Jan 21, 2026 1-21-2026 PB Meeting

[00:00:03]

ENOUGH. YEAH. OKEY DOKE. MY NAME IS CAITLIN SHIMAMURA. I'M VICE CHAIR FILLING IN FOR CINDY GRONINGEN, WHO IS UNFORTUNATELY OUT WITH LARYNGITIS FOR THIS EVENING'S MEETING. SO BEAR WITH ME. THIS IS THIS IS MY FIRST SHOW, SO I APPRECIATE EVERYBODY'S PATIENCE. WE WILL START WITH OUR WORK SESSION. WE HAVE THREE ITEMS ON THE WORK SESSION THIS EVENING. AND JOSH,

[1. Carl DiNezza – Requesting Preliminary Plat Approval on a proposal for a 2-lot subdivision at 58 North Shore Drive ]

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. JOSH, MY NAME IS CARL AND I'M AT 58 NORTH SHORE IN THE HOOVER BEACH COMMUNITY. AS JOSH EXPLAINED, I HAD TO GET WRITTEN APPROVAL FROM THE ASSOCIATION, ACTUALLY THE THE CORPORATION, IN ORDER TO SPLIT THE PROPERTY. THE ONE THING, THOUGH, WHICH WAS UNBEKNOWNST TO ANY OF US ON THE NORTH SHORE SECTION, THIS WAS ALWAYS ANTICIPATED. WE DO HAVE IT IN OUR BYLAWS, I THINK, AND OTHER DOCUMENTATION, BECAUSE THERE IS A HOME ON HOOVER ROAD ALREADY, AND THERE WAS PLANS DOWN THE ROAD TO ACTUALLY BUILD MORE HOMES. YOU KNOW, AS TIME WENT ON, UNFORTUNATELY, NOBODY REALLY THOUGHT ABOUT IT. THEN UP UNTIL BACK IN 2022 WHEN MY DAUGHTER WAS GETTING READY TO POSSIBLY RELOCATE BACK TO NEW YORK STATE, WHICH SHE IS TRYING TO GET BACK, BECAUSE, OF COURSE, ECONOMICS DOWN SOUTH IS A LITTLE DIFFERENT. BUT HER HUSBAND, HIS JOB, IS BRINGING HIM BACK HERE FOR THE NEXT 10 TO 12 YEARS. AND UNFORTUNATELY, ECONOMICS PLAYS A ROLE. THERE'S REALLY NOTHING HERE FOR HER TO EVEN TRY AND GET HER HANDS ON.

DOWN SOUTH IS A DIFFERENT STORY, WE ALL KNOW THAT. BUT ANYWAYS, SO WHAT I DID IS I WENT TO THE THE CORPORATION, THE BOARD GOT THEIR APPROVAL AND THEN BEFORE THAT I ALSO SPLIT THE PROPERTY, HAD IT SURVEYED. OKAY. WHICH ACTUALLY I DROPPED OFF A SURVEY THROUGH THE SURVEY COMPANY SHOWING JUST THE LOT ITSELF. AND THE NEXT STEP THAT I'M GOING TO BE DOING HERE IS AFTER I GET DONE WITH YOU FOLKS, I HAVE TO GO TO THE ZONING BOARD, ZONING BOARD. AND THEN FROM THERE, I ACTUALLY THEN GET A ADDRESS FOR IT. AND THEN FROM THERE, WE CAN WORK WITH THE ARCHITECT TO FIND OUT EXACTLY WHAT WE CAN BUILD PROPERLY. AND WITHIN CODE. IT WAS SUGGESTED BY THE CODE ENFORCEMENT THAT THERE'S A FRAMED GARAGE ON THERE ALREADY, WHICH WAS BUILT SO 18 YEARS AGO, IT IS UP TO CODE 16 ON CENTER. ET CETERA. ET CETERA. IT WAS SUGGESTED TO UTILIZE THAT AND KEEP COSTS DOWN FOR MY DAUGHTER, WHICH I WOULDN'T BE OPPOSED TO THAT, BUT I'M I'M OPEN TO ANY SUGGESTIONS THAT CODE ENFORCEMENT WOULD GIVE ME. AND THEY'VE BEEN GREAT. ALSO, YOU KNOW, TO TRY AND HELP ME MOVE THIS FORWARD BECAUSE THEY EVEN KNOW AS WELL AS EVERYBODY. IT'S PRETTY TOUGH UP HERE TO FIND PROPERTY OR FOR THAT MATTER,

[00:05:02]

SO YEAH, JUST TO KIND OF FURTHER EXPAND UPON THAT. SO THE REASON WHY MR. DANZA HAS TO GO TO THE ZONING BOARD IS BECAUSE, AS YOU CAN TELL BY THE LOT, AND IT'S NOT JUST HIM. IF YOU LOOK AT HOOVER BEACH, THERE ARE A NUMBER OF LOTS THAT ARE VERY SIMILAR TO THE SIZE IN R2.

WHEN SERVED BY PUBLIC SEWER, YOU HAVE TO HAVE 10,000FT■S FORA SINGLE FAMILY HOME, WHICH OBVIOUSLY BY SUBDIVIDING THIS, THAT SECOND LOT FOR THAT SINGLE FAMILY HOME WOULD NOT MEET THAT REQUIREMENT. SO ONE OF THE VARIANCES IS FOR LOT SIZE. CODE ENFORCEMENT ALSO MENTIONED THAT THERE WOULD BE REAR YARD AND SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCES THAT WOULD BE REQUESTED. SO OBVIOUSLY ANYTIME SOMEBODY GOES BEFORE A VARIANCE, WE USUALLY BRING THEM TO PLANNING, ESPECIALLY IF THERE'S AN APPROVAL FROM THE BOARD, FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, BEFORE GOING TO THE ZONING BOARD, HE'S OBVIOUSLY LOOKING FOR SUBDIVISION APPROVAL. SO TONIGHT IS MR. JANEZ IS LOOKING FOR IS ANY COMMENTS THAT THIS BOARD HAS THAT WILL THEN BE PASSED ON TO THE ZONING BOARD AS THEY TAKE A LOOK AT THIS REQUEST FOR ALL THE VARIANCES FOR THE SUBDIVISION, AND IF I MAY, IF I MAY ADD, I APOLOGIZE THE PREVIOUS WHEN I WAS HERE IN 23, IT WAS SUGGESTED BY THE PREVIOUS BOARD MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO BRING IN SURVEYS FROM THE OTHER NEIGHBORS, SHOWING EQUAL OR WELL WITHIN THE REALM OF SQUARE FOOTAGE. AND THAT I DID. AND THERE ARE SOME LOTS THAT ACTUALLY HAVE HOMES THAT ARE LESS THAN 4000FT■S. SO BASICALL, I DO HAVE ENOUGH SQUARE FOOTAGE WITH THE ONCE I GET THE VARIANCE TO DEFINITELY BUILD SOMETHING THAT'S FEASIBLE AND THAT THAT WILL WORK AND COMPLEMENT THAT PARTICULAR LOT. OKEY DOKE. ENGINEERING. DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD AT THIS POINT? NO, AT THIS POINT, BECAUSE IT'S JUST A TWO LOT SUBDIVISION. THERE'S NOTHING FOR ENGINEERING, DAD OKAY. THANK YOU. AND THEN I WOULD OPEN IT UP TO BOARD MEMBERS.

ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADD BEFORE WE DISCUSS NEXT STEPS? NO, I THINK MR. DINUZZO HAS DONE HIS HOMEWORK. THANK YOU. AND I ALSO JUST HAVE A NEW GRANDBABY TOO, SO I KNOW THE FEELING OF STAYING IN HAMBURG. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE THAT. YEP. I ACTUALLY DO HAVE SOME QUESTIONS. SO THE GARAGE THAT WAS STATED TO THAT'S EXISTING THAT WAS STATED TO BE WITHIN CODE. DOES THAT DOES THE CURRENT LOCATION AND SETTING OF THAT HIT THE SAME SETBACK REQUIREMENTS, OR IS THAT A KIND OF A GRANDFATHERED SITUATION? I BELIEVE THAT GARAGES GRANDFATHERED IN BECAUSE IT'S BEEN IT'S BEEN EXISTING FOR 18 YEARS. SO IT'S BEEN EXISTING. SO IF THEY WERE TO BUILD A HOUSE UTILIZING THAT GARAGE, YOU WOULD STILL NEED TO HAVE BECAUSE IT WOULD BE ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION TO THAT EXISTING GARAGE. YOU STILL NEED TO HAVE THESE VARIANCES, CORRECT? CORRECT. AND WHAT ARE HOW MUCH OF A DIFFERENCE IN THE VARIANCE ARE WE LOOKING AT WITH RESPECT TO. IS IT THREE FEET FIVE FEET? MY CONCERN COMES FROM THE REASON WHICH SETBACKS ARE EXISTING RIGHT, IS TO ALLOW FOR PUBLIC SAFETY, ACCESS AND SO FORTH. FIRE AND SO UNDERSTANDING. YOU KNOW, HOW CLOSE ARE WE ACTUALLY MAKING THIS LOT? IS IT GOING ARE THERE GOING TO BE ANY ISSUES WITH RESPECT TO THAT ACCESS AROUND THE STRUCTURE AND SO FORTH? NOT NOT AT ALL. AS A MATTER OF FACT, THE LOT NEXT DOOR TO ME IS VACANT. THERE IS NO BUILDING ON IT AT ALL OR NOTHING. IT'S JUST A A DRIVEWAY. THE HOUSE IS ACTUALLY THE HOUSE FOR THAT PROPERTY IS IS IN LINE WITH MY HOUSE UP FRONT. SO THERE'S NOTHING IN THE BACK THERE AT

[00:10:03]

I MEAN, I PERSONALLY I DON'T LIKE THE VARIANCES AT ALL, BUT I'M NOT ON THE BOARD THAT DECIDES WHETHER OR NOT HE GETS THEM OR NOT. SO THAT'S THAT'S THEIR JOB, NOT OURS. SO I DON'T I WOULDN'T FEEL COMFORTABLE ASKING FOR SOMETHING THAT, I MEAN, THEY THEY COULD ASK FOR IT BECAUSE IT'S THEIR DECISION, BUT I WOULDN'T WANT TO GIVE THEM INFORMATION THAT THEY USUALLY DON'T CONSIDER OR DON'T ASK FOR. YOU KNOW, I DON'T WANT TO STEP IN THEIR REALM. YEP.

MEMBER RYAN, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG. THE BACK LOT HERE, TWO SIDES OF IT. ONE EACH SIDE IS A STREET, CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT. THANK YOU. I JUST WANTED. THAT'S WHY I HAD INDICATED WHEN WHEN YOU HAD ASKED ME IN REGARDS TO. IS THERE A ROOM FOR FIRE AND EGRESS AND STUFF LIKE THAT? THERE'S PLENTY OF ROOM BECAUSE YOU HAVE A STREET, TWO STREETS, BECAUSE IT'S ON THE CORNER, AND THEN YOU HAVE THAT VACANT LOT NEXT DOOR, WHICH MY SURVEY AT THE TIME WHEN WE, YOU KNOW, BACK IN THE DAY, I SHOULDN'T SAY BACK IN THE DAY, BUT 18 YEARS AGO, I DID COME TO THE CODE ENFORCEMENT AND THEY TOLD ME WHAT TO DO AS FAR AS LAYING OUT THE THIS PARTICULAR BARN. AND ACCORDING TO MY INFORMATION HERE, I'M LIKE FOUR FEET, 62 OR 4FT .62 FROM THE ACTUAL SURVEY MARKER OR, YOU KNOW, THE LINE. SO DEFINITELY PLENTY OF ROOM, ESPECIALLY WITH NOTHING BUILT NEXT DOOR. I GUESS MY CONCERN COMES FROM THAT'S A GARAGE WHICH HAS A DIFFERENT TYPE OF USE COMPARED TO A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE. AND THESE TYPE OF STORIES, YOU KNOW, THAT COULD BE ENDED UP ADDED TO TO THE STRUCTURE. I JUST I DO HAVE WITH MEMBER CLARK, I HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT SUPPORTING THE NUMBER OF VARIANCES THAT ARE NEEDED. I UNDERSTAND RIGHT THAT THERE'S THESE EXIST THROUGHOUT. JUST LOOKING AT GOOGLE MAPS. IT IS A IT'S A HODGEPODGE OF REALLY SMUSHED IN STRUCTURES AND SO FORTH. BUT YET THAT WAS ALL BEFORE OUR TIME AS WELL. WELL, AND WE DON'T HAVE TO SUPPORT THEM FOR THEM TO GO TO THE ZONING BOARD EITHER. RIGHT. SO THE ONE NICE THING, I'M SORRY, THE ONE NICE THING IS THAT WHERE THIS IS LOCATED, IT'S IF YOU IF YOU ACTUALLY TOOK A DRIVE DOWN THERE, YOU'D ACTUALLY SEE EVEN BY ADDING ON TO THIS PARTICULAR STRUCTURE, YOU WILL LOOK AROUND. YOU WILL SEE SO MUCH ROOM COMPARED TO THOSE ON THE LAKE. AND ALSO SOME OF THE FOLKS THAT ARE ON THE MID SHORE AND SOUTH SHORE AREA. IF ANYBODY'S REALLY CRAMMED, THEY'RE DEFINITELY CRAMMED. YEAH, I THINK I HAVE A LOT MORE BREATHING ROOM THAN, THAN PROBABLY 90% OF THE PEOPLE

[00:15:06]

BUT AT THE SAME TIME, I GUESS WHEN HE DOES SUBDIVIDE IT, HOW ARE THERE MECHANISMS FOR THE HOOVER BEACH BOARD TO NOW KNOW THAT IT'S BEEN SUBDIVIDED FOR THEIR OWN GOOD REFERENCE? I HAVE, I HAVE, YEAH, I'D HAVE TO LOOK INTO IT BECAUSE LOOKING AT IT THE WAY IT IS, THERE IS NO SUBDIVISION OF THE THE PARCEL. IT DOESN'T GET A I MEAN, IT'S ALL PART OF THE ASSOCIATION.

