CHANGE, IT MAY REQUIRE COMING BACK OR MOST PROBABLY REQUIRE COMING BACK TO THE PLANNING BOARD. SO YES, YOU'LL HAVE TO STATE ON THE RECORD WITH A PLAZA THAT HAS NO SPECIFIC USES, LIKE FOR EXAMPLE, LIKE RESTAURANTS HAVE DIFFERENT DRIVE THRUS, HAVE DIFFERENT, DIFFERENT REQUIREMENTS. LIKE I SAID, THAT AS YOU MENTIONED, VERY THE DOT UNDERSTANDS AND EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS NOW THAT JUST BECAUSE YOU HAVE A DONUT SHOP, THERE ARE SOME THAT GENERATE A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT MORE TRAFFIC THAN OTHERS DO FROM A STACKING POINT. AND YOU DON'T WANT THAT STACKING IF YOU LOOK AT THAT, THAT IF YOU'RE GOING PAST FIVE CARS, THAT IT'S GOING TO STACK INTO THAT PARKING LOT AND HURT YOUR TENANTS, BUT ALSO DRIVE US NUTS THAT WE APPROVE SOMETHING WHERE PEOPLE CAN'T GET IN AND OUT OF PARKING SPACES. SO WE HAVE THE RESOLUTION IN FRONT OF US TONIGHT FOR OUR APPROVAL. CAN WE ADD THAT? IS THE BOARD IN AGREEMENT TO ADDING THAT AS A CONDITION? HOW DO WE WRITE IT? I THOUGHT YOU WERE THE WORDSMITH. THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING THE QUESTION. ORIGINALLY WE WERE SAYING IF IT WAS GOING TO BE A FAST FOOD USE. NOW HE'S SAYING IF IT'S A CHIPOTLE TYPE, ORDER AHEAD, BUT CHIPOTLE IS FAST FOOD. HE'S SAYING IF IT'S CAFE USE OR A BANK, THEY WOULDN'T COME BACK. BUT STARBUCKS IS A CAFE. TIM HORTONS IS TECHNICALLY A CAFE.

YOU COULD ALSO DO WELL. YOU COULD. SO YOU COULD COFFEE SHOP. WE LIKE FAST FOOD COFFEE SHOP.

WE WOULD BE MORE THAN FINE COMING BACK FOR THAT. I'M NOT TRYING TO LIKE, GET LIKE A TIM HORTONS OR OR STARBUCKS THROUGH WITH THAT, BECAUSE THAT'S I MEAN, THAT'S WHAT I WAS, RIGHT.

