[00:00:05]
          DOKE. HEREBY CALL THE PLANNING BOARD. TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD MEETING JULY 1ST, 2026. 
          TO ORDER. WE ALL RISE TO READ THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS. ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. MEMBER. TRACY, YOU CALL THE ROLL. AUGGIE. CAN YOU TAKE ROLL? OKAY. KAITLYN SHIMURA PRESENT. RICHARD SAJAK HERE. WILLIAM CLARK HERE. BRIAN STEWART HERE. 
          KIM RYAN HERE. MILTON KWANT HERE. JOSEPH GOGAN IS PRESENT. SECOND NOTE FOR THE RECORD THAT CITY IS EXCUSE ME EXCUSED ABSENT AND THAT THE ALTERNATE IS IN PLACE THAT. YEAH. YES. 
          OKAY. I'M SORRY, WHICH I JUST. RIGHT. OKAY. CONFIRMED. OKEY DOKE. SO OUR FIRST PROJECT IS 
          [Items 1 & 2]
3556 LAKESHORE DEVELOPMENT, LLC. REQUEST REQUESTING SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A MIXED USE SITE OFFERING CONDOMINIUMS FOR RESIDENTIAL USE AND COMMERCIAL USES SUCH AS RESTAURANTS, HOTEL SPACE, AND CONTINUING THE USE OF THE EXISTING OFFICE SPACE AT THE GATEWAY BUILDING TO BE LOCATED AT 3556 LAKESHORE ROAD. WE ARE ALSO PAIRING THIS WITH THE ITEM NUMBER TWO, WHICH IS 3556 LAKESHORE DEVELOPMENT REQUESTING PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL FOR THE PROPOSAL OF A TWO LOT SUBDIVISION TO BE LOCATED AT 3556 LAKESHORE ROAD. 
          THE APPLICANT HERE. YES. COME ON DOWN. SO BEFORE WE GET STARTED, JOSH, IS THERE ANYTHING YOU'D LIKE TO ADD OR BRING UP? YEAH, I WILL ADD, SO WHERE WE ARE IN THIS PROCESS IS AT THE PREVIOUS MEETING, WE HAD A PUBLIC HEARING. THE PREVIOUS MEETING, WE HAD A PUBLIC HEARING FOR BOTH THE SITE PLAN APPROVAL STANDPOINT AND FOR THE SUBDIVISION. WE'VE NOW CLOSED THAT PUBLIC HEARING. WHAT I DID IS I TOOK THE INFORMATION THAT WAS PROVIDED ON THE RECORD FROM LAST TIME, AND ALL OF THE DOCUMENTATION THAT THE DEVELOPER AND HIS ENGINEER HAVE SUBMITTED ON THE RECORD AND PUT TOGETHER A DRAFT. AND THE KEY WORD IS DRAFT SITE PLAN, APPROVAL RESOLUTION, WITH SOME CONDITIONS FOR THE BOARD TO DISCUSS. AND THEN CONCURRENTLY WITH THAT, THERE IS A MINOR SUBDIVISION RESOLUTION THAT'S ALSO ATTACHED WITH IT. WE'LL DO THEM. WE CAN DO THEM SEPARATELY. BUT I DID PUT TOGETHER SOME SOME THOUGHTS BASED OFF OF SOME BOARD MEMBER COMMENT, SOME THINGS THAT WERE OUT OF THE STATE PARKS LETTER IN TERMS OF THE VEGETATION. I KNOW MEMBER CLARK HAD AN IDEA FOR OUR SITE PLAN CONDITION. SO YOU CAN HAVE THE APPLICANT, YOU KNOW, PROVIDE ANY LAST MINUTE COMMENT IF THEY WANT TO, AND THEN WE CAN PROCEED INTO DISCUSSING THE SITE PLAN CONDITIONS. OKAY, GREAT. HELLO. WOULD YOU LIKE TO PROVIDE ANY UPDATES SINCE THE LAST TIME WE SAW YOU OR. NO, NO UPDATES. JUST WE'RE ANXIOUS TO GET STARTED. IT SEEMS THAT WHATEVER DELAYS HAPPEN WORKED IN OUR FAVOR, OR PRICES ARE DROPPING, SO ARE RATES. AND, YOU KNOW, IT LOOKS LIKE WE'LL CATCH IT JUST RIGHT AFTER ALL. 
          OKAY, FANTASTIC. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS, HAVE YOU GUYS HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THE DRAFT RESOLUTION OR. JOSH, AM I MISSING ANYTHING TO GET RIGHT TO THE RESOLUTION? NO, I'LL BRING IT UP AND I'LL KIND OF WALK EVERYONE THROUGH IT. SEE? SO JUST TO ORIENT EVERYONE AND I'LL MAKE IT A LITTLE BIT BIGGER. SO THE FIRST PIECE IS OUR STANDARD LANGUAGE ABOUT, YOU KNOW, WHAT'S HAPPENING ON THE RECORD, WHAT THE PROJECT IS, YOU KNOW, NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND A COASTAL CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION HAVE ALREADY BEEN ISSUED BY THE TOWN BOARD. SO SEEKER HAS BEEN TAKEN CARE OF. AND THEN WHEN WE GET INTO THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS, THE FIRST ONE IS THE APPROVAL CONTINGENT ON CAMI'S ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT LETTER, WHICH IS DATED JUNE 26TH, JUNE 26TH. THE NEXT ONE IS A STANDARD ONE, SO THE APPLICANT WILL COMPLY WITH ALL THE REZONING CONDITIONS FROM THE TOWN BOARD'S RESOLUTION FROM 2024, THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED A LETTER THAT THEY WILL BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH ALL THOSE RESOLUTIONS, BUT I JUST WANT TO CODIFY IN THE SITE PLAN APPROVAL RESOLUTION NUMBER THREE IS THE FIRST ONE 
          [00:05:04]
FOR DISCUSSION. SO THERE WAS A LOT OF TALK ABOUT FENCING WHERE FENCING WOULD BE CHANGING SOME OF THE CHAIN LINK FENCING, SO ON AND SO FORTH. THE RESOLUTION LANGUAGE THAT I PUT TOGETHER READS AS FOLLOWS. THAT FENCING SHALL INCLUDE A WOODEN SPLIT RAIL TYPE FENCE ALONG THE PROPERTY LINE, WHILE THE EXISTING CHAIN LINK FENCE ALONG THE WESTERN BOUNDARY SHALL BE REPLACED WITH A SPLIT RAIL, WOOD FENCE AND THEN WROUGHT IRON OR TWO TUBULAR STEEL SHALL BE USED ALONG THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF THE SITE. SO THAT'S OUT OF THE DISCUSSION THAT WE HAD PREVIOUSLY. I THINK IN THE APPLICANT'S NEXT KIND OF SUBMISSION, THEY TALKED ABOUT CHANGING SOME OF THE FENCING. SO THAT WAS FROM OUR PREVIOUS MEETING. SO THAT'S THE FIRST CONDITION UP FOR DISCUSSION. IF ANY BOARD MEMBER HAS ANY COMMENT ON THAT, I'D LIKE TO MAKE IT A LITTLE BIT SIMPLER. OKAY. SO RIGHT. WE REVIEWED THEIR SITE PLAN THAT WAS PROVIDED ON SIX. THAT'S DATED 612 AT OUR LAST MEETING. THAT DID IN FACT CHANGE THE FENCE TYPES, LOCATIONS AND SO FORTH. SO RATHER THAN TRYING TO DESCRIBE IT, IF WE COULD HAVE THAT BE FENCING TYPES AND LOCATION SHALL BE INSTALLED PER THE SITE PLAN DATED 612, 26 PER REVISION. B DOES THE REST OF THE BOARD FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH THAT? YES, YES. OKAY, SO READ THAT TO ME AGAIN. FENCING TYPES AND LOCATIONS. SHALL BE INSTALLED. PER THE SITE PLAN DATED 61226. IF YOU WANT TO. I FIND I FOUND IT A LITTLE HARD, BUT REVISION B SO IT'S SUPER CLEAR. OKAY, THE NEXT ONE I THINK THE LANDSCAPING PLAN TOM IS ALSO DATED 612 I THINK IN THE LAST SUBMISSION. SO WE'LL UPDATE THAT SO THAT THAT'S ONE OF OUR STANDARD ONES. THE LANDSCAPING PLAN WILL BE APPROVED BY MY DEPARTMENT AND IT'S DATED 61226. THE NEXT CONDITION, I BELIEVE THIS ALSO CAME AS AN IDEA FROM FROM MEMBER CLERK. SO REMEMBER CLERK I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I'M CAPTURING YOUR WORDS CORRECTLY. YOU WANTED THE PLANT LIST AS DESCRIBED ON DRAWINGS C 104 THAT WAS DATED 612 TO BE SENT TO STATE PARKS FOR COMMENT AND CONCURRENCE. RIGHT. BECAUSE THEY WERE WORRIED ABOUT INVASIVE PLANTS, AND THEY'D BE IN A BETTER POSITION THAN US TO DECIDE IF THEY DIDN'T LIKE SOMETHING. OKAY, IS THE REST OF THE BOARD CAN I CAN I ASK YOU WHAT WHAT AUTHORITY WOULD THE PARKS HAVE TO DETERMINE ANYTHING ABOUT THE FOLIAGE OVER THE THE TOWN? WELL, THEY WOULDN'T, BUT BECAUSE OF THE LETTER, MY IDEA WAS THAT WE RUN IT BY THEM TO MAKE SURE THEY'RE OKAY WITH THE PLANTS BECAUSE BECAUSE THEY WERE WORRIED ABOUT IS IF YOU'VE GOT LIKE A LIKE A MAPLE TREE WITH THOSE HELICOPTERS KNOW SOMETHING FLOWS OVER AND LANDS ON ONE OF THEIR, THEIR BERMS. AND THAT WOULD IMPACT THE LEGISLATION THAT WAS PASSED IN THE 80S, THAT IT MADE PRIVATE DEVELOPERS LIKE MYSELF HAVE TO CONFORM TO DARK LIGHTING. MANY OF THE THINGS THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING RIGHT NOW, ONE OF WHICH IS THE PLANTINGS. SO THE TOWN HAS TO OPINE ON THOSE THINGS, NOT THE STATE. I HAVE NO ISSUE. IT'S JUST THERE'S A FAINT IMPLICATION OF AUTHORITY. IF I HAVE TO SEEK ANY LEVEL OF PERMISSION FROM THE STATE WHEN I OWN A PRIVATE PROPERTY AND I'M SEEKING APPROVAL FROM THE TOWN. I MEAN, WHAT CONDITIONS YOU WANT ON THE SITE PLAN, APPROVAL THEIR COMMENTS, AND HAVE THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT MAKE THE FINAL DECISION. WE CAN WRITE IT THAT WAY. THEY'RE IDENTICAL. THE CONDITIONS THAT THE TOWN WOULD WANT, AS PER THAT LEGISLATION, ARE THE SAME CONDITIONS THAT THE STATE WOULD WANT. ONLY THIS ISN'T A STATE THING, AND THE STATE NEEDS TO UNDERSTAND THAT, AND THE STATE NEEDS TO UNDERSTAND. SO I'M SORRY, I'M GOING TO CUT YOU OFF THERE, PLEASE. RIGHT. SO THE IDEA IS THAT YOUR NEIGHBORS ARE NEW YORK STATE PARKS AND THAT THERE HAS BEEN A HUGE A SIGNIFICANT PUBLIC INVESTMENT IN BRINGING BACK WOODLAWN BEACH TO BE AN ACCESSIBLE AREA. WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO DO IS JUST ENSURE IN OUR IN OUR OWN CAPACITY THAT WHATEVER IS BEING PLANTED IS NOT GOING TO CAUSE A SIGNIFICANT ISSUE WITH RESPECT TO THE NEIGHBORS, WHICH IS ALSO ALL OF OUR PROPERTY AS WELL TO BEING PUBLIC PROPERTY. SO THE CONDITION THAT I THINK WOULD BE A WAY TO HAVE IT WORK BOTH WAYS IS THAT IF JOSH, BY VIRTUE OF WE DON'T WANT TO, YOU KNOW, IGNORE THE FACT THAT THERE WAS 
          [00:10:01]
CONCERN BY NEW YORK STATE PARKS, BUT THAT AS A PART OF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT'S REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE LANDSCAPING PLAN AND LIST THAT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, YOU KNOW, SHALL CONFER WITH NEW YORK STATE PARKS AS A COURTESY REVIEW OF THE PLANTING LIST OR SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES. MAY I MAKE A SUGGESTION? HOW ABOUT JUST MAKE IT MAKE THE CONDITION OF THE PLANTING A CONDITION OF THE TOWN, AND THEN IF IT'S OKAY WITH THE TOWN, IT'LL BE OKAY WITH THE STATE BECAUSE IT'S AN IDENTICAL AMOUNT. IT'S THE LEGISLATION THAT COVERS BOTH. 
          RIGHT? SO YOU'RE IN THE CONDITION, RIGHT? AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BY THE TOWN IS BY VIRTUE OF WHAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO AS THE TOWN IS BY VIRTUE OF HAVING THE PLANNING BOARD PLANNING DEPARTMENT, WHICH IS THE TOWN REVIEW AND APPROVE THE LANDSCAPING. SO IT IS GOING TO ACCOMPLISH THE SAME THING. THAT'S FINE, BUT WE DON'T WANT TO IGNORE STATE PARKS. IS THE GOAL. WELL, SO WE WOULD SWITCH FROM, WELL, IT DOESN'T SAY WHO, SO IT'LL SAY TO TO SEND IT TO THEM FOR COMMENT. BUT THEN FOR FINAL APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. RIGHT. MAYBE WE SHOULD JUST MAKE IT NUMBER FOUR AND MAKE NUMBER FOUR. NUMBER FIVE. BECAUSE NUMBER FOUR SAYS THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT WILL APPROVE IT. AND IN CONSULTATION WITH NEW YORK STATE PARKS. WITH INPUT FROM. YEAH. I MEAN, IF YOU CONSULT, YOU DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE AN AUTHORITY ROLE, RIGHT. BUT YET YOU'RE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE COMMENT. SO HOW WOULD YOU WANT IT TO, TO READ? YOU WANT ME TO TAKE NUMBER FOUR AND JUST PUT IT INTO NUMBER FIVE OR FLIP THEM, FLIP THEM AT NUMBER FIVE TO NUMBER FOUR. HOW ABOUT THE LANDSCAPING PLAN DATED SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT IN CONSULTATION WITH NEW YORK STATE PARKS, RECREATION AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION. AND THEY WILL DO. NUMBER FIVE. NOW WE'LL READ LIGHTING SHALL BE SHIELDED IN DARK SKY COMPLIANT AS SHOWN IN THE LIGHTING PLAN. I THINK ALL OF THESE PLANS, TOM, ARE DATED SIX, 12, 26 WILL COME. 
