Record On Appeal - CA 22-01929 CA 23-00546 Vol 1

Supreme Court of the State of New York
Appellate Division, Fourth Department

Docket # CA 22-01929, CA 23-00546
Erie County Supreme Court’s Index # 808016/2022
DANIEL T. WARREN,
Petitioner-Appellant
-Against-
THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF WEST SENECA, TOWN OF WEST SENECA, NEW
YORK AND CANISIUS HIGH SCHOOL OF BUFFALO, NEW YORK, BY AND THROUGH FR.
DAVID CIANCIMINO, S.J., AS ITS PRESIDENT.
Respondents-Respondents
Record on Appeal
Volume I
(Pages i – 738)
Daniel T. Warren
Petitioner-Appellant, Pro Se
836 Indian Church Road
West Seneca, New York 14224
716-288-6724
d.warren@roadrunner.com
SUPREME COURT : STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE DIVISION : FOURTH DEPARTMENT
:
For a Judgment Pursuant to CPLR Article 78 : CPLR § 5531 STATEMENT
annulling and setting aside approval of a site :
plan review by Respondents, : Appellate Division
: Docket No.: CA 22-01929
Daniel T. Warren : Docket No.: CA 23-00546
Petitioner-Appellant, :
Against : Supreme Court, Erie County
: Index # 808016/2022
The Planning Board of the Town of West :
Seneca, Town of West Seneca, New York and :
Canisius High School of Buffalo, New York, :
by and through Fr. David Ciancimino, S.J., as :
its President. :
Respondents-Respondents :
1. The index number of the case in the Court below is 808016/2022.
2. The full names of the original parties are set forth above. There have been no changes to
the parties.
3. The action was commenced in the Supreme Court, Erie County.
4. This action was commenced on or about July 15, 2022, by the filing of a Complaint.
Issue was not joined with a Verified Answer nor was the Certified Return of the
administrative proceedings filed.
5. The nature and object of the action: Article 78 Proceeding challenging the June 9, 2022
SEQRA determination and July 14, 2022 Site Plan Approval of Respondent The Planning
Board of the Town of West Seneca.
6. The appeal is from the Order and Judgment, dated November 23, 2022, of Hon. Mark J.
Grisanti, Justice of the Supreme Court and entered in the Office of the Erie County Clerk
on December 8, 2022 together with the Order settling the record on appeal dated March
i
24, 2023 of Hon. Mark J. Grisanti, Justice of the Supreme Court and entered in the Office
of the Erie County Clerk on March 28, 2023.
7. This appeal is being perfected with the use of a fully reproduced Record on Appeal.
DATED: July 4, 2023

Buffalo, New York
___________________________
Daniel T. Warren
Plaintiff-Appellant, Pro Se
716-288-6724
ii
Table of Contents
Document Page
CPLR § 5531 Statement i

Table of Contents iii
Notice of Appeal dated December 8, 2022 1
Order and Judgment of the Hon. Mark J. Grisanti dated November 23, 2022 with 3
Notice of Entry
Notice of Appeal dated March 29, 2023 49

Order of the Hon. Mark J. Grisanti dated March 24, 2023 with Notice of Entry 50
Transcript of Oral Argument held on September 28, 2022 68
Transcript of Oral Argument held on August 26, 2022 93
Transcript of Oral Argument held on January 26, 2023 111
Order to Show Cause dated July 18, 2022 125
Verified Petition/Complaint with Exhibits “1” thorough “18” 129
Exhibit “1” - 2005 Canisius EAF 188
Exhibit “2” - 2007 building permit for Canisius 198
Exhibit “3” - August 3, 2007 decision of the ZBA on appeal of Canisius'
building permit 200
Exhibit “4” - 2021 Canisius EAF 204

Exhibit “5” - Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) from FEMA 220
Exhibit “6” - April 8, 2021, Minutes related to SPR2021-05 222
Exhibit “7” - May 13, 2021, Minutes related to SPR2021-05 230
Exhibit “8” - Jun 10, 2021, Minutes related to SPR2021-05 236
Exhibit “9” - Aug 12, 2021, Minutes related to SPR2021-05 244
Exhibit “10” - Oct 14, 2021, Minutes related to SPR2021-05 257
Exhibit “11” - April 14, 2022, Minutes related to SPR2021-05 267
Exhibit “12” - May 12, 2022, Minutes related to SPR2021-05 278
Exhibit “13” - June 9, 2022, Minutes related to SPR2021-05 283
Exhibit “14” - May 9, 2022 letter of Jeffrey Schieber 297
Exhibit “15” - June 13, 2022 FOIL acknowledgement 300
iii

Table of Contents
Document Page
Exhibit “16” - June 17, 2022, FOIL Appeal 303
Exhibit “17” - June 22, 2022, FOIL response 310
Exhibit “18” - FOIL Response of NYSDOT 339
Memorandum of Law of Daniel T. Warren dated July 18, 2022 341
Order to Show Cause dated August 18, 2022 370
Affidavit of Daniel T. Warren dated August 11, 2022, with Exhibits “A” through
“H” 373
Exhibit “A” - Verified Petition/Complaint 378

Exhibit “B” - Memorandum of Law 379
Exhibit “C” - Signed Order to Show Cause 380
Exhibit “D” - Affidavits of Service 381
Exhibit “E” - Buffalo News Article 385
Exhibit “F” - Email to Respondents' Counsel 389
Exhibit “G” - Respondents' Counsel responses 393
Exhibit “H” - Order and Judgment in Prior Proceeding 402
Affidavit of J. Michael Lennon, Esq. dated August 24, 2022 414
Affidavit of Brad Vaillancourt dated August 24, 2022 417
Affirmation of Chris G. Trapp, Esq. dated August 24, 2022 with Exhibit “A” 420
Exhibit “A” – Maps 433

Affidavit of Steven R. Tanner dated August 23, 2022 with Exhibit “A” 437
Exhibit “A” - Engineer report 440
Affidavit of Jeffrey Schieber dated August 24, 2022 with Exhibits “A” through “H” 443
Exhibit “A” - May Board minutes 449

Exhibit “B” - SEQR review doc 450
iv

Table of Contents
Document Page
Exhibit “C” - June Board minutes 456
Exhibit “D” - Forwarding letter 457
Exhibit “E” - County referral 459
Exhibit “F” - County responses 461
Exhibit “G” - July Board minutes 466
Exhibit “H” - CEO list 471
Petitioner’s Reply Memorandum of Law in Further Support of Order to Show
Cause for Preliminary Injunction 473

Petitioner’s Notice of Motion for Default Judgment dated September 9, 2022 486
Affidavit of Daniel T. Warren dated September 8, 2022 with Exhibits “1” through
“35” 488
Exhibit “1” - Copy of 2022-04-08T13-04-

36_21PR02923EffectFindingLetter.pdf 500
Exhibit “2” - Copy of 20020 Drawings_4-29-22.pdf 504

Exhibit “3” - Copy of Army Corp_No Permit needed_11-30-21.pdf 529
Exhibit “4” - Copy of Canisius High School - Flood Report_2021-04-28.pdf 543
Exhibit “5” - Copy of Canisius HS_Engineering Report_3-17-2021.pdf 554
Exhibit “6” - Copy of Canisius Mtr - TA Owner Representative.pdf 614
Exhibit “7” - Copy of Canisius_monitoring plan_042922.pdf 616
Exhibit “8” - Copy of CanisiusHS_EAF_2-24-2021 - FINAL.pdf 647
Exhibit “9” - Copy of Cansisius Revision appvl ltr 2-8-22.pdf 663
Exhibit “10” - Copy of DEC_Buffalo.9-1402-
00596.CanisiusHighSchool.PermitUpdateLtr.pdf 665
Exhibit “11” - Copy of DEED 11098-2759_Written property Description.pdf 668

Exhibit “12” - Copy of Original Application.pdf 677
Exhibit “13” - Copy of Original cover letter.pdf 679
Exhibit “14” - Copy of Original EC SEQRA form.pdf 681
Exhibit “15” - Copy of SWPPP Report-CanisiusHS_2021-05-25.pdf 683
v

Table of Contents
Document Page
Exhibit “16” - Copy of TA Letter of Intent.pdf 972
Exhibit “17” - Copy of Town Of West Seneca - Existing Land Use.pdf 974
Exhibit “18” - Copy of Town of West Seneca_ZONEMAP_2018.pdf 976
Exhibit “19” – Petitioner’s letter dated April 24, 2021 978
Exhibit “20” – Petitioner’s letter dated September 30, 2021 1897
Exhibit “21” – Petitioner’s letter dated October 7, 2021 1902
Exhibit “22” - Report entitled Flood Plain Management Planning Assistance for
The Town of West Seneca New York - BUFFALO CREEK 1907
Exhibit “23” - Report entitled Lexington Green P2#443918 1995

Exhibit “24” – Petitioner’s letter dated October 15, 2021 2058
Exhibit “25” – Petitioner’s letter dated November 10, 2021 2099
Exhibit “26” – Petitioner’s letter dated January 10, 2022 2102
Exhibit “27” – Petitioner’s letter dated February 19, 2022 2104
Exhibit “28” - Report entitled FLOOD PLAIN IN FORMATION BUFFALO
CREEK N.Y. IN THE TOWNS OF ELMA AND WEST SENECA MAIN
REPORT AND TECHNICAL APPENDIX 2107

Exhibit “31” – Petitioner’s letter dated May 26, 2022 2222
Exhibit “32” – Petitioner’s letter dated June 4, 2022 2230
Exhibit “33” – Petitioner’s letter dated June 23, 2022 2237
Exhibit “34” - West Seneca Comprehensive Plan Strategic Update 2016
Adopted April 25, 2016 2240
Exhibit “35” - USACE FOIA Response 2320

Memorandum of Law of Daniel T. Warren dated September 9, 2022 2370
Affidavit of Jeffrey Schieber dated September 14, 2022 2380
vi

Table of Contents
Document Page
Affidavit of J. Michael Lennon, Esq. dated September 21, 2022 2382
Affidavit of Brad V. Vaillancourt dated September 21, 2022 with Exhibit “A” 2385
Exhibit “A” - Exhibit to Vaillancourt Affidavit 2388

Notice of Cross-Motion dated September 21, 2022 2391
Affirmation of Chris G. Trapp, Esq. dated September 21, 2022 2393
Affidavit of Jeffrey Schieber dated September 21, 2022 2412
Reply Affidavit of Daniel T. Warren dated September 21, 2022 with Exhibits “1”
through “2” 2417
Exhibit “1” - Transcript of Oral Argument in prior proceeding 2424

Exhibit “2” - Order and Judgment in prior proceeding 2456
Amended Notice of Motion to Settle the Record on Appeal 2457
Affidavit of Daniel T. Warren dated December 13, 2022, with Exhibits “A”
through “O” 2459
Exhibit “A” - Order and Judgment 2464

Exhibit “B” - Notice of Appeal 2465
Exhibit “C” - Email of November 5, 2022 2466
Exhibit “D” - Email of November 6, 2022 2468
Exhibit “E” - Email of November 23, 2022 2471
Exhibit “F” - Memorandum of Law of Daniel T. Warren dated July 18, 2022 2474
Exhibit “G” - Petitioners Reply Memorandum of Law in Further Support of
Order to Show Cause for Preliminary Injunction 2475
Exhibit “H” - Memorandum of Law of Daniel T. Warren dated September 9,

2022 2476
Exhibit “I” - Notice to Admit 2477
vii

Table of Contents
Document Page
Exhibit “J” - Proof of service of a Judicial Subpoena Duces Tecum 2487
Exhibit “K” - Affidavit of J. Michael Lennon, Esq. filed on August 31, 2022 2491
Exhibit “L” - Notice of Rejection of NYSCEF #58 2495
Exhibit “M” - Affidavit of Jeffrey Schieber with Exhibits A through C filed on
August 31, 2022 2497
Exhibit “N” - Notice of Rejection of NYSCEF #59-62 2532

Exhibit “O” - Proposed record on appeal 2535
Affirmation of Chris G. Trapp, Esq. dated January 19, 2023, with Exhibits “A”
through “B” 2538
Exhibit “A” - AD Order 2542

Exhibit “B” – Order 2545
Affidavit of J. Michael Lennon, Esq. dated January 20, 2023 2546
Reply Affidavit of Daniel T. Warren dated January 24, 2023, with Exhibits “A”
through “C” 2548
Exhibit “A” - Letter from Trapp 9-29-22 2550

Exhibit “B” - Petitioner response 9-29-22 2552
Exhibit “C” - 2022 Rules 2554
Affirmation of Chris G. Trapp, Esq. dated March 10, 2023, with Exhibits “A”
through “C” 2557
Exhibit “A” - Proposed Order 2559

Exhibit “B” - copies of emails 2562
Affidavit of Compliance with CPLR § 5525 2566
Order settling the Record on Appeal from the Order dated March 24, 2023 2567
Order settling the Record on Appeal from the Order and Judgment 2572
viii

Notice of Appeal dated December 8, 2022
FILED: ERIE COUNTY CLERK 12/08/2022 11:17 AM INDEX NO. 808016/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 127 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/08/2022
STATE OF NEW YORK : COUNTY OF ERIE

SUPREME COURT :
: Index # 808016/2022
For a Judgment Pursuant to CPLR Article 78 :
annulling and setting aside approval of a site : NOTICE OF APPEAL
plan review by Respondents, :
: Hon. Mark J. Grisanti, J.S.C
Daniel T. Warren : Assigned Justice
Petitioners, :
Against :
:
its President. :
Respondents :
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Plaintiff, Daniel T. Warren, hereby appeals to the Appellate
Division, Fourth Department of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, from the Order of this
Court signed by the Hon. Mark J. Grisanti dated November 23, 2022 and entered in the office of the
Clerk of Erie County on December 8, 2022 (NYSCEF #125), and this appeal is taken from each and
every part thereof and each and every prior order that necessarily affects the final judgment.
DATED: December 8, 2022

West Seneca, New York
Yours, etc.
/S/ Daniel T. Warren

Daniel T. Warren
Petitioner, Pro Se
716-288-6724
1 of 1
1
NYSCEF Confirmation Notice
Erie County Supreme Court
The NYSCEF website has received an electronic filing on 12/08/2022 11:17 AM. Please keep this notice
as a confirmation of this filing.
808016/2022
Daniel T Warren v. The Planning Board of the Town of West Seneca et al
Assigned Judge: Mark Grisanti
Documents Received on 12/08/2022 11:17 AM
Doc # Document Type

126 NOTICE OF ENTRY, Motion #001
127 NOTICE OF APPEAL, Motion #001
Filing User
Daniel T Warren | d.warren@roadrunner.com
836 Indian Church Road, West Seneca, NY 14224-1235
E-mail Notifications
An email regarding this filing has been sent to the following on 12/08/2022 11:17 AM:
JAMES M. LENNON - eccosgrove@cosgrovelawfirm.com

CHRIS G. TRAPP - cgtrapp@grecolawyers.com
Daniel T. Warren - d.warren@roadrunner.com
Michael P. Kearns, Erie County Clerk

Website: http://www.erie.gov/clerk
NYSCEF Resource Center, nyscef@nycourts.gov

Phone: (646) 386-3033 | Fax: (212) 401-9146 | Website: www.nycourts.gov/efile
Page 1 of 1
2
Order and Judgment of the Hon. Mark J. Grisanti dated November 23, 2022 with Notice of Entry

SUPREME COURT :
:
annulling and setting aside approval of a site : NOTICE OF ENTRY
: Index # 808016/2022
Daniel T. Warren :
Petitioners, : Hon. Mark J. Grisanti
Against : IAS Assigned Justice
:
its President. :
Respondents :
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that the within is a true copy of an Order and Judgment entered in
the above-captioned action signed by the Hon. Mark J. Grisanti dated November 23, 2022 and entered
in the office of the Clerk of Erie County on December 8, 2022 (NYSCEF #125).
DATED: December 8, 2022

Yours, etc.

Daniel T. Warren
Petitioner, Pro Se
716-288-6724
1 of 46
3
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 126
125 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/08/2022
1 of 46
2 45
4
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 126
2 of 46
3 45
5
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 126
3 of 46
4 45
6
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 126
4 of 46
5 45
7
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 126
5 of 46
6 45
8
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 126
6 of 46
7 45
9
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 126
7 of 46
8 45
10
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 126
8 of 46
9 45
11
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 126
10
9 of
of 45
46
12
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 126
10 of 46
11 45
13
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 126
11 of 46
12 45
14
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 126
12 of 46
13 45
15
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 126
13 of 46
14 45
16
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 126
14 of 46
15 45
17
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 126
15 of 46
16 45
18
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 126
16 of 46
17 45
19
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 126
17 of 46
18 45
20
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 126
18 of 46
19 45
21
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 126
19 of 46
20 45
22
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 126
20 of 46
21 45
23
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 126
21 of 46
22 45
24
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 126
22 of 46
23 45
25
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 126
23 of 46
24 45
26
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 126
24 of 46
25 45
27
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 126
25 of 46
26 45
28
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 126
26 of 46
27 45
29
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 126
27 of 46
28 45
30
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 126
28 of 46
29 45
31
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 126
29 of 46
30 45
32
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 126
30 of 46
31 45
33
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 126
31 of 46
32 45
34
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 126
32 of 46
33 45
35
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 126
33 of 46
34 45
36
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 126
34 of 46
35 45
37
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 126
35 of 46
36 45
38
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 126
36 of 46
37 45
39
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 126
37 of 46
38 45
40
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 126
38 of 46
39 45
41
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 126
39 of 46
40 45
42
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 126
40 of 46
41 45
43
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 126
41 of 46
42 45
44
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 126
42 of 46
43 45
45
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 126
43 of 46
44 45
46
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 126
44 of 46
45 45
47
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 126
45 of 46
46 45
48
Notice of Appeal dated March 29, 2023

SUPREME COURT :
: Index # 808016/2022
annulling and setting aside approval of a site : NOTICE OF APPEAL
: Hon. Mark J. Grisanti, J.S.C
Daniel T. Warren : Assigned Justice
Petitioners, :
Against :
:
its President. :
Respondents :
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Plaintiff, Daniel T. Warren, hereby appeals to the Appellate
Division, Fourth Department of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, from the Order of this
Court signed by the Hon. Mark J. Grisanti dated March 24, 2023 and entered in the office of the Clerk
of Erie County on March 28, 2023 (NYSCEF #163), and this appeal is taken from each and every part
thereof.
DATED: March 29, 2023

Yours, etc.

Daniel T. Warren
Petitioner, Pro Se
716-288-6724
1 of 1
49
Order of the Hon. Mark J. Grisanti dated March 24, 2023 with Notice of Entry

SUPREME COURT :
:
annulling and setting aside approval of a site : NOTICE OF ENTRY
: Index # 808016/2022
Daniel T. Warren :
Petitioners, : Hon. Mark J. Grisanti
Against : IAS Assigned Justice
:
its President. :
Respondents :
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that the within is a true copy of an Order and Judgment entered in
the above-captioned action signed by the Hon. Mark J. Grisanti dated March 24, 2023 and entered in
the office of the Clerk of Erie County on March 28, 2023 (NYSCEF #163).
DATED: March 29, 2023

Yours, etc.

Daniel T. Warren
Petitioner, Pro Se
716-288-6724
1 of 17
50
03/28/2023 08:18
FILED: ERIE COUNTY CLERK 03/29/2023 04:35 AM
PM INDEX NO. 808016/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 164
03/28/2023
1 of 17
2 16
51
03/29/2023 04:35
FILED: ERIE COUNTY CLERK 03/28/2023 08:18 PM
AM INDEX NO. 808016/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 164
03/28/2023
2 of 17
3 16
52
03/28/2023 08:18
PM INDEX NO. 808016/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 164
03/28/2023
3 of 17
4 16
53
03/28/2023 08:18
PM INDEX NO. 808016/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 164
03/28/2023
4 of 17
5 16
54
03/29/2023 04:35
AM INDEX NO. 808016/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 164
03/28/2023
5 of 17
6 16
55
03/29/2023 04:35
AM INDEX NO. 808016/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 164
03/28/2023
6 of 17
7 16
56
03/29/2023 04:35
AM INDEX NO. 808016/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 164
03/28/2023
7 of 17
8 16
57
03/29/2023 04:35
AM INDEX NO. 808016/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 164
03/28/2023
8 of 17
9 16
58
03/29/2023 04:35
AM INDEX NO. 808016/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 164
03/28/2023
10
9 of
of 16
17
59
03/29/2023 04:35
AM INDEX NO. 808016/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 164
03/28/2023
10 of 17
11 16
60
03/29/2023 04:35
AM INDEX NO. 808016/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 164
03/28/2023
11 of 17
12 16
61
03/29/2023 04:35
AM INDEX NO. 808016/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 164
03/28/2023
12 of 17
13 16
62
03/28/2023 08:18
PM INDEX NO. 808016/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 164
03/28/2023
13 of 17
14 16
63
03/28/2023 08:18
PM INDEX NO. 808016/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 164
03/28/2023
14 of 17
15 16
64
03/29/2023 04:35
AM INDEX NO. 808016/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 164
03/28/2023
15 of 17
16 16
65
03/28/2023 08:18
PM INDEX NO. 808016/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 164
03/28/2023
16 of 17
17 16
66
NYSCEF Confirmation Notice
Erie County Supreme Court
The NYSCEF website has received an electronic filing on 03/29/2023 08:18 AM. Please keep this notice
as a confirmation of this filing.
808016/2022
Daniel T Warren v. The Planning Board of the Town of West Seneca et al
Assigned Judge: Mark Grisanti
Documents Received on 03/29/2023 08:18 AM
Doc # Document Type

164 NOTICE OF ENTRY, Motion #006
165 NOTICE OF APPEAL, Motion #006
Filing User
Daniel T Warren | d.warren@roadrunner.com
836 Indian Church Road, West Seneca, NY 14224-1235
E-mail Notifications
An email regarding this filing has been sent to the following on 03/29/2023 08:18 AM:
EDWARD C. COSGROVE - eccosgrove@cosgrovelawfirm.com

JAMES M. LENNON - eccosgrove@cosgrovelawfirm.com
CHRIS G. TRAPP - cgtrapp@grecolawyers.com
Daniel T. Warren - d.warren@roadrunner.com
Michael P. Kearns, Erie County Clerk

Website: http://www.erie.gov/clerk
NYSCEF Resource Center, nyscef@nycourts.gov

Phone: (646) 386-3033 | Fax: (212) 401-9146 | Website: www.nycourts.gov/efile
Page 1 of 1
67
Transcript of Oral Argument held on September 28, 2022
FILED: ERIE COUNTY CLERK 11/10/2022 02:57 PM INDEX NO. 808016/2022
STATE OF NEW YORK : SUPREME COURT

COUNTY OF ERIE : PART 15
__________________________________________
FOR A JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO CPLR ARTICLES

30 AND 78,
DANIEL T. WARREN,
Petitioner,
- vs - INDEX # 808016/2022
THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF WEST SENECA,

TOWN OF WEST SENECA, NEW YORK,
CANISIUS HIGH SCHOOL OF BUFFALO, NEW YORK,
BY AND THROUGH FR. DAVID CIANCIMINO, S.J.,
AS ITS PRESIDENT.
Respondents.
__________________________________________
25 Delaware Avenue
Buffalo, New York
September 28, 2022
B e f o r e:
HONORABLE MARK J. GRISANTI,
ACTING SUPREME COURT JUSTICE
A p p e a r a n c e s:
DANIEL T. WARREN, pro se,

Petitioner.
CHRIS G. TRAPP, ESQ.,

Appearing for The Planning Board of the Town of
West Seneca and Town of West Seneca, New York,
Respondents.
J. MICHAEL LENNON, ESQ.,

Appearing for Canisius High School, Respondent.
KELLY A. RINEHART
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
1 of 25
68
1 THE COURT: There is the matter of Dan Warren,
2 Petitioner, against the Planning Board of the Town of West
3 Seneca, et al, Index Number 808016/2022. Dan, if you could
4 state your name for the record, and then we'll go over to
5 respondents for attorney appearance.
6 MR. WARREN: Daniel Warren, pro se, Petitioner.
7 MR. TRAPP: Chris Trapp on behalf of the Town of
8 West Seneca.
9 MR. LENNON: Your Honor, Mike Lennon of the
10 Cosgrove Firm representing Canisius High School.
11 THE COURT: All right. So let me just do a little
12 housekeeping here. We were here on August 26th of 2022,
13 correct?
14 MR. WARREN: Correct, Your Honor.
15 MR. TRAPP: Yes, Your Honor.
16 THE COURT: All right. Initially I had an Order to
17 Show Cause with a temporary restraining order that I set for
18 today at 10:30. And then, Dan, you had brought some
19 additional papers to show that -- because I rejected it at
20 that point because of that part of the Show Cause Order
21 issuing an injunction because I didn't have any information
22 as to whether anything was going on or not, and then you had
23 provided the Court with your information saying there's
24 stuff going on. And we were here on the 26th, and I
25 believe, and you guys can correct me if I'm wrong, I said on
KELLY A. RINEHART
2 of 25
69
1 the record do you want me to make a decision regarding this
2 temporary injunction now, or do you want to just have a
3 conversation regarding whether there's enough information in
4 front of the Court that there's something going on that I
5 should issue the injunction now rather than waiting until
6 the 28th, and I believe you said, Dan, no, we can go out
7 until the 28th? Is that correct or no?
8 MR. WARREN: Your Honor, if I may. It was my
9 understanding that you were denying the preliminary
10 injunction, and you wanted to reach the merits which I said
11 I would require a full certified return and answers to
12 address the merits, Your Honor.
13 THE COURT: Okay.
14 MR. WARREN: That is my understanding.
15 THE COURT: Okay. Is that your understanding,
16 Chris?
17 MR. TRAPP: I recall the Court suggesting that it
18 be decided then, and Mr. Warren did not wish and he wanted
19 to return today.
20 THE COURT: But yet you gave me a -- Dan, you sent
21 me along with your notice of motion for judicial subpoena
22 which I granted, and you received that.
23 MR. WARREN: Yes, Your Honor.
24 THE COURT: And then you also made a notice of
25 motion for a default judgment. I have that. I believe
KELLY A. RINEHART
3 of 25
70
1 counsel has that. They responded to it, right?
3 THE COURT: But then you also provided me with a
4 notice of settlement of order, and your order is --
5 MR. WARREN: I believe my order is just denying my
6 motion for a preliminary injunction, Your Honor.
7 THE COURT: Okay. But I guess I'm trying to figure
8 out, are you considering that decided, or did you want me to
9 put something more on the record? Because I have more
10 information to put on the record. I didn't think I decided
11 it, but we can move onto that. I can decide that. We can
12 do a default judgment. I don't know if there's more time.
13 But I also received from the respondents, and I believe
14 these are the documents that you were stating on August 26th
15 that were on the flash drive that were given to Erie County,
16 correct?
18 THE COURT: These documents?
19 MR. TRAPP: Yes. And that's that pile over there.
20 I've supplied that to -- even though it wasn't requested of
21 me, I supplied it to Mr. Warren.
22 THE COURT: So, in essence, this is something that
23 has to pertain to Judge Siwek's order with regards to, in a
24 sense, the 239?
25 MR. TRAPP: Yes. That would be fair.
KELLY A. RINEHART
4 of 25
71
1 THE COURT: Okay. All right. Then after I
2 received those, I have four volumes of --
3 MR. WARREN: I believe that would be on my motion
4 for default judgment.
5 THE COURT: -- Dan's affidavit for a default
6 judgment. But you've answered the default judgment is what
7 you're saying? You supplied papers?
8 MR. TRAPP: Yes, Your Honor, along with our
9 cross-motion to dismiss in lieu of the answer.
10 THE COURT: Okay. So let me do this. I want to
11 take what's first in front of me, and that is -- it may seem
12 redundant to either you, Dan, or you, Chris, but it's not
13 redundant to the Court, the Order to Show Cause with a
14 temporary restraining order. Based on all the documents
15 that are here before the Court, what else do you want to the
16 place on the record, Dan, with regards to that particular
17 application under the Order to Show Cause for the
18 preliminary injunction?
19 MR. WARREN: I have no further on that application,
20 Your Honor.
21 THE COURT: Do you have anything further?
22 MR. TRAPP: Your Honor, I believe you've had
23 sufficient papers.
24 THE COURT: Okay. So I'm going to take one at a
25 time here. The last time we spoke regarding the Order to
KELLY A. RINEHART
5 of 25
72
1 Show Cause for a preliminary injunction back on 8/26/22, the
2 Court was asking, and it was on the record, certain
3 questions regarding was a full statement or proposal -- a
4 proposed action as defined by GML 239-m(1) sent and did they
5 submit per Judge Siwek's ruling to the Erie County Division
6 of Planning all materials that they relied upon to make its
7 determination under SEQRA pursuant to Town Law 274-a(9).
8 That's what Judge Siwek's concern was was my understanding
9 with regards to her decision; is that correct?
10 MR. WARREN: That is correct, Your Honor.
11 MR. TRAPP: There was also a timing sequence in
12 terms of determining the SEQRA prior to the site plan
13 review.
14 THE COURT: All right. In essence, was a referral
15 done, and was there a new determination on petitioner's site
16 plan review application? Is that what you're referring to?
17 MR. TRAPP: That's correct. The SEQRA
18 determination was made on June 9th. The materials were
19 again for the third time sent to the county, and then the
20 county responded early July. And then July 12th -- don't
21 hold me to that date -- I believe it's July 12th, they then
22 made the determination on the site plan review after hearing
23 from the county.
24 THE COURT: All right. I think that is the correct
25 date. All right. So as a respondent, you're claiming that
KELLY A. RINEHART
6 of 25
73
1 you followed Judge Siwek's prior ruling, as well as 274-a(9)
2 of Town Law, the county had no comment with respect to the
3 project. And in July of 2022 after all agencies and other
4 departments reviews were completed, the site plan was
5 approved. That's what you're referring to?
7 THE COURT: All right. And are you still
8 maintaining, Dan, that it wasn't?
9 MR. WARREN: Yes, Your Honor. Specifically the
10 three U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' reports that is referred
11 to in the SEQRA determination were not provided to the
12 county.
13 THE COURT: You got any response to that, Chris?
14 MR. TRAPP: I believe the Army Corps of Engineers'
15 reports dealt with the Lexington Green situation and
16 considerably before any of this issue and were not relevant.
17 But the Army Corps of Engineers was provided notice of the
18 proceedings of the application and sent all the materials.
19 I do not recall off the top of my head their response, but
20 that would have been included in what we sent to the county
21 as well. But those materials were sent to the Army if they
22 wanted to respond with regard to this project which dealt
23 with baseball fields, as opposed to the Lexington Green
24 issue which is something entirely different.
25 THE COURT: I'm just trying to follow my notes from
KELLY A. RINEHART
7 of 25
74
1 the review of all these documents so I keep things in order.
2 Are you saying that there was an objection on this
3 particular part of the aspect, Dan, from the Army Corps?
4 MR. WARREN: No, Your Honor. My position is that
5 the Army Corps of Engineers' determination that they are
6 relying on that is dated November 2021 was purely their
7 jurisdictional determination. They had no reference to any
8 environmental issues. However, the SEQRA determination
9 references that letter saying that they were okay with the
10 environmentals, but that letter doesn't even address
11 environmentals, Your Honor.
12 THE COURT: So you're saying that it was an
13 overreach for them to say that?
15 THE COURT: Okay. I gotcha.
16 MR. WARREN: And that part of their determination
17 is not supported by the record.
18 THE COURT: And you're saying, Chris, that you
19 didn't need the Army Corps of Engineers on that particular
20 area? It had to do with something else?
21 MR. TRAPP: Yeah. There's a whole series of papers
22 submitted by the petitioner with regard to the Lexington
23 Green area, and that our obligation is to notify the Army
24 Corps of Engineers with regard to this project. That was
25 done. They're not obligated to respond or to come up with
KELLY A. RINEHART
8 of 25
75
1 something, which is what petitioner is saying they should
2 have or could have, but they didn't. And, therefore, we've
3 relied on their lack of any interest in the matter. All we
4 can do is put them on notice.
5 THE COURT: And if they reply, they reply. If they
6 don't, they don't.
7 MR. TRAPP: If they don't, they don't.
8 MR. WARREN: However, Your Honor, if my memory
9 serves me, in the SEQRA determination, it does not say that
10 they just did not respond with any -- with no --
11 THE COURT: It says that they agreed with it.
12 MR. WARREN: Right.
13 THE COURT: When there's no documentation, you're
14 saying, that it says that they did?
15 MR. WARREN: Right. So if they did not respond
16 with no environmentals, then they should not have relied on
17 it at all in their determination.
18 THE COURT: Okay. All right. So if they don't
19 have to respond, you're saying that the determination letter
20 says that they did respond and they approved?
21 MR. WARREN: No. The Planning Board SEQRA -- June
22 9th SEQRA determination relied on that nonresponse as
23 supporting the position that they had no objections to the
24 environmentals when it had no reference to the
25 environmentals.
KELLY A. RINEHART
9 of 25
76
10
1 THE COURT: Okay.
2 MR. WARREN: I don't believe the two are the same,
3 Your Honor.
4 THE COURT: I gotcha. All right. So regarding the
5 Order to Show Cause -- there's nothing else further then
6 with the Order to Show Cause initially that was set for
7 today for the preliminary injunction, right, or the
8 restraining order?
10 THE COURT: All right. Regarding the Order to Show
11 Cause, the Court will rule as follows: The Court has
12 reviewed numerous documents as can be seen that's in the
13 record. Regarding the actions taken by respondent and
14 regarding site review and petitioner's request that it be
15 null and void and did not comply with 239-m and 41 of
16 General Construction Law and to set aside the negative
17 declaration under SEQRA on 6/9/22 and setting aside the
18 approval under West Seneca Town Code issued by Board on
19 7/14/22, those issues are denied, and the Court finds are
20 not arbitrary and capricious, nor abuse of discretion on all
21 issues. Decisions made as shown by the numerous documentary
22 evidence before this Court is supported by substantial
23 evidence and compliance with SEQRA is shown. In particular,
24 I don't believe it's credible that the Planning Board did
25 not have jurisdiction and exceeded its authority. The Court
KELLY A. RINEHART
10 of 25
77
11
1 finds that the procedures were followed under Open Meeting
2 Law. The town is the lead agency. So with regards to that
3 Order to Show Cause, it's denied on that basis.
4 Now, what I have in front of me is a motion for a
5 default judgment. Do you want to expand on that, Dan?
6 MR. WARREN: Yes, Your Honor, if I may.
7 THE COURT: Go ahead. Let me just back up. So
8 after I received this motion now, the decision is on the
9 Order to Show Cause that was set for today, I received a
10 petition for a motion for a subpoena. That was granted, and
11 I supplied you, Dan, with that subpoena, correct?
12 MR. WARREN: Correct, Your Honor. And that
13 subpoena was served, and I don't know if the county had
14 supplied the records.
15 THE COURT: Are these the records that I have here
16 that were in the --
17 MR. TRAPP: What we supplied was what we sent to
18 the county. I don't know what the county supplied.
19 THE COURT: Okay. I don't have anything else from
20 anybody else. Does that prevent you from moving forward on
21 your default motion or on the cross-motion? Do you need
22 that material in order to proceed forward or can we proceed?
23 MR. WARREN: I think we can proceed with my motion
24 for default judgment and the cross-motion. However, I
25 believe I would need those materials before we get -- reach
KELLY A. RINEHART
11 of 25
78
12
1 the merits of the overall proceeding.
2 THE COURT: Well, what I have in front of me, as I
3 said, was the Order to Show Cause with temporary restraining
4 order. That was denied. There was part of a decision
5 placed on the record on August 26th, and also the rest of
6 the decision is placed on the record today. So that's when
7 I'll need in an order.
8 And, Chris, what I'll do is, and I'll alleviate you
9 from having to do this, Dan, I need you to obtain -- I need
10 you, Chris, to obtain the transcript from August 26th, as
11 well as the transcript for today to convert that to an order
12 regarding that Order to Show Cause, okay?
13 MR. TRAPP: That's fine, Judge.
14 THE COURT: All right. And I'll give you Kelly's
15 information. I'm not sure if Kelly was here on the 26th.
16 She's shaking her head yes, so I'll give you her phone
17 number, and you can get involved with it.
18 So that's been decided. So what I have then is a
19 notice of motion for default and then a notice of
20 cross-motion. So what else then would be the further
21 proceeding I guess is what I'm getting at.
22 MR. WARREN: Your Honor, it was my understanding
23 that the 26th was solely for my motion for a preliminary
24 injunction. Nothing further.
25 THE COURT: Well, I wanted to clarify today because
KELLY A. RINEHART
12 of 25
79
13
1 the Order to Show Cause with the temporary restraining order
2 was set for today, and you're basically asking for the same
3 thing, right?
4 MR. WARREN: No. No, Your Honor. The Order to
5 Show Cause that was returnable on the 26th only sought
6 injunctive relief. It did not reach whether or not the
7 SEQRA and the site plan approval was arbitrary, capricious,
8 or supported by the record.
9 THE COURT: But I just ruled on that today. You
10 were seeking in your Order to Show Cause declaring all
11 actions taken by respondent Planning Board on Canisius'
12 application for site plan to be null and void. You're also
13 seeking to set aside the negative declaration under SEQRA.
14 You were seeking to set aside the approval of the town code,
15 and declaring the respondent Planning Board violated the
16 Public Officers Law under Article 7, and permanently and
17 preliminarily enjoining Canisius from doing any land
18 clearing. So I thought my decision just covered that.
19 That's why I was asking is there anything else that we need
20 to put on the record.
21 MR. WARREN: Okay. I may have been mistaken, Your
22 Honor. I thought we were only addressing the preliminary
23 injunction motion that I brought that was returnable on the
24 26th.
25 THE COURT: Okay. All right. So if you want to
KELLY A. RINEHART
13 of 25
80
14
1 put something on the record, but my decision covered
2 regarding each one of those categories under your Order to
3 Show Cause.
4 MR. WARREN: Okay. Your Honor, if I may, just to
5 set a record?
6 THE COURT: Go ahead.
7 MR. WARREN: Subsequent to our appearance before
8 the Court on the 26th, respondents were required to file a
9 verified answer and submit a properly certified return of
10 the proceedings. They defaulted in doing so. They do not
11 deny defaulting in pleading. Respondents do not offer a
12 reasonable excuse for defaulting in pleading. With the
13 exception of the cross-motion to dismiss based upon my lack
14 of standing, there's no showing of a meritorious defense.
15 As to the cross-motion to dismiss based upon my lack of
16 standing, that argument is barred by res judicata from Judge
17 Siwek's prior unappealed order. It is my position that the
18 Court cannot reach the merits of this proceeding without a
19 properly certified return -- a complete properly certified
20 return, excuse me. And in the absence of a properly
21 certified complete return, it requires annulment of the
22 challenged actions. I was going to say if the Court is
23 inclined to direct the respondents to cure the default by
24 filing the proper complete certified return and their
25 answers, I was going to ask that it be by a date certain,
KELLY A. RINEHART
14 of 25
81
15
1 and that construction halt pending their filing of such
2 response. I was also going to ask if the Court has received
3 the records from the county, and if not, to provide me with
4 an opportunity to compel compliance with the subpoena.
5 As to the merits, Your Honor, it's my position that
6 the respondents, Planning Board and town, are deemed to have
7 admitted all the facts and document -- genuineness of
8 documents and my notice to admit. And, therefore, based on
9 the record before the Court at this time, it demonstrates
10 that GML 239-m was not complied with since the three Army
11 Corps of Engineers' reports relied on in the SEQRA
12 determination were not provided to the county as required.
13 The record before the Court at this time does not support
14 the conclusion in the SEQRA determination that the New York
15 State Department of Transportation responded that a traffic
16 study was not needed as there is nothing in the record
17 stating such from the New York State Department of
18 Transportation. The SEQRA determination challenged here
19 referenced a letter from the Army Corps of Engineers dated
20 November 2021 in support of its conclusion that they are
21 okay with the environmental aspects of the project.
22 However, such letter has nothing to do with the
23 environmental issues and relates solely to their
24 jurisdictional determination that they did not have
25 jurisdiction over this project, and, therefore, no permits
KELLY A. RINEHART
15 of 25
82
16
1 from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers was necessary.
2 THE COURT: Right. Which is what Chris said.
3 MR. WARREN: Correct, Your Honor. And the record
4 before the Court at this time does not support the finding
5 that this project is appropriate for the current zoning for
6 the property since a determination relies -- that it relies
7 on was made solely based on a finding by the Zoning Board of
8 Appeals before the property was actually used and was based
9 on Canisius' representations at that time which may or may
10 not be the same use as it is today. That is all that I
11 wanted to set for the record, Your Honor.
12 THE COURT: That last statement, does that now go
13 back and touch upon something that's already been decided by
14 the Fourth Department?
15 MR. WARREN: The Fourth Department decided back
16 then based upon their representations of what they were
17 going to use it for that that determination was proper. It
18 is my position that the use of it today does not match those
19 representations that were before the Fourth Department, Your
20 Honor.
21 THE COURT: Which is why you're saying it's not a
22 second bite at the apple? You're saying that it's different
23 from what was stated in the Fourth Department to where it is
24 now?
25 MR. WARREN: Correct. Back then it was based upon
KELLY A. RINEHART
16 of 25
83
17
1 Canisius' prospective statements of how they were going to
2 use the property that were found proper. There has been no
3 subsequent decision that how they are using the property
4 today matches their representations back then.
5 THE COURT: All right. Where did you mention it
6 back then? Because I had talked about prior that in 2008
7 Canisius submitted a plan for the town for phase two that
8 consists of a sports field, baseball, football, et cetera,
9 and this type of use was are you saying not considered or
10 considered by the town prior to SEQRA?
11 MR. WARREN: As far as the use, not based upon the
12 environmentals, but based upon the zoning use, back then
13 they represented that they were going to have classrooms and
14 use the site principally for educational purposes. It is my
15 contention that that is not the case. And I believe that
16 those documents are attached to the verified petition I
17 believe as exhibits -- it's within the first four, Your
18 Honor.
19 THE COURT: I understand that. But in reading all
20 the exhibits and what's in front of me, all the documentary
21 evidence, I had it to where it was basically sports field,
22 baseball, football, track, et cetera. Is that not correct?
23 MR. WARREN: Your Honor, based upon those exhibits
24 on the verified petition, it was supposed to be for
25 classrooms and athletic field.
KELLY A. RINEHART
17 of 25
84
18
1 THE COURT: Going off the petition then, when you
2 talk about the statement of material facts that they haven't
3 responded, are you talking about the new rules under NYCRR
4 202.8-g?
5 MR. WARREN: No, Your Honor.
6 THE COURT: The statements of admitted facts? Is
7 that what you're talking about? They didn't admit, so,
8 therefore --
9 MR. WARREN: No, Your Honor. Because they did not
10 file a verified answer that answers the petition, my
11 position is that the facts as asserted in the petition are
12 deemed admitted on a default judgment.
13 THE COURT: Okay. I thought you were talking about
14 something else. This Court doesn't really follow that
15 202.8-g. Chris or counsel, do you want to respond to what's
16 been added, and then I can adjust my decision accordingly?
17 MR. TRAPP: Your Honor, there have always been
18 athletic fields over there. That's what they were back when
19 the first Appellate Division decision came down. They've
20 just simply added baseball fields at this juncture. They're
21 the same thing. An athletic field is an athletic field.
22 We're just changing sport.
23 THE COURT: What about your answer?
24 MR. TRAPP: Article 78 requires that an answer or a
25 motion -- or a motion to dismiss in lieu of an answer must
KELLY A. RINEHART
18 of 25
85
19
1 be filed within five days prior to the return date. The
2 return date was the 28th, today. We submitted our
3 cross-motion or motion to dismiss more than five days prior
4 to the return date. That complies with the requirements
5 under Article 78. Therefore, there is no default at this
6 juncture because we did -- you can appear in a case either
7 by way of a motion or by way of an answer. We chose the
8 motion.
9 THE COURT: I'm familiar.
10 MR. TRAPP: Yes.
11 THE COURT: I'm not sure if Dan is familiar with
12 it. He's pro se.
13 MR. WARREN: Your Honor, if may briefly?
14 THE COURT: Yes.
15 MR. WARREN: The Order to Show Cause initiating
16 this proceeding set August 19th for the date for the filing
17 of the certified return, and it set August 31st for the
18 filing of answering papers. So it's my position that that
19 Order to Show Cause supersedes the rules on the return dates
20 as set forth in Article 78.
21 THE COURT: Chris.
22 MR. TRAPP: Your Honor, and in the interim, we got
23 served with another set of papers seeking another
24 preliminary injunction TRO to which we responded. I did not
25 read your order as saying you had to answer or submit your
KELLY A. RINEHART
19 of 25
86
20
1 motion to dismiss in a different time frame other than what
2 was already under the CPLR.
3 THE COURT: Okay. Is there anything further on the
4 argument of the Order to Show Cause or on your default
5 motion?
6 MR. WARREN: No, Your Honor. Other than to say
7 other than what I've previously stated, I would rely on my
8 papers.
9 THE COURT: What about in response to their notice
10 of cross-motion?
11 MR. WARREN: Similarly, Your Honor, I would rely on
12 my statements that I made previously and my papers
13 submitted.
14 THE COURT: Okay. Anything to add with regards to
15 your notice of cross-motion?
16 MR. TRAPP: No. Just one point of clarification.
17 I'm not sure if Mr. Warren was referring to admission by
18 virtue of not submitting an answer or he's also served a
19 notice to admit, but the time to respond to that has not yet
20 ended. So I don't know the relevance of that, but I just
21 want to point that out.
22 THE COURT: Are you talking about the notice to
23 admit under a statement of material facts? Is that what
24 you're talking about?
25 MR. TRAPP: I believe so, yes.
KELLY A. RINEHART
20 of 25
87
21
1 THE COURT: Okay. All right. Going back on the
2 record with regards to the decision that was just stated
3 with regards to the Order to Show Cause for -- I got to find
4 it here now again. This was the Order to Show Cause with
5 the temporary restraining order. The relief requested was
6 that the respondents show cause before this Court on today's
7 date, which some of it was touched upon, as I said, back on
8 August 26th, '22, wanting the Court to declare all actions
9 taken by the respondent Planning Board and respondent
10 Canisius' application for site plan review to date to be
11 null and void, and that it acted without jurisdiction and
12 did not comply with General Municipal Law 239-m or General
13 Construction Law 41. In my decision -- well, let me do it
14 this way. What was also asked for was the setting aside the
15 negative declaration under SEQRA, setting aside the approval
16 under the West Seneca town code issued by the respondent
17 Planning Board, and also declaring that respondent Planning
18 Board violated Public Officers Law Article 7. And the Court
19 stated that the Order to Show Cause regarding actions taken
20 by respondent regarding site review and petitioner's request
21 that it be null and void and it did not comply with 239-m of
22 the General Municipal Law or 41 of General Construction Law,
23 and setting aside the negative declaration under SEQRA on
24 6/9/22, and setting aside the approval under West Seneca
25 town code issued by the Board on 7/14/22, as stated prior
KELLY A. RINEHART
21 of 25
88
22
1 are denied. The Court finds they were not arbitrary or
2 capricious, nor abuse of discretion on all issues. And
3 decisions made as shown by the documentary evidence before
4 this Court is supported by substantial evidence, and
5 compliance with SEQRA has been shown. I further stated that
6 I believe what was in Judge Siwek's prior ruling has been
7 followed. I believe that some of the accusations that are
8 made are conclusory or speculative, and that cannot be the
9 basis to grant relief. I understand, Dan, what you're
10 talking about regarding the Army Corps of Engineers, but
11 it's kind of apples and oranges. You really didn't need
12 their okay anyways. The town is the lead agency. They had
13 a majority of the board. Notifications were sent out to the
14 Army Corps of Engineers, County of Erie, Department of
15 Environmental Conservation. There's not any objections.
16 There was three referrals made to the County of Erie under
17 239-m. The Court reviewed the documentation. The Court did
18 not see any segmentation adding onto property years later to
19 an area was already vetted. My notes have here that DOT was
20 involved and that -- I think you're aware of that. I'm not
21 sure of what -- regarding the traffic study. The athletic
22 field was previously approved. I believe that you,
23 yourself, the petitioner, was involved in the process, so
24 there's no violation of an Open Meeting Law. There was a
25 sixteen-month review. And the Planning Board not having
KELLY A. RINEHART
22 of 25
89
23
1 jurisdiction or exceeding its authority, I don't find is
2 credible. And the minutes themselves show that everything
3 was -- the minutes themselves of the meetings show that the
4 majority was present.
5 Now, with regards to the notice of motion for
6 default and the cross-motion, as I said previously, all
7 procedures issued by Judge Siwek's concerns this Court feels
8 were addressed and corrected. I don't really want to get
9 into the merits of really what the complaint is, but it
10 seems to come up a lot that whether the petitioner is
11 complaining about issues with water or what have you, those
12 seem to predate at least the argument of the respondents is
13 any water issues predated Canisius even having use of the
14 land. The area itself is not in wetlands, neither are the
15 petitioner or respondent's property. There was a quorum.
16 General Construction Law 41 was followed. All documents
17 provided to the county as we saw as I have here that were
18 dropped off that were on the disk. So with regards to the
19 notice of motion for default, what we had was initially an
20 Order to Show Cause that was set for September 28th. There
21 was additional papers that came up on August 26th. I
22 believe the responding papers in all aspects, including the
23 motion -- or cross-motion to dismiss is proper in place of
24 an answer. So, therefore, the notice of motion for default
25 judgment is denied. I'm not a stickler with responding
KELLY A. RINEHART
23 of 25
90
24
1 papers. Everybody has their papers. And with regards to --
2 you have these documents, right, Dan? All these documents
3 that were on the flash drive?
4 MR. WARREN: Yes. I did obtain them since August
5 26th, yes, Your Honor.
6 THE COURT: Okay. So the notice of motion for
7 default is denied, and the notice of cross-motion is
8 granted. What I need for you to do, Chris, is to contact
9 Kelly in a couple of weeks at 845-2146. Get a copy of --
10 well, give her about 30 days. Because there's the decision
11 from -- there's the entire transcript from August 26th, as
12 well as today. You need to attach that to an order. You
13 got to give that order to Dan, have Dan sign off on it. If
14 there's an issue, then you guys contact me. I believe that
15 covers everything that's in front of this Court; is that
16 correct, Dan?
17 MR. WARREN: I believe so, Your Honor.
18 THE COURT: Is that correct, Chris?
19 MR. TRAPP: Yes, sir.
20 THE COURT: Okay. I know you made an application
21 as well for costs and basically saying the petition is
22 frivolous. It wasn't frivolous when it went to Judge Siwek.
23 There was corrections that were made. I wouldn't say it's
24 frivolous. I'd say it's community concern on the part -- I
25 don't really see anybody else here objecting. I don't even
KELLY A. RINEHART
24 of 25
91
25
1 know if you're in the zone, Dan, with regards to how close
2 you are with regards to this area. That's why I don't want
3 to get into the merits of it. But I'm not going to grant
4 costs, but I'm not sure if this was in front of somebody
5 else that they wouldn't. Or if it goes back up in the
6 Fourth Department whether or not they'll grant costs. So
7 I'm just going to leave it at that. All that will be the in
8 the transcript. So that's my decision. You guys have a
9 great day.
10 MR. WARREN: Thank you, Your Honor.
11 MR. TRAPP: Thank you.
12 * * *
13 C E R T I F I C A T I O N
14
15 I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate
16 transcription of the proceeding.
17
18
19 ___________________________
KELLY A. RINEHART,
20 Official Court Reporter.
21
22
23
24
25
KELLY A. RINEHART
25 of 25
92
Transcript of Oral Argument held on August 26, 2022

COUNTY OF ERIE : PART 15
__________________________________________

30 AND 78,
DANIEL T. WARREN,
Petitioner,
- vs - INDEX # 808016/2022

AS ITS PRESIDENT.
Respondents.
__________________________________________
25 Delaware Avenue
Buffalo, New York
August 26, 2022
B e f o r e:

Petitioner.

Appearing for The Planning Board of the Town of
Respondents.
J. MICHAEL LENNON, ESQ.,

KELLY A. RINEHART
1 of 18
93
1 THE COURT: This is the matter of Dan Warren,
2 Petitioner, against the Planning Board of the Town of West
3 Seneca, et al, Index Number 808016/2022. Do you guys want
4 to approach your respective tables here, please. So I know
5 initially -- counsel, state your name for the record.
6 MR. LENNON: Your Honor, J. Michael Lennon of the
7 Cosgrove Law Firm on behalf of Respondent, Canisius High
8 School. I expect that Mr. Trapp will be here as well.
9 THE COURT: Okay. So we're waiting for Mr. Trapp?
10 MR. LENNON: Yes, sir.
11 THE COURT: Want to say your name.
12 MR. WARREN: My name is Daniel Warren. I'm the
13 Petitioner, pro se.
14 THE COURT: Let me ask you this: As you know, you
15 had initially, Mr. Warren, sent me an Order to Show Cause
16 with a temporary restraining order, and I put a date on it
17 of September 28th at 10:30, and I struck out the clause
18 dealing with the preliminary injunction. I then received
19 some information from you, another Order to Show Cause with
20 a restraining notice basically stating that they had started
21 work, and you wanted to hear that sooner. But then I
22 noticed in your -- also in that paperwork, you asked the
23 Court, hey, if you want to do the entire thing rather than
24 waiting until September, we can do that. So I guess my
25 question to you is I received responding papers through your
KELLY A. RINEHART
2 of 18
94
1 Order to Show Cause that's for today, but I don't think
2 you've had an opportunity to look at those or respond,
3 correct?
4 MR. WARREN: I have, Your Honor.
5 THE COURT: Did you respond?
6 MR. WARREN: Yes, I did, Your Honor. I filed a
7 Reply Memorandum of Law around 10:30 yesterday morning.
8 THE COURT: Okay. Do you guys just want to hear
9 the whole thing now with regards to -- rather than waiting
10 until September 28th, or do you want me to just rule on
11 whether or not I'm going to give an injunction to halt work?
12 You tell me.
13 MR. WARREN: Your Honor, I was expecting just to
14 argue whether or not a -- to halt work today.
15 THE COURT: Okay. And keep the other date on for
16 September?
18 THE COURT: Okay. So I've read all the paperwork.
19 I literally went through not only the one in September but
20 the other one that you just filed. I went through the
21 responses. What do you want to tell me with regards to just
22 the issue of your ask for an injunction to halt work?
23 MR. WARREN: Yes, Your Honor. As Your Honor is
24 aware, this is -- one of the causes of action is the
25 adequacy of the State Environmental Quality Review that the
KELLY A. RINEHART
3 of 18
95
1 Planning Board and the municipal respondents have done in
2 this action. It is my position -- also, procedurally, I
3 filed this the day after they gave final approval, so I
4 didn't wait to challenge this. I asked on June 21st whether
5 or not they're going to start work, was there any permits
6 issued, whatever. I kept asking. I ultimately found out
7 that a permit was issued on July 25th. I just happened to
8 be driving by that location, and I noticed construction
9 equipment on it. I then sent another E-mail. I said, you
10 know, I noticed there's equipment there. Are you guys
11 willing to either agree to a shorter date or promise me that
12 there's going to be no work until a final decision on the
13 whole proceeding is done. I got negative responses in
14 response to my inquiry. Hence, I brought this motion to
15 seek interim relief to prevent them from changing that
16 property before a full and adequate state environmental
17 review can be done. It is my position that this is a type
18 one action which carries with it a presumption that a
19 positive declaration should be issued. And I would also
20 argue that since the Environmental Rights Amendment was
21 enacted back in January, I believe it's even more imperative
22 because -- now because of that amendment to the State
23 Constitution, I think the area should be preserved until all
24 questions regarding that environmental review is resolved on
25 the merits.
KELLY A. RINEHART
4 of 18
96
1 Also, Your Honor, if they allowed -- if they're
2 allowed to proceed and they substantially complete it before
3 our return date, there's case law out that saying that I
4 don't get my review. That it becomes moot. So I believe
5 that -- so in order to preserve my right to have that action
6 reviewed and to protect the environment in the meantime,
7 either a preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining
8 order at least until September 28th when this Court has the
9 ability to rule completely on the merits after full
10 briefing. As of this point, the certified record from the
11 respondents haven't even been filed. So I believe that
12 everything in the verified petition and my affidavit should
13 be deemed true and I'd be given every favorable inference in
14 this regard.
15 THE COURT: That's why I asked you from the
16 beginning is if you want me to rule on the entire thing
17 today or if you wanted to wait until September.
18 MR. WARREN: Your Honor, if the certified record
19 was filed, I believe I would have been prepared to argue the
20 merits today.
21 THE COURT: Okay. Let me ask you this: The whole
22 challenge here is the town's issuance of a negative SEQR,
23 right?
25 THE COURT: Okay. And you were with Judge Siwek, I
KELLY A. RINEHART
5 of 18
97
1 believe all of you, not too long ago where Judge Siwek said
2 that there wasn't compliance with GML 239-m, correct?
3 MR. WARREN: Correct, Your Honor. And that's
4 also -- I don't believe they have yet to comply with that as
5 well.
6 THE COURT: And she's got here that -- well, I
7 guess I could ask. Was -- and I'll ask this to either Chris
8 or to counsel. Was a full statement -- first of all, Chris,
9 state your name for the record.
10 MR. TRAPP: It's Chris Trapp on behalf of the Town
11 of West Seneca and the Planning Board.
12 THE COURT: Okay. So was a full statement of
13 proposed action as defined by GML 239-m(i) sent, and did
14 they submit per Judge Siwek's ruling to Erie County Division
15 of Planning all materials that they relied upon to make its
16 determination under SEQR pursuant to Town Law 274-a(9)?
17 MR. TRAPP: All the records relative to the
18 issuance of the decision by the county were sent to the
19 county. Procedurally what the Court said was, look it, you
20 did the site plan review with a neg dec at the same time.
21 The statute refers to doing the neg dec, if that's the way
22 the decision was coming out, then you submit that, plus
23 everything again to the county for the county to decide.
24 That was done.
25 THE COURT: So referral was done, and there was a
KELLY A. RINEHART
6 of 18
98
1 new determination on Petitioner's site plan review
2 application?
3 MR. TRAPP: Correct, Your Honor. You'll see
4 actually there were three letters -- there were three --
5 ultimately three submissions to the County Department of
6 Environment and Planning. You will see the E-mails back
7 from them where they're reiterating they have nothing to add
8 to this matter, and as far as they were concerned, it was
9 concluded. They were given the 30 days after the
10 declaration on the SEQR to render that decision again.
11 That's why the SEQR determination was made on June 9th.
12 More than a month elapsed, and the decision on the site plan
13 was on July 14th. We had heard from the county. That was
14 what we were required to do.
15 THE COURT: Okay.
16 MR. WARREN: Your Honor, if I may on that issue?
17 THE COURT: Yes.
18 MR. WARREN: As alleged in the verified petition, I
19 personally inspected the records of the Erie County
20 Department of Environmental Planning on July 6th, and at
21 that time their file was literally this thick. It should be
22 close to about the certified record that it should be. I
23 know just what -- based on my submissions. They're required
24 to submit to the Erie County Department of Environment
25 Planning everything that they based their SEQRA
KELLY A. RINEHART
7 of 18
99
1 determination on, and I allege in the petition based on my
2 personal review of that file, that was not the case.
3 THE COURT: Okay. But the county is not objecting,
4 right?
5 MR. WARREN: The county never does because the
6 county doesn't know what they base their determination on,
7 and that was the problem in the first proceeding, Your
8 Honor.
9 THE COURT: The first proceeding when?
10 MR. WARREN: Before Judge Siwek.
11 THE COURT: Okay. Chris.
12 MR. TRAPP: Your Honor, if I may, since I've been
13 doing Municipal Law for 40 years, to say that the county
14 never objects is just not accurate. Number two, they were
15 sent a flash drive. I have no idea what the county does
16 with it or what they supply. All I can tell you is you have
17 the affidavit from the code enforcement officer on behalf of
18 the Planning Board. Everything was sent. In fact, there's
19 a list of everybody they responded to and sent information
20 out as part of his affidavit under Exhibit H. Everything
21 was sent.
22 THE COURT: And you're saying -- yeah, that was on
23 a flash drive, correct?
24 MR. TRAPP: Correct.
25 THE COURT: What's being built now? What is it,
KELLY A. RINEHART
8 of 18
100
1 the diamonds?
2 MR. LENNON: It's baseball diamonds, Your Honor.
3 THE COURT: The football field in?
4 MR. LENNON: That was in subject to -- that was put
5 in I think it's about eight years ago, Judge. And
6 Mr. Warren objected to that as well, and the Appellate
7 Division ruled in Canisius's favor.
8 THE COURT: That was a prior decision in 2009 where
9 they determined that the ZBA and the SEQR was proper and
10 correct?
11 MR. LENNON: Yes.
12 THE COURT: Okay. So, Mr. Warren, are you saying
13 now that based on the phase two and phase three plan, that
14 now that the SEQR was -- that SEQR review is not -- was not
15 fully done now?
16 MR. WARREN: Your Honor, as alleged in the
17 petition, prior to the completion of phase one, the prior
18 last major flooding event in that area was 1979. Since the
19 completion of phase one, the flooding events have increased
20 in intensity and frequency in that area.
21 THE COURT: And how do we know that that's related
22 to what has been done or what's already been ruled on by the
23 Appellate Division in 2009? How do we know that that's the
24 process for it?
25 MR. WARREN: That's just my point, Your Honor. In
KELLY A. RINEHART
9 of 18
101
10
1 order to issue a negative SEQR declaration now, it's
2 incumbent upon the municipality to prove that there will be
3 no environmental issues. In my opinion, they have not done
4 that. And, again, Your Honor, if I had the certified
5 record, I could probably make a better argument.
6 THE COURT: So you're looking for a further
7 environmental review because you're saying the procedure was
8 not followed by the Planning Board, such as open meetings,
9 majority vote when I have affidavits saying the minutes show
10 that a majority was present, but that's one of the issues
11 you're complaining of, correct?
12 MR. WARREN: My contention is not the majority vote
13 as far as what was done. It was a majority vote on the
14 record beginning the SEQRA process designating themselves as
15 lead agency and beginning the SEQRA process. It's my
16 contention that the code enforcement's actions -- officer's
17 actions were ultra vires because nobody on the board in the
18 minutes authorized him to do anything on behalf of the
19 Planning Board.
20 THE COURT: The town is the lead agency, right?
21 MR. WARREN: No, the Planning Board is, Your Honor.
22 THE COURT: Is the Planning Board the lead agency
23 on this or is the town?
24 MR. TRAPP: The town has designated the Planning
25 Board as the agency for purposes of all SEQR determinations
KELLY A. RINEHART
10 of 18
102
11
1 and all site plans by statute in the town. We've addressed
2 that material -- that argument in our papers. To say that
3 the code enforcement officer who works with the Planning
4 Board -- and the Planning Board members, as the Court is
5 well aware, these are volunteer citizens who come for the
6 meetings and do the reviews. But the actual day-to-day
7 operations are handled by the code enforcement building
8 department, and it's their job to send out all the
9 materials. That is the way it's done in every municipality
10 throughout the state.
11 THE COURT: All right. So the town or the Planning
12 Board is the lead agency, correct, right now?
13 MR. TRAPP: Correct.
14 THE COURT: And you're saying that they had a
15 majority of the Board, there was -- notification was sent
16 out to the Army Corps of Engineers, County of Erie,
17 Department of Environmental Conservation, SHPO, and no one
18 ever objected to this, correct?
19 MR. TRAPP: SHPO, Department of Transportation,
20 yeah, everyone. In fact, you'll see the list of everybody
21 that it went to. No one objected. SHPO said, look it, if
22 you happen to find Indian arrows or something on that, then
23 we'll deal with it at that time. But SHPO, Historic
24 Preservation, they make no determinations with regard to the
25 environment beyond Historic Preservation.
KELLY A. RINEHART
11 of 18
103
12
1 THE COURT: So, Mr. Warren, with all these things
2 being sent out to the various agencies, such as the Army
3 Corps of Engineers, the County of Erie, Department of
4 Environmental Conservation, et cetera, no one's objecting,
5 what's the Court to make of that?
6 MR. WARREN: Your Honor, it's my contention no
7 one's objecting is I don't think that they're all getting
8 it, as evidenced as alleged in the verified petition. For
9 example, their letter shows that materials went out to the
10 New York State Department of Transportation. I FOIL'd the
11 New York State Department of Transportation. The response
12 is included in the verified petition. They say they don't
13 have anything on this project. I also did a FOIL request to
14 the US Army Corps of Engineers subsequent to filing this
15 petition, and I was going to put it in my reply, but the
16 only thing that they -- they did not provide -- all the
17 records on this what came from Canisius, not the town. They
18 don't have that town material.
19 THE COURT: What I see in the paperwork is a year
20 and a half review for SEQR; isn't that correct?
22 THE COURT: And then the site plans approved over a
23 month later. County responded they received the info, they
24 responded three times. They're saying that it was done with
25 regards to -- it wasn't paper documents. That basically it
KELLY A. RINEHART
12 of 18
104
13
1 was sent, what, by disc or --
2 MR. TRAPP: Actually a flash drive.
3 THE COURT: A little flash drive.
4 MR. TRAPP: Because the volume of the paperwork
5 that was generated over that period of time, including all
6 of the comments from Mr. Warren which were also included
7 which is what, as you can see from the papers, makes it much
8 thicker than normal.
9 THE COURT: Did you read the affidavit from Jeff
10 Schieber?
11 MR. WARREN: Schieber, yes. Yes, I did, Your
12 Honor.
13 THE COURT: And he states that Judge Siwek's order
14 was followed. On 6/9/22 the project was brought back to the
15 Planning Board for review after previously negating the
16 prior negative declaration. So they negated it, and then
17 they had it reviewed again, and then a reissuance of a
18 negative declaration was done?
19 MR. WARREN: Yes, Your Honor. And that is the
20 SEQRA declaration that's being challenged in this petition.
21 THE COURT: And then the minutes show that each
22 step taken and documents received, the county's
23 acknowledgment of documents, each item addressed
24 Petitioner's concern. They're claiming per the minutes
25 Planning Board's lead agency that was not challenged, and it
KELLY A. RINEHART
13 of 18
105
14
1 was moved to approve and adopt a SEQR negative declaration.
2 So you're saying that that's what was improper?
4 THE COURT: Then they're claiming they followed
5 Judge Siwek's prior ruling, as well as 274-a(9) of the Town
6 Law. The county had no comment with respect to the project,
7 and in July of '22 after all agencies and other departments
8 review were completed, the site plan was then approved.
9 That's why I'm trying to figure out if everybody's approving
10 these, then how is it not proper?
11 MR. WARREN: Again, Your Honor, I don't think that
12 everybody got the materials to even object to one way or the
13 other. For example, the New York State Department of
14 Transportation. If I had time and if the certified records
15 were filed and the answers were filed and I had an
16 opportunity to file a reply, the U.S. Army Corps of
17 Engineers' materials would come in, and they produced
18 nothing from the town. Everything in the U.S. Army Corps of
19 Engineers' files that they produced was from Canisius.
20 THE COURT: I know. But to say that I don't think,
21 I mean, that's kind of speculative, right?
22 MR. WARREN: Well, no. I have their response.
23 Nothing from the town is in there. So how can they respond
24 if they don't have anything in their file from the town?
25 They didn't reply to the town. They replied to Canisius
KELLY A. RINEHART
14 of 18
106
15
1 based on Canisius's submissions, which that was just merely
2 a regulatory review. It was not an environmental review.
3 That review was done to see whether or not the U.S. Army
4 Corps of Engineers had jurisdiction to get involved. So
5 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' determination was only as to
6 their jurisdiction, not the environmental issues.
7 THE COURT: Any response to that, Chris?
8 MR. TRAPP: I'm not sure where to start. Part of
9 the problem is, one, we're not responsible for what kind of
10 response because, of course, it depends on the questions
11 that's being asked in terms of the records what someone else
12 sends out. All I can tell you is what -- we have a factual
13 affidavit from the person who did it who said they sent all
14 the records. And I, quite frankly, went to great lengths
15 with him to make sure he sent out everything, including
16 Petitioner's comments, everything we have received both from
17 Canisius, and our own environmental -- you'll see that James
18 Frick from the Planning Board went line by line through
19 Petitioner's concerns, addressed each and every one of them,
20 and that is part of the record as well. He is on the
21 Planning Board, so that -- the whole question is was there a
22 study, a detailed study of the environmental review. It
23 was. It took place over a span of over a year. The problem
24 here is it doesn't matter how the town could have come out.
25 Unless it was a positive dec, and, quite frankly, I
KELLY A. RINEHART
15 of 18
107
16
1 disagree, it is not a presumption simply because it's a type
2 one action, there's a positive declaration. All it changes
3 is the process a bit in terms of the depth of the review.
4 Type two actions not requiring any review and unlisted, kind
5 of depends on what the situation is. But simply because
6 it's type one under SEQR doesn't mean it must be a positive
7 dec. That's all Mr. Warren wants is a positive declaration.
8 He said that after Judge Siwek's court proceedings that if
9 it wasn't going to be a positive dec, we're going to be
10 standing here again, and we are.
11 THE COURT: Well, I think everybody agrees that the
12 project meets the definition of a type one, right?
14 MR. TRAPP: No disagreement. It's actually been
15 recognized in the minutes as being a type one, which is why
16 they went through all of the paperwork, and why they did all
17 the reviews. We have the report -- everything has been
18 raised here by Petitioner, regardless of whether in our view
19 it's relevant or not, which is why you see the affidavits
20 from the engineers who also did the study as part of the
21 SEQR review, and as -- subsequently as part of the new
22 arguments raised by Petitioner about the Oxbow area and
23 everything else. That's why you see those affidavits, Your
24 Honor. They wanted to say, look it, all of this stuff was
25 done, or it's irrelevant.
KELLY A. RINEHART
16 of 18
108
17
1 THE COURT: All right. Anything further,
2 Mr. Warren?
3 MR. WARREN: Yes, Your Honor. I don't think it's
4 appropriate at this point in time in the absence of a
5 certified record and answers and full briefing to make a
6 decision on the merits. And, again, I differ with
7 Mr. Trapp. It carries the presumption that a positive
8 declaration needs to be had on a type one project such as
9 this. My contention is is in order to issue a negative
10 declaration on a type one process, they have to carry the
11 burden of proving that no environmental issues are there, or
12 that they are adequately mitigated; and it's my contention
13 that they have not.
14 THE COURT: All right. Well, like I said, what
15 you're seeking here is some injunctive relief to stop them.
16 Like I said, I've reviewed the entire record. I understand
17 what you're saying about a certified record or further
18 argument in September. But what I see is a lot of
19 conclusory or speculative statements that can't be the basis
20 to grant the relief that you're seeking, especially an
21 injunction. And I think the entrusted county, local, and
22 state agencies, what I see in the responses and in the
23 affidavits from Mr. Tanner, Mr. Schieber, I have architect
24 and engineers that have submitted affidavits that have been
25 working on this project, and having that review for over 16
KELLY A. RINEHART
17 of 18
109
18
1 months entrusted county, local, and state agencies did
2 reviews. There's no objections or any issues have been
3 raised. And so, I mean, I'll allow this to continue to
4 September if you so wish, but I'm not going to grant a --
5 what you're seeking now based on that work has been done to
6 halt and stop work. As I said, I've already reviewed
7 everything which is why I can actually -- I feel comfortable
8 giving a decision on the whole merits now, but if that's not
9 something you want to do, that's fine. I can wait until
10 September 28th. Okay. So as far as the Order to Show Cause
11 that was put down for today to seek some sort of stoppage of
12 the work that's going on there, that's denied. And then we
13 can hear the entire Order to Show Cause on September 28th at
14 10:30. All right?
16 MR. LENNON: Thank you, Your Honor.
17 * * *
19
22
23
24 ___________________________
KELLY A. RINEHART,
KELLY A. RINEHART
18 of 18
110
Transcript of Oral Argument held on January 26, 2023

COUNTY OF ERIE : PART 15 MICROSOFT TEAMS
__________________________________________

30 AND 78,
DANIEL T. WARREN,
Petitioner,
- vs - INDEX # 808016/2022

AS ITS PRESIDENT.
Respondents.
__________________________________________
25 Delaware Avenue
Buffalo, New York
January 26, 2023
B e f o r e:

Petitioner.

Appearing for the Planning Board of the Town of
Respondents.
JAMES COSGROVE, ESQ.,

KELLY A. RINEHART
1 of 14
111
1 THE COURT: This is the Petitioner Dan Warren's
2 motion for settlement of the record on appeal against the
3 Planning Board of the Town of West Seneca, et al., Index
4 Number 808016/2022. Counsel, state your name for the
5 record, and then Petitioner state your name.
6 MR. TRAPP: Chris Trapp on behalf of the Planning
7 Board and the Town of West Seneca.
8 MR. COSGROVE: James Cosgrove from the Office of
9 Edward C. Cosgrove for Canisius High School.
10 MR. WARREN: Dan Warren, Petitioner, pro se.
11 THE COURT: Dan, I've read the paperwork. I have
12 the paperwork from Mr. Trapp, as well as from Mike Lennon
13 really just affirming and going with what Chris Trapp is
14 saying. Do you want to place something on the record with
15 regards to the -- I think it's really four areas, right,
16 that you're seeking or is it three areas? Three areas.
17 MR. WARREN: Your Honor, I believe it's the -- it's
18 either the three or the four that were spelled out in my
19 moving papers. There's the issue about whether or not to
20 include the three Memoranda of Law.
21 THE COURT: Right.
22 MR. WARREN: There's the issue of the notice to
23 admit, and there's the issue of the proof of the judicial
24 subpoena. And there's the area of the various -- I think
25 there's three or four documents that were referenced in one
KELLY A. RINEHART
2 of 14
112
1 of the affidavits. But basically, Your Honor, it's my
2 position that they were before the Court. They should be
3 included in the record on appeal for the reasons set forth
4 in my papers.
5 THE COURT: All right. Let's take the notice to
6 admit first. Mr. Trapp in his responding papers says that
7 he did reply to the notice to admit, and the notice to admit
8 was not even before me as part of the original proceedings
9 and not mentioned anywhere in the order or any judgment
10 signed by the Court.
11 MR. WARREN: Your Honor, as stated, it's referenced
12 in the transcript of the oral argument. Even during the
13 oral argument, it was my position that his response was due
14 the day before the return date as set forth in CPLR 408 and
15 3123. Mr. Trapp did serve a response, but it was after Your
16 Honor announced the decision from the bench. So I believe
17 that -- and he served them without seeking either an
18 extension or leave to serve an untimely response. So, I
19 mean, I really don't think it's -- if Mr. Trapp wants his
20 response included in the record on appeal, and he can make
21 whatever arguments as to whether or not it should be
22 admitted or not before the Appellate Court, I have no
23 objections to that, Your Honor.
24 THE COURT: Okay. Did I not touch on that? I
25 mean, I've had many cases since then. Did I not touch on
KELLY A. RINEHART
3 of 14
113
1 that? Are we talking about the notice to admit under Rule
2 202.8-g? Is that what we're dealing with here?
3 MR. WARREN: No. We're dealing with the notice to
4 admit under CPLR 3123 and 408.
5 THE COURT: Okay. All right. Because I thought we
6 had talked about something -- it might not have been this
7 case, about statements of material facts and how this Court
8 really doesn't bind the parties to that; but that may or may
9 not be the issue. Chris, what's your response with regards
10 to the notice to admit?
11 MR. TRAPP: A couple things, Your Honor. One, if
12 you look at all of the exhibits contained with respect to
13 all of the motions, you'll never find that notice to admit
14 anywhere in anything. It was never presented to the Court.
15 It was never, you know, part of any of the exhibits that
16 were submitted to the Court on any of the motions. It
17 simply was not considered, and; therefore, is not
18 appropriate for the Appellate Division. What Mr. Warren is
19 trying to do is add additional documents that weren't before
20 Your Honor when you made your decision.
21 THE COURT: He mentions that it was mentioned in
22 the transcript of the argument. I don't recall if that was
23 the case or not, but why would that have been mentioned?
24 MR. TRAPP: One, I don't recall it being mentioned.
25 I haven't read through all the transcripts, but mentioning
KELLY A. RINEHART
4 of 14
114
1 that it exists is not the same thing as having it in front
2 of the Court.
3 THE COURT: Right. Okay. Let's take the next one
4 with regards to the memorandums.
5 MR. WARREN: Your Honor, it's my position and I
6 cite a Fourth Department case actually where it was the Town
7 of West Seneca that was seeking to include the Memoranda of
8 Law in a record on appeal, and the Appellate Division stated
9 in that decision that Memoranda of Law can be included in
10 the record on appeal for the limited purposes of
11 establishing that various issues were preserved down below,
12 and that is my intent on the three Memoranda of Law.
13 Additionally, one of the Memoranda of Law, I believe it was
14 the very first one, was included as an exhibit on the motion
15 for preliminary injunction. So it was -- I mean, there's no
16 doubt that they were filed, they were considered by the
17 Court; and they were the basis of the oral argument. And I
18 believe that they should be included in the record on appeal
19 for the limited purposes of showing that those issues were
20 raised before the Court.
21 THE COURT: Chris.
22 MR. TRAPP: Mr. Warren is correct that if something
23 wasn't raised in the papers but raised in the Memoranda of
24 Law as having an additional issue preserved for purposes of
25 an appeal, that under those limited circumstances, a
KELLY A. RINEHART
5 of 14
115
1 Memoranda of Law can come in. But what you haven't heard is
2 precisely what issue was raised in the Memoranda of Law that
3 wasn't raised in the papers. As the Court is well aware,
4 the volume of papers submitted by Petitioner were gigantic,
5 and he has reiterated everything in his affidavits and with
6 all of his exhibits. There's nothing unique or in need of
7 being preserved for purposes of the appeal that would
8 require something to be included in the record on appeal.
9 Remember, the record -- he has an opportunity to do a brief
10 where he can argue all of the points. What he is trying to
11 do is pile on and have more arguments in front of the Court.
12 A record on appeal isn't supposed to be the argument. The
13 briefs are supposed to be the argument. The record on
14 appeal is supposed to be the factual documents supporting
15 your position for purposes of an appeal. These are not.
16 THE COURT: All right. The next issue we're
17 talking about is the affidavits to be included as well.
18 MR. TRAPP: Your Honor, I think what he's referring
19 to, as he mentioned earlier, the affidavits with regard to
20 the subpoena issued to the County of Erie, that the Court
21 granted that. Neither Jim nor myself have appealed that.
22 It's not even included in the order because we didn't appeal
23 it, we didn't object, and yet he's trying to submit that as
24 well. For what purpose I have no idea, but it wasn't part
25 of the ultimate order and judgment that the Court signed.
KELLY A. RINEHART
6 of 14
116
1 THE COURT: Was that the subpoena, Dan, that I
2 granted showing what records were sent to the environmental
3 board?
4 MR. WARREN: Yes. Yes, Your Honor. And it is my
5 position that it is appropriate to be -- the proof of the
6 service of the judicial subpoena, I believe it's document
7 number 117, is appropriate for the record on appeal because
8 as reflected in the transcript of the September 28th
9 arguments on this matter, I respectfully request -- because
10 the documents were not delivered in compliance with the
11 subpoena, I asked for time to obtain compliance with the
12 subpoena prior to ruling. So it's my position that they did
13 not, number one, submit all the required documents under
14 239-m to the Department of Environment and Planning, and I
15 should have been afforded an opportunity to get all those
16 records there to demonstrate that; and I did not have that
17 opportunity. So that is why -- that is my position as to
18 why that document, the proof of the service, together with I
19 believe it has appended to it the judicial subpoena to show
20 that it was duly served in time, and I should have been
21 afforded that opportunity. That's going to be one of my
22 arguments on appeal.
23 MR. TRAPP: Your Honor, but nobody appealed it.
24 THE COURT: Hold on a second. I thought my
25 recollection was I signed the subpoena and then there was an
KELLY A. RINEHART
7 of 14
117
1 adjournment, and when I came back -- when we came back for
2 argument, I actually said that -- because everything was on
3 disks. It was on disk, and I actually looked at the disk.
4 It wasn't in paper format. I think one of the arguments
5 initially from the defendants or the respondents was that,
6 listen, I don't have all the paperwork in front of me, you
7 know. I signed the subpoena, and I said, yeah, I wanted to
8 see what, in fact, they looked at in order to do this
9 environmental review, and because they didn't have the
10 physical paperwork for it, they actually had everything on
11 disk and they sent it in and answered the subpoena saying
12 this is what we presented which was more than enough which
13 is why in my decision I said that they did supply -- that
14 was one facet I think, Dan, of your whole argument is that
15 they didn't have the right documentation.
16 MR. WARREN: Correct, Your Honor. And subsequent
17 to oral argument, I received a call from chambers that more
18 documents were received from the county, and I was
19 instructed to pick them up, and I do have them. And the
20 thing on the thing, it was received after oral argument and
21 Your Honor issued your decision.
22 THE COURT: I don't think it was after oral
23 argument. I think you got the documents, and I commented on
24 the fact that you picked them up, but I granted that. I
25 hear what you're saying. You're saying that, yeah, you
KELLY A. RINEHART
8 of 14
118
1 granted the subpoena, I got the documents, but you're
2 arguing that you need more time in order to -- did you
3 review what was on the disks?
4 MR. WARREN: At the time of oral argument, Your
5 Honor, I did not have access to whatever material was
6 produced to make whatever argument I would have made.
7 THE COURT: I thought I ruled on that though and
8 said that the documents -- it was one aspect of the entire
9 argument, and I thought I ruled on that already and said --
10 I don't have the transcript in front of me, but said that
11 what was submitted did comply with the environmental review
12 because what was submitted was a disk, not hard papers, and
13 it covered all areas. Go ahead, Chris.
14 MR. TRAPP: Your Honor, if I may, Mr. Warren was
15 given a hard copy of the papers, everything that was on that
16 flash drive. Whether he reviewed them or not, I can't
17 address; but he was given prior to oral arguments the
18 papers. It was a stack of papers probably two or three
19 inches thick. So to say he never got them -- I can't tell
20 you what he got from the county. If he's gotten things from
21 the county afterwards, he's never shared them with our
22 office or even advised us until today that he got anything
23 else from the county so that we could say, oh, wait a
24 minute, you already got those things, those are duplicate
25 copies. Today he's saying for the very first time that, oh,
KELLY A. RINEHART
9 of 14
119
10
1 I got other papers after oral argument from the county. I
2 didn't share that with anybody, I didn't tell anybody, but
3 now I'm going to say that I didn't have them at the time
4 when, indeed, he did have everything that was submitted.
5 It's troublesome.
6 THE COURT: All right. Does that cover all of
7 them, Dan?
8 MR. WARREN: I believe so, Your Honor.
9 THE COURT: Okay.
10 MR. TRAPP: Your Honor, if I may?
11 THE COURT: Yes.
12 MR. TRAPP: Just on one other thing just for
13 clarification purposes. Because Mr. Warren filed a motion
14 for interim relief with the Appellate Division, and for
15 order of a calendar preference and for waiving the
16 requirement of the certified record, all three of those
17 issue were decided by the Appellate Division. They denied
18 his request for another preliminary injunction as interim
19 relief, although he took the position in response to one of
20 my issues raised in terms of the timing and getting an
21 extension of time indicating that he didn't request interim
22 relief which preliminary injunction is interim relief. And
23 the Court also denied without prejudice his order for a
24 calendar preference, but the Court also denied his request
25 for a requirement waiving the requirement of the certified
KELLY A. RINEHART
10 of 14
120
11
1 record. Part of my concern is he submitted, quite frankly,
2 an entire brief and what he considered to be the entire
3 record on appeal as an exhibit on his motion papers. In
4 those papers he submitted to the Appellate Division, he also
5 included he needed more documents, including matters which
6 were in front of Judge Ward on a subsequent and tried to
7 sneak those in as papers on this appeal, which, Your Honor,
8 you never saw. And you never saw them because they were
9 subsequent to the decision, and we have a real concern that
10 that's going to happen again. He's going to try to sneak
11 even more papers in. We have taken the position in our
12 affidavit, look, if it's included in the order, and as the
13 Court can see it's a rather lengthy order, all the papers
14 are listed, we don't have an issue with that. Obviously the
15 notice of appeal, the 5531 statement, et cetera, those go in
16 as just part of a normal record on appeal; but he's trying
17 to sneak in all this other stuff. It's not like there isn't
18 enough already there for the Appellate Division, but we have
19 a real concern with what he's going to do.
20 THE COURT: Well, once we settle the record on
21 appeal, isn't that something where then both of you are
22 going to have to sign off on it?
23 MR. TRAPP: Yes, Your Honor, and hopefully that
24 will resolve the matter.
25 THE COURT: Dan, once I make a decision today,
KELLY A. RINEHART
11 of 14
121
12
1 you're going to get your record on appeal together. You're
2 going to send it to Chris. He's got to sign off on it. If
3 there's an issue, I'll probably hear from you again. If
4 there's no issue, then we're good, right?
6 THE COURT: Okay. All right. So here's how I'm
7 going to rule with regards to the motion to settle the
8 record. With regards to the notice to admit, the documents
9 that I looked through basically I didn't really have the
10 notice to admit before me in the original proceeding, and I
11 don't believe it's in the order; so the notice to admit is
12 not in. With regards to the Memorandum of Law, under the
13 case really of Byrd, B-Y-R-D, 90 A.D.3d 1648, it's not like
14 it's going to be an argument. It's basically you can add
15 the Memorandums of Law that you're referring to, but it's
16 for the limited purposes of determining whether the
17 contentions on appeal are preserved. And then with regards
18 to the affidavits and the subpoenas, the judicial subpoena,
19 proof of service, that is also denied. It's quite simple.
20 What basically is in the order, even if there's something
21 mentioned briefly in the transcript, you got to look at
22 what's in the order and what was filed in that respect. So
23 the only thing that's granted under your aspect is the
24 Memorandum of Law for the limited purposes. So put the
25 record on appeal together, and hopefully you guys sign off
KELLY A. RINEHART
12 of 14
122
13
1 on it, and that's it. So what I need is an order now, a
2 hard copy of an order, with regards to how I ruled today on
3 this motion.
4 MR. WARREN: Okay, Your Honor.
5 THE COURT: All right.
6 MR. TRAPP: Would you like me to submit it or
7 Mr. Warren?
8 THE COURT: You can submit it on approval by Dan.
9 MR. TRAPP: Okay.
10 THE COURT: So it's only the one out of the three.
11 And don't try to sneak anything in, Dan, other than what's
12 in there, okay?
13 MR. WARREN: Okay, Your Honor.
14 THE COURT: All right. Have a good day.
15 MR. WARREN: Thank you, Your Honor.
16 MR. COSGROVE: Thank you, Your Honor.
17 MR. TRAPP: Thank you.
18 THE COURT: Take it easy. I should have probably
19 asked, Jim, is there anything you want to add?
20 MR. COSGROVE: Judge, Mr. Trapp did a wonderful job
21 and we're all set. Thank you.
22 THE COURT: Have a good day. Take care.
23 (Proceedings concluded at 10:22 a.m.)
24
25
KELLY A. RINEHART
13 of 14
123
14
1 * * *
8 ___________________________
KELLY A. RINEHART,
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KELLY A. RINEHART
14 of 14
124
Order to Show Cause dated July 18, 2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 25
1 of 4
125
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 25
2 of 4
126
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 25
3 of 4
127
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 25
4 of 4
128
Verified Petition/Complaint