I WROTE FAST FOOD OR COFFEE USE BANK. WELL, NO, WE WOULD COME BACK FOR THAT. COME BACK SO A BANK, THEY WOULDN'T COME BACK, RIGHT. YEAH. IS IT FAST FOOD, COFFEE USE AND OR A HIGH I DON'T KNOW, MAYBE EVEN AT A BANK SOMETIMES. IT COULD BE YOU COULD HAVE A NO NO, NOT BECAUSE IT GOES AROUND THE TEN. BECAUSE THIS DESIGN, THE ENTIRE BACK OF THE BUILDING AND ONE OF THE SIDES. SO THE MOST LIKELY IF THIS WAS A BANK, THIS WOULD MOST LIKELY BE A DRIVE UP, WOULD MOST LIKELY JUST THEN BE A DRIVE UP ATM FOR THE BANK OR, OR OR IT WOULD BE ONE DRIVE THROUGH TELLER USE AND THAT WOULD BE IT. JUST BECAUSE IT IS THE SINGLE LANE. SO IT WOULD JUST WORK ITSELF OUT TO BE A SMALLER USE. IT'S NOT THE THE 2 OR 3 LANES THAT YOU SOMETIMES SEE FOR BANKS. SO WHAT KIND OF MAGIC WORDS DO YOU HAVE OVER THERE ON YOUR PIECE OF PAPER? I WROTE IF IF THE DRIVE THROUGH IS A FAST FOOD OR COFFEE USE, THE APPLICANT WILL HAVE TO RETURN TO THE PLANNING BOARD FOR SITE PLAN MODIFICATION. DOES EVERYBODY LIKE THAT? I'D SAY INCLUDE FAST FOOD, COFFEE USE AND OR HIGH VOLUME USE. OKAY. AND THEN WHAT'S THE DEFINITION OF ATTORNEY? JOSEPH GOERGEN. WHAT'S THE DEFINITION OF HIGH VOLUME USE? AND WHO GETS TO BE THE ARBITER OF HIGH VOLUME USE. AND WHO GETS TO BE MORE THAN TEN STACKING? WHO GETS TO DECIDE THAT'S WHERE WE THAT'S WHERE WE COULD DO IT, WHERE WE AND THERE'S THERE'S TWO WAYS YOU CAN ADDRESS THIS. YOU CAN YOU CAN ADDRESS THAT THAT CONDITION AS AN INCLUSIVE ONE OR AN EXCLUSIVE ONE. IT'S IT'S OKAY IF IT'S THESE THINGS OR IT'S NOT OKAY IF IT'S THESE THINGS. AND YOU CAN LIST IT EITHER WAY, IT'S OKAY IF IT'S A BANK, WHATEVER. THEN YOU THEN YOU DON'T NEED OR YOU HAVE TO COME BACK. IF IT'S THESE THINGS, THERE'S TWO SIDES OF THE COIN AND YOU CAN DO IT EITHER WAY. SO THERE'S TEN CARS DEDICATED IN THE STACKING LANE. SO THE ONE THING WE COULD DO SAY FOR HIGH VOLUME IS SAY THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT HAS SOMEONE AND THEY QUESTION IT. THEY COULD JUST ASK US TO PROVIDE A STACKING STUDY AS PART OF THE BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION THAT SHOWS THE STACKING WOULD BE LESS THAN THE TEN. SO THEY HAVE DOCUMENTATION AND IF IT SHOWS IT'S MORE THAN TEN, THEN THEY HAVE TO HAVE US COME BACK. AND IN THIS CASE TOO, WE WE HELP THE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER WITH THAT. AND BY THE WAY, THE DOT MANUALS WILL HAVE STACKING REQUIREMENTS FOR USES. SO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS YOU CAN STACK UP TO TEN VEHICLES. SO YOU HAVE THOSE TWO HE'S ALREADY AGREED TO. AND ADD THAT THIRD CATEGORY OF A HIGH VOLUME THAT WOULD STACK MORE THAN TEN VEHICLES. BECAUSE ONCE YOU STACK MORE THAN TEN VEHICLES, YOU'RE INTO THE PARKING AREA. ALL RIGHT. AND THAT EASILY YOU CAN CHECK THERE ARE USES. YOU JUST GO TO THE MANUAL AND IT TELLS YOU WHAT THE STACKING REQUIREMENT IS FOR THAT USE. OKAY. TIM HORTONS HAS ITS OWN CATEGORY AND SO DOES SOME OF THE OTHER

[00:45:05]

ONES. I THINK TIM HORTONS DOESN'T WANT TO COME NOW AFTER WE. AND WELL, WHAT I CAN ALSO TELL THE BOARD IS OVER THE LAST LIKE SIX, SEVEN, EIGHT YEARS SINCE COVID CAME AS WELL. AND AND WHEN IT WAS COVID, WE SAW ISSUES WITH CERTAIN DESIGNS DEVELOPERS HAVE GOTTEN. WE'VE GOTTEN A LOT BETTER WITH LOOKING AT THE DRIVE THROUGH DESIGNS AND NOT JUST DROPPING A DRIVE THROUGH ON A BUILDING. THERE'S A LOT MORE THOUGHT PUT IN TO MAKE SURE WE DON'T IMPACT IT, BECAUSE WE DID RUN INTO ISSUES DURING COVID WHERE THERE WAS EXTRA STACKING AND IT IMPACTED, SO IT'S BECOME SOMETHING THAT GETS LOOKED AT MUCH, MUCH HARDER FROM A DESIGN STANDPOINT. AND OUR EXPECTATION IS THERE'S NO ISSUES BECAUSE LIKE I'VE SAID, WE DON'T WANT TO DESIGN SOMETHING THAT THEN DOESN'T WORK FOR THE REST OF THE BUILDING. OKAY, SO MR. WORDSMITH, DO YOU HAVE THAT? I'M GETTING IT. OKAY. WE'LL DO JEOPARDY MUSIC WHILE WE'RE WAITING FOR. HOW ABOUT IF SO, WE DON'T DELAY THIS ANY FURTHER. HOW ABOUT WE GET SOMEBODY TO READ THE FIRST PART OF THE RESOLUTION FOR SEEKER? HOW'S THAT? ALSO, ADD DARK SKY COMPLIANT WAITING. TALK TO WORDSMITH OVER THERE. WELL, HOW ABOUT MY DICTATOR? HE'S NOT TYPING. HE'S NOT JOSH, HE'S NOT JOSH. WHO'S TYPING? ARE YOU DOING IT ALL RIGHT. OH, YOU GOT IT. OKAY. AND JUST TO LET YOU KNOW THAT IS SHOWN ON THE LIGHTING PLAN. WE SUBMITTED THE SPECS. BUT YEAH, AS PER THE SITE PLAN. AND IS THAT THE MOST AGAIN IS THAT THE MOST RECENT SITE PLAN, THE DECEMBER 1ST SITE PLAN. IT HASN'T BEEN REVISED. MEMBERS I DID AND THEN ALSO THE LANDSCAPING DATES. I DID CHECK THE DATES AGAINST I, I DID AS WELL. I DIDN'T KNOW IF THEY SUBMITTED A A A DIFFERENT ONE OR HAD AN AMENDED SINCE THE SINCE THE DECEMBER 1ST. WAS THE CORRECT? YES. OKAY. WHAT DO YOU GOT SO FAR, SIR? ENGINEERING TO THE STACKING PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE BUILDING. STATEMENT OR IN THE CASE OF THE DONKEY, CAN'T BE RETURNED. OKAY.

