[00:00:09] EVENING TO OUR SEPTEMBER 16TH MEETING. CAN YOU HEAR ME? OKAY. TO THE PLANNING BOARD, SEPTEMBER 16TH MEETING. IF YOU WOULD 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, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. MEMBER. JURY, WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL? CYNTHIA CHAN, PRESENT. CAITLIN SHIMURA PRESENT. RICHARD SAJAK HERE. WILLIAM CLARK HERE. BRIAN STEWART HERE. MILTON KWANT HERE. KIM RYAN EXCUSED. ABSENCE. AUGUST DJERASSI HERE. OKAY, SO THIS EVENING, BECAUSE MEMBER RYAN IS NOT HERE, OUR ALTERNATE MILTON WILL BE TAKING PLACE IN THE DISCUSSION AND ALSO IN THE VOTE THIS EVENING IN HER PLACE. [1. Public Hearing – 7:00 P.M., M&T Bank – Requesting Site Plan Approval on a proposal for a drive-up ATM kiosk to be located at 6000 South Park Avenue] SO IN OUR FIRST CASE IS A PUBLIC HEARING FOR M T BANK REQUESTING SITE PLAN APPROVAL ON A PROPOSAL FOR A DRIVE IN DRIVE UP ATM KIOSK TO BE LOCATED AT 6000 SOUTH PARK AVENUE. DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO OFFER BEFORE WE. SO WE SHOULD JUST OPEN IT AND GO RIGHT? OKAY, OKAY. THANK YOU. MEMBER JURY, WOULD YOU PLEASE READ THE PUBLIC PUBLIC NOTICE. 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 DRIVE IN, DRIVE UP ATM KIOSK TO BE LOCATED AT 6000 SOUTH PARK AVENUE. THE PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD ON SEPTEMBER 16TH, 2026 AT 7 P.M. IN ROOM SEVEN A AND SEVEN B OF THE HAMBURG TOWN HALL. THANK YOU. SO A PUBLIC HEARING IS THE OPPORTUNITY FOR THE PUBLIC OR THE RESIDENTS TO SPEAK THEIR OPINION IN REGARDS TO THE PROJECT THAT'S IN FRONT OF THEM. THERE'S A THREE MINUTE RULE, AND THAT'S IN ORDER TO GIVE EVERYBODY AN OPPORTUNITY TO TALK. AND THEY SPEAK ONCE. SO AT THIS POINT, I WOULD LIKE TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR AMITY BANK AT 6000 SOUTH PARK AVENUE. IS THERE ANYONE HERE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK ON ON REGARDING THIS APPLICANT? SECOND CALL FOR M T BANK AT 6000 SOUTH PARK AVENUE FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING. THIRD AND FINAL CALL FOR M T BANK REQUESTING SITE PLAN APPROVAL ON A PROPOSAL FOR A DRIVE UP ATM KIOSK. SEEING NO PARTICIPANTS, I'M CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING AND I BELIEVE BOARD MEMBERS. WE HAVE. FIRST OF ALL, DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS REGARDING AMITY BANK? OKAY. ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US. A RESOLUTION THAT JOSH HAS PREPARED AHEAD OF TIME. THE ONLY THING I DON'T SEE IS LIGHTS DARK SKY COMPLIANT ON THERE. WELL, YEAH, I CAN ADD THAT. OKAY. ARE YOU PROPOSING ARE YOU PROPOSING LIGHTS? OKAY. YEAH, THAT WAS GONNA BE MY OTHER THING. IS THAT LIKE IN FOR MEMBERS SAKE THAT THERE'S, YOU KNOW, WE CALL OUT LIGHTS TO BE DARK SKY COMPLIANT, BUT ALSO THERE'S GOING TO BE SIGNAGE AS WELL TOO. SO THAT IF YOU KNOW, IN THE ARCADE RETAIL, YOU KNOW, THAT SIGNAGE WILL BE IN ACCORDANCE. IF YOU WANT TO HAVE THAT, JUST BE FROM A CONSISTENCY STANDPOINT. AND I CAN READ THAT TO YOU WHEN YOU WANT TO TYPE IT. ANY PROPOSED SIGNAGE SHALL BE. IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE XXXVI. OF THE TOWN OF HAMBURG OR HAMBURG. TOWN CODE. YEAH. CAMIE. IS THERE A ENGINEERING COMMENT LETTER FOR THIS ONE? WHAT'S THE STATE? SEPTEMBER 11TH IS THE DATE OF THE ENGINEERING LETTER. AND JUST FOR REFERENCE, THE ONLY NOTE ON IT THAT I NEED GRADES [00:05:03] TO ENSURE THAT THE NEW ATM DOESN'T IMPACT THE DRAINAGE. JOSH, IS IT IMPORTANT TO PUT ANYTHING ABOUT THE SIDEWALKS THAT THEY'RE NOT WARRANTED BECAUSE OF THE LOCATION OF? YEAH, JUST FOR CONSISTENCY SAKE, WE CAN ADD THAT. MY ONLY OTHER QUESTION, IS THERE ANY LANDSCAPING AROUND THIS? NO. NOPE. THERE IS NO LANDSCAPING AROUND THE PARKING LOT. SO OKAY, COME ON UP HERE SO WE CAN HEAR YOU. PLEASE. HELLO. HI. I'M STEVE FROM SCHEIDT ARCHITECTURAL REPRESENT MAT BANK. THE PROPOSED ATM IS IN THE MIDDLE OF ASPHALT PARKING LOT, SO THERE'S NO LANDSCAPING PROPOSED AS IT'S ALL DRIVE LANE. OKAY, I THINK THEY HAVE SOME LANDSCAPING OUT IN FRONT OF THE BUILDING AND AT THE STREET, I BELIEVE. OKAY, WELL, NOW WE HAVE IT ON THE RECORD, SO THANK YOU FOR THAT. OKAY. IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE BOARD MEMBERS THAT YOU WOULD LIKE ADDED TO THIS? COULD YOU REPEAT YOUR LAST NAME, PLEASE? MY LAST NAME IS MOALI, MOVALLI. I'M WITH SCHEID, ARCHITECTURAL. OKAY, AGENT FOR THE BANK. THANK YOU. KNOW WE'RE IN GOOD SHAPE. YEAH, I THINK SO. I, I THINK REMEMBER? THE MEMBER TO MY RIGHT OVER HERE IS WAITING TO READ THIS RESOLUTION. BRIAN. YES. MAT BANK DRIVE UP, MAKE A MOTION. I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE MAT BANK DRIVE UP ATM KIOSK, 6000 SOUTH PARK AVE, SEEKER AND APPROVAL RESOLUTION SEPTEMBER 16TH, 2026. WHEREAS, THE TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING DEPARTMENT RECEIVED A SITE PLAN APPLICATION FROM M AND T BANK FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DRIVE UP ATM KIOSK WITH UP TO FIVE STACKING SPACES TO BE LOCATED AT 6000 SOUTH PARK AVENUE. AND WHEREAS, THE TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD HAS DETERMINED THAT THIS IS A TYPE TWO ACTION UNDER SEEKER AND NO FURTHER SEEKER REVIEW IS NECESSARY. AND WHEREAS THE TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD HELD THE REQUIRED PUBLIC HEARING ON SEPTEMBER 16TH, 2026, AND WHEREAS, THE TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD HAS THOROUGHLY REVIEWED THIS PROJECT AND SITE PLAN AND RECEIVED INPUT FROM TOWN DEPARTMENTS, ADVISORY BOARDS AND CONSULTANTS, AND HAS FOUND THE PROJECT TO BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE 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 SEPTEMBER 11TH, 2026. TWO ALL PROPOSED LIGHTING SHALL BE DARK SKY COMPLIANT. THREE ANY PROPOSED SIGNAGE SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE XXXVI OF THE HAMBURG TOWN CODE FOUR SIDEWALKS ARE NOT WARRANTED AS THEY ALREADY EXIST ALONG SOUTH PARK AVENUE. IT'S BEEN MOVED. IS THERE A SECOND? IT'S BEEN. IT'S BEEN MOVED. IS THERE A SECOND? MEMBERS AJ SECONDS I'LL THIRD THEN. I'M SORRY, I'M SORRY, I'M SORRY. NO IT'S FINE. AUGIE DO YOU WANT IT? YOU GOTTA TALK. TALK UP INTO THE MICROPHONE. I CAN'T HEAR YOU GUYS. THAT'S THE PART OF THE PROBLEM. OKAY, MEMBERS, AJ SECONDS. