Text · page 5 of 14
Town of Hamburg Planning Board Minutes May 6, 2026 Member Chmura agreed to have Mr. Rogers draft the approval resolution and SEQR resolution for May. Attorney Gogan brought up that there is a requirement in the Town of Hamburg Code, even when part of a site plan, to have a permit application that gets reviewed by the Conservation Advisory Board (CAB). The project was tabled to the May 20, 2026 Planning Board meeting. Brandon Santa- Requesting Site Plan Approval for a proposal to construct six (6) shop warehouse buildings along with other associated site improvements to be located on a 7.46-acre parcel at 0 Lakeshore Road (SBL #: 150.00-1-6.2) Brandon and Brittany Santa appeared on behalf of the project. Mr. Rogers explained that before the Planning Board tonight for their consideration is a SEQR resolution that has been crafted as a negative declaration. Mr. Rogers gave an overview of the SEQR process. Mr. Rogers explained that the SEQR resolution before the Planning Board is not a resolution for final approval of the project, approval of the site plan, or the construction of the buildings. He stated that what is before the Board is the Part 3 Analysis, that looks at all the impacts based off of the SEQR FEAF Part 1 and Part 2. Member Geraci had no further comment as what he has read seems to be thorough. Member Ryan agreed with what she has read, which is very detailed. She stated it follows through with everything that has been discussed from the beginning to date. Member Stewart concurred with Member Ryan. Member Chmura stated that in looking at the Part 2 of the FEAF, Impact #5, the impact on flooding, said “the proposed action may result in development on land subject to flooding” which was checked no. She asked if the Board ended up indicating that this action is in a 100-year floodplain. Mr. Rogers explained that the part of the property that is within what is considered the 100-year floodplain is the extent of Rush Creek, which is on the southern border of the parcel. Member Chmura stated that Impact #5 should be marked as yes, and although it is not a moderate to large impact, it should be recognized that part of the parcel is within the 100-year floodplain. She also stated that in the Part 3 analysis, we want to indicate and recognize that it is in the 100-year floodplain. 5