SUPREME COURT :
: Index # _______________
:
For a Judgment Pursuant to CPLR Articles 30 : VERIFIED PETITION/COMPLAINT
and 78, :
:
Daniel T. Warren :
Petitioner, :
Against :
:
Seneca, :
:
Town of West Seneca, New York, :
:
its President. :
Respondents :
:
Petitioner, Daniel T. Warren, respectfully alleges as follows:
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Article VI, § 7 of the NY
Constitution and CPLR §§ 301, 3001, 7801; Public Officers Law § 107; and Town Law §
274-a(11).
2. Venue is proper in Erie County based on CPLR §§ 503, 504, 506(b), 7804(b) as hereinafter
more fully appears.
3. Pursuant to Town Law § 274-a(13) “All issues addressed by the court in any proceeding
under this section shall have preference over all civil actions and proceedings.”
PARTIES
4. Petitioner, Daniel T. Warren, is a natural person, residing at 836 Indian Church Road, West
Seneca, State of New York. Petitioner Warren’s property is located within 1,000 feet
1 of 59
129
outside of the 100 year flood plain of which the subject parcel is located within.
5. Petitioner is a taxpayer in the Town of West Seneca, County of Erie and State of New
York and is liable to pay New York State Income Taxes, Town and County taxes on
property with an assessed value of more than $1,000.00, and sales taxes on all purchases
made within the State of New York.
6. Petitioner is a registered voter in the Town of West Seneca, County of Erie and State of
New York
7. Respondent Planning Board of the Town of West Seneca constitutes and acts as the
Planning Board of the Town of West Seneca pursuant to the provisions of the Town Code
of the Town of West Seneca (hereinafter “Planning Board”) (West Seneca Town Code
Chapters 28 and 102).
8. Pursuant to West Seneca Town Code 102-3[A] the planning board only has the authority to
“review and approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove plans that require site plan
approval under this chapter.”
9. Respondent Planning Board consists of seven members (West Seneca Town Code § 28-1).
10. Respondent Planning Board is a "local agency" (as said term is defined in ECL § 8-
0105[2]; 6 NYCRR § 617.2[w]).
11. Respondent Planning Board is a “public body” (as said term is defined in Public Officers
Law § 102(2)).
12. Respondent Town of West Seneca is a municipality located in Erie County, New York
(hereinafter “Town”).
13. Respondent Town is a "local agency" (as said term is defined in ECL § 8-0105[2]; 6
NYCRR § 617.2[w]).
2 of 59
130
14. Respondent Town is an “agency” (as said term is defined in Public Officers Law § 86(3)).
15. Respondent Town maintains a regularly and routinely updated website and utilizes a high
speed internet connection at the URL of http://www.westseneca.net/
16. Respondent Planning Board utilizes Respondent Town’s website at the URL of
http://www.westseneca.net/government/planning-board#gsc.tab=0
17. Respondent Planning Board posts its agendas and minutes at the URL of
http://www.westseneca.net/government/planning-board-minutes#gsc.tab=0
18. Respondent Planning Board post materials as to each agenda item through the use of
hyperlinks as demonstrated for the agenda of planning board meeting for April 14, 2022
which is available at the URL of http://www.westseneca.net/government/planning-board-
minutes/planning-board-meeting-30#gsc.tab=0 ).
19. Respondent Town post materials as to each agenda item through the use of hyperlinks as
demonstrated for the agenda of town board meeting for June 6, 2022 which is available at
the URL of http://www.westseneca.net/government/town-board-agendas-minutes/town-
board-meeting-70#gsc.tab=0 ).
20. The West Seneca Bee has been designated by the West Seneca Town Board as the Official
Newspaper pursuant to Town Law § 64(11).
21. Respondent Canisius High School a/k/a The Canisius High School of Buffalo, New York
is an unincorporated association and Fr. David Ciancimino, S.J. is its President (hereinafter
“Canisius”)
22. Respondent Canisius has a principal place of business located at 1180 Delaware Ave., in
the City of Buffalo, County of Erie and State of New York.
23. Respondent Canisius is the owner of 2448 and 2885 Clinton Street, West Seneca, New
3 of 59
131
York (hereinafter “Subject Parcel”).
24. Respondent Canisius is the “applicant” and “project sponsor” as those terms are defined in
6 NYCRR § 617.2[d] & [ae].
FACTS
25. Respondent Canisius acquired the Subject Parcel on July 20, 2005, according to a deed
filed in the Erie County Clerk’s Officer in Book of Deeds 11098, Page 2759.
26. The Subject Parcel is approximately 2,000 feet from the Petitioner Warren’s property.
27. The Lexington Green berm is closer to Petitioner’s property than the Subject Parcel.
28. The Subject Parcel is within 236 feet of wetlands at the nearest point and approximately
1,200 feet of them at its farthest point.
29. Petitioner Warren’s property is located within 1,000 feet outside of the 100 year flood
plain of which the Subject Parcel and Lexington Green berm are located within.
30. Respondent Canisius’ proposed project is within 500 feet of a “the right-of-way of any
existing or proposed county or state parkway, thruway, expressway, road or highway” and
is therefore required to be referred to the county planning agency or regional planning
council pursuant to General Municipal Law § 239-m[3][b][iii].
31. According to a report entitled “FLOOD PLAIN IN FORMATION BUFFALO CREEK
N.Y. IN THE TOWNS OF ELMA AND WEST SENECA MAIN REPORT AND
TECHNICAL APPENDIX” produced by the U.S Army Corps of Engineers in April 1966
(Reprinted June 1971) it was stated:
Storm sewer design should include the effects of high tailwater caused by flooding
conditions. Whenever possible storm water from high ground should be carried in a
separate system from the storm water of the flood plain. This prevents additional
water from affecting the low areas at times when the storm sewers are affected by
high tailwater. (Page 22-23).
4 of 59
132
Damages to future development can be prevented by flood plain management. This

consists of exercising control over the land lying adjacent to the river that is subject
to flooding. The need for flood plain planning along Buffalo Creek has been
recognized by local interests before the flood plain is extensively developed. This
flood plain information study can provide the data on which flood plain
management can be based. Future damages in the study area can be reduced or
eliminated, at little or no cost to the taxpayer, by the legislation of flood plain
regulations which prevent developments of a type or in areas which would make
them subject to damage. At the same time these regulations should encourage and
promote the maximum effective use of the flood plain area by developments which
sustain a minimum of damage. (Page 26)
(
http://www.westseneca.net/application/files/5215/8325/1122/Army_Corps_of_Eng
ineers_-_Buffalo_Creek_Report_-_1966.pdf )
32. According to a report entitled “Flood Plain Management Planning Assistance For The
Town of West Seneca New York - BUFFALO CREEK” produced by the U.S Army Corps
of Engineers in September 1979 it was stated:
In addition to overbank flooding, the area has a groundwater flooding

problem. Prior to 1950 Buffalo Creek meandered through the Lexington
Green area. The U.S. Soil Conservation Service constructed a sediment
control project in the area in the mid-50's which consisted of
channelizing the creek, cutting off oxbows and installing grade and
erosion control structures. The purpose of the project was to reduce
sedimentation in the navigable portions of the Buffalo River and
Buffalo Harbor. The "old" channel was filled with gravel and excavated
material from the new channels. These old channels, on which the
subdivision is built, are susceptible to heavy groundwater flows when
the creek is high.
(
http://www.westseneca.net/application/files/3615/8325/1155/Army_Cor
ps_of_Engineers_-_Buffalo_Creek_Report_-_1979.pdf )
33. Groundwater flooding occurs when the natural underground drainage system cannot drain
rainfall away quick enough, causing the water table to rise above the ground surface.
Therefore, anything that raises the level of the water table will cause an increase in
frequency and/or severity of groundwater flooding.
5 of 59
133
34. Respondent Canisius on or about August 16, 2005, represented to the NYS Department of
State, Division of Code Enforcement and Administration that the applicable code that the
Subject Parcel was subject to was for business and storage not educational or residential.
35. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “1” is a true copy of the Full EAF submitted in the
initial project that was submitted on or about August 19, 2005.
36. Respondent Town was the lead agency in this SEQRA proceeding.
37. During the SEQRA process of this initial project it was stated in a submission by
Respondent Canisius dated June 28, 2006, that the "proposed action will use water in
excess of 20,000 gallons per day. (Note: 4,000 gallons per day of water will be used to
irrigate the playing field approximately 30 times per year)"
38. The West Seneca Code Enforcement Officer represented to Petitioner, and others, at a
meeting of the West Seneca Town Board on September 19, 2005, that Respondent
Canisius High School’s intended project for the Subject Parcel was properly zoned under
amusements. According to the Minutes of the September 19, 2005, meeting of the West
Seneca Town Board “Mr. Czuprynski responded that the most common classification the
project fell under was Amusements in a C-1 zoning.”
39. At the West Seneca Town Board Meeting held on October 17, 2005 Petitioners again
raised the issue of the proper zoning necessary for the property. At this time, it appears
that the West Seneca Code Enforcement Officer changed his position and according to the
Minutes of the October 17, 2005 meeting of the West Seneca Town Board “Mr.
Czuprynski advised that it was an accessory use or part of a school.”
40. By letter dated November 7, 2005 from the Erie County Department of Environment and
Planning Respondent Town was advised:
6 of 59
134
a. Since the early documents it reviewed show a Phase II development for this project
and that if, in fact, a Phase II is planned, it should be reviewed under SEQRA with
Phase I to avoid segmentation.
b. Since the project is located within the Buffalo Creek Corridor which is identified
as a Stream Corridor having Countywide Significance within the 1999 “Guiding
Principles for Countywide Land Use Planning” report.
41. On or about April 23, 2007, a building permit was issued for what is now known as Phase
1 of the Canisius Athletic Fields. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “2” is a true copy
of this building permit.
42. On April 23, 2007 the West Seneca Town Board adopted Chapter 102 – Site Plan Review
to the West Seneca Town Code (L.L. No. 4-2007) this local law was filed with the New
York State Department of State on April 26, 2007 and took effect 30 days later.
43. An appeal of the issuance was filed with the West Seneca Zoning Board of Appeals and it
issued a decision on the appeal by decision dated August 3, 2007. Attached hereto and
marked as Exhibit “3” is a true copy of this decision.
44. Since Respondent Canisius had not yet begun to use this property at the time it was issued
the decision was based on its representations of what it would be used for which is not
what it is used for today.
45. On or about February 25, 2008, Petitioner became aware that Respondent Canisius had
submitted plans to Respondent Town that outlined its "Phase 2" of their project for this
property. These plans included 2 baseball diamonds, a lacrosse field a football practice
field and soccer field that were not considered in Respondent Town's prior SEQRA
proceedings which Resulted in the March 2007 Negative Declaration.
7 of 59
135
46. While the current project is very similar to the “Phase 2” plans it is referred to as Phase 3
by Respondent Canisius.
47. By letter dated February 27, 2008, to the Town’s Code Enforcement Officer, Petitioner
requested that Respondent Town re-open the SEQRA proceedings in order to perform a
full Environmental Impact Statement and public hearings prior to any subsequent
approvals on this project.
48. Respondent Town did not reopen the SEQRA process as requested.
49. In or about February 22, 2010, Respondent Town of West Seneca acquired the Oxbow
Property a/k/a Oxbow Lake (2805 Clinton Street) from the Jacobs family with a
conservation easement protecting it in perpetuity as a nature preserve. Studies going back
to the mid-1970s identified the oxbow as a high quality natural area that should be
protected.
50. In 2012, the NYSDEC passed an amendment in Erie County designating approximately
50% of the Oxbow Lake area as Class 2 Freshwater Wetland. Class 2 wetland is defined by
the NYSDEC as a wetland that provides important wildlife habitat and open space benefits
in an urbanized area. “The site supports several New York State “species in conservation
need,” including red-headed woodpeckers and snapping turtles, as well as many wetland
plant species.” ( https://healthylakes.org/success_stories/wetland-restoration-to-improve-
fish-and-wildlife-populations/ ; https://www.dec.ny.gov/animals/59575.html ) 1.
51. According to the Comprehensive Plan for the Town of West Seneca “The Oxbow Wetland
(NYS BU-17) is located in West Seneca between the Buffalo Creek and Clinton Street in
1
All documents referred to in this Verified Petition with a hyperlink is incorporated herein by reference as if they
were attached hereto as an exhibit.
8 of 59
136
the northwestern section of Town. This area is also classified as a federal wetland.” (Page
28,
http://westseneca.net/sites/default/files/WS%202016%20Comprehensive%20Plan%20AD
OPTED(3).pdf ).
52. This area has been classified in the NYSDEC’s “RESILIENT NEW YORK FLOOD
MITIGATION INITIATIVE” as an “HIGH RISK AREA #3: OXBOW LAKE, WEST
SENECA, NY” ( https://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/water_pdf/buffcreekfinal.pdf , page 26).
53. According to the National Wetlands Inventory maintained the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service this wetland is categorized as PUBF ( Palustrine, Unconsolidated Bottom,
Semipermanently Flooded ) and PFO1A ( palustrine forested wetlands ). This is a true and
accurate representation obtain from the National Wetlands Inventory (
https://fwsprimary.wim.usgs.gov/wetlands/apps/wetlands-mapper/ ):
54. The Oxbow Property a/k/a Oxbow Lake (2805 Clinton Street) is approximately 1,000 feet
downstream from the Subject Parcel on the Buffalo Creek.
55. I again raised this issue with Respondent Planning Board by letter dated August 25, 2013.
56. Following the completion of the initial project by Respondent Canisius the area has seen
9 of 59
137
increased frequency in flooding including a major flooding event in January 2014.
57. In an article that appeared in the West Seneca Bee on March 6, 2014, entitled “Town builds
flood wall in Lexington Green neighborhood” it was reported that:
Amid continued flooding concerns in the Lexington Green neighborhood

of West Seneca, crews built a wall of sandbags earlier this week to
bolster the berm behind several homes along Buffalo Creek.
Volunteer employees from Edbauer Construction and Union Concrete

Construction Corp., both of West Seneca, were joined on the project by
members of the West Seneca Engineering Department.
Town officials are hoping the wall may provide a temporary fix for an
area that has been hit with two floods this winter. The project, which will
consist of 3,000 3-foot-square sandbags when finished, was still being
completed at press time.
( https://www.westsenecabee.com/articles/town-builds-flood-wall-in-
lexington-green-neighborhood/ )
58. According to a report entitled “Lexington Green P2#443918” produced by the
U.S Army Corps of Engineers dated 5/24/16 it was stated:
In 2014 the neighborhood experienced two flood events within a six

week span. The first event occurred on the 11th of January. The water
level in Buffalo Creek rose rapidly, increasing by approximately 4.0
feet in 1.5 hours and approximately 4.5 feet in 2.5 hours. The water
level exceeded the banks and flooded the low areas and roads first
which caused water to backup into basements. As water levels rose
damage was done to first floors as well. The second flood event
occurred February 21, 2014. The water once again rose rapidly to reach
major flood stage and receded rapidly as well; returning to below flood
levels in approximately an hour. (Page 8)
[D]uring the period from March 1979 to January 2014, the

neighborhood did not experience any major flood events. (Page 14)
(
http://www.westseneca.net/sites/default/files/Buffalo%20Creek%20Lex
ington%20Green%20West%20Seneca%20NY%20-
%20Determination%20of%20Federal%20Interest%20-%20Final%20(5-
24)(1).pdf )
10 of 59
138
59. This area has a history of water issues, while most people attribute this to ice-jam related
flooding this is not the sole cause of flooding in this area.
60. While the 2014 flooding incidents were attributed to ice jam flooding it is unknown what
role, if any, the groundwater flooding issue contributed to these events.
61. In this report it also noted “In addition to precipitation driven flooding and ice jam
flooding; the old channels under the neighborhood are thought to have a high groundwater
conductivity and connection to the existing creek, potentially providing for a significant
flux of water from the creek to the groundwater beneath the neighborhood. These
groundwater fluxes might contribute to the surcharging of the sanitary sewer and ponding
on the subdivision roads over sanitary sewer manholes (USACE, 1979).”
62. According to a West Seneca Bee article dated July 14, 2016, entitled “Federal funding not
likely for Lexington Green flooding” it was reported:
In 2014, the area experienced two flood events within a six-week span, the
first on Jan. 11 and the second on Feb. 21. Following these events, a
temporary levee was constructed with recycled concrete berms.
Prior to these events, the most recent flood was recorded as occurring in
1979.
( https://www.westsenecabee.com/articles/federal-funding-not-likely-for-
lexington-green-flooding/ )
63. According to a West Seneca Bee article dated February 16, 2017, entitled “Lexington
Green berm removal examined” it was reported:
“Should the town go in, at expense of the taxpayers, again, and remove the
berm?” asked Town Supervisor Sheila Meegan during a recent work
session of the West Seneca Town Board.
The question, posed on behalf of the Lexington Green neighborhood, has

been confounding town officials for the past few months.
11 of 59
139
In July, the board heard findings from the Army Corps of Engineers that a
study to determine potential flood risk management measures concluded
that there is no federal interest in this area of the town.
Since that discovery, the board has been looking for cost-effective
solutions to aid Lexington Green residents with their concerns.
Members of the board are hesitant to move forward with removing the
berm, at a cost to all taxpayers of the town, but they understand that the
berm is no longer serving as a barrier against flooding.
As Town Engineer Steven Tanner explained, whatever protection is

implied provides only a false sense of security.
( https://www.westsenecabee.com/articles/lexington-green-berm-removal-
examined/ )
64. According to the October 22, 2019, minutes of the West Seneca Environmental
Commission Respondent Canisius was making presentations “of a conceptual site plan
depicting a $4M ‘completion’ of the Robert J Stransky Memorial Athletic Complex -
additions to the site to include 2 baseball diamonds, tennis courts, a practice field for
rugby, lacrosse, and soccer, and affiliated amenities” (
http://www.westseneca.net/application/files/6615/7989/3220/Oct_2019_Mtg_Mins.pdf ).
65. In December 2020 Congressman Higgins announced $115,000-plus to Buffalo Niagara
Waterkeeper for project addressing flooding in Lexington Green neighborhood. This was
described as:
“Lexington Green residents face the threat of flooding from Buffalo

Creek every year,” Higgins said. With this grant, Buffalo Niagara
Waterkeeper, who have been excellent stewards of Western New York
waterways, will examine ways to improve the natural environment to help
mitigate flooding.”
"Buffalo Niagara Waterkeeper is excited about the potential to improve

Buffalo Creek and continue restoration and collaboration in the West
Seneca community that we started over a decade ago," Executive Director
Jill Jedlicka said. "We continue to see an increase in flooding events and
habitat loss throughout New York's Great Lakes basin, in large part due to
12 of 59
140
climate change and land use modifications, but through projects like these,
we can start to implement more resilient shorelines and communities in
the years to come. We are grateful for the National Fish and Wildlife's
Foundation continued investment in Western New York."
Historically, high water from Buffalo Creek has made West Seneca’s
Lexington Green community prone to flooding. This federal funding will
be used by Buffalo Niagara Waterkeeper to provide analysis, field study,
and preliminary design of a reconnected floodplain on Buffalo Creek in
West Seneca, upstream of the flood-prone Lexington Green community.
The goal of the project is to mitigate flooding, improve resiliency
throughout the community and downstream, and provide beneficial habitat
for native species. The total project is expected to cost $446,497.
( https://higgins.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/higgins-
announces-over-115000-to-buffalo-niagara-waterkeeper-for-project )
66. In or about February 2021, Respondent Canisius submitted a full Environmental
Assessment Form (hereinafter ''EAF'') with respect to said Project to the Respondent
Planning Board for review. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “4” is a true copy of
Part 1 of this EAF Form.
67. In this document the proposed action is described as “Construct one artificial turf varsity
baseball field and one junior varsity baseball field with an artificial turf infield and natural
grass outfield. Grade the site to accommodate the two baseball fields as well as a practice
field and a suitable area for possible future tennis courts. Erect a total of four dugouts, two
score boards, two sets of bleachers totaling 200 seats, one batting cage, and one press box.
Asphalt pedestrian paths will be added to connect the above features. The total area of
disturbance will be approximately 16.6 acres. A portion of the construction will occur
within the one hundred year flood plain of the adjacent Buffalo Creek but the proposed
grading of the site will result in a net increase in the amount of flood water volume the site
is able to acco[m]modate.” (Exhibit “4” – Part 1 section A)
13 of 59
141
68. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “5” is a true copy of the Flood Insurance Rate Map
(FIRM) from FEMA for the Subject Parcel and the area surrounding it.
69. Petitioner Warren’s property used to become marshy and swamp-like during periods of
rain and for some time after the rain subsided.
70. Petitioner Warren has planted willow bushes in his yard to help alleviate this water
condition, installed drain tiles and other drainage systems and must maintain a sump-pit
and sump-pump in his basement to prevent and control the water around his basement.
71. Petitioner Warren believes that if this project is permitted to go forward the changes in
ground water quantity and quality together with the erosion and changes in stormwater
runoff patterns will negatively impact the environment on his property and he will be
compelled to expend money to install other drainage systems and methods to protect his
environment and property.
72. Petitioner is concerned about the increased risks and effects an expanded athletic facility as
proposed in this project will have on him and his environment which includes, but is not
limited to: the blight that such a facility may cause him to be exposed to, exposure to, and
the increased risk of being a victim of crime that will emanate from such a facility, the lack
of parking and the increase in traffic and its attendant risks, increased noise, air pollution,
water pollution, changes in the quantity and quality of the groundwater, the effect upon the
nearby wetlands due to erosion and runoff caused by the development and facility as
planned, the effect on wildlife, community character, and noise as well as other negative
environmental, health and social consequences that are attendant by the proposed
development and use of the subject lands and the adverse impact on the continued use and
enjoyment of his home. Petitioner is also concerned of the affect that such environmental
14 of 59
142
changes will have on the value of his property. Petitioner had expended sums of money to
mitigate the effect of the groundwater has on his home and if there are material changes in
the groundwater will be compelled to expend money to make adjustments to his property
to account for such change in the groundwater due to this project, if such adjustments are
at all possible. He is also concerned about the integrity of the laws of the United States
and the State of New York and wishes to assure those laws are carried out.
73. The Subject Parcel is bordered by Buffalo Creek which in turn flows into Lake Erie which
is a navigable water as that term is defined in Navigation Law § 2(4) and is navigable
waters of the United States as that term is defined by the Clean Water Act and the
regulations promulgated thereunder.
74. The prior activities of Respondent Canisius and the approvals and negative SEQRA
declaration by Respondent Town of West Seneca related to these Athletic fields on Phase 1
of this project have been challenged before in actions that Petitioner was a party in (Grasso
v. Town, 63 A.D.3d 1629, 2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 4590, 881 N.Y.S.2d 247 (N.Y. App. Div.
2009)), Warren, et al, v. ECIDA, Supreme Court, Erie County, Index # I 2008-3083 and
prior activities of Respondent Canisius and the approvals and negative SEQRA declaration
by Respondent Planning Board in Warren, v. The Planning Board of the Town of West
Seneca, Supreme Court, Erie County, Index # 809040/2021.
75. Therefore, the prior SEQRA proceedings by Respondent Town did not consider the full
project and its attendant effects on the environment.
76. The clearing of vegetated areas and the creation of impervious surfaces can lead to
increased volumes of stormwater runoff draining into wetland areas; stormwater runoff in
developed areas typically contains sediment and pollutants such as herbicides, pesticides,
15 of 59
143
road salt and vehicle fluids, which can significantly impact the health and ecology of a
wetland.
77. At the June 10, 2021, meeting of Respondent Planning Board it issued a conditional
approval of the site plan application submitted by Respondent Canisius.
78. This conditional approval was vacated by the Supreme Court, Erie County in a proceeding
entitled Daniel T. Warren v. The Planning Board of the Town of West Seneca, et al, Index
#809040/2021 by an oral decision by the Court on the record on April 21, 2022.
79. By letter dated May 9, 2022, the Code Enforcement Officer for the Town of West Seneca
notified various agencies that Respondent Planning Board was again seeking lead agency
status for this project.
80. Respondent Planning Board assigned this application for site plan review File #2021-05
and is referred to as SPR2021-05. This application was subsequently before the
Respondent Planning Board and discussed/considered on the following dates according to
the minutes of the respective meetings:
a. April 8, 2021, a true copy of the relevant portion of these minutes are attached
hereto and marked as Exhibit “6”;
b. May 13, 2021, a true copy of the relevant portion of these minutes are attached
c. Jun 10, 2021, a true copy of the relevant portion of these minutes are attached
d. Aug 12, 2021, a true copy of the relevant portion of these minutes are attached
e. Oct 14, 2021, a true copy of the relevant portion of these minutes are attached
16 of 59
144
f. April 14, 2022, a true copy of the relevant portion of these minutes are attached
g. May 12, 2022, a true copy of the relevant portion of these minutes are attached
h. June 9, 2022, a true copy of the relevant portion of these minutes are attached
81. Respondent Canisius submitted to Respondent Planning Board by letter dated December
30, 2021, that 2,742 archeological artifacts were discovered on the Subject Property dating
back about 10,000 years.
82. On or about January 10, 2022, it was reported in The West Seneca Sun that in 2007
“workers found hundreds of tools and pottery shards dating back about 10,000 years.
However, the school did not keep records of these findings, and developers were unaware
of them when they started plans for the new baseball diamonds, according to
Vaillancourt.”
83. This is significant in that the prior negative SEQRA declaration for Phase 1 of this project
was issued in September 2006 by Respondent Town.
84. Upon information and belief this information was never disclosed to the Town or the
public at the time despite the fact that there was pending litigation challenging the 2006
negative SEQRA declaration.
85. According to a West Seneca Bee article dated February 24, 2022, entitled “Treading
water” it was reported:
The town built a berm after the flooding in 2014 that has helped the
situation somewhat.
17 of 59
145
Another option now could be the use of funds from the American Rescue
Plan, although much of that money is already earmarked for sewer and
drainage upgrades that should help the situation.
“The ACE’s estimate was in 2015-2016; I expect it would be more

expensive today,” Dickson said. “Regarding the ARP money, there is not
enough money to fund every critical need, especially when it comes to
sewers, a problem that affects hundreds of homes. In Lexington Green, we
are moving forward with a project that involves the small berm that the
town installed in 2014 and I expect that will be finished before next
winter.”
There are other issues as well.
The situation on Lexington was exacerbated when Canisius High School

built an athletic complex on the opposite side of Buffalo Creek. The
playing field was elevated to account for drainage issues, but that forces
overflow water elsewhere.
Also, a National Fuel high-pressure gas line parallels the temporary berm
and in some places is located directly below it.
National Fuel has said it would like to see the berm removed, although
Dickson said they have reached some kind of agreement on the matter.
“The temporary berm that was installed at Lexington Green in 2014 has
done a good job with preventing a couple of flood events and ensured that
last night’s flood was not worse,” Dickson said Friday on Facebook. “As I
understand it, the creek rose several times before it finally rose high
enough to flood. Without it the flooding could have been closer to the
2014 event, minus the huge chunks of ice.”
( https://www.westsenecabee.com/articles/treading-water/ )
86. On March 1, 2022 the Buffalo Niagara Riverkeeper issued an RFP to begin a project
whose “ultimate purpose of the project is to identify and verify opportunities for
reconnecting Buffalo Creek to its floodplain to address reoccurring residential flooding,
and to develop preliminary designs based on verified on-the-ground opportunities.” (
https://bnwaterkeeper.org/rfp-feasibility-and-design-of-floodplain-reconnection/ )
87. According to a West Seneca Bee article dated March 31, 2022, entitled “Town Board hears
18 of 59
146
floodplain ideas” it was reported:
The best way to alleviate the flooding issues in the Lexington Green
neighborhood is to reconnect Buffalo Creek to its original floodplain in a
nature-based strategy, the West Seneca Town Board was told in a
presentation Monday evening.
Katherine Winkler, senior program manger with Buffalo Niagara

Waterkeeper, told the board members that a $75,000 grant has already
been approved for use in preliminary designs for the project. But that’s
liable to hit resistance, since there are houses on some of that land.
“Our next step is to identify parcels along the creek corridor to make them
more of a naturalized area,” Winkler said. “The hard part is really going to
be reaching out to the property owners and convincing them to either put
an easement on their property or sell their property. Then we run all the
models to make sure it alleviates enough flooding in that area. It’s about
identifying parcels that could have enough capacity to alleviate the amount
of flooding in the Lexington Green neighborhood. The creek is going to
flood, one way or another – we just don’t want it on peoples’ properties.
We want it somewhere else. The ideal properties would be the Canisius
area on the other side of the creek.”
That’s also problematic, as Canisius is planning to expand its athletic

facilities on the other side of the creek, although a lawsuit has been filed to
stop the process.
The town has brought these flooding issues to the attention of the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers in the past, and again last month after the latest
round of flooding – but the ACE has declined to take action on the matter.
( https://www.westsenecabee.com/articles/town-board-hears-floodplain-
ideas/ )
88. According to a West Seneca Bee article dated May 5, 2022 entitled “Residents hear plan to
address flooding” it was reported:
One thing that everyone agreed on was that the situation got much worse
after Canisius High School built an athletic complex in 2014 on the other
side of the creek across from Lexington.
“I’ve talked to other neighbors who were there when the ’14 flood
happened and they said it wasn’t an issue until Canisius built their football
field and whatever they leveled out they pushed toward the berm,” said
Collin Brown, who also lives at 123 Lexington.
19 of 59
147
Canisius is now looking to expand its facility further, although a judge

recently stayed the planning board’s approval of the project.
Canisius will resubmit a modified plan, perhaps as early as next week –

and town engineer Steve Tanner said that’s a good thing because it should
facilitate more drainage on the north side of the creek.
“The new stormwater pond should do a better job of collecting the water
instead of just letting it go into the creek,” Tanner said. “That will help the
discharge.”
The town is also looking at other measures to address the situation.
Dickson is pressing the Army Corps of Engineers to revisit their decision

from a few years ago that said any improvements wouldn’t be worth the
cost.
Also, Buffalo Niagara Waterkeeper has secured a grant to do a study to

create a flood bench near the strawberry fields along the creek. If that
ground was lowered slightly, it would theoretically channel more water
into the field and away from the homes.
Finally, the town is looking into grant money from FEMA to get
Lexington its own drainage system and pumping station instead of having
it connected to other streets, as it is now. That would increase the volume
and concentrate the drainage.
“It doesn’t seem like there’s anything permanent,” Collin Brown said.
“It’s like a waiting game. So how long do we wait? We’ve waited five
years, and some of these other people have been waiting a lot longer than
that.”
( https://www.westsenecabee.com/articles/residents-hear-plan-to-address-
flooding/ )
89. Petitioner provided this article to Respondent Planning Board under cover of his May 26,
2022 letter to Respondent Planning Board.
90. The only documents/materials provided to the Erie County Department of Environment
and Planning is listed in a May 9, 2022 letter from Jeffrey Schieber. Attached hereto and
marked as Exhibit “14” is a true copy of this letter.
20 of 59
148
91. For the 2021-2022 baseball season Canisius High School Varsity Baseball Team had the
following “Home” games:
92. For the 2021-2022 baseball season Canisius High School JV Blue Baseball Team had the
93. For the 2021-2022 baseball season Canisius High School JV Gold Baseball Team had the
94. Upon information and belief, the above represents just the minimum possible number for
at home games and does not include the times the baseball fields will be used by other
teams as a neutral field. The above does not include the number of times these fields will
be used for practice, or the number of times the planned future tennis courts will be used.
21 of 59
149
95. According to a West Seneca Bee article dated June 2, 2022, entitled “Planning board
scheduled to revisit Canisius athletic field expansion” it was reported:
At an informational session for residents last month, Town Engineer Steve

Tanner acknowledged that the flooding in Lexington Green had worsened
since the athletic complex was build in 2014, but he said the proposed
expansion project should correct the problem.
( https://www.westsenecabee.com/articles/planning-board-scheduled-to-
revisit-canisius-athletic-field-expansion/ )
96. Petitioner personally attended the June 9, 2022, meeting of Respondent Planning Board.
97. Petitioner personally reviewed the online agenda and the materials that were provided in
accordance with POL § 103[e] within 24 hours prior to the meeting in order to prepare for
the meeting.
98. Noticeably absent from the materials provided in accordance with POL § 103[e] is the
response(s) from the referral(s) to the Erie County Department of Environment and
Planning under GML § 239-m.
99. The proposed findings for Part 2 of the EAF, the proposed reasoning for Part 3 of the EAF,
nor the proposed negative SEQRA declaration were provided to the public in accordance
with POL § 103[e] either on the website or upon entry to the meeting of June 9, 2022. In
fact, the only material distributed to the public attending the meeting was just the agenda
for the June 9, 2022 meeting (
http://www.westseneca.net/application/files/2316/5479/4382/PBA06.09.2022.pdf ).
100. Petitioner personally attended the June 9, 2022, meeting of Respondent Planning Board
where Parts 2 & 3 of the EAF was read to those attending after the public hearing was
closed but before the negative SEQRA declaration was adopted.
101. Mr. Frick, the member of Respondent Planning Board, stated that Parts 2 & 3 of the EAF
22 of 59
150
was prepared by the “Planning Board.”
102. Petitioner saw Mr. Frick show another member of the Planning Board prior to the start of
the meeting a document that appeared to be the document he read from for Parts 2 & 3 of
the EAF.
103. Upon information and belief, there is no reason that posting of this material was not
practicable.
104. At this meeting there was no vote to adopt the findings necessary to complete Part 2 -
Identification of Potential Project Impacts of the Full Environmental Assessment Form of
this project in accordance with GCL § 41.
105. At this meeting there was no vote to adopt the reasons for its decision necessary to
complete Part 3 - Evaluation of the Magnitude and Importance of Project Impacts and
Determination of Significance of the Full Environmental Assessment Form of this project
in accordance with GCL § 41.
106. On June 9, 2022, the Respondent Planning Board issued a negative SEQRA declaration
and approved the application for site plan review.
107. Petitioner has personally reviewed the minutes of Respondent Planning Board from
January 14, 2021 to date. In this review Petitioner did not see any motion to enter into
executive session for any matter.
108. Petitioner Warren by completing the online Freedom of Information Request on June 10,
2022, requested:
a. Part 2 of the EAF that was read at the June 9, 2022 meeting;
b. Part 3 of the EAF that was read at the June 9, 2022 meeting;
c. Any material from the Erie County Department of Environment and Planning on
this project;
d. The response from SHPO from the May 9, 2022 letter from the Code Enforcement
Officer;
23 of 59
151
e. any material from the NYS Department of Transportation on this project;

f. any material from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on this project.
109. By e-mail dated June 13, 2022 an acknowledgement of this request was received that
provided “Your FOIL request dated 6/10/2022 was received by the Town of West Seneca
on 6/13/2022. The information will be reviewed and I anticipate you will be contacted
regarding your request by 7/12/2022.” A true copy of this acknowledgement and my
request is attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “15”.
110. On June 17, 2022 after not receiving the requested material I administratively appealed on
the grounds:
Since this information should have been provided to the public on

the Town’s website prior to the June 9, 2022, meeting of the West
Seneca Planning Board pursuant to Public Officers Law § 103(e)
(according to the attached advisory opinion from the NYS
Committee on Open Government) the July 12, 2022 date to provide
such material is unreasonable and constitutes a constructive denial
under 21 NYCRR § 1401.5(e)(7).
Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “16” is a true copy of this

appeal.
111. Respondent Town has approved and authorized plans to make alterations and repairs to the
berm protecting the Lexington Green neighborhood from the Buffalo Creek at the July 20,
2022 meeting of the West Seneca Town Board at a cost of $157,000. According to an
article entitled “Lexington berm to be moved” that appeared in the June 23, 2022 edition of
the West Seneca Bee: “The project will include relocation of much of the current berm,
while other portions of it will be rebuilt. The whole berm will then be covered with topsoil
and hydro-seeded, making it a more permanent fixture to help alleviate flooding in the
area, Dickson said.”
24 of 59
152
112. By letter dated June 20, 2022 the West Seneca Code Enforcement Officer transmitted to
the Erie County Department of Environment and Planning:
a. New 239-m form

b. The June 9, 2022 minutes of Respondent Planning Board
c. A copy of Parts 2 & 3 of the EAF
d. A 5 page response from the Planning Board which addresses all the concerns raised
by residents
e. A copy of numerous approval documents by various agencies
113. On June 22, 2022 Petitioner received a response producing the documents requested in this
FOIL request. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “17” is a true and complete copy of
the email response.
114. By letter dated June 23, 2022, Petitioner requested that Respondent Planning Board rescind
the negative declaration issued on June 14, 2022 in light of Respondent Town’s action on
the Lexington Green berm and issue a positive declaration on the grounds that Respondent
Town’s action: “will necessarily affect the potential effects as it relates to the water issues
of this proposed project. This action by the Town has apparently not been reviewed under
SEQRA. It is my position that in the light of this concurrent action by the Town that the
environmental effects of both of these actions be looked at together.”
115. Upon information and belief, Respondents Planning Board and Town have not issued a
positive declaration under SEQRA for a Type 1 development since the development of the
West Seneca Industrial Park in 1991 ( https://buffalonews.com/news/ida-to-acquire-land-
for-industrial-park/article_d4f6d482-67bf-5a56-8a95-6a35165abf00.html ).
116. The notice required to be published by 6 NYCRR § 617.12[c][1] by Respondent Planning
Board for this project was published on June 29, 2022 (
https://www.dec.ny.gov/enb/20220629_not9.html ).
117. On July 6, 2022, Petitioner Warren inspected the file of the Erie County Department of
25 of 59
153
Planning pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law (Public Officers Law Article 6). At
that time Petitioner Warren personally observed while ECDEP was provided a 5 page
summary addressing the various issues raised by the public on June 20, 2022 it did not
include the underlying submissions. This includes, but is not limited to, the minutes of the
meetings where the public spoke on the environmental concerns and the various studies
and submissions of the public on these issues like the 3 reports from the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers and the minutes where residents spoke on environmental issues.
118. Respondent Planning Board made no documents available to the public to be considered
on SPR2021-05 at the July 14, 2022, meeting at least 24 hours before it, in accordance
with POL § 103[e]. Below is a true and accurate representation of the Planning Board
Agenda for this meeting as of 6:45 a.m. on July 14, 2022 (
http://www.westseneca.net/government/planning-board-minutes/planning-board-meeting-
33#gsc.tab=0 ):
119. By response dated July 14, 2022 the New York State Department of Transportation
responded to Petitioner’s FOIL request that they do not have any documents or
26 of 59
154
communications regarding this project. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “18” is a
true copy of this letter.
120. On July 14, 2022, the Respondent Planning Board issued its approval of Respondent
Canisius’ application for site Plan Review (SPR2021-05).
121. This is final action of the West Seneca Planning Board as defined in West Seneca Town
Code §§ 102-3[A], 102-12[B].
122. Petitioner has commenced this proceeding within 30 days of the filing of the challenged
decisions of the Respondent Planning Board of the Town of West Seneca.
123. Petitioner has exhausted his administrative remedies by raising these issues by way of his
letters dated April 24, 2021 (proper zoning, flooding/water issues, need for traffic study,
need for noise study, potential effect on Oxbow Wetland, segmentation), September 30,
2021(involving USACE in process, compliance with GML § 239-m, Town Law 274-a[9],
& POL § 103[e]) , October 7, 2021 (effects on Oxbow Wetland, Flooding, significant
effects under (6 NYCRR § 617.7[c])), October 15, 2021(need for traffic study due to an
attendant increase in traffic with the increased number of games and practices for different
sports being held on the proposed expanded fields), November 10, 2021 (NYSDOT should
be considered and involved agency), January 10, 2022 (discussing Canisius’ failure to
disclose significant archeological finds during Phase 1 and their submissions should not be
taken at face value), February 19, 2022 (recent flooding in area of project site and 1966
USACE report), April 23, 2022 (Judge Siwek’s oral decision), April 27, 2022 (propriety of
Conditional Negative Declaration on Type 1 action), May 26, 2022 (presence of species in
conservation need, red headed woodpecker, and many wetland plant species on nearby
Oxbow Wetland), June 4, 2022 (propriety of incorporating SHPO’s conditions as a
27 of 59
155
Conditional Negative Declaration on Type 1 action, failure of record to include any study
on the issues of traffic, noise or lighting and their indirect effect on the wildlife and the
community character) and June 23, 2022 (on rescinding he negative declaration to consider
cumulative effect of the Town’s Lexington Green berm action) to Respondent Planning
Board, West Seneca Town Supervisor and West Seneca Town Board and through other
communications including the Verified Petition filed in this action dated July 9, 2021.
124. Immediate and irreparable damage will result if Respondent Canisius is permitted to
proceed with site preparation and/or construction. The 16.6 acres of land will be regraded,
altered, vegetation removed or otherwise disturbed. A portion of this activity will occur
within the one-hundred-year flood plain of the adjacent Buffalo Creek.
125. If not temporarily restrained and/or preliminarily enjoined this project will cause petitioner
irreparable harm in irreversibly changing the environment and property in a negative
manner as detailed herein and will render any judgment in this proceeding ineffectual.
126. A temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction is necessary to preserve the
status quo pending judicial review of the acts of Respondent Planning Board as set forth
herein and, in its absence, would tend to render the judgment in this action/proceeding
ineffectual.
127. Upon information and belief, Respondent Canisius intends to commence construction
activities immediately in order to have these new fields available to be played on by
spring.
128. The balance of the equities tips in Petitioner’s favor in that Respondent Canisius has
owned the subject property for approximately 15 years and has not sought to develop it
before now. The public policy in conducting a meaningful and thorough environmental
28 of 59
156
review to identify and mitigate environmental harms outweighs Respondent Canisius’s
desire to begin construction now in order to use the planned expanded athletic field in
Spring 2022.
129. The irreparable injury to be sustained is more burdensome to the Petitioner than the harm
caused to Respondent Canisius through imposition of the requested temporary restraining
order/preliminary injunction.
130. Respondent Canisius will not suffer from the issuance of a temporary restraining
order/preliminary injunction since the activities that will be conducted on these new fields
have been conducted elsewhere for over 15 years.
131. It is doubtful that Respondent Canisius will suffer any economic damages rationally
related to it being enjoined should the preliminary injunction later prove to have been
unwarranted.
132. Any undertaking required by CPLR § 6312(b) should be set at a nominal amount of $100.
133. Petitioner has no adequate remedy at law.
134. This proceeding is brought by order to show cause to obtain interim relief in the nature of a
temporary restraining order pending the hearing and determination of Petitioner’s
application for a preliminary and/or permanent injunction.
AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
RESPONDENT PLANNING BOARD’S ACTS ARE ULTRA VIRES
(against Respondents Planning Board and Canisius)
135. Petitioner repeats and realleges the allegations set forth above in ¶¶ 1 through 134 as if
alleged and set forth hereat.
136. Pursuant to General Construction Law § 41, a majority of the whole number of persons
29 of 59
157
comprising a board is required to constitute a quorum and to exercise the board's power,
authority or duty. Such vote must be taken in a public meeting noticed and held in
accordance with Public Officers Law Article 7 (“Open Meetings Law”).
137. General Construction Law § 41 imposes a ministerial, nondiscretionary duty on
Respondent Planning Board.
138. There is no vote recorded in the minutes of the Respondent Planning Board declaring its
intention to designate itself lead agency for purposes of the State Environmental Quality
Review Act, Article 8 of the New York State Environmental Conservation Law nor
making such designation for itself and any such designation and actions taken pursuant to
such designation is ultra vires.
139. Based on Petitioner’s review of the minutes of Respondent Planning Board this is a custom
and practice of Respondent Planning Board to not have a vote as required by GCL § 41 to
take the steps to initiate the SEQRA process or any required referral required by GML §
239-m.
140. Respondent Planning Board did not act to authorize the Code Enforcement Officer or
anyone, to act on its behalf, to disclose, identify and circulate letters to other involved
agencies advising that it proposed to designate itself as lead agency as required by 6
NYCRR § 617.6[b][3][i], and any such action purporting to comply with this regulation is
ultra vires.
141. Respondent Planning Board failed to vote to adopt the EAF Part 2 findings in violation of
GCL § 41.
142. Respondent Planning Board failed to vote to adopt the EAF Part 3 reasoning in violation of
GCL § 41.
30 of 59
158
143. By failing to take action by majority vote in open meetings deprives Petitioner and the
public from holding their elected officials responsible for the acts of their appointees.
144. Respondent Planning Board’s actions in issuing its June 9, 2022, negative SEQRA
declaration cannot lawfully be based on the ultra vires acts of others not undertaken in
accordance with GCL § 41 and in the absence of duly adopted findings and reasoning for
its determination and is therefore affected by errors of law and not in compliance with
lawful procedure which requires the annulment of its July 14, 2022, site plan approval.
AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
RESPONDENT PLANNING BOARD ACTED WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND IN EXCESS
OF ITS AUTHORITY UNDER CHAPTER 102 OF THE WEST SENECA TOWN CODE
146. Approval of site plan review is an action subject to referral GML § 239-m[3][a][iv].
147. This action is required to be referred to the county planning agency or regional planning
council pursuant to GML § 239-m[2].
148. Respondent Planning Board is the “referring body” as that term is defined in GML § 239-
m[1][b].
149. Respondent Planning Board did not make any findings that a referral is necessary or act to
authorize anyone to make such referral to the county planning agency or regional planning
council, on its behalf in accordance with General Construction Law § 41.
150. The Code Enforcement Officer’s submission of this referral under cover of letter dated
February 26, 2021, May 9, 2022, and June 20, 2022 on behalf of Respondent Planning
31 of 59
159
Board is ultra vires and of no force or effect.
151. There is no reference in the minutes of the relevant planning board meetings of any report
of the recommendation as a result(s) of any such referral.
152. Respondent Planning Board’s purported referral pursuant to General Municipal Law §
239-m failed to contain a “full statement of such proposed action” as that term is defined in
General Municipal Law § 239-m[1][c].
153. Town Law § 274-a[9] requires compliance with General Municipal Law § 239-m[1][c] at
least 10 days prior to the public meeting.
154. Specifically, it did not contain all the materials required by such referring body in order to
make its determination of significance pursuant to SEQRA.
155. Respondent Planning Board did not provide to the Erie County Department of
Environment and Planning all written submissions that it used to inform its findings and/or
reasons for Parts 2 & 3 of the EAF; the minutes of all prior meetings of Respondent
Planning Board where this project was discussed; the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
reports of the area referenced in ¶¶ 31, 32, & 58, above.
156. Respondents Town and Planning Board do not have an agreement with Respondent
ECDEP as to what constitutes a “full statement” as permitted by General Municipal Law §
239-m[1][c].
157. Upon information and belief, Respondent Planning Board has not filed a “Report of final
action” as required by GML 239-m(6) as it has not done so on other referrals.
158. Respondent Planning Board’s purported referral to Respondent ECDEP is invalid in that it
did not constitute “receipt” by Respondent ECDEP as that term is defined in General
Municipal Law § 239-m[1][d].
32 of 59
160
159. Respondent Planning Board failed to comply with GML § 239-m on this project before
that, in part, resulted in the prior conditional approval of this application being vacated.
160. Respondent Planning Board failed in its obligation pursuant to General Municipal Law §
239-m[1][c], which requires Respondent Planning Board to refer all documents received
subsequent to the initial referral which were required by the Planning Board in order to
issue its SEQRA declaration to the county planning agency for its review.
161. Based on the above Respondent Planning Board failed to comply with General Municipal
Law § 239-m and Town Law § 274-a[9].
162. General Municipal Law § 239-m imposes a non-discretionary, ministerial duty on
163. Respondent Planning Board acted without jurisdiction in granting conditional site plan
approval on June 9, 2022, was not undertaken in accordance with law, in excess of its
jurisdiction and is therefore affected by errors of law and not in compliance with lawful
procedure.
AS AND FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
RESPONDENT PLANNING BOARD DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE SUBSTANTIVE AND
PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS OF SEQRA
165. The July 14, 2022, approval of site plan review on SPR2021-05 was made in violation of
West Seneca Town Code § 102-7(c).
166. The Full EAF submitted by Respondent Canisius (Exhibit “4”) appears incomplete at best
33 of 59
161
in that there are certain sections completely blank, including but not limited to, Part 1
section D.2 or the omission of listing of Oxbow Lake nature preserve in section E.2.
167. Respondent Canisius, as project sponsor, is responsible for the completeness, authenticity,
and accuracy of the information it provided in this EAF (Exhibit “4”).
168. There is no information in the EAF for the current project as to how much water will be
added to this property as a result of adding these fields.
169. No traffic, lighting, or noise study has been submitted by Respondent Canisius and
Respondent Planning Board has not, to date, requested that these studies be provided.
170. According to 6 N.Y.C.R.R. § 617.4[b][6][i], an action is a Type I action for purposes of
SEQRA when such project or action that involves the physical alteration of 10 acres.
171. Accordingly, the subject project as it relates to the subject parcel constitutes a Type I
action for purposes of SEQRA, and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder.
172. Under Chapter 102 of the West Seneca Town Code the July 14, 2022 approval of
SPR2021-05 was the final administrative act of Respondent Planning Board.
173. Granting an approval on an application for site plan review is a “significant authorization”
for an “action.”
174. Respondent Canisius failed to identify and disclose all related actions to the fullest extent
possible in this application, and all prior phases of this project has resulted in review of
each stage or activity in isolation from the other parts of the subject project as though they
were independent, unrelated activities which is contrary to the spirit and intent of SEQRA.
175. This constitutes “Segmentation” as that term is defined in 6 NYCRR § 617.2[aj] and is
impermissible under SEQRA.
176. The Erie County Department of Planning is an “Involved Agency” as that term is defined
34 of 59
162
in 6 NYCRR § 617.2[t].
177. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation is an “Involved Agency”
as that term is defined in 6 NYCRR § 617.2[t].
178. The West Seneca Town Board and/or Zoning Board of Appeals should also have been
identified as involved agencies and included in the coordinated review since either a
rezoning of the property and/or use variance may be needed as detailed below. This was a
blatant, material procedural failure which undermines the integrity of the SEQRA review,
necessitating vacatur.
179. Respondent Planning Board was required to “make every reasonable effort to involve
project sponsors, other agencies and the public in the SEQR[A] process” (6 NYCRR §
617.3[d]).
180. The New York State Department of Transportation is an “involved agency” and was not
involved by Respondent Planning Board as required by 6 NYCRR § 617.3[d].
181. Respondent Planning Board did not undertake a reasonable effort in this regard as far as
other agencies as detailed above and as far as the public in failing to make all documents
related to the SEQRA process publicly available as detailed below.
182. This prevented the involved agencies from adequately carrying out their obligations under
SEQRA (6 NYCRR § 617.3[e]).
183. According to the EAF submitted by Respondent Canisius it identified that state
government approval was anticipated to be needed from “NYSDEC: SWPPP” (Exhibit “4”
- Part 1 section B.g). Pursuant to SEQRA, any development project “that requires state
agency approval, . . . [and] ‘which may have a significant effect on the environment,’ must
go through a full SEQRA assessment to make sure that it is undertaken in a way that
35 of 59
163
minimizes damage to the environment and public health” (Matter of Friends of P.S. 163,
Inc. v Jewish Home Lifecare, Manhattan, 30 NY3d 416, 424-425 [2017], quoting ECL 8-
0109 [1], [2]).
184. This project has the following indicators of significant adverse impacts on the environment
under the SEQRA regulations (6 NYCRR § 617.7[c]):
a. a substantial adverse change in existing air quality, ground or surface water quality
or quantity, traffic or noise levels; a substantial increase in solid waste production;
a substantial increase in potential for erosion, flooding, leaching or drainage
problems;
b. the removal or destruction of large quantities of vegetation or fauna;
c. the creation of a material conflict with a community's current plans or goals as
officially approved or adopted;
d. the impairment of the character or quality of important historical, archeological,
architectural, or aesthetic resources or of existing community or neighborhood
character;
e. a substantial change in the use, or intensity of use, of land including agricultural,
open space or recreational resources, or in its capacity to support existing uses;
f. changes in two or more elements of the environment, no one of which has a
significant impact on the environment, but when considered together result in a
substantial adverse impact on the environment; or
g. two or more related actions undertaken, funded or approved by an agency, none of
which has or would have a significant impact on the environment, but when
considered cumulatively would meet one or more of the criteria in this subdivision.
36 of 59
164
185. At each stage of the development of these athletic fields Respondents knowingly glossed
over the plans for future development of various parts of the entire development plan in
order to reduce the environmental scrutiny that would be required under SEQRA
186. According to the April 8, 2021, Minutes of Respondent Planning Board, Mark Gaston,
District Field Engineer with Erie County Soil and Water Conservation District stated:
This area has had activity over the years that raises concerns. In
2014 there was a large ice jam flooding event that occurred, as a
result, ice damage has not been addressed; fences, turf grass and
dugouts open the site up to potentially severe maintenance issues.
following the 2014 flood event, a temporary berm was placed and,
built to protect the Lexington Green area. The flood plain data shows
a significant amount of 100-year flood plain that essentially goes
into that area and was cut off. Without running an analysis to gage
the 100-year storm event and the impacts of the berm, you can not
say for certain this will not influence the 100-year flood plain
elevation.
The Erie Wyoming Joint Watershed Board was formed to implement

a number of stream works throughout the Buffalo Creek to reduce
sedimentation along the Buffalo Harbor. The Erie Wyoming Joint
Watershed Board has permanent easements along 57 linear miles of
Buffalo waters. This site has the oxbow due to a stream realignment
project; damns were constructed and have a permanent easement for
maintenance and operation; none of the planning documents have
this information included. A particular concern is the surging cell
structure; the town was involved in a wrongful death lawsuit that is
still under litigation. Increasing access to children in that area is a
grave safety concern and should be addressed/referenced.
This is a correct use for this area, but the area has many concerns.
This area has been discussed by former Town Officials regarding the
climate resiliency and ice jam issues/concerns. A report was
generated and shared, and ways were sought to resolve ice jam
flooding in the Lexington Green area. This project would potentially
nix one of the design alternatives.
(
http://www.westseneca.net/application/files/5216/1825/8086/pbm04.
08.202105343720210412155204.pdf )
37 of 59
165
187. The only material from the U.S. Army Corps. of Engineers considered by Respondent
Planning Board was provided to it from Respondent Canisius. Specifically, the letter dated
November 21, 2021, from the Regulatory Branch of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
that has no bearing on environmental issues (Exhibit “17” Pages 16 – 21 ).
188. If the materials submitted to the Erie County Department of Environment and Planning did
constitute a “full statement of such proposed action” as that term is defined in General
Municipal Law § 239-m[1][c] then Respondent Planning Board failed to consider all
material presented to it on the environmental issues in reaching its SEQRA determination.
189. Significantly, this includes, but is not limited to, that the Respondents failed to address, let
alone take the requisite “hard look” at, the groundwater flooding, impact on community
character ( athletic fields is not a permitted use as detailed below), the effects of this
project on downstream wetlands, and wildlife of special concern, increased traffic and
noise that will result from the expanded use of this facility that this expansion will permit
and failed to provide a written, reasoned explanation for its determination.
190. Respondent Canisius failed to quantify or address the increase in traffic and noise due to
the increase in the type of sports and number of games and practices to be held on the
expanded fields in the Full EAF (Exhibit “4”) or in any of its other submissions to
191. Respondent Planning Board made its determination in the absence of an analysis to gage
the 100-year storm event and the impacts of the berm, and did not even acknowledge this
issue, let alone take a hard look at it.
192. Respondent Planning Board, capriciously and contrary to law failed to take a hard look at
water issues in violation of SEQRA.
38 of 59
166
193. Respondent Planning Board made its determination in the absence of a traffic study based
solely on the grounds that the parking lot is not being expanded and not even
acknowledging, let alone taking a hard look at, the increased number of games and
practices that will be conducted on the expanded athletic fields in an expanded playing
season.
traffic in violation of SEQRA.
195. Respondent Planning Board made its determination in the absence of a noise study and did
not even acknowledge that with the increase in the traffic as far as frequency and in an
expanded season, let alone taking a hard look at, the noise caused by the increased number
of games and practices that will be conducted on the expanded athletic fields in an
expanded playing season.
noise in violation of SEQRA.
197. Respondent Planning Board made its determination in the absence of a traffic and noise
study and did not even acknowledge that with the increase in the traffic and noise as far as
frequency and in an expanded season will have on the wildlife, let alone taking a hard look
at, the effect on wildlife caused by the increased traffic and noise due to the increased
number of games and practices that will be conducted on the expanded athletic fields in an
expanded playing season.
wildlife in violation of SEQRA.
39 of 59
167
199. Because the Negative declaration relied on a prior determination of the West Seneca
Zoning Board of Appeals it failed to conduct even an adequate preliminary assessment of
zoning, Respondent Planning Board, capriciously and contrary to law failed to take a hard
look at zoning in violation of SEQRA.
200. SEQRA regulations recognize that a significant adverse impact on the environment "would
occur if a project resulted in 'a substantial change in the use, or intensity of use, of land
including . . . open space or recreational resources, or in its capacity to support existing
uses.'"
201. Respondent Planning Board arbitrarily, capriciously and in violation of SEQRA did not
take a hard look at the adverse impact of the Proposed Project on the use, or intensity of
use, of open space, or in its capacity to support existing uses.
202. Respondent Planning Board made its determination based solely considering the effects on
the 16.6 acres the proposed project is to take place on and failed to consider, let alone take
a hard look at, the full area of potential effect (“APE”) on nearby, and downstream, parcels
of property.
203. The necessity of an unduly restrictive APE was raised by Petitioner in his May 26, 2022
submission to Respondent Planning Board by stating: “In assessing the environmental
impacts of this project it is necessary to include the potential impacts on neighboring
downstream properties such as The Oxbow Property.”
204. SHPO in its May 11, 2022, email states the following on the issue of the APE: “There is a
chance that if the project is determined to negatively affect the neighboring properties, the
project’s APE or proposed impacts may change, and thus the project will have to be
reassessed at that time.” (Exhibit “17” page __).
40 of 59
168
full APE in violation of SEQRA.
206. SEQRA regulations recognize that a significant adverse impact on the environment
may occur when a project causes "changes in two or more elements of the environment, no
one of which has a significant effect on the environment, but when considered together
result in substantial adverse impact on the environment."
207. Cumulative impacts occur when multiple actions affect the same resource(s). These
impacts can occur when the incremental or increased impacts of an action, or actions, are
added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Cumulative impacts
can result from a single action or from two or more individually minor but collectively
significant actions taking place over time. Cumulative impacts do not have to all be
associated with one sponsor or applicant. They may include indirect or secondary impacts,
long-term impacts, and synergistic effects.
208. Respondent Town’s action on the flooding issues in this area which include the Lexington
Green berm and Respondent Canisius’ proposed action must be considered together
because the impacts of these unrelated actions may be incrementally significant and the
impacts on the water issues are related.
209. Respondent Planning Board failed to consider, let alone take a hard look at, the cumulative
impacts of the changes to the environment that may result from the Proposed Project.
210. Even if the Proposed Project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment
with respect to any single technical area, SEQRA regulations indicate that cumulative
impacts should be evaluated.
41 of 59
169
211. Respondent Planning Board arbitrarily, capriciously, and contrary to law violated the hard
look requirement of SEQRA with respect to cumulative impacts.
212. Had Respondent Planning Board taken a hard look at cumulative impacts it would have
concluded that the Proposed Project may have significant cumulative adverse
environmental impacts and that an EIS was required.
213. Contrary to the one exception allowed for segmentation, where it may be approved if the
documents "clearly state" that such a process is occurring and incorporate "supporting
reasons" for it, among other conditions (6 NYCRR § 617.3[g][1]), in this, or the prior,
SEQRA Reviews there is/were no such statement included, nor was any vote on the
segmentation per se undertaken.
214. Respondents have therefore engaged in impermissible segmented review of this project
and on remand Respondents should be directed to conduct an environmental review of all
aspects of these athletic fields and not limited to the current proposed expansion project.
215. Respondent Planning Board was not an involved agency in the SEQRA proceeding on
Phase 1 of this project and therefore is not bound in anyway by the prior Negative
Declaration under SEQRA.
216. Respondent Planning Board have at various times stated an incorrect standard that is used
for SEQRA determinations.
217. At the May 13, 2021, meeting of Respondent Planning Board its chairman stated the
standard as “In most instances this would require an Environmental Impact Statement. In
reviewing the submitted long form, this would only be required if there is a major
disturbance/activity that would impact the environment.” (
42 of 59
170
http://www.westseneca.net/application/files/5916/2256/0513/pbm05.13.202105487820210
601111020.pdf ).
218. However, the correct standard is “that the action may include the potential for at least
one significant adverse environmental impact.” 6 NYCRR § 617.7(a)(1).
219. Conversely, to determine that an EIS will not be required for an action, "the lead agency
must determine either that there will be no adverse environmental impacts or that the
identified adverse environmental impacts will not be significant." 6 NYCRR §
61.7.7(a)(2).
220. Similarly, at the April 14, 2022, meeting of Respondent Planning Board it was on the path
of issuing a conditional negative declaration on this project which is improper since this is
a Type 1 action and such is only permitted on unlisted actions (
http://www.westseneca.net/application/files/2116/5108/8487/pbm04.14.202220220427154
002.pdf )
221. This was corrected after Petitioner’s April 27, 2022 letter calling this to Respondent
Planning Board’s attention (
http://www.westseneca.net/application/files/9016/5401/1604/doc20220531113824.pdf ).
222. This raises serious questions whether or not a correct standard was used by Respondent
Planning Board in reaching the challenged negative SEQRA declaration.
223. Respondent Planning Board’s determination as detailed in Part 3 of the EAF is insufficient
in that it fails to:
a. Identify the impact based on the Part 2 responses and describe its magnitude.
Magnitude considers factors such as severity, size or extent of an impact.
43 of 59
171
b. Assess the importance of the impact. Importance relates to the geographic scope,
duration, probability of the impact occurring, number of people affected by the
impact and any additional environmental consequences if the impact were to occur.
c. The assessment should take into consideration any design element or project
changes.
d. Repeat this process for each Part 2 question where the impact has been identified as
potentially moderate to large or where there is a need to explain why a particular
element of the proposed action will not, or may, result in a significant adverse
environmental impact.
224. Article I § 19 of the N.Y Constitution recognizes and functions to preserve New Yorker’s
constitutional right to clean air, clean water, and a healthful environment. These inherent
and inalienable rights reflect the basic societal contract between citizens and the
government of New York.
225. The combined acts and omissions of the Respondents which include, but is not limited to,
the failure of Respondents Planning Board and Town to properly exercise its enforcement
powers, are causing dangerous quantity and quality of ground water to be emitted into the
100 year floodplain and attendant wetlands.
226. Respondent Planning Board failed to adequately consider reasonably related long-term,
short-term, direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of (i) included in any long-range plan of
which the action under consideration is a part; (ii) likely to be undertaken as a result
thereof, or (iii) dependent thereon.
44 of 59
172
227. Respondent Planning Board erred in considering only the effect of the project on the
parcels the project is located on and failed to consider its full area of potential effect to the
surrounding parcels and community.
228. Respondent Planning Board failed to review, identify the relevant areas of concern, and
thoroughly analyze the identified relevant areas of environmental concern to determine if
the action may have a significant adverse impact on the environment as required by 6
NYCRR § 617.7[b][2 & 3].
229. Respondent Planning Board failed to identify the relevant areas of environmental concern,
take a hard look at them, and make a reasoned elaboration of the basis for its determination
as evidenced by the fact there is no completed Part 2 of the EAF or its equivalent.
230. In fact, there are no findings or reasoned elaboration for the basis of its determination to
issue a negative SEQRA declaration that has been formally adopted by Respondent
Planning Board by a majority vote of its members in an open meeting.
231. Respondents have already caused and continue to cause harm to the natural environmental
systems critical to the Petitioner and all citizens of New York and are causing Petitioner
and the surrounding community to unhealthy water and water conditions.
232. Respondents Planning Board and Town has, and have, an affirmative duty to all the
citizens of New York to protect the environment.
233. As a result, the Respondents are each violating the Petitioner’s constitutionally protected
rights of to “clean water, and a healthful environment.”
234. By reason of this constitutional violation, this Court should issue an injunction as
requested herein.
45 of 59
173
235. Respondent Planning Board’s failure to comply with the provisions of 6 NYCRR §617.7
(a) (2) and (b), requires the negative SEQRA declaration be annulled, and the
corresponding site plan approval is rendered null and void.
236. Respondent Planning Board’s act in issuing a negative SEQRA declaration on June 9,
2022, was made in violation of lawful procedure, without jurisdiction, affected by an error
of law, arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, and not supported by substantial
evidence.
AS AND FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
THE SUBJECT PARCEL NEEDS TO BE RE-ZONED OR A USE VARIANCE OBTAINED
BEFORE THE SITE PLAN CAN BE APPROVED
238. This application does not meet the requirements to obtain site plan approval since it is not
properly zoned for the principal activity it is being used for.
239. There is currently no school on the subject parcel and the construction of a school is not in
the scope of the current project for which site plan approval is sought.
240. The principle, dominant, and primary use of this land has been and is planned to be is as
athletic fields. In fact, according the Canisius High School Student Handbook “the
purchase of 63 acres on Clinton Street for an outdoor athletic facility in 2003.” (
https://canisiusrowing.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/CHSStudentHandbook.pdf ).
241. While Phase 1 of this project was permitted to go forward based on Respondent Canisius’
representations that it will be used for educational classes there is at best a de minimis
46 of 59
174
number of educational classes, if any at all, held on this site since the completion of Phase
1.
242. Respondent Planning Board acted arbitrarily and capriciously in relying on this prior
determination in light of the changed circumstances and the absence of any information on
how many educational classes take place on the land and its proportion to the recreational
use of the land.
243. West Seneca Town Code § 102-12[B][1] provides that Respondent Planning Board be
guided in its approval or denial of a site plan by “Conformance with this chapter and other
adopted Town plans, an approved development plan that includes the subject site, if one
exists, and all other applicable laws.”
244. According to EAF submitted by Respondent Canisius the Subject Property is zoned as
100-A Residential (Exhibit “4” - Part 1 section C.3.a). The permitted principle and
accessory uses for this property is defined in West Seneca Town Code § 120-17.
245. The only permitted principle purpose that comes close to the proposed use in this case is
set forth in West Seneca Town Code § 120-17(A)(5): “Commercial picnic grove, provided
that no amusement devices shall be permitted other than customary playground apparatus.”
246. The Subject Parcel would therefore need to be rezoned to C-1 or C-2 because such use is
specifically permitted by West Seneca Town Code §§ 120-19, 120-20, 120-21 and 120-22
or a use variance obtained prior to the approval of the site plan.
247. Since the use of this land as athletic fields is a non-conforming use, if not unauthorized, it
may not be enlarged or extended pursuant to West Seneca Town Code § 120-45[c].
248. The July 14, 2022, approval of Respondent Canisius’ application for site plan review
necessarily decided that this is a permitted use when it is not in violation of West Seneca
47 of 59
175
Town Code § 102-12[B][1].
249. This project is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and not in harmony with
the Comprehensive Plan of the Town of West Seneca because portions of the site are
shown as part of an extensive Greenway / Preservation Area that recommends limiting
development along the creeks to protect the floodways and to preserve them for
implementation of a trail system (
http://westseneca.net/sites/default/files/WS%202016%20Comprehensive%20Plan%20AD
OPTED(3).pdf ).
250. Any decision by the Respondent Planning Board must contain sufficient findings and
analysis on whether or not this project complies with the Town’s zoning code and all other
applicable plans and consideration as required by West Seneca Town Code § 102-12
sufficient to permit judicial review.
251. Respondent Planning Board failed to confirm that the intended use as represented by
Respondent Canisius in the prior proceedings for Phase 1 is actually being used as
represented and to the same degree to establish its use as a school.
252. Respondent Planning Board previously determined in denying site plan approval that an
ATV track does not fall within the definition of “[o]ther customary accessory uses” of a
residentially zoned property ( Matter of Dietrich v Planning Bd. of Town of W. Seneca,
118 A.D.3d 1419 (4th Dept. 2014)).
253. Similarly, the use of this Subject Property that is zoned residential as an athletic field is not
a permitted use or accessory use under the applicable provisions of the West Seneca Town
Code and the Respondent Planning Board failed to adequately explain its departure from
its own precedent.
48 of 59
176
254. If, however, the Court finds that there is ambiguity in the zoning code that requires
interpretation then Respondent Planning Board’s decision in the absence of a referral and
interpretation by the Zoning Board of Appeals for the Town of West Seneca should be set
aside and remanded to Respondent Planning Board to obtain such interpretation since
proceeding in the absence of such is in excess of its jurisdiction (Matter of Woodland
Community Assn. v. Planning Bd. of Town of Shandaken, 52 A.D.3d 991).
255. In conducting site plan review, Respondent Planning Board, is required to set appropriate
conditions and safeguards which are in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the
Town's zoning code, and which give particular regard to, inter alia, achieving conformance
of the final site development with the Town Development Plan (see Town Law § 274-a [2]
[a]; [4]; Matter of Koncelik v Planning Bd. of Town of E. Hampton, 188 AD2d 469, 470-
471 [1992]). Here, the Respondent Canisius's preliminary site plan did not, inter alia,
conform to the town development plan for the reasons set forth herein.
256. Respondent Planning Board’s July 14, 2022, site plan approval was made without
jurisdiction, in violation of lawful procedure, affected by an error of law, arbitrary and
capricious, an abuse of discretion, and not supported by substantial evidence.
AS AND FOR A FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
RESPONDENT PLANNING BOARD VIOLATED THE OPEN MEETINGS LAW
(against Respondents Planning Board, Town, and Canisius)
258. Respondents Planning Board and Town failed to comply with Public Officers Law §
103[e] which provides:
49 of 59
177
Agency records available to the public pursuant to article six of this

chapter, as well as any proposed resolution, law, rule, regulation,
policy or any amendment thereto, that is scheduled to be the subject
of discussion by a public body during an open meeting shall be made
available, upon request therefor, to the extent practicable at least
twenty-four hours prior to the meeting during which the records will
be discussed. Copies of such records may be made available for a
reasonable fee, determined in the same manner as provided therefor
in article six of this chapter. If the agency in which a public body
functions maintains a regularly and routinely updated website and
utilizes a high speed internet connection, such records shall be
posted on the website to the extent practicable at least twenty-four
hours prior to the meeting. An agency may, but shall not be
required to, expend additional moneys to implement the provisions
of this subdivision. (emphasis is added)
259. According to an Advisory Opinion obtained by Petitioner from the New York State
Committee on Open Government:
The agency in which the Town of West Seneca Town Board,

Planning Board, and Zoning Board of Appeals functions is the Town
of West Seneca. Therefore if the Town maintains a “regularly and
routinely updated website and utilizes a high speed internet
connection, records [of all public bodies which function within it]
shall be posted on the website to the extent practicable at least
twenty-four hours prior to the meeting.” No request for the records
pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law is necessary in order
for the Town to be required to comply with this portion of the Law.
Exhibit “16” page 6.
260. The following are the only documents for this project posted by Respondents Planning
Board and Town in accordance with POL § 103[e]:
a. Letter of Intent dated February 24, 2021:

http://www.westseneca.net/application/files/1916/5401/0295/TA_Letter_of_Intent.
pdf
b. Letter of Authorization dated February 24, 2021:

http://www.westseneca.net/application/files/8516/5401/0330/Canisius_Mtr_-
_TA_Owner_Representative.pdf
50 of 59
178
c. Application for Site Plan Approval dated February 25, 2021:

http://www.westseneca.net/application/files/3616/5401/0308/Original_Application.
pdf
d. Draft Site Engineering Report dated March 2021:

http://www.westseneca.net/application/files/4516/5401/0339/Canisius_HS_Engine
ering_Report_3-17-2021.pdf
e. Civil Drawings dated 2/24/2021:

http://www.westseneca.net/application/files/8916/1712/3450/20020_Civil_Drawin
gs_Canisius_HS_Site_Plan_Review_2-24-2021.pdf
f. EAF dated February 24, 2021:

http://www.westseneca.net/application/files/1516/5401/0325/CanisiusHS_EAF_2-
24-2021_-_FINAL.pdf
g. West Seneca Cover Letter dated February 26, 2021:

http://www.westseneca.net/application/files/1816/5401/0305/Original_cover_letter.
pdf
h. Original referral to Erie County Department of Environment and Planning undated:

http://www.westseneca.net/application/files/2316/5401/0302/Original_EC_SEQRA
_form.pdf
i. Cover Letter dated April 28, 2021:

http://www.westseneca.net/application/files/6316/1971/5308/Canisius_Cover_letter
_4-28-21_bvv.pdf
j. Site Plan dated April 26, 2021:

http://www.westseneca.net/application/files/5216/1971/5317/SITEPLAN_CANISI
US_4-26-21.pdf
k. Flood Impact Analysis dated April 2021:

http://www.westseneca.net/application/files/2916/5401/0343/Canisius_High_Schoo
l_-_Flood_Report_2021-04-28.pdf
l. Stormwater Management Report and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan dated

April 2021:
http://www.westseneca.net/application/files/7016/1971/5328/SWPPP_Report-
CanisiusHS_2021-04-27.pdf
m. Revised Stormwater Management Report and Stormwater Pollution Prevention

Plan dated May 2021:
http://www.westseneca.net/application/files/7616/5401/0310/SWPPP_Report-
CanisiusHS_2021-05-25.pdf
51 of 59
179
n. Letter from SHPO dated July 16, 2021:

http://www.westseneca.net/application/files/9516/2826/6278/canisus_july_shpo.pdf
o. United States Army Corp of Engineers letter dated November 30, 2021:
http://www.westseneca.net/application/files/6416/5401/0353/Army_Corp_No_Per
mit_needed_11-30-21.pdf
p. Applicant Recap dated December 30, 2021:

http://www.westseneca.net/application/files/3916/4907/7997/Applicant__recap.pdf
q. Town of West Seneca Engineering Department approval dated February 8, 2022:

http://www.westseneca.net/application/files/1816/5401/0323/Cansisius_Revision_a
ppvl_ltr_2-8-22.pdf
r. Letter from NYSDEC dated January 13, 2022:

http://www.westseneca.net/application/files/5316/5401/0314/DEC_Buffalo.9-1402-
00596.CanisiusHighSchool.PermitUpdateLtr.pdf
s. Letter from SHPO dated April 8, 2022:

http://www.westseneca.net/application/files/1316/5401/0349/prhp_canisius.pdf
t. Monitoring Plan dated April 29, 2022:

http://www.westseneca.net/application/files/2416/5401/0328/Canisius_monitoring_
plan_042922.pdf
u. Civil Drawings dated 4/29/2022:

http://www.westseneca.net/application/files/9016/5401/0362/20020_Drawings_4-
29-22_Canisius.pdf
v. Deed dated April 21, 2005:

http://www.westseneca.net/application/files/1616/5401/0311/DEED_11098-
2759_Written_property_Description.pdf
w. Town of West Seneca Existing Land Use Map:

http://www.westseneca.net/application/files/6316/5401/0285/Town_Of_West_Sene
ca_-_Existing_Land_Use.pdf
x. Town of West Seneca Zoning Map:

http://www.westseneca.net/application/files/8016/5401/0279/Town_of_West_Sene
ca_ZONEMAP_2018.pdf
261. Upon information and belief, Respondents Planning Board and Town did not post to its
website prior to its meetings all agency records available to the public pursuant to article
six of the Public Officers Law, as well as any proposed resolution, law, rule, regulation,
52 of 59
180
policy or any amendment thereto, that is scheduled to be the subject of its discussion in its
meetings where this project was scheduled to be discussed and considered.
262. Respondents Planning Board and Town’s failure to post these materials to its website as it
did with other materials in accordance with POL § 103[e] prevented Petitioner and the
Public from raising issues with them during the public hearing on this application.
263. Had Petitioner possessed Parts 2 & 3 of the EAF prior to the opening of the public hearing,
Petitioner would have challenged the findings and reasoning behind them during the public
hearing on June 9, 2022.
264. The last publicly noticed work session of Respondent Planning Board was on October 8,
2020.
265. If Respondent Planning Board was not required to vote on the adoption of Parts 2 & 3 of
the EAF in accordance with GCL § 41 because it was prepared by the Board as a whole
such was not done at a public meeting as required by Public Officers Law § 103.
266. Public Officers Law §103[a] states “every meeting of a public body shall be open to the
general public, except that an executive session of such body may be called and business
transacted thereat in accordance with section ninety-five of this article.”
267. Public Officers Law § 105 requires a vote in an open meeting to convene and enter an
executive session.
268. At the April 8, 2021, meeting of Respondent Planning Board, Mark Gaston, District Field
Engineer with Erie County Soil and Water Conservation presented the Planning Board
with documents' pertaining to the flood issues. To date none of these materials have been
made available in accordance with POL § 103[e].
269. Petitioner Warren by e-mail dated April 23, 2021, requested from the Secretary of
53 of 59
181
Respondent Planning Board the “Environmental Assessment Form together with all
SEQRA related materials” because such materials were not made available in accordance
with Public Officers Law § 103[e].
270. Upon information and belief there are other documents related to this project that were
considered by Respondent Planning Board in reaching its decision on these actions that
should have been made available to the public but were not.
271. If such votes as detailed above in was in fact taken it was not recorded in the minutes as
required by Public Officers Law § 106 and/or by a means that circumvented the
requirement that such be done in an open meeting pursuant to Public Officers Law § 103
and constitutes a material violation of Public Officers Law § 107.
272. This denied Petitioner and the public from "any meaningful participation" in the process
leading to the final adoption of the challenged acts of Respondent Planning Board, in clear
contravention of Public Officers Law § 103[e] and Town Law § 274-a[8].
273. Public Officers Law § 103[e] imposes a ministerial, nondiscretionary duty on Respondents
Planning Board and Town.
274. This repeated disregard for providing all of the documents to the public as required by
Public Officers Law § 103[e] denies Petitioner and the public of any meaningful
participation in the matters before Respondent Planning Board.
275. Public Officers Law § 107 gives this Court “the power, in its discretion, upon good cause
shown, to declare that the public body violated this article and/or declare the action taken
in relation to such violation void, in whole or in part, without prejudice to reconsideration
in compliance with this article.”
54 of 59
182
276. Public Officers Law § 107 also gives this Court the power to “require the members of the
public body to participate in a training session concerning the obligations imposed by this
article conducted by the staff of the committee on open government.”
CONCLUSION
277. As a result of the above Petitioner is entitled to a declaration that all actions taken by
Respondent Planning Board on Respondent Canisius’ application for Site Plan Review
(SPR2021-05) to date, null and void in that it acted without jurisdiction and/or ultra vires
in that it did not comply with General Municipal Law § 239-m and/or General
Construction Law § 41.
278. As a result of the above Petitioner is entitled to an order setting aside the negative SEQRA
declaration issued by the Respondent Planning Board on June 9, 2022, on Respondent
Canisius’ application for site plan approval SPR2021-05 as proceeding, or is about to
proceed, without or in excess of jurisdiction; as result of an error in law, arbitrary and
capricious, an abuse of discretion and not supported by substantial evidence and is
improper and remanding this matter back to Respondent Planning Board to issue a positive
SEQRA declaration and/or for further proceedings consistent with this Court’s Order and
Judgment;
279. As a result of the above Petitioner is entitled to an order setting aside the approval under
West Seneca Town Code issued by the Respondent Planning Board on July 14, 2022, on
Respondent Canisius’ application for site plan approval SPR2021-05 as proceeding, or is
about to proceed, without or in excess of jurisdiction; as result of an error in law, arbitrary
and capricious, an abuse of discretion and not supported by substantial evidence and is
55 of 59
183
improper and remanding this matter back to Respondent Planning Board for further
proceedings consistent with this Court’s Order and Judgment;
280. As a result of the above Petitioner is entitled to an order declaring that Respondent
Planning Board violated Public Officers Law Article 7 and/or declaring the challenged
actions taken by Respondent Planning Board in relation to such violation void, in whole or
in part, without prejudice to reconsideration in compliance with Public Officers Law
Article 7 and/or require the members of the Respondent Planning Board to participate in a
training session concerning the obligations imposed by this article conducted by the staff
of the committee on open government.
281. As a result of the above Petitioner is entitled to an order temporarily, preliminarily and
permanently enjoining Respondent Canisius, its agents, employees and servants and all
who are in privity with them, from any and all land clearing, vegetation removal,
bulldozing, grading, construction or any other action with respect to the property located at
2448 & 2885 Clinton Street, West Seneca, New York (hereinafter “Subject Parcel”) until
such time Respondent Planning Board and Respondent Town of West Seneca has
completed its review on remand from this Court or further order of this Court;
WHEREFORE petitioner requests that an order and judgment be granted:
a. Declaring all actions taken by Respondent Planning Board on Respondent
Canisius’ application for Site Plan Review (SPR2021-05) to date, null and void in
that it acted without jurisdiction and/or ultra vires in that it did not comply with
General Municipal Law § 239-m and/or General Construction Law § 41.
b. Setting aside the negative declaration under SEQRA issued by the Respondent
Planning Board on June 9, 2022, on Respondent Canisius’ application for site plan
56 of 59
184
approval SPR2021-05 as proceeding, or is about to proceed, without or in excess of
jurisdiction; as result of an error in law, arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of
discretion and not supported by substantial evidence and is improper and
remanding this matter back to Respondent Planning Board to issue a positive
SEQRA declaration and/or for further proceedings consistent with this Court’s
Order and Judgment;
c. Setting aside the approval under West Seneca Town Code issued by the
Respondent Planning Board on July 14, 2022, on Respondent Canisius’ application
for site plan approval SPR2021-05 as proceeding, or is about to proceed, without or
in excess of jurisdiction; as result of an error in law, arbitrary and capricious, an
abuse of discretion and not supported by substantial evidence and is improper and
remanding this matter back to Respondent Planning Board for further proceedings
consistent with this Court’s Order and Judgment;
d. Declaring that Respondent Planning Board violated Public Officers Law Article 7
and/or declaring the challenged actions taken in relation to such violation void, in
whole or in part, without prejudice to reconsideration in compliance with Public
Officers Law Article 7 and/or require the members of Respondent Planning Board
to participate in a training session concerning the obligations imposed by this
article conducted by the staff of the committee on open government.
e. Preliminarily and permanently enjoining Respondent Canisius, its agents,
employees and servants and all who are in privity with them, from any and all land
clearing, vegetation removal, bulldozing, grading, construction or issuance of
grading or building permits, or any funding approval, or any other action with
57 of 59
185
respect to the property located at 2448 & 2885 Clinton Street, West Seneca, New
York (hereinafter “Subject Parcel”) until 30 days after such time Respondent
Planning Board and the Town of West Seneca has completed its review on remand
from this Court or upon further order of this Court;
i. and granting Petitioner costs and disbursements of this action in accordance with
CPLR Articles 80 to 84 upon presentation of a bill of costs, together with such
other relief as the court deems proper.
Dated: July 14, 2022

Yours, etc.
_____________________________
Daniel T. Warren
Petitioner, Pro Se
716-288-6724
58 of 59
186
59 of 59
187
Exhibit “1” - 2005 Canisius EAF

Exhibit “1”
188
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW

SOLICITATION FOR LEAD AGENCY STATUS
TYPE 1 ACTION
Pursuant to Article 8 of the Environmental
Conservation Law, State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR)
October 6, 2005
To: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

- Region 9
NYS Department of Environmental Conservation
NYS Department of Transportation-
Planning
NYS Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation
NYS Department of State - Code Enforcement
Erie County DEP-Planning

Erie DEP - Sewerage Management
County
Erie County Water Authority
Project Name: Canisius High School Athletic Facility
location: Clinton Street (See Attached Location Map)

West Seneca, Erie County, New York
Project No.: 4207-02
The Town of West Seneca has identified this project as a Type 1 Action for the purposes
of SEQR. The Town requests lead agency status for this project pursuant to Part
617.6(b)(2) and is required to coordinate the review of all involved agencies pursuant to
Part 617.6(b)(3).
Any involved or interested agency may submit objections in writing within thirty (30)
days of the date of this notification. If no objections are expressed, the Town of West
Seneca will assume lead agency status for this action and will make a determination of its
significance.
Written comments may be submitted to:
Mr. William Czuprynski - Inspector

Building
Town of West Seneca
1250 Union Road
West Seneca, New York 14224 .
Before: November 7, 2005
Ce: George Montz - Town Engineer (w/attach.)

ile (w/attach.)
189
1446-2 (9/95}-7c
617.20 . FILECDPY
Append!× A
State Environmental -
PRORICrNo.È-o 0%
Quality Review
FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM FOLDERNO.
Purpose: Thefull EAF is designed
to help applicants and agencies etermine,in an orderly manner,
be significant. whether a project or action
The question of whether an action may be significant may
is not always to answer.
project that aresubjective easy Frequently, there are aspects of a
orunmeasurable. ftis also understood that those who determine
knowledge significance may have little or no formal
of the environment or maybe expert
technically in environmental analysis, In addition,
particular area may not be aware of the manywho have knowledgein one
broaderconcemsaffecting the question ofsignificance.
The fun EAFis intended to provide a method

whereby applicants and agencies can be assuredthat the determination
has been orderly, comprehensive in nature, yet flexible process
to allow introduction of information to fit a project or action,
Full EAF Components: The full EAF is comprised of three parts:
Part t Provides objective data and information about a given project and its site. Byidentifying basicproject
reviewer in the analysis data, it assists a
that takes piece in Parts 2 and 3.
Part 2: Focuses the range of possible

onidentifying impadts that mayoccur from a project or action. It provides guidance as
to whether an irnpact is likely to be considered small to moderate or whether it is a potentially-large
also identifies whether an impact impact The form
can be mitigated or reduced.
Part 3: If any impact In Part 2 is identified as potentially-large, then Part 3 is used to evaluate whether or not the impact
Actually important. is
DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE- Type 1 and Unlisted Actions
Identify thei Parifons of EAF completed foriftis project

| X [ Part 't j | Part2 j ] Part 3
- Upon reviewof the InformafIon recorded on this EAF
(Paris 1 and 2 and 3 if appropdate), and
magnitude and importance of each impact It Is any othersupporting information, and considering both the
reasonably deterrnined by the lead agency that
A. The project will not result in any iarge and
imppriantimpact(s) and, therefore, Is one which will not have significant impact on
environment therefors a negative declaration wili be prepared. the
B. Af though the project could have a significanteffect

oD the environment, there will not be a significant
because the mlffgaffon measures descdbed in Part 3 effectfor this Unlisted Action
prepared.* have been required, therefore a cONDmONED negative declaration will be
C. The project may resultin one or more large and

important impacts thatmay have a signif icant Impact on the
positive declaration will be prepared. environrnant, therefore a
.
* .
Aconditioned Negative Declaration is only valid for Unlisted Acffons
CIInton Street Athletic Facility

Name of Acffon
TowrL of West Seneca -

Name of Lead Agency
WIIItarn P. Czuplynsid
Print or Type Name of Responsible Officer trr tead Building and Plumbing Inspector
Agency TIfle of Responsibia Of ilcer
Signature of Responsibie Officerin Lead

Agency Signature of Preparer (lf differentfrom responsible officer)
-I
W:\Prof_in\40\420702 Canisfus Athletic Fields\14, Permits; ApplicaÈons &

ApprovalslSEOR Full EAF Form F0500_081105reviseddoc 1- .
190
4-f e-2 {e/95}-7c
Prepared by ProjectSponsor
NOTICE: This documentis designed to assistin
whether the action proposed rnayhave a
the enfire formi Paris A through E. Answers fo determining
these questions will be considered as part of the
significariteffecton theenvironment.Please complete
- verification and application for approval and may be subject fo
pubiforeview. Provide any additional informaffon you believe further
will be needed to complete Parts 2 and 3.
Itisexpected thatcompleffon of the full EAF will
bedependentortinfonnation currently available and will notinvolve
Information requiring such addiffonal work newstudies,research, orInvestigation. If
isunavâilable, so indicate and specifyeach instance.
.
Name of Aclion Clinton StreetAthletic Facility .
Location of Action (include Street and County) · 2448/2869 CIInton

Address,Runicipality SL, West Seneca, Erie County
Name of Applicant/Sponsor
Canisius High School Business Telephone
(716) 882-0486
Address it 80 Delaware Avenue
City/PO
Buffalo . State
NewYork ZIP Code
14209
Name of Owner (if different) . ...... _
same Business Telephone
( )
Address·
Same asabove
. City/PO
State 2IpCede
Descdption of Action The project intent is to construct a

footbah.field and runningtrack to accommodate High School
AdditionaEsIts improvements include road sporÈhg events.
access, a parking lotjoncrete w.alkways, bleachetseating,g
sŠfe [Ightiñg (SeeAppendix A). comfort station,
landscaping, and
Please complete Each QuesNon - Indicata N.A. if not

spplicaBIs
As Site Description
Physical setung of overall project; both developed and

undeveloped areas,
1. Presentland use: Urban
[ industrial . | [ Commercial [ Residential (suburban) [ X ] Rural (non-farm)
Forest Agdculture [ Other
2. Total acreage of project area: 33.4 acres.
APPROX)MATIžACREAGE
Meadow or Bmshfand (Non-agricultural) . PRESENTLY AFTER COMPLETION
27.0 - acres .
Forested 15.2 acres
· Agricultural (includes 6.4 acres 6.4 acres
orchards, cropland, pasture, etc.)
Wefiand (Freshwateror tidal as per Arffcles 0 - acres 0 acres
24, 25 of ECL) 0 acres
WaterBurface Area D acres
0 acres 0 acres
Unvegetated (Rock, earth or fill)
O acres O .
Roads, buildings and other paved surfaces acres
. . - 0 acres
Other Ondicate type) Lawns/pfaying-field 4.2 acres .
4 acres 7.8 acres
grasses
WñProf.jn140\420702 Canisius Athieifo FieldsW42 Permits; Applica8ons &

Approvals\SEQff Full EAFFormF0500 081105revised”oc -2-
191
S
44e-2 (9/95)-7c
3. What is predominant soil type(s) on projectsite? Tioga Silt Loam (To), Wayland silt Loam (Wd), Hamlin SIIt Loam
(Hm), Teef Silt Loam
(Te)
a. Soil Drainage: X Well drained 35-40 % of site . X Moderately well drained 40-45 % of site
X Poorly drained 20-25 % of site
b. if any agdcultural fand Is Involved, how
many acres of soff are classified within solI group 1 through 4 of the NYS Land
Class<fication System? 20 to 25 acres. (See NYCRR 370)
4. Are there bedrock outcroppings on projectsite?

Yes X j No
a. \ hat Is depth to bedrock? 5'+ (in feet)
5. Approximate percentage of proposed project sffe with slopes:

X 0-10% 100 % 10-15%
. 15% or greater %
6. )s projectsubstantially contiguous to, or confain a building, or district, listed on the State or the National
Registers of Historic Places?
Y s X No
7. 1s projectsubstantiaUy configuous fo a site IIsfed on the
Register of Naffonal Natural Landmarks? Yes X No
8. WhatIs the depth of the water fable? 3- a (In feet)
9. Is sitefocated over a primary, principal, or sole source
aquifer? . Yes I X I No
10. Do hunting, fishing or shell fishing opportunities
presenify exist In the projectarea X [.No Yes .
11. Does prolectsIts contain anyspecies of plant or anfrnal life
that Is identified as threatened or endangered?
. Yes X - No Accordfng to: †request for confirmation from the New York State
Department of Environmental
Conservation's Natural Heritage Program date d17August
2005was submitted. itis not
anticipated thatendangered or threatened:plants oranfmàIs would be
project.- Impacted6y the
Identifyeach species
12. Are thereshy cof ue or unusual land fôrms on the project

' ~ site? (Le., cliffs,danes, other g6ofo'gical
Yes fõnfulffons)
} X No Describe;
13. Is the profedt site presently used

by the community orneighborhood as an open space or recreation area?
Yes X | No If yes, explain: .
14. Does thspresentsiteinclude-scenicviews known to be Imporfant to the communify?

[ Yes X No
15. Streams within orcontiguous fo projectarea- ·
Buffalo Creeitand·an un-named tributary of Buffalo-Creek are cohtIgudus totheproject
area. . .. · . .
. . . . . . .. : : . ,. _ . .
a. ·Name of Stream and naine of River to which ItIs fributary:
Buffalo Creek Is a tfibutary of the Buffalo River.
16. . 1..akes,p6nds, wetlandareas within or configuous to project area: NfA (see Appendbt
B)
a. Name: b. Size (In acres):
17. is the site served by ensting pubtle ulflities? .
X Yes .No
a. If Yes, doessuffic(ent capacity exist to allow connection?
X Yes No
b. If Yes, will Improvements be necessary to allow connection?
Yes X No (See Appendix A)
18 . 1stha site located in an agricultural district cardfied pursuant
to Agriculture and Markets Law, Article
25-AA, Section 3Ö3 and 30.47
Yes X No
19. Is the sEtelocated in or substantially configuous fo a Critical Environrnental
Area designated pursuant to Article 8 offhe ECL) and S NYCRR
817? . Yes | X No
). Has the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes? . Yes X No
W:\Proj.jn¼0¼20702 Canisius Athletic Fields\14. Pém90si Applications &

Approvals\SEQR Full EAF Form F0500_081105revised.dog ·
-3
192
1446-2 (e/95)-70
Project Description
Physical dimensions and scale of project (filiIn dlm nslans as

appropriate)
a. Tolar configuous acreage owned or controlled by projectsponsor 33.4 acres.
b. Projectacreage fo bedeveloped: 11.8 acres Initially: 118 acres ultimately.
c. Project acreage fo remain unds.veloped 21.6 acres.
d. .Length of project,in mues: N/A (lf appropriate)
e. . If the projectIs an expansion, Indicate percentof expansion proposed

N/A %;
f. Number of off-street p'arkingspaces 0

existing ; proposed 275 . .
g. Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour 275+
h. If residential: Nurnber and typé of housing units: N/A
One Farnity Two Family - Multiple Family Condominium

inmaf[
UEmately
. I. Dimensions (In feet) of largest proposed structure 18 height;. 45 width; 55 fength.

). Linear feet of frontage along a p0blfo thoroughfare ls? SS
projectw(occupy ft
2. How much natural material (i.e., rock, earth, etc.) wE be removed from theslfe? O tons/cubio yards
---3. Will distud3ed areas be racialmed?

_ j X | Yes No
U
N/A
a. rfyes,forwhatratendedpurposefstnestebeingreeamed, arassedareas
b. WE fopsoil be stackpued for reclamation X | Yes No
c. WE upper subsolf be stockpiled for reclamation? X } Yes No
4. Havr many acres of vegetation (frees,
shrubs, ground covers}will bs removed from slfe? <0.5 acres. (See Appendix A)
5. Wiltany mature forest (over 100 years old) or other locally-importantvegetation be removed by this project
Yes X | No
S. Ifaingle phase profeeb Anticipate period of construction 9 months, (including demo$tfon). .
7. If multi-phased: N/A
a. Total number of phases anticipated -

(number)
b. Anticipated date of commencement phase 1 - month - year, (Induding demollifun)

c. Apprdximate completion date of final phase - month - year.
d. is phase 1 functionally dependent on sûbsequentphases? . [ Yes [ No .
R. WIIIblasting occur during construction? - |·Yes X . ] No
9. Nurnber of fobs generated: during consiniction 10 ; after projectis complefe .

-
10. Number of Jobs eliminated by this project D
it _Wiltprojectrequire relocation of any projects or facilities? . Yes X No

If yes, explain:
12. Is surface liquid Waste disposal involved? I Yes

. | Ï X | No
W:Proj_JnW0\428702Canisius Afhieffo Fieldstf 4. Permits: Applications & Approvals SEQR Full EAF Form FO500_,Q MO5ravised.doc . -4-
193
14-16-2 (9195)-7c
a, If yes, indicate type of waste (sonage, industrial, eto.}and arnaunt
b. Name of water body into which efttuentwill be discharged
13. Is subsprrace liquid waste disposa[ involved?

Yes - X No
Type:
14. Will surface area of an existing water

body increase or decrease by proposal? . Yes X No
Explain
15. la projector anyportion of projectiocated in a 'I00-year flood plain?

[ Yes ( X No
16. WIII the projectgenerate solid waste? X Yes No
a. f f yes, what Is the amountper month <t/4 tons
b. If yes, wUI an extsUngsolid waste facility be used?
. X Yes No .
c If yes, givename Private vendor ; f ocation
d. WIII any wastes not go Into a sevtage disposal system or Info a
sanlfaty landfill: Yes X No
e. If Yes, explain:
1L WU the projecthvpfve the disposal of solid waste? . Yes X No
a. If yes, what is the anticipatedrata of disposal? · N/A tons/month.
b. . If yes, whatIs the anticipated site life? N/A years.
18. Wiu projectuse herbicides orpesticides? - X Yes [ No (See AppeIdix A)
19. Wlfl project routinely produce odors (niore than one hour per day)?
{ Yes X No
. D. WIII project produce operating noiseexceeding the local arnbientno!se levels? X Yes No (See Appendix A)
21. WIII project resultin an lacreaseIn energyuse?
[ X Yes . No
If yes,indicafa type(s) Electric & gas .
22. lfwaterauppryis fromwells, Indicate pumping capadly · N/A gallons/minufa.