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? I, I THE RESOLUTION HAS BEEN APPROVED AND YOU ARE ALL SET. GOOD LUCK ON YOUR PROJECT. WONDERFUL. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. SUBMITTING TO THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT. DOES THAT BE THROUGH BUILDING BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION, WHICH YOU WANT ME TO SUBMIT A SEPARATE DRAWING TO SUBMIT TO ME FIRST, BECAUSE THE BUILDING PERMIT WON'T BE CONSIDERED WITHOUT MY APPROVAL. OKAY, SO WHENEVER YOU HAVE SOME GRADES AND SO ON, THEN IT WRITES THE ENGINEERING PART. GOT IT. THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING. OKAY. OUR NEXT CASE IS MIKE SWEENEY, REQUESTING SITE PLAN APPROVAL [2. 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)] [00:10:01] ON A PROPOSAL OF A 5500 ZERO SQUARE FOOT INDUSTRIAL STORAGE BUILDING ON AN EXISTING ASPHALT GRAVEL STORAGE YARD TO BE LOCATED AT 3100 LAKESHORE ROAD. SBL NUMBER 150.00-1-1.2. MR. SWEENEY, I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION AT THIS POINT. WE WEREN'T WAITING FOR ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. NO, JUST JUST JUST TO RECAP, JUST SO IT'S ON THE RECORD, WE DID A COORDINATED REVIEW FOR THIS PROJECT FROM A SECRET PERSPECTIVE. WE DID SEND IT TO OUR USUAL AGENCIES DECDOT WE SENT IT TO ERIE COUNTY. NONE OF THOSE AGENCIES HAD ANY, WHAT I WOULD CALL NEGATIVE COMMENTS AGAINST THE PROJECT. WE ALSO THEN SUBMITTED THE PROJECT TO THE TOWN'S LWR COMMITTEE BECAUSE IT'S IN THE WATERFRONT AREA. THEY CAME BACK WITH A POSTAL POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION FOR THIS BOARD. THERE IS A RESOLUTION PREPARED FOR YOU TONIGHT. WE'VE ALREADY HELD THE PUBLIC HEARINGS. THERE'S NO PUBLIC HEARING COMPONENT. AND IN THE RESOLUTION, IF THE BOARD IS COMFORTABLE, IT TALKS ABOUT SEEKER ISSUING AN EDICT SAYING THAT THE PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE LW P AND THEN GETS INTO ANY POTENTIAL CONDITIONS. OKAY. SO IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION IN REGARDS TO THE RESOLUTION THAT IS BEFORE US THIS EVENING? ANYTHING ADDITIONAL THAT YOU FEEL NEEDS TO BE ADDED? WE NEED THE ENGINEERING LETTER. 911 OKAY. ARE THERE ANY OTHER CONDITIONS? SO WE HAVE APPROVAL CONDITION ON THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT. COMMENT LETTER LIGHTING WILL BE SHIELDED IN DARK SKY COMPLIANT AS ON THE PLANS. SIDEWALKS AREN'T WARRANTED BECAUSE THEY EXIST ON LAKESHORE ROAD. ANY OTHER CONDITIONS THAT THE BOARD WOULD WANT TO PLACE? I DON'T HAVE ANY ANY ADDITIONAL. NOPE. NONE? NOPE. I BELIEVE THE BOARD MEMBERS ARE HAPPY WITH THAT. WHO WOULD LIKE TO MAKE THIS RESOLUTION? I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE SWEENEY STEEL INDUSTRIAL STORAGE BUILDING 3100 LAKESHORE ROAD. BEFORE YOU START MEMBERS APPROVAL. MEMBER. SHIMURA. GO AHEAD. SEEGER. WHERE IS THE TOWN OF HAMBURG? RECEIVED A SITE PLAN APPLICATION FROM MIKE SWEENEY FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 5500 ZERO SQUARE FOOT INDUSTRIAL STORAGE BUILDING ON AN EXISTING ASPHALT GRAVEL STORAGE YARD TO BE LOCATED AT 3100 LAKESHORE ROAD. SBL NUMBER 150.00-1-1.2. AND WHEREAS THE TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD INITIATED THE SECRET PROCESS FOR THIS UNLISTED ACTION AND RECEIVED INPUT FROM INVOLVED AND INTERESTED AGENCIES, TOWN DEPARTMENTS AND BOARDS. AND WHEREAS, THE TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD HAS REVIEWED THE EAF SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT AND RECEIVED INPUT FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND. WHEREAS, THE TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD HELD THE REQUIRED PUBLIC HEARING ON SEPTEMBER 2ND, 2026 AND RECEIVED NO PUBLIC COMMENTS. AND WHEREAS THE TOWN'S LWP COMMITTEE HAS REVIEWED THE WATERFRONT ASSESSMENT FORM AND RECOMMENDED TO THE PLANNING BOARD THAT THE PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE TOWN'S LW, RP AND THE PLANNING BOARD HAS REVIEWED THIS INFORMATION AND DETERMINED THAT THE PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE TOWN'S LW, RP COASTAL CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION AND. WHEREAS, IN ACCORDANCE WITH PART 617 OF THE IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO ARTICLE EIGHT, STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT SEQRA, THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION LAW, THE TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD HAS REVIEWED PART ONE OF THE FEAF AND HAS COMPLETED PARTS TWO AND THREE OF THE F, E A, F AND REVIEW THE CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 617.7 OF SEEGER. AND NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, THE TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING PLANNING BOARD HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL NOT HAVE SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACTS ON THE NATURAL RESOURCES OF THE STATE AND OR THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC AND IS CONSISTENT WITH SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS AND THEREFORE ISSUES A NEGATIVE DECLARATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECRET WITH SECTION 617.7 OF SEEKER, AND FINALLY RESOLVED THAT THE TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING CHAIR IS AUTHORIZED TO SIGN THE FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM EAF PARTS ONE, TWO, THREE AND WILL ACT AS THE SEEKER NEGATIVE DECLARATION. IT'S BEEN MOVED. IS THERE A SECOND MEMBER, STEWART? SECOND, IT'S BEEN MOVED BY MEMBER. OH MY GOD. STEWART NO. MOVED BY SHIMURA, MOVED BY MEMBER SHIMURA, SECOND BY BRIAN STEWART. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. NONE OPPOSED. SEEKER PINS BASED ON THE ISSUANCE OF THE [00:15:01] NEGATIVE DECLARATION, THE TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD HEREBY GRANTS CONDITIONAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR THIS PROJECT WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS. APPROVAL IS CONTINGENT UPON THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT COMMENT LETTER DATED SEPTEMBER 11TH, 2026. ANY LIGHTING SHALL BE SHIELDED IN DARK SKY COMPLIANT AND SHOW ON THE PLANS. SIDEWALKS ARE NOT WARRANTED AS THEY ALREADY EXIST ON LAKESHORE ROAD. IT'S BEEN MOVED BY MEMBER SHIMURA. IS THERE A SECOND MEMBER? KWANT SECOND, MEMBER KWON SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE AYE. NONE OPPOSED. THE SITE PLAN HAS BEEN APPROVED. SO WE ARE ALL SET. GENTLEMEN, YOU'RE ALL SET WITH YOUR PROJECT. GOOD LUCK. THANK YOU. WE'RE HAPPY FOR YOU TO. OKAY, ARCADE. REQUESTING CHANGE OF USE AND [3. 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] SITE PLAN. APPROVAL ON A PROPOSAL FOR A RETAIL CANNABIS DISPENSARY. AND ASSOCIATED SITE PLAN IMPROVEMENTS TO BE LOCATED AT 3233 LAKESHORE ROAD. SO THIS CASE, WE DO HAVE THE RESOLUTION IN FRONT OF US. BOARD MEMBERS, IF YOU RECALL, THE PLANS CAME BACK TO US. WE REQUIRED THAT THE. PATIO AND THE PERGOLA BE REMOVED, THE GARAGE DOOR BE REMOVED. THAT HAS FINALLY NOW ALL BEEN REMOVED. THERE WERE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE SECURITY. WE DID GET PAPERWORK IN OUR PACKET TO ADDRESS THE SECURITY CONCERNS. ARE THERE ANY. IS THERE. ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS BEFORE WE MOVE INTO THIS RESOLUTION? BECAUSE THE MIC UNDERSTANDS SHAKING OF HEADS. I HAVE NO QUESTION. OKAY, WE'RE ALL SET. OKAY. SO WHO WOULD LIKE TO READ THE RESOLUTION I HAVE? WELL, I MEAN, NO PROJECT QUESTIONS, I HAVE RESOLUTION EDITS. OKAY, SO WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE TO CHANGE ON THE RESOLUTION? SO ON NUMBER SIX. SO IT'S NOT THE PROJECT WILL BE FULLY ENCLOSED IS ALL BUSINESS OPERATIONS SHALL BE WITHIN THE FULLY ENCLOSED BUILDING. SHOULDN'T IT JUST SAY THE BUILDING SHOULD BE FULLY ENCLOSED. BUT THE POINT IS THAT YOU'RE NOT HAVING YOUR OPERATIONS ARE ALL WITHIN THE BUILDING ENCLOSURE. THERE'S NO WALK UP WINDOW, ANY SORT OF COMMERCE OPERATIONS OUTSIDE OF THE BUILDING. SO THE BUSINESS, ALL BUSINESS OPERATIONS SHALL BE WITHIN THE ENCLOSED BUILDING. AND THEN I PROPOSE A PERIOD AND SIMILAR TO HOW WE SAY ITEMS SHALL NOT BE PERMITTED, A WALK UP WINDOW SHALL NOT BE PERMITTED. SO FOR THE SALE OF CANNABIS PRODUCTS, SO ALL BUSINESS OPERATIONS SHALL BE WITHIN A FULLY ENCLOSED BUILDING PERIOD. AND THEN YOU WANT A NEW SENTENCE AFTER BUILDING A YES. OKAY. SO PERIOD, A WALK UP WINDOW FOR THE SALE OF CANNABIS PRODUCTS SHALL NOT BE PERMITTED. OKAY, SO THAT'S GOING TO I'M JUST GOING TO MOVE THINGS AROUND. AND THEN I HAVE ONE OTHER EDIT TO NUMBER 12. SO ON SITE CANNABIS CONSUMPTION AND LOUNGES SHALL NOT BE PERMITTED. THAT'S WHAT IT SAYS. AND LOUNGES, CONSUMPTION, ON SITE CONSUMPTION AND LOUNGES SHALL NOT BE PERMITTED. AND THAT'S IT. ANY OTHER. CONDITIONS? THE SECURITY MEMO DATE IS. THE 14TH. I, I THINK WE NEED TO LOOK AT TEN BECAUSE THERE IS NO EXISTING GARAGE DOOR ANYMORE. IT'S BEEN REMOVED. SO THAT STATEMENT IS NO LONGER ACCURATE. SO MAYBE SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT OF THE BUILDING SHALL NOT HAVE ANY OTHER ALTERATIONS OR MODIFICATIONS. ADDING ANY KIND OF ENTRANCE OR EXITS. NO, WE CAN'T DO IT THAT WAY. CAN YOU JUST REFERENCE THE DATE OF THE SITE PLAN THAT WAS PROVIDED THAT HAS THE ELEVATIONS? WHICH THEN OUR FINAL SITE PLAN OF WHATEVER THE LAST SITE PLAN THAT WE GOT, BECAUSE THEN THEN I'LL SHOW WHAT YOUR ELEVATE, YOUR FINAL ELEVATION WILL END UP BEING. SO RIGHT NOW WE HAVE THE TOWN OF [00:20:10] HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD HEREBY GRANTED CONDITIONAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR THE SITE PLAN DATED. LET ME GRAB THE. LET'S SEE THE LATEST DATE WITH NO PATIO. 9326, I THINK IS THE DATE. YEAH. SO. LET ME JUST ADD THAT. SO THE THE LATEST DATE WAS 9326. SO WHAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR IS INSTEAD OF JUST TALKING ABOUT THE GARAGE, YOU WANT A CONDITION JUST REFERENCING WHAT IS ON THE APPROVED SITE PLAN. CORRECT. SO YOU COULD ALMOST DELETE TEN AND SAY ALL GLASS FACADE WINDOWS ON THE BUILDING SHALL BE TINTED PER SITE PLANS DATE PER THE PER THE SITE PLAN DATED NINE THROUGH 26. OKAY. IS THE REST OF THE BOARD OKAY WITH THAT? OKAY. YES, YES. AND THEN REMOVE TEN. YEAH, I'M REMOVING TEN. YEP. AND THEN YOUR LETTER IS 91126. RIGHT. OKAY. DO WE HAVE ANY LANDSCAPING ON THIS PROJECT? YEAH, THEY HAVE A LANDSCAPE PLAN. DO WE WANT TO MAKE REFERENCE? OH, IT'S GOT THEIR. I'M SORRY. YES. I DIDN'T SEE THAT I APOLOGIZE. OH YEAH. YOU HAVE A. LET ME JUST COPY IT FROM. I'M JUST GONNA COPY IT FROM. I GOT TAKEN OUT OF THIS ONE ENTIRELY. IT HAPPENS. WHAT CAN I TELL YOU? COPY THE ENGINEERING LETTER JUST AGAIN MENTIONS THE GRADING FOR THE PARKING LOT REPAVE. AND THE GRASS AREA NEEDS TO BE REVIEWED. OKAY. ANY OTHERS? OKAY. ANYTHING ELSE? BOARD MEMBERS THAT YOU WANT TO ADD? I AM ALL SET. OKAY. WHO WOULD LIKE TO DO THE MOTION? MEMBER? STEWART. I'LL MAKE A MOTION. OKAY. GO AHEAD. ARCADE RETAIL CANNABIS DISPENSARY 3233 LAKESHORE ROAD. SEEKER AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL RESOLUTION. SEPTEMBER 16TH, 2026. SEEGER. WHERE IS THE TOWN OF HAMBURG? RECEIVED A SITE PLAN APPLICATION FROM ARCADE FOR A 1890 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL CANNABIS DISPENSARY AT 3233 LAKESHORE ROAD. AND WHEREAS THE APPLICANT RECEIVED A USE VARIANCE FROM THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ON FEBRUARY 3RD, 2026, AND WHEREAS, THE HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD HAS DETERMINED THE PROJECT TO BE A TYPE TWO ACTION UNDER THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT SEQRA AND WHEREAS, THE HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD HELD THE REQUIRED PUBLIC HEARING ON AUGUST 5TH, 2026 AND RECEIVED NO OBJECTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD HAS DETERMINED THAT NO FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IS REQUIRED AND A NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS HEREBY ISSUED. IT'S BEEN MOVED BY MEMBER STEWART. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. IT'S BEEN MOVED BY A MEMBER, STEWART AND SECOND BY MEMBER CLARK. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE AYE. SECRET PLAN, SITE PLAN, APPROVAL OR SITE PLAN? SORRY. I'M GOING TO READ IT OFF THE TOWN OF HAMBURG. PLANNING BOARD HEREBY GRANTS CONDITIONAL. SITE PLAN APPROVAL. THE TOWN OF HAMBURG PLANNING BOARD HEREBY GRANTS CONDITIONAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL TO ARCADE FOR A 1890 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL CANNABIS DISPENSARY AT 3233 LAKESHORE ROAD. FOR THE SITE PLAN DATED SEPTEMBER 3RD, 2026, WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS. ONE APPROVAL IS CONTINGENT UPON THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT COMMENT LETTER DATED SEPTEMBER 11TH, 2026. TWO THE LANDSCAPING PLAN DATED SEPTEMBER 3RD, 2026 SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. THREE SIDEWALKS ARE NOT WARRANTED AS THEY ALREADY EXIST ALONG LAKESHORE ROAD. FOUR. ANY LIGHTING SHOULD BE DARK, SHIELDED, DARK SKY COMPLIANT, AND THERE SHALL BE NO NEON OR FLASHING COLORED LIGHTS. FIVE ANY PROPOSED SIGNAGE SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE XXXVI OF HAMBURG TOWN CODE. SIX HOURS OF OPERATION SHALL BE WITHIN THE HOURS OF 9 A.M. TO 9 P.M. ON WEEKDAYS AND SATURDAYS, AND WITH THE HOURS OF 12 NOON TO 9 P.M. ON SUNDAYS. SEVEN ALL BUSINESS OPERATIONS SHALL BE WITHIN A FULLY ENCLOSED BUILDING, A WALK UP WINDOW FOR THE SALE OF CANNABIS PRODUCTS SHALL NOT BE PERMITTED. EIGHT [00:25:06] SECURITY FEATURES SHALL BE INCORPORATED AS LISTED IN THE ATTACHED WRITTEN NARRATIVE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT DATED SEPTEMBER 14TH, 2026. NINE THE APPLICANT HAS RECEIVED THEIR ADULT USE RETAIL DISPENSARY LICENSE FROM NEW YORK STATE AND SHALL SUBMIT PROOF OF THEIR LICENSE TO THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. TEN ALL GLASS FACADES AND WINDOWS ON THE BUILDING SHALL BE TINTED PER THE SITE PLAN DATED SEPTEMBER 3RD, 2026, 11 OUTDOOR SEATING SHALL NOT BE PERMITTED AND FINALLY, 12 ON SITE CANNABIS CONSUMPTION AND LOUNGES SHALL NOT BE PERMITTED. OKAY, IT'S BEEN MOVED. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND MEMBER? CLERK SECONDS. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. ANY OPPOSED? SITE PLAN APPROVAL HAS BEEN APPROVED. SO THE A KKI THOUGHT HE WAS HERE. YES HE IS. IT'S ALL SET. YOU'RE ALL APPROVED. YOU'RE ALL SET TO GO. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND GOOD LUCK TO YOU. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING. OKAY. OUR NEXT. DO WE HAVE AN APPLICANT COMING IN FOR PARKER ROAD? DAVE MITCHELL WAS HERE, BUT HIS ATTORNEY IS NOT HERE. SO DAVE MAY. SO. BUT WE KNEW THE ATTORNEY WASN'T COMING, RIGHT? RIGHT. YEAH. SO IS DAVE MACKO GOING TO DO A PRESENTATION OR NOT? HE'S HERE [5. Planning Board to discuss and potentially issue SEQRA Findings in connection with a proposed subdivision by Parker Road Developers, LLC to be located on the west side of Parker Road, south of Big Tree Road] TO LISTEN. OKAY. OKAY. SO OUR NEXT CASE IS WE'RE TO DISCUSS THE POTENTIAL ISSUE OF SEEKER FINDINGS IN CONNECTION WITH THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OF PARKER ROAD DEVELOPERS, LLC, TO BE LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF PARKER ROAD, SOUTH OF BIG TREE. JOSH, I'M OPENING IT UP TO YOU. SOUNDS GOOD. SO THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN A LONG TIME IN THE MAKING. THERE'S STILL SOME DECISIONS FOR THE BOARD TO MAKE, BUT WHERE WE ARE NOW IS BACK IN AUGUST. THIS BOARD DID ACCEPT THE EIS AS COMPLETE. ALONG WITH THAT, THE BOARD DID OFFER A PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD UP TO TEN DAYS FOLLOWING THE COMPLETION OF THAT EIS. WE ACTUALLY DID GET COMMENT FROM ERIE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, WHICH I PUT INTO THE FOLDER FOR THE FAIS, AND THEN WE DID GET A COUPLE OF PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM PEOPLE WHO HAD PREVIOUSLY COMMENTED ON THE DIS SECRET SAYS THAT YOU GIVE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THOSE WHO HAVE A VESTED INTEREST IN THE PROJECT WHO HAVE COMMENTED BEFORE. WE DID OFFER THAT OPPORTUNITY AND WE HAD A COUPLE PEOPLE WHO COMMENTED ON THE EIS, WHICH IS ALSO IN THE FOLDER WHERE WE ARE NOW IS THE BOARD IS DISCUSSING FINDINGS. AND AS WE DISCUSSED AT THE LAST MEETING, I PUT TOGETHER A DRAFT FINDING STATEMENT, WHICH BY NO MEANS IS THE FINAL VERSION. IT'S TAKING WHAT THE DISCUSSION HAS BEEN HAD ON THE RECORD BETWEEN THE BOARD MEMBERS. THE EIS, OBVIOUSLY, ALL THE DOCUMENTATION THAT'S BEEN ON THE RECORD, AND I PUT IT TOGETHER IN A IN A FINDING STATEMENT, ASSUMING THAT THE BOARD IS GOING TO GO FORWARD WITH, YOU KNOW, MAKING A DECISION. I WOULD RECOMMEND, AS I PUT IN SOME OF MY MEMOS ON OCTOBER 7TH, INSTEAD OF MAKING A FINDINGS DECISION TONIGHT, THAT WILL NOT ONLY GIVE YOU TIME TO READ OVER MY DRAFT FINDINGS STATEMENT, MAKE REVISIONS, MAKE SUGGESTIONS, ASK QUESTIONS, SO ON AND SO FORTH. BUT BECAUSE OUR MEETING IS ON OCTOBER 7TH, THERE'S AN EXTRA WEEK BUILT IN. WE USUALLY MEET EVERY TWO WEEKS. THERE'S ANOTHER WEEK SINCE THE NEXT TIME THAT WE'LL MEET. THAT KIND OF GIVES BOARD MEMBERS SOME EXTRA TIME TO, TO TAKE A LOOK AT IT. AND THEN IF COMFORTABLE, YOU CAN COME TO THE OCTOBER 7TH MEETING AND MAKE A DECISION. WHAT SECRET FINDINGS CONSIST OF AND WHAT YOU'LL NOTICE IN THAT DRAFT DOCUMENT THAT I GAVE TO EVERYONE, IS THAT THE FINDINGS HAVE TO OBVIOUSLY, I'M ASSUMING THAT THE BOARD IS GOING TO GO FORWARD WITH A POSITIVE FINDINGS. THIS BOARD IS ONE OF THE FEW, I THINK, IN THE STATE THAT'S EVER DONE A NEGATIVE FINDINGS BEFORE, BUT I THINK THAT THE BOARD IS UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE'S. ONE VERSION OF THIS SUBDIVISION IS GOING TO GO FORWARD IN THE FINDINGS. OBVIOUSLY, AFTER CONSIDERATION OF THE FAIS, THE WHOLE POINT OF THE BOARD IS TO MAINTAIN A BALANCE AND WEIGH A BALANCE OF THE ECONOMIC AND THE SOCIAL CONSIDERATIONS, NOT ONLY OF SEEKER, BUT THEN ALSO WEIGHING THE POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS. AND HAS THE FEIS AND, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER DECISION YOU MAKE, HAS IT MITIGATED THOSE ADVERSE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT? AND