          NUMBER SIX SIDEWALKS SHALL BE INSTALLED INTERNALLY WITHIN THE PROJECT SITE AS DENOTED ON THE SITE PLAN DATED 612 2026. NUMBER SEVEN PARKING SPACES WITH 863 SPACES SHALL BE INSTALLED AS SHOWN ON THE SITE PLAN, WITH THE DATE MODIFICATIONS THAT IMPACT THE PROPOSED PARKING. THE ADDITION OR REDUCTION OF PARKING SPACES WILL HAVE TO COME BACK TO THE PLANNING BOARD FOR AMENDED SITE PLAN APPROVAL. SO NOW THIS IS ONE WHERE TYPICALLY, IF PARKING IS SIGNIFICANTLY CHANGED OR MODIFIED, A LOT OF TIMES THAT'LL BE BROUGHT BACK TO THE PLANNING BOARD. THIS WAS A DRAFT OR DRAFT CONDITION THAT I ADDED. YOU CAN FEEL FREE TO AMEND, BUT DOES THE BOARD WANT TO KEEP ADD OR CHANGE ANYTHING FOR PARKING SPECIFICALLY? IS THERE ANY WAY TO QUANTIFY A CHANGE? BECAUSE LIKE IF IT GOES TO SIX, EIGHT, 68, 60, I DON'T THINK WE REALLY CARE. RIGHT? SO LIKE, IF THERE'S ANY TYPE OF A, A WAY IN WHICH YOU CAN QUANTIFY A CHANGE THAT WOULD THEN TRIGGER COMING BACK TO THE PLANNING BOARD, WE CAN ADD LIKE TO THE DISCRETION OF CODE ENFORCEMENT, ENGINEERING AND PLANNING. THAT'S TYPICALLY WHAT WE DO. THAT SOUNDS GOOD BECAUSE THAT'LL BE CONSISTENT WITH THE OTHER WAYS THAT WE'VE DONE IT. 
          OKAY. SO MODIFICATIONS THAT IMPACT THE PROPOSED PARKING AS DEEMED BY CODE ENFORCEMENT, ENGINEERING AND PLANNING. OKAY. NUMBER EIGHT, THE TOWN OF LEE, THE TOWN OF HAMBURG LEGAL DEPARTMENT HAS DETERMINED THAT THE APPLICANT HAS MET THE TOWN'S REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PROOF OF ACCESS CONDITION, CONDITION NUMBER EIGHT FROM THE 1224 TOWN BOARD REZONING RESOLUTION. SO TOWN ATTORNEY KEN FARROW DID PROVIDE A MEMO THAT ON THE TOWN SIDE FOR THE TOWN SPECIFICALLY, THAT HE BELIEVES THAT THE PROOF OF ACCESS CONDITION HAS BEEN MET FOR THE TOWN. THAT THEN SEGUES INTO CONDITION NUMBER NINE, WHICH YOU'LL SEE ISN'T HIGHLIGHTED. A LOT OF TIMES THIS IS COVERED BY CAMI, BUT I THOUGHT IT WAS IMPORTANT TO CODIFY THIS, THAT THE APPLICANT SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL THIRD PARTY PERMITTING AND APPROVALS, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY APPROVALS FROM THE COUNTY, THE STATE OR ANY FEDERAL AGENCIES. SO THE TOWN HAS COVERED OUR END ON ALL THE CONDITIONS THAT WE FELT FROM THE TOWN BOARD RESOLUTION AND ANYTHING ELSE THAT COMES FROM THE STATE, THE COUNTY, FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, WHOEVER THE APPLICANT WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THOSE THIRD PARTY APPROVALS, AND THAT USUALLY IS TAKEN CARE OF WHEN CAMMIES REVIEW. SO ONE QUICK QUESTION. WE'VE GOT TWO 
          [00:15:02]
CONDITIONS THAT END UP DISCUSSING ACCESS. AND I KNOW THAT THEY ARE MEANT FOR TWO DIFFERENT KIND OF SITUATIONS. SO WITH NUMBER NINE, DO WE HAVE LIKE A NAME FOR CONDITION NUMBER EIGHT OR A WAY IN WHICH TO IDENTIFY THAT IT IS THE TOWN REQUIREMENT, PROOF OF ACCESS CONDITION WITH NEW YORK STATE PARKS, RIGHT? THAT'S BEING ABLE TO ALLOW THEM TO GET INTO THE SITE. CAN WE PUT SOMETHING THAT IDENTIFIES THE A THIS ACCESS CONDITION AS RELATED TO THAT? DO WE KNOW WHAT NUMBER EIGHT IS CALLED? IS THERE A NAME FOR IT? LIKE YOU SAID, IS THERE A NAME FOR CONDITION NUMBER EIGHT ON THE TOWN BOARD RESOLUTION. YEAH. JUST TO PUT SOMETHING OR IT'S JUST, YOU KNOW, PROOF OF ACCESS. FROM NEW YORK STATE PARKS PROPERTY. I DON'T KNOW, I'M JUST TRYING TO THINK OF HOW TO SEPARATE. SO AS IT READS ON THE POT, APPROVAL RESOLUTION NUMBER EIGHT IS PROOF OF ACCESS TO THE SITE SHALL BE A CONDITION OF SITE PLAN APPROVAL AND APPROVED BY THE TOWN'S ATTORNEY OFFICE. THERE'S NO IT'S JUST IT DOESN'T ACTUALLY SAY IT DOESN'T. YEAH. 
          IT DOESN'T ACTUALLY REFERENCE. WHAT DOES HE NEED PROOF OF ACCESSING FROM? DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHERE IT'S A LITTLE CONFUSING. I THINK THEY DO IT LIKE OURS. OKAY, SO HOW WE HAVE CONDITIONS. THAT'S EXACTLY. YES NUMBER ALSO. SO IT WOULD BE THE SAME AS REFERENCING NUMBER. SO THEY'RE REFERENCING EIGHT ON THEIR APPROVAL RESOLUTION. JUST LIKE WE COULD REFERENCE NUMBER FOUR. RIGHT. SO SO HOW HOW IS IT HOW IT'S WRITTEN. HOW IS INTENDED IS SO THE REASON IT SAYS CONDITION NUMBER EIGHT IS AS MEMBER QUANT TALKED ABOUT ON THE APPROVAL RESOLUTION, CONDITION NUMBER EIGHT SAYS THAT ONE OF THE REZONING CONDITIONS WAS THAT THE TOWN ATTORNEY HAD TO SIGN OFF ON PROOF OF ACCESS, AND THAT THIS RESOLUTION CONDITION IS CONFIRMING THAT THE TOWN OF LEGAL DEPARTMENT HAS CONFIRMED THAT LOCALLY FROM THE TOWN EYES, THAT THAT PROOF OF ACCESS HAS BEEN SUFFICED. AND THEN NUMBER NINE SAYS THAT OUTSIDE OF THE TOWN, FEELING LIKE THAT'S BEEN MET, THAT THE APPLICANT IS STILL RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY OTHER PERMITTING AND APPROVALS FROM ANY OTHER AGENCY OUTSIDE OF THE TOWN. I, I APPRECIATE THE INFORMATION, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT HAS ITS PLACE IN THIS DOCUMENT. I THINK ACCESS HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED. IT ALWAYS HAS BEEN. IT'S UNUSUAL TO HAVE TO HAVE GONE THROUGH SUCH AN EXTENSIVE ANALYSIS BACK TO 1899 TO SHOW THAT, IN FACT, IT DOES EXIST. THERE'S NO REQUIREMENT FOR AN AGREEMENT TO ACCESS. ACCESS IS ACCESS FROM THE TIME OF JUSTINIAN. I'M JUST GOING TO TELL YOU THAT YOUR PUD APPROVAL HAS A CONDITION ON IT THAT THEN STATES BEING ABLE TO PROVIDE THE PROOF OF ACCESS. SO IT DOES ACTUALLY APPLY HERE. AND WE HAVE WE HAVE DONE SO THOUGH WE WE HAVE PROVIDED THAT PROOF TO TO MR. FARRELL AND HE'S SIGNED OFF ON IT AND IT'S BEEN SATISFIED. SO I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT OTHER ACCESS IS NUMBER NINE AND WHAT IT WHAT IT'S PERTAINING TO. IT IS JUST LITERALLY CIRCLING EVERYTHING BECAUSE THERE WAS EXTENSIVE DISCUSSION AT THIS BOARD LEVEL ABOUT UNDERSTANDING HOW THE ACCESS TO THE SITE WAS, YOU KNOW, CODIFIED. AND SO IT'S IN ORDER TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR PUBLIC COMMENTS AND OUR RECORD IS LOCKED UP, NUMBER NINE ESSENTIALLY SAYS THAT YOU HAVE MET ALL THE CONDITIONS FOR THE TOWN OF HAMBURG LEGAL DEPARTMENT, THE PLANNING BOARD, THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. WE DO NOT HAVE ANY PERMITTING OR APPROVAL FOR ANY OTHER AGENCY THAT MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE APPROVAL. RIGHT. AND THEY MAY NOT NEED ANY OTHER APPROVALS. BUT YOU'RE IMPLYING THAT I MAY OR MAY NOT. AND IF IT DOESN'T BELONG IN THE DOCUMENT, THAT'S JUST MY OPINION. THANK YOU FOR YOUR OPINION. IT'S UP TO THE SEVEN OF THEM TO DECIDE. WELL, THANK YOU FOR PUSHING IT. I REALLY APPRECIATE IT. AND THEN NUMBER 11. WELL, SO ARE WE KEEPING NUMBER NINE? ARE WE TAKING IT UP? I THINK BECAUSE OF THE EXTENSIVE DISCUSSION THAT WE HAD, IT JUST EVERYBODY KNOWS FROM THIS BOARD'S LEVEL AND FROM OUR RECORD THAT IT HAS BEEN MET. THERE IS NO OTHER QUESTION ABOUT IT. OKAY. SO ANYBODY ELSE HAVE AN OPINION? YEAH, I, I WOULD AGREE WITH YOU ON THAT. I DON'T SEE ANY HARM IN KEEPING IT IN THERE. ALL IT'S SAYING IS THAT THE CONDITION HAS BEEN MET AND IT'S COVERING US IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PUD RESOLUTION. RIGHT. I CONCUR WITH THAT. OKAY. SO WE'RE KEEPING IT. OKAY. NUMBER TEN TALKS ABOUT THE SHARED ACCESS AGREEMENT TO BE APPROVED BY THE TOWN OF HAMBURG LEGAL DEPARTMENT. ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT SPECIFIC CONDITION? OKAY. AND THEN NUMBER 11, THAT'S A QUESTION MARK. I KNOW MEMBER 
          [00:20:08]
SHIMURA, YOU HAD MENTIONED WANTING PUBLIC AMENITIES SUCH AS LIKE THE TRAILS AND WALKWAYS TO BE COMPLETED FIRST. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU STILL WANT A CONDITION LIKE THAT TO BE CODIFIED, OR I KNOW THE PROJECT IS GOING TO BE DONE IN ONE PHASE, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANTED A CONDITION SPECIFIC TO THE ACTUAL PUBLIC AMENITIES OR NOT. YEAH. SO THE WALKING TRAIL AND ASSOCIATED LANDSCAPING TO BE COMPLETED IN THE FIRST PHASE OF THE PROJECT IN THE EVENT THAT THERE IS A PHASING COMPONENT. SO HOW DO YOU WANT THAT CODIFIED? BECAUSE I BELIEVE YOU'RE PLANNING ON HAVING THE PROJECT DONE IN ONE PHASE, RIGHT? LIKE THERE'S NOT MULTIPLE PHASES. IT'S GOING TO BE ALL DONE IN ONE PHASE, THE WALKING TRAIL. SO IT DOESN'T EXIST. NOW WE CAN PUT IT AND WE CAN MANAGE IT TO OPEN IT UP WHILE CONSTRUCTION IS GOING ON. 
          IT'S NOT THE END OF THE WORLD. WE'LL PUT THE FENCE AND WE'LL PUT THE PATH, AND WE CAN DO THAT. THE REST OF THE FENCING. YEAH, I THINK THE ONE ON ROUTE FIVE, NO REASON WE CAN'T DO THAT. THAT'S REALLY AWAY FROM EVERYTHING. NO REASON NOT TO DO THAT. BUT MAYBE, MAYBE THE ONE ON THE ACCESS ROAD. I THINK THAT WILL SAVE THAT FOR LAST BECAUSE THAT'S FINE. IT'S JUST THE WALKING TRAIL AND THE ASSOCIATED LANDSCAPING THAT I'M LOOKING THAT WE WOULD HAVE DONE IN THAT FIRST. IT'S GONNA LOOK VERY NICE, BY THE WAY. WE'VE BEEN, WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON IT. 
          SO YOU WANT THE WALKING TRAIL AND ASSOCIATED LANDSCAPING. HOW WOULD YOU WANT THAT WORDED IN TERMS OF LIKE ITS SEQUENCE, THE WALKING TRAIL. TO BE COMPLETED DURING THE FIRST PHASES OF THE PROJECT. COMPLETED AND INSTALLED. I MEAN, I'M NOT REALLY SEEING ANY OTHER REAL PUBLIC AMENITIES OTHER THAN THAT WALKING TRAIL, BECAUSE EVERYTHING ELSE IS INSIDE AND HAS A BIT OF A PRIVATE OPERATION TO IT. SO I DON'T THINK THAT THERE'S ANYTHING ELSE TO ADD TO THAT. OKAY. AND THEN ARE THERE ANY OTHERS THAT THE BOARD WANT TO CONSIDER? OKAY. NO. ANYBODY ELSE? NO. OKAY. DO YOU WANT TO GO THROUGH THE SIMPLE ONE? SURE. I'LL ALSO THEN GO OVER THE SUBDIVISION ONE. SO FOR THE SUBDIVISION ONE. I TALKED ABOUT THAT WE RECEIVED THE APPLICATION FOR. TWO LAST SUBDIVISION. WE REVIEWED THAT PROJECT OVER MEETINGS IN JULY, JUNE AND JULY. SECRET HAS OBVIOUSLY BEEN TAKEN CARE OF FROM THE PUD APPROVAL. WE HELD THE REQUIRED PUBLIC HEARING. IT MEETS ALL THE MINOR SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS IN THE CODE AND THEN IN TERMS OF CONDITIONS, WE. I JUST SPECIFIED THAT LOT ONE CONSISTS OF 15.12 ACRES ACCORDING TO THE DRAWING. AND JUST TO MAKE SURE I'M CLEAR, LOT ONE IS GOING TO INCLUDE THE GATEWAY BUILDING, THE PROPOSED HOTEL BUILDINGS, ITS ASSOCIATED PARKING, ITS AMENITIES, AND ITS STORMWATER INFRASTRUCTURE ON LOT ONE, AND THEN LOT TWO WILL BE BASICALLY EVERYTHING ELSE. 
          SO THE PROPOSED CONDOMINIUM BUILDINGS, THE PARKING WITH THOSE BUILDINGS, THE AMENITIES FOR THOSE BUILDINGS AND ITS STORMWATER INFRASTRUCTURE FOR THE RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT. IS THAT ACCURATE? YES. THAT'S YEAH. I DON'T HAVE THE PLAN IN FRONT OF ME, BUT THAT SOUNDS ACCURATE. 
