Votes: Town of Hamburg
Motions and their votes, copied word for word from the minutes we've archived, newest meeting first.
Who moved and seconded, the tally and the roll call appear only where the minutes state them. They're picked out automatically, so each motion links to its page in the minutes, which are the record.
10 motions that weren't unanimous.
-
On a motion of Daniel Kozub, seconded by Elizabeth Farrell Lorentz, the following resolution was ADOPTED Ayes 4 Kozub, Farrell Lorentz, Dixon, Ortiz Nays 1 Bogulski Abstain 0
Carried, 4–1 Not unanimous · Moved by Daniel Kozub, seconded by Elizabeth Farrell Lorentz
Yes: Kozub, Farrell Lorentz, Dixon, Ortiz · No: Bogulski
-
On a motion of Daniel Kozub, seconded by Elizabeth Farrell Lorentz, the following resolution was ADOPTED Ayes 4 Kozub, Farrell Lorentz, Dixon, Ortiz Nays 1 Bogulski Abstain 0
Carried, 4–1 Not unanimous · Moved by Daniel Kozub, seconded by Elizabeth Farrell Lorentz
Yes: Kozub, Farrell Lorentz, Dixon, Ortiz · No: Bogulski
-
On a motion of Elizabeth Farrell Lorentz, seconded by Lynn Dixon, the following resolution was Approved Ayes 4 Kozub, Farrell Lorentz, Dixon, Ortiz Nays 1 Bogulski Abstain 0
Carried, 4–1 Not unanimous · Moved by Elizabeth Farrell Lorentz, seconded by Lynn Dixon
Yes: Kozub, Farrell Lorentz, Dixon, Ortiz · No: Bogulski
-
Ms. Falkiewicz made a motion, seconded by Mrs. Hahn, to approve Application # 6166. Ms. Falkiewicz reviewed the area variance criteria as follows: • Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties – No • Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some feasible method other than a variance – No • Whether the request is substantial – No • Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district – No • Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created – Yes, but the balancing test favors granting the variance All m…
Carried, 6–1 Not unanimous · Moved by Ms. Falkiewicz, seconded by Mrs. Hahn
No: Mr. Chapman
Page 1 of the minutes, motion 1 (full wording); vote on page 3, motion 1
-
Ms. Falkiewicz made a motion, seconded by Mr. Yoder, to deny Application # 6152. Ms. Falkiewicz reviewed the area variance criteria as follows: • Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties – Yes, there has been photographic evidence • Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some feasible method other than a variance – No • Whether the request is substantial – No • Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district – Yes, it has already with rodents and foul odor • Whether the alleged difficulty w…
Carried, 6–1 Not unanimous · Moved by Ms. Falkiewicz, seconded by Mr. Yoder
No: Mr. Chapman
Page 9 of the minutes, motion 2 (full wording)
-
There was a motion to approve by Member Stewart, seconded by Member Geraci. Resolution passes with six (6) ayes and one (1) nay from Member Zajac, the motion carried.
Carried, 6–1 Not unanimous, seconded by Member Geraci
-
Member Stewart made a motion: 8 Town of Hamburg Planning Board Minutes May 6, 2026 Brandon Santa 0 Lakeshore Road Industrial Shops Project- SEQR WHEREAS, the Town of Hamburg Planning Board received a site plan application from Brandon Santa for the construction of six (6) single-story contractor shop/warehouse buildings, totaling 75,220 sq-ft on a vacant lot along with associated parking, on-site utility improvements, stormwater management, site lighting, and landscaping at 0 Lake Shore Road located behind 3401 Lake Shore Road (SBL #: 150.00-1-6.2); and WHEREAS, pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review Act - SEQR)…
Carried, 9–1 Not unanimous · Moved by Member Stewart
Page 8 of the minutes, motion 3 (full wording); vote on page 10, motion 3
-
Ms. Falkiewicz made a motion, seconded by Mr. Yoder, to approve Application # 6143. Ms. Falkiewicz reviewed the use variance criteria as follows: • The applicant cannot realize a return, provided that lack is substantial as demonstrated by competent financial evidence – The applicant and the seller have given the Board financial evidence to show the building is consistently losing money on a monthly and annual basis. It has declined in value significantly. This property is not making money with its current use. • The alleged hardship relating to the property is unique and does not apply to a substantial portion of the district or neighborhood – Yes, it is very unique. It is on a one acre…
Carried, 6–1 Not unanimous · Moved by Ms. Falkiewicz, seconded by Mr. Yoder
No: Mrs. Hahn
Page 4 of the minutes, motion 1 (full wording); vote on page 5, motion 1
-
On a motion of Daniel Kozub, seconded by Nick Ortiz, the following resolution was ADOPTED Ayes 4 Kozub, Farrell Lorentz, Dixon, Ortiz Nays 1 Bogulski Abstain 0
Carried, 4–1 Not unanimous · Moved by Daniel Kozub, seconded by Nick Ortiz
Yes: Kozub, Farrell Lorentz, Dixon, Ortiz · No: Bogulski
-
On a motion of Nick Ortiz, seconded by Lynn Dixon, the following resolution was ADOPTED Ayes 4 Kozub, Farrell Lorentz, Dixon, Ortiz Nays 1 Bogulski Abstain 0
Carried, 4–1 Not unanimous · Moved by Nick Ortiz, seconded by Lynn Dixon
Yes: Kozub, Farrell Lorentz, Dixon, Ortiz · No: Bogulski