RIGHT. DOES IT, DOES IT HAVE A SEPARATE SECTION BLOCK AND LOT NUMBER FOR TAX PURPOSES OR DO YOU PAY OR DO YOU PAY TO THE ASSOCIATION. AND THEY PAY. OH NO I PAY I PAY TAXES TO THE TOWN. WE GOT RID OF THAT MANY YEARS AGO. AND, AND YOU KNOW THE SBL, THE SECTION BLOCK AND LOT NUMBER FOR YOUR PARCEL IS THAT, IS THAT SOMEWHERE THAT I CAN ACCESS IT? I DON'T HAVE THAT WITH ME. WAIT A MINUTE. HOLD ON. LET ME SEE IF THE TREASURER AND IF YOU DO HAVE ANY QUESTIONS YOU CAN CALL. I'LL GIVE YOU THE NUMBER TO CALL. SHE SHE KNEW THIS WAS GOING TO HAPPEN AND THEY DID. THEY DID TELL ME THAT IF THERE WAS AN ISSUE IN REGARDS TO WHERE IT'S GOING TO LIE ON OUR OUR GIANT MAP, THEY WILL TAKE CARE OF THAT THEMSELVES. THEY HAD NO PROBLEM WITH IT AT ALL. AS FAR AS SUBDIVIDING, THEY'LL TAKE CARE OF THE REST. JUST I JUST HAND BACK THE PAPERWORK TO THEM AND THEN THEY GO AHEAD AND REDO EVERYTHING THEMSELVES. I'M GOING TO MAKE A COMMENT JUST TO JOSH THAT FOR EVERYONE TO HEAR. IT'S KIND OF LIKE A CONDO ASSOCIATION WHERE THE MAP COVER IS PART OF THE CONDO ASSOCIATION, AND THEY WOULD HAVE TO FILE ADDITIONAL PAPERWORK AS FAR AS THE ASSOCIATION IS CONCERNED FOR THE INDIVIDUAL LOTS, I DON'T THINK IT WOULD COME FROM US. OKAY. IF THAT IF THAT MAKES SENSE. YEP. MAKES SENSE. I'M LOOKING I'M LOOKING FOR THE SBL NUMBER. I THOUGHT MAYBE SHE PUT IT ON HERE. BUT IT'S NOT JUST IT'S JUST REFERENCING MY ADDRESS. RIGHT. BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH. YES, I CAN DEFINITELY GET THAT UNLESS IT'S ON HERE. HOLD ON A SECOND. OH. SO I GUESS FOR WHAT WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US IN OUR NEXT ■STEPS THIS EVENING IS WITH RESPECT TO GOING TO THE ZONING BOARD. SO I KNOW THAT THERE'S BEEN MIXED COMMENTS, AT LEAST BETWEEN MEMBER CLARK AND I. AND SO I WOULD MAYBE SUGGEST IF WE DO A CALL AS TO SUPPORT OR NOT SUPPORT THE VARIANCES, OR HOW DO WE WANT TO KIND OF GET OUR OPINION ON THE RECORD WITH RESPECT TO THE NEXT STEPS GOING TO THE ZONING BOARD? WELL, OBVIOUSLY, THE ZONING BOARD CAN OBVIOUSLY REVIEW THE VIDEO. OBVIOUSLY THERE WILL BE MANY MINUTES PRODUCED FOR SAID MEETING. AND THEN YOU GUYS OBVIOUSLY GOT YOUR COMMENTS ON THE RECORD AND YOU KNOW YOU CAN DO IT IF WE DON'T TYPICALLY DO LIKE IT'S NOT REALLY A VOTE.

YEAH. SO YOU CAN JUST AUTHORIZE HIM TO GO TO THE ZONING BOARD AND THEN HE'LL FIND OUT FROM THERE. AND THEN IF HE GETS HIS VARIANCES, HE'LL BE BACK BEFORE US FOR FURTHER SUBDIVISION REVIEW. MEMBER CLARK, DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENT ON. YEAH. I MEAN, WE DON'T HAVE TO SAY WHETHER WE SUPPORT IT OR NOT. I THINK THE INPUT THAT THE ZONING BOARD WANTS TO KNOW IS IF THEY GRANT THE VARIANCES, WOULD WE HAVE DIFFICULTY DOING THE SUBDIVISION? AND I THINK GIVEN THE PROCESS THEY HAVE TO GO THROUGH, IF THEY WERE TO GRANT THE VARIANCES, I WOULD STICK BY THEIR DECISION AND GO FORWARD BECAUSE IT'S THEIR THEIR DECISION, NOT OURS. SO THAT'S THAT'S WHERE I STAND WITH IT. I WOULDN'T RECOMMEND THE VARIANCES, BUT I ALSO RECOGNIZE THAT THAT IS NOWHERE NEAR WHAT I'M SUPPOSED TO BE DOING. OKAY. UNDERSTOOD. AND JUST JUST TO

[00:20:04]

MAP COVERS REALLY AREN'T NEEDED FROM THE TOWN AS A REQUIREMENT FOR A MINOR SUBDIVISION. GOTCHA.

MAKES SENSE. I'M SORRY. WHAT WAS THAT, A MAP. WHAT YOU YOU DON'T NEED A MAP COVER FROM THE TOWN. YEAH OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. YEP. WELL, A MAP COVER WOULD BE TO LET THE TAXING AUTHORITY KNOW THAT THE SHAPE OF THE PARCELS, WHEN IT'S A MINOR SUBDIVISION, THAT MAP COVER ISN'T NECESSARILY NEEDED. THE TAXING AUTHORITY CAN FIGURE IT OUT ON THEIR OWN. IF THERE'S MULTIPLE PARCELS, THEN THE COUNTY REQUIRES THAT THAT BE PROVIDED BY THE PERSON WHO'S DOING THE SUBDIVISION. OKAY. THAT MAKES SENSE. OKAY, SO JUST FOR OUR RECORD THAT I HAVE CONCERNS WITH ADDING IN THE VARIANCES AND THE PROXIMITY TO THE TO THE PROPERTY LINES FOR THE FUTURE PROPOSED HOUSE, BUT WE'LL HAVE YOU HAVE YOUR LUCK WITH THE ZONING BOARD. OKAY.

THANK YOU. AND WE'LL SEE YOU BACK WHENEVER THAT HAPPENS. WHENEVER THAT HAPPENS OKAY.

VERY GOOD. THANKS EVERYBODY. GREATLY APPRECIATE IT. AND JOSH I'LL I'LL GET WITH YOU. WE'LL BE IN TOUCH. OKAY. GREAT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. OKAY. NEXT ON OUR WORK SESSION,

[2. Richard Saunders – Requesting Preliminary Plat Approval on a proposal for a 2-lot subdivision at 5225 Scranton Road ]

A LITTLE BIT A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT CONFIGURATION BECAUSE THEY NEEDED SOME STUFF PARALLEL TO THE ROADWAY, BUT THEY STILL NEED SQUARE FOOTAGE WISE. EACH LOT WILL MEET THE REQUIREMENTS.

WHAT THAT LAYOUT DOES SHOW THOUGH, IS LIKE A BOX FOOTPRINT OF WHERE THE HOME COULD SIT AND MEETS ALL THE REQUIREMENTS. SO YOU CAN SEE ALL THE SETBACKS ARE IT WILL FALL WITHIN THAT.

SO I'M LOOKING TO HAVE A SINGLE FAMILY HOME. THE LOT THAT FLAGS BACK FURTHER TO THE BACK LINE AND ON THE BIGGER LOT. WE'RE LOOKING TO DO AN R2 COMPLEX THERE. SO I GUESS ASK IF ENGINEERING HAS ANYTHING ELSE TO ADD. JUST THE USUAL THINGS. IF THEY'RE APPROVED FOR TWO LOT, IF THEY DEVELOP THE VACANT PORTION, WE WILL LOOK AT A DRAINAGE PLAN AT THAT TIME, DURING BUILDING PERMIT AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT. ANYTHING ELSE TO ADD? NOTHING OTHER THAN LIKE I MENTIONED, WE HAD CODE ENFORCEMENT REVIEW AT THIS TIME BASED OFF OF THE THIS CONFIGURATION AND EVEN THE SLIGHTLY CHANGED LOT LINES, NEITHER ONE REQUIRE ANY VARIANCES AT THIS TIME. SO AFTER YOU NO FURTHER COMMENT FROM THIS BOARD, IF YOU ALL FEEL COMFORTABLE, YOU CAN TALK ABOUT POTENTIALLY TABLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING OR IF THERE'S ANY OTHER ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. YOU CAN OBVIOUSLY REQUEST THAT AT THIS TIME. ONE

[00:25:04]

WE DID LOOK AT THE THE MAPPER. NONE OF THAT UGLY PINK BLOB WAS ON MR. SAUNDERS PROPERTY.

DOESN'T MEAN THAT THERE AREN'T ANY WETLANDS. WE'LL OBVIOUSLY CONTINUE TO DO OUR DUE DILIGENCE IN CONVERSATIONS WITH DEC, BUT AT THIS TIME, WE DON'T BELIEVE THERE ARE ANY INFORMATION OR ANY WETLANDS ON HIS PIECE OF PROPERTY. AND BOARD MEMBERS. ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? NO. NO NO VARIANCES. LOOKS GOOD. I JUST HAVE ONE QUESTION ON THE WHEN YOU HAD SAID THE R2 AND WHAT YOU ARE PLANNING FOR THE LARGER LOT. YEAH, A DUPLEX THE FIT WITHIN YOU KNOW THE SETBACKS. SO TO THE RIGHT OF THAT PROPERTY, IF YOU'RE STANDING ON SCRANTON ROAD, THERE ALREADY IS A DUPLEX THERE ACTUALLY AN OVERSIZE DUPLEX. AND THEN ACROSS THE STREET THERE'S A COUPLE DUPLEXES ACROSS THE STREET. SO THAT'S. YEAH. SO FOR FOR DUPLEX IN TERMS OF MINIMUM LOT SIZE, I BELIEVE HE NEEDS 7000FT■S IN AN R2 LOT. AND THEN IN TERMS OF WHAT'S AT THE BUILDING LINE AT 70FT AND THEN AN ADDITIONAL 30FT FOR AN ADDITIONAL DWELLING.

SO BUT LIKE I SAID, THROUGH THE CONFIGURATION THAT HE PRESENTED TO MYSELF AND CODE ENFORCEMENT AT THIS TIME, WE DON'T BELIEVE THAT HE NEEDS ANY VARIANCES. OKEY DOKE. AND NEXT STEPS. SO IF YOU GUYS FEEL COMFORTABLE, WE DO HAVE SOME AVAILABILITY ON THE FEBRUARY 4TH PLANNING BOARD MEETING. IF YOU GUYS FEEL COMFORTABLE SCHEDULING A PUBLIC HEARING. BOARD MEMBERS ANYBODY OPPOSED? OKAY. NO PUBLIC HEARING ON THE FOURTH. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT. HAVE A GOOD NIGHT. NEXT UP, SEVEN BREW COFFEE. REQUESTING SITE PLAN APPROVAL

[3. Seven (7) Brew Coffee – Requesting Site Plan Approval of a proposal to construct a 510 sq-ft building with two drive-thru lanes and 23 stacking spaces to be located on a 0.48 acre parcel at 4927 Southwestern Boulevard ]

ENGINEERING ANYTHING TO ADD AT THIS POINT? FROM AN ENGINEERING PERSPECTIVE, THE SITE IS UNDER AN ACRE, SO THERE WON'T BE A STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN. IT WILL JUST BE STANDARD

[00:30:01]

WE WERE CONCERNED ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS GOING TO BE A VARIANCE NEEDED FOR MINIMUM SIDE SETBACK. AS YOU CAN SEE, THIS IS A VERY SKINNY PARCEL KIND OF JAM PACKED IN BETWEEN TWO EXISTING PARCELS. THE MINIMUM SIDE SETBACK IS 12FT AND THEY HAVE EXACTLY 12FT, SO THEY DON'T NEED A VARIANCE FOR THAT. AND THEN ONE OF THE BIG THINGS THAT I BROUGHT UP IN CONCERN OF, OF THIS PROJECT THAT I THINK THIS BOARD SHOULD THINK ABOUT, REMEMBER, IT'S JUST PRELIMINARY RIGHT NOW. SO IT'S NOT A FULL SITE PLAN, BUT THEY DO SHOW THEY HAD A QUESTION ON SHOULD THIS ONE WAY EGRESS, OR SHOULD THIS BE ONE WAY EGRESS ONLY ON THE SITE PLAN THEY ACTUALLY SHOW LEAVING THE SITE AND THEN COMING IN. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I RECOMMENDED WAS IF THERE WERE TO BE ANY EGRESS, AND OBVIOUSLY THAT WOULD BE CONTINGENT ON ACROSS ACCESS AGREEMENT WITH THE NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR. I BELIEVE THAT IT SHOULD BE ONLY EGRESS OUT. OBVIOUSLY, RIGHT NOW, AS YOU LOOK AT THE SITE, YOU HAVE THESE TWO DRIVEWAYS.

YOU COME IN OFF OF SOUTHWESTERN BOULEVARD, YOU COME THROUGH THE DRIVE THROUGH, AS ANTHONY MENTIONED, YOU'RE NOT GETTING OUT, SO THERE IS NO GOING INTO THE STORE. EVERYTHING IS GOING TO BE VEHICULAR TRAFFIC. YOU'RE GOING TO STAY IN YOUR CAR. YOU HAVE THESE TWO DRIVEWAYS AND THEN YOU OBVIOUSLY EXIT RIGHT ON THE SOUTHWESTERN BOULEVARD. I THINK IF THERE WAS GOING TO BE ANOTHER EGRESS POINT, IT SHOULD BE OUT OF THE SITE. OBVIOUSLY, LIKE I SAID, THAT'S CONTINGENT ON GETTING ACROSS ACCESS AGREEMENT. BUT THOSE WERE MY INITIAL THOUGHTS. ONE THING THAT I WILL MENTION, AND IT'S SOMEWHAT RELEVANT TO THIS PROJECT, THERE'S OBVIOUSLY ONE.

MY NECK OF THE WOODS IS OBVIOUSLY THE TOWN OF AMHERST. THAT'S WHERE I LIVE. THERE'S ONE ON MAPLE ROAD AND TOTALLY DIFFERENT AREA, TOTALLY DIFFERENT ROAD. BUT ONE THING THAT I HAVE NOTICED IS IT'S A VERY POPULAR IN THE TOWN OF AMHERST. OBVIOUSLY, SHOULD THIS GET BUILT, THERE WILL BE, YOU KNOW, THAT PERIOD WHERE EVERYONE WANTS TO COME OUT AND EVERYONE'S GOING TO BE VERY EXCITED TO COME OUT HERE? I DO THINK THAT OBVIOUSLY THIS STRETCH OF SOUTHWESTERN IS IT'S OBVIOUSLY HAS A LOT OF TRAFFIC, AS IS, YOU KNOW, I KNOW THEY DO HAVE 23 PARKING SPOTS. I WOULD LOVE TO HEAR FROM TRAFFIC SAFETY ON THEIR STANDPOINT, ON HOW THEY THINK THE CIRCULATION WILL BE. YOU KNOW, IF THERE'S ANY MITIGATION FOR THAT. I ALSO THINK FROM A STANDPOINT, OBVIOUSLY THE BUILDING ITSELF IS ONLY 510FT■!S. AND WE TYPICA, YOU KNOW, CONSIDER THAT TO BE A TYPE TWO ACTION. I PERSONALLY WOULD CONSIDER SENDING IT TO DOT AND A COORDINATED REVIEW JUST TO GET, BECAUSE THIS IS A STATE HIGHWAY GETTING THEIR INPUT ON, YOU KNOW, JUST THE PROJECT ITSELF, OBVIOUSLY WITH IT BEING PERMITTED IN AMHERST, YOU KNOW, MAYBE THEY HAVE SOME, SOME THOUGHTS OR SOME OTHER THINGS THAT THEY CAN CONSIDER FOR THIS PROPOSAL. BUT OTHER THAN THAT, THOSE ARE JUST SOME VERY EARLY THOUGHTS. LIKE I SAID, THIS WILL I'M SURE WILL CHANGE. THIS IS NOT FULLY IRONED OUT YET, BUT THEY WANTED TO GET SKETCH PLAN DIRECTION FROM THIS BOARD SO THAT THEY CAN KIND OF GO BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD AND COME UP WITH SOMETHING BEFORE THEY DO SUBMIT A FULL SITE PLAN APPLICATION.