23. Total anticipated water usage peYday 4,000 gallons/day. (Mainly for In·fgation of the pinying tield;
approximately 30 times per year)}
24. Does projectinvolve local, state, or federaf funding? . Yes | X { No .
If Yes,e·ÆIain
26, Approvals Required:

Submittal
Type Date
CIfy, Town, VDiage Board X . Yes No
Building
Permit
Clfy, Town, Village Planning Board Yes X No . .. "
City, fówn Zonflig Board [ Yes [ X I No
City; County Health·Department
[ Yes {X [ No
Other Local Agencies
Yes |-X No
other Regional Agencies
_X Yes No ECSD (sewer) and
. . ECWA (water) t.Ise '
Permits -
State Agencies X Yes . No NYSDOS Variance for
..
Fire.Hydrant, · .
NYSDOT Work Permit,
. . . NYSDEC Stormwater
Permit for Stormwater
Discharges from -
Construction Activities
Federal Agencies Yes
[ ] X ] No
WSProUn\40W20702 Canislus Athletic Fle[ds\14.Permits; Applications & ApprenâIssEQR Full EAF Form F0500-084105re91sed.doo 5-
194
1446-2 (9/95}-7G
U
C. Zoning and Planning Information
1. Does proposed actioninvolve a

planning or zoning decision? Yes X No
If Yes,indicate decision required:
zoning amendrnant zoningvadance speclaiuse permit , subdMsion
site plan
new/revisionof 'rnaster plan } resource managernant plan -
other
400
2. Whatis the zoning classification(s) of the sife: f¶ _
- sident District
3. What is1he maximum potential developmentof the siteIf developed as permitted by the presentzoning?
Single family, church, private
school cemeteries, storage
4. . Whatis the proposedzoning of thesite? N/A
5. What Is the maximum potentraidevelopmentof the site If developed as perrnitted

by the proposed zoning? N/A
6. Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended

uses in adopted focalland use plans? X Yes No
7. What are the predominant tand
use(s) and zoning classifications within a ¼mile radius of proposed action?
Residential, Induefrial
Agricultural
a. is the proposed action compatible with

adjoining/surrounding land uses within a ¼ mile? X Yes
( No
9. If the proposed acffon Is the subdMsion (Conforms with Proposed Comprehensive
ofland, how mangidts are proposed? Master Plan)
N/A
WhatIs the minimum latsize proposed? N/A
10. Will proposed actionrequire

anyauthorization(s) for the formation of sewerorwater districts?
| Yes | X | l o
11. Will the proposed action creats a deinand for
any community pmvided services (r-sereation, edgeefien,
police, ffÊe protection)? .
X Yes No
if yes, is exisiing capacity sufficient fa handle
projected demadd?
X Yes No
12. €lli the proposed acffon result in the generation of
trafflesignificantly above present levels? - Yes . X . No (see
Appendix A)-
If yes, is the existing road network adequate fo
handle the additional fraffic?
Yes .No
D. Information Details
Attach any be needed fo clarify you'r project If there are or

addiffonaIInformation.asmay
please discusssuch Impacts and the measures which you may be'any adverse impacts associated with your
propose to mitigate or avoid them, proposal,
.E Verification
.I cerlify that the I ation provided above is true to the

bestofrhy knowledge.
Applicanf/Spon pr Na e Dartyt Li Jones, RLA
Date
Signatuçe
Title /J . cid
If the action is In the C stal area, a d ou ar a state agency, complefs the coastal
Assessment Form before roceeding with this assessnient
WAProj_InWOW20702 Canisius AthletimEreldski4.

Permits: Applications & Approvals\SEQR Full EAF Form
FO500-081105reviseddoc
195
APPENDIX At PROJECT DESCRIPTION
a ·
Facility Description: Canisius High School intends to construct a football field and rimning
track to accommodate sporting events and routine team practices. The grounds will include an
asphalt access road and a 275-car landscaped
parking lot, areas, concrete walkways, bleacher
seating for 800 spectators, and a comfort station where refreshments will be sold and restrooms
. . Iocated. The grounds also will include sufficient lighting for parking lot and grounds safety, as
well as lighting for the playing fields.
Onsite Utilities: The project site is serviced by the Brie County Sewer District (ECSD) and the
Brie County Water Authority (ECW ). Sufficient exists to allow
utility capacity connections.
Service connections must be installed.
- Facility Operadon & Maintenance: The grounds will be utilized for team practices and sporting.
. events generally before and after school and on weekends. The grounds will be maintained
routinely on week days.
o Usage of the Grounds: events will be held on weekends.

Sporting generally Regular
event atten cMnee is anticipated to be 300.to 400 spectators. During weekend sporting
events it is anticipated that traffic and noise will increase above present levels.
New York State Department of Transportation conducted a traffic study between

French Road-and Route 277 (Union Street) on week days during'2002. The study
consisted of a continuous 72-hour traffic count which resulted in an average of 12,000
. . cars per day or 500 cars per hour.
a Routine Maintenance - will include

the following activities: mowing, irrigation, and
general landscape maintenance. and herbidides.will be legally
Fertilizer; pesticides,
applied on.playing lields and other grass and landscaped áreas (as necessary), Trash
receptacles and receptacles for deposit cans and bottles will be mäíntained.
. Trash . . .. .. . .
removal/disposal services will be routinely provided by a private vendor. .
Project Construction
Phase: Constmctiori activities will incInde earthwork involving heavy
equipment site grading
for and utility service connectioniustallatioF. Work till)e conducted
generally on.week days Noise is expected to increase above present levels the
during
operation of heavy equipment. The majority of site developmentwork will take place within
.-the bounds of former agricultùral land (presently fallow land). Less than 0.5 acres of
woody
vegetation will be removed outside the current Timits of fallow land. Construction is expected
to be complete in nine months.
w .
196
APPENDIX B: . Part 1, Section A, Question 16
No lakes or ponds exist within or contiguous. to the project area. NYSDEC and National Wetland
Inventory (NWI) maps were reviewed for mapped wetlands within or contiguous to the project area
The NWI map indicated wetlands 250 feet northeast
approximately of the property line.
197
Exhibit “2” - 2007 building permit for Canisius

Exhibit “2”
198
Town Of West Seneca
App cati n Fo B ng Permit
'bate: 3/26/2007 SBL # 124.10-2-17.1
Permit # 2007121
APPLICATION IS HEREBY MADE to the TOWN OF WEST SENECA Building Department for the
issuance of a permit pursuant to the New York State Uniform Fire Uniform Fire Prevention and Building
Code, for the construction of buildings, additions or alterations, repairs, or for the removal or demolition,
as herein described. The Contractor agrees to comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, or
regulations governing building activities in the TOWN OF WEST SENECA and will also allow all
inspectors to enter the premises for inspections. The Contractor also understands that under no
circumstances shall personal belongings or fumishings be brought into any new house or addition,
without first obtaining a Certificate of Occupancy from the Building Department.
Contractor 1,nformation Owner information
Concept struction Name Canisius High School

Name Con
2 5 5 5 Transit Road
New York 1 405 9 Address 1180 Delaware Avenue
Address Elma,
Buffalo NY
Phone Zip 14209

Phone Zip
Address of Construction 2885 Clinton St
Equipment room 56 ft wide by 56 ft long for Canisius High School and

Project Discription: bleachers 25 ft wide by 102 ft long for grandstands( 2 permits)
You are also aware of the required inspections and responsible to schedule them.
Signature
PLANS MUST BE AVAILABLE ON JOB SITE.

This building permit shall become void (6) months from the date of issuance.
Fee Type Fee Amount Valuation
ACcessory Structures $0.00 $1,800,000.00
Accessory Structures $0.00 $250,000.00
Check Number Payment Amount Payment Date

$0.00 3/26/2007
$0.00 3/26/2007
he application of Canisius High School Dated 3/26/2007 is hereby APPROVED and permission
GRANTED for the construction, reconstruction or alteration of a building and/or accessory
structure as set forth above and on the plans approved by the Building Department.
199
Exhibit “3” - August 3, 2007 decision of the ZBA on appeal of Canisius' building permit

Exhibit “3”
200
TOWN OFWEST SENECA
SUPERVISOR
PAUL T. CLARK
TOWNCOUNCE,
CHRISTOPHER F. OSMANSKI
PATIUCIA C. DEPASQUALE, RMC/CMC
TOWN VmcENT L GRABER, JR.
CRAIo J. HIcKs
REGISTRAR
OFVrTALSTATISTICS CHRISTNA WLEKLINSKI BOve
NOrARYPUBLIC
RECORDSMANAGEMENTOFFIcun
August 3, 2007
Mr. Donald Grasso

64 Lexington Green .
West Seneca, NY 14224
Re: Zoning Board of Appeals #2007-051
Property located at 2448-2869 Clinton Street
Dear Applicant:
Enclosed please find a copy of the written decision of the Zoning Board of
Appeals with regard to the above matter.
Very uly yours,
Patricia C. DePasquale, RMC C

Town Clerk
cc: Harris Beach
Web Address: www.westseneca.net email: pdepasquale@twsny.Org

TOWN HALL 1250 UNION ROAD " WEsT SENECA,NEW YORK 14224 " (716) 558-3215 " FAX (716) 558-2250 4Aºª
201
DECISION OF THE WEST SENECA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
APPEAL NO 2007-051
Before the Zoning Board of Appeals is the appeal of Donald Grasso of 64

Lexington Green, West Seneca, New York challenging the determimtion of the Town of
West Seneca Building Inspector, William Czuprynski, issuing a building permit to
Canisius High. School for construction of a athletic facility with classroom at 2448-2869
Clinton Street, West Seneca New York.
DECISION
It is the decision of the West Seneca Zoning Board of Appeals that the Building
Inspector, William Czuprynski, properly issued a building permit to Canisius High
School. Section 120-17 of the West Seneca Town Code permits school uses in property
zoned R-100A by private, non-profit elementary or secondary schools accredited by the
New York State Department of Education.
This decision was made after considering a number of factors. First, a public
hearing was properly held on July 25, 2007 at the regularly scheduled monthly Zoning
Board of Appeals meeting. At the public hearing testimony was presented by the
Appellant, Donald Grasso, representatives of Canisius High School and members of the
public. Secord, the Board reviewed the documents presented at the public hearing by
Mr. Grasso and Canisius High School. Finally, the Board reviewed a number of New
York State Court Cases directly related to the application of local zoning ordinances to
school or educational uses.
Based on the testimony presented at the hearing and documentation provided

Canisius High School is a legally charted by the New York State Department of
Education and Accredited by the Commission on Secondary Schools of the Middle States
Association. kelated to its mission, the school has a curriculum, a plant consisting of
adequate facilities and a staff appropriately qualified to meet educational objectives. The .
Clinton StreetAthletic and Classroom facility will directly assist in the Canisius having
accomplishin# its educational objectives.
Finally, the case history supports the determination made by the Building
Inspector when the building permit was issued. There are a number of New York State
Court cases which hold that school uses and religious uses enjoy a special treatment as to
residential zoning ordinances. The Court has allowed schools and religious institutions to
expand its uses in a residentially zoned neighborhood where other non conforming uses
would not be allowed. These cases are based on the fact that schools by their very nature
further public'health, welfare, morals and safety. In effort to keep this decision brief a
list of cases rdlied upon is attached hereto and made a part herof.
202
Exhibit A
Supporting Cases Appeal No.2007-051
1. New York Institute of Technology, Inc. v. Ruckgraber, et al., 65 Misc.2d 241

2. The Harvey School v. Town of Bedford, 34 A.D.2d 965
3. Town of Islip v. Dowling College, 275 A.D.2d 366
4. Cornell University v. Bagnardi et al., 107 A.D.2d 398
5. Rorie et al. v. Woodmere Academy, 52 N.Y.2d 200
6. Incorporated Village of Asharoken v. Pitassy, et al. 119 A.D.2d 404
7. Cornell University v. Bagnardi, 68 N.Y.2d 583
8. Association of Zone A & B Homeowners Subsidiary, Inc. et al. v. Zoning
Board of Appeals of City of Long Beach, et al., 298 A.D.2d 583
9. Richmond, et al., v. City of New Rochelle Board of Appeals on Zoning, 24
A.D.3d 782
10. Albany Preparatory Charter.School, et al. v. City of Albany, 31 A.D.3d 870
203
Exhibit “4” - 2021 Canisius EAF
Exhibit “4”
204
Full Environmental Assessment Form
Part 1 - Project and Setting
Instructions for Completing Part 1
Part 1 is to be completed by the applicant or project sponsor. Responses become part of the application for approval or funding,
are subject to public review, and may be subject to further verification.
Complete Part 1 based on information currently available. If additional research or investigation would be needed to fully respond to
any item, please answer as thoroughly as possible based on current information; indicate whether missing information does not exist,
or is not reasonably available to the sponsor; and, when possible, generally describe work or studies which would be necessary to
update or fully develop that information.
Applicants/sponsors must complete all items in Sections A & B. In Sections C, D & E, most items contain an initial question that
must be answered either “Yes” or “No”. If the answer to the initial question is “Yes”, complete the sub-questions that follow. If the
answer to the initial question is “No”, proceed to the next question. Section F allows the project sponsor to identify and attach any
additional information. Section G requires the name and signature of the project sponsor to verify that the information
contained in Part 1is accurate and complete.
A. Project and Sponsor Information.

Name of Action or Project:
Project Location (describe, and attach a general location map):
Brief Description of Proposed Action (include purpose or need):
Name of Applicant/Sponsor: Telephone:

E-Mail:
Address:
City/PO: State: Zip Code:
Project Contact (if not same as sponsor; give name and title/role): Telephone:
E-Mail:
Address:
Property Owner (if not same as sponsor): Telephone:

E-Mail:
Address:
Page 1 of 13
205
B. Government Approvals
B. Government Approvals Funding, or Sponsorship. (“Funding” includes grants, loans, tax relief, and any other forms of financial
assistance.)
Government Entity If Yes: Identify Agency and Approval(s) Application Date
Required (Actual or projected)
a. City Town , Yes No
or Village Board of Trustees
b. City, Town or Village Yes No
Planning Board or Commission
c. City Town or Yes No
Village Zoning Board of Appeals
d. Other local agencies Yes No
e. County agencies Yes No
f. Regional agencies Yes No
g. State agencies Yes No
h. Federal agencies Yes No
i. Coastal Resources.
i. Is the project site within a Coastal Area, or the waterfront area of a Designated Inland Waterway? Yes No
ii. Is the project site located in a community with an approved Local Waterfront Revitalization Program? Yes No
iii. Is the project site within a Coastal Erosion Hazard Area? Yes No
C. Planning and Zoning
C.1. Planning and zoning actions.

Will administrative or legislative adoption, or amendment of a plan, local law, ordinance, rule or regulation be the Yes No
only approval(s) which must be granted to enable the proposed action to proceed?
If Yes, complete sections C, F and G.
If No, proceed to question C.2 and complete all remaining sections and questions in Part 1
C.2. Adopted land use plans.
a. Do any municipally- adopted (city, town, village or county) comprehensive land use plan(s) include the site Yes No
where the proposed action would be located?
If Yes, does the comprehensive plan include specific recommendations for the site where the proposed action Yes No
would be located?
b. Is the site of the proposed action within any local or regional special planning district (for example: Greenway Yes No
Brownfield Opportunity Area (BOA); designated State or Federal heritage area; watershed management plan;
or other?)
If Yes, identify the plan(s):
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
c. Is the proposed action located wholly or partially within an area listed in an adopted municipal open space plan, Yes No
or an adopted municipal farmland protection plan?
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Page 2 of 13
206
C.3. Zoning
a. Is the site of the proposed action located in a municipality with an adopted zoning law or ordinance. Yes No
If Yes, what is the zoning classification(s) including any applicable overlay district?
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
b. Is the use permitted or allowed by a special or conditional use permit? Yes No

c. Is a zoning change requested as part of the proposed action? Yes No
If Yes,
i. What is the proposed new zoning for the site? ___________________________________________________________________
C.4. Existing community services.

a. In what school district is the project site located? ________________________________________________________________
b. What police or other public protection forces serve the project site?
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
c. Which fire protection and emergency medical services serve the project site?
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
d. What parks serve the project site?
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
D. Project Details
D.1. Proposed and Potential Development
a. What is the general nature of the proposed action (e.g., residential, industrial, commercial, recreational; if mixed, include all
components)?
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
b. a. Total acreage of the site of the proposed action? _____________ acres
b. Total acreage to be physically disturbed? _____________ acres
c. Total acreage (project site and any contiguous properties) owned
or controlled by the applicant or project sponsor? _____________ acres
c. Is the proposed action an expansion of an existing project or use? Yes No

i. If Yes, what is the approximate percentage of the proposed expansion and identify the units (e.g., acres, miles, housing units,
square feet)? % ____________________ Units: ____________________
d. Is the proposed action a subdivision, or does it include a subdivision? Yes No
If Yes,
i. Purpose or type of subdivision? (e.g., residential, industrial, commercial; if mixed, specify types)
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ii. Is a cluster/conservation layout proposed? Yes No
iii. Number of lots proposed? ________
iv. Minimum and maximum proposed lot sizes? Minimum __________ Maximum __________
Will proposed action be constructed in multiple phases? Yes No
If No, anticipated period of construction: _____ months
If Yes:
Total number of phases anticipated _____
Anticipated commencement date of phase 1 (including demolition) _____ month _____ year
Anticipated completion date of final phase _____ month _____year
Generally describe connections or relationships among phases, including any contingencies where progress of one phase may
determine timing or duration of future phases: _______________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Page 3 of 13
207
f. Does the project include new residential uses? Yes No
If Yes, show numbers of units proposed.
One Family Two Family Three Family Multiple Family (four or more)
Initial Phase ___________ ___________ ____________ ________________________
At completion
of all phases ___________ ___________ ____________ ________________________
g. Does the proposed action include new non-residential construction (including expansions)? Yes No
If Yes,
i. Total number of structures ___________
ii. Dimensions (in feet) of largest proposed structure: ________height; ________width; and _______ length
iii. Approximate extent of building space to be heated or cooled: ______________________ square feet
h. Does the proposed action include construction or other activities that will result in the impoundment of any Yes No
liquids, such as creation of a water supply, reservoir, pond, lake, waste lagoon or other storage?
If Yes,
i. Purpose of the impoundment: ________________________________________________________________________________
ii. If a water impoundment, the principal source of the water: Ground water Surface water streams Other specify:
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
iii. If other than water, identify the type of impounded/contained liquids and their source.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
iv. Approximate size of the proposed impoundment. Volume: ____________ million gallons; surface area: ____________ acres
v. Dimensions of the proposed dam or impounding structure: ________ height; _______ length
vi. Construction method/materials for the proposed dam or impounding structure (e.g., earth fill, rock, wood, concrete):
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
D.2. Project Operations

a. Does the proposed action include any excavation, mining, or dredging, during construction, operations, or both? Yes No
(Not including general site preparation, grading or installation of utilities or foundations where all excavated
materials will remain onsite)
If Yes:
i .What is the purpose of the excavation or dredging? _______________________________________________________________
ii. How much material (including rock, earth, sediments, etc.) is proposed to be removed from the site?
Volume (specify tons or cubic yards): ____________________________________________
Over what duration of time? ____________________________________________________
iii. Describe nature and characteristics of materials to be excavated or dredged, and plans to use, manage or dispose of them.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
iv. Will there be onsite dewatering or processing of excavated materials? Yes No
If yes, describe. ___________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
v. What is the total area to be dredged or excavated? _____________________________________acres
vi. What is the maximum area to be worked at any one time? _______________________________ acres
vii. What would be the maximum depth of excavation or dredging? __________________________ feet
viii. Will the excavation require blasting? Yes No
ix. Summarize site reclamation goals and plan: _____________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
b. Would the proposed action cause or result in alteration of, increase or decrease in size of, or encroachment Yes No
into any existing wetland, waterbody, shoreline, beach or adjacent area?
If Yes:
i. Identify the wetland or waterbody which would be affected (by name, water index number, wetland map number or geographic
description): ______________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Page 4 of 13
208
ii. Describe how the proposed action would affect that waterbody or wetland, e.g. excavation, fill, placement of structures, or
alteration of channels, banks and shorelines. Indicate extent of activities, alterations and additions in square feet or acres:
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
iii. Will proposed action cause or result in disturbance to bottom sediments? Yes No
If Yes, describe: __________________________________________________________________________________________
iv. Will proposed action cause or result in the destruction or removal of aquatic vegetation? Yes No
If Yes:
a of vegetation proposed to be removed ___________________________________________________________
acreage of aquatic vegetation remaining after project completion ________________________________________
purpose of proposed removal (e.g. beach clearing, invasive species control, boat access): ____________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
proposed method of plant removal: ________________________________________________________________________
if chemical/herbicide treatment will be used, specify product(s): _________________________________________________
v. Describe any proposed reclamation/mitigation following disturbance: _________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
c. Will the proposed action use, or create a new demand for water? Yes No
If Yes:
i. Total anticipated water usage/demand per day: __________________________ gallons/day
ii. Will the proposed action obtain water from an existing public water supply? Yes No
If Yes:
Name of district or service area: _________________________________________________________________________
Does the existing public water supply have capacity to serve the proposal? Yes No
Is the project site in the existing district? Yes No
Is expansion of the district needed? Yes No
Do existing lines serve the project site? Yes No
iii. Will line extension within an existing district be necessary to supply the project? Yes No
If Yes:
Describe extensions or capacity expansions proposed to serve this project: ________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Source(s) of supply for the district: ________________________________________________________________________
iv. Is a new water supply district or service area proposed to be formed to serve the project site? Yes No
If, Yes:
Applicant/sponsor for new district: ________________________________________________________________________
Date application submitted or anticipated: __________________________________________________________________
Proposed source(s) of supply for new district: _______________________________________________________________
v. If a public water supply will not be used, describe plans to provide water supply for the project: ___________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
vi. If water supply will be from wells (public or private), maximum pumping capacity: _______ gallons/minute.
d. Will the proposed action generate liquid wastes? Yes No
If Yes:
i. Total anticipated liquid waste generation per day: _______________ gallons/day
ii. Nature of liquid wastes to be generated (e.g., sanitary wastewater, industrial; if combination, describe all components and
approximate volumes or proportions of each): __________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
iii. Will the proposed action use any existing public wastewater treatment facilities? Yes No
If Yes:
Name of wastewater treatment plant to be used: _____________________________________________________________
Name of district: ______________________________________________________________________________________
Does the existing wastewater treatment plant have capacity to serve the project? Yes No
Is the project site in the existing district? Yes No
Is expansion of the district needed? Yes No
Page 5 of 13
209
Do existing sewer lines serve the project site? Yes No
Will line extension within an existing district be necessary to serve the project? Yes No
If Yes:
Describe extensions or capacity expansions proposed to serve this project: ____________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
iv. Will a new wastewater (sewage) treatment district be formed to serve the project site? Yes No
If Yes:
Applicant/sponsor for new district: ____________________________________________________________________
Date application submitted or anticipated: _______________________________________________________________
What is the receiving water for the wastewater discharge? __________________________________________________
v. If public facilities will not be used, describe plans to provide wastewater treatment for the project, including specifying proposed
receiving water (name and classification if surface discharge or describe subsurface disposal plans):
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
vi. Describe any plans or designs to capture, recycle or reuse liquid waste: _______________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
e. Will the proposed action disturb more than one acre and create stormwater runoff, either from new point Yes No
sources (i.e. ditches, pipes, swales, curbs, gutters or other concentrated flows of stormwater) or non-point
source (i.e. sheet flow) during construction or post construction?
If Yes:
i. How much impervious surface will the project create in relation to total size of project parcel?
_____ Square feet or _____ acres (impervious surface)
_____ Square feet or _____ acres (parcel size)
ii. Describe types of new point sources. __________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
iii. Where will the stormwater runoff be directed (i.e. on-site stormwater management facility/structures, adjacent properties,
groundwater, on-site surface water or off-site surface waters)?
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
If to surface waters, identify receiving water bodies or wetlands: ________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Will stormwater runoff flow to adjacent properties? Yes No
iv. Does proposed plan minimize impervious surfaces, use pervious materials or collect and re-use stormwater? Yes No
f. Does the proposed action include, or will it use on-site, one or more sources of air emissions, including fuel Yes No
combustion, waste incineration, or other processes or operations?
If Yes, identify:
i. Mobile sources during project operations (e.g., heavy equipment, fleet or delivery vehicles)
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ii. Stationary sources during construction (e.g., power generation, structural heating, batch plant, crushers)
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
iii. Stationary sources during operations (e.g., process emissions, large boilers, electric generation)
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
g. Will any air emission sources named in D.2.f (above), require a NY State Air Registration, Air Facility Permit, Yes No
or Federal Clean Air Act Title IV or Title V Permit?
If Yes:
i. Is the project site located in an Air quality non-attainment area? (Area routinely or periodically fails to meet Yes No
ambient air quality standards for all or some parts of the year)
ii. In addition to emissions as calculated in the application, the project will generate:
___________Tons/year ( ) of Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
___________Tons/year ( ) of Nitrous Oxide (N2 )
___________Tons/year ( ) of Perfluorocarbons (PFCs)
___________Tons/year ( ) of Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6)
___________Tons/year ( ) of Carbon Dioxide equivalent of Hydroflo rocarbons (H )
___________Tons/year ( ) of Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs)
Page 6 of 13
210
h. Will the proposed action generate or emit methane (including, but not limited to, sewage treatment plants, Yes No
landfills, composting facilities)?
If Yes:
i. Estimate methane generation in tons/year (metric): ________________________________________________________________
ii. Describe any methane capture, control or elimination measures included in project design (e.g., combustion to generate heat or
electricity, flaring): ________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
i. Will the proposed action result in the release of air pollutants from open-air operations or processes, such as Yes No
quarry or landfill operations?
If Yes: Describe operations and nature of emissions (e.g., diesel exhaust, rock particulates/dust):
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
j. Will the proposed action result in a substantial increase in traffic above present levels or generate substantial Yes No
new demand for transportation facilities or services?
If Yes:
i. When is the peak traffic expected (Check all that apply): Morning Evening Weekend
Randomly between hours of __________ to ________.
ii. For commercial activities only, projected number of truck trips/day
Parking spaces: Existing _____________ Proposed ___________ Net increase/decrease _____________
v.
vi. Are public/private transportation service(s) or facilities available within ½ mile of the proposed site? Yes No
vii Will the proposed action include access to public transportation or accommodations for use of hybrid, electric Yes No
or other alternative fueled vehicles?
viii. Will the proposed action include plans for pedestrian or bicycle accommodations for connections to existing Yes No
pedestrian or bicycle routes?
k. Will the proposed action (for commercial or industrial projects only) generate new or additional demand Yes No
for energy?
If Yes:
i. Estimate annual electricity demand during operation of the proposed action: ____________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ii. Anticipated sources/suppliers of electricity for the project (e.g., on-site combustion, on-site renewable, via grid/local utility, or
other):
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
iii. Will the proposed action require a new, or an upgrade to an existing substation? Yes No
l. Hours of operation. Answer all items which apply.

i. During Construction: ii. During Operations:
Monday - Friday: _________________________ Monday - Friday: ____________________________
Saturday: ________________________________ Saturday: ___________________________________
Sunday: _________________________________ Sunday: ____________________________________
Holidays: ________________________________ Holidays: ___________________________________
Page 7 of 13
211
m. Will the proposed action produce noise that will exceed existing ambient noise levels during construction, Yes No
operation, or both?
If yes:
i. Provide details including sources, time of day and duration:
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
ii. Will proposed action remove existing natural barriers that could act as a noise barrier or screen? Yes No
Describe: _________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
n. Will the proposed action have outdoor lighting? Yes No
If yes:
i. Describe source(s), location(s), height of fixture(s), direction/aim, and proximity to nearest occupied structures:
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ii. Will proposed action remove existing natural barriers that could act as a light barrier or screen? Yes No
Describe: _________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
o. Does the proposed action have the potential to produce odors for more than one hour per day? Yes No
If Yes, describe possible sources, potential frequency and duration of odor emissions, and proximity to nearest
occupied structures: ______________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
p. Will the proposed action include any bulk storage of petroleum ( over 1,100 gallons) Yes No
or chemical products ?
If Yes:
Product(s) to be stored ______________________________________________________________________________________
Volume(s) ______ per unit time ___________ (e.g., month, year)
Generally describe proposed storage facilities ________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
q. Will the proposed action (commercial, industrial and recreational projects only) use pesticides (i.e., herbicides, Yes No
insecticides) during construction or operation?
If Yes:
i. Describe proposed treatment(s):
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ii. Will the proposed action use Integrated Pest Management Practices? Yes No
r. Will the proposed action (commercial or industrial projects only) involve or require the management or disposal Yes No
of solid waste (excluding hazardous materials)?
If Yes:
i. Describe any solid waste(s) to be generated during construction or operation of the facility:
Construction: ____________________ tons per ________________ (unit of time)
Operation : ____________________ tons per ________________ (unit of time)
ii. Describe any proposals for on-site minimization, recycling or reuse of materials to avoid disposal as solid waste:
Construction: ________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Operation: __________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
iii. Proposed disposal methods/facilities for solid waste generated on-site:
Construction: ________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Operation: __________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Page 8 of 13
212
s. Does the proposed action include construction or modification of a solid waste management facility? Yes No
If Yes:
i. Type of management or handling of waste proposed for the site (e.g., recycling or transfer station, composting, landfill, or
other disposal activities): ___________________________________________________________________________________
ii. Anticipated rate of disposal/processing:
________ Tons/month, if transfer or other non-combustion/thermal treatment, or
________ Tons/hour, if combustion or thermal treatment
iii. If landfill, anticipated site life: ________________________________ years
t. Will proposed action at the site involve the commercial generation, treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous Yes No
waste?
If Yes:
i. Name(s) of all hazardous wastes or constituents to be generated, handled or managed at facility: ___________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ii. Generally describe processes or activities involving hazardous wastes or constituents: ___________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
iii. Specify amount to be handled or generated _____ tons/month
iv. Describe any proposals for on-site minimization, recycling or reuse of hazardous constituents: ____________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
v. Will any hazardous wastes be disposed at an existing offsite hazardous waste facility? Yes No
If Yes: provide name and location of facility: _______________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
If No: describe proposed management of any hazardous wastes which will not be sent to a hazardous waste facility:
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
E. Site and Setting of Proposed Action
E.1. Land uses on and surrounding the project site

a. Existing land uses.
i. Check all uses that occur on, adjoining and near the project site.
Urban Industrial Commercial Residential (suburban) Rural (non-farm)
Forest Agriculture Aquatic Other (specify): ____________________________________
ii. If mix of uses, generally describe:
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
b. Land uses and covertypes on the project site.
Land use or Current Acreage After Change
Covertype Acreage Project Completion (Acres +/-)
Roads, buildings, and other paved or impervious
surfaces
Forested
Meadows, grasslands or brushlands (non-
agricultural, including abandoned agricultural)
Agricultural
(includes active orchards, field, greenhouse etc.)
Surface water features
(lakes, ponds, streams, rivers, etc.)
Wetlands (freshwater or tidal)
Non-vegetated (bare rock, earth or fill)
Other
Describe: _______________________________
________________________________________
Page 9 of 13
213
c. Is the project site presently used by members of the community for public recreation? Yes No
i. If Yes: explain: __________________________________________________________________________________________
d. Are there any facilities serving children, the elderly, people with disabilities (e.g., schools, hospitals, licensed Yes No
day care centers, or group homes) within 1500 feet of the project site?
If Yes,
i. Identify Facilities:
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
e. Does the project site contain an existing dam? Yes No
If Yes:
i. Dimensions of the dam and impoundment:
Dam height: _________________________________ feet
Dam length: _________________________________ feet
Surface area: _________________________________ acres
Volume impounded: _______________________________ gallons OR acre-feet
ii. Dam s existing hazard classification: _________________________________________________________________________
iii. Provide date and summarize results of last inspection:
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
f. Has the project site ever been used as a municipal, commercial or industrial solid waste management facility, Yes No
or does the project site adjoin property which is now, or was at one time, used as a solid waste management facility?
If Yes:
i. Has the facility been formally closed? Yes No
If yes, cite sources/documentation: _______________________________________________________________________
ii. Describe the location of the project site relative to the boundaries of the solid waste management facility:
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
iii. Describe any development constraints due to the prior solid waste activities: __________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
g. Have hazardous wastes been generated, treated and/or disposed of at the site, or does the project site adjoin Yes No
property which is now or was at one time used to commercially treat, store and/or dispose of hazardous waste?
If Yes:
i. Describe waste(s) handled and waste management activities, including approximate time when activities occurred:
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
h. Potential contamination history. Has there been a reported spill at the proposed project site, or have any Yes No
remedial actions been conducted at or adjacent to the proposed site?
If Yes:
i. Is any portion of the site listed on the NYSDEC Spills Incidents database or Environmental Site Yes No
Remediation database? Check all that apply:
Yes – Spills Incidents database Provide DEC ID number(s): ________________________________
Yes – Environmental Site Remediation database Provide DEC ID number(s): ________________________________
Neither database
ii. If site has been subject of RCRA corrective activities, describe control measures:_______________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
iii. Is the project within 2000 feet of any site in the NYSDEC Environmental Site Remediation database? Yes No
If yes, provide DEC ID number(s): ______________________________________________________________________________
iv. If yes to (i), (ii) or (iii) above, describe current status of site(s):
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Page 10 of 13
214
v. Is the project site subject to an institutional control limiting property uses? Yes No
If yes, DEC site ID number: ____________________________________________________________________________
Describe the type of institutional control (e.g., deed restriction or easement): ____________________________________
Describe any use limitations: ___________________________________________________________________________
Describe any engineering controls: _______________________________________________________________________
Will the project affect the institutional or engineering controls in place? Yes No
Explain: ____________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
E.2. Natural Resources On or Near Project Site

a. What is the average depth to bedrock on the project site? ________________ feet
b. Are there bedrock outcroppings on the project site? Yes No
If Yes, what proportion of the site is comprised of bedrock outcroppings? __________________%
c. Predominant soil type(s) present on project site: ___________________________ __________%
___________________________ __________%
____________________________ __________%
d. What is the average depth to the water table on the project site? Average: _________ feet
e. Drainage status of project site soils: Well Drained: _____% of ite

Moderately Well Drained: _____% of site
Poorly Drained _____% of ite
f. Approximate proportion of proposed action site with slopes: 0-10%: _____% of site
10-15%: _____% of site
15% or greater: _____% of site
g. Are there any unique geologic features on the project site? Yes No
If Yes, describe: _____________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
h. Surface water features.
i. Does any portion of the project site contain wetlands or other waterbodies (including streams, rivers, Yes No
ponds or lakes)?
ii. Do any wetlands or other waterbodies adjoin the project site? Yes No
If Yes to either i or ii, continue. If No, skip to E.2.i.
iii. Are any of the wetlands or waterbodies within or adjoining the project site regulated by any federal, Yes No
state or local agency?
iv. For each identified wetland and waterbody on the project site, provide the following information
Streams: Name ____________________________________________ Classification _______________________
Lakes or Ponds: Name ____________________________________________ Classification _______________________
Wetlands: Name ____________________________________________ Approximate Size ___________________
Wetland No. (if regulated by DEC) _____________________________
v. Are any of the above water bodies listed in the most recent compilation of NYS water quality-impaired Yes No
waterbodies?
If yes, name of impaired water body/bodies and basis for listing as impaired: _____________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
i. Is the project site in a designated Floodway? Yes No
j. Is the project site in the 100 year Floodplain? Yes No
k. Is the project site in the 500 year Floodplain? Yes No
l. Is the project site located over, or immediately adjoining, a primary, principal or sole source aquifer? Yes No
If Yes:
i. Name of aquifer: _________________________________________________________________________________________
Page 11 of 13
215
m. Identify the predominant wildlife species that occupy or use the project site: ______________________________
______________________________ _______________________________ ______________________________
______________________________ _______________________________ ______________________________
n. Does the project site contain a designated significant natural community? Yes No
If Yes:
i. Describe the habitat/community (composition, function, and basis for designation): _____________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ii. Source(s) of description or evaluation: ________________________________________________________________________
iii. Extent of community/habitat:
Currently: ______________________ acres
Following completion of project as proposed: _____________________ acres
Gain or loss (indicate + or -): ______________________ acres
o. Does project site contain any species of plant or animal that is listed by the federal government or NYS as Yes No
endangered or threatened, or does it contain any areas identified as habitat for an endangered or threatened species?
p. Does the project site contain any species of plant or animal that is listed by NYS as rare, or as a species of Yes No
special concern?
q. Is the project site or adjoining area currently used for hunting, trapping, fishing or shell fishing? Yes No
If yes, give a brief description of how the proposed action may affect that use: ___________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
E.3. Designated Public Resources On or Near Project Site

a. Is the project site, or any portion of it, located in a designated agricultural district certified pursuant to Yes No
Agriculture and Markets Law, Article 25-AA, Section 303 and 304?
If Yes, provide county plus district name/number: _________________________________________________________________
b. Are agricultural lands consisting of highly productive soils present? Yes No
i. If Yes: acreage(s) on project site? ___________________________________________________________________________
ii. Source(s) of soil rating(s): _________________________________________________________________________________
c. Does the project site contain all or part of, or is it substantially contiguous to, a registered National Yes No
Natural Landmark?
If Yes:
i. Nature of the natural landmark: Biological Community Geological Feature
ii. Provide brief description of landmark, including values behind designation and approximate size/extent: ___________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
d. Is the project site located in or does it adjoin a state listed Critical Environmental Area? Yes No
If Yes:
i. CEA name: _____________________________________________________________________________________________
ii. Basis for designation: _____________________________________________________________________________________
iii. Designating agency and date: ______________________________________________________________________________
Page 12 of 13
216
e. Does the project site contain, or is it substantially contiguous to, a building, archaeological site, or district Yes No
which is listed on of Historic P
of Historic Places?
If Yes:
i. Nature of historic/archaeological resource: Archaeological Site Historic Building or District
ii. Name: _________________________________________________________________________________________________
iii. Brief description of attributes on which listing is based:
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
f. Is the project site, or any portion of it, located in or adjacent to an area designated as sensitive for Yes No
archaeological sites on the NY State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) archaeological site inventory?
g. Have additional archaeological or historic site(s) or resources been identified on the project site? Yes No
If Yes:
i. Describe possible resource(s): _______________________________________________________________________________
ii. Basis for identification: ___________________________________________________________________________________
h. the project site any officially designated and publicly accessible federal, state, or local Yes No
scenic or aesthetic resource?
If Yes:
i. Identify resource: _________________________________________________________________________________________
ii. Nature of, or basis for, designation (e.g., established highway overlook, state or local park, state historic trail or scenic byway,
etc.): ___________________________________________________________________________________________________
iii. Distance between project and resource: _____________________ miles.
i. Is the project site located within a designated river corridor under the Wild, Scenic and Recreational Rivers Yes No
Program 6 NYCRR 666?
If Yes:
i. Identify the name of the river and its designation: ________________________________________________________________
ii. Is the activity consistent with development restrictions contained in 6NYCRR Part 666? Yes No
F. Additional Information
Attach any additional information which may be needed to clarify your project.
If you have identified any adverse impacts which could be associated with your proposal, please describe those impacts plus any
measures which you propose to avoid or minimize them.
G. Verification
I certify that the information provided is true to the best of my knowledge.
Applicant/Sponsor Name ___________________________________ Date_______________________________________
Signature________________________________________________ Title_______________________________________
Page 13 of 13
217
EAF Mapper Summary Report
1
218
2
219
Exhibit “5” - Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) from FEMA

Exhibit “5”
220
"W42°52'36.62"N INDEX NO. 808016/2022
- TO EEKT
a 11lÝALFLU
2PCxA@)UAL
CHANCE
FLOCD.HAZARD 7
TO OF
WEST
ST
., AREA
OF
MINl OD
78°44'59.58"W
42"5030.94"N
FLOOD HAZARD INFORMATION NOTESTOUSERS SCALE

SEE
FIS FOR
DETAILED
REPORT LEGEND
AND
INDEX
MAP tFi a 1h rance
andons RaleIRM
ava
Ne
products
cated
vh MaaaIn NATIONAL
FLOOD
INSURANCE
PROGRAM
DRAFT
FOR FIRM
PANEL
LAYOUT
Without
Base
Flood
Elewation
(BFE) ale uct
m dude osoueeIt MCn aat
Rablaln
a Iu rbt
hep cReport
onueyour
ud reathttps://msc.1ems.gov
seth od
==.-- andbWMfthus Mny
map. gh
rsp rod
cis
can
be
ardered
ddirec
cm kisurance
Study
{FIS) for communitypas PANEL
332oF807
Reg|ulatory
Floodway ®ä® .'T°".f""
"T s t inch=soofeet 1:6,000
0.2%
Annual
ChanceFlood Areas 0 250500 1,000 1,500 2,000
of
1%annualchance Hazard,
Ilood
with
avera
e To
detennine
r11ood
surance
us
avallaNe
un
mis
communll
contact
your
hisurance
agent
orcaIhe
Nallona
depth
lessthan
onefoot drainage Fod
orwith Insur
neeIagram
at1400-63B.6620. O 50100 200 300 400
EbseaH h Ninap rcagL t 2020 Pan
elContains:
chanceRoadHazard
ZoneX ThmW dam FENahan IFloo
aan HL oSn /2
to Mand COMMUNITYNUMBER PANEL
Area ithReduced
FloodItskdue
toLevee anartiec sedby data overFordidon
rmIIon
p seamai Hazard TO F 360231 o332
OTHER
AREAS
OF Area
withFlood
Risk
due to
Levee
Zone
D This
map les
comp uddh
FEMA's
st
n d
r ds1or
the
use
ardigita
cod
maps
Irit
Is
n ot
void
as
desellsed
below. T OFWEST 360262 o332
""""°
NOSCREEN Area
ofMinimal
RandHazard L"e.=I°:L!"%!n"===:::=!":%"rtlriendal:"a
crealien
map date, FIRM
panel
idenliliens.
communily and
FIRM
number,effectNe
date. _
Effective
LOMRs
OTHER
AREAS Area
ofUndetermined
Flood
Hazard
Zone
D
""""""""""""
GENERAL channel, orstorm
culvert, sewer
"" " " " Levee,
STRUCTURES orFloodwall
Dike,
Cross
Sections
with
1% Annual
Chance
---- Water
Surface
Elevation
--------Coastal
Transect
coastalTranr.ect
Baseine
- Profile
BaseEne
Hydrographic
Feature
SISBase FloodElevation
Line(BFE)
OTHER Umit ofstudy
FEATURES JurisdictIon Boundary
MAP
NUMBER
36029CO332H
EFFECTIVE
DATE
June
07,2019
221
Exhibit “6” - April 8, 2021, Minutes related to SPR2021-05

Exhibit “6”
222
WEST SENE COMMUNITY ROOM WEST SENECA PLANNING BOARD
1300 Union oad Minutes #2021-04
West Senec NY 14224 April 8, 2021
Chairman Ratbmann called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL!ALL: Present - Chairman Rathmann

Margaret Bebak
James Frick
Dale J McCabe
Raymond Nalewajek
John Minear, Deputy Town Attorney
Jeffrey Baksa, Code Enforcement Officer
Absent - George Clifford

Eric Sailer
APPROVAL OF PROOFS OF PUBLICATION
Motion by Bebak, seconded by McCabe, to receive and file the proofs of publication and posting of legal notice.
Ayes: All Noes: None Motion Carried
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion by Frick, seconded by McCabe, to approve minutes 2021-03 of March 11, 2021.
OLD BUSINESS
SPR2020-11
A request from The Broadway Group, LLC for a site plan approval for property located at 5203 Seneca Street for
construction of a retail store with ali related site improvements.
Motion by Bebak, seconded by McCabe, to open the public hearing.
Tara Mathias, Development Manager with The Broadway Group, LLC stated the proposal is to redevelop the
property located at 5203 Seneca Street. The site was formerly a garden center and has become a distressed
property. The proposal is to demolish the existing structure and construct a 9,100-sf retail space, noting: 1) a
variance was granted from the Zoning Board of Appeals allowing 30 parking stalls; 2) second entrance has been
planned; 3) updated landscaping and building façade.
pg. 1
223
WEST SENECA COMMUNITY ROOM WEST SENECA PLANNING BOARD
1300 Union Road Minutes #2021-04
West Seneca, NY 14224 April 8, 2021
SPR2020-11 (continued)
After feedback from the previous Planning Board meeting, the following changes have been made:
" - includes the requested species of plants and additional evergreens with around
Landscaping softening
the perimeter
" The aesthetics of the - additional articulations out of the
building including columns, siding, bump
vestibUle with a gabled roof line, and awnings/shutters
" Side of the has updated to match the side closest to the intersection
building
Ms. Bebak referred to the landscaping in front of the building and questioned if it will be contained in planter
boxes. Ms. Mathias replied there will be a planting strip inset into the soil by the sidewalk.
Mr. Nalewajek questioned the rainfall into the right of way in the back of the building. Ms. Mathias stated the
Town Engineer has been satisfied with stormwater concerns. Roof drains are off the back of the building, water
is collected underground and into the county right of way.
½"
Chairman Rathmann stated the trees should be 2 caliber. Ms. Mathias stated this is referenced on the grid
and will make sure this is clarified to the landscaper.
Motion by Bebak, seconded by McCabe, to close the public hearing.
Motion by McCabe, seconded by Bebak, to adopt the following resolution:
WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Town of West Seneca, as lead agency acting pursuant to the State
Environmental Quality Peview Act, Article 8 of the New York State Environmental Conservation Law, has
reviewed Part I of the Short Environmental Assessment Form ("EAF") prepared by the applicant for property
located at 5203 Seneca Street (SBL 135.20-1-3) ("Subject Property"), for construction of general variety
retail store, associated parking, landscaping, storm sewer system and utilities (the "Project"), and reviewed
the draft completed Part II of the EAF analyzing the potential for the Project to result in any significant
adverse environmental impacts and has otherwise taken a hard look at the identified potential
environmental inipacts utilizing the criteria specified in 6 NYCRR 617.7(c); and
WHEREAS, upon review of Parts I and II of the EAF and documentation and plans submitted by the
applicant in connection with the review of the Project, the Planning Board has not identified any potentially
significant adverse environmental impacts associated with the proposed use of the Subject Property, has
determined that preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement is not necessary and that the issuance
of a Negative Declaration is therefore appropriate; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED that pursuant to 6 NYCRR 617.7(a) the Planning Board does hereby adopt a Negative
Declaration with respect to the Project based on its determination that the Project will not result in any
potentially significant adverse environmental impacts.
pg. 2
224
Motion by McCabe, seconded by Bebak, to grant site plan approval for property located at 5203 Seneca Street
for construction of a retail store with all related site improvements.
NEW BUSINESS
SPR2021-05
A request from Brad Vaillancourt c/o Canisius High School for site plan approval for property located at 2885
Clinton Street for construction of an athletic complex with all related site improvements.
Chairman Rathmann stated a letter was received from the Town Engineer stating there were certain issues with
the flood plain and detention basin preventing his approval.
Mr. Vaillancourt stated Canisius High School has an athletic field complex that was originally designed in 2007
for lacrosse and soccer with a track. The second phase of construction was for buildings with locker rooms and
concession stands. The current request is the third phase of the project which includes construction of an all-
synthetic varsity liaseball field, and JV baseball field with the infield being synthetic turf. The fields would be
fenced in with dugouts including a locker room/storage facility and an elevated press box. The existing parking
on the site would remain.
Peter Gian, a Landscape Architecture, and site-consultant for the project stated this is a sensitive area for flooding
and a portion of the JV outfield is pushed into the existing flood plain. To mitigate that, more area is being
carved out for flood volume to expand into. The goal is to have more flood volume on the site than is currently
there. Water will not be pushed downstream but absorbed to mitigate downstream. Some conversations were
held with the Town Engineer; adjustments will be made to work through the issues contained in the letter from
the Town Engineer. A concept that is acceptable to the Town Engineer is in the works, the logistics must still
be worked out and scrutinized. The project would remove the storm volume from the flood plain and into in the
basin that is being created. The 100-year storm will be contained in the basin and the flood volume will be
contained outside of that.
Matthew Carver, Vice President and CFO of Canisius High School, thanked the Planning Board for their
consideration of the project; small details are still being worked out with the Town Engineer. This project brings
Canisius High School's vision full circle and creates a home for the students. This has been a great partnership
in the past with the Town of West Seneca.
Mark District Field Engineer with Erie Soil and Water Conservation presented the Planning Board
Gaston, County
with documents to the flood issues in the adjacent Lexington Green neighborhood and the vicinity
pertaining
Buffalo Creek. Mr. Gaston stated open space and recreational use within a flood plain is normally
along
pg. 3
..
225
agreeable. This area has had activity over the years that raises concerns. In 2014 there was a large ice jam
flooding event that occurred, as a result, ice damage has not been addressed; fences, turf grass and dugouts
open the site up to potentially severe maintenance issues. Following the 2014 flood event, a temporary berm
was placed and.built to protect the Lexington Green area. The flood plain data shows a significant amount of
100-year flood plain that essentially goes into that area and was cut off. Without running an analysis to gage
the 100-year storm event and the impacts of the berm, you can not say for certain this will not influence the
100-year flood plain elevation.
The Erie Wyoming Joint Watershed Board was formed to implement a number of stream works throughout the
Buffalo Creek to reduce sedimentation along the Buffalo Harbor. The Erie Wyoming Joint Watershed Board has
permanent easements along 57 linear miles of Buffalo waters. This site has the oxbow due to a stream
realignment project; damns were constructed and have a permanent easement for maintenance and operation;
none of the documents have this information included. A particular concern is the cell-
planning surging
structure; the town was involved in a wrongful death lawsuit that is still under litigation. Increasing access to
children in that area is a grave safety concern and should be addressed/referenced.
This is a correct use for this area, but the area has many concerns. This area has been discussed by former
Town Officials regarding the climate resiliency and ice jam issues/concerns. A report was generated and shared,
and ways were sought to resolve ice jam flooding in the Lexington Green area. This project would potentially
nix one of the design alternatives.
Mr. McCabe stated the reports submitted were US Army Corps of Engineers Buffalo District - Lexington Green
P2443918 §205 of the 1948 Flood Control Act Flood Risk Management (dated 5/24/2016) and Resilient New
York Flood Mitigation Initiative, Buffalo Creek New York prepared by OBG, Part of Ramboll,101 First Street, 4th
Floor, Utica, NY 13501. Copies of the reports were provided to the applicant.
Chairman Rathmann statèd there are few areas on site with clumps of trees and requested a tree survey along
with a plan showing the old and new flood plain.
Motion by Bebak, seconded by Frick, to close the public hearing.
Motion by McCabe, seconded by Bebak, to table site plan approval for property located at 2885 Clinton Street
for construction of an athletic complex with all related site improvements.
226
2021-01
A request from Daniele Family Companies for a rezoning and special permit for property located at 1465 Union
Road, 1471 Union Road, and 789 Center Road, being part of Lot No. 192 changing its classification from C-1
and C-2(S) to C-2(S) for use as a car wash.
Motion by McCabe, seconded by Bebak, to open the public hearing.
Ari Goldberg f om the law firm of Barclay Damon, presented on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Goldberg stated Mr.
Daniele is seeking a rezoning and special permit and would be the first step in construction of a Royal Car Wash
Facility. All the properties are currently zoned commercial with Center Road being C-2 with another special use
permit.
The site is along Union Road and part of the town's existing commercial corridor. The plan minimizes neighbor
intrusion, consolidates curb cuts along Union Road, and allows for sufficient stacking for car wash use along with
safe ingress and egress. The site plan works for car wash design and the properties are appropriate for rezoning.
Mr. McCabe referred to the authorization that was submitted and references 150 Fremont Avenue, yet the plans
do not include 150 Fremont Avenue. Anthony Daniele, partial owner of Royal Car Wash, stated the residential
lot on Freemont is part of the purchase, as development plans were worked out, the site plan no longer includes
150 Freemont Avenue. The intent is to rent the house and the house acts as a buffer between the commercial
use and the Freemont neighbors. If a hardship is created for 150 Fremont, the developer is the owner and will
work out any problems. Mr. Goldberg stated a revised survey and legal description will be submitted to the
town.
Mr. Daniele stated approximately three years ago, Royal Car Wash was in front of the Planning Board for the
Transit Road location, and this is almost an identical use and set up. There have been adjustments made but
no real complaints. Mr. Daniele stated he has sent correspondence to the neighbors on Fremont Avenue to
introduce the project and provide contact information. Royal Car Wash strives to be open, transparent, and
good neighbors.
Royal Car Wash is an express tunnel facility. Approximately 70 percent of the customers are monthly pass
holder's with an RFD tag, which activates a gate to pull in. The time frame to go through the car wash is
approximately 2 ½ minutes from the time the car passes the gate. This is an express car wash, and the drying
is completed in the tunnel. Free vacuums are on the site and are self-serve. The intent is to move cars quickly
and not add traffic to the road. Most customers are already driving past the site, this typically does not increase
traffic to the area.
Mr. Nalewajek questioned if traffic studies have been completed. Mr. Daniele stated a preliminary analysis has
been a full traffic will be completed for the Town Board. The cars have an option of entering from
done, study
Union Road and Center Road. People tend to use the when it is convenient to be used. The queuing at
facility
Transit Road and Clinton Street has no issues.
pg. 5
227
2021-01 (continued)
Ms. Bebak noted that although tonight is just for rezoning, there some concerns with site plan. The Union Road
corridor has design standards. There has been another approval of a car wash that was very specific to the
Planning Boards recommendations. Mr. Daniele stated this is just the beginning and understands the site plan
is subject to change and is willing to work with the Planning Board and community.
Mr. Frick stated the Union Road corridor requires many standards including architectural standards, minimum
and maximum setbacks that need to be accommodated.
Chairman Rathmann questioned where the vacuums would be located. Mr. Daniele stated the vacuums would
be along Center Road and intentionally not placed by residential homes and along Union Road. Vacuum
placement could be adjusted during site plan review.
Chairman Rathmann referred to the stacking on Union Road from Tim Horton's. Under a special use permit,
20'
there should be no use of the lot except for landscaping and screening within of any residential district. The
back side and south side do not comply. Mr. Daniele stated this can be worked with and screening provided.
Chairman Rathmann stated although he approves of the Transit Road facility and the Amherst location, there
are concerns regarding the appropriateness at the Union Road location. The Union Road location does not fit
into the character of the neighborhood with a car wash facility being approved down the street.
20'
Mr. Frick stated the building setback should be no more than from Union Road and questioned if the driveway
15'
will allow this to work. Mr. Daniele replied he believed the building was from the lot line and could be pulled
closer.
A resident from 153 Freemont Avenue stated she is directly across from the proposed rental property and
expressed concerns regarding the noise from the car wash equipment and traffic along Union Road.
A resident from 154 Freemont Avenue stated he is directly behind the proposed location and does not want a
car wash backing up to his backyard and would like an office building. Many cars come down the street from
Tim Horton's making backing out very difficult. The noise and lighting are also a concern along with privacy
issues.
A resident from Freemont Avenue stated he lives very close to the speaker at Tim Horton's and has been dealing
with cars, radios and smoking and is against the project. Tim Horton's makes it very difficult to use the backyard.
Cars exiting Tim Horton's use Summit Avenue to Fremont Avenue as a cut through to Center Road.
A business owner stated the correct address of the property on Center Road is 798 Center Road. Mr. Goldberg
stated this was an error on the application and any motions should include the corrected address.
attorney
A resident from 109 Fremont Avenue stated the traffic is a concern and the snow removal that is a problem on
the corner.
Chairman Rathmann stated the Board recommends to the Town Board and another meeting will
Planning only
be held for residents to attend.
pg. 6
228
2021-01 (continued)
Motion by McCabe, seconded by Frick, to close the public hearing.
Motion by Bebak, seconded by Frick, to recommend denial for property located at 1465 Union Road, 1471 Union
Road, and 798 Center Road, being part of Lot No. 192 changing its classification from C-1 and C-2(S) to C-2(S)
for use as a car wash.
On the question, Chairman Rathmann stated the residents will be notified of the date of the Town Board meeting
that the applicant will be attending.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion by Bebak, seconded by McCabe, to adjourn the meeting at 8:16 P.M.
AMY M. KOBLER
TOWN CLERK/PLANNING BOARD SECRETARY
229
Exhibit “7” - May 13, 2021, Minutes related to SPR2021-05

Exhibit “7”
230
West Seneca, NY 14224 May 13, 2021
Chairman Rathmann called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL: Present - Chairman Rathmann

Margaret Bebak
George Clifford
.James Frick
Dale J McCabe
Raymond Nalewajek
Eric Sailer
Tina Hawthorne, Town Attorney
Jeffrey Schieber, Code Enforcement Office
Motion by Bebak, seconded by McCabe, to receive and file the proofs of publication and posting of legal notice.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion by McCabe, seconded by Frick, to approve minutes 2021-04 of April 8, 2021.
OLD BUSINESS
SPR2021-05
Motion by Clifford, seconded by Bebak, to open the public hearing.
Mr. Vaillancourt with Trautman Associates and Peter Osbourne, a Landscape Architecture, and site-consultant
for the project provided the following summary:
" requested clarification on the trees - most of the plantings are
Previously the Planning Board existing
brush with a few cottonwood trees; the project does not encroach the vegetation along the creek.
" Deed research shows no easement for soil and an easement is provided for adjacent gas and
water;
power lines. Canisius High School would not object to creek access being granted to the soil and
conservation workers.
" The was and was added the creek to absorb more water on
resiliency study reviewed, benching along
the property; the area has been regraded. The flood water capacity on the property has been increased
by 35%.
" The school has indicated are to risk ice damage to the and will repair if necessary.
they willing fencing
231
" Signage exists on site children to not go in the creek and will remain.
warning
" The pond is sized for the entire not just the disturbed area. The current pond was undersized and
site,
in the flood plain. The pond is now outside the flood plain as requested by the Town Engineer.
" The stormwater and have been a backflow check valve will be at the end of
quality quantity adjusted;
the pipe at the creek. The pond is sized to not outlet at all; in the event of a 100-year flood it will hold
the storm. The size is based on the elevation of the existing pond water level.
" All applications have been turned into the NYSDEC and of Engineers.
Army Corp
" 25-year storm has been added and will be reduced to the redeveloped 10-year rate. This can be updated
based on the agreement of the design water elevation.
" TOC's are shown in Section 5 of the plans.
" The outlet invert was set the pipe at the location of the new wall of the pond.
by existing
" To meet RRY the infiltration trenches are the SMT trenches within the turf the minimum .5"/hr. was
field;
used. The WQv is all being met within the pond with no infiltration factored in.
" The site has dual soil the calculations were used with a D soil and added in a safety factor to
rating;
store more than necessary.
Ms. Bebak questioned if wetland delineations were being done. Ms. Belding stated the wetland delineations are
part of the DEC process. The DEC biologists will be on site to determine the location and nature of the wetland.
100'
Mr. Osbourne stated the wetland is the oxbow and the DEC shows a setback; DEC regulations would be
followed. Currently the project is not in the wetland, making the delineation informational and would likely not
change any requirements.
Mr. Clifford referred to the baseball diamonds and questioned the type of turf. Mr. Vaillancourt stated the JV
baseball field has natural grass for the outfield and synthetic grass in the infield. The varsity field will have the
entire field as synthetic grass.
Chairman Rathmann questioned if an area is designated for a tennis court. Mr. Osbourne stated the area for
tennis will be natural grass and asphalt.
Chairman Rathmann referred to the area within the flood plain and questioned the turf. Mr. Vaillancourt stated
this is a grass area used for practice, not for official games. Chairman Rathmann questioned if the area would
have to be regraded to accommodate future needs. Mr. Osbourne stated there is a reasonable pitch and there
is no intention to regrade.
Mr. Frick stated the SHPO response is still under review. Mr. Vaillancourt stated the contactor from the 2007
project has stated there was no artifacts discovered during the project. There was no follow through with Phase
3 in 2007. Mr. Frick stated the new area is in an area that was not previously disturbed and there is the potential
to find something. Mr. Vaillancourt stated within a day or two they should have the letter obtained stating there
are no artifacts.
Chairman Rathmann stated he understand SHPO's concerns as the land was previously Seneca Nation territory.
Archaeological findings have been found down the road from the project.
232
Mr. Nalewajek questioned if the Town Engineer had a time frame for reviewing the new submission. Code
drawings'
Enforcement Officer .Jeffrey Schieber stated some of the concerns were missed on the specifically item
2 and 4. The Town Engineer's initial letter stated he was comfortable with the Planning Board issuing an approval
contingent on the five items.
Mr. McCabe questioned the timeline for the baseball diamonds. Matthew Carver from Canisius High School
stated the plan was for construction to begin in August with project completion by November. The intention is
to use the field next spring.
Mr. McCabe noted a letter was submitted from resident Dan Warren.
Motion by Clifford, seconded by McCabe, to close the public hearing.
Motion by Clifford, seconded by Nalewajek, to table site plan approval for property located at 2885 Clinton Street
for construction of an athletic complex with all related site improvements based on: 1) there is no immediate
need to begin construction; 2) archeology findings, Town Engineer approval, and wetlands delineation have not
been granted/completed.
On the question, Chairman Rathmann stated this is a Type 1 action according to SEQRA due to the alteration of
more than 10 acres of property. In most instances this would require an Environmental Impact Statement. In
reviewing the submitted long form, this would only be required if there is a major disturbance/activity that would
impact the environment. Chairman Rathmann stated it was his belief this is not the case. A response would be
required on the wetlands delineation, SHPO, and other items before the Planning Board may make a positive or
negative declaration.
NEW BUSINESS
SPR2021-OO6
A request of Tritec Construction of WNY, Corp for site plan approval for property located at 2111 Clinton Street
24' 96'
for upgrades to existing gas station including installation of a x (4) dispenser canopy and 16,0000-gallon
split 12,000/4,000-gallon double wall underground fuel tank with all related site improvements.
Motion by Clifford, seconded by Frick, to open the public hearing.
A representative from Tritec Construction of WNY, Corp stated the property is currently a gas station and the
application is to upgrade the canopy along with underground storage tanks. The tank is a single wall and would
be brought up to date with a double wall.
233
Code Enforcement Officer Jeffrey Schieber stated currently there are two gas pumps with a canopy. The
40'
proposal for the new canopy is set back farther from the road. The town code imposes a building setback.
The alteration and reconfiguration of the site also adjusts the parking and drive lanes. The parking shown
satisfies town code requirement and the parcel is properly zoned. After hearing the Planning Boar s initial
40'
comments and concerns, a variance for the setback must be obtained from the Zoning Board of Appeals to
return to the Planning Board for official site plan approval.
8'
Chairman Rathmann noted the setback to the edge of the canopy set post. Handicapped parking requires an
access aisle and appears it needs to be widened, possibly eliminating one parking space. C-2 zoning requires
10'
parking be from the property line. Mr. Schieber stated the entire site is almost paved to the property lines.
During the variance process, the application is submitted to the NYSDOT for review.
Chairman Rathmann stated any parking adjacent to a residential property must be screened; there needs to be
an evergreen fence along the parking line and should be shown on the site plan.
Mr. McCabe questioned if the existing canopy has a variance. Mr. Schieber stated this is unclear, existing records
do not show one. The goal is to make existing problems right and there is the formality of the 40'.
Mr. McCabe commented on a vacuum in the back and questioned if this would be removed. Ms. Bebak replied
this looks to be a utility pole or a phone booth. The representative from Tritec Construction of WNY, Corp stated
this was an old survey with an overlay.
Chairman Rathmann questioned if the information on the survey was correct. Ms. Bebak noted the survey is
from 2020. The representative from Tritec Construction of WNY, Corp stated this was provided by the customer.
The portion showing grass is all blacktop now. The important part, the tanks and canopy are correct.
Mr. Frick commented on the three existing tanks and the location of the new tanks: one tank to be directly in
the same location and the remaining immediately adjacent. The representative from Tritec Construction of WNY,
Corp stated there are three underground storage tanks and it is a different technology with the double wall.
Mr. Naiewajek asked where the cuts would be in the existing hard top for the excavation. Mr. Frick requested
the future site plan show where the excavating will occur with the restoration; how much would be excavated
and filled back in.
Chairman Rathmann stated there may be a need for a grading plan. There is a catch basin on site and once
construction is done questioned where the water would go. The representative from Tritec Construction of
WNY, Corp stated the grading would remain the same.
Chairman Rathmann stated he would like updated drawings to reflect what is currently on site.
Chairman Rathmann questioned if this would be reviewed by the Town Engineer. Mr. Schieber stated this would
not go to the Town Engineer. After a variance is secured, the applicant would return to the Planning Board.
Mr. Clifford questioned if a 3-tank basin would be added. The representative from Tritec Construction of WNY,
Corp stated the new tanks will replace the existing in the same direction. Mr. Clifford requested updated plans
due to the excavation that will take place on the site.
234
Mr. McCabe noted this evening's meeting was to get the concerns of this board and move on with the variances
and then return for site plan approval. This project is an improvement regarding the current conditions, and it
does not appear to be excessive with what is being done. Mr. McCabe recommends obtaining a variance and
upon return have answers to the site plan questions and concerns.
Mr. Sailer agreed with Mr. McCabe and stated a new detailed survey should be completed.
Chairman Rathmann stated after removing tanks, excavation for new tanks, pad, and gas tanks removal,
approximately ¾ of the site will be disturbed and expressed concerns with the grading.
Mr. Sailer stated the Planning Board agrees this project will better the site. The Planning Board would like to
see the project on paper to better understand - new site shots of existing
plan, excavation, trees, fence, parking,
etc. Chairman Rathmann concurred with Mr. Sailer.
Motion by Clifford, seconded by Frick, to close the public hearing.
Motion by McCabe, seconded by Clifford, to table site plan approval for property located at 2111 Clinton Street
24' 96'
split 12,000/4,000-gallon double wall underground fuel tank with all related site improvements to allow the
applicant to obtain the necessary variances.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion by Clifford, seconded by Frick, to adjourn the meeting at 8:12 P.M.
AMY M. KOBLER
235
Exhibit “8” - Jun 10, 2021, Minutes related to SPR2021-05

Exhibit “8”
236
West Seneca, NY 14224 June 10, 2021

Margaret Bebak
George Clifford
James Frick
Dale .) McCabe
Raymond Nalewajek
Eric Sailer
Motion by Clifford, seconded by McCabe, to receive and file the proofs of publication and posting of legal notice.
Ayes: AII Noes: None Motion Carried
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion by Clifford, seconded by Frick, to approve minutes 2021-05 of May 13, 2021.
OLD BUSINESS
SPR2021-05
Clinton Street.for construction of an athletic complex with all related site improvements.
Motion by Clifford, seconded by McCabe, to open the public hearing.
Mr. Vaillancourt with Trautman Associates stated at the previous meeting, the following three items needed
approval:
" Official Town Engineer Approval - The Town Engineer has since provided approval.
" Wetland delineation - The wetland has been defined and to the NYSDEC an official letter
according
delineating the wetlands along with a note of no adverse impact will be provided.
" SEQR - Correspondence has been received from SHPO Archeological Phase 3 was completed
indicating
approximately 15 years prior; significant artifacts were found in 2003. SHPO stated given the
extraordinary number of artifacts found (8,500), further artifact recovery would be of little or no
significance to the project or provide greater understanding of the historical nature of the area.
Approximately 15 years prior SHPO gave approval to proceed with the project. The latest correspondence
pg. 1
237
from SHPO requested a Phase 1A/1B study be completed for only the areas to the north and south. The
two areas only account for thirty percent of the project site; the remaining seventy percent has approval
1'
for renovations. In the north area approximately into the existing grade will be disturbed; the south
end of the site will be the varsity outfield, approximately 1'into the grade will be disturbed and the entire
2' -
area raised; the future tennis court will be raised by 3'; the westerly area soil will be removed to
50'
increase the volume of the 100-year flood plain. SHPO would like shovel studies done every on
center to search for artifacts and wherever a foundation may be poured (i.e., scoreboard and dugout).
Mr. 21st
Vaillancourt stated Tetratec is scheduled to start the work on June assuming testing has been confirmed
with SHPO. Canisius would like contingent approval with the Town Engineer and wetlands delineation being
completed, knowing the SEQR documentation with SHPO is not on file.
Matt Carver, Vice President of Finance at Canisius High School stated Canisius High School would like site plan
approval based on the progress made to date. A scope of work proposal from Tetratec has been forwarded to
SHPO. There is a verbal agreement with Tetratec and SHPO regarding shovel testing.
Mr. Valliancourt stated Canisius would like to get the project to bid so they may use the fields in the spring.
Motion by Clifford, seconded by Bebak, to close the public hearing.
Motion by Bebak, seconded by Sailer, to grant site plan approval for property located at 2885 Clinton Street for
construction of an athletic complex with all related site improvements conditioned upon the following:
satisfactory results and approval from SHPO.
On the question, Mr. McCabe questioned if there should be a negative SEQR declaration. Code Enforcement
Officer Jeffrey Schieber stated because the applicant is lacking approval from the Office of Historics, Parks and
Preservations, the Planning Board is limited to produce a declaration pursuant to SEQR. The intent is to agree
what is on paper works and allows the Planning Board to agree with the applicant that the site plan is satisfactory.
When SHPO determinations are made, the applicant would return before for the Planning Board for a declaration
pursuant to SEQR. Mr. McCabe questioned if a building permit could be obtained. Mr. Schieber stated there
would be no disturbance of the area until a declaration pursuant to SEQR was determined.
Chairman Rathmann stated it is his understanding with SEQR that a conditional negative declaration may not be
issued on an unlisted action; this is a Type 1 action according to SEQR guidelines.
SUBDIVISION REQUEST
A request from Nexgen Development II, LLC for a forty-four (44) lot, single-family home subdivision extending
from John Alex Drive to Reserve Road.
238
WEST SENECA COMMUNITY ROOM WEST SENECA PL.ANNING BOARD
SUBDIVISION REQUEST (continued)
Peter Sorgi of Hopkins Sorgi and McCarthy, LLC and Anthony Pandolfi, project engineer from Carmina Wood
Morris presented on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Sorgi stated previously they were in front of the Planning Board
for pre application review. Engineer drawings have been submitted and include a 44-lot, single-family home
subdivision and is consistent with other subdivisions in the area. A secondary access is included through a
planned sub street and the parcel is properly zoned.
This is an unlisted action through SEQR; a letter from the Army Corp of Engineers has been issued stating there
are no wetlands on the site. A SHPO letter has been provided stating there is no impact regarding cultural
resources. Mr. Pandolfi has been working through plan logistics with the Town Engineer.
Mr. Frick questioned the capacity of the utilities servicing the site, both drainage of sanitary and water. Mr.
Pandolfi stated part of the town's requirement is to limit post development storm water runoff and the detention
is being planned accordingly with the Town Engineer. A downstream sanitary sewer capacity analysis has been
submitted to the Town Engineer and the NYSDEC for review and approval. The water line has been submitted
to Erie County Water Authority who had some minor technical comments, nothing regarding the capacity.
Chairman Rathmann questioned if a letter has been received from the Town Engineer with his comments. Mr.
Pandolfi stated a letter has been received and is being addressed.
Chairman Rathmann referred to the Environmental Assessment Form and stated it appears to be an extension
of John Alex Drive and no indication of units. Mr. Sorgi stated this is a separate project with a different owner.
Chairman Rathmann stated the Environmental Assessment Form states there are no wetlands; a wetland survey
shows approximately half of the site is wetlands. There are about 8 1/3 acres of wetlands on site. Mr. Sorgi
stated the project follows the current standards; the Army Corp of Engineers has confirmed there are not
wetlands/waters under federal jurisdiction on this property. The project follows DEC and Army Corp of Engineer
standards. Mr. Pandolfi stated the project does not disturb any jurisdictionally or federally regulated wetlands.
Chairman Rathmann requested clarification of E2, item H, of the Environmental Assessment Form. Town
Attorney Tina Hawthorne stated the form only requires information on the regulated wetlands. Mr. Pandolfi
stated the regulated wetlands are adjoining the site, no regulated wetlands are on site. There is no regulation
to follow regarding non-jurisdictional wetlands. Mr. Sorgi noted, there is no discharge off site without a permit,
and they are not applying for this permit. Ms. Hawthorne referred to the Environmental Assessment Form and
stated because this section has been checked off, it does not mean something has been listed below, only water
bodies that are regulated wetlands are to be listed.
Chairman Rathmann questioned archaeological sites and questioned if SHPO has provided correspondence.
Code Enforcement Officer Jeffrey Schieber replied SHPO provided a letter in the previous year's submittal stating
no archaeological resources have been identified.
Chairman Rathmann questioned if the DEC has provided correspondence on the wetland delineation. Mr.
Schieber stated the DEC provided a letter and all concerns were followed through on.
Chairman Rathmann stated a tree survey must be done along with a landscape plan. Each unit will require two
1/2'"
trees with a 2 caliber. The tree survey should show how many trees are being removed and saved. A
tree removal permit must be filed.
pg. 3
239
A Reserve Road resident commented/questioned the following:

" Water that accumulates on his lot in the and questioned the the lot has a
spring drainage; neighboring
drain that connects to the storm yards the back the drainage - Mr. Pandolfi stated
drain; along may stop
the site, based on the survey is flat, a portion drains from north to south into the Reserve Road lot.
When the lots are developed the Town Code requires there to be nothing draining to adjacent properties.
Along the north property line, there will be swales and drainage. All water will be collected and
discharged to the detention ponds. Mr. Sorgi stated the natural drainage will not be stopped; the
standards are stricter than in the past.
" Questioned the depth of the lot - Mr. Pandolfi showed the resident the lot size on the proposed site plan,
noting the town has setback requirements.
" Will trees be planted lines - Mr. Sorgi stated could discuss with the neighbors the
along property they
possibility of fencing as trees could not be planted along drains.
" The Town Engineer stated could be built the lot - Mr. Schieber stated the larger
previously noting along
parcel did not have road frontage; developers commonly buy land locked pieces and secure neighboring
properties.
A Camelot Drive resident commented/questioned the following:

" Tress were cleared when Connor Drive and John Alex Drive were built and although is in favor of
expressed concerns over and trees - Mr. Sorgi stated a tree plan will be
development, privacy existing
submitted and the applicant will work with the neighbor. Mr. Schieber stated it is often unpredictable if
the homeowner will keep existing trees. Chairman Rathmann stated most of the units have rear yard
drains, this may propose a problem for the existing trees.

" What is the price of the homes - Mr. Sorgi stated right now the builder is not public information.
Motion by Clifford, seconded by Sailer, to table the item until the July meeting.
NEW BUSINESS
SPR2021-07
A request from Studio T3 Engineering, PLLC for site plan approval for property located at 1711 Union Road for
construction of five (5) self-storage buildings with all related site improvements.
Andrew Terranova, from Studio T3 Engineering, PLLC presented on behalf of West Seneca Self Storage. Mr.
Terranova stated the request is to expand the existing self-storage facility with 5 new buildings in the rear of
the property for a total of 85 units of storage. An approval letter from the Town Engineer with no concerns has
been provided.
P8· 4
240
West Seneca, NY 14224 .3une 10, 2021
Code Enforcement Officer Jeffrey Schieber stated the parcel is zoned manufacturing and permits the use. The
planned construction location is already a disturbed area and does not require SEQR.
Ms. Bebak noted the updated plans show the proper setback.
Chairman Rathmann referred to the far east corner and questioned if this was a collection area for water. Mr.
Terranova stated this will be filled in and will go to a new drainage system.
Mr. Frick stated this will clean up the site rather than have any adverse effects.
Chairman Rathmann questioned the fencing. Mr. Terranova stated the only new fencing is around the front of
the property.
Motion by Clifford, seconded by McCabe, to close the public hearing.
Motion by Bebak, seconded by Frick, to approve the amended site plan for property located at 1711 Union Road
for construction of five (5) self-storage buildings with all related site improvements with proper setbacks.
SPR2021-08
A request from Alexander Suffoletto for site plan approval for property located at 220 Center Road for
construction of free-standing drive-up café.
Mr. Suffoletto stated he would like to build a standalone drive-thru café located in the parking lot of the
9' 9' 13'
Wimbledon Plaza. The proposed footprint of the building will be x 18', with a wall height of 6", and a
peak roof height. The business will feature drive-thru lanes, drinks, and prepackaged foods. The hours of
operation will be from 6:00 am - 4:00 pm Monday
-
Saturday and 6:00 am - 2:00 pm on Sundays. A variance
is being requested from the Zoning Board of Appeals for the desired setback.
Code Enforcement Officer Jeffrey Schieber stated this request is a first, as no other café exists in town. There
is nothing in the code that regulates a free-standing café. This location does not require the owner of the
property to restripe the entire parking lot but requires a setback variance. Although, not officially approved the
applicant is awaiting correspondence from ECDPW.
Ms. Bebak questioned the aesthetics of the building. Mr. Suffoletto stated the building will have stone veneers,
vinyl to icok like a natural and basic shingle roof. There will be two over hangs over the drive-
siding, plank,
thru and landscaping.
pg. 5
241
Mr. McCabe questioned if the structure would be built off-site and delivered. Mr. Suffoletto stated this is correct,
the structure is built off site.
Mr. McCabe questioned what type of utilities will be needed. Mr. Suffoletto stated there will be an electric line
coming from the sign, and the remaining utilities will be self-contained in the building.
Mr. Clifford questioned the location. Mr. Suffoletto stated the stricture will be between the sign and just before
the exit.
Mr. Schieber stated the parking and square footage of the building has been quantified to Town Code. The
Town Clerk is in receipt of correspondence from the ECDPW stating there is no issue with the project.
Mr. Suffoletto stated there will be two drive-thru lanes, and no indoor patronage. The café is drive-thru is only
for drinks and prepackaged food that will not be made on location. Similar cafés are popular around the county.
Mr. Sailer questioned if illuminated menus will be outside and/or speakers. Mr. Suffoletto stated there will be
illuminated menus and a microphone for ordering speed. Mr. Sailer requested more detail on the site plan.
Mr. Schieber stated Mr. Suffoletto did obtain signatures from neighboring properties as part of the variance
process.
Mr. Nalewajek questioned the length of the holding area for stacking of patrons. Mr. Suffoletto stated there is
room for 5- 6 cars in both directions to not interfere with the passageways.
approximately
Mr. Sailer questioned if the holding area will be stripped or have curbing. Mr. Suffoletto stated the area will be
stripped.
Mr. Clifford questioned if tenants of the building were also notified. Mr. Schieber stated there is a letter on file
from the owner of the property granting approval; the Zoning Board only requires the signatures of property
owners.
Chairman Rathmann expressed concerns of the drive-thru, the parking lot area and suggested moving the
8'
location closer to the sign. Mr. Frick stated an drive-thru lane seemed narrow. Mr. Suffoletto stated no
8'
engineering has been done. Mr. Schieber stated the dimension came from planning the size of the building
and the desire to not restripe the entire parking lot.
Mr. Clifford commented on two drive-thru lanes and two speakers and questioned if there could be just one.
Mr. Suffoletto replied he would like two drive-thru lanes for speed and efficiency.
Chairman Rathmann questioned if there is a stacking requirement. Mr. Schieber stated there should be five
stacking spots for each order window and the plan appears to work.
Chairman Rathmann questioned the location of the structure and suggested somewhere with more room and
requested clarification on the plantings, speakers, and other designs.
pg. 6
242
Ms. Bebak stated for site plan approval, there should be a specific plan for what is being done now, not down
9' 18'
the road. The request would be for approval on a x building, in the shown location, with two drive-thru
access points, landscaping and the aesthetics shown. Mr. Suffoletto stated this is correct.
Chairman Rathmann questioned if the building will be anchored. Mr. Schieber stated this would be part of the
building permit application.
Mr. McCabe questioned if approved, when would the business be open. Mr. Suffoletto hoped for a fall opening.
Mr. Frick stated there needs to be assurance that this a more permanent structure on the site.
Mr. Nalewajek questioned how many parking spaces have been removed. Mr. Schieber replied 20 spots will be
removed leaving 252 parking spots; Town Code requires 245.
Mr. Clifford stated this a great idea, and the Planning Board is willing to work with the applicant.
Motion by Clifford, seconded by Bebak, to table site plan approval for property located at 220 Center Road for
construction of free-standing drive-up café until the July meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
AMY M. KOBLER
243
Exhibit “9” - Aug 12, 2021, Minutes related to SPR2021-05

Exhibit “9”
244

West Seneca, NY 14224 August 12, 2021

Margaret Bebak
James Frick
George Clifford
Eric Sailer
Absent - Dale J McCabe

Raymond Nalewajek
Motion by Sailer, seconded by Clifford, to receive and file the proofs of publication and posting of legal notice.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion by Bebak, seconded by Frick, to approve minutes 2021-07 of July 8, 2021.
Ayes: All Noes: None Motion Carried|
OLD BUSINESS
SUBDIVISION REQUEST
A request from Nexgen Development II, LLC for a forty-four (44) lot, single-family home subdivision extending
from John Alex Drive to Reserve Road.
Peter Sorgi of Hopkins Sorgi and McCarthy, LLC and Anthony Pandolfi, project engineer from Carmina Wood
Morris presented on behalf of the applicant and informed the Board members received a final
Planning they
approval letter from the Town Engineer and are a negative declaration pursuant to SEQR as well as the
seeking
final subdivision approval.
Chairman Rathmann stated after reviewing the form EAF Part 2, the DEC advised it should be noted there
long
are wetlands, although they are not regulated. Mr. Pandolfi noted when the form is generated from the EAF
mappers website, which is run by the DEC, the applicant cannot manipulate the answer and the box will be
pg. 1
245

"no"
checked if they are not regulated wetlands. Mr. Sorgi stated the Planning Board can make a notation that
site"
there are "wetlands that are not regulated on the in the negative declaration or part 2 or part 3.
Chairman Rathmann went through the following items for rendering determination as to their impact:
/ Proposed action involve construction on land where depth of water table is less than 3', EAF states
may
1' - Mr.
deep Pandolfi stated he can adjust this and the following actions will mitigate the shallow water
table: the roadway with the gutter curbs, the house foundations will have perimeter drains, and most of
the lots will be filled to drain them properly.
/ Proposed action involve construction that continues for more than a year in multiple phases - Mr.
may
Sorgi confirmed this and stated the houses will be built as they are sold.
/ Proposed action result in increased erosion whether from physical disturbance or vegetation
may
and questioned if the site will be clear-cut - Mr. Pandolfi stated SWPPP inspections take place
removal,
to ensure this is handled correctly
/ Proposed action result in or require modification of existing drainage patterns - Mr. Sorgi confirmed
may
this is true as there is nothing there and something is going to placed there; the drainage will take in
everything from the subdivision and there is a good chance it will assist with some of the drainage issues
from adjoining properties.
/ Proposed action requires the conversion of more than 10 acres of forest, grassland, or other
any
or important 16 acres will be cleared - Mr. Pandolfi referred to the portion on
regionally locally habitat,
the SWPPP critical environmental area, and it is checked no. Mr. Sorgi used the example of a critically
"No"
important forest area that is unique in some way. Mr. Pandolfi referred to the response of for EAF
item No. E.3.d on page 12 and noted the website determines this not the applicant. Mr. Sorgi stated for
this to be a critical environmental area, the town would have had to pass a law designating it as such.
Chairman Rathmann stated the applicant will need to provide a list of the types of trees to be planted for review
by the Environmental Commission and meet the requirements of the Tree Ordinance. Chairman Rathmann
commented on another project that resulted in the clear cutting of 105 trees before approval was granted and
the developer was ordered to plant 105 trees as a mitigation measure and questioned how many trees would
be removed. Mr. Sorgi commented in that situation the developer clear cut the trees prior to receiving approval.
Town Attorney Tina Hawthorne clarified mitigation only applies to certain circumstances and the other matter
involved a court case; there is a tree provision under Subdivision Law which would apply.
Motion by Bebak, seconded by Frick, on the recommendation of the Town Attorney, to adopt the following
resolution:
WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Town of West Seneca, as lead agency acting pursuant to the State
Environmental Quality Review Act, Article 8 of the New York State Environmental Conservation Law, has
reviewed Part I of the Full Environmental Assessment Form ("fAF") prepared by the applicant for property
located at Vacant Land Reserve Road (SBL 144.18-5-1, 144.18-1-7.1, 144.18-1-8, 144.18-1-5 portion of
parcel north of the a continuation of the northern property line of SBL 144.18-1-6) ("Subject Property"),
pg. 2
246

for construction of a single-family home subdivision (the "Project"), and reviewed the draft completed Part
II of the EAF analyzing the potential for the Project to result in any significant adverse environmental
impacts and has otherwise taken a hard look at the identified potential environmental impacts utilizing the
criteria specified in 6 NYCRR 617.7(c); and
WHEREAS, upon review of Parts I and II of the EAF and documentation and plans submitted by the
applicant in connection with the review of the Project, the Planning Board has not identified any potentially
significant adverse environmental impacts associated with the proposed use of the Subject Property, has
determined that preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement is not necessary, and that the issuance
of a Negative Declaration is therefore appropriate; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED that pursuant to 6 NYCRR 617.7(a) the Planning Board does hereby adopt a Negative
Declaration with respect to the Project based on its determination that the Project will not result in any
potentially significant adverse environmental impacts.
Motion by Bebak, seconded by Frick, to approve the site plan for a forty-four (44) lot, single-family home
subdivision extending from John Alex Drive to Reserve Road.
SPR2021-05
Chairperson Rathmann stated the applicant is awaiting a meeting on August 27, 2021, with SHPO to discuss the
archeological discoveries and requested this be tabled.
Town Attorney Tina Hawthorne stated the Phase 2 study for SHPO is done and the meeting will be a review of
those results.
Motion by Clifford, seconded by Bebak to table the item.
SPR2021-06
A request of Tritec Construction of WNY, Corp for site plan approval for property located at 2111 Clinton Street
24' 96'
pg. 3
247

Code Enforcement Officer Jeffrey Schieber provided the following information regarding the application:
/ The applicant was before the Board approximately 3 months ago; part of the Planning Board
Planning
requirement was to obtain a setback variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals. The variance was
granted in July.
Site plan has been updated to reflect what is currently on site, including topography
Parking quantity meets town code requirements
Rex Cameron from Tritec Construction of WNY, Corp stated all concerns from the previous meeting have been
addressed with the new site plan that has been provided to the Planning Board.
Mr. Schieber stated the concerns of screening the neighboring residential property have been addressed as well
as drainage and topography. The Town Engineer stated because the site is existing and only conducting work
where needed, the town has no regulation for collection of stormwater.
Ms. Bebak recalled there being catch basins on the property that would tie in. Mr. Cameron stated there is a
catch basin in the front of the property.
Mr. Frick requested confirmation that the existing tanks are in the area where the news tanks will be installed.
Mr. Cameron stated the goal is to stay in the same footprint. The new tanks are safer with new technology such
as a double wall. Mr. Schieber stated the technology is regulated by the DEC, and site visits are conducted.
Chairman Rathmann questioned if the entire area would be repaved. Mr. Cameron stated he was not certain of
owners'
the intentions but believed this would be done. The overall site topography would not be altered, and
everything stays at the same elevation.
Motion by Clifford, seconded by Sailer, to close the public hearing.
Motion by Clifford, seconded by Bebak, to grant site plan approval for property located at 2111 Clinton Street
24' 96'
pg. 4
248

1300 Union Road Mi nutes #2021-08
NEW BUSINESS
SPR2021-09
A request of Rachel's Mediterranean Grill for site plan approval for property located at 310 Orchard Park Road
(aka 276 Park for of parcel to an 1,800-sf restaurant with thirty-
Orchard Road) redevelopment a subdivided
seven (37) seats, fifteen (15) parking spaces, and all related site improvements.
James Manguso, Jr. with Lauer-Manguso Architects presented on behalf of the applicant the following:
/ Presented a new colored site plan with elevations
/ The existing building will be removed, and the new building will be closer to Goodyear as to accommodate
onsite parking
/ Talks are held with the bank on site to connect parking lots; this will allow patrons access to the
being
traffic light in front of Wegman's
/ The site has constraint issues as it is a narrow parcel; a variance may need to be obtained
/ is onsite with ADA
Parking accessibility
/ Existing foliage along the back would be untouched
/ The area would be repaved and cleaned
The existing pole sign in the NYS right of way would be removed and pulled back onto the property
Ms. Bebak questioned if tonight's meeting was for concept review. Mr. Manguso replied this was correct.
O'
Ms. Bebak referred to the narrow front and side setbacks. Mr. Manguso stated there is setback at the corners;
because this is a triangular shaped parcel the building has been shrunk down to accommodate the parking,
sidewalk, etc. This is considered more of a satellite of a full size Rachels.
1'
Ms. Bebak sated once final site plan is shown there should be at least setback. Mr. Manguso stated this is
being refined as they go. The accuracy of the survey is probably not correct, and a new survey is being
completed to allow exact setbacks and distances.
Mr. Clifford questioned how many parking spaces are required for a building of this size. Code Enforcement
Officer Jef frey Schieber stated the town requires 3 parking spaces for every 5 seats and the plan meets the town
code.
Chairman Rathmann questioned if the easements with the properties have been discussed. Mr.
adjoining
Manguso stated this is being discussed now and would help the flow of the facility. The site would still function
properly without the connection.
Mr. Frick questioned if any thought has been given to the to gain more square footage and
rotating building
avoid congestion in and around the building. Mr. Manguso stated the shape has been gone the
building over;
shape is a product of the interiors with front and back etc. and adjustments can be made as desired.
kitchen,
pg. 5
249

Chairman Rathmann stated there is a grade change on the Goodyear side and possibly some space could be
picked up. Mr. Manguso stated there is the ability to adjust, the rectangular shape tends to fit the footprint and
Rachels is consistent with the design.
Ms. Bebak questioned the design with two kitchens. Mr. Manguso stated the restaurant typically has a front line
to order food, the back prepares the food, all serve the front customers.
Motion by Clifford, seconded by Bebak, to table site plan approval for property located at 310 Orchard Park
Road (aka 276 Orchard Park Road) for redevelopment of a subdivided parcel to an 1,800-sf restaurant with
thirty-seven (37) seats, fifteen (15) parking spaces, and all related site improvements.
2021-02
A request from Albert Hassan for a special use permit for property located at 5190 Seneca Street, for
redevelopment of existing 1,190-sf building for use as an auto detailing shop.
Motion by Clifford, seconded by Frick, to table the special use permit for property located at 5190 Seneca Street,
for redevelopment of existing 1,190-sf building for use as an auto detailing shop at the request of the applicant.
2021-03
A request from Devonshire Apartments, LLC for a rezoning & special use permit for property located at 3786 &
3808 Clinton Street, changing its classification from R-65/R-65A and C-2(S) to R-50(S), for construction of a
multi-family development with three (3), 2-story buildings containing 12-units each, and all related site
improvements.
Jeff Palumbo from Barclay Damon, LLP along with Anthony Pandolfi from Carmina Wood Morris DPC were present
on behalf of the applicant and provided the following:
/ The property is located at 3786 and 3808 Clinton Street
/ 3808 Clinton Street is currently zoned C-2 with a split zoning; a portion along the frontage (automotive
is C-2 and the rear of the is zoned R-65 - 3786 Clinton Street is zoned R-50
area) property currently
pg. 6
250

