Aug 05, 2026 08-15-2026 PB Meeting

[00:00:16]

OUT SOME MORE AGENDAS AND IF EVERYBODY WOULD LIKE TO TAKE THEIR SEAT, I WOULD LIKE TO START THE MEETING FOR THE AUGUST 5TH TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD. WOULD YOU PLEASE ALL RISE FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE? I PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS. ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, AND FOR LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. MEMBER. DORIS, WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL? CYNTHIA. GRAND PRESENT. KAITLYN SHIMURA, ABSENT AND EXCUSED. RICHARD SAJAK HERE. WILLIAM CLARK HERE. BRIAN SMITH, STEWART. KIM RYAN HERE. MILTON KWANT HERE. AUGUST GERACI HERE. JOSEPH GOGUEN HERE. THE ATTORNEY IS PRESENT. YES. OKAY. SO BECAUSE MEMBER SHIMURA IS NOT HERE THIS EVENING, OUR ALTERNATE MILTON WILL BE FILLING IN FOR HER. SO WE HAVE

[1. Public Hearing – 7:00 P.M., 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]

DOUG. PHASE WITH CARMINA WOOD DESIGN. PRESENTING THE PROJECT HERE TONIGHT. I KNOW THAT THIS HAS BEEN TO THE BOARD A COUPLE TIMES AND IT'S BEEN TALKED ABOUT, SO I'M HAPPY TO MOVE TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. IF BOARD HAS ANY QUESTIONS. HAPPY TO HEAR IT, ANSWER IT. DO WHATEVER I CAN. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MEMBER GERACI, WOULD YOU PLEASE READ THE NOTICE? YOU CAN HAVE A SEAT. YOU CAN HAVE A SEAT. I'M SORRY. I DON'T HAVE A. I DON'T HAVE IT. OH, I'M SORRY, I DO. FORGIVE ME FOR. OKAY. 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 MEETING ON A PROPOSAL FOR A 2460 SQUARE FOOT CREDIT UNION WITH A DRIVE THROUGH, WITH A FOUR CAR GARAGE AND OTHER ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS TO BE LOCATED AT 5505 SOUTHWESTERN BOULEVARD. THE PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD ON AUGUST 5TH, 2026 AT 7 P.M.

IN ROOM SEVEN A AND SEVEN B OF THE HAMBURG TOWN HALL. OKAY. THANK YOU. IN ORDER TO HEAR FROM ALL RESIDENTS AT A REASONABLE HOUR, A THREE MINUTE RULE WILL APPLY FOR A PUBLIC HEARING, WHICH IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE COMMUNITY TO SHARE INFORMATION ON HOW THEY ARE IMPACTED BY THE PROJECT. IT IS NOT A QUESTION AND ANSWER PERIOD. ALL STATEMENTS MADE DURING THE HEARING, AS WELL AS WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE, WILL BE SENT TO THE PLANNING BOARD AS WELL AS THE APPLICANT FOR RESPONSE. SO IS THERE A. I WOULD LIKE TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT THIS TIME FOR RADIUS FEDERAL CREDIT UNION. IS THERE ANYONE HERE THIS EVENING THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN REGARDS TO THIS PROJECT? SECOND CALL FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR RADIUS FEDERAL CREDIT UNION. THIRD AND FINAL CALL FOR RADIUS. FEDERAL CREDIT UNION. SEEING NO INTEREST. I'M CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING. AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT. WE HAVE. A RESOLUTION, I BELIEVE. CORRECT. DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD TO OFFER TO AT THIS POINT? ONLY THING I WILL ASK IS CAN WE IS THERE AN ENGINEERING LETTER FOR

[00:05:06]

RADIUS FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, 5505 SOUTHWESTERN BOULEVARD. SB L NUMBER 182.09-1-5. SEEKER AND APPROVAL RESOLUTION AUGUST 5TH, 2026. WHEREAS, THE TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING DEPARTMENT RECEIVED A SITE PLAN APPLICATION FROM RADIUS FEDERAL CREDIT UNION FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 2460 SQUARE FOOT CREDIT UNION WITH A DRIVE THROUGH FOUR CAR GARAGE, ALONG WITH OTHER ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS TO BE LOCATED AT 5505 SOUTHWESTERN BOULEVARD. SB L NUMBER ONE EIGHT, 2.09-1-5. AND WHEREAS THE TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD HAS DETERMINED THAT THIS TYPE IS A TYPE TWO ACTION UNDER SEEKER AND NO FURTHER SEEKER REVIEW IS NECESSARY. AND WHEREAS THE TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING DEPARTMENT HELD THE REQUIRED PUBLIC HEARING ON AUGUST 5TH, 2026, AND WHEREAS, THE TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD HAS THOROUGHLY REVIEWED THE PROJECT AND SITE PLAN AND RECEIVED INPUT FROM TOWN DEPARTMENTS, ADVISORY BOARDS AND CONSULTANTS, AND HAS FOUND THE PROJECT TO BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH TOWN CODE.

NOW. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT 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 MEMO DATED. IS THAT 7838326. THE TWO. THE LANDSCAPING PLAN DATED JULY 8TH, 2026 SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. THREE THE INSTALLATION OF SIDEWALKS IS NOT WARRANTED AS THEY ALREADY EXIST ALONG SOUTHWESTERN BOULEVARD. FOUR ANY PROPOSED SIGNAGE SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SIGN REGULATIONS.

ARTICLE 36 OF HAMBURG TOWN CODE AND FIVE LIGHTING MUST BE DARK SKY COMPLIANT. IT'S BEEN MOVED.

IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. IT'S BEEN MOVED BY MEMBER STEWART, SECOND BY MEMBER KWANT. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE RESOLUTION? AYE, AYE. ANY OPPOSED? YOUR RESOLUTION HAS PASSED. THANK YOU. CONGRATULATIONS. OKAY. OUR NEXT

[2. Public Hearing – 7:00 P.M., A.K. Kaid – Requesting Change of Use and Site Plan Approval on a proposal for a retail cannabis dispensary and associated site improvements to be located at 3233 Lakeshore Road]

[00:10:05]

WE'RE NOT GOING TO JUST GO OVER IT. WE'RE REMOVING ALL THE WE'RE REMOVING EVERYTHING DOWN TO THE, THE BASE AND THEN REINSTALLING A COMPLETE NEW BLACKTOP PARKING LOT IN THE FRONT. WE'RE NOT TOUCHING THE PERIMETER AND WE HAVE A GREEN SPACE TO THE, TO THE, TO THE SOUTH WITH A SERIES OF TREES. SO WE HAVE AN AREA THAT WE WEREN'T GOING TO BE ABLE TO USE FOR PARKING. SO WE CHANGED IT TO GREEN SPACE. WE THOUGHT THAT THAT, IMPROVED THE OVERALL SITE PLAN. AND THEN WE ALSO SHOWED THE LIGHTING THAT WE HAVE ON THE OUTSIDE, WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, DIRECTED TOWARD WELCOMING AND HAVING SOME LIGHT, BUT IT'S NOT LARGE LIGHTS OR HIGH LIGHTS THAT ARE GOING TO BE SPILLING OVER TO THE ADJACENT PROPERTY. SO IT'S VERY SPECIFIC, VERY ORIENTATED. AND WE GAVE, WE SUBMITTED A LIGHTING, YOU KNOW, FOOT CANDLE REPORT. DID YOU RECEIVE THAT? DID YOU RECEIVE THAT? THANK YOU. SO WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO DO EVERYTHING WE CAN TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS THAT WE WERE ASKED TO DO AT OUR LAST MEETING. BUT THIS IS A VERY SERIOUS, IMPROVEMENT OF THE AK AND HIS PARTNER, ANTHONY TAYLOR, ARE BUYING THE BUILDING.

THEY'RE, YOU KNOW, PUTTING A MAJOR INVESTMENT INTO THE BUILDING, REDOING IT COMPLETELY.

I MEAN, FROM THE ROOF TO THE FLOOR TO THE EXTERIOR, TO THE WALLS AND TO THE INTERIOR, IT'S, IT'S A MAJOR INVESTMENT. SO OTHER THAN THAT, I DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE I COULD SAY. WE'RE, WE'RE, WE'RE TRYING TO DO A GOOD JOB ON BEHALF OF THIS AREA. AND IT'S A LONG TERM SOLUTION THAT WILL OWN. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. PLANNING DEPARTMENT, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO OFFER BEFORE WE, YEAH. SIR, MAY I HAVE YOUR NAME, PLEASE? MY NAME IS TOMMASO. I'M AN ARCHITECT IN BUFFALO. I'VE GOT I GOT SOMETHING, BUT IT'S ON EVERY DRAWING THAT YOU'VE SEEN. TOMMASO. THAT'S IT. WELCOME BACK. THANK YOU. THE ONLY THING THAT I'LL ADD IS JUST TO GIVE A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND. OBVIOUSLY, THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY RECEIVED A USE VARIANCE FROM THE ZONING BOARD, WHICH IS WHY THIS DISPENSARY IS BEFORE THE PLANNING BOARD FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL AND CHANGE OF USE. AT THE LAST TIME I KNOW BOARD MEMBERS DID HAVE A QUESTION. THERE WAS LIKE A DECK THAT WAS KIND OF SHOWN, WHICH OBVIOUSLY, THE, YOU KNOW, THE RENDERS AND BASED OFF OF THE, THE SITE PLAN THAT HAS CHANGED. OBVIOUSLY OUTDOOR CONSUMPTION IS NOT ALLOWED HERE IN THE TOWN OF HAMBURG. SO BASED OFF OF, I THINK WHAT THE BOARD ASKED FOR, I THINK THE APPLICANT DID A PRETTY GOOD JOB OF PUTTING TOGETHER A PACKAGE FOR, FOR THE BOARD REVIEW. AND THEN AFTER THE PUBLIC HEARING, YOU DID NOT AUTHORIZE ME TO DO RESOLUTIONS AT THE LAST TIME YOU WANTED TO SEE SOME OF THE DRAWINGS. IF YOU FEEL COMFORTABLE AT THE CLOSING OF THE PUBLIC HEARING, YOU CAN AUTHORIZE ME TO PRODUCE DRAFT APPROVAL RESOLUTIONS FOR A FOLLOWING MEETING. OKAY. MEMBER GERACI, WOULD YOU LIKE TO READ THE, LEGAL NOTICE? CAN WE, CUT THE CHATTER DOWN IN THE AUDIENCE? IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO FOR PEOPLE TO HEAR, AND I'D LIKE EVERYBODY TO FOCUS. THANK YOU. GO AHEAD. 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 RETAIL CANNABIS DISPENSARY AND ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS TO BE LOCATED AT 3233 LAKESHORE ROAD. THE PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD ON AUGUST 5TH, 2026 AT 7 P.M. IN ROOM SEVEN A AND SEVEN B OF THE HAMBURG TOWN HALL. OKAY, A PUBLIC HEARING. IN ORDER TO HEAR ALL RESIDENTS AT A REASONABLE HOUR, A THREE MINUTE RULE WILL APPLY. A PUBLIC HEARING IS THE OPPORTUNITY FOR THE COMMUNITY TO SHARE INFORMATION ON HOW THEY ARE IMPACTED BY THE PROJECT. IT IS NOT A QUESTION AND ANSWER PERIOD. ALL STATEMENTS MADE DURING THE HEARING, AS WELL AS WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE, WILL BE SENT TO THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE APPLICANT FOR REVIEW AND RESPONSE. AT THIS POINT, I WOULD LIKE TO OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ARCADE, REQUESTING CHANGE OF USE AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR 3233 LAKESHORE ROAD. IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE? SECOND, CALL FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR

[00:15:03]

REQUESTING CHANGE OF USE AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL. SEEING NO RESPONSE, I'M CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING. I DON'T BELIEVE DOES THE BOARD HAD ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS. MEMBER. RYAN. HI.

NOW I'M LOOKING AT YOUR RENDERING. IS THERE GOING TO BE ANY OTHER WAY IN AND OUT OF THE PARKING LOT? LIKE, CAN YOU DO IT ON THE SIDE STREET? NO, NO, NOT ON THE SIDE. JUST THE FRONT.

JUST THE FRONT. THERE'S TWO EXISTING, YOU KNOW, CURB CUTS AND WE'RE REUSING INTO THE MICROPHONE. WE'RE REUSING THE EXISTING CURB CUTS. WE DO NOT WANT TO PUT ANY MORE CURB CUTS ON THAT SITE. WE DON'T WANT TO. THAT WOULD BE VERY DISRUPTIVE. NOT A GOOD IDEA, I GUESS. I GUESS I WAS THAT YOUR QUESTION? YEAH, I THOUGHT THERE WAS ONE ON THE SIDE, BUT NO, NO, NO IT'S NOT ON OUR SITE DRAWINGS. OKAY. WE'RE NOT DOING IT. OKAY. SO JUST CLARIFICATION. BOTH THE ENTRANCE AND ENTRANCE ENTRANCE AND EXIT WOULD BE ONTO ROUTE FIVE, CORRECT? CORRECT. OKAY.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD MEMBERS? I HAD A QUESTION. DO IS THE GLASS ON THE EITHER SIDE OF THE, THE DOOR? I GUESS THEY'RE THE OLD GARAGE DOORS WHERE THE OLD GARAGE DOORS WERE.