THAT'S THE POINT OF WHAT'S GOING TO GO INTO THE FINDINGS. AS I'VE ALWAYS MENTIONED, THOSE FINDINGS HAVE TO BE A CONSENSUS OF THE BOARD. AND AS I MENTIONED, THE THE KEY PART IS THAT IT HAS TO BE A BALANCE OF THOSE SOCIAL, ECONOMIC AND OTHER CONSIDERATIONS FOR SEEKER. AS YOU GUYS KNOW, THERE'S THE AS OF RIGHT PLAN. THEN THERE'S ALSO THE CLUSTER PLAN. AND WHAT THE THE SEEKER FINDING STATEMENT HAS TO END UP DOING [00:30:04] IS BEING A CONSENSUS FROM THIS BOARD ON, YOU KNOW, WHICH DECISION THIS BOARD WANTS TO GO FORWARD WITH. OBVIOUSLY, WHEN YOU MAKE YOUR POSITIVE FINDING STATEMENT, WHATEVER VERSION THEN WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK TO THE PLANNING BOARD FOR MAJOR SUBDIVISION APPROVAL. SO IT DOESN'T JUST END WITH THE SEEKER FINDINGS. YOU MAKE A DECISION AND IT'S ALL APPROVED. YOU THEY THEN COME BACK FOR MAJOR SUBDIVISION APPROVAL. THERE'S STILL A REVIEW PROCESS FROM THAT STANDPOINT, BUT THAT'S KIND OF WHERE WE ARE RIGHT NOW OF, OF WHAT THE DOCUMENT IS, WHAT'S IN THE DOCUMENT. AND LIKE I SAID, I'M GONNA KEEP REITERATING THE KEY PART OF MAINTAINING AND WEIGHING THAT BALANCE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL, THE ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS, THE SOCIAL CONSIDERATIONS OF EACH OF EITHER VERSION FOR THIS SUBDIVISION. SO THAT'S KIND OF WHERE WE ARE RIGHT NOW. AND THEN, LIKE I SAID, MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE, TAKE A LOOK AT THE FINDING STATEMENT, GO BACK AND READ THE EIS. TAKE A LOOK AT THE COMMENTS THAT WERE ON THE FIS FROM THE AGENCIES AND FROM SOME OF THE RESIDENTS WHO TOOK THE TIME TO TO COMMENT, YOU KNOW, CONTINUE TO GO BACK THROUGH THE DIS JUST REMEMBER TO FAMILIARIZE YOURSELF WITH THE OVERALL PROJECT. IT'S SIX YEARS IN THE MAKING. THERE'S A TON OF DOCUMENTATION. AND THEN LIKE I SAID, IF THE BOARD FEELS COMFORTABLE COMING BACK TO THE OCTOBER 7TH MEETING AND MAKING A FINDING STATEMENT. THANK YOU. DOES ANYONE HAVE ANYTHING TO OFFER THIS EVENING IN REGARDS TO THE POSITIVE FINDING STATEMENT THAT WE HAD IN FRONT OF US? I DO NOT HAVE ANYTHING ADDITIONAL. MEMBER CLARK. I'M JUST LOOKING AT IT. AT WHAT POINT WOULD WE DISTINGUISH BETWEEN THE AS OF RIGHT AND THE CLUSTER AS FAR AS OUR. FINE. BECAUSE I DON'T THINK THE FINDINGS. THEY SAY AS OF. RIGHT. AND THEN CLUSTER. BUT THEN AFTER THAT IT SAYS THE IMPACT. AND I DON'T THINK IT DISTINGUISHES THE IMPACT BETWEEN THE TWO PLANS. VERY OFTEN. AND ISN'T. IS. AND IS THIS THE STAGE WHERE WE SHOULD DISTINGUISH BETWEEN THOSE TWO PLANS? YEAH. OKAY. SO YEAH, THAT WAS LEFT OPEN ENDED AS OBVIOUSLY AS I MENTIONED, BECAUSE THERE ARE TWO CONSIDERATIONS IN THE, THE, THE WEIRD PART OF IT IS THAT OBVIOUSLY THE AS OF RIGHT IS THE, THE PLAN THAT WAS SUBMITTED. THE CLUSTER IS ALSO OBVIOUSLY THE ALTERNATIVE. SO IN THE VERSION THAT YOU SEE, THE IMPACTS DON'T CLARIFY BETWEEN LIKE IN THE. SO FOR EXAMPLE, JUST GOING THROUGH IT, I'LL USE POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON LAND USE. SO THAT WAS ONE OF THE IMPACTS THAT THE PROJECT WAS PAUSED ON. WE HAVE DISCUSSION OF THE POTENTIAL IMPACTS. THEN WE HAVE THE MITIGATION MEASURES AND THE ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS. SO WE HAVE THE AS OF RIGHT WITH THE MITIGATIONS WERE OFFERED IN THE FEIS. THEN WE TALK ABOUT WHAT WAS OFFERED IN THE CLUSTER ALTERNATIVE. AND THE FINDINGS HAS A GENERAL STATEMENT THAT THE ANALYSIS OF THE PROJECT'S IMPACTS WILL MITIGATE TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PRACTICABLE. THE IMPACTS ON THE LAND USE. THE DECISION THAT THE PLANNING BOARD HAS TO MAKE IS, IS THAT THE THE AS OF RIGHT VERSION? IS IT THE THE CLUSTER ALTERNATIVE IN TERMS OF THE FINDINGS THAT MITIGATES THE POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF EACH IMPACT TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PRACTICABLE? AND THAT'S THE FINAL DECISION. THAT'S AT THIS STAGE, AT THIS STAGE, CORRECT. RIGHT. YEP. DO YOU WANT ME TO GO WHILE YOU'RE THINKING? WELL, I MEAN, IT'S I FEEL LIKE. OBVIOUSLY NOT ALL OF THEM, BUT THE CLUSTER MITIGATES MORE OF THE ISSUES THAN THE AS OF RIGHT IN MOST OF THESE CATEGORIES. SO I THINK THAT SHOULD BE REFLECTED IN OUR FINDINGS STATEMENT. ANYBODY ELSE? I, I HAVE SOMETHING TO OFFER. SURE. SO JOSH TALKED ABOUT BALANCE AND THE ORIGINAL PROJECT THAT WAS PRESENTED TO US WAS A FULL SUBDIVISION WITH 65 HOUSES. I THINK THEY STARTED WITH MORE AND THEN THEY REDUCED IT. THERE'S ONLY SIX HOUSES. DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE SUBDIVISION, THE AS OF RIGHT AND THE CLUSTER. WE'RE ONLY TALKING SIX HOUSES. HOWEVER, THERE IS A BUFFER FOR BOTH PLANS, BUT THE AS OF RIGHT OFFERS MORE THAN FOR THE POTENTIAL HOMEOWNER, NOT FOR THE BUILDER. A BIGGER BACKYARD WHICH AFFORDS THE HOMEOWNER MORE FREEDOM TO WHAT HE OR SHE WANTS TO DO. A POOL, A DECK, A TRAMPOLINE. EVEN THOUGH IT WAS DISCUSSED IN FRONT OF THE IN FRONT OF US SEVERAL TIMES, THAT THEY CAN HAVE A SHED ON THE [00:35:02] CLUSTER. THE PROBLEM THAT I HAVE IS SITTING ON A PLANNING BOARD FOR THE NUMBER OF YEARS THAT I HAVE IN HAMBURG IS HEARING THE COMPLAINTS ABOUT. WHEN PEOPLE GO TO BUY CLUSTER HOMES, THEY DON'T KNOW THAT THEY'RE LIMITED IN THE USE OF THEIR PROPERTY. AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. AND I DON'T FEEL THAT THAT'S A GOOD ECONOMIC IMPACT FOR THE HOMEOWNER. I'M TALKING ABOUT THE HOMEOWNER. EVERYBODY TALKED ABOUT THE NEIGHBORS, THE BUILDER, THE PLANNING BOARD. I'M TALKING ABOUT THE PERSON WHO'S GOING TO BUY THE PROPERTY FOR THE CLUSTER. IT MAY ADD GREEN SPACE OUTSIDE OF THEIR LOT, BUT LIMITS TO THE USE OF THE PROPERTY FOR THE HOMEOWNER WHO IS PURCHASING THE REDUCED SQUARE FOOTAGE SITUATIONS ARE NOT BIG ENOUGH FOR A DECK, AND IF APPROVED, IT NEEDS TO BE STIPULATED THAT IF IF WE DO GO WITH THE CLUSTER, IF THIS BOARD DECIDES, THEN I THINK A STIPULATION SHOULD BE MADE VERY CLEAR IN THE FINAL PLANS THAT ADVERTISING NEEDS TO CLARIFY WHAT A CLUSTER IS AND WHAT EXACTLY HAS TO BE PUT INTO THE WHAT EXACTLY IS ALLOWED TO BE BUILT ON THAT LOT? BECAUSE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SUBSTANTIAL SIZE DIFFERENCE. AND, YOU KNOW, WHEN WE TALK