          OKAY. DOES THE BOARD FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH KIND OF JUST SPECIFYING LOT ONE IS ALL OF THESE AND LOT TWO IS ALL OF THESE OKAY? THE SECOND CONDITION IS THAT THAT SHARED ACCESS AGREEMENT, I BELIEVE ZAJAK HAD MENTIONED THAT HE WANTED THAT AS A CONDITION OF THE SUBDIVISION APPROVAL, THAT THAT SHARED ACCESS AGREEMENT WOULD BE APPROVED BY THE TOWN OF HAMBURG LEGAL DEPARTMENT. AND THEN ARE THERE ANY OTHER CONDITIONS FOR THE SUBDIVISION ASPECT SPECIFICALLY THAT THE BOARD WANTS TO ADD? IS ONE OF THE CONDITIONS ABOUT THE. I'M NOW BLANKING ON THE TERM THAT GETS FILED MAP COVER. SO THE LAST PIECE IS THE LAST PART. 
          IT'S NOT SPECIFICALLY A CONDITION, BUT WE ADD. SOMETIMES WE WAIVE THE FILING OF A MAP COVER. SOMETIMES WE REQUIRE IT IN THIS CASE, BASED OFF OF THE SITE AND ITS COMPLEXITY. WE WOULD NOT WAIVE THE COMPLETION OF A FINAL PLAT, AND THAT THE APPLICANT WOULD FILE A MAP COVER AT THE COUNTY AND THAT THE PLANNING BOARD CHAIR AND CAMI WOULDN'T SIGN OFF UNTIL THEY FINALIZED THE FINAL PLAT. OKAY. BOARD MEMBERS, ANY COMMENTS? QUESTIONS? NO. 
          ALL SET. DO YOU THINK WE'RE READY TO MAKE A MOTION? IS THERE ANYONE HERE WHO WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE? I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE. OKAY. GATEWAY BUILDING SITE PLAN APPROVAL 3556 LAKESHORE ROAD. JULY 1ST, 2026. WHEREAS, THE TOWN OF HAMBURG 
          [00:25:02]
PLANNING DEPARTMENT RECEIVED A SITE PLAN APPLICATION FROM 3556 LAKESHORE DEVELOPMENT, LLC FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A MIXED USE SITE OFFERING CONDOMINIUMS FOR RESIDENTIAL USE AND COMMERCIAL USES SUCH AS RESTAURANTS, HOTELS, SPACES, SPACE AND CONTINUING THE USE OF SOME OF THE EXISTING OFFICE SPACE AT THE GATEWAY BUILDING B, LOCATED AT 3556 LAKESHORE ROAD. AND WHEREAS, THE TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD HELD THE REQUIRED PUBLIC HEARING ON JUNE 17TH, 2026. AND WHEREAS, THE TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD HAS REVIEWED THE PROJECT AGAINST THE TOWN CODE HAS RECEIVED INPUT FROM TOWN DEPARTMENTS AND OTHER AGENCIES, HAS RECEIVED ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND REPORTS FROM THE APPLICANT AND PROVIDED INPUT TO THE APPLICANT THAT HAS RESULTED IN AMENDED PLANS. ADDRESSING THE PLANNING BOARD'S CONCERNS. AND WHEREAS, IN ACCORDANCE WITH PART 617 OF THE IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO ARTICLE EIGHT, STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT, SEQRA OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION LAW, THE TOWN OF HAMBURG TOWN BOARD PREVIOUSLY ISSUED A COASTAL CONSISTENCY, DETERMINATION AND A SEEKER NEGATIVE DECLARATION ON DECEMBER 12TH, 2024. AND WHEREAS THE REZONING WAS APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS AND THE PLANNING BOARD HAS CONSIDERED THOSE CONDITIONS IN THE APPROVAL OF THE SITE PLAN AND NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, THE TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD ISSUES CONDITIONAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR THIS PROJECT WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS. ONE APPROVAL IS CONTINGENT UPON THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT COMMENT LETTER DATED JUNE 26TH, 2026. TWO THE APPLICANT SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL OF THE REZONING CONDITIONS FROM THE DECEMBER 2ND, 2024 TOWN BOARD APPROVAL RESOLUTION. THREE FENCING TYPES AND LOCATIONS SHALL BE INSTALLED PER THE SITE PLAN DATED JUNE 12TH, 2026. REVISION B FOR THE LANDSCAPING PLAN DATED JUNE 12TH, 2026 SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT IN CONSULTATION WITH NEW YORK STATE PARKS, RECREATION AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION. FIVE LIGHTING SHALL BE SHIELDED AND DARK SKY COMPLIANT, AS SHOWN ON THE LIGHTING PLAN DATED JUNE 12TH, 2026. SIX SIDEWALKS SHALL BE INSTALLED INTERNALLY WITHIN THE PROJECT SITE AS DENOTED ON THE SITE PLAN DATED JUNE 12TH, 2026. 
          SEVEN PARKING WITH 863 SPACES SHALL BE INSTALLED AS SHOWN ON THE SITE PLAN DATED JUNE 12TH, 2026. MODIFICATIONS THAT IMPACT THE PROPOSED PARKING AS DEEMED BY CODE ENFORCEMENT, ENGINEERING AND THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. ADDITION OR REDUCTION OF PARKING SPACES WILL HAVE TO COME BACK TO THE PLANNING BOARD FOR AMENDED SITE PLAN APPROVAL. EIGHT THE TOWN OF HAMBURG LEGAL DEPARTMENT HAS DETERMINED THAT THE APPLICANT HAS MET THE TOWN'S REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PROOF OF ACCESS CONDITION, CONDITION NUMBER EIGHT FROM THE DECEMBER 2ND, 2024 TOWN BOARD REZONING APPROVAL RESOLUTION NINE THE APPLICANT SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL THIRD PARTY PERMITTING AND APPROVALS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, APPROVALS FROM COUNTY, STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES. TEN THE APPLICANT SHALL SUBMIT PROOF OF A SHARED ACCESS AGREEMENT TO BE APPROVED BY THE TOWN OF HAMBURG LEGAL DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY 11, THE WALKING TRAIL AND ASSOCIATED LANDSCAPING SHALL BE COMPLETED AND INSTALLED IN THE FIRST PHASES OF THE PROJECT. THE ITEM HAS BEEN MOVED BY MEMBER STEWART. IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL. SECOND. SECOND BY MEMBER ZAJAK. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? NONE. CONGRATULATIONS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU ALL. 
          YOU'RE WELCOME. THANK YOU. OH, YEAH. DARN IT. HOLD ON THOUGH. DO I HAVE ANYONE, ANYBODY WHO WOULD LIKE TO PROVIDE A MOVE? OH MY GOSH. I'LL MAKE A MOTION. MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION 43556 LAKESHORE DEVELOPMENT. I'LL MAKE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF THE GATEWAY BUILDING. THREE, FIVE FIVE, SIX LAKESHORE ROAD. PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL 7126. WHEREAS, THE TOWN OF HAMBURG RECEIVED A MINOR SUBDIVISION APPLICATION FROM 3556 LAKESHORE DEVELOPMENT LLC FOR A TWO LOT SUBDIVISION OF A 25.32 ACRE PARCEL AT 3556 LAKESHORE ROAD, SBL NUMBER 150.00-1-16. AND 
          [00:30:04]
WHEREAS THE HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD REVIEWED THE APPLICATION AT THE MEETING IN JUNE AND JULY OF 2026, AND WHEREAS, THE HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD HAS REVIEWED THE PROJECT AND DETERMINED THAT THE PROJECT WILL NOT HAVE WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE NATURAL RESOURCES OF THE STATE AND OR HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC AND IS CONSISTENT WITH SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS. AND A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WAS PREVIOUSLY ISSUED BY THE TOWN OF HAMBURG BOARD ON 12 TO 24. AND WHEREAS THE HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD HELD THE REQUIRED PUBLIC HEARING ON 61726 AND RECEIVED NO OBJECTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC. AND WHEREAS, THE HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED MINOR SUBDIVISION APPLICATION IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TOWN OF HAMBURG SUBDIVISION CODE, THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE PUD APPROVAL AND OTHER APPLICABLE APPLICABLE REGULATIONS OF THE TOWN'S ZONING CODE. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, THE HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD HEREBY ISSUES PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS. ONE LOT ONE SHALL CONSIST OF 15.12 ACRES, INCLUDING THE GATEWAY BUILDING. THE PROPOSED HOTEL BUILDINGS, ASSOCIATED PARKING AMENITIES AND STORMWATER INFRASTRUCTURE. LOT TWO SHALL CONSIST OF 10.2 ACRES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED CONDOMINIUM BUILDINGS, ASSOCIATED PARKING AMENITIES AND STORMWATER INFRASTRUCTURE. TWO THE APPLICANT SHALL SUBMIT PROOF OF SHARED ACCESS AGREEMENT TO BE APPROVED BY THE TOWN OF HAMBURG LEGAL DEPARTMENT. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, THE HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD DOES NOT WAIVE THE COMPLETION OF THE FINAL PLAT AND THE APPLICANT WILL HAVE TO FILE A MAP, COVER AND THE HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD CHAIR IS AUTHORIZED TO SIGN THE FINAL PLAT. ONCE THE TOWN ENGINEER SIGNS OFF ON THE PLAT, THE ITEM HAS BEEN MOVED BY MEMBERS. IS THERE A SECOND MEMBER? RYAN? SECONDS IT SECOND BY MEMBER RYAN. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, I YOUR YOUR ITEM HAS PASSED. NOW YOU'RE OFFICIALLY DONE. OKEY 
          [3. Seven (7) Brew Coffee – Requesting Site Plan Approval of a proposal to construct a  510 sq-ft building with two drive-thru lanes to be located on a 0.78-acre parcel at 3701  McKinley Parkway (SBL #: 160.07-2-28.2) ]
DOKE. MOVING DOWN TO ITEM NUMBER THREE ON OUR AGENDA SEVEN BREW COFFEE. REQUESTING SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR A PROPOSAL TO CONSTRUCT A 510 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING WITH TWO DRIVE THRU LANES TO BE LOCATED ON A 0.78 ACRE PARCEL AT 3701 MCKINLEY PARKWAY. SBL NUMBER 160.07-2-28.2. JOSH, IS THERE ANYTHING YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADD? I'LL LET MR. PANDOLFI KIND OF GIVE HIS BRIEF OVERVIEW AND THEN I'LL TAG TEAM IT AFTERWARDS. SOUNDS GOOD. YEAH, NOT A WHOLE LOT FOR FOR ME TO ADD AT THE LAST MEETING, WE PROVIDED SOME BUILDING COLOR ELEVATIONS AS WELL AS A PROPOSED TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN UTILIZING THE EXISTING PARKING LOT SO THAT WE CAN ENSURE TRAFFIC DOES NOT BACK UP INTO MCKINLEY PARKWAY. OTHER THAN THAT, I DON'T BELIEVE THERE'S REALLY ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TO PROVIDE FOR THIS MEETING, SO I'LL LET JOSH TAKE IT FROM THERE. AND THE ONLY THING I'LL ADD IS THAT THE BOARD DID AUTHORIZE ME TO DRAFT THE APPROVAL RESOLUTION FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. IF THE BOARD HAS NO FURTHER COMMENTS, THEN WE CAN DISCUSS POTENTIAL CONDITIONS FOR THAT APPROVAL. 
          OKAY, CAMI, IS THERE ANYTHING YOU HAVE TO ADD OTHER THAN YOUR ENGINEERING MEMO? NOPE. OKAY. 
          BOARD MEMBERS, ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? NO NO NO NO. OKAY. JOSH, YOU WANT TO BRING THE APPROVAL RESOLUTION UP? ALL RIGHT. OUR BOARD MEMBERS OKAY WITH JUMPING INTO APPROVAL OR WOULD YOU LIKE TO REVIEW THE CONDITIONS? I'LL GO OVER THE CONDITIONS BECAUSE THERE'S A COUPLE THAT ARE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT. SO ON THE FIRST PART OF THE RESOLUTION IT TALKS ABOUT WE RECEIVED AN APPLICATION. THIS IS A TYPE TWO ACTION UNDER SEEKER. SO THERE WAS NO FURTHER SEEKER REVIEW THAT WAS NECESSARY. WE HAD THE REQUIRED PUBLIC HEARING IN TERMS OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS. CAMI I THINK YOU SAID IT WAS THE 26TH WAS DID YOU EVEN HAVE A MEMO FOR THIS ONE? SO 26TH. NUMBER TWO, THE LANDSCAPING PLAN, WHICH I BELIEVE IS DATED 520. ANTHONY, IS THE SHALL BE APPROVED BY MY DEPARTMENT. YES. THE SIDEWALKS SHALL BE INSTALLED AS DENOTED ON THE SITE PLAN. THE DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE, I BELIEVE, IS IN THE SOUTHWESTERN PART OF THE SITE AS SHOWN ON THE SITE PLAN. YEP. TRAFFIC FLOWS OF THE SITE SHALL 
          [00:35:02]
BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SUBMITTED TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN. NOW, THE LAST PART, I DON'T KNOW IF THERE WAS A WRITTEN AGREEMENT WITH THE OWNER OF THE MCKINLEY MALL, OR IF IT WAS JUST A GENERAL TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN. THAT ONE I THINK IS UP FOR DISCUSSION ON JUST TRAFFIC FLOW PATTERN, BECAUSE YOU SUBMITTED A TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN. 
          RIGHT. AND I DON'T THINK IT HAS LIKE AN AGREEMENT WITH THE OWNER OF THE MALL. IT'S JUST NOT OKAY. DOES THE BOARD FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH JUST THE TRAFFIC FLOWS OF THE SITE WILL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THAT TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN OF GETTING IN AND OUT WITHOUT THE PIECE OF THE WRITTEN AGREEMENT. BOARD MEMBERS, ANY THOUGHTS? I DON'T THINK WE NEED THE WRITTEN AGREEMENT PART. IT'S IT'S YOU KNOW, WE AS WE'VE KIND OF DISCUSSED THAT THAT OVERFLOW WILL LIKELY ONLY BE NEEDED FOR THE FIRST COUPLE MONTHS OF THE PROJECT UNTIL THE TRAFFIC KIND OF LEVELS OUT. AND ANOTHER THING WE KIND OF DISCUSSED, THESE ARE NOW POPPING UP MORE AND MORE LOCATIONS IN THIS AREA. AND AS YOU KNOW, AS NEW ONES POP UP, THEY THEY DON'T GET AS CRAZY DURING THAT INITIAL AS THAT AMHERST ONE DID BECAUSE THAT WAS THE VERY FIRST ONE. SO WE DON'T PLAN TO HOPEFULLY WE DON'T NEED TO IMPLEMENT THAT PLAN AT ALL. BUT IF WE DO, IT'S LIKELY ONLY GOING TO BE FOR THE FIRST COUPLE OF MONTHS OR SO. EVEN IF IT DID GET CRAZY, THERE'S REALLY NO PLACE BETTER IN TOWN TO ACCOMMODATE THAT CRAZINESS. EXACTLY. THE GIANT, GIANT EMPTY PARKING LOT. YEP. THE ONLY THING I HAVE TO SAY IS I WAS AT THE MCKINLEY MALL YESTERDAY, AND THE SIGNAGE NEEDS TO BE REALLY IMPROVED. IT'S EITHER BEEN HIT BY CARS AND TILTED OVER OR DOESN'T EXIST ANYMORE. PEOPLE HAD NO IDEA WHERE TO STOP SIGN WAS OR A YIELD SIGN. IT WAS FUN GETTING IN AND GETTING OUT OF THAT PLACE IN THE 20 MINUTES THAT I WAS THERE. OKAY, WE, I, MY, MY CLIENT IS NOT THE OWNER OF THE MCKINLEY MALL, BUT WE CAN, WE CAN PASS THAT INFORMATION ALONG TO THEM. YEAH. YEAH, SURE. ALL RIGHT. SO I'LL REMOVE THE PIECE OF THE WRITTEN AGREEMENT. SO IT'LL JUST BE WITH THE SUBMITTED TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN THAT'S ON FILE. GREAT. AND THEN PROPOSED SIGNAGE SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SIGN REGULATIONS. I BELIEVE KEVIN BREWER WILL HAVE A SIGN LIKE ON THE BUILDING. 
