Jul 15, 2026 07-15-2026 PB Meeting

[00:00:04]

RIGHT. SO I'LL CALL TO ORDER THE PLANNING. HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD MEETING FOR JULY 15TH.

ALL RISE AND SAY THE PLEDGE. I PLEDGE 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, COULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL? KATELYN SHIMURA. PRESENT.

RICHARD SAJAK ABSENT AND EXCUSED. WILLIAM CLARK ABSENT AND EXCUSED. BRIAN STEWART PRESENT. KIM RYAN PRESENT. MILTON KWAN PRESENT. JOSEPH GOGUEN COUNCIL IS PRESENT AND AUGUST TRACY IS PRESENT. AND FOR THE RECORD, CHAIRWOMAN CINDY GRONINGEN IS ABSENT AND EXCUSED, AND KATELYN SHIMURA IS STEPPING IN AS ACTING CHAIR. FOR THE RECORD. OKAY, SO THE

[1. Public Hearing – 7:00 P.M., Liza Acanfora – Requesting Site Plan and Special Use Permit Approval on a proposal for a childcare center to be located at 4090 Jeffrey Blvd]

BUT THEN SIMULTANEOUSLY, YOU DID ALSO APPROVE THE DRAFTING OF APPROVAL RESOLUTIONS. IT WOULD BE SEEKER SITE PLAN AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT. I PROVIDED A HARD COPY FOR EVERY PLANNING BOARD MEMBER IN FRONT OF YOU. AND THEN, AS ALWAYS, IF THIS BOARD FEELS COMFORTABLE AFTER THE CLOSING OF THE PUBLIC HEARING, WE WOULD BRING IT UP ON THE SCREEN AT ANY CONDITIONS AS YOU SEE FIT. YOU KNOW, MAKE ANY LANGUAGE ADDITIONS AS NECESSARY. SO THOSE ARE THE PLANNING UPDATES. OKEY DOKE. IS THERE ANYTHING FROM ENGINEERING. NO. AND THE APPLICANT. ANY UPDATE FOR US. CERTAINLY NO REAL UPDATE AS OF NOW. AGAIN AS JOSH HAD MENTIONED THAT WE GOT THE APPROVAL FOR THE REDUCTION OF REQUIRED SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR THE OUTDOOR PLAYGROUND INSTEAD OF THE 4500FT■S, WE CAN GO DOWN TO ABOUT 3000FT■S. OTHER THAN THAT, JUST A LITTLE CLARIFICATION, SOMETHING THAT HAD BEEN BROUGHT UP BEFORE THAT IT IS AN EXISTING PARKING LOT, SO IT'S JUST RESTRIPING. THERE IS NOTHING NEW. ADDED PLAYGROUND WILL BE SET ON TOP OF THE ASPHALT AND NOTHING ELSE CHANGED. OKAY. AND SO I'M GETTING SLIGHTLY CONFUSED. WE ALREADY HELD THE PUBLIC HEARING, CORRECT? NO. IS THAT TONIGHT? NO. THAT'S TONIGHT. OKAY.

BECAUSE THE NIGHT, THE NIGHT DECK IS WHAT CONFUSED ME. OKAY. SO THEN, MEMBER DRAKE, WOULD YOU LIKE TO READ THE PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE? YES. LEGAL NOTICE. TOWN OF HAMBURG.

PLANNING BOARD SITE PLAN. APPROVAL NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD WILL CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING ON A PROPOSAL FOR A CHILD CARE CENTER TO BE LOCATED AT 4090 JEFFREY BOULEVARD. THE PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD ON JULY 15TH, 2026, AT 7 P.M. IN ROOM SEVEN A AND SEVEN B OF THE HAMBURG TOWN HALL. OKAY. IS THERE ANYONE, THE MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC THAT WISHES TO MAKE PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE EARLY LEARNING PROJECT? SECOND CALL FOR PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE EARLY LEARNING PROJECT AND THIRD AND FINAL CALL ON PUBLIC COMMENT FOR THE EARLY LEARNING PROJECT AND THEREFORE THE HEARING. NO COMMENTS. THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED. SO OUR NEXT STEP THEN IS TO WRITE REVIEW THE RESOLUTION THAT JOSH HAD DRAFTED AND APPROVE YOUR PROJECT. SO JUST TO ORIENT THE BOARD ON THE FORMAT OF THE RESOLUTION, THE FIRST PIECE JUST REAFFIRMS THAT WE'VE ALREADY ISSUED A SECRET NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THIS PROJECT. SO THAT'S SEEKER. YOU'LL NOTICE IT'S A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT. IS NUMBER TWO IS SPECIAL USE PERMIT. SO OBVIOUSLY BECAUSE THIS PROJECT IS IN AN INDUSTRIAL ZONE, THE DAYCARE CENTER DOES REQUIRE A SPECIAL USE PERMIT. WHAT WE DO IN TERMS OF HOW IT'S JUST FORMATTED IS, YOU KNOW, WE TALK ABOUT THE PROJECT ITSELF. WE HELD THE PUBLIC HEARING TODAY ON THE 15TH. WE THEN ALWAYS HAD A CLAUSE THAT THE PROJECT WILL BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH 28312, WHICH ARE THE STANDARD SPECIAL USE PERMIT STANDARDS FOR ANY

[00:05:06]

YOU'LL NOTICE THAT WHAT I ADDED ARE THE ACTUAL PROVISIONS FROM THAT SPECIAL USE PERMIT CODE RIGHT INTO THE RESOLUTION. AND THEN THERE'S A WHEREAS CLAUSE THAT JUST SAYS, YOU KNOW, THE APPLICANT OBVIOUSLY WAS UNABLE TO MEET THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT STANDARD B, WHICH REQUIRED 4500FT■!S OF OUTDOOR PLAY SPACE. BUT THEN THEY RECEIVED THE APPROPRIATE AREA VARIANCE TO GO DOWN TO 3000FT■S. SO THAT'S JUST CODIFIED IN THE RESOLUTION. AND THEN IT JUST SAYS THAT, YOU KNOW, THE BOARD WOULD BE APPROVING OF THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT. AND THEN THE LAST COMPONENT IS SITE PLAN. SO VERY SIMILAR, YOU KNOW, OUR STANDARD SITE PLAN LANGUAGE. AND THEN I DID LEAVE PROVISIONS FOR BOTH. SO UNDER THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT STANDARD, YOU KNOW, THE APPROVAL IS OBVIOUSLY CONTINGENT ON THE SITE PLAN THAT'S APPROVED BY THE BOARD.

ARE THERE ANY OTHER STANDARDS OR ANY OTHER CONDITIONS THAT YOU WANT TO PLACE ON THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPROVAL SPECIFICALLY? BOARD MEMBERS? ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS ON THIS SPECIAL USE PERMIT? NO, I DON'T I DON'T SEE ANYTHING. OKAY. I MEAN, THE CONSISTENCY WHERE IT'S TYING INTO OTHER REGULATIONS, I THINK IS ADEQUATE. AND THEN UNDER SITE PLAN. CAMI, DID YOU HAVE AN ENGINEERING LETTER FOR THIS PROJECT? I DID 71313. OH, GEEZ.

AND THEN STEVE, IS THERE ANY PROPOSED LIGHTING FOR THIS PROJECT? NO, THERE'S EXISTING PARKING LOT LIGHTING AND BUILDING LIGHTING THAT WILL REMAIN. SO THEN WE CAN REMOVE THAT. THERE'S GOING TO BE CONCRETE SIDEWALKS THAT WILL BE PROVIDED ON THE SITE PLAN.

CORRECT. OKAY. AND THEN ARE THERE ANY OTHER CONDITIONS ON THE SITE PLAN APPROVAL THAT THE BOARD WANTS TO CONSIDER? YEAH. MEMBER KWANT. SO I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT ON THE SITE PLAN, I SEE YOU ADDED IN THE CONCRETE BARRIERS FOR PROTECTION FROM THE PARKING LOT. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT RETURNED ON THE SIDE THAT'S ADJACENT TO THE PARKING STALLS, BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY CARS ARE MAKING THAT TURN INTO THE PARKING STALLS. IT IS. IT'S WRAPPED AROUND. IT DOESN'T APPEAR THAT WAY ON THE SITE PLAN. WAIT A SECOND. OH, MAYBE I HAVE. OKAY, MAYBE I HAVE IT ON ONE OF THE ONE THAT I HAD IN THE SHOWROOM ACROSS THE FRONT. OKAY. THAT'S FINE.

OH. SO. OKAY. I'M SORRY. CAN YOU JUST TRY THAT ONE MORE TIME? YEAH. THE CONCRETE BARRIERS ARE UP ALL THE WAY AROUND THE PERIMETER. IT'S NOT THAT CONCRETE. SO THEN JUST FROM A GRAPHIC STANDPOINT, THAT'S THIS GRAPHIC AND NOT IT IS THAT IT IS THERE. OKAY. THERE'S NOT CORRECT. THERE'S A CONCRETE PAD. OKAY. OH, OKAY. OKAY. SO IT'S THE CONCRETE PAD IS OCCUPIED.