2021-03 (continued)
/ The request is rezone 3808 Clinton Street to R-50 to allow for the construction of 3, 12-unit market grade
apartment buildings
/ The anticipated rent for the units would be approximately $1,500 per all units would have modern
month;
conveniences
Multi-family dwellings require a rezoning of the property along with a special use permit
Wetlands are along the rear (north) of the property and the construction will not impact the wetlands
The town ordinance is met with parking; the site contains 81 parking stalls including 12 inside of garages,
12 in front of garages and the remainder located throughout the property.
The town's Comprehensive Plan was reviewed and only 1% of the towns residential units consisted of
multi-family apartments and there is a need in West Seneca. The residents of the apartments are people
who can afford the $1,500 per month rent.
This would be a down zoning as the commercial property in the front has uses that are far more intense
than what is being proposed. C-2 zoning includes laundry mats, warehouses, and restaurants.
Detailed engineering would be completed upon approval
Mr. Clifford referred to the statement made regarding 1% of multi-family dwellings and noted since 2016 the
town has approved apartments on Center Road and Leydecker Road.
Ms. Bebak requested clarification as to the type of apartment. Mr. Palumbo stated the apartments will be a mix
of 2 - 3 bedrooms. Mr. Pandolfi stated the smallest unit will be just over 1,100-sf and larger units just over
1,600-sf.
Ms. Bebak questioned the facade of the dwellings. Mr. Palumbo stated although his client is not yet at that
stage this will be higher end apartments with granite countertops, etc.
Chairman Rathmann questioned if this is subsidized apartments. Mr. Palumbo stated the apartments are not
subsidized.
Chairman Rathmann questioned if the apartments will be targeted to seniors or the public. Mr. Palumbo stated
the public.
Chairman Rathmann questioned if the applicant was locked into 3, 12-unit buildings. Mr. Palumbo stated to
make the project work, yes; they are 2-story buildings.
Mr. Clifford referred to the existing car dealership and house to the left and questioned if it would be knocked
down. Mr. Palumbo stated the car dealership and house will be knocked down with construction around Mandy's
Restaurant. Mr. Clifford questioned if the applicant has spoken to the owner of Mandy's. Mr. Palumbo stated
they have not but would if the board would like this.
Code Enforcement Officer Jeffrey Schieber stated the Town of West Seneca regulates the items, businesses,
and uses that have the potential to effect surrounding property owners with a special use permit. Surrounding
property owners are notified by letter; recipients are determined by dimensional factors. This is the first in
step
the process, tonight is to explain what generally wants to be done. The Board makes a recommendation
Planning
pg. 7
251

2021-03 (continued)
to the Town Board. The Town Board will again notify surrounding neighbors of a meeting. The presenters will
be back in front of the Town Board where a decision will be made.
Mr. Palumbo stated typically a multi-family unit will raise questions regarding drainage and traffic. The final
engineering has not been completed regarding drainage. Traffic will be addressed with an ITE Traffic Generation
Table to determine the traffic generated; this provides an average of all different/potential users. For this type
of development, the number leaving in the morning is approximately 20 with the same in the evening. People
do not all leave for work at the same time, this provides the number during the peak hours.
Chairman Rathmann referred to the 3786 Clinton Street parcel stating this is zoned R-50 and questioned the
back portion being sold. The back area is a flag shape and was zoned R-50 in 1993; the map does not show
the C-2 and R-65. All the development is going in the used car lot parking area and area behind it. The property
beyond is zoned R-50 and is Federally Regulated Wetlands which cannot be disturbed. Mr. Palumbo stated this
is correct; the automotive use is currently zoned C-2, to the north a small piece is zoned R-65 and the remained
R-50. The request is for all to be R-50 to allow a special use permit.
Residents proposed the following comments/questions:

/ would the area be zoned R-50 if the area is Federal Wetlands - Mr. Schieber stated the address of
Why
the property purchase is zoned R-50; the adjacent property is being split, a resident retains their house
and garage, and will sell the remainder. Every town is different and there is a math formula on how
many apartments may go in a property. This a bulk area requirement; to fit the amount, there is a need
for more property and counts toward the math formula.
/ Referred to a line in center of the - Mr. Schieber stated this is a creek
map
/ Parcel borders Meadow Drive, Northwood Drive, Maplewood Drive, and Clinton Street and is filled with
wildlife, etc. and a stream creating the wetlands. The land and surrounding lots flood during natural
incidences when the stream expands beyond the banks. There are white deer in the area and the deer
will be pushed out and into neighboring yards.
/ An adjacent parcel of property running Northwood Drive was donated to the town and dedicated
along
as green space and suggested to combine the parcels of non-unbuildable land for other passive, safe
use and let land remain a green eco-system - Town Tina Hawthorne acknowledged there is a
Attorney
parcel with a deed restriction dedicated to being a park. Mr. Schieber showed the tax map and the parcel
which was dedicated to the town. The resident requested clarification on the egress into and out of the
park. Mr. Schieber stated the entrance is along Northwood Drive. Ms. Hawthorne stated the town owns
the portion of land and the town has not developed the area as a park. However, there is a deed
restriction for public use. Ms. Bebak stated a title search is conducted when land is sold, if there was a
deed restriction this would be on the title.
The application marked yes archeological - Mr. Schieber stated projects of this magnitude
was regarding
are required to go through a review process referred to as SEQR (State Environmental Quality Review).
As part of SEQR the plans, documents, etc. are provided to approximately 16 different agencies including
SHPO, EC Sewer, EC Water, Fire District, WS Environmental Commission, NYSDOT, and ECDOT. This
has not yet been submitted for a coordinated SEQR review because the use has not been decided. These
answers will be known in the future.
pg. 8
252

2021-03 (continued)
Referred to item 13 and questioned is there was a wetland law on replacement ratios of number of
wetlands removed and additional lands to be added - Chairman Rathmann stated the project does not
impact the Army Corp of Engineers regulated wetland. The Federal Government does not have a buffer
zone around wetlands, the NYSDEC does. The state regulates 12.4 acres and greater; the wetland
delineated here is 7.41 acres. Chairman Rathmann asked if an additional review could be done by the
state biologist and via email, they have been requesting additional staff for such, chances of this being
delineated for state wetlands are not good.
/ Requested the wetlands be questioned; the wetlands throughout the years have extended
mapping
Apartments are in the area (Idlewood and Garden Village Apartments)
Referred to the Comprehensive Plan and questioned if this would be updated - Town Tina
Attorney
Hawthorne stated to her knowledge there is no plan to update at this time. The applicant may have
referred to the plan to support his application and recognized the 1% is now a higher number.
Will there be a playground area for children - Mr. Palumbo stated it is not guaranteed there will be
children and there is nothing planned now.
How feet will there be from the to the wetland area - Mr. Schieber stated the proposed
many building
buildings will not be in the wetlands
100'
The land within of Federally Regulated Wetlands are critical in maintaining the health and
200'
productivity of wetlands, while also regulate within of a stream. If the creek is considered a stream
this would take away the buildable land. Chairman Rathmann stated he spoke with the Army Corp of
100'
Engineers, NYS has a buffer and the Federal Government does not have a buffer around the
wetlands. You may fill right up to the wetlands as long as fill is not put into the wetlands.
Requested clarification on the regulation of wetlands - Chairman Rathmann stated NYS regulates 12.4
acres or greater. The Federal Government can regulate a tiny pool of water on a property. The parcel
behind (7.4 acres) was delineated as Federal Wetlands. The NYS Dec will not regulate anything more
than 12.4 acres and will remain Federal Wetlands.
The blacktop from the buildings will cause runoff that will come down Maplewood Drive into an already
strained sewer system that floods - Chairman Rathmann explained it is required all the water will be
collected on site and discharged off site, not into the wetlands. Ms. Hawthorne stated these questions
will be part of the SEQR review process and extensively discussed.
Expressed concerns regarding the traf fic situation as pulling out is currently difficult
Concerns were expressed with the sewer issues and water pressure
400'
Referred to the town code stating a building of mixed occupancy must have of open space for each
dwelling/unit contained in such building provided on the lot for recreation. With the number of units this
1,400'
would be over and questioned where this would go - Mr. Schieber stated there is a bulk area
65' 8,000-
requirement, under lot requirements. A single-family home requires of road frontage and an
50' 36-
sf lot to build, and R-50 zoning district requires at least of road frontage. The math would be
units x 8,000-sf divided by acres. This may not be applicable to multiple dwellings.
/ Part of the Comprehensive Plan calls for the town to protect valuable open space for wildlife
recreation,
and wetlands and prevent their degradation.
Concerns regarding the amount of trash and water in yards on Clinton Street
Concerns regarding the utilities along Clinton Street
Devonshire has apartments in another state that are not kept up
Questioned the benefit of having this in her backyard as this is a residential area and possible effects on
the value of homes
P8· 9
253

2021-03 (continued)
/ What is the entrance location - Mr. Palumbo stated from Clinton Street.
/ Suggested the location be the Seneca Mall or airport on Clinton Street not the proposed location
/ Believes a percentage will be low-income residents; the complex sell down the road and become
may
low income
/ Questioned constraints on the delineation of wetlands - Mr. Pandolfi stated this is a
the time making
long process. Chairman Rathmann stated this is in his backyard and this was delineated the past spring
and lasts for approximately 5 years.
Concerns about the garbage, smells, and rodents for a dumpster for 36-units
Concerns regarding increased foot traffic in the area possibly causing more deer/motor vehicle accidents
School bus and safety concerns for children with the increase in traffic
Potential residents should spend the $1,500 per month rent on the purchase of a home in the town;
transient families do not appreciate the Town of West Seneca
Are there protections for the white deer in the area
Requested information about the developer - Mr. Palumbo stated the developer is a partnership in which
all the partners own apartments and live locally. The developers will be spending millions of dollars and
will not allow this property to be a rat-infested, low-income property. The statement that this is low
income or low income is required to be in the development is fallacy and inaccurate.
Mr. Palumbo addressed the residents concerns with the following points:
500'
/ The proposed development is in the back yard of some Meadow Drive houses and are at least away
from the development with the wetlands in between
/ The area impacted is approximately 1.3 acres; the frontage is all impacted with pavement and
being
buildings
/ The deer have the remainder of the and adjacent
property property
300' - 400'
The development does not back up to the houses on Maplewood Drive; they are away; the
development does not back up to one residence; only backs up to a restaurant
Residents are more concerned with garbage from a million-dollar project than a restaurant
This property is zoned commercial, and something could go there that is much worse than an upgraded
apartment building
The benefit in this case is to the town and there is not an impact to the neighborhood versus what could
go there now; there is no impact to the wetlands
Residents proposed the following comments/questions:

Renters do not treat property the same as homeowners and do not pay taxes
Concerns regarding noise from the parking lot and lighting
Who specifically are the people involved in the company
What is the location of other apartments owned the developer - Mr. Palumbo stated are the
by they
clients'
apartments, and he does not have the address but can provide this later
Referred to item 6 on the application regarding traffic
The property could be a parking lot for Mandy's
Moved to the location for a country setting and ruins the habitat the residents are accustomed to
Will the fill go into the Buffalo Creek where the DEC stocks trout
Strains on the local schools
Town of West Seneca should purchase the property for green space
pg. 10
254

2021-03 (continued)
Headlights will shine into the houses and does not like the view of looking at buildings
What is an R-65 - Mr. Schieber stated the zoning district and defines what you are allowed to do at the
property. R-65 allows a single-family home and R-50 is required for multi-family use.
- 250'
What is the notification requirement Mr. Schieber stated it is within and letters will be sent for
future Town Board meetings. Ms. Hawthorne stated the notice was online and a legal notice was in the
West Seneca Bee.
Would studies be done Town Board - Mr. Schieber stated would the
before the meeting they not,
approval is to decide if this is allowed. The item could be tabled pending results of reports.
Who would dictate the that performs the studies - Chairman Rathmann stated the
company Planning
Board may not dictate who performs the study. Ms. Bebak stated the property owner also has rights
and the Planning Board does not have that right. Mr. Frick stated the Planning Board does have the right
to question the studies.
Mr. Schieber stated emails have been received and have been provided to the Planning Board members; emails
were read and are on file in the Town Clerk's Office.
Chairman Rathmann explained the Planning Board is a recommending board and takes a vote that goes to the
Town Board who has the final decision.
Motion by Clifford, seconded by Bebak, to close the public hearing.
Motion by Clifford, seconded by Bebak, to recommend denial of rezoning & special use permit for property
located at 3786 & 3808 Clinton Street, changing its classification from R-65/R-65A and C-2(S) to R-50(S), for
construction of a multi-family development with three (3), 2-story buildings containing 12-units each, and all
related site improvements for the following reasons: 1) the invasion of wetlands; 2) drain on resources; 3)
additional traffic patterns; 4) negative perceived impact on the current local residents; 5) quality of life impacted
through the town's Comprehensive Plan.
On the question, Chairman Rathmann will be recusing himself as he is an adjoining property owner.
Ayes: (4) Bebak Noes: None Motion Carried

Clifford
Frick
Sailer
Abstained: (1) Rathmann
pg. 11
255

EXECUTIVE SESSION
Motion by Clifford, seconded by Bebak to enter into Executive Session to discuss Dan Warren vs. Town of West
Seneca and the West Seneca Planning Board.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion by McCabe, seconded by Bebak, to adjourn the meeting at 9:38 P.M.
AMY M. KOBLER
pg. 12
256
Exhibit “10” - Oct 14, 2021, Minutes related to SPR2021-05

Exhibit “10”
257

West Seneca, NY 14224 October 14, 2021

George Clifford
James Frick
Dale J McCabe
Raymond Nalewajek
Eric Sailer
Jeffrey Schieber, Code Enforcement Officer

Absent - Margaret Bebak
Motion by Frick, second by Clifford, to receive and file the proofs of publication and posting of legal notice.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion by Clifford, seconded by Frick, to approve minutes 2021-09 of September 8, 2021.
OLD BUSINESS
SPR2020-10
A request from Levy Grid, LLC for a one-year extension of site plan approval for property Iocated at 799 Indian
Church Road, for construction of a battery storage energy complex.
Ari Goldberg with the law firm of Barclay Damon presented on behalf of the applicant and stated he has been
with the project from the beginning. Since that time the applicant has been working on terms for interconnection
with the utility provider. The process has taken longer than expected and the hope is an extension will be
granted.
Mr. McCabe inquired if any design changes have been made. Mr. Goldberg stated there are no changes.
Motion by McCabe, seconded by Clifford, to close the public hearing.
PB· 1
258

West Seneca, NY 14224 . October 14, 2021
Motion by McCabe, seconded by Clifford, to grant a one-year extension of site plan approval for property
located at 799 Indian Church Road, for construction of a battery storage energy complex.
SPR2021-05
Code Enforcement Officer Jeffrey Schieber stated this item should be tabled. There are many things happening
on site pursuant to the requirements set forth by SHPO.
Mr. McCabe noted for the record, a petition was received requesting the applicants request be denied along with
a letter submitted by Mr. Warren. Mr. McCabe requested Mr. Warrens letter be forwarded to the Town Engineer
for review and reply. Mr. Warren is raising drainage questions that will be better addressed by the Town
Engineer.
Mr. Clifford stated for clarification, the residents are not asking to deny the application; they are asking to: or
issue a positive declaration. The request is to ensure the environmental impact statement is correctly done.
Chairman Rathmann stated the Planning Board is also waiting for the DEC and Army Corp of Engineers to
respond to questions.
Motion by McCabe, seconded by Clifford, to table the item.
SPR2021-011
A request from Joseph and Nadine Biasillo for site plan approval for property located at 1929 Ridge Road for
conversion of a residential property into a doctor's office, with all related site improvements.
pg. 2
259

Dr. Biasillo presented the following overview:

12' 10'
The proposal is for a addition to the front and a addition to the side
/ Stone veneer will be on the front bottom of the with
building siding
Landscaping will be added with a stone retaining wall along the front and side
/ Included will be 4 treatment rooms, a billing room and 2 storage rooms
Chairman Rathmann noted Erie County will not allow a tie into their stormwater system. The Town Engineer
has sent a letter approving the storm drainage. Chairman Rathmann stated the grading works; it is minimal
grading. All the water in the parking lot is draining across the parking lot and sidewalk, the front lawn will
become a detention basin and may stay wet for a time. Chairman Rathmann cautioned the sidewalk may
become icy.
Motion by Clifford, seconded by Sailer to grant site plan approval for property located at 1929 Ridge Road for
conversion of a residential property into a doctor's office, with all related site improvements.
NEW BUSINESS
2021-05
A request from Amerco Real Estate Company for a rezoning and special use permit for property located at 2970
Transit Road, being part of Lot No. 350, changing its classification from C-1 to C-2(S), for construction of a self-
storage, U-Haul truck and trailer store, and all related retail sales and site improvements.
Todd Schnitzer presented on behalf of U-Haul the following:

/ The proposed location is currently a vacant Bank of America)
building (formerly
The proposal includes self-storage, including indoor and outdoor drive up, along with truck and trailer
sharing
Retail sales of items such as hitch components
/ Future plans call for a 12,000-sf storage in the front of the
building property
/ The proposed site plan illustrates the main climate-controlled storage, and
building being approximately
10,000-sf of exterior storage
Mr. Frick requested clarification on the auto use on the property. Mr. Schnitzer stated the auto use is for the
truck sharing and auto rentals.
pg. 3
260

2021-05 (continued)
Code Enforcement Officer Jeffrey Schieber stated the zoning classification of C-1 permits the former office
building. C-2 zoning is used for businesses that spill outside of their four walls; the special use permit allows
the vehicles stored outside to be encompassed in the approval.
Mr. Frick questioned what is anticipated tonight. Mr. Schnitzer stated they are hoping for a positive
recommendation on rezoning, to move forward with the Town Board.
Chairman Rathmann questioned if changes will be made to the front of the building. Mr. Schnitzer stated the
front of the building now is for access, the plan shows how the building will look in the future.
Chairman Rathmann questioned the reason for a 3-story building so close to the road. Mr. Schnitzer stated that
portion is up front and is separate from where customers will be entering/exiting the building to control
congestion and visibility.
Chairman Rathmann inquired if the long storage building could be rotated perpendicular to Transit Road; one of
the samples shows the building rotated and places the narrow side to the main roadway and is eye appealing.
Mr. Schnitzer stated he will investigate this and see if this may be done at this location.
Chairman Rathmann noted the parking lot is large and more than sufficient. Mr. Nalewajek questioned the
parking requirements. Mr. Schieber stated the former use required a substantial amount of parking; the new
use only deals with the parking for the showroom area as a customer comes in. There will be vehicles
unloading/loading for a small amount of time and be gone. The conceptual plan has more than enough parking
to satisfy the town requirement.
Mr. Nalewajek stated he is looking at rather than keeping that extensive amount of parking in front we could
start moving things closer and away from Transit Road in terms of the building massing studies, to facilitate a
more pleasing presentation to Transit Road.
Chairman Rathmann referred to a possible variance for the 3-story building. Mr. Schieber stated after tonight's
meeting, the applicant will go before the Town Board for approval, and return to the Planning Board to sort out
40'
issues such as building location, parking, etc. The height is over which would require a variance.
Mr. McCabe stated it is his understanding that the Planning Board recommendation would go to the Town Board
for approval. Upon approval the project would return to the Planning Board for site plan approval; at that time
restrictions may be placed on the special use permit. This project would require minimal variances and would
just need to comply with the Town Code for setbacks. Mr. Schieber concurred; the current plan does not require
any variances other than the height. This board at this time should make recommendations pursuant to the
special use permit on vehicles parked along Transit Road.
Mr. Nalewajek questioned how many faces are accessible to the general public in terms to the layout. Mr.
Schnitzer stated the new building has one access side.
Mr. Clifford stated the Planning Board has been asking developers to follow the Town Comprehensive Plan which
brings all the building up closer to the road, noting this applicant has proposed this, to ask him to place it back
is not realistic in expectations.
pg. 4
261

2021-05 (continued)
Mr. Frick questioned how many vehicles the applicant anticipates on site. Mr. Schnitzer stated being a new
facility, he is not sure of the number of vehicles; the amount will fluctuate.
Chairman Rathmann questioned if the property will be fenced. Mr. Schnitzer stated the area currently has some
fencing and there will be alarms and surveillance. Swipe card access is required for the building.
Residents expressed the following comments and questions:
Currently there is no fencing, just guard rails with a drainage easement

Expressed concerns about the U-Haul operations with disrepair trucks, equipment etc.
Concerns regarding hazardous materials and animals being stored
Increase in garbage and debris
Majority of neighbors are against the project and does not fit in with the character of the neighborhood
Self-storage facility is down the street
Concerns regarding the lighting on a 3-story building
- Chairman Rathmann stated only the front is 3-
story; a cube is added on

Concerns about 24-hour access
Suggested moving the project to the Seneca Mall area
Concerns with the traffic sounds
Questioned if anything will be built or parked behind the - Mr. Schnitzer replied construction is
building
in the front.
Questioned the access hours of the - Mr. Schnitzer stated the access hours are 7:00 AM -7:00
building
- 9:00 24-hour access is allowed after someone
PM, Monday Saturday; AM-5:00 PM, Sunday (inaudible)
has been approved and an additional charge is added.
Requested a condition be imposed to not allow 24-hour access
Requested the back of the be secured - Mr. Schnitzer stated he also sees people in the
property back,
the project will have a constant presence and is not opposed to placing fencing along the back.
Where will vehicles be stored - Mr. Schnitzer illustrated that the trucks will be stored in the lower section.
Amount of traffic on the premises - Mr. Schnitzer stated there be days with no truck traffic.
may
Mr. McCabe questioned the adjoining zoning. Mr. Schieber stated to the south is commercial, the rear is
residential, and to the north the zoning has changed, commercial that transitions into residential. Mr. McCabe
questioned if a fence is required. Mr. Schieber stated this is a unique situation that must be sorted out.
Chairman Rathmann stated his zoning map shows a sliver of R-90 between the property and the neighboring
property to the south; everything else is zoned C-1.
Mr. Clifford referred to a recent approval of a storage facility on Orchard Park Road noting, this property is gated
in and asked if this was a requirement. Mr. Schieber believed this was not a requirement and further explained
the fire departments take an issue with gating in a business. This is an operational issue with the storage unit.
Mr. Schieber stated there may be areas with fencing and questioned if it was a good idea to place a fence along
the neighbor's fence.
pg. 5
262

2021-05 (continued)
Mr. Sailer stated when site plan approval is granted, the Planning Board can dictate issues such as fencing. Mr.
Schnitzer stated he does not object to a privacy fence and is willing to work with the neighbors. This is a vacant
building, and he is looking to redevelop it and work with the neighboring residents. Other projects have had
quality fences placed for privacy. A similar facility is being constructed off the 1-90.
Mr. Clifford requested clarification on after hours access. Mr. Schnitzer explained after someone has been a
customer for some time, they could have extended access; this is set up ahead of time.
Mr. Clifford stated something should be done regarding the back of the building, but this will be discussed at
site plan approval.
Mr. Sailer stated the drainage easement is very beneficial to the residents in the neighborhood and questioned
if cameras and motion sensors will be outside the building. Mr. Schnitzer stated there will be outside cameras
monitored remotely and will benefit the current vacant area.
Motion be Clifford, seconded by Sailer, to recommend approval for a rezoning and special use permit for property
located at 2970 Transit Road, being part of Lot No. 350, changing its classification from C-1 to C-2(S), for
construction of a self-storage, U-Haul truck and trailer store, and all related retail sales and site improvements.
2021-06
A request from Julius Aebly c/o Sean Hopkins, Esq for a rezoning and special use permit for property located at
1465 & 1471 Union Road, 798 Center Road, and 150 Freemont Avenue, being part of Lot No. 192, changing its
classification from C-1 & C-2(S) to for construction of a 2-story office restaurant with drive-
C-2(S), building,
through facility, and all related site improvements.
Motion by Clifford, seconded by Sailer, to open the public hearing.
Mr. Aebly gave a brief history of Aebly & Associates and their history in West Seneca. Approximately two years
ago, Mr. Aebly bought the Sunoco on Center and Union Roads and is looking to expand and construct a final
home for the business.
pg. 6
263

2021-06 (continued)
Sean Hopkins of Hopkins Sorgi and McCarthy, LLC presented the following:
/ Color renderings were presented with the concept plan
along
/ The site is approximately 1.2 acres in size
/ Of four 1471 Union Road and is the site of the future 2-
the parcels, one is properly zoned at C-2(S),
story office building. The remainder of the parcels, approximately .99 acres, are zoned C-1 with the
request to change to C-2(S)
/ The office will have a footprint of 3,080-sf; in size and a consolidation of the two locations
building 2-story
in West Seneca, noting there are 14 employees
The plan calls for a perspective future restaurant along the front of Union Road; conceptually the size is
3,057-sf, with a drive-through and 13-stacking spaces.

To date, there is no restaurant, as the property is not properly zoned. If a restaurant is not interested,
Mr. Aebly would be back with other concepts.
Tonight's request is for a land use recommendation to the Town Board, not site plan. If approved by
the Town Board the applicant would return to the Planning Board for the first phase of site plan approval
of the 2-story office building.

The applicant recognizes the Union Road corridor and has tried to design the site in accordance with
those standards and contain the following: 1) a decorative wall is along the frontage; 2) encourages
redevelopment of parcels on a prominent corner to be done in such a way that are viable for commercial
purposes and are pedestrian friendly; 3) designed so the buildings are along the Union Road frontage
and parking is along the rear; 4) along Freemont Avenue a stormwater management area will be
installed; 5) a fence is provided.

/ 47 spaces are shown, the code calls for 74 spaces. West Seneca has the
parking currently noting zoning
most intensive code for parking. If there was a demand for additional parking, it could be provided along
the back. A variance will be required for the parking.
/ A special use permit is required for the restaurant and governed by specific criteria
/ Screening is proposed the residential area and feedback is welcomed from the neighbors
along
Mr. Nalewajek stated if 14 parking spaces are needed for the insurance company, based on the footprint of the
restaurant, is there enough parking to handle the two occupancies. Anthony Pandolfi, with Carmina Wood Morris
stated the overall requirement is 74 parking spaces, 62 of the spaces come from the office building. The extra
12 spaces by code come from the restaurant. The 12 spaces plus 14 spaces are 26 spaces and the plan is well
above the amount. Mr. Hopkins stated they could propose additional spaces but why pave additional green
space. This is dependent on the specific needs of the restaurant.
Chairman Rathmann questioned if the gas station will be demolished during the first phase of work. Mr. Hopkins
stated this would be a complete redevelopment at phase 1 including a drainage system, new lighting, new
landscaping, and decorative wall. The restaurant would come back for site plan approval. Mr. Aebly stated all
buildings will initially be demolished and the area cleaned up. Phase 2 would be the construction of the
restaurant.
Chairman Rathmann questioned the ingress and egress. Mr. Pandolfi stated phase 1 would include both curb
cuts, drainage, and parking. Mr. Hopkins stated once the property is cleaned up, it will be more attractive to a
restaurant.
pg. 7
264

2021-06 (continued)
Mr. Sailer expressed concerns about placing parking over the drainage. This is a great use of the space, and
the renderings are appealing. Would the restaurant be held to match the design of the insurance building? Mr.
Hopkins stated the restaurant would not have to match but would be held to the architectural standards of the
Union Road corridor.
Mr. Sailer stated his opinion would be to extend the wall up and around Freemont Avenue, then begin the fence
and place an island with additional parking. Mr. Sailer further stated he looks forward to seeing the project on
this corner.
Mr. McCabe stated the plan does not show access onto Freemont Avenue and would like the restriction of no
access onto Freemont Avenue. Mr. Hopkins stated this would be fine.
Chairman Rathmann expressed concerns with a drive-through exiting onto Union Road along with stacking onto
Union Road. Mr. Hopkins stated this is just a concept plan, with 13 stacking spaces and the amount should be
adequate. A sit-down restaurant requires a bigger footprint. Once a restaurant is on board all the specifics will
be worked out with site plan approval.
Mr. Clifford questioned if tanks were underground. Mr. Aebly stated the tanks have been remediated.
Mr. McCabe questioned if a special use permit not used within a year would expire. Code Enforcement Officer
Jeffrey Schieber stated this would be the case and projects have not moved forward and the town has allowed
an extension.
Residents expressed the following comments and questions:

/ Concerns the decorative wall and accidents
regarding
/ Noise from the drive-through speaker
/ Concerns about dumpsters
/ Would like a gable style building
/ Does not want a restaurant with a drive-though in a residential area
/ Concerns the sewers
regarding
/ Too much traffic on the corner along with backups; should conduct a traffic study
Would prefer greenspace
Believes the project is too close to residential houses
The fence would impede the neighbor's driveway
Not enough parking
Affects the quality of life of the neighbors
Concerns regarding the lighting
applicants'
Mr. Schieber stated the documents receive review and feedback from other agencies such as the Erie
County Department of Planning, NYSDOT, fire departments and ECDOT.
Chairman Rathmann stated the Planning Board has at their discretion the ability to approve the building style
and the shape is not set in stone.
pg. 8
265

2021-06 (continued)
Mr. Hopkins stated the parcel on Freemont Avenue is already zoned commercial; however, the request is from
C-1 to C-2. The architecture is a work in progress and the applicant is not stuck on a particular style. All modern
drive-through facilities now use digital technology to adjust volume. Fencing will be discussed with the
immediate neighbor and the fence can be stopped or dropped in height. Fully engineered plans will be presented
with site plan for review by many different agencies. The photometric plan will be sensitive to the neighboring
properties.
Mr. Hopkins noted West Seneca has adopted standards for the Union Road corridor. Although it will take time,
over the long term, it will improve the character of Union Road.
Motion by Clifford, seconded by Sailer, to recommend approval for a rezoning and special use permit for property
located at 1465 & 1471 Union Road, 798 Center Road, and 150 Freemont Avenue, being part of Lot No. 192,
changing its classification from C-1 & C-2(S) to C-2(S), for construction of a 2-story office building, restaurant
with drive-through facility, and all related site improvements with the following condition: no traffic should spill
over to Freemont Avenue.
Motion by McCabe, seconded by Sailer, to amend the motion to recommend approval for a rezoning and special
use permit for property located at 1465 & 1471 Union Road, 798 Center Road, and 150 Freemont Avenue, being
part of Lot No. 192, changing its classification from C-1&C-2(S) to C-2(S), for construction of a 2-story office
building, restaurant with drive-through facility, and all related site improvements with the following condition:
no vehicular access from the site on to Freemont Avenue.
ADJOURNMENT
AMY M. KOBLER
P8· 9
266
Exhibit “11” - April 14, 2022, Minutes related to SPR2021-05

Exhibit “11”
267

The meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL: Present - Margaret Bebak

James Frick
Dale J McCabe
Raymond Nalewajek
Eric Sailer
Joseph Sherman
Jeffrey Baksa, Code Enforcement Officer

Chris Trapp, Town Attorney
Absent - George Clifford
Motion by McCabe, second by Sailer, to receive and file the proofs of publication and posting of legal notice.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion by Frick, seconded by McCabe, to approve minutes 2022-03 of March 10, 2022.
OLD BUSINESS
SPR2021-05
Motion by McCabe, seconded by Sailer, to open the public hearing.
Brad Vaillancourt with Trautman Associates stated since his last appearance before the Planning Board the
following has been received:

/ DEC correspondence
SHPO approval was granted on April 2022 - some items need to be with SHPO
8, coordinated during
construction and over the next couple months to provide complete reports of the phase 2 dig
The baseball field has been shifted farther west to due to an area of there is a revised 100-
avoidance;
year floodplain with 35% - 40% more volume than originally planned. The Town Engineer has reviewed
the revised drawings and has granted approval.
268

Mr. Frick referred to the SEQR process stating this has been an issue on the project due to the nature of the
disturbance and public involvement/comment. Mr. Frick provided the following brief synopsis:
/ As required by Title 6 NYCRR part 617, the lead must make a SEQR determination for the project
agency
in this case the Town of West Seneca is that lead agency.
/ In accordance with Part 617, this project is considered a Type I action due to the disturbance being
more than 10-acres.
This requires a full EAF be submitted and reviewed. The EAF was submitted in February 2021 and
reviewed during the April 2021 Planning Board meeting with all comments addressed.
At the same time, it was also sent out to the following agencies for review: NYSDEC, NYSDOT, ECDEP,
Erie County Sewer District #1, Army Corp of Engineers, Town of West Seneca Fire District, Town of
West Seneca Environmental Commission and Town of West Seneca Engineer.
Subsequent to this, it was determined the project needed to be reviewed by SHPO which resulted in
extensive field survey and testing. Based on this survey SHPO requested some minor modifications to
the site plan.
Modifications were received and approved by the Town Engineer.
All required agencies have now approved the project, noting that SHPO has ten conditions placed on
the approval.
Several letters were received throughout this process from Mr. Warren. All the correspondence from
Mr. Warren have been reviewed and addressed in the context of the SEQR process. Mr. Frick stated in
his opinion, all items have been addressed.
Drainage patterns will not be significantly altered.
benching"
Current design incorporates "flood that increases this site flood storage by 40% and therefore
will have no detrimental affect on the down stream flood issues associated with Lexington Green.
There have been questions on why the NYSDOT has not commented on the project. Mr. Frick stated
this is simply due to the fact the project does not affect anything on the state highway. There is no
alteration of the driveway or change in the drainage patterns to Clinton Street.
Mr. Frick stated based on the information provided, there are conditions that must be met by SHPO. The-SEQR
This requires the Planning
Board to publish the SHPO contingencies and have a minimum 30-day public comment period. This must happen
before granting full approval of the project. However, Mr. Fick believes the site plan modifications with the
contingencies contained in the SHPO letter can be granted at this time. Mr. Fick deferred to Town Attorney
Chris Trapp for clarification. Mr. Trapp stated this was correct.
Mr. McCabe referred to the conditions in the letter from Parks Recreation and Historic Preservation and stated it
was his understanding that either the Code Enforcement Office or Engineering would be monitoring during
construction to ensure the conditions are complied with. Code Enforcement Officer Jeffrey Baksa stated this
was correct. Some of the items on the list would be addressed at a preconstruction meeting.
Mr. McCabe requested clarification on who was the lead agency and believed this to be the Town of West Seneca
Planning Board. Mr. Trapp stated this was correct, the Planning Board would have a motion noting they are the
lead agency and believed this was already done. There was a March 28, 2022, outline from the Code
Enforcement Office that illustrates all the steps taken over time about the project and requested this be included
in the record.
pg. 2
269

Mr. Frick referred to the document from Code Enforcement specifically 1A and lists that Canisius submitted a
short EAF form and in fact, it was the full EAF form.
On the question, Mr. McCabe stated he would like the memo from the Code Enforcement Office incorporated
into the approval in terms of this board's review of the process and the decision be based on the various meetings
and submissions that have been received by the Planning Board including the correspondence from Mr. Warren.
Mr. Frick stated this was acceptable.
*APPENDICES*
Chairperson Bebak questioned if siteplae approval can be granted

Mr. Trapp stated since the Planning Board is waiting 30 days for comments, he recommends the site plan
approval be taken up at the May meeting.
Chairperson Bebak explained there were conditions on the SHPO letter, and they need to be met, if we can issue
a conditional negative declaration without waiting 30 days; once the next meeting is held, a final motion can be
made.
Motion by Bebak, seconded by Frick, to table site plan approval and negative SEQ R declaration for property
located at 2885 Clinton Street for construction of an athletic complex with all related site improvements until the
May meeting.
Mr. Trapp stated there are some conditions that cannot be accomplished, based on their nature, until
construction begins and some that can be worked on now. Chairperson Bebak referred to the conditional
approval and questioned if they must wait 30 days to finalize the declaration. Mr. Trapp stated this is correct.
Mr. McCabe stated during the 30-day period there is the ability for public comment, and this would be addressed
at the next meeting. Mr. Trapp stated this is correct.
pg. 3
270

NEW BUSINESS
SPR2022-03
A request from New York State Electric and Gas Corporation for site plan approval for property located at Indian
Church Road just east of the intersection with Mineral Springs Road (SBL No's. 134.07-3-6 & 134.07-3-7) to
upgrade electrical systems on site and replace outdated equipment and buildings.
Motion by McCabe, seconded by Frick, to open the public hearing.
.Justin Cree with Fisher Associates stated the application is for the new Gardenville electric substation for NYSEG.
This is an existing property which was developed in the 1950's and is in need equipment upgrades. The project
is hoping for conditional site plan approval tonight, pending approval of all environmental permits under review
with the DEC and other agencies.
The project is on an existing developed site; there will be no change to the use or coverage of the land as far
as stormwater design and permitting. The Town Engineer has reviewed the site plan application and had no
comments and recommended conditional approval.
Mr. Cree referred to the site plan and illustrated the existing site, the area not being altered, and the new NYSEG
property where the existing electrical equipment will be upgraded to better service the towns needs and growing
infrastructure. Approximately 1/3 of the property will be under construction.
There are existing wetlands on the southern end, away from Indian Church Road, along with wetlands to the
west in between an asphalt drive. This area will be avoided, the reason for the permits is due to the site being
100'
within the buffer area. The request is for conditional site plan approval based on the site plan itself.
Basic construction is scheduled to start in the fall. Larger construction with heavy equipment will begin in 2024.
This will be a prolonged process with the upgrades and connections. The biggest concern to the town will be
some shutdowns/outages to switch over equipment. Shutdowns should be approximately an hour long during
off peak times.
Mr. Frick questioned if this project was a replace in kind upgrade with no expansion to the site. Mr. Cree stated
this was correct; this is an existing gravel site with no change to the land.
Chairperson Bebak noted the Planning Board is in receipt of Engineering approval along with OPHPR approval
and questioned what approvals are needed. Mr. Cree stated the DEC Wetlands permitting has yet to be received.
Motion by Nalewajek, seconded by McCabe, to close the public hearing.
PS 4
271

Motion by McCabe, seconded by Bebak, to table site plan approval for property located at Indian Church Road
just east of the intersection with Mineral Springs Road (SBL No's. 134.07-3-6 & 134.07-3-7) to upgrade electrical
systems on site and replace outdated equipment and buildings.
SPR2022-04
A request of Rachel's Mediterranean Grill for site plan approval for property located at 310 Orchard Park Road
(aka 276 Orchard Park Road approximately 300 LF east of Slade Avenue) for redevelopment of subdivided parcel
from an insurance agency to an 1800-sf restaurant with 37 seats and 15 parking spaces.
Motion by McCabe, seconded by Sailer, to open the public hearing.
Robert Blood with Lauer-Manguso & Associates Architects presented the following on behalf of Rachel's
Mediterranean Grill:
/ The cross-access connection that the Board requested has been difficult to overcome
Planning
/ A utility pole would need to be relocated to provide the access
/ the pole is not feasible from a cost perspective and the pole is the line to the entire
Relocating utility drop
service for the Wegmans.
The initial intention was to make a pavement-to-pavement connection along the back of KeyBank;
KeyBank was approached and has refused based on a detriment to their branch operations.
Wegmans was willing to work with the project, however the utility pole problems cannot be overcome.
To go around the utility brings the cross access to another adjacent property which is owned by the
original landowner that this project was purchased from. The landowner was only interested in selling
and this became a deal breaker.
The problem becomes fire access; there will be discussions with Goodyear to make a direct connection
for practical fire access.
The cross access to the plaza does not appear to be able to be provided
The location of the sanitary sewer service is not yet known
The applicant has received a demolition permit and the structures should come down soon; this should
set some light on the sanitary sewer service
Mr. Sherman stated it appears there was access from Goodyear onto the property. Mr. Blood stated the plan
conceptually shows a cross access conception arrived at. There is no room in the front but access to the back
of the site at least satisfy the fire access concerns.
Chairperson Bebak questioned if the cross access is required as part of the building permit. Code Enforcement
Officer Jeff Baksa stated this would have to be reviewed to see if the permit would be following the NYS Fire
Code. If this did not comply with the NYS Fire Code, the only other avenue to take is to petition the state for a
variance to the code. Mr. Blood stated they would like access from the back of the site to the back of the
Goodyear site and this is still in negotiations. Mr. Baksa stated it was his belief that access to Goodyear for fire
ps 5
272

access purposes would be satisfactory to the town; however only one ingress and egress for traffic would have
to be approved by the NYSDOT.
Mr. Nalewajek questioned if the site plan was now null and void. Mr. Blood stated the site plan was submitted
and the NYSEG field engineer has since informed them of the pole problem. The plans indicated underground
detention beneath the driveway; if something connects to the back of Goodyear and the site remains green, a
detention basin will be placed.
Mr. Sherman questioned why the building was placed crooked on the parcel with no setback at the corner rather
than squared up on the parcel. Mr. Blood stated several placements were looked at. The current one is
O'
awkwardly situated in relationship to the road but fit the required parking spaces. The setback and pavement
setbacks of the property line were approved in the fall. Mr. Baksa explained the direction of the building is
O' O'
because of the setback at the corner, a variance was sought for that instead of the entire building being a
setback. This did not provide for extra parking but allows for a lane and parking. This also makes the building
90°
placement with the road and allows for better visibility.
Mr. Nalewajek questioned the schematic level of site development. Mr. Blood stated approximately 75% of the
site plan is valid. There are a lot of questions to be answered.
Mr. McCabe requested clarification on the parking variances. Mr. Blood stated variances were granted for parking
setback, sign location and building setbacks.
Mr. Sherman questioned if Goodyear grants access would there be an access point for egress from the building
to drive around the back and out, using the Goodyear driveway. Mr. Blood stated that is the intent and is not
sure if this would be a big benefit. Mr. Sherman stated he believed this would be a large benefit particularly for
fire access.
Mr. Sherman questioned if this project could be contingent upon access from Goodyear. Mr. Blood stated this
is correct unless they appeal to the fire code.
Motion by Sherman, seconded by Nalewajek, to close the public hearing.
Motion by Bebak, seconded by Sherman, to table site plan approval for property located at 310 Orchard Park
Road (aka 276 Orchard Park Road approximately 300 LF east of Slade Avenue) for redevelopment of subdivided
parcel from an insurance agency to an 1800-sf restaurant with 37 seats and 15 parking spaces pending further
examination on site plan and access easements.
273

SPR2022-05
A request of Todd Huber of Building Solutions for site plan approval for property located at 1303 Union Road
for construction of an addition and an ADA compliant rest room.
Motion by Frick, seconded by McCabe, to open the public hearing.
Todd Huber of Building Solutions stated Graeber Jewelers has been in business for many years and at the Union
60'
Road location since 1976. The existing lot on Union Road is x 160'. The business received correspondence
from their insurance company requesting an updated safe on the premises along with an ADA compliant
restroom. The structure is small and in need of an addition for a safe, storage, and restroom. The front of the
building is geared towards the visual need of the customers. The proposal is to place the addition close to Union
Road to abide by the code. The placement of the addition would hinder the daily operations of the business
during construction and would not satisfy the needs of the addition. There is not a way to stay viable during
construction. Another proposal would be to place the addition off the back and incorporate some of the visual
concerns along Union Road, such as placing parking towards the back, additional plantings, and detention along
the back with greenery. The request tonight is for approval of a rear addition to the existing structure.
Chairperson Bebak referred to Mr. Huber's statement and questioned if rear access could be in place, the addition
onto the front and keep the showroom in the back; flip the business. There will be down time while changing
the area; the area is a square. One of the problems with the building is the small parking. The second plan is
a vast improvement on the business by having the parking and access in the rear with the addition on the front.
Mr. Huber stated if the addition was built onto the front, the business would need to be shut down to move the
contents to the front. This is to accommodate what is requested, a new safe, storage area, and ADA compliant
restroom. These are the needs and from a construction view, duplicating a showroom is a greater cost.
Chairperson Bebak stated this is short term compared to the long-term benefits of the plan that complies with
the code and ensures more parking. Mr. Huber stated from a construction standpoint, this is a sustained
investment that would snuff out the viability of a business being able to overcome such a renovation.
Mr. Nalewajek stated it appears to be an either-or situation instead of looking at the possibility of placing some
addition on the front to bring the building closer in compliance with additional space needed at the back of the
building. The design presented does not show anything in terms of what the addition would look like or what
is the impact to the street and neighbors.
Code Enforcement Officer Jeff Baksa stated it was his understanding the addition that the business would like
to add would have a new safe and storage space. By placing the addition on the front of the building, the safe
and storage would be at the front of the building, or they would have the additional expense of rebuilding the
entire showroom in the front new addition. This is where it may not be financially feasible.
Mr. Frick questioned if this project would require NYSDOT review as the building is on Union Road. Mr. Baksa
stated this would need to be sent to the NYSDOT and SEQR review. The applicant is here tonight for input from
the Planning Board.
pg. 7
274

Mr. Frick stated current precedence from the NYSDOT is not to allow a parking space in the front of the building
and believes they will restrict the entrance to approximately 24'; the two front spots will be eliminated. The
Planning Board has done similar with projects along Union Road. Mr. Baksa concurred and suggested an ingress
and egress be added to the project.
Mr. Frick stated a renovation of the facade could be a compromise. Other projects have added a decorative wall
to give the feel of being closer to Union Road.
Mr. Huber stated his intent was to explore and he takes the Planning Boards suggestions seriously. Mr. Huber
suggested adding more glass and noted, the lot is quite small to be able to include egress and ingress.
Mr. Frick suggested reviewing the Union Road Corridor requirements in the Town Code for architectural
guidance.
Chairperson Bebak noted this is a long-standing business and it would be great to improve the building. What
has been presented is not what the Planning Board is looking for. The proposal should combine the Union Road
Corridor requirements and have aesthetics incorporated.
Motion by Frick, seconded by Bebak, to close the public hearing.
Motion by Bebak, seconded by Frick to table site plan approval for property located at 1303 Union Road for
construction of an addition and an ADA compliant rest room.
SPR2022-06
A request of Ebenezer Landing Community, LLC for site plan approval for property located at 4592 Seneca
Street for construction of 31 patio homes, 5 attached villas, and all related site improvements.
William Tyne with David Homes stated this project was previously approved; the approval has timed out due to
advancements on the project. The project needs to have approval once again. The original approved plans
required a demolition on the existing house. The project went to bid with contractors and the prices came back
extremely high due to an elevation change along Seneca Street; the receiving sewer is in the low point making
the connection in the middle of the street. When building a sewer in the middle of the street the backfill needs
to be stone, causing the increase in price. To make this more affordable it was decided that the sewer needed
to be moved from the middle of the street. Drawings were completed and reviewed by NYSEG and the Town
Engineer.
pg. 8
275

The project has changed slightly; the curve in street has been straightened. This is beneficial to the lot lines
making them rectangular and provides room for the sewer. By the time this happened, and all signed off, the
approval timed out. The Zoning Board of Appeals also must reapprove the required variances. The request
tonight is for a contingent approval.
Chairman Bebak questioned if this was approved, and condo status was not granted a year from now what
would happen? Mr. Tyne stated the code allows for one extension and expects this to be granted mid-summer.
50' 30'
Mr. Sherman questioned the lot size of each parcel. Mr. Tyne stated they is 8,000-sf minimum, wide,
building height and minimum dwelling size is 900-sf .
Mr. Sherman questioned if the minimum lot size is supposed to be 10,000-sf. Code Enforcement Officer Jeff
Baksa stated in previous approvals with the current site plan and lots, this was approved. Mr. Baksa would have
to investigate the code as the numbers can be moved to fit the county subdivision map.
Mr. Sherman stated he recalled the lot size was a concern of the petitioner, that the number of homes would
not be able to fit the number of homes needed at 10,000-sf and questioned if this was compliant at 8,000-sf.
Mr. Tyne stated this was previously approved.
Mr. Sherman questioned when the project was last approved. Mr. Baksa stated this was in 2019 with a one-
year extension.
Mr. McCabe questioned if the Code Enforcement Office has verified the plan is the same. Mr. Tyne stated the
layout and sewer is the only change. The Town Engineer has approved the changed.
Mr. Sherman questioned the radius of the cul-de-sac in the back; there was previously a concern surrounding
55'
fire apparatus and school busses making the turn around. Mr. Tyne stated the radius is and was previously
approved.
Mr. Sherman referred to the parking and noted the driveway has a one car availability and questioned the width
of the road. Mr. Tyne stated the width is 24'. Mr. Sherman expressed concerns with parking on the street and
the road availability for emergency vehicles to reach the rear of the property. Mr. Tyne stated the width has
not changed.
Mr. Sherman referred to the slope at the rear of the property; how will the water be contained and not flow to
the neighbors at the rear of the property. Mr. Tyne stated there was drainage along the property line. Mr. Tyne
did not bring the drainage plan with him. Mr. Sherman questioned where the water flows to. Mr. Sailer stated
there is an existing area. Mr. Tyne stated there is a small undeveloped area. The development pattern of what
is being built is all draining to the street and controlled.
Motion by Sherman, seconded by McCabe, to close the public hearing.
276

Motion by Bebak, seconded by McCabe, to grant site plan approval for property located at 4592 Seneca Street
for construction of 31 patio homes, 5 attached villas, and all related site improvements contingent upon the
6.82'
approval of the following variances: 1) front yard setback; 2) 8,000-sf lot size for building nos. 6 - 17 and
5.55' 37.11'
22-36; 3) rear yard setback for building nos. 6 - 18, 22, 23, and 34 - 36; 4) lot width for buildings
17 - 22.
Ayes: (5) Bebak Noes: (1) Sherman Motion Carried

McCabe
Frick
Sailer
Nalewajek
ADJOURNMENT
Motion by Frick, seconded by Bebak, to adjourn the meeting at 8:27 P.M.
AMY M. KOBLER
pg. 10
277
Exhibit “12” - May 12, 2022, Minutes related to SPR2021-05

Exhibit “12”
278


George Clifford
James Frick
Dale J McCabe
Raymond Nalewajek
Eric Sailer
Joseph Sherman

Stephan Stachowski, Deputy Town Attorney
Absent - None
Motion by Frick, second by Clifford, to receive and file the proofs of publication and posting of legal notice.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion by Bebak, seconded by McCabe, to amend minutes 2022-04 of April 14, 2022, to include the following
regarding SPR2021-05 (Canisius):
" Page 2 contains the following: "The SEQR law requires the Board to issue this as a conditioned
Planning
declaration."
negative
" declaration"
The record should be clarified to show that a "conditioned negative should not have been
issued and was not issued. The item was tabled, and no determination was made surrounding the site
plan approval as well as any SEQR determination were tabled.
" When the Chairperson questioned whether a conditional negative declaration could be the
made,
Planning Board agreed to hold off on a final motion until the next meeting. The vote to table the
approval was for both site plan and SEQR declaration.
NEW BUSINESS
SPR2022-03
A request of 1000 Queens Grant LLC c/o Barclay Damon LLP for a rezone for property located at Grant Boulevard
(SBL Nos. 152.05-6-10.1, 152.05-6-14, 152.05-6-21.1), being part of Lot No.427, changing its classification from
R-75 to R-50 for construction of townhouses.
pg. 1
279

Ari Goldberg with Barclay Damon, LLP presented on behalf the applicant and presented the following regarding
the three lots being presented for rezoning:
/ The 3-lots are all on Grant Boulevard and zoned the rest of the subdivision is zoned R-50
R-75;
/ The request aligns the entire subdivision into the R-50 classification
zoning zoning
The subdivision is 150-lots on the portion to be rezoned is minimal at 3-lots and 1.34-
34-acres; needing
acres
If rezoning is successful, the 3-lots will be subdivided into 14-lots the same size as the surrounding lots
35' 135'
in the subdivision at x
Rezoning will allow for the townhouse style of development that will be replicated throughout the
subdivision
All necessary subdivision approvals will be obtained after successful rezoning
35'
Mr. Sherman referred to the lots and stated the town code does not have any stipulations regarding the lots;
the minimum lot size 50'. Mr. Sherman stated it is his opinion that the size is non-conforming and will have to
be addressed. Mr. Goldberg stated there was a previous discussion regarding the lot size and it is his
understanding that variances were obtained. Mr. Goldberg believed this was an issue that would have come up
during the subdivision process. Rezoning the existing lots with the current dimensions to R-50 would be
compliant and Mr. Goldberg understands this will be addressed in the future. There is no problem delaying
construction to obtain any variances that are needed.
Chairperson Bebak questioned if approvals have been obtained for the other lots. Mr. Goldberg stated the lots
15'
that are subdivided are all approved. The lots seeking rezoning do not have the variances that are required.
Mr. Frick requested clarification on the building type and questioned if this is a building is a townhome with a
70'
common wall for the property line; in essence a frontage with one building owner. Mr. Goldberg stated this
was correct.
Mr. Sherman stated each side of the building is for sale; technically making two buildings. Mr. Sherman
questioned the depth of the lot. Mr. Goldberg stated the depth is 153'. Mr. Sherman stated he believed the lot
35' 155'
should be 8,000-sf minimum. by is 5,425-sf and not compliant. Mr. Goldberg stated the necessary
area variances will be applied for.
Mr. McCabe questioned if the rezoning was approved, is this a site plan or variance issue; would this be part of
a planned unit development. Code Enforcement Officer Jeffrey Schieber stated zoning is being addressed
tonight. The application if approved would come back to the Planning Board as part of the subdivision process.
Any variances required for lot sizes would be obtained before the Zoning Board of Appeals with a return to
Planning Board for a final subdivision approval.
Mr. McCabe questioned if the process would be to move to the Zoning Board of Appeals and back to the Planning
Board at which point the lot size would comply. Mr. Schieber stated if all the variances were granted and the
zoning changed, the applicant would be before the Planning Board seeking final approval with all the other
required approvals.
Chairperson Bebak questioned if there will be any common areas in the subdivision. Mr. Goldberg stated there
will not be common areas.
280

Motion by Bebak, seconded by McCabe, to recommend approval of a rezone for property located at Grant
Boulevard (SBL Nos. 152.05-6-10.1, 152.05-6-14, 152.05-6-21.1), being part of Lot No.427, changing its
classification from R-75 to R-50 for construction of townhouses.
OLD BUSINESS
SPR2022-03
A request from New York State Electric and Gas Corporation for site plan approval for property located at Indian
Church Road just east of the intersection with Mineral Springs Road (SBL No's. 134.07-3-6 & 134.07-3-7) to
upgrade electrical systems on site and replace outdated equipment and buildings.
Motion by Frick, seconded by McCabe, to table site plan approval for property located at Indian Church Road
just east of the intersection with Mineral Springs Road (SBL No's. 134.07-3-6 & 134.07-3-7) to upgrade electrical
systems on site and replace outdated equipment and buildings until the June meeting.
NEW BUSINESS
SPR2022-02
A request from Eugene Staychock for a rezone for property located at 301 Lein Road, being part of Lot No. 356,
changing its classification from M-1 to R-90 for construction of a single-family home.
Mr. Clifford stated he is recusing himself from this item due to a friendship with the applicant.
Mr. McCabe stated he is recusing himself from this item due to a friendship with the applicant.
Mr. Clifford and Mr. McCabe left the presentation table.
Mr. Staychock stated he has owned the lot for many years. The lot is currently zoned M-1 and there is no
intention to ever have manufacturing take place. The request is for a rezone to R-90 with the intent to sell the
front portion of the lot for construction of a single-family home.
Code Enforcement Officer Jeffrey Schieber provided an illustration of the parcels. The parcel with the existing
home is zoned R-90. The intent is to rezone the entire M-1 parcel to R-90. The applicant has a proposal to split
PS. 3
281

90' 232'
off a x deep portion for a buildable lot for a single-family home.
Chairperson Bebak questioned the intention of the back portion. Mr. Staychock stated he would be keeping this
portion with no intention of having manufacturing.
Mr. Sherman questioned if the portion would be sold to allow someone to build. Mr. Staychock stated he does
not have a signed contract, but this is the intent. The first step would be the zoning the property.
Motion by Frick, seconded by Sherman, to close the public hearing.
Motion by Sherman, seconded by Bebak, to recommend approval of a rezone for property located at 301 Lein
Road, being part of Lot No. 356, changing its classification from M-1 to R-90 for construction of a single-family
home.
Ayes: (5) Bebak Noes: None Abstentions: (2) Clifford Motion Carried
Sherman McCabe
Sailer
Nalewajek
Frick
ADJOURNMENT
Motion by Frick, seconded by Bebak, to adjourn the meeting at 7:16 P.M.
AMY M. KOBLER
ps. 4
282
Exhibit “13” - June 9, 2022, Minutes related to SPR2021-05

Exhibit “13”
283


James Frick
Dale J McCabe
Raymond Nalewajek
Eric Sailer

Absent - Joseph Sherman
Motion by Frick, second by Bebak, to receive and file the proofs of publication and posting of legal notice.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion by McCabe, seconded by Frick, to approve minutes 2022-05 of May 12, 2022.
OLD BUSINESS
SPR2021-05
Motion by Bebak, seconded by Sailer, to open the public hearing.
Mr. Vaillancourt stated the project needs SEQR determination and final Planning Board approval. Canisius High
School is excited to get the project going.
Chairperson Bebak stated there is currently litigation on the SEQR process and for the record the Planning Board
will go through an extensive review of the processes the Planning Board has been through.
Code Enforcement Officer Jeffrey Schieber stated the project was submitted to the Town of West Seneca in
February 2021 and numerous documents were submitted. Mr. Schieber submitted the project for a fully
coordinated SEQR review, and the drawings/documents were distributed to numerous agencies outside of the
Town of West Seneca. The following correspondence were received:
" March full Report from applicant

18, 2021, Engineering
pg. 1
284

" March email from Erie Sewer approval

4, 2021, County indicating
" March Erie Department of singed 239M form
16, 2021, County Planning
" April Town Engineer requested minor changes
1, 2021,
" April revised submittal from applicant a draft flood impact full and
28, 2021, including study, SWPP,
revised plans
" first comments from SHPO
May 7, 2021,
" letter from Town Engineer minor approval of floodplain
May 11, 2021, indicating corrections,
modifications, and noted on the initial approval letter the new flood plain would hold more water than
currently exists today

" April DEC letter received
1, 2021,
" subsequent SHPO letter received and a response from the applicant
May 13, 2021,
" a fully approved project from Town Engineer
May 26, 2021,
" September additional SHPO correspondence
14, 2021,
" October documentation from applicant that wetlands delineated with DEC
7, 2021,
" November a new submittal to NYSDOT to ensure were in full receipt of the application
24, 2021, they
" December updated response from applicant with minor comments
30, 2021,
" Town Engineer provided second letter of approval for the entire project based on the
February 8, 2022,
modifications made
" As part of the litigation the Board was required to resubmit the project for a new
process, Planning
coordinated SEQR review
" letter mailed from the Code Enforcement Office numerous documents
May 9, 2022, containing including
all the approval letters already in place to the following agencies: ECWA, NYSDOT, Army Corp of
Engineers, NYSDEC, Erie County Department of Planning, Union Fire Department, Erie County Sewer 1,
NYS Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation (SHPO), the Town Engineer and the West
Seneca Environmental Commission

" As of today, the window has additional letters have been received:
30-day surpassed;
June 2, 2022, Erie County Department of Planning acknowledged receipt of the new SEQR project,
they had a minor comment for the Planning Board
May 11, 2022, Erie County Sewer indicated approval via email, noting there are no new sewer
impacts
May 11, 2022, lengthy SHPO response indicating the applicant has met all requirements and are
permitted to proceed with work; SHPO will have a representative, and possibly a member from
the Tribal Nation, during the excavation and site works

Town Engineering approval still stands
Mr. McCabe stated he understands SHPO to be archeological. Mr. Schieber stated that agency deals with
archeological studies. It is noted there were archeological findings and were fully reviewed by SHPO and the
native tribes. This has been an extensive process due to the sensitive matters. All approvals are in place and
documented with the Code Enforcement Office.
Chairperson Bebak stated SHPO approved based on the fact there was prior disturbance and the understanding
that anything new uncovered will be inventoried during work. Mr. Schieber stated items were found however,
Canisius modified the site plan to stay away from those areas.
285

Mr. Vaillancourt stated there is an area of avoidance that will be fenced off for the duration of the project. SHPO
"virgin"
requested they put a silk fabric down to protect the soils to preserve any artifacts below. The contract
document reflects this.
Chairperson Bebak asked Mr. Vaillancourt to speak to modification of floodplain plans. Mr. Vaillancourt referenced
the plan and illustrated the present hundred-year flood plain and the new flood plain. Mr. Vaillancourt explained
that the new plan may appear as if it is providing less floodplain area, but in fact holds approximately 40% more
volume of hundred-year floodplain than is currently present. The project does exceed the floodplain and helps
any water that may come down the creek.
Mr. Frick stated the West Seneca Planning Board was designated lead agency for the SEQR review in early 2021.
As part of the environmental review process, the applicant had to file a full EAF (Environmental Assessment
Form) because this is a Type I action. The project has an area disturbance more than 10-acres, and this requires
a Type I action. Part I of the EAF was provided by the applicant. The lead agency then must complete Part II
and III. Part II and III are basically a review of Part I to determine if there will be any significant or potential
environmental impacts. Mr. Frick specified he was in possession of Part II, completed by the Planning Board.
A resident from 97 Lexington Green had the following questions/comments:
" Will this project be adjacent to the football fields -Mr. Vaillancourt stated this is adjacent to the football
fields.
" Where will the project be in relation to the Lexington Development - Mr.
Green Vaillancourt indicated
the location on the drawing; the Lexington Green development is on the other side of the creek.
" How much is being added - Mr. Vaillancourt stated no additional is being the fan
parking parking added,
capacity for baseball is nowhere near football games.
" Will the fields be lighted - Mr. Vaillancourt not be lighted.
stated they will
" Will the fields be rented out - Matthew Vice of Finance at Canisius High
Carver, President School, stated
there is no intention of renting to any group.
" Believes this is segmentation, the project is growing and noted Canisius owns additional on
property
Clinton Street - Mr. Carver stated at this time there are no plans to develop the additional property.
This project was in the spirit of the development phases at the time the property was acquired. This is
the final phase of the vision; at this time the additional property has no plans to be developed.
" The project's purpose is to draw students to the high school - Mr. Carver stated the project is to
accommodate the current programs the school offers and do not have home fields for.
Mr. Frick stated as required by New York State law, the Planning Board then completed Parts II and III of the
EAF; in review a few issues were noted with potential environmental impacts:
" Item la: Proposed action involve construction on land where depth to water table is less than 3
may
feet. Average depth to water table on site is 2.96 feet. Construction will generally not penetrate this
depth except possibly for some drainage pipes and foundations for the small ancillary buildings that are
to be constructed. Therefore, no significant adverse effects will occur.
" Item id: Proposed action involve the excavation and removal of more than 1,000 tons of natural
may
material. Excavation for playing fields, stormwater detention facility and site regarding will exceed 1,000
tons but will not be removed from site. Therefore, no significant adverse effects will occur.
pg. 3
286

West Seneca, NY 14224 'lune 9, 2022
" Item 3d: Proposed action involve construction within or a freshwater or tidal or
may adjoining wetland,
in the bed or banks of any other water body. Construction will occur along the bank of Buffalo Creek
primarily to excavate material to balance/regrade the site and to create addition flood storage (proposed
design increases flood storage on site by 20%). Therefore, no significant adverse effects will occur.
" Items 5a,b,c: Proposed action result in development in a designated a 100-year floodplain
may floodway,
and a 500-year floodplain. A portion of the project will occur within the Buffalo Creek floodplain. The
floodplain will be reshaped resulting in a 20% increase in the volume of flood water, noting Canisius has
increased this, that the site can accommodate. It is very common to allow recreational fields to be
constructed in floodplains. Therefore, no significant adverse effects will occur.
" Item 7h: Proposed action requires the conversion of more than 10-acres of forest, grassland or any other
or important habitat. Habitat type & information source: grassland - aerial site
regionally locally photo,
visit and EAF-Part I. The land was previously used for farming but has been abandoned for this purpose
for a long time. The grassland soil will be excavated to build approximately 3.85-acres of artificial turf
playing field and approximately 3.95-acres of natural turf playing field, lawn areas and stormwater
detention facility area in addition to approximately 0.5-acres of pavement and buildings. Stormwater will
be collected and detained on site and released to Buffalo Creek at a rate that will not exceed existing or
as allowed by code or ordinance. This has been reviewed and approved by the Town Engineer on at
least two occasions. Therefore, no significant adverse effects will occur.
" Item 8a: The proposed action impact soil classified within soil 1 through 4 of the NYS Land
may group
Classification System. The area of the development is abandoned farmland which contains soils within
the noted classification. AII excavated soils will remain on site and could be used in the future if the area
was to be used for farming again. Therefore, no significant adverse effects will occur.
" Item 10b: The proposed action occur or or contiguous to an
may wholly partially within, substantially
area designated as sensitive for archaeological sites on the NY State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
archeological site inventory. This site meets the above criteria and has had an extensive archeological
investigation and testing. A sensitive area was found, and the site plan adjusted to keep work out of
this area. SHPO has stated that the remaining area has been previously disturbed that there is little
likelihood that any additional significant artifacts will be present. An archeologist and a member of the
Seneca Nation will be on site during construction to aid the contractor and monitor the excavations for
any additional sensitive archeological artifacts. They will have the ability to stop construction at any time
to make any necessary examinations of the site. Therefore, no significant adverse effects will occur.
Mr. Frick stated the Planning Board received many letters from letters Daniel Warren and addressed some items
from each letter as follows and noted Mr. Warren was present at the meeting:
" Letter Dated April 2021:

24,
property" - This
/ Item 1: Question whether this is a permitted use as a "school on residential
question was reviewed during the construction of the main playing field, and it was determined
the use was acceptable as no change in use is occurring, therefore previous determination is still
valid.
waterway" - This
Item 2: "Buffalo Creek is a navigable is not true however the Buffalo River is
considered a navigable watenway.
day" - The
Item 3: "Flooding issues in this area began in 2014 and continue to this history of
flooding dates back before 1966 when the Lexington Green area was developed with significant
ice jam flooding noted as early as 1971 with minor flooding occurring on a regular basis.
pg. 4
287

West Seneca, NY 14224 lune 9, 2022
Reference USACE reports from 1966, 1979 and 2016 and the "Resilient New York Flood Mitigation
NY"
Initiative, Buffalo Creek, from 2020 prepared by OBG.
project" - The
Item 4: "Consideration of original project in conjunction with this combined effects
of both projects were considered our review - this will be addressed later in this
during statement.
project" - The
Item 5: "No Traffic Study was performed for this NYSDOT did not request one as
onsite parking is not being modified as timing of the usage of the new fields and the current
playing field will not overlap.

Item 6: "Rezoning at 3735 Clinton Street for storage of construction equipment was not
considered" - Storage of construction equipment is not a major traffic generator and has little or
no effect on the traffic level of service on Clinton Street.
easement" -
Item 7: "Original Oxbow property acquired subject to conservation Phase I is
contiguous with this property; this phase has no connection. However, this phase will detain all
runoff from both phases prior to release to Buffalo Creek which is not connected to the Oxbow
property.
" Letter dated September 2021
24,
/ documents" -
Item 1: "USACE FOIL request yielded no The Town received a letter dated
November 30, 2021, of no significant impact.
" Letter dated September 2021:
30,
public" - Materials
Item 1: "All materials have not been made available to the are made available
on the town website including in the meeting minutes.
agencies" - All
Item 2: "Not all information was distributed to the involved and interested materials
have been forwarded and in addition, full packets of all information have been sent to all involved
and interested agencies in April of this year.
" Letter dated October 7, 2021:
I" - This
Item 1: "Additional 300,000 gals of water will be added to the site from Phase water is
added during the growing season and not during the time when flooding will be occurring.
fields" -
Item 2: "Pesticides will be used to maintain the Property is zoned residential. Pesticide
usage would not be significantly different is this was developed as residential property.
Flooding" - The
Item 3: "Statements concerning Groundwater Lexington Green development does
have a groundwater flooding issue. The statement that "groundwater flooding occurs when
enough"
natural underground drainage cannot drain rainfall away quick is not correct.
Groundwater flooding occurs because of groundwater flowing into an area from outside of the
region due to high porosity of the underlying soils. The Lexington Green development is
constructed on fill from the Buffalo Creek realignment project and embanked granular fill leading
this high - reference the 1979 and 2016 USACE reports.
porosity
site" - The Phase
Item 4: "Stormwater discharge is increased from II design retains the 100-year
flooding volume of both phases I and II on site until the creek level drops to an elevation that
will allow its release.
617.7(c)" - The
Item 5: "Additional significant adverse impacts per 6 NYCRR proposed project will
not adversely change existing air quality, ground or surface water quality or quantity, increase in
solid waste, potential for erosion, flooding, leaching or drainage problems. Removal of large
quantities of vegetation (grassland) will occur but majority of affected area will be replanted grass
or artificial turf with a small change in impervious area that would increase surface runoff. All
other identified items will not be a significant impact: creation of material conflict with a
community's current plans or goals, impairment of character or quality of important historical,
pg. 5
288

archeological, architectural, or aesthetic resources, substantial change in intensity of use of land,

changes in two or more elements of the environment when considered together result in a
substantial adverse impact, and two or more related actions when considered cumulatively would
meet one or more of the criteria in subdivision 617.7 (c).
" Letter dated 2022
January 10,
/ 2007" - Response
Item 1: "Significant archeological discoveries made in from SHPO stated the
Phase I areas were disturbed to the point that no significant artifacts were present. SHPO
required the applicant to perform extensive investigation and testing for this project that required
a minor change in the site layout to avoid a "sensitive area". The remaining area of this project
was determined to have been significantly disturbed that no useful artifacts are likely present. In
addition, SHPO has required that all excavation be monitored by an archeologist so that in the
event any artifacts of significance are uncovered, they will be properly preserved. The
archeologist would have the authority to stop construction at any time if it deemed necessary.
" Letter dated 2022:
May 26,
/ - Property" - The
Item 1: "Effect on Oxbow Property increased stormwater runoff into the Oxbow
Phase 2 drainage modifications will direct all runoff from both phases to the newly design
detention pond, therefore no increase in overland flow will occur into the oxbow lake area. In
addition, no significant increase in impervious area will occur with this project.
Mr. Frick provided the following SEQR review summary:
1) The project was determined to be a Type I action under the statewide SEQRA regulations, 6 NYCRR 617.4
since the project exceeds the threshold for physical alterations of 10 acres.
2) All involved and interested agencies were provided the necessary information to review this project, none
of which took exception to the proposed action. Agencies included: NYSDOT, USACE, NYSDEC, ECDPW,
ECDEP, Town Engineer, and SHPO. SHPO was the only agency that provided any requirements during
construction.
3) Concerns for increase in flooding were addressed by incorporating a flood bench into the site grading design
that increased the flood storage on the site by approximately 20%. In addition, a large natural bottom
detention facility was part of the design that will retain up to a 100-year flood from the entire developed
area of the property.
4) The increased amount of impervious area is minor and is mitigated by the detention structure.
5) No significant increase in air or noise pollution is anticipated.
6) The use of pesticides to maintain the natural grass areas will be partially mitigated by the detention structure
and are not significantly different if this property was used for a residential development.
7) The Planning Board has reviewed all available information and has determined that no significant
environmental impact will occur from this project.
8) The physical alterations contemplated under this project do not significantly alter the land composition to
result in an adverse environmental impact.
Chairperson Bebak stated the Planning Board in the Town of West Seneca as the lead agency having done all
the proper SEQR review and entered into public record will take a motion.
Motion by Sailor, seconded by Frick, to adopt the following resolution:
Whereas, the Planning Board of the Town if West Seneca, as lead agency acting pursuant to the State
Environmental Quality Review Act, Article 8 of the New York State Environmental Conservation Law, has
pg. 6
289

reviewed Part I of the Full Environmental Assessment Form ("E_AF") prepared by the applicant for the property
located at 2885 Clinton Street ("Subject Property"), for the construction of two baseball fields with related
ancillary structures (the "Project") analyzing the potential for the Project to result in any significant adverse
environmental impacts and has otherwise performed a detailed review of the identified potential environmental
impacts utilizing the criteria specified in 6 NYCRR 617.7(c); and
Whereas, upon the review of Part I of the EAF, documentation and plans submitted by the applicant in connection
with the review of the Project, documents prepared by involved agencies (NYSDOT, NYSDEC, USACE, ECDEP,
SHPO, Town Engineer), written public comments and preparation of Parts II and III of the EAF as required by
6 NYCRR 617.7 (b); the Planning Board has not identified any potentially significant adverse environmental
impacts associated with the proposed use of the Subject Property, has determined that preparation of an
Environmental Impact Statement is not necessary and that the issuance of a negative declaration is therefore
appropriate, now, therefore, be it
Resolved, that pursuant to 6 NYCRR 617.7 (a) the Planning Board does hereby adopt a Negative Declaration
with respect to the Project based on its determination that the Project will not result in any potentially significant
adverse environmental impacts.
Motion by Bebak, seconded by McCabe, on the advice of the Town Attorney due to pending litigation, to make
the SEQR determination at this meeting and delay site plan approval for 30 days.
Motion by Frick, seconded by Bebak, to close the public hearing.
Chairperson Bebak stated a Negative SEQR Declaration was issued tonight, site plan approval is separate and
would follow.
Mr. McCabe sated it was his understanding that the Negative SEQR Declaration would be sent to Erie County.
Chairperson Bebak stated this is correct.
Mr. Frick stated a Negative Declaration for a Type I action must be posted.
SPR2022-03
A request from New York State Electric and Gas Corporation for site plan approval for property located at
Indian Church Road just east of the intersection with Mineral Springs Road (SBL No's. 134.07-3-6 & 134.07-3-
7) to upgrade electrical systems on site and replace outdated equipment and buildings.
pg. 7
290

Nicole Lake with Fischer Associates stated additional documentation has been provided to the town regarding
wetlands as well as a copy of the jurisdictional determination from the NYSDEC. The NYSDEC has determined
wetlands 1 and 2 or
non-jurisdictional and the DEC has requested the mapping be updated. Updated mapping and permit packages
have been provided. All comments from the DEC have been addressed and the project is pending issuance of
the permit.
Chairperson Bebak stated it was her understanding the only outstanding issue was the NYSDEC letter. This has
been received stating there is no impact; the significant wetlands are across the street. Future projects may
need more approvals. Ms. Lake stated this is correct, the wetlands are across the street on another property.
The site plan does not impact any wetlands.
No comments were received from the public.
Motion by McCabe, seconded by Sailer, to close the public hearing.
Motion by Frick, seconded by McCabe, to issue this project as Type II action under Title 6 NYCRR 617.7 per
section 617.5 (c), (2), and (9) with no work exceeding the threshold of a Type I action of the code, therefore
no further action by the Planning Board is required in this matter.
On the question, Chairperson Bebak stated this is the Negative SEQR Declaration.
Motion by McCabe, seconded by Bebak, to grant site plan approval for property located Indian Church Road just
east of the intersection with Mineral Springs Road (SBL No's. 134.07-3-6 & 134.07-3-7) to upgrade electrical
systems on site and replace outdated equipment and buildings.
NEW BUSINESS
SPR2022-07
Rockin'
A request from Buffalo Saloon for site plan approval for property located at 1800 Union Road for
construction of a patio roof on the front of the existing building.
Andrew Cairns stated the request is for a timber frame construction covered roof for the front patio. With covid
this would provide distance and outdoor seating.
Chairperson Bebak questioned if the of the liquor license would be extended to serve alcohol on the patio or if
there would just be food served. It was her understanding the liquor license would need an extension for the
pg. 8
291

West Seneca, NY 14224 .]une 9, 2022
patio. Mr. Cairns stated he believed so. Mr. McCabe stated he assumed serving liquor on the patio would be
the intention if the applicant was eligible. Mr. Cairns stated this was correct.
Chairperson Bebak questioned if Mr. Cairns was aware of the Union Road Corridor standards. Mr. Cairns stated
he was aware of the standards. Mr. Cairns stated they may be encroaching on the right-of-way and variances
may be needed.
Mr. McCabe questioned the Code Enforcement Officer what variances may be needed. Code Enforcement Officer
Jeffrey Schieber stated this project requires two approvals and at least three meetings. Tonight, is to hear the
Planning Boards questions, comments, and concerns. The establishment had a small outdoor seating area, the
40'
project requires a front yard setback variance; the patio roof is constructed within the required yard setback.
The initial belief was that a parking variance was also required; however, the owner of the property also owns
the adjacent property to the south and recognizes that the Union Road Corridor encourages shared parking. A
letter has been provided stating the parking will be shared. The variance for outdoor seating will be addressed
at the next Zoning Board of Appeals meeting to ensure the board is satisfied with what is being proposed. The
application is also in front of the NYSDOT as part of the Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals process.
The concern from the Code Enforcement Office is vehicle impact protection for safety and to protect patrons on
the outdoor patio.
Mr. Frick referred to the Union Road Corridor and stated there are required architectural standards that must be
adhered to and address the materials to be used on the facade of the structure. The heavy timber look is not
consistent with the standards and suggested wrapping parts of the columns with brick encasement on the lower
portions. Brick could be continued in between the columns to delineate the seating area. This would blend
more into the architectural requirements of the Union Road Corridor.
Mr. Cairns questioned if an iron railing would suffice, and stated specifications were not readily available and
there were also budget concerns. Chairperson Bebak referred to the car wash on Union Road and stated the
stone facade is an example, along with the Community Center. The Planning Board is not making the plans but
giving suggestions. The buildings are supposed to look as if they are 2-stories. The parking barrier could be
combined with brick posts. The area is to be closer to the road and a walkable community.
Mr. Sailer stated the Union Road Corridor has very extensive requirements for plantings to soften the area. This
should be incorporated and may give the feel of the Union Road Corridor.
Mr. McCabe noted this is an existing structure, the space for the requirements may be a little difficult. The
Planning Board is primarily looking for the applicant to spruce things up given what he has.
Chairperson Bebak stated after the variance(s) are obtained, the applicant would return to the Planning Board
with updated site plans.
Mr. McCabe questioned what is on the second floor. Mr. Cairns stated the second floor is living quarters.
Pf? 9
292

West Seneca, NY 14224 .]une 9, 2022
Motion by Bebak, seconded by McCabe, to table site plan approval for property located at 1800 Union Road for
construction of a patio roof on the front of the existing building.
SPR2022-08
A request from Rich Wilkinson c/o Quick Service Realco, LLC. for site plan approval for property located at 1175
Union Road for the redevelopment of the building into a new restaurant.
Motion by Frick, seconded by Sailer, to open the public hearing.
Mr. Wilkinson stated the request is to modify the existing building and rebrand as a Taco Bell. Although the
structure should look like a Taco Bell, Mr. Wilkinson acknowledged this is a unique corridor. An option was to
leave the existing building as is and change the color to leave the appearance of a 2-story building. Another
option was to get rid of the peaked roof for a flatter roof.
Mr. Wilkinson provided drawings of a non-peaked and peaked roof. The building currently has a peaked roof
on the Union Road and side street side. Fake windows will be added and is shown on both plans. The plans
are the same with the peak being the only difference. The colors being used would be grey and some purple.
Mr. Nalewajek and Mr. McCabe sated they were in favor of the flat roof. Chairperson Bebak stated she favored
the peaked roof as it was more colonial; the flat roof was more modern and did not fit in as much with the Union
Road Corridor.
Mr. Sailer questioned if removing the peak would make any roof top elements be visible from the Union Road
Corridor. Mr. Wilkinson stated this will block more of the roof-top because the peak is squared off.
Mr. Nalewajek questioned if the flat top elevation was determined by shielding of roof-top units. Mr. Wilkinson
stated it is the Taco Bell branding to have a more squared off look.
Mr. Sailer stated he was in favor of the peaks and the greys with elements of wood tones.
Mr. Wilkinson stated modifications would be made to update the landscaping.
Code Enforcement Officer Jeffrey Schieber stated there are no intentions of changes to the parking lot, the sign
will be changed and remain in place; this is just a facelift.
Mr. McCabe questioned the lighting. Mr. Wilkinson stated the plan shows the existing lighting which will be
revamped to LED lighting and directed more downward. Mr. Nalewajek requested a photometric submission.
Mr. Sailer stated many buildings have an access with a direct connection between the building to the sidewalk
and questioned if this could this be incorporated into the site plan. Mr. Wilkinson stated this could be done.
The ADA parking spots were relocated to meet code.
pg. 10
293

Motion by McCabe, seconded by Sailer, to close the public hearing.
Motion by Bebak, seconded by Frick, to grant site plan approval for property located at 1175 Union Road for the
redevelopment of the building into a new restaurant with the following conditions: 1) flat roof; 2) softening of
the color purple with wood tones at the northwest area; 3) incorporating an ADA compliant crosswalk.
SPR2022-09
A request from Michelle and Martino Monaco for site plan approval for property located at 1420 Union Road for
the redevelopment of the site and building into a beauty salon.
Motion by Frick, seconded by Sailer, to open the public hearing.
Chris Andrzejewski with Molex Engineering presented on behalf of the applicant and presented the following:
" The site is currently a residential lot but is zoned C-1 with a total lot size of 0.48-acres
(commercia)
" The owners wish to convert the to a beauty the site plan shows stalls with 1-
building salon; 9-parking
stall being ADA compliant
" Stormwater has been redirected to the NYSDOT stormwater the receivers on the west side of
system,
Union Road. An ADS subgrade detection system will manage the stormwater. The post construction
stormwater will be at preconstruction discharge rate. A formal approval has not been given from the
NYSDOT.
" A permit was applied for with the NYSDOT for the stormwater connection with the of the
along widening
driveway that is currently residential in size.
" The site plan shows on the south comer and in front of the the back will remain
landscaping building;
green space
Chairperson Bebak referred to the NYDOT and questioned if the project was still waiting for approvals;
correspondence was received stating there was indication that there was no significant impact on the state
highway system, but further information was needed before the highway work permit could be issued. Mr.
Andrzejewski stated this was a three-part process; the application has been submitted and reviewed, steps 2
and 3 require the owner to get their contractor and supply the insurance affidavit and bonding.
Chairperson Bebak questioned if site plan approval could be given with the knowledge that there is no significant
impact on the state highway approval. Code Enforcement Officer Jeffrey Schieber stated most projects that
come before the Planning Board receive a similar letter stating there are no traffic concerns or impact. This
then requires the applicant to follow up with the permits and contractors. This is fully approved as far as the
Planning Board should be concerned with the NYSDOT. An approval letter dated June 8, 2022, has been received
from the Town Engineer.
ps. n
294

Mr. Nalewajek questioned the lighting solution along the parking. Mr. Andrzejewski stated the existing lighting
on the building is staying.
Mr. Frick questioned if any modifications would be made to the facade of the building. Mr. Andrzejewski stated
to his knowledge there were no changes being made.
Mr. Schieber explained the project was before the Planning Board in the past. The rear parcel was rezoned to
C-1 with the intent to place parking in the back; as the engineer stated, this would not work. There is two-tone
siding on the building. The applicant was issued permits for the handicapped accessible ramp that currently
exists. The last piece today is to approve site plan. The Planning Board may require shielding of the parking.
Chairman Bebak stated she has reviewed the Union Road Corridor standards and this project adds to the vital
mixed-use environment and has little to no front or side setbacks. Another aspect is to minimize the visual
presence of off street parking and screen from viewing. Chairperson Bebak stated it was her suggestion to add
a decorative brick wall in the front or something more decorative than landscaping to block the parking and
bring the appearance of the site closer to the road, in front of the parking. Mr. Sailer suggested a brick or stone
wall with a coping stone along the top.
Mr. Sailer questioned if there will be signage. Mr. Andrzejewski stated the signage will remain on the building.
Mr. Frick questioned if there was any plan for the rear parcel. Mr. Andrzejewski stated there is no plan; there
were too many issues in the past.
Chairperson Bebak stated stockade fencing should be along the back.
Mr. McCabe questioned if the site plan proposal was by legal description; does the legal description include both
the commercial and the residential which is in the rear. Only the front portion is being developed which is
commercial. Mr. Schieber stated in the past, the rear portion was also zoned C-1 to develop a parking lot. The
entire parcel is C-1. The project was rezoned, and the site plan was denied.
Mr. McCabe stated there should be a requirement that there is no access onto the residential street across the
back portion of the property.
Chairperson Bebak questioned the thought of the decorative wall. Mr. Andrzejewski stated he felt it may look
out of place as this is a unique building. Mr. Sailer suggested a raised planting bed to elevate the plants. Mr.
Nalewajek stated more softening rather than a brick wall.
Chairperson Bebak noted the front porch appeared to need repairs. Mr. Andrzejewski stated the work had
stopped to obtain proper permits. The porch is not part of the site plan. Mr. Schieber stated he will facilitate
the porch upgrade with the owners.
pg. 12
295

Motion by Frick, seconded by McCabe, to close the public hearing.
Motion by Bebak, seconded by Frick, to grant site plan approval for property located at 1420 Union Road for the
redevelopment of the site and building into a beauty salon with the following conditions: 1) the parking be
screened with raised planting/landscaping; 2) a stockade fence along the rear of the property; 3) Code
Enforcement will work with the owners on exterior matters; 4) no vehicle access onto the residential street.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion by Bebak, seconded by Frick, to adjourn the meeting at 8:20 P.M.
AMY M. KOBLER
pg - 13
296
Exhibit “14” - May 9, 2022 letter of Jeffrey Schieber

Exhibit “14”
297
TOWN OF WESTSENECA
TOwN SUPERVISOR
GARYA. DICKSON
TOWN COUNCIL
ROBERTJ. BREIDENSTEIN
CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICE JOSEPHJ. CANTAFIO
"BUILDING SAFETY IS NO ACCIDENT" SUSANK. KIMS
JEFFREYA. PIEKAREC
9th
May 2022
RE: CANISIUS PROJECT

2885 Clinton St
To whom it may concern,

Please find enclosed a new submittal for the above noted project. There has been an extensive history of
this project. In summary:
- This was first received by the Town of West Seneca in late February 2021.
- This project, and all supporting documents, were mailed out on February 26, 2021, for a coordinated
SEQRA review.
- We have since received numerous correspondence from agencies.
various
- A lawsuit has been filed against the Town of West Seneca regards this project.
- As part of the latest court the Town has been ordered to re-file this project in its entirety
proceedings,
through a coordinated review, to ensure all your comments have been addressed.
- The Town Board will be serving as lead agency, pending any objections.
Planning
- There is a scheduled Board on June 9th to hear this project.
Planning meeting
I have included a thumb drive which contains all the latest submittals from the applicants engineer. There
are many documents, in an effort to save printing we have placed all documents on this thumb drive. This includes:
- Original application form

- Original cover letter
- Original E.C. SEQRA form
- Canisius flood report
- Authorization letter
- EAF
- Deed / property description
- Letter of intent
- Town Zoning map
- Town land use map
- Current construction plans
- Current report
Engineering
- Current SWPPP
- All current approval letters from various agencies
TOWN HALL . 1250 UNION ROAD . WEST SENECA,NEW YORK 14224 . (716) 558-3242 . FAX (716) 677-4488
www.westseneca.net
298
TOWN OF WEST SENECA
8
TOWN SUPERVISOR
GARYA. DICKSON
TOWN COUNCIL
JOSEPHJ. CANTAFIO
CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICE
BUILDING SAFETY IS NO ACCIDENT" SUSANK. KIMS
JEFFREYA. PIEKAREC
The Town of West Seneca is requesting any additional comments you may have about this project. Please
submit your approvals, comments or concerns to myself, so all items can be addressed. Thank you for your time in
this matter.
Regards,
Jeffrey Schieb
Town of West Sene
Cc: E.C. Water Auth r

NYSDOT
Army Corp. of Engineers

NYSDEC
E.C. Dept of Planning
Union Fire Company
E.C. Sewer Dist #1
NYS OPRHP- SHPO
Town of West Seneca Engineering
West Seneca Environmental Commission
TOWN HALL . 1250 UNION ROAD " WEST SENECA,NEW YORK 14224 " (716) 558-3242 . FAX (716) 677-4488
www.westseneca.net
299
Exhibit “15” - June 13, 2022 FOIL acknowledgement

Exhibit “15”
300
Daniel T Warren <warren.danielt@gmail.com>
RE: Freedom of Information Requests Form Submission
Kelsey Girard <kgirard@twsny.org> Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 11:47 AM

To: "d.warren@roadrunner.com" <d.warren@roadrunner.com>, Amy Kobler <akobler@twsny.org>, Molly Martin
<MAM@twsny.org>
Hi Daniel,
Your FOIL request dated 6/10/2022 was received by the Town of West Seneca on 6/13/2022. The information will be
reviewed and I anticipate you will be contacted regarding your request by 7/12/2022.
Access to the records in whole or part will be determined in accordance with Article 89, Section 5 of the Freedom of
Information Law. I will notify you when the research is complete, and if necessary, set a time and date for pick up of
copies if available.
Pursuant to FOIL, a fee of $.25 per page for photocopies not exceeding 9"x14" will be charged. All other fees will be
based on the material requested. You may make an appointment to view the records prior to copying to avoid
cumbersome fees.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or require further information.
Thank you,
Kelsey Girard
Town of West Seneca
1250 Union Road
West Seneca NY 14224
Phone: 716-558-3217
www.westseneca.net
-----Original Message-----
From: no-reply@cms.i-evolve.net <no-reply@cms.i-evolve.net>
Sent: Friday, June 10, 2022 5:49 PM
To: Amy Kobler <akobler@TWSNY.org>; Molly Martin <MAM@TWSNY.ORG>; Kelsey Girard <kgirard@TWSNY.org>
Subject: Freedom of Information Requests Form Submission
There has been a submission of the form Freedom of Information Requests through your concrete5 website.
Full Name:
Daniel Warren
Address:
836 Indian Church Road, West Seneca, NY 14224
Phone Number:
716-288-6724
E-mail Address:
I HEREBY APPLY TO:
Obtain a copy of the following records
Records Requested:
Please provide the following in electronic form if possible:
The following materials related to SPR2021-05 Canisius Athletic Fields:
301
* Part 2 of the EAF that was read at the June 9, 2022 meeting;
* Any material from the Erie County Department of Environment and Planning on this project;
* The response from SHPO from the May 9, 2022 letter from the Code Enforcement Officer;
* any material from the NYS Department of Transportation on this project;
* any material from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on this project.
To view all of this form's submissions, visit http://www.westseneca.net/index.php/dashboard/reports/forms?

qsid=1502390148
302
Exhibit “16” - June 17, 2022, FOIL Appeal

Exhibit “16”
303
DANIEL T. WARREN
West Seneca, New York 14224-1235
Email: d.warren@roadrunner.com
June 17, 2022

Town Attorney Chris G. Trapp, Esq.
1250 Union Road
Re: Freedom of Information Law Appeal
Dear Records Appeal Officer:
I hereby appeal the denial of access regarding my request, which was made on June 10, 2022 and
sent to the Town Clerk/Records Access Officer using the online submission form at
http://www.westseneca.net/departments-and-services/town-clerk/freedom-information-requests .
The records that were denied include the following materials related to SPR2021-05 Canisius
Athletic Fields:
* Any material from the Erie County Department of Environment and Planning on this
project;
* The response from SHPO from the May 9, 2022 letter from the Code Enforcement
Officer;
By e-mail dated June 13, 2022 an acknowledgement of this request was received that provided
“Your FOIL request dated 6/10/2022 was received by the Town of West Seneca on 6/13/2022.
The information will be reviewed and I anticipate you will be contacted regarding your request
by 7/12/2022.” A copy of this acknowledgement and my request is attached hereto.
As of June 17, 2022, I have not received the requested materials.
Since this information should have been provided to the public on the Town’s website prior to
the June 9, 2022, meeting of the West Seneca Planning Board pursuant to Public Officers Law §
103(e) (according to the attached advisory opinion from the NYS Committee on Open
Government) the July 12, 2022 date to provide such material is unreasonable and constitutes a
constructive denial under 21 NYCRR § 1401.5(e)(7).
304
As required by the Freedom of Information Law, the head or governing body of an agency, or
whomever is designated to determine appeals, is required to respond within 10 business days of
the receipt of an appeal. If the records are denied on appeal, please explain the reasons for the
denial fully in writing as required by law.
In addition, please be advised that the Freedom of Information Law directs that all appeals and
the determinations that follow be sent to the Committee on Open Government, Department of
State, 41 State Street, Albany, New York 12231.
Sincerely,
Daniel T. Warren
305
Kelsey Girard <kgirard@twsny.org> Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 11:47 AM