          YEP. SO THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT USUALLY TAKES CARE OF THAT. BUT WE'LL JUST CODIFY THAT. THE SIGN WILL BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THOSE SIGN REGULATIONS. AND THEN IS THERE ANY OTHER CONDITION THAT THE BOARD WANTS TO PLACE. ANY BOARD MEMBERS. NO, NO. OKAY. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. DO I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE? I'LL MAKE A MOTION MEMBER. RYAN. MOTION TO APPROVE. I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE. SEVEN BREWS COFFEE, 3701 MCKINLEY PARKWAY, SB NUMBER 160.07-2-28.2. 
          SPEAKER A SPEAKER AND APPROVAL RESOLUTION, JULY 1ST, 2026. WHEREAS, THE TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING DEPARTMENT RECEIVED A SITE PLAN APPLICATION FROM SEVEN BREWS COFFEE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 510 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING WITH TWO DRIVE THRU LANES, ALONG WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING, LANDSCAPING IMPROVEMENTS TO BE LOCATED AT 3701 MCKINLEY PARKWAY, SB L NUMBER 160.07-2-28.2. AND WHEREAS THE TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING DEPARTMENT HAS DETERMINED THAT THIS IS A TYPE TWO ACTION UNDER SEEKER AND NO FURTHER SEEKER REVIEW IS NECESSARY. AND WHEREAS THE TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD HELD THE REQUIRED PUBLIC HEARING ON JUNE 17TH, 2026, AND WHEREAS, THE TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD HAS THOROUGHLY REVIEWED THE PROJECT SITE PLAN AND REVIEWED THE INPUT FROM THE TOWN DEPARTMENTS, ADVISORY BOARDS, CONSULTANTS AND HAS FOUND THE PROJECT TO BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TOWN CODE. 
          NOW, THEREFORE, BE RESOLVED THAT THE TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD ISSUES A CONDITIONAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR THE PROJECT WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS. ONE APPROVAL CONTINGENT UPON THE ENGINEERING MEMO DATED 626 2026. TWO LANDSCAPING PLAN DATED FIVE 2026 SHALL BE APPROVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT. THREE SIDEWALKS SHALL BE INSTALLED AS DONATED, DENOTED IN THE SITE PLAN DATED 612 2026. THE DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE SHALL BE LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWESTERN PART OF THE SITE AS DON'T NEED DONATE DONATED ON THE SITE PLAN DATED 61226. TRAFFIC FLOW OF THE SITE SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SUBMITTED TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN WITH WRITTEN AGREEMENT FROM. WE'RE NOT DOING THE WRITTEN AGREEMENT, ARE WE? 
          [00:40:02]
NO. OKAY, I'LL REREAD THAT TRAFFIC FLOW SITE SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SUBMITTED TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN. SIX PROPOSED SIGNAGE SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SIGN REGULATIONS ARTICLE XXIX, VI OF THE HAMBURG TOWN CODE. THE ITEM HAS BEEN MOVED BY MEMBER RYAN. 
          IS THERE A SECOND? I MAKE A SECOND? SECOND BY MEMBER DREES. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR I. MOTION HAS PASSED. THANK YOU. THANKS. THANK YOU. OKAY, MOVING ON TO ITEM NUMBER FOUR, CHRIS VAN 
          [4. Chris Van Leaven – Requesting Preliminary Plat Approval on a proposal for a 4-lot  subdivision to be located at 4261 Lakeshore Road (SBL #: 159.17-1-16.1) ]
LEVIN. REQUEST REQUESTING PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL ON A PROPOSAL FOR A FOUR LOT SUBDIVISION TO BE LOCATED AT 4261 LAKESHORE ROAD, SB L NUMBER 159.17-1-16.1. JOSH, IS THERE ANYTHING YOU'D LIKE TO ADD BEFORE WE JUMP IN? SURE. SO. SO I'LL ADD FROM THE PREVIOUS MEETING, ONE OF THE REQUESTS THAT THIS BOARD HAD ME DO WAS REACH OUT TO THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TO PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND. THE PLANNING BOARD DID NOT DECIDE TO DO A COORDINATED REVIEW, BUT BASED OFF OF THE INPUT THAT WE GOT FROM THE PUBLIC HEARING, THIS BOARD THEN ASKED FOR ME TO REACH OUT TO DOT JUST TO GET THEIR INPUT ON THE PROPOSAL, IF ANY COMMENTS IF THEY DID, AND DOT FASHION THEY GAVE COMMENTS TONIGHT TODAY. SO I FORWARDED EVERYONE THOSE COMMENTS. I SHARED IT WITH THE APPLICANT AND HIS TEAM AS WELL TO MAKE A SUMMARY OF WHAT THE COMMENTS WERE FROM DOT THEY SAID THAT LOT FOUR. SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE PLAT, LOT FOUR IS THE ONE THAT HAS ACCESS FROM DURHAM. THEY MENTIONED THAT THAT LOT WOULD NOT BE PERMITTED TO HAVE DRIVEWAY ACCESS ONTO THE STATE HIGHWAY SYSTEM. THEY SAID IN THEIR POLICY THAT THERE'S ONE DRIVEWAY PER LOT ON THEIR STATE HIGHWAY, AND THAT IT WOULD ALSO BE SUBJECT TO A STATE HIGHWAY WORK PERMIT, AND THAT ANY TYPE OF WORK WOULD NEED TO BE CONSULTED WITH THE DOT. BUT THE COMMENT LETTER FROM DOT DID NOT STATE THAT THE LOTS THE TWO BUILDABLE LOTS THAT WOULD BE DEVELOPED FOR HOMES POTENTIALLY. IT DID NOT SAY THAT THEY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO RECEIVE A DRIVEWAY ONTO THE STATE SYSTEM, SPECIFICALLY. LOT FOUR, WHICH HAS ACCESS ON THE DURHAM WAS NOT GRANTED A DRIVEWAY. KIND OF LIKE WHAT I SAID LAST TIME. 
          THEIR POLICY TYPICALLY IS IF YOU HAVE SECONDARY ACCESS, THEY TRY TO PUSH IT OFF TO THAT LOCAL TOWN ROAD AND TRY TO KEEP AS MANY CURB CUTS ONTO THEIR STATE HIGHWAY SYSTEM AS LITTLE AS POSSIBLE. SO THAT WAS THE INFORMATION THAT WE GOT FROM THE DOT THAT THIS BOARD DID REQUEST. AND THEN I'LL LET SEAN AND HIS APPLICANT, HIS CLIENT, TAKE IT FROM THERE. OKAY. YES. 
          GOOD EVENING, SEAN HOPKINS ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANTS, TRACY TAVAKOLI AND CHRIS VAN LEVIN, ALSO WITH ME FROM NUSSBAUMER. AND CLARK IS THE PROJECT ENGINEER, TOM REYNOLDS. THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN REVIEWED EXTENSIVELY OVER THE COURSE OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS. GOING BACK TO YOUR WORK SESSION ON MAY 20TH. AND THEN YOU DID HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING ON JUNE 3RD. I ALSO WANT TO NOTE THAT TRACY AND I HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN INVOLVED IN TRYING TO DEVELOP THIS PROPERTY, GOING BACK NOW TO 2010, WE'VE COME UP WITH IN TERMS OF WHAT WE'VE PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED, WHICH IS WHICH IS CLEARLY THE MOST LEAST INTENSIVE USE, MEANING PREVIOUSLY THERE WAS A PROPOSAL FOR A HORSE BARN, AND THAT WAS PRESENTED IN 2010. THEN IN 2016, THERE WAS ANOTHER PROJECT THAT ULTIMATELY RELOCATED TO EAST AURORA BECAUSE WE WERE UNABLE TO GET A USE VARIANCE. AND NOW FINALLY TODAY, ALL WE'RE SIMPLY PROPOSING IS A FOUR LOT SUBDIVISION. AS IT SITS TODAY, THERE'S ALREADY A GUEST HOUSE AND A BED AND BREAKFAST, SO IT'S REALLY JUST TWO LOTS FOR TWO ADDITIONAL HOMES. THOSE LOTS WILL BE SOLD ULTIMATELY TO 1 OR 2 HOME BUILDERS OR PURCHASERS, AND WE CAN SEE WHERE THEY ARE IN TERMS OF THE COMMENTS THAT WE'VE RECEIVED. AS JOSH INDICATED, THE NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ISSUED AN EMAIL TODAY, AS THEY ALWAYS DO, THE VERY DAY OF THE MEETING. AND WE'RE FINE WITH THEIR COMMENT, WHICH IS BASICALLY THAT LOT NUMBER FOUR, WHICH IS THE GUEST HOUSE IT ALREADY HAS ACCESS ONTO DURHAM ROAD, WILL NOT BE ALLOWED A CURB CUT PERMIT ONTO LAKESHORE, WHICH OF COURSE IS A STATE HIGHWAY. THERE IS ALREADY AN EXISTING CURB CUT ONTO LAKESHORE FOR THE BED AND BREAKFAST, AND THEN THE TWO ADDITIONAL LOTS PER THE DOT COMMENT WOULD BE ALLOWED. SEPARATE DRIVEWAY, WHICH OF COURSE THEY NEED. IN TERMS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW, THIS IS VERY STRAIGHTFORWARD. YOU OPTED NOT TO CONDUCT A COORDINATED ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW. WE DID SUBMIT A COMPLETED SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM. IF YOU THINK ABOUT WHAT YOUR OBLIGATIONS ARE UNDER SEEKER TO IDENTIFY RELEVANT AREAS OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN, TAKE A HARD LOOK AT THOSE AND THEN FINALLY PRODUCE A SEEKER DETERMINATION SUPPORTED BY A RECENT ELABORATION. WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF JOSH, YOU'VE NOW FULFILLED THOSE REQUIREMENTS. THERE'S A COUPLE OTHER TOPICS THAT I WANT TO ADDRESS VERY, VERY QUICKLY. NUMBER ONE, WE ARE ASKING THERE BE A WAIVER 
          [00:45:04]
FOR A REQUIREMENT FROM SIDEWALKS. THERE ARE NO SIDEWALKS IN THE VICINITY OF THIS PARCEL. THEY WOULD BASICALLY BE SIDEWALKS TO NOWHERE. SECOND OF ALL, I KNOW THERE'S BEEN SOME DISCUSSIONS ABOUT A CONSERVATION EASEMENT WITH THE WIDTH OF TEN FEET. 
          GIVEN THAT THIS SITE IS NEARLY NINE ACRES IN SIZE AND THAT WE'RE ONLY PROPOSING FOUR LOTS IN TOTAL, I JUST DON'T SEE A NEED FOR A CONSERVATION EASEMENT. THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN IMMACULATELY MAINTAINED FOR THE PAST 20 YEARS AND WILL CONTINUE TO BE IMMACULATELY MAINTAINED. 
          WE DON'T WANT TO GET TOO NITTY GRITTY IN TERMS OF LANDSCAPING, PRESERVATION OF VEGETATION, ETC. ETC. BUT AGAIN, THE PLANS ARE TO LEAVE THE EXISTING STRUCTURES AS THEY ARE. AND THEN FINALLY, BECAUSE THIS IS ONLY A FOUR LOT SUBDIVISION AND REALLY ONLY TWO NEW POTENTIAL HOMES, WE WOULD ASK RESPECTFULLY THAT YOU WAIVE THE REQUIREMENT TO FILE MAP COVER AT THE ERIE COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE. I JUST DON'T THINK IT'S NECESSARY TO GO THROUGH ALL THOSE ADDITIONAL STEPS, ESPECIALLY IN LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT THERE IS NO PROPOSED PUBLIC ROADWAY RELATED INFRASTRUCTURE HERE. OTHER THAN THAT, WE ARE RESPECTFULLY ASKING THAT YOU ISSUE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION PURSUANT TO THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT AND THEN GRANT PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATE CONDITIONS. IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS, OF COURSE WE WOULD WELCOME THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS THEM. OKAY. CAMI, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD? NO BOARD MEMBERS. ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? WE DO HAVE A DRAFT RESOLUTION. THOSE PRESENTED TO US. JOSH, DO YOU WANT TO MAYBE JUST RUN THROUGH YOUR PROPOSED CONDITIONS? SURE. SO THE FIRST PART, I'LL START HERE. 
          OBVIOUSLY, IN TERMS OF WHAT WE'VE NOTICED ON THE AGENDA, IT'S BEEN CHRIS'S NAME. IT IS TECHNICALLY TRACY'S PROPERTY. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT MATTERS TO THE BOARD. IF YOU WANT TO CHANGE HIS NAME TO TRACY'S OR IF YOU WANT TO KEEP IT AS CHRIS, THAT'LL START THERE. WHOSE NAME IS ON AS THE CURRENT PROPERTY OWNER, THEN I WOULD PROBABLY WANT TO CHANGE. THAT SHOULD BE TRACY'S NAME. HER. SHE IS THE RECORD OWNER OF THE. CHRIS WOULD SAY HE DOES A LOT OF WORK. 
          YOUR LAST NAME FOR ME. CAN YOU SPELL YOUR LAST NAME? TAVAKOLI. CABAKOLI. SO, IN TERMS OF THE FORMAT, THE FIRST PART IS OBVIOUSLY SEEKER. WE RECEIVED A MINOR SUBDIVISION APPLICATION. 
          THE BOARD DID HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING ON JUNE 3RD. THE TOWN DID. THIS PROJECT WAS SENT TO THE COMMITTEE. THEY DID ISSUE A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION. SO THIS BOARD CAN ISSUE A COASTAL CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION. PART TWO AND PART THREE ARE IN THE FOLDER WHICH WERE COMPLETED. 
          AND THEN THE FIRST PART. WOULD YOU GUYS BE ISSUING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION. AND THEN IN TERMS OF THE CONDITIONS FOR THE ACTUAL PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL, I LEFT IT AS A QUESTION MARK. SO WE'LL START HERE. DO YOU AGREE WITH NOT HAVING THE INSTALLATION OF SIDEWALKS? BOARD MEMBERS? YES. YES YES YES. SIDEWALK ANYWHERE AROUND. OKAY. NUMBER TWO, ALL LOTS TO BE DEVELOPED ON ROUTE FIVE WILL BE SUBJECT TO THE REGULATIONS AND PERMIT REQUIREMENTS OF D.O.T. SO THAT'S JUST CONFIRMING WHAT DOT'S LETTER WAS. YES, YES. 