IS THAT GLASS FROSTED? NO, THAT IS GOING TO BE A NEW GLASS OVERHEAD DOOR THAT WE COULD LIFT UP AND BE MORE WELCOMING. BUT, BUT WE WON'T, THEY'LL BE CLOSED 99% OF THE TIME. THERE'S A, THERE'S A YOUTH MUSIC STUDIO ACROSS THE STREET AND I, I DON'T THINK I WOULD WANT ANY DOORS BEING OPENED FOR, FOR THE KIDS TO SEE IN OR SEE ANY KIND OF PARAPHERNALIA OR WHATNOT.

WELL, WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE PARAPHERNALIA. WELL, BUT, BUT THE ISSUE IS WE WANT TO HAVE A BUILDING THAT IS TRANSPARENT AND PEOPLE COULD SEE WHAT'S GOING ON INSIDE, AND WE COULD SEE WHAT'S GOING ON OUTSIDE. THE IDEA OF USING GLASS IS VERY, VERY IMPORTANT. SO THE GLASS FRONT AND THE TRANSPARENCY, WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE A, YOU KNOW, JUST A DOOR THAT PEOPLE WALK IN AND THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON INSIDE OR GOING ON OUTSIDE. YEAH. SO THAT WAS A VERY WHAT I'D LIKE TO SEE SOME MITIGATION FOR THAT YOUTH MUSIC STUDIO ACROSS THE STREET. WHAT KIND OF MITIGATION ARE YOU SPEAKING OF? DO YOU THINK SO FROSTED IT WOULD YOU KNOW THAT WOULD YEAH. THE GLASS BE FROSTED AND AND NOT BE ABLE TO BE OPENED UP AND YOU KNOW THEM BE ABLE TO SEE IN THE KIDS BEING ABLE TO SEE IN. WELL, WE COULD MAKE IT FROSTED FOR SURE.

AND AGAIN, IT'S NOT GOING TO BE OPEN VERY OFTEN. YOU KNOW, MAYBE 1% OF THE I MEAN, UNDER WHAT CONDITIONS COULD IT BE OPENED? YOU KNOW, I IN THE MIDDLE OF THE WINTER, IN FALL AT NIGHT. NO, IT'S NOT IT'S GOING TO BE CLOSED 99.9% OF THE TIME. I, I'D LIKE IT CLOSED 100%. WELL, I MEAN, I JUST HAVE HAVE GLASS THERE HAVE A FROSTED SO THAT THERE'S NO. WELL, AS I SAID, WE CAN MAKE IT A FROSTED GLASS SO THAT PEOPLE CAN'T SEE IN. BUT WE'D LIKE TO HAVE SOME TRANSPARENCY. AND I MEAN, IN TERMS OF FUNCTIONING, I DON'T THINK IT'S GOING TO BE OPEN VERY MUCH OR MAY NOT BE OPEN AT ALL. BUT THAT WAS THE YOU KNOW, THAT'S WHAT I WAS ASKED AS A DESIGNER AND AS AN ARCHITECT TO DO. IF YOU INSIST ON, YOU KNOW, HAVING IT CLOSED AT ALL TIMES, THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE TO PUT INTO THE PROGRAM. WE COULD DO THAT. YEAH.

IT'S NOT BEYOND OUR CAPACITY. WE CERTAINLY CAN DO THAT. THAT'S SOMETHING I WOULD LIKE TO SEE PERSONALLY. OH, WELL, I MEAN, I MEAN, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE RICHARD IF THAT'S WHAT YOU WANT. I MEAN, YOU JUST, YOU KNOW, PUT IT TOGETHER AND AND THAT'S WHAT WE WILL DO. WELL, THE BOARD WOULD HAVE TO DISCUSS IT. SO THE BOARD WOULD, YOU KNOW, YOU DECIDE WHAT YOU WANT AND, YOU KNOW, WE'LL COMPLY. YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT WE WANT IT TO, YOU KNOW, TO WORK. MY OTHER QUESTION WAS WHAT, WHAT IS THE SECURITY LIKE THAT? ARE YOU GOING TO HAVE? BECAUSE I SAW THERE WAS A SECURITY OFFICE ON THERE. IS THERE GOING TO BE SECURITY IN THERE DURING OPEN HOURS? YES, IT'S GOING TO BE VERY SECURE. YES. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A SECURITY SYSTEM THAT'S IN PLACE AND IT'S VERY SOPHISTICATED, AND YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO JUST GO IN AND BREAK IN VERY EASILY AND STEAL. SO IS THERE GOING TO BE LIKE A SECURITY OFFICER THERE DURING BUSINESS HOURS? THAT'S I'M NOT I KNOW WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A SECURITY SYSTEM AND IT'S GOING TO BE MONITORED WITH CAMERAS AND WHATNOT, BUT ACTUALLY A SECURITY GUARD, I DON'T THINK WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A SECURITY GUARD THERE. BUT TO, TO THE BEST OF MY UNDERSTANDING, UNFORTUNATELY, I'M NOT REALLY THAT GOOD AT, ANSWERING THESE TYPES OF QUESTIONS BECAUSE I

[00:20:03]

OBVIOUSLY YOU GOT A USE VARIANCE, BUT, WE CAN STILL APPLY THAT AND LOOK FOR MITIGATION FOR THAT. WELL, WE CAN AGAIN, WE, WE CAN HAVE, WE WILL HAVE CAMERAS AND WE WILL HAVE MONITORING, YOU KNOW, ON THE SITE TO AVOID PEOPLE FROM, YOU KNOW, SMOKING AND, YOU KNOW, AND TAKING IN, THE USE OF CANNABIS ON THE SITE, WHICH IS PART OF YOUR, ORDINANCE, YOUR PLANNING ORDINANCE, YOU KNOW, SO WE'RE GOING TO RESPECT THAT AND WE'LL, WE'LL TRY TO PROTECT THE AREA FROM, FROM PEOPLE, YOU KNOW, DOING THAT ILLEGALLY. WE COULD DO THAT. I THINK TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, QUESTIONS MEMBERS ARE ONE, EVEN THOUGH THE ZONING BOARD DIDN'T PLACE ANY CONDITIONS ON THIS APPROVAL AS THE PLANNING BOARD, YOU OBVIOUSLY ARE ABLE TO, SUBSECTION B FOUR OF THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT STANDARDS FOR ADULT USE CANNABIS SAYS SECURITY. AND THEN IT SAYS THE APPLICANT HAS TO DEMONSTRATE APPROPRIATE MEASURES. SO THIS BOARD AS A WHOLE CAN HAVE A CONDITION THAT SPEAKS TO WHAT SECURITY MEASURES YOU THINK SEES FIT. AND THEN IN TERMS OF ENFORCEMENT, I MEAN, FROM A CODE PERSPECTIVE, IT WOULD BE CODE ENFORCEMENT. AND THEN ANYTHING OUTSIDE OF THAT WILL BE A POLICE MATTER FOR ENFORCEMENT OF ANYTHING THAT GOES ON ON THE SITE. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? MEMBERS? HEY, JACK. I THINK THAT'S IT. OKAY. THANK YOU. RICHARD, CAN YOU PULL UP THE CANNABIS LAW? WOULD YOU MIND? SO I JUST WANT TO, YOU KNOW, I'VE BEEN OUT TO SEA FOR THREE MONTHS, SO I FORGOT.

WHAT ABOUT THE CANNABIS LAW ORGANIZATION? BUT SO FIRST OF ALL, AND FOREMOST, THIS ORGANIZATION, THIS BUSINESS HAS TO FOLLOW THE STATE REGULATIONS UNDER THE CANNABIS LAW. IS THAT CORRECT? OKAY. AND THEN I'M NOT I'M GOING TO TALK TO JOSH. AND THEN, SO THIS, THIS CRITERIA HAS TO BE MET FIRST THROUGH THE STATE AND THEN THE REST OF IT, WE CAN IMPOSE OR ADD TO CONDITIONS, UNDER THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT. CORRECT. TYPICALLY SOMEBODY WOULD COME IN AND THEY WOULD NEED A SPECIAL USE PERMIT WITH THIS CODE. IF IT WERE ZONED CORRECTLY, THEY ARE NOT IN THE CORRECT ZONING DISTRICT. THEY RECEIVED A USE VARIANCE. NO CONDITIONS WERE PLACED ON THAT USE VARIANCE. BUT THAT DOESN'T PREVENT THE PLANNING BOARD FROM APPLYING WHATEVER CONDITIONS ON THE SITE. PLAN APPROVAL AS YOU SEE FIT. OKAY. CAN WE TALK ABOUT THE GARAGE DOOR? SURE, BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T HAD THAT IN THE PAST ON THE OTHER STORE OR BUSINESSES THAT WE'VE HAD. AND IT IS KIND OF AN UNUSUAL, OCCURRENCE OR DISPLAY. SO IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WE, THAT THIS BOARD CAN SAY THAT THE GARAGE DOOR CANNOT BE OPENED DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS? YEAH. IT'S LINE TWO IN THAT CODE UNDER SECTION B. YEAH. MUST BE IN A FULLY ENCLOSED BUILDING. BUILDING. SO NO GARAGE DOOR CAN BE OPEN. ALL RIGHT. SO THAT'S UNDER THE LAW UNDER UNDER THE MAINE LAW. SO THAT SHOULD ADDRESS THE CONCERN OF BOARD MEMBER ZAJAC. AND THEN THERE'S THAT CLARIFIES THAT. OKAY. SO WE DON'T HAVE TO PUT A CONDITION BECAUSE THIS THIS

[00:25:06]

JUST FOR A MATTER OF REFERENCE, YOU'RE REFERRING TO THIS HERE. THERE'S NO SEATING HERE. THIS IS JUST AN ENTRANCE. YEAH. YEAH. THAT'S IT'S AN IT'S PART OF THE TOTAL FACADE AND MAKING AN ENTRANCE STATEMENT. BUT THERE'S NO DOOR THERE. THERE'S. CORRECT. AND THERE'S JUST THE GARAGE DOOR THAT'S THERE. IT'S OFFSET FROM THE MAIN ENTRANCE. YEAH. BUT THAT GARAGE DOOR, WE JUST HAVE BEEN, YOU KNOW, TOLD SPECIFICALLY THAT THERE WILL NOT BE OPEN. SO IT WILL NOT BE OPENED. SO WERE THERE EVEN MEMBER STUART. WILL THERE EVEN BE A GARAGE DOOR THERE, OR WOULD IT BE REPLACED WITH JUST WINDOWS. WELL THE WE TO ELIMINATE EVEN THE, WE, IT COULD BE ARCHITECTURALLY COULD WORK OUT THE SAME. YES. OKAY. IT COULD BE LIKE WE COULD INSTEAD OF PUTTING IN A GARAGE DOOR, WE COULD PUT IN, YOU KNOW, ALUMINUM, YOU KNOW, FIXED ALUMINUM GLASS WITH ALUMINUM MULLIONS. AND THAT CERTAINLY WOULD BE THAT WOULD WORK. THAT WOULD BE THE SAME THING IN TERMS OF THE OVERALL DESIGN. IT WOULD LOOK THE SAME. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. MEMBER I, I WOULD THINK THAT IT WOULD MAKE SENSE THAT MAYBE AS A CONDITION, THERE IS A LINE THAT SAYS NO OUTDOOR SEATING IS TO BE PROVIDED ON THAT CONCRETE PATIO JUST TO PREVENT ANY CONGREGATION AND THE POTENTIAL OF OUTDOOR CONSUMPTION ON PROPERTY. BOARD MEMBERS IN AGREEMENT TO THAT. YES, YES WE COULD. WE COULD CERTAINLY DO THAT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I JUST, IF THERE ARE NO OTHER BOARD MEMBERS HAVE ANY COMMENT, I JUST WANT TO SUPPORT WHAT WAS DISCUSSED HERE THIS EVENING IN REGARDS TO THE GARAGE DOOR AND THE PATIO. I THINK IT'S A FALSE INVITE. AND THE FIRST RULE IS THAT THE THE BUILDING HAS TO BE COMPLETELY ENCLOSED. SO YOU WILL SEE THAT, WE WILL BE PUTTING THAT CONDITION. WE DO NEED THE DETAILED SECURITY, WE HAVE RECEIVED IN THE PAST A DETAILED SECURITY. I DON'T BELIEVE THAT WE RECEIVED IT ON THIS AND I MIGHT BE MISSING SOMETHING. ANOTHER, I THINK WE'VE ONLY APPROVED TWO. BUT IN ONE OF THE OTHER ONES, WE'VE HAD THEM PUT TOGETHER A NARRATIVE THAT TALKS ABOUT WHAT THE SECURITY MEASURES WILL BE, WHAT CAMERAS THERE WILL BE, SO ON AND SO FORTH. SO YOU CAN REQUEST SIMILAR TO WHAT YOU'VE DONE IN THE PAST, YOU CAN ASK FOR A NARRATIVE OF JUST WHAT THOSE SECURITY MEASURES WILL BE, WHICH WILL BE ENTERED INTO THE FILE. I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE WE GET THAT ON RECORD. WELL, WHY DON'T WE DO THIS? WHY DON'T WE DO THIS? WHY DON'T WE ADD THE THE LOCATIONS OF THE CAMERAS AND EXACTLY WHAT EQUIPMENT WE'RE GOING TO BE PUTTING IN SO THAT YOU HAVE A COMPREHENSIVE VIEW OF WHAT THE SECURITY SYSTEM IS? WELL, IT'S A VERY YOU KNOW, I MEAN, IT SEEMS LIKE YOU'RE VERY, YOU'RE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT IT. AND I WANT TO RESOLVE IT COMPLETELY, NOT THROUGH A, YOU KNOW, A DESCRIPTION, YOU KNOW, VERBAL DESCRIPTION. I THINK WE SHOULD ADD IT TO THE DRAWINGS AND SHOW THE EQUIPMENT THAT WE'RE USING SO THAT THERE'S NO AMBIGUITY THERE ALONG WITH THE WRITTEN NARRATIVE. WELL, OKAY. OKAY. WE COULD WRITE IT IF YOU WANTED. OKAY. SO, I, I DON'T THINK THAT WE'RE READY TO MOVE AHEAD ON THIS. AND, DID YOU ALREADY PUT THEM ON THE 19TH? THEY ARE EARMARKED FOR THE 19TH. YES. WILL YOU BE READY BY THE 19TH WITH ALL OF THIS, ALL THESE CHANGES. OH YEAH. OKAY. YES. OKAY. YES. WE COULD DO THAT. OKAY. OKAY. SO JUST TO BE CLEAR, WE TALKED ABOUT THE CHANGING OF THE GARAGE DOOR AND THE PATIO. SO THERE'S NO FALSE INVITATION TO COME IN. IT'S NOT GOING TO BE A GARAGE DOOR. IT'S GOING TO BE GLASS. YES. IT'S THE GARAGE DOOR WILL BE GLASS. THERE'S GOING TO BE NOTIFICATION ON THE OUTSIDE THAT THERE'S NO OUTDOOR USE OR OUTDOOR CONSUMPTION. YEP. AND THEN AND THEN A, A NARRATIVE ON THE SECURITY AND A