ARE WE GOING ARE WE GOING TO INCLUDE SOME INCLUSIVE PLACES LIKE BANKS AND. NO THE NUMBER.

SO IT'S GOING TO BE STRICTLY HAVE TO DO THE REPORT. GOT IT, GOT IT. IF IT'S LOWER THAN EIGHT FINE. IF IT'S IF IT'S GREATER IF IT'S EIGHT OR LOWER FINE. IF IT'S NINE OR HIGHER IT'LL COME BACK OKAY. CAN YOU READ THAT. YEAH. ALL RIGHT. AND CAN YOU READ THAT HE'S THE TYPE.

OKAY. SO WHO WANTS TO DO THE SEEKER RESOLUTION FIRST. WELL, WE'RE WHILE WE'RE WAITING FOR THE ATTORNEY TO READ THAT. OKAY. I MOVED TO APPROVE BENDERSON DEVELOPMENT 5400 SOUTHWESTERN BOULEVARD RETAIL RESTAURANT. HOUR OUT. PARCEL SEEKER AND APPROVAL RESOLUTION JANUARY 7TH, 2026 ONE SEEKER. IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE NEW YORK STATE SEEKER LAW, THE TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD HAS REVIEWED THE BENDERSON DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, WHICH INVOLVES THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN 8020 SQUARE FOOT MULTI-TENANT RETAIL RESTAURANT, OUTPARCEL BUILDING, WITH DRIVE THRU LANE AT 5400 SOUTHWESTERN BOULEVARD, AND HELD THE REQUIRED PUBLIC HEARING ON DECEMBER 17TH, 2025. BASED ON THE REVIEW OF THIS UNLISTED ACTION, THE PLANNING BOARD HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROJECT IS NOT ANTICIPATED TO RESULT IN ANY SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, AND THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS HEREBY ISSUED. IS THERE A SECOND MEMBER? RYAN SECONDS IT, SO IT'S BEEN MOVED BY MEMBER, SECOND BY MEMBER RYAN. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MEMBERS. AJAC. WHAT'S THE WORD? ABSTAIN. OKAY. ARE WE READY FOR THE FINAL? NO. ARE YOU COMING THERE? CAN'T WE. DO YOU HAVE YOUR ENGINEERING LETTER? I DIDN'T WANT TO INTERRUPT HIM. ALWAYS EASIER TO FINISH TYPING AND THEN ADD TO IT. DO WE HAVE THE ENGINEERING LETTER IN THERE? I NEED THE DATE. I WAS GOING TO ASK YOU IF THE DATE FOR THE ENGINEERING LETTER. THANK YOU. JANUARY 5TH. OKAY, SO HERE'S THE 20 2620. OH, SORRY, MR. KEY. HE'S GOING BACK TO THE YEAR WHEN OH I WISH NO, HE'S GOING BACK TO THE YEAR THAT DREW STARTED. OKAY. SO CAN YOU MAKE IT A LITTLE BIGGER. BECAUSE I'M GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE SOMEBODY READ THAT TO MYSELF OKAY. IS IT. SURE. I'LL TAKE THE SUGGESTION. OKAY. SO

[00:50:21]