YEAH. AND I JUST TO HIT ON YOUR POINT ABOUT THE THE SECONDARY ACCESS, WE DID ACTUALLY CHANGE THAT TO EGRESS ONLY, WHICH, YOU KNOW, IN MY OPINION WORKS BETTER. IT WORKS AS MORE OF A ESCAPE LANE IF YOU DON'T SOME YOU DON'T WANT TO WAIT IN LINE. WHATEVER. YOU KNOW, HAVING PEOPLE COME IN IN THE MIDDLE OF THE DRIVE THROUGH, IT'S A LITTLE WONKY. SO WE DID CHANGE THAT REALLY QUICKLY. ONE THING I'LL ALSO ADD, NOW THAT I'M THINKING ABOUT IT, I DID TALK WITH CODE ENFORCEMENT ABOUT ONE OF THE THINGS WE DO WITH THIS ALL PROJECTS, BUT WE WILL CERTAINLY GET AN OPINION FROM THE FIRE DEPARTMENT BECAUSE OF HOW SKINNY THE LOT IS. AND YOU HAVE THESE TWO DRIVE THRUS AND WE'RE HOPING THAT WE GET, YOU KNOW, THIS EGRESS OUT. WE DEFINITELY WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE ADEQUATE FIRE ACCESS, THAT THEY'RE ABLE TO COME IN, TURN AROUND ANY TYPE OF EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS. SO THEY DEFINITELY EVEN THOUGH THIS IS SKETCH PLAN AND THIS WILL BE SUBJECT TO CHANGE AS THEY CONTINUE TO GET US DRAWINGS, WE WILL KEEP THEM UP TO SPEED AND KEEP THEM UP TO DATE TO GET AN OPINION. AND THEN WHEN THEY DO SUBMIT FULL SITE PLAN, THEY WILL BE KEPT ABREAST OF ALONG THE WAY. SO THANK YOU BOARD MEMBERS. ANY QUESTIONS? COMMENTS. OH YOU DO ON TRAFFIC SAFETY. MY APOLOGIES. ARE THEY SHARE THE DRIVEWAY APRON WITH MIKEY THOMPSON. NO, NO THIS THIS PARCEL HAS ITS OWN DRIVEWAY RIGHT ON THE SOUTHWESTERN. SO THE ACCESS IS IS DEDICATED TO ITS OWN FUNCTION, CORRECT? YEAH. IT HASN'T GONE TO TRAFFIC SAFETY.

[00:35:04]

ANTHONY, MAY I HAVE YOUR LAST NAME? I NEED IT FOR THE MINUTES. SURE. PANDOLFI P P A N D O L F E. THANK YOU. YEP. I GOT BILL CLARK. SO NOBODY GOES INTO THE RESTAURANT. THAT MEANS ALL THOSE PARKING SPOTS ARE EMPLOYEE PARKING SPOTS. YES. SO THE PARKING SPOTS THERE ARE FOR EMPLOYEES ONLY. THERE'S NO SEATING. IT'S 510FT■!S, VERY SM. SO IT'S NO SEATING. EVERYONE STAYS IN THEIR CAR, GETS THEIR DRINK. AND SO IF THE STACKING BACKED UP, IT WOULD ONLY BLOCK IN EMPLOYEES, NOT OTHER CUSTOMERS. CORRECT? YES. I HAVE ONE OTHER QUESTION FOR THE THE LOCATION IN AMHERST. DO WE KNOW THE NUMBER OF THEIR WHAT THEY'RE STACKING IN DESIGN IS? I'M NOT SURE WHAT THEIR STACKING IS. OBVIOUSLY IN AMHERST. MAPLE ROAD I THINK IS A COUNTY ROAD OUT THERE AND THERE. THEY ALSO IN THAT LOCATION, I BELIEVE THEY HAVE ACCESS FROM A SIDE STREET, SO THEY DON'T HAVE A DRIVEWAY THAT'S OFF OF THE ACTUAL COUNTY ROAD OUT THERE. IT'S OFF OF A SIDE STREET. BUT LIKE I SAID, BECAUSE I LIVE OUT THERE, IT'S AND IT'S IN THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT PHASE WHERE IT'S, YOU KNOW, JUST OPEN. PEOPLE ARE COMING OUT, PEOPLE ARE EXCITED ABOUT IT. SO I DON'T WANT TO HOLD THAT AGAINST, YOU KNOW, BRUTOPIA BUT IT'S SOMETHING TO JUST CONSIDER THAT WE DO HAVE AN EXAMPLE OF IT IN WESTERN NEW YORK NOW. AND THE THE STACKING AND THE QUEUING IS ON FRIDAYS AND SATURDAYS. IT IS A LOT. BUT THAT ONE I SAY, LIKE I SAID, THAT ONE'S A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT BECAUSE THEIR ACCESS IS OFF OF A SIDE STREET OFF OF MAPLE. OKAY. I THINK IT WOULD JUST BE INTERESTING TO SEE HOW WHAT THE STACKING IS. I MEAN, I KNOW IT'S THE NEW SHINY FUN PLACE. YEAH. THAT IS. PRETTY MUCH ON BOARD WITH ALL THE SEVEN BREWS. THAT'S LIKE KIND OF THE FIRST ONE WE DID NOT DO.

I CAN CERTAINLY GET AN ANSWER FROM THEM, THOUGH, AS TO WHAT THE STACKING IS AND YEAH, YEAH, I JUST HAVE ONE OTHER QUESTION WITH RESPECT TO THE DELINEATION BETWEEN THE TWO LANES, IS THAT MEANT TO BE PRIMARILY JUST LIKE PAID PAINTING AND STRIPING AND SO FORTH BETWEEN THE TWO DRIVE THROUGH LANES? YES, YES, IT'S JUST GOING TO BE STRIPING, NO CURB OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

OKIE DOKE. I THINK BASED ON YOUR FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAD WITH RESPECT TO TRAFFIC AND SAFETY AND FIRE PROVIDING THEIR COMMENT, AND THEN ALSO THE FACT THAT YOU GUYS HAVE ALREADY CHANGED THAT SIDE EGRESS TO EXIT. ONLY I DON'T THINK I DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR REQUESTS. ANYBODY ELSE. NO, NO, NO. SO I GUESS NEXT STEPS IS WOULD WE COME BACK HERE ONCE WE HAVE A FORMAL SITE PLAN, OR WOULD WE GO RIGHT TO ZBA NOW? I'LL KIND OF LET THE BOARD DECIDE. WOULD YOU GUYS WANT FOR THEM TO COME BACK TO YOU? SO WHEN THEY SUBMIT EITHER A FURTHER ITERATION OR A FULL SITE PLAN APPLICATION, WOULD YOU WANT THEM TO COME BACK BEFORE THIS BOARD BEFORE HAVING TO GO TO THE ZBA, OR DO YOU FEEL YOU'VE SEEN KIND OF ENOUGH FOR THEM TO GO TO THE ZONING BOARD WHEN THEY HAVE A, YOU KNOW, FULLY KIND OF FLESHED OUT DRAWING? GO TO THE ZBA, SEE IF THEY GET A VARIANCE AND THEN COME BACK FOR THIS BOARD FOR FURTHER, FURTHER SITE PLAN REVIEW. I MEAN, NOBODY HAD COMMENTS WITH RESPECT TO THE VARIANCE, BUT YET WE HAVE SET A BIT OF A PRECEDENT OF SEEING BEFORE AND HAVING, YOU KNOW, EXPRESSED THE OPINIONS, ALTHOUGH IT'S NOT OUR JOB WITH THE ZONING BOARD, BUT TO BE ABLE TO SEE THE NEXT ITERATION BASED UPON COMMENTS, THAT'S FINE. THAT'S IT. PROBABLY MORE LIKE A SKETCH PLAN SUBMITTAL. YOU KNOW, A REAL SKETCH PLAN SUBMITTAL. WE'D BE FINE DOING THAT. YEAH. OKAY. OKAY. MEMBER FINDLAY YES. SO YOU WILL HAVE A WRITTEN AGREEMENT FROM YOUR NEIGHBOR WITH THE. THAT'S THE INTENTION. YES. IS TO GET IS TO ENTER INTO A EASEMENT ACCESS AGREEMENT WITH THEM TO, TO ALLOW THAT THAT EXIT FROM THE DRIVE THROUGH. OKAY. AND I AGREE WITH JOSH. A COORDINATED REVIEW SHOULD BE DONE. OKAY. SO THEN WHAT WOULD BE THE NEXT MEETING? LIKE I SAID, WE STILL DON'T HAVE A SURVEY YET, SO WE'RE KIND OF A WAYS OFF ANYWAY.

SO I'LL COORDINATE WITH JOSH ON WHEN WE'RE READY TO COME BACK OKAY. YEP. THANK YOU. GOOD.

THANK YOU, THANK YOU. OKIE DOKE. SO IT IS NOW 7:11 P.M. AND WE CAN START OUR OFFICIAL MEETING AGAIN. I AM THE REPLACEMENT CHAIR SO PLEASE BEAR WITH ME FOR FOR PROCEEDINGS. BUT I

[00:40:06]

WILLIAM CLARK HERE. CAITLIN SHIMURA HERE. KIM RYAN HERE. RYAN STEWART HERE. AUGIE GERACI HERE. AND CINDY GRONINGEN IS ABSENT AND EXCUSED. AND RICH ZAJAC IS ALSO ABSENT AND EXCUSED. YEP. OKAY. FIRST CASE THIS EVENING IS MATT CAVANAGH REQUESTING REAPPROVAL FOR AN AS

[1. Matt Kavanaugh – Requesting Re-Approval for an as-built site plan for a retail development at 5110 Camp Road ]

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE TALKED ABOUT WAS THE POTENTIAL OF, DOES THE BOARD WANT TO HAVE SOME SORT OF A CONDITION ABOUT LIKE THE UPKEEP AND GENERAL MAINTENANCE OF LIKE THE DRIVEWAY APRONS AND THE ENTIRE AREA? I KNOW CAMI AND I TALKED ABOUT, YOU KNOW, SOMETIMES WHEN WE DON'T HAVE THOSE CONDITIONS, YOU KNOW, THEY CAN KIND OF LAY THE CARPET, YOU KNOW, IF THEY'RE NOT, YOU KNOW, MAINTAINING IT IS A LARGE AREA THAT'S, YOU KNOW, IN A HIGH VISIBILITY AREA. IT'S CAMP ROAD AND SOUTHWESTERN BOULEVARD, AND IT HASN'T BEEN BUILT TO FORM.

SO THERE'S A LOT MORE AREA BECAUSE IT HASN'T BEEN BUILT. SO WE JUST KIND OF TALKED ABOUT IT IF YOU WANT TO EXPAND UPON THAT, CAMI, BUT WE JUST KIND OF TALKED ABOUT IF THERE WAS ANY APPETITE FOR A CONDITION, JUST TALKING ABOUT GENERAL UPKEEP AND MAINTENANCE. I KNOW OBVIOUSLY ENGINEERING DEALS WITH THE DRIVEWAY APRONS AND THE MATERIALS AND SO ON AND SO FORTH. SO. WELL, I THINK FROM THE ENGINEERING PERSPECTIVE, WE JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THE PLANNING BOARD UNDERSTANDS THAT THE IN APPROVING THE AS BUILTS. SO THEY DON'T PLAN TO CHANGE THE REMAINDER OF THE PROPERTY AT LEAST AS OF NOW. SO THEY'VE BUILT SORT OF PARTIAL OF THEIR APPROVED SITE PLAN. AND THE REST IS I MEAN, SOME OF IT IS STONE, SOME OF IT IS OLDER ASPHALT. THERE'S AN AREA IN THE FRONT THAT I THINK ON THE MAP IS LABELED GRAVEL, BUT A LOT OF IT IS OVERGROWN. SO IF THAT'S GOING TO STAY VACANT, YOU KNOW, I, I JUST WANT TO ENSURE THAT THERE'S LANGUAGE THE ENFORCEMENT OFFICE CAN TAKE TO MAKE SURE HE CLEANS THAT UP AND KEEPS IT IN A GOOD CONDITION, NOT LET IT JUST BECOME OVERGROWN, YOU KNOW, THINGS LIKE THAT. IF YOU. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE THE PLAN, JOSH. JUST SO. WHAT KIND OF TOOLS DO WE HAVE THAT WOULD BE ABLE TO HAVE THAT BE ENFORCED? THE UPKEEP? WELL, I GUESS GOOD CONDITION. I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S A DEFINITION FOR THAT OR HOW WOULD WE BE ABLE TO MAKE THAT TIGHT. SO WHEN WE LOOK AT THE PLAN OKAY. SO THEY'VE DEVELOPED SORT OF THAT FRONT PORTION OFF OF AND I CAN'T READ THE ROAD NAMES FROM HERE. BUT SO WHAT I WOULD CALL THE BACK PORTION IS A MIX OF GRAVEL AND ASPHALT THAT'S IN REASONABLY GOOD CONDITION. THEY AS FAR AS I CAN TELL, IT IS BEING USED FOR PARKING. SO IN APPROVING SORT OF THE AS BUILT PLANS, THAT WOULD BE AN APPROVED SITE CONDITION. SO UNLESS SOMETHING TERRIBLE HAPPENS BACK THERE, WE

[00:45:04]

AND HOLDING HOLDING THE APPLICANT TO THE MAINTENANCE FACTOR OF THE STREET FRONTAGE AND THE PROPERTY. DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS BEFORE WE MAYBE WORDSMITH THE CONDITIONS? MY QUESTION AUGUST TRACY WOULD BE DOESN'T THE PROPERTY OWNER PRIMARILY HAVE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF MAINTAINING THE PARKING AREAS AND THE AREA THAT WE WERE JUST TALKING ABOUT? I BELIEVE SO, YES. YEP. THAT WOULD BE THE PROPERTY OWNER, NOT ANY LEASES THAT ARE IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL BUILDINGS. OKAY. OKAY. SO FOR THE FIRST CONDITION THAT WE'D DO, YOU KNOW, YOUR ENGINEERING JANUARY 16TH JANUARY 16TH ENGINEERING LETTER. AND THAT LETTER MAINLY TALKS ABOUT HOW THIS IMPACTS, YOU KNOW, DRAINAGE AND THE PROPOSED ENGINEERING PLANS. AND FOR THEM TO SUBMIT REVISED PLANS AND TO JUST ENSURE THAT THEY DO WHAT THEY NEED TO DO WITH THEIR STORMWATER PERMIT, TO MAKE SURE THAT WE CAN CLOSE THAT OUT WITH THE STATE. OKAY. SO FIRST ADDITIONAL CONDITION THAT WE MENTIONED WAS WITH RESPECT TO ENSURING THAT THE EXISTING SIGNAGE IS COVERED UP, EXISTING SIGNAGE INDICATING OR LOCATED ON SOUTHWESTERN BOULEVARD. ANYBODY HAVE ANY INPUT ON HOW TO WORDSMITH THIS? THE EXISTING SIGNAGE ON SOUTHWESTERN BOULEVARD. HE WAS GOING TO TAKE THE PANELS OUT.