YEAH. SO YEAH, THE WHOLE POINT. OKAY. THAT'S, THAT'S ALL I HAD. AND THAT STEVE, IS THAT ON THE SITE PLAN DATED AS RECENT AS 7626. YES. OKAY. 26. ANY OTHER CONDITIONS? NO. OKAY. NOPE. ALL RIGHT. SO STARTING AT THE TOP WITH SEEKER AND REALLY THE REST OF IT, IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE MEMBER STEWART. I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE. OKAY. MOTION IS MOVED TO APPROVE BY MEMBER STEWART. MEMBER DO YOU HAVE TO READ IT? READ IT. OH. I'M SORRY. SOUTH TOWN, SOUTH TOWN'S EARLY LEARNING NEST, LLC. DIG HARRIS CENTER, 4090 JEFFREY BOULEVARD. SITE PLAN AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPROVAL RESOLUTIONS 715261 SEEKER. WHEREAS THE TOWN OF HAMBURG RECEIVED A SITE PLAN SPECIAL USE PERMIT, AN AREA VARIANCE APPLICATION FROM SOUTH TOWN'S EARLY LEARNING NEST, LLC FOR THE INTERIOR BUILD OUT OF A 500 ZERO SQUARE FOOT DAYCARE CENTER WITH A NEW 300 ZERO SQUARE FOOT PLAYGROUND EXTERIOR TO BE LOCATED AT 4090 JEFFREY BOULEVARD. AND WHEREAS, THE PROPOSED INTERIOR BUILD OUT AREA IS NOW APPROXIMATELY 6500FT■!S, DIFFERING FROM THE ORIGINALLY NOTED 5000 SQUARE FOOT. AND WHEREAS THE HAMBURG

[00:10:05]

ONE APPROVAL IS BASED ON THE SITE PLAN APPROVED BY THE PLANNING BOARD DATED JULY 6TH, 2026. WITH THE CONDITIONS ATTACHED TO THAT PLAN, THE ITEM HAS BEEN MOVED BY MEMBER STEWART. IS THERE A SECOND, SECOND, SECOND BY MEMBER KWANT? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. OKAY.

THIRD AND FINAL SITE PLAN SITE PLAN THREE. WHEREAS, THE TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING DEPARTMENT RECEIVED A SITE PLAN APPLICATION FROM SOUTHTOWNS EARLY LEARNING, LLC FOR THE INTERIOR BUILDOUT OF A 6500 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 HELD THE REQUIRED PUBLIC HEARING ON JULY 15TH, 2026. AND WHEREAS, THE TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD HAS REVIEWED THE PROJECT AGAINST THE TOWN CODE, HAS REVIEWED INPUT FROM THE TOWN DEPARTMENTS AND OTHER AGENCIES AND PROVIDED THE INPUT TO THE APPLICANT. THAT HAS RESULTED IN AMENDED PLANS. ADDRESSING THE PLANNING BOARD'S CONCERNS. 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 JULY 13TH, 2026, AND TWO CONCRETE SIDEWALKS SHALL BE PROVIDED AS DENOTED ON THE SITE PLAN DATED JULY 6TH, 2026. THE ITEM HAS BEEN MOVED BY MEMBER STEWART. IS THERE A SECOND, SECOND, SECOND BY

[00:15:01]

THANK YOU. OKAY. OUR SECOND PROJECT IS RADIUS FEDERAL CREDIT UNION REQUESTING SITE

[2. Radius Federal Credit Union – Requesting Site Plan Approval on a proposal for a 2,460 sq-ft credit union with a drive thru, 4-car garage, and other associated site improvements to be located at 5505 Southwestern Blvd]

AND JOSH, IS THERE ANYTHING YOU'D LIKE TO MENTION BEFORE MISTER PANDOLFI STARTS? I DON'T WANT TO STEAL ANTHONY SHINE, SO I'LL LET HIM PROVIDE AN UPDATE AND THEN I'LL FILL IN THE GAPS AFTERWARDS. ALL RIGHT. GOOD EVENING. ANTHONY PANDOLFI WITH CARMINA WOOD, DESIGN PROJECT ENGINEER. WE PRESENTED THIS PROJECT FOR YOU GUYS A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO AT THE WORK SESSION. AS WAS MENTIONED, IT'S A PROPOSED CREDIT UNION WITH DRIVE THRU AND ASSOCIATED PARKING. SINCE THEN, NOTHING ON THE SITE PLAN HAS CHANGED. IT'S THE SAME ONE YOU GUYS SAW A COUPLE WEEKS AGO. I JUST DO HAVE SOME OPERATIONAL INFORMATION THAT YOU GUYS ASKED FOR THAT I CAN PROVIDE. THE FIRST ONE BEING BASED ON THE OTHER TWO LOCATIONS. THERE'S TWO CURRENT BRANCHES, ONE IN ANGOLA, ONE IN KENMORE. THE ONE QUESTION WAS ABOUT DRIVE THRU STACKING. WHAT WE SEE AT THOSE BRANCHES MAX 2 TO 3 CARS STACKING. AND THAT'S PRETTY CONSISTENT WITH WITH BANKING. YOU KNOW, THIS DAY AND AGE WITH ALL THE TECHNOLOGY ADVANCEMENTS, ONLINE BANKING, THINGS LIKE THAT, YOU REALLY DON'T SEE THESE BANK DRIVE THRUS GET AS STACKED UP AS THEY MAY BE USED TO, BUT IT'S STILL KIND OF A NECESSARY AMENITY TO HAVE. SO THAT'S WHY WE DO HAVE IT. THE OTHER THING WAS THE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES. WE'RE LOOKING AT NO MORE THAN SIX EMPLOYEES HERE. WE'RE PROVIDING 22 PARKING SPACES. SO THAT STILL LEAVES 16 SPACES FOR CUSTOMERS, WHICH WE FEEL IS MORE THAN SUFFICIENT. OTHER THAN THAT, AS, AS AS WE MENTIONED, WE DID PROVIDE ALSO A STACKING PLAN TO SHOW THE 14 STACKING SPACES ON SITE, WHICH WITH THE WITH WHAT I MENTIONED EARLIER, AGAIN, WE FEEL IS MORE THAN SUFFICIENT FOR THIS SITE REALLY. OTHER THAN THAT, THERE'S NOTHING ELSE MUCH MORE TO UPDATE ON. WHAT WE'RE REALLY LOOKING FOR TONIGHT IS TO SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING, AND SHOULD THE BOARD FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH JOSH DRAFTING APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION SUBJECT TO ANY APPROPRIATE CONDITIONS.

BUT AS ALWAYS, I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS. THANK YOU. JOSH, YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO ADD? THE ONLY THING THAT I'LL ADD IS THAT OBVIOUSLY, WE NOW HAVE A FULL SITE PLAN APPLICATION FROM THE APPLICANT. FROM A ZONING STANDPOINT, IT IS ZONED C2. SO THIS IS AN ALLOWABLE USE FOR THAT DRIVE THROUGH BANK. FROM A SECRET STANDPOINT, BECAUSE OF THE SIZE OF THE BANK, IT'S UNDER 4000FT■. WE WOULD CONSIDER THAT TO BE A TYPE TWO ACTION UNDER SEEKER.

SO THIS BOARD WOULD NOT NEED TO DO ANY FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW. AND THEN OBVIOUSLY, YOU KNOW, ANY QUESTIONS OR ANY CONDITIONS THAT YOU CAN THINK OF AS YOU'RE REVIEWING THE PROJECT, FEEL FREE TO LET ME KNOW BECAUSE I'LL KIND OF ADD THAT TO THE QUEUE IF YOU HAVE ANYTHING IN MIND. AND THEN IF THE BOARD FEELS COMFORTABLE AT THE END OF THE DISCUSSION, YOU CAN SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING. WE DO HAVE TIME ON THE AUGUST 5TH MEETING IF YOU DEEM THAT TO BE APPROPRIATE. OKEY DOKE. ENGINEERING. ANYTHING TO ADD? I THINK THE ONLY OUTSTANDING QUESTION FROM ENGINEERING IS WE HAD TALKED ABOUT YOU WEREN'T SURE THE LIMITED DISTURBANCE AT THE TIME. HAS THAT BEEN. YEAH. SO I DID TAKE A MEASUREMENT BASED ON THE SITE PLAN OBVIOUSLY CAN VARY A LITTLE BIT WITH GRADE FINAL GRADING, BUT I DON'T THINK IT'S GOING TO BE TOO MUCH. AND WE GOT 0.8 ACRES. SO WE ARE UNDER THAT ONE ACRE THRESHOLD FOR A SWIPE. OKAY. SO THAT WAS JUST THE IMPORTANT ISSUE BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT SHOWING ANY STORMWATER MANAGEMENT. BUT IF THEY'RE UNDER ONE ACRE, THEY MOST LIKELY WON'T NEED ANYTHING LIKE THAT. SO THAT WAS MY ONLY QUESTION. SO I HAVE NOTHING ELSE. OKAY. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS, ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS? OH LOOKS GOOD. NO. I APPRECIATE THE OPERATIONAL INFORMATION THAT WAS PROVIDED. VERY HELPFUL. THE ONLY ONE QUESTION THAT MEMBER RYAN BROUGHT UP AFTER THE FACT WAS FOR THE FOR THE CREDIT UNION, YOUR CLIENTS OR MEMBERS AND SO FORTH ARE BEING ARE IS IT A GEOGRAPHICAL AREA THAT YOU END UP PULLING FROM OR HOW YOU END UP LIKE BUILDING THE BUSINESS FOR OR LIKE A MEMBERSHIP TYPE PIECE? IT'S JUST INTERESTING TYPE OF, YOU KNOW, BUSINESS TO JUST UNDERSTAND WHERE WE HAVE CURRENT MEMBERS IN THE AREA ALREADY. AND THEN WE WOULD BE, OF COURSE, ADVERTISING TO THE MEMBER AND TO RESIDENTS AROUND HAMBURG AS WELL. SO THEN THE MEMBERS AT THE OTHER LOCATIONS ARE ABLE TO, YOU KNOW, UTILIZE THIS LOCATION. WE ARE ALSO SHARED BRANCHING SO OTHER CREDIT UNIONS CAN COME UP INTO

[00:20:03]

ANYBODY. OKAY. YEAH. AS LONG AS YOU LIVE, WORK OR WORSHIP IN ERIE COUNTY. OH, IN ERIE COUNTY.

OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. WITH NO FURTHER QUESTIONS. MR. GOGAN, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? I'M JUST LOOKING AT THE MAP. I SEE THE EXISTING GARAGES ON THE PREMISES, AND I DIDN'T SEE THEM ON THE SITE PLAN THE EXISTING STRUCTURES.

