Text · page 8 of 14
Town of Hamburg Planning Board Minutes May 6, 2026 Member Zajac explained that he does not feel that the fencing on the other property should be mentioned as part of the mitigation in the Part 3 analysis document. Chair Gronachan stated that the Planning Board and the Planning Department looked at the ordinance, and it did not use that ordinance to have a loophole. It is the way that the ordinance is written. Member Chmura stated she is in support of removing the reference to the 10 ft. fence so that there is no confusion about any connection with what is considered a separate project that is outside the definition of this project. In addition to the landscaping that is being planned, she believes that it should be noted that additional landscaping in order to support the berm and bank would have a significant increase in the Community Character. In regard to the points Member Zajac brought up, Mr. Rogers removed the part that talks about landscaping against the fence and had it state that there will be landscaping around the buildings to provide a buffer. Chair Gronachan added that she feels that Community Character is not specifically defined by the State due to the fact that each case is judged on its own merits. In this case, there is a combined use throughout the neighborhood of both residential and industrial. She feels that the applicant has made a sincere effort to buffer not only along the Creek, but the property line that is going to be next to the neighbors. She feels that with what the applicant has done when requested such as buffering on the back of the buildings, it adds to the Community Character. Chair Gronachan wanted it duly documented that the applicant has made every effort to follow this project up to and including adding onto the lease that the tenants cannot make a turn from anywhere but Route 5. Mr. Rogers asked if the Planning Board was comfortable with how the Part 3 analysis is written with the amendments, as noted by all board members, and is written to be entered into the record along with the potential negative declaration. A majority of the Board responded yes. Mr. Rogers explained that there is a Negative Declaration resolution for consideration, and the Planning Board does not add conditions to a SEQR resolution. He explained that this is just for approving SEQR and then should the Board vote to give the project a Negative Declaration, they can then discuss proposed site plan conditions that have been mentioned throughout the project. Member Stewart made a motion: 8