THAT'S WHAT WAS DISCUSSED. YES. OKAY. WE GIVE THEM OPTIONS. HE COVER IT, REMOVE THE PANELS OR MOVE IT. SO EXISTING SIGN IS LOCATED ON SOUTHWESTERN BOULEVARD. MUST BE ADDRESSED BY EITHER REMOVING THE PANELS, REMOVING THE SIGN. LET ME SAY REMOVING THE PANELS AND TURNING OFF ANY ELECTRONIC SIGNAGE. SO I'M JUST LOOKING AT IT NOW. AND THERE'S A SCREEN ON TOP RIGHT.

REMOVING THE SIGN OR REMOVING THE SIGN IN IN ITS ENTIRETY. WELL, I WAS GOING TO DO MORE OF A LIST SO I WOULDN'T PUT THE OR THERE YET JUST YET. JOSH. SO REMOVE THE SIGN ENTIRELY. MOVE THE SIGN CLOSER TO THE ACTUAL DRIVEWAY. RELOCATE THE SIGN CLOSER TO THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY.

[00:50:07]

I MEAN, I THINK LESS IS MORE COVERING IT. I MEAN, IT'S OKAY. I GUESS THAT'S SHOULD BE SELF-EXPLANATORY ENOUGH. WE DON'T WANT TO SEE IT. RIGHT? SO WE DON'T WANT TO BE CONFUSED BY IT IS WHAT WE REALLY WANT. YES, EXACTLY. IT IS ACTUALLY NICELY BUILT WITH STONE AND AND HAS HAS A NICE FRONTAGE. IT'S JUST IN A HORRIBLE LOCATION. THE. SO THEN WITH RESPECT TO THE MAINTENANCE PIECE. SOMEBODY START. LET'S SEE APPROVAL IS CONTINGENT UPON OR THE. THE APPLICANT SHALL MAINTAIN. YEAH. GIVE IT A SHOT. I WOULD SAY SO. THE APPLICANT SHALL MAINTAIN THE THE WE CALL THEM UNDEVELOPED AREAS OR AREAS TO REMAIN IN ORIGINAL CONDITION.

AND SAY FACING SOUTHWESTERN BOULEVARD. IS IT SOUTHWESTERN OR WHAT IS THE STREET THAT IS IT IS SOUTHWESTERN. SOUTHWESTERN. OKAY. JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE THE RIGHT STREETS. I WOULD JUST SAY IN GOOD CONDITION. YEAH. SO MAINTAIN THOSE AREAS IN GOOD CONDITION. APPLICANT SHALL MAINTAIN THE AREAS THE. I LIKE THE UNDEVELOPED AREA. SO UNDEVELOPED AREAS SHALL MAINTAIN THE UNDEVELOPED AREAS FACING SOUTHWEST BOULEVARD TO REMAIN IN ORIGINAL CONDITION. SO JUST REARRANGING THE. YEAH. SO. THE UNDEVELOPED MAINTAIN THE UNDEVELOPED UNDEVELOPED IN BETWEEN AREAS FACING UNDEVELOPED AREAS FACING SOUTH IN GOOD CONDITION. YOU CAN EVEN SAY ORIGINAL IN GOOD CONDITION. SO BASICALLY SAYING THEY'RE NOT ALLOWED TO CHANGE IT. RIGHT? OKAY. AND BY THE DATE OF THE RESOLUTION THEN YOU KNOW WHAT ORIGINAL IS. AND YOU CAN GO BACK LOOKING AT IT. THEY HAVE TO KEEP SNOW THERE ALL THE TIME.

YEP. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE SAYING. SO OKIE DOKE. EXISTING CONDITIONS SNOW COVERED. SNOW COVERED IS THERE. ARE WE ALL SET OKAY. IS THERE ANYBODY WHO WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION.

I'LL MAKE THE MOTION TO ACCEPT. AUGUST TRACY. MAKING THE MOTION TO ACCEPT. AND WE HAVE TO READ IT. AND READ IT. SURE. I'LL READ IT. SECOND FOR HIS. YOU MAKE A SECOND. SECOND. HOW'S IT GO? IF HE'S MAKING A MOTION TO APPROVE IT SECOND BEFORE IT'S READ? YEAH, THAT WAS MY QUESTION. WELL, TWO TO PUT IT UP FOR APPROVAL. I MEAN, THAT HE HE WAS MAKING A MOTION THAT THAT'S THE TEXT THAT YOU WANT. OR WHAT HAVE YOU JUST MAKE THE MOTION IN AUGUST 2ND. I MAKE THE MOTION TO ACCEPT IT. NO, NO. READ IT. YES. I MAKE A MOTION AND THEN START READING. OKAY.

SORRY, I DIDN'T MEAN TO BE RUDE AND POINT TO 5110 CAMP ROAD SEEKER AND APPROVAL RESOLUTION JANUARY 21ST, 2026 SEEKER. WHEREAS THE TOWN OF HAMBURG RECEIVED A NEW SITE PLAN APPLICATION REQUESTING AMENDED SITE PLAN APPROVAL OF AN AS BUILT RETAIL PLAZA PROJECT AT 5110 CAMP ROAD, WHICH WAS ORIGINALLY APPROVED IN 2019. AND WHEREAS, THE HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD HELD THE REQUIRED PUBLIC HEARING ON JANUARY 7TH, 2026, AND WHEREAS, THE HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE NEW YORK STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT, DID NOT, DID A THOROUGH REVIEW OF THE PROJECT AND ITS POTENTIAL IMPACTS IN

[00:55:03]

I'M SORRY. OH, THAT'S OKAY, I'LL READ IT OFF OF THAT SITE. PLAN APPROVAL. THE PLANNING BOARD HEREBY GRANTS CONDITIONAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR THIS RESUBMITTED SITE PLAN FOR THE CAFFE CON DEVELOPMENT RETAIL PLAZA PROJECT TO BE LOCATED AT 5110 CAMP ROAD PROJECT WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS AND WAIVERS ONE. APPROVAL IS CONTINGENT UPON THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT COMMENT LETTER DATED JANUARY 16TH, 2026 TWO. THE TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD, IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 280306 OF THE TOWN CODE, WAIVES THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE INSTALLATION OF SIDEWALKS AS THERE ALREADY EXIST ON CAMP ROAD AND SOUTHWESTERN BOULEVARD.

THREE EXISTING SIGNAGE LOCATED ON SOUTHWESTERN BOULEVARD MUST BE ADDRESSED BY EITHER REMOVING THE PANELS AND TURNING OFF ELECTRONIC SIGNAGE, REMOVING THE SIGN ENTIRELY, RELOCATING THE SIGN CLOSER TO AN EXISTING DRIVEWAY, OR COVERING THE EXISTING SIGN FOR THE APPLICANT, SHALL MAINTAIN THE UNDEVELOPED AREA FACING SOUTHWESTERN BOULEVARD. SOUTHWESTERN BOULEVARD, IN ORIGINAL AND GOOD CONDITION. IS THERE A SECOND SECOND MEMBER? RYAN, SECONDS.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? OKAY, HAS BEEN APPROVED. MOVING ON. NEXT UP, WE HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING

[2. 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]

CAN YOU USE THE MIC UP THERE REAL QUICK? LINDSAY DUNN, TOWN OF HAMBURG, TRAFFIC SAFETY. WE WERE APPROACHED BY SEVERAL RESIDENTS IN THE AREA ABOUT TRAFFIC ISSUES IN THE AREA, SO WE DID A TRAFFIC SURVEY. QUITE LENGTHY. WE DID SOME SIGNAGE. A GOOD NEIGHBOR AND WE'RE CONTINUING TO MONITOR THE SITUATION. THAT'S ABOUT ABOUT THE EXTENT OF IT. WHAT WE HAVE DONE. ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD WITH RESPECT TO THE TRAFFIC SAFETY BOARD'S REPORT BACK? DOES THE TRAFFIC SAFETY BOARD HAVE ANY RECOMMENDATIONS ON CONDITIONS FOR THIS RESOLUTION? IT SEEMS LIKE THERE'S A LOT OF TRAFFIC IN THAT LITTLE AREA THERE. AND JUST FROM THE THE RESIDENTS THEMSELVES, THERE'S A LOT OF

[01:00:05]

WAS THERE NOTHING? WE DIDN'T WE DIDN'T OBSERVE ANY SPEEDERS. PEOPLE WERE PEOPLE WERE DOING THE SPEED LIMIT. I THINK THAT WAS A BIG, BIG QUESTION FOR THE RESIDENTS. THE VOLUME IS THERE, THOUGH. OKAY. SO I'M NOT. SURE IF THERE'S ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS. I MEAN, THERE'S THE SIGNAGE, BUT ARE YOU THINKING THAT IT'S ON THE PROPERTY HOLDER OF THE NEW. IT'S NOT ON THE PROPERTY HOLDER UNLESS WE DECIDED WE WANTED TO MAKE IT ON THE PROPERTY HOLDER, BUT THEY'RE ALSO NOT HERE. RIGHT. AND AS FAR AS SEEKER GOES, THIS PARTICULAR SUBDIVISION JUST ADDS ONE SINGLE FAMILY HOME. IT'S GOING TO BE REALLY HARD TO SAY THAT THIS IS HAVING AN IMPACT, RIGHT? RIGHT. I MEAN, THE IMPACT IS WITH ALL OF THE TOWNHOUSES AND EVERYTHING WERE CONSIDERED THE LAST TIME WE DID SEEKER, AND THAT INCOME WAS ADDRESSED BACK THEN. SO I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANYTHING FOR SEEKER, I JUST. WAS THROWING SOMETHING OUT THERE BASED ON WHAT HE COMMENTED. WE'LL KEEP OUR EYE ON IT. AND ALL RIGHT, AUGUST, I WAS OUT THERE FRIDAY.

I WENT IN THE MORNING AT 830, AND AGAIN I WENT IN THE AFTERNOON AT A 4:45. AND TRAFFIC THROUGH THAT AREA WITH PEOPLE LEAVING FROM WORK AND COMING HOME FROM WORK, ESPECIALLY IF YOU WERE MAKING A LEFT TURN TO GET ONTO THE PROPERTY. IT TOOK A LITTLE WHILE. MY OWN OPINION, PROBABLY IN A COUPLE OF YEARS. ONCE THOSE APARTMENTS ARE FINISHED AND BUILT AND OCCUPIED, I THINK THAT AREA IS GOING TO NEED A TRAFFIC LIGHT. THAT'S MY OWN PERSONAL OPINION. PROBABLY WITH THE TRAFFIC COMING DOWN ON ROGERS. RIGHT. BUT BY VIRTUE OF WHAT WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US THIS EVENING, THAT'S UNFORTUNATELY NOT PART OF WHAT WE ARE GOING TO BE REVIEWING AND APPROVING, BUT WOULD BE A PART OF FUTURE CONSIDERATIONS FOR THAT DEVELOPMENT. ONE OTHER QUESTION THAT HAD BEEN BROUGHT UP WITH RESPECT TO THE VIEW OF THE INTERSECTION, IS THERE ANY COMMENT FROM YOUR GROUP WITH RESPECT TO THE PLACEMENT OF A HOUSE ON THAT NEW PROPOSED LOT? THERE WAS TALK ABOUT BRINGING ANOTHER ACCESS OUT INSTEAD OF THE HOUSE THAT WAS BROUGHT UP TO US, BUT WE DIDN'T. WE DIDN'T PURSUE THAT. OKAY. OKAY. CAN I ASK A QUESTION? SINCE IT'S ON THE AGENDA? AND I KNOW WE DISCUSSED PREVIOUSLY, BUT I SEE IT ON THE AGENDA FOR TODAY. IS IT POSSIBLE TO STILL HAVE SOME PUBLIC. WELL, WE HAD ALREADY CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING AND THAT WAS THE LAST MEETING. AND SO AT THAT TIME, THE THAT WAS THE TIME FOR THE PUBLIC COMMENT WITH RESPECT TO THE SUBDIVISION, EVEN THOUGH IT'S ON THE AGENDA FOR TODAY TO WAS IT PUBLISHED AS A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE AGENDA? NO. THE PUBLIC HEARING, UNFORTUNATELY, WAS CLOSED AT THE LAST MEETING. MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC ARE ALWAYS ABLE TO SEND LIKE LETTERS WHICH ALWAYS GET FORWARDED TO THE BOARD. BUT IN TERMS OF COMING UP TO THE MIC TODAY TO SPEAK ON THE PROJECT, THAT TIMETABLE CLOSED AT THE PREVIOUS MEETING. OKAY.

NO PROBLEM. OKEY DOKE. OKAY. ONE, I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS GOING TO BE RELEVANT FOR A

[01:05:10]

I DON'T WANT TO PUT A NUMBER TO IT BECAUSE I'M NOT A YEAH, I MEAN, I GUESS MY ONLY YEAH, I GUESS MY ONLY QUESTION WOULD BE HOW HOW WOULD CODE ENFORCEMENT BE ABLE TO LIKE WHAT WOULD THEY BE, WHAT WOULD THEY BE ABLE TO USE TO ENFORCE THAT? BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY THE ANY DEVELOPMENT OF THE SINGLE FAMILY HOME DOESN'T COME TO US. IT COMES TO THEM. THEY HAVE TO OBVIOUSLY MEET ALL THE BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENTS THROUGH CODE ENFORCEMENT. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT CONDITION LANGUAGE WOULD BE ABLE TO BE ENFORCED WITHOUT ANY TANGIBLE NUMBER. AND WE HAVE DIFFERENT SETBACKS FOR HOUSES ON CORNERS, RIGHT? FOR THE VIEWSHED ISSUE. SO WE JUST MAKE A CONDITION TO ENSURE THAT, WELL, WE WOULDN'T HAVE TO BECAUSE THERE'S ALREADY IT'S ALREADY WOULD ALREADY BE A CONDITION THAT YOU CAN'T BUILD A BUILDING TO CLOSE ON A CORNER BECAUSE PEOPLE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO SEE BECAUSE OF IT BEING SO. IT'S ALREADY TAKEN CARE OF, RIGHT? IT WOULD ALREADY BE IN THE CODE. YEAH. OKAY. YEP. OKAY. DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO ADD? JUST ATTORNEY JOSEPH GOGUEN JUST LOOKING AT THE SURVEY THAT THAT PARCEL ISN'T ON THE CORNER. IT'S ONE RIGHT ONE AWAY FROM THE ONE AWAY FROM THE CORNER. WHICH IS WHY I WAS ASKING IF WE NEEDED. I MEAN, IT IT COULD BE AS STATED, AS LONG AS IT'S TREATED AS IF IT WERE A CORNER LOT, BECAUSE THERE'S NOT A LARGE ENOUGH PARCEL AT THAT AT THAT CORNER TO CALL IT A CORNER LOT. BUT AS FAR AS SETBACKS ARE CONCERNED, YOU COULD SAY THAT THAT FOR PURPOSES OF SETBACK IT SHALL BE TREATED AS A CORNER LOT. IF THAT IS THE CONCERN ABOUT THE.

YEAH, THAT SOUNDS GOOD. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, ATTORNEY GOGAN. SO JUST TO MAKE SURE I'M CLEAR, YOU WANT A CONDITION ESSENTIALLY SAYING THAT THE PLANNING BOARD REQUESTS CODE ENFORCEMENT TREATS ANY DEVELOPMENT, ANY SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT AS A CORNER LOT.