THOSE WILL BE DEMOLISHED. OH, THEY WILL BE TAKEN OUT. AND THEN ALSO JUST FOR ACCESSORY BUILDINGS. YEP YEP YEP YEP. JUST THE GARAGE THAT WE SHOW THERE ON THE SITE PLAN. THE EXISTING STRUCTURES WILL BE REMOVED. AND JUST TO REITERATE THAT THAT GARAGE IS SOLELY FOR STORAGE PURPOSES. YEAH. BECAUSE YOU CAN'T HAVE A BASEMENT. NO. BASEMENT. YEP. OKAY. SO JOSH, I THINK RIGHT NEXT STEPS WOULD BE TO SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE FIFTH. AND ALSO, DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY OPPOSITION TO DRAFTING RESOLUTIONS? NO, NO, NO. OKAY. LET ME GIVE YOU APPROVAL TO DRAFT RESOLUTIONS AND WE'LL SEE YOU ON THE FIFTH. THANK YOU. YEP. THANK YOU.

BOARD. OH MAN. THAT ONE TOO QUICK. I DIDN'T RUN OUT OF HERE. OKAY. HERE WE GO. ITEM NUMBER

[3. Planning Board to discuss the draft Final Environmental Impact Statement submitted by Parker Road Developers, LLC regarding a proposed subdivision to be located on the west side of Parker Road, south of Big Tree Road]

AND SHAWN, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY WE'LL GET INTO IT, BUT I JUST WANTED TO DO IS I PROVIDED EVERYONE WITH A DOCUMENT TO KIND OF JUST GIVE AN IDEA OF WHERE WE ARE IN THE EIS PROCESS AND THEN WHAT THE BOARD IS RESPONSIBLE FOR. SO LIKE I SAID, WITHOUT GETTING FURTHER INTO THE DATES, THIS PLANNING BOARD, NOT THIS VERSION, BUT OUR PLANNING BOARD DID GIVE A POSITIVE DECLARATION FOR THIS SUBDIVISION PROJECT, I BELIEVE, BACK IN 2021. AT THAT TIME, THE BOARD DID POSIT THAT THE PROJECT ON LAND, SURFACE WATER, AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES, HISTORIC AND ARCHEOLOGICAL, TRANSPORTATION, ENERGY AND CONSISTENCY WITH COMMUNITY PLANS. THE APPLICANT THEN PUT TOGETHER A DEIS. THIS BOARD DID FEEL THAT THERE WERE SOME DEFICIENCIES WITH THE DEIS. WE COMMUNICATED THAT WITH THE APPLICANT. THE APPLICANT THEN ADDRESSED THE DEIS RESUBMITTED IT, AND THIS BOARD DID ACCEPT THAT DEIS AS COMPLETE. ONE OF THE BIGGEST MISNOMERS AND QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS PROJECT IS WHAT IS THE BOARD TO CONSIDER? AND THERE'S OBVIOUSLY THE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE, WHICH IS IN THE EYES. BUT I THINK WHAT'S BEEN CONFUSING, I THINK, FOR PREVIOUS BOARD MEMBERS, IS THAT THIS PROJECT OBVIOUSLY HAS A CLUSTERING COMPONENT, WHICH IS A RECONFIGURATION OF THE PROJECT SITE LAYOUT UNDER THE EYES. THIS BOARD HAS TO CONSIDER ALL THOSE ALTERNATIVES. I KNOW IN THE PREVIOUS BOARDS THERE'S BEEN CONFUSION ON WHAT LAYOUT DOES THE BOARD CONSIDER? DO THEY CONSIDER THE CLUSTER AT ALL? THE BOARD DOES HAVE TO CONSIDER THE CLUSTER AS AN ALTERNATIVE. AND THEN THE ONLY THING THAT I WOULD ALSO ADD IS THAT FROM AN EIS STANDPOINT, AND LIKE I SAID, SHAWN WILL GET INTO IT A LITTLE BIT FURTHER, BUT THE FEISA LOT OF TIMES IN THE TOWN, AT LEAST, OUR STANDARD PRACTICE HAS TO BE HAS BEEN TO HAVE THE APPLICANT DO A FIRST DRAFT OF AN EIS, BUT IT'LL BE IN THE OPINIONS AND THE VOICE OF THE BOARD AS A WHOLE. SO THE APPLICANT TAKES THE FIRST DRAFT AT IT. YOU GUYS REVIEW IT, BUT THEN IT HAS TO BE IN YOUR WORDS. AND THEN EVENTUALLY WHAT YOU'LL HAVE TO DO IS YOUR ACTUAL DECISION WILL COME IN FINDINGS, AND THEN YOU'LL MAKE A FINDINGS DECISION ON THE PROJECT. AND THEN WE'LL GO FROM THERE. SO ESSENTIALLY WHAT THIS IS IS KIND OF BRINGING THE PROJECT BACK. IT'S BEEN A WHILE SINCE YOU'VE SEEN

[00:25:03]

NEXT SLIDE. THAT JUST SHOWS THE ZONING AT THAT TIME. AND THAT PORTION THAT ZONED C THREE WE HAVE NOT ACQUIRED. WE'RE ONLY PROPOSING RESIDENTIAL IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. NEXT SLIDE. SO I TRIED TO DO A SUMMARY OF THE NUMEROUS STEPS THAT WE'VE BEEN THROUGH TO DATE.

AND REALLY WHAT IS RELEVANT IS THE LAST COUPLE OF POINTS HERE, ISSUANCE OF AN EIS. AS JOSH INDICATED, WE'VE SUBMITTED A DRAFT OF THE EYES. NOW YOU HAVE A CHANCE TO REVIEW THAT DOCUMENT AND THEN ULTIMATELY ISSUE IT AS REQUIRED BY SEEKER. AND THEN NEXT IS ACTUALLY THE MOST IMPORTANT STEP. YOU WILL ISSUE A FINDING STATEMENT SPECIFYING THE MITIGATION MEASURES THAT YOU FEEL ARE APPLICABLE. AND THEN ULTIMATELY A DECISION ON THE UNDERLYING REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT AS WELL. NEXT SLIDE. THIS SLIDE JUST SUMMARIZES THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT. AND WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF JOSH, I THINK WHAT YOU'LL FIND IS THE DOCUMENTATION THAT WE'VE SUBMITTED WITHIN THAT PHASE DOES SATISFY THOSE SUBSTANTIVE REQUIREMENTS SPECIFIED CLEARLY IN THE SECRET REGULATIONS, AND PRIMARILY WHAT THE PURPOSE OF AN EIS IS, IS TO RESPOND TO THE COMMENTS THAT WERE RECEIVED ON THE EIS, MEANING COMMENTS FROM RESIDENTS, AND THEN COMMENTS FROM INVOLVED AND INTERESTED AGENCIES THAT HAVE PARTICIPATED IN THIS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FOR THE PAST FIVE YEARS. NEXT SLIDE. SO THIS IS WHERE THERE'S BEEN CONFUSION IN THE PAST AS OF RIGHT PLAN VERSUS CLUSTERING PLAN. I WANT TO MAKE CLEAR WHAT MY CLIENT PREFERS IS THE CLUSTERING PLAN. THIS IS THE AS OF RIGHT PLAN THAT WE PRESENTED ON JULY 24TH OF 2024. AT THAT POINT, IT WAS 67 LOTS. IT DID INCLUDE SIX LOTS WHICH ARE SHADED THERE OUT ALONG PARKER ROAD AND TWO LOTS FOR STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PURPOSES. GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE. SUBSEQUENT TO THAT, BASED ON A REQUEST FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, DURING THAT VERY MEETING, WE ACTUALLY REDUCED THE DENSITY BY TWO LOTS. WE WENT DOWN TO 65 LOTS. WE'RE STILL SHOWING THOSE LOTS ALONG THE PARKER ROAD FRONTAGE ALONG WITH THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT. AND WE'VE ALSO ADDED, AS WE'VE GONE THROUGH THIS REVIEW PROCESS, A 50 FOOT RIPARIAN BUFFER, PROTECT THAT PORTION OF THE CREEK THAT BISECTS THE SITE. THAT WAS VERY IMPORTANT TO SOME OF THE PREDECESSOR MEMBERS OF THIS BOARD, AND THAT IS STILL PART OF THE PROJECT EITHER WAY. NEXT SLIDE. THIS IS THE ALTERNATIVE PLAN, WHICH WE BELIEVE IS THE MORE APPROPRIATE OF THE TWO PLANS. WE ALSO ARE VERY CLEAR THAT THIS WILL RESULT IN LESS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, WHICH IS ONE OF THE KEY CRITERIA YOU'RE CONSIDERING. SO VERSUS THE 65 LOTS AS OF RIGHT PLAN, THIS SHOWS 59 LOTS WHICH ARE SHOWN THERE. THAT AREA THAT'S ALONG PARKER ROAD WOULD CONSIST OF PERMANENT GREEN SPACE TO REMAIN UNDEVELOPED. AND WHAT WE'VE DONE IS BY ALLOWING CLUSTERING, YOU WOULD BASICALLY ALLOW US TO PROVIDE ALMOST 15 ACRES OF PERMANENT OPEN SPACE, WHICH WOULD INCLUDE GREEN SPACE, LANDSCAPING, WALKING TRAILS, ETC. ETC. AND ALSO WOULD ENSURE THAT REALLY, TO A LARGE DEGREE, THERE ARE NO SINGLE FAMILY HOMES BACKING UP DIRECTLY TO

[00:30:06]

[00:35:03]