To: "d.warren@roadrunner.com" <d.warren@roadrunner.com>, Amy Kobler <akobler@twsny.org>, Molly Martin
<MAM@twsny.org>
Hi Daniel,
Your FOIL request dated 6/10/2022 was received by the Town of West Seneca on 6/13/2022. The information will be
reviewed and I anticipate you will be contacted regarding your request by 7/12/2022.
Access to the records in whole or part will be determined in accordance with Article 89, Section 5 of the Freedom of
Information Law. I will notify you when the research is complete, and if necessary, set a time and date for pick up of
copies if available.
Pursuant to FOIL, a fee of $.25 per page for photocopies not exceeding 9"x14" will be charged. All other fees will be
based on the material requested. You may make an appointment to view the records prior to copying to avoid
cumbersome fees.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or require further information.
Thank you,
Kelsey Girard
Town of West Seneca
1250 Union Road
Phone: 716-558-3217
www.westseneca.net
-----Original Message-----
From: no-reply@cms.i-evolve.net <no-reply@cms.i-evolve.net>
Sent: Friday, June 10, 2022 5:49 PM
To: Amy Kobler <akobler@TWSNY.org>; Molly Martin <MAM@TWSNY.ORG>; Kelsey Girard <kgirard@TWSNY.org>
Subject: Freedom of Information Requests Form Submission
There has been a submission of the form Freedom of Information Requests through your concrete5 website.
Full Name:
Daniel Warren
Address:
836 Indian Church Road, West Seneca, NY 14224
Phone Number:
716-288-6724
E-mail Address:
I HEREBY APPLY TO:
Obtain a copy of the following records
Records Requested:
Please provide the following in electronic form if possible:
The following materials related to SPR2021-05 Canisius Athletic Fields:
306
* Any material from the Erie County Department of Environment and Planning on this project;
* The response from SHPO from the May 9, 2022 letter from the Code Enforcement Officer;
To view all of this form's submissions, visit http://www.westseneca.net/index.php/dashboard/reports/forms?

qsid=1502390148
307
Request for OML Advisory Opinion

dos.sm.Coog.InetCoog <dosCOOG@dos.ny.gov> Mon, May 2, 2022 at 9:49 AM
To: Daniel T Warren <warren.danielt@gmail.com>
Good Morning Mr. Warren,
Section 103(e) of the Open Meetings Law reads:
Agency records available to the public pursuant to article six of this chapter, as well as any proposed resolution,
law, rule, regulation, policy or any amendment thereto, that is scheduled to be the subject of
discussion by a
public body during an open meeting shall be made available, upon request therefor, to the extent practicable at
least twenty-four hours prior to the meeting during which the records will be discussed. Copies of such records
may be made available
for a reasonable fee, determined in the same manner as provided therefor in article six of
this chapter.
If the agency in which a public body functions maintains a regularly and routinely updated website
and utilizes a high speed internet connection, such records shall be posted on the website to the extent
practicable at least twenty-four hours prior to the
meeting. An agency may, but shall not be required to, expend
additional moneys to implement the provisions of this subdivision. (emphasis is mine)
The agency in which the Town of West Seneca Town Board, Planning Board, and Zoning Board of Appeals functions is
the
Town of West Seneca. Therefore if the Town maintains a “regularly and routinely updated website and utilizes a
high speed internet connection, records [of all public bodies which function within it] shall be posted on the website
to the
extent practicable at least twenty-four hours prior to the meeting.” No request for the records pursuant to the Freedom of
Information Law is necessary in order for the Town to be required to comply with this portion of the Law.
I hope this information proves useful.
Sincerely,
Kristin O’Neill
Assistant Director
Pronouns: she/her/hers

New York State Committee on Open Government
One Commerce Plaza, Albany, NY 12231
(518) 474-2518
http://www.opengovernment.ny.gov

308

From: Daniel T Warren <warren.danielt@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, May 1, 2022 9:33 AM
To: dos.sm.Coog.InetCoog <dosCOOG@dos.ny.gov>
Subject: Request for OML Advisory Opinion
ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown
senders or unexpected emails.
The Town of West Seneca, NY maintains a website at: http://www.westseneca.net/
On this website the agendas and minutes of the following boards are posted:
Town Board: http://www.westseneca.net/government/town-board-agendas-minutes
Planning Board: http://www.westseneca.net/government/planning-board-minutes
Zoning Board of Appeals: http://www.westseneca.net/government/zoning-board-appeals-minutes
The Town Clerk is the Secretary for each of these boards and is involved in preparing the agendas and keeping the
minutes for their meetings.
Recently, The West Seneca Town Attorney took the position that the Planning Board did not have to comply with POL
103(e) because the Planning Board does not have a website that is regularly maintained and updated. Additionally, the
Town
Attorney maintained that a request must be made for the records under this section before the requirement that they
be made available.
I would like your opinion on how and to what extent POL 103(e) applies to each of the above boards.
Sincerely,
Daniel T. Warren
309
Exhibit “17” - June 22, 2022, FOIL response

Exhibit “17”
310

Kelsey Girard <kgirard@twsny.org> Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 10:16 AM
To: "d.warren@roadrunner.com" <d.warren@roadrunner.com>
Hi Daniel,
The Freedom of Information records request you submitted to West Seneca as referenced below has been filled.
Attached you will find the documents you requested.
If you have any questions or require further information, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Thank you,
Kelsey Girard
Town of West Seneca
1250 Union Road
Phone: 716-558-3217
[Quoted text hidden]
3 attachments
Canisius EAF Part 3.pdf
22K
Preamble and Canisius Motion.pdf
33K
doc20220613125033.pdf
7669K
311
Canisius EAF Part 3
Item 1a: Proposed action may involve construction on land where depth to water
table is less than 3 feet.
Average depth to water table on site is 2.96 feet. Construction will generally not
penetrate this depth except possibly for some drainage pipes and foundations for the
small ancillary buildings that are to be constructed. Therefore, no significant adverse
effects will occur.
Item 1d: Proposed action may involve the excavation and removal of more than
1000 tons of natural material.
Excavation for playing fields, stormwater detention facility and site regarding will exceed
1000 tons but will not be removed from site. Therefore, no significant adverse effects
will occur.
Item 3d: Proposed action may involve construction within or adjoining a freshwater
or tidal wetland, or in the bed or banks of any other water body.
Construction will occur along the bank of Buffalo Creek primarily to excavate material to
balance/regrade the site and to create addition flood storage (proposed design increases
flood storage on site by 20%). Therefore, no significant adverse effects will occur.
Items 5a,b,c: Proposed action may result in development in a designated floodway, a

100-year floodplain and a 500-year floodplain.
A portion of the project will occur within the Buffalo Creek floodplain. The floodplain
will be reshaped resulting in a 20% increase in the volume of flood water that the site can
accommodate. Therefore, no significant adverse effects will occur.
Item 7h: Proposed action requires the conversion of more than 10 acres of forest,
grassland or any other regionally or locally important habitat. Habitat type &
information source: grassland – aerial photo, site visit and EAF-Part 1.
The land was previously used for farming but has been abandoned for this purpose for a
long time. The grassland soil will be excavated to build approximately 3.85 acres of
artificial turf playing field and approximately 3.95 acres of natural turf playing field,
lawn areas and stormwater detention facility area in addition to approximately 0.5 acres
of pavement and buildings. Stormwater will be collected and detained on site and
released to Buffalo Creek at a rate that will not exceed existing or as allowed by Code or
ordinance. This has been reviewed and approved by the Town Engineer on at least two
occasions. Therefore, no significant adverse effects will occur.
312
Item 8a: The proposed action may impact soil classified within soil group through 4
of the NYS Land Classification System.
The area of the development is abandoned farmland which contains soils within the noted
classification. All excavated soils will remain on site and could be used in the future if
the area was to be used for farming again in the future. Therefore, no significant adverse
effects will occur.
Item 10b: The proposed action may occur wholly or partially within, or
substantially contiguous to an area designated as sensitive for archaeological sites on
the NY State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) archeological site inventory.
This site meets the above criteria and has had an extensive archeological investigation
and testing. A sensitive area was found and the site plan adjusted to keep work out of
this area. SHPO has stated that the remaining area has been previously disturbed that
there is little likelihood that any additional significant artifacts will be present.
An archeologist and a member of the Seneca Nation will be on site during construction to
aid the contractor and monitor the excavations for any additional sensitive archeological
artifacts. They will have the ability to stop construction at any time to make any
necessary examinations of the site. Therefore, no significant adverse effects will occur.
313
Preamble to Canisius Motion
Response to letters from Mr. Daniel Warren:
Letter Dated April 24, 2021:
Item 1: Question whether this is a permitted use as a “school on residential property”
This question was reviewed during the construction of the main playing field and
it was determined the use was acceptable. As no change in use is occurring,
therefore previous determination is still valid.
Item 2: “Buffalo Creek is a navigable waterway”
This is not true however the Buffalo River is considered a navigable waterway.
Item 3: “Flooding issues in this area began in 2014 and continue to this day”
The history of flooding dates back before 1966 when the Lexington Green area
was developed with significant ice jam flooding noted as early as 1971 with
minor flooding occurring on a regular basis. Reference USACE reports from
1966, 1979 and 2016 and the “Resilient New York Flood Mitigation Initiative,
Buffalo Creek, NY” from 2020 prepared by OBG.
Item 4: “Consideration of original project in conjunction with this project”
The combined effects of both projects were considered during our review – this
will be addressed later in this statement.
Item 5: “No Traffic Study was performed for this project”.
The NYSDOT did not request one as onsite parking is not being modified as
timing of the usage of the new fields and the current playing field will not
overlap.
Item 6: “Rezoning at 3735 Clinton Street for storage of const. equipment not considered.”
Storage of construction equipment is not a major traffic generator and has little or
Item 7: “Original Oxbow property acquired subject to conservation easement.”
Phase 1 is contiguous with this property; this phase has no connection. However,
this phase will detain all runoff from both phases prior to release to Buffalo Creek
which is not connected to the Oxbow property.
314
Letter dated September 24, 2021
Item 1: “USACE FOIL request yielded no documents”
The Town received a letter dated _____ of no significant impact.
Letter dated September 30, 2021:
Item 1: “All materials have not been made available to the public”
Materials are made available on the Town website including in the Meeting
Minutes.
Item 2: “Not all information was distributed to the involved and interested agencies.”
All materials have been forwarded and in addition, full packets of the all
information have been sent to all involved and interested agencies in April of this
year.
Letter dated October 7, 2021:
Item 1: “Additional 300,000 gals of water will be added to the site from Phase 1.”
This water is added during the growing season and not during the time when
flooding will be occurring,
Item 2: “Pesticides will be used to maintain the fields.”
Property is zoned residential. Pesticide usage would not be significantly different

is this was developed as residential property.
Item 3: “Statements concerning Groundwater Flooding.”
The Lexington Green development does have a groundwater flooding issue. The
statement that” groundwater flooding occurs when natural underground drainage
cannot drain rainfall away quick enough…” is not correct. Groundwater flooding
occurs as a result of groundwater flowing into an area from outside of the region
due to high porosity of the underlying soils. The Lexington Green development is
constructed on fill from the Buffalo Creek realignment project and embanked
granular fill leading this high porosity – reference the 1979 and 2016 USACE
reports.
Item 4: “Stormwater discharge is increased from site.”
The Phase 2 design retains the 100 year flooding volume of both phases 1 and 2
on site until the creek level drops to an elevation that will allow its release.
315
Item 5: “Additional significant adverse impacts per 6 NYCRR 617.7(c).”
The proposed project will not adversely change existing air quality, ground or
surface water quality or quantity, increase in solid waste, potential for erosion,
flooding, leaching or drainage problems. Removal of large quantities of
vegetation (grassland) will occur but majority of affected area will be replanted
grass or artificial turf with small change in impervious area that would increase
surface runoff. All other identified item will not be a significant impact: creation
of material conflict with a community’s current plans or goals, impairment of
character or quality of important historical, archeological, architectural or
aesthetic resources, Substantial change in intensity of use of land, changes in two
or more elements of the environment when considered together result in a
substantial adverse impact, and two or more related actions when considered
cumulatively would meet one or more of the criteria in subdivision 617.7 (c).
Letter dated January 10, 2022
Item 1: “Significant archeological discoveries made in 2007.”
Response from SHPO stated the Phase 1 areas were disturbed to the point that no
significant artifacts were present. SHPO required the applicant to perform
extensive investigation and testing for this project that required a minor change in
the site layout to avoid a “sensitive area”. The remaining area of this project was
determined to have been significantly disturbed that no useful artifacts are likely
present. In addition, SHPO has required that all excavation be monitored by an
archeologist so that in the event any artifacts of significance are uncovered, they
will be properly preserved. The archeologist will have the authority to stop
construction at any time if it deemed necessary.
Letter dated May 26, 2022:
Item 1: “Effect on Oxbow Property – increased stormwater runoff into the Oxbow
Property”
The Phase 2 drainage modifications will direct all runoff from both phases to the
newly design detention pond, therefore no increase in overland flow will occur
into the oxbow lake area. In addition, no significant increase in impervious area
will occur with this project.
316
SEQR Review Summary
1. The project was determined to be a Type 1 action under the statewide SEQRA
regulations, 6 NYCRR 617.4 since the project exceeds the threshold for physical
alterations of 10 acres.
2. All involved and interested agencies were provided the necessary information to
review this project, none of which took exception to the proposed action. Agencies
included: NYSDOT, USACE, NYSDEC, ECDPW, ECDEP, Town Engineer, and SHPO.
SHPO was the only agency that provided any requirements during construction.
3. Concerns for increase in flooding were addressed by incorporating a flood bench

into the site grading design that increased the flood storage on the site by approximately
20%. In addition, a large natural bottom detention facility was part of the design that will
retain up to a 100-year flood from the entire developed area of the property.
4. The increased amount of impervious area is minor and is mitigated by the

detention structure.
5. No significant increase in air or noise pollution is anticipated.
6. The use of pesticides to maintain the natural grass areas will be partially mitigated
by the detention structure and are not significantly different if this property was used for
a residential development.
7. The Planning Board has reviewed all available information and has determined
that no significant environmental impact will occur from this project.
8. The physical alterations contemplated under this project do not significantly alter
the land composition to result in an adverse environmental impact.
317
Canisius Motion
Whereas, the Planning Board of the Town if West Seneca, as lead agency acting
pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act, Article 8 of the New York State
Environmental Conservation Law, has reviewed Part 1 of the Full Environmental
Assessment Form (“EAF”) prepared by the applicant for the property located at 2885
Clinton Street (“Subject Property”), for the construction of two baseball fields with
related ancillary structures (the “Project”) analyzing the potential for the Project to result
in any significant adverse environmental impacts and has otherwise performed a detailed
review of the identified potential environmental impacts utilizing the criteria specified in
6 NYCRR 617.7(c); and
Whereas, upon the review of Part 1 of the EAF, documentation and plans submitted by
the applicant in connection with the review of the Project, documents prepared by
involved agencies (NYSDOT, NYSDEC, USACE, ECDEP, SHPO, Town Engineer),
written public comments and preparation of Parts 2 and 3 of the EAF as required by 6
NYCRR 617.7 (b); the Planning Board has not identified any potentially significant
adverse environmental impacts associated with the proposed use of the Subject Property,
has determined that preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement is not necessary
and that the issuance of a negative declaration is therefore appropriate, now, therefore, be
it
Resolved, that pursuant to 6 NYCRR 617.7 (a) the Planning Board does hereby adopt a
Negative Declaration with respect to the Project based on its determination that the
Project will not result in any potentially significant adverse environmental impacts.
318
hom: Ferauson, Josalvn (PARKS)

To: Joe Stahlman, Ph.D. (foe.stahlman@sni.ora); Christine Abrams & Cole Reuben (and Chief Roaer Hill)
(tonseneca@aol.comt Alex Pace; Bryan Printuo (borintuo©hetf.ora)
Cc: Vandrei Charles (DEC); Witt, David E (DECt Farry, Andrew S (PARKS)
Subject: 21PR02923Robert J. Stansky Memorial Complex Project - CanisiusHigh School - Development of 2 New Baseball
Fields
Date: Wednesday, May 11, 2022 2:54:00 PM
Attachments: image001.ona
21PR02923EffectFindinaLetter.odf
C107GradinaAreaBCanisiusHS.odf
Canisiusmonitorinaolan042922.pdf
Good afternoon Joe, Chris, Cole, Bryan, and Alex,
I hope everyone is doing well. By now I believe I have let you all know that I am leaving the
SHPO/OPRHP, as l have taken a position with DEC in their Office of Environmental Justice and what I
understand will eventually be part of the Office of indian Affairs (or something like that). My last day
with 25th
the SHPO/OPRHP is Wednesday, May
I am contacting you today as there have been some developments with the Canisius project that I
wanted to share with you. A legal challenge/lawsuit has been filed against the Town of West
Seneca's Planning Board in regards to this project by a nearby citizen or citizens and the potential of
the project
to negatively impact their properties as a result of flooding
(https://buffalonews.com/news/local/west-seneca-to-take-second-look-at-canisius-high-school-
athletic-complex-expansion/article_9ba204c8-c735-11ec-94cd-5b52fae895c3.html). From what I

understand the school must go through the SEQRA process again. There is a chance that if the
project is determined to negatively affect the neighboring properties, the project's APE or proposed
impacts may change, and thus the project will have to be reassessed at that time. OPRHP is
continuing with our review of the project as it has been presented to us until or unless we hear
otherwise. As you are aware, OPRHP has issued a conditional effect finding for the project that I
have attached herein. As per conditions #3 and #5, updated site plan maps have been provided
indicating the movement of the main drainages in the Area B baseball diamond away from the area
of the Canisius Site Locus 3's preservation/protection area (see attached). We have not yet received
the Preservation Deed Covenant for the Site, nor the revised Phase II report. We did recently receive
the archaeological monitoring under construction plan written by Tetra Tech, that I am providing to
you for review (see attached). The Haudenosaunee and OPRHP Human Remains Discovery Protocols
are attached to this document. As you will see they have written the monitoring plan relative only to
Locus 3. Can you please clarify if the SNI, TSN & Tuscarora are ok with only Locus 3 being monitored?
The other areas where artifacts were located were much more limited in size, sufficiently
investigated and/or disturbed. As for the monitoring plan, OPRHP will be recommending that the
plan include more specific details, including:
" The contractor is to defer to the of the archaeologist to initiate a halt to

authority
construction if potentially significant cultural resources and/or Indigenous burials are
identified.
" the periods of stoppage required should cultural deposits be identified.
" If archaeological/cultural deposits are identified monitoring, OPRHP and DEC will be
during
contacted immediately.
319
If no archaeological features or indications of Indigenous burials are identified, the

archaeologist will instruct the contractors to proceed.
" Depending on the nature of the find, work stoppages will either be short-term (under 15
minutes, temporary (up to two hours), or long-term (up to 3 days or more). If stoppages
longer than two

(2) hours are determined necessary by the archaeologists, in consultation
Nations'
with the Indigenous monitors OPRHP and DEC are to be contacted. If excavations
cannot be completed within the same day, any open area excavation areas will be
appropriately secured by the contractor.

" If bone fragments or indications of Indigenous burials are identified, all work within the area
will immediately cease, work within the area will immediately cease and the location will be
secured to protect from further damage or disturbance. The Haudenosaunee Human Remains
Protocol and OPRHP's Human Remains Protocol will be initiated.
" Upon identification of potential human remains, all skeletal remains, associated artifacts, and
funerary items are to be left in the ground and contact sub-consultant bioarchaeologist Ms.
Elizabeth Smith (SUNY UB). Ms. Smith will confirm all potential human remains in the field.
" The Erie County Sheriff's Office and Erie County coroner are to be notified and will determine
if the remains are recent/criminal or archaeological, in consultation with Ms. Smith. If the
remains are determined to be recent and/or criminal, the scene will be turned over to law
enforcement.
" If the archaeologist determines that historic resources mitigation or avoidance are
requiring
identified, further consultation will OPRHP, DEC, and the involved parties will be necessary.
" All features will be recorded on appropriate project maps. Each Feature will be assigned a
unique number and mapped in plan-view.
" All non-burial features will be photographed, bisected, profiled, and excavated by hand in 5
cm levels within visible strata. Soil samples of half of each feature will be collected for
floatation and further analysis. All excavated deposits will minimally be screened through ¼
inch mesh. Due to the presence of trade beads, screening of feature soils may be screened
through 1/8 inch mesh.
" At all times human remains will be treated with the utmost dignity and respect.
if you are able to respond to this email by Monday, May 23th, that would be most appreciated, just
so l can properly attend to any comments or concerns you may have and send out our collective
response before I leave. However, I understand that you may not be able to do so and that this
would not give you the full 30-days you are entitled to, so if you are only able to respond after this
date, please contact Dr. Andrew Farry with any comments you may have.
David Witt and Chuck Vandrei may have additional comments, which if they do they, I will ask that
they directly provide to you in response to this email.
Best,
Josalyn
Josalyn Ferguson, Ph.D.

Scientist Archaeology
320
Pronouns: she/her/hers
Division for Historic Preservation

New York State Parks, Recreation & Historic Preservation
Peebles Island State Park, P.O. Box 189, Waterford, NY 12188
Office: (518) 268-2218 / Cell: (518) 817-2816 / Josalyn.Ferguson@parks.ny.gov
https://parks.ny.gov/shpo
New York State

Parks. Recreation and
Historic Preservation
321
Jeffrey Schieber
From: Quebral, Lorenzo <Lorenzo.Quebral@erie.gov>

Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2022 3:31 PM
To: Jeffrey Schieber
Cc: Salah, Mutasem; Ortiz, Mariely
Subject: Canisius Project DSM Comments
Mr. Schieber,
The Erie County Division of Sewerage Management (DSM) has reviewed the submittal for the Canisius High School
Athletic Fields project. As this project will not connect to Erie County Sanitary sewers, DSM will not review this project
and has no further input.
If you have any questions, feel free to call me at (716) 858-6974 or email me at lorenzo.quebral@erie.gov.
Lorenzo Quebral I Assistant Project Engineer

Erie County I Div. of Sewerage Management
95 Franklin St., 1050 I Buffalo, NY 14202
P:+1(716)858-6974 I F:+1(716)858-6257
Lorenzo.Quebral@erie.gov I http: //www.erie.qov
322
COUNT OF ERIE
MARKC.POLONCARZ
COUNTY EXECUTIVE
June 2, 2022
Jeffrey A. Schieber
Code Enforcement Officer
1250 Union Road
Re: - Canisius Project

Rezoning
SBL: 124.10-2-17.11
Review No: SP-21-149, ZR-22-324
Dear Mr. Schieber:
Pursuant to New York General Municipal Law Section 239-m, the County of Erie (the "County") has
reviewed the above-referenced project (the "Project") referred to us by the Town of West Seneca (the
"Town") on May 90¹, 2022. The Department of Environment and Planning offers the following comments
based upon its review of the Project:
" The Town wish to follow the reco1mnendations of NYS Department of Environmental
may
Conservation's Resilient New York Flood Mitigation Initiative for the Buffalo Creek to reduce
overall flooding conditions in the area. This report can be found at:
https://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/water_pdf/buffereekfinal.pdf
This review pertains to the above-referenced referral submitted to the Erie County Department of
Environment and Planning. This letter should not be considered sufficient for any county approvals. The
Town must still obtain any other permits and regulatory approvals applicable to this Project. Please send
all final decisions to Erie County's Department of Environment and Planning in accordance to GML 239-
m (6).
Sincerely,
Emily Moll
Planner
cc: Mark Rountree, Chief Planner
RATH BulmING " 95 FRANKLIN STREET " BUFFALO, N.Y. " 14202 " " WWW.ERIE.GOY
(716) 858-8390
323
TOWN OF WEST SENECA
TOWNSUPERVISOR
GARYA. DICKSON
TOWNCOUNCIL
SUSANK. KlMS
ENGINEERINGDEPARTMENT JEFFREYA. PIEKAREC
JOSEPHCANTAFIO
ROBERTBRElDENSTEIN
February 8, 2022
Town of West Seneca Planning Board

c/o Mr. Jeffrey Schieber, CEO
Town of West Seneca Code Enforcement
Re: Canisius School

Field expansion
Dear Members of the Planning Board,
Our office has reviewed the revised plans and reports that were recently resubmitted due to
comments from agencies. Our original approval still stands as their revision provides even more
stormwater storage than the original design.
Therefore, it is the recommendation of this department that the Board accept this project pending
any approvals from any outside agencies
Please contact me should you have any questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
DigitallysignedbyDavidH.Johnson
DN:C=US,
E=dhjohnson@cplteam.com,
O=CPL,CN=David H.Johnson
Date:2022.02.08 14:44:09-05'00'
David H. Johnson, CPESC, CPSWQ
TOWNHALL1250 UNIONROAD·WESTSENECA.NEWYORK14224 " (716) 558-3220 " FAX(716) 677-5448

wwwwestseneCa.net
324
®
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
BUFFALO DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
1776 NIAGARA STREET
BUFFALO, NEW YORK 14207-3199
Regulatory Branch
SUBJECT: Determination of No Permit Required for Department of the Army Processing No.
LRB-2021-001394
Matthew Carver
Canisius High School
1180 Delaware Avenue
Buffalo, New York 14209
Dear Mr. Carver:
required"
I have reviewed your request for a determination of "no permit for the parcel
located adjacent to the Robert J. Stransky Memorial Complex located at 2885 Clinton Street,
Town of West Seneca, Erie County, New York.
I have determined that the review area as depicted on Figure 3 of 4 is comprised entirely of
dry land and contains no potential aquatic resources regulated under Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. Therefore, a Department of the
4gi¼r pøfatit is not required for any activities occurring within the review area.
Enclosed is an approved This approved D will remain valid for a period pffmedL
years from the date of this correspondence unless new information warrants revision of the
approved m before the expiration date. At the end of this period, a new aquatic resource
delineation will be required to support any request for a new JD.
Further, the delineation included herein has been conducted to identify the location and
extent of the aquatic resource boundaries and/or the jurisdictional status of aquatic resources for
purposes of the Clean Water Act for the particular review area identified in this request. This
delineation and/or jurisdictional determination may not be valid for the Wetland Conservation
Provisions of the Food Security Act of 1985, as amended. If you or your tenant are United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA) program participants, or anticipate participation in USDA
programs, you should discuss the applicability of a certified wetland determination with the local
USDA service center, prior to starting work.
If you object to this determination, you may request an administrative appeal under Corps
regulations at 33 CFR Part 331. Enclosed you will find a Notification of Appeal Process (NAP)
fact sheet and Request for Appeal (RFA) form. If you request to appeal the above D, you must
submit a completed RFA form within 60 days of the date on this letter to the Great Lakes/Ohio
River Division Office at the following address:
325
-2-
Regulatory Branch
SUBJECT: Approved Jurisdictional Determination for Department of the Army Processing No.
LRB-2021-01394
Suzanne Chubb
Regulatory Appeals Review Officer

US Army Corps of Engineers
Great Lakes and Ohio River Division
550 Main Street, Room 10524
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202-3222
Phone: 513-684-2699 Fax: 513-684-2460
In order for an RFA to be accepted, the Corps must determine that it is complete; that it
meets the criteria for appeal under 33 CFR Part 331.5, and that it has been received by the
Division Office within 60 days of the date of the NAP. Should you decide to submit an RFA
form, it must be received at the above address by January 29, 2022.
It is not necessary to submit an RFA to the Division office if you do not object to the
determination in this letter.
Questions pertaining to this matter should be directed to me at 716-879-4279, email:

joseph.m.rowley@usace.army.mil or by writing to Joseph Rowley, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, 1776 Niagara Street, Buffalo, New York 14207.
Sincerely,
Joseph Rowley
Physical Scientist
Enclosures
326
NOTIFICATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL OPTIONS AND PROCESS AND

REQUEST FOR APPEAL
Applicant: Canisius High School File Number: 2021-01394 Date: 11/30/2021

Attached is: See Section below
INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of permission) A
PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of permission) B
PERMIT DENIAL C
X APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION D
PRELIMINARY
JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION E
SECTION I - The following identifies your rights and options regarding an administrative appeal of the above decision. Additional
information may be found at http://www.usace.army.mil/CECW/Pages/reg materials.aspx or Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 33L
A: INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or object to the permit.
"ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your
signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all rights
to appeal the permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit.
"OBJECT: If you object to the permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you may request that the
permit be modified accordingly. You must complete Section II of this form and return the form to the district engineer. Your
objections must be received by the district engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice, or you will forfeit your right to
appeal the permit in the future. Upon receipt of your letter, the district engineer will evaluate your objections and may: (a)
modify the permit to address all of your concerns, (b) modify the permit to address some of your objections, or (c) not modify
the permit
having determined that the permit should be issued as previously written. After evaluating your objections, the
district
engineer will send you a proffered permit for your reconsideration, as indicated in Section B below.
B: PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or appeal the permit
"ACCEPT: If you received

a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization.
If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your
"APPEAL: If you choose to decline the proffered permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you
may appeal the declined permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this
form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the
date of this notice.
C: PERMIT DENIAL: You may appeal the denial of a permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by
completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division
engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.
D: APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You may accept or appeal the approved JD or provide new
information.
"ACCEPT: You do not need to notify the Corps to accept an approved JD. Failure to notify the Corps within 60 days of the date
of this notice, means that you accept the approved m in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the approved JD.
"APPEAL: If you disagree with the approved D, you may appeal the approved D under the Corps of Engineers Administrative
Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received
by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.
E: PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You do not need to respond to the Corps regarding the
preliminary U. The Preliminary D is not appealable. If you wish, you may request an approved m (which may be appealed), by
contacting the Corps district for further instruction. Also you may provide new information for further consideration by the Corps to
reevaluate the JD.
327
SECTION II - REQUEST FOR APPEAL or OBJECTIONS TO AN INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT

REASONS FOR APPEAL OR OBJECTIONS: (Describe your reasons for appealing the decision or your objections to an initial
proffered permit in clear concise statements. You may attach additional information to this form to clarify where your reasons or
objections are addressed in the administrative record.)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The appeal is limited to a review of the administrative record, the Corps memorandum for the
record of the appeal conference or meeting, and any supplemental information that the review officer has determined is needed to
clarify the administrative record. Neither the appellant nor the Corps may add new information or analyses to the record. However,
you may provide additional information to clarify the location of information that is already in the administrative record.
POINT OF CONTACT FOR QUESTIONS OR INFORMATF)N:
If you have questions regarding this decision and/or the appeal If you only have questions regarding the appeal process you may
process you may contact: also contact:
Joseph Rowley Suzanne Chubb

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Appeals Review Officer
Buffalo District US Army Corps of Engineers
1776 Niagara Street Great Lakes and Ohio River Division
Buffalo, New York 14207 550 Main Street, Room 10524
716-879-4279 Cincinnati, Ohio 45202-3222
Joseph.m.rowley@usace.army.mil Phone: 513-684-2699 Fax: 513-684-2460
RIGHT OF ENTRY: Your signature below grants the right of entry to Corps of Engineers personnel, and any government
consultants, to conduct investigations of the project site during the course of the appeal process. You will be provided a 15-day
notice of any site investigation and will have the opportunity to participate in all site investigations.
Date: Telephone number:
Signature of appellant or agent.
328
DRY LAND DETERMINATION FORM1

APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section IV of the JD Form Instructional Guidebook.
SECTION I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION

A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD): 11/30/2021
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: LRB 2021-01394 Canisius High School
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

State: New York County: Erie City: West Seneca
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Latitude: 42.8659 Longitude: -78.7730
Name of nearest waterbody: Buffalo Creek
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 0412010302
F Check if map/diagram of review area is available upon request.

Check if other sites (e.g., offsite mitigation sites, disposal sites, etc...) are associated with this action and are recorded on
a different D form.
D. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
Office (Desk) Determination. Date: Nov 24, 2021
Field Determination Date:
SECTION II: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There are no "navigable U.S."
waters of the within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in
the review area.
B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.

There are no "waters U.S."
of the within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area.
SECTION III: DATA SOURCES.

A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for JD (check all that apply - checked items shall be included in case file and, where
checked and requested, appropriately reference sources below):
F Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant.
“ Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant.
“ Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
F Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report.
“ Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
“ U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
“ USGS NHD data.
F USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
F U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: 24000k; Buffalo SE, New York Quad
F USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: USDA/NRCS Web Soil Survey
F National wetlands inventory maps: USFWS Wetland Mapper
F State/Local wetland inventory maps: NYSDEC Environmental Resource Mapper
F FEMA/FIRM maps:
“ 100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
F Photographs: F Aerial (Name & Date): Google Earth; HistoricAerials.com
f~
or Other (Name & Date):
“ Previous determination(s). File No. and date of response letter:
F Applicable/supporting case law:
“ Applicable/supporting scientific literature:
I This form is for use m

only in recording approved ms involving dry land. It extracts the relevant elements of the longer approved forrn in use
since 2007 for aquatic areas and adds no new fields.
329
B. REQUIRED ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD. EXPLAIN RATIONALE FOR DETERMINATION

THAT THE REVIEW AREA ONLY INCLUDES DRY LAND
A review of the available historic topographic maps and aerial imagery depict Buffalo Creek and an oxbow formation to the South
and West of the parcel. Also, the aerial imagery depicts wetlands to the West and South of the parcel. Finally, the aerial imagery
indicts the parcel that is under review is regularly maintained.
The NWI and NYSDEC Environmental Resource Mapper depicts a mapped wetland, BU-17, adjacent to the parcel under review.
Also, a portion of the parcel is located within the 100-foot adjacent area of the DEC wetland. Finally, the DEC reviewed the project
and confirmed the boundary of Wetland BU-17.
Determination: USACE confirmed that the review area is located within the 100-foot adjacent area and is comprised entirely of dry
land. There are no waters or water features, including wetlands, of any kind in the entire review area.
330
School
2021-01394
High
4
of
Canisius
1
Sheet
LRB
Memorial
Cornptea
Athletic
Cree (;
Buj|alo
Location
JD
Dryland
',rrect
Arcade
adforst5treet
Aveme
"3m B
1
. I
331
u cmws gec= e olsma m.y.
26.51±Ac.
v t
-
er n.--... r o== 5UREY MT0FLDTS-40& BIENEzER
UNE,1HP., IL-7
zozo
332
d \'
!|| / \
'
O a
O
Oz
o Q
Iz
O
O
OH
333
architecture
..
FNGINFFRS
ASSOCIATES
TRAUTMAN
/
ARCIllTFCTS
....... °ham
FEET
IN
SCALE
NORTH
PLAN
-
SCHOOL
GRADING
School
2021-01394 HIGH
High
4 PROPOSED
of
Canisius
4 CANISIUS
heet
LRB
334
'
|
II
"
| . |
'
-
| | |
'> . .
| ' L
,
335
I \ -/
\ .
"
| 7
II
. |
& . O
336
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
Division of Environmental Permits, Region 9

270 Michigan Avenue, Buffalo. NY 14203-2915
P: (716) 851-7165 I F: (716) 851-7168
www.dec.ny.gov
SENT VIA EMAIL
January 13, 2022 ,
ATTN: Matthew Carver

Dear Matthew Carver:

Permit Review Status
Robert J. Stransky Memorial Complex
2885 Clinton Street
Town of West Seneca, Erie County
This letter serves as an update on the permit review status of the above-
mentioned project. The Department received the Joint Application Form and project
plans on May 11, 2021. During our review period we have also received other
application materials including updated project plans and wetland delineation
requirements. The Department is also in receipt of the United States Army Corps of
required"
mineers "no permit apprordfrelfe JAll application materials have been
reviewed and DEC does not anticipate requiring any further application materials at this
time.
Please be advised, this project is considered major under the Uniform

Procedures Act. Projects deemed major require public notice and a 15-day public
comment period. The Department plans to issue a Notice of Complete Application once
we have received an approval letter from NYS Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic
Preservation regarding their concerns as reviewed under the State Historic Preservation
Act. We are aware your submission to SHPO is currently in¿tlam 394lliufterteWWindg&
fppjntaigniations final comments.
If you have any other questions, please feel free to contact me at kerri.pickard-
depriest@dec.ny.qov or at 716/851-7165.
Sincerely,
Kerri Pickard-DePriest
Environmental Analyst
cmn
en
Conservation
337
338
Exhibit “18” - FOIL Response of NYSDOT

Exhibit “18”
339
July 14, 2022
Daniel T. Warren
West Seneca, NY 14224-1235
RE: FOIL request 22-005426 – All documents and communication regarding the
planned expansion of the Canisius Athletic Fields located at 2448-2885
Clinton Street, West Seneca, NY 14224
Sent: via e-mail (no hard copy to follow)
Mr. Warren,
This correspondence will complete your June 18, 2022 Freedom of Information Law (FOIL)
request at the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) Records Access Office
on this date.
A diligent search of our files did not produce any information, as requested.
Under provisions of the Public Officers Law you may appeal this determination. If you
desire to submit such an appeal, please forward a copy of the original request and a
copy of this response letter with your written appeal to:
Chief Counsel
F.O.I.L. Appeal
New York State Department of Transportation
50 Wolf Road, 6th Floor
Albany, NY 12232
You will be informed in writing of the decision within ten business days of our receipt of
such an appeal. If the appeal is denied, you will be fully advised of the reason.
Please indicate the FOIL request number when corresponding on this subject.
Sincerely,
Paul Uebelhoer
Records Access Officer
Region 5 Buffalo
100 Seneca Street
Buffalo, NY 14203
Phone (716)847-3173
50 Wolf Road, Albany, NY 12232 │ www.dot.ny.gov
340
Memorandum of Law of Daniel T. Warren dated July 18, 2022

SUPREME COURT :
:
For a Judgment Pursuant to CPLR Article 78 : Index # 808016/2022
:
Daniel T. Warren :
Petitioner, :
Against :
:
its President. :
Respondents :
Petitioner’s Memorandum of Law in Support of Verified Petition/Complaint
DATED: July 18, 2022

Yours, etc.
Daniel T. Warren
Petitioner, Pro Se
716-288-6724
1 of 29
341
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................................................................................. i

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ....................................................................................................... ii
MERITS ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................ 1
RESPONDENT PLANNING BOARD LACKED JURISDICTION TO APPROVE
RESPONDENT CANISIUS’ APPLICATION ........................................................................... 3
RESPONDENT PLANNING BOARD DID NOT COMPLY WITH ...................................... 4
TOWN LAW § 274-a(9) AND THE WEST SENECA TOWN CODE .................................... 4
RESPONDENT TOWN AND PLANNING BOARD’S ACTIONS VIOLATE SEQRA ....... 5
THE SUBJECT PARCEL NEEDS TO BE RE-ZONED OR A USE VARIANCE
OBTAINED BEFORE THE SITE PLAN CAN BE APPROVED ......................................... 13
RESPONDENTS PLANNING BOARD AND TOWN VIOLATED THE ............................ 16
OPEN MEETINGS LAW .......................................................................................................... 16
APPLICABLE STANDARD FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION.................................... 18
IRREPARABLE INJURY ......................................................................................................... 19
BALANCE OF EQUITIES ........................................................................................................ 20
UNDERTAKING ........................................................................................................................ 21
CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................... 22
CERTIFICATION ...................................................................................................................... 23
2 of 29
342
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
7th Sense, Inc. v. Liu, 220 A.D.2d 215 ......................................................................................... 21
Aetna Ins. Co. v Capasso, 75 N.Y.2d 860 .................................................................................... 18
Asharoken v. Pitassy, 119 A.D.2d 404 ......................................................................................... 14
Ballard v. New York Safety Track LLC, 126 A.D.3d 1073 ........................................................... 17
Branch Assocs. v. Department of Environmental Conservation, 146 Misc.2d 334...................... 21
Briody v. Village of Lewiston, 188 A.D.2d 1017 ........................................................................ 7, 8
Brunner v Town of Schodack Planning Bd., 178 A.D.3d 1181 ...................................................... 1
Buckley v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of City of Geneva, 189 A.D.3d 2080 ......................................... 1
Butt v Malik, 106 A.D.3d 849 ....................................................................................................... 19
Chinese Staff &Workers Assoc. v. City of New York, 68 N.Y.2d 359 .................................... 10, 12
Coca–Cola Bottling v. Board of Estimate, 72 N.Y.2d 674 ............................................................. 8
Cooperstown Capital, LLC v Patton, 60 A.D.3d 1251 ................................................................. 19
Council of NYC v. Giuliani, 248 A.D.2d 1 ................................................................................... 19
Daily Gazette Co. v Town Bd., Town of Cobleskill, 111 Misc 2d 303 ......................................... 17
Destiny USA Holdings, LLC v Citigroup Global Mkts. Realty Corp., 69 A.D.3d 212 ................. 18
Devitt v. Heimbach, 58 N.Y.2d 925 ................................................................................................ 8
DiVeronica v. Arsenault, 124 A.D.2d 442 ...................................................................................... 7
Ecology Action v. Van Cort, 99 Misc.2d 664 ............................................................................... 21
Ferrari v. Town of Penfield Planning Board, 181 A.D.2d 149 .................................................. 8, 9
Fichera v. N.Y.S. Dep't of Envtl. Conservation, 159 A.D.3d 1493 ................................................. 4
Fischer v. Deitsch, 168 A.D.2d 599.............................................................................................. 20
Friends of P.S. 163, Inc. v. Jewish Home Lifecare Manhattan, 30 N.Y.3d 416............................. 1
Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Brinegar, 518 F.2d 322 ................................................................... 22
Gambar Enters. v Kelly Servs., 69 A.D.2d 297 ............................................................................ 19
Glenhead-Glenwood Landing Civic Council, Inc. v. Town Oyster Bay, 109 Misc.2d 376 .......... 21
Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12 ...................................................................................................... 21
Hamptons, LLC v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Incorporated Village of East Hampton, 98
A.D.3d 738 ................................................................................................................................ 15
Highlands Conserv. v. Island Creek Coal, 441 F.2d 232 ............................................................. 22
In Re Appl. of BHOD v. New York, 2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 50461.................................................... 18
Incorporated Vil. of Muttontown v Friscia, 58 Misc2d 912 ......................................................... 14
Johnston v Town Bd. of Town of Brookhaven, 2006 NY Slip Op 50828(U) [11 Misc 3d 1092(A)]
..................................................................................................................................................... 7
Kahn v. Pasnik, 90 N.Y.2d 569 ...................................................................................................... 9
King v. Saratoga Board of Supervisors, 89 N.Y.2d 341 ................................................................ 5
Kirk–Astor Drive Neighborhood Assoc. v. Town of Pittsford, 106 A.D.2d 868........................... 10
Lelekakis v. Kamamis, 303 A.D.2d 380 ........................................................................................ 21
Matter of 4M Club v Andrews, 11 A.D.2d 720 ............................................................................. 14
Matter of Basha Kill Area Assn. v Planning Bd. of Town of Mamakating, 46 A.D.3d 1309 ......... 4
Matter of Batavia First v Town of Batavia, 26 A.D.3d 840 ........................................................... 4
Matter of Charles A. Field Delivery Serv. [Roberts], 66 N.Y.2d 516 .......................................... 15
Matter of City of Schenectady v Flacke, 100 A.D.2d 349 .............................................................. 9
Matter of Coca–Cola Bottling, Inc. v. Board of Estimate, 72 N.Y.2d 674 ..................................... 6
Matter of Dietrich v Planning Bd. of Town of W. Seneca, 118 A.D.3d 1419 ............................... 15
ii
3 of 29
343
Matter of Donegan v Griffin, 270 App Div 937 ........................................................................... 14

Matter of Dreikausen v. Zoning Bd. Of Appeals of City of Long Beach, 98 N.Y.2d 165 ............. 21
Matter of Ernalex Constr. Realty Corp. v City of Glen Cove, 256 A.D.2d 336 ............................. 4
Matter of Gordon v Village of Monticello, 87 N.Y.2d 124..................................................... 16, 18
Matter of Gordon v. Monticello, 207 A.D.2d 55 .......................................................................... 17
Matter of Heights of Lansing, LLC v. Village of Lansing, 160 A.D.3d 1165 ................................. 1
Matter of Hutchinson v Annucci, 189 A.D.3d 1850 ..................................................................... 15
Matter of Imbergamo v Barclay, 77 Misc 2d 188......................................................................... 14
Matter of Jackson v. New York State Urb. Dev. Corp., 67 N.Y.2d 400 ......................................... 2
Matter of LCS Realty Co. v Incorporated Vil. of Roslyn, 273 A.D.2d 474 .................................... 4
Matter of Long Is. Pine Barrens Socy, v Planning Bd. of Town of Brookhaven., 204 A.D.2d 548
................................................................................................................................................... 12
Matter of McNeill v. Town Board, Ithaca, 260 A.D.2d 829 ........................................................... 7
Matter of Mitchell, 40 N.Y.2d 153 ............................................................................................... 21
Matter of Montauk Improvement v Proccacino, 41 N.Y.2d 913 .................................................. 15
Matter of National Fuel Gas Distrib. Corp. v Public Serv. Commn. of the State of N.Y., 16
N.Y.3d 360 ................................................................................................................................ 15
Matter of New York City Coalition to End Lead Poisoning v. Vallone, 100 N.Y.2d 337 .............. 6
Matter of New York Inst. of Technology v Le Boutillier, 33 N.Y.2d 125 ..................................... 14
Matter of Rochester Tel. Mobile Communications v Cole, 224 A.D.2d 918 .................................. 4
Matter of Schoen v Bowne, 298 N.Y. 611..................................................................................... 14
Matter of Schweizer v Board of Zoning Appeals, 8 Misc 2d 878 ................................................. 14
Matter of Sciolino v Ryan, 81 A.D.2d 475.................................................................................... 16
Matter of Tall Trees Constr. Corp. v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Huntington, 97 N.Y.2d
86 ............................................................................................................................................... 15
Matter of Town of Amsterdam v. Amsterdam Indus. Dev. Agency, 95 A.D.3d 1539 ..................... 1
Matter of Troy Sand & Gravel Co., Inc. v. Town of Nassau, 82 A.D.3d 1377............................... 1
Matter of West Branch Conservation Ass’n v. Planning Bd. of the Town of Ramapo, 177 A.D.2d
917 ............................................................................................................................................... 5
Melvin v. Union College, 195 A.D.2d 447 ................................................................................... 19
Merson v. McNally, 90 N.Y.2d 742 ................................................................................................ 9
Metropolitan Taxicab Bd. of Trade v New York City Taxi & Limousine Commn., 18 N.Y.3d 329
................................................................................................................................................... 15
Miller v. City of Lockport, 210 A.D.2d 955 .................................................................................. 12
Mr. Natural v. Unadulterated Food Prods., 152 A.D.2d 729 ...................................................... 19
Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Morton, 337 F.Supp. 167 ........................................ 22
Nobu Next Door, LLC v Fine Arts Hous., Inc., 4 N.Y.3d 839 ...................................................... 18
Pell v Board of Educ., 34 N.Y.2d 222 ............................................................................................ 1
People Ex rel. Van de Kamp v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 766 F.2d 1319 ..................... 22
People v. Harrison, 27 N.Y.3d 281 .............................................................................................. 20
People v. Novak, 30 N.Y.3d 222................................................................................................... 20
Pharmaceutical Soc. of State of New York, Inc. v. New York State Dept. of Social Services, 50
F.3d 1168 ................................................................................................................................... 22
Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497 .......................................................................................................... 2
Preferred Equities Corp. v. Ziegelman, 155 A.D.2d 424 ............................................................. 19
Save Harrison, Inc. v. Town/Village Harrison, 168 A.D.3d 949 ................................................... 4
iii
4 of 29
344
Save the Pine Bush v. City of Albany, 70 N.Y.2d 193 .................................................................. 10

Schlosser v. United Presbyterian Home, Inc., 56 A.D.2d 615 ..................................................... 19
Segal v. Town of Thompson, 182 A.D.2d 1043 ............................................................................ 10
SHAD All. v. Smith Haven Mall, 66 N.Y.2d 496 ............................................................................ 2
Stewart Park and Reserve Coalition v. New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation, 157 A.D.2d 1 ...................................................................................................... 10
Sun Company, Inc. v. City of Syracuse Industrial Development Agency, 209 A.D.2d 34............ 11
Taxpayers Opposed To Floodmart, Ltd. v. City of Hornell Industrial Development Agency, 212
A.D.2d 958 ............................................................................................................................ 5, 11
Town of Henrietta v. DEC, 76 A.D.2d 215............................................................................... 7, 10
Tri–County Taxpayers Assoc. v. Town Board of Queensbury, 55 N.Y.2d 41 ............................ 7, 8
Tucker v Toia, 54 A.D.2d 322................................................................................................. 18, 19
Viavant. Trans-Delta Oil & Gas Co., 7 ERC 1423 ...................................................................... 22
Village of E. Hampton v Mulford, 188 Misc 1037........................................................................ 14
Village of Westbury v. Department of Transportation, 75 N.Y.2d 62 .......................................... 10
Warren v Giambra, 12 Misc 3d 650 ............................................................................................. 18
Wellsville Citizens for Responsible Dev., Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 140 A.D.3d 1767 ......... 11
West Branch Assoc. v. Planning Board, Town of Ramapo, 177 A.D.2d 917 ................................. 9
Winter Bros. Recycling Corp. v. Jet Sanitation Serv. Corp., 23 Misc. 3d 1115[A], 2009 NY Slip
Op. 50753[U] ............................................................................................................................. 20
Statutes
CPLR § 6312........................................................................................................................... 19, 21
Environmental Conservation Law § 8-0101 ................................................................................... 5
Environmental Conservation Law § 8-0103 ................................................................................... 6
Environmental Conservation Law § 8-0109 ......................................................................... 6, 9, 10
General Construction Law § 41 ...................................................................................................... 3
General Municipal Law § 239-m ................................................................................................ 3, 4
Public Officers Law § 102 ............................................................................................................ 16
Public Officers Law § 103 ................................................................................................ 16, 17, 18
Public Officers Law § 105 ...................................................................................................... 16, 18
Town Law § 274-a(9) ................................................................................................................. 4, 5
West Seneca Town Code § 120-10 ............................................................................................... 13
West Seneca Town Code § 120-5 ................................................................................................. 13
West Seneca Town Code § 120-64 ............................................................................................... 13
Treatises
1 Anderson, New York Zoning Law and Practice ........................................................................ 14
12 NY Jur 2d, Buildings, Zoning, and Land Controls, § 179 ...................................................... 14
Charles A. Wright et. al., 11 A. Federal Practice and Procedure Civil Second Section 2954
(1995)......................................................................................................................................... 22
David Reisel, Temporary Restraining Orders, Preliminary Injunction and in Environmental
Litigation, 885 A.L.I.-A.B.A. 899 ............................................................................................. 22
Gerrard, Ruzow &Weinberg. Environmental Impact Review in New York; § 5.02 .................... 12
The SEQR Handbook ............................................................................................................. 10, 11
Regulations
6 NYCRR § 617.15 ......................................................................................................................... 7
iv
5 of 29
345
6 NYCRR § 617.2 ..................................................................................................................... 7, 11

6 NYCRR § 617.3 ................................................................................................................. 7, 8, 12
6 NYCRR § 617.4 ......................................................................................................................... 12
6 NYCRR § 617.6 ........................................................................................................................... 8
6 NYCRR § 617.7 ........................................................................................................................... 9
6 NYCRR § 617.8 ......................................................................................................................... 13
Constitutional Provisions
New York Constitution Art. 1 § 19........................................................................................... 2, 12
6 of 29
346
MERITS ARGUMENT
“The court's role is not to second-guess the agency's determination [citations omitted]”
(Brunner v Town of Schodack Planning Bd., 178 A.D.3d 1181, 1183 [3d Dept 2019]; see also
Buckley v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of City of Geneva, 189 A.D.3d 2080 [4th Dept 2020]). “The
arbitrary or capricious test chiefly 'relates to whether a particular action should have been taken
or is justified *** and whether the administrative action is without foundation in fact.' Arbitrary
action is without sound basis in reason and is generally taken without regard to the facts [citation
omitted]” (Pell v Board of Educ., 34 N.Y.2d 222, 231 [1974]).
The standard of judicial review under SEQRA is narrowly circumscribed. “Judicial
review of an agency determination under SEQRA is limited to whether the agency identified the
relevant areas of environmental concern, took a hard look at them, and made a reasoned
elaboration of the basis for its determination.” (Matter of Heights of Lansing, LLC v. Village of
Lansing, 160 A.D.3d 1165, 1166 (3d Dep't 2018) (cleaned up)). No more than a “reasoned
explanation” for an agency's negative declaration is required (Matter of Troy Sand & Gravel Co.,
Inc. v. Town of Nassau, 82 A.D.3d 1377, 1379 (3d Dep't 2011)). “The court's function is to
assure that the agency has satisfied SEQRA, procedurally and substantively, not to evaluate data
de novo, weigh the desirability of any particular action, choose among alternatives or otherwise
substitute its judgment for that of the agency.” (Matter of Town of Amsterdam v. Amsterdam
Indus. Dev. Agency, 95 A.D.3d 1539, 1543 (3d Dep't 2012)). “[Judicial] review is deferential for
it is not the role of the courts to weigh the desirability of any action or choose among
alternatives, but to assure that the agency itself has satisfied SEQRA, procedurally and
substantively.” (Friends of P.S. 163, Inc. v. Jewish Home Lifecare Manhattan, 30 N.Y.3d 416,
430 (2017) (cleaned up)). “Nothing in [SEQRA] requires an agency to reach a particular result
7 of 29
347
on any issue, or permits the courts to second-guess the agency's choice, which can be annulled
only if arbitrary, capricious or unsupported by substantial evidence.” (Matter of Jackson v. New
York State Urb. Dev. Corp., 67 N.Y.2d 400, 417 (1986)).
The Legislature of New York and its citizens have, through careful deliberation and
consideration, chosen to change the State Constitution to enact New York Constitution Art. 1 §
19 (the “Green Amendment”), and place it within the Bill of Rights, and thus vesting the State
and its municipalities with the affirmative duty to ensure, “each person shall have a right to clean
air and water, and a healthful environment.” The Bill of Rights is the primary source of
expressed information as to what is meant by constitutional liberty (Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497,
517 (1961) (Douglas, J., dissenting)). The Framers added the Bill of Rights to enshrine those
constitutional guarantees which experience indicated were indispensable to a free society. Id.
The same is true about the New York Bill of Rights (SHAD All. v. Smith Haven Mall, 66 N.Y.2d
496 (1985)). The Green Amendment now endows indispensable rights owed to the People.
In this action, Petitioner complains, inter alia, his constitutional rights to clean air and a
healthy environment, guaranteed by the Green Amendment, is being violated as a result of the
actions or inactions on the part of the Respondents Planning Board and Town in regard to
Respondent Canisius’ proposed project.
When the Green Amendment was approved and adopted by the voters, despite the
existing laws, regulations, and policies, it conveyed a fundamental right to clean air, water, and a
healthful environment to the citizens of the State. Essentially, the voters determined that the
existing laws, regulations and policies were insufficient to protect the State’s air, water, and
environment, and thus a new right must be created.
8 of 29
348
Petitioner contends that this new Constitutional right requires the decision of
Respondents regarding their environmental review should be reviewed under a heightened
standard of preponderance of the evidence rather than substantial evidence or alternatively that
any questions or ambiguity be resolved in Petitioner’s favor.
RESPONDENT PLANNING BOARD LACKED JURISDICTION TO APPROVE

RESPONDENT CANISIUS’ APPLICATION
Here there is no vote, as required by General Construction Law § 41, by Respondent
Planning Board approving the action to make the required referral under General Municipal Law
§ 239-m. The acts of the Code Enforcement Officer in this regard are ultra vires and of no force
or effect.
Respondent Planning Board’s purported referral to the Erie County Department of
Environment and Planning failed to contained “full statement of such proposed action” as that
term is defined in General Municipal Law § 239-m[1][c]. General Municipal Law § 239-m[1][c]
provides:
The term ‘full statement of such proposed action’ shall mean all materials re-
quired by and submitted to the referring body as an application on a proposed ac-
tion, including a completed environmental assessment form and all other materi-
als required by such referring body in order to make its determination of signif-
icance pursuant to the state environmental quality review act under article eight of
the environmental conservation law and its implementing regulations.
Following the initial submissions to the county planning agency Respondent Planning
Board received numerous submissions on environmental issues. These submissions were
addressed by Respondent Planning Board in completing Parts 2 & 3 of the EAF. Pursuant to
General Municipal Law § 239-m, the Town was required to refer these documents to the county
planning agency for its review prior to taking any. Respondent Planning Board further failed to
provide all of the information Respondent Planning Board based its SEQRA determination on to
9 of 29
349
the Erie County Department of Planning. This is a procedural defect rendering any subsequent
approval by the municipal agency null and void (see Matter of LCS Realty Co. v Incorporated
Vil. of Roslyn, 273 A.D.2d 474 at 475; see generally Matter of Batavia First v Town of Batavia,
26 A.D.3d 840, 842 [2006]; Matter of Rochester Tel. Mobile Communications v Cole, 224
A.D.2d 918 [1996]; cf. Matter of Basha Kill Area Assn. v Planning Bd. of Town of Mamakating,
46 A.D.3d 1309, 1313 [2007]).
It is clear based on Petitioner’s personal review of the records of the Erie County
Department of Environment and Planning on July 6, 2022, that a full statement of the proposed
action was not provided as required by GML § 239-m. This requires that the June 14, 2022
negative declaration and the July 14, 2022 site plan approval be vacated and set aside (Save
Harrison, Inc. v. Town/Village Harrison, 168 A.D.3d 949 (2nd Dept. 2019)).
Failure to comply with General Municipal Law § 239-m is a jurisdictional defect that
renders the agency's action invalid (see Fichera v. N.Y.S. Dep't of Envtl. Conservation, 159
A.D.3d 1493 (4th Dept. 2018); Matter of Ernalex Constr. Realty Corp. v City of Glen Cove, 256
A.D.2d 336, 338 [2d Dept 1998]).
RESPONDENT PLANNING BOARD DID NOT COMPLY WITH

TOWN LAW § 274-a(9) AND THE WEST SENECA TOWN CODE
Respondent Planning Board violated Town Law § 274-a(9) that provides: “At least ten
days before such hearing, the authorized board shall mail notices thereof to the county planning
board or agency or regional planning council, as required by section two hundred thirty-nine-m
of the general municipal law, which notice shall be accompanied by a full statement of such
proposed action, as defined in subdivision one of section two hundred thirty-nine-m of the
10 of 29
350
general municipal law. In the event a public hearing is not required, such proposed action shall
be referred before final action is taken thereon.”
The public hearing on Respondent Canisius’s application for site plan approval was re-
opened on July 14, 2022. Since Respondent Planning Board clearly did not provide to the
ECDEP all the materials it needed to make a SEQRA determination at least 10 days before the
opening of the Public Hearing it did not comply with Town Law § 274-a(9) since they were not
in the files of the ECDEP as of July 6, 2022, when Petitioner reviewed it.
Therefore, such was not adopted pursuant to lawful procedure.
SEQRA
The courts mandate “literal” or “strict compliance” with the SEQRA process, and
“substantial compliance” has been held insufficient (King v. Saratoga Board of Supervisors, 89
N.Y.2d 341 (1996); Taxpayers Opposed To Floodmart, Ltd. v. City of Hornell Industrial
Development Agency, 212 A.D.2d 958 (4th Dep’t 1995), stay vac’d 85 N.Y.2d 961 (1995), app.
dis’d 85 N.Y.2d 812 (1995); Matter of West Branch Conservation Ass’n v. Planning Bd. of the
Town of Ramapo, 177 A.D.2d 917 (3d Dep’t 1991)).
RESPONDENT TOWN AND PLANNING BOARD’S ACTIONS VIOLATE SEQRA
The New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA” or “SEQR”),
Environmental Conservation Law (“ECL”) Article 8, was enacted in 1975 in order to:
declare a state policy which will encourage productive and enjoyable harmony
between man and his environment; to promote efforts which will prevent or
eliminate damage to the environment and enhance human and community
resources; and to enrich the understanding to the ecological systems, natural,
human and community resources important to the people of the state.
Environmental Conservation Law § 8-0101. SEQRA requires that “[s]ocial, economic and
environmental factors shall be considered together in reaching decisions on proposed activities,”
11 of 29
351
Environmental Conservation Law § 8-0103(7), and that public agencies will give “due
consideration... to preventing environmental damage.” ECL § 8-0103(9). The primary purpose of
SEQRA is “to inject environmental considerations directly into governmental decision making.”
(Matter of Coca–Cola Bottling, Inc. v. Board of Estimate, 72 N.Y.2d 674, 679 (1988)).
"SEQRA's policies, statutes, and regulations should be implemented 'to the fullest extent
possible."' (Matter of New York City Coalition to End Lead Poisoning v. Vallone, 100 N.Y.2d
337 at 347 (quoting ECL § 8-0103(6)). The Court of Appeals has made clear the importance of
literal adherence to SEQRA's procedures:
SEQRA's policy of injecting environmental considerations into

governmental decision making is effectuated, in part, through strict
compliance with the review procedures outlined in the environmental laws
and regulations. Strict compliance with SEQRA is not a meaningless
hurdle. Rather, the requirement of strict compliance and attendant spectre
of de novo environmental review insure that agencies will err on the side
of meticulous care in their environmental review. Anything less than strict
compliance, moreover, offers an incentive to cut corners and then cure
defects only after protracted litigation, all at the ultimate expense of the
environment.
id. (internal quotations and citations omitted). Moreover "where a lead agency has failed to
comply with SEQRA's mandates, the negative declaration must be nullified." id.
The heart of SEQRA is Environmental Conservation Law § 8-0109(4), which requires
“agencies” (including state and municipal, boards, agencies and authorities), “[a]s early as
possible in the formulation of a proposal for action” to “make an initial determination whether an
environmental impact statement need be prepared,” and ECL § 8-0109(2), which requires all
state agencies and municipalities to prepare or cause to be prepared “an environmental impact
statement on any action they propose or approve which may have a significant effect on the
environment.” Regulations set forth at 6 NYCRR Part 617 prescribe the procedures used under
SEQRA.
12 of 29
352
All “actions,” including all “projects or physical activities” that are undertaken, funded or
approved by an agency, and planning, policymaking, and enactment of laws, rules or regulations,
6 NYCRR § 617.2(b), are subject to SEQRA. Actions involving federal agencies are subject to
SEQRA unless a federal EIS is compiled. 6 NYCRR § 617.15. Conditional Site Plan Approval is
an action that is ripe for judicial review for non-compliance with SEQRA (Johnston v Town Bd.
of Town of Brookhaven, 2006 NY Slip Op 50828(U) [11 Misc 3d 1092(A)] Decided on March
22, 2006 Supreme Court, Suffolk County; Matter of McNeill v. Town Board, Ithaca, 260 A.D.2d
829 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999) “Where the challenged action relates to SEQRA review, the
limitations period commences with the filing of a decision which represents the final
determination of SEQRA issues, notwithstanding the fact that such determination may be
embodied in preliminary or conditional plan approvals”).
“No agency involved in an action may undertake, fund or approve the action until it has
complied with the provisions of SEQR.” 6 NYCRR § 617.3(a). The “purpose of SEQRA is to
assure the preparation and availability of an environmental impact statement at the time any
significant authorization is granted for a specific proposal.” Tri–County Taxpayers Assoc. v.
Town Board of Queensbury, 55 N.Y.2d 41, 46-7 (1982). That way, “a decision maker [will]
balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks in
determining whether to approve the project.” Town of Henrietta v. DEC, 76 A.D.2d 215 (4th
Dep’t 1980); Briody v. Village of Lewiston, 188 A.D.2d 1017 (4th Dep’t 1992).
“[C]ompliance with SEQRA must occur before the agency acts; after-the-fact compliance
is of no avail.” (DiVeronica v. Arsenault, 124 A.D.2d 442 (3rd Dep’t 1986)). Thus, before an
agency can make a “significant authorization” for an “action,” it must have before it either an
accepted FEIS and findings, or else a valid negative declaration that the proposal will not have a
13 of 29
353
significant environmental impact (Devitt v. Heimbach, 58 N.Y.2d 925 (1983)). Otherwise, the
action is invalid (Tri-County Taxpayers Assoc. v. Town Board of Queensbury, 55 N.Y.2d 41
(1982); Briody v. Village of Lewiston, 188 A.D.2d 1017 (4th Dep’t 1992), app. den’d 81 N.Y.2d
710 (1993)).
An application for approval, permit or funding is not complete until either a negative
declaration is made, or a draft EIS is accepted. 6 NYCRR § 617.3(c). “When the draft EIS is
accepted, the SEQR process will run concurrently with other procedures relating to the review
and approval of the action, if reasonable time is provided for preparation, review and public
hearing with respect to the draft EIS.” 6 NYCRR § 617.3(c)(2).
If more than one agency is an “involved agency” which makes a decision on the action, a
lead agency may be selected by agreement of the agencies through the “coordinated review
process,” which is required for Type I actions. 6 NYCRR § 617.6(b)(3). The lead agency
function cannot be delegated to an uninvolved agency (Coca–Cola Bottling v. Board of Estimate,
72 N.Y.2d 674 (1988)). If involved agencies are not included in the designation process, the
designation of lead agency is improper (Ferrari v. Town of Penfield Planning Board, 181 A.D.2d
149 (4th Dep't 1992)). The coordinated review purportedly undertaken was not in reality
coordinated in that not all involved agencies received all necessary information from the project
sponsor, lead agency and other involved and interested agencies and the public.
Here other involved agencies were not included in the designation process, if such
process was authorized by Respondent Planning Board. Namely, the New York State
Department of Transportation which Respondent Canisius failed to list on its EAF (Exhibits “4”
& “17”).
14 of 29
354
Here there is no vote by Respondent Planning Board approving the action to seek lead
agency status under SEQRA, setting the initial classification of the project and/or initiating the
SEQRA process. The acts of the Code Enforcement Officer in this regard are ultra vires and of
no force or effect. The coordinated review purportedly undertaken was not in reality coordinated
in that not all involved agencies received all necessary information from the project sponsor, lead
agency and other involved and interested agencies and the public.
Deficiencies in the lead agency designation process warrant restarting the entire SEQRA
process (Ferrari v. Town of Penfield Planning Bd., 181 A.D.2d 149 (4th Dep't 1992); Matter of
City of Schenectady v Flacke, 100 A.D.2d 349 (3d Dep't 1984)).
There is no vote by Respondent Planning Board designating itself as the lead agency
under SEQRA once the time for other involved agencies to respond to the notification of
Respondent Planning Board’s intention to be lead agency expired. Therefore, its acts as lead
agency are ultra vires.
The lead agency then makes a “determination of significance” by reviewing the EAF, and
deciding whether the proposal “may include the potential for at least one significant adverse
environmental impact.” (§ 617.7(a)(1); see West Branch Assoc. v. Planning Board, Town of
Ramapo, 177 A.D.2d 917 (3d Dep't 1991)). If so, an environmental impact statement (“EIS”)
must be prepared (ECL § 8-0109(2); 6 NYCRR § 617.7(a)(1)). If not, the lead agency must make
a negative declaration that the project will not have a significant adverse environmental impact
(§ 617.7(b)(2)). Thus, the lead agency “must identify ‘the relevant areas of environmental
concern’ and take a ‘hard look’ at them.” (Merson v. McNally, 90 N.Y.2d 742 (1997) [citing
Matter of Chemical Specialties Mfrs. Assn. v. Jorling, 85 N.Y.2d 382, 397 (1995)]; Kahn v.
Pasnik, 90 N.Y.2d 569 (1997)).
15 of 29
355
SEQRA requires that “consideration must be given at the earliest possible time (ECL § 8-
0109(a)) to the impacts which may be reasonably expected to result from any proposed action”
(Kirk–Astor Drive Neighborhood Assoc. v. Town of Pittsford, 106 A.D.2d 868 (4th Dep’t 1984),
app. dis'd 66 N.Y.2d 896 (1985)). The EIS is an “environmental ‘alarm bell’ whose purpose is to
alert responsible public officials to environmental changes before they have reached ecological
points of no return.” (Town of Henrietta v. DEC, 76 A.D.2d 215, 220 (4th Dep't 1980)).
SEQRA generally requires the consideration of cumulative environmental impacts of
separate actions (Chinese Staff &Workers Assoc. v. City of New York, 68 N.Y.2d 359 (1986)
[cumulative impact of seven separate luxury apartment buildings on displacement of low–
income residents]; Save the Pine Bush v. City of Albany, 70 N.Y.2d 193 (1987) [cumulative
impact of ten separate projects in the Pine Bush area on habitat of an endangered butterfly];
Village of Westbury v. Department of Transportation, 75 N.Y.2d 62, 67 (1989) [interchange
reconstruction project and road widening were part of the same overall plan to alleviate traffic
congestion]; Segal v. Town of Thompson, 182 A.D.2d 1043 (3d Dep’t 1992) [SEQRA review of
sewer and water districts had to consider resulting development likely to follow from 800 new
homes]. While “cumulative impacts” are not defined by SEQRA or its implementing regulations,
DEC addresses the issue in The SEQR Handbook at page 80 (
https://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/permits ej operations pdf/seqrhandbook.pdf ). “[C]onsidering the
cumulative effects of related actions insures against stratagems to avoid the required
environmental review by breaking up a proposed development into component parts which,
individually, do not have sufficient environmental significance” (Stewart Park and Reserve
Coalition v. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, 157 A.D.2d 1, 10 (3d
10
16 of 29
356
Dep’t 1990)). Often, it is difficult to distinguish between segmentation and the failure to address
cumulative impacts, and courts often muddle the concepts.
Respondent Planning Board failed to take the requisite hard look at the water issues,
traffic issues, impact on community character ( athletic fields is not a permitted use as detailed
below), noise issues, and wildlife issues and that the resolution adopting the negative declaration
must therefore be annulled. These issues were raised by Petitioner to Respondent Planning Board
and they were aware of them, but failed to require Respondent Canisius to submit reports or
studies on these issues and failed to investigate the veracity of this information before issuing its
negative declaration (Wellsville Citizens for Responsible Dev., Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 140
A.D.3d 1767 (4th Dept. 2016)).
In this case Respondent Planning Board failed to consider the cumulative impacts of
Respondent Town’s actions such as the Lexington Green berm action and the larger plan that it is
a part of, that is taking place in the same flood plain as Respondent Canisius’ proposed project.
Respondent Town also is engaging in improper segmentation in not considering the full
scope of its action. SEQRA generally prohibits “segmentation,” which is defined as “the
division of the environmental review of an action such that various activities or stages are
addressed under this Part as though they were independent, unrelated activities, needing
individual determinations of significance.” (6 NYCRR § 617.2(ag). See Sun Company, Inc. v.
City of Syracuse Industrial Development Agency, 209 A.D.2d 34 (4th Dep’t 1995), app. dis’d 86
N.Y.2d 776 (1995); Taxpayers Opposed to Floodmart, Ltd., v. City of Hornell Industrial
Development Agency, 212 A.D.2d 958 (4th Dep’t 1995). See also DEC, The SEQR Handbook at
53 – 55).
11
17 of 29
357
Segmentation can be found in two contexts: (1) where a proposed action has significant
environmental impact requiring the preparation of an EIS but the agency attempts to divide it
into smaller projects that do not require an EIS; and (2) where a proposed action entails different
projects at different times and the agency excludes one project in order to evade SEQRA review
and the preparation of a separate EIS (see Gerrard, Ruzow &Weinberg. Environmental Impact
Review in New York; § 5.02 [1), Matthew Bender & Company (1993); see also Matter of Long
Is. Pine Barrens Socy, v Planning Bd. of Town of Brookhaven., 204 A.D.2d 548 [2d Dept 1994)).
There is nothing indicating that Respondents made any finding that it believed that
circumstances warranted a segmented review because nowhere did it “clearly state in its
determination of significance, and any subsequent EIS, the supporting reasons and must
demonstrate that such review is clearly no less protective of the environment. Related actions
should be identified and discussed to the fullest extent possible.” (6 NYCRR § 617.3(g)(1)).
“The threshold at which the requirement that an EIS be prepared is triggered relatively
low.” (Chinese Staff v. City of New York, 68 N.Y.2d 354 (1986)). When a Type I action is
involved, the threshold for an EIS is especially low, since Type I actions “are more likely to
require the preparation of an EIS” than other actions (6 NYCRR § 617.4(a); see also
Shawangunk Mountain Environmental Association v. Planning Board of Town of Gardiner, 157
A.D.2d 273 (3d Dep't 1990)). A “Type I action carries with it the presumption that it is likely to
have a significant effect on the environment and will require an EIS." Miller v. City of Lockport,
210 A.D.2d 955, 957 (4th Dep't 1994). In this case the record fails to rebut this presumption
particularly in light of the recently enacted Green Amendment.
In the case of Respondent Canisius’s proposed project a positive declaration under
SEQRA is required because at least seven areas of significant environmental impact have been
12
18 of 29
358
identified, Respondents Planning Board and Town did not issue a positive declaration. Had a
positive declaration been issued and an EIS prepared, “scoping” would have been required and
would have “include[d] an opportunity for public participation.” (6 NYCRR § 617.8(d)).
THE SUBJECT PARCEL NEEDS TO BE RE-ZONED OR A USE VARIANCE

OBTAINED BEFORE THE SITE PLAN CAN BE APPROVED
Pursuant to West Seneca Town Code § 120-5(A) “If a use is specifically named as a
permitted use could also be construed as being incorporated within a more general listing, the
more specific listing shall control and such use shall not be deemed to be included in the more
general listing.”
Pursuant to West Seneca Town Code § 120-5(B) “No use shall be permitted in any
zoning district unless it is listed specifically or generally as a permitted use in said zoning
district.”
Pursuant to West Seneca Town Code § 120-10(B) “Whenever any provision of this
chapter is at variance or in conflict with any other provision of this chapter or any other statute,
local ordinance or regulation covering any of the same subject matter, the most restrictive
provision or the one imposing the higher standard shall govern.”
West Seneca Town Code § 120-64 defines “ACCESSORY USE OR STRUCTURES —
A use or structure customarily incidental and subordinate to the principal use or building and
(except as otherwise provided) located on the same lot with such principal use or building”
In order for a use to be a proper accessory use it must be incidental to a permitted use of
the land. The athletic field cannot be considered an accessory use to a school because
Respondent Canisius does not intend to build a school on the property that will be the principal
use thereof (despite it describing its use as “Recreational, School” (Exhibit “4” - D.1.a)). Rather
the intended principal use of the subject parcel is as an athletic field which either falls within a
13
19 of 29
359
permitted use under the zoning classification of C-1 under amusements if it is to be conducted in
an enclosed building or C-2, M-1, or M-2 if it will not be in an enclosed building.
The Appellate Division Second Department has held that “[w]hile an educational use
may not be wholly excluded from a residential district ( Matter of New York Inst. of Technology
v Le Boutillier, 33 N.Y.2d 125, 130), case law in this State reveals that the concept of
"educational use" does not include activities which are primarily recreational in nature (see,
Matter of Schoen v Bowne, 298 N.Y. 611, affg 273 App Div 1020; Matter of 4M Club v
Andrews, 11 A.D.2d 720; 12 NY Jur 2d, Buildings, Zoning, and Land Controls, § 179, at 178).
Moreover, it has been held that instructional programs involving classes in ceramics and
horsemanship are not educational in nature ( Matter of Schweizer v Board of Zoning Appeals, 8
Misc 2d 878; Village of E. Hampton v Mulford, 188 Misc 1037; see also, Matter of Donegan v
Griffin, 270 App Div 937 [where an order granting a variance for a limited time to permit the
operation, on property in a residential zone, of a riding academy was reversed on the ground that
the record failed to disclose adequate facts for the determination]). More recently, courts have
recognized, albeit in dictum, that the activities of a riding academy are not educational in nature
(see, Matter of Imbergamo v Barclay, 77 Misc 2d 188, 191-192; Incorporated Vil. of Muttontown
v Friscia, 58 Misc2d 912, 913). Such instruction does not constitute a school in the sense
intended by the use of that term in zoning regulations, where the emphasis is on the academic
rather than the recreational (1 Anderson, New York Zoning Law and Practice §§ 11.17, 11.19
[3d ed 1984])." (Asharoken v. Pitassy, 119 A.D.2d 404, 412-413 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)).
Respondent Planning Board failed to make the requisite inquiry and findings that the
project complies with the current zoning of the property and erroneously relied on the August 3,
2007 decision of the West Seneca Zoning Board of Appeals decision based on Respondent
14
20 of 29
360
Canisius anticipated use of the property.
The failure of the Planning Board to detail its findings and analysis in reaching its
decision renders its decision arbitrary and capricious. “[J]udicial review of administrative
determinations is generally limited to the reasons provided by the agency and to the facts and
record adduced before the agency” (Matter of Hutchinson v Annucci, 189 A.D.3d 1850, 1854
[2020]; see Matter of National Fuel Gas Distrib. Corp. v Public Serv. Commn. of the State of
N.Y., 16 N.Y.3d 360, 368 [2011]; see also Matter of Montauk Improvement v Proccacino, 41
N.Y.2d 913, 914 [1977]). However, an unsupported determination cannot stand. “Absent a
predicate in the proof to be found in the record, an unsupported determination must be set aside
as without rational basis and wholly arbitrary” (Metropolitan Taxicab Bd. of Trade v New York
City Taxi & Limousine Commn., 18 N.Y.3d 329, 334 [2011] [internal quotation marks, brackets,
ellipses and citations omitted]). There is nothing in the minutes of Respondent Planning Board
that this issue was even considered, let alone decided.
A decision of an administrative agency which neither adheres to its own prior precedent
nor indicates its reasons for reaching a different result on essentially the same facts is arbitrary
and capricious" ( Matter of Tall Trees Constr. Corp. v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of
Huntington, 97 N.Y.2d 86, 93 [2001] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Charles
A. Field Delivery Serv. [Roberts], 66 N.Y.2d 516, 520 [1985] ). This mandates reversal, even if
there may otherwise be evidence in the record sufficient to support the determination (Hamptons,
LLC v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Incorporated Village of East Hampton, 98 A.D.3d 738, 739
[2012] [internal quotation marks omitted]). There is nothing in the administrative record that
explains how this action is different or why Respondent Planning Board departed from its
decision in Matter of Dietrich v Planning Bd. of Town of W. Seneca, 118 A.D.3d 1419 (4th Dept.
15
21 of 29
361
2014).
RESPONDENTS PLANNING BOARD AND TOWN VIOLATED THE

OPEN MEETINGS LAW
The Open Meetings Law is designed to ensure that public business is conducted in an
observable manner; to promote this goal, the provisions of the Open Meetings Law are to be
liberally construed (see, Matter of Gordon v Village of Monticello, 87 N.Y.2d 124, 126-127).
“Every meeting of a public body shall be open to the general public, except that an executive
session of such body may be called and business transacted thereat in accordance with [section
105]” (Public Officers Law § 103 [a]). At such an executive session, i.e., “that portion of a
meeting not open to the general public” (Public Officers Law § 102 [3]), the topics that may be
discussed are circumscribed by statute and include matters involving public safety, proposed,
pending or current litigation, collective bargaining, and matters concerning the appointment or
employment status of a particular person (Public Officers Law § 105 [1]). The purpose of the
Open Meetings Law is to prevent public bodies from debating and deciding in private matters
that they are required to debate and decide in public, i.e., “deliberations and decisions that go
into the making of public policy” (Matter of Sciolino v Ryan, 81 A.D.2d 475, 477 [1981]; see
Matter of Gordon v Village of Monticello, 87 N.Y.2d 124, 126-127 [1995], revg 207 A.D.2d 55
[1994] insofar as appealed from on other grounds). In this case, Respondent Planning Board
violated the Open Meetings Law after being advised of its obligations by failing to provide the
materials required by POL § 103[e]. Given the overriding purpose of the Open Meetings Law,
section 103[e] is to be liberally construed, and the proffered excuse of not providing these
materials will be carefully scrutinized “lest the . . . mandate [of the Open Meetings Law] be
thwarted by thinly veiled references to the areas delineated thereunder” (Daily Gazette Co. v
16
22 of 29
362
Town Bd., Town of Cobleskill, 111 Misc 2d 303, 304 [Sup Ct, Schoharie County 1981]; see e.g.
Matter of Gordon v. Monticello, 207 A.D.2d 55 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)).
Here, Respondents Planning Board and Town utilize a high speed internet connection and
maintains a regularly and routinely updated website, which can be accessed at
http://www.westseneca.net/ (Pet. ¶ 15). Respondent Planning Board was prepared prior to the
hearing at which the negative SEQRA declaration were approved, yet the negative SEQRA
declaration, and Parts 2 & 3 of the EAF were not posted on the Respondent Planning Board’s
website prior to the hearing (Pet. ¶¶ 97 – 99). There is no reason that posting this material was
not practicable. This deprived Petitioner the ability to address this material prior during the
public hearing and prior to Respondent Planning Board taking action on it (Pet. ¶¶ 100 – 103).
As a result, the adoption of the Resolutions was made in violation of Public Officers Law §
103(e) and should be annulled.
Further, Public Officers Law § 103(a) states “every meeting of a public body shall be
open to the general public, except that an executive session of such body may be called and
business transacted thereat in accordance with section ninety-five of this article.”
Thus, good cause to invalidate the June 9, 2022 negative SEQRA declaration has been
established under the Open Meetings Law as a result of Respondent Planning Board’s depriving
Petitioner and the public of any meaningful participation. (See e.g. Ballard v. New York Safety
Track LLC, 126 A.D.3d 1073 (3d Dep’t 2015) (Furthermore, despite the Town respondents'
insistence that the Town was not obliged or that it was not feasible to make available to
petitioners the proposed 2013 agreement before it was put to a vote, we affirm that part of
Supreme Court's judgment as found that the Town's conduct in that regard denied petitioners
“any meaningful participation” in the process leading to the final adoption of the controversial
17
23 of 29
363
2013 agreement, in clear contravention of Public Officers Law § 103 (e)); Gordon v. Vil. of
Monticello, 87 N.Y.2d 124, 128 (N.Y. 1995) (“where — as here — the court finds that
defendants' actions "took place * * * in such a manner as to circumvent the Open Meetings Law
quorum requirement" ( see, Public Officers Law § 105), that defendants later "stretched
credulity" in describing their conduct to the court, that there was good cause shown to void the
actions taken (Public Officers Law § 107), and that there had been "obvious prejudice" to
plaintiffs as a result of defendants' intentional and deceitful conduct, an award of fees is
justified”); In Re Appl. of BHOD v. New York, 2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 50461 (N.Y. Misc. 2009)
(“Good cause to void a decision may also be found where there is "prejudice to the public" (
Warren v Giambra, 12 Misc 3d 650, 655).”)).
APPLICABLE STANDARD FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Upon a motion for a preliminary injunction, the party seeking the injunctive relief must
demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence: (1) “a probability of success on the merits;” (2)
“danger of irreparable injury in the absence of an injunction;” and (3) “a balance of equities in its
favor” (Nobu Next Door, LLC v Fine Arts Hous., Inc., 4 N.Y.3d 839, 840 [2005]; see Aetna Ins.
Co. v Capasso, 75 N.Y.2d 860, 862 [1990]; Destiny USA Holdings, LLC v Citigroup Global
Mkts. Realty Corp., 69 A.D.3d 212, 216 [4th Dept 2009]). The standard for a temporary
restraining order is the same as that for a preliminary injunction.
Beginning with the first criteria, “it is not for this court to determine finally the merits of
an action upon a motion for preliminary injunction; rather, the purpose of the interlocutory relief
is to preserve the [s]tatus quo until a decision is reached on the merits” (Tucker v Toia, 54
A.D.2d 322, 326 [1976]). To that end, “the showing of a [l]ikelihood of success on the merits
required before a preliminary injunction may be . . . issued must not be equated with the showing
18
24 of 29
364
of a [c]ertainty of success” (Tucker v Toia, 54 A.D.2d at 326; see Cooperstown Capital, LLC v
Patton, 60 A.D.3d 1251, 1252-1253 [2009]).
To demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits, it is sufficient for the moving party
to make a prima facie showing of his or her right to relief (see Gambar Enters. v Kelly Servs., 69
A.D.2d 297, 306 [4th Dept 1979]), and the actual proving of the case “should be left to the full
hearing on the merits” (Tucker v Toia, 54 A.D.2d 322, 326 [4th Dept 1976]). A reduced degree
of proof is sufficient when denial of injunctive relief would allow the defendant to proceed in a
manner that would render the final judgment ineffectual. (Schlosser v. United Presbyterian
Home, Inc., 56 A.D.2d 615).
In conjunction with likelihood of success, the existence of factual disputes in the record
does not necessarily preclude the issuance of preliminary injunctive relief, which would preserve
the status quo and result in no harm or prejudice to the enjoined party (see, Melvin v. Union
College, 195 A.D.2d 447, 448 (2nd Dept 1993); Preferred Equities Corp. v. Ziegelman, 155
A.D.2d 424, 426 (2nd Dept 1989); Mr. Natural v. Unadulterated Food Prods., 152 A.D.2d 729,
730 (2nd Dept 1989); CPLR § 6312(c); Council of NYC v. Giuliani, 248 A.D.2d 1 (1st Dept
1998)).
It must also be noted that the moving party need not demonstrate a likelihood of success
with respect to all causes of action (see e.g. Butt v Malik, 106 A.D.3d 849, 850 [2013]).
If the above arguments on the merits do not establish Petitioner’s entitlement to relief as a
matter of law, it establishes a likelihood of success on the merits.
IRREPARABLE INJURY
Without a preliminary injunction pending judicial review of this admirative decision, this
action would be moot and a valuable opportunity to assess this project’s effect on the
19
25 of 29
365
environment, important to Petitioner and the community, and a constitutional right under the
Green Amendment, would be lost. Petitioner, and the community, will suffer immediate and
irreparable injury in that the environment will be irrevocably altered without appropriate review
and mitigation if an injunction is not issued preventing Respondent Canisius from any
construction or other activities on the Subject Parcel pending the hearing and determination of
this proceeding. This temporary restraining order/preliminary injunction is necessary to protect
the status quo and Petitioner’s constitutional right under the Green Amendment for a limited time
for this summary proceeding to be decided on its merits. Petitioner has established that failure to
preserve the status quo would result in deprivation of its constitutional right to due process.
Petitioner asserts that it would be a denial of Due Process of Law pursuant to the U.S.
Constitution (People v. Novak, 30 N.Y.3d 222; People v. Harrison, 27 N.Y.3d 281, 286 [2016]).
This alone demonstrates irreparable harm.
BALANCE OF EQUITIES
To satisfy the third prong of the preliminary injunction standard, the movant must
establish that the injury it would sustain is more burdensome to it than the harm that would be
caused to the non-movant through the imposition of the injunction (Winter Bros. Recycling Corp.
v. Jet Sanitation Serv. Corp., 23 Misc. 3d 1115[A], 2009 NY Slip Op. 50753[U] (Sup. Ct.
Nassau County Mar. 13, 2009); Fischer v. Deitsch, 168 A.D.2d 599, 601 (2d Dept. 1990)).
On the other hand, Respondent Canisius will not suffer any injury by waiting to construct
its expanded athletic fields that it has already put off for approximately 15 years. Strongly
tipping the scales in favor of the preliminary injunction is the necessity of preserving Petitioner's
constitutional right to a judicial determination of the respective interests of the parties.
Under these circumstances, a balancing of the equities weighs heavily in favor of the
20
26 of 29
366
Petitioner. (See, Matter of Dreikausen v. Zoning Bd. Of Appeals of City of Long Beach, 98
N.Y.2d 165 (2002); Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12, 18; Matter of Mitchell, 40 N.Y.2d 153, 157
(1976)).
UNDERTAKING
CPLR § 6312(b) requires the movant to post a bond contemporaneously with the issuance
of a preliminary injunction order. The amount to be posted is a matter within the sound
discretion of the court (Lelekakis v. Kamamis, 303 A.D.2d 380, 380 (2d Dept. 2003)). However,
the amount of the undertaking must be rationally related to the amount of the non-movant’s
potential liability if the preliminary injunction later proves to be unwarranted. Id. at 381. The
purpose of the undertaking therefore is to secure for the non-movant the actual losses and costs –
not theoretical losses, “if it is later finally determined that the preliminary injunction was
erroneously granted.” Id. at 380. Mere conclusory assertions of potential monetary loss are
insufficient to justify anything more than a minimal bond (7th Sense, Inc. v. Liu, 220 A.D.2d
215, 217 (1st Dept. 1995)).
The federal courts in similar cases under the National Environmental Protection Act,
have regularly recognized the special role that petitioners play in upholding these rights.
Furthermore, since SEQRA was modeled after NEPA, it has long been held that NEPA cases
provide appropriate precedents for SEQRA Law (See, e.g., Branch Assocs. v. Department of
Environmental Conservation, 146 Misc.2d 334 (Sup. Ct. Albany 1989); Glenhead-Glenwood
Landing Civic Council, Inc. v. Town Oyster Bay, 109 Misc.2d 376, 387 (Sup. Ct. Nassau Co.,
1981), aff’d 88 A.D.2d 484 (2nd Dept. 1982) (The court "looked to the federal courts for
guidance"); Ecology Action v. Van Cort, 99 Misc.2d 664, 667 (Sup. Ct. Tompkins Co., 1979)
(the federal decisions are relevant as SEQRA was closely patterned upon NEPA). See, e.g.,
21
27 of 29
367
F.3d 1168 (2nd Cir. 1995) (recognizing, in the context of the federal analogue (F.R.C.P. 65) to
CPLR § 6312, the public interest exception affirming the waiver of the requirement that the
movants post an undertaking)). The federal courts in NEPA cases have early on recognized the
special role that Petitioners play. Therefore, it has been stated that it "is common for courts in
environmental cases brought by environmental groups or individuals of limited means,
particularly in NEPA cases to require little or no security". David Reisel, Temporary Restraining
Orders, Preliminary Injunction and in Environmental Litigation, 885 A.L.I.-A.B.A. 899, 955
(1996) (citing numerous cases): see also Charles A. Wright et. al., 11 A. Federal Practice and
Procedure Civil Second Section 2954 (1995); see also People Ex rel. Van de Kamp v. Tahoe
Regional Planning Agency, 766 F.2d 1319 (9th Cir. 1985) (where the court waived the bond
requirement where requiring bond would effectively deny access to judicial review.); Friends of
the Earth, Inc. v. Brinegar, 518 F.2d 322 (9th Cir. 1975) (bond reduced from $4,500,000 to
$1,000 in NEPA suit involving expansion of San Francisco Airport); Viavant. Trans-Delta Oil &
Gas Co., 7 ERC 1423, 1426 (l0th Cir. 1974) ($100.00 bond in NEPA case); Highlands Conserv.
v. Island Creek Coal, 441 F.2d 232 (4th Cir. 1971) ($100.00 bond in a NEPA case where the
Nature Conservancy argued that mining activities would disrupt scenic and historic areas);
Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Morton, 337 F.Supp. 167 (D.C.C.D., 1971) (waiving
bond requirements of FRCP 65).
CONCLUSION
The Petition should be granted in its entirety.
22
28 of 29
368

Yours, etc.

Daniel T. Warren
Plaintiff, Pro Se
716-288-6724
CERTIFICATION
I, DANIEL T. WARREN., as Petitioner, pro se, hereby certify the following:
Pursuant to Uniform Rule 202.8-b, the above Memorandum is 6,887 words, excluding the
caption, table of contents, table of authorities, and signature block. I further certify the foregoing
complies with the 7,000-word limit for memoranda set forth in Uniform Rule 202.8-b.

Yours, etc.