FOR SETBACK, FOR SETBACKS, MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF CORNER LOTS. YEAH. AND PUT A I'LL FINISH TYPING IT NOW. AND THEN AND PUT. TO ENSURE VISIBILITY BECAUSE WE WANT TO PUT THE REASON WHY WE'RE PUTTING THAT IN THERE. ANY OTHER CONDITIONS. ALSO IS THE BOARD COMFORTABLE. SO OBVIOUSLY WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT ITSELF THERE ARE SIDEWALKS. THIS IS A SINGLE FAMILY HOME THAT WILL BE BROKEN OFF FROM THE DEVELOPMENT. I WOULD ASSUME THE BOARD BELIEVES SIDEWALKS AREN'T WARRANTED, BUT JUST WANTED TO BRING IT UP AND MAKE SURE THAT THE BOARD WAS COMFORTABLE WITH THAT. ALL SIDEWALKS. I MEAN, THERE'S SIDEWALKS WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT ITSELF, OBVIOUSLY, BUT THIS BECAUSE THIS IS A A LOT BEING BROKEN OUT FROM THE DEVELOPMENT. WOULD YOU STILL WANT. LET ME PULL UP THE SATELLITE? I, I WOULD THINK YES, WE'D WANT SIDEWALKS. YEAH. I WOULD AGREE THAT WE'D WANT TO ALSO HAVE SIDEWALKS THAT MATCH WHATEVER IS EXISTING FOR CONNECTIVITY. WHERE ARE WE. HAS IT UP HERE. THERE WE GO. SO THE ALL RIGHT. IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S SIDEWALKS THERE RIGHT NOW. YEAH I THINK THEY'RE YEAH.

[01:10:03]

AUGUST. TRACY MAKING A MOTION TO APPROVE BOSTON STATE HOLDINGS TWO LOT SUBDIVISION.

BOSTON STATE HOLDING LLC. TWO LOT SUBDIVISION. NEGATIVE. NEGATIVE DECLARATION APPROVAL RESOLUTIONS JANUARY 21ST, 2026. SEEKER. IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE NEW YORK STATE SEEKER LAW, THE TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD HAS REVIEWED THE TWO LOT SUBDIVISION PROPOSED BY THE BOSTON STATE HOLDING LLC, TO BE LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF PLEASANT AVENUE. AM I READING THE RIGHT ONE? YEP, YEP. OKAY. AT PLEASANT AVENUE AND COOPER RIDGE, BASED ON THE PRELIMINARY PLAT REVIEW OF THE SUBMITTED MATERIALS AND INPUT FROM OTHER DEPARTMENTS, THE PLANNING BOARD HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION IS NOT ANTICIPATED TO RESULT IN ANY SIGNIFICANT SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT, AND THAT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS HEREBY ISSUED AND THE PLANNING BOARD CHAIR IS AUTHORIZED TO SIGN THE EAF, WHICH WILL ACT AS THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION. IS THERE ANYONE TO SECOND, SECOND, SECOND BY MEMBER STEWART? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE, AYE. AUGIE. OKAY. PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL. THE HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD HEREBY GRANTS PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL FOR THE BOSTON STATE HOLDING, LLC TWO LOT SUBDIVISION WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS AND WAIVERS. CAN YOU READ FROM THE SCREEN? ONE. THE INSTALLATION OF SIDEWALKS IS NOT WARRANTED AS THEY ALREADY EXIST WITHIN THE VILLAGE OF CEDAR VALLEY DEVELOPMENT TWO. THE PLANNING BOARD REQUESTS THAT CODE ENFORCEMENT TREAT ANY DEVELOPMENT AS A CORNER LOT IN REGARDS TO SETBACKS TO ENSURE VISIBILITY. FINALLY, THE HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD WAIVES THE COMPLETION OF A FINAL PLAT AND HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD CHAIR IS AUTHORIZED TO SIGN THE PRELIMINARY PLAT. ONCE THE TOWN ENGINEER SIGNS OFF ON THE PLAT.

IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND, SECOND BY MEMBER STEWART? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. AND MOTION HAS PASSED. OKAY. NEXT UP. WELL, WE ALREADY HELD THE PUBLIC HEARING, BUT PUBLIC HEARING WAS

[3. Tom Gorczyca – Requesting Preliminary Plat Approval of a 2-lot subdivision to be located at 3189 Pleasant Ave ]

[01:15:01]

YEAH. MY NAME IS THOMAS GORSUCH I OWN THE LOTS ARE BOTH LOTS. I AM NOW IN THE PROCESS OF COMBINING THEM WITH THE TOWN OF HAMBURG INTO ONE BUILDING LOT, AS MY VARIANCE WAS GRANTED TO HAVE ONE BUILDING LOT, ONE SINGLE FAMILY HOME. SO. I WOULD JUST LIKE TO GET THE APPROVAL FOR THAT SINGLE FAMILY LOT INSTEAD OF TWO LOTS IF POSSIBLE. I DON'T KNOW HOW IT WORKS. WELL, IT'S A TWO LOT SUBDIVISION BECAUSE YOU'RE TAKING THE PIECE OFF, DIDN'T YOU TURN ONE INTO TWO? SO THAT'S WHY I'M COMBINING THEM IN ORDER TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS WITH A VARIANCE. RIGHT. THERE'S A LOT OF TECHNICALITIES THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN THAT WE'RE TRYING TO HAVE HAPPEN. BUT ALSO TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION DISCOVERING OF THE WETLANDS AND THEN THE A POTENTIAL FOR A CONSERVATION EASEMENT TO BE LOCATED, TO BE INCLUDED IN THE CONDITIONS.

RIGHT? YEAH. JUST A THOUGHT. I MEAN, I DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY ADVERSE REACTION TO THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT CONDITION AND THE LANGUAGE THAT WAS PROPOSED? DO YOU HAVE AN ADVERSE REACTION TO THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT? WELL, THAT WOULD BE THE BIGGEST THE OTHER LOT THAT I HAVE TO COMBINE TO MAKE ONE LOT, THERE'S TWO SEPARATE INDIVIDUAL MAP OR SBL NUMBERS THAT I'M COMBINING THEM INTO ONE TO MAKE THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT QUESTION, WOULD YOU BE OPPOSED IF WE PUT A CONDITION ON THERE SAYING THAT WE WERE GOING TO HAVE A CONSERVATION EASEMENT ON THAT SECOND LOT WITH THE WITH THE WETLANDS? NOT REALLY. I MEAN, I OWN THE LAND BEHIND IT ALSO, WHICH IS ALWAYS GOING TO BE FOREVER GREEN BECAUSE IT'S LANDLOCKED. SO I MEAN, ALL THAT IS AND THEN THAT WOULD JUST OKAY, THAT HELPS PUT IT ON A DEED. SO WHOEVER OWNS IT AFTER HIM KEEPS IT THAT WAY. OKAY. SO THE LANGUAGE THAT YOU PROVIDED SO IT'LL, IT'LL READ A CONSERVATION EASEMENT TO BE APPROVED BY THE TOWN LEGAL DEPARTMENT IN THE NAME OF THE TOWN OF HAMBURG SHALL BE FINALIZED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE BOARD, AS ILLUSTRATED IN THE PLAN AND PLACED ON THE PLAT, MEANING THAT HE WOULD HAVE TO GET IT DRAWN UP SAYING THAT THIS WOULD. THIS IS WHERE THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT WOULD BE, AND THEN IT'LL BE THE NAME OF THE TOWN OF HAMBURG, AND THEN THE TOWN LEGAL DEPARTMENT WILL REVIEW. DON'T WE TYPICALLY PLACE ANY SORT OF NUMBERS WITH RESPECT TO THE DEPTH OF THEM, OR IS THAT ALREADY BEING OR IS IT BY VIRTUE OF THE DELINEATION OF THE WETLANDS, IF THAT'S CONSIDERED TO BE RIGHT, LIKE WHAT'S WHAT IS THE DEPTH OF LIKE, HOW ARE YOU REFERENCING WHERE THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT IS? USUALLY WE DO PUT THAT IN THE RESOLUTION. YES. YEAH. DO WE. BUT WE DON'T HAVE A MAP THAT SHOWS WHERE THE WHERE THE WETLANDS ARE ON A SURVEY. DO WE, DO THEY, DO THEY DO YOU HAVE IT THERE FOR SURE. IS IT OKAY? I TRIED PULLING IT UP. I DIDN'T SEE IT. SO THEN IF THERE'S DISTANCES ON THERE, WE CAN USE THOSE DISTANCES FOR THE EASEMENT. OKAY. HOW WOULD WE RATHER SAY LET ME PULL IT UP. I TRIED, BUT I MISSED IT. SO LET ME PULL IT UP. AND IS THE INTENTION OF THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT. THIS IS MORE OF A QUESTION FOR THE BOARD TO BE THE DELINEATION OF THE WETLAND, OR ANY OTHER ADDITIONAL TYPE OF BUFFERING. WETLANDS CAN CHANGE. SO IF WE PUT IT IN THERE, WE'RE PUTTING IT AS BUFFERING, OKAY.

BECAUSE WE WOULDN'T PUT A CONSERVATION EASEMENT THAT COULD CHANGE WITH THE WETLANDS.

THAT RIGHT. I'M TRYING TO THINK OF HOW WE'RE DESCRIBING. AND WHAT MAP TO USE. MAY I ASK SOMETHING IF I RIGHT NOW WE'RE GOING WITH SCOTT LIVINGSTONE TO INFRINGE ON THE DEED WITH THE DEC. I NEED 100 FOOT VARIANCE SO I MAY TAP INTO THAT WETLANDS AND BE OKAY TO DO THAT. SO IF

[01:20:06]

WE'VE GOT WHATEVER THE WETLAND WOULD BE OFF OF THAT LINE. AND THEN THE 30FT HE'S TALKING ABOUT. SO LOT TWOS FRONTAGE. AND JUST SO READING THESE MAPS CORRECTLY, WHEN YOU GET TO IT, THE ZIGGY ZAGGY LINE, THERE WE GO. SO THEN THE DOTTED AREA IS WHAT WE ARE CONSIDERING. THAT IS THE IDENTIFIED WETLAND, AND THAT THE ZIGZAG LINE IS THEN THE BOUNDARY OF THE WETLAND, SO THAT IF THERE IS ANY ADDITIONAL BUFFER THAT WE'RE CONSIDERING, IT WOULD BE IN WHAT DIRECTION, JOSH FROM THAT LINE. SO IF WE'RE GOING TO GO, IF WE WERE TO SAY A 75 FOOT BUFFER AND WE'RE AND UP IS NORTH, WE'RE DUE TO DO A CONSERVATION EASEMENT, WE'D START AT THE SOUTH POINT AND SAY HOW MANY FEET NORTH FROM THERE, AND THEN JUST DO A STRAIGHT LINE WOULD BE THE EASY, EASIEST WAY TO DO IT. OR WE COULD SAY CURRENT WETLAND DELINEATION IN REFERENCE THAT DOCUMENT, BUT THAT'S GOING TO MAKE IT SO HE CAN'T ASK FOR THAT 30FT FROM THE DC. YEAH I DEFINITELY NEEDED IT THAT WAY. SO WE'D HAVE SO WE'D HAVE TO PICK AN AMOUNT THAT IS A LITTLE BIT SOUTH OF THE ZIGZAG LINE. BUT THE EASIEST THING TO DO TO DESCRIBE WOULD BE JUST A STRAIGHT LINE THAT WENT ACROSS IT. COULD I ASK, WHAT'S THE PURPOSE OF THIS TO PREVENT ANYBODY FROM IN THE FUTURE? AFTER. AFTER YOU SELL THIS TO SOMEONE AND THEN IT GOES TO SOMEBODY ELSE AND SOMEBODY ELSE AFTER THAT, THERE WAS IT CANNOT BE SUBDIVIDED AGAIN IN THE RIGHT LIKE THE SUBDIVIDE THING. YEAH. SO YEAH. BUT I THOUGHT I READ THAT IT COULD NOT BE EVER DONE AGAIN. RIGHT ON THE PAPERWORK. RIGHT. THAT WOULD ELIMINATE ANYTHING HAPPENING ON THAT LOT TENNIS COURT. YEAH. WE'D SAY NO, THEY CAN'T BUILD THE TENNIS COURT. IT'S WETLANDS. YOU CAN'T YOU CAN'T TOUCH IT WITHOUT APPROVAL. AND I KNOW THAT THAT'S WHY I'M GOING THROUGH ALL THIS WITH THE WETLANDS. SO FOREVER BE WETLANDS. UNLESS, AGAIN, IT COULD CHANGE. STICK WITH THE WETLANDS. OR IS THIS TOO COMPLICATED? I DON'T KNOW WHAT IS. WHAT DID THE BOARD WANT TO DO? I MEAN, IF YOU END UP PUTTING IN A BUFFER, THEN GOING TO BE RIGHT, ENCROACHING ON ANY OF THE POTENTIAL FOR DEVELOPMENT ON THAT OTHER LOT. BUT THERE IS MORE ROOM FOR HIM TO PLACE A HOUSE. I MEAN, IT IT THE, THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT PART. NOW THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IT SOUNDS COMPLICATED. I FEEL CONFIDENT WITH BECAUSE IT'S WETLANDS. THERE'S A PERMITTING PROCESS. IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO GET A PERMIT TO DO ANY TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT IN WETLANDS. SO, I MEAN, I'M NOT A VOTING MEMBER, BUT I FEEL COMFORTABLE SCRAPPING THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT AND LEAVING. IT'S ALREADY WETLANDS. IF SOMEBODY EVER WANTS TO DEVELOP IT TEN, 15 YEARS FROM NOW, THEY HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE PROPER CHANNELS TO DO SO. SO I MEAN, LIKE I SAID, I'M NOT A VOTING MEMBER, BUT THAT'S JUST MY THOUGHT. IS THERE ANY WAY WITH WOULD YOU WOULD WE REFERENCE THE REPORT? I THINK THE BEST WAY TO DO A CONSERVATION EASEMENT WOULD BE TO IDENTIFY A SPECIFIC AMOUNT OF FEET FROM THE SOUTH LINE AND DO A STRAIGHT LINE UP. WE COULD REFERENCE THAT. BUT AS I WAS SAYING, IF HE WANTS TO TRY AND GET PERMITS TO GO 30FT INTO IT AND WE TURN THAT ENTIRE THING INTO A CONSERVATION EASEMENT, THEN HE CAN'T GET THOSE PERMITS.

[01:25:06]

ALL RIGHT. AUGUST, I ALSO AGREE WITH JOSH. OKAY. SO WE'LL LET OUR FUN WETLAND LAWS PREVAIL AND KEEP THAT KEEP THEIR OWN PERMITTING ISSUES. IS EVERYONE IN AGREEMENT THAT NO SIDEWALKS EVERYONE AGREEMENT WITH THAT? IS EVERYONE IN AGREEMENT THAT THERE SHOULD BE A NOTE ON THE PLAT THAT NO FURTHER SUBDIVISION IS ALLOWED? YES. YEP. AND THEN WE ALL AGREE THAT BECAUSE OF THE HISTORY OF THIS MAP, COVERS DEFINITELY NEEDED. YES. OKAY. ANY OTHER CONDITIONS YOU PUT A TIME LIMIT ON THE NO OTHER SUBDIVISION ALLOWED. IF YOU WANT TO PUT TEN YEARS, 20 YEARS OR SOMETHING, BE MY GUESS. NO, NO, NO, WE'RE GOING TO LET IT GO FOREVER. YEAH. OKAY. DO I HAVE ANYBODY WHO WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION? I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE. YOU HAVE TO READ.