[00:30:03]

SO THAT SHOULD BE ADDED AS WELL. WE ALSO NEEDED AN ADA ADA COMPLIANT ENTRANCE LAID OUT FOR THE SITE PLAN. WE DID THAT. OKAY. AND THAT'S A CODE REQUIREMENT. SO IT'S NOT AN ISSUE. OKAY. SO WE HAVE TO COMPLY. OKAY. ANYTHING ELSE? ALL RIGHT THEN WE'LL SEE YOU BACK HERE ON THE 19TH. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR HELP. THANK YOU. YOU HAVE A GOOD EVENING. IT'S ALREADY GOOD. THANK YOU. OKAY. OUR NEXT CASE IS HAMBURG. 2ESS LLC, AND

[3. 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]

[00:35:04]

OKAY, GREAT. TRAINING SHOULD BE ORGANIZED IN IN COORDINATION WITH THE LOCAL FIRE DEPARTMENT AND PROVIDED ONE AND PROVIDED ON AT LEAST AN ANNUAL BASIS. WHAT'S NOT ADDRESSED IS BECAUSE WHERE THIS PROJECT IS LOCATED, IT'S NOT JUST LAKEVIEW THAT HANDLES THE CRISISES IN THAT PART OF TOWN. HIGHLAND NORTH OVENS AND THOSE OTHER FIRE DEPARTMENTS ARE CALLED AS WELL FOR MUTUAL AID. WE DO NOT HAVE ANYTHING ADDRESSED TO THOSE OTHER FIRE STATIONS. SO THAT'S WHY I DON'T FEEL THAT WE HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION. I APPRECIATE THAT YOU BROUGHT YOUR EXPERTS, BUT WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION TO HAVE AN EDUCATED DISCUSSION. AND I WOULD LIKE TO TALK TO THE FIRE, AND I WOULD LIKE MORE TIME AS I AND I DID TALK TO A COUPLE OF BOARD MEMBERS. THEY WOULD LIKE MORE TIME TO ASSESS SOME OF THIS INFORMATION. SO, WITH THAT, THAT'S GOING TO BE MY RECOMMENDATION AND I'M GOING TO OPEN IT UP TO THE BOARD FOR DISCUSSION. BOARD MEMBERS. MEMBER RYAN HERE, I HAVE A, A QUESTION OR CONCERN. HAVE YOU

[00:40:04]

NOT MISSING INFORMATION. I ALSO AGREE MEMBER. I ALSO AGREE MORE INFORMATION. MEMBERS I AGREE AS WELL. COULD WE HAVE WE DON'T HAVE ANY SPECIFICS IN TERMS OF WHAT ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IS NEEDED. WELL THAT'S WHY WE WANT TIME TO GO THROUGH IT SO WE CAN PRESENT YOU WITH THAT INFORMATION IS WHAT I JUST HEARD. WELL, THIS SAYS THAT IT'S NOT COMPLETE. THIS REPORT, IT SAYS IN ITSELF, IT'S NOT COMPLETE IS A COMPLETE REPORT. IT'S JUST NOT BEEN FINALIZED.

BECAUSE AGAIN, WELL, I'M NOT HERE TO ARGUE. I'M JUST HERE ABOUT WHAT WE READ. AND I'M VERY CONCERNED. I MEAN, HERE'S MY POINT. AND, FIRST OF ALL, THIS PROJECT, THIS PROJECT IS NOT ZONED FOR THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY. NUMBER ONE, NUMBER TWO. NUMBER TWO, IT'S, IT'S A HIGHLY, IT'S A DANGEROUS, PROJECT. THERE'S ENOUGH EMERGENCY STUFF IN HERE ABOUT BATTERIES AND ABOUT, NOW I CAN'T THINK BECAUSE I'M ALL RATTLED HERE ABOUT THE, FLAMMABLE, FLAMMABLE OFF GASES, ABOUT THE EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN THAT THE FIRE DEPARTMENT CAN'T LAY DOWN A HOSE. WE NEED ANSWERS TO THAT. NO, NO NEED TO EVER LAY DOWN A HOSE ACROSS THE FIRE, ACROSS THE RAILROAD. WELL, I DON'T HAVE A CRYSTAL BALL. WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, I WANT TO MAKE CLEAR THE CONTEXT. SO WHEN WE'RE HERE ON JULY 1ST, THERE WAS AN INDICATION THAT WE NEEDED SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FROM THE FIRE CHIEF. FIRE CHIEF, I'M SURE IS A VERY BUSY INDIVIDUAL. JOSH MADE THAT REFERRAL. WE JUST RECEIVED HIS COMMENTS BACK. SO IT'S NOT THAT WE'VE BEEN IN ANY WAY DEFICIENT IN PROVIDING HIM WITH INFORMATION, BUT OUR EXPERT ON THAT PARTICULAR TOPIC IS HERE CAME SPECIFICALLY FOR THIS MEETING. SO I THINK IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE OR AT LEAST RESPECTFUL TO GIVE HIM THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS A COUPLE OF THESE COMMENTS RELATIVE TO THE OVERALL SAFETY, ESPECIALLY FROM A FIRE PERSPECTIVE, BECAUSE IT'S VERY WELL RECOGNIZED THAT IT ULTIMATELY IT'S NOT A LEGITIMATE FIRE SAFETY. BUT WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, IN THE PAST, WHEN YOU GUYS HAVE BEEN BEFORE THIS BOARD, WE HAVE BEEN GIVEN CONFLICTING INFORMATION ABOUT THE PAST FIRES. BACK IN MAY, WHEN I ASKED, WERE THERE ANY FIRES? YOU TOLD ME THERE WAS ONE, NOT YOU, BUT A MEMBER OF YOUR COMMITTEE TOLD ME THERE WAS ONE. AND THEN I SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS INFORMATION THAT THERE WERE FIVE THROUGHOUT THE STATE. THEN I WAS THEN WE WERE TOLD THAT THE FIRE FOR THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT THAT HAPPENED IN AUSTRALIA WAS A DIFFERENT KIND OF BATTERY. WE FOUND OUT THAT IT WASN'T. SO THIS EVENING ACTUALLY WROTE THE REPORT FOR THAT PROJECT. WELL, AGAIN, YOU DON'T LET ME FINISH. SO I HAVE A BOARD THAT'S CONCERNED ABOUT A PROJECT THAT'S GOING IN A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT'S GOING TO AFFECT BUSINESSES, RESIDENTS, CHURCHES, SCHOOLS, NURSERIES, BASEBALL, DIAMONDS. AND THERE'S ENOUGH INFORMATION. AND I THINK THAT THE RESIDENTS DESERVE THE RIGHT TO REVIEW THIS REPORT AS WELL. THESE THREE REPORTS. NOT OBJECTING TO THAT. THIS IS NOT WE'RE NOT BUILDING A HOUSE HERE. WE'RE BUILDING A PLANT. AND WE HAVE CONCERNS. THIS BOARD HAS THE RIGHT TO HAVE THOSE CONCERNS. AND TO STATE THAT THOSE CASES. RIGHT. SO I MEAN, I CAN'T HAVE I HAVE A BOARD THAT WANTS TO POSTPONE THIS. SO I CAN APPRECIATE YOUR EXPERTS CAN COME BACK. WE WANT TO DO MORE HOMEWORK, AND WE WANT TO TALK TO OUR EXPERTS. AND THAT'S I THINK THAT'S OUR OPPORTUNITY, ESPECIALLY SINCE THIS IS A BIG DEAL. THIS IS NOT WE'RE NOT BUILDING A, YOU KNOW, A SMOKE SHOP. THIS IS A BIG DEAL. AND THE THING OF IT IS, IS THAT THERE'S NOT A LOT OF HISTORY. AND THAT'S WHERE I COME FROM.

WE DON'T HAVE A LOT OF HISTORY. WE'VE GOT A BOARD THAT'S DOING THEIR RESEARCH AND READING ABOUT ALL THE DIFFERENT PLANTS THAT ARE OUT THERE. AND THERE'S NOT A LOT OF THERE ARE A LOT OF SAFETY CONCERNS. SO LET US DO OUR DUE DILIGENCE. THAT IS OUR OPPORTUNITY. THIS IS OUR RIGHT TO DO THE DUE DILIGENCE BECAUSE LATER ON DOWN THE ROAD, SIX YEARS DOWN FROM THE DOWN THE ROAD, WHEN SOMETHING HAPPENS TO THIS PLANT, THIS BOARD WILL AT LEAST HAVE ALL THEIR I'S DOTTED AND ALL THEIR T'S CROSSED AND THEIR EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN IN PLACE. SO THAT'S ALL I'M ASKING, AND I DON'T DISAGREE WITH ANY OF THAT WHATSOEVER. I'M JUST SAYING WE DO HAVE OUR EXPERT HERE MADE THE EFFORT TO COME HERE AND TO HAVE HIM GIVE A TWO MINUTE SYNOPSIS OF, YOU

[00:45:06]

THIS DISCLAIMER FURTHER STATES THIS DOCUMENT IS NOT MEANT TO SERVE AS PROFESSIONAL AND CREDENTIALED ENGINEERING, LEGAL, TECHNICAL OR EMERGENCY RESPONSE JUDGMENT AND THAT ISSG DISCLAIMS ALL LIABILITY FOR PERSONAL WRONGFUL DEATH RESULTING FROM THE USE OF THIS DOCUMENT. A PLAN SUBMITTED TO DEMONSTRATE ADEQUATE PUBLIC SAFETY PREPAREDNESS FOR A PERMIT APPLICATION CANNOT SIMULTANEOUSLY DISCLAIM RESPONSIBILITY FOR DEATHS RESULTING FROM FOLLOWING IT. THERE YOU HAVE IT. SO IF YOU HAVE AN EXPERT THAT WOULD LIKE TO OFFER A TWO MINUTE, INFORMATIONAL, THEN WE'RE ALL EARS, I APOLOGIZE. HI, I'M SAMANTHA PARKER FAN, I'M THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECT MANAGER FOR THE PROJECT. MY SPECIALTY IS ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY. AND I JUST BEFORE WE MOVE ON TO THE EXPERT. OH, SORRY. CAN YOU ALL HEAR ME? YES. YOU HAVE TO SPEAK RIGHT INTO THE MICROPHONE. RIGHT INTO IT. GOT IT. ALL RIGHT. HI. SAMANTHA PARKER FAN. I'M THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECT MANAGER FOR THE PROJECT. I MY BACKGROUND IS IN ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY. SO BEFORE WE MOVE ON, I JUST WANT TO GET A COUPLE CLARIFICATIONS SO THAT THE NEXT MEETING CAN BE AS PRODUCTIVE AS POSSIBLE. AND WE CAN GET YOU ALL THE ANSWERS THAT YOU NEED ON THE TIMELINE YOU NEED. THERE ARE CERTAIN TIMELINES WITHIN THE STATE'S REQUIREMENTS FOR FOLLOWING SEEKER. FOR THE NEXT ONE. WHAT IS WHAT AMOUNT OF LEAD TIME DO YOU NEED THE PROJECT INFORMATION AND THESE QUESTIONS THAT YOU SPECIFICALLY OUTLINED TODAY BY TWO WEEKS BEFORE THE NEXT MEETING. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT'S SUPER CLEAR. SO WE DON'T HAVE THESE CONCERNS NEXT TIME, AND WE CAN GIVE YOU GUYS THE ANSWERS THAT YOU NEED WITH ENOUGH TIME TO REVIEW THEM, OR THAT YOUR EXPERTS THAT YOU

[00:50:02]

MAKE SURE YOU REACH OUT TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO GET THE COPIES OF THESE REPORTS.