ABOUT BUFFERING, WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE SUBDIVISION AND THE FULL SIZE LOTS THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT FOR THE 65 HOUSES, THERE IS BUFFERING ADDED TO EACH LOT. THERE'S THEY CAN HAVE A GARDEN, THEY CAN DO THEIR OWN LANDSCAPING, THEY CAN ADD THE TREES, THEY CAN ADD WHERE THE CLUSTER. THEY CAN'T DO THAT BECAUSE THOSE LOTS ARE SMALLER. SO I FEEL THAT IT TAKES AWAY FROM THE INDIVIDUAL TO BE ABLE TO HAVE THEIR OWN BACKYARD AND THEIR OWN FREEDOM, SO TO SPEAK, TO DO WHAT THEY WANT WITH THE PROPERTY THAT THEY PURCHASED AND PAID FOR. AND THOSE ARE MY COMMENTS. I WOULD JUST HAVE A MEMBER. I WOULD JUST HAVE A COMMENT ON THAT. THAT IS THAT OUR LANE WITH THE WAY THAT THE DEVELOPMENT IS BEING PROPOSED, SO THAT IF A PLOT IS BEING ADVERTISED TO A POTENTIAL BUYER, RIGHT, YOU HAVE YOUR OPTIONS OF YOUR HOME, YOU HAVE YOUR OPTIONS OF YOUR SQUARE FOOTAGE AND THE OPTIONS OF, YOU KNOW, YOUR FRONT PORCH AND WHAT IT, WHAT YOUR BUILDER IS GOING TO BE BUILDING SO THAT WHEN IT'S THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE DEVELOPER TO BE COMMUNICATING WHAT IS AVAILABLE AND WHAT IS POSSIBLE, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT IS AN ITEM THAT INFLUENCES THE WAY IN WHICH A PROJECT IS GETTING APPROVED IN OUR LIGHT AS THE PLANNING BOARD. WELL, I DON'T THINK THAT MEMBER CHAIR GRONINGEN, I DON'T THINK THAT THE APPROVAL OR THE STIPULATION FOR THE ADVERTISING IS PART OF WHAT WE SHOULD APPROVE OR NOT APPROVE. I THINK THAT THAT SHOULD BE STATED IN THE FINAL THING AND THE REASON WHY, AGAIN, MY YEARS OF EXPERIENCE AND BEING IN HAMBURG AND LISTENING TO THE COMPLAINTS ABOUT PEOPLE THAT ARE LIVING IN CLUSTERS, WE JUST HAD SOMETHING IN THE SPRING WHERE THE ENTIRE CODE ENFORCEMENT WAS IN THE MEETING AND TOLD US ABOUT ONE PARTICULAR CLUSTER, THAT PEOPLE WERE VERY FRUSTRATED BECAUSE IT WAS NOT REPRESENTED. IS IT OUR RESPONSIBILITY? NO, I AGREE WITH THAT. I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT THESE PROBLEMS EXIST IN HAMBURG AND AND OH GOD, I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY THE LOTS IN THIS PARTICULAR CLUSTER ARE MUCH BIGGER THAN THE LOT. YOU GOTTA GRAB YOUR MIC THOUGH. MEMBER CLARK LOTS IN THIS PARTICULAR PROPOSED CLUSTER ARE MUCH BIGGER THAN THE LOTS IN ANY OTHER CLUSTER CURRENTLY EXISTING IN HAMBURG. I AGREE WITH THAT. SO THERE SHOULD BE LESS OF THAT WITH THIS PARKER ROAD PROJECT. THAT'S WHAT WE HOPE. THAT'S THE HOPE. BIG ENOUGH TO FIT THE OTHER STUFF THAT PEOPLE COMPLAIN THEY CAN'T HAVE. SO BUT AGAIN, MY POINT IS THAT BASED ON THE INFORMATION THAT I'VE RECEIVED, BEING ON ALL THESE OTHER COMMITTEES AND LISTENING AND TALKING TO THE TO THE OTHER DEPARTMENTS ABOUT WHAT THE PROBLEMS ARE, HAMBURG AND THEN WHO GETS BLAMED FOR IT. SO IT'S NOT THE DEVELOPER THAT GETS BLAMED. AND I JUST WANTED IT CLARIFIED. THIS BOARD MAY DECIDE TO GO WITH THE CLUSTER, BUT THAT IS JUST SOMETHING BASED ON, AGAIN, MY EXPERIENCE THAT'S SOMETHING LIKE THAT SHOULD BE ADDRESSED. AND THAT'S THOSE ARE MY COMMENTS. YEAH. WHAT I'LL ADD, JUST TO GIVE AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT I MEAN BY BALANCE IS AND WHEN I'M TALKING ABOUT BOTH SOCIAL CONSIDERATIONS, ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS WILL USE THE RIPARIAN BUFFER AS AN EXAMPLE. AND THE AS OF RIGHT. AND I'M NOT SAYING WHICH ONE IS RIGHT OR WHICH ONE IS WRONG, BUT WHAT'S PROPOSED IS FOR THE AS OF RIGHT, FOR EXAMPLE, FOR THE 65 HOMES, THERE IS A 50 FOOT RIPARIAN BUFFER THAT'S OFFERED IN THE CLUSTER PLAN RELATED TO [00:40:04] THE VERY SAME EXACT POINT. THEY'RE OFFERING 15 ACRES OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT. SO THAT'S AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT I MEAN BY THE BALANCE OF IN THE AS OF RIGHT, PEOPLE ARE GETTING MORE BANG FOR THEIR BUCK. THEY'RE GETTING MORE HOUSE, THEY'RE GETTING MORE LOT. BUT THEN ON THE FLIP SIDE, ON THE CLUSTER PLAN, THEY'RE GETTING MORE AVAILABLE GREEN SPACE IN A CONSERVATION EASEMENT. SO THAT'S WHAT I MEAN BY MAINTAINING THE BALANCE OF THE ECONOMIC, THE SOCIAL, THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS OF EACH PLAN AS OF RIGHT IS THE PLAN THAT WAS SUBMITTED. THE CLUSTER OBVIOUSLY IS THE ALTERNATIVE TO THAT AS OF. RIGHT. SO THAT'S WHAT I MEAN BY MAINTAINING THAT BALANCE. I KIND OF GOT THERE AND I GOT I'M SORRY, I APOLOGIZE, BUT. RIGHT. WELL, AND I AND I KIND OF TOUCHED ON THAT, YOU KNOW, THEY DO HAVE THE GREEN SPACE ON THE CLUSTER, JUST TO CLARIFY MY STATEMENT, BUT THEY DON'T GET TO USE THAT GREEN SPACE. THAT GREEN SPACE ISN'T FOR A PARK OR A WALKING TRAIL OR, AND THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN ANOTHER MITIGATION THAT COULD HAVE HELPED WITH THIS PROJECT IF IT'S GOING TO BE TRUE BALANCE. SO IF YOU'RE GIVING UP A BIGGER YARD, THEN MAYBE THE CLUSTER NEEDS, AND I SAID THIS BEFORE A WALKING TRAIL, THERE IS NO WALKING TRAIL. IT DID AT ONE POINT. YEP. AND IT'S GONE. SO THOSE ARE SOMETHING. RIGHT? THAT'S A MITIGATION. YOU CAN ADD. WE CAN ADD THAT TO THE FINDING STATEMENT. SO THEN IF THEY'RE GOING TO SOMETHING THAT THE RESIDENTS WOULD BENEFIT BY THEN AS OPPOSED TO LOSING IT, THAT'S NOT BALANCE IN MY IN MY BOOK. SO THE WALKING TRAIL THEN NEEDS TO BE REPLACED OR PUT BACK INTO THE PROJECT TO OFFSET THE SMALLER LOT. AND, YOU KNOW, THE FACT THAT THEY DON'T HAVE WHAT THE AS OF RIGHT OFFERS, I SUPPORT THAT. YEAH, YEAH. MY SUGGESTION AND OR HOMEWORK FOR THE PLANNING BOARD IS, LIKE I SAID, THE, THE IMP THE FINDINGS FOR EACH IMPACT DO NOT I DIDN'T SAY AS OF RIGHT, I DIDN'T SAY CLUSTER BECAUSE IT'S NOT MY DECISION TO MAKE. IT'S THE 7/8 OF YOU TO MAKE THAT DECISION. MY ASK SLASH HOMEWORK FOR THE BOARD WOULD BE SIMILAR TO WHAT CHAIR AND MEMBER CLARK JUST MENTIONED. LOOKING AT EACH OF THE IMPACTS, IS THERE A MITIGATION THAT WASN'T OFFERED BEFORE THAT YOU THINK WHETHER IT'S THE AS OF RIGHT, WHETHER IT'S THE CLUSTER, SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE IN THE FINDINGS THAT THEN MAY SWAY YOU IN ONE DECISION OR NOT? ARE THERE THINGS THAT YOU WOULD WANT POTENTIALLY ADDED THAT WEREN'T TALKED ABOUT BEFORE UNDER THE FINDINGS, UNDER THE MITIGATION. SO