YEP. I'M GETTING THERE. TOM. I'M SORRY. I'M GOING TO BOTCH YOUR LAST NAME FOR TOM GORCYCA, 3189 PLEASANT AVENUE. SEEKER AND APPROVAL RESOLUTION SEEKER. WHEREAS THE TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING DEPARTMENT RECEIVED A SUBDIVISION APPLICATION FROM TOM GORCYCA FOR THE APPROVAL OF A TWO LOT SUBDIVISION TO BE LOCATED AT 3189 PLEASANT AVENUE. AND WHEREAS THE TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD HELD THE REQUIRED PUBLIC HEARING ON JANUARY 7TH, 2026, AND WHEREAS, THE TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD HAS REVIEWED THE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT, RECEIVED INPUT FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, REVIEWED THE SEEKER NEGATIVE DECLARATION MATERIALS FROM THE PREVIOUS PROJECT, AND RECEIVED ADDITIONAL PROJECT INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT. AND WHEREAS, THE TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD HAS CONSIDERED THE TOWN OF HAMBURG'S ADOPTED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND REVIEWED THE TOWN CODE, AND WHEREAS, IN ACCORDANCE WITH PART 617 OF THE IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO ARTICLE EIGHT, STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT, SEQRA OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION LAW, THE TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD HAS REVIEWED PART ONE OF THE SE, AND HAS COMPLETED PARTS TWO AND THREE OF THE SE, AND REVIEWED THE CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION SIX 17.7 OF SEEGER. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, THE TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD HAS DETERMINED THAT IT IS PROPOSED. SMALLER PROJECT WILL ALSO NOT SIGNIFICANTLY ADVERSELY AFFECT THE NATURAL RESOURCES OF THE STATE AND OR THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC AND IS CONSISTENT WITH SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS AND THEREFORE ISSUES A NEGATIVE DECLARATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION SIX 17.7 OF SEEKER. AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD CHAIR IS AUTHORIZED AUTHORIZED TO SIGN THE SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM PARTS ONE, TWO AND THREE, WHICH WILL ACT AS THE SEEKER NEGATIVE DECLARATION. IS THERE A SECOND MEMBER? RYAN SECONDS, MEMBER SECOND BY MEMBER RYAN. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE, AYE. MINOR SUBDIVISION APPROVAL. THE HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD, AFTER REVIEWING THIS PROJECT AGAINST THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE TOWN OF HAMBURG SUBDIVISION LAW AND GRANTING A SEEKER NEGATIVE DECLARATION, HEREBY GRANTS MINOR SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR THE TOM GORSKA TWO LOT SUBDIVISION WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ONE. INSTALLATION OF SIDEWALKS IS NOT WARRANTED. TWO. IT SHALL BE NOTED ON THE PLAT THAT THE NO FURTHER SUBDIVISION IS ALLOWED, AND THREE THE FILING OF A MAP COVER IS

[01:30:01]

[4. Matt Jaworski – Requesting Site Plan Approval of a proposal for parking improvements for a public mini-storage project at 5661 Camp Road]

RIGHT. I THINK THE LAST MEETING, I THINK MY COLLEAGUE DREW RILEY, GAVE YOU GUYS AN UPDATE ON WHAT WOULD BE NEEDED FROM A SECRET PERSPECTIVE AND AMENDING THE USE VARIANCE. AND I'LL LET ATTORNEY HOPKINS KIND OF DISCUSS WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO BE DOING AND WHERE THEY'RE GOING TO BE GOING BEFORE THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. AND, MR. HOPKINS, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO ADD? WELL, SO BASICALLY ALL WE'RE ASKING. SO DURING THE MEETING A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO, THERE WAS DISCUSSION WHETHER OR NOT THE OUTDOOR STORAGE AREAS, WHICH WILL ONLY BE TEMPORARY UNTIL PHASE TWO OF THE PROJECT MOVES FORWARD, WHETHER THEY REQUIRE USE VARIANCE. I DID TALK TO JEFF, THE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, AND HE CONFIRMED, YES, TECHNICALLY IT WOULD REQUIRE USE VARIANCE FROM THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS BECAUSE IT'S A SEPARATE PRINCIPAL USE. SO FOR PURPOSES OF THE MEETING THIS EVENING, WE'RE JUST ASKING YOU TO RECOMMEND TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS THAT THEY GRANT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE.

AND AGAIN, IT WILL BE LIMITED UNTIL PHASE TWO IS BUILT, WHERE THE OUTDOOR STORAGE AREA IS DEPICTED ON THE PLANS AS EXACTLY WHERE BUILDINGS WILL GO IN THE FUTURE. IS IT? SORRY, I HAVE QUESTIONS, BUT I GUESS I'LL ASK IF THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT HAS ANYTHING TO ADD.

EXCUSE ME, JUST A REMINDER FROM ENGINEERING, WHAT WE WOULD BE LOOKING FOR IS REVISIONS TO WHAT WE CALL WHAT WAS LABELED THE PHASE ONE PLANS. AFTER THEY RECEIVED SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR THIS PROJECT, ENGINEERING REVIEWED AND APPROVED PHASE TWO AND A A PHASE ONE AND PHASE TWO.

SO THIS APPEARS TO BE A MODIFICATION OF PHASE ONE. AND TO JUST ENSURE THAT THE ENGINEERING, GRADING AND EVERYTHING WORKS FOR WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT RIGHT NOW IS A FINISHED PRODUCT. WE'D WANT TO SEE THOSE ENGINEERING PLANS UPDATED. THEY ALSO DO HAVE A STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN AND THEREFORE STATE PERMIT. THAT DOCUMENT DOES REQUIRE THAT YOU DOCUMENT ANY MODIFICATIONS OR CHANGES. SO WE WOULD JUST ASK THAT THAT BE DOCUMENTED APPROPRIATELY BY THE ENGINEER TO STATE THAT THIS IS WHAT PHASE ONE WILL BE, AND PHASE TWO WILL REMAIN AS COMPLETED. JUST TO SHOW COMPLIANCE WITH THAT. OTHERWISE, IT'S PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD. PLANNING DEPARTMENT. DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO ADD? NOTHING FURTHER AT THIS TIME. AND BOARD MEMBERS, ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? I WOULD NOTE TWO WEEKS AGO YOU ASKED US TO SHOW EXACTLY WHERE THOSE AREAS WOULD BE. SO THEY'RE CLEARLY DELINEATED. AND WE DID MAKE AN UPDATE SUBMISSION THAT SHOWS THAT. SO I GUESS THE REASON FOR THE VARIANCE IS THE FACT THAT OPEN STORAGE IS NOT AN APPROVED USE. IS THAT CORRECT IN THE AREA? IT'S NOT AN APPROVED PERMITTED USE. WHEN YOU THINK OF A TYPICAL SELF-STORAGE FACILITY OUTSIDE THE TOWN OF HAMBURG, IT WOULD BE PERMITTED AS AN ACCESSORY. USE. YOUR CODE IS UNIQUE AND CALLS IT A SEPARATE PRINCIPAL USE. I'M NOT SURE WHY, BUT IT DOES. AND SO WE DID DO. SOME INVESTIGATION IN THE BACK. AND ACTUALLY THE CONDITION OF THE PREVIOUS PROJECT STATED NO OUTDOOR STORAGE, THE SITE PLAN APPROVAL, SITE PLAN APPROVAL. THE PURPOSE OF THAT WAS TO REITERATE THAT IT'S NOT PERMITTED WITHOUT THE RELIEF FROM THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. OKAY. AND SO IF THERE IS GOING TO BE, I GUESS WE'LL HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION ON THAT.

SO YOU HAD MENTIONED THAT IT WOULD BE TEMPORARY IN NATURE. AND IS THERE A TIMELINE THAT'S GOING TO DEFINE THE TEMPORARY NATURE OF MY CHANGE? MY CLIENT. AGAIN, THEY'RE BUILDING PHASE ONE. THE PROJECT COSTS ROSE EXPONENTIALLY FROM WHEN WE ORIGINALLY BEGAN THE PROJECT.

AND AS CAMI INDICATED, THEY DIVIDE IT INTO TWO PHASES. THEY ENVISION, AGAIN, IT DEPENDS ON REVENUE, ETC. THAT THEY WOULD COMPLETE PHASE TWO AT THE MAXIMUM WITHIN FIVE YEARS.

WITHIN FIVE YEARS. OKAY. DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? NO QUESTIONS. BUT

[01:35:07]

SO THEY'RE YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT A SHOO IN. BUT I HEAR THAT CONCERN. SO I THINK IT'S A VALID CONCERN. BUT I DO WANT TO NOTE THAT'S WHY THE CONDITION WAS IMPOSED. I WAS HERE IS TO MAKE SURE IT WAS CLEAR TO THE APPLICANT, BECAUSE WE DID NOT HAVE THAT APPROVAL AT THAT TIME, THAT OUTDOOR STORAGE WAS NOT PERMITTED BECAUSE IN ANY OTHER MUNICIPALITY IT IS. WHAT'S TO SAY IF THE CURRENT BUILDINGS AREN'T FULFILLED OR FILLED IN FIVE YEARS, AND THERE'S NO NEED FOR PHASE TWO, RIGHT? I MEAN, IF YOU IF YOU IF YOU WANT ME TO TALK TO MY CLIENT, WOULD THEY BE ALLOWED TO KEEP THE OPEN STORAGE IS MY QUESTION. YES. UNLESS WE AGREE, WHICH WOULD GO BACK AGAINST EVERYTHING THAT THE BOARD HAD DONE WITH THE PREVIOUS APPLICATION. UNLESS YOU WANT US TO AGREE TO A TIME LIMIT, I CAN AT LEAST DISCUSS THAT WITH MY CLIENT. I MEAN, THAT'S A FAIR QUESTION. I DO SEE, YOU KNOW, THE PROGRESS BEING MADE. AND I WORK IN DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION AND UNDERSTAND RISING COSTS, AND IT CAN BE AN ISSUE. I JUST DON'T LIKE THE IDEA OF REVERSING THE TYPE OF WORK AND DECISIONS THAT THE PLANNING BOARD HAD MADE PREVIOUSLY. I WOULD BE OPEN TO A, YOU KNOW, PUTTING A TIME LIMIT WITH RESPECT TO THE TEMPORARY NATURE OF THE CHANGE AND THAT IN THE EVENT THAT PHASE TWO AS DESCRIBED, BUT ALSO. RIGHT, YOU SAID WE HAVE TO FIGURE OUT HOW WE'RE DESCRIBING PHASE TWO, WHICH WAS THE ORIGINALLY WE WOULDN'T HAVE TO CHANGE IT BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY APPROVED. THAT'S WHAT THAT'S WHAT MR. HOPKINS IS SAYING. YEAH. PHASE TWO ALREADY HAS. IT WAS APPROVED BY THIS BOARD AS ONE OVERALL PROJECT. RIGHT. BUT HOW ARE WE DESCRIBING PHASE ONE. PHASE ONE WOULD PHASE ONE BY THE SITE PLAN THAT'S PROVIDED. WHAT PHASE ONE IS SHOWN ON THE PLANS THAT ARE RIGHT THERE AND THAT YOU HAVE TO COME BACK AND AND IF WE HAD A SUNSET, WE'D WANT JOE TO LET US KNOW. LIKE IF THEY'RE OPERATING OUTDOOR STORAGE FOR FIVE YEARS AND THEN WE GET INTO YEAR SIX AND WE'RE LIKE, OKAY, YOU GOT TO CLOSE IT DOWN. DO WE EVEN HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DO THAT IF THEY DON'T WANT TO? YOU CERTAINLY DO. IF IT'S A SITE PLAN CONDITION.

AND THEN WHAT DOES THAT WHEN YOU CLOSE DOWN, THEN WHAT ACTUALLY ENDS UP THEN HAPPENING TO THE WELL, IF THEY DIDN'T BUILD THE BUILDINGS, THAT WOULD JUST STAY AN UNUSED AREA.

THAT'S WHY I'M NOT SURE THERE IS A NEED FOR A TIME LIMIT, BUT IF THAT'S THE BOARD'S INCLINATION, WE CAN CERTAINLY DISCUSS IT. I MEAN, IF YOU PICTURE THE SITE AND PICTURE THE FACT THAT IT WAS A FORMER JUNKYARD, YOU KNOW, IT'S DEFINITELY AN IMPROVEMENT WITH OR WITHOUT OUTDOOR STORAGE COMPARED TO WHAT WAS THERE. AND THERE ARE NO NEARBY RESIDENTIAL USES WHATSOEVER. SO I DON'T THINK IT BOTHERS ANYONE EITHER WAY. AND WE'VE ALSO DEFINED THE AREAS IF YOU GO TO SOME OF THESE SELF-STORAGE FACILITIES, THE PROBLEM, IN MY OPINION, IS YOU JUST SEE STUFF SCATTERED EVERYWHERE BLOCKING WHERE FIRE TRUCKS MAY GO. A BOAT JUST SQUEEZED INTO THIS CORNER BECAUSE WE CAN GET SOME EXTRA REVENUE. WE'VE CLEARLY DEFINED THOSE AREAS. OKAY, SO WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE? I BELIEVE YOU FILED TO GO TO THE MARCH ZONING BOARD MEETING. MEETING? RIGHT. OKAY, OKAY. AND I THINK THAT THE THIS BOARD IS IN AGREEMENT THAT WE'D LIKE TO PUT SOME SORT OF TIME FRAME WITH RESPECT TO THE TEMPORARY NATURE OF THIS PHASE ONE. I WOULD LIKE TO SUGGEST TWO YEARS TO HAVE IT BE COME BACK AND BE REVIEWED.

[01:40:08]

OKAY. ANYBODY HAVE ANYTHING ELSE? NO. THANK YOU. WE'RE ALMOST THERE. WE'RE ALMOST

[5. Ted Czosnyka – Requesting a use variance for an adult-use cannabis retail dispensary at 3233 Lakeshore Road ]

I KNOW THERE WAS A CAR WASH THAT WAS GOING TO GO OVER IN THAT VICINITY. SO THERE'S BEEN A NUMBER OF THINGS, BUT NOTHING HAS MATERIALIZED. THEY THEN CAME TO THIS BOARD TO GET REFERRED TO THE ZONING BOARD, WHERE THEY DID RECEIVE A USE VARIANCE FOR A RETAIL DISPENSARY, BECAUSE THIS PARCEL IS ZONED M3. AND IN OUR TOWN CODE, RETAIL DISPENSARIES ARE TYPICALLY ALLOWED IN THE C2 DISTRICT. SINCE THEN, I'VE BEEN IN CONTACT WITH MR. AUERBACH AND SOME OF HIS ATTORNEYS AT HIS FIRM, AND THINGS FELL THROUGH. AND I'LL LET HIM EXPLAIN WHAT HAPPENED WITH 3231. BUT THEY ARE NOW LOOKING TO COME TO THIS BOARD TO THEN GO TO THE ZONING BOARD FOR 32, 33 LAKESHORE FOR A USE VARIANCE FOR A RETAIL DISPENSARY FOR HIS CLIENT. SO IT'S KIND OF A LITTLE BIT OF THE BACKGROUND OF WHERE THEY CAME FROM BEFORE.