ON MAY 21ST OF THIS YEAR, WE DID RECEIVE A PERMIT FOR WHAT'S PROBABLY THE SMALLEST IMPACT EVER 3/100 OF AN ACRE FOR A VERY SMALL PORTION OF THE BACK OF LOT 18. THE REMAINDER OF THAT FEDERAL WETLAND WILL CONSIST IN THE PERMANENT OPEN SPACE. THAT'S ALSO ONE OF THE BENEFITS OF THE CLUSTERING PLAN, BECAUSE IT ALLOWS US TO PRESERVE NEARLY THAT, THAT WETLAND NEARLY IN ITS ENTIRETY. NEXT SLIDE. JUST I'M SORRY, ONE QUICK QUESTION. WHAT IS PREVIOUS TO THE DEC'S COURT DECISION IN APRIL? WHAT WAS THE AMOUNT OF WETLANDS THAT WAS BEING CONSIDERED? SO THE DEC WAS ASSERTING JURISDICTION OVER THE FEDERAL WETLAND, WHICH THEY WERE DOING THAT IN EVERY CASE, WHICH IS 0.644 ACRES. BUT THEN THE ISSUE IS, OF COURSE, 100 FOOT BUFFER AROUND IT. SO WOULD HAVE RESULTED IN A FAIRLY BIG AREA. I'M GOING TO SHOW YOU BEING SUBJECT TO JURISDICTION. IS IT OKAY IF I COME A LITTLE CLOSER? YES. SO IT WAS THIS AREA WHICH IS SMALL, BUT THEN BY THE TIME YOU DRAW 100 FOOT BUFFER AROUND THAT, AND THEN TWO VERY, VERY SMALL AREAS ALONG THE CREEK. OKAY. NEXT SLIDE. SO MITIGATION MITIGATION IS PROBABLY THE MOST IMPORTANT PART OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF A PROJECT THAT'S BEEN SUBJECT TO AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT. IN THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT, WE DO SPECIFY WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING FOR MITIGATION MEASURES. AND THOSE DO INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING. NUMBER ONE, WE WILL BE REQUIRED TO IMPLEMENT I AND I REMEDIATION PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ERIE COUNTY DIVISION OF SEWAGE MANAGEMENT. IN THIS INSTANCE, THAT WOULD BE THE REPLACEMENT OF TEN BUILDING LATERALS. BASICALLY ASSURES THAT THIS PROJECT WILL NOT INCREASE OR DECREASE DOWNSTREAM SEWER CAPACITY DURING WET WEATHER CONDITIONS. WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THE 14.65 ACRES OF PERMANENT OPEN SPACE, AND I WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR IF YOU CHOOSE CLUSTERING THAT WILL BE PERMANENTLY PROTECTED VIA THE RECORDING OF A DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIONS AT THE ERIE COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE, MEANING NOT ONLY WHEN MR. MENCO DEVELOPS THIS SITE, BUT TEN YEARS, 20 YEARS, 30 YEARS, 40 YEARS DOWN THE ROAD, THAT WILL STILL BE PERMANENT OPEN SPACE, WHICH WAS VERY IMPORTANT TO THE NEARBY PROPERTY OWNERS. WE'RE SHOWING BERMS ALONG PARKER ROAD FRONTAGE. SOME OF THE RESIDENTS SPOKE HOW THAT PROVIDES NOISE REDUCTION AND PROVIDES A MORE RURAL CHARACTER. ALONG THAT FRONTAGE. WE ARE SHOWING EXTENSIVE ON ON SITE WALKING TRAILS BASED ON INPUT WE RECEIVED. OF COURSE, WE HAVE THAT 50 FOOT RIPARIAN BUFFER AND THERE'S LITERALLY A PLANTING PLAN THAT WAS PREPARED BY EARTH DIMENSIONS THAT SPECIFIES IN GREAT DETAIL THE EXTENSIVE PLANTINGS TO BE PROVIDED AND THE TYPE OF THOSE PLANTINGS AND WHERE THEY'LL BE LOCATED. AND THEN FINALLY, OBVIOUSLY, THE ENGINEERED PLANS WILL BE REVIEWED BY CAMI AND HER TEAM. BUT WE DO NEED TO COMPLY WITH SWIFT REQUIREMENTS IN TERMS OF CONSTRUCTION. AND THEN WE ALSO NEED TO COMPLY WITH REQUIREMENTS IN TERMS OF PERMANENT MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR OF THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM. NEXT SLIDE. SO AGAIN, ONCE THE FBI'S HAS BEEN FINALIZED AND ISSUED BY THIS BOARD AS A LEAD AGENCY, THE NEXT STEP IN TERMS OF SEEKER IS THE MORE IMPORTANT ONE, WHICH IS THE ISSUANCE OF A FINDING STATEMENT. THAT FINDING STATEMENT WILL PROVIDE A RATIONALE FOR YOUR DECISION AND WILL SPECIFY THE MITIGATION MEASURES THAT YOU'RE IMPOSING.

WE'VE PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES, BUT OF COURSE, WE WELCOME YOUR INPUT. THE STANDARD FOR THOSE MITIGATION MEASURES IS YOU NEED TO ASSURE YOURSELF THAT WE'VE MITIGATED THE POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT KEYWORD BEING SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PRACTICABLE. NEXT SLIDE. SO THAT'S THAT'S IT. IN CONCLUSION, WHAT WE'RE REALLY LOOKING FOR TONIGHT IS YOUR GUIDANCE IN TERMS OF CLUSTERING VERSUS AS OF RIGHT. WE THINK WE'VE MADE A COMPELLING CASE OVER THE COURSE OF THE PAST SIX YEARS FOR THE CLUSTERED LAYOUT. WITH THE REDUCED DENSITY, NEARLY HALF OF THE SITE BEING PERMANENT OPEN SPACE, REDUCING WETLAND IMPACTS, ETCETERA, ETCETERA, BECAUSE THERE'S BEEN SOME CHANGE OVER IN THIS BOARD. WE OF COURSE, WOULD WELCOME YOUR INPUT. OKAY. THANK YOU. YOU'RE WELCOME. JOSH, IS THERE ANYTHING YOU'D LIKE TO ADD AT THIS POINT? YEAH, JUST TO PIGGYBACK OFF OF MR. HOPKINS.

SO WHERE I WANTED TO COME IN IS OBVIOUSLY WHERE WE ARE NOW. YOU HAVE AN EIS THAT'S BEEN SUBMITTED TO YOU. NOT TO SOUND LIKE DREW, BUT WHEN IT COMES TO SEEKER TIMELINES, TYPICALLY AFTER YOU DO A D, E, I S, WHETHER YOU HAVE 45 DAYS AFTER YOU CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING,

[00:40:03]

WHERE WE ARE NOW IS OBVIOUSLY THIS BOARD IS REQUIRED TO COMPLETE THE FAIS AND YOUR GUYS'S OPINION. I THINK, AS MR. HOPKINS MENTIONED, WHAT I WANT TO STRESS IS THAT RIGHT NOW YOU'RE NOT QUOTE UNQUOTE MAKING A DECISION AT THIS TIME. YOU'RE COMPARING FROM WHAT THEY'VE WRITTEN IN THE PHASE. DO YOU AGREE WITH THE MITIGATIONS? DO YOU AGREE WITH THE COMPARISONS FROM THE AS OF RIGHT LAYOUT TO THE CLUSTERING LAYOUT? AND THEN IN THOSE FINDINGS, AS YOU SAID, KIND OF MAKING YOUR FINAL DECISION BASED OFF OF EVERYTHING THAT'S BEEN SUBMITTED ON THE RECORD. SO NOTHING THAT COMES THAT HASN'T BEEN ALREADY BEEN SUBMITTED, THAT HASN'T ALREADY BEEN TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT, EVERYTHING THAT'S BEEN SUBMITTED ON THE RECORD, WHAT'S IN THE FAIS IS WHAT SHOULD BE THE BASIS FOR YOUR DECISION IN MAKING THAT FINDINGS. AND PART OF WHAT IS TONIGHT IS KIND OF GIVING YOUR THOUGHTS NOT ONLY ON THE AS OF RIGHT PLAN ON THE CLUSTERING PLAN, BUT THEN ALSO STARTING TO PUT YOUR THOUGHTS TOGETHER. ARE THERE ANY OTHER ADDITIONAL STUDIES THAT YOU NEED FROM THE APPLICANT TO BE ABLE TO MAKE A DECISION? ARE THERE ANY OTHER STUDIES THAT YOU NEED TO BE ABLE TO COMPARE? THE AS OF RIGHT TO THE CLUSTERING PLAN? ARE THE MITIGATIONS UP TO SPEED AND YOUR GUYS'S OPINION? LIKE I SAID, THE FAIS THAT YOU'LL REVIEW IS WRITTEN FROM THE APPLICANT. BUT IS IT IN THE OPINION OF THIS BOARD. AND THEN FROM THERE OBVIOUSLY YOU THEN HAVE TO MAKE THAT FINDINGS DECISION. SO OVER THE NEXT COUPLE OF MEETINGS THERE WAS A LOT OF DOCUMENTATION OBVIOUSLY TO READ, BUT THOSE ARE KIND OF JUST THE PARAMETERS OF WHAT THIS BOARD IS RESPONSIBLE FOR REVIEWING. OKAY. CAMI, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD AT THIS POINT? I JUST A LITTLE BIT TO ADD FROM THE ENGINEERING SIDE. SO JUST FOR SOME CLARIFICATION, IN MY ROLE IN CONTRACT AS YOUR TOWN ENGINEER, I SUPPORT THE PLANNING BOARD DURING THE NORMAL PROCESS. EYES ARE A LITTLE OUTSIDE THE NORMAL PROCESS. SO WHAT DID ACTUALLY HAPPEN IS THAT THIS BOARD RECOMMENDED TO THE TOWN BOARD WHO AUTHORIZED G D, THE COMPANY I WORK FOR, TO ASSIST WITH SOME OF THE TECHNICAL SIDE OF REVIEWING THAT DIS. SO WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE OLD DOCUMENTS, YOU WILL SEE LETTERS FROM MY COMPANY GHD ON I BELIEVE IT'S TRANSPORTATION, SURFACE WATER AND STORMWATER. I AM NOT A TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER, BUT I DO HAVE SOME WITHIN THE COMPANY WHO HELPED REVIEW THOSE PORTIONS OF THE DOCUMENT. THERE IS STILL BUDGET THAT REMAINS IN THAT ASSISTANCE. AND SO ANYTHING AS WE WORK THROUGH THE EYES THAT YOU WANT FROM A TECHNICAL EXPERT FROM GD SIDE IS STILL AVAILABLE UNDER THOSE TOPICS AND UNDER THE BUDGET THAT WAS AUTHORIZED. SO WE WILL BE HERE TO HELP WITH THOSE ITEMS. IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS FOR ME AS YOUR TOWN ENGINEER, WE CAN HANDLE THAT, OF COURSE. BUT ON SOME TECHNICAL SIDES, THEY ARE NOW COVERED KIND OF AS A SEPARATE ITEM BECAUSE OF THE DETAIL THAT THIS GOES INTO.