EVERYTHING IS ON THE WEBSITE. FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE TECH SAVVY. OKAY, FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE WRITING LETTERS TO THE PLANNING BOARD, DON'T WRITE IT TO THE TOWN BOARD. AS JOSH, I WANT TO REITERATE, IT'S NOT IN FRONT OF THE TOWN BOARD. IT'S IN FRONT OF THIS BOARD. AND THEN AND THIS IS WHAT WE'RE CHARGED WITH. SO WE HAVE TO DO OUR HOMEWORK IN ORDER TO MOVE FORWARD. YOUR OPINION IS IMPORTANT. AND I HEAR A LOT OF PEOPLE SAYING WE DON'T GET TO TALK. YOU CAN WRITE A LETTER. YOU CAN SEND AN EMAIL TO JOSH. AND THE MORE EMAILS YOU WRITE, THEN THAT'S HOW WE'RE GOING TO HEAR FROM YOU. YOU DON'T HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL THE PUBLIC HEARING. SEND YOUR CONCERNS NOW YOU HAVE CONCERNS. SEND THEM TO US. WE WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU.

YOU'VE HEARD ME SAY THIS BEFORE. GET THESE REPORTS. CONTACT JOSH FOR THE REPORTS. AND THEN SEPTEMBER 2ND WILL BE THE PUBLIC HEARING. OKAY. AND IN THE MEANTIME, WE'RE GOING TO REACH OUT. JOSH, YOU'LL HELP ME WITH THAT? OKAY. AS LONG AS YOU DON'T SCHEDULE IT ON A FRIDAY, THEN WE CAN MEET WITH THE FIRE DEPARTMENT WITH THE CHIEF. AND THEN I ALSO WOULD LIKE TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT THE AERIAL, THE SURROUNDING FIRE DEPARTMENTS, THE MUTUAL AID. OKAY. MR. RYAN.

OKAY. REMEMBER RYAN HERE? I'M LOOKING FOR ANOTHER REPORT. HOPEFULLY, MAYBE YOU CAN GET IT TO US BY THEN. TO A VIBRATION ANALYSIS. HAS ONE BEEN CONDUCTED? I MEAN, WE ARE PLACING THIS BETWEEN TWO RAILROAD TRACKS. SO DO WE EVEN KNOW WHAT. AND IT'S NOT JUST EVERY NOW AND THEN TRAINS GO BY. IT'S A VERY HEAVILY USED TRACKS. SO IT'S ON BOTH SIDES. DO WE KNOW SPECIFICALLY, WHETHER OR NOT THE LONG TERM VIBRATION FROM PASSING TRAINS COULD AFFECT THE BATTERY CELLS, THE MODULARS, THE RACKS, THE CONNECTIONS OR OTHER COMPONENTS IN A WAY THAT COULD INCREASE THE RISK OF EQUIPMENT FAILURE OR THERMAL RUNAWAY. IF YOU HAVEN'T DONE THAT, I REALLY WOULD LIKE THAT TYPE OF ANALYSIS BECAUSE BEING IN THAT TYPE OF ENVIRONMENT, IT'S VERY DIFFERENT THAN PLACING IT ON A PIECE OF LAND WHERE NOBODY'S GOING BY IT. THAT'S A REALLY GREAT QUESTION. ANDY, I BELIEVE YOU'RE BEST SUITED TO ANSWER TO THE, THE, THE ENGINEERING SIDE OF THAT QUESTION. I JUST WANT TO DOUBLE CHECK THE, THE EXPERTS THAT YOU REFERENCED IS THE FIRE DEPARTMENTS, THE FIRE CHIEFS IN THE SURROUNDING AREAS.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE GET THEIR COMMENTS AND THEIR RESPONSE IN ENOUGH TIME THAT WE CAN THEN SUPPLY OUR RESPONSES FOR YOU BY THAT. UNDERSTOOD. 19TH RESPONSE SO THAT WE CAN KEEP THIS WITHIN THE STATE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SEEKER TIMELINES. WE JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU GET ALL THE ANSWERS AND HAVE PLENTY OF TIME TO REVIEW IT. SO I HAVE A QUESTION ALONG WITH WHAT NUMBER? RYAN JUST SAID, DO WE NEED TO HEAR FROM THE RAILROAD? I REACHED OUT TO BOTH CSX AND NORFOLK SOUTHERN. AND NEITHER DURING THE COORDINATOR REVIEW PROCESS AND NEITHER GOT BACK TO US. I MEAN, WE CAN CONTINUE TO REACH OUT, BUT THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THEY RESPOND IS SLIM TO NONE. I DON'T WANT TO SAY THAT, BUT WE'VE THIS ISN'T THE FIRST PROJECT THAT WE'VE REACHED OUT TO THEM ABOUT PROJECTS. TO DATE WE HAVEN'T RECEIVED MUCH COMMENT FROM, BUT THIS IS THE FIRST TYPE OF PROJECT THAT WE REACHED OUT TO THEM FOR.

CORRECT? YEP. AND, AND JOSH, I WANTED TO CLARIFY TOO ON THE RECORD. BLAISDELL DOESN'T HAVE ANY RAILROAD TRACKS AROUND IT. CORRECT. THAT PLANT. NOT AROUND THAT BEST PROJECT. NO. OKAY. SO THIS IS I, I IT'S A TOTALLY DIFFERENT PROJECT BASED ON THAT INFORMATION. THE PROJECT

[00:55:02]

BUT WE ARE FAMILIAR WITH THE TIMELINES. FANTASTIC. I, I WOULD NOT EXPECT JUST FROM PAST PRACTICE AND PROJECTS THAT THEY EVER HAVE EVER RESPONDED TO ANY PROJECT. NO, BUT IT'S TRULY, BUT IT'S DULY NOTED ON THE RECORD THAT WE ASKED THE QUESTION AND IT'S NOT BEEN ADDRESSED. SO THAT'S WHY. OKAY. RIGHT. SO YOU HAVE AN EXPERT THAT YOU NEED TO THAT YOU WOULD WANTED TO TALK TO US ABOUT THE VIBRATION ANALYSIS. SO THAT FALLS INTO ANDREWS. YEAH. WE CAN THIS. ANDREW WELCH, DIRECTOR AT RICK ENERGY. THE VIBRATION, WE CAN CERTAINLY GIVE YOU SOMETHING MORE MORE DETAILED THAN IT, BUT I MEAN, THE BASIC ANSWER IS THAT THESE ARE OUR CABINETS THAT ARE DESIGNED FOR AND ARE PLACED ON CONCRETE PADS. THEY'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO WITHSTAND AND ABSORB ANY VIBRATIONS THROUGH THE CONCRETE PADS BETTER THAN ANY OF THE HOMES OR BUSINESSES THAT ARE ALONG UP AND DOWN THAT LINE. THEY'RE MUCH MORE SOLID THAN THAT. SO THAT'S, WE'LL SHOW YOU THAT THAT WON'T BE A CONCERN. BUT, BUT IT IS A QUESTION THAT WE WILL PROVIDE AN ANSWER TO IN DETAIL. AND YOU'LL SEE THAT AT THAT POINT. OKAY. I MEAN, THE HOMES THAT ARE AROUND THERE ARE NOT BETWEEN THE TWO TRACKS. I GUESS THAT'S MY THING. IF YOU'VE EVER BEEN AT THOSE TRACKS WHEN THESE TRAINS ARE GOING BY, IT'S QUITE INTENSE.

AND THAT'S WHERE, SINCE YOU HAVE NONE OF THESE UP AND WORKING AND NONE ACTUALLY BY A RAILROAD, THAT'S WHERE I WANT TO KNOW THE VIBRATION, YOU KNOW, ANALYSIS OF IT. LIKE, YEAH, THEY'RE ON A CONCRETE PAD. I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT I THINK EVEN THAT WOULD MAKE A VIBRATION OF TRAINS GOING BY. THAT'S JUST, IT'S A DAMPENING EFFECT, WHICH IS ALL, ALL YOU'D WANT TO DO ON THAT DESIGN. BUT WE WILL ADDRESS THAT. OKAY. OKAY. MEMBER STEWART, I JUST HAVE ONE QUESTION. WHAT CAME TO THE CONCLUSION AS TO WHY YOU GUYS DECIDED THIS LOCATION AND NOWHERE ELSE? I REMEMBER, I BELIEVE IT WAS YOU THAT SAID THAT THERE WAS ONLY TWO AVAILABLE LOCATIONS IN THE AREA THAT THIS CAN BE PUT. SO WE DID PROVIDE WE PROVIDED A SITE ANALYSIS WHERE WE LOOKED AT ZONING FEASIBILITY IN TERMS OF EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE, AND WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS A POSSIBILITY TO ENTER INTO A TRANSACTION WITH THE PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNER. WE DO ACTUALLY HAVE A SPREADSHEET AND DIAGRAMS THAT SHOW ALL THAT. I DON'T KNOW, JOSH, YOU COULD SHARE THAT, BUT WE HAVE SUBMITTED THAT PREVIOUSLY IN THE MEETING.

THANK YOU. THAT WAS ANALYSIS OF BASICALLY EVERY SINGLE PARCEL IN THE COUNTY. OKAY. OKAY. YOU HAVE AN EXPERT THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO US TONIGHT. GOOD EVENING EVERYONE. PAUL ROGERS, SR, ENERGY SAFETY RESPONSE GROUP. I ADDRESS THE, THE SEISMIC IS, IS SOMETHING THAT'S INCORPORATED INTO THE LISTING OF THE BATTERY ITSELF. SO YOU HAVE TO PICK UP THE MIC GUYS.

SORRY. YOU HAVE TO PICK UP THE MIC, PICK IT UP. OKAY. AND TALK INTO IT. OH, YEAH. THE, FOR THE PEOPLE. CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? YES. OKAY, GREAT. SO, THE SEISMIC, WHICH IS PART OF EARTHQUAKE, RESISTANCE, IS PART OF THE LISTING ITSELF. SO THE BATTERY HAS TO GO THROUGH PERFORMANCE LISTING THROUGH UNDERWRITERS LABORATORIES AND BY NATIONALLY RECOGNIZED TESTING LABORATORY. SO THAT'S PART OF THE ACTUAL LISTING ITSELF. BUT THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION ABOUT THAT. AND I DO APPLAUD YOU FOR ASKING THAT QUESTION. WE DO HAVE A COUPLE THAT ARE AROUND TRAINS. BUT AGAIN, I'M FALLING BACK ON THE LISTING AND PUT A SEISMIC. SO, THE OTHER THING ABOUT THE, THE, THE, THE DRAFT REPORTS THAT PEOPLE WILL SEE ONLINE AND IT IS IN DRAFT, WE HAVE TO PUT THEM IN DRAFT BECAUSE WE WANT TO TAKE A LOOK AT THE APPROVED PLANS BEFORE WE ACTUALLY FINALIZE IT. WE ACTUALLY GO AROUND AND WE TAKE A LOOK AT ALL THE SIGNAGE AND MAKING SURE THE SIGNAGE IS RIGHT BEFORE IT GOES UP AND RUNNING. AND WE DO NOT APPROVE OUR PLANS UNTIL WE ACTUALLY DID A WALKTHROUGH OF EVERYTHING AND EVERYTHING IS BUILT ACCORDING TO THE APPROVED PLANS. ALL THE SAFETY FUNCTIONALITIES ARE WORKING.

ACCORDING TO THE APPROVED PLANS, ALL THE CENTRAL MONITORING STATIONS, A NUMBER ACCORDING TO THE APPROVED PLANS. SO ALL OF THAT STUFF IS NOT IN THERE UNTIL WE ACTUALLY, DO OUR OWN WALKTHROUGH, FOR THE, FOR THE BATTERY. SO WE ALWAYS KEEP IT IN DRAFT FORM. AND IF THERE IS QUESTIONS ON, ON THAT FROM THE PUBLIC, YOU CAN AT LEAST EXPLAIN, THAT ONE OF THE THINGS, THAT WAS ALSO MENTIONED WAS THE TRAINING FOR THE FIRE DEPARTMENT THAT'S BAKED INTO THE FIRE CODE. THE ANNUAL TRAINING IS BAKED INTO THE FIRE CODE. THAT IS SOMETHING THAT NO

[01:00:03]

WE UNDERSTOOD WHEN WE WERE WRITING THAT I WAS PART OF HELPING UPDATE THE CODE CURRENTLY IN NEW YORK STATE. WHILE WE WERE DOING THAT, WE KNEW THAT THE WAS A LOT OF VOLUNTEER FIRE SERVICE OUT THERE, AND THERE WAS A TREMENDOUS TURNOVER. SO WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE CAPTURED EVERYONE BY OFFERING A YEARLY ANNUAL TRAINING PAID FOR BY THE DEVELOPER. THE OTHER THING THAT WAS PUT INTO THE CODE, LOOKING AT THROUGH THE LENS OF A VOLUNTEER FIRE SERVICE PERSON. WE DID PUT IN THERE SUBJECT MATTER EXPERT NEEDS TO BE IMMEDIATELY AVAILABLE. THERE NEEDS TO BE A PHONE NUMBER THERE. THEY NEED TO BE IMMEDIATELY AVAILABLE. THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE INFORMATION ON THE BATTERY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM, WHICH IS LOOKING AT THE STATE OF HEALTH OF THE BATTERY ITSELF. AND THEY CAN MAKE A DETERMINATION IF IT'S ON FIRE. THEY DON'T REALLY NEED TO LOOK AT IT BECAUSE THEY'LL SEE IT THROUGH THE CLOSED CIRCUIT TV THAT'S ALSO BAKED INTO THE CODE ITSELF. AT THAT POINT, THEY'LL, THEY'LL RESORT TO THE EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN FOR THE FIRE DEPARTMENT AND ALONG WITH THEIR TRAINING ON THAT END, SO, A LOT OF THINGS THAT WERE PUT INTO THE CODE, YOU MENTIONED THE FOUR HOUR. YEAH, FOUR HOURS OF STRUGGLE TO ACTUALLY GET IN THERE THAT A LOT OF PEOPLE, PROTESTED THAT, THERE'S NOT A HIGH RISK OF THESE THINGS GOING ON FIRE, BUT IF THEY DO GO ON FIRE, THAT'S WHEN THE FIRE DEPARTMENT WILL BE THERE. THE CODE MENTIONS THAT IT NEEDS TO BE THERE WITHIN FOUR HOURS. IT DOESN'T SAY FOUR HOURS. FOUR HOURS IS THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF TIME THAT SOMEONE NEEDS TO BE THERE. AND THEY'RE REALLY THERE JUST TO GUIDE THE FIRE DEPARTMENT. THEY'RE NOT THERE FOR ANY TYPE OF SUPPRESSION.