IT'S OPEN ENDED THIS YOU KNOW, THIS DOCUMENT ISN'T ME GIVING IT TO YOU AND THEN YOU RUBBER STAMP IT. AND THAT'S THE FINDINGS. THERE'S THERE'S NO CONCLUSIONS THAT I LEFT. IT LEAVES IT OPEN ENDED FOR, FOR YOU GUYS TO DECIDE. AND AS LONG AS THE CONSENSUS OF THE BOARD IS IN AGREEMENT ONE WAY OR ANOTHER, AND AS LONG AS IT'S ON THE RECORD AND IT'S BASED OFF OF EVERYTHING THAT'S SUBMITTED. SO NO NEW INFORMATION, NOTHING THAT GETS, YOU KNOW, NOTHING THAT THEY SAY ON OCTOBER 7TH SHOULD SWAY YOU. EVERYTHING THAT'S BEEN SUBMITTED ON THE RECORD IN THE FEISDIS EVERYTHING TO DATE, AS LONG AS IT'S ON THAT, THEN I FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH WHATEVER DIRECTION THE BOARD GOES ON. BUT I'M JUST TRYING TO SET WHAT THE PARAMETERS ARE AND WHAT WHAT YOU SHOULD LOOK AT AS YOU GO THROUGH THE DOCUMENT TO PREPARE YOU FOR OCTOBER 7TH. CAN I ADD ONE MORE THING? SURE. CHAIR GRONIGEN. SO WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE ECONOMIC ASPECT OF IT, I FEEL THAT HAVING THE AMOUNT OF HOUSES IN THE AS OF. RIGHT. BECAUSE THEY'RE GOING TO BE BIGGER AND BECAUSE OF THERE'S GOING TO BE MORE. THAT ACTUALLY IS AN INCREASE TO THE ECONOMIC BALANCE, IN MY OPINION, THAN THE CLUSTER. THE CLUSTERS HOUSES ARE GOING TO BE SMALLER. IT'S NOT GOING TO BE AS MANY LOTS. SO THEN I DON'T FEEL THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE AS BIG OF AN ECONOMIC IMPACT AS IT WOULD BE WITH A SUBDIVISION. AND THE OTHER THING I DO WANT TO SAY IS EVERYBODY'S TALKING ABOUT HOUSING SHORTAGE, HOUSING SHORTAGE, HOW HOUSING SHORTAGE. I THINK WE NEED MORE AND NOT LESS BASED ON WHAT EVERYBODY'S TALKING ABOUT THESE DAYS. AND AND THAT'S WHERE I GOT MY INFORMATION FROM. I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT. DO YOU HAVE TO SAY IT INTO THE MIC MEMBER? STEWART. I WOULD AGREE WITH WHAT CHAIR CHRONICAN SAID. MEMBER CLARK. THERE IS AN OPPOSING POSITION ON THE LARGER LOTS FOR. FROM A TOWN STANDPOINT, LARGE. THE LARGER LOTS. THAT'S MORE ROAD THAT GETS TURNED OVER TO THE TOWN, MORE ROAD TO MAINTAIN, MORE UTILITIES TO MAINTAIN THE SMALLER CLUSTER PER HOUSE. ECONOMICALLY, WHAT IT GENERATES IS ACTUALLY BETTER FOR THE TOWN THAN THE LARGER ONES. AS FAR AS THE ADDITIONAL EXPENSE OF INFRASTRUCTURE. AND I APPRECIATE YOUR RESPONSE TO THAT. I DO, HOWEVER, WE'RE ONLY TALKING SIX HOUSES. I'M NOT SAYING THE NUMBER OF HOUSES. I'M SAYING NO, I'M JUST SAYING RIGHT. ASPHALT FOR THE BIGGER ROAD TO GO AROUND THE AS OF RIGHT, RIGHT IS AN ADDITIONAL BECAUSE THAT ROAD GETS TURNED OVER TO THE TOWN, RIGHT. THE UTILITIES THAT GO UNDER IT ARE MAINTAINED BY PUBLIC COMPANIES. ALL OF THAT EXTRA FEET IS AN ADDITIONAL EXPENSE THAT THE TOWN ENDS UP MAINTAINING. LIKE FAR MORE. MORE TO PLOW DRAINAGE, MORE TO WATER DRAINAGE [00:45:05] REPLACING. WELL, THE DRAINAGE PROBABLY ENDS UP BEING THE SAME. NO, THE DRAINAGE WOULD BE THE SAME, WOULDN'T IT? LONGER ROAD. OH. MORE WATER, MORE RUNOFF. MORE IMPERVIOUS. OKAY. ROAD DRAINAGE, WHICH BECOMES TOWN INFRASTRUCTURE MEMBER. I THINK MARKETABILITY. THE CLUSTER HOME HAS A BETTER OPPORTUNITY TO BE SOLD THAN THE BIGGER SIZE HOME. TODAY, I HEAR A LOT OF PEOPLE SAY THEY'D LOVE TO BUY A HOME, BUT THESE HOMES ARE IN THE HALF $1 MILLION RANGE, AND THAT'S WHY YOU'RE SEEING MORE APARTMENTS BEING BUILT, BECAUSE AN $1,800 RENT PAYMENT IS A HELL OF A LOT CHEAPER THAN A $3,000 MORTGAGE PAYMENT. OKAY. MARKETABILITY. THE CLUSTER IS BETTER. AND AGAIN, AS A FORMER SALESMAN, I WOULD RATHER SELL THE HOME THAT I KNOW THAT I COULD SELL VERSUS THE HOME THAT'S GOING TO TAKE ME TIME TO SELL. ME PERSONALLY, MR. STEWART. ME PERSONALLY, I THINK HAMBURG IS A IS A DESIRABLE LOCATION THAT PEOPLE ARE LOOKING TO MOVE TO HAMBURG. I DON'T WANT TO LOWER OUR STANDARDS AS FAR AS WHAT IS WHAT TYPE OF RESIDENTIAL HOUSES ARE BEING BUILT. I MEAN, WE'RE SEEING APARTMENTS GO UP EVERYWHERE. IS THIS GOING TO BE IS THIS GOING TO BE THE STANDARD QUO? THE STATUS QUO IS JUST BUILDING CHEAP RATHER THAN THE CLUSTER HOME IS NOT GOING TO BE CHEAP. IT'S GOING TO BE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF 250 TO 350,000, AND WHERE THE BIGGER SIZE HOME IS GOING TO START AT A 500 000 ON UP. UNDERSTANDABLY SO. BUT WHAT I'M SAYING IS, GOING FORWARD, ARE WE JUST GOING TO JUST NEGLECT BUILDING AS OF RIGHT. LOTS THAT OFFER BIGGER LOTS, BIGGER SQUARE FOOTAGE HOMES BECAUSE IT'S CHEAPER TO I'M JUST SAYING, LOOK AT MARKETABILITY. YEAH, I'M NOT A BUILDER, BUT IF I WAS, I WOULD LOOK AT THE MARKETABILITY. I'D HAVE MY MARKETING PEOPLE FIND OUT WHAT THE MARKET WILL BEAR AND WHAT THE MARKET WILL PAY. AND WHEN I SOLD, THAT'S HOW I SOLD. I FOUND OUT WHAT THE MARKET WILL BEAR AND WHAT THE MARKET WILL PAY. IF YOU LOOK AT A LOT OF THESE SUBDIVISIONS, IS WHAT I'M SAYING, AUGIE. YOU GOT THAT'S WHY I'M NOT BUYING ANOTHER HOME BECAUSE THEY'RE TOO DAMN HIGH. OH, RIGHT. THE INTEREST RATE DOESN'T HELP EITHER. BUT WHAT I'M SAYING DOESN'T HELP A LOT OF THESE SUBDIVISIONS. ABLE SUBDIVISION, DEER SPRINGS. BRIARCLIFF. THESE THESE RAISE THE MORTGAGE. THESE HOUSES, THESE HOUSES AREN'T HAVING A PROBLEM. SELLING IS WHAT I'M SAYING. RIGHT. IF HE CAN. I'M NOT I'M NOT TRYING TO SWAY ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. I'M JUST SAYING THAT WE CAN'T JUST LOOK AT GOING FORWARD. WE JUST THINKING, NOT THINKING OUTSIDE THE BOX AND JUST GOING CLUSTER BECAUSE IT'S CHEAPER. YOU GOT TO HAVE THE QUALITY OF LIFE ASPECT IN IT, I BELIEVE. WELL, AND THE OTHER THING, THANK YOU, MEMBER STEWART AND MEMBER GERACI FOR THOSE COMMENTS. WELL, THE OTHER THING IS THAT MAYBE WE DO NEED A MARKETING MARKET STUDY. THE APPLICANT HASN'T PROVIDED ONE. AND I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S TOO LATE TO ASK FOR ONE, OR AT LEAST TO. IT'S TOO LATE TO ASK FOR ONE. IS. JOSH IS SHAKING HIS HEAD. BUT YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT MARKETING EXPERTS, SO WE REALLY CAN'T SAY, WELL, THIS IS GOING TO SELL. AND THIS ISN'T. WE DON'T KNOW THAT. WE REALLY DON'T. I DON'T AND I'M IN SALES AS WELL. AND I WOULDN'T EVEN VENTURE. BUT WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT TO MAINTAIN AN OPEN MIND AND I GO BACK TO THE HOMEOWNER, I GO BACK TO THE PERSON THAT'S