          OKAY. NUMBER THREE. SO LAST TIME WE TALKED ABOUT A CONSERVATION EASEMENT AND WITH THE HELP OF JOE, JOE DID A GREAT JOB OF PUTTING TOGETHER SOME IDEAS. BUT I THOUGHT TO SIMPLIFY IT, TYPICALLY WHAT WE DO WHEN WE DO PUT A CONSERVATION EASEMENT IS THAT WE'LL HAVE A VERY BRIEF DESCRIPTION, AND THEN WE USUALLY PASS THE BUCK TO THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT AND SAY THAT THEY'LL APPROVE IT. THEY'LL WORK OUT THE LANGUAGE WITH THE ATTORNEY. SO I DID KEEP THAT AS A DRAFT. IF THIS BOARD STILL WANTED TO DO THAT CONSERVATION EASEMENT, OBVIOUSLY THE APPLICANT HAS ASKED FOR THAT NOT TO BE APPLIED, SO I'LL LEAVE IT THERE. DO WE STILL WANT A CONSERVATION EASEMENT CONDITION ON THE PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL. SO I KNOW I BROUGHT THIS UP VERY MUCH OVER THE LAST MEETING AND SO FORTH. 
          SO I'D ASK HONEST OPINIONS ABOUT HAVING IT MAINTAINED. BECAUSE ONE THING IN THINKING ABOUT LOOKING AT THE VIDEO THAT WAS PROVIDED OF THE ALIGNMENT OF THE EDGE OF THE BOUNDARY, THE EXISTING FENCING THAT IS ON THE PROPERTY, A LOT OF THAT, THE OVERGROWTH AND SO FORTH, THAT'S CREATING THAT BUFFER IS ACTUALLY ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, WHICH IS NOT ON THE PROPERTY ON MISS. I'M SORRY, NOT ON YOUR LEFT SIDE, NOT ON THE ON THE PARCEL. SO, YOU KNOW, IN MY POINT OF TRYING TO MAINTAIN A BUFFER AND SO FORTH, THE EXISTING RIGHT NOW IS NOT NECESSARILY SOMETHING THAT'S IN THE CONTROL OF THE CURRENT PROPERTY OWNER. AND THAT'S OUR 
          [00:50:04]
POSITION. IF THERE WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS WORTH PRESERVING SOME TYPE OF RESOURCE OR DENSE VEGETATION, WE WOULD ENGAGE IN THAT DISCUSSION. GIVEN WHAT YOU JUST SAID, I JUST DON'T THINK THERE IS. I'M NOT SURE WHAT WHAT PURPOSE IT WOULD SERVE. SO I'M OPEN TO OPINIONS FROM OTHER BOARD MEMBERS IN LIGHT OF, YOU KNOW, THE ACTUAL CURRENT CONDITION OF THE PROPERTY. I, I REVIEWED THAT VIDEO TOO, EVEN THOUGH IT WAS VERY SPED UP. SO I SLOWED IT DOWN, PAUSED IT, IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S A LOT OF ARBORVITAES ALONG THERE AND THEY'RE THE VARIETY THAT THE DEER LIKE. SO THE BOTTOMS ARE EATEN AND THEY LOOK LIKE THEY'RE PRETTY OLD. SO I DON'T EVEN KNOW HOW LONG THEY'RE THEY MAY LAST. SO JUST, JUST MY PROFESSIONAL OPINION. SO I, YOU KNOW, IT'S LIKE. THEY'RE GETTING TOWARDS THE END OF THEIR USEFUL LIFE. AND DO YOU PRESERVE THAT? I DON'T KNOW, JOE. WHAT WOULD BE THE OBLIGATION IF THERE WAS A CONSERVATION EASEMENT AS FAR AS WEEDS AND DEAD PLANTS AND CLEARING OUT THINGS THAT ARE UNDESIRABLE? IT HONESTLY, THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT IS NEGOTIABLE. WHO'S ON? WHO'S ON? WHO'S GOING TO MAINTAIN IT? I MEAN, IT'S IT'S ACCESS. IF THE TOWN WANTS TO TO HAVE ACCESS, THERE'S GOING TO BE SOMETHING IN THE AGREEMENT THAT WOULD DISCUSS ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY TO CLEAR OR WHETHER THE HOMEOWNER WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE. 
          SO IT WOULD BE IT WOULD BE NEGOTIABLE. BUT I THINK THE WHOLE IDEA OF A CONSERVATION EASEMENT IS TO JUST LEAVE IT ALONE AND NOT REALLY DO ANYTHING WITH IT, AS OPPOSED TO MAINTAIN IT. COULD WE BRING UP THE PLAN AND SHOW WHERE IT IS JUST SO WE'RE ON THE SAME PAGE? SO I GUESS MAYBE WHAT I WAS TRYING TO GET AT WITH, YOU KNOW, MAINTAINING A BUFFER AROUND THE PROPERTY EDGES THAT ARE ABUTTING EXISTING RESIDENTIAL LOTS, AN EASEMENT ISN'T MAYBE NECESSARILY THAT TOOL TO BE ABLE TO HAVE THAT. WOULD IT BE MAYBE MORE ALONG THE LINES OF A LANDSCAPE BUFFER? RIGHT IN, IN THE LANGUAGE? AND I DON'T KNOW, I THINK YOUR INTENT WAS TO HAVE SOME SORT OF BUFFER THERE, NOT NECESSARILY MAINTAIN THE OVERGROWTH THAT'S THERE. RIGHT. 
          I GUESS I HAVE A QUESTION YOU SAID ABOUT THE TREES THAT ARE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE FENCE. 
          IS THIS RULE GOING TO APPLY TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS THAT BACK UP TO THIS? NO, IT'S ONLY TIED TO THE PROPERTY THAT THEY CAN'T CLEAR OUT AND GET RID OF THAT BUFFER FROM THEIR PROPERTY LINE TO THE EDGE OF THE EASEMENT. RIGHT. OKAY. AND OUR AND OUR BIGGEST CONCERN TO BE COMPLETELY CANDID IS SOMEDAY WHEN WE GO TO SELL THE PROPERTY, YOU KNOW, THAT BECOMES IT JUST, IT ALWAYS DOES. IT BECOMES AN ISSUE. YOU KNOW, ARE WE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT? WHAT DOES IT REQUIRE? YOU KNOW, THERE'S BEEN VARIOUS ONES DONE IN THE TOWN OF HAMBURG, AND THIS IS THE ONLY TIME THAT I'VE BEEN INVOLVED WITH A PROJECT WHERE I JUST DIDN'T SAY SIMPLY CONSENT TO. YEAH, LET'S FIGURE THAT OUT. I JUST I DON'T SEE A NEED HERE. THE ONLY PIECE I'LL ADD FROM A PLANNING DEPARTMENT STANDPOINT, AND I THINK I CAN SPEAK FOR CAMI TOO, IS WE RUN INTO THIS A LOT WHERE THERE'S A PROJECT THAT PREDATES BOTH OF US AND THERE'S A CONSERVATION EASEMENT ON IT, AND THE LANGUAGE IS VERY AMBIGUOUS ON WHAT YOU CAN DO WITH IT, WHAT YOU CAN'T DO WITH IT. SO MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE, IF THE BOARD DOES DECIDE TO DO ONE, BE AS SPECIFIC AS POSSIBLE, BUT IT DOES CREATE A LOT OF HEADACHES FOR OUR DEPARTMENTS WHEN THERE ARE CONSERVATION EASEMENTS. AND THE INTENT, YOU KNOW, WASN'T WASN'T REALLY CLEARLY DEFINED IN THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT. SO BASED ON THIS DISCUSSION AND HAVING MORE, YOU KNOW, INFORMATION ABOUT THE ACTUALITY OF WHAT AN EASEMENT IS AND THE TECHNICALITY OF IT, AND ALSO REVIEWING THE EXISTING CONDITIONS. I WOULD GO FOR DELETING ITEM NUMBER THREE. CONDITION NUMBER THREE, BOARD MEMBERS ANY. I CONCUR WITH THAT, I AGREE. IS THERE A DIFFERENT WAY TO ACCOMPLISH WHAT WE WERE HOPING TO ACCOMPLISH? BECAUSE IT DOESN'T I DON'T THINK EASEMENTS. THE RIGHT TOOL. RIGHT. BUT THEN ALSO RECOGNIZE THE DIFFICULTY WITH THIS IS THIS ISN'T A TYPICAL. THIS ISN'T A TYPICAL SUBDIVISION WHERE THERE'S TEN HOUSES WITH BACKYARDS THAT ABUT A NEIGHBORING STREET OR PARCEL, WHERE THE DEVELOPER AT THAT POINT CAN PUT A BUFFER STRIP THAT'S, YOU KNOW, AN EASEMENT FOR ALL THE PARCELS. THIS IS JUST GOING TO BE ONE HOMEOWNER, RIGHT? AT SOME POINT COMING BACK TO US IN ORDER TO HAVE CORRECT CONDITION, THEY WON'T HAVE TO IF IT'S A SINGLE PARCEL THAT'S BEING DEVELOPED, THERE'S NO OBLIGATION TO COME BACK TO THIS BOARD FOR THAT AT ALL. 
          YEAH. IN THE SITUATION JOE DESCRIBES, YOU KNOW, THE PROJECTS I'VE WORKED ON IN HAMBURG, WE DO THAT. WE AGREE. RIGHT. SO BEING THE ORIGINAL CHAMPION OF IT, I'M OKAY WITH 
          [00:55:06]
NOT MOVING FORWARD WITH IT. GOTCHA. OKAY. AND THEN SO WE'LL REMOVE THAT ONE. ARE THERE ANY OTHER. SO RIGHT NOW WE HAVE HAVING THEM DO A MAP COVER. DOES THE BOARD FEEL STRONGLY ON WAIVING THE COMPLETION OF A MAP COVER OR ACQUIRING THE MAP COVER? BOARD MEMBERS? ANY THOUGHTS? MEMBER STEWART. I WOULD DO AWAY WITH THE MAP COVER. SO JUST FOR MY OWN EDUCATION ON FILING OF THE MAP COVER THAT MAKES SURE ENSURES THAT COUNTY GIS AND TOWN GIS ARE IN ALIGNMENT. JOE, YOU WANT TO. YEAH. IN FACT, I JUST DID ONE IN IN MY PRIVATE PRACTICE IN AN ADJACENT TOWN. AND IT'S, IT'S INTERESTING HOW NOW THE MAP HAS TO BE DONE BY THE THE TOWN'S OFFICE FOR THE FOR THE PARCEL DESIGNATION. AND SO THE SURVEY YOU, THE, THE, THE TOWN ASSESSOR WILL GET A SURVEY AND THEY'LL FIGURE IT OUT THEMSELVES TO FIGURE OUT THE PARCEL SIZE FOR SBL TAXES, ETC. SO IT DOESN'T GO TO THE COUNTY. ALTHOUGH IF YOU CONTACT THE COUNTY, THE MAPPING DEPARTMENT, THE MAPPING DEPARTMENT, THEY'LL TELL YOU THAT YOU HAVE TO DO IT EVEN THOUGH CLEARLY IN MINOR SUBDIVISIONS, IT'S NOT NECESSARY. THEY THEY DEMAND THE MAP COVER, BUT IT'S NOT NECESSARY. SO BASICALLY WE DO INSTEAD IS WE WOULD CREATE THESE PARCELS BY RECORDING DEEDS. THEY WOULD STILL BE HAVE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THEM. AND THEN ULTIMATELY THOSE DEEDS MAKE THEIR WAY BACK TO THE ASSESSOR'S OFFICE. AND THEN SBL NUMBERS ARE ASSIGNED. THE ONLY THING THAT HELPS US IN TERMS OF WAIVING THE MAP COVER REQUIREMENT IS NUMBER ONE, IT SAVES SOME MONEY. BUT NUMBER TWO, IT DOESN'T REQUIRE US TO THEN GO GET APPROVAL FROM THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT AND ALL THESE OTHER AGENCIES THAT DON'T REALLY CARE IN THIS TYPE OF INSTANCE, WHERE THERE'S NO INFRASTRUCTURE BEING INSTALLED. 
          OKAY. I MEAN, IF THERE WAS A PUBLIC ROADWAY, THAT WOULD BE A DIFFERENT DISCUSSION. I JUST DON'T SEE A NEED FOR IT. OKAY. YEAH. THE PROCESS IS, IS CLERICAL TIME CONSUMING. THEY MAKE YOU GET TAX. YOU HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE TAX RECORDS TO IMPROVE THAT. ALL THE TAXES ARE PAID BEFORE THEY'LL GIVE YOU THAT THAT OKAY, THAT MAP COVER APPROVAL FROM THE MAP DEPARTMENT. SO AS IN WITH MEMBER STEWART, I'M ALSO IN FAVOR OF WAIVING THE MAP COVER. 
          SO WHAT I WOULD WHAT I WOULD SUGGEST, AND I'M TRYING TO BE HELPFUL TO THE TOWN HERE IS IF YOU'RE WILLING TO WAIVE THAT, JOSH AND JOE MAYBE PUT A CONDITION SAYING THAT WE'LL PROVIDE COPIES OF THE RECORDED DEEDS TO THE TOWN. WE'D BE OKAY WITH THAT. SOUNDS GOOD. I AGREE WITH THAT. JUST LESS RED TAPE. IT'S NOT. IN THAT WAY. YOU'LL SEE THE THE PARCELS HAVE BEEN CREATED. YEAH. SO HOW WOULD YOU HOW WOULD HOW WOULD YOU WANT THE BOARD? HOW WOULD YOU WANT THAT WORDED? I CAN GIVE IT TO YOU IF YOU WANT. YES. I WOULD JUST SAY THE THE APPLICANT SHALL PROVIDE COPIES OF THE RECORDED DEEDS FOR THE PURPOSE OF CREATING THE FOUR PARCELS. 
          TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. INCLUDING PROOF OF RECORDING. THE TOWN ASSESSOR WOULD EVENTUALLY GET IT. THEY DO. 5217 COMES BACK WITH IT. RIGHT. I'M JUST SAYING, AS JOSH INDICATED, OFTENTIMES THE TOWN HAS TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT RECORDS THAT WAY. HE'S SUPER ORGANIZED. OKAY. BOARD MEMBERS, ANY OTHER COMMENTS? QUESTIONS, EDITS? OKAY. DO I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE? MEMBER DEROSA. I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE. OKAY. MEMBER GERACI MOTION TO APPROVE. 
          AND WE'LL JUST WAIT FOR JOSH TO SCROLL UP WITH THE NEW NAME. OKAY. I HOPE I PRONOUNCE IT CORRECTLY. TRACY TAVAKOLI FOUR LOT SUBDIVISION, 4261 LAKESHORE ROAD, SB L NUMBER 159.17-1-16.1. 
          NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND APPROVAL RESOLUTIONS. SEEKER. WHEREAS, THE TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING RECEIVING A MINOR SUBDIVISION APPLICATION FOR. FROM. APPLICATION FROM TRACY TAVAKOLI FOR THE APPROVAL OF A FOUR LOT SUBDIVISION TO BE LOCATED AT 4261 LAKESHORE ROAD. 