Daniel T. Warren
Plaintiff, Pro Se
716-288-6724
23
29 of 29
369
Order to Show Cause dated August 18, 2022
10:55 AM
FILED: ERIE COUNTY CLERK 08/18/2022 10:49 INDEX NO. 808016/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 40
1 of 3
370
10:55 AM
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 40
2 of 3
371
10:55 AM
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 40
3 of 3
372
Affidavit of Daniel T. Warren dated August 11, 2022, with Exhibits “A” through “H”
STATE O F N EW YO RK COUNTY O F ERIE

SUPREME COURT
Index # 808016/2022
For a Judgment Pursuant to CPLR Articles 30
and 78, PETITIONER' S AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT
OF O RD ER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR
Daniel T. Warren PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Petitioner,
Against Hon. Mark J. Grisanti, J.S.C
Assigned Justice
The Planning Board of the Town of West
Seneca, Town of West Seneca, New York and
Canisi us High School of Buffa lo, New York,
by and through Fr. David C iancim ino, SJ. , as
its President.
Respondents
State of New York )

Co unty of Erie ) ss:
Dan iel T. Warren, being du ly sworn , deposes and says:
1. I am the Petitioner in this proceeding, and I am fully familiar with the facts related
th ereto. This affidavit is based on my own personal knowledge except when indicated
that such is based upon informat ion and belief as such deponent verily believes same.
2. Thi s proceedi ng cha llenges the determ inatio ns of the Town Respondents issuance ofa
negative SEQRA declaration and approval of Respondent Canisius' application for site
plan review. In a prio r proceed ing Justice Siwek held that the Town Respondents lacked
jurisdiction to take action as th ey did in their June 10, 2021 conditional approval due to
failure to comply with General Munic ipal Law § 239-m . Petitioner asserts in this current
proceed ing that the Town Responde nts still have not complied with GML § 239-m.
Additionally, Petitioner maintains that the dete rm inations be set aside due to procedural
and substantiv e defects in the SEQRA process, Town Law § 274-a, West Seneca Town
Code, on violations of the Open Meetings Law.
1 of 5
373
3. This proceedin g was commenced by the filing of a Verified Petition/Complaint on July
15,2022 (NYSC EF # 1-19). Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit "A" is a true copy of
thi s Veri fi ed Pet ition/Com plai nt.
4. A Memorandum of Law in Support of the Verified Petition/Complaint (NYSCEF #21).
Attached hereto and marked as Ex hibit "B" is a true copy of this Memorandum of Law.
5. This Court exec uted the O rder to Show Cause initiating this proceeding and struck
out/denied the temporary restrai ni ng Order on July 18,2022 (NYSCEF # 25). Attached
hereto and marked as Ex hib it "C" is a true copy of the executed Order to Show Cause.
6. Thi s Order to Show Cause was served according to its terms as evidenced by the
Affidavits of Serv ice (NYSCEF #26, 27, & 28). Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit
" 0 " are true cop ies of these affi dav its of service .
7. Deponent ve ri ly bel ieves he this is a meritorious req uest for a temporary restraining order
and preli m inary injunction enjoini ng Responde nt Canisius from making any changes to
the property pending the determ inat ion of the proceeding cha llenging the Town
Respondent issuance of a negative SEQRA dec laration and approval of Respondent
Cani sius' application for site plan rev iew as detailed in the Verified Petition/Complaint
(Exhi bit "A" ~ 124-134) and th e accompany ing Memorandum of Law (Exhibit " B"
pages 18 to 22) which are incorporated herein by refe rence.
8. The foll ow ing facts were not presented on the prio r request for a temporary restraining
order.
9. Respo ndent Canis ius anno un ced its intentio n to begin work on this property by the end of
the month according to a Buffal o News atii c le entitled "Canisius High School gets OK to
construct new baseball fields in West Seneca" dated Jul y 15,2022, attached hereto and
2 of 5
374
marked as Exhibit "E" is a true copy o f this atticle.
10. In this article it is reported that "Edward Cosgrove, atto rney for Canisius, said
construction should start 'as soon as possible, by the end of this month. '"
I I . On August 9, 2022, Deponent personally observed construction eq uipment on the
property of Respondent Can isius located at 2448 & 2885 Clinton Street, Town of West
Seneca, County of Erie, and State of N ew Yo rk the prope rty that is the subject of this
proceeding.
12. Bye-mail on August 10,2022, Deponent inqu ired of opposing counsel if they will state
that construction will not start or take place pending the heari ng of this proceeding.
Attached hereto and marked as Ex hibit "F" is a true co py of this e-mail.
I 3. Opposing Co un sel replied with no such ass urance. Attached he reto and marked as
Exhibit "G" is a true copy of the ir respective responses.
14. Pursuant to 22 NYCRR §§ 202 .7(f), 202.8-e depon ent has made a good fa ith effort to
g ive opposing counsel notification bye-mai l onAugu stII .2022.at 9:30 a.m. that I
wou ld be submitting th is applicati on to the Court on Friday, August 12, 2022, at 9:30
a.m .
15. Petiti oner sho ul d be granted immediate relief pending the hearing of thi s motion for a
preliminary injunction in order to prevent immediate and irreparabl e harm.
16. If construction is allowed to co mmen ce it w ill be in vio lation of Deponent's rights
respecting the subject of the action and tending to render th e j udgment ineffectual ; and/or
that the Deponent has demanded and wou ld be entitled to a judgment restraining the
defendant from the commission or con tinuance of an act, which, if committed or
continued du ring the pendency of the action, wo ul d prod uce injury to Deponent in that it
3 of 5
375
w ill irrevers ibl y change the environm ent w ithout adequate environme ntal revi ew which
monetary damages would be inadeq uate to rem edy in vio lati on of SEQ RA and Article ] §
19 of the N ew York Constitutio n.
17. Given the environmen ta l issues in volved in th is proceed ing De po nent believes that a
temporary restrain ing order and pre lim inary injunction is necessary to preserve th e status
q uo particu larly since the prior a pproval of thi s proj ect was successfully cha lle nged .
Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit " H" is a true copy of this Order and Jud gment.
18. Deponent is prepared to have thi s proceed ing dete rm ined on the merits in a n exped ited
manner rather than on its current schedu led return date of Se ptember 28, 2022.
19. Deponent is pre pared to fi le his Reply papers within 7 days of Res ponde nts fi li ng the ir
return and Answers or other respons ive plead ing.
20 . Deponent respectfully request that this motion be heard via Teams, or alternatively, that
deponent be a llowed to appear by Teams. The basis for this request is th at De ponent is
currently experiencing a medical issue and is current ly lim ited in my mo bility as a res ult.
21 . Depo nent respectfully requests a temporary restrain ing order pend ing the hear ing of thi s
app lication for a preliminary inj unction.
22 . The temporary restraining order and prel imi nary injuncti on soug ht he re in is not d irected
to any public officer, board or muni cipal corporation of the state and is therefo re in
accordance with CPLR § 6313 .
23. In accordance wi th CPLR § 2217(b), no prior appl ication fo r the re lief req uested here in
has been made for the req uested re lief except as deta iled abo ve.
24. Th is app l ication is brought by order to show cause to obtain interim relief and to obtain a
return date on th is app lication that is earl ie r than the retu rn date of the hearing on this
4 of 5
376
proceeding.
25. Deponent has no adequate at law.

remedy
aniel T. Warren
S orn to bef me this
/__ day o f gust 2022
LEE PRESSER
Notary Public - State of New York
No. 01PR6239260
I H I S R E MD T E D T A R I A L ACT
Qualified in Westchester County
Certificate filed in Bronx & New York Counti I N V OL V E D I H E II 9 E 0 F
My Commission Expires April 18, 20 C OMMUN I C AT I 0 N T E C H N OL O S Y .
ary
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Uniform Rule 202.8-b. the abov e Arlidavit is 1.059 words, the caption,
excluding
table of contents, table o f authorities, and signature block. I further the foregoing
certify
complies with the 7,000-word limit set fortil in Uniform Rule 202.8-b.
DATED: August I 1. 2022

Yours, etc.
Daniel T. 'arren
Petitioner, Pro Se
7 16-288-6724
5 of 5
377
Exhibit “A” - Verified Petition/Complaint
THIS IS A DUPLICATE
DOCUMENT PREVIOUSLY
REPRODUCED IN THIS
RECORD AT 129-340
378
Exhibit “B” - Memorandum of Law
THIS IS A DUPLICATE
DOCUMENT PREVIOUSLY
REPRODUCED IN THIS
RECORD AT 341-369
379
Exhibit “C” - Signed Order to Show Cause
THIS IS A DUPLICATE
DOCUMENT PREVIOUSLY
REPRODUCED IN THIS
RECORD AT 370-372
380
Exhibit “D” - Affidavits of Service

Exhibit “D”
381
08/12/2022 12:51
AM INDEX NO. 808016/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 34
07/24/2022
Erie County DANIEL T. WARREN
Supreme Court 836 INDIAN CHURCH ROAD
State of New York WEST SENECA, NY 14224
DANIEL T. WARREN
Plaintiff(s)
- against - AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE

CORP/BUSINESS ENTITY
The Planning Board of the Town
Seneca, of West Town of
West New York and Canisius High School of Index #: 808016/2022
Seneca,
Filing Date: 07/20/2022
Buffalo, New York, by and through Fr. David Ciancimino,
SJ., as its President.
Defendant(s)
STATE OF NEW YORK or Job #: 7057775

)
) ss:
COUNTY OF ERIE )
Joseph Jeziorowski, being duly sworn, deposes and says: I am over the age of 18 years, not a party to this action, and
reside in the State of New York.
On Friday, July 22, 2022 at 10:29 AM at 1180 Delaware Ave, , BUFFALO, NY 14209
I served a true copy of the within Order to Show Cause, Verified Petition/Complaint, Memorandum of Law and
Notice of Electronic Filing , bearing Index # 808016/2022 and Filing Date 07/20/2022
On Canisius High School a/k/a The Canisius High School of Buffalo, New York in the following manner:
By personally delivering a true copy of the above described documents to Matthew J carver personally, deponent
knew said corporation/business entity served to be the corporation/business entity described therein, and knew said
individual to be the AUTHORIZED AGENT thereof and authorized to accept the service of process.
Approximate Description of Person The Documents Were Left With:

Sex: Male, Skin/Race: Light, Hair Color: Brown, Age: 45-55, Height: 5ft 8in, Weight: 200
Additional Details: CFO and treasurer (president was not in nor was vice president)
Sworn to and subscribed before me on

0 2 J ph Jeziorowski
ProcessServer
WNY Process Service, LLC

Jacq e e L. Balikowski Main Off ice
Co issioner of Deeds 1260 Delaware Ave.
City of Buffalo, State of New York Buffalo, NY 14209
My Commission Expires 12/31/22 Service@WNYProcess.com
1 of 1
382
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 34
07/25/2022
DANIEL T. WARREN
Plaintiff(s)

The Planning Board of the Town of West Seneca, Town of

West Seneca, New York and Canisius High School of Index #: 808016/2022
New and through Fr. David Filing Date: 07/20/2022
Buffalo, York, by Ciancimino,
S.J., as its President.
Defendant(s)
STATE OF NEW YORK our Job #: 7057777

)
) ss:
COUNTY OF ERIE )
Jacqueline L. Balikowski, being duly sworn, deposes and says: I am over the age of 18 years, not a party to this action,
and reside in the State of New York.
On Monday, July 25, 2022 at 10:42 AM at 1250 Union Road , West Seneca, NY 14224
On The Town of WestSeneca, New York in the following manner:
By personally delivering a true copy of the above described documents to amy Kobler personally, deponent knew said
corporation/business entity served to be the corporation/business entity described therein, and knew said individual to
be the Agent for Legal Process thereof and authorized to accept the service of process.

Sex: Female, Skin/Race: Light, Hair Color: Blonde, Age: 45, Height: 5ft 3in, Weight: 160
Military Status: I asked the person served if Defendant(s) was in the military service whatsoever
Sworn to and subscribed before me on 7

Ja ueline L. Balikowski
cess Server

D . V quez Main Office
o is er of Deeds 1260 Delaware Ave.
City of Buffalo, State of New York Buffalo, NY 14209
1 of 1
383
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 34
07/25/2022
DANIEL T. WARREN
Plaintiff(s)

The Planning Board of the Town of West Seneca, Town of

West New York and Canisius High School of Index #: 808016/2022
Seneca,
through Fr. Filing Date: 07/20/2022
Buffalo, New York, by and David Ciancimino,
S.J., as its President.
Defendant(s)
STATE OF NEW YORK our Job #: 7057778 C

)
|.
) ss:
COUNTY OF ERIE -
)
Jacqueline L. Balikowski, being duly sworn, deposes and says: I am over the age of 18 years, not a party to this action,
and reside in the State of New York.
On Monday,July 25, 2022 at 10:42 AM at 1250 Union Road , West Seneca, NY 14224
On Planning Board of the Town of West Seneca in the following manner:
By personally delivering a true copy of the above described documents to amy Kobler personally, deponent knew said
corporation/business entity served to be the corporation/business entity described therein, and knew said individual to
be the Agent for Legal Process thereof and authorized to accept the service of process.

Sex: Female, Skin/Race: Light, Hair Color: Blonde, Age: 45, Height: 5ft 3in, Weight: 160
Military Status: I asked the person served if Defendant(s) was in the military service whatsoever
ubscribed before me on
07/25/2022 J que ine L. Balikowski
cess Server

D . Vasquez Main office
missioner of Deeds 1260 Delaware Ave.
Ci uffalo, State of New York Buffalo, NY 14209
1 of 1
384
Exhibit “E” - Buffalo News Article

Exhibit “E”
385
7/19/22, 5:31 PM Canisius High School gets OK to construct new baseball fields in West Seneca | Education | buffalonews.com
https://buffalonews.com/news/local/education/canisius-high-school-gets-ok-to-construct-new-baseball-fields-in-
west-seneca/article_692f4116-046d-11ed-ba1d-53137b15eb31.html
Canisius High School gets OK to construct new baseball fields in

West Seneca
Barbara O'Brien
Jul 15, 2022
Canisius High School's Robert J. Stransky Memorial Athletic Complex in West Seneca, viewed from above.
Google
Support this work for $1 a month
Barbara O'Brien
C
onstruction could start this month on new baseball fields for Canisius High
School in West Seneca.
But more litigation could stall the work.
https://buffalonews.com/news/local/education/canisius-high-school-gets-ok-to-construct-new-baseball-fields-in-west-seneca/article_692f4116-046d-11… 1/3
386
The West Seneca Planning Board approved the expansion of the Robert J. Stransky
Memorial Athletic Complex just over a year ago, but a resident who lives near the
complex challenged the decision.
Daniel Warren maintained the Planning Board did not adhere to state environmental
law, and a state court ruling sent the plans back to the Planning Board.
Warren wanted the board to issue a declaration that the project could have significant
environmental impacts, which would trigger a lengthy environmental review.
The Planning Board last month determined the project will have no adverse impacts.
People are also reading…

1 Buffalo man accused of stealing fire truck and burglarizing restaurant
2 16 cars stolen from dealership in Hamburg
3 Company that sold Tops gunman body armor left controversial digital trail
4 Saying Trump 'lost his mind,' Jacobs urges GOP to choose another nominee
in 2024
On Thursday, the Planning Board approved the site plan. On Friday, Warren filed
new legal papers asking the State Supreme Court to declare all actions taken by
Planning Board on Canisius’ application for site plan review to be null and void.
Canisius wants to construct one artificial turf varsity field and one junior varsity field.
Plans call for four dugouts, bleachers, a batting cage and a press box.
The $3 million project is the third phase of development on the school-owned

property at 2885 Clinton St.
Edward Cosgrove, attorney for Canisius, said construction should start "as soon as
possible, by the end of this month."
387
By Barbara O'Brien
Reporter
I grew up in Rochester, graduated from St. Bonaventure University and worked in radio before
joining The Buffalo News. I report on issues in local communities. Over the years I have covered
stories in every town in Erie County.
388
Exhibit “F” - Email to Respondents' Counsel

Exhibit “F”
389
Re: 2030-36 RE: Erie - Special Proceedings - CPLR Article 78 - <ORDER TO SHOW
CAUSE - ACCOMPANYING COMMENCEMENT DOC(S) (PROPOSED)> 808016/2022
(Daniel T Warren v. The Planning Board of the Town of West Seneca et al)
Daniel T Warren <d.warren@roadrunner.com> Wed, Aug 10, 2022 at 8:21 AM

To: "Chris G. Trapp" <cgtrapp@grecolawyers.com>, "J. Michael Lennon" <eccosgrove@cosgrovelawfirm.com>
Counselors,
I see that there is construction equipment on the subject property. This leads me to believe that construction is either
imminent before this matter is to be heard or is already underway. If I don't receive your assurance that such is not the
case and no construction will be undertaken until this matter is decided by the close of business today, I will request a
conference with the Court to discuss a TRO and expedited briefing and hearing schedule.
Yours,
Dan Warren
On Wed, Jul 27, 2022 at 1:46 PM Chris G. Trapp <cgtrapp@grecolawyers.com> wrote:
Due to other pressing matters, I am not agreeable to expediting this matter and will adhere to the Court’s schedule.
cgt
Chris G. Trapp, Esq.
Greco Trapp, PLLC
1700 Rand Building
14 Lafayette Square
Tel: (716) 856-5800
Fax: (716) 856-5801
Email: cgtrapp@grecolawyers.com
*******************************************
In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we advise you that unless otherwise expressly stated, any discussion of a federal
tax issue in this communication or in any attachment is not intended to be used, and it cannot be used, for the purpose of federal tax penalties.
*******************************************
NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIALITY
THIS TRANSMITTAL AND ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENTS ARE INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WHICH
IT IS
ADDRESSED AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED, CONFIDENTIAL AND EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER APPLICABLE
LAW. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the
intended recipient,
you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error,
please notify us immediately by collect telephone call to the above telephone
number. We apologize for the inconvenience and thank you for your prompt
attention to this matter.
390
From: Daniel T Warren <d.warren@roadrunner.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2022 9:10 AM
To: Chris G. Trapp <cgtrapp@grecolawyers.com>; J. Michael Lennon <eccosgrove@cosgrovelawfirm.com>
Subject: Re: 2030-36 RE: Erie - Special Proceedings - CPLR Article 78 - <ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE -
ACCOMPANYING COMMENCEMENT DOC(S) (PROPOSED)> 808016/2022 (Daniel T Warren v. The Planning Board
of the Town of West Seneca et al)
Counselors,
Attached are the affidavits of service for your respective clients. I am prepared to proceed in this matter in a more
expedited manner than the Court currently has this matter on track for, all I require is your respective papers at least
7
days before any return date in order to prepare a Reply.
Yours, etc.
Dan Warren
On Tue, Jul 19, 2022 at 4:01 PM Chris G. Trapp <cgtrapp@grecolawyers.com> wrote:
Just so that the record is clear, I was out of the office all day yesterday and did not see any notices from Mr. Warren
until today. cgt
Greco Trapp, PLLC
1700 Rand Building
14 Lafayette Square
Tel: (716) 856-5800
Fax: (716) 856-5801
*******************************************
*******************************************
THIS TRANSMITTAL AND ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENTS ARE INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WHICH IT
IS ADDRESSED AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED,
CONFIDENTIAL AND EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER
APPLICABLE LAW. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. If you have received this
communication in error, please notify us immediately by collect telephone call to the above telephone number. We apologize for the inconvenience and
thank you for your prompt
391

Sent: Monday, July 18, 2022 4:03 PM
To: kvacco@nycouyrt.gov;
broestel@nycourts.gov
Cc: Chris G. Trapp <cgtrapp@grecolawyers.com>; J. Michael Lennon <eccosgrove@cosgrovelawfirm.com>
Subject: Erie - Special Proceedings - CPLR Article 78 - <ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - ACCOMPANYING
COMMENCEMENT DOC(S) (PROPOSED)> 808016/2022 (Daniel T Warren v. The Planning Board of the Town of
West Seneca et al)
Dear Kelly Vacco, Esq. and Brigitte Roestel
I just received notification that Justice Grisanti has been assigned to this Article 78 proceeding. In accordance with
Rule 202.8-e and 202.7(f) I provided opposing counsel of
me presenting this Order to Show Cause and asked as to
their availability by way of the below email. As of this time I have not received any response from opposing counsel.
Please advise of Justice Grisanti's availability to have a conference with all parties
so that the proposed Order to
Show Cause may be presented to the Court.
Yours, etc.
Daniel Warren
---------- Forwarded message ---------
Date: Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 11:40 AM
Subject: 808016/2022 Daniel T Warren v. The Planning Board of the Town of West Seneca, Canisius, et al
To: J. Michael Lennon <eccosgrove@cosgrovelawfirm.com>, Chris G. Trapp <cgtrapp@grecolawyers.com>
Counselors,
Attached is my proposed Order to Show Cause with Temporary Restraining Order and the papers it is based upon
together with a Notice of Commencement. The RJI has just been filed
and I am awaiting a Judge to be assigned.
Once a Judge is assigned I will ask for a conference date/time to present the Order to Show Cause for review and
signature. Please advise as to your availability and if you are willing to waive service.
Yours,
Daniel Warren
392
Exhibit “G” - Respondents' Counsel responses

Exhibit “G”
393
Re: 2030-36 RE: Erie - Special Proceedings - CPLR Article 78 - <ORDER TO SHOW
eccosgrove@cosgrovelawfirm.com eccosgrove@cosgrovelawfirm.com Wed, Aug 10, 2022 at

<eccosgrove@cosgrovelawfirm.com> 3:47 PM
To: Daniel T Warren <d.warren@roadrunner.com>, "Chris G. Trapp" <cgtrapp@grecolawyers.com>
Mr. Warren:

This will acknowledge receipt of your e-mail sent to our office this morning with respect to your
Order to Show Cause filed on July 18, 2022, and signed by the Hon. Mark J. Grisanti, J.S.C., on
that date. I understand that a separate copy of this morning’s e-mail was sent to Christopher G.
Trapp, Esq., who represents my client’s co-respondents, Town of West Seneca and Planning
Board.

My office is also in receipt of Mr. Trapp’s e-mail response sent to you earlier today. I join with Mr.
Trapp in noting that your prior request for a temporary restraining order was denied by Justice
Grisanti. I will oppose any request made to the Court for a conference and an expedited
scheduling order on that ground, and because my office has already scheduled work for other of
our clients around the due dates set forth in Justice Grisanti’s Order.

Edward C. Cosgrove

On 08/10/2022 8:21 AM EDT Daniel T Warren <d.warren@roadrunner.com> wrote:

Counselors,

I see that there is construction equipment on the subject property. This leads me to believe that
construction is either imminent before this matter is to be heard or is already underway. If I don't receive
your assurance that such is not the case and no construction will be undertaken until this matter is decided
by the close of business today, I will request a conference with the Court to discuss a TRO and expedited
briefing and hearing schedule.

Yours,

Dan Warren
Due to other pressing matters, I am not agreeable to expediting this matter and will adhere to
the Court’s schedule. cgt
394
Greco Trapp, PLLC
1700 Rand Building
14 Lafayette Square
Tel: (716) 856-5800
Fax: (716) 856-5801
*******************************************
In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we advise you that unless otherwise expressly stated, any
discussion of a federal
tax issue in this communication or in any attachment is not intended to be used, and it cannot be used, for the purpose of
federal tax penalties.
*******************************************
THIS TRANSMITTAL AND ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENTS ARE INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE
INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WHICH IT IS ADDRESSED AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED,
CONFIDENTIAL AND EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER APPLICABLE LAW. If the reader of this message is not
the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. If you have received
this communication in error, please notify us immediately by collect telephone call to the above telephone number. We
apologize for the inconvenience and thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.
To: Chris G. Trapp <cgtrapp@grecolawyers.com>; J. Michael Lennon

<eccosgrove@cosgrovelawfirm.com>
Subject: Re: 2030-36 RE: Erie - Special Proceedings - CPLR Article 78 - <ORDER TO
SHOW CAUSE - ACCOMPANYING COMMENCEMENT DOC(S) (PROPOSED)>
808016/2022 (Daniel T Warren v. The Planning Board of the Town of West Seneca et al)
Counselors,
Attached are the affidavits of service for your respective clients. I am prepared to proceed in
this matter in a more expedited manner than the Court currently has this matter on track for,
all I require is your respective papers at least 7 days before any return date in order to
prepare a Reply.
Yours, etc.
Dan Warren

395
Just so that the record is clear, I was out of the office all day yesterday and did
not see any notices from Mr. Warren until today. cgt
Greco Trapp, PLLC
1700 Rand Building
14 Lafayette Square
Tel: (716) 856-5800
Fax: (716) 856-5801
*******************************************
In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we advise you that unless otherwise
expressly stated, any discussion of a federal
tax issue in this communication or in any attachment is not intended to be used, and it cannot be used,
for the purpose of federal tax penalties.
*******************************************
THIS TRANSMITTAL AND ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENTS ARE INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE
OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WHICH IT IS ADDRESSED AND MAY CONTAIN
INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED, CONFIDENTIAL AND EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER
APPLICABLE LAW. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent
responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. If you have received this
communication in error, please notify us immediately by collect telephone call to the above telephone
number. We apologize for the inconvenience and thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.
To: kvacco@nycouyrt.gov; broestel@nycourts.gov
Cc: Chris G. Trapp <cgtrapp@grecolawyers.com>; J. Michael Lennon

<eccosgrove@cosgrovelawfirm.com>
Subject: Erie - Special Proceedings - CPLR Article 78 - <ORDER TO SHOW

CAUSE - ACCOMPANYING COMMENCEMENT DOC(S) (PROPOSED)>
808016/2022 (Daniel T Warren v. The Planning Board of the Town of West
Seneca et al)
I just received notification that Justice Grisanti has been assigned to this Article
78 proceeding. In accordance with Rule 202.8-e and 202.7(f) I provided
opposing counsel of me presenting this Order to Show Cause and asked as to
their availability by way of the below email. As of this time I have not received
any response from opposing counsel. Please advise of Justice Grisanti's
396
availability to have a conference with all parties so that the proposed Order to
Show Cause may be presented to the Court.
Yours, etc.
Daniel Warren
Subject: 808016/2022 Daniel T Warren v. The Planning Board of the Town of

West Seneca, Canisius, et al
To: J. Michael Lennon <eccosgrove@cosgrovelawfirm.com>, Chris G. Trapp

<cgtrapp@grecolawyers.com>
Counselors,
Attached is my proposed Order to Show Cause with Temporary Restraining

Order and the papers it is based upon together with a Notice of
Commencement. The RJI has just been filed and I am awaiting a Judge to be
assigned. Once a Judge is assigned I will ask for a conference date/time to
present the Order to Show Cause for review and signature. Please advise as to
your availability and if you are willing to waive service.
Yours,
Daniel Warren
397
RE: 2030-36 RE: Erie - Special Proceedings - CPLR Article 78 - <ORDER TO SHOW
Chris G. Trapp <cgtrapp@grecolawyers.com> Wed, Aug 10, 2022 at 10:05 AM

To: Daniel T Warren <d.warren@roadrunner.com>, "J. Michael Lennon" <eccosgrove@cosgrovelawfirm.com>
Your prior request for a TRO was denied and we will oppose any request for both a conference and an expedited briefing
schedule. We have scheduled other things around the due dates in this matter and will not be agreeable to moving things
simply to accommodate you wishes. The other defendant is aware of the risks of undertaking any work in the event that
the Court agrees with your position which may require them to undo what was done. That is for them to decide if the risk
is worth it. cgt
Greco Trapp, PLLC
1700 Rand Building
14 Lafayette Square
Tel: (716) 856-5800
Fax: (716) 856-5801
*******************************************
*******************************************
THIS TRANSMITTAL AND ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENTS ARE INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WHICH
IT IS
ADDRESSED AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED, CONFIDENTIAL AND EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER APPLICABLE
LAW. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the
intended recipient,
you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error,
please notify us immediately by collect telephone call to the above telephone
number. We apologize for the inconvenience and thank you for your prompt
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2022 8:21 AM
ACCOMPANYING COMMENCEMENT DOC(S) (PROPOSED)> 808016/2022 (Daniel T Warren v. The Planning Board of
the Town of West Seneca et al)
398

Counselors,
I see that there is construction equipment on the subject property. This leads me to believe that construction is either
imminent before this matter is to be heard or is already underway. If I don't receive your assurance that such is
not the
case and no construction will be undertaken until this matter is decided by the close of business today, I will request a
conference with the Court to discuss a TRO and expedited briefing and hearing schedule.
Yours,
Dan Warren
Due to other pressing matters, I am not agreeable to expediting this matter and will adhere to the Court’s schedule.
cgt
Greco Trapp, PLLC
1700 Rand Building
14 Lafayette Square
Tel: (716) 856-5800
Fax: (716) 856-5801
*******************************************
*******************************************
THIS TRANSMITTAL AND ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENTS ARE INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WHICH IT IS
ADDRESSED AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED,
CONFIDENTIAL AND EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER APPLICABLE
LAW. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient,
you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error,
please notify us immediately by collect telephone call to the above telephone number. We apologize for the inconvenience and thank you for your prompt
399
ACCOMPANYING COMMENCEMENT DOC(S) (PROPOSED)> 808016/2022 (Daniel T Warren v. The Planning Board
of the Town of West Seneca et al)
Counselors,
Attached are the affidavits of service for your respective clients. I am prepared to proceed in this matter in a more
expedited manner than the Court currently has this matter
on track for, all I require is your respective papers at least 7
days before any return date in order to prepare a Reply.
Yours, etc.
Dan Warren
Just so that the record is clear, I was out of the office all day yesterday and did not see any notices from Mr. Warren
until today. cgt
Greco Trapp, PLLC
1700 Rand Building
14 Lafayette Square
Tel: (716) 856-5800
Fax: (716) 856-5801
*******************************************
*******************************************
THIS TRANSMITTAL AND ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENTS ARE INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WHICH IT
IS ADDRESSED AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED,
CONFIDENTIAL AND EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER
APPLICABLE LAW. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. If you have received this
communication in error, please notify us immediately by collect telephone call to the above telephone number. We apologize for the inconvenience and
thank you for your prompt
400
To: kvacco@nycouyrt.gov;
broestel@nycourts.gov
Cc: Chris G. Trapp <cgtrapp@grecolawyers.com>; J. Michael Lennon <eccosgrove@cosgrovelawfirm.com>
Subject: Erie - Special Proceedings - CPLR Article 78 - <ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - ACCOMPANYING
COMMENCEMENT DOC(S) (PROPOSED)> 808016/2022 (Daniel T Warren v. The Planning Board of the Town of
West Seneca et al)
I just received notification that Justice Grisanti has been assigned to this Article 78 proceeding. In accordance with
Rule 202.8-e and 202.7(f) I provided opposing counsel of
me presenting this Order to Show Cause and asked as to
their availability by way of the below email. As of this time I have not received any response from opposing
counsel. Please advise of Justice Grisanti's availability to have a conference with all parties
so that the proposed
Order to Show Cause may be presented to the Court.
Yours, etc.
Daniel Warren
Subject: 808016/2022 Daniel T Warren v. The Planning Board of the Town of West Seneca, Canisius, et al
To: J. Michael Lennon <eccosgrove@cosgrovelawfirm.com>, Chris G. Trapp <cgtrapp@grecolawyers.com>
Counselors,
Attached is my proposed Order to Show Cause with Temporary Restraining Order and the papers it is based upon
together with a Notice of Commencement. The RJI has just been filed
and I am awaiting a Judge to be assigned.
Once a Judge is assigned I will ask for a conference date/time to present the Order to Show Cause for review and
signature. Please advise as to your availability and if you are willing to waive service.
Yours,
Daniel Warren
401
Exhibit “H” - Order and Judgment in Prior Proceeding

Exhibit “H”
402
08/12/2022 09:24
809040/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 38
06/08/2022
1 of 11
403
08/12/2022 09:24
809040/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 38
06/08/2022
2 of 11
404
08/12/2022 09:24
809040/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 38
06/08/2022
3 of 11
405
06/09/2022 09:44
809040/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 38
06/08/2022
4 of 11
406
06/09/2022 09:44
809040/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 38
06/08/2022
5 of 11
407
06/09/2022 09:44
809040/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 38
06/08/2022
6 of 11
408
06/09/2022 09:44
809040/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 38
06/08/2022
7 of 11
409
08/12/2022 09:24
809040/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 38
06/08/2022
8 of 11
410
06/09/2022 09:44
809040/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 38
06/08/2022
9 of 11
411
06/09/2022 09:44
809040/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 38
06/08/2022
10 of 11
412
06/09/2022 09:44
809040/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 38
06/08/2022
11 of 11
413
Affidavit of J. Michael Lennon, Esq. dated August 24, 2022

SUPREME COURT

And 78
AFFIDAVIT IN OPPOSITION
TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR
Daniel T. Warren, PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Petitioner, Index # 808016/2022

Against
Hon. Mark J. Grisanti, J.S.C

Assigned Justice
Seneca, Town of West Seneca, New York and
Canisius High School of Buffalo, New York,
by and through Fr. David Ciancimino, SJ., as

its President,
Respondents.
State of New York )
County of Erie ) ss:
J. MICHAEL LENNON, ESQ., being duly sworn, deposes and says:
1. I am an attorney at law, duly licensed to practice in the State of New York, and am
associated with Edward C. Cosgrove, Esq., who represents Respondent, Canisius High
School of Buffalo, New York ("Canisius High School"), in the above-referenced
proceeding. As such, I am fully familiar with the facts and circumstances herein.
2. I make this affidavit in opposition to the Order to Show Cause, filed by Petitioner, Daniel
T. Warren, and granted by Hon. Mark J. Grisanti, J.S.C., on August 18, 2022.
3. The Petition herein verified by Mr. Warren on July 14, 2022, and filed on July 15, 2022,
alleges that the process followed by Co-Respondents Town of West Seneca ("West
Seneca") and Town of West Seneca Planning Board ("Planning Board"), in approving
1 of 3
414
Canisius High School's project to construct baseball facilities at its real property located
at 2448/2885 Clinton Street, Town of West Seneca, County of Erie and State of New
York (the "Project") is faulty and it should not have been approved.
4. In opposition to the aforesaid Order to Show Cause, Co-Respondents West Seneca and its
Planning Board have filed the Affidavit of Jeffrey Schieber, Town of West Seneca Code
Enforcement Officer, sworn to by Mr. Schieber on August 22, 2022.
5. Mr. Schieber's Affidavit sets forth in specific detail the process followed by West Seneca
in its approval of the Project, and Canisius High School hereby adopts the facts set forth
in said Affidavit as if more fully set forth herein.
6. Mr. Warren's Petition also alleges that the Canisius High School Project will have a
negative effect upon the Lexington Green berm and the Oxbow property.
7. Attached hereto and made a part hereof is the Affidavit of Brad V. Vaillancourt, AIA,
CSI, LEEDap BD+C. Mr. Vaillancourt is the Vice President and a Principal at Trautman
Associates, the Architect/Engineer of Record, retained by Respondent Canisius High
School for the Project.
8. Mr. Vaillancourt is the Trautman Principal assigned to the Project and is intimately
familiar with the Project, its plans and the documents submitted during the approval
process.
9. Mr. Vaillancourt has reviewed Mr. Warren's allegations regarding the Lexington Green
berm and the Oxbow property, and the purported negative affect which the Canisius High
School Project would have on these two parcels of land.
2 of 3
415
10. Mr. Vaillancourt's Affidavit clearly sets forth his opinion that the Canisius High School
Project will have no negative impact on either the Lexington Green berm or the Oxbow
property.
11. Co-Respondents West Seneca and its Planning Board, in opposition to the instant Order
to Show Cause, also submitted the Affidavit of Steven R. Tanner, P.E., the Consulting
Town Engineer on the Project.
12. Mr. Tanner gives the opinion that the Canisius High School Project, if considered in
combination with the Lexington Green property, would "have no bearing on the
performance and design of the site plan for the Canisius Project".
13. Mr. Tanner also renders the opinion that Mr. Warren's references to the Oxbow property
"misplaced"
are and that "the Canisius Project will not affect anything related to the
Oxbow property".
14. Respondent Canisius High School hereby adopts the Affidavit of Mr. Tanner and the
opinions set forth therein as if more fully set forth in this affidavit.
15. Based upon all of the foregoing, it is respectfully requested that the Petitioner's request
for a preliminary injunction be, in all respects, denied.
J. EL L NNO)¥ÈSQ.
Sworn to before me this 2 4

day of ugust, 2022
No ublic
JAMES C. CORCROVE
Not r
ew York
C
ty
My Commisaon Exgires April 16, 20
3 of 3
416
Affidavit of Brad Vaillancourt dated August 24, 2022

SUPREME COURT

And 78
AFFIDAVIT IN OPPOSITION
TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR
Daniel T. Warren, PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Petitioner, Index # 808016/2022
Against
Hon. Mark J. Grisanti, J.S.C
Assigned Justice
Seneca, Town of WestSeneca, New York and

Canisius High School of Buffalo, New York,
by and through Fr. David Ciancimino, SJ., as

its President,
Respondents.
State of New York )
BRAD V. VAILLANCOURT, AIA, CSI, LEEDap BD+C, being duly sworn, deposes
and says:
l. I am Vice President at Trautman Associates ("Trautman") and have been so employed by
Trautman as an architect since 2007.
2. Trautman Associates is the Architect/Engineer of Record for Respondent Canisius High
School of Buffalo, New York's ("Canisius") project to construct baseball and lacrosse
facilities at its real property located at 2448/2885 Clinton Street, in the Town of West
Seneca, County of Erie and State of New York (the "Project").
1 of 3
417
3. I have been the Trautman Principal, primarily responsible for said Project since its
inception and, as part of my duties, have served as the main contact with the Town of
West Seneca ("West Seneca"), and the Town of West Seneca Planning Board (the
"Planning Board") throughout the Project approval process. As such, I am fully familiar
with the facts and circumstances herein.
4. I make this affidavit in opposition to the Order to Show Cause, filed by Petition, Daniel
T. Warren, and granted by Hon. Mark J. Grisanti, J.S.C., on August 18, 2022.
5. I have reviewed and am fully familiar with all of the documents which have been
submitted to the Planning Board for this Project. I have also reviewed the Verified
Petition filed by Mr. Warren, sworn to on July 14, 2022.
6. Finally, I have reviewed the Affidavits of Steven R. Tanner, P.E., the West Seneca
Consulting Town Engineer, sworn to on August 23, 2022; and, the Affidavit of Jeffrey
Schieber, West Seneca Code Enforcement Officer, also sworn to on August 23, 2022.
7. My attention has specifically been drawn to certain statements made by Mr. Warren in
his Petition alleging that the Project will have a negative impact upon the Lexington
Green berm and the Oxbow Lake properties.
8. In that regard, I have reviewed the Project Scope and the 100-Year Flood Plain for the
area. I advise the Court that contrary to the Petitioner's allegations, the volume of the
100-Year Flood Plain will actually be increased as a result of the Project.
9. Based upon all of the foregoing, it is my professional opinion that the Project will have
no negative impact on either the Lexington Green berm or Oxbow Lake properties.
2 of 3
418
10. Respectfully, Mr. Warren's allegations are without merit and are irrelevant insofar as the
Project is concerned.
BRAD V. VAILLANCOURT
Sworn to this
day of gust 22
/ aÊ Public
JAMES MICHAEL LENNON

Notary Public, State of New York
Qualified in Erie County
My Commission Expires May 31, 20
3 of 3
419
Affirmation of Chris G. Trapp, Esq. dated August 24, 2022
SUPREME COURT: STATE OF NEW YORK

COUNTY OF ERIE
DANIEL T. WARREN,
Petitioner AFFIRMATION
-against- 808016/2022
THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE

TOWN OF WEST SENECA, NEW YORK, ET AL
Respondents
Chris G. Trapp, affirms upon information and belief, that
He is an attorney duly licensed to practice in the State of New York and is a member of
Greco Trapp, PLLC, attorneys for the Town of West Seneca. He is also the Attorney for the
Town having been so appointed on January 3, 2022. By reason of his association with this
matter, he is fully familiar with the facts and circumstances contained herein. He is also counsel
to the Planning Board of the Town of West Seneca and has had an opportunity to review the
submissions relative to this matter and all of the files of the Town.
This affirmation is made in opposition to the Order to Show Cause filed in this matter. It
is respectfully submitted that contrary to the assertions of the Petitioner, while Petitioner does
own property in the Town, by virtue of the allegations in the Petition, the Petitioner's property is
not located in a Federal Wetland area, is outside of any 100 year floodplain (Petition paragraph
29), and not located within even a half a mile from the Project area. Copies of the maps
showing the relevant locations of the properties is hereto attached as Exhibit A. As can be seen
1 of 13
420
from the maps, the Petitioner's property is located in a subdivision well south of the Project area
and even on the other side of Buffalo Creek. While Petitioner contends that it is approximately
2000 feet away from the Canisius property (Petition paragraph 26), the scale on the map
indicates that it is quite a bit further away. Interestingly, in an earlier iteration of this case,
Petitioner said that he was 2500 feet from the Canisius property. (Index No. 809040/2021,
Docket No.1, Paragraph 10). It appears that his house has moved.
Petitioner also goes to great lengths to provide the Court and the parties with a history of
the area through old newspaper accounts and old reports relative to the general area around
Canisius and Lexington Green. What he neglects to advise the Court is what happened in the
prior action and the determination by the Appellate Division. The only action in which it could
be argued that Petitioner prevailed was the action immediately proceeding this latest filing
where the Hon. Donna Siwek, J.S.C. remanded the matter to the Planning Board for further
proceedings consistent with the directives of that court on the issue of the process undertaken by
the Planning Board. As described in the accompanying affidavits, those procedural issues were
addressed and corrected.
As such, it is respectfully argued that Petitioner lacks standing to object to the
swamp-like"
application on the alleged basis that his "marshy and property during periods of
subsided"
rain "and for some time after the rain exists in that fashion before any plans were
even contemplated the co-respondent. (Petition paragraph 69). The existence of the "sump-
by
sump-pump"
pit and predates any application by Canisius (Petition paragraph 70). In essence,
Petitioner already has, by his own admission, even though he is outside of the floodplain, and
well south of the Project area and even south of Buffalo Creek, had water problems in his
2 of 13
421
basement and on his property which is part of a subdivision. Therefore, it cannot be argued that
the proposed Project caused any damages to Petitioner's property.
Petitioner conveniently throws in statements about Federal wetlands, and every other
piece of property in the area (e.g., Oxbow), but is forced to admit in the same statement that the
Project area is not within any wetlands, and by extension, neither is Petitioner's property. The
reason that these allegations are made, it is submitted, is an attempt to raise an issue by using
terms which are otherwise irrelevant in an effort to confuse the Court and opposing counsel.
Being close is not the same as being within and the use of such allegations is an attempt to be
misleading. This is a similar tactic that Petitioner has used in other litigation involving the Town
involving another project that is not located anywhere near his house although it is argued that
similar potential damages could occur. Even now, Petitioner argues that Buffalo Creek is a
Federal waterway, when, in reality, it is the Buffalo River, not Buffalo Creek.
While normally such other matter would not be relevant for purposes of these
proceedings, Petitioner has asked for costs and disbursements be awarded to him in this action.
The Town believes that Petitioner's actions warrant a finding that he has engaged in frivolous
litigation thus warranting the issuance of sanctions against Petitioner especially since it is clear
that the Town has undertaken the proper project review. While it is conceded that Petitioner is
not admitted to practice law in this state and thus more latitude is granted pro se plaintiffs, we
are herein dealing with a claim against a municipal corporation and funds being expended that
come from the taxpayers that are being used to defend claims that, like the other pending case,
have no basis in fact or law and lack the presentation of any supporting evidence. Petitioner is
well acquainted with litigation having sued virtually every form of government at the local,
County, State, and Federal level. He is a litigation machine that seeks to have municipal funds
3 of 13
422
expended in the defense of cases even where he has no standing to pursue them. It is
respectfully submitted that he sues for the sake of the notoriety and almost as a hobby.
Those potential claims are set forth in the Petition. Petitioner does not state, and indeed
cannot allege, that his property has been damaged by virtue of any action by either the Town or
the co-respondent Canisius High School. It cannot be shown because nothing has happened that
is any different than what existed prior to any construction. Petitioner is seeking the Court to
issue an anticipatory ruling when no justiciable controversy exists. Petitioner has not alleged
that the Canisius athletic fields that already exist at the Project area have damaged his property,
only that if the Project is allowed to be built, it will negatively impact the environment on his
property and he will be compelled to expend money. Other than his bland, unsubstantiated
statements, there is no evidence that either the property will be affected or that any damages will
be definitively and proximately caused by either the Town or Canisius.
72nd
The paragraph of the Petition raises even more unsupported suppositions that there
traffic"
will be "blight", an "increased risk of being a victim of crime", an "increase in and "lack
parking"
of [even though it is on the other side of Buffalo Creek and not near his home],
"changes in the quantity and quality of the groundwater", and the effect upon the nearby federal
wetlands. What is absolutely missing, however, from any of the papers submitted by the
Petitioner is any evidence supporting his bald allegations. Petitioner alleges a great deal about
the need for injunctive relief, but those conclusory statements are unsupported by any expert
reports.
What is included are studies and documents galore about the area in general without any
specific reference to Petitioner's property. Many of the documents are fifteen or more years old
and it is clear that Petitioner is arguing that the Canisius project from years ago should never
4 of 13
423
have been approved. The time to challenge that has long since expired and something that the
Petitioner already tried to argue in a prior action. How many bites at the same apple will he be
permitted to take?
More specifically, Petitioner raises multiple causes of action with respect to the Town of
West Seneca and the Planning Board. In the first cause of action, Petitioner argues that a
quorum was not present for purposes of the meetings. Such a statement, however, is in direct
contradiction to the meeting minutes which clearly show that a majority of the Board was
present for each meeting. Furthermore, as set forth in the accompanying affidavit of the Code
Enforcement Officer, even though every possible agency and other body that might have
challenged a determination of lead agency status (e.g., Army Corps of Engineers, County of
Erie, Department of Environmental Conservation, SHPO, etc.) were notified of the proceedings,
not one other agency challenged either the determination or the submission by the Town as lead
agency. As an individual, that right to act as lead agency does not fall to Petitioner.
Furthermore, Petitioner claims that the Planning Board violated General Construction
Law 41 by acting as the lead agency on the project for SEQRA purposes. Petitioner's argument
is unmeritorious. Petitioner incorrectly argues that the Planning Board could not act as the lead
agency for the project without voting to do so. 6 NYCRR 617.6(b)(1), titled "Establishing lead
agency,"
says that "When a single agency is involved, that agency will be the lead agency when
it proposes to undertake, fund or approve a Type I or Unlisted action that does not involve
agency."
another This project meets the definition of a Type I action under 6 NYCRR
acres."
617.4(b)(6)(i) as "a project or action that involves the physical alteration of 10 6
lagency" agency."
NYCRR 617.2(c) states that simply means "a state or local The Planning
5 of 13
424
Board is the only agency involved in this project. Thus, per 6 NYCRR 617.6(b)(1), the Planning
Board must be the lead agency for the project.
Petitioner's argument that the Planning Board is an illegitimate lead agency because they
did not take a vote to appoint a lead agency for the project lacks merit and is not supported by
statute or case law. The statutes cited by petitioner say nothing of a voting requirement to
appoint a lead agency.
Petitioner also argues that the Code Enforcement Officer, on behalf of the Planning
Board and the individual responsible for submission of all documents to related agencies and as
the individual to whom filings are made, lacks the authority to do his job. Such a statement
lacks any credibility. Relatedly, Petitioner argues without any evidence in support of his
statements that the Town did not supply the documents to the appropriate agencies and the
County contrary to the sworn affidavit of the Code Enforcement Officer. Petitioner has no
personal knowledge of what was done and his contrary statements cannot be accepted as fact
simply because he has made them.
Petitioner also falsely states in paragraph 163 that the Planning Board "acted without
2022"
jurisdiction in granting conditional site plan approval on June 9, even though he was
present at that meeting and the Planning Board did not give site plan approval, but rather, only
dealt with the SEQR findings which were extensively placed in the record. As set forth in the
accompanying affidavit from the Code Enforcement Officer, site plan approval was not given
until over a month later and after a third referral under GML 239-m was made to the County of
Erie. This is simply one example of Petitioner's creativity with the facts.
In the third cause of action, Petitioner falsely states that the action is one of segmentation
which is unmeritorious. Adding onto property ten years later with a new project that has been
6 of 13
425
fully vetted over the course of over a year is not segmentation as argued by the Petitioner. All
of Petitioner's letters were recognized and considered with all of the documents he supplied.
All of the agencies were notified and some either responded or chose not to respond on the basis
that they had no comments with regard to the project. To therefore argue that a hard look was
not undertaken by the Planning Board is simply disingenuous on the part of Petitioner. What is
really the issue is that the Planning Board simply did not agree with Petitioner after careful
study.
In another blatant misrepresentation, Petitioner states in paragraph 180 that the "New
Board"
York State Department of Transportation was not involved by the Planning in the
process. As set forth in the affidavit of Jeffrey Schieber, the NYS DOT was notified of the
proceedings. What makes this statement even more shocking is the fact that Petitioner was
aware of that fact from the prior court case where the list of agencies which received notice
were included as an Exhibit (Index No. 809040/2021, Docket No. 37).
For the fourth cause of action, Petitioner argues that the property should be re-zoned or a
use variance obtained prior to the approval of a site plan. The basis for this claim is peculiar
since the rest of the property owned by Canisius has been previously approved for and
consistently used as athletic fields. How the addition of baseball fields to the property is
different from its current and rather consistent use is puzzling at best. This is again another
attempt by Petitioner to raise an extremely late challenge to what was done over a decade ago.
In an attempt to ignore that fact, Petitioner incorrectly argues that the addition of the baseball
fields is the expansion of a non-conforming use which is not permitted under the Town Code.
While the Planning Board did consider the addition of the fields, the Code Enforcement Officer
interpreted the code as allowing this use especially since the section of the code upon which
7 of 13
426
Petitioner attempts to rely deals with the square footage of a building which simply does not
exist with the Canisius plans.
Questions of interpretation of the Code rest first with the Code Enforcement Officer and
questions of interpretation are sought from the Zoning Board of Appeals only upon a request of
the applicant (i.e., Canisius) in the event of a denial of action by the CEO or at the request of the
CEO if there is a question of the meaning of certain language. Petitioner has no standing to
demand that the ZBA interpret a provision that no one other than the Petitioner has questioned.
With all due respect to the Court, in light of the mere length of the Petition and the fact
that Petitioner has challenged the Canisius project on multiple occasions over the years, a bit of
frustration with the misstatements and volume of unnecessary documents submitted solely for
the purposes of hoping that if enough paper is submitted a question of fact will be created,
exists. Added onto this is the fact that although a motion was previously made for a TRO which
was correctly denied, Petitioner still sought to move this matter up by a month which further
limited the time for a response to the 281 allegations in the Petition. Since a minor medical
procedure had been scheduled for the undersigned which limited the response time even more,
having to deal with the baseless arguments of the Petitioner as set forth in the fifth cause of
action is disturbing. Petitioner argues that the Planning Board violated the Open Meetings Law
not by having a closed meeting, but rather by allegedly not having all documents available for
public review at least twenty-four hours in advance of the meeting. It should be noted that
many documents are received just prior to the meeting thereby negating their placement on the
website and other documents are simply physically too large to put on the website. In the case
of the Canisius project, most of the documents had been previously submitted and made part of
the record and available for public review from prior Board meetings. Many of these
documents were submitted by Petitioner. It is not a question of whether the public was
8 of 13
427
informed of the proceedings which took place over the course of over a year. For Petitioner, it
was simply a matter of trying to raise an objection after the fact for purposes of this current
challenge.
While it is conceded that the law does not require a member of the public to formally
"gotcha"
request the documents, it is also reasonable that it cannot be used as a moment as
Petitioner is attempting to do. If Petitioner had bothered to come to the meetings and ask for
documents or even raise the issue of the timeliness of their inclusion on the website anytime in
the fifteen months between when Canisius first came to the Planning Board until site plan
approval was given, then he could have received duplicate copies of the same records which
were reviewed over a period of months. This is not a situation where a decision was made the
same night it was first presented, but rather something that was debated and discussed and
reviewed well over a year and at multiple meetings where the public was present. The purpose
of the statute is to provide transparency and an opportunity for the public to hear and comment
on matters that will be discussed. Petitioner cannot rationally argue that that did not occur and
that he had no opportunity to present his case before the Planning Board. The shear multitude
of the letters and documents he sent in belies his argument now. The spirit, if not the precise
method, of the statute was met.
practicable."
Petitioner also ignores the part of the statute that states "to the extent In
light of the size and magnitude of the documents involved in this matter, inclusion on the
website might not have been possible for every meeting. Nevertheless, the documents were
available for the public at the meetings both in written form and on the screen used for
presentations in the room. Therefore, for Petitioner to now argue, as he does in paragraph 272,
that he was denied meaningful participation in the process is disingenuous especially in light of
9 of 13
428
the documents and arguments he submitted over the same fifteen-month period and the Court
filings that he made.
Petitioner also erroneously claims that the Planning Board violated Article 7 of Public
Officers Law, specifically 103(e), by not posting the response from the Erie County
Department of Planning on its website, and by allegedly not providing Petitioner with all the
SEQRA related materials for this project. Petitioner's argument has no merit because Public
Officers Law 103(e) does not require the Erie County Department of Planning response to be
posted online, and Petitioner was provided with all the SEQRA related material for this project.
§ 103(e) of Article 7 of Public Officers Law reads in its entirety as follows:
Agency records available to the public pursuant to article six of this
chapter, as well as any proposed resolution, law, rule, regulation,
policy or any amendment thereto, that is scheduled to be the subject

of discussion by a public body during an open meeting shall be
made available, upon request therefor, to the extent practicable at
least twenty-four hours prior to the meeting during which the
records will be discussed. Copies of such records may be made
available for a reasonable fee, determined in the same manner as
provided therefor in article six of this chapter. If the agency in
which a public body functions maintains a regularly and routinely
updated website and utilizes a high speed internet connection, such
records shall be posted on the website to the extent practicable at
least twenty-four hours prior to the meeting. An agency may, but
shall not be required to, expend additional moneys to implement
the provisions of this subdivision.
First, the Planning Board does not maintain a regularly and routinely updated website,
and as such, is not required to post the response from the Erie County Department of Planning.
Second, 103(e) only requires that agencies that maintain a regularly and routinely updated
request."
website post records on their website, "upon N.Y. Pub. Off. 103 (e). Here, the
response was never requested, and as such, the Planning Board would not be required to post
the response on its website if the Planning Board maintained a regularly and routinely updated
10
10 of 13
429
website. Third, 103(e) only requires that agencies that maintain a regularly and routinely
practicable."
updated website post requested records "to the extent Id. It is not practicable for
the Planning Board to post every single document related to every project the Planning Board is
involved onto a website that does not exist. Interestingly, Petitioner does not claim that he could
not get access to the document or that access was denied by the Town in response to a FOIL
request.
Petitioner also alleges that General Municipal Law 239-m, Town Law 274-a, West
Seneca Town Code 102-12(A), and Environmental Conservation Law Article 8 "requires that
the SEQR process must be completed prior to the public hearing on an application for site plan
review and any site plan approval. None of the statutes Petitioner cites say that, however, and
Petitioner makes no attempt to cite to specific language (or any language at all) from any of
these statutes to substantiate his claim. Instead, Petitioner hopes that by merely throwing out the
names and numbers of statutes, some basis for an argument will exist. Petitioner falsely alleged
that the SEQR process "must be completed prior to the application for site plan review and any
approval,"
site plan and then cited four irrelevant statutes to support his erroneous claim. West
Seneca Town Code 102-12(A), one of the statutes Petitioner cites, for example, reads in its
entirety:
The Planning Board shall act to approve, approve with conditions,

or disapprove any such site plan within 62 days after the day the
application is received (subject to completion of the SEQR

process). The time within which the Planning Board must render
its decision may be extended by mutual consent of the applicant
and the Planning Board.
This statute requires that approval, approval with conditions, or disapproval of a site
plan take place subject to the completion of the SEQR process. It says nothing, however,
regarding when the SEQR process must be completed in relation to the public hearing. The
11
11 of 13
430
other authorities that petitioner believes support his argument, that the SEQR process must be
completed before the public hearing, such as the entirety of Article 8 of the Environmental
Conservation Law, which includes eight sections, most with numerous additional subsections,
are not appropriate candidates for line-by-line analysis herein, but simply do not say what
Petitioner claims they say. Again, Petitioner cannot identify a single part of any of the authorities
he cites that supports his argument. Throughout the entirety of his Petition, Petitioner seemed to
employ a strategy of throwing everything against the wall in hopes that something would stick.
As a practical matter, however, the Planning Board issued a SEQR determination only
after a careful and thorough review of the matter sixteen months after the request was first filed
by Canisius, and no site plan approval was granted until more than a month later and only after
the County had received the information for the project and responded for a third time.
Most troubling, however, is the Petitioner's attempts to equate other flooding or storm
water sewer issues elsewhere in the Town to issues either involving him or something which
may occur. While Petitioner admits that "it is unknown what role, if any, the groundwater
events."
flooding issue contributed to these He carefully and somewhat misleadingly tries to
equate his property to a problem that existed elsewhere, again without any substantiation
beyond simply including language from some unrelated reports. What Petitioner conveniently
leaves out is the fact that he does not live in the Lexington Green area nor does his property abut
Buffalo Creek or exist anywhere near the Project area. Petitioner seeks to obtain a decision
based upon speculation about something that has not happened to him and attaches unrelated
studies in an attempt to justify his Petition.
12
12 of 13
431
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully urged that the Court deny the Petition in its entirety and
dismiss the action with such other and fùrther relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
Date: August 24, 2022
Respectfully submitted,
Chris pp Esq.
13
13 of 13
432
Exhibit “A” – Maps
EXHIBIT
433
4/14/22, 12:47 PM 836 Indian Church Rd - Google Maps
836 Indian Church Rd
Building
Directions Save Nearby Send to your Share

phone
836 Indian Church Rd, Buffalo, NY 14224
Photos
https://www..google.com/maps/place/836+lndian+Church+Rd,+Buffalo,+NY+14224/@42.8562138,-78.7754521,17z/data=!4m13!1m713m6!1s0x89d30... 2/2
434
4/14/22, 12:47 PM 836 Indian Church Rd -Google Maps
Go- gle Maps 836 Indian Church Rd
ROHIMA AZEEZ
,
FOUNC¼TION
e a
Che pet La 'b
Deerchase Rd
Autse me: H e me made
en
R¾al
coach R6
826 ino:an Ch
Buff alo, NY 14
indian Church Rd indian Church Rd indian Church Rd ladian Church Nd
Go gle
Map data ©2022 Google 200 ft a
httos://www.aooale.com/maos/olace/836+lndian+Church+Rd.+Buffalo.+NY+14224/@42.8562138.-78.7754521.17z/data=I4m13tim713m811snyR9rl30
435
4/14/22, 12:49 PM Google Maps
Go gle Maps
. E ; . .
em n, C3,F.istes HIT15croo
..9oter! J BiranvW
ACHiMA AZEEZ
O NDAT±0N .
Cheet Ln
Arcade S1 SW er P&rk
*r S
Ene Core Raa afor
& Cate S&s Indian Church Rd Indian Church Rd
4%, Google . f?
Map data ©2022 500 ft t r
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.8591184,-78.7721682,16z 1/1
436
Affidavit of Steven R. Tanner dated August 23, 2022

COUNTY OF ERIE
DANIEL T. WARREN,
Petitioner AFFIDAVIT
-against- 808016/2022

Respondents
Steven R. Tanner, P.E., being duly sworn, deposes and says that:
He is the Consulting Town Engineer for the Town of West Seneca and has been so
engaged by the Town in that capacity since 2011. I hold a license as a Professional Engineer
through the State of New York since 2008. By reason of his association with this matter, he is
fully familiar with the facts and circumstances contained herein. This affidavit is made in
opposition to the Order to Show Cause filed by Petitioner.
In addition to reviewing the plans submitted to the Planning Board prior to any approvals,
your deponent was also asked to specifically review the comments raised by the Petitioner as
they applied to the Lexington Green berm work along with the Army Corps of Engineers reports.
Based upon a review of those documents and the concerns raised by Petitioner, a letter was
forwarded to the Planning Board prior to their deliberations on the issue of whether the Canisius
Project in conjunction with the Lexington Green berm work would have a negative effect from
an environmental standpoint. A copy of that letter is hereto attached as Exhibit A.
1 of 3
437
Based upon that review, my professional opinion is that the berm project has no bearing
on the performance or design of the site plan for the Canisius project.
Petitioner has also attempted to raise additional arguments with respect to the Oxbow
property which deals with Buffalo Creek. Upon a review of that matter as it pertains to the
Canisius project, it is my professional opinion that any reference to the Oxbow property has been
done solely to interject a new parcel of land into the equation by Petitioner in an attempt to raise
an argument to justify his allegations, allegations which are not presented by a licensed engineer.
Based on the drawings provided by the developer's engineer and their calculations, the
stormwater facilities that are being provided as designed for the Canisius project will retain
stormwater and release it at a rate that is equal to or less than current pre-development runoff
rates. In addition, the co-Respondent is providing cuts that are greater than fills to make the
flood plain larger on their site. Canisius is not doing any work downstream and given their
runoff rates which will be less than or equal to pre-development, the design tells us that it will
not affect the downstream area such as the oxbow. Therefore, any reference to the Oxbow
property by Petitioner is misplaced since it will have no effect on anything related to the Canisius
project and the Canisius project will not affect anything related to the Oxbow property.
2 of 3
438
your deponent urges the Court to deny the relief requested by the
WIIEREFORE,
Petitioner in its entirety.
Steven R. Tanner, P.E.
Subscribed and sworn before me

23d 2022.
this day of August,
Not ic, State of New York
LINDSAY MCLAREN
NOTARY PUBLIC, StATE OF NEW YORK
Registration No. OtMC6430827
Qualified in Erie County
Commission Expires 03/21/2
3 of 3
439
Exhibit “A” - Engineer report
440
EXHIBIT
441
TOWN OF WEST SENECA
. TOWNSUPERVISOR
GARYA. DICKSON
TOWNCOUNCIL
JEFFPIEKAREC
ENGINEERINGDEPARTMENT JOSEPHCANTAFlo
ROBERTBREIDENSTEIN
SUSANKIMS
July 11, 2022
Mr. Chris Trapp, Esc, Consulting Town Attorney

Town of West Seneca
Re: Canisius High School Drainage Concerns
Dear Mr. Trapp,
As the consulting Town Engineer for the Town of West Seneca we have reviewed the letter dated June 23,
2022, from Daniel T. Warren to the Planning Board. Mr. Warren articulates concern of the Town berm project
as it relates to the Canisius high school project. The berm project has no bearing on the performance or design
of the site plan for the high school project. The high school project has designed their stormwater to be above
the flood plain and only will release water once water flows in the Buffalo Creek recede to pre-storm water
elevations. The ponds are sized to hold back the volume of water necessary, and the outfall has a check valve
in it to not allow flood waters to enter the high school pond. The existing berms being relocated are not
designed for flood control, only to direct broken up ice dams from entering the Lexington Green neighborhood.
The 100-year flood plain will allow water to flow around/above the berms.
Very truly yours,
Steven R. Tanner, P.E.

Town Engineer
cc: Files: TB.
Jeffrey Schieber, Town Code Enforcement Officer
TOWNHALL1250 UNIONROAD·WESTSENECA.NEWYORK14224 " (716) 558-3220 " FAX (716) 677-5448

www.westseneca.net
442
Affidavit of Jeffrey Schieber dated August 24, 2022

COUNTY OF ERIE
DANIEL T. WARREN,
Petitioner AFFIDAVIT
-against- 808016/2022

Respondents
Jeffrey Schieber, being duly sworn, deposes and says that:
He is the Code Enforcement Officer for the Town of West Seneca and has been so
employed by the Town in that capacity since 2018. He was originally hired by the Town of
West Seneca in 2011. By reason of his association with this matter, he is fully familiar with the
facts and circumstances contained herein. This affidavit is made in opposition to the Order to
Show Cause filed by Petitioner.
Contrary to the assertions from the Petitioner, subsequent to the prior determination of
the Hon. Donna Siwek, J.S.C. who remanded the matter for further proceedings, each step
required by the Court was undertaken by the Town of West Seneca and the Planning Board of
the Town. More specifically, the Town not only referred the matter to the Erie County
Department of Environment and Planning, but it did so in the proper sequence as previously
directed by the Court.
1 of 6
443
The gravamen of the Court's prior decision was that the first determination from the
Town Planning Board violated West Seneca Town Code 102-7 inasmuch as the Planning Board
made a decision on site plan approval prior to an appropriate environmental review. In response
to that decision, the Planning Board for the Town of West Seneca at its regular meeting of May
12, 2022 amended the prior minutes effectively negating the prior conditional negative
declaration. A copy of the relevant portion of those Board minutes is hereto attached as Exhibit
A.
The Planning Board next met on June 9, 2022 at which time the Canisius project was
once again submitted for review by the Planning Board. Your deponent outlined the various
steps taken by the Code Enforcement/Building Department as part of the review process prior to
the matter being placed before the Planning Board. Set forth within the minutes was the
description of each step taken in the process and the documents which were received including
an acknowledgement from the County Department of Planning with respect to the SEQR
process. As part of the environmental review process, the issues raised by the Petitioner were
specifically addressed by James Frick, a member of the Planning Board, on an item-by-item
basis. Mr. Frick specifically referred to each letter forwarded to the Planning Board by
Petitioner and responded to each concern that was raised. A copy of that document is hereto
attached as Exhibit B. It should be noted for the record that Petitioner chose to not personally
attend those earlier meetings (he only attended the June 9, 2022 meeting but sat silent even when
given an opportunity to speak) nor personally address the Board or make any further comments
at any meeting on the record even though it was a meeting held and duly noticed as a public
meeting of the Planning Board.
2 of 6
444
At that same meeting, the Planning Board after previously moving itself as lead agency, a
determination of which has never been challenged by any other entity legally able to seek such
status, moved and approved a motion to adopt a SEQR Negative Declaration with respect to the
Canisius project. A copy of the relevant portions of those minutes are hereto attached as Exhibit
C. Based upon the discussion at the meeting as referred to in the minutes, it cannot be
reasonably argued that a thorough and studied review of the materials and environmental issues
was not undertaken by the Planning Board. The Board specifically did not approve any site plan
at that time and, instead, the matter was referred a third time to the Erie County Department of
Environment and Planning for consideration pursuant to General Municipal Law section 239-m.
As part of that referral to the County, your deponent not only sent over all of the
documents described in the aforementioned minutes, but also the SEQR determinations and
documents which were generated as part of the full environmental review process. Pursuant to
subdivision 2 of that law and in conformance with the prior judicial decision, such referral was
done prior to final site plan review and consideration.
The prior Court also took specific note of West Seneca Town Code section 102-7 that
"all site plan proposals require appropriate environmental reviews in accordance with the State
Environmental Quality Review Act or SEQRA before any action is taken by the Planning
Board."
(Decision of Hon. Donna Siwek, p. 27). The prior Court noted that that was not the
sequence previously undertaken in the Town and thus that prior decision by the Planning Board
was vacated and the matter remanded for further proceedings consistent with that determination.
In light of that directive, your deponent personally forwarded all of the prior submissions to the
County for review in addition to the most recent determination by the Planning Board on SEQR.
This was done after the Planning Board had assumed lead agency status at the beginning of the
3 of 6
445
process. A copy of one of the forwarding letters as an example in that regard is hereto attached
as Exhibit D. Therefore, consistent with the Court's prior ruling and Town Law section 274-a(9),
the County was put on notice as part of the referral and supplied with all of the materials on a
flash drive and in writing relied upon by the Town to make it's determination of the significance
pursuant to SEQRA. Such notice to the County was sent well more than the ten (10) days
9th
required under Town Law since it was done soon after the June meeting of the Planning
Board. A copy of the referral letter is hereto attached as Exhibit E.
At the next meeting of the Planning Board on July 14, 2022, more than thirty (30) days
after the last Planning Board meeting, your deponent notified the Planning Board that the County
had acknowledged receipt of the documents and information and that in two emails advised the
Town that they had no further comment with respect to the project. Copies of those emails are
hereto attached as Exhibit F. At that time, all necessary agencies, departments, and engineering
reviews had been completed, including the last one raised by Petitioner with respect to the
Lexington Green berm work which is discussed further in the accompanying affidavit from the
Town's independent engineer. In light of the foregoing, the Planning Board then approved the
site plan with respect to the Canisius project. A copy of the relevant portion of the Planning
Board minutes is hereto attached as Exhibit G. Petitioner, as was the case previously, chose not
to attend the public meeting or comment further other than to later file another proceeding
seeking to stop the project once again which he had advised the prior Court that he would do if
the project proceeded regardless of the process followed by the Town as relayed to your
deponent by counsel.
The Petitioner goes to great lengths in his Petition to try to set forth scenarios, without
any factual basis, of reasons why the Canisius project would negatively impact him. While the
4 of 6
446
speculations are rampant, what is missing is any scintilla of evidence supporting any of his
concerns. It is respectfully submitted that wild speculation in an attempt to raise an argument
cannot form the basis of the relief requested. Of specific concern is that Petitioner raises
arguments about engineering issues, drainage, and the environment without any expertise in
these areas and in direct contradiction of the various local, County, and State agencies and
departments that are specifically entrusted and designed by statute to review these issues.
Petitioner can site to no specific agency or department that has addressed this project that has
raised any concerns that Petitioner now seeks to advance.
Petitioner also attempts to argue that the fact that other agencies have not released
documents to Petitioner as evidence that the documents were not sent. Your deponent personally
sent all the required documents and materials relevant to each entity and specifically put a copy
of all of the documents on a flash drive that was sent to the Erie County Department of
Environment and Planning, not once, but twice. Whether those documents were printed out by
the County is unknown as is what they provided to Petitioner. All that can be said is that they
were sent to the County personally by your deponent. Your deponent also sent the appropriate
and applicable information about the project to the following entities for review and comment:
NYS DOT, DEC, Army Corp of Engineers, Erie County Sewer District 1, the respective fire
department, Erie County Department of Environment and Planning, the Town Environmental
Commission, NY State Office of Historic Preservation (SHPO), and the Town Engineer. What
any of those agencies shared with Petitioner not only is unknown, but not binding on this
Respondent. Your deponent is not responsible for what someone else supplies to Petitioner, only
what the Town sent out to the respective entities.
5 of 6
447
Petitioner also goes to great lengths to argue that the meeting at which the approvals were
given were improper because allegedly certain information was not provided to the public in
advance. It is noteworthy that not only has Petitioner attended only one meeting in person in
over a year that this matter was pending before the Planning Board, but that he has also never
asked for copies of anything while attending that solo meeting. The dates for all of the meetings
are posted well in advance on the Town website and Petitioner has not availed himself of asking
for copies of anything in advance. All of his numerous and voluminous FOIL requests are made
later after action has been taken, not before. He has also not previously raised this concem
directly with the Planning Board or this office and instead has waited until he files multiple
motions and cases against the Town raising the issue as a basis for reversing Town decisions. It
is respectfully submitted that this is not a matter of public participation in the decision making
process but rather a matter of control of the outcome after the fact.
WHEREFORE, your deponent respectfully urges that the Court deny Petitioner's relief as
requested in its entirety together with such other and further relief as may be just and proper.
Jef ey chi b r
Subscribed and sworn before me

240'
this day of August, 2022.
Notary Public, State of New York
MARGARET A. MARTIN
Lic. # 01MA6318702
Public, State of New Wrk
ified in Erie County
Commission Expires Februaiy 2, 20
6 of 6
448
Exhibit “A” - May Board minutes
THIS IS A DUPLICATE
DOCUMENT PREVIOUSLY
REPRODUCED IN THIS
RECORD AT 278-282
449
Exhibit “B” - SEQR review doc
EXHIBIT
450
Preamble to Canisius Motion
Response to letters from Mr. Daniel Warren:
Letter Dated April 24, 2021:
property"
Item 1: Question whether this is a permitted use as a "school on residential
This question was reviewed during the construction of the main playing field and
it was determined the use was acceptable. As no change in use is occurring,
therefore previous determination is still valid.
waterway"
Item 2: "Buffalo Creek is a navigable
This is not true however the Buffalo River is considered a navigable waterway.
day"
Item 3: "Flooding issues in this area began in 2014 and continue to this
The history of flooding dates back before 1966 when the Lexington Green area
was developed with significant ice jam flooding noted as early as 1971 with
minor flooding occurring on a regular basis. Reference USACE reports from
1966, 1979 and 2016 and the "Resilient New York Flood Mitigation Initiative,
NY"
Buffalo Creek, from 2020 prepared by OBG.
project"
Item 4: "Consideration of original project in conjunction with this
The combined effects of both projects were considered our review - this
during
will be addressed later in this statement.
Item 5: "No Traffic Study was performed for this project".
The NYSDOT did not request one as onsite parking is not being modified as
timing of the usage of the new fields and the current playing field will not
overlap.
considered."
Item 6: "Rezoning at 3735 Clinton Street for storage of const. equipment not
Storage of construction equipment is not a major traffic generator and has little or
easement."
Item 7: "Original Oxbow property acquired subject to conservation
Phase 1 is contiguous with this property; this phase has no connection. However,
this phase will detain all runoff from both phases prior to release to Buffalo Creek
which is not connected to the Oxbow property.
451
Letter dated September 24, 2021
documents"
Item 1: "USACE FOIL request yielded no
The Town received a letter dated of no significant impact.
Letter dated September 30, 2021:
public"
Item 1: "All materials have not been made available to the
Materials are made available on the Town website including in the Meeting
Minutes.
agencies."
Item 2: "Not all information was distributed to the involved and interested
All materials have been forwarded and in addition, full packets of the all
information have been sent to all involved and interested agencies in April of this
year.
Letter dated October 7, 2021:
1."
Item 1: "Additional 300,000 gals of water will be added to the site from Phase
This water is added during the growing season and not during the time when
flooding will be occurring,
fields."
Item 2: "Pesticides will be used to maintain the
Property is zoned residential. Pesticide usage would not be significantly different

is this was developed as residential property.
Flooding."
Item 3: "Statements concerning Groundwater
The Lexington Green development does have a groundwater flooding issue. The
that"
statement groundwater flooding occurs when natural underground drainage
enough..."
cannot drain rainfall away quick is not correct. Groundwater flooding
occurs as a result of groundwater flowing into an area from outside of the region
due to high porosity of the underlying soils. The Lexington Green development is
constructed on fill from the Buffalo Creek realignment project and embanked
granular fill this high - reference the 1979 and 2016 USACE
leading porosity
reports.
site."
Item 4: "Stormwater discharge is increased from
The Phase 2 design retains the 100 year flooding volume of both phases 1 and 2
on site until the creek level drops to an elevation that will allow its release.
452
617.7(c)."
Item 5: "Additional significant adverse impacts per 6 NYCRR
The proposed project will not adversely change existing air quality, ground or
surface water quality or quantity, increase in solid waste, potential for erosion,
flooding, leaching or drainage problems. Removal of large quantities of
vegetation (grassland) will occur but majority of affected area will be replanted
grass or artificial turf with small change in impervious area that would increase
surface runoff. All other identified item will not be a significant impact: creation
of material conflict with a community's current plans or goals, impairment of
character or quality of important historical, archeological, architectural or
aesthetic resources, Substantial change in intensity of use of land, changes in two
or more elements of the environment when considered together result in a
substantial adverse impact, and two or more related actions when considered
cumulatively would meet one or more of the criteria in subdivision 617.7 (c).
Letter dated January 10, 2022
2007."
Item 1: "Significant archeological discoveries made in
Response from SHPO stated the Phase 1 areas were disturbed to the point that no
significant artifacts were present. SHPO required the applicant to perform
extensive investigation and testing for this project that required a minor change in
the site layout to avoid a "sensitive area". The remaining area of this project was
determined to have been significantly disturbed that no useful artifacts are likely
present. In addition, SHPO has required that all excavation be monitored by an
archeologist so that in the event any artifacts of significance are uncovered, they
will be properly preserved. The archeologist will have the authority to stop
construction at any time if it deemed necessary.
Letter dated May 26, 2022:
Item 1: "Effect on Oxbow - increased stormwater runoff into the Oxbow

Property
Property"
The Phase 2 drainage modifications will direct all runoff from both phases to the
newly design detention pond, therefore no increase in overland flow will occur
into the oxbow lake area. In addition, no significant increase in impervious area
will occur with this project.
453
SEQR Review Summary
1. The project was determined to be a Type 1 action under the statewide SEQRA
regulations, 6 NYCRR 617.4 since the project exceeds the threshold for physical
alterations of 10 acres.
2. All involved and interested agencies were provided the necessary information to
review this project, none of which took exception to the proposed action. Agencies
included: NYSDOT, USACE, NYSDEC, ECDPW, ECDEP, Town Engineer, and SHPO.
SHPO was the only agency that provided any requirements during construction.
3. Concerns for increase in flooding were addressed by incorporating a flood bench

into the site grading design that increased the flood storage on the site by approximately
20%. In addition, a large natural bottom detention facility was part of the design that will
retain up to a 100-year flood from the entire developed area of the property.
4. The increased amount of impervious area is minor and is mitigated by the

detention structure.
5. No significant increase in air or noise pollution is anticipated.
6. The use of pesticides to maintain the natural grass areas will be partially mitigated
by the detention structure and are not significantly different if this property was used for
a residential development.
7. The Planning Board has reviewed all available information and has determined
that no significant environmental impact will occur from this project.
8. The physical alterations contemplated under this project do not significantly alter
the land composition to result in an adverse environmental impact.
454
Canisius Motion
Whereas, the Planning Board of the Town if West Seneca, as lead agency acting
pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act, Article 8 of the New York State
Environmental Conservation Law, has reviewed Part 1 of the Full Environmental
Assessment Form ("EAF") prepared by the applicant for the property located at 2885
Clinton Street ("Subject Property"), for the construction of two baseball fields with
related ancillary structures (the "Project") analyzing the potential for the Project to result
in any significant adverse environmental impacts and has otherwise performed a detailed
review of the identified potential environmental impacts utilizing the criteria specified in
6 NYCRR 617.7(c); and
Whereas, upon the review of Part 1 of the EAF, documentation and plans submitted by
the applicant in connection with the review of the Project, documents prepared by
involved agencies (NYSDOT, NYSDEC, USACE, ECDEP, SHPO, Town Engineer),
written public comments and preparation of Parts 2 and 3 of the EAF as required by 6
NYCRR 617.7 (b); the Planning Board has not identified any potentially significant
adverse environmental impacts associated with the proposed use of the Subject Property,
has determined that preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement is not necessary
and that the issuance of a negative declaration is therefore appropriate, now, therefore, be
it
Resolved, that pursuant to 6 NYCRR 617.7 (a) the Planning Board does hereby adopt a
Negative Declaration with respect to the Project based on its determination that the
Project will not result in any potentially significant adverse environmental impacts.
455
Exhibit “C” - June Board minutes
THIS IS A DUPLICATE
DOCUMENT PREVIOUSLY
REPRODUCED IN THIS
RECORD AT 283-296
456
Exhibit “D” - Forwarding letter
EXHIBIT
457
TOWN OF WEST SENECA
6
TOWN SUPERVISOR
GARYA. DICKSON
TOWN COUNCIL
WILLIAM BAUER
CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICE JOSEPHJ. CANTAFIO
ACCIDENT" WILUAM P. HANLEY JR.
"BUILDING SAFETY IS NO
JEFF PIEKAREC
February 26, 2021
Town of West Seneca
Building Dept.
1250 Union Rd
Re: 2885 Clinton Street - Canisius Highschool
To Whom It May Concern:
Please find enclosed a submittal for the proposed construction of new Athletic Fields at
the above location. The scheduled planning board meeting is set for April 8, 2021.
Pursuant to Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation law, State Environmental
Quality Review Act (SEQRA):
The Town of West Seneca Planning Board is seeking lead agency designation in this
matter. The Town of West Seneca Planning Board will make a determination of its
sigmficance. All submitted materials will be posted on Town web site from review and
comment. Please return any comments or concerns within 30 days of the date of
notification.
If you have any questions, please call our of)ìce @ 716-558-3242.
Yours truly,
Jeffrey A Schieber
jschieber@twsny.org
JAS:st
TOWN HALL " 1250 UNION ROAD . WEST SENECA, NEW YORK 14224 . (716) 558-3242 . FAX (7) 6) 677-4488
www.westseneca.net
458
Exhibit “E” - County referral
EXHIBIT
459
SITE PLAN OR ZONING REFERRAL TO COUNTY OF ERIE, N.Y.