WHO DO WE HAVE TO DO THE SECOND RESOLUTION I CAN CONTINUE OKAY. GO AHEAD. NUMBER TWO, SITE PLAN APPROVAL BASED ON THE REVIEW OF BENDERSON DEVELOPMENT PROJECT MATERIALS. AND HAVING COMPLETED THE SECRET PROCESS, THE HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD HEREBY APPROVES THE PROJECT WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS AND DETERMINATIONS ONE. APPROVAL IS CONTINGENT UPON THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT COMMENT LETTER DATED JANUARY 5TH, 2026. TWO SIDEWALKS SHALL BE INSTALLED AS SHOWN ON THE SITE PLAN DATED DECEMBER 1ST, 2025 THREE. THE LANDSCAPING PLAN DATED NOVEMBER 5TH, 2025 SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. FOUR LIGHTING SHALL BE DARK SKY COMPLIANT. FIVE THE LOCATION OF THE DUMPSTER SHALL BE INSTALLED AS SHOWN IN THE SITE PLAN DATED DECEMBER 1ST, 2025. SIX DRIVE THROUGH USAGE. THE APPLICANT SHALL PROVIDE THE TOWN OF HAMBURG BUILDING DEPARTMENT WITH A STACKING REPORT PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT. IF THE STACKING REPORT INDICATES THE NUMBER GREATER THAN EIGHT, THE APPLICANT SHALL RETURN TO THE PLANNING BOARD FOR SITE PLAN MODIFICATION. CAN I MAKE ONE SUGGESTION FOR BUILDING PERMIT FOR THE DRIVE THROUGH USER TENANT? THEY MAY READ IT AND MAYBE NOT ISSUE A PERMIT ONLY. JUST SO THERE'S CLARIFICATION. OKAY, SO NUMBER SIX TELL ME HOW YOU WANT IT WORDED. SAY PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT FOR DRIVE THROUGH USER AFTER BUILDING PERMIT, TRYING TO GET THE MOUSE TO COOPERATE. YEAH. MOUSE IS SOMETHING ELSE. AND SO FROM FOR DRIVE THROUGH. TENANT AND THAT'S DRIVE. AND THE ONLY QUESTION THAT I HAVE DO WE WANT IT EIGHT OR DO WE WANT IT NINE. AND REMEMBER IT'S IT'S GREATER THAN EIGHT NINE OR HIGHER OKAY.

SO SO IT'S SO THEY HAVE TEN I FIGURED WE WANT A LITTLE BIT OF A CUSHION OKAY. I THOUGHT 7 OR 8 OKAY. THAT'S REALLY ARBITRARY. THAT'S FINE. NOT 67I DID NOT THINK THAT FOR DRIVE THROUGH TENANT OKAY. SO WE'VE GOT IT ALL READ. SO IT'S BEEN MOVED BY A MEMBER SHIMURA TO JUST READ.

I WOULD I WOULD LIKE YOU TO GO AHEAD NUMBER SIX. YES. THANK YOU. NUMBER SIX REDO DRIVE THROUGH USAGE. THE APPLICANT SHALL PROVIDE THE TOWN OF HAMBURG BUILDING DEPARTMENT WITH A STACKING REPORT. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT FOR A DRIVE THROUGH TENANT. IF THE STACKING REPORT INDICATES A NUMBER GREATER THAN EIGHT, THE APPLICANT SHALL RETURN TO THE PLANNING BOARD FOR SITE PLAN MODIFICATION. IT'S BEEN MOVED. IS THERE A SECOND? AUGUST? I SECOND THE MOTION SO IT'S BEEN MOVED BY MEMBER SHIMURA, SECOND BY MEMBER GERACI. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? I. ANY OPPOSED? AND MEMBERS ABSTAINED. SO YOU HAVE YOUR RESOLUTION. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE WON'T BE SEEING YOU FOR A WHILE. YOU'RE NOT BACK. I HOPE YOU STILL LIKE ME, EVEN THOUGH I'M NOT INVITED BACK. OKAY. YES. DEPENDS. ON WHAT? WHO'S IN THERE? YEAH. REALLY? HAVE A HAPPY NEW YEAR. OKAY. OUR FINAL CASE FOR THIS EVENING IS MATT JAWORSKI. IS OUR APPLICANT HERE? NO, NO, NO FOR OX. OH I'M SORRY, I THINK THERE WAS ANOTHER MY PAGE. YEAH. MY PAGE BROKE UP HERE. THAT'S WHAT HAPPENS WHEN I. AND I DON'T HAVE. ON PAGE FOUR. YEAH. WELL HERE WE GO. THANK YOU. DREW. OKAY. JOHN BROCK'S REQUESTING A