          [01:00:09]
SB L NUMBER 59.17-1-16.1. AND WHEREAS THE TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD HELD THE REQUIRED PUBLIC HEARING ON JUNE 3RD, 2026, AND WHEREAS THE TOWN LWRP COMMITTEE HAS REVIEWED THE WATERFRONT CONSISTENCY FROM WAF AND RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDED TO THE PLANNING BOARD THAT THE PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE TOWN'S L, W, R P AND THE PLANNING BOARD, EXCUSE ME, HAS REVIEWED THE INFORMATION AND DETERMINED THAT THE PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE TOWN'S LWRP COASTAL CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION. AND WHEREAS, IN ACCORDANCE WITH PART 617 OF IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO ARTICLE EIGHT, STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT, SEEKER OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION LAW, THE TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD HAS REVIEWED PART ONE OF THE CEAF AND HAS COMPLETED PARTS TWO AND THREE OF THE C, E, A, F AND REVIEW THE CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 617.7 OF SEEKER. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, THE TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD HAS DETERMINED THAT THIS PROPOSED PROJECT WILL ALSO NOT SIGNIFICANTLY ADVERSELY AFFECT THE NATURAL RESOURCES OF THE STATE AND OR THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC IS CONSISTENT WITH THE SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS AND THEREFORE ISSUES A NEGATIVE DECLARATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 617.7 OF SEEKER AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, THE TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD CHAIR IS AUTHORIZED TO SIGN THE SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM, WHICH WILL ACT AS THE SEEKER NEGATIVE DECLARATION. THE ITEM HAS BEEN MOVED BY MEMBER TRACY. 
          IS THERE A SECOND, SECOND, SECOND BY MEMBER STEWART? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. AND NONE OBJECTED. OKAY. SITE PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL. PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL. THE HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD HEREBY GRANTS PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL FOR TRACY. TRACY TAVAKOLI FOR A FOUR LOT SUBDIVISION WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS AND WAIVERS. ONE. 
          THE INSTALLATION OF SIDEWALKS IS NOT WARRANTED. TWO ALL LOTS TO BE DEVELOPED ON ROUTE FIVE WILL BE SUBJECT TO THE REGULATIONS AND PERMIT REQUIREMENTS BY THE NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION. THE APPLICATION. THREE THE APPLICANT SHALL PROVIDE COPIES OF THE RECORDED DEEDS FOR THE PURPOSE OF CREATING THE FOUR PARCELS FOR. 
          TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, INCLUDING PROOF OF RECORDING. THE HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD WAIVES THE COMPLETION OF A FINAL PLAT AND THE HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD CHAIR IS AUTHORIZED TO SIGN THE PLAT. ONCE THE TOWN ENGINEER SIGNS OFF ON THE PLAT, ITEM HAS BEEN MOVED BY MEMBER TRACY. IS THERE A SECOND, SECOND, SECOND BY MEMBER QUINT? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? I ALL NO OBJECTIONS. YOUR ITEM HAS PASSED. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. WELCOME. 
          CONGRATULATIONS. THANK YOU. CONGRATULATIONS. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. MOVING ON TO ITEM NUMBER 
          [5. Liza Acanfora – Requesting Site Plan and Special Use Permit Approval on a proposal  for a childcare center to be located at 4090 Jeffrey Blvd]
FIVE. LISA ACANFORA REQUESTING SITE PLAN AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPROVAL ON THE PROPOSAL FOR A CHILD CARE CENTER TO BE LOCATED AT 4090. JEFFREY BOULEVARD IS THE APPLICANT HERE, SO THE APPLICANT ISN'T HERE. THE REASON THIS AGENDA ITEM IS ON THE AGENDA IS BECAUSE THE APPLICANT IS LOOKING TO GO TO THE ZONING BOARD FOR AN AREA VARIANCE FOR THE PLAYGROUND. 
          THEY OBVIOUSLY WERE HERE AT THE PREVIOUS MEETING BECAUSE THE PLANNING BOARD WILL BE LEAD AGENCY. CONSIDERING THAT THEY NEED SITE PLAN, SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPROVAL FROM THIS BOARD AND A VARIANCE FROM THE ZONING BOARD BEFORE THE ZONING BOARD CAN ACT ON THAT VARIANCE. ON THEIR JULY 8TH MEETING, I BELIEVE IT IS. THE PLANNING BOARD WOULD HAVE TO ISSUE A SECRET DECISION. SO AT THE LAST TIME, THERE WERE NOT ANY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS THAT THIS 
          [01:05:02]
BOARD RECORDED. WE DON'T HAVE TO DO A COORDINATED REVIEW. THIS BOARD DID NOT DECIDE TO DO A COORDINATED REVIEW. SO THIS WOULD BE ISSUING A SECRET NEGATIVE DECLARATION, WHICH WOULD ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO GO TO THE ZONING BOARD. IF THEY DO RECEIVE THAT VARIANCE AT THEIR JULY MEETING, THEY THEN WOULD BE BACK TO THIS BOARD AT JULY 15TH, WHICH WE DID SCHEDULE THEM FOR A PUBLIC HEARING CONTINGENT THAT THEY GET THAT VARIANCE. OKAY. SO DO WE WANT TO GO THROUGH THE BOARD MEMBERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? WE DO HAVE A DRAFT RESOLUTION FOR A NEGATIVE DECLARATION THAT WAS PRESENTED. ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. WOULD WE LIKE TO GO THROUGH IT BEFORE MAKING A MOTION. NO. OKAY. IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE. I'LL MAKE A MOTION. MOTION TO APPROVE BY MEMBER QUINT. SOUTHTOWNS EARLY LEARNING NEST LLC, 4090 JEFFREY BOULEVARD, SECRET RESOLUTION SEVEN ONE, 2026. WHEREAS, THE TOWN OF HAMBURG RECEIVED A SITE PLAN, SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND AREA VARIANCE APPLICATION FROM THE SOUTHTOWNS EARLY NESTING LLC FOR THE INTERIOR BUILD OUT OF A 500 ZERO SQUARE FOOT DAYCARE CENTER WITH A NEW 3000 SQUARE FOOT PLAYGROUND EXTERIOR TO BE LOCATED AT 4090 JEFFREY BOULEVARD. AND WHEREAS, THE TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD INITIATED THE SEEKER PROCESS FOR THIS UNLISTED ACTION AND RECEIVED INPUT FROM THE TOWN DEPARTMENTS AND BOARDS. AND WHEREAS, THE TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD HAS REVIEWED THE EAF SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT AND RECEIVED INPUT FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, AND. WHEREAS, IN ACCORDANCE WITH PART 617 OF 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 SEAF AND HAS COMPLETED PARTS TWO AND THREE OF THE S, EAF AND REVIEWED THE CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 617.7 OF SEEKER. AND NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, THE TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL NOT HAVE SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON 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 617.7 OF SEEKER. AND BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, THE TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD CHAIR IS AUTHORIZED TO SIGN THE SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM EAF PARTS ONE, TWO AND THREE, WHICH WILL ACT AS THE SEEKER NEGATIVE DECLARATION. THE ITEM HAS BEEN MOVED BY MEMBER QUINT. IS THERE A SECOND, SECOND, SECOND BY MEMBER RYAN? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR AND NONE OPPOSED? OKAY, MOVING ON. OKAY, SO THE NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA, 
          [6. Hamburg II East ESS, LLC and Hamburg II West ESS, LLC – Requesting Zoning  Board Approval of a Use Variance and Planning Board Approval for a Change of Use  and Site Plan Approval for a Tier 3 battery energy storage system (BESS) to be  located on a 2.7-acre site at 6433 Railroad Avenue ]
HAMBURG, IIEESS LLC AND HAMBURG IS IT I I OR TWO? TWO WEST ESS LLC REQUESTING ZONING BOARD APPROVAL FOR USE VARIANCE AND PLANNING BOARD APPROVAL FOR A CHANGE OF USE AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR A TIER THREE BATTERY STORAGE SYSTEM TO BE LOCATED ON A 2.7 ACRE SITE AT 6433 RAILROAD AVENUE. BEFORE WE BEGIN ON THIS ITEM, PREVIOUSLY, I DID RECUSE MYSELF DUE TO A A POTENTIAL CONFLICT WHERE MY EMPLOYER DOES WORK WITH THE APPLICANT, NOT ON THIS PROJECT, BUT ON MANY OTHER PROJECTS. DUE TO MY RECUSAL, I'M ASKING THE BOARD MEMBERS TO VOTE TO APPROVE FOR BILL, CLERK TO MEMBER, CLERK TO THEN RUN THIS SECTION OF THE MEETING IN MY ABSENCE. AND ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. ANY OPPOSED? OKAY. WELL, I'LL SEE YOU GUYS WHEN YOU'RE DONE. HERE. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. LET'S START WITH SEAN. ANY UPDATES? YEAH, I DON'T KNOW. 
          JOSH, DID YOU WANT TO START WITH YOUR WHATEVER. EITHER WAY, THE THE ONE THING SO WHAT I'LL 
          [01:10:04]
ADD FOR FOR THE BOARD IN TERMS OF THE SECRET PROCESS, YOU GUYS DID INITIAL OR CONDUCT A COORDINATED REVIEW. THAT COORDINATED REVIEW PROCESS HAS SINCE ENDED. WE DID GET COMMENTS FROM THE DECK, AND WE DID GET COMMENTS FROM ERIE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING. 
          NOW THAT THAT SECRET PROCESS HAS ENDED, TONIGHT IS OBVIOUSLY NOT ONLY HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT, BUT THEN FOR YOU GUYS TO ASK ANY QUESTIONS FOR YOU GUYS TO BE ABLE TO MAKE A SECRET DECISION. SO AFTER YOU HEAR SOME OF THE INFORMATION, ANY THOUGHTS, ANY COMMENTS, ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE TO ASK, ANY ADDITIONAL STUDIES THAT YOU MAY WANT, NOW IS THE TIME TO ASK THE APPLICANT FOR THOSE FOR THE PUBLIC. I JUST WANT TO REMIND THE PUBLIC THAT AT THIS POINT RIGHT NOW FOR THIS MEETING, IT IS NOT A PUBLIC HEARING. SO PEOPLE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO COME UP TO THE MIC. BUT AS I'VE SAID AT PREVIOUS MEETINGS, IF PEOPLE DO HAVE COMMENTS, CONCERNS, ANYTHING THEY WANT TO SHARE WITH THE BOARD, THEY CAN SEND THEM TO MY EMAIL. MY EMAIL IS ON THE TOWN WEBSITE UNDER THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT PAGE. I FORWARD ANY KIND OF COMMENTS THAT I GET TO THE PLANNING BOARD PRIOR TO THE MEETING. THEY TAKE THE TIME TO REVIEW THEM. THERE WILL BE PUBLIC OPPORTUNITIES FOR THIS PROJECT, BUT JUST NOT AT THIS TIME, NOT AT THIS MEETING. PEOPLE WHO LIVE WITHIN 500FT OF THE PARCEL WILL RECEIVE A NOTICE AT THAT TIME, BUT RIGHT NOW THERE'S NOT A PUBLIC HEARING, SO I'LL LET SEAN TAKE IT FROM THERE. SURE. GOOD EVENING, SEAN HOPKINS ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT. ALSO WITH ME IS JEREMY KAUFMAN, PROJECT MANAGER ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT. AND DONALD SPITLER, WHO IS THE PROPERTY OWNER. I THINK MOST OF YOU ARE AT THE PUBLIC MEETING OR AT THE MEETING THAT WE PRESENTED THIS. I BELIEVE IT WAS ON MAY 20TH. I'M GOING TO GO THROUGH IT QUICKLY. AND THEN, OF COURSE, IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, DO FEEL FREE TO INTERRUPT. THE SITE ITSELF IS LOCATED AT 6433 RAILROAD AVENUE, WHICH IS A SOMEWHAT UNIQUE SITE IN THE TOWN OF HAMBURG, AND THAT IT'S GOT RAILROAD TRACKS ON BOTH SIDES. THE ZONING OF THE PROJECT SITE IS NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL OR NC. I'M GOING TO GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE. THERE IS SOME PRETTY DENSE VEGETATION SURROUNDING THE SITE, WHICH WILL PROVIDE SCREENING TO THE BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE PROJECT THAT WE'RE PROPOSING. IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THERE IS NO IMPACTS WHATSOEVER TO WETLANDS. THE SITE ITSELF IS RELATIVELY FLAT, AND WHILE WE'LL ONLY BE UTILIZING A PORTION OF IT, THE PARCEL ITSELF IS 2.6 ACRES IN SIZE. 
          NEXT SLIDE. SO WHAT ARE WE PROPOSING? WE'RE PROPOSING TWO CO-LOCATED FIVE MEGAWATT PROJECTS. THOSE WILL BE TESLA MEGA PACKS. IT WILL INCLUDE A WHOLE HOST OF TECHNOLOGY FEATURES BOTH FOR SAFETY AND OTHERWISE. THAT DOES INCLUDE 24 HOUR REMOTE MONITORING. AND THE ACTUAL IMPACT OF THAT SITE IS VERY, VERY LIMITED. IT IS LITERALLY 14,108FT■S, OR APPROXIMATELY 0.0324 ACRES, AND THAT'S SHOWN IN DETAIL ON THE PLAN THAT WE FILED WITH THE APPLICATION. NEXT SLIDE. SO OBVIOUSLY, BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF THE PROJECT, THE KEY ATTRIBUTE IS WE NEED TO CONNECT INTO EXISTING DISTRIBUTION LINES, WHICH WE WILL BE DOING. 