THEY'RE NOT THERE FOR ANY TYPE OF MITIGATION. THEY'RE THERE FOR THE HANDOFF. IF THERE WAS AN EVENT THAT TAKES PLACE OR THE FIRE DEPARTMENT IS NOT STANDING THERE, WATCHING THE SCENE, SO THEY'LL TAKE OVER THE SCENE FROM THE FIRE DEPARTMENT. AND AT THAT PARTICULAR TIME, THEY'LL STAND GUARD UNTIL IT COOLS DOWN AND START A DECOMMISSIONING PROCESS. DURING THAT PARTICULAR TIME. SO, AS I, AS I MENTIONED, IT'S ONE OF THE MOST PROGRESSIVE FIRE CODES IN THE COUNTRY, EVEN STRONGER THAN WHAT WE HAVE IN CALIFORNIA, WHICH EVERYONE THINKS IS THE NUMBER ONE CODE. BUT THE, THE, THE ELEMENTS THAT WERE PUT IN THERE WERE REALLY THERE TO, TO HELP THE FIRE SERVICES AS, AS MUCH AS THEY COULD. BECAUSE OF THE IDEA THAT IT IS A VOLUNTEER, I THINK 70, 75% OF NEW YORK STATE IS VOLUNTEER. SO THAT WAS A BIG ISSUE THAT WE LOOKED AT WHEN WE WERE UPDATING THE CODES ITSELF. THERE'S A LOT OF TECHNICAL INFORMATION, A LOT OF TECHNICAL INFORMATION IN THE CODE THAT WOULD TAKE A WHILE FOR ME TO EXPLAIN. WE COULD DO IT AS A WORKING SESSION, BECAUSE I DO THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT YOU UNDERSTAND THAT. SO YOU'RE ASKING THE RIGHT QUESTIONS. YOU REALLY ARE, AND YOU SHOULD BE CONCERNED AND YOU SHOULD KNOW WHAT TAKES PLACE. AS FAR AS THE RIGOROUS CODES ARE CONCERNED. AND WHAT IS PUT IN PLACE, TO TRY TO REDUCE THE RISK. AND IF THERE WAS A, AN EVENT TO TRY TO LIMIT THE, THE PROPAGATION OR THE SPREAD OF AN EVENT, AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE, ON THE SCREEN RIGHT THERE, THE CODE IS, HAS SOMETHING IN THERE THAT IF ONE WERE TO ACTUALLY GO ON FIRE, THEY HAVE TO, GO THROUGH RIGOROUS TESTING TO PROVE BY BURNING THAT FULL SYSTEM AT A NATIONALLY RECOGNIZED TESTING LABORATORY TO SHOW THAT IF THAT ONE SYSTEM WERE TO GO ON FIRE, IT DOESN'T SPREAD TO THE OTHERS. SO THAT, IS NOT NORMALLY DONE IN THE FIRE PROTECTION WORLD.

PART OF FIRE PREVENTION IS TRYING TO ACTUALLY COMPARTMENTALIZE THE ACTUAL, EVENT, KEEP IT WITHIN THE, THE BOX. AND THAT'S A, THAT'S A BIG DEAL. SO ANY SYSTEM THAT COMES INTO NEW YORK STATE HAS TO GO THROUGH THAT TESTING. IT'S A UL 9540, A LARGE SCALE FIRE TESTING. AND, AND AGAIN, IN THE FIRE WORLD, THAT IS THAT IS SOMETHING THAT IS NOT NORMALLY DONE. SO, THE REASON I BRING THAT UP IS BECAUSE THAT WAS A BIG DEAL TO GET THAT PLACED INTO THE CODE TO ACTUALLY HAVE ANY SYSTEM THAT COMES INTO THE STATE OF NEW YORK, BURN THEIR SYSTEMS, SHOW THE DATA, AND SHOW THAT THERE'S NO PROPAGATION TO ANY EVENT. SO THIS WAY IT'S A MANAGED EVENT. THIS IS ONE OF THE REASONS THAT WHEN WE TRAIN THE FIRE DEPARTMENT, WE TELL THEM TO MANAGE THE INCIDENT ITSELF. AND, AND THE TRAINING IS VERY IMPORTANT FOR THE FIRE DEPARTMENT THAT THEY FULLY UNDERSTAND ALL OF THAT THAT'S BAKED INTO THE CODE FOR THEIR FOR THEIR SAFETY, ACTUALLY. AND I GUESS WHAT WE WOULD ASK AGAIN, GIVEN THAT WE'VE NOW ESTABLISHED A TIME FRAME FOR ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, GET US ANY ADDITIONAL ANY QUESTIONS OR HAVE CONCERNS OR COMMENTS RELATIVE TO ENFORCEMENT IS PROVIDED. YOU KNOW, WE'LL BE PREPARED TO, NUMBER ONE, RESPOND TO THOSE IN WRITING.

AND NUMBER TWO, ALSO ADDRESS THEM DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING. OKAY. AND THAT'S THAT'S ALL WE

[01:05:01]

[4. Mike Sweeney – Requesting Site Plan Approval on a proposal for a 55,000 sq-ft industrial storage building on an existing asphalt-gravel storage yard to be located at 3100 Lakeshore Road (SBL #: 150.00-1-1.2) ]

MIKE'S GOTTA PUT HIS EAR CLOSER BECAUSE, HE HIS HEARING ISN'T THAT GREAT, BUT, SO I'LL TRY TO TALK REAL LOUD AND CLEAR. WE WERE HERE, FOR SKETCH PLAN, LAST MONTH, AND WE RECEIVED THE GO AHEAD, FOR MORE DETAILED ENGINEERING, SITE DEVELOPMENT, SITE PLAN DEVELOPMENT, PACKAGE FOR YOUR REVIEW. WE, WITHIN THE NEXT WEEK AFTER THE SKETCH PLAN. MEETING ON THE 15TH. ON THE 23RD, WE COMMISSIONED, A GEOTECH ENGINEER AND SITE EQUIPMENT TO DO SOME DIGS, TO TEST THE, INDUSTRIAL FILL IN BACK OF MIKE'S PARKING LOT OR HIS STORAGE LOT. THE STORAGE LOT PRESENTLY HAS, LARGE AMOUNTS OF STEEL PRODUCTS, THAT IS LEFT OPEN TO THE ELEMENTS.

THIS, 5500 ZERO SQUARE FOOT, LONG SPAN INDUSTRIAL STORAGE BUILDING WILL HOUSE THESE PRODUCTS. WE POSITIONED IT IN THE BACK ALONG THE REAR WEST PROPERTY, ALONG THE, THE DRIVEWAY OF THE, CURRENT, GRAVEL STORAGE YARD IN THIS, WELL, NOT ON THE SITE PLAN, BUT ON, THE GRADING AND UTILITY PLAN. WE'RE SHOWING A, WATER CONNECTION TO THE EXISTING COMBINATION CONNECTION WATER LINE. WE'RE INSTALLING A NEW, DOUBLE CHECK VALVE ASSEMBLY AND EXTENDING THE LINE AROUND THE NORTH END OF THE BUILDING, NORTH SIDE OF THE BUILDING, AND INSTALLING TWO FIRE HYDRANTS, ALONG WITH A FULLY SPRINKLER SPRINKLED BUILDING TO MEET THE NFPA DASH 13 FIRE CODE. SO THERE WILL BE NO, IT WOULD BE ONE OPEN SPACE. WE ARE ALLOWED ACTUALLY OVER 100,000FT■!S AS A BUILDING IS FULLY SPRINKLED. WE HAVE REACHED OUT TO, JEFF AT THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT FOR HIS THOUGHTS AND INPUT, AS WELL AS MIKE COLE WITH, WOODLAWN FIRE

[01:10:06]

SO WE ARE RELYING ON THE EXISTING DRAINAGE SYSTEM THAT IS PERCOLATING INTO THE SUBBASE OF THE COMPACTED FILL. ANYTHING ELSE? I'M TRYING TO THINK THAT, WE SUBMITTED, I DON'T KNOW IF WE HAVE ON THE PACKAGE. WE HAVE A FLOOR PLAN AND ELEVATIONS OF THE BUILDING. IT'S A SIMPLE OPEN SPACE FLOOR PLAN PLAN TO HOUSE THE, THE METAL PRODUCTS THAT IS, THAT ARE POSITIONED THROUGHOUT HIS REAR SIGHT AND THAT ALL WILL BE CLEANED UP. OF COURSE, I WRITE THAT ALL BE WILL CLEANED UP. SO, IF YOU HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS, I SPOKE WITH JOSH THIS AFTERNOON AND HE GAVE ME THE SUMMARY OF WHAT WE'RE WHAT THE, WHAT THE SCHEDULE WILL BE. OKAY, SO WE ASK FOR YOUR INPUT. ANY QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. PLANNING DEPARTMENT. SORRY ABOUT THAT. NO YOU'RE GOOD. GOOD TIMING. GREAT TIMING. FOR THIS PROJECT. SO THIS OBVIOUSLY IS THE FIRST REVIEW FROM A FULL SITE PLAN PERSPECTIVE. WHEN THEY FIRST WERE BEFORE YOU, THIS WAS SKETCH PLAN GETTING YOUR PRELIMINARY COMMENT. THEY'VE SUBMITTED FULL SITE PLANS, FOR SOME ADMINISTRATIVE THINGS. ONE OBVIOUSLY FROM A SECRET PERSPECTIVE, THIS IS AN UNLISTED ACTION. BUT AS YOU SAW IN MY MEMO, MY RECOMMENDATION CERTAINLY WOULD BE TO DO A COORDINATED REVIEW FOR A NUMBER OF REASONS. ONE, THIS OBVIOUSLY FRONTS ONTO A STATE HIGHWAY SYSTEM. WOULD WANT TO JUST HEAR FROM DOTTIE ON THEIR COMMENTS. OBVIOUSLY, WE SEND EVERY PROJECT TO DC FOR THEIR COMMENTS. AND THEN BECAUSE IT'S ON A STATE HIGHWAY, WE ALSO WOULD HAVE TO COMPLETE THE 239 M REFERRAL, MEANING THAT IT WOULD GO TO ERIE COUNTY, WE'D GET ERIE COUNTY'S COMMENTS. SO THAT'S JUST ONE THING FOR THE BOARD TO CONSIDER. YOU CAN CHOOSE TO DO A COORDINATED REVIEW. YOU CAN CHOOSE NOT TO. MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE TO DO SO. AND THEN ALSO WHAT I'D BE LOOKING FOR FROM THE BOARD IS GETTING YOUR BLESSING TO SEND THE PROJECT TO THE TOWN'S LW R P COMMITTEE. THIS PROJECT IS WITHIN THE TOWN'S WRA, WHICH STANDS FOR THE WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION AREA. MEANING, AS YOU GUYS KNOW, WE'VE BEEN THROUGH THIS PROCESS BEFORE. THE LW P COMMITTEE GIVES A RECOMMENDATION KEYWORD RECOMMENDATION. IT IS THE BOARD'S DECISION ON WHETHER THE PROJECT IS CONSISTENT OR NOT.

AND THEN BASED OFF OF SOME OF THE QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE FOR THE APPLICANT, MY LAST RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE TO TABLE THE PROJECT TO SEPTEMBER 2ND, SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING IF YOU FEEL COMFORTABLE BECAUSE BY THAT POINT, IF YOU DO A COORDINATED REVIEW, THE 30 DAY PERIOD WILL BE PRETTY MUCH OVER. AND THEN THE 30 DAY PERIOD FOR THE COUNTY COMMENTS WILL PRETTY MUCH BE OVER. AND THEN WE SHOULD ALSO HAVE A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE LW P COMMITTEE SO THAT WE'RE NOT WAITING, WASTING THE APPLICANT'S TIME. WE CAN KIND OF KEEP THIS THING MOVING. SO THOSE ARE JUST MY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. I CAN ANSWER ANY OTHER ZONING SPECIFIC QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVE THEM. I'M GOING TO BE PROACTIVE AND SAY THAT I THINK WE SHOULD GO AHEAD AND REFER THIS TO THE LWRPI. I'M SURE THAT THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE ANYBODY ON THE BOARD THAT DOESN'T AGREE WITH THEM. OKAY.