[5. John Brokx – Requesting a Change of Use and Site Plan Approval for a proposal to turn a facility from industrial to recreational space at 6302 Monckton Drive]

CHANGE OF USE FROM AN INDUSTRIAL TO A PRIVATE TRAINING FACILITY. 6302 MODERN DRIVE. AND THE BOARD, WE HELD OUR PLANNING, OUR PUBLIC HEARING. WE ACTUALLY HAVE A RESOLUTION IN FRONT OF US FOR REVIEW. WE DID. WE'RE WE'RE GOOD TO GO. SO DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO OFFER? I HAVE I THINK YOU REQUESTED TWO THINGS ON THE SITE PLAN. SO THERE IS THOSE WERE TAKEN CARE OF HERE. I CAN SHOW YOU. OKAY. YEAH. THERE IT IS. THERE WE GO.

I THINK YOU WANTED DIRECTIONAL AND THEN THIS IS HANDICAPPED SPOTS. AND THEN THIS IS A

[00:55:04]

LOADING ZONE. OR TO BUFFER THE ADA. YES. OKAY. YES. SO IF YOU JUST WANT TO GIVE IT TO MEMBER CLARK AND THEN HE CAN TAKE A LOOK AT IT AND PASS IT DOWN OKAY. AND THEN IF YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO OFFER TO US THIS EVENING, BUT I THINK WE'RE IN GOOD SHAPE. WE'LL GIVE THE BOARD A MINUTE TO LOOK AT THAT FINAL. OKAY. WHAT IS THE. JUST LOOKING WHERE TO PUT THAT INTO? CAN I ASK YOU GUYS TO GET THE DOOR, PLEASE? SOMETHING. SOMETHING'S GOING ON UPSTAIRS.

MEETING. THANK YOU. IS PRESENTED. OKAY. OKAY. PLANNING DEPARTMENT, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD TO THIS? NO. YOU'RE DOING. THE APPLICANT WAS TOLD TO BRING A A A SITE PLAN.

AN UPDATED SITE PLAN, ESPECIALLY RELATED TO PARKING. BECAUSE PARKING IS THE BIGGEST ISSUE WHEN YOU HAVE A USE CHANGE ON A ON A SITE. SO IF YOU'RE COMFORTABLE, YOU HAVE DRAFT RESOLUTIONS. IF YOU'RE NOT, YOU'RE SEEING IT FOR THE FIRST TIME TONIGHT. YOU COULD TABLE IT FOR TWO MORE WEEKS. SEE IF YOU WANT TO INVITE THE GENTLEMAN BACK AGAIN. OR YOU COULD TRY TO ACT ON IT TONIGHT. BUT AGAIN, YOU'RE SEEING THE NEW PLAN FOR THE FIRST TIME TONIGHT. THERE'S NOT MUCH THERE'S NOT MUCH TO ADD TO ADD TO THAT PLAN TO TABLE ANYTHING.

I THINK WE'VE GOT WHAT WE BOARD MEMBERS, ARE YOU IN AGREEMENT THAT WE GOT WHAT WE ASKED FOR? YEAH, YEAH. JUST REFERENCE. THAT WE'RE GOING OFF OF THAT PLAN, THE ONE THAT WE RECEIVED AT THIS MEETING TODAY. BECAUSE THE DATE ON THE PLAN IS FROM 21. RIGHT. HE HANDWROTE IT IN. SO WE WANT TO REFERENCE THAT PARTICULAR ONE AND SOMEHOW, WELL AFTER THE FACT PUT THAT INTO THE RECORD. SO ARE YOU WORDSMITHING AGAIN I GUESS, WHAT IS THE DATE IN THE CORNER, AUGIE? THE DATE IN THE CORNER IS NOT THE RIGHT DATE. SO THAT'S WHY I WAS REFERRING TO THE THING HE HANDED TO US TODAY, BECAUSE HE HAND WROTE DREW THE DIRECTIONAL THINGS. OH, YES.