          I THINK AT THIS POINT IN TIME, WE ALL KNOW WHAT THE BENEFITS OF THIS PROJECT ARE, WHAT THE GOAL OF THIS PROJECT IS. BASICALLY, IT'S TO TAKE ENERGY AND PUT IT BACK INTO THE SYSTEM DURING PEAK PERIODS WHEN ENERGY SPIKES, LIKE TODAY, WHEN IT'S NEARLY 95 DEGREES. AND BASICALLY THAT IS A GOAL THAT WE WILL BE IMPLEMENTING. OBVIOUSLY, NEW YORK STATE HAS IMPLEMENTED A WIDE RANGE OF PROGRAMS TO EXPRESSLY ENCOURAGE THIS. IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT IT ALSO DOES PROVIDE BACKUP POWER. NEXT SLIDE. THAT JUST SHOWS THE EXISTING ZONING CLASSIFICATION. AND YOU CAN SEE HIGHLIGHTED IN BLUE. THAT IS A PREDOMINANT ZONING CLASSIFICATION IN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY OF THE SITE. NEXT SLIDE. SO I'M GOING TO GIVE A QUICK UPDATE AGAIN WE PRESENTED THIS DURING YOUR MEETING ON MAY 20TH. AS JOSH INDICATED, AT THAT TIME, YOU ADOPTED A RESOLUTION TO SEEK LEAD AGENCY STATUS FOR A COORDINATED ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PURSUANT TO THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT. WE ALSO DO NEED A USE VARIANCE FROM THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. WE PRESENTED THAT TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DURING ITS MEETING IN EARLY JUNE. THE LEAD AGENCY SOLICITATION COMMENT PERIOD OF 30 DAYS DID EXPIRE VERY RECENTLY, I BELIEVE ON JUNE 26TH, I'LL GO OVER THE THREE COMMENTS THAT WE'VE RECEIVED. AND THEN FINALLY, WE HAVE PREVIOUSLY ENTERED INTO INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENTS WITH NATIONAL GRID. THAT WAS ON SEPTEMBER 4TH OF 2025, MEANING THEY'RE WELL AWARE OF THIS PROJECT AND IT FULFILLS THEIR REQUIREMENTS. NEXT SLIDE. SO I'M GOING TO TALK ABOUT THE COMMENTS THAT WE'VE RECEIVED. WE GOT THREE COMMENT LETTERS AS PART OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PURSUANT TO SEEKER. THE FIRST OF THOSE WAS FROM THE ERIE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT PLANNING DATED JUNE 12TH. FIRST AND FOREMOST, THEY DID AGREE THAT THIS BOARD SHOULD ACT AS A LEAD AGENCY. THE SUBSTANTIVE COMMENTS THEY PROVIDED WAS, NUMBER ONE. THEY INDICATED THE TOWN SHOULD POTENTIALLY REQUEST SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RELATIVE TO NOISE IMPACTS. AND SPECIFICALLY SECTION 28392 F OF THE CODE, WHICH LIMITS NOISE LEVELS TO 45DB. WE WILL BE WILLING TO PROVIDE THAT AS WE 
          [01:15:02]
MOVE FORWARD AFTER WE GET THROUGH THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PROCESS. AND THEN SECONDLY, THEY MENTIONED A COMMENT WHICH DOES APPLY TO EVERY SIMILAR PROJECT IN NEW YORK STATE, THAT THERE WILL BE A NEED TO SUBMIT AND HAVE REVIEWED AN EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN FROM THE FIRE DISTRICT, I BELIEVE. JOSH, YOU'VE HAD PRELIMINARY DISCUSSIONS WITH THE FIRE DISTRICT. WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY FORMAL COMMENTS, BUT WHEN WE DO, WE WILL WORK WITH THEM TO ADDRESS THEM. AND AGAIN, WE'VE AS WE'VE PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED, THAT IS NOW REQUIRED. WE HAVE TO WORK WITH THE FIRE DEPARTMENT IN TERMS OF TRAINING, TECHNOLOGY, ETCETERA, ETCETERA. THE SECOND COMMENT LETTER WAS ISSUED BY THE NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION DATED JUNE 24TH. THEY ALSO AGREED THAT THE PLANNING BOARD SHOULD BE THE LEAD AGENCY, AND THEY CONFIRMED THAT, IN THEIR OPINION, THIS PROJECT WILL NOT RESULT IN ANY POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS. NEXT, AND THEN FINALLY, THERE'S A MEMORANDUM ISSUED BY THE CONSERVATION ADVISORY BOARD DATED JUNE 23RD. AS WAS DISCUSSED PREVIOUSLY, THERE WAS AN ON SITE MEETING THAT REPRESENTATIVES OF THE CONSERVATION BOARD ATTENDED ON JUNE 9TH, ALONG WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER, AND BASICALLY, THE MEMORANDUM THAT WAS ISSUED INDICATED THAT WITH RESPECT TO THIS SITE, THERE'S NO WETLANDS, NO PROTECTED SPECIES, AND NO PLANS TO INCREASE THE SIZE OF WHAT WE'RE CURRENTLY PROPOSING. THEY DID NOT RAISE ANY CONCERNS WHATSOEVER REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, AND THEN FINALLY CONCLUDED THEIR MEMORANDUM WITH A WITH A COMMENT IN SUPPORT OF THE ACTUAL PROJECT. AGAIN, THAT'S BEEN EXPRESSLY ENCOURAGED BY NEW YORK STATE. NEXT SLIDE. IN TERMS OF THE TECHNOLOGY YOU MAY REQUIRE, YOU MAY RECALL ANDREW WELCH WAS HERE. HE'S NOT HERE THIS EVENING, BUT THIS IS A STATE OF THE ART FACILITY. 
          WE'LL BE USING TESLA MEGAPACKS. AND THE MOST IMPORTANT THING ABOUT THOSE IS THEY'VE BEEN INSTALLED NOW, I BELIEVE, APPROXIMATELY 2000 TIMES. AND THERE HAS NOT BEEN A SINGLE INSTANCE OF THERE BEING A FIRE SAFETY CONCERN. AND AS MANY OF YOU ALSO MAY RECALL, I BELIEVE IT WAS THE DIRECTOR OF EMERGENCY SERVICES FOR ERIE COUNTY WAS AT THAT MEETING ON MAY 20TH, AND HE CONFIRMED THAT HE DID NOT HAVE ANY CONCERNS IN TERMS OF THIS TECHNOLOGY. IT WILL AGAIN BE RIGOROUSLY TESTED PER STATE STANDARDS, 24 HOUR REMOTE MONITORING, ETCETERA, ETCETERA. SO ALL OF THOSE NEWEST AND LATEST REQUIREMENTS THAT APPLY TO THESE PROJECTS, INCLUDING THE NEW STANDARDS THAT CAME OUT ONLY A FEW MONTHS AGO, WILL BE ADDRESSED AS WE GO FORWARD. NEXT SLIDE. JUST A DETAIL OF WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING. NEXT SLIDE. SO AS PART OF THE ANALYSIS AND WE DID PRESENT THIS, THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, WE DID WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS THERE ARE NOT MANY SITES IN THE TOWN OF HAMBURG WHERE THIS TYPE OF PROJECT CAN BE PROPOSED, OBVIOUSLY BASED ON ZONING AND BASED ON, MORE IMPORTANTLY, CONNECTIVITY. THOSE ARE HIGHLIGHTED HERE. THIS REALLY IS ONE OF THE ONLY SITES THAT'S AVAILABLE. WE DID PROVIDE A SPREADSHEET WITH A LISTING OF EACH AND EVERY PARCEL THAT WOULD POTENTIALLY WORK, WHETHER THE PEOPLE WERE INTERESTED, WHETHER IT'S PROPERLY ZONED, ETCETERA, ETCETERA. AND ULTIMATELY, AFTER YOU GO THROUGH THAT ANALYSIS, YOU'RE LEFT WITH VERY FEW POTENTIAL LOCATIONS IN THE TOWN OF HAMBURG WHERE THIS TYPE OF PROJECT COULD EXIST. NEXT SLIDE. AND THAT'S A COPY OF THAT SPREADSHEET ANALYSIS THAT WE DID SUBMIT. NEXT SLIDE. AND OBVIOUSLY, WE DO WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S CLEAR THAT ELECTRICITY STORAGE IS JUST ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL. WE READ EVERY DAY ABOUT DATA CENTERS AND JUST MORE AND MORE DEMAND FOR ELECTRICITY AND MORE AND MORE NEED FOR BACKUP AND REDUNDANCY. THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE DOING. THE STATE IS ENCOURAGING THESE TYPES OF PROJECTS, AND WE'RE JUST TRYING TO FULFILL THAT OBJECTIVE AFTER REALLY COMPREHENSIVELY ANALYZING POTENTIAL PROPERTIES BEFORE WE EVEN WENT FORWARD WITH THE APPLICATION THAT'S IN FRONT OF YOU. NEXT SLIDE. SAFETY. WE REVIEWED ALL OF THAT DURING THE MAY 20TH MEETING, AND I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THIS BOARD AND ANY RESIDENTS UNDERSTAND THERE ARE VERY STRINGENT SAFETY STANDARDS THAT APPLY TO THIS PROJECT. NEW YORK STATE'S SAFETY STANDARDS, IN MY OPINION, ARE THE MOST RIGOROUS AND MOST PROTECTIVE. WE UNDERSTAND ALL OF THOSE, AND WE WILL COMPLY WITH ALL OF THOSE AS WE MOVE FORWARD. NEXT SLIDE. SHOWING YOU SOME OF THE FEATURES IN TERMS OF THE PHYSICAL STRUCTURE SAFETY. NEXT SLIDE. AND THEN JUST A SUMMARY OF THE SAFETY FEATURES THAT WE'VE ALREADY PRESENTED. SO WE'RE ASKING YOU TO CONSIDER, AND THIS IS A PREREQUISITE OF ANY FUTURE DECISION BY THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ON THE REQUESTED USE VARIANCE. WE ARE ASKING YOU TO AUTHORIZE THE PREPARATION OF DRAFTS OF PARTS TWO AND THREE OF THE FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM IN CONSIDERATION OF ISSUING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION PURSUANT TO THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT DURING YOUR MEETING IN TWO WEEKS. IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE FOR MYSELF OR JEREMY WOULD WELCOME THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS THEM. THANK YOU. ANYTHING TO ADD BY THE PLANNING 
          [01:20:05]
DEPARTMENT? I'LL AFTER YOU GUYS HAVE COMMENTS, I'LL KIND OF GO OVER NEXT STEPS AND GO FROM THERE. NO COMMENTS. AT THIS TIME. THERE MAY BE MORE AS WE GET INTO SITE PLAN, SO I'LL RESERVE COMMENTS. UNTIL THAT TIME, BOARD MEMBERS. YES. YEAH. OKAY. NOW, IF I'M TRYING TO THINK BACK TO THE FIRST MEETING. SURE. IS THIS THE FIRST ONE THAT TESLA IS GOING TO BE PUTTING UP? I MEAN, IT SOUNDED LIKE IT WAS SOMETHING FAIRLY NEW OR THE FIRST ONE IN HAMBURG. 
          WELL, I KNOW IT'S THE FIRST ONE IN HAMBURG BECAUSE THERE'S SOMETHING IN PLACE. OH, THIS PARTICULAR APPLICANT HAS OTHERS THAT ARE IN A SIMILAR STATE. I DON'T THINK WE'VE YET STARTED CONSTRUCTION ON ONE. JEREMY, IF YOU WANT TO JUST CONFIRM THAT FOR. YEAH. I MEAN, OUR COMPANY HAS HAS SEVERAL OF THESE BATTERY STORAGE PROJECTS USING THE TESLA MEGAPACK. I THINK GENERALLY SPEAKING, YOU KNOW, THAT REFERENCE TO 20,000 TESLA MEGAPACKS THAT'S NEVER HAD AN INCIDENT THAT'S THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE COUNTRY. AND, AND THAT'S A KEY PIECE HERE. SO YOU DO HAVE SOME UP AND RUNNING, NOT UP AND RUNNING, NOT UP AND RUNNING. SO WE REALLY DON'T KNOW WHAT COULD BE POTENTIAL PROBLEMS SINCE WE HAVEN'T HAD OTHER THAN CONTROLLED. TESTING. 
          BUT WE DO KNOW OBVIOUSLY THESE ARE RELATIVELY NEW PROJECTS THROUGHOUT NEW YORK STATE, INCLUDING WEST YORK. THEY ARE VERY STRICTLY REGULATED AND THERE'S A WHOLE HOST OF STANDARDS THAT APPLY. WE'RE VERY FAMILIAR WITH THOSE STANDARDS, AND WE'LL NEED TO COMPLY WITH THEM AND NOT JUST SAY THAT WE'RE GOING TO COMPLY, DEMONSTRATE THAT WE'RE GOING TO COMPLY. OKAY. THE I KNOW LAST TIME I ASKED ABOUT THE MAY, HAVE YOU LOOKED INTO DOING THAT YET OR IS THAT COMING DOWN THE PIPELINE? YEAH, WE ARE PREPARING THAT NOW. OKAY. SO HOPEFULLY WE HAVE THAT IN A COUPLE OF WEEKS OR SO. AND YOU'LL BE WORKING WITH FIRE PROTECTION ENGINEERS ALSO. YEP. AND YOU'LL HAVE THAT FOR US COMING DOWN THE PIPE AND WE'RE REQUIRED TO DO THAT. OKAY. MEMBER STEWART, ARE YOU DONE? YES. I'M DONE. I HAVE A QUESTION. HOW LONG HAVE THESE THE TESLA MEGA PACKS BEEN IN PRODUCTION? HOW LONG HAVE THEY BEEN OUT FOR? I DON'T KNOW THAT. I DON'T KNOW THE SPECIFIC ANSWER TO HOW LONG THAT TECHNOLOGY'S BEEN. OKAY, TECHNOLOGY. I KNOW IT'S A DIFFERENT SYSTEM THAN WHAT SOME OF THE OTHER SYSTEMS THAT HAVE HAD PROBLEMS IN NEW YORK STATE IN THE PAST, RIGHT. BUT LET'S SAY IF THESE ARE ONLY RELATIVELY ONE TWO YEAR OLD SYSTEMS, IT REALLY HASN'T HAD A TRACK RECORD, PROLONGED TRACK RECORD TO SAY, HEY, WE'VE HAD TEN YEARS OF THIS WITHOUT ANY INCIDENTS HAPPENING. WHAT WE'LL DO IS WE'LL PROVIDE THAT INFORMATION TO JOSH. OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. MEMBER. SO I JUST WANT TO POINT THIS OUT BECAUSE YOU GUYS SAID THAT YOU CAN'T FIND AN INSTANCE IN THIS COUNTRY WHERE THERE'S BEEN A FIRE. HOWEVER, I DID FIND AN INSTANCE IN AUSTRALIA. CAVEAT IT WAS A DIFFERENT COUNTRY, BUT THERE WAS A FIRE WITH A TESLA MEGA PACK, AND THE ENTIRE IMMEDIATE AREA HAD TO BE EVACUATED. MORE THAN 150 FIREFIGHTERS WERE RESPONDING. THEY THE AUTHORITIES HAD TO ISSUE WARNINGS ABOUT TOXIC SMOKE AND WHAT. AFTER THE FIRE INVESTIGATION, IT WAS DETERMINED THAT A COOLANT LEAK LED TO A SHORT CIRCUIT AND THE AFFECTED MEGAPACK HAD BEEN PLACED IN AN OFFLINE SERVICE MODE, AND THE PROTECTIVE MONITORING SYSTEMS THAT ARE CLAIMED TO BE 24 HOURS WERE INACTIVE. THERE WAS ALSO A DELAYED CONNECTION TO THE MONITOR SYSTEMS, MEANING THAT THEY WERE NOT ACTIVELY MONITORING. WITH THAT, I ALSO WANT TO POINT OUT THAT ON TESLA'S WEBSITE FOR THEIR MEGA PACKS, THEY HAVE FIREFIGHTING MEASURES. SO THIS IS IN REFERENCE TO TESLA'S INDUSTRIAL LITHIUM ION BATTERY RESPONSE GUIDE REVISION 2.7, SECTION 5.2.2 IS QUITE SIMPLY, EVACUATE THE AREA OF ALL NON-EMERGENCY PERSONNEL. 5.2.6 IS ALLOW THE UNIT TO COOL DOWN WHILE MAINTAINING CONTACT WITH TESLA FOR GUIDANCE. THIS PROCESS MAY TAKE 12 TO 48 HOURS OR LONGER AND CONTINUING TO MAINTAIN A SAFE DISTANCE. SO I WANT TO POINT OUT WITH THAT, IF THERE'S A FIRE AND YOU'RE SAYING FOR IT TO COOL DOWN, NOT ONLY DO YOU HAVE TO WAIT FOR THE FIRE TO COOL DOWN, THEN YOU HAVE TO WAIT FOR THE FIRE TO BE EXTINGUISHED. THEN YOU HAVE TO WAIT FOR THE EQUIPMENT TO COOL DOWN BEFORE IT CAN BE INSPECTED, 
          [01:25:01]
TO MAKE SURE IT'S SAFE TO PROCEED WITH ANY OTHER MEASURES FOR PROTECTION OF THAT AREA. 