AND REPLY TO MUNICIPALITY
sm"G*"ranug¾ve Mado gnalastenecogys*gh

twer Phoes ,t Cra0
he cmatyD6- ef l'Is*sress,
Row 1951EFranatoseen.B lek-.NY WOC
Rdamlevcopyre p Rw" p tem, per
na ymewdsam damwd bornsa enencema assewa nepmms ofsecenessz Mesopt ta* weebpme met m
rephn eccenelinRIdaysans meempt
at Imm
ofmadim andading
aEEQR
wow anuew sas ecely tr hrene. aptiy n aromt m= tinwpme maxwt w
FAFJapphcebleArmirangalagxa.7maysks finalartms
man@ = beenkred
Destiptiora of Protw*5ed4tion
t. Maewof Me* adit

1 HeanagSchedule: Oste 7,t Time Lece1on 4 L
2. Actsonis actors: ¤ LegelataeBarry 0 Bonc of Aarents Aarrarn Board

4. Accon canalstsof: ¤ PoseOrdnern [ I Reronet).to Chanrf OrdnanceAmenomtm!
Sitehe ¤ Vanones U speoptuse P Q%er
S.Locationet Property O trere nunevasts O spe0 a sote
6 ReGervat
teew|redso U StateCeCour+y [ I BAmµ.epw
¾mdory FamtOpe 49 locatesI
smesowitMnsec'ot: Propertwimbre anAgncuttarrDingrict
IExpresswy ¤ CouÆ Reed State%ghway PropcMdStatecr County
Rome.Stoperty.purdv
insistumort
Orumageway
7, Propoeodcharge or use: (b specify L..
a conneresnarks:(salA se)
Reply to Municystity by Enc County Davesiceof Plamats

Re©siptOfthe abowpÄiestchedproposed aceanIn adtupwledgeson . TheOrvisionharweath
sutnudtsIts reviewand septyvenderthe provisionsof ==aw a ataseand local law, basedon the infannedon
setup@Indwith this referral
t O to reveewunderthe ine.
Ttuepropo"ed action is not madgect
2. ¤ Comnuenton Proposednepon le steachedherete.
2. on ProposedActlan b attachedhereto.
f. I Theproposedsemenla set ectto reviser:flecommeendation
4 to be at locusconcern
Norecepwrwadation:proposed acisonhas beenrowewedandabstenrarned
Sy the OIvlsionof Plenrdng: Date:

Aboves
414
460
Exhibit “F” - County responses
EXHIBIT
461
COUNTY OF ERIE
MARK C. POLONCARZ
COUNTY EXECUTIVE
June 2, 2022
Jeffrey A. Schieber
1250 Union Road
Re: - Canisius Project

Rezoning
SBL: 124.10-2-17.11
Review No: SP-21-149, ZR-22-324
Dear Mr. Schieber:
Pursuant to New York General Municipal Law Section 239-m, the County of Erie (the "County") has
reviewed the above-referenced project (the "Project") referred to us by the Town of West Seneca (the
9th 2022.
"Town") on May The Department of Environment and Planning offers the following comments
based upon its review of the Project:
" The Town may wish to follow the recommendations of NYS Department of Environmental
Conservation's Resilient New York Flood Mitigation Initiative for the Buffalo Creek to reduce
overall flooding conditions in the area. This report can be found at:
https://www.dec.ny.gov/does/water pdf/buffereekfinal.pdf
This review pertains to the above-referenced referral submitted to the Erie County Department of
Environment and Planning. This letter should not be considered sufficient for any county approvals. The
Town must still obtain any other permits and regulatory approvals applicable to this Project. Please send
all final decisions to Erie County's Department of Environment and Planning in accordance to GML 239-
m (6).
Sincerely,
Emily Moll
Planner
cc: Mark Rountree, Chief Planner
RATH BUuarNG " 95 FRANKLIN STREET " " 14202 " " WWW.ERE.G OV
BUFPALo, N.Y. (716) 858-8390
462
Jeffrey Schieber
From: Ortiz (she/her/hers), Mariely <Mariely.Ortiz@erie.gov>

Sent: Tuesday, July 5, 2022 3:02 PM
Cc: Rountree, Mark
Subject: 2885 Clinton Street Neg Dec
Good afternoon Jeffrey,
As requested, I am confirming we received a copy of the Canisius Project's SEQRA Negative Declaration, postmarked
6/20/22.
Although the SEQRA process is complete, please keep in mind that certain actions (listed in GML § 239-m(3)) are still
500'
subject to referral to the county due to being within of a state road.
Additionally, this email should not be considered sufficient for any county approvals or permits, if required (e.g., DSM,
DOH, etc.).
Thank you,
Mariely
Mariely Ortiz (she/her/hers) | Senior Planner

Erie County I Environment & Planning
P:+1(716)858-1916 | F:+1(716)858-7248
Mariely.0rtiz@erie,qov | http://www.erie.gov
463
Jeffrey Schieber

Sent: Wednesday, July 6, 2022 3:09 PM
Cc: Rountree, Mark; Chris Trapp
Subject: RE: 2885 Clinton Street Neg Dec
Only if there are new actions that fall under GML § 239m; area or use variances, for example.
Thank you,
M

Erie County | Environment & Planning
95 Franklin St., 1007 | Buffalo, NY 14202
P:+1(716)858-1916 I F:+1(716)858-7248
Mariely.0rtiz@erie.qov I http://www.erie.gov
From: Jeffrey Schieber <jschieber@TWSNY.ORG>

Sent: Wednesday, July 6, 2022 12:12 PM
To: Ortiz (she/her/hers), Mariely <Mariety.Ortiz@erie.gov>
Cc: Rountree, Mark <Mark.Rountree@erie.gov>; Chris Trapp <ctrapp@TWSNY.ORG>
Subject: RE: 2885 Clinton Street Neg Dec
[Caution: this email is not from an Erie County employee: attachments or links may not be safe.]
Mariely, thank you for the reply. Does Erie County Dept. of Planning require any further review on this project? The
14th
Town Planning Board is set to issue a final approval on July
Thank you for your time in this matter
Jeffrey Schieber
Town of West Seneca

Sent: Tuesday, July 5, 2022 3:02 PM
To: Jeffrey Schieber <jschieber@TWSNY.ORG>
Cc: Rountree, Mark <Mark.Rountree@erie.gov>
Subject: 2885 Clinton Street Neg Dec
Good afternoon Jeffrey,
As requested, I am confirming we received a copy of the Canisius Project's SEQRA Negative Declaration, postmarked
6/20/22.
Although the SEQRA process is complete, please keep in mind that certain actions (listed in GML § 239-m(3)) are still
500'
subject to referral to the county due to being within of a state road.
Additionally, this email should not be considered sufficient for any county agiprovals or permits, if required (e.g., DSM,
DOH, etc.).
Thank you,
1
464
Marie|y

Erie County | Environment & Planning
P:+1(716)858-1916 | F:+1(716)858-7248
Mariely.0rtiz@erie.gov I http://www.erie.qov
465
Exhibit “G” - July Board minutes
EXHIBIT
466

West Seneca, NY 14224 July 14, 2022
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M. followed by the Pledge of Allegiance,
ROLL CALL: Present - Margaret Chairperson

Bebak,
James Frick
Timothy Hayes
Dale J McCabe
Raymond Nalewajek
Eric Sailer
Joseph Sherman

Absent - None
APPROVAL OF PROQFS OF PUBLICATION
Motion by Frick, second by McCabe, to receive and file the proofs of publication and posting of legal notice.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion by Sherman, seconded by McCabe, to approve minutes 2022-06 of June 9, 2022.
QPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING
Motion by McCabe, seconded by Frick, to open the public hearing.
QLD BUSINESS
SPR2021-05
Mr. Vaillancourt stated Canisius High School is present tonight for final site plan approval. Since the last meeting
Erie County has signed off on the SEQR. Also, the Town Engineer has reviewed and approved the Canisius and
Lexington Green project.
Code Enforcement Officer Jeffrey Schieber stated at the last Planning Board meeting a negative SEQR declaration
was approved pursuant to the project. The meeting minutes, a new 239-M form, as well as all previous approvals
relevant to the project were resubmitted to Erie County. Erie County acknowledged receipt of the documents
pg. 1
467

West Seneca, NY 14224 July 14, 2022
and provided two emails stating the SEQR process has closed. Erie County does not speak on behalf of any
other agency relative to a highway work permit. In addition, the Town Engineer has responded to the questions,
comments, and concerns raised by residents that were based on the Lexington Green development and has
provided a letter explaining what will take place at Lexington Green relative to berm work. The letter states the
project at Lexington Green will have no effect on Canisius and Canisius will have no effect on the Lexington
Green project.
Chairperson Bebak questioned if Mr. Warren's recent letter was answered by the Town Engineer's statement
that there is no impact. Mr. Schieber stated the letter received from the Town Engineer was in direct response
to the letter from Mr. Warren.
Mr. Frick stated the letter from Mr. Warren requests the Planning Board rescind the negative declaration;
however, there is no reason to do this. Mr. Frick believes the Planning Board should continue with the site plan
approval process.
Mr. McCabe stated it is his understanding the facilities are expanding but the parking areas are not expanding.
Mr. Vaillancourt stated this is correct. Mr. McCabe stated the expansion of the facilities is basically baseball
diamonds and the use is seasonal, dependent on sports. Mr. Vaillancourt stated this is correct. The reason
there is no increase in the parking area is because the use is targeted to specific sports and specific seasons.
Motion by Bebak, seconded by Frick, based on the prior issued negative SEQR declaration and the proper posting
of the declaration, to approve site plan approval for property located at 2885 Clinton Street for construction of
an athletic complex with all related site improvements.
NEW BUSINESS
2022-04
A request of Hanley Development of WNY for a rezone for property located at 1130 and 1140 Orchard Park
Road, being part of Lot No's. 372 and 373, changing its classification from C-1 and R-75 to R-50(S) for
construction of a 40-unit apartment development.
Anthony Pandolfe, PE with Carmina Wood Design presented the following:
" Total site area is 5.32 acres

" The current is C-1 in the front portion of the and R-75 in the back
zoning property
" The request is for a rezone of the entire to R-50(S);
property (S) indicating a special use permit required
for a multi-family development.
" The proposal illustrates 45-apartment four 10-unit buildings and 5-unit
units; one building
" The proposal includes permanent open in the rear of the an
space lots to provide extra buffer between
the development and residential yards.
" Stormwater management will be up front along Orchard Park Road
pg. 2
468
EXHIBIT
469
TOWN OF WEST SENECA
8
TOWN SUPERVISOR
GARYA. DICKSON
TOWN CoUNCIL
CODE ENFORCEMENT JOSEPHJ. CANTAFIO
OFFICE
JEF A c
1- Submittal received In late February 2021 for the April 2021 Planning Board meeting
a. Short EAF forms
b. Mailed out for a coordinated SEQRA review, FEB 26, 2021
i. EC Dept of planning
ii. NYS DOT
iii. DEC
iv. ACOE
v. EC Sewer #1
vi. Fire Dept
vii. Town Environmental Commission.
vill. Town Engineer
2- March 18, 2021- received full engineering report for project and provided to Town Engineer
3- March 4, 2021- email from EC Sewer indicating approval
4- March 16, 2021- received EC Dept of Planning form back, signed
5- April 1, 2021- Town Engineer letter requesting changes
6- April 28, 2021- revised submittal from applicant:
a. Draft flood impact report
b. SWPPP
c. Revised plans
7- 1" SHPO letter
May 7, 2021-received
8- 2021- letter from Town Engineer indicating:
May 11,
a, Minor corrections
b. Approving floodplain modifications
c.New floodplain will hold more water
9- April 1, 2021- DEC letter received
10- - SHPO letter
May 13, 2021
11- 2021 - response letter from applicant
May 13,
12- 2021- Town Engineer, fully approved
May 26,
13- September 2021- SHPO letter
14,
14- October - email from applicant:
7, 2021
a.
DEC delineated wetlands
15- November24, 2021- new letter sent to NYS DOT requesting review of project
16- December 30, 2021- updated response from applicant
17- - DEC letter
January 13, 2022
18-
February 8, 2022 - new approval letter from Town Engineer
We have since been waiting for an approval from SHOP, based on Archaeological findings.
TOWN HALL " 1250 UNION ROAD . WEST SENECA.NEw YoRK 14224 . (716) 558-3242 . FAX (716) 677-4488
www.westseneca.net
470
Exhibit “H” - CEO list
EXHIBIT
471
TOWNOF WEST $ENECA
8
TowN SUPERVISOR
GARYA. DIcKson
ToWN COUNCIL
ROBERTJ. BREMENSTEIN
CODE ENFORCEMENT JOSEPHJ. CAN1so
OFFICK
, JEFFREYA P
1- Submittal received In late February 2021for the April 2021 Planning Board meeting
a. Short EAF forms
b. Mailed out for a coordinated SEQRA review, FEB 26, 2021
i. EC Dept of planning
II. NYS DOT
iii DEC
iv. ACOE
v. EC Sewer #1
vi. Fire Dept
vii. Town Environmental Commission.
viii. Towri Engineer
2- March 18, 2021 - received full engineering report for project and provideÇl to Town Engineer
3- March 2021- ernail from EC Sewer approval
4, indicating
4- Marctr 16, 2021- received EC Dept of Planning form back, signed
5- April l, 2021- Town Engineer letter requesting changes
6- Aprli 28, 2021- revised submittal from applicant:
a. Draft flood impact report
b. SWPPP
c. Revised plans
7- 2021- 1" SHPO letter
May 7, received
8-
IVlay 11, 2021-letter from Town Engineer indicating:
a. Minor corrections
b. Approving floodplain modifications
c.
New floodplain will hold more water
9- April 1, 2021- DEC letter received
10- 2021- SHPO letter
May 13,
11- 2021- response letter from applicant
May 13,
12-
May 26, 2021-Town Engineer, fully approved
13- September 2021- SHPO letter
14,
14- October 2021- email from appileant:
7,
a. DEC delineated wetlands
15- November 2021- new letter sent to NYS DOT requesting review of project
24,
16- December 2021- updated response from applicant
30,
17- 2022 - DEC letter
January 13,
18- Town Engineer
February 8, 2022 -new approval letter from
We have since beertwaiting for an approval from SHOP,.hased on Archaeological findings.
TOWN HALL . 1250 IINION ROAD . WESTSENECA.NswYORK 14224 . (716) 558-3242. . FAX (716) 677-4488
wwwmestseneca.net
472
Petitioner’s Reply Memorandum of Law in Further Support of
Order to Show Cause for Preliminary Injunction

SUPREME COURT :
:
For a Judgment Pursuant to CPLR Article 78 : Index # 808016/2022
: PETITIONER’S REPLY MEMORANDUM
Daniel T. Warren : OF LAW IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF
Petitioner, : ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR
Against : PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
:
The Planning Board of the Town of West : Hon. Mark J. Grisanti, J.S.C
Seneca, Town of West Seneca, New York and : Assigned Justice
its President. :
Respondents :
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
This is a motion for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction to maintain
the status quo until this proceeding can be decided on the merits. No certified return as required
by CPLR § 7804(e) has been filed in this proceeding. In their opposition Respondents only
contest whether or not I have demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits. In the absence
of a certified return the allegations in the verified petition/complaint must be deemed true and
Petitioner is entitled to a liberal construction of the complaint and to all favorable inferences
which may be drawn from it. A number of Respondents opposition papers should not be
considered on this motion as detailed below.
RESPONDENTS PLANNING BOARD AND TOWN

LACK STANDING TO OPPOSE THIS MOTION
This motion does not seek any relief from Respondents Planning Board and Town.
Respondents Planning Board and Town do not have any interest in the subject property that is
owned by Respondent Canisius. Respondent Planning Board and Town do not have any interest
in the expansion of the Athletic Field Respondent Canisius is seeking to expand or its
1 of 13
473
construction thereof.
Therefore, the opposition papers submitted by Respondents Planning Board and Town
(NYSCEF #43. 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, and 55) should not be considered.
Additionally, they should not be permitted to present any oral argument on this motion. Also,
these affidavits fail to comply with 22 NYCRR § 202.8-b in that they lack the required
certification.
ATTORNEY AFFIDAVITS SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED
The affidavits of J. Michael Lennon Esq. (NYSCEF #41) and Chris G. Trapp, Esq.
(NYSCEF #43) should not be considered because an affidavit by an attorney who has no
personal knowledge of the pertinent facts lacks probative value (PPO Indus. v. AO.P. Svs., 235
AD.2d 979 (3d Dep't 1997)). These affidavits also fail to comply with 22 NYCRR § 202.8-b in
that they lack the required certification.
APPLICABLE STANDARD FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Upon a motion for a preliminary injunction, the party seeking the injunctive relief must
demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence: (1) “a probability of success on the merits;” (2)
“danger of irreparable injury in the absence of an injunction;” and (3) “a balance of equities in its
favor” (Nobu Next Door, LLC v Fine Arts Hous., Inc., 4 N.Y.3d 839, 840 [2005]; see Aetna Ins.
Co. v Capasso, 75 N.Y.2d 860, 862 [1990]; Destiny USA Holdings, LLC v Citigroup Global
Mkts. Realty Corp., 69 A.D.3d 212, 216 [4th Dept 2009]). The standard for a temporary
restraining order is the same as that for a preliminary injunction.
Beginning with the first criteria, “it is not for this court to determine finally the merits of
an action upon a motion for preliminary injunction; rather, the purpose of the interlocutory relief
is to preserve the [s]tatus quo until a decision is reached on the merits” (Tucker v Toia, 54
2 of 13
474
A.D.2d 322, 326 [1976]). To that end, “the showing of a [l]ikelihood of success on the merits
required before a preliminary injunction may be . . . issued must not be equated with the showing
of a [c]ertainty of success” (Tucker v Toia, 54 A.D.2d at 326; see Cooperstown Capital, LLC v
Patton, 60 A.D.3d 1251, 1252-1253 [2009]).
To demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits, it is sufficient for the moving party
to make a prima facie showing of his or her right to relief (see Gambar Enters. v Kelly Servs., 69
A.D.2d 297, 306 [4th Dept 1979]), and the actual proving of the case “should be left to the full
hearing on the merits” (Tucker v Toia, 54 A.D.2d 322, 326 [4th Dept 1976]). A reduced degree
of proof is sufficient when, as here, denial of injunctive relief would allow the defendant to
proceed in a manner, as in this case, that would render the final judgment ineffectual. (Schlosser
v. United Presbyterian Home, Inc., 56 A.D.2d 615).
In conjunction with likelihood of success, the existence of factual disputes in the record
does not necessarily preclude the issuance of preliminary injunctive relief, which would preserve
the status quo and result in no harm or prejudice to the enjoined party (see, Melvin v. Union
College, 195 A.D.2d 447, 448 (2nd Dept 1993); Preferred Equities Corp. v. Ziegelman, 155
A.D.2d 424, 426 (2nd Dept 1989); Mr. Natural v. Unadulterated Food Prods., 152 A.D.2d 729,
730 (2nd Dept 1989); CPLR § 6312(c); Council of NYC v. Giuliani, 248 A.D.2d 1 (1st Dept
1998)).
It must also be noted that the moving party need not demonstrate a likelihood of success
with respect to all causes of action (see e.g. Butt v Malik, 106 A.D.3d 849, 850 [2013]).
LIKELIHOOD OF SUCCESS ON THE MERITS
Petitioner has standing to maintain this proceeding. Petitioner’s standing to challenge
Respondent Canisius’ actions have been raised and upheld in prior rulings. This was most
3 of 13
475
recently decided by Justice Siwek in a prior proceeding in April 2022 (Exhibit “H” of
Petitioner’s affidavit dated August 11, 2022 (NYSCEF #38)). Respondents are barred from
relitigating this issue by the doctrine of res judicata.
As detailed in my affidavit in support of this motion and the Verified Petition/Complaint
attached as Exhibit “A” (NYSCEF #31) (that may be used as an affidavit CPLR § 105(u))
establishes a prima facie case and likelihood of success on the merits.
RESPONDENT PLANNING BOARD ACTED WITHOUT JURISDICTION
The Respondent Planning Board failed to provide the Erie County Department of
Environment and Planning a “full statement of such proposed action” as that term is defined in
General Municipal Law § 239-m[1][c] (Verified Petition/Complaint ¶¶ 117, 154-156). Mr.
Scheiber’s conclusory affidavit is insufficient to call these allegations into question (NYSCEF #
47 – 55). Nowhere in his affidavit does he specifically avers that the specific documents
identified by Petitioner was in fact delivered to the Erie County Department of Environment and
Planning.
This is the very same grounds that Respondent Planning Board’s prior conditional
approval of June 10, 2021 of Respondent Canisius’ application for site plan review was set aside
by Justice Siwek on April 21, 2022 (Exhibit “H” of Petitioner’s affidavit dated August 11, 2022
(NYSCEF #38)).
Therefore, there is a likelihood of success that Respondent Planning Board lacked
jurisdiction to grant Respondent Canisius’ application for site plan approval. This requires that
the June 9, 2022 negative declaration and the July 14, 2022 site plan approval be vacated and set
aside (Save Harrison, Inc. v. Town/Village Harrison, 168 A.D.3d 949 (2nd Dept. 2019); Fichera
4 of 13
476
v. N.Y.S. Dep't of Envtl. Conservation, 159 A.D.3d 1493 (4th Dept. 2018); Matter of Ernalex
Constr. Realty Corp. v City of Glen Cove, 256 A.D.2d 336, 338 [2d Dept 1998]).
RESPONDENT PLANNING BOARD DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE SUBSTANTIVE

AND PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS OF SEQRA
This action is a Type I action under SEQRA which presumptively requires a positive
declaration. A “Type I action carries with it the presumption that it is likely to have a significant
effect on the environment and will require an EIS." (Miller v. City of Lockport, 210 A.D.2d 955,
957 (4th Dep't 1994)). “The threshold at which the requirement that an EIS be prepared is
triggered relatively low.” (Chinese Staff v. City of New York, 68 N.Y.2d 354 (1986)). A “Type I
action carries with it the presumption that it is likely to have a significant effect on the
environment and will require an EIS." Miller v. City of Lockport, 210 A.D.2d 955, 957 (4th Dep't
1994). The Verified Petition/Complaint states a prima facie case that a positive SEQRA
declaration should have issued and not a negative SEQRA declaration that was issued.
The record is comprised of the “facts and record adduced before the agency” with regard
to the determinations that are challenged in the Article 78 proceeding. Matter of Kelly v. Safir, 96
N.Y.2d 32, 39 (2001). See also, Mtr. of Argyle Conservation v. Town of Argyle, 223 A.D.2d 796,
798 (3rd Dept. 1996) (record comprised of the items that were presented to and considered by
the Board in connection with the SEQR process). Judicial review of an administrative action in a
CPLR Article 78 proceeding is limited to the facts and record adduced before the agency when
the determination was made. Kelly v. Safir, supra at 39. The Court cannot consider substantive
information that was not before the decision maker at the time the challenged decision was made
(Welch v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal, 287 A.D.2d 725, 726
(2nd Dept. 2001); Matter of Montalbano v. Silva, 204 A.D.2d 457, 458 (2nd Dept. 1994);
Celestial Food Corp. of Coram, Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority, 99 A.D.2d 25, 26-27
5 of 13
477
(2nd Dept. 1984); In re City of Saratoga Springs v. Zoning Bd., 279 A.D.2d 756, 760 (3rd Dept.
2001)).
Even if adequate grounds exist for the administrative determination, the determination
will be annulled if the grounds upon which it rests are inadequate or improper, or were not the
actual grounds relied upon. Judicial review of administrative determinations is limited to the
grounds invoked by the administrative body at the time of the decision (AVJ Realty Corp. v. New
York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal, 8 A.D.3d 14 (lst Dep't 2004); In re of
Stone Landing Corp., 5 A.D.3d 496 (2d Dep't 2004); In re of Cerame, 6 A.D.3d 1091 (4th Dep't
2004); Civil Service Employees Ass'n v. New York State Public Employment Relations Board,
276 A.D.2d 967 (3d Dep't 2000), Iv. denied, 96 N.Y.2d 704 (2001)). Agency determinations
must reach the right result for right reason. Where the wrong reason is stated, but the right result
determined, the remedy is a remand for reconsideration (Matter of Scherbyn v. Boces, 77 N.Y.2d
753 (1991); Matter of Montauk Improvement v. Proccacino, 41 N.Y.2d 913 (1977); Matter of
Parkmed Associates v. New York St. Tax Comm, 60 N.Y.2d 935 (1983)). In Montauk
Improvement, supra, the Court of Appeals stated:
[A] reviewing court, in dealing with a determination ... which an

administrative agency alone is authorized to make, must judge the
propriety of such action solely by the grounds invoked by the agency. If
those grounds are inadequate or improper, the court is powerless to affirm
the administrative action by substituting what it considers to be a more
adequate or proper basis (citation omitted).
See Matter of Barry v. O'Connell, 303 N.Y. 46, 51-52 (1951); Fink v. Cole, 136 N.Y.S.2d
810, 812-13 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. County 1954), affd., 286 A.D.2d 73 (1st Dep't 1955), rev'd on other
grounds, 1 N.Y.2d 48 (1956); Tamulinas v. Board of Education, 279 A.D.2d 527 (2d Dep't
2001); Matter of Bruns v. Hanna, 101 A.D.2d 1015, 1016 (4th Dep't 1984); Baker v. Town of Mt.
6 of 13
478
Pleasant, 92 A.D.2d 611 (2d Dep't 1983); Matter of Golisano v. Town Bd., Macedon, 31 A.D.2d
85, 87-88 (4th Dep't 1968); Matter of Blum v D'Angelo, 15 A.D.2d 909, 910 (1st Dep't 1962).
The affidavit of Brad Vailliancourt (NYSCEF #42) should not be considered on this
motion since it was not before Respondent Planning Board at the time it made the decision to
issue a negative SEQRA declaration on June 9, 2022 and its approval of Respondent Canisius’
application for site plan review on July 14, 2022. This affidavit also fails to comply with 22
NYCRR § 202.8-b in that it lacks the required certification.
Respondents Planning Board and Town have not filed the certified return pursuant to
CPLR § 7804(e). The Order to Show Cause that initiated this proceeding required them to file
their return on or before August 19, 2022 (NYSCEF #33). The affidavit of Jeffrey Scheiber
(NYSCEF #47 – 55) cannot be construed as the certified return since he is not a member of the
Planning Board nor is he the Secretary of the Planning Board or the Town Clerk. In the absence
of a properly certified return to satisfy the requirements of CPLR 7804(e) the allegations in the
Petition should be deemed true (In the Matter of Gilbert v. Endres, 13 A.D.3d 1104 (4th Dep't
2004)). Mr. Scheiber is also not one of the decision makers since he is not a member of the West
Seneca Planning Board. It is absolutely essential in a "non-hearing" case that the determination
be supported by detailed affidavits authored by decision-makers, carefully explaining the
grounds for the determination (In the Matter of Kirmayer, 24 A.D.3d 850 (3d Dep't 2005)). Mr.
Scheiber’s affidavit should not be considered on this motion since it was not before Respondent
Planning Board at the time it made the decision to issue a negative SEQRA declaration on June
9, 2022 and its approval of Respondent Canisius’ application for site plan review on July 14,
2022. This affidavit also fails to comply with 22 NYCRR § 202.8-b in that it lacks the required
certification.
7 of 13
479
Mr. Schreiber’s unsubstantiated averments that the NYSDOT was included as an
involved agency would have this Court believe that the NYSDOT did not carry out its obligation
with the Freedom of Information Law (Public Officers Law Art. 6).
Therefore, there is a likelihood of success that Respondent Planning Board’s negative
SEQRA declaration issued on June 9, 2022, was made in violation of lawful procedure, without
jurisdiction, affected by an error of law, arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, and not
supported by substantial evidence.
IRREPARABLE INJURY
Without a preliminary injunction pending judicial review of this admirative decision, this
action would be moot and a valuable opportunity to assess this project’s effect on the
environment, important to Petitioner and the community, and a constitutional right under the
Green Amendment, would be lost. Petitioner, and the community, will suffer immediate and
irreparable injury in that the environment will be irrevocably altered without appropriate review
and mitigation if an injunction is not issued preventing Respondent Canisius from any
construction or other activities on the Subject Parcel pending the hearing and determination of
this proceeding. This temporary restraining order/preliminary injunction is necessary to protect
the status quo and Petitioner’s constitutional right under the Green Amendment for a limited time
for this summary proceeding to be decided on its merits. Petitioner has established that failure to
preserve the status quo would result in deprivation of its constitutional right to due process.
Petitioner asserts that it would be a denial of Due Process of Law pursuant to the U.S.
Constitution (People v. Novak, 30 N.Y.3d 222; People v. Harrison, 27 N.Y.3d 281, 286 [2016]).
This alone demonstrates irreparable harm.
Petitioner is required to seek interim relief to maintain the status quo and prevent
8 of 13
480
construction at every possible opportunity in order to preserve his right to have a Court review
Respondent Planning Board’s approval of Respondent Canisius’ application for site plan review
or such may be dismissed as moot (see, Matter of Gorman v Town Bd. of Town of E. Hampton,
273 AD2d 235, 236, lv denied 96 NY2d 703; see also, Matter of Save the Pine Bush v New York
State Dept. of Envtl. Conservation, 289 AD2d 636, 640, lv denied 97 NY2d 611; Matter of Save
the Pine Bush v City of Albany, 281 AD2d 832, 833; Matter of Save the Pine Bush v City Engr.
of City of Albany, 220 AD2d 871, 872, lv denied 87 NY2d 807).
The opposition filed by the Respondents do not contest this issue.
BALANCE OF EQUITIES
To satisfy the third prong of the preliminary injunction standard, the movant must
establish that the injury it would sustain is more burdensome to it than the harm that would be
caused to the non-movant through the imposition of the injunction (Winter Bros. Recycling Corp.
v. Jet Sanitation Serv. Corp., 23 Misc. 3d 1115[A], 2009 NY Slip Op. 50753[U] (Sup. Ct.
Nassau County Mar. 13, 2009); Fischer v. Deitsch, 168 A.D.2d 599, 601 (2d Dept. 1990)).
A temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction maintaining the status quo and
halting construction until this Court determine the merits of this proceeding will protect the
environment until a proper environmental review is had. Such will also preserve Petitioner’s
right to judicial review of the Respondent Planning Board’s actions. Such will be for a short
time of a little more than 30 days.
On the other hand, Respondent Canisius will not suffer any injury by waiting to construct
its expanded athletic fields that it has already put off for approximately 15 years. Strongly
tipping the scales in favor of the preliminary injunction is the necessity of preserving Petitioner's
constitutional right to a judicial determination of the respective interests of the parties.
9 of 13
481
Respondent Canisius commenced construction when it new, or should have known, that a
challenge to the approval of its site plan approval had been commenced. First Respondent
Planning Board’s action on Respondent Canisius’ application was previously successfully
challenged. This proceeding was commenced well within the statute of limitations which is
measured from the final decision on Respondent Canisius’ application for site plan review. Here
this occurred on July 14, 2022. This proceeding was required to be commenced within 30 days
(Town Law § 267-c). This proceeding was commenced on July 15, 2022 (NYSCEF #1).
Respondent Canisius was served with the Order to Show Cause, Verified Petition/Complaint,
and supporting Memorandum of Law on July 22, 2022 (NYSCEF # 26) and the building permit
was issued on July 25, 2022.
Under these circumstances, a balancing of the equities weighs heavily in favor of the
Petitioner. (See, Matter of Dreikausen v. Zoning Bd. Of Appeals of City of Long Beach, 98
N.Y.2d 165 (2002); Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12, 18; Matter of Mitchell, 40 N.Y.2d 153, 157
(1976)).
The opposition filed by the Respondents do not contest this.
UNDERTAKING
CPLR § 6312(b) requires the movant to post a bond contemporaneously with the issuance
of a preliminary injunction order. The amount to be posted is a matter within the sound
discretion of the court (Lelekakis v. Kamamis, 303 A.D.2d 380, 380 (2d Dept. 2003)). However,
the amount of the undertaking must be rationally related to the amount of the non-movant’s
potential liability if the preliminary injunction later proves to be unwarranted. Id. at 381. The
purpose of the undertaking therefore is to secure for the non-movant the actual losses and costs –
not theoretical losses, “if it is later finally determined that the preliminary injunction was
10 of 13
482
erroneously granted.” Id. at 380. Mere conclusory assertions of potential monetary loss are
insufficient to justify anything more than a minimal bond (7th Sense, Inc. v. Liu, 220 A.D.2d
215, 217 (1st Dept. 1995)). Here Respondent Canisius has failed to come forward with any
evidence or argument as to this issue.
The federal courts in similar cases under the National Environmental Protection Act,
have regularly recognized the special role that petitioners play in upholding these rights.
Furthermore, since SEQRA was modeled after NEPA, it has long been held that NEPA cases
provide appropriate precedents for SEQRA Law (See, e.g., Branch Assocs. v. Department of
Environmental Conservation, 146 Misc.2d 334 (Sup. Ct. Albany 1989); Glenhead-Glenwood
Landing Civic Council, Inc. v. Town Oyster Bay, 109 Misc.2d 376, 387 (Sup. Ct. Nassau Co.,
1981), aff’d 88 A.D.2d 484 (2nd Dept. 1982) (The court "looked to the federal courts for
guidance"); Ecology Action v. Van Cort, 99 Misc.2d 664, 667 (Sup. Ct. Tompkins Co., 1979)
(the federal decisions are relevant as SEQRA was closely patterned upon NEPA). See, e.g.,
F.3d 1168 (2nd Cir. 1995) (recognizing, in the context of the federal analogue (F.R.C.P. 65) to
CPLR § 6312, the public interest exception affirming the waiver of the requirement that the
movants post an undertaking)). The federal courts in NEPA cases have early on recognized the
special role that Petitioners play. Therefore, it has been stated that it "is common for courts in
environmental cases brought by environmental groups or individuals of limited means,
particularly in NEPA cases to require little or no security". David Reisel, Temporary Restraining
Orders, Preliminary Injunction and in Environmental Litigation, 885 A.L.I.-A.B.A. 899, 955
(1996) (citing numerous cases): see also Charles A. Wright et. al., 11 A. Federal Practice and
Procedure Civil Second Section 2954 (1995); see also People Ex rel. Van de Kamp v. Tahoe
11 of 13
483
Regional Planning Agency, 766 F.2d 1319 (9th Cir. 1985) (where the court waived the bond
requirement where requiring bond would effectively deny access to judicial review.); Friends of
the Earth, Inc. v. Brinegar, 518 F.2d 322 (9th Cir. 1975) (bond reduced from $4,500,000 to
$1,000 in NEPA suit involving expansion of San Francisco Airport); Viavant. Trans-Delta Oil &
Gas Co., 7 ERC 1423, 1426 (l0th Cir. 1974) ($100.00 bond in NEPA case); Highlands Conserv.
v. Island Creek Coal, 441 F.2d 232 (4th Cir. 1971) ($100.00 bond in a NEPA case where the
Nature Conservancy argued that mining activities would disrupt scenic and historic areas);
Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Morton, 337 F.Supp. 167 (D.C.C.D., 1971) (waiving
bond requirements of FRCP 65).
Respondents have not submitted any evidence as to what would be a sufficient
undertaking for a preliminary injunction and therefore a nominal undertaking of $100.00 should
be set by the Court.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above an Order pursuant to CPLR § 6311 should be entered as
follows:
1. Preliminarily enjoining Respondent Canisius, its agents, employees and
servants and all who are in privity with them, from any and all land clearing,
vegetation removal, bulldozing, grading, construction or issuance of grading
or building permits, or any funding approval, or any other action with respect
to the property located at 2448 & 2885 Clinton Street, West Seneca, New
York (hereinafter “Subject Parcel”) until 30 days after such time Respondent
Planning Board and the Town of West Seneca has completed its review on
remand from this Court or upon further order of this Court;
12 of 13
484
2. together with such other relief as the court deems proper.
DATED: August 25, 2022

Yours, etc.

Daniel T. Warren
Plaintiff, Pro Se
716-288-6724
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Uniform Rule 202.8-b, the above Memorandum is 3,635 words, excluding the
caption, table of contents, table of authorities, and signature block. I further certify the foregoing
complies with the 4,000-word limit for reply memoranda set forth in Uniform Rule 202.8-b.
DATED: August 25, 2022

Yours, etc.

Daniel T. Warren
Plaintiff, Pro Se
716-288-6724
13 of 13
485
Petitioner’s Notice of Motion for Default Judgment dated September 9, 2022

SUPREME COURT :
: NOTICE OF MOTION
: FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT
plan review by Respondents, : Index # 808016/2022
:
Daniel T. Warren : Hon. Mark J. Grisanti
Petitioners, : IAS Assigned Justice
Against :
:
its President. :
Respondents :
Upon the annexed affidavit of Daniel T. Warren, dated September 8, 2022, with attached
exhibits, and upon all the prior pleadings and proceedings in this matter; Petitioner will move this
Court at the Erie County Supreme Court, 25 Franklin Street - Part 15, Buffalo, New York 14202, on
September 28, 2022, at 10:30 a.m., or as soon thereafter as the parties may be heard for an order:
a. Granting Petitioner a default judgment pursuant to CPLR §§ 406, 3215, & 7804(e) and
granting all of the relief requested in the Verified Petition/Complaint;
b. awarding such other and further relief the Court may deem just and proper under the
circumstances.
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to CPLR § 2214(b), answering papers (or a notice of
cross-motion, with supporting papers), if any, must be served upon the undersigned at least seven (7)
days before the return date of this motion.
1 of 2
486
DATED: September 9, 2022

Yours, etc.

Daniel T. Warren
Petitioner, Pro Se
716-288-6724
2 of 2
487
Affidavit of Daniel T. Warren dated September 8, 2022

SUPREME COURT :
: AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
: FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT
plan review by Respondents, : Index # 808016/2022
:
Daniel T. Warren : Hon. Mark J. Grisanti
Petitioners, : IAS Assigned Justice
Against :
:
its President. :
Respondents :
State of New York )

Daniel T. Warren, being duly sworn, deposes and says:
1. I am the Petitioner in this proceeding, and I am fully familiar with the facts related
thereto. This affidavit is based on my own personal knowledge except when indicated
that such is based upon information and belief as such deponent verily believes same.
2. This proceeding challenges the determinations of the Town Respondents issuance of a
negative SEQRA declaration and approval of Respondent Canisius’ application for site
plan review. In a prior proceeding Justice Siwek held that the Town Respondents lacked
jurisdiction to take action as they did in their June 10, 2021 conditional approval due to
failure to comply with General Municipal Law § 239-m. Petitioner asserts in this current
proceeding that the Town Respondents still have not complied with GML § 239-m. Also,
it is alleged that Town Respondents did not comply with Town Law § 274-a(9); failed to
procedurally and substantively comply with SEQRA; their grant of site plan approval
1 of 12
488
must be set aside as arbitrary, capricious and affected by an error of law; and they
violated the open meetings law.
3. Documents filed in the NYSCEF system and referenced in this affidavit are incorporated
herein by reference with the full force and effect as if it has been attached hereto as an
exhibit pursuant to CPLR § 2214(c).
4. This proceeding was commenced by the filing of a Verified Petition/Complaint on July
15, 2022 (NYSCEF #1-19).
5. On July 18, 2022, Petitioner filed a Memorandum of Law and proposed Order to Show
Cause with Temporary Restraining Order (NYSCEF #20-21).
6. On July 18, 2022, the Court signed the Order to Show Cause and struck out the TRO and
provided dates for the filing and briefing of the proceeding and setting September 28,
2022 at 10:30 as the return date for the proceeding (NYSCEF #24).
7. Consistent with the signed Order to Show Cause Petitioner filed a conformed copy of it
in NYSCEF (NYSCEF #25).
8. Respondent Canisius was served as directed in the Order to Show Cause on July 22, 2022
(NYSCEF #26).
9. Respondent Town was served as directed in the Order to Show Cause on July 25, 2022
(NYSCEF #27).
10. Respondent Planning Board was served as directed in the Order to Show Cause on July
25, 2022 (NYSCEF #28).
11. Respondent Canisius has appeared in this proceeding through Counsel J. Michael
Lennon, Esq. of The Cosgrove Law Firm on August 24, 2022.
12. Respondents Planning Board and Town have appeared in this proceeding through Chris
2 of 12
489
G. Trapp, Esq. the West Seneca Town Attorney on August 24, 2022.
13. Respondents Planning Board and Town was required by the Order to Show Cause to
serve and file the certified return on or before August 19, 2022.
14. Respondents Planning Board and Town did not serve and file the certified return and the
time to do so has passed.
15. Respondents Planning Board and Town have not asked for an extension of time to file
and serve the certified return and no extension was offered.
16. Respondent Planning Board and Town are in default and as of the date of this affidavit a
certified return has not been served or filed.
17. All Respondents were required by the Order to Show Cause to server their answers or
other responsive motion on or before August 31, 2022.
18. On August 31, 2022 at 04:32 PM, Respondent Canisius served and filed an affidavit of J.
Michael Lennon, Esq. (NYSCEF #58).
19. On August 31, 2022 at 05:30 PM, Petitioner rejected this filing in it was not a verified
answer or an objection in point of law (NYSCEF #63).
20. On August 24, 2022 at 05:29 PM, Respondents Planning Board and Town served and
filed the affidavit of Jeffrey Schieber with Exhibits “A” through “C” (NYSCEF #59-62).
21. On August 31, 2022 at 05:53 PM, Petitioner rejected this filing in it was not a verified
answer, certified return, or an objection in point of law. Further it was not before the
Planning Board at the time of the challenged determinations (NYSCEF #64).
22. Respondents did not serve and file a verified answer or objection in point of law and the
time to do so has passed.
23. Respondents have not asked for an extension of time to file and serve a verified answer or
3 of 12
490
objection in point of law and no extension was offered.
24. Respondents are in default in pleading and as of the date of this affidavit a verified
answer or objection in point of law has not been served or filed.
25. Respondents have been afforded a reasonable opportunity to cure any defects in pleading
and as of the date of this affidavit have not filed or served a verified answer, certified
return or objection in point of law.
26. Upon information and belief Respondents knowingly and intentionally defaulted in this
proceeding. This belief is based on the following information:
a. Despite being given a reasonable opportunity to cure the defects on the rejected
papers no Respondent availed themselves of this opportunity, there is no
sufficient excuse, and Respondents have not moved to compel Petitioner to accept
these papers, which demonstrates willfulness.
b. Respondents timely opposed a prior motion om this proceeding and actually
produced more opposition to it than in their purported responsive pleadings
(NYSCEF #29-57).
c. Based on Respondent Planning Board’s intentional decision to not provide a full
and complete certified return of what it had before it because if it does so it will
conclusively establish that it did not have jurisdiction to act under GML § 239-m
in that it did not provide to the Erie County Department of Environment and
Planning all of the materials it used to base its SEQRA determination on as
detailed below.
d. These submissions were misleading and communicated an unfair and inaccurate
picture to the court that would be manifestly unfair in the absence of a complete
4 of 12
491
certified return.
27. As for proof of the facts constituting the claim Petitioner submits the Verified
Petition/Complaint (NYSCEF #1-19) as the affidavit of the facts constituting the claim.
28. Deponent also submits the following proof of facts constituting the claim.
29. Deponent has had the opportunity to obtain from the Erie County Department of
Environment and Planning pursuant to Public Officers Law Article 6 a true copy of the
thumb drive provided to them by letter of Jeffrey Schieber dated May 9, 2022 (NYSCEF
#14). I have personally inspected this thumb drive and it only the following files:
a. A file named “2022-04-08T13-04-36_21PR02923EffectFindingLetter.pdf” – a
true copy of the contents of this file is attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “1”.
b. A file named “20020 Drawings_4-29-22.pdf” – a true copy of the contents of this
file is attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “2”.
c. A file named “Army Corp_No Permit needed_11-30-21.pdf” – a true copy of the
contents of this file is attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “3”.
d. A file named “Canisius High School - Flood Report_2021-04-28.pdf” – a true
copy of the contents of this file is attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “4”.
e. A file named “Canisius HS_Engineering Report_3-17-2021.pdf” – a true copy of
the contents of this file is attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “5”.
f. A file named “Canisius Mtr - TA Owner Representative.pdf” – a true copy of the
g. A file named “Canisius_monitoring plan_042922.pdf” – a true copy of the
h. A file named “CanisiusHS_EAF_2-24-2021 - FINAL.pdf” – a true copy of the
5 of 12
492
i. A file named “Cansisius Revision appvl ltr 2-8-22.pdf” – a true copy of the
j. A file named “DEC_Buffalo.9-1402-
00596.CanisiusHighSchool.PermitUpdateLtr.pdf” – a true copy of the contents of
this file is attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “10”.
k. A file named “DEED 11098-2759_Written property Description.pdf” – a true
copy of the contents of this file is attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “11”.
l. A file named “Original Application.pdf” – a true copy of the contents of this file
is attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “12”.
m. A file named “Original cover letter.pdf” – a true copy of the contents of this file is
attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “13”.
n. A file named “Original EC SEQRA form.pdf” – a true copy of the contents of this
file is attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “14”.
o. A file named “SWPPP Report-CanisiusHS_2021-05-25.pdf” – a true copy of the
p. A file named “TA Letter of Intent.pdf” – a true copy of the contents of this file is
q. A file named “Town Of West Seneca - Existing Land Use.pdf” – a true copy of
the contents of this file is attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “17”.
r. A file named “Town of West Seneca_ZONEMAP_2018.pdf” – a true copy of the
30. A true copy of Petitioner’s letter to Respondent Planning Board dated April 24, 2021
6 of 12
493
31. A true copy of Petitioner’s letter to Respondent Planning Board dated September 30,
2021 attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “20”.
32. A true copy of Petitioner’s letter to Respondent Planning Board dated October 7, 2021
33. A true copy of the report referenced in my October 7, 2021 letter entitled “Flood Plain
Management Planning Assistance for The Town of West Seneca New York - BUFFALO
CREEK” produced by the U.S Army Corps of Engineers in September 1979 attached
hereto and marked as Exhibit “22”.
34. A true copy of the report referenced in my October 7, 2021 letter entitled “Lexington
Green P2#443918” produced by the U.S Army Corps of Engineers dated 5/24/16
35. A true copy of Petitioner’s letter to Respondent Planning Board dated October 15, 2021
36. A true copy of Petitioner’s letter to Respondent Planning Board dated November 10,
2021 attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “25”.
37. A true copy of Petitioner’s letter to Respondent Planning Board dated January 10, 2022
38. A true copy of Petitioner’s letter to Respondent Planning Board dated February 19, 2022
39. A true copy of the report referenced in my February 19, 2022 letter entitled “FLOOD
PLAIN IN FORMATION BUFFALO CREEK N.Y. IN THE TOWNS OF ELMA AND
WEST SENECA MAIN REPORT AND TECHNICAL APPENDIX” produced by the
7 of 12
494
U.S Army Corps of Engineers in April 1966 (Reprinted June 1971) attached hereto and
marked as Exhibit “28”.
42. A true copy of Petitioner’s letter to Respondent Planning Board dated May 26, 2022
43. A true copy of Petitioner’s letter to Respondent Planning Board dated June 4, 2022
44. A true copy of Petitioner’s letter to Respondent Planning Board dated June 23, 2022
45. Exhibits “19” through “33” were submitted to Respondent Planning Board and were
before it when it made the determinations that are challenged in this proceeding.
46. However, none of these documents have been submitted in Respondent Planning Board
as part of any of its submissions that it held out to be its certified return. This includes:
(NYSCEF #14 page 6).
47. These submissions, in whole or in part, were considered by Respondent Planning Board
in reaching its SEQRA determination as evidenced by Exhibit “13” to the Verified
Petition/Complaint (NYSCEF #14 pages 5 through 7).
48. Based on Deponent’s personal inspection of the files of the Erie County Department of
Environment and Planning were Exhibits “19” through “33” were submitted to it by
8 of 12
495
Respondents.
49. Respondent Planning Board stated in the minutes of the June 9, 2022 meeting that:
(NYSCEF #14 pages 6). However, no such communication supports this determination
by NYSDOT or any other entity was submitted to The Erie County Department of
Environment and Planning based on my personal inspection of their files. This is also
interesting since the NYSDOT respondent to Petitioner’s FOIL request stating there have
been no communications with anyone regarding this project (NYSCEF #19).
50. A true copy of The Town of West Seneca Comprehensive Plan Strategic Update 2016
Adopted April 25, 2016 attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “34” available at
http://westseneca.net/sites/default/files/WS%202016%20Comprehensive%20Plan%20A
DOPTED(3).pdf .
51. As can be seen from the Comprehensive Plan this site is of significant concern and its use
is not in harmony with the Plan in that its use and development should be limited.
52. Petitioner on July 4, 2022 submitted a request pursuant to the Freedom of Information
Act to the United States Corps of Engineers for “All documents and communication
regarding the planned expansion of the Canisius Athletic Fields located at 2448 & 2885
Clinton Street, West Seneca, NY 14224 in the County of Erie between January 1, 2021
and the present. This includes, but is not limited to, ‘Approved Jurisdictional
Determination for Department of the Army Processing No. LRB-2021-01394’”.
Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “35” is a true copy of the full and complete
request and the August 5, 2022 response.
53. As can be seen from this response from the USACE that the November 30, 2021 letter
9 of 12
496
was not in response to, nor did it even address, any request on its environmental concerns
related to this project. It was solely, and merely, a determination on its jurisdictional
requirement for this project.
54. However, Respondent Planning Board stated in the minutes of the June 9, 2022 meeting
that:
" L etter dated September 24, 2021

/ documents" - The
Item 1: "USACE FOIL request yielded no Town received a letter dated
November 30, 2021, of no significant impact.
(NYSCEF #14 page 6 ).
55. Respondent Planning Board stated in the minutes of the June 9, 2022 meeting that:
agencies" - All materials

Item 2: "Not all information was distributed to the involved and interested
have been forwarded and in addition, full packets of all Information have been sent to all involved
and interested agencies in April of this year.
(NYSCEF #14 page 6 ) and
2) All involved and interested agencies were provided the necessary information to review this project, none
of which took exception to the proposed action. Agencies induded: NYSDOT, USACE, NYSDEC, ECDPW,
ECDEP, Town Engineer, and SHPO. SHPO was the only agency that provided any requirements during
construction.
(NYSCEF #14 page 7) and
56. However, neither the USACE FOIA response (Exhibit "36") nor the NYSDOT FOIL
response (NYSCEF #19) contained any communication from anyone on behalf of
Respondents Planning Board and Town.
57. Respondent Planning Board states that it included the Phase 1 portion of this project in
connection with this project:
project" - The
Item 4: "Consideration of original project in conjunction with this combined effects
of both projects were considered during our review -this will be addressed later In this statement.
(NYSCEF #14 page 6)
58. However, this appears to not have been communicated to SHPO. According to their May
10 of 12
497
11, 2022 email they only considered the land upon which the current phase is situated as
they state:
I am contacting you today as there have been some developments with the Canisius project that I
wanted to share with you. A legal challenge/lawsuit has been filed against the Town of West
Seneca's Planning Board in regards to this project by a nearby citizen or citizens and the potential of
the project to negatively impact their properties as a result of flooding
(httos://buffalonews.com/news/local/westÄeneca-to-take4econd-look-at<:anisius-high-school-
athletic:comolex-exoansion/artic je 9ba204c8-c735-11ec-94cd-5b52fae895c3 htmit From what I
understand the school must go through the SEORA process again- There is a chance that if the
project is determined to negatively affect the neighboring properties, the projects APE or proposed
impacts may change, and thus the project will have to be reassessed at that time. OPRHP is
continuing with our review of the project as it has been presented to us until or unless we hear
otherwise. As you are aware, OPRHP has issued a conditional effect finding tor the project that I
(NYSCEF #18 page 10).
59. Therefore, the projects area for potential effect (APE) for this project should have at least
been the area of both phases, if not larger.
Wherefore, Petitioner prays for the entry of a default judgment vacating the challenged
determinations and enjoining any construction on this site until at least 30 days after the
Respondents reach a new determination on remand.
Daniel T. Warren
Sworn to before me this

2 day of September 2022
otary 1 blic
Christopher M. Griesbaum
Commissioner of Deeds
In and for Erie County, New York
My Commission Expires: 12/31/,dd;,
11 of 12
498
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Uniform Rule 202.8-b, the above Affidavit is 2,553 words, excluding the caption,
table of contents, table of authorities, and signature block. I further certify the foregoing
complies with the 7,000-word limit set forth in Uniform Rule 202.8-b.
DATED: September 8, 2022

Yours, etc.
Daniel T. Warren
Petitioner, Pro Se
716-288-6724
12 of 12
499
Exhibit “1” - Copy of 2022-04-08T13-04-36_21PR02923EffectFindingLetter.pdf
ÿÿÿ ÿÿ ÿ!"

$123&4ÿ%)3*ÿ$)*ÿ5,
#$%&'ÿ$)*ÿ+,+,-./0,00
6&3&#7&%ÿ$123&48ÿ,9/,9/0,00
0123435ÿ789ÿ
500
¡¢£¤ÿ¢¦ ¢ÿ§¨©ª«¬ÿ§¡¢¦ÿ®¯°®¯°±®±±ÿ²²¤³´ÿµ¶
¸ÅÆÇºÈÿ¹½Ç¾ÿ¸½¾ÿÉÀ
·¸¹º»ÿ¸½¾ÿ¿À¿ÀÁÂÃÄÀÄÄ
ÊºÇº·Ëº¹ÿ¸ÅÆÇºÈÌÿÀÍÃÀÍÃÄÀÄÄ
ÿ
ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ
ÿÿ
IJK5ÿLMNÿ ÿ
OPIÿIMNNO9OPQÿ ÿÿ
R%ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ
ÿ
ÿ
STT%ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿ
ÿÿ
ÿÿ
ÿ UVWXYÿZ[ÿ\]\\ÿ
ÿ ÿ ÿÿ ÿ ÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿ ^W_ÿ̀abWYcdÿebfgWcX[ÿÿ
UhcfijÿkXdlmWXiÿnWcdcWoblXmfÿpqqXicWÿ
rstÿufoXWmfvcflbYÿ̀mfdcWoblXmfÿ
wXoXdXmfÿmqÿxbfgdÿbfgÿymWcdldÿ
z\{ÿ|Wmbg}bjÿ
UY~bfj[ÿrsÿ\\\{{ÿ
ÿ ÿ ÿÿ ÿ ÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿ cÿÿwu`ÿ
m~cWlÿ_ÿtlbfdjÿ^cvmWXbYÿ̀mvVYcÿnWmcilÿÿ̀bfXdXdÿkXhaÿtiammYÿÿwcocYmVvcflÿmqÿ\ÿrc}ÿ
|bdc~bYYÿyXcYgdÿ
ÿ
\ZZ{ÿ̀YXflmfÿtl[ÿcdlÿtcfcib[ÿuWXcÿ̀mflj[ÿrsÿ
\n]\\ÿ
ÿ ÿ ÿÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ
ÿ
ÿ wcbWÿ^W_ÿebfgWcXÿ
ÿ ÿ ÿÿ ÿ ÿ
ÿ
ÿ
abfÿjmÿqmWÿWccdlXfhÿlacÿimvvcfldÿmqÿlacÿwXoXdXmfÿqmWÿkXdlmWXiÿnWcdcWoblXmfÿmqÿlacÿpqqXicÿmqÿnbWd[ÿ
ciWcblXmf[ÿbfgÿkXdlmWXiÿnWcdcWoblXmfÿpnkn_ÿcÿabocÿWcoXc}cgÿlacÿUggcfgvÿnabdcÿÿ^ciabfXibYÿtmXYÿ
tlWXVVXfhÿufgÿmqÿyXcYgÿxcllcWÿcVmWlÿupyÿqmWÿxmidÿÿmqÿlacÿ̀bfXdXdÿtXlcÿtrÿ]\\{_]]]{z\ÿVWcVbWcgÿ~jÿ
clWbÿciaÿncYlXcW[ÿ^bWiaÿ\{[ÿ\]\\ÿXfÿbiimWgbficÿ}Xlaÿlacÿrc}ÿsmWÿtlblcÿkXdlmWXiÿnWcdcWoblXmfÿUilÿmqÿZ]ÿ
dcilXmfÿ_]ÿmqÿlacÿrc}ÿsmWÿnbWd[ÿciWcblXmf[ÿbfgÿkXdlmWXiÿnWcdcWoblXmfÿxb}_ÿacdcÿimvvcfldÿbWcÿlamdcÿ
mqÿlacÿwXoXdXmfÿqmWÿkXdlmWXiÿnWcdcWoblXmfÿbfgÿWcYblcÿmfYjÿlmÿkXdlmWXi`YlWbYÿWcdmWicd_ÿ
ÿ
UdÿdlblcgÿXfÿmWÿyc~WbWjÿ[ÿ\]\\[ÿYcllcW[ÿXlÿXdÿpnkndÿmVXfXmfÿlablÿlacÿnabdcÿÿbfgÿnabdcÿÿXfocdlXhblXmfdÿmqÿ
xmidÿÿabocÿvXlXhblcgÿbfjÿbgocWdcÿXvVbildÿlmÿlaXdÿYmid[ÿbfgÿfmÿqWlacWÿbWiabcmYmhXibYÿXfocdlXhblXmfdÿbWcÿ
}bWWbflcgÿqmWÿxmidÿ_ÿUggXlXmfbYYj[ÿpnknÿimfiWWcgÿ}XlaÿclWbÿciadÿmVXfXmfÿlablÿxmidÿ\ÿmqÿlacÿ̀bfXdXdÿ
tXlcÿabdÿ~ccfÿdXhfXqXibflYjÿgXdlW~cgÿbfgÿlacÿdXlcdÿXflchWXljÿbfgÿWcdcbWiaÿVmlcflXbYÿabocÿ~ccfÿYmdl_ÿlÿXdÿ
pnkndÿmVXfXmfÿlablÿxmidÿ\ÿXdÿbÿfmfimflWX~lXfhÿimvVmfcflÿmqÿlacÿ̀bfXdXdÿdXlcdÿcYXhX~XYXljÿqmWÿlacÿtlblcÿ
bfgÿrblXmfbYÿchXdlcWdÿmqÿkXdlmWXiÿVYbicdÿtrkn_ÿÿ
ÿ
|bdcgÿVmfÿlacÿWcdYldÿmqÿlacÿnabdcÿÿtXlcÿubvXfblXmf[ÿxmidÿÿmqÿlacÿ̀bfXdXdÿtXlcÿ}bdÿgclcWvXfcgÿ~jÿ
pnknÿlmÿ~cÿcYXhX~YcÿqmWÿlacÿtrknÿfgcWÿ̀WXlcWXmfÿwÿlacÿdXlcÿabdÿjXcYgcg[ÿbfgmWÿXdÿYXcYjÿlmÿjXcYg[ÿ
XfqmWvblXmfÿXvVmWlbflÿXfÿaXdlmWj_ÿUfÿbomXgbficÿbfgÿVWmlcilXmfÿbWcbÿqmWÿVmWlXmfdÿmqÿxmidÿÿ}bdÿWcimvvcfgcgÿ
~jÿclWbÿciaÿVmfÿimvVYclXmfÿmqÿlacXWÿXfocdlXhblXmf_ÿÿkm}cocW[ÿpnkn[ÿwu`[ÿbfgÿlacÿfgXhcfmdÿrblXmfdÿ
imflXfcgÿlmÿabocÿimficWfdÿqmWÿbWcbdÿmqÿxmidÿÿmldXgcÿmqÿlacÿclWbÿciaÿWcimvvcfgcgÿbomXgbficÿbWcb_ÿUdÿbÿ
WcdYlÿmqÿlacdcÿimficWfd[ÿnabdcÿÿ^ciabfXibYÿtmXYÿtlWXVVXfhÿ}bdÿimfgilcgÿ~jÿclWbÿcia[ÿ}aXiaÿWcdYlcgÿXfÿ
lacÿXgcflXqXiblXmfÿmqÿbfÿbggXlXmfbYÿ]ÿqcblWcdÿ{ÿVmdlamYcd[ÿÿlacWvbYÿqcblWcd[ÿbfgÿÿdlmfcÿqcblWcÿbgbicflÿÿ
bfgÿlmÿlacÿfmWlaÿmqÿlacÿbomXgbficÿbWcb_ÿacÿvciabfXibYÿdmXYÿdlWXVVXfhÿVWmhWbvÿ}bdÿimfgilcgÿlmÿvXlXhblcÿlacÿ
UgocWdcÿvVbildÿlmÿlacÿ̀bfXdXdÿtXlc[ÿxmidÿ_ÿ
ÿ
wcÿlmÿlacÿdcfdXlXoXljÿmqÿlacÿVWmcildÿUWcbÿmqÿnmlcflXbYÿuqqcildÿUnu[ÿpnknÿabdÿimflXfXfhÿimficWfdÿb~mlÿ
lacÿVmlcflXbYÿlmÿXvVbilÿfgXhcfmdÿ~WXbYdÿbfgÿdXhfXqXibflÿiYlWbYÿqcblWcd_ÿlÿXdÿpnkndÿmVXfXmfÿlablÿlaXdÿ
VWmcilÿ}XYYÿabocÿrmÿUgocWdcÿvVbilÿmfÿiYlWbYÿWcdmWicdÿÿÿÿlablÿlacÿqmYYm}Xfhÿ~cÿbgmVlcgÿ
bfgÿXvVYcvcflcgÿ
ÿ
ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ \ÿ
ÿ
123ÿ5678ÿ9

2ÿ 2ÿ6 ÿ78ÿ272
6ÿÿ
67ÿ7227
6ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿ!"#ÿ$%%&"'ÿ$%%()%ÿ*)&+'ÿ$,ÿ-.ÿ/01'ÿ2&"%+'ÿ3%4ÿ56ÿ/7/0089/01ÿ
:;/0<ÿ7=>80?@=ÿAÿB""CDEEC&6FGFHEBCÿ
ÿ ÿ
ÿ
ÿ ÿ
ÿ
ÿ ÿ
ÿ ÿ ÿ
501
ÿ
ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ
ÿÿ ¡¢£ÿ¤ÿ¥¦§¥¦§¨¥¨¨ÿ©©ª«ÿ¬
¯¼½¾±¿ÿ°´¾µÿ¯´µÿÀ·
®¯°±²ÿ¯´µÿ¶·¶·¸¹º»·»»
Á±¾±®Â±°ÿ¯¼½¾±¿Ãÿ·Äº·Äº»·»»
IJKÿLMNJOPQÿRNSTJPUÿ
VWJUOÿXYÿZ[ZZÿ
\N]PÿZKÿ
ÿ
^Kÿ_PSÙS]ÿaUOOÿJPbNUSÿNJcdSTÿeMPÿfUePÿVgcUTNS`Ph\JcePèUcSÿVJPNdSeUOÿ̀cSQeJdèUcSÿUQÿ̀cbWOPePTKÿiMPÿ
NgcUTPTÿNJPNÿaUOOÿjPÿONjPOTÿÿklmRnopmIlmiVqqrÿflmfninRlÿsÿmpÿVLLlfftÿcSÿNOOÿ
`cSQeJdèUcSÿWONSQKÿÿÿ
ZKÿVÿOP]NOOuÿjUSTUS]ÿ\JPQPJgNeUcSÿvPPTÿLcgPSNSeÿwcJÿeMPÿLNSUQUdQÿfUePxQÿqc`dQÿyÿVgcUTNS`Ph\JcePèUcSÿ
VJPNÿaUOOÿjPÿPQeNjOUQMPTÿUSÿWPJWPedUeuÿNSTÿwUOPTÿaUeMÿeMPÿLcdSeuÿLOPJzxQÿpwwÙPYÿvlLYÿNSTÿp\o{\ÿ
aUeMUSÿeMJPPÿ|y}ÿbcSeMQÿcwÿeMPÿTNePÿcwÿeMUQÿOPeePJKÿÿ
yKÿiMPÿ̀PSeJNOOuÿOc`NePTÿbNUSÿTJNUSN]PÿOUSPÿaUeMUSÿeMPÿVJPNÿ~ÿjNQPjNOOÿTUNbcSTYÿNQÿcdeOUSPTÿUSÿuPOOcaÿjuÿ
p\o{\ÿcSÿeMPÿNeeN`MPTÿbNWYÿaUOOÿjPÿbcgPTÿwPPeÿecÿeMPÿPNQeÿcJÿaPQeYÿUSÿcJTPJÿecÿNgcUThOUbUeÿ
WcePSeUNOÿUbWNèQÿecÿUSeNèÿ̀dOedJNOÿwPNedJPQKÿÿ
KÿiMPÿ^XUS`MÿTUNbPePJÿwPS`PWcQeÿwccePJQÿecÿjPÿPJPèPTÿNeÿ^[wcceÿUSePJgNOQÿNJcdSTÿVJPNÿ~xQÿjNQPjNOOÿ
wUPOTÿaUOOÿjPÿUSQeNOOPTÿecÿOUbUeÿTUQedJjNS`PQÿecÿ̀dOedJNOÿJPQcdJ`PQKÿnSQeNOONeUcSÿcwÿeMPÿwPS`PÿWcQeQÿUQÿecÿ
jP]USÿNeÿPUeMPJÿPSTÿcwÿeMPÿNJPNÿ̀UJÒPTÿUSÿcJNS]PÿcSÿeMPÿNeeN`MPTÿbNWÿjP`NdQPÿeMPQPÿNJPNQÿaPJPÿwdOOuÿ
USgPQeU]NePTKÿiMUQÿaUOOÿOUbUeÿWcePSeUNOÿUbWNèQÿecÿUSeNèÿQcUOQÿNSTÿwPNedJPQÿ̀OcQPQeÿecÿeMPÿNJPNÿUSÿaMÙMÿ
wPNedJPQÿaPJPÿUTPSeUwUPTÿTdJUS]ÿbP`MNSÙNOÿQcUOÿQeJUWWUS]Kÿÿ
KÿoPgUQPThdWTNePTÿQUePÿWONSÿbNWQÿcwÿeMPÿWJcPèxQÿ]JcdSTTUQedJjUS]ÿUbWNèQÿNQQcÙNePTÿaUeMÿVJPNÿ~xQÿ
jNQPjNOOÿTUNbcSTYÿwPSÙS]YÿNSTÿTJNUSN]PÿNTN`PSeÿecÿqc`dQÿyÿNJPÿecÿjPÿWJcgUTPTÿecÿp\o{\ÿNQÿQccSÿNQÿ
WcQQUjOPKÿ
KÿqNSTQ`NWUS]ÿ̀OceMhQcUOÿQeNjUOUNeUcSÿwNjJÙÿNSThcJÿcJNS]Pÿ]Pc]JUTÿaUOOÿjPÿdQPTÿecÿbNJzÿeMPÿQdJwN`Pÿcwÿ
USeNèÿQdjQcUOQÿNwePJÿ̀cbWOPeUcSÿcwÿ]JNTUS]ÿUSÿNSTÿNJcdSTÿqc`dQÿyÿNSTÿVJPNÿ~xQÿjNQPjNOOÿTUNbcSTÿecÿ
QU]SUwuÿeMPÿWJPQPS`PÿcwÿUSeNèÿQcUOQÿwcJÿwdedJPÿJPwPJPS`PKÿiMPQPÿQcUOQÿNJPÿSceÿecÿjPÿUbWNèPTÿUSÿeMPÿwdedJPÿ
aUeMcdeÿ̀cSQdOeUS]ÿaUeMÿp\o{\ÿNSTÿvlLKÿ
KÿVJ`MNPcOc]ÙNOÿNSTÿnSTU]PScdQÿmNeUcSÿbcSUecJUS]ÿaUOOÿjPÿ̀cSTdèPTÿTdJUS]ÿ̀cSQeJdèUcSKÿVSÿ
VJ`MNPcOc]ÙNOÿIcSUecJUS]ÿ\ONSÿaUOOÿjPÿTPgPOcWPTÿNSTÿQdjbUeePTÿecÿp\o{\ÿaUeMUSÿeacÿ|Z}ÿaPPzQÿcwÿ
JP`PUWeÿcwÿeMUQÿOPeePJKÿiMPÿmNeUcSQÿQMcdOTÿbUSUbNOOuÿjPÿ]UgPSÿcSPÿ|^}ÿaPPzxQÿSceÙPYÿNSTÿjPÿWJcgUTPTÿ
aUeMÿNÿTNUOuhaPPzOuÿQ`MPTdOPÿNQÿNWWJcWJUNePKÿÿ
XKÿiMPÿQdjbUQQUcSÿcwÿeMPÿwUSNOUPTÿ\MNQPÿnnÿJPWcJeYÿUSÒdTUS]ÿeMPÿJPQdOeQÿcwÿeMPÿbP`MNSÙNOÿQcUOÿQeJUWWUS]Yÿ
UQÿecÿjPÿQdjbUeePTÿecÿp\o{\ÿaUeMUSÿQUÿ|}ÿbcSeMQÿcwÿeMUQÿOPeePJKÿiMPÿJPQdOeQÿcwÿeMPÿNJ`MNPcOc]ÙNOÿ
bcSUecJUS]ÿNJPÿecÿjPÿQdjbUeePTÿecÿp\o{\ÿaUeMUSÿeMJPPÿ|y}ÿbcSeMQÿcwÿeMPÿ̀cbWOPeUcSÿcwÿ̀cSQeJdèUcSÿ
NSTÿbcSUecJUS]Kÿ
KÿiMPÿJU]MeÿcwÿwUJQeÿJPwdQNOÿcwÿNOOÿNJeUwNèQÿNQQcÙNePTÿaUeMÿeMUQÿNSTÿeMPÿZ[[ÿWJcPèÿQMcdOTÿcwwÙUNOOuÿjPÿ
cwwPJPTÿecÿeMPÿUSgcOgPTÿnSTU]PScdQÿmNeUcSQYÿNSTÿp\o{\ÿUQÿecÿjPÿzPWeÿUSwcJbPTÿcwÿeMPÿ
SP]ceUNeUcSQhTUQ`dQQUcSQKÿ
^[KÿVQÿcdeOUSPTÿUSÿeMPÿ\MNQPÿnnÿNSTÿIP`MNSÙNOÿfcUOQÿfeJUWWUS]ÿWONSQYÿeMPÿ{NdTPScQNdSPPÿNSTÿp\o{\ÿ
{dbNSÿoPbNUSQÿvUQ`cgPJuÿ\Jcec`cOQÿNJPÿecÿjPÿUbWOPbPSePTÿQMcdOTÿWcePSeUNOÿMdbNSÿJPbNUSQÿjPÿ
PS`cdSePJPTÿTdJUS]ÿ̀cSQeJdèUcSKÿ
ÿ
iMUQÿJP`cbbPSTNeUcSÿWPJeNUSQÿcSOuÿecÿeMPÿVJPNÿcwÿ\cePSeUNOÿlwwPèQÿ|V\l}ÿPNbUSPTÿTdJUS]ÿeMPÿNjcgP
JPwPJPS`PTÿUSgPQeU]NeUcSKÿfMcdOTÿeMPÿWJcPèÿTPQU]Sÿ̀MNS]PYÿeMPÿp\o{\ÿJP`cbbPSTQÿwdJeMPJÿ̀cSQdOeNeUcSÿaUeMÿ
eMUQÿcwwÙPKÿ
ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ
nwÿucdÿMNgPÿNSuÿdPQeUcSQYÿnÿ̀NSÿjPÿJPN`MPTÿNeÿcQNOuSK_PJ]dQcSWNJzQKSuK]cgÿcJÿ^XKX^KZX^Kÿ
ÿ
fUS`PJPOuYÿ
ÿÿ
cQNOuSÿ_PJ]dQcSYÿ\MKvK
fÙPSeUQeÿVJ`MNPcOc]uÿ ÿ
ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿÿÿ
VeèMKÿ
`K̀KÿLonfÿLcSeNèÿqUQeÿ
123ÿ5678ÿ9

2ÿ 2ÿ6 ÿ78ÿ272
6ÿÿ
67ÿ7227
6ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿ!"#ÿ$%%&"'ÿ$%%()%ÿ*)&+'ÿ$,ÿ-.ÿ/01'ÿ2&"%+'ÿ3%4ÿ56ÿ/7/0089/01ÿ
ÿ ÿ
ÿ
ÿ ÿ
ÿ
ÿ ÿ
ÿ ÿ ÿ
502
ÿ
ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ
IJKLMNÿLPJLÿQRSTUVÿQKLPWÿXYZXYZ[X[[ÿ\\N]^ÿ_`
bopqdrÿcgqhÿbghÿsj
abcdeÿbghÿijijklmnjnn
tdqdaudcÿbopqdrvÿjwmjwmnjnn
ÿ ÿ
123ÿ5678ÿ9

2ÿ 2ÿ6 ÿ78ÿ272
6ÿÿ
67ÿ7227
6ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿ!"#ÿ$%%&"'ÿ$%%()%ÿ*)&+'ÿ$,ÿ-.ÿ/01'ÿ2&"%+'ÿ3%4ÿ56ÿ/7/0089/01ÿ
ÿ ÿ
ÿ
ÿ ÿ
ÿ
ÿ ÿ
ÿ ÿ ÿ
503
ÿ
ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ
Exhibit “2” - Copy of 20020 Drawings_4-29-22.pdf

([KLELW³2´
504
3?&DQLVLXV+LJK6FKRRO?$WKOHWLF)LHOGV3KDVH?'UDZLQJV?*HQHUDO?B*&RYHUGZJ
&$1,6,86+,*+6&+22/
&RQVXOWDQWV
'5$:,1*,1'(; /2&$7,210$3 *(1(5$/127(6

$ '21276&$/('5$:,1*6127,)<7+($5&+,7(&7,)$'',7,21$/',0(16,216$5(5(48,5(':$//3$57,7,21$1'
6758&785$/',0(16,216$5($&78$/7+(&2175$&7256+$//9(5,)<$//(;,67,1*&21',7,21635,257267$57,1*
&216758&7,215(3257$1<',6&5(3$1&,(6%(7:((17+('5$:,1*6$1'7+($&78$/),(/'&21',7,216727+(
((.
*$&5 $5&+,7(&7%()25(&216758&7,21%(*,16
&$<8
% 7+(&2175$&7256+$//3529,'($//0$7(5,$/6,1',&$7('*5$3+,&$//<25$6127('&2175$&7256+$//127,)<
$5&+,7(&72)$1<',6&5(3$1&,(6,1,'(17,),&$7,212)0$7(5,$/65(48,5('
& $//:25.6+$//&21)250727+(/$7(67(',7,2162)$//%8,/',1*&2'(6$1'25',1$1&(6,1&/8',1*7+(%8,/',1*
&2'(2)1(:<25.67$7(7+($&,&2'($'$&2'(7+($,6&&2'(7+(1(&&2'($//$33/,&$%/($67060$&1$$1'
1&5$67$1'$5'6,1&$6(2)&21)/,&77+(0267675,1*(176+$//*29(51
&/,1721 ' /$5*(6&$/('5$:,1*6$1'25'(7$,/66+$//7$.(35(&('(1&(29(560$//(56&$/('5$:,1*6127,)<$5&+,7(&7
675((7
)5(1&+52$' 2)$1<',6&5(3$1&<127('
( &2175$&7256)2563(&,),&:25.6+$//%(5(63216,%/(723529,'(3527(&7,21$65(48,5(')251(::25.
5(&216758&7(/(0(176'$0$*('%<&216758&7,21$&7,9,7<
) :25.6+$//%((;(&87('%<3(56216(;3(5,(1&(',17+(75$'(7+(<$5(3(5)250,1*352'8&766+$//%(
&/
+$5/(052$'
,17 ,167$//(',1&21)250$1&(:,7+7+(0$18)$&785(5
65(&200(1'$7,216,16758&7,21663(&,),&$7,216$1'
21 $&&(37$%/(75$'(,1'8675<67$1'$5'6
67
5( * 7+(&2175$&725,65(63216,%/()25&225',1$7,1*$//$&7,9,7,(6:,7+$//27+(5&2175$&7256
675$16.< (7
+ 7+(&2175$&7256+$//.((37+(-2%6,7()5((2)'(%5,6$1',65(63216,%/()257+($&7,2162)7+(,5
0(025,$/
68%&2175$&7256
&203/(;
, &2175$&7256+$//),(/'9(5,)<$//',0(16,21635,2572)$%5,&$7,212)$1<0$7(5,$/6
%8))$/2
&5((. - $//&2175$&72560867&225',1$7($&7,9,7,(6627+$7$//:25.,6&203/(7(',1$7,0(/<)$6+,21$1'),1,6+('21
25%()25(7+(352-(&7&203/(7,21'$7($66(7%<7+(&2175$&7 6LJQDWXUH 6HDO
. :25.$5($66+$//%(0$'(:$7(57,*+7$77+((1'2)($&+:25.'$<$1'$61(&(66$5<,17+((9(172)5$,1
/ ($&+&2175$&7256+$//3527(&7$//$5($62)(;,67,1*),1,6+(67+$7$5(:,7+,1$5281'25$'-$&(17727+(
:25.$5($6&2175$&725:,//5(6725($//$5($6',6785%('25'$0$*('%<:25.&2175$&725,65(63216,%/(
/2&$7,213/$1 )25'2&80(17,1*$//(;,67&21',7,216
$%%5(9,$7,216
&2175$&7256+$//%(5(63216,%/()25&203/<,1*:,7+26+$&)5/($'(;32685(,1
$&2867,& $&7 ,168/$7,21 ,168/ &216758&7,21,17(5,0),1$/58/()25$//$&7,9,7,(6'85,1*:+,&+$1(03/2<((0$<%(
$3352;,0$7( $3352; ,17(5,25 ,17 :$51,1*$/7(5$7,216727+,6
2&&83$7,21$//<(;326('72/($'
$5&+,7(&7 $5&+ -$1,7256&/26(7 -& '2&80(17127&21)250,1*72
$7 # -2,17 -7 6(&7,2125%67$7(
7+(&2175$&725,65(63216,%/(81'(526+$72'(7(50,1(7+(35(6(1&(/2&$7,21$1' ('8&$7,21/$:$5(352+,%,7('
%/2&.,1* %/.* /$9$725< /$9 48$17,7<2)(;,67,1*/($'&217$,1,1*0$7(5,$/67+$77+(,5(03/2<((60$<%((;326('72 12738%/,6+('$//5,*+765(6(59('
%8,/',1* %/'* /,1($5)((7 /,1)7 $1'72:$517+(,5(03/2<((62)7+(327(17,$/'$1*(562)7+(',6785%$1&(2)
&$%,1(7 &$% /2:32,17 /3 /($'&217$,1,1*0$7(5,$/6
&$67,5213,3( &,3 0$18)$&785(5 0$18)
&(,/,1* &/* 0$6215< 0$6
&(0(17 &(0 0$;,080 0$;
&OLHQW &$1,6,86+,*+
&(0(173/$67(5
&(5$0,&7,/(
&(03/
&7
0$6215<23(1,1*
0(&+$1,&$/
02
0(&+ 6&+22/
&+$/.%2$5'
&2/801
&+.%'
&2/
0,1,080
0,6&(//$1(286
0,1
0,6&
*(1(5$/$6%(6726$:$5(1(66127(
&21&5(7( &21& 120,1$/ 120
&216758&7,21 &2167 127,1&2175$&7 1,& $6%(6726&217$,1,1*0$7(5,$/6$&0$5(.12:172%(35(6(17$7620(2)7+(:25.6,7(6,7,6
3URMHFW $7+/(7,&),(/'6
127726&$/( 176
&217,18286
&2175$&725
&217
&2175 21&(17(5 2&
(;3(&7('7+$7:25.$662&,$7(':,7+7+,6352-(&7:,//1275(68/7,17+(',6785%$1&(2)$1<
.12:1$6%(6726&217$,1,1*0$7(5,$/6 3+$6(
&21752/-2,17 &- 23326,7( 233
&2856(6 &6 29(5+($' 2+ $//&2175$&7256$5(5(63216,%/()250$.,1*7+(06(/9(6$1'7+(,5(03/2<((6$:$5(2)7+(
'(7$,/ '7/ 3$,17(' 317 35(6(1&(/2&$7,21$1'48$17,7<2)(;,67,1*$6%(6726&217$,1,1*%8,/',1*0$7(5,$/6$1'72
',0(16,21 ',0 3/$67,&/$0,1$7( 3/$6/$0 :$517+(,5(03/2<((62)7+(327(17,$/'$1*(562)(;32685(72$6%(6726$1<',6785%$1&(2)
'5$:,1* ':* 35()$%5,&$7(' 35()$% $6%(6726&217$,1,1*0$7(5,$/66+$//%(3(5)250('%<$/,&(16('$6%(6726$%$7(0(17
'5,1.,1*)2817$,1 ') 5(,1)25&,1* 5(,1) &2175$&725(03/2<,1*&(57,),(':25.(56
($&+ ($ 5(48,5(' 5(4
'
(/(9$7,21 (/(9 522)'5$,1 5' $1<48(67,21$%/(0$7(5,$/250$7(5,$/6863(&7('72&217$,1$6%(67266+$//127%(',6785%('
(/(9$725 (/ 5220 50 $1'6+$//%(%528*+7727+($77(17,212)7+(2:1(5257+(2:1(5
65(35(6(17$7,9()25$1
(175$1&( (17 528*+23(1,1* 52 $&&85$7(,17(535(7$7,21$1'256$03/,1*$1'$1$/<6,67+($+(5$$1'27+(5$6%(6726
(;+$867 (;+ 6,0,/$5 6,0 7(67,1*5(32576$5($9$,/$%/($77+(',675,&72)),&(
(;,67,1* (;,67 648$5()227 6)
(;3$16,21-2,17 (- 67$,1/(6667((/ 66
)/8( ) 67$1'$5' 67' 3URMHFW$GGUHVV 52%(57-675$16.<0(025,$/&203/(;
),1,6+)/225 ),1)/ 67((/ 67/ &/,1721675((7
)/225 )/ 6863(1'('$&2867,&$/7,/( 6$7 :(676(1(&$1(:<25.
)/225'5$,1 )' 7$&.%2$5' 7%
*$/9$1,=(' *$/9 7(55$==2 7(55
*$8*( *$ 7232)67((/ 726
*<3680 *<3 7<3,&$/ 7<3
+$1',&$3$&&(66,%/(+& 9(17 9
'UDZLQJ+LVWRU\ 'DWH 'HVFULSWLRQ
+(,*+7 +*7 9(5,)<,1),(/' 9,)
+2//2:0(7$/ +0 :(/'(':,5()$%5,& ::)
+25,=217$/ +25,= :,7+ :
+26(%,%% +% :,7+287 :2
+,*+32,17 +3 :22' :'
,1&+ 25,1
3URMHFW6WDWXV )25&216758&7,21
'DWH
3URMHFW1XPEHU
6KHHW7LWOH 7,7/(6+((7
6<0%2/6
$%5(9,$7,216
7XHVGD\-XQH$0
6KHHW1XPEHU
505
3?&DQLVLXV+LJK6FKRRO?$WKOHWLF)LHOGV3KDVH?'UDZLQJV?(OHF?(GZJ
$%%5(9,$7,216 ',675,%87,21%5$1&+:,5,1* /80,1$,5(6&+('8/(

$%%5(9 '(6&5,37,21 6<0%2/ '(6&5,37,21 7<3( '(6&5,37,21 0$18)$&785(5 6285&( 92/7$*( 02817,1* 127(6
&$71R
$)) $%29(),1,6+(')/225 3$1(/%2$5' /
/,1($5/(':,7+0$5,1(*5$'($/80,180+286,1* .(1$///,*+7,1* 08/7,92/7 685)$&(25 3529,'(02817,1*
/('
$ $03(5( +,*+,03$&732/<&$5%21$7(/(16,17(*5$/9 0/+$5/*33/. .&5, 3(1'$17$6 %5$&.(7$1'3(1'$17
+20(581723$1(/%2$5' 6833257$65(48,5('$7
$,& $6<00(75,&,17(55837,1*&$3$&,7< ',00,1*'5,9(5$1'0,1,080/2)+2856 '&&'97/ /80(16 5(48,5('
$552:+($'6,1',&$7(180%(52)32/(6 6/23,1*522)
25$33529('(48$/
$/ $/80,180 7(;7$'-$&(1772$552:+($'6,1',&$7(63$1(/%2$5'$1'

&,5&8,7'(6,*1$7,216 /
/,1($5/(':,7+0$5,1(*5$'($/80,180+286,1* .(1$///,*+7,1* /(' 08/7,92/7 685)$&(25 3529,'(02817,1*
$76 $8720$7,&75$1)(56:,7&+ /3 *
6/$6+(6,1',&$7(&855(17&$55<,1*&21'8&7256 +,*+,03$&732/<&$5%21$7(/(16,17(*5$/9 0/+$5/*33/. .&5, 3(1'$17$6 %5$&.(7$1'3(1'$17
$:* $0(5,&$1:,5(*$8*( 6/$6+:,7+'27,1',&$7(6*5281',1*&21'8&725 ',00,1*'5,9(5$1'0,1,080/2)+2856
'&&'97/(/ 5(48,5(' 6833257$65(48,5('$7
/80(16
%.5 %5($.(5 6/$6+:,7+*,1',&$7(6,62/$7('*5281'&21'8&725 ,17(*5$/(0(5*(1&<%$77(5<%$&.83 25$33529('(48$/ 6/23,1*522)
& &21'8,7
5$&(:$<25&$%/(:,7+&21'8&7256$6127('
&/* &(,/,1*
&.7 &,5&8,7 &21'8,725&$%/(83
&8 &233(5
',$ ',$0(7(5 &21'8,725&$%/('2:1
&RQVXOWDQWV
'1
($
'2:1
($&+
*5281'&211(&7,21 0(&+$1,&$/(48,30(17&211(&7,216&+('8/(
(& (/(&75,&$/&2175$&725 (48,30(17'(6&5,37,21 /2&$7,21 92/7$*( 3+$6( /2$' :,5(6,=( &21'8,76,=( 6285&(2)32:(5 &,5&8,7%5($.(5 5(0$5.6
() (;+$867)$1
() /2&.(55220 +3 $:* 3$
(0(5 (0(5*(1&<
(75 (;,67,1*725(0$,1 '(9,&(6
) )86('
6<0%2/ '(6&5,37,21
)$ ),5($/$50
:$//6:,7&+2&&83$1&<6(1625
75$16)250(56&+('8/(
)$$3 ),5($/$50$1181&,$7253$1(/
68%6&5,376'(127(7<3(
)$&3 ),5($/$50&21752/3$1(/
26 '7 3,53$66,9(,1)5$5('
*)&, *5281')$8/7&,5&8,7,17(55837(5 868/75$621,& 6,=( 35,0$5< 6(&21'$5< &211 7<3( :,1',1*6 7(03 . *5281' (1&/2685(
'(6,*1$7,21 6+,(/' 02817,1* 5(0$5.6
*), *5281')$8/7,17(55837(5 '7'8$/7(&+12/2*< .9$ 92/76 92/76 &21),* 5,6( 5$7,1* %86%$5 7<3(
*1' *5281' '7'8$/7(&+12/2*<'8$/5(/$<
7 3+ '5< $/80 ; 1(0$ :$//
+3 +256(32:(5 &(,/,1*02817('2&&83$1&<6(1625
. 08/7,3/(2) 68%6&5,376'(127(7<3( 7 3+ (1&$3 $/80 ; 1(0$5 *5281'
86 3,53$66,9(,1)5$5('
-% -81&7,21%2; 26
868/75$621,& 7 3+ '5< $/80 ; 1(0$; *5281'
/7* /,*+7,1* 86&8/75$621,&&255,'25&29(5$*(
/9 /2:92/7$*( '7'8$/7(&+12/2*<
0$; 0$;,080
0&% 0$,1&,5&8,7%5($.(5 72**/(6:,7&+
68%6&5,376'(127(7<3(
0'3 0$,1',675,%87,213$1(/ 7:232/(6:,7&+
0,1 0,1,080 7+5((:$<6:,7&+
07*+7
1/
02817,1*+(,*+7
1,*+7/,*+7
)285:$<6:,7&+
..(<23(5$7('6:,7&+ /,*+7,1*
7027255$7('6:,7&+ 6<0%2/ '(6&5,37,21
1(& 1$7,21$/(/(&75,&$/&2'( '',00(5&21752/
1) 121)86(' :3:($7+(53522) /,*+7,1*),;785($1'287/(7%2;
520$1180(5$/6,1',&$7(*$1*('6:,7&+(6
176 127726&$/(
/(77(56DEF,1',&$7(6:,7&+/(*6
2& 29(5&2817(5(&729(5,)<+(,*+72)&2817(5723
2&3 29(5&855(173527(&7,21 '83/(;5(&(37$&/(9$
3
3+
32/( 68%6&5,376'(127(7<3(
*),*5281')$8/7&,5&8,7,17(55837(5
%5$1&+&,5&8,7,'(17,),&$7,21 6LJQDWXUH 6HDO
3+$6(
*),3&211(&7('72*)&,%5($.(5
31/ 3$1(/ 796675$16,(1792/7$*(685*(68335(625 ),;785(7<3(
35, 35,0$5< :3:($7+(53522):+,/(,186(
&,5&8,7180%(5 '
7966 75$16,(1792/7$*(685*(68335(66,21 757$03(55(6,67$17
),;785(7<3(
8& 81'(5&$%,1(7 ' &,5&8,7180%(5
685)$&(02817(''83/(;5(&(37$&/(
9 92/7
9,) 9(5,)<,1),(/' (48,30(17&211(&7,21',5(&7&211(&7,21250$7&+ ),;785(7<3(
&25'$1'&$3$65(48,5(' E (01/ '
: :$77 6:,7&+/(*
33
:* :,5(*8$5' ',6&211(&76:,7&+ (0(5*(1&<1,*+7
:3 :($7+(53522) 68%6&5,376'(127(5$7,1*6 /,*+7),;785( &,5&8,7180%(5
$6 $6$03(5(5$7,1*2)6:,7&+ 3$1(/%2$5'
;)05 75$16)250(5 :$51,1*$/7(5$7,216727+,6
$) $)$03(5(5$7,1*2))86( '2&80(17127&21)250,1*72
1)121)86(' 7<3,&$/2)1($5%<),;785(681/(6627+(5:,6(127(' 6(&7,2125%67$7(
('8&$7,21/$:$5(352+,%,7('
12738%/,6+('$//5,*+765(6(59('
- - -81&7,21%2;
*(1(5$/ 33
6<0%2/ '(6&5,37,21 &,5&8,7180%(5 &,5&8,7180%(5

&OLHQW &$1,6,86+,*+
3$1(/%2$5'
+($9</,1(:(,*+7'(127(61(:'(9,&((48,30(1725 6&+22/
&211(&7,21
/,*+7/,1(:(,*+7'(127(6(;,67,1*'(9,&((48,30(1725
&211(&7,21725(0$,1
3URMHFW $7+/(7,&),(/'6
%52.(1/,*+7/,1(:(,*+7'(127(6(;,67,1*'(9,&( ),1,6+('*5$'( 3+$6(
(48,30(1725&211(&7,2172%(5(029('
520$1180(5$/6,1',&$7(180%(52)'(9,&(6
72362,/ 6(('

'(37+720(7$/&25(

02817,1*+(,*+76 :$51,1*7$3(

'(9,&( 02817,1*+(,*+7
5(&(37$&/(6 $))

39& 3URMHFW$GGUHVV 52%(57-675$16.<0(025,$/&203/(;

&21'8,76 %$&.),// &/,1721675((7
(;7(5,255(&(37$&/(6 $))

86(68%%$6(0$7(5,$/$7 :(676(1(&$1(:<25.
6:,7&+(6 $)) 3$9('$5($66,'(:$/.6$1'
'$7$7(/&20287/(76 $)) (;,67,1*87,/,7,(6
86(6$7,6)$&725<(;&$9$7('
),5($/$500$18$/38//67$7,216 $)) 0$7(5,$/(/6(:+(5( 'UDZLQJ+LVWRU\ 'DWH 'HVFULSWLRQ
(17,5(/(16%7:
),5($/$509,68$/127,),&$7,21'(9,&(

$)) (0%('0(170$7(5,$/
02817,1*+(,*+762)'(9,&(6727+(&(17(52)'(9,&($6,1',&$7('
81/(6627+(5:,6(127('
21(/,1(',$*5$0 81'(5*5281'&21'8,7
176
6<0%2/ '(6&5,37,21
7+(50$/0$*1(7,&&,5&8,7%5($.(5
/6, (/(&7521,&75,3&,5&8,7%5($.(5
6:,7&+
)86(
3URMHFW6WDWXV )25&216758&7,21
*5281'&211(&7,21

3$1(/%2$5'5()(5723$1(/%2$5'6&+('8/( 'DWH
0&%0/2
3URMHFW1XPEHU
6KHHW7LWOH (/(&75,&$/6<0%2/
75$16)250(55()(57275$16)250(56&+('8/(
/,676&+('8/(6$1'
'(7$,/6
7XHVGD\-XQH$0
6KHHW1XPEHU
506
Thursday, April 28, 2022 - 2:33 PM J:\Canisius High School\Sets\C100_Survey-Canisius HS.dw(
Z
.
j
*;
ú
I
/
'
"9 ,
/ '
I
O .
/
--
n/ o
/ /
O / // ,
//
"
'
" '
I / /
"
> a
C
'
/
/ I
""
I
I o
L. -
I
I
/
I I o
i
"
\\ ANislUS ------
\ !
g
I
|
I & fi
I !
,
l\ \ I j
I/ \ $
es ee×
R 49 ñ o we ~B
3 >zg
o o -m
’=mgmgq
I \
98 99 ef
;
o o
p
=
o of o> Soo --co o om 2 zh A
-
o
"1
°
o
>m
°
o o ¡ o o
Z
o O
I
-- --. -- -- - - -- -
-. | lglp 55
- -
+ . r
O
’ r r r r z m , 3 r ’ m O z ’ m z a a o m m a -< m ’ o m m m o r O c m m m m O E O -o o o 2 o
)
m O m
n
O * BEGfs
C m 55 9
o a
m m O a -s
r) O n
-
¦@ = a
507
Fuesday, November 09, 2021 - 9:39 AM J:\Canisius High School\Sets\C101_Site Prep Area A_Canisius HS.dw(
/'
.99 s99
"* 2s N
m ,
,·
o j / /
.
;
o WM
1
'
I
99 g9
Š i \
,9
\ 9
,f
° °
/ c
am
® ® ®®®®®®®® ®˜˜ ®® ®˜®® 8 8 ˜˜ zm
sp
me 2
BS %§ 8 t E i! H E§§ mi i sil i il li§paliti e|i i D
o
as es u s :
a
ye a
se s sa s ::nsteemes = c -1;
s
" ® Oc--
a d E & 0si 3 Ma,
-n 1 c es a p;-½ CT m n a o
508
Thursday, April 28, 2022 - 2:42 PM J:\Canisius High School\Sets\C102_Site Prep Area B_Canisius HS.dw(
509
'
""
"' "
¤
o /
½
ª co m m
3
Co to
/ / / .- . CEF
/ 93
/ / / /
,, / / / ,, f\/ /
/
/ / .*
\,, / / / . a
- / /
, / /
R
,
. m
. - - ___.
-
STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN AREA A ° -t.J--t__Sf
N O R T H S C A L E I N F E E T
510
Thursday, April 28, 2022 - 3:02 PM J:\Canisius High School\Sets\C104_SWPPP_Area B_Canisius HS.dw(
. APPLE ,g.9
S
MATCHL INE A 97 ,c/ . - - MATCHL INE A age
MATCHUNE B
I 99
9.
²
æ
°°æ°o o °°o °°o
,9 P
s96.
C p `
I
\ o I
\ \ I
0
|
\ >
'
I >\
I T
|
/ g,9 h
I I 1 \ I
" "
I
I \ "t
/ j
I \ e
I °e
I
I I I \ \
I I
I ·
I I \
I \
I I \ \
i
I I
I
I \
II \ I I %
*" *
o m o
°
co Z
511
STORMWATER POLLUTION
PREVENTION PLAN NOTES
OBJECTIVE
PREVENTION OF EROSloN AND POLLUTION FROM STORMWATER (

RUNOFF FOR THE DURATION OF THIS PROJECT IS THE RESPONSlBILITy L
ga OF SITE CONTRACTOR. STORMWATER
ALL POLLUTION PREVENTION C
8 CONTROL WORK
INDICATED ON THE DRAWINGS AND/OR
1
3j SPECIFICATIONS SHALL BE INCLUDED IN THE SITE CONTRACTOR
DAMAGES A
-5 BASE BID. RESULTING FROM, BUT NOT LIMITED TO
T IMPROPER MAINTENANCE OR GENERAL DISREGARD
NEGLIGENCE,
2
FOR EROSloN CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE IMMEDIATELY
c CORRECTED BY SITE CONTRACTOR TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE
Ps A' LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, ENGINEER OR CERTlFIED EROSloN CONTROL
_ '34 SPECIALIST HIRED BY THE OWNER FOR THE SWPPP INSPECTIONS AS
N T
LVE CE L -| | - 3 - REQUIRED BY THE NYSDEC. DAMAGES RESULTING FROM OTHER
3
STABILIZED AND TEMPORARY CONTROLS
REMovED. REFER To FLARED END - CONTRACTORS SHALL BE REPAIRED BY SITE CONTRACTOR ON A
R
SECTloN DETAIL. -- I
j-- TIME AND MATERIAL BASIS AND BACK CHARGED TO THE 4
ToP 0F DIKE CULVERT END SECTloN -I | RESPONSIBLE PARTY. ANY FINES LEvlED ON THE OWNER BY
__ T
' ' '- APRON GOVERNING AUTHORITIES FOR SWPPP VIOLATIONS SHALL BE BACK
OF SWALE Cul-vERT PIPE S
FLM ’ o o
°8°
é
SILT DIKE UNIT
CUT 8ECTION
CHARGED TO THE RESPONSIBLE PARTY.
5
° °°°
. RIP RAP ScouR b
o o æ PROTECTION. NYSDOT SITE DESCRIPTION
. *_ TYPE LIGHT -¡ 6
-- (PLACED) 3" To 6" PMOJECT NAME-AND LOCATON OWNER NAME AND ADDRESS
8oc° a 8 ag | STAPLES, TYPICAL F
°o° CULVERT TRENCH
Q . CANISIUS HIGH SCHOOL CANISIUS HIGH SCHOOL
° co °S I EMSANKMENT END 7
ROBERT J STRANKSY MEMORIAL 1180 DELAWARE AVENUE
°æo°°°Î°o ° 6 ONE IKE -| | I
COMPLEX BUFFALO, NY 14209
° °°°#°FÃ° DETAIL A-A
°oogo BERM 2885 CLINTON STREET
°*° )æ° ° 8
° ° WEST SENECA, NY 14224
8 NYSDOT LIGHT M
2d°g° SCTAPLES, TYPICAL
° ° DUT RAP PMOJECT DESCRIPT4ON
o * PONT "A" T
r_ø
°°4aARSE y
. . _ OWNER IS IN THE PROCESS OF OBTAINING APPROVAL FROM THE T
K
TOWN OF WEST SENECA PLANNING BOARD TO CONSTRUCT TWO
HALF PLAN VIEW ' Q
b. 2 STONE I J --I BASEBALL FIELDS AND TENNIS COURTS AT THElR E×ISTING SPORTS
T- O
CENTER. THIS PROJECT CONSISTS OF BUILDING, ATHLETIC, AND SITE
E ATENo.2 RENOVATIONS OVER A SINGLE PHASE. SolL DISTURBING ACTlylTIES
STONE SHALL INCLUDE: CLEARING AND GRUBBING, INSTALLING A
DKE SECTION
-0" DETAIL B-B STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE, AND OTHER EROSION AND
ToPSolL, LAWN,
p_øu MULCH SEDIMENT CONTROLS, GRADING, E×CAVATION FOR THE PLAYFIELDS, M
PRESSBO×, DUGOUTS, AND PREPARATION FOR FINAL SEEDING. THE P
PROJECT IS SCHEDULED TO BEGIN IN THE SUMMER OF 2021 AND BE -
P ES SH PL D E HE4IUNITSOVERLAP AND IN THE CENTER
427 COMPLETED IN THE FALL OF 202L -
FLOW SEe
at -
)
* PolNT "A" MUSTBE HIGHER THAN PolNT "S" To ENSURE THAT WATER FLows ovER
MMEA. -
,|, 2'-0 CulvERT INVERT THE DIKE AND NOT AROUND THE ENDS THE SITE IS APPROXIMATELY 2650± ACRES OF WHICH 16.13± ACRES -
- SHALL BE DISTURSED BY CONSTRUCTION ACTlylTIES.
4 TRIANGULAR SILT DIKE TSD
RP CTIxN"SDOT TYPE
LIGHT (PLACED) 105 SECTION * NOT To SCALE 3125-øø5
¯¯ S
FLARED END SECTloN. © APPEL
OSBORNE
LANDSCAPEARCHITECTURE
REFER To DETAIL
SEQUENCING OF THE SITE SHALL CORRESPOND WITH SITE PHASING PLAN
APLIGH DUT
CENTERLINE CROSS SECTION RP SHEET.
GENERAL:
7 CULVERT INLET PROTECTION - CIP
1.) INSTALL OFFSITE TRACKING AND TEMPORARY ACCESS ROAD.
2.) INSTALL SILT FENCE WHERE SHOWN AND ON DOWNHILL SLOPES
I®5SECTION * NOT To SCALE 3125-øø3
AND ARCHEOLOGICAL SENSITIVE AREAS-
APPEL
OSBORNE
3.) CONTINUE WITH SITE REMOVALS AND VEGETATION CLEARING.
4.) STR P AND STOCKPIL TO REAS NDICATED, TEMPORARILY
5.) INSTALL SEDIMENT BASIN TEMPORARY OUTLET TRAP AND UPPER

EXISTING ROADWAY SITE CUTOFF DRAINAGE. STABILIZE AREA WITH TEMPORARY
D GRADE 6-) IN T TE NECESSA CUT AND FILLS TO SUBGRADE OF BUILDING

AND SURROUNDS.
TER0F
7.) INSTALL DRAINAGE , RETAINING WALLS, OTHER UTILITIES, STABILIZE
S TE
,,,,,,,.,.,- SLOPES WITH STRAW MAT AS INDICATED.
8.) INSTALL SITE FEATURES INCLUDING STAIRS, RAMPS, PLAYSCAPES,
STRAWMAT ovERLAP AND PIN MESH FENCING, ETC.
--
SECTIONS. SLEND EDGES To ELIMINATE 9.) INSTALL ALL PAVEMENT SUBGRADES, CURBS, AND GUTTERS.
AIR PoCKETS. SECURE WITHPINS 12" 0.C. 11 INSTALL ASPHALT PAVING AND CONCRETE WALKS.
AT TOP 0F SLOPE. -
10.) SPREAD TOPSOlL ON BASEBALL FIELD AND ALL LAWN AREAS.
'
FINISH GRADE, SLoPE VARIES. SEE - I CLEAN SILT OUT OF TEMPORARY SEDIMENT BASIN AND SEED
4 ' --
owso. No.3 StoNE IL) SEED AND SOD LAWN AREAS AS INDICATED, AND INSTALL
OR STAPLES at 12oc. PLANTINGS.
GREATER SolL STABILIZATION FABRIC 12.) FERTILIZE, AND MOW LAWN AREAS
WATER,
95% COMPACTED OR 13.) REMOVE ALL MECHANICAL EROSION CONTROL AFTER LAWN IS
ope IIS$ I I uNDISTURSED SUSGRADE STABILIZED
seec05 \ .e ; NAME OF RECEMNG WATERS.