YES. OKAY. SO THE DATE IN THE CORNERS BACK IN NOVEMBER OF 21, I THOUGHT IT SAID SEPTEMBER 2021. IS THE DATE ON RIGHT. YEAH. SO SHOULD WE CLARIFY THAT IT WAS THE SEPTEMBER 21ST PLAN THAT WAS AMENDED BY THE APPLICANT FOR TO WHICH ADDED THE PARKING PRESENTED AT I, I JUST SAID THE ONE THAT HE HANDED TO US TODAY. I MEAN I DON'T KNOW HOW WE MARK THAT RECEIVED A STAMP. I THINK YOU HAVE A RECEIVED ON THAT WHEN IT ORIGINALLY CAME IN. RIGHT. SO THERE'S ALREADY RECEIVED FOR THE DATE. THAT'S NOT TODAY, BUT YOU CAN SAVE ME. WELL, SINCE CHANGE OF USE REQUIRES A SITE PLAN, WE WILL NEED THREE COPIES OF THAT THAT YOU AND I WILL BOTH SIGN AND DATE. SO IT WILL HAVE A DATE FOR THE SIGNATURE. OTHERWISE, I KNOW ENGINEERING.

WE HAVE A RECEIVED STAMP. I COULD DO THAT TODAY. IF YOU WANT, I CAN RUN IT UPSTAIRS AND PUT A RECEIPT STAMP ON IT. JUST DO A STANDARD LANGUAGE THAT THE CHAIRMAN'S AUTHORIZED TO SIGN TO SIGN THE PLAN. OKAY, SO WE NEED TWO MORE COPIES OF THIS, RIGHT? OKAY. AND I AND I ALSO WILL MAKE ONE. YOU'LL BE APPRECIATIVE OF THIS. THAT IS A STAMP DRAWING THAT SOMEONE HAS AMENDED. HE HAS TO GET A LETTER FROM THE PERSON WHO STAMPED THAT DRAWING THAT THAT IS OKAY.

TO AMEND THAT PROFESSIONAL DRAWING YOU HAVE TO GET THAT THAT IS A LEGAL TO CHANGE A STAMP PLAN. SO AS A PROFESSIONAL GHD AND WENDELL, WE KNOW THAT YOU CANNOT CHANGE SOMEONE'S PLAN WITHOUT THEIR WRITTEN PERMISSION. THAT'S WHY I WAS SAYING THAT THE DATE OF IT, AND THAT IT WAS AMENDED BY THE APPLICANT. THAT VERBIAGE IN THERE. BUT YOU CAN'T DO THAT, RIGHT. UNLESS HE GETS A LETTER. YOU GET A LETTER. OKAY. SO, I MEAN, WE COULD PUT THE LANGUAGE ABOUT THE PLANNING BOARD CHAIRS AUTHORIZED TO SIGN IT. AND THEN SO DO YOU STILL DEAL WITH THE PERSON THAT DREW THOSE PLANS? I, I DO BELIEVE WELL, HE'S NO LONGER I DON'T EVEN KNOW IF HE'S STILL ALIVE. I, I LEFT THREE MESSAGES. HE'S BEING WEST SENECA. HE'S NO LONGER I BUT I

[01:00:05]

KNOW MR. RUMSEY STILL WORKS FOR BENDERSON, RIGHT? YEAH. DAD, DO YOU KNOW SHAWN? HE'S STILL ALIVE. HE'S STILL ALIVE? YEAH. MR. RUMSEY IS STILL ALIVE. BUT YOU DO NEED PERMISSION FROM HIM TO CHANGE THAT PLAN, SO. WELL, DO YOU KNOW WHERE HE IS? I COULD CHECK THROUGH BENDERSON MAY KNOW WHERE HE IS. YEAH, WHERE HE USED TO. THAT'S WHAT IT WOULD BE. YOU HAVE A CELL PHONE NUMBER? I THINK WE SHOULD CALL HIM NOW AND SEE IF HE'S HOME. I MEAN, YOU KNOW, IT'S 8:00. HE MIGHT BE HOME WATCHING. WHAT, JEOPARDY! OR I. YOU KNOW, IT'S WEDNESDAY NIGHT, MAYBE CHICAGO FIRE. AND WE COULD ASK HIM IF HE WOULD GIVE US A LETTER AND THAT WOULD SPEED THIS UP. YOU KNOW HOW I HATE DELAYING CASES. AND THIS IS GOING TO CAUSE A DELAY. WELL, NO, I THINK YOU CAN CONDITIONALLY APPROVE IT TONIGHT. THAT HE GET A LETTER FROM FROM. OKAY. GIVE HIM THE CELL PHONE. WE SHOULDN'T CALL HIM BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO BE.