AND I'LL LET HIM EXPOUND UPON WHY THEY'RE BACK. GREAT. THANK YOU. THANKS, JOSH. SO A BIT OF AN ERROR ON THE AGENDA TONIGHT. SO THIS PROPERTY IS ACTUALLY OWNED BY KATHY FABIAN IS THE NAME OF THE OWNER. THE NAME THAT'S ON THERE WAS THE OWNER OF 32, 31. SO IT MAY HAVE JUST BEEN A HOLDOVER FROM THE LAST TIME THAT WE WERE HERE. CAN YOU SPELL KATHY'S NAME JUST FOR OUR.

SURE. IT'S F AS IN FRANK A B AS IN BOY, I A T AS IN TOM O S AS IN SAM F A B I A T O S. AND THE PROPERTY ON THE CORNER HAS BEEN VACANT FOR MORE THAN FIVE YEARS. WE DID PREVIOUSLY COME BEFORE THIS BOARD. AS YOGI BERRA SAID, IT'S DEJA VU ALL OVER AGAIN BECAUSE ESSENTIALLY WE'RE SEEKING THE SAME APPROVAL THAT WE OBTAINED FOR 3231. AND TO THE EXTENT THAT THE ZONING BOARD SEES FIT TO GRANT A USE VARIANCE FOR 3233, WE WILL BE WITHDRAWING AND ABANDONING THE USE VARIANCE THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY ISSUED FOR 3231. THESE ARE DIFFERENT PROPERTY OWNERS. NEEDLESS TO SAY, MY OFFICE DID NOT REPRESENT THE APPLICANT. HIGHLAND HILLS HERE, IN ITS NEGOTIATION AGREEMENT WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER OF 3231. THAT TRANSACTION WAS NOT ABLE TO BE COMPLETED. AND SO A TRANSACTION IS NOW UNDERWAY WITH THE OWNER OF 3233, WHICH IS DIRECTLY NEXT DOOR. ALL THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES THAT RELATED TO THE PRIOR APPLICATION ARE NEARLY IDENTICAL, EXCEPT THAT THIS IS ONE PARCEL NEXT DOOR. THIS IS ACTUALLY A LITTLE BIT OF A BETTER BUILDING FOR THE INTENDED USE, AND AS A PROPERTY THAT'S BEEN VACANT FOR THE LAST FIVE YEARS, THIS WILL CERTAINLY FACILITATE BRINGING IT BACK ONTO THE TAX ROLLS AND A PRODUCTIVE REUSE OF AN UNDERUTILIZED PROPERTY. HAPPY TO TELL YOU ANY MORE INFORMATION ABOUT LIKE. OKEY DOKE. THANK YOU.

THIS IS SIMILAR TO OTHER PROJECTS WHERE IF USE OF AN EXISTING BUILDING, IF THERE'S NO REAL OUTDOOR WE CHANGES, WE USE THE SURVEY AS THE SITE PLAN AND THERE'S NO ENGINEERING REVIEW PLANNING DEPARTMENT, ANYTHING TO ADD, NOTHING FURTHER THAN WHAT I ALREADY STATED. OKAY. AND BOARD MEMBERS, ANY COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, ADDITIONAL REQUESTS? YEAH. NO.

[01:45:02]

AND THAT DOESN'T HAVE ANY IMPACT WITH RESPECT TO THE PERMITTING OR LICENSING FOR HIS DISPENSARY. RIGHT? CORRECT. OKAY. AND RIGHT NOW WE'RE JUST THEIR NEXT STEPS IS THAT THEY'RE GOING TO GO BACK TO THE ZONING BOARD. IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT. THAT IS CORRECT. OKAY.

IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE THAT YOU NEED FROM US AT THIS POINT? SHOULD THEY GET GRANTED THAT USE VARIANCE, THEY'LL BE BACK BEFORE THIS BOARD GOING THROUGH THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT CONTINGENT THAT THEY'LL CONTINUE TO GO FORWARD WITH IT. NOT NECESSARILY. NOT IF WE GET A USE VARIANCE GRANTED BY THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. WE WON'T BE BACK FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT. DO THEY NEED ONE FOR DISPENSARY AND OUR ADULT USE CANNABIS LAW? TYPICALLY, YES.

WAS THIS BLAISDELL? NONE. OURS AS WELL. NO. IS THIS PROPERTY IN BLAISDELL? THIS WAS. OH, NO.

NO, THIS PROPERTY IS IN THE TOWN. OKAY, I CAN TALK MORE WITH YOU AND JEFF ABOUT THAT.

YEP. ANYTHING MORE FOR US TO DISCUSS ON THAT? OKAY. YEP. DO YOU MIND GRABBING A MICROPHONE, PLEASE? THE GAS TANKS BEEN REMOVED FROM THEIR STATION? I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT, BUT CERTAINLY IF THE APPLICANT PROCEEDS, OBTAINS A USE VARIANCE AND ACQUIRES THE PARCEL, ANY LENDING INSTITUTION WILL REQUIRE THAT A MINIMUM THEY DO A PHASE ONE REVIEW WHICH WILL, YOU KNOW, BRING TO LIGHT ANY POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS THAT THE BANK WOULD HAVE IF. THANK YOU. OKAY. I DON'T SEE ANYTHING ELSE FOR US. AND GOOD LUCK WITH THE ZONING BOARD. THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANKS. THANK YOU. OKAY. AND OUR LAST CASE THIS EVENING,

[6. Brandon Santa – Requesting Sketch Plan Direction for a proposal to construct six (6) shop warehouse buildings along with other associated site improvements to be located on a 7.46-acre parcel at 0 Lakeshore Road (SBL #: 150.00-1-6.2)]

THAT EASEMENT WOULD BE RECORDED AT THE ERIE COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE, THEREBY ENSURING IF THE PARCELS DID NOT REMAIN UNDER IDENTICAL OWNERSHIP AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE, THAT THAT EMERGENCY ACCESS EASEMENT WOULD PRESERVE WOULD STAY IN PLACE. NUMBER TWO, WE ORIGINALLY HAD BUILDINGS CLOSER TO THE CREEK. WE WERE MADE AWARE OF THE PROVISION IN THE CODE THAT REQUIRES US TO KEEP BUILDINGS 100FT AWAY. SO WE'VE MADE THAT CHANGE. WE COMPLY WITH THE DISTANCE OF 100FT FROM THE CENTER LINE OF THE CREEK. NUMBER THREE, IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH THE NEW YORK STATE FIRE CODE, WE'VE REDUCED THE SIZE OF THE BUILDINGS AND BROKEN THEM UP. WE NOW HAVE A LAYOUT THAT DOES COMPLY WITH APPENDIX D OF THE FIRE CODE NUMBER FOUR. WE HAVE DESIGNATED TWO PROPOSED OUTDOOR STORAGE AREAS, WHICH YOU CAN SEE ON THE PLAN. THEY WILL HAVE BERMS LOCATED ON THE CREEK SIDE OF BOTH OF THEM THAT WILL ENSURE THAT THERE'S DESIGNATED AREAS ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. AND THEN FINALLY, AS WE'VE DISCUSSED EXTENSIVELY PREVIOUSLY, A TEN FOOT CHAIN LINK FENCE WILL BE INSTALLED ON THAT OFF SITE PARCEL THAT'S ALSO OWNED BY THE APPLICANT. SO BASED ON THE FACT THAT WE'VE PROVIDED A COMPLETE SITE PLAN APPLICATION, WE'RE ASKING YOU TO CONSIDER TWO THINGS. NUMBER ONE, COMMENCING AN ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PURSUANT TO THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT. AND THEN NUMBER TWO, SCHEDULING A HEARING FOR A FUTURE MEETING. I ALSO DO WANT TO NOTE THE QUESTION WAS RAISED ABOUT WETLANDS, AND WE HAVE

[01:50:06]

DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADD? I'LL JUST ADD THAT I'VE MADE BOTH THE APPLICANT AWARE AND THIS PLANNING BOARD AWARE. WE HAVE RECEIVED A LOT OF LETTERS AND COMMENTS FROM NEIGHBORS ON THIS PROJECT. OBVIOUSLY, WE HAVEN'T SCHEDULED AN OFFICIAL PUBLIC HEARING YET, BUT WE ALSO ALWAYS TAKE COMMENTS AND LETTERS WHICH ARE FORWARDED OVER TO THIS BOARD. I ALSO FORWARDED TO THE APPLICANT SO THAT THEY'RE ABLE TO PREPARE RESPONSES AS NEEDED. SO I JUST WANTED TO MAKE THE PUBLIC AWARE THAT EVERYONE WHO HAS SENT ME AN EMAIL OR A LETTER, IT'S BEEN MADE AWARE TO BOTH THE APPLICANT AND THEIR ATTORNEY AND AS WELL AS THE PLANNING BOARD, JUST SO THAT EVERYONE IS AWARE OF, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THE CONCERNS. SO THANK YOU. JOSH, JUST ONE QUICK CLARIFICATION. THE THE TITLE THAT I BELIEVE WAS ALSO PUBLISHED FOR THE AGENDA STATES THAT THERE ARE SIX WAREHOUSE BUILDINGS, BUT BASED UPON THE CURRENT SITE PLAN THAT WE HAVE, THERE ARE EIGHT THAT ARE LOCATED ON ON THE SITE PLAN AND BOARD MEMBERS, ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ADDITIONAL REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION. WHO WOULD LIKE TO START? MEMBER. RYAN. HI. HI. THE OUTDOOR STORAGE. WHAT ARE YOU LOOKING AT STORING IN THAT OUTDOOR STORAGE SO CLOSE TO RUSH CREEK? I'M GOING TO ACTUALLY GET AN ANSWER. WHAT WOULD BE? BRANDON? SANTA? I'M THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY. WE WERE PLANNING TO HAVE STONE BINS FOR STONE STORAGE AND, YOU KNOW, MISCELLANEOUS TRAILERS, YOU KNOW, STUFF OF THAT NATURE.

JOSH IN THE M3, IS OUTDOOR STORAGE ALLOWED? IS ALLOWED? YEP. OKAY. THANK YOU. JUST CHECKING. AND WE WERE ASKED TO CLEARLY DEFINE THOSE AREAS. SO WE'VE DONE THAT. SO AGAIN SIMILAR TO THE OTHER PROJECT IT WILL BE LIMITED TO THOSE AREAS. HAVE YOU THOUGHT ABOUT MAYBE MOVING THOSE AREAS AWAY FROM RUSH CREEK TO. TAKE AWAY ANY CHANCE OF ANY RUNOFF INTO RUSH CREEK THAT COULD POLLUTE IT? OR SO THAT'S WHY WE HAVE ADDED THOSE LANDSCAPED BERMS ON THE CREEK SIDE THAT WILL ENSURE THAT DOESN'T OCCUR. AND IF YOU THINK ABOUT THE OVERALL LAYOUT, HAVING THOSE STORAGE AREAS AWAY FROM THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES, I THINK MAKES A LOT OF SENSE.

AND AGAIN, THE BUILDINGS HAVE BEEN REMOVED FROM THE 100 FOOT LINE PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CODE. SO WHAT WE'RE CURRENTLY SHOWING DOES COMPLY WITH CODE. THANK YOU. YOU'RE WELCOME. AND IT WILL BE GRADED ACCORDINGLY. AND OF COURSE CAMI WILL NEED TO REVIEW AND APPROVE THE FULLY ENGINEERED PLANS. ANYBODY ELSE? I HAVE A QUESTION REGARDING THE PROPERTY THAT IS OWNED BY THE WOODLAWN SEWER DISTRICT. SO. RIGHT. YOU'VE GOT THE PROPERTY THAT IS TO THE NORTH OF OF THAT LONG STRIP THAT'S OWNED BY THE SEWER DISTRICT. THAT'S CORRECT. HOW WHAT ARE OUR ACTIVITIES GOING BACK AND FORTH, AND IS THERE AN EXISTING EASEMENT TO ALLOW FOR THAT ACCESS? BECAUSE RIGHT NOW YOU HAVE YOUR FENCE AND YOU HAVE THIS STRIP OF LAND THAT YOU DO NOT OWN. AND THERE, AS WE CHECKED PRIOR TO THIS MEETING, THERE'S NO RECORDED EASEMENTS IN ORDER TO HAVE ACCESS ACROSS THAT. BRANDON. SANTA, I'M THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY. THERE IS AN ACCESS AT ROUTE FIVE TO ACCESS THAT PROPERTY DIRECTLY NEXT TO THE ACCESS TO MY MY HOME PROPERTY, SO WE CAN ACCESS OFF THERE FOR ANYTHING WE NEED. BUT IT'S NOT AN AREA THAT WE NEED TO SPEND A LOT OF TIME IN. SO YOU DO NOT ANTICIPATE ANY, ANY ACTIVITY GOING NORTH OF THE PROPOSED BUILDING LOCATIONS THAT WOULD BE CROSSING OVER THAT EASEMENT? NO, I MEAN, THAT WOULD BE THE BACK OF ALL THOSE BUILDINGS. SO THERE WOULD BE NO NEED TO GO BACK THERE. THE ONLY THING JUST TO MAINTAIN THE THE LANDSCAPING ALONG THE FENCE LINE WOULD BE THE ONLY REASON. BUT WE CAN ACCESS FROM ROUTE FIVE. THE. SO I KNOW I HAD MENTIONED THIS QUESTION BEFOREHAND ABOUT HOW EXACTLY THE ACCESS FROM THE PROPERTY ALONG ROUTE FIVE WHERE

[01:55:10]

CURRENTLY THERE'S TRUCKS AND EQUIPMENT THAT GO THROUGH THERE AND WE HAVE NO ISSUES WITH WHAT'S THERE. BUT IT'S STONE CURRENTLY AND IT WILL BE A HEAVY DUTY ASPHALT GOING THROUGH THERE, YOU KNOW. SO IT HOLDS UP TO TRAFFIC. ABSOLUTELY. AND AGAIN, ALL TO BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT. I GUESS I HAVE ONE OTHER QUESTION. THE EGRESS THAT YOU HAD MENTIONED AT THE YOU HAD REFERENCED THE BACK OF THE SITE. DO YOU MIND POINTING OUT WHERE THAT IS EXACTLY? YOU HAD MENTIONED THAT, SHAWN. YOU HAD MENTIONED THAT WE HAD MENTIONED THAT THERE'D BEEN THERE'D BEEN AN EFFORT TO EXPLORE THAT POSSIBILITY. MR. SANTA HAD TALKED TO THAT PROPERTY OWNER. THEY WERE NOT GOING TO GRANT US ACCESS. OKAY. SO THIS IS ONE WAY IN, ONE WAY OUT. THAT'S CORRECT. HAS THERE BEEN ANY INFORMATION OR REPORTS WITH THE FIRE DEPARTMENT ABOUT THE ACCESSIBILITY? YES. SO THE THE REASON FOR US PURSUING A SECONDARY ACCESS WAS BECAUSE IF WE DIDN'T IF WE ONLY HAD ONE WAY IN AND OUT, WE WOULD HAVE TO SPRINKLER THE BUILDINGS, WHICH IS OBVIOUSLY A LOT MORE EXPENSIVE. THAT'S WHY BRANDON PURSUED THE POSSIBILITY OF SECOND EGRESS THROUGH THROUGH THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY. RIGHT.