AND THEN AS FAR AS THE COORDINATED REVIEW, DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY INPUT? ARE WE IN AGREEMENT TO THE COORDINATED REVIEW? YES, YES. THEY'RE ALL SHAKING THEIR HEAD BECAUSE YOU KNOW THEY'RE ALL USING THEIR MICROPHONES TONIGHT. DID YOU NOTICE THAT. YEAH. YEAH. SO I THINK THAT WE SHOULD START THE COORDINATED REVIEW. OKAY. JUST TO BECAUSE OF THE LOCATION OF THE PROJECT AND AS YOU AS WHAT YOU SO ELOQUENTLY STATED EARLIER. AND, I DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS. ENGINEERING. DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO OFFER? I, I'VE BEEN KIND OF IGNORING YOU OVER THERE TONIGHT. I APOLOGIZE, I WENT OFF ON A RAMPAGE HERE. THAT'S OKAY. THIS IS PROBABLY THE ONE THAT HAS THE MOST PROGRESS AS FAR AS ENGINEERING RIGHT NOW. SO AS THE REPORTS AND THE UPDATED DRAWINGS AND SUCH HAVE BEEN ROLLING IN, I'VE BEEN TRYING TO DO AT LEAST A HIGH LEVEL REVIEW OF WHAT THEY'RE PLANNING, HOW THEY'RE FOCUSING ON THEIR DESIGN. I'M SATISFIED WITH WHAT THEY'RE DOING. I THINK THE GEOTECHNICAL GAVE ME A LOT OF

[01:15:05]

OKAY. BOARD MEMBERS, DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS? NO, NO NO NO. OKAY.

SO I THINK WITH THAT WE'RE GOING TO SEE THEM BACK ON THE SECOND. DO YOU THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA TO HAVE THEIR PUBLIC HEARING THE SAME DAY AS. SAME DAY AS LIKE ALL THE OTHER PROJECTS? I MEAN, YOU CAN TABLE THEM TO 916 IF YOU WANT TO. I REALLY DON'T WANT TO DO THAT.

OKAY. OKAY. YEAH, I, I THINK OBVIOUSLY I CAN'T SPEAK FOR WHO WILL COME OUT TO THAT PUBLIC HEARING, BUT OBVIOUSLY WE NOTICED THAT 500FT, THIS IS IN A VERY INDUSTRIAL AREA. I THINK WHEN I LOOKED AT IT, I DON'T EVEN THINK THERE'S A HOME THAT'LL GET IT. BUT WE'LL SEE.

YEAH, YEAH. OKAY. SO I DON'T THINK THAT THERE SHOULD BE TOO MUCH COMMENT, BUT YOU NEVER KNOW. JUST, BECAUSE IT'S A PUBLIC HEARING. WE'RE GOING TO PUT THEM FIRST. OKAY. OKAY.

WE'LL DO FOR THE SECOND. SO WE WERE GOING TO SEE YOU BACK ON THE SECOND. WE'RE GOING TO START THE PROCESS. WE HAVE TO ORDER A COUPLE OF THINGS. JOSH WILL BE DOING THAT. AND, THEN YOU'LL COME BACK HERE ON THE SECOND. AND WE WERE GOING TO, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING ON SEPTEMBER 2ND. OKAY. OKAY. WELL, WILL WE NEED MORE INFORMATION? AND, OR WILL YOU DO THE REACHING OUT TO THOSE AGENCIES? I'LL DO THE REACHING OUT TO THE AGENCIES. AND THEN I ALWAYS FORWARD WHATEVER CORRESPONDENCE I GET TO YOU AND ALSO TO THE PLANNING BOARD.

OKAY. THANK YOU. DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR US? COULD YOU, EXPLAIN, THE AGENCIES AGAIN THAT YOU'LL BE PUTTING THIS PROJECT, THE WATERFRONT, THE, MIKE'S BENEFIT. OH, OKAY. YEAH.

SO, THIS PROJECT IS LOCATED IN WHAT'S CALLED THE WRA. THAT'S THE TOWN'S WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION AREA. THE TOWN HAS WHAT'S CALLED AN LWP. IT'S THE MASTER PLAN FOR THE WATERFRONT. THIS PROJECT IS IN THAT AREA. SO THAT TRIGGERS A NEED FOR A RECOMMENDATION FROM OUR TOWN'S WATERFRONT COMMITTEE, WHICH THEN THIS BOARD THEN REVIEWS THAT RECOMMENDATION AND MAKES SURE THAT THAT PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE PLAN FOR THE WATERFRONT. ALONG WITH THAT, WE'LL ALSO SEND COMMENTS TO DOT BECAUSE IT'S ON ROUTE FIVE, WE'LL SEND THEM TO DEC BECAUSE WE SEND EVERY PROJECT TO DEC WHEN WE DO A COORDINATED REVIEW. AND THEN WE'LL SEND IT TO THE COUNTY. AND WHAT THAT PROCESS IS, IS OBVIOUSLY JUST GETTING COMMENTS FROM THOSE AGENCIES.

IF THEY HAVE ANY CONCERNS, IF THEY HAVE ANYTHING THAT THEY WANT THE BOARD TO KNOW OR YOU TO KNOW, THAT'S THE PROCESS FOR THAT. AND THEN I'LL FORWARD ANY COMMENTS THAT I GET. OKAY.

THANK YOU. AND AND JUST A NOTE IN THE SUMMARY, WE, TOOK OFF THE PARKING BECAUSE THE BUILDING IS GOING TO BE STRICTLY FOR, STORAGE ONLY. AND SOME OF THE OFFICE EMPLOYEES ARE MOVING OUT, SADLY TO SAY, BUT IT'LL RELIEVE SOME OF THE PARKING ISSUES THAT ARE CURRENT RIGHT NOW. OKAY. AND, AND MIKE COLE, THE FIRE CHIEF, APPRECIATED THAT TOO. SO, OKAY, SO, SO THERE WILL BE NO IMPACT OF, ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC TO THE, TO LAKESHORE ROAD. ALL RIGHT.

SUPER. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. WE'LL SEE YOU BACK ON THE SECOND. OKAY. THANK YOU. PAPER FOR MY GOVERNMENT CLASS. WHEN THAT DOES GO TO THE AND WE WANT TO GO TO ANY QUESTIONS. NO. NO WORRIES, NO WORRIES. SO YOU WERE JUST GETTING TIRED. SOMEONE WILL. REQUEST THAT I AND I JUST HAVE TO GET THIS PROJECT SAFE. OKAY? OKAY. THANK YOU. SO I CAN CHECK MY OWN

[5. 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]

[01:20:37]

SURE, I'LL START BECAUSE I THINK IT'LL SEGUE INTO YOUR PRESENTATION. SO WHAT I HAVE BEFORE THE BOARD AND EVERYONE SHOULD HAVE A COPY OF IT IS SO THE FEIS, WHICH IF ANYONE DOESN'T HAVE A COPY, I STILL HAVE A COUPLE EXTRA. WE OBVIOUSLY HAD THE FEI SUBMITTED AT THE LAST MEETING. WE KIND OF TALKED ABOUT WHAT THE REVIEW PROCESS WAS GOING TO BE LIKE. I TALKED ABOUT SOME OF THE TIME FRAMES. SHAWN TALKED ABOUT SOME OF THE TIME FRAMES. AND WHAT I DID IS FROM A PLANNING DEPARTMENT STANDPOINT, I DID A CURSORY REVIEW OF THE FEIS AND WHAT I TRIED TO DO, WHAT WE'VE DONE FOR SIMILAR PROJECTS. WHEN WE HAD A DOLLAR GENERAL FEIS SOME OF THE OTHER ONES IS I TRIED TO PUT TOGETHER A SHORTER SUMMARY THAT WASN'T AS LONG AS THE EYES OF SOME THINGS THAT I NOTICED, SOME THINGS THAT I THINK THE BOARD SHOULD CONSIDER.

AND THEN OBVIOUSLY TIME FRAMES AND SO ON AND SO FORTH. SO WHAT I WANTED TO START WITH IS OBVIOUSLY, AS WE'RE REVIEWING THE EIS, THAT IN THE BEGINNING OF THE DOCUMENT, I WANTED TO KIND OF JUST HIGHLIGHT AGAIN WHAT GOES INTO THE FEIS AS YOU GUYS KNOW, THE EIS WAS COMPLETED, IT WAS FILED. WE HAD A PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ON IT. A LOT OF TIMES IT'S STANDARD HERE IN THE TOWN OF HAMBURG THAT WE GIVE THE APPLICANT THE FIRST CRACK AT DRAFTING AN F EIS. BUT THEN THE CAVEAT IS ALWAYS THAT IT HAS TO BE IN THE OPINION OF THE BOARD. SO YOU CAN CHANGE ANSWERS. YOU CAN ASK FOR ADDITIONAL STUDIES AS NEED BE, BUT IT HAS TO BE, IN THE WORDS OF THIS BOARD. ALONG WITH THAT, THE FEIS, AT A MINIMUM FROM THE SECRET LAW HAS TO HAVE THE DRAFT EIS AND ANY OTHER REVISIONS OR SUPPLEMENTS TO IT AS TO HAVE COPIES OF ALL THE SUBSTANTIVE COMMENTS THAT WERE RECEIVED DURING THAT PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD. AND THEN THE LEAD AGENCY IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE COORDINATION AND THE ACCURACY OF THE EIS. SO LIKE I SAID, THAT'S PUTTING IT IN YOUR GUYS'S OPINION. WHAT I DID IS I LOOKED AT THE FEISI DO HAVE A DRAFT THAT I SHARED WITH THE BOARD OF. THERE ARE SOME MINOR SPELLING MISTAKES IN THERE.

THERE WERE SOME CLARIFYING QUESTIONS THAT I DID ASK. ONE OF THE ONES THAT I WANTED TO START WITH IS IN THE DRAFT. WHAT I NOTICED IS THAT THERE SEEMS TO BE A LITTLE BIT OF A DISCREPANCY AND INCONSISTENCY WITH THE NUMBER OF LOTS FOR THE CLUSTER PLAN. ON PAGE 12 OF THE EIS SAYS 57 LOTS. AND THEN ON PAGE 154 THROUGH 156 AND 168 OF THE TRAFFIC STUDY DONE BY PESARO, IT SAYS IT'S 59 LOTS. SO I THINK IT'S 59 LOTS. IT'S 59. SO I JUST THINK THAT THAT DISCREPANCY SHOULD JUST BE CLEAR JUST SO THAT WE KNOW AS THE BOARD WHAT WE'RE REVIEWING.

THE CLUSTER IS 59 LOTS. I DID ALSO NOTE THAT IN THE PHASES I WENT THROUGH IT, THAT THE APPLICANT RESPONDED TO MOST OF THE COMMENTS THAT WERE SUBMITTED DURING THAT PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD. BUT THERE WERE A COUPLE FROM SOME RESIDENCES OR SOME RESIDENTS ON MARYLAND DRIVE, WHO I DIDN'T SEE ANY MENTION. I THOUGHT THEIR COMMENTS WERE, PRETTY SUBSTANTIVE. THEY HAD SOME CONCERNS ABOUT TRAFFIC IMPACTS. THERE WERE A COUPLE RESIDENTS THAT I DIDN'T SEE ANY MENTION IN THE EYES OF ANY RESPONSE TO THEM. WHAT I DID HAVE, AND FOR EVERYONE WHO DOESN'T KNOW, THIS IS COLIN. HE ACTUALLY WORKS AT WENDELL WITH ME. HE'S COMING TO GET AN IDEA OF HOW LOCAL GOVERNMENT WORKS. SO ONE OF THE ASSIGNMENTS I GAVE HIM WAS TO PUT TOGETHER A TABLE OF ALL THE COMMENTS THAT WERE FROM THE DEIS HE PUT THAT TOGETHER. WE CAN SHARE THAT WITH THE APPLICANT JUST SO THAT YOU HAVE THAT TABLE FOR YOU. BUT AS I MENTIONED, USUALLY ALL OF THE COMMENTS THAT ARE SUBMITTED HAVE TO HAVE SOME SORT OF RESPONSE MITIGATION, SO ON AND SO FORTH. SO THAT'S ANOTHER THING THAT I NOTED IN THE FEIS.

AND THEN ANOTHER THING THAT I WANTED TO NOTE IS THAT PREVIOUSLY FROM PREVIOUS BOARDS, THERE WAS TALK OF THREE DIFFERENT LAYOUTS. THERE'S THE AS OF RIGHT, THAT HAS THE 65 LOTS, THERE'S THE CLUSTER LAYOUT THAT HAS THE 59 LOTS. AND THEN USUALLY IN A LOT OF PHASES, YOU HAVE A NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE. THE APPLICANT STATED ELOQUENTLY IN THEIR EYES THAT THEY DIDN'T ADD ANYTHING FOR THE NO ACTION BECAUSE THE PROPERTY IS ZONED R1, IT IS PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT. TECHNICALLY SOMETHING COULD GO THERE, BUT WE USUALLY DO HAVE IN PREVIOUS PHASES SOME SORT OF NARRATIVE. ON THE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE. I POSED THAT AS A QUESTION FOR THE BOARD. IF YOU'RE COMFORTABLE WITH THE APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO THAT.

