Text · page 6 of 14
Town of Hamburg Planning Board Minutes May 6, 2026 Mr. Rogers stated that they can amend the FEAF Part 2 to include impact on flooding and there is a write-up on the FEMA map within the Part 3 analysis. Member Chmura further stated that there has been a lot of discussion with respect to a significant increase in traffic. She feels that it needs to be noted in the Part 3 analysis that within the IT Trip generation manual, the proposed development based upon all the data, can be expect about 36 trips during peak hours, which falls well below the DOT threshold of 100 trips which would have triggered the traffic impact study. Member Chmura pointed out in the Part 3 analysis document that the narrative on Impact #15 states that there shall be no building mounted fixtures on the north or east buildings. She feels it should also be noted that any building faces that are abutting any residential properties shall not have any building mounted fixtures. She understands that it is already stated but she wants it to be explicitly clear. Chair Gronachan agreed with this clarification and asked the Planning Department to add that as part of the site plan approval conditions. Member Zajac stated that when it comes to the impact on community character, there has been discussion regarding the ten-foot fence and the landscaping along the fence. He asked if that is on a separate parcel. The consensus answer to Member Zajac’s question was yes, the fence is on a separate parcel from the project parcel. The landscaping is no longer along the fence, but up against the buildings. Mr. Rogers stated that he will be remove from the description from the Part 3 analysis on Impact #18 - Community Character, where it talks about the fence, and it will now reflect the fact that the landscaping is along the existing buildings. Member Clark added that Part 2 of the FEAF, subsection 13 (E) and (F), there are moderate to large impacts on traffic. Given that the entrance to the project is so close to the pedestrian walkway, he feels that Part 3 should talk about the impact of pedestrians coming off of the sidewalk. Member Clark further stated that on Impact #18 - Community Character, the general zoning code states there should be a 75 ft setback from an industrial to residential property, but because there is the 10 ft. piece of property in between, he believes there is a loophole for not having the full setback. Member Clark stated he does not believe that has been addressed at all in regard to Impact on Community Character. He explained that due to the fact that the buildings are a shorter distance to the residential properties, the Planning Board encouraged the Applicant to add more screening, which they did, but it is not spelled out in the Part 3 analysis. 6