GOING TO BE BUYING IT WITH KIDS AND FAMILIES, AND THAT'S WHAT HAMBURG WANTS. WE WANT TO BRING IN FAMILIES. WE WANT TO BRING IN KIDS. AND I AM SORRY, BUT I GOT BEAT UP PRETTY GOOD IN THAT MEETING ABOUT THE FROM THE CODE, ABOUT THE CLUSTER AND HOW FRUSTRATING IT WAS FOR THEM. AND I'VE HEARD THINGS SINCE THEN ABOUT PEOPLE NOT BEING ABLE TO DO WHAT THEY WANT IN THEIR YARDS, AND I JUST WANT EVERYTHING I WANT BOTH SIDES LOOKED AT AS I'M. I WILL BE LOOKING AT IT AS WELL. OKAY. YEAH, I WOULD JUST MY, MY LAST THING IS JUST TO CLARIFY ONCE AGAIN, IN TERMS OF JUST WHAT TO CONSIDER AS YOU'RE GOING THROUGH IT, WHAT'S BEEN SUBMITTED ON THE RECORD. SO THERE'S NO NEW STUDIES OR ANYTHING OF THE SORT. EVERYTHING THAT'S IN SCOPING DOT DEISFEIS. AND THEN WHAT'S IN THIS DRAFT FINDINGS. OBVIOUSLY ALL THE SUBMITTED PLANS THAT HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED, AS I SAID, THAT THAT FOLDER IS DENSE. YOU KNOW, I WOULD DEFINITELY TAKE THE TIME GO THROUGH IT AGAIN, FEEL FREE TO ASK QUESTIONS AS NEED BE. AND THEN WE'LL COME BACK ON THE SEVENTH AND WE'LL SEE IF YOU'RE READY TO MAKE A DECISION. OKAY, SO JOSH AND I DIDN'T EVEN ANNOUNCE FOR THE RECORD THAT OUR OTHER CASE FOR BASS ASKED FOR A POSTPONEMENT UNTIL THE SEVENTH. THEY WERE UNABLE TO MAKE THE MEETING THIS EVENING. AND THEN WE ALSO HAVE WETZEL, WHICH WE STILL HAVE NOT GOTTEN THE HARD COPIES. CORRECT. SO WHAT'S WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN [00:50:03] THERE? SO I MEAN, THAT IS A LARGE I'M JUST GOING TO PUT THIS ON THE RECORD, I APOLOGIZE. THAT'S A LARGE CASE. IT'S BEEN ON THE BOOKS FOR A LONG TIME. WE HAVE NEW BOARD MEMBERS. I'VE TOLD THIS TO THE APPLICANTS SEVERAL TIMES. I'VE BEEN ON THE PHONE WITH THEM. I'VE CALLED, I'VE BEGGED, I PLEADED BECAUSE I DON'T THINK IT'S FAIR FOR THESE BOARD MEMBERS TO SIT ON EITHER AN IPAD OR A COMPUTER AND TRY TO FIGURE OUT THE THE THE FAIS IT'S JUST NOT IT'S NOT FAIR. AND THERE'S SO MUCH MATERIAL TO. AND I HAVE THE ORIGINAL MATERIAL AND I STILL DON'T KNOW WHAT. AND I THINK THERE'S BEEN CHANGES ON TOP OF IT. AND THOSE HAVE NOT BEEN YET PRESENTED TO US. CORRECT. SO ARE WE GOING TO LEAVE IT FOR THE 16TH? THE NEXT MEETING IS OCTOBER 7TH. I HAVE IT EARMARKED BECAUSE BECAUSE THERE'S THAT EXTRA WEEK. I DID SPEAK WITH THE APPLICANT WHO PROMISED TO HAVE THE HARD COPIES TWO WEEKS IN ADVANCE. YEAH. SO BECAUSE I, BECAUSE I HAVE THAT EXTRA WEEK, I WOULD WOULDN'T HAVE TO SEND OUT THE AGENDA UNTIL THE 24TH THAT THURSDAY. SO I GUESS THE DECISION THE BOARD CAN MAKE IS IF YOU RECEIVE HARD COPIES OR IF YOU FEEL COMFORTABLE REVIEWING IT BY, YOU KNOW, THE 23RD, 24TH, IF I HAVE THEM AVAILABLE, THEN WE CAN KEEP IT ON THE AGENDA. IF WE DON'T RECEIVE IT BY THEN, THEN THE BOARD FEELS INCLINED TO. YOU CAN PULL IT FROM THE SEVENTH AS WELL, DEPENDING ON WHAT THE BOARD WANTS TO DO. SO THAT WOULD GIVE HIM A WEEK TO GET THE. GET US ALL THE HARD COPIES. I CAN DISTRIBUTE THEM TO THE BOARD. IT WOULD MEET THAT TWO WEEKS BEFORE. OKAY. AND THEN IF NOT, THEN YOU CAN MAKE THE DECISION TO PULL IT ABOUT THE EXTRA WEEK. YEAH. SO. OKAY. I THINK THAT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA THEN. OKAY. DID YOU DID YOU TALK TO HIM TODAY? I DID, OKAY. SO WE'LL LEAVE THAT OPEN. YEAH, WE'LL LEAVE IT. WE'LL LEAVE IT ON THERE. AND THEN IF, IF IF WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING, I WILL REACH OUT TO THE CHAIR AND WE'LL HAVE YOU MAKE A DECISION. OKAY. AND THEN SO IN REGARDS TO PARKER ROAD, IS THERE DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? DO YOU NEED ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION? HAVE YOU BEEN INTO YOUR SHAREPOINT? HAVE YOU BEEN ABLE TO OPEN EVERYTHING? HAVE YOU BEEN ABLE TO READ EVERYTHING? HAVE YOU FOUND ALL THE REPORTS IN THE SHAREPOINT? SO THERE ISN'T ANY QUESTION AS TO I CAN'T GET INTO THIS OR I HAVEN'T SEEN IT OR I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. WE'RE ALL GOOD. OKAY. SO YOU KNOW WHAT YOUR HOMEWORK ASSIGNMENT IS. DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR JOSH AT THIS POINT? I HAVE NOTHING ELSE. OKAY. I, I THINK THIS END I THEY'RE PRETTY QUIET TONIGHT. I THINK THEY ALL HAVE LARYNGITIS, BUT WHICH IS WHY THEY'RE SHAKING THEIR HEADS UP AND DOWN. YES OR NO. SO I THINK THAT WE'RE GOOD ON THAT. AND THAT'S THAT. OKAY. DO WE HAVE WE DON'T HAVE MINUTES. NO. I JUST BRIDGET JUST DID A GOOD JOB. SHE JUST SENT ME THE MINUTES THE OTHER DAY. I WILL TAKE A LOOK AT THEM AND I DEFINITELY WILL HAVE THEM FOR THE TEN SEVEN MEETING FOR SURE. AND WE HAVE FIVE CASES ON THE ON THE SEVENTH. IS THAT CORRECT? WE WOULD HAVE SIX OF. WETZEL COMES BACK IF WETZEL IS NOT THERE. WE DO HAVE FIVE. OKAY. AND THAT'S A WORK SESSION AS WELL. THAT'S INCLUDING THE WORK SESSION. OKAY. SO AND WE'VE GOT SOME HEAVY HITTERS ON THE SEVENTH. WE HAVE HEAVY HITTERS IN BOTH THE WORK SESSION AND THE REGULAR MEETING. THE TWO WORK SESSION ONES ARE PROJECTS THAT WILL BE VERY FAMILIAR TO PEOPLE. OKAY, I'LL I'LL SAY IS THERE IN BRIARWOOD. SO AND THERE'S TWO OF THEM ON THE WORK SESSION. SO OKAY. YEAH, WE'LL TAKE IT FROM THERE. SO THREE IN THE NORMAL MEETING, THREE ON THE NORMAL MEETING FOR NOW, TWO ON THE WORK SESSION. OKAY. WE'RE YOU AND I DISCUSSED IT WITH THE WITH THE EXCEPTION OF WETZEL, WE'RE GOING TO CAP THE AGENDA BASED. AND THE REASON WHY I'M CAPPING THE AGENDA IS BASED ON THE WORKLOAD THAT WE HAVE, EVEN THOUGH WE'VE GOT THE EXTRA WEEK. BUT THERE'S THOUSANDS OF PAGES OF REVIEW AND READING, AND I THINK IT'S ONLY FAIR FOR THE BOARD, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE WE HAVE A SECRET DECISION. WE HAVE TWO SECRET DECISION, NO ONE SECRET DECISION, NO. TWO. TECHNICALLY, THAT'S RIGHT. TWO SECRET DECISIONS AND THEN A NEW PROJECT. SO I THINK THAT WILL BE GOOD WITH THE FIVE IF WE CAN CAP IT. OKAY. AND THEN YOU AND I WILL BE TALKING BETWEEN NOW AND THEN. OKAY. SO WITH THAT, WE THE CASE NUMBER SIX HAS BEEN TABLED AS WE DISCUSSED. AND WOULD SOMEONE LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION FOR A MOTION TO ADJOURN? MEMBER SHIMURA HAS MADE THE MOTION TO ADJOURN. IS THERE A SECOND MEMBER? STEWART? SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.