OKAY. AND I DO WANT TO NOTE, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE WE CAN GO THROUGH THEM THIS EVENING IN GREAT DETAIL, BUT THERE ARE NUMEROUS REPORTS AND STUDIES, INCLUDING UPDATED TRAFFIC REPORTS, WETLAND DONATIONS, CULTURAL RESOURCE REPORTS, PRELIMINARY STORMWATER DESIGN, ALL OF THAT DOCUMENTATION HAS PREVIOUSLY BEEN SUBMITTED. THE ONLY OTHER PIECE THAT I'LL ALSO ADD IS THAT IN THE DEIS, THERE WERE A NUMBER OF COMMENTS THAT WE GOT FROM THE PUBLIC DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE DEIS AGENCY COMMENT. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS AT THE TIME PUT TOGETHER COMMENTS. ONE OF THE OTHER THINGS THAT'S IMPORTANT IN THE EYES IS YOUR GUYS'S RESPONSE TO THOSE SUBSTANTIVE, AND I USE THAT WORD CLEARLY. SUBSTANTIVE COMMENTS OF HAVING YOUR RESPONSE TO THOSE COMMENTS IN THE FAIS AS WELL. SO THAT'S ANOTHER COMPONENT THAT HAS TO BE IN THE FIS WHAT YOUR GUYS'S RESPONSES ARE TO SOME OF THOSE COMMENTS FROM AGENCIES, PREVIOUS PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS, THE PUBLIC, SO ON AND SO FORTH. AND WE BELIEVE WE'VE DONE A THOROUGH JOB, INCLUDING EACH AND EVERY COMMENT AND A RESPONSE. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS, YOU GUYS HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD? I HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS, BUT I'LL LET OTHERS GO AHEAD. MEMBER. FROM WHAT I REMEMBER, THE LAST TIME I WAS ON THE PLANNING BOARD WHEN THIS PROJECT ORIGINATED, IT WAS A VERY, VERY DETAILED, INVOLVED PROJECT. THE PUBLIC HEARING.

THERE WERE PROBABLY MORE THAN 50 PEOPLE HERE AT THE TIME THAT ALL SPOKE ABOUT IT, AND THEY WERE ALL RESIDENTS OF THE PARKER ROAD AREA, AND THE MAJORITY OF THEM WERE STRONGLY IN FAVOR OF SEEING THAT PROJECT TO BE COMPLETED WITH THE HOUSING, THE ADDITIONAL TAX BENEFITS THAT WOULD HELP WITH THE TOWN. BUT FROM WHAT I DO REMEMBER, IT WAS A VERY DETAILED AND INVOLVED PLANNING BOARD SESSION. WHEN THIS PROJECT WAS ON THE AGENDA, THERE WAS AND AGAIN, DURING THOSE MEETINGS, INCLUDING THE MOST RECENT HEARING HELD IN 2024, THERE REALLY WAS A CLEAR PREFERENCE FOR THE CLUSTERING VERSUS THE AS OF. RIGHT. OKAY.

[00:45:01]

YEAH, IT 90 IT'S 90FT AT THE BUILDING LINE, 30FT AT THE FRONT LINE, 75 BY 140, RIGHT, 90 WIDE BY. OKAY. SO IF YOU CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE CLUSTERING PLAN. SO BASICALLY WHAT WOULD HAPPEN? SO TO A LARGE DEGREE, A LOT OF OUR LOT SIZES ARE REASONABLY CLOSE. BUT IF WE WERE FORCED TO INCREASE THE MINIMUM FRONTAGE OF ALL OF OUR PROPOSED LOTS TO 90 LOT TO 90FT, BASICALLY THAT PERMANENT OPEN SPACE ALONG THE EDGES IS LOST. YOU KNOW, WE CAN STILL GET AGAIN, WE CAN ACTUALLY GET SIX MORE LOTS IN WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING, BUT IT DOES COME AT THE EXPENSE OF THE PERMANENT OPEN SPACE. YOU WOULD HAVE WIDER LOTS IN TERMS OF THE LOT DIMENSIONS, IN TERMS OF THE LOT DEPTH, THAT WOULD BASICALLY BE THE SAME. AND ACCORDING ACCORDING TO THAT MAP THERE, WHERE WOULD THE WALKING TRAIL BE? IS IT OKAY IF I GO? I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT WHERE THE OPEN SPACE IS. SO HERE ALONG PARKER, WHICH IS VERY IMPORTANT TO THE RESIDENTS HERE ALL THE WAY ALONG THE BACK AND THEN ALONG THE CREEK CORRIDOR AND WHERE THE WALKING TRAIL IS PROPOSED IS TO CONNECT. ACTUALLY, I THINK THIS IS A REALLY COOL FEATURE. I THINK IT WAS MR. CLARK WHO ASKED FOR THIS CONNECT DIRECTLY INTO THE STREET NETWORK AND THEN WRAP ALL THE WAY AROUND, AND THEN ALL THE WAY AROUND THIS SECOND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT. SO THAT'LL HAVE A BUFFER BETWEEN THE WETLANDS AND THE BACKYARD.

AND I BELIEVE THE ACTUAL LENGTH OF THAT IS 3000FT. SO IT'S LITERALLY, YOU KNOW, 6/10 OF A MILE. IT'LL BE A NICE AMENITY. YEAH. OKAY. WE LOOK AT TRYING TO CONNECT IT OVER TO THE WETZEL SITE AS WELL. BUT BECAUSE OF WETLANDS BETWEEN. OKAY. THANK YOU. I WANTED TO SEE WHAT EXAMPLE SPECIFICALLY. MR. BENKO IS A DEVELOPER. YEAH, THAT'S A GOOD POINT. I KNOW WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO SAY, BUT GO AHEAD. DAVID. I DEVELOPED MISSION HILLS OVER ON 4543 CAMP ROAD, AND THE BOARD APPROVED A CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT OVER THERE. AND BUT OUR MINIMUM LOT SIZE WHEN WE DEVELOPED THAT WERE 60 FOOT WIDE LOTS, 130 FOOT DEEP. SO IF YOU WANTED TO SEE A GOOD EXAMPLE, YOU CAN LOOK AT THESE 60 FOOT WETLANDS AND IMAGINE ANOTHER 15FT, BUT YOU CAN SEE THE SIZE OF THE HOMES THAT ARE CURRENTLY BEING BUILT THERE AND SOLD, YOU KNOW, OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS. OKAY. GIVE YOU A GOOD YOU KNOW, IT GIVES YOU AT LEAST SOMETHING TO LOOK AT.

YOU CAN GIVE SIZE TO IT. YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? OKAY. DEFINITELY. BUT BECAUSE AGAIN, WE'RE PROPOSING LOT DIMENSIONS THAT ARE MUCH LARGER THAN WHAT WOULD BE PERMITTED IF YOU ALLOWED CLUSTERING. YOU KNOW, WE'RE VERY COMFORTABLE IN TERMS OF SETBACKS, FRONT, REAR AND SIDE. AND WE DO WANT TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE ENOUGH ROOM IN THE BACKYARDS FOR AMENITIES, WHICH WE DO. YEAH. ANYBODY REMEMBER AGAIN, I WAS ON THE PLANNING BOARD THE LAST TIME WHEN MISSION HILLS WAS APPROVED, AND I HAVE A BAD HABIT OF GOING THROUGH LOOKING AT OLD PROJECTS THAT I WAS INVOLVED WITH AND LOOKING AT THE PROGRESS. AND YOU ARE TO BE CONGRATULATED.

THAT IS ONE DYNAMITE PROJECT OVER THERE. THANK YOU. TURNED OUT PRETTY GOOD. IT ONLY TOOK ABOUT 20 YEARS, RIGHT? IT TOOK TWO AND A HALF YEARS TO GET IT APPROVED BY THE PLANNING BOARD AND TEN YEARS TO BUILD IT. SO IT'S DONE. OKEY DOKE. SO, JOSH, WITH RESPECT, IN YOUR MEMO THERE WAS REFERENCE OF THE PLANNING BOARD IS COLLECTING THE SUBSTANTIVE COMMENTS. DO WE HAVE THOSE NOW TO REVIEW OR IS THAT STILL BEING PUT TOGETHER. YEAH. SO ALL THE SUBSTANTIVE COMMENTS WERE DURING THE DIS PROCESS. SO THERE WERE COMMENTS FROM AGENCIES WHO WE SENT THE DIS TO. THERE WERE COMMENTS FROM INDIVIDUAL PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS AT THE TIME WHO TOOK THE TIME TO GO THROUGH THE DIS AND ADD SOME COMMENTS. AND THEN THERE WERE COMMENTS FROM THE GENERAL PUBLIC WHO HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THE DIS AT A PUBLIC HEARING, YOU KNOW, PROVIDE LETTERS, EMAILS, SO ON AND SO FORTH. THOSE HAVE BEEN PROVIDED. THERE'S A FOLDER IN THE SHAREPOINT OF THOSE PUBLIC COMMENTS. AND THEN THOSE PUBLIC COMMENTS, I BELIEVE, HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED IN THE DRAFT PHASE BY THE APPLICANT. OBVIOUSLY, THE APPLICANT HAS TAKEN A CHANCE TO RESPOND TO THOSE COMMENTS. IT'LL BE THIS BOARD'S DISCRETION TO IF THERE'S

[00:50:01]

SO IT WAS A GOOD BIT OF WORK TO RESPOND TO ALL THOSE COMMENTS. OKAY. MY NEXT QUESTION IS TIMING FOR THIS BOARD. I MEAN, I KNOW YOU SAID THAT WE DON'T HAVE A SPECIFIC TIMELINE AND SO FORTH, BUT OUR NEXT STEP IS TO READ A LOT OF STUFF. YEAH, YEAH. THERE'S A LOT OF THERE'S A LOT OF READING MATERIAL TO GO INTO IT. I DO THINK THAT WE'RE LUCKY ENOUGH TO HAVE HAD THAT EXTRA WEEK. SO OUR NEXT PLANNING BOARD MEETING ISN'T UNTIL AUGUST 5TH. TYPICALLY, WE'D MEET ON THE 29TH BECAUSE WE USUALLY MEET EVERY TWO WEEKS. I THINK AN EXTRA WEEK GIVES US ANOTHER WEEK TO HAVE YOU KIND OF READ THROUGH THE FAIS, AND THEN I THINK IF THE APPLICANT IS WILLING TO. COMING ON AUGUST 5TH WITH ANY FURTHER COMMENTS, IF YOU HAVE ANY FURTHER STUDIES THAT YOU NEED CLARIFICATION QUESTIONS TO KIND OF GO OVER IT ON THAT AUGUST 5TH MEETING, AND THEN WE CAN KIND OF TAKE IT FROM THERE, BECAUSE THE OVERALL POINT IS TO BE ABLE TO FILE THIS FEIS AS COMPLETE, THAT HAS SOME FILING NOTIFICATIONS, WHICH MY DEPARTMENT WILL TAKE CARE OF. AND THEN THE TIME CLOCK STARTS AGAIN TO THEN ISSUE SECRET FINDINGS FROM THERE. SO I DO THINK WE HAVE TIME, OBVIOUSLY WORKING IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE APPLICANT.