LIKE I SAID, THEY DIDN'T PUT A NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE BECAUSE THE PROPERTY ZONED R1, SOME SEMBLANCE OF SINGLE FAMILY HOMES CAN GO IN THERE. BUT WE DO USUALLY ALWAYS HAVE SOME SORT OF NARRATIVE TO A NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE. SO THAT'S MORE OF A QUESTION FOR THE BOARD TO THINK OF. DO YOU WANT SOME SORT OF NARRATIVE ON THAT, OR ARE YOU COMFORTABLE WITH THE APPLICANT'S RESPONSE FOR WHY THEY DIDN'T INCLUDE A NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE? AND THEN THERE'S

[01:25:02]

IT'LL BE ON THE TOWN WEBSITE. WE CAN GET COMMENTS FROM AGENCIES, MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC, SO ON AND SO FORTH. AND THEN WE WILL THEN HAVE 30 DAYS TO DO SECRET FINDINGS, WHICH WILL ULTIMATELY BE YOUR DECISION. WHAT OR WHAT PLAN YOU KNOW, YOU SUPPORT AS OF RIGHT CLUSTER, YOU KNOW, YOUR FINDINGS, YOUR BASIS BEHIND IT. WE'LL HAVE 30 DAYS FROM THE CLOSING OF THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD FROM THAT F EIS TO PUT THAT TOGETHER. SO ONCE WE DEEM IT COMPLETE, WE HAVE TIME FRAMES THAT WE HAVE TO MEET. SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU HAVE ALL THE INFORMATION THAT YOU NEED PROVIDED SO THAT YOU CAN DEEM THE EIS COMPLETE ANY OUTSTANDING QUESTIONS THAT YOU STILL HAVE. NOW IS THE TIME TO GET THEM TO SEAN AND HIS APPLICANTS SO THAT THEY CAN AMEND THE EIS. BUT LIKE I SAID, AGAIN, THIS DOCUMENT WILL BE, IN THE WORDS OF THE PLANNING BOARD AS A CONSENSUS. SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYONE IS COMFORTABLE WITH HOW IT'S WRITTEN, WHAT THE CONCLUSIONS ARE, WHAT THE MITIGATIONS ARE.

AND IF YOU ARE UNCOMFORTABLE WITH ANYTHING THAT'S WRITTEN, YOU KNOW NOW IS THE TIME TO DISCUSS IT. GIVE YOUR THOUGHTS ON THE RECORD, AND THEN WE CAN GO FROM THERE. AND THEN ULTIMATELY, I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY ONE THING. THE DOCUMENT THAT BECOMES ACTUALLY THE MOST IMPORTANT DOCUMENT IN THIS PROCESS IS THE NEXT STEP, THE FINDING STATEMENT. THE FINDING STATEMENT WILL ACTUALLY SET FORTH THE MITIGATION MEASURES THAT YOU'RE IMPOSING. SO THAT WOULD BE THE FINAL DOCUMENT IN TERMS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PURSUANT TO SECTION.

WELCOME BACK. RIGHT. OKAY. BOARD MEMBERS. MEMBER RYAN, WE CAN ASK QUESTIONS. YES YOU CAN.

YES. IN THIS CASE, YOU CAN ASK QUESTIONS. OKAY. I HAVE A COUPLE FOR YOU. SURE. SORRY.

LOOKING AT THE PLANS IN FRONT OF ME, THE AS OF RIGHT PLAN, WOULD THERE, WOULD YOU CONSIDER A MITIGATION FOR A REDUCTION OF THE NUMBER OF HOUSES TO GIVE MORE OF A BUFFER AND A WALKING TRAIL, AS YOU HAVE IN THE CLUSTERS, INSTEAD OF HAVING AS MANY AS YOU HAVE, REDUCE IT DOWN? IS THAT SOMETHING THAT YOU KNOW, USE WOULD BE CONSIDERED, WOULD CONSIDER DOING FOR US DOING A SITE PLAN OF LESSER HOUSES? SO THERE'S MORE OF A BUFFER OF WHAT THE RESIDENTS ARE LOOKING FOR, BECAUSE I KNOW THAT'S ONE THING THAT THEY DO, LIKE IN THE CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT. THAT'S MY FIRST QUESTION. OKAY, I'LL ANSWER THEM AS YOU GO. IT'S UP TO YOU. YEAH, LET ME DO THAT. OKAY. SO UNDER THE CLUSTERING PLAN, WE HAVE ABOUT 14.35 ACRES OF PERMANENT OPEN SPACE. FIRST OF ALL, EVEN IF WE CONSIDER DOING THAT, WE WOULD NEVER GET TO HAVE THAT MUCH OPEN SPACE BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY THE LOTS WOULD BE BIGGER. BUT THE PRIMARY REASON, MISS RYAN, THAT THAT'S NOT FEASIBLE IS IT'S BECAUSE WE DON'T GET THE REDUCTION OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE. WHY A REDUCTION OF LOTS FROM 65 TO 59 IS ACCEPTABLE. IT ACTUALLY RESULTS IN SUBSTANTIALLY LESS COST IN TERMS OF ROADWAYS, SEWER, WATER, NOT BECAUSE THE LOTS ARE STILL BIG ENOUGH TO ACCOMMODATE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. IT'S BASICALLY THE LOT WIDTH AND THE LOT DIMENSIONS. SO OUR POSITION IS, YOU KNOW, WE'D LIKE YOU TO CHOOSE BETWEEN THE TWO. AND WE HAVE A STRONG PREFERENCE FOR THE CLUSTERING. OKAY. GOING

[01:30:03]

WHAT WE'LL DO IS WE'LL TAKE THE AS OF RIGHT PLAN. AND THEN BASICALLY WE'LL HAVE THAT EXACT EXACT SAME INFORMATION FOR COMPARISON PURPOSES FROM THE CLUSTER HOUSING. OKAY. AND THAT WAS PROVIDED IN THE FORMAT OF A TABLE. RIGHT. JEFF. I THINK ON. SO THERE'S A VERSION OF THE AS OF RIGHT PLAN THAT RIGHT ON EVERY LOT JUST HAS THE AMOUNT OF SQUARE FOOTAGE ON EACH ON ALL 65 FOR THE AS OF RIGHT PLAN. SO I BELIEVE MISS, MEMBER RYAN IS ASKING FOR SAME KIND OF FORMAT, JUST THAT SAME SQUARE FOOTAGE JUST ON THE CLUSTER PLAN. ABSOLUTELY. OKAY. NOW, MY LAST QUESTION, BASED ON THE PROPOSED MINIMUM LOT SIZE OF 10,000FT■!S. SO I'M GOING TO TAE YOUR SMALLEST LOT SIZE FOR YOUR CLUSTER. DEVELOPMENT. WOULD A HOMEOWNER BE ABLE TO CONSTRUCT A TYPICAL DECK, INSTALL AN IN-GROUND POOL AND PLACE A SHED ON THE PROPERTY WHILE STILL MEETING ALL THE REQUIRED SETBACKS, LOT COVERAGE AND ZONING REQUIREMENTS WITHOUT NEEDING TO OBTAIN A VARIANCE. SO, JOSH, IF YOU CAN GO TO THERE'S A SLIDE THAT ACTUALLY HAS THE ADDRESSES THIS QUESTION BECAUSE THIS HAD COME UP PREVIOUSLY. KEEP GOING. IT SAYS TYPICAL LOT LAYOUT PLAN CLUSTERED SUBDIVISION. SO AGAIN MINIMUM LOT SIZES 75FT BY 140FT.

THESE ARE LITERALLY HOME PLANS PREPARED BY THE PROSPECTIVE PURCHASER WHICH WOULD BE MARINA HOMES. AND WHAT THESE DEMONSTRATE IS WITH THOSE LOT DIMENSIONS COMPLYING WITH ALL SETBACKS, THERE'S MORE THAN ADEQUATE ROOM TO PROVIDE SHEDS, POOLS, DECKS, PATIOS IN THE BACK OF THOSE YARDS WHILE COMPLYING WITH ALL APPLICABLE SETBACKS. I ALSO WANT TO NOTE, IN PAST INSTANCES IN THE TOWN OF HAMBURG, THERE HAS BEEN CLUSTERING APPROVED WHERE THE LOTS GO DOWN AS SMALL AS 5000FT■!S, WHICH WOULD BE HALF F WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING IN THOSE INSTANCES. GENERALLY SPEAKING, IT DOES NOT LEAVE ROOM, FOR EXAMPLE, FOR AT LEAST A POOL. I THINK TO PIGGYBACK OFF OF YOUR QUESTION, MEMBER RYAN, IN. SO IN OUR CLUSTER SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS IN THE TOWN CODE, WE DO HAVE SPECIFIC SETBACKS THAT ARE IN THERE FOR SPECIFIC CLUSTER SUBDIVISIONS. AND A FRONT YARD SETBACK IS 20FT. THE MINIMUM SIDE YARD IS TEN FEET, AND THE REAR YARD CANNOT BE LESS THAN 20FT. SO THAT'S KIND OF THE PARAMETERS OF WHAT CLUSTER LAW. AND THEN I BELIEVE WHAT MR. HOPKINS IS SAYING IS THAT EVEN WITH THE SMALLEST 10,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT, THAT BASED OFF OF THOSE LISTS, THEY STILL WOULD BE ABLE TO MEET ALL OF THOSE SETBACKS WITHOUT NEEDING A VARIANCE FOR A POOL OR A DECK OR SO ON AND SO FORTH.

OKAY. AND THAT'S BECAUSE OF THE DEPTH OF THE LOT. THE MINIMUM DEPTH IS 150FT. SO WE'RE NOT GOING WITH ANY LOTS THAT HAVE LESS DEPTH THAN THAT. OKAY. I JUST DON'T WANT A HOMEOWNER TO ENTER INTO BUYING A LOT. AND THEN ONCE THEY BUILD THEIR HOME, FINDING OUT THAT THEY CAN'T PUT A DECK AND A POOL OR A SHED OR ALL THREE OF THEM BACK THERE, NOW THEY'RE IN A POSITION WHERE, WHY DID YOU DO THIS? ULTIMATELY, UNDER THE CLUSTERING PLAN, EITHER PLAN, WE'LL NEED TO FORM AN HOA BECAUSE THE TOWN DOES NOT WANT TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE LONG TERM OWNERSHIP AND MAINTENANCE OF THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT. SO IN THAT SITUATION, IF WE COULDN'T PUT THOSE IMPROVEMENTS IN THE BACKYARD, WHICH WE CAN, THAT WOULD BE SPECIFIED IN THAT DOCUMENT, MEANING SOMEONE WOULD HAVE NOTICED. MEMBER STEWART, I GOT A QUESTION. LOOKING AT THE ADVANTAGE TO DOESN'T LOOK LIKE IT GIVES YOU MUCH ROOM. YEAH, YOU MIGHT HAVE A LOT OF ROOM IN THE BACKYARD TO INSTALL A POOL, FENCE DECK OR. BUT YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO INTRUDE ON THE NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY IN ORDER TO GET EQUIPMENT BACK THERE IN ORDER TO PUT IN A POOL OR A SHED. IF YOU'RE ONLY GIVEN, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE DIMENSION IS BETWEEN THE FOUNDATION OF THE HOUSE AND YOUR PROPERTY LINE, BUT IT 15FT, TEN ON ONE AND 15 ON THE OTHER. YEAH. OKAY. IT JUST DOESN'T LOOK LIKE IT GIVES MUCH ROOM COMPARED TO LIKE THE DISCOVERY NINE WHERE IT LOOKS LIKE IT, YOU HAVE MORE THAN ADEQUATE ROOM ON EACH SIDE.

I MEAN, THAT'S NOT AN UNCOMMON SITUATION, BUT YEAH, THE MINIMUM SETBACKS ARE IN ALL INSTANCES, AT LEAST TEN FEET ON EACH SIDE. SO IS THIS SOMETHING SIMILAR TO MISSION HILLS MARINO

[01:35:02]

YEAH. AND IF YOU DRIVE THROUGH PHASE FOUR, YOU'LL SEE THAT IMPLEMENTED. NOW THAT WHAT WE DID UNDER THAT NEW DESIGN. YES. YEP. THANK YOU. YOU'RE WELCOME. BOARD MEMBERS. NO ONE ELSE MEMBERS. I JUST WANTED TO NOTE ON PAGE 11. IT FOR MITIGATION REQUIRED UNDER 3.3.2 IMPACTS OF SURFACE WATER AND GROUNDWATER. YOU HAVE TO GET CLOSER TO YOUR MIC. I CAN'T HEAR YOU. SO THAT AS OF RIGHT MITIGATION, IT IT REFERENCES A DETAILED ANALYSIS HAS DETERMINED THAT THESE ARE MINOR SHORT TERM IMPACTS THAT DO NOT REQUIRE MITIGATION. MY QUESTION WHEN I READ THAT WAS WHAT, WHAT DETAILED ANALYSIS? LIKE WHAT IS THAT REFERRING TO? I DON'T HAVE IT IN FRONT OF ME.

THE DOCUMENT, IF I COULD SEE IT, I COULD ANSWER THE QUESTION. YES. SO MY, MY ONLY THING WOULD BE LIKE TO INCLUDE WHERE THAT CAME FROM. CAN YOU JUST GIVE ME THE PAGE? PAGE PAGE 11. HOLD ON ONE SECOND. PAGE 11. POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON LAND USE. ARE YOU ON? YEAH. OH, PAGE. NEXT PAGE. YEAH.