SO ALL THE BUILDINGS HAVE TO BE SPRINKLERED YOU ALSO ARE PROVIDING PRIVATE FIRE HYDRANTS? YES, WITHOUT THE OPPORTUNITY FOR A SECONDARY ACCESS. AGAIN, PER THE CODE, THE BUILDINGS WILL NOW HAVE TO BE SPRINKLERED. AND WE'VE ACKNOWLEDGED THAT IN WRITING. AND DO YOU DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHERE YOU'RE GOING TO BE ACCESSING THAT LINE IN ORDER TO PROVIDE THE PRIVATE FIRE, FIRE HYDRANTS AND SUCH? IS IT EVEN FEASIBLE? YEAH. SO THAT WOULD BE TO THE EXISTING WATER MAIN ALONG ROUTE FIVE. AND THEN IS THAT ALSO HAVING THAT, HAVING THAT BEING TAPPED RIGHT OFF OF ROUTE FIVE AND GOING ACROSS, IS THERE ANY IMPLICATIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE EASEMENT THAT'S BEING DEVELOPED IN ORDER TO ALLOW FOR THAT ACCESS? WELL, IN ADDITION TO THE ACCESS EASEMENT, WE WOULD PROBABLY HAVE TO PROVIDE A UTILITY EASEMENT, CORRECT.

WE'RE ALSO GOING TO HAVE TO PROVIDE A UTILITY EASEMENT AS WELL. IT'LL BE AN ALL INCLUSIVE EASEMENT. RIGHT. AND IT WOULD IT WOULD ALL BE LOCATED IN THAT EASEMENT. SO, SO THAT NO ONE GOES AND BUILDS ON TOP OF THE WATER SERVICE, IT'LL ALL BE IN THAT 30 FOOT WIDE EASEMENT WHICH CAN'T BE BUILT ON. SO THEN THIS GOES TO MY QUESTION WITH RESPECT TO SEEKER, WE HAD DISCUSSED THE FACT THAT THERE IS THEN A PROJECT THAT'S NOW GOING ON WITH A FENCE. THERE IS

[02:00:02]

ONE THING THAT TO ADDRESS YOUR POINT, CAITLYN, ABOUT WANTING TO REVIEW THE PROJECT CUMULATIVELY IS I KNOW THE APPLICANT BECAUSE IT'S AN UNLISTED ACTION SUBMITTED A SHORT FORM. THE BOARD COULD REQUEST THAT THE APPLICANT COMPLETE A FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM, AND I THINK YOU GUYS WOULD BE WILLING TO DO THE FULL FORM FOR FROM SECRET PERSPECTIVE, WHICH, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY HAS A LOT MORE QUESTIONS THAN THE SHORT FORM DOES. AND, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY WE WILL DO A THOROUGH REVIEW FROM A SECRET PERSPECTIVE OF ALL THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS. SO I THINK EARLY ON, OBVIOUSLY, AS WE AWAIT COMMENTS FROM OFFICIAL STATE AGENCIES, THAT MIGHT BE A FIRST STEP, HAVING REQUESTING THAT THE APPLICANT SUBMIT A FULL FORM JUST SO THAT WE HAVE THE FULL FORM, AND THEN HAVING THE BOARD AUTHORIZED ME TO, YOU KNOW, CONDUCT THAT COORDINATED REVIEW AND SEND IT OUT TO DIFFERENT AGENCIES FOR COMMENT. BUT I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY, IN TERMS OF WHAT'S INCLUDED IN THE SECRET REVIEW, KEEP IN MIND, THERE'S ALREADY BEEN A PERMIT ISSUED FOR THAT FENCE, AND MY CLIENT'S GOAL WOULD BE TO INSTALL THAT SOONER THAN LATER. IT'S QUITE EXPENSIVE, BUT I BELIEVE YOU'VE ALREADY PURCHASED THE MATERIALS, SO WE'D LIKE TO GET THAT FENCE UP. AND IT ALSO WOULD PREVENT TRESPASSING, GARBAGE, ETC. ETC. THAT IS NOT SUBJECT TO SEEKER. I DO AGREE THAT THE PRIMARY PROJECT AND THE IMPROVEMENTS THAT ARE BEING MADE WHERE THEY CURRENTLY LIVE, BOTH THOSE WOULD BE CONSIDERED AS PART OF THE ACTION, AND THAT'S REALLY NOT A PROBLEM WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT IT FROM AN ENVIRONMENTAL PERSPECTIVE, THERE'S REALLY NO DIFFERENCE, BUT IT SHOULD BE INCLUDED AND WE'RE OKAY WITH THAT. MEANING, IF YOU WANT TO LIST IT AS BOTH PARCELS, THAT'S FINE. DOES THE BOARD HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? NO. I GUESS I WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST HAVING A FULL, FULL FORM COMPLETED. I CONCUR, THANK YOU. MEMBER RYAN. AND THEN ALSO DO WE HAVE ON FILE THE REPORT AND CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE FIRE DEPARTMENT. I KNOW THAT YOU GUYS PROVIDED THE A NOTE MEMO RESPONDING TO COMMENTS. YES. SO WE ORIGINALLY GOT COMMENTS FROM JEFF AND THE CODE ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT. I'VE SEEN THAT WE HAVE A FULL SITE PLAN. WE WILL CIRCULATE SAID PLANS AND ALL THE SUBMISSION TO THE MOST LOCAL FIRE DEPARTMENT FOR THEIR COMMENT, AND THEY WILL CONDUCT THEIR OWN REVIEW. SO THE ORIGINAL COMMENTS AND EVERYTHING THAT THEY'VE ORIGINALLY ADDRESSED WAS FROM THE COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW THAT WAS DONE BY THE CODE ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT. CORRECT. AND THEN ALSO TO ADDRESS QUESTIONS ABOUT TRAFFIC. WE CAN CERTAINLY HAVE TRAFFIC SAFETY IN THEIR BOARD. TAKE A TAKE A REVIEW OF IT AND PROVIDE MATERIALS FOR THEM. I'VE ALSO PROVIDED A HARD COPY OF THE PLAN TO THE CONSERVATION ADVISORY BOARD. SO THEY ALSO NOW HAVE A COPY AND CAN PROVIDE COMMENTS AS THEY SEE FIT. OKAY, REALLY QUICKLY, IF YOU DON'T MIND, A QUESTION THAT I DO HAVE IS CAN YOU GUYS JUST QUICKLY ADDRESS I KNOW IT'S NOT THE OFFICIAL PUBLIC HEARING, BUT OBVIOUSLY LIKE I SAID, I'VE CIRCULATED COMMENTS. THERE WERE SOME COMMENTS CIRCULATING ABOUT, I BELIEVE THE PLANNING BOARD CHAIR AT THE LAST MEETING REQUESTED THAT THERE BE SOME SORT OF MEETING BETWEEN NEIGHBORS. WHATEVER THAT LOOKS LIKE IS OBVIOUSLY UP TO, YOU KNOW, YOU GUYS AND YOUR ATTORNEY, BUT CAN YOU KIND OF JUST SPEAK TO WHATEVER EFFORTS TO DATE YOU WOULD BE WILLING TO DO TO, YOU KNOW, HAVE THOSE KIND OF MEETINGS AND WHAT THAT FORM WOULD LOOK LIKE JUST SO THAT EVERYONE IS AWARE, BEFORE WE HAVE THE PUBLIC HEARING OF WHAT ANY TYPE OF INTERNAL MEETING WILL LOOK LIKE BETWEEN YOURSELF AND THE RESIDENTS.

SURE. SO IN TERMS OF MEETING WITH NEARBY PROPERTY OWNERS, MY CLIENT'S PREFERENCE AND I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND WHY, WOULD BE TO MEET WITH THEM ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS. THEY OBVIOUSLY RESIDE ON THE SITE, SO IF ANYONE WANTS TO REACH OUT DIRECTLY TO THEM, THAT CAN BE ACCOMMODATED. WE THINK THAT'S PREFERABLE TO HAVING A LARGER GROUP MEETING. I DID SEE THAT

[02:05:02]

IF THAT CAN BE MORE SQUARE THAT OFF, THAT'S FINE. BETTER DEFINED. YEAH OKAY. SURE. AND THEN ALSO WITH RESPECT TO THE FACT THAT THE WOODLAWN, THE WOODLAWN SEWER PROPERTY AND THAT YOU ARE SHOWING A TEN FOOT SETBACK FROM THAT PROPERTY LINE BECAUSE THERE ARE NO EASEMENTS OR ACCESS AGREEMENTS, I'D ASK THAT THERE WOULD BE AN ADDITIONAL SPACE IN ORDER TO ALLOW FOR ACCESS. I DON'T KNOW ABOUT ACCESS, BUT AT LEAST FROM A SAFETY STANDPOINT. BUT TEN FEET, I THINK, NEEDS TO BE INCREASED IN ORDER TO ALLOW FOR, YOU KNOW, ENOUGH ACCESS AROUND THE BUILDING SINCE YOU DON'T HAVE A LEGAL RIGHT TO BE ON THAT PROPERTY. YEAH, YEAH, WE NEED TO REQUIRE THAT TEN FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. I MEAN, I HAVE A PREFERENCE FOR IT TO BE MORE, BUT THAT'S MY PREFERENCE. AND AGAIN, REMEMBER THE TRADE OFF WOULD BE IS IF WE MOVED IT FURTHER THAN WE'RE MOVING CLOSER TO THE CREEK. WE THOUGHT HEY LET'S COMPLY WITH THE SETBACKS INSTEAD, WHICH WE'VE DONE. I DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENTS. I GUESS YOU GUYS DO HAVE THE ABILITY TO INSTALL THIS FENCE AND THE PROPOSED LANDSCAPING ALONG THE FENCING WITHOUT GOING OVER THAT WOODLAWN SEWER PROPERTY, AND THAT'S WHAT WILL BE DONE. OKAY, OKAY. BECAUSE IT'S INTERESTING ON GOOGLE MAPS. OKAY. I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING FOR ANYTHING ELSE AT THIS POINT. ANYBODY ELSE ANSWERED MY QUESTIONS? NO. WHAT ARE OUR NEXT STEPS? JOSH. SO I THINK WHAT WE DISCUSSED IS WELL, FIRST, IS THERE ANY OTHER DOCUMENTATION STUDIES, DATA THAT YOU WOULD REQUEST OR WOULD WANT FOR THE APPLICANT TO PROVIDE TO HELP YOU IN YOUR REVIEWS? IS THERE ANY ANY ALTERNATIVE? DO YOU WANT ANY ALTERNATIVE LAYOUTS? AND LIKE ANYTHING ON THE SITE PLAN ITSELF? ANY OTHER THOUGHTS WHILE THEY'RE HERE NOW? WE'VE WE'LL BE RECEIVING FEEDBACK FROM FIRE, FEEDBACK FROM TRAFFIC AND SAFETY. THEY'LL BE PROVIDING A FULL EAF. I MEAN I DON'T WANT UNTIL READING WHAT COMES BACK FROM THAT ANALYSIS.

I DON'T NECESSARILY WANT TO SAY, YOU KNOW, A TRAFFIC ANALYSIS REPORT OR THAT SORT OF THING, BUT DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENTS BEFORE WE WRAP UP? SO COULD WE ASK THIS BOARD AGAIN, SUBJECT TO SUBMISSION OF A COMPLETED PART, ONE OF THE FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM AUTHORIZED JOSH TO COMMENCE AN ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW SO WE CAN GET COMMENTS BACK FROM THOSE INVOLVED IN INTERESTED AGENCIES. AND THE OTHER REQUEST IS THAT WE UPDATE THE SITE PLAN TO SQUARE OFF OR MORE CLEARLY DEFINE THOSE OUTDOOR STORAGE AREAS, WHICH WE'LL DO. OKAY.

YEAH, I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT. SO THAT'D BE JUST AUTHORIZING ME TO CONDUCT A COORDINATED REVIEW AND SENT OUT TO DIFFERENT AGENCIES OF THE PROJECT. AND THEN WE WOULD WAIT THE 30 DAYS TO HEAR FROM DOT AND SO ON AND SO FORTH. YEP. I THINK THAT THAT'S FINE. I MEAN, I GUESS I HAVE ONE OTHER QUESTION WITH RESPECT TO YOUR SITE PLAN, IS THAT IF THERE IS A WAY IN WHICH THERE CAN BE FEWER BUILDINGS, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW WHY WE HAD SIX STATED, BUT YET THERE'S EIGHT ON THE IT WAS ORIGINALLY SIX. WE HAD TO BREAK THEM UP TO MEET FIRE CODE. OKAY, SO THE NUMBER OF BUILDINGS, BUT THEN SQUARE FOOTAGE ACTUALLY REDUCED. YEAH, TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE REDUCED. THE NUMBER OF BUILDINGS INCREASED BECAUSE WE HAD A BREAKDOWN. AND THAT WAS PER THE INPUT FROM THE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER IN HIS ORIGINAL LETTER.

OKAY. I GUESS IT THEN MAKES SENSE. I ALSO WANT TO NOTE THESE BUILDINGS WILL ALL NOT BE BUILT SIMULTANEOUSLY. I THINK WE'RE CONFIRMING THAT RIGHT CAN BE IN PHASES, MEANING IF

[02:10:04]

AND THEN OBVIOUSLY, IF THINGS ARISE WHERE, YOU KNOW, THERE'S AN ISSUE WITH ANY OF THE PHASING, THEY OBVIOUSLY WILL COME BACK AS NEED BE. RIGHT? OKAY, OKAY. AND WHEN WE GET TO THAT POINT IN TIME AGAIN, BRANDON AND ANTHONY AND EVERYONE ELSE TO DISCUSS THE ENGINEERING MAY BE BROKEN INTO MORE THAN ONE PHASE THAT WE JUST HAVEN'T MADE THAT DECISION YET. AND THAT'S NOT UNCOMMON. OKAY. IN TERMS OF TABLING, WOULD YOU WANT TO TABLE THEM TO FEBRUARY 18TH, WHERE THE 30 DAYS WILL HAVE PRETTY MUCH ALMOST COMMENCED BY THEN? AND I THINK IT'LL BE IT DOESN'T REALLY MAKE MUCH SENSE FOR THEM TO COME ON THE FOURTH. WE STILL WON'T HAVE WE'RE OKAY WITH THAT. WE'LL GET YOU THE A F RIGHT OR RIGHT. JOSH, TRY TO GET IT TO YOU TOMORROW. OKAY? SO TO MAKE IT OFFICIAL, APPROVING YOU TO CONDUCT A COORDINATED REVIEW REVIEW. YEP. AND THAT WE WILL BE TABLED UNTIL THE 8TH FEBRUARY 18TH. YEP. OKAY. GREAT.

THANK YOU. I THINK THAT'S IT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ENJOY THE REST OF YOUR EVENING. THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYBODY. CAN I MAKE MY OWN MOTION TO ADJOURN? YES. IS THERE ANYBODY TO MAKE A MOTION TO ADJOURN? REMEMBER, RYAN MAKES A MOTION TO ADJOURN.

ANYBODY TO SECOND, SECOND, SECOND, SECOND BY MEMBER STEWART AND MEMBER DRAKE.

MEETING IS ADJOURNED. THA

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.