AS LONG AS THEY'RE COMFORTABLE WITH THAT, I THINK WE CAN COME TO THE AUGUST 5TH MEETING WITH YOU GUYS. JUST HAVING A CHANCE TO BE ABLE TO KIND OF GO THROUGH THAT EXTENSIVE DOCUMENTATION ALONG THE WAY. YOU CAN OBVIOUSLY ASK MY DEPARTMENT ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE IN THE MEANTIME. AND THEN COMING TO THAT AUGUST 5TH MEETING, KIND OF PREPARED WITH FURTHER QUESTIONS, FURTHER STUDY NEEDS THAT YOU HAVE ANY CLARIFICATION, QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT, SO ON AND SO FORTH. OKAY. AND THEN, JOSH, OF COURSE, AS HE ALWAYS DOES, WILL, IF HE RECEIVES COMMENTS THAT HE THINKS WE SHOULD TAKE A LOOK AT BEFORE, HE'LL RELAY THOSE TO US AND WE'LL COME PREPARED TO ADDRESS THEM. OKAY. OKEY DOKE. I DON'T THINK THAT'S ANY QUESTIONS RIGHT NOW. JUST SOME, YOU KNOW, LIGHT WEEKEND READING. YEAH. OKAY. ANYTHING ELSE AT THIS POINT. SO IF YOU FEEL COMFORTABLE WE'LL WITH THE AGENDA WILL BE IS THE PLANNING BOARD TO DISCUSS THE FEIS AT THE AUGUST 5TH MEETING. CONTINUANCE OF THE SAME AGENDA ITEM. YEP. OKAY. AND THEN ALSO JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, IF WHAT WOULD BE ONCE WE HAVE DECIDED THAT AND ALSO FROM THE DRAFTING STANDPOINT, WHO IS ADDRESSING OUR COMMENTS ON THE FEIS LIKE I SEE THAT WE HAVE A PDF. DO YOU GUYS DO YOU HAVE A WORD DOCUMENT THAT'S GOING TO BE ADDRESSED? AND I HAVE A WORKING WORD DOC. YEP. OKAY. SO ACTUAL EDITING WILL COME THROUGH.

IT'LL COME THROUGH MY DEPARTMENT. AND THEN KIND OF LIKE WITH THE RESOLUTIONS, I TAKE YOUR GUYS'S INPUT AND PUT TOGETHER THE FIRST DRAFT OF IT, BUT THEN WE KIND OF WORK THROUGH IT AND MAKE SURE THAT I'M CAPTURING WHAT YOU GUYS ARE SAYING, OKAY. AND THEN ONCE WE HAVE PROVIDED YOUR COMMENTS AND THEN THE DRAFT HAS BEEN KIND OF EVERYBODY'S READ IT FEELS GOOD ABOUT IT, WHAT THEN IS OUR NEXT STEP? FROM THERE, THERE'S AN OFFICIAL RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT THE FES COMPLETE. WE'LL HAVE TO MAKE IT PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE ON THE WEBSITE. THERE'S FILING NOTICE REQUIREMENTS THAT MY DEPARTMENT WILL TAKE CARE OF. AND THEN SUBSEQUENT FROM THAT, WE WILL THEN THE PLANNING BOARD THEN WILL HAVE A TIME REQUIREMENT TO THEN ISSUE SECRET FINDINGS. AS MR. HOPKINS STATED, FOLLOWING THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE FEIS AND THE FINDING STATEMENTS, THE DOCUMENT THAT WILL SET FORTH THE MITIGATION MEASURES YOU'RE IMPOSING. OKIE DOKIE. ALL RIGHT, PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS, ANY QUESTIONS? NO. OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

SO THEN WE'LL SEE YOU ON THE FIFTH. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. THANKS.

AND THEN JOSH, MOVING ON TO WETZEL. YEP. DO I NEED TO ANNOUNCE IT AS A OUR NEXT

[4. Planning Board to discuss the draft Final Environmental Impact Statement submitted by Wetzl Development, LLC regarding a proposal by Glenn Wetzl to rezone property located east and south of 4255 McKinley Parkway]

[00:55:03]

THERE WAS A CONCERN ABOUT THE WETLANDS IMPACTS FOR THE WETZEL PROJECT, WHICH HAS NOW BEEN AMENDED, AND THEN WE'LL KIND OF FOLLOW THIS VERY SIMILAR TIME FRAME ON, YOU KNOW, ADDRESSING THE COMMENTS, DOING THE EIS, ACCEPTING IT AS COMPLETE. AND THEN YOU'LL HAVE TO DO A FINDING STATEMENT FOR THE WETZEL PROJECT AS WELL. BUT HE'LL KIND OF GET INTO THE PARTICULARS OF THIS PROJECT BECAUSE LIKE I SAID, IT'S UNIQUE AND IT'S DIFFERENT THAN THE PARKER ROAD ONE. OKAY, MR. HOPKINS, OH, GOOD EVENING, SEAN HOPKINS. ON BEHALF OF WETZEL DEVELOPMENT. SO TO ACCLIMATE EVERYONE, THIS SITE IS LOCATED AT ZERO BIG TREE ROAD. IT'S 42.5 ACRES. IT'S SPLIT ZONED. IT'S C-1 ALONG THE FRONTAGE, AND THEN THE REMAINDER IS ZONED R-1. WE'RE PROPOSING HERE IS RESIDENTIAL PROJECT CONSISTING OF APARTMENTS FOR LEASE WITH GARAGES. AS JOSH INDICATED, THIS PROJECT IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT THAN THE PROJECT IN THAT IT'S NOT ONLY SUBDIVISION APPROVAL, IT'S ACTUALLY NOT SUBDIVISION APPROVAL. YOU'RE ACTING AS THE LEAD AGENCY. THEN IT WOULD NEED TO GO IN FRONT OF THE TOWN BOARD FOR REZONING AND THEN WOULD COME BACK IN FRONT OF YOU. FINALLY, FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL, THIS PROJECT RECEIVED A POSITIVE DECLARATION FROM A PREDECESSOR BOARD AT THAT VERY SAME MEETING, SEPTEMBER 15TH OF 2021, AND ON SEPTEMBER 10TH OF 2024, YOU DETERMINED THE DAS WAS COMPLETE. AND IT JUST. CAN YOU GO BACK ONE, JOSH, JUST TO ACCLIMATE EVERYONE, THE ORANGE STAR IS THE SITE AND THE SITE WHICH WE JUST FINISHED TALKING ABOUT IS OBVIOUSLY THE SITE DIRECTLY TO THE RIGHT ON THE SCREEN. NEXT SLIDE THAT SHOWS THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION AS IT EXISTS TODAY. AGAIN, C ONE AND THEN R ONE. WE'RE PROPOSING TO PRESERVE 20.1 ACRES OUT OF THAT 45 ACRES AS PERMANENT OPEN SPACE, WHICH WE'LL SHOW YOU MORE IN A SECOND. NEXT SLIDE. SO SIMILAR TO THE PREVIOUS PROJECT, WE'VE HAD NUMEROUS STEPS ON THIS. THIS ONE, INSTEAD OF BEING THE SECOND BULLET POINT AT THE BOTTOM WITH THE FOURTH BULLET POINT AT THE BOTTOM, WE HAVE NEARLY COMPLETED THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT. WE ACTUALLY RECEIVED THE FINAL DOCUMENT WE NEEDED FROM THE DEC TODAY, SO THAT'LL GET SUBMITTED. ULTIMATELY, YOU WILL ISSUE A FINDING STATEMENT AND A RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN BOARD ON THE REZONING. THE TOWN BOARD WILL THEN NEED TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE REZONING ISSUE, A DECISION THEN IF WE MAKE IT THROUGH THOSE STEPS, IT'LL COME BACK IN FRONT OF THIS BOARD FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL. NEXT SLIDE. SAME AS THE PREVIOUS PRESENTATION. THE OFFICE WILL BASICALLY RESPOND TO ALL THE COMMENTS WE RECEIVED, RESIDENTS INVOLVED, AGENCIES, INTERESTED AGENCIES. ET CETERA.

ET CETERA. TO A LARGE DEGREE, THOSE ARE THE VERY SAME AGENCIES THAT COMMENT ON THE PROJECT AS WELL. NEXT SLIDE. SO THIS I DO WANT TO TALK ABOUT IN TERMS OF THE LAYOUT. WE HAVE A PREFERRED LAYOUT HERE. WE HAVE AS OF RIGHT LAYOUT. AND THEN WE HAVE A THIRD LAYOUT. AND I WANT TO GET YOUR INPUT ON THOSE. SO THIS SHOWS WHAT WE'RE PREFERRING FIRST AND FOREMOST WILSON DRIVE. YOU CAN SEE DOWN THERE WITH THE ORANGE ARROW. WHEN WE MET WITH RESIDENTS EARLY ON AND OVER A COURSE OF NUMEROUS PUBLIC MEETINGS, THEIR BIGGEST CONCERN IS IT OKAY IF I GO TO THE BOARD AGAIN? QUESTION. THE BIGGEST CONCERN WE HEARD RIGHT FROM THE GET GO. THIS IS WILSON DRIVE AND THIS IS TAMAKA. THERE'S ACTUALLY WAS MEANT TO BE A STUB STREET HERE AND HERE.