          I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THAT PARTICULAR INCIDENT IN AUSTRALIA, BUT I WOULD NOTE THAT I JUST KNOW NEW YORK STATE HAS SOME OF THE TOUGHEST AND MOST STRINGENT STANDARDS. WE CAN CHECK INTO THAT. YEAH, WE MAKE CLEAR WE WEREN'T ATTEMPTING TO MISREPRESENT. NO, NO. AND WHAT I WHAT I REALLY WANTED TO POINT OUT WITH THAT, AND AGAIN, I KNOW THAT IT'S IN A DIFFERENT COUNTRY. SO THERE'S DIFFERENT THINGS. BUT WHAT I WANT TO POINT OUT IS WHAT THE INVESTIGATION UNCOVERED WAS THE REASONING BEHIND IT. SO SAYING THAT THERE'S RIGOROUS STANDARDS AND 24 HOUR MONITORING. WELL, THE MONITORING SYSTEM WASN'T ACTIVE. SO THAT'S WHAT ENDED UP LEADING TO A REASON WHY THE FIRE HAD STARTED IN THE FIRST PLACE. I ALSO WANT TO POINT OUT THAT THE NEAREST RESIDENTS IS APPROXIMATELY 300FT AWAY, WITH MOST OTHER PROPERTIES ABOUT 500FT AWAY, RIGHT? THE NEAREST SCHOOL, WHICH IS AT THE NAME IS SLIPPING. ME SOUTHTOWNS CATHOLIC, I BELIEVE IS APPROXIMATELY 1200FT AWAY, AND THE NEAREST DAYCARE IS APPROXIMATELY 2000FT AWAY. THERE WAS ALSO. I WASN'T GOING TO MENTION THIS, BUT I THINK IT'S KIND OF IMPORTANT. THERE WAS ANOTHER LITHIUM ION BATTERY FACILITY THAT DID CATCH FIRE. 
          IT DIDN'T SPECIFICALLY SAY THAT THEY WERE TESLA MEGAPACKS. HOWEVER, I THINK THIS IS SIGNIFICANT IN THE FACT THAT THIS HAPPENED IN JANUARY OF 25, AND APPROXIMATELY 1200 TO 1500 RESIDENTS WERE EVACUATED FROM THE AREA, ROUGHLY A TWO MILE STRETCH, WHICH, FOR REFERENCE, THE STRETCH ON LAKEVIEW ROAD FROM ROUTE FIVE TO ROUTE 20 IS ONLY A MILE AND A HALF, SO THERE WAS ASSOCIATED HIGHWAY CLOSURES AND THERE WAS SHELTERS IN PLACE IMPLEMENTED BECAUSE OF THE TOXIC SMOKE CONCERNS. WHICH I WILL QUICKLY SAY. I MEAN, YOU REFERENCED LITHIUM ION, WHICH IS AN OLDER GENERATION. SO THESE TESLA MEGAPACKS ARE USING IRON PHOSPHATE, CORRECT. BUT ON TESLA'S SDS SHEET FOR THIS PRODUCT, IT'S LITHIUM IRON PHOSPHATE BATTERY. CORRECT. AND I BELIEVE ON YOUR PRESENTATION IT SAID ALLY AS ABBREVIATION FOR LITHIUM. YES. SO IT'S STILL A LITHIUM BATTERY. YES. BUT NOT NOT THE SAME TYPE THAT YOU HAD JUST REFERENCED. BUT I NEED WE SHOULD LOOK INTO THAT AND GET BACK TO YOU. AND AGAIN, THAT'S WHY WE APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS. 
          WELL WE WILL WE WILL FOLLOW UP ON THOSE. AND AGAIN, OUR TECHNICAL EXPERTS JUST HAPPENED TO NOT BE AVAILABLE TONIGHT. YEAH. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? JOSH, YOU WERE GOING TO GO OVER SOME OF THE NEXT STEPS. YEAH. SO ARE THERE ANY I KNOW RIGHT NOW I'VE WRITTEN DOWN THAT REMEMBER, RYAN, YOU WANTED THE MAY FOR THEM TO WORK ON AND BE SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD FOR THE BOARD'S REVIEW. YES, I KNOW, REMEMBER YOU JUST MENTIONED THAT YOU WANT THEM TO KIND OF LOOK INTO A LITTLE BIT MORE OF THE TECHNOLOGY OF LITHIUM ION BATTERIES, COME WITH A LITTLE BIT MORE FURTHER CLARIFICATION ON ON THE BATTERIES THEMSELVES. YEAH. AND I THINK WE SHOULD ALSO REQUEST A NOISE STUDY BE COMPLETED DURING THIS PROCESS AS WELL. I CONCUR WITH THAT. 
          OKAY, SO THE NOISE STUDY, IN ADDITION TO THAT, I THINK IN TERMS OF NEXT STEPS, DO WE NEED A NOISE STUDY OR CAN WE DO A NOISE ANALYSIS? THERE'S IT'S ONLY BECAUSE THERE'S A DIFFERENCE. I WOULD REQUEST A NOISE STUDY AND PARTICULARLY I WOULD REQUEST IT IN THE OVERNIGHT PERIOD WHEN THE FACILITY IS GOING TO BE MOST OPERATIONAL. DOES THE BOARD CONCUR WITH THAT? I CONCUR WITH THAT. YES, YES. SO WITH THOSE WITH THE ARE THERE ANY OTHER REQUESTS, LIKE I SAID AT THIS TIME FOR THE BOARD IN TERMS OF THIS, IS IN TERMS OF HELPING YOU MAKE A SECRET DECISION? SO ARE THERE ARE ANY OTHER STUDIES, ANY OTHER TYPE OF DOCUMENTS THAT YOU WANT THAT YOU THINK WILL HELP YOU IN MAKING A SECRET DECISION? WE ALSO WANT THE EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN. YEP. SO ARE WE SAYING THAT WE NEED ALL OF THAT IN TERMS OF BECAUSE KEEP IN MIND, WE'RE GOING TO START VERY QUICKLY TO INVEST A LOT, A LOT OF MONEY. 
          ARE WE SAYING WE NEED THAT IN CONNECTION WITH SEEKER, OR IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WE CAN ADDRESS WHEN WE COME BACK FOR THE UNDERLYING REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SITE PLAN APPROVAL? AND THE ONLY REASON I ASK IS UNLESS WE GET THE USE VARIANCE THAT WE'RE SEEKING FROM THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, AND THAT DECISION HAS NOT YET BEEN MADE. WE DON'T HAVE A PROJECT, BUT YET WE NEED A SECRET DETERMINATION TO GET A DECISION FROM THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. RIGHT. YOU JUST ATTORNEY JOSEPH GOGAN, YOU JUST FOLLOWED UP WITH WHAT I WAS GOING TO SAY. THAT SEEKER HAS TO COME BEFORE THE ZONING BOARD CAN HAVE THE THE DISCUSSION 
          [01:30:01]
ABOUT THE VARIANCE. BUT I'M SAYING NOW WE'RE DOING ALL THESE REPORTS AND STUDIES THAT ULTIMATELY WE KNOW WE HAVE TO DO WITHOUT KNOWING, HAVING ANY IDEA OF WHETHER WE'LL GET THE USE VARIANCE. BUT NOISE AND SAFETY IS PART OF SEEKER ANALYSIS. OKAY. I JUST DIDN'T KNOW IF WE COULD DO SUMMARIES OF ADDRESSING THOSE IMPACTS WITH AN ACKNOWLEDGMENT THAT WE'LL HAVE TO PROVIDE THE REPORTS AND STUDIES. NO, I'M NOT COMFORTABLE MOVING FORWARD WITH THAT. YEAH, I, I DON'T AGREE. I, I THINK THAT THIS IS A, A STRONG POINT OF SEEKER IN RELATION TO THE PROCESS OF THE PROJECT MOVING FORWARD. I CONCUR IN TERMS OF NEXT MEETINGS, DO YOU THINK YOU WOULD HAVE ENOUGH TIME TO HAVE SOMETHING TO PRESENT ON THE 15TH? OUR NEXT MEETING AFTER THE 15TH IS AUGUST 5TH. I THINK WITH CINDY AND MYSELF NOT BEING HERE ON THE 15TH. YES. AND CAITLYN HAVING TO REPORT HERSELF AUGUST 5TH, AUGUST 5TH ANYWAY, BECAUSE WE'RE 1 OR 2 PEOPLE CAN'T MAKE IT THEN WE DON'T HAVE A QUORUM FOR THIS. 
          RIGHT. OKAY. YEAH. SO I THINK WE'D BE OKAY PUTTING IT ON AUGUST AGENDA'S, AUGUST 5TH. 
          HAVE SOME TIME TO GET THAT DOCUMENTATION TOGETHER. OKAY. AND MAKE SURE WE GET IT. SO THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE BOARD CAN REVIEW IT. OKAY. AND THEN I THINK IN TERMS OF NEXT STEPS, SEE WHAT THEY PRESENT ON AUGUST 5TH. AND THEN FROM THERE, I THINK THAT SHOULD BE ENOUGH INFORMATION FOR YOU GUYS TO KNOW HOW WE DO SEE, I USUALLY PUT BASED OFF OF YOUR INPUT AND WHAT WE HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT, A DRAFT PART TWO, BUT IT OBVIOUSLY WILL BE, IN THE OPINION OF THE 7 OR 8 OF YOU. AND THEN WE'LL WORK ON THAT DRAFT PART TWO. AND THEN THE SECRET DETERMINATION OBVIOUSLY, WILL BE, IN THE OPINION OF THE BOARD AS A CONSENSUS. SO DOES THAT WORK FOR THE BOARD? YEAH, SURE. OKAY. SO WE'LL TABLE IT TO AUGUST 5TH AND WE'LL GO FROM THERE. AND THEN IF THERE IS ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION YOU NEED BEFORE THEN, IF YOU RELATE TO JOSH, JOSH OR RELATE TO US. YEP. THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU. SEE YOU IN THE FIFTH. CAITLYN. 
          THANKS. MY HEAD'S IN BETWEEN THAT CHAIR AND THE SCREEN. OKAY. WE KNOW WHERE SHE WENT. 
          SOMEBODY TEXT HER SOMETHING. I DON'T KNOW, I DON'T REMEMBER. OKAY. WE'RE JUST WAITING FOR OUR CHAIR TO COME BACK. I JUST FIGURED SHE'D BE SITTING IN A CHAIR OUT THERE, AND I DIDN'T SEE HER. YET. SHE WENT UPSTAIRS. MAYBE SHE WENT HOME LAST NIGHT. THE AGENDA. WILL COME BACK. 
          JOSH CALLED HER. PHIL? YEAH, YEAH. SHE WENT OUTSIDE. ON THE BACK. AFTER EIGHT. OH. OKIE DOKE. DID YOU GUYS COMPLETE THAT ITEM? YEP. THE LAST STEP IS IF THE BOARD IS IN A POSITION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES. OKAY. SO SORRY. I HAVE TO OPEN UP FOR THE DATES OF OUR MINUTES. 
          THEY ARE MAY 20TH, JUNE 3RD AND JUNE 17TH. OKAY, DO I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM THE PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF MAY 20TH, 2026? I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES MEMBER. RYAN. MOVE THEM. I'M SORRY. ITEM WAS MOVED BY MEMBER RYAN. IS THERE A SECOND, SECOND, SECOND BY MEMBER QUINT? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. OKAY. DO I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM THE JUNE 3RD, 2026 PLANNING BOARD MEETING? SECOND. WELL, THERE'S. I'LL MAKE A MOTION. SORRY. THE ITEM. MOTION TO APPROVE BY MEMBER QUINT. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND, SECOND BY MEMBER DREEZY? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. AND LASTLY, DO I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES FROM THE JUNE 17TH, 2026 BOARD MEETING? I MAKE A MOTION TO 
          [01:35:05]
APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM THE JUNE 17TH BOARD MEETING. THE ITEM WAS MOVED BY MEMBER RYAN. 
          IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND? OH. IS IT? THERE'S TOO MUCH SILENCE, I DON'T ALL RIGHT. ITEM WAS SECOND BY MEMBER STEWART. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. OKAY. AND WITH THAT, JOSH, IS THERE ANYTHING YOU'D LIKE TO ADD BEFORE WE MAKE OUR FINAL MOTION? I WOULD JUST GIVE THE BOARD A HEADS UP FOR OUR JULY 15TH MEETING, THE PARKER ROAD FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT WAS SUBMITTED FOR OUR NEWER BOARD MEMBERS. IT'S BEEN A SIX YEAR PROCESS THAT HAS A TON OF EXTENSIVE DOCUMENTATION. SO OVER THE NEXT COUPLE OF DAYS OR SO, THERE IS A TON OF READING THAT'S IN THERE. BUT DURING THAT MEETING ON THE 15TH, I WILL PROVIDE BACKGROUND HISTORY AS MUCH AS I CAN, BUT THEN ALSO KIND OF EXPLAIN WHERE WE ARE IN THE SECRET PROCESS, WHAT THIS BOARD'S RESPONSIBILITY WILL BE. AND ALONG WITH THAT, THE WETZEL PROJECT, WHICH IS BEING REVIEWED CUMULATIVELY, THAT ONE IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT WHERE AFTER THE BOARD MAKES A DECISION, I WOULD HAVE TO GO TO THE TOWN BOARD, BUT WE'RE REVIEWING THEM CONCURRENTLY. 
          THOSE PROJECTS WILL BE ON JULY 15TH. LIKE I SAID, THERE'S EXTENSIVE DOCUMENTATION, SO AS YOU'RE REVIEWING THEM AND READING THEM, IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, FEEL FREE TO REACH OUT TO ME INDIVIDUALLY, BUT I WILL GIVE A BACKGROUND AS MUCH AS I CAN ON THE 15TH, AND I'M SURE MR. HOPKINS WILL AS WELL. SO I WOULD HIGHLY ENCOURAGE OUR NEW BOARD MEMBERS TO REACH OUT TO JOSH TO GET THE CLIFFSNOTES VERSION OF WHAT WE'RE GETTING INTO. OKAY. ARE WE GOING ON THE BOARD WHEN WE DID THAT VOTE, SOME OF IT, I THINK. MANY MEETINGS WITH YOU, JOHN. OKAY. 
          IS THERE A MOTION TO ADJOURN? I MAKE A MOTION TO ADJOURN. I WAS MOVED BY MEMBER RYAN. ALL THOSE IN ARE IS THERE A SECOND, SECOND, SECOND BY MEMBER TRACY? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.