IMPACTS ON SURFACE WATER AND GROUNDWATER RESOURCES. YEAH. DOWN, WHERE IT SAYS MITIGATION REQUIRED A PRELIMINARY STORMWATER ANALYSIS. CAN CAN WE HAVE SOME WORDING IN THERE OF, YOU KNOW, WHAT IT REFERENCES TO? SURE. YEAH. BECAUSE BECAUSE I READ THAT AND WAS QUESTIONING.

ABSOLUTELY. WHERE WOULD WE FIND THAT? YEP. ANYTHING ELSE? I HAVE NOTHING. JOSH, YOU MADE A REFERENCE TO, AND I DON'T, I THINK YOU DID IT IN AN EMAIL. I MEAN, YOU KNOW, FOUR DAYS OF 5000 PAGES OF READING. SO YOU MADE A REFERENCE TO THE LIST FROM DOLLAR GENERAL. CAN YOU EXPLAIN THAT IF YOU HAVEN'T ALREADY? AND WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE SAME THING. SO I REFERENCED IT A LITTLE BIT EARLIER. SO IN DOLLAR GENERAL, WE HAD WAS WE HAD A TABLE OF EVERY COMMENT THAT WE RECEIVED DURING THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD THAT THE BOARD DEEMED TO BE SUBSTANTIVE, THAT THAT APPLICANT THEN ADDRESSED IN THE FEIS, AS I PUT IN THE EMAIL TO THE BOARD, I FOUND THAT TO BE HELPFUL BECAUSE DURING THOSE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIODS, YOU GET A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT COMMENTS. AND I THINK AT LEAST HAVING A TABLE OF WHO SAID IT, THE DATE OF WHAT THEY SAID IT, WHAT WAS IT, YOU KNOW, ADDRESSED TO, I FOUND TO BE HELPFUL TO PUT IN THE FAIS SO THAT EVERY COMMENT IS BEING ADDRESSED SO THAT INSTEAD OF HAVING DIFFERENT SECTIONS WHERE IT'S REFERENCING, YOU KNOW, WHAT ONE PLANNING BOARD MEMBER SAID AND WHAT ONE RESIDENT SAID HAVING A TABLE IS LIKE, HERE'S ALL THE COMMENTS THAT WE HAVE. AND THEN YOU CAN, YOU KNOW, SEQUENTIALLY OR HOWEVER YOU WANT TO RESPOND TO EVERY SINGLE COMMENT THAT'S BEEN SUBMITTED. SO THAT WAS A SUGGESTION THAT I OFFERED TO THE BOARD TO MAYBE SUGGEST TO THE APPLICANT. AND LIKE I SAID, I HAD COLIN PUT TOGETHER THAT TABLE SO THAT TABLE IS PREPARED THAT WE CAN SHARE IT WITH THE APPLICANT. ARE YOU OPEN TO THAT? YES. AND I IT WOULD BE GREATLY APPRECIATED IF YOU COULD PROVIDE THAT TO ME AS SOON AS YOU CAN. YEAH. OKAY. THE OTHER QUESTION I HAVE IN THE, IN THE, DOCUMENTATION THAT YOU PROVIDED WITH US WHERE YOU'VE GOT IMPACT

[01:40:05]

AND THEN, THERE WERE, THERE WAS A CONVERSATION OR IN HERE A BREAKDOWN ABOUT SIDEWALKS, BIKE PATHS. I THINK ENGINEERING TOUCHED UPON IT A LITTLE BIT ABOUT, IN YOUR COMMENTS. THERE IS NO, THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE ANY ADDITIONAL SIDEWALKS ADDED AS THIS PROJECT. THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE, I DON'T KNOW THAT THE, THAT THE BILLS STADIUM, IF THE IMPACT HAS REALLY BEEN ADDRESSED WITH THIS SUBDIVISION. SO ONE OF THE, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I HIGHLIGHTED IN THE, AND I CAN, I CAN SHARE THIS AS WELL. IT'S PUBLICLY AVAILABLE. BUT IN ONE OF THE IMPACTS THAT AS I DID, MY REVIEW FOR THE PLANNING BOARD IS SPECIFICALLY IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION. WHAT WAS LISTED FROM THE DEIS VERSUS WHAT WAS DISCUSSED IN THE PHASE. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WAS ASKED FOR WERE CUMULATIVE IMPACTS NOT ONLY ON THE PROJECT FOR THE ADJOINING PROJECT, BUT THEN ANY TYPE OF IMPACTS THAT WOULD COME FROM THE NEW BUILD STADIUM. AND THEN I KNOW THAT THERE ARE ALSO AT THE TIME, THERE WAS A TRAFFIC STUDY THAT WAS SUBMITTED, I THINK PISSARRO DID IT. AND THEN I BELIEVE THAT THEY THEN UPDATED IT IN DECEMBER OF 2020 FOR COMMENT, HAD BEEN DETERMINED TO BE COMPLETE BY THIS BOARD. DOT ASKED FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. ONE OF THE COMMENTS THAT I HAD IN THERE WAS SINCE THAT DECEMBER 24TH, TIS HAS THAT STUDY BEEN SHARED WITH THE DOT? DO THEY HAVE ANY NEW COMMENTS ON THAT STUDY OR HAVE THEY SEEN IT SINCE? I THINK THEY CAME BACK AND THERE'S AN EMAIL AND I BELIEVE YOU'RE COPIED ON IT. JOSH, SAYING THAT THEY HAD NO ADDITIONAL CONCERNS. OKAY. SO THOSE ARE JUST SOME QUESTIONS THAT I PONDERED FOR THE FOR THE PLANNING BOARD DURING MY REVIEW, BECAUSE I REMEMBER THE CONVERSATION, I THINK IT MIGHT BE IN THE APPENDIX IN THE APPENDIX. IS THAT WHAT YOU SAID? YEAH. OFF THE LOOK. BUT YES, THAT WAS THAT WAS COORDINATED THROUGH DOT OKAY, OKAY. THE ONLY OTHER CLARIFICATION I'M GOING TO FOLLOW UP ON WHAT MEMBER RYAN WAS TALKING ABOUT IN REGARDS TO THE CLUSTER. AND THAT IS, I FOUND CONFUSING BECAUSE I TRIED TO, AND I, I KNOW YOU'RE GOING TO ADDRESS THIS WITH SHOWING THE SQUARE FOOTAGE, BUT IF IT'S EITHER 10,000 OR 17,000, BECAUSE IF IT'S 17,000FT■S, IT WOULDN'T FIT THE PROPERTY ON THE CLUSTER. SO IF WE GO BACK TO DIAGRAMS, THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT RIGHT WHERE YOU JUST WERE. YEAH. THE MINIMUM, THE MINIMUM IS 10,500 UP TO 17,500. RIGHT. SO HOW MANY DO YOU THINK WOULD BE 17,000FT■!S, IF ANY? VERY FEW AS YOU'RE ON THE CURVES. SO THE TYPICAL ALMOST ALL OF THEM HAVE LOT DIMENSIONS OF 75FT BY 140FT.

I WOULD SAY 80% OF THE LOTS. AND THAT'S SHOWN RIGHT ON THE DIAGRAM, WHICH I HAVE. SO I I'M GOING TO CLARIFY THIS FOR THE BOARD MEMBERS THAT QUESTIONED THIS. IT'S NOT THAT THIS SUBDIVISION IS GOING TO HAVE LOTS OF 17,500FT■S. IT'S THE CORNER LOTS THAT ARE GOING TO HAVE IT IN THE CLUSTER. IS THAT CORRECT? YEAH. OKAY. JUST FOR INFORMATION TO SHOW WHAT THE RANGE WAS. OKAY. BUT THE GENERAL, SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE LOTS IN THE CLUSTER ARE GOING TO BE 10,500 IS GENERALLY 75 BY 140. OKAY. OKAY. I DON'T HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS. I THINK THAT, JOSH, CAN WE SUBMIT THIS TO, FOR HIM TO, INSTEAD OF GOING THROUGH THESE QUESTIONS? YEAH, I WAS PLANNING ON SHARING THIS, THIS DOCUMENT WITH MR. HOPKINS. I, I, I THINK THAT WOULD BE GOOD. AND JUST TO SAVE SOME TIME AND THEN THEY CAN ADDRESS THOSE CONCERNS BECAUSE I FOUND THE SAME THING FOR THE MOST PART, I FOUND A LOT OF IT. AND, I ALSO FOUND I'VE GOT IT MARKED HERE THAT. CAMI MADE SOME, HAD SOME CONCLUSIONS ON. 2.3. THE GHDS REVIEW OF THE SEWER ANALYSIS AND THEN CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ALONG WITH CONCLUSIONS AND. CAMI YOU DON'T

[01:45:19]

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. I BELIEVE THAT THERE'S MINUTES TO BE, VOTED ON.

[6. 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 ]

[01:50:01]

OKAY. SO THEN WE WOULD BE ACCEPTING. WE WOULD BE GETTING THE DEIS FOR WETZEL. YEAH. WE WOULD BE GETTING THE FEIS AND STARTING THE PROCESS OF THE REVIEW, KIND OF LIKE WE DID FOR PARKER ROAD FOR THAT ONE. AND WE'D BE ACCEPTING THE PARKER ROAD FEIS AS COMPLETE. OKAY.

AND THEN IF YOU RECALL, ORIGINALLY THEY WERE REVIEWED CONTEMPORANEOUSLY. SO THERE IS SOME CROSSOVER. OKAY. SO THEN WE'LL SEE YOU ON THE 19TH FOR BOTH OF THEM. CORRECT. OKAY.

ALRIGHT. THANK YOU. HAVE A GOOD EVENING. ALL RIGHT. YOU TOO. THANKS. OKAY. SO WE HAVE MINUTES AND I HAVE TO I, I'M NOT ABLE TO VOTE ON THE MINUTES, BUT I CAN CALL FOR THE VOTE. IS THAT RIGHT, ATTORNEY GOGAN. EVEN THOUGH I WASN'T HERE, CAN I CALL FOR THE VOTE FOR THE MINUTES? I CAN CALL FOR IT, BUT YOU CAN'T. NO, I CAN'T VOTE. RIGHT, I GOT IT, OKAY. IT'S GOING TO BE A IT'S GOING TO BE A MOTION AND A SECOND FROM OTHER PEOPLE. OKAY. SO DID EVERYBODY REVIEW THE MINUTES? YES. OKAY. DO YOU HAVE TO USE YOUR MIC WHEN YOU SAY YES? YES.

I KNOW YOU DON'T LIKE TO USE YOUR MIC. THEY WERE MAYBE TALKING ABOUT YOU WHEN THEY SENT ME THAT MEMO. GOSH. SO WHO WOULD LIKE TO MAKE THE MOTION FOR THE MINUTES MEMBER? I'LL MAKE A MOTION TWO TO APPROVE THE MEETING MINUTES FROM 715. IT'S BEEN MOVED. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. IT'S BEEN MOVED BY MEMBER QUAN, SECOND BY MEMBER STEWART. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. NONE OPPOSED. MEETING MINUTES FROM THE 15TH OF JULY. HAVE YOU AND I ABSTAIN? RIGHT. AND I, I HAVE TO ABSTAIN AS WELL. OH, WAIT A MINUTE. HERE AT THE MEETING. ONE. TWO.

THREE. FOUR. OKAY. SO THEN. BUT YOU TWO SAID I KNOW DIDN'T. OKAY. SO OKAY, SO IT'S BEEN MOVED WITH THE ABSTENTION FROM MEMBER CLERK MEMBER ZAJAC AND CHAIR GRONINGEN. SO THE MINUTES HAVE BEEN APPROVED. DOES THAT MEET YOUR. DID I CLARIFY THAT? OKAY. I DIDN'T KNOW YOU WEREN'T HERE. I DIDN'T KNOW YOU WEREN'T HERE. I DIDN'T GET A POSTCARD FROM YOUR VACATION. OKAY, SO I COPIED YOU ON MY EMAIL. I KNOW YOU DID. I DID GET YOU'RE THE ONLY ONE THAT COPIED ME ON STUFF. LET'S NOT GET INTO THAT. OKAY. ARE WE GOOD? SO WE HAVE EIGHT CASES. YOUR SEND ME THE AGENDA TOMORROW FOR MY REVIEW. AND, WE'RE UP TO DATE ON THE MINUTES AND, OUR YOUNG LADY IN THE BACK, SHE'S DOING A GREAT JOB. CAN HAS THE HEARING IMPROVED? YES. OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

SO KUDOS TO THAT. AND I JUST WANT TO THANK THE BOARD IN MY ABSENCE. I KNOW I'VE BEEN GONE FOR A WHILE AND I WAS OUT TO SEA FOR SEARCHING FOR BIG FISH. AND NOW I'M BACK AND, IT'S GOOD TO BE BACK. AND I WANT TO THANK EVERYONE FOR THEIR THOUGHTS AND CONCERN DURING THAT TIME THAT THE SHIP DID NOT GO DOWN AND, BUT I, AND I WANT TO THANK MEMBER SHIMURA FOR RUNNING THINGS WHILE I WAS GONE AND JOSH FOR HIS HELP WHILE I WAS TRYING TO GET BACK INTO THE SWING OF THINGS. SO. AND WITH THAT, IS THERE A MOTION TO ADJOURN? I MAKE A MOTION TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.