YOU CAN ACTUALLY SEE WHERE THAT WAS. AND THEIR BIGGEST CONCERN WAS THEY DIDN'T WANT US TO CONNECT ANY ROADWAYS OR DRIVEWAYS TO THAT STREET. REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE PROJECT IS, WHETHER IT'S RESIDENTIAL OR COMMERCIAL MULTIFAMILY. SO UNDER OUR PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE, WE ARE NOT DOING THAT. THAT ENTIRE GREEN AREA WOULD BE PERMANENT OPEN SPACE. WE ARE SHOWING 156 APARTMENTS. THAT WOULD BE A MIXTURE OF MORE TRADITIONAL APARTMENTS AND THEN SINGLE FAMILY OR ATTACHED TOWNHOME STYLE SINGLE FLOOR PLANS. IT'S A TOTAL OF, AGAIN, 156 330 PARKING SPACES. WE'LL HAVE A CLUBHOUSE AND RELATED AMENITIES, AND WE'LL BASICALLY BE REZONING A PORTION OF THAT PROPERTY THAT'S ZONED COMMERCIAL TO R3. NEXT SLIDE.

THE OTHER CONCERN WE HEARD WAS SETBACKS FROM THE NEARBY SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ON WILSON DRIVE, BASED ON INPUT RECEIVED THE CLOSEST, AND THIS IS THE CLOSEST THAT ANY OF THOSE SINGLE STORY MULTI-FAMILY BUILDINGS WOULD BE TO THE REAR LOT LINE OF AN EXISTING HOME ON WILSON DRIVE IS 200FT, WHICH IS THAT YELLOW AREA. ALL THOSE NEARBY PROPERTY OWNERS WOULD GET THE BENEFIT OF THAT 20.1 ACRES OF PERMANENT OPEN SPACE. WE'RE ONLY IMPACTING, AND WE'VE ACTUALLY ALREADY DONE THIS FOR 100 OF IMPACTS TO THE D, TO THE ARMY CORPS WETLANDS, WHICH ARE

[01:00:04]

WHAT WE WOULD PROPOSE THERE IS THREE OFFICE BUILDINGS, APPROXIMATELY 7500 ZERO SQUARE FEET, TWO COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS, MORE OR LESS 42,000FT■S, AND TWO RESTAURANTS. IN TODAY'S ENVIRONMENT, WE'RE NOT SAYING THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL DEMAND FOR ALL THAT SPACE, BUT MY CLIENT DOES OWN THE SITE, AND THAT IS WHAT THEY WOULD PROPOSE THERE. AND THEN ON THE REAR OF THE SITE, THAT PORTION IS ZONED R-1. IT WOULD BE AN 18 LOT SUBDIVISION, AND GIVEN THE CONFIGURATION OF THIS PARCEL, WE WOULD HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO CONNECT TO WILSON DRIVE AGAIN, WHICH IS A CONCERN THAT'S BEEN RAISED BY THE RESIDENTS. SO THAT'S WHAT'S PERMITTED BY THE EXISTING ZONING THAT'S IN PLACE TODAY. THE SPLIT C-1 ZONING AND R-1 ZONING. NEXT SLIDE. THIS IS A RESIDENTIAL ALTERNATIVE. SO ONE OF THE THINGS WE CONSIDERED EARLY ON WAS MULTIFAMILY AND A SINGLE FAMILY SUBDIVISION. THIS PARTICULAR CLIENT HAS DONE BOTH OF THOSE TYPES OF PROJECTS IN HAMBURG AND ELSEWHERE. THE PROBLEM WE RAN INTO IS, AGAIN, THE NEIGHBORS WHO PARTICIPATED THE MOST ACTIVELY ALONG WILSON DRIVE SAID, NO, WE'D PREFER THAT YOU ACTUALLY PROVIDE MORE MULTIFAMILY AND LEAVE THAT AREA ALONG. WILSON ALONG WILSON ROAD AND TAMAKI DRIVE AS GREEN SPACE.

SO THAT'S WHAT WE'VE DONE. BASICALLY, THAT AREA, WHICH IS HIGHLIGHTED IN ORANGE, WE'VE ENCROACHED SOMEWHAT INTO IT WITH THE MULTIFAMILY UNITS AND THEN JUST SIMPLY PROVIDED THE REST AGAIN, MORE THAN 20 ACRES OF PERMANENT OPEN SPACE. SO EACH AND EVERY HOMEOWNER ALONG WILSON WILL BACK UP TO A MINIMUM OF 200FT GREEN SPACE, WHICH WILL BE PROTECTED VIA A DEED RESTRICTION. NEXT SLIDE. ONE OF THE QUESTIONS WE WERE ASKED BY THE PREVIOUS PLANNING BOARD IS, WHAT ARE THE CONDITIONS WE WOULD AGREE TO IN CONNECTION WITH THE REZONING? I JUST WANT TO TALK ABOUT THEM VERY QUICKLY. WE WOULD CONVEY A CONSERVATION EASEMENT TO THE TOWN FOR THAT 20.1 ACRES. WE WOULD RECORD A DEED RESTRICTION AT THE ERIE COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE, CLEARLY STATING THAT NO PERMANENT IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDING DRIVEWAYS, ROADWAYS, HOMES, ETC. ARE PERMITTED IN THAT AREA. WE WOULD AGREE THAT NO MULTIFAMILY BUILDING WOULD BE WITHIN 200FT OF THE CLOSEST HOMEOWNERS ALONG WILSON DRIVE. AND THEN FINALLY, WE DID AGREE THAT WE WOULD HAVE A STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM COMPLYING WITH THE APPLICABLE STANDARDS.

I WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT STANDARD APPLIES NO MATTER WHAT, BUT SOME OF THE RESIDENTS AND SOME OF THE PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WAS IN WRITING. NEXT SLIDE.

SO TODAY WE FINALLY RECEIVED A LETTER THAT WE WERE WAITING FOR FROM THE DECK. THIS PROJECT ALSO GOT CAUGHT UP IN DELAY SINCE JANUARY 1ST OF 2025, BECAUSE OF THE AMENDED WETLAND REGULATIONS. ULTIMATELY, AS I INDICATED, BASED ON A COURT DECISION DATED APRIL 8TH, SUBSEQUENT GUIDANCE FROM THE DECK, THE DECK AS OF TODAY HAS ISSUED A LETTER STATING THEY DO NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER ANY OF THE WETLANDS ON THIS PARTICULAR SITE. A COPY OF THAT IS ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE, AND I'VE ALSO PROVIDED JOSH WITH A COPY. NEXT SLIDE. AS CAMI INDICATED, HER TEAM DID TAKE A LOOK AT THIS. ORIGINALLY, CHRIS WOOD PREPARED A DETAILED LETTER RESPONDING TO TECHNICAL COMMENTS ISSUED BY GHD IN ITS ROLE AS A CONSULTANT IN CONNECTION WITH THE REVIEW OF THE D. I S NEXT SLIDE. WE ALSO HAVE PROVIDED AN UPDATE TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY AND DOCUMENTATION PREPARED BY PASSARO ASSOCIATES, OUR TRAFFIC ENGINEER. THIS PROJECT DOES REQUIRE SOME OFF SITE TRAFFIC MITIGATION. BASICALLY, WE NEED TO INSTALL A LEFT HAND TURN LANE ON BIG TREE AT THE PROPOSED DRIVEWAY OF 4678 BIG TREE OR THE BIG TREE ROAD INTERSECTION. WE AGREED TO THAT IT WILL REQUIRE SOME MINOR WIDENING OF THE PAVEMENT AND PAVEMENT, STRIPING, ETC. ETC. ALL SUBJECT TO THE ISSUANCE OF A PERMIT BY THE DOTDOT. WE ALSO WILL BE REQUIRED TO INSTALL SIGNAGE, SO THAT'S DOWN THE ROAD. BUT ULTIMATELY THIS PROJECT WOULD REQUIRE HIGHWAY WORK PERMIT WITH SOME MINOR OFF SITE MITIGATION TO PROVIDE THAT

[01:05:05]

I WILL BE PROVIDING A COPY OF THAT TO JOSH. SO WE ARE HOPING THIS PROJECT CAN ALSO BE PLACED ON THAT AUGUST AGENDA. TO REVIEW THESE PROJECTS TO A LARGE DEGREE HAS BEEN SIMULTANEOUS, AND THEY DO HAVE SOME OVERLAPPING IMPACTS, NAMELY TRAFFIC. BUT IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS RELATIVE TO THE PRESENTATION OR THE PROJECT HISTORY, I OF COURSE WOULD BE WELCOME. I WOULD WELCOME THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS THEM. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. JOSH, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD AT THIS POINT? NO, I THINK I COVERED KIND OF LIKE I SAID, WE'RE KIND OF FOLLOWING A VERY SIMILAR TIMELINE ON WHAT THE REVIEW IS.

LIKE I SAID, THE THE ONLY DIFFERENCE THAT I'LL NOTE IS THAT YOUR, YOUR, YOUR SECRET FINDINGS WILL ALSO BE A REZONING RECOMMENDATION. AND THEN IT'LL GO BACK TO THE TOWN BOARD. SO THAT'S THE ONE OF THE BIGGEST DIFFERENCES FROM THE PARKER ROAD PROJECT IS THAT IT DOESN'T STOP WITH YOU GUYS. IT THEN GOES TO THE TOWN BOARD. AND SHOULD THEY AGREE TO REZONE IT, THEN IT'LL COME BACK BEFORE YOU FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL. CORRECT. OKAY. ENGINEERING ANYTHING. ONE OTHER THING THE TWO PROJECTS PROBABLY HAVE IN COMMON IS THE CREEK THAT RUNS THROUGH IT. RIGHT? I DON'T KNOW IF SHAWN WANTS TO TOUCH ON THAT A LITTLE BIT, AS HE DID MENTION, AND SAME AS THE PREVIOUS PROJECT, GHD DID DO SOME REVIEWS. SO AGAIN, WE ARE STILL AVAILABLE TO HELP WITH FINALIZING THE EIS, BUT I DID WANT TO POINT OUT THAT AN IMPORTANT FACTOR THAT WAS DISCUSSED A GREAT DEAL BY THE PLANNING BOARD AT THE TIME WAS THAT CREEK BISECTING THIS PROPERTY. JOSH, YOU WANT TO GO BACK TO THE PLAN THAT SHOWS THIS? THANK YOU FOR POINTING THAT OUT. THERE YOU GO. SO THAT RIPARIAN BUFFER IS CROSSES THE MANKO SITE, REMEMBER THE OPEN SPACE AND THEN BISECTS THE SITE HERE AS WELL. AND IT'S THE EXACT SAME THING. 50 FOOT WIDE RIPARIAN BUFFER WITH EXTENSIVE PLANTINGS. IT WILL ACTUALLY RESULT IN DRAMATIC IMPROVEMENT COMPARED TO WHAT'S HERE TODAY. SO YOU'RE ESSENTIALLY CONTINUING THAT RIPARIAN BUFFER, THE PLANTINGS AND AND SO FORTH. OKAY. AND THAT WAS ONE OF THE COMMENTS THAT WAS RECEIVED FROM THE CONSERVATION BOARD AS WELL. OKAY. ANYTHING ELSE? THAT'S ALL I HAVE GREAT PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS. ANY QUESTIONS? COMMENTS, REQUESTS? NOT AT THIS TIME. NOT AT THIS TIME. NO. I JUST HAVE ONE QUESTION AND IT ACTUALLY GOES TO BOTH OF THEM.

SO THERE WAS CONFUSION ABOUT REVIEWING ALTERNATIVES, MAKING SURE THAT LIKE WE'RE WHEN WE'RE REVIEWING THE EIS, WHAT LENS WE'RE TAKING AND WHAT COMPARISONS. SO FOR PARKER ROAD, THE AS OF RIGHT PLAN AND THE CLUSTER ALTERNATIVE, RIGHT. SO WHEN WE'RE READING THE VERBIAGE, ALTERNATIVE IS TO BE THE CLUSTER, EVEN THOUGH IT'S BEEN PRESENTED AS THE PREFERRED. AND THAT'S ENTIRELY CORRECT. SO BASED ON INPUT, DURING THE ORIGINAL REVIEW PROCESS, THE PLANNING BOARD WANT US TO LABEL AS OF RIGHT AS, AS THAT PLAN AND THEN AGAIN AS A PREFERRED PLAN FOR TECHNICAL PERSPECTIVE. BUT THE ALTERNATIVE, THE CLUSTERING IS WHAT WE PREFER.

OKAY. SO AS OF RIGHT PLAN IS ESSENTIALLY THE BASE PLAN. AND THEN THE CLUSTER IS THE ALTERNATIVE FOR WETZEL. IS IT THE SAME WAY WHERE THE AS OF RIGHT PLAN IS THE BASE? AND THEN THIS PREFERRED LAYOUT IS ALTERNATIVE? OR ARE WE NOT DOING ALL THE THE WETZEL ONE HAS ACTUALLY REALLY THREE DIFFERENT LAYOUTS. SO TO LOOK AT. SO THERE'S NO QUOTE UNQUOTE PREFERRED OR ONE ALTERNATIVE OVER ANOTHER. YOU CAN KIND OF REVIEW ALL OF THEM RIGHT ON THAT ONE. THE AS OF RIGHT PLAN IS THE COMMERCIAL. YEP. THE SINGLE FAMILY SUBDIVISION. AND THEN WE HAVE TWO ALTERNATIVES. OUR PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE, WHICH IS EXCLUSIVELY MULTIFAMILY WITH A GREATER AMOUNT OF GREEN SPACE. AND THEN WE HAVE ONE THAT'S PARTIALLY MULTIFAMILY AND ALSO A SINGLE FAMILY SUBDIVISION THAT WOULD CONNECT TO WILSON. OKAY. RIGHT.

SO I THINK THE THING TO CONSIDER IS THAT THE PREFERRED, I GUESS, IF YOU WANT TO CALL IT

[01:10:05]

AND THEN THE COMPONENT THAT HAS THE APARTMENTS AND THE SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES, I THINK THEY'RE JUST ALTERNATIVES TO THE PREFERRED PLAN. THAT ONE I THINK IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT IN TERMS OF THERE'S, THERE'S THREE COMPONENTS. THERE'S THE NEEDS OF THE REZONING FROM THE TOWN BOARD. SO TO ME, THAT'S A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT, BUT THE PREFERRED TECHNICALLY WILL BE THE COMMERCIAL ON THE C ONE AND THE RESIDENTIAL ON THE R ONE. AND THEN THE OTHER TWO ARE ALTERNATIVE. I DO THINK THAT'S HOW IT WAS LABELED. I CAN CHECK, BUT I THINK THAT HELPS. AND SO THEN ARE WE REVIEWING THE MITIGATION MEASURES AGAINST EACH EACH OPTION OR IS IT. I'VE ALWAYS DESCRIBED IT AS YOU'RE ESSENTIALLY DOING A COMPARATIVE OF YOU HAVE THE PREFERRED AND IT'S ALL ITS IMPACTS AND ALL OF ITS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS IS LIKE YOUR BASE. YEAH, YOUR BASE.

AND THEN YOU'RE REVIEWING THAT AGAINST THERE'S ONE ALTERNATIVE THAT HAS ITS OWN SET OF IMPACTS AND ITS OWN SET OF TRAFFIC IMPACTS AND SO ON AND SO FORTH. AND THEN FOR WETZEL, YOU HAVE A THIRD ALTERNATIVE THAT HAS ESSENTIALLY THREE REVIEWS. YOU CAN BOIL IT DOWN TO THAT. YES.

OKAY. AND THAT'S WHAT I'M GETTING MY HEAD AROUND. THAT'S WHAT IT SOUNDS LIKE. AND THAT IS HOW THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT WAS SET UP. IT HAS AN EVALUATION OF THE IMPACTS OF ALL THREE. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. JUST TRYING TO ORGANIZE MY HEAD AROUND HOW YOU'RE GOING TO REVIEW IT, BUT OKAY. UNDERSTOOD. SO WE DON'T HAVE THAT ONE YET. BUT YOU SAID THAT YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO. WE SHOULD BE GETTING IT. YEAH. I'M HOPING THAT YOU'LL HAVE IT IN THE NEXT FEW DAYS. AGAIN, I JUST WAS WAITING FOR THAT DECK LETTER, WHICH WE FINALLY GOT TODAY.

OKAY. AND THEN JOSH, ARE WE GETTING HARD COPIES AS BOARD MEMBERS FOR THAT AHEAD OF THE SIMILAR, SIMILAR TO WHAT I DID FOR THE PARK ROAD PROJECT, I ASKED FOR ENOUGH HARD COPIES FOR EACH BOARD MEMBER IN CASE YOU WANT A HARD COPY. SO I'LL DO THE SAME FOR THE WETZEL PROJECT AND THERE WILL BE HARD COPIES AVAILABLE FOR FOR BOARD MEMBERS, AND YOU'LL LET US KNOW WHEN THEY. I'LL LET YOU KNOW WHEN THEY'RE READY TO COME GET THEM. OKAY? OKAY, EVEN MORE READING. ALL RIGHT. IS THERE A MUCH MORE ENJOYABLE. IF YOU READ THEM TOGETHER OR CONFUSING.

YEAH, EXACTLY. OKAY, SO I THINK NOTHING ELSE FOR THE WETZEL PROJECT AT THIS POINT. WE'LL SEE YOU ON THE FIFTH. THANK YOU EVERYONE. ENJOY YOUR EVENING. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. OKAY. WE DO HAVE MINUTES TO APPROVE. DID EVERYONE GET A CHANCE TO REVIEW THOSE? ANYBODY HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS? IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM THE JULY 1ST, 2026 PLANNING BOARD MEETING? I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE JULY. WAS IT FIRST MINUTES? ALL RIGHT.

ITEM WAS MOVED BY MEMBER RYAN. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. ALL RIGHT.

MINUTES HAVE BEEN APPROVED. AND IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE? THE ONLY THING I'LL DO IS I JUST WANT TO INTRODUCE THE RAUCOUS CROWD THAT WE HAVE ON THE PLANNING BOARD TO COLIN COLLINS STARTED AT WENDELL WITH US. HE'S A PLANNER. HE STARTED JUNE 22ND. ONE OF THE THINGS I LIKE TO DO IS THROW PEOPLE INTO THE FIRE. SO BURN THEM TO A HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD MEETING TO KIND OF SEE HOW WE WE DO THINGS. AND HE WILL BE MORE INVOLVED WITH SOME OF THE THINGS I'VE BEEN GIVING HIM SOME CODE STUFF TO TAKE A LOOK AT. SO HE'S KIND OF LEARNING THE PROCESS OF THE TOWN OF HAMBURG AND DREW'S KIND OF ON HIS SUNSET. SO I'M DREW NOW AND COLIN IS ME. SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GONNA THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GONNA BE DOING. SO NICE. WELCOME. WELCOME, WELCOME. YES.

GOOD LUCK TO YOU. YEAH, WE'LL BE SEEING YOU MORE. AND CONGRATULATIONS, JOSH. YEAH, YEAH. ALL RIGHT. SO WITH THAT, IS THERE A MOTION TO ADJOURN? DON'T JUMP. I'LL MAKE A MOTION.

MOTION ITEM WAS MOVED BY MEMBER KWANT. ALL THOSE IN? IS THERE A SECOND? I SECOND IT SECOND BY

[01:15:05]