AS \.. . 3 OFFSITE SEDIMENT TRACKING CONTROL TYPE 1
-
- CIø5 SECTION * NOT TO SCALE 3125-012
THE RUNOFF FROM THE SITE FLOWS INTO AN E×lSTING WET POND WHICH
. .3 - APPEL
OSBORNE
\W .
STORM OVERFLOW IS DIRECTED INTO THE NEIGHBORING O×BOW THEN
..
- r-ø"
INTO BUFFALO CREEK.
STAPLES at12o.c. CONTROLS

EXCAVATE TRENCH AT ToP OF
6" SLOPE. TUCK STRAWMAT INTo STABILIZATION PRAGTICES
- -
TRENCH AT SACK OF HILL.
TEMPORARY STABILIZATION: STABILIZE TOPSOIL STOCKPILES AND
DISTURBED PORTIONS OF THE SITE WHERE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY
IS RS E DRIVE POSTS TIGHTLY ToGETHER AND
SECURE TOPS OF POSTS TOGETHER BY TYING TEMPORARILY CEASES FOR MORE THAN 1 DAYS WITH TEMPORARY
PINS im AREAS
OFF WITH CORD OR WIRE To PREVENT SEED AND MULCH. REFER TO SEEDING SPECIFICATIONS. OF
12" oc. AT FLOW-THROUGH OF BUILT-UP SEDIMENT AT THE SITE WHICH ARE TO BE PAVED SHALL BE TEMPORARILY
ANCHOR WITHPINS
SoTToM OF SLoPE JolNT STABILIZED BY APPLYING GEOTEXTILE AND STONE SUS-BASE UNTIL
ENSURE SILT FENCE FOLDS AROUND BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT CAN BE APPLIED.
D:CAVATE TRENCH AT SoTToM OF HILL
SuRY STRAWMAT AND ANCHoR WITH PLAN VIEW OF JOINED SECTIONS EACH POST ONE FULL TURN
PINS 12"OL. SACKFILL AND COMPACT. UNDISTURSED PERMANENT STABILlZATION: STABILIZE DISTURBED PORTIONS OF
THE SITE WHERE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES PERMANENTLY CEASES
TA
6 STRAW MAT HILLSIDE WITH PERMANENT SEED NO LATER THAN 7 DAYS AFTER THE LAST
Ax p
SECTION * NOT To SCALE 3125-øø6 CONSTRUCTION ACTIvlTY. REFER TO SEEDING SPECIFICATIONS.
CIø5 POST PLUMB and SECURELY INTo
APPEL
OSBORNE
LANDSCAPEARCHITECTURE SUBGRADE.
WOVEN WIRE MESH BACKING SUPPORT
G2 GAUGE W/ MAX 6") STOMETER MANAGEMENT
SILT FENCE FABRIC. INSTALL WITH A STORMWATER DRAINAGE SHALL BE PROVIDED BY STORMWATER
6"
MINIMUM OF OF FABRIC BURIED MANAGEMENT IMPROVED TOPSOIL ATHLETIC
TRENCHES, DRYWELLS, S
BELOW GRADE- FIELDS,PROPOSED STORMWATER BASIN.
U4ASdE DTSPOSAL
=f -__ .. _ 4"x6"
TRENCH - BACKFILL WITH EARTH
r - -4"- -
AFTER FILTER FABRIC HAS BEEN
INSTALLED AND COMPACT.
WASTE
MATERIALS.
MATERIALS:
THE
COLLECT
DUMPSTERS
AND
SHALL
STORE
MEET
ALL
ALL
SITE RELATED
LOCAL AND
WASTE
STATE
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS. ALL TRASH AND
UNDISTURSED SUBGRADE
CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS FROM THE SITE SHALL BE DEPOSITED IN THE
- I/2" * - . - DUMPSTER. THE DUMPSTER SHALL BE EMPTIED A MINIMUM OF TWICE
- -
LAG SCREWS (MINIMUM 2 PER POST) - -
- PER wEEK OR MORE OFTEN IF NECESSARY. No BUILDING
CONCRETE - PLYWooD SHEET (48"x 24"x 1/2" THICK) -
CONSTRUCTION WASTE MATERIALS SHALL BE BURIED ON-SITE.
-
WASHOU BLACK LETTERS: SECTION
12" MIN. TEXT
HT., BOLD FONT HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: DISPOSE ALL SITE RELATED HAZARDOUS
FACILITY ON WHITE BACKGROUND WASTE MATERIALS IN THE MANNER SPECIFIED BY LOCAL OR STATE
" 2 SILT FENCE = SF REGULATION OR BY THE MANUFACTURER.
, __
WooD POSTS CIø5 SECTl0N " No‘‘o SCALE 3125-øø4
(4"x 4"× 8'-0") SANITARY WASTE: DISPOSE ALL SANITARY WASTE FROM PORTABLE
O APPEL
OSBORNE
LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECTURE
ANGLE WTD STAKE TOWARD UNITS A MINIMUM OF THREE TIME PER WEEK OR AS REQUIRED BY
FINISH G S A
p-ø- PRE
LOCAL REGULATION.
VERTICAL STAKE To ENSURE TIGHT
ABUTMENT To ApJACENT BALE.
BALE BINDING o)= STTE VEt-1tchE TRACKING
BALE PROFILE PROVIDE STABILlZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE TO HELP REDUCE

SIGN PLACE BALES TlGHTLY
TOGETHER No. I STONE PLACED 2" BELOW TCP VEMICLE TRACKING OF SEDIMENTS. SwEEP THE PAVED STREET
BLOCK ADJACENT TO THE SITE ENTRANCE DAILY TO REMovE ANY EXCESS
, DIRT OR ROCK TRACKED FROM THE SITE. DUMP TRUCKS
SIDE WALLS CONSTRUCTED WITHSTRAW FILTER FABRIC BETWEENCMU
BALES LAID END TO END AND HELD IN BLOCK AND No. 2 STONE. HAULING MATERIAL FROM THE CONSTRUCTION SITE SHALL BE
PLACE WITHHARD WOOD STAKES. 3. CMU BLOCKS (COMPLETELY COVERED WITH A TARPAULIN. REPAIR OR REPLACE OFF SITE
RECESS BALES MIN. 4" INTo GRADE. TRACKING STONE AS MUD OR DEBRIS IS ACCUMULATED.
AROUND STRUCTURE1FIRST BLOCK
2" BELOW GRAM.
SolL SEPARAtloN FABRIC
R ENTlRE WASHOUT FINISH GRADE 0F STRUCTURE
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ TIMING OF CONTROLS / MEASURES
I SECURE PLASTIC LINING WITH 6 TU

METAL SPlKES OR SAND - AS INDICATED IN THE SEQUENCE OF MAJOR ACTIVITIES, THE
BAGS, TYP. TEMPORARY EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROLS, STABILIZED
2ø-ø" UNDISTURSED SUBGRADE AREA
TYP. CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCES AND
STAGING SHALL BE
CONSTRUCTED PRIOR TO CLEARING OR GRADING OF ANY OTHER
SLOPE TO P DEPTH AT CENER. - PORTIONS OF THE SITE. AREAS WHERE CONSTRUCTION ACTlvlTY
PROFILE OF FACILITY
RETURN To ORIGINAL FINISH GRADE CEASES
TEMPORARILY FOR MORE THAN 7 DAYS SHALL BE
ySUxRFACE
MAeER 2' MIN
ROWNCN C PRO DE pN
STABILIZED wlTH A TEMPORARY SEED AND MULCH. ONCE
E
DRAWINGS· HOLES FOR DE-WATERING. CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY CEASED PERMANENTLY IN AN AREA, THAT
PAVED AREAS TO
STAPLE PLASTIC LINING TO WOOD ( ) AREA SHALL BE STABILIZED WITH PERMANENT LAwN. AFTER THE
aggag gg paygo
STAKE (MINIMUM2 PER BALEl SITE IS STABILIZED, ANY ACCUMULATED SEDIMENT AND THE
TEE WRE LEM WDIE BY
TEMPORARY CONTROLS SHALL BE REMOVED. ANY DISTURBED
TU P I 2 Woop
DEEP IN SlZE. 3 -øu yAx FRAME ARouND THE CREST 0F AREAS NOT STABILlZED PRIOR TO SNOW FALL SHALL RECElvE DRY
"' FENCE FOR STABILITY. STAPLE MULCH TO PROTECT DURING WINTER MONTHS.
METAL SPlKE TYP BETWEENPOSTS
FABRIC To POSTS AND BURY
FABRIC I'-ø" MIN.
. FINISH GRADE 0F STRUCTURE CERTIFICATIONS
le MIL PLAS‘lC LNING (Not SHOWN
------
CLA )E E 0 R PRIOR TO STARTING CONSTRUCTION, THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR,
WASHOUTFACILITY. SECURE WITH SITE EARTHwORK CONTRACTOR, SITE LANDSCAPING CONTRACTOR
~---- j
SANDBAGS AS NEEDED ALONG 4' AND OTHER SUSCONTRACTORS AS DETERMINED BY THE ARCHITECT
PRovipE Sop STRIP WIDE OR
. E×TERIOR PERIMETER. No. I STONE ARouND INLET AT SHALL SIGN CERTIFICATION NOTED IN SPECIFICATION 31 250L
FINISH GRADE.
HARD WOOD STAKES MINIMUM2 PER
BALE. STAKES SHALL BE 3"x3" WITHA I BURY FABRIC I'-0" MINIMUM ALL EROSION, SEDIMENT AND POLLUTION CONTROL MEASURES SHALL
MINMJM LENGTH 0F 3'-6". PouND StoRM DRAINAGE STRUCTURE BE IMPLEMENTED AND MAINTAINED WITH THE NEW IN ACCORDANCE
YORK DEPARTMENT
STATE OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
BAL LAWN AREAS ONLY
(NYSDEC) AND REQUIREMENTS FOR A STATE POLLUTION DISCHARGE
N UNDER * BLL NEED To BE MRNED SCEWAYS So FLOW CAN DRAN
ISOMETRIC VIEW OF FACILITY ELIMINATION (SPDES) GENERAL PERMIT FOR STORM wATER
SCMENRod H
DISCHARGE FOR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY. THE SPDES PERMIT
5 TEMPORARY CONCRETE WASHOUT FACILITY - CWF 1 STORM STRUCTURE PROTECTION (GP-0-20-001) IS PURSUANT TO THE NYSDEC AND FEDERAL
105 SECTION * NOT To SCALE 3125-øl6 Cl05 SECTl0N * NOT To SCALE 3125-eøI ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION LAW AND HAS PENALTIES AND FINES
APPEL
OSBORNE
LANDSCAPEARCHITECTURE APPEL
OSBORNE
LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECTURE RELATED TO VIOLATIONS.
512
N
s
'
" "
x
+ÇN o . I3
+ FES-4 INV. 594.25± . se i
n \
o I 59en±
3s %
o 19
o o 5
,- ..
o.
~~- "
o ---66S ----
RMANENT P00
"' ELEVATloN
. I
Sa
S I \
c MW RIM 598.0 5
HP INV. 594.54 Cle6 5986± +

o£
s3
6øø33 es
5986
59 3'L --- -- \ \
22
596.92 \ 59 \ \ 7 FLA
CUT PIPE FLUSH WITHWALL, SMooTH [d0f SEC

& C 5
I . -5®j35
595 AND WATERTIGHT.SEE DRur.ES.FOR © APPEL O
594 PIPE INVERT AND SlZE, TYP.
p 593
FES-3 INV. 495.00 ve FINISH GRADE. SURFACE MATERIAL
ClØ6 /
o & VARIES. SEE DRW36.
5 BEEHIVE FRAME AND GRATE

d
NEENAH 1ø20-TYPE 02 OR
. ARCHITECT APPRovED EQUAL.
o o . T.:: .x P .. PRECAST CoNCRETE CovER WITH86
6" EJU. HS. 20 LOADING
BARS,
97 . TYP. o 1-e"Rc2-0"Æ,
. - $9 b WRAP ToP 4 SIDES OF SToNE AND

o
. O DRYWELL WITHSoIL FILTER
598 \ -
\ 597.25 FABR To PREVENT INFILTRATION
¯¯
\ ClØ6
FlÇS-2 INV. 594.42 ___
-- - - - e 59767 ,------
y\
ToP cFFooTING (TF) CoNCRETE RING
/
STANDARD PRECAST CONCRETE
597.75 - SECTloN. 5" TYPICAL MINIMUM
REINFORCED CONCRETE WALL
*
/ THICKNESS ON CoNCRETE RING _
e \ PERMANENT POOL b
'-- - - ¬ BACMFILL WITH81WASHED STcNE UP -' f
I / \ ELEVATION to SuBGRADE OF SUNFACE MATERIAL
5916
/
5' 3'-5" MSWRBED SUBGRGE -7
R
4'-0" R
TYP. \ or
/ 5e6.92
\ 3 RIP
'06 SEC
\
/ © APPEL
OS
SHALLOW DRYWELL - DW
\ a
\ SECTION * NOT To SCALE 3340-212B
~
APPEL OSBORNELANDSCAPEARCHITECTURE
-
. + + + + + + 4599n
+ + + + + + + + 9623
+ + + + + + + 59623
on
INV. + + + + / + + +
596.42 -t + + + + +
"
+ + + + I
+3 t, . '
\+ + + + + -s EXlem GRGE TO REMAN
\ 4 UNDISTURSED. SEE DWGS.
+ + + + + + ES-1 INV. 592.93
.+ + + 'í- y RA ClØ6
+ + + + + _p flDEFLE× TF-I CHECKMATE VALVE a O
- + + + + + + + + + BACKFLOW PREVENTER - INSTALLED m
. a'
+ + + + + + + I INTo EXISTING PIPE PER
+ + + +
597 MANUFACTURERSPECIFICATIONS. .
59 5
poØ.qØ
5996 + + + + + + + + + EXISTN3 OUTFLow APRoN To REMAIN.
5ten I
+" +o P + + + + + + + + + I /
\+ +/ + + /
+ + + + & 5e633
+ + + + + + +
"+ + /+ + + + + + + + + + .+
+ + + + + + + + +
+ +
+y y un
+ + + + . -
-
+ + + + + +599.F F + + / 9 .6 *Y 6 BACKFLOW PREVENTION VALVE
.
+ + + + + c106 escTioN * NOT To SCALE 3340-213
5 9, + g
+ + APPEL
OSBORNE
LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECTURE
I 5983 I "'N
~ "
22 PIPE SIZE
+ + + + + + Iy 4"
+ TY 597.7%
+ + + + + + INV. | -r ' ' 6"
59833 3
+ + + + + + + .
| '' > -
e"
--'" SH G SURFACE IN
+ + + + 595 g 2 ST
.-t;,../+ Ilt Mgms.
-+"' 106
+.,,,...ph + + ........ MNIMUM Two 10' LONG SMT STUSS SEC
+ + 5 + + +.......± 5 + + - -cCL APPEL
OS
. -- ouND FRAME AND GRATE OR
59 3 an 98.92 598.92
\ ,, 598.92 3 ....- ' CONCRETE
" ~¤NE¯ - -_-__-- - -- / /

.."
".
Gs AR EL00 _ _ /
6" TOPeoIL MINIMUM
PRECAST CONCRETE GRADE RINGS (2", 4" OR
2'-ø" 6"1 CoAT RINGS WITH h" MORTAR PARGING UNDER LAuN
' ..
53 - - - - - - - - . + AND CoAL TAR SEALER INSIDE AND OUT. 95% COMPACTED GE
STEPS EARTH BACKFILL
STANDARD PRECAST CONCRETE SECTl0N

WITHO RING JolNTS. MINIMUMREINFORCED .
,.. o / ,- CONCRETE WALL THICKNESS AS DIMENSIONED
\
res ---
\ 95% coMPACTED GRANULAR BACKFILL UP To
'
E×. FES INV. 590.16± SUBGRADE 0F SURFACE FINISH MATERIAL
.
\ \ . CUT PIPE FLUSH WITHINSIDE WALL, SMootH N
"
\
7
o
AND WATER TIGHT.SEE DRWGS.FOR PIPE - --
INVERT AND SIZE. TYP.
\)
==°
\ ". uNDISTURSED OR 95%
" ®
\ ". 6 -ø" * oR SQUARE CONCRETE WALL THICKNESS.
NOTE: MH-8 SHALL BE A 8 FOOT DIAMETER STRUCTURE.

/ .
.0/* ©
/ / / J
' "
S 5 STORM MANHOLE = MH T PIP
7 ..-- /') SECTION * NOT To SCALE 3340-203A SEC
APPEL OBBORNELANDSCAPEARCHITECTURE @ APPEL O
-
GRADING and UTILITY PLAN AREA A ° -L3)--t__Sf
513
Thursday, April 28, 2022 - 3:02 PM J:\Canisius High School\Sets\C107_Grading Area B_Canisius HS.dw{
'
. APPLE
g.9 S
e c P
93 532 3 or
MATCHLINE A 397 397 c -- - - MATCHLINE A

em - - - - - nlug
- - - 9 In m m m I
MATCHLINE B /s MATCHLINE 33
e / e· 9 9
94 eg
6·33 6
e .6
+-
\\\ \\ I + + + t + + + + + + + + + + + +
+²
.\ I . + +
/ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
'D
+ + + + +
. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + e + \
y
e
\ \\\ \\
- - e00·
+ + + §+ + + + + " ~oIy + + + + + + + + -E + + + + +
\ I + + + + + + 6 + + + + + + + + + + + .
E* *-* *'* ' '

II II s / *( sU
+ + * * * + * *
+Ä * +
*/
/ + + + + + + e + +'--r + + +, I
/ |
+ + 4 + + + + + + + + . + + +
'
/ ¡¡l t \ /
/ I R \ 66
"
...
..· ’ I
I \
I
/
I I
/
¡ ("
f p
'
I \
I \ e
I I I \\
I I &
\øe'
I I \\
I I \\ \
i
I \
I \ &
I I \\
"
I \\ .
I L
I
II \ I I "ae
II \l I
II \l I
III \el
m O
m or9
m - B-
°5 9W * a"ª's DE¬® O -ª
co
8 -E
-n I CD
®°
5 On
1
YYi I e
®c)
Z 6
O- C- 3 p
°
co Z
514
/|
I
DRIVE STAKES INio

o SUBOR AS SHotN. 3/TREE
2"
o ovER CALIPER AND
2/TREE 2"CALIPER AND
O UNDER
HoSE AND DOUBLE STRAND
o
INSIDE CONTINUoUS WIRE GUYS
m m ¬ PLANT BED SAUCER At SET RooT FLARE AT FINISH
coNDITloN EDGE IN GRADE KEEP MUI.CH 2" FROM
LAWN TRUNK
of -7 -r
a CONDITloN
Go -- i-- FINISH GRADE AT SAUCER
_ , - - - TOPSOIL
e MULCH 2" - 4" DEPTH
4 5
CUT AND LAYBACK ToP 1/3
41ng C112 C112 BURLAP FROM RooTSALL
. ä
- PLANTING SolL MI×‘URE
a . -
C
\ ROOT BALL To REST ON

UNDISTURSED SUSGRADE
o 6 oR COMPACTED MOUND
G2 o
^ 2
CLL
a 3 x WIDER THAN RooT BALL ,
T P.
C11 ATE TYP.
· .. -
LAuN . osciouOu. res. ,taur,,G .,,G1. .r..
.. " " " SECTION " NOT TO SCALE 290-ø01
. .
@ APPEL oSBORNELANDSCAPEARCWITECTURE
o 7 a.
. . . O .·. .
.·.·.
2 4
. . · 5/8" DIA. TRUSS ROD WITH TURNSUCKLE
Cl08 Cl08 .·. . . L
" 2" OD. GALV. EXTENSION 2" MESH
HDC ·. . . . . ARMS,
O I . "
. .
.
-Q
FABRIC 9 GAUGE. HoG TIES 12" 0.C. AROUND
PERIMETER
-_-
.. . 3ø"
.·. -“
. LAuN .·.·.·. 6 %" oD. VERTICAL POSTS, 2" MESH, % AND
·
TYPE . . " " " 9 GAUGE FABRIC. HoG TIES 12" 0.C. At
I ... . . . POSTS AND HORIZoNTAL RAILS
Fle "
. ·. . . . SEE SACKSTOP EDGE. CONDITION DETAIL.
* . " . " " " · ·. SEE SASESALL SACKSTOP

6' FooTING DETAIL·
HT . . . "
. CLF " SECTION
. .
LAwN .·. . . . I
. . .
C108 . .
o N 1043568.92
E le97013,29 · 10 3ø'-0"
TC VARIES VARIES Ö.
- · 2 . . EQ.PANELS EQ.PANELS
. ø8 5 EQ.PANELS
REFERTODUT.e. 2" O.D. HORIZCNTAL REFERTODET-'·
.·.· RAIL
. -·s . 6 %" O.D. VERTICAL
LAm p 2 T. C 2 e aAE
N 1043306.75 . . .. .. . . . .
. TYPE . . . . ·E le97092.00 . ·. .40'
. .. . . .
". C108)ALT-01 SION
. . . . . . . . . SYSTEM·W/ PA NG
LDA ·
·· .
,
BASESID:LAuN TYPE . .
ALT-02: LAWN TYPE-4 .
u SEHIND HOME PLATE
. 6 2" O.D. SOTToM RAll
.. . . . . . .. . . " . ELEVATION FINISHaRADE
CI08 .·. R5' .
. . .. . . . " . . x NOTES: l. CHAIN LINK MESH SHALL HAVE KNUCKLED SELVAGES ToP AND BOTToM.
o . . . . . . . . . . 2. BottoM OF FABRIC SHALL BE BURIED 6" BELow FINISH GRADE.
. . · . .. . . . . .
. ; . . . ·. . . . 22 .
. . .
.
. .
- .
. . . .
T BASEBALL BACKSTOP WITH CANOPY - 42'
HT.
. . . . 1Ø43 7064 *
ig<Øf SECTION NOT To SCALE 275-604A
. . . E 1097055.95
@ APPEL OSSORNELANDSCAPEARCWITECTURE
. . . . . . . . . .
4ør.
· . .
CLF .
. . , · · .. . . . . . 3195.75 ·. . . .
.. . . .
---- -.- ___.- . . . . . . ·. · 995.05
---- ----- · . .. ~'.
. . .. SINGLE GATE OPENING
. · - --- . . . . . MAY VARY -SEE DRWGS. CAP
.. . -1-h" I-h'!--
. . CIIø CIIø . TYP·
-t t
5 . TOP RAIL I-5/8" Op.
C110
.
+ + + + + + "E
N 104341058
. . . .
.
.
6' HT. . . . . · .· E - GATE
Co
m DecNS
2 n op.
4- CF I" LATCH WITHPROVISloN

+ + + + + + + + . E 1096883.73 N 1643055.52 a
C ÊfyxOWNER.
+ + + + + . . . . . . E 109698.7.60
ARTlPI tAL . .
BASEBID:LAWN TYPE-3 . . . . 2
+- ALT-02: LAwN TYPE-4 TrNUWe
+ + + + + + + + + + + . . SE AGES TOP AND
E T
2+ .. . .
O
. + + 3 . foPH°®41
n Op. BOTTOM RAIL

-------
+ + + + . . -----,-- IN SM GRADE - SEE GRADE BE AM
+ + + + t t + + + + + . 4øøøPSICoNCRETE
. . . . . . . -- GRADE BEAM
SMe .
7yp
H1
· . ·
I Q - - - - No. 5 RESAR CONTINUOUS
,-2" . + + + + + + + + + + .. N1Ø43163.91 I . 2" MIN. CLEAR
+ + + + + + +
E lø9681137 - - -
+ NCRETE
. . .
. . r- - - --
+ + + + + + + + + .
-
. . _ uNDISTuRSED
T- 32ø'-ø"
. + + + + + + + + + - .-
>
. È + 104346138 + + + + + + + + . . . . · . --TTT -
-n \ . .
LAWN
p.6 Æ
\
6'
WT LAWN . . .
I LDA . . ..". . CLF
-Fh TYPE . . .
GATE POST SCHEDULE
SINGLE GATE WIDTH POST op
6'WT. le'n 5 .... . . . . . cles NOTE: GATES To SWNG OUWARD FROM TUNIELD
. . . . + , + + CEP +1 + + +
CLF GATE TYP. .
- DuGogi Cl11 ... . VINYL CHAIN LINK FENCE GATE - SINGLE WIDTH
. . . -P /'+ , + y Clf
" . . . .
at . . . fÒ , // . . . . . ...- SECTloN * NOT 10 SCALE 215-øø3
APPELOSBoliiNE LANDSCAPEAFitcHITECTulitE
10'-0" MAX. CTOR

.
1-5/8"
P RAll OD.
. . . · . . . .
*-
·... . . . . . . . . .
. " ".·. . · " "
I . i3s". .
" "
C . . . 3/8"
DIA. TRUSS ROD
. . . . . . . . WITHTURNSUCKLE -
LOCATE AT CORNERS
. AND ENDS oNLY.
42'
HT. CLF
BACKSTOP .
. . . I-5/8" op.
MID RAIL FOR
1ø' 12' HEIGHTS ONLY.
8', AND
'¯' 2"
. . 83 STARTING GAUGE VINYL MESH
\
WITHKNUCKLED SELvAGE TOP
" -- AND BOTTOM. HoG TIES AT
12"
0.C. TOP AND MID RAILS,
. I- AND POSTS
agg
C It I 5/8" OD. BOTTOM RAIL
aggy
. IBM mum FINISH GRADE
.
4 øø PSI CoNCRETE
FooTING, TYP.
".
SAR OUT SoTTOM

CRA
|
. UNDISTURSED SUSGRADE
2" I'-6" "
". LINE POST END/CORNER POST Q
POST SCIEDULE -
FABRIC HEIGHT LINE POST OD. END / CORNER POST oD.

c,
/2"
=
- VINYL CHAIN LINK FENCE CLF
LAYOUT AREA A
60
PLAN
O 15 30 90
515
Thursday, April 28, 2022 - 3:02 PM J:\Canisius High School\Sets\C109_Layout Area B_Canisius HS.dw(
LE 4 ASp,AL r
MATCHLINE A . . . . . . . MATCHLINE A
MATCHLINE B . . . . . . MATCHLINE
MApLE
5" 5®
. -0 . .
m . . . .·.·.· -
. m .®. .·.·.·.·.·.·.·.
. 42 ·
. . . . . .
. . .. .· ·/. · .. 8'
. . .·.·.·. .·...·.
. . .
SRISINV3
f|
PIPE · y
. . . . . . . . . . O m
p Z
I .
I .. . .
/
O
TREES
O .
p
O
m
-n
m O
m
0
O
IT1 Ä o 8M EªM
**
O co
m -
> m o O
-
8.
516
-r
I" I" 1/4"

THROWINGCIRCLE x x
ALUMINUMRING ANCHOR SECURELY
NToCoNCRETEuTHeoLTSuTH
EXPANSION SLEEVES
4øø0 PSI CONCRETE. 6×6

(WIaxmla) WELDED WIRE MESH
EJ W/ JolNT SEALANT
) FINISH GRADE - MATERIAL MAY

VARY. REFER To DRAuNGS.
"4 SLIP DOWEL, 18" LONG, 9" EW.

. (S)3/4" DIA.× 16" LENGTH
-*--
ALUMINUMTUBE FOR DRAINAGE.
_ SET FLUSH WITHCONCRETE FINISH
GRADE-EQUALLY SPACED
95% COMPACTED IMPORTED

GRANULAR BACKFILL UP To
SUBGRADE OF FINISH MATERIAL S
--
UNDISTURSED SUBGRADE
e DISCUS CIRCLE SECTION

Cl10 SECTloN * NOT To SCALE 3230-2øe8
APPEL
OSBORNE
LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECTURE
NotE: PR
FLUSH (5
BY THE L
5 SHOT
Cl10 SECTloN
OSBORN
APPEL
\\ //
\\ 34.e2. STAKE CUT EVENT FOR OWNER

AND ARCHITECT'S APPRoVAL.
Q LINE ON LA BY ouNER
1146*XI1A6'
""-
2"
WHITEPAINTED LINE
- CONCRETE THROWINGCIRCLE
WITHPAINTED ALUMINUM
* *
-4 RING. SEE DETAIL
- 2"
WHITEPAINTED LINE
-
121'-3 3/s" =- - CONCRETE PAD WITH
BROOM FINISH
1/2" DIA PIN IN - z
CENTER oF
-4 ClRCLE SET FLUSH WITH 4 f . . .
CONCRETE FNISH GRADE.
REMovAIBLEPITChlER'S
MouND AND RESER 3/4"
EIGHT DIA ALUMINUM
-±.-
3'-O"
e,,
TUSES FOR DRAINAGE. SET
FLUSH WITHCONCRETE -
__
--
RIS'- 6'-0" 6'-0" FINISH GRADE.
+) $ .
d. -
e,
, a DISCUS CIRCLE PL AN ___

--
ll SECTION * NOT to SCALE 3230-209A
APPEL
OSBORNE
coACH'S
4 SHOT
Cl10 SECTloN
FINISH GRADE VARIES.
APPEL L
OSBORN
REFER To PLAN
SAFETY NET
6" 2'-2" 1ø"*
MIN GROUND SLEEVE SHALL MEET
2" 2" FLUSH WITHCONCRETE PAD
,
4"
+ FINISH GRADE VARIES.
MN REFER To PLAN
2" HEAVY DUTY CONCRETE PAD. Â -

CN DECK
gu an 'e+ CIRCLE,TYP - -
--
,)¯ )-4'-ø" ---- EYE BOLT BY MAUFACTURER ANCHOR
4'-ø" , ,
e - INTo CORE PER MANUFACTURERS
--
. ., . RECOMMENDA‘lON. -
"- DISCUS CAGE POST
- eagu,ocgs,evegoa
NOTE: I. VERIFY LAYouT AND DIMENSloNS WITH AR BASE - - .

4,000 PSI CONCRETE
4" WIDEWHITEINLAlp ATHLETIC DIRECTOR ERIAL
=o
2. BASES, PITCHER'S RUSSER, AND HoME PLATE -- STOPBOLT
UNES,TYPICAl-
FURNISHED AND INSTALLED BY CONTRACTOR
3. DISTANCE FROM FRONT OF PITCHER'S RUSSER
b To REAR CORNEROF HOME PLATE IS 6ø'-6"'
. AU. FIELD MARKNGS To BE COMPUANT MTH -
THE MOST RECENT NHSF RULES AND GulDELINES, COMPACTED 'I STONE SUMP.
AC A D BY owNER
HOME PLATE
-÷ Pii'
BASEBALL INFIELD PLAN - - - -- uNDISTURSED SUSGRADE
3- " ® PLAN * NOT To SCALE 3 SHOT
MARKINGS ,
215-551A _ -
I 11 SECTloN
l'-6" APPEL L
OSBORN
*NOTE: ALL SIDES EXCEPT AS NOTED ABOVE
1 DISCUS CAGE FOOTING

110 SECTION * NOT To SCALE 3230-209D
© APPEL
OSBORNE
LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECTURE
SYNTHETIC TUI®
INFILL SYSTEM
UPRIGHTPOLE
FINISHGRADE
'
, __ __ M BR 5
STONE BLANKET ¾
RE
SoIL STABILIZATION . :
'O ×
. FABRIC
' ---
GROUND SLEEVE IN
4000 eSi coNcRETE
--
FootNG. TCP OF
. SLEEVE To MEET FLUSH 3'-5" 3'-8" I'-3" 12'-0" I'-3" 3'-8" 3 -5"
WITHTURFBACKNG
, , , , , ,
- -
5'-ø UNDISTURSEDSUBGRADE
3/8"
STOP BOLT
2 -ø"Æ "
10'-5 3/16"
- ----
GROUND SLEEVE FOOTING SECTION 3'-0"
CAGE ,
DETAIL
4" oD × ks" WALL BLACK ALIGNMENTNOTCH
PowDER ALUMNUM TUSE BLACK NYLON I-¾" GROIND SLEEVE N 4500 PSI CONCRETE HEAVY DUTY
UPRIGHT,TYP- SQUARE MESH NET WITH FooTING. . . 34.92" N . CONCRETE.
3/8" STOPBOLTS SEE DETAIL
p 2 SHOT
- FI×ED NET STABILIZER CHAIN BOTTOM. NOTE: STOPBOLTS MUSTSE IN CORRECT Q † .
Cl10 SECTloN
EXTENSION ARM, 4. ATTACH To FRAME PER POSITioN N ORDER FOR THE BATTNG APPEL L
OSBORN
PLATE STEEL MANUFACTURER'S TUNNELUPRIGHTPOLES To LOCK IN THE .
RECOMMENDATIONS CORRECT POSITloN. . .6 .
GROUND SLEEVE GROUND SLEEVE FOOTING - PLAN .
SIDE ELEVATION
- TETHER NETTING To
UPRIGHTS AND CROSSBAR
. . DISCuS PAD
PER MANUFACTURER . .
RECOMMENDATION .
4" ks"
oD × WALL BLACK
17'-I " POWDER CoATED
ALUMINUMTUSE .
.
PowDER CoATED e- " ,r Q
ALUMINUMTUSE
a *
b CHAIN BOTTOM
--- - 4" oD × ks" MLL BLACK .

a
-".- n
~ ~- -- 6'.g.
GROUND SLEEVE
'
Fl×ED STABILIZER
E×‘ENS ARM, 4
5
PLATE STEEL 13-6
PLAN VIEW FRONT ELEVATION
'
10 BASEBALL BATTING TUNNEL 6 DISCUS CAGE LAYOUT I SHOT
110 SECTION * NOT TO SCALE BASEBALL TUNNEL II SECTloN * Not To SCALE 3230-2ø9C CI10 SECTloN
APPEL
OSBORNE
LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECTURE APPEL
OSBORNE
LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECTURE APPEL L
OSBORN
517
O INSIDE
CRITICAL DIMENSION CHART

MARK DESCRIPTION FORMULA DIM.
A = CLEAR OPENING B = POST SPACING C/C
10'-0" ¬Ç-2
A CLEAR OPENING A OUTSIDE
(A/2)-11" 4'-1" -
B COUNTERBALANCE POST SPACING C/C GATE PLAN VIEW
15'-0"
c C OVERALL GATE LENGTH A x 1.5 C = ovERALL GATE LE¾TH
5'-0"
D COUNTERBALANCE LENGTH A x 0.5 A - REFER to PLANS p = COUNTER BALANCE LENGTH
6'-0"
E
F
NOMINAL
POST
GATE
HEIGHT
HEIGHT E
E
6'-0" 3" × 5"
TOP RAIL
DOME POST
TOP,‘YP.
4" OD POST - TRUCK ASSŽ
G FABRIC HEIGHT E - 1'-0" 5'-O"

GATE
2" SQ ALUM 1" x 2" ALUM 2" x 2" ALUM 2" SQ AUM UPRIGHT /-AuMm4mi'
CATCHER UPRIGHT TUSE, TYP. TUSE, TYP. 2" SQ ALUM
UPRIG 4T
I'-6"
2
I
1x lÎCN
SRI FRME HT
U -2.eQ ALUM
‘T
CHAN LINK FABRIC
CHAIN LINK FABRIC
4 oD POST 3 6. AIRCRAFT GUIDE ROLLER ASSŽ
CABLE, TYP- 4" 00 POST
2 -ø" 2'-0
TYP· TYP. soc
GATE ®ü°o ETEM
ELEVATION
CHAIN LINK CANTILEVERED SLIDE GATE
6' HT BLACK NOT To SCALE 215-018

VINYL OUTFIELD FENCE
Toe oFTu
CONCRETE EDGE -
INCORPORATE FoUL POLE INTo
ELEVATION VARIES
FENCE. PRovIDE ALL
HARDWARE To ACCOMPLISH - -
--s-_ SYNTHETIC TURF
. INFILL SYSTEM
ACE 0F F C FINISHINGSTONE
BURY FENCE FABRIC 6" . , m i ...···
FINISH GRADE . . .... . . . .... .
-- TOP OF TURF INFILL . . = - *• -ji.

AND CONCRETE EDGE
-
-
- ELEVATION VARIES * STME BLANKET "
AT CONCRETE EDGE CONDITION

. PRoVIDE EXPANSION JolNT (EJA - 4,000 PSI CONCRETE -
= - PREMoLDED JoINT FILLER WITH t 4 . ... .
4' STONE DRAINAGE BLANKET WITH
GROUND SLEEVE IN SEALANT. FLUSH WITH TOP FINISH -FINISHING STONE (AS
n 4000 PSI CONCRETE FootlNG. FLA TONEEEDED To
RAINSONF IC FNE
* SPECIFICATIONS FOR DRAINAGE SLANKET
FINISH GRADE MATERIAL 9" 5" 4"
VARIES - SEE PLANS
WRF INFORMATICN FLAT DRAINS - SPACING AS GRADE = MAX I" DEPTH.
SLOPE OF TURFVARIES --) SHowN CN PLANS
,
4,000 PSI . RC
CONCRETE GRADE
2" 2'-0 2" BEM . o
98-
TYP . ... co
3 SYNTHETIC TURF INTERFACE
NOTE: PROVIDE HARDWARE To TIE CUTFIELD FENCE INTo FOUL POLE
No. 5 RESAR GR4DE , Cll< NOT To SCALE
FOUL POLE - FOP 2"
CCNTINUCUS, MN, APPEL OSBORNELANDSCAPEARCHITECTURE
SECTION * NOT To SCALE 3230-503 CL No. 3 REBAR
APPEL OSSORNELANDSCAPEARCHITECTURE
JolNTS 30' 0.C. AND / /I -ø" I'-6"
STABILIZATl0N FABRIC, SIDES · ' · '
z z
CONTROL JolNTS AND BoTTOM 0F TRENCH 0NLY.
E
CÚ È4ÉlüE 0F SUEÍ lii AÓÉAT INSIDE
CE R
, EDGE 0F SMT TRENCH TO CREATE A
FENCE POSTS
SM SIT ACCEPTABLE to 4 POST
GRANULAR BACKFILL UPER'To'4'"

12 L I 'PÍPÉ.
TED To 7 No. 5 RESAR CONTINUCUS,2" MIN, CLR.

4 P P AV AV AV AV/ No. 3 RESAR CAGE AT 24" 0.C. I
WYE FITTING.PVC TAPE SECURE 3ø' O.C.
SASESALL HOME ON toP PRovIDE EXPANSloN JoNTS
COUPLER CONNECT,IONS le'
PLATE AND BASES AND CONTROL JolNTS EVERY 0.C.
PERFORATED COLLECTOR PIPE IN LINE WITHCENTER OF FENCE AND
UNDISTUREED OR WITHSTONE DRAINAGE SLANKET NET POSTS
95% COMPACTEp MATERIAL. INVERT AND SIZE
SUBGRADE VARIES - SEE PLANS, TYP. N' AT CONCRETE EDGE CONDITION
SYNTHETIC TURF CAP WITHTURFGLUED To TOP
PROVIDE EXPANSION JolNT (EJA
INFILL SYSTEM
TOP 0F SLEEVE FLUSH WITH AS SHowN ON DRAWINGS PREMoLDED JolNT FILLER WITH
TURFBACKING T. FLUSH WITHTOP FINISH
FINISH GRADE - FLUSH 8TANDARD TURF EDGE FNISH GRADE. MATERIAL

- - - - -4"_
VARIES - SEE PLANS
- STONE DRAINAGE BLANKET .

WITHFLAT DRAINS ovER SoIL 4 FENCE TCP OF TURF INFILL AND boo o
STABILIZATION FASRIC CONCRETE EDGE -
. - SLEEVE FOR BASE ELEVATION VARIES O___ __
o
- NEW 12" DIA.CONCRETE PIER
4,000 PSI CONCRETE PIER ) . ......... .... e ------i L \ o9St
..· =" ob m
. ) . -----p
. -.. T
FACE 0F FENCE * $ . -
cp
VINYL CHAIN LINK FENCE, HEIGHT ) . . k r-"
VARIES - SEE PLANS, TYP
- UNDISTURED MME . .
*
•
4,,, S
°
o ø00 es CoNCRETE r ‘ms
I
- ELEVATION VARIES 95% D o .
BASE GROUND ANCHORS
AT CONCRETE EDGE CONDmoN ) L
SECTION * l"=I"-ø" base-ground anchor PROVIDE EXPANSloN JOINT (EJA I ) FINISHINGSTONE (AS li-
APPEL OSSORNELANDSCAPEARCHITECTURE PREMOLDED JolNT FILLER WITH REFER To StoNE DRAINAGE BLANKET SPECIFIED) AS NEEDED To m SLEEVE SI CElvE 10" .
) WITHFLAT DRAINS OVER SCHEDULE L POST.
SEALANT.FLUSH WITH TOP FINISH SPECIFICATl0NS FOR FINE TUNESTONE
GRADE. en 4. * "" " °" M"" *''''''²"N"ª°"'° °"ª"da"S
FINISH GRADE MATERIAL FLAT DRAINS - SPACING AS GRADE = MAX I" DEPTH. Y a
SLOPE OF TURFVARIES --) SHowN ON PLANS
VARIES - SEE PLANS coo O .
RADE BEAM
-- - c
ooRo
W L W ML W SC 3 I A " /28
BERS, 2, ETC.
FINISHINGSTONE (AS SPECIFIED) AS REFER To SPECIFICATIONS FOR
B ANKE = MAX RY C. N Lil WITH
I" DEPTH. P NE SE OGENER C CENTER OF FENCE POSTS STABILIZATION FABRIC, SIDES
SCRIM CENTERED ON SEAM AND GLUED - SYNTHETIC TURFSURFACE ovER STONE 4,000 M CMCREE
ME SU A
- - " BLANKET OR SPECIFIED PAD . f .. o
- OF SMT TRENCH To CREATE A SMOOTH cCob O
(ALTERNATE1 ADJUST GRADES To 95% COMPACTED C
TRANSITION,FOR FLAT DRAIN6/CONNECTloNS, No. 5 HORI
H ACCOMMODATE THE PARTICULAR TURF GRANULAR BACKFILL . .
ACCEPTABLE To THE ARCHITECT, TYP. RESAR AT
TYPE SYSTEM CHOSEN BY THE ouNER.
T FLÎT DRA S ovE SoIL

STABILIZATim FABRIC
9 6 C o
UNDISTURSED OR 95% PLER CONNECTloNS SILT TIGHT
e'o' '
COMPACTED SUBGRADE p'o¾y'g g'f fòg'p'l EÈu4IxHST o
DRAINAGE BLANKET MATERIAL. INVERT AND
y4RMS,-
E5 P<_4N²M y ,
4'-ø"
- 95% COMPACTED SUSGRADE AS SHowN ON DRAWINGS
RIFY DildENSION WrrH TURF S
/ A 12"
PEFFORATED FLAT DRAIN P ER TURF MANUFACTURER RECO
WRAPPED WITHGEoTEXTILE FABRIC TURF EDGE AT FENCE NOTES: AB MECESSARY TO ACCOMMODAT
* TURFSYSTEM DEPTH VARIES WITHTURFTYPE, ADJUST SUBGRADE DEPTH To SMClm AS SHom 2 PLMS
* VENFY DIENSION W“rH TURF SPECIFICATIONS. ADI-ERE TO CONCRETE A ..IGN FACE OF Al-l. POSTS 80
MATCH FINISH GRADES AS SHowN ON PLANS
PER TURF MANUFACTURER RECOMEATIONS. MODFY DId-NSIONS A 4D N IEE
T ARTIFICIAL TURF AS NECESSARY TO ACCOMMODATE ANY TURF TYPE. 2 BASEBALL BACKSTOP FOOTING
f,13 SECTION * NOT TO SCALE 215-101 $ * ALlQN FACE OF ALL POSTS SO THAT FENCE FABRIC LAYS Fl-USH CIII SECTloN * Not To SCALE
I Am N LINE
© APPEL OSBORNELANDSCAPEARCHITECTURE APPEL
OSBORNE
LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECTURE
4 GRADE BEAM
SECTION * NOT To SCALE M3230-201A
- - FACE OF FENCE
FINISH GRADE
MATERIAL VARIES -
SEE PLANS
TURF CARPET AND INFILL TURFCARPET AND INFILL
STONE DRAINAGE BLANKET WITHFLAT STONE DRAINAGE BLANKET WITHFLAT
EEEEEgEuNumutumugEmNumMunguUnlumNuUMM unmMEEEmutumMNilˆM1555EU g gE El En E EUnsmutmenEEEmsuEmmugum MEmNgEMEnsuUMNuntumumNIMemMEummemmilmuml!!!'gmummauMMUnMUM H IN (El IEEE 1U555M5M!ME E IEEI EEENE!IENIMUNAMEEEmMMMEMs5NUmmINE55E555GUI IEEEEEmEEEEEENNuUUNEEEERNMEMUNEMUNMEMMEMMule!MEEMEMEUMMel!
STABILlZATI FLAT DRAIN - SEE FLAT DRAN - SEE

ABRIC MS FOR SMClm FUNS FOR SPACI
"
U-ED-9 e=
ED SUSGRADE - SEE PI.ANS
NOTE: THIS DETAIL IS To SHOW INTENTOF TURF SUBGRADE COMPOSITION,

REFER To OTHER DETAILS FOR ADDITl0NAL INFORMATION
F TURF FIELD CROSS SECTION

SECTloN * NOT to SCALE TURFCROSS SECTloN
@ APPEL OSSORNELANDSCAPEARCHITECTURE
518
(24"
DETECTABLE WARNING TILE ×
WIDTH OF FLUSH CURB) SET FLUSH WITH
BACK oF CURB OR 2" MA×lMUM FROM
BACK 0F CURB
MEDIUM BRooM -
STANDARD
CURB RAMP WITH DETECTABLE WARNING SYSTEM

AX0NOMETRIC * NOT To SCALE 3213-øø1 a .
APPEL
OSBORNE
LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECTURE
INFORMATl0N.
POST POST .
CONDITl0N CONDITl0N
NOTE: ALL CONDITIONS, THE POST

BASE ATE IS U©ERNEATH THE TCP
CONCRETE LAYER AND/OR SYNTHETIC 2 -0
32'-0"
GOLD VINYL CLAD CHAIN LINK FENCE - SEE

DETAILS FOR MORE INFORMATl0N
MILL INTo E×lSTING
NAvY 36'-0"
PAVEMENT MIN. I-1/2" DEPTH. *
y| CLEAN OFF AND TACK CoAT.
FINISH GRADE 4'-O" ovERHEAD STRUCTUREAS SPECIFIED
CLR
WEARING COURSE
BINDER COURSE 6-l/2" ASPHALT
BASE COURSE
45°
ROLLED OR NEAT SAWCUT 5-
HOT PouR 2'-0" EDGE CONFORMINGTo SHAPES Zg
CRACK SEALER AS DIMENSIONS AS SHOEN 2
DWGS.
TOPoolL FNISH GRADE
FLUSH WITHTOP 0F BINDER
q ;.C..;.y.. COURSE CN powNHILL SIDE
; AND FLUSH WITHWEARING r-
COURSE CN UPHILL SIDE
= O . - IMPORTED GRANULAR BASE
COURSE COMPACTED To 95% _
I NSTAL ED ov 5
COMPACTED SUBGRADE
s- ------
SolL STABILIZAtloN FABRIC . . .
43'-ø"
$ ovERLAPPING 0F JolNTS BETWEEN ASPHALT COURSES IS REQUIRED \ . .
7 HEAVY DUTY ASPHALT PAVEMENT = HDA 4

C112 SECTl0N * NOT To SCALE 3212-øøIC
APPEL
OSBORNELANDSCAPE
ARCHITECTURE
CONTRACTION JolNT: Tool A-A'

JOINT TOP AND BOTH SIDES
10' 1/2"
ELEVATION
0.C. MAX. SAW CUT I
DEEP NE×T DAY. '4 BARS
CMMUE THROUGH 4" WWITEBORDER
TOP 0F CURB (TC)
1/2" NAVY LETTERS
EXPANSION JoINT:
3Ø'
SE, on MAX WITH(2)
.. .. . = . ... "4 SLIP powELS. SEAL VINYL CLAD CHAIN LINK FENCE - SEE
JolNT SIMILAR TO WALKS. 53'-1" DETAILS FOR MORE INFORMATION ,,
..,. "., .. .2 ".'..
OVERHEAD STRUCTUREAS SPECIFIED
LONGITUDINAL SECTION (2) e4 REBAR CONTINU0US .
FINISH GRADE AT TCP CF

CURB (T.C.)
(2) 84 REBAR CONTINU0US
I" RADIUS
-
9
SLOPE’ FINISH GRADE AT BOTTOM COLORS
OF CURB (BC) GoLD -- - .. -
U s NOTE:
TeHle' ALL LOGo GRAPHICS SHALL BE NLAID SYNTHETIC TURF NAVY
o.C.
^"8LTY ELD TURF LOGO DETAILS ,
C
95% COMPACTED GRANULAR © APPEL OSSORNELANDSCAPEARCHITECTURE . . .3

FILL UP To SUBGRADE 0F
- FINISH MATERIAL
95% COMPACTED SUBGRADE

6 2'-6 4.-3. T-e- 6..e. 6._Ø. S..0.
SECTIO
FINISH GRADE
5" ," DIA FLAGPOLE B-B'
6", 0R ELEVATION
CONCRETE CURB - STANDARD FLASH COLLAR STOOK DESIGN
C112 SECTl0N * NOT To SCALE 3213-øø3A TE M S
APPEL
OSBORNELANDSCAPE
ARCHITECTURE
POST CONDITl0N 'A'
36'-O"
SUBGRADE 0F ADJACENT SURFACE
FINISH MATERIAL FIEL > SIDIE
f-6" 4'-O" 8'-O" 6'-O" 6'-O" 8'-0"
. 95 % COMPACTED GRANULAR ,,
BACKFILL UP To SUBGRADE EAR
.
3,000 PSI CONCRETE BASE
TRANSITloN TRANSITION D
1,
6'-0" 6'-0 FOUR (4) WELDED STEEL WEDGES
m .. WELDED STEEL BASE SIZE -,
. VARIES ON POLE DIA m
TOP 0F St. LIGHTING GROUND SPlKE

12TYP. -'
CURB (TC) W/NUTWELDED To BASE
Q 6 _ø-
. WELDED STEEL b b o-
SUPPORT SIZE VARIES 9 in O
BOTTOM OF CN POLE DIA
cuRB (BC)
CURB RARIP " CR - 9 -s · s --s

95% COMPACTED CR
TOP OF CURB (TC) r_6 ea }

FINISH GRADE (TC=BC)
-- FOOTING SCHEDULE -
.
L S D FOUND Tl0N PTH 0F
DEPTH, SEE FL E FooTING +
----- SPECIFIED CURB. 16"xI6"x3/16" 8"x8"x3/16" 3/4"plAx18" 3'-6"

30‰T/5"DIA 2'-6" 5'-Ø 2'-0" 3'-Ø" 4'-0" 4'-0" 4'-0" 2'-0" 2'-0" 4'-0" 4'-Ø" 3'-9"
, , ,
BOTTOM OF CURB (BC) "Lali POST CONDITION 'B'
CURB END " CE * OR AS SPECIFIED BY CONTRACTORS NYS LICENSED ENGINEER

ALIGN FRONT 0F ALL POSTS So THAT FENCE FABRIC LAYS FLUSH AND IN LINE.
CONCRETE CURB RAMP AND CURB ENDING = CR/CE 2 FLAGPOLE BASE DUGOUTS AT TURF FIELD
2 SECTl0N * NOT To SCALE 3213-øø2 CII2SECTION * NOT TO SCALE 3230-øø2A NOT To SCALE Linkup Dugoute-Turf
APPEL
OSBORNE
LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECTURE APPEL
OSBORNE
LANDSCAPEARCHITECTURE APPEL OSSORNELANDSCAPEARCHITECTURE
519
3?&DQLVLXV+LJK6FKRRO?$WKOHWLF)LHOGV3KDVH?'UDZLQJV?$UFK?$GXJRXW6)/2253/$16GZJ

&08:9(57,&$/6#
2&0$;3529,'($7($&+ $ $ $
$
&251(5$1'21(,7+(5
$ 6,'(62)23(1,1*67<3 $

7,(5%(1&+(6
$ $
),%(5&(0(17/$3
6/23(
),%(5&(0(17/$3

6,',1*(;32685(21

'8*287 6,',1*(;32685(
&

& ;:22'675$33,1*
21;:22'
6725$*( 2&7<3,&$/
)/5(/(9 56 23(1 675$33,1*2&
3$675$37,(+2/''2:1 35(&$676,//
' ' 7<3,&$/
%<6,0362167521*7,(
25(48,9$7($&+(1' 67'3,3(
$'+(5('6721( $'+(5('6721(

35,0($1'3$,17
9(1((5 9(1((5

67'3,3(

35,0($1'

3$,17

%
56
,1',&$7(663$12)21(/$<(52)ô´$3$5$7('(;7(5,25 (/(9$7,21 (/(9$7,21 &RQVXOWDQWV

02
522)3/$1 3/<:22'522)6+($7+,1*81%/2&.('',$3+5$*0
)$67(1('72522)75866(6:,7+G1$,/6$7´´3$1(/

&21&5(7($3521
('*(),(/'3$77(51
;/9/:52:6 (
$
2)G1$,/6#2& 0,1 $
%($5,1*$7($&+(1'21 % $

0$6215<:$//

(;326('&(,/,1*
:22'5$)7(56
6(()281'$7,21
)/2253/$1 3/$1%6+((7$
),%(5&(0(17/$3
6,',1*(;32685(

21;:22'
(
5()/(&7('&(,/,1*3/$1 675$33,1*2&
7<3,&$/

$

35(&$676,//
$'+(5('6721(

9(1((5

(/(9$7,21 (/(9$7,21

)
&21&5(7($3521 $

0$5.(5 [632576/2&.(56

/,1($59,1</
%2$5'
/2&.(5 )/5(/(9 62)),7&(,/,1*
6725$*(

;
V:6,03621 )

67521*7,(:08[ $
$ 723)/$1*(+$1*(5[
7$//$77$&+('727232)

02 0$6215<:;
7,7(10$6215< 6LJQDWXUH 6HDO

6&5(:6727232)
0$6215<$7($&+(1' $

+ (;+$867)$1

7,(5%(1&+(6

6725$*( 56 56
)/5(/(9 '8*287
*

$
3$675$37,(+2/''2:1
6/23( 6/23( (;326('&(,/,1*:22'
%<6,0362167521*7,(
5$)7(5675866(6
25(48,9$7($&+(1'

67'3,3( 23(1&233(5 5()/(&7('&(,/,1*3/$1
35,0($1'3$,17 $ 9$//(<
:$51,1*$/7(5$7,216727+,6

'2&80(17127&21)250,1*72

$ $
6(&7,2125%67$7(
('8&$7,21/$:$5(352+,%,7('
* ),%(5&(0(17/$36,',1* 12738%/,6+('$//5,*+765(6(59('
6/23(

02 (;32685(21;:22'
6/23(

675$33,1*2&7<3,&$/

&21&5(7($3521
( +
56 ),%(5&(0(17
;/9/:52:6
$

56 75,0%2$5' &OLHQW &$1,6,86+,*+
6/23(
35,0($1'3$,17
2)6'66&5(:6#2&
6&+22/

7<3,&$/
0,1%($5,1*$7($&+(1' (
210$6215<:$//

7<3,&$/,16,'(&251(5
'(7$,/ 3URMHFW $7+/(7,&),(/'6

( 56

3+$6(
'(7$,/
,1',&$7(663$12)21(/$<(52)ô´$3$5$7('(;7(5,25
3/<:22'522)6+($7+,1*81%/2&.('',$3+5$*0
)$67(1('72522)75866(6:,7+G1$,/6$7´´3$1(/
('*(),(/'3$77(51

)/2253/$1 6(()281'$7,21
3/$1&6+((7$
522)3/$1 35(&$676,//
$%29(

6721( ),%(5&(0(17/$36,',1* ),%(5&(0(17
9(1((5 ),%(5&(0(17/$36,',1* (;32685(21;:22' 75,0%2$5'
(;32685(21;:22' 675$33,1*2&7<3,&$/ 35,0($1'3$,17
675$33,1*2&7<3,&$/ 7<3,&$/

),%(5&(0(1775,0%2$5'
35,0($1'3$,177<3,&$/ 7<3,&$/2876,'(&251(5
(;+$867 (;+$867

'(7$,/ '(7$,/ 3URMHFW$GGUHVV 52%(57-675$16.<0(025,$/&203/(;
$ $

)$1 )$1
&/,1721675((7
$ $ $ $
:(676(1(&$1(:<25.

(;+$867)$1 $63+$/76+,1*/(6
522)81'(5/$<0(17 'UDZLQJ+LVWRU\ 'DWH 'HVFULSWLRQ
9$//(<&/($767<3,&$/ ,&($1':$7(5
,&($1':$7(5 6+,(/'
),%(5&(0(17/$3 ),%(5&(0(17/$36,',1* 6+,(/' &233(59$//(<
6,',1*(;32685( ),%(5&(0(17/$3 (;32685(21;:22' )/$6+,1*%$6('8321
21;:22' 6,',1*(;32685( 675$33,1*2&7<3,&$/ 60$&1$67$1'$5'6
675$33,1*2& 21;:22' 0(7$/522)
675$33,1*2& ,168/$7('0(7$/
7<3,&$/ ,&($1':$7(5 &85% )/$6+,1*
7<3,&$/
6+,(/'
23(1
35(&$676,//
$'+(5('6721( 67'3,3(
$'+(5('6721(
9(1((5 35,0($1'3$,17 9(1((5
(/(9$7,21
(/(9$7,21

$
',$67'3,3(
(;+$867)$1 ȭ3267
',$+,/7,.:,.%2/7#
(0%('0(1725(48,9
'(7$,/ '(7$,/ 3URMHFW6WDWXV )25&216758&7,21

$ $

6+,0$65(48,5(':,7+
1216+5,1.*528772
'DWH
),%(5&(0(17/$3
6,',1*(;32685( 3529,'(81,)250%($5,1* 3URMHFW1XPEHU
21;:22' ȭ3267 /9/+($'(563(53/$1 6KHHW7LWOH )/2253/$16
675$33,1*2& 7<3

7<3,&$/ ),%(5&(0(17/$36,',1*
(;32685(21;:22'
6,0362167521*7,(
&&246'6&2/801&$3
(/(9$7,216

675$33,1*2&7<3,&$/ 25(48,9:[6'6

35(&$676,//

6&5(:672/9/72($&+(1'
:HGQHVGD\-XQH30
2)/9/
[[%$6(3/$7(
$'+(5('6721( (;7(5,25)$&(2) ',$67'3,3(
',$67'3,3(
9(1((5 $'+(5('6721( )281'$7,21:$// ('*( 6(&7,21$$
9(1((5 2)6/$%29(53285

7<3 6KHHW1XPEHU
127($//67((/6+$//%(+27',33('*$/9$1,=(' 127($//67((/6+$//%(+27',33('*$/9$1,=('
(/(9$7,21 (/(9$7,21 3267%$6( 3267&$3

520
3?&DQLVLXV+LJK6FKRRO?$WKOHWLF)LHOGV3KDVH?'UDZLQJV?$UFK?$GXJRXW66(&7,216'(7$,/6GZJ
[%5$&(6#2&:
6&5(:6725$)7(5 6,03621
67521*7,($&/,3:
)
' 6&5(:625(48,9

* ( $
3529,'()/8,'$33/,('$,5$1':$7(5%$55,(5
;522) ;522)
5$)7(52& 5$)7(52&
/9/%($0
3529,'()/8,'$33/,('$,5$1':$7(5%$55,(5
6721(9(1((5
3529,'()/8,'$33/,('$,5$1':$7(5%$55,(5
;522)
&217%21' &217%21' 5$)7(52&
%($0: %($0:
&217 &217

&08:9(57,&$/6 [%5$&(6#2&:

#2&0$;3529,'( 6&5(:6725$)7(5 6,03621
%/2&.&2856(6

%/2&.&2856(6

%/2&.&2856(6

$7($&+&251(5$1' 67521*7,($&/,3:
21(,7+(56,'(62) 6&5(:625(48,9
23(1,1*67<3

&RQVXOWDQWV
23(1
12$,5$1':$7(5%$55,(5
12$,5$1':$7(5%$55,(5
12$,5$1':$7(5%$55,(5
6721(9(1((5

6721(9(1((5

7,(5%/($&+(56
&21&5(7( &21&5(7(
$3521 $3521 9$325%$55,(5
9$325%$55,(5 9$325%$55,(5
9$325%$55,(5

7+,&.&21&5(7(6/$%21*5$'( 7+,&.&21&5(7(6/$%21*5$'(
:/$<(52)[:[::)) :/$<(52)[:[::))
&(17(5('29(5$0,1,0802)2) &(17(5('29(5$0,1,0802)2)
&203$&7('68%%$6( &203$&7('68%%$6(

%8,/',1*6(&7,21 %8,/',1*6(&7,21 6(&7,21 6(&7,21

%
[%5$&(6#2&:
)8//'(37+;%/2&.,1*(9(5<
6&5(:6725$)7(5
27+(5%$<:,7+6,0362167521*7,( &211(&7,212)75866727232)
6,0362167521*7,($
$&/,325(48,9)520%/2&.,1* :$//%<75866'(6,*1(5
&/,3:6&5(:625
727233/$7( 522)75866
(48,9
, 2&

;2&

(;7(5,25*5$'(
522) 3/<:22' 6LJQDWXUH 6HDO
75866 ;522)
2& 5$)7(52&

3529,'()/8,'$33/,('$,5$1':$7(5%$55,(5
/,*+7),;785(
&217%21' &217%21'
%($0: %($0:
/,1($59,1</ &217 /,1($59,1</
&217 /,*+7),;785(
62)),7&(,/,1* 62)),7&(,/,1*
/,*+7
),;785(
%/2&.&2856(6

%/2&.&2856(6

%/2&.&2856(6

&21&5(7(
%/2&.
:+,7(
&21&5(7( %2$5'
%/2&.

:$51,1*$/7(5$7,216727+,6
+ '2&80(17127&21)250,1*72
6(&7,2125%67$7(
12$,5$1':$7(5%$55,(5
[632576/2&.(56 ('8&$7,21/$:$5(352+,%,7('
6721(9(1((5

12738%/,6+('$//5,*+765(6(59('

7,(5%/($&+(56
&OLHQW &$1,6,86+,*+
6&+22/
7+,&.&21&5(7(6/$%21*5$'(
&21&5(7(
$3521 7+,&.&21&5(7(6/$%21*5$'(
&21&5(7(
$3521
3URMHFW $7+/(7,&),(/'6
:/$<(52)[:[::))
:/$<(52)[:[::))
&(17(5('29(5$0,1,0802)2)
9$325%$55,(5
&(17(5('29(5$0,1,0802)2)
9$325%$55,(5
3+$6(

&203$&7('68%%$6( &203$&7('68%%$6(

%8,/',1*6(&7,21

%8,/',1*6(&7,21 $63+$/76+,1*/(6

522)81'(5/$<0(17
3(5,0(7(5 ,&($1':$7(5 3URMHFW$GGUHVV 52%(57-675$16.<0(025,$/&203/(;

6+,(/' &/,1721675((7
)$67(1,1*
),%(5&(0(1775,0 :(676(1(&$1(:<25.
%2$5'35,0($1'
3$,177<3,&$/ 6,0362167521*7,($&/,325
(48,9)5202875,**(5725$)7(5 $63+$/76+,1*/(6
$1'727232):$// 522)81'(5/$<0(17

(;7(5,25

,&($1':$7(5
*5$'( 6+,(/'
;2&
3/<:22'

),%(5&(0(17/$3
9(17(' [%/2&.,1*(9(5<27+(5%$<:,7+6,0362167521*7,( 6,',1*(;32685(21 0(7$/'5,3
$/80,180 $&/,325(48,9)520%/2&.,1*727233/$7( ;:22'675$33,1* )/$6+,1*
62)),7 2&7<3,&$/
),%(5&(0(17 0(7$/'5,3
/$36,',1* )/$6+,1*
(;32685( ;2&

522) 3(5,0(7(5

75866 )$67(1,1* ),%(5&(0(17 ),%(5&(0(17 35(&$676,//
2& 75,0%2$5' 75,0%2$5'
35,0($1'3$,17 35,0($1'3$,17
),%(5&(0(17
$63+$/76+,1*/(6 7<3,&$/ 7<3,&$/ 75,0%2$5'35,0(
$1'3$,177<3,&$/

522)81'(5/$<0(17
(;7(5,25
$,5$1':$7(5 ),%(5&(0(17
522) *5$'( ,&($1':$7(5
(;7(5,25*5$'(
12$,5$1':$7(5%$55,(5
%$55,(5
(;7(5,25 /$36,',1*

75866 3/<:22' 6+,(/' 3/<:22'

*5$'( 6721(
2& (;32685(
3/<:22' 3(5,0(7(5 9(1((5
)$67(1,1*

;522) ;2&
)8//'(37+;%/2&.,1*(9(5<
$'+(6,9( 5$)7(52&

(;7(5,25

27+(5%$<:,7+6,0362167521*
7,($&/,325(48,9)520
%21'&2$7
&21&5(7(
3URMHFW6WDWXV )25&216758&7,21
*5$'( (;7(5,25*5$'( (;7(5,25
%/2&.,1*727233/$7( %/2&.
3/<:22' 3/<:22'$75$)7(5 *5$'(

(1'6 [),%(5&(0(17 ),%(5&(0(17/$3 3/<:22' ),%(5&(0(17/$3 $,5$1':$7(5
75,0%2$5'35,0(
32/<0(5
(;7(5,25*5$'( 6,',1*(;32685( (;7(5,25*5$'( 6,',1*(;32685(21 02',),(' %$55,(5
$1'3$,177<3,&$/ 3/<:22' 3/<:22' ;:22'675$33,1* 0257$5 'DWH
;522) 2&7<3,&$/
5$)7(5 ;2& /9/%($0 3URMHFW1XPEHU
;522) ;2&
$77$&+;6,//3/$7(
6(&7,216$1'

2& 6KHHW7LWOH
5$)7(5 72;7233/$7(:G ),%(5&(0(17/$3
$,5$1':$7(5 $,5$1':$7(5
2& ;522) 1$,/6#2&7<3 6,',1*(;32685(21
/,1($59,1</
62)),7&(,/,1* 6,0362167521*7,( 5$)7(52&
%$55,(5 %$55,(5 ;:22'675$33,1* '(7$,/6
++855,&$1(7,(25 2&7<3,&$/
;/21*+($'('$1&+25 9(17(' 0(7$/'5,3 ;/21*+($'(' 0(7$/'5,3
(48,921(21(,7+(5 ; )/$6+,1* /9/%($0
%2/76#2&+27',33(' $/80,180 $1&+25%2/76# )/$6+,1*
:HGQHVGD\-XQH$0
6,'(2)7+(5$)7(5 /,17(/ 6,03621

*$/9$1,=('7<3 62)),7 ;/21*+($'('$1&+25 2&+27',33('
67521*7,(+
+855,&$1(7,(25 %2/76#2&+27',33(' *$/9$1,=('7<3
;/21*+($'(' ),%(5&(0(17/$3 (48,921(21 *$/9$1,=('7<3
$1&+25%2/76#2& 6,',1*(;32685(21 (,7+(56,'(2) ),%(5&(0(17/$3
+27',33('*$/9$1,=(' ;:22'675$33,1* 7+(5$)7(5 6,',1*(;32685(21 6KHHW1XPEHU
0(7$/'5,3
7<3 2&7<3,&$/ ;:22'675$33,1*
)/$6+,1*
'(7$,/ '(7$,/ '(7$,/ '(7$,/ '(7$,/ 2&7<3,&$/
'(7$,/ '(7$,/ '(7$,/ '(7$,/

521
3?&DQLVLXV+LJK6FKRRO?$WKOHWLF)LHOGV3KDVH?'UDZLQJV?$UFK?$GXJRXW66&+('8/(6GZJ
5220),1,6+6&+('8/(
)
$
)/225 %$6( :$// &(,/,1*
,
522)
$
/,1($59,1</62)),7
75866
&21&5(7(%/2&.
3529,'(635$<21$,5$1':$7(5%$55,(5
&(,/,1* 2&
180%(5 52201$0( 5(0$5.6
+(,*+7
&21&5(7(
;522)
(;326('
5$)7(52&
3$,17
121(
/,*+7),;785(
'8*287

'8*287

&21&5(7(
6725$*(
%/2&. &
/2&.(5
$
/,*+7
),;785(
%/2&.&2856(6

&21&5(7( &RQVXOWDQWV
%/2&.

'2256&+('8/(
12$,5$1':$7(5%$55,(5
6721(9(1((5

'225 )5$0( '(7$,/6
0$7(5,$/ 0$7(5,$/ ),5(5$7,1* +$5':$5(

180%(5 5(0$5.6

:,'7+ +(,*+7 7<3( 7<3( -$0% +($' 6,// /$%(/ 6(712
)53
)53

% $

% $

% $
&21&5(7(
$3521
9$325%$55,(5

/,1($59,1</
)/86+
62)),7&(,/,1* 9$5,(6

6+,0$1'6($/$17
($&+)$&(
%8,/',1*6(&7,21

+($' $ %

(
$

)5$0(7<3( '2257<3( '

6,//

$ 6LJQDWXUH 6HDO

*29(51,1*%8,/',1*&2'(6 %8,/',1*&2'(2)1(:<25.67$7( $
'
%8,/',1*5,6.&$7(*25< ,,

'(6,*162,/%($5,1*&$3$&,7< 36)

)/225/,9(/2$'6
/,1($59,1</ '8*287 /2&.(552206 36)
)/225'($'/2$' $
62)),7&(,/,1*

'/ 36) $

6+,0$1'6($/$17
0(7$/'5,3 ($&+)$&( 522)/,9(/2$'
522)&216758&7,21/2$' 36)

522)'($'/2$'

;),%(5&(0(17
+($' '/
&2//$7(5$//2$'6
36)
( (
75,0%2$5'35,0(
0(&+$1,&$/(/(&75,&$/3/80%,1*$//2:$1&( 36) :$51,1*$/7(5$7,216727+,6
$
$1'3$,177<3,&$/ '2&80(17127&21)250,1*72
9,1</&(,/,1*6 36) $
6(&7,2125%67$7(
612:/2$' ('8&$7,21/$:$5(352+,%,7('
$1&+2563(5
*5281'612:/2$'3J
612:/2$',03257$1&()$&725,V
36)

)281'$7,213/$1 )281'$7,213/$1 12738%/,6+('$//5,*+765(6(59('
-$0%7<3,&$/

612:(;32685()$&725&H
6721(9(1((5
7+(50$/)$&725&W
)/$7522)612:/2$'3I

36)
&OLHQW &$1,6,86+,*+
6/23('522)612:/2$'3V 36) (;3-2,17 6&+22/
-$0% 81%$/$1&('612:/2$' 36)

5$,1/2$'

5$,1,17(16,7<L ,1+5 3URMHFW $7+/(7,&),(/'6

),%(5&(0(1775,0
:,1'/2$'

%2$5'35,0($1'3$,17 %$6,&'(6,*1:,1'63(('9 03+ 3+$6(
7<3,&$/ $//2:$%/(675(66'(6,*1:,1'63(('9$6' 03+
:,1'(;32685( &
7+5(6+2/'6(7
,16($/$17 ,17(51$/35(6685(&2()),&,(17*&
SL %(17[
[
#
&20321(176$1'&/$'',1* %(17[
[
# 2&
'(6,*1:,1'35(6685(36)%$6('21$1())(&7,9($5($2)64)7 2&
7+,&.&21&5(7(6/$%21*5$'(
6,// :$//6,17(5,25=21((1'=21(
522)=21(6
'2:(/6[/21*#2&
$7($&+9(57,&$/%$5 :/$<(52)[:[::))
&(17(5('29(5$0,1,0802)2)
7+,&.&21&5(7(6/$%21*5$'(
:/$<(52)[:[::))

&203$&7('68%%$6( &(17(5('29(5$0,1,0802)2)
HQU H ,62/$7,21-2,17 &203$&7('68%%$6(
127(6
326,7,9($1'1(*$7,9(180%(56,1',&$7()25&(635(6685(6$&7,1*72:$5'$1'$:$<)5207+( 3URMHFW$GGUHVV 52%(57-675$16.<0(025,$/&203/(;
685)$&(65(63(&7,9(/< &/,1721675((7
:(676(1(&$1(:<25.
:,'7+2)(1'$1'&251(5=21(66+$//(;7(1')520'(),1('%8,/',1*&251(56$',67$1&(,6(48$/72
7,0(67+(/(66(52)2)7+(/($67+25,=217$/',0(16,2125[0($1522)+(,*+7%876+$//127%( $72&+25,=
/(667$.(17+$17+(/(66(52)2)7+(/($67+25,=217$/',0(16,2125)((7
'(/(*$7(''(6,*1(/(0(176)25())(&7,9($5($6*5($7(57+$164)77+('(/(*$7(''(6,*1 '2:(/6[
$72&
$1&+2563(5 ),%(5&(0(17/$3 &203$&7(' :,7+67$1'$5'+22.
-$0%7<3,&$/ (1*,1((56+$//&2168/7$6&(72'(7(50,1('(6,*1:,1'35(6685(6%$6('217+(:,1'/2$''(6,*1 $72&9(57
6,',1*(;32685(21 %$&.),//
;:22'675$33,1* &5,7(5,$3529,'(')25())(&7,9($5($664)725/(6686(7+($335235,$7('(6,*1:,1'35(6685(

7+,&.&21&5(7(6/$%21*5$'(
2&7<3,&$/ ,1',&$7(' :/$<(52)[:[::)) &203$&7('
6(,60,&/2$' &(17(5('29(5$0,1,0802)2)
-$0%
6758&785$/),//
6(,60,&,03257$1&()$&725,( &203$&7('68%%$6(

6,7(62,/&/$66,),&$7,21 (

$72&
0$33('6+2573(5,2'63(&75$/$&&(/(5$7,2166 J

),%(5&(0(1775,0 0$33('21(6(&21'3(5,2'63(&75$/$&&(/(5$7,216 J
%2$5'35,0($1'3$,17
6+2573(5,2'63(&75$/'(6,*1$&&(/(5$7,216'6 J &/5
7<3,&$/ &217,18286
21(6(&21'3(5,2'63(&75$/'(6,*1$&&(/(5$7,216' J
6(,60,&'(6,*1&$7(*25< &
%$6,&6(,60,&)25&(5(6,67,1*6<67(0$6&(7 7<3($

5(63216(02',),&$7,21&2()),&,(175 $72&+25,=

'()/(&7,21$03/,),&$7,21)$&725&G
'2:(/6[
$72&
6(,60,&5(63216(&2()),&,(17&6
'(6,*1%$6(6+($59
:,7+67$1'$5'+22.
$72&9(57 '(7$,/

-$0% '8*287:,7+/2&.(5 .,36

'8*287:,7+287/2&.(5 .,36 &203$&7('

$1$/<6,6352&('85( (48,9$/(17/$7(5$/)25&( 6758&785$/),//
$72&
3URMHFW6WDWXV )25&216758&7,21
127(6
'(6,*1,6%$6('21$1$6680('62,/%($5,1*
&$3$&,7<2)/%63(5648$5()227

&217,18286 &/5 &2175$&725729(5,)<62,/%($5,1*&$3$&,7<$7

%($5,1**5$'(:,7+48$/,),('*(27(&+1,&$/ 'DWH
*(1(5$/6758&785$/127( 352)(66,21$/
$//&21&5(7()281'$7,2166+$//%(,167$//(' 3URMHFW1XPEHU
:22' 3(5&855(171<6%&
: /$0,1$7('9(1((5/80%(50(0%(566+$//%(0,&52//$0/9/$60$18)$&785('%< &21&5(7()25)281'$7,21:$//63,(566/$%66+$//
6KHHW7LWOH 6&+('8/(6$1'
:(<(5+$(86(57586-2,6725$33529('(48,9$/(17+$9,1*7+()2//2:,1* %(36,$1'&21&5(7()25)227,1*66+$//%(
0,1,0803523(57,(6 36, '(7$,/6
)E 36, )Y 36, ( 36, &2175$&72572&225',1$7($//$1&+25%2/7
$1'3,(5/2&$7,216:$5&+,7(&785$/3/$16$1'
: $//%8,/783/9/%($066+$//%(6(&85(/<)$67(1('72*(7+(5$1',167$//('$6 $33529('67((/6+23'5$:,1*6
:HGQHVGD\-XQH30
5(&200(1'('%<0$18)$&785(581/(66127('27+(5:,6( $//)281'$7,2166+$//%($52181',6785%('1$7,9(

62,/65(029($//(;,67,1*),//0$7(5,$/'2:172
1$7,9(62,/6$3352;,0$7('(37+2)),//,6$%287
)((79,)$1'5((67$%/,6+%($5,1*(/(9$7,216
:,7+6758&785$/),//0$7(5,$/
5()(572*(27(&+1,&$/(1*,1((5,1*5(3257 6KHHW1XPEHU
&203/(7('%<7(55$&21&2168/7$1761<,QF
'(7$,/ %8))$/21<'$7('0$<

522
3?&DQLVLXV+LJK6FKRRO?$WKOHWLF)LHOGV3KDVH?'UDZLQJV?$UFK?$(/(9$7('35(66%2;GZJ

522)0(0%5$1(21522)'(&.6+($7+,1*3(5
0$18)$&785(55()(57263(&,),&$7,216
(/(&75,&$/127(6

$//(/(&75,&$/,167$//$7,216+$//&203/<:,7+1(&$1'1<6&2'(6
$//&20321(1766+$//%(8//,67('
522)-2,676<67(0:,168/$7,21
9$325%$55,(53(50$18)$&785(5
(&723529,'(7(/'$7$6(59,&(638//%2;[[:,7+678%83
5()(57263(&,),&$7,216
7+528*+)/225)25,1&20,1*7(/'$7$&$%/(6

(&723529,'([[38//%2;$1'&678%837+528*+)/225)2527+(5
6(59,&(66281'&/2&.(7&%<2:1(5
(/(&75,&$//(*(1'

$//'(6&5,%('%(/2:3529,'('%<%8,/',1*0$18)$&785(5
:$//$66(0%/<3(5
0$18)$&785(55()(5

/,7+21,$03&6*(%:$77
78%()/825(6&(17/,*+7
7263(&,),&$7,216
3/$67,&/$0,1$7('&2817(5 :,7+3$5$%2/,&',))86(56$1'%$//$67',6&211(&7
67((/6833257%5$&.(7RF /,7+21,$(&5/('6:5(0(5*(1&<&20%,1$7,21(;,7)/22'/,*+7
:0,1,0800,1%$77(5<%$&.83:$//02817
:,5(02/'(/(&75,&3/8*675,3
&21'8,77+58)/225$7(1' &223(5+$/2+,&7:375,062)),7&$1/,*+7),;785( &RQVXOWDQWV

)25$&&(66
522))5$0,1*3/$1
(;7(5,25&/$'',1*3(5
6%558%%(5%$6(02/',1* /87521062360/$32/(2&&83$1&<6(16256:,7&+:$//
0$18)$&785(55()(5
),1,6+(')/225 7263(&,),&$7,216 02817('

,17(50$7,&(,352*5$00$%/($6752120,&$/7,0(56:,7&+

&/($5%(/2:6758&785(
35()$%5,&$7('*$/967((/ 3$66 6(<0285/$63(&*5$'(*5281',1*7<3(5(&(37*),

9,1</&20326,7,21
81'(56758&785( ,168/$7,21 :(5(127('$))81/(66127('27+(5:,6(
67$,5/$1',1*$66(0%/<: 3(50$18)$&785(55()(572
7,/()/225,1*21
*$/967((/+$1'5$,/6<67(0 81'(5/$<0(175()(5
63(&,),&$7,216 (/(&75,&$/',675,%87,21/2$'&(17(5:0$,1',6&211(&79
7263(&,),&$7,216
'1 6,1*/(3+$6($03&$3$&,7<64
'
408372&(17(5:
&21'8,77+58)/225
35((1*,1((5('*$/9 :,5(02/'6(5,(6(/(&75,&3/8*675,36:5(&(376$1'
$ 6758&785$/67((/)5$0,1* &20081,&$7,21-$&.&29(562&$1'&21'8,77+58)/225$7
6<67(0%<35(66%2;0$18
(/(&75,&$/3$1(/%<0$1872 (1'83
$//2:)25(;3$16,21726833/<
*5200(7('+2/(7+58&2817(5
32:(5$1'/,*+7,1*72)8785(
6725$*((1&/2685(%(/2:

5(,1)25&('&21&
6/$%6(('(7$,/6
5(,1)25&('&21&)227(5
0,1
%(/2:),1,6+
'225:,1'2:/(*(1'
&2817(5$))'
*5$'(
3/<:22':3/$67,&/$0,1$7(
[0$621,7(2$.&5$)7:22'*5$,17(;785(',168/$7('

*5$'(
),%(5*/$66(175<'225:62/,'9,1</-$0%6:($7+(5675,33,1*+($9<
'87<5(7(17,21&+$,1$/80,1807+5(6+2/':,1'2:$1'
% % &200(5&,$//(9(5+$1'/('.(<('/2&.6(7:,1'2:72%(6$)(7<
35(),1,6+('$/80,1806,',1*:,1'2:81,7 */$66$'$7+5(6+2/'3529,'(+$5':$5(6(7
:,7+,168/$7('7(03(5('6$)(7<*/$66
/2:($1'5(029$%/(,16(&76&5((1
[/,1'6$<($57+:,6(6(5,(69,1</'28%/(+25,=217$/
&52666(&7,21 6/,'(5:,1'2::,168/$7('/2:($5*21),//('7(03(5('
)/225 (/(&75,&$/3/$1

6$)(7<*/$66$1'6&5((16

)/225-2,676%<0$18
6LJQDWXUH 6HDO
5()(5726287+(/(9$7,21
)25'(6&5,37,212)0$7(5,$/6
$'',7,21$/,1)250$7,21
)/225)5$0,1*3/$1 :(67(/(9$7,21 ($67(/(9$7,21

35(),1,6+('0(7$/ :$51,1*$/7(5$7,216727+,6
'2&80(17127&21)250,1*72
*877(56<67(0:,7+522)
6(&7,2125%67$7(
/($'(5
('8&$7,21/$:$5(352+,%,7('
35(),1,6+('$/80,1806,',1* ,168/$7('+2//2:0(7$/ 12738%/,6+('$//5,*+765(6(59('
'225$1')5$0(
:,1'2:81,7:,7+,168/$7('
% % % % $
7(03(5('6$)(7<*/$66
/2:($1'5(029$%/(,16(&7 35(),1,6+('0(7$/
6&5((1 (;7(5,256,',1* &OLHQW &$1,6,86+,*+

6&+22/
35((1*,1((5('*$/9
6758&767((/)5$0,1* 3 ('*(2)&21&5(7(6/$%
3URMHFW $7+/(7,&),(/'6
6<67(0%<35(66%2; 3+$6(

3
0$18)$&785(5

( 127(6
'(6,*1,6%$6('21$1$6680('62,/%($5,1*
&$3$&,7<2)/%63(5648$5()227
&2175$&725729(5,)<62,/%($5,1*&$3$&,7<$7
%($5,1**5$'(:,7+48$/,),('*(27(&+1,&$/
('*(2)&21&5(7(6/$% 3 3 3 352)(66,21$/
$//&21&5(7()281'$7,2166+$//%(,167$//('
&21&5(7(6/$% 3(5&855(171<6%&
21*5$'( &21&5(7()25)281'$7,21:$//63,(566/$%66+$//

6$:&87&21752/
6-
%(36,$1'&21&5(7()25)227,1*66+$//%(
-2,177<3 ('*(2)35(66 36,
1257+(/(9$7,21 6287+(/(9$7,21 ,62/$7,21-2,17

%2;$%29( &2175$&72572&225',1$7($//$1&+25%2/7
$1'3,(5/2&$7,216:$5&+,7(&785$/3/$16$1'
3URMHFW$GGUHVV 52%(57-675$16.<0(025,$/&203/(;

$7&2/801 $33529('67((/6+23'5$:,1*6
&/,1721675((7
7<3 $//)281'$7,2166+$//%($52181',6785%('1$7,9(
:(676(1(&$1(:<25.
62,/65(029($//(;,67,1*),//0$7(5,$/'2:172
1$7,9(62,/6$3352;,0$7('(37+2)),//,6$%287
3 3 3 )((79,)$1'5((67$%/,6+%($5,1*(/(9$7,216
( :,7+6758&785$/),//0$7(5,$/

5()(572*(27(&+1,&$/(1*,1((5,1*5(3257
&203/(7('%<7(55$&21&2168/7$1761<,QF
%8))$/21<'$7('0$<
&2/8016$1&+25
)281'$7,213/$135(66%2;

%2/76$1'%$6(
&2/8016$1&+25%2/76 6((6/$%'(7$,/
6((6/$%'(7$,/ 3/$7(6%<27+(56
$1'%$6(3/$7(6%<27+(56 3529,'(121
&2/8016$1&+25 3529,'(1216+5,1. 6+5,1.*5287%(/2:
*5287%(/2:%$6(3/$7( %$6(3/$7(
%2/76$1'%$6(
3/$7(6%<27+(56
3529,'(121
6+5,1.*5287 &21&5(7( *5$'(25
%(/2:%$6(3/$7( 6/$% 3$9,1*%<
27+(56 0,1&/57<3 &85,1* 6($/,1*&203281'
*5$'(25
3$9,1*%< 36,&$67,13/$&(&21&5(7( 35(66%2;&2/801$1'
27+(56 +$1')/2$7),1,6+ )281'$7,21%(<21'
*5$'(25

7232) [:[:::) /$:1253$9(0(173(53/$1
3$9,1*%<
&2/3,(5 &(17(5
27+(56
3URMHFW6WDWXV )25&216758&7,21

),1,6+*5$'(6((&,9,/3/$1

&/5
'DWH
0,1
0,1
0,1
&/5 &/5
3URMHFW1XPEHU

9(57,&$/ 9(57,&$/ 9(57,&$/

6KHHW7LWOH (/(9$7('35(66%2;
%$56:7,(6 &203$&7('68%%$6(
%$56#2&: %$56:
#2&723# 0$7(5,$/
+25,=%$56 7,(6#

$72& 2& 2& &203$&7('68%*5$'(3,7&+('72
7<3 7<3
;:,'(3,(5 0$7&+'5$,1$*('(6,*1
5(029($//72362,/),//62,/6$1'
;)227,1*:
7KXUVGD\-XQH$0
6((3/$1)25 3,(5: 6((3/$16 27+(5'(/(7(5,2860$7(5,$/6

%27+',5(&7,216 78%()250
',0(16,216
#2&
33,(5)227,1* 33,(5)227,1* 33,(5)227,1* 6/$%'(7$,/
'(7$,/ '(7$,/ '(7$,/ 6(&7,21 6KHHW1XPEHU

523
3?&DQLVLXV+LJK6FKRRO?$WKOHWLF)LHOGV3KDVH?'UDZLQJV?0HFK?B0GZJ
*(1(5$/127(6 0(&+$1,&$/'5$:,1*127(6
7+(/(*(1',6)257+(&2175$&725
65()(5(1&(21/<127$//6<0%2/6$1'25$%%5(9,$7,2160$<$33/<727+,63$57,&8/$5352-(&7$1<$'',7,2162520,66,216)5207+(/(*(1''2(6127,03/<,1&/86,21$1'25
(;&/86,212)$1<3$57,&8/$5,7(06)5207+(352-(&77+(&2175$&725,6725(48(67&/$5,),&$7,21)5207+($5&+,7(&7(1*,1((5,)5(48,5(' 3529,'($&2867,&$//</,1(''8&775$16,7,2172[$1'3529,'(
0,7(5('(/%2:83:,7+7851,1*9$1(6$1''8&7837+528*+522)72()
7+('5$:,1*6$5(',$*5$00$7,&,11$785($1',1',&$7(21/<7+(6,=($1'*(1(5$/$55$1*(0(172)3,3,1*'8&7:25.$1'(48,30(17(;$&7/2&$7,2162)$//(/(0(1766+$//%('(7(50,1('$6:25.352*5(66(6 '8&76,=(6+2:1,6,17(51$/)5(($5($',0(16,21
,1&223(5$7,21$1'&225',1$7,21:,7+7+(:25.2)$//75$'(67+(3/$16$5(127,17(1'('726+2:(9(5<,7(02):25.250,1253,(&(2)(48,30(17&2175$&7256+$//)851,6+$1',167$//:,7+287$'',7,21$/ ['8&7'2:172(*02817('21&(,/,1*),(/'&225',1$7(*5,//(
5(081(5$7,21$1<&20321(171(&(66$5<72&203/(7(7+(6<67(0,1$&&25'$1&(:,7+7+(%(6735$&7,&(2)7+(75$'(
/2&$7,21:,7+/,*+76$1'27+(5&(,/,1*&20321(176
%(&$86(2)7+(60$//6&$/(2)7+('5$:,1*6,7,61273266,%/(72,1',&$7($//2))6(76),77,1*6$1'$&&(6625,(67+$70$<%(5(48,5('7+,6&2175$&725,672),(/'9(5,)<(;,67,1*&21',7,21635,2572
,167$//$7,21$1'6+$//$/62&$5()8//<(;$0,1(7+($5&+,7(&785$/6758&785$/+($7,1*9(17,/$7,1*$1'$,5&21',7,21,1*(/(&75,&$/3/80%,1*$1'27+(5352-(&7'2&80(176$60$<%(1(&(66$5<)253523(5
23(5$7,2125,167$//$7,217+,6&2175$&7256+$//0$.(68&+),77,1*6,13,3,1*'8&7:25.(48,30(17/2&$7,216(7&$1'3529,'(2))6(76),77,1*6$1'$&&(6625,(6720((7$&78$/),(/'&21',7,216
&225',1$7($//&+$1*(6:,7+27+(575$'(6$1'$5&+,7(&7
&2175$&72566+$//,163(&77+(6,7(%()25(68%0,77,1*$%,'352326$/72(1685(.12:/('*(2)352-(&75(48,5(0(176$1'6,7(&21',7,216,)12&/$5,),&$7,21,65(48(67(',7:,//%(&216,'(5('7+$77+(
&2175$&7256$5(,1)8//81'(567$1',1*2)352-(&75(48,5(0(176
3529,'(/$%25683(59,6,21(48,30(170$7(5,$/6$1'6(59,&(65(48,5(')257+(&203/(7(,167$//$7,212)7+,6:25.,1$&&25'$1&(:,7+$33/,&$%/()('(5$/67$7($1'/2&$/&2'(6$87+25,7,(6+$9,1*
-85,6',&7,21$1'67$1'$5'6,1&/8',1*%87127/,0,7('7260$&1$$6+5$(,%&1(&$1'1)3$
127+,1*&217$,1(',17+(63(&,),&$7,216256+2:1217+('5$:,1*66+$//%(&216758('72%(,1&21)/,&7:,7+$1<67$7(25/2&$/&2'(625',1$1&(6255(*8/$7,216,7(062):25.25(48,30(176+2:217+(
'5$:,1*621/<25&$//(')25,17+(63(&,),&$7,21621/<6+$//%()851,6+('$1',167$//(',17+(6$0(0$11(5$6,)7+(<$33($5('21%27+7+('5$:,1*6$1'7+(63(&,),&$7,216
&RQVXOWDQWV
(48,30(17$1'0$7(5,$/66+$//%(,167$//('%<6.,//('75$'(60(1)$0,/,$5:,7+7+(&20321(17672%(,167$//('$1',1$&&25'$1&(:,7+%(6735$&7,&(62)7+(,1'8675<$1'67$1'$5'35$&7,&($//&877,1*
$1'3$7&+,1*2)(;,67,1*%8,/',1*&20321(1765(48,5('72$&&2002'$7(7+(:25.2)7+,6&2175$&76+$//%(7+(5(63216,%,/,7<2)7+,6&2175$&7:25.6+$//%(3(5)250('%<3(56211(/75$,1('$1'
5(*8/$5/<(03/2<(')2568&+6(59,&(6
3+<6,&$/$775,%87(62)(48,30(17$1''(9,&(6$5(%$6('217+26(0$18)$&785(56/,67(',17+(63(&,),&$7,216$1'257+((48,30(176&+('8/(67+(&2175$&7250$<68%0,7(48$/)25$33529$/$1'7+( ()
5(63(&7,9(&2175$&7256$5(5(63216,%/()25$//&+$1*(6%528*+7$%287%<7+(86(2),7(06%<27+(50$18)$&785(567+(68%0,77,1*&2175$&725$6680(6$//5(63216,%,/,7<)25$'',7,21$/(1*,1((5,1*

&2676$1'&26767227+(5&2175$&7256'8(7268%67,787,2167+($5&+,7(&7(1*,1((5+$65(6(59('7+(5,*+7725(-(&7,7(06%<27+(50$18)$&785(56,)7+26(,7(06'21270$7&+7+(3+<6,&$/$775,%87(6
&$3$&,7,(6)($785(62529(5$//9$/8(727+(352-(&72)7+(0$18)$&785(56/,67('
[
',0(16,216&/($5$1&(6$1'/2&$7,2162)(48,30(17$1'0$7(5,$/66+$//%(),(/'9(5,),('35,257225'(5,1*352&85,1*$1')851,6+,1*6$0(
&2175$&7256+$//$6680()8//5(63216,%,/,7<)25'$0$*(727+(%8,/',1*3,3,1*25(48,30(177+$7,67+(5(68/72):25.)25,167$//$7,212)7+,6&2175$&7
(5
7+(,167$//,1*&2175$&725,65(63216,%/()253$7&+$1'5(3$,52)$//685)$&(6720$7&+(;,67,1*0$7(5,$/6$1'$'-$&(17),1,6+(6$662&,$7(':,7+,167$//$7,215(029$/2)7+,6:25.81/(6663(&,),&$//<
127('27+(5:,6(
:25.6+$//%(&203/(7('720$,17$,1$//1(&(66$5<$1'5(48,5('&/($5$1&(6$&&(66(6$1'23(1,1*668&+7+$7)8//)81&7,21$/,7<3523(523(5$7,21$1'5(3$,5$1'0$,17(1$1&($5((1685(')25$//
(48,30(17,167$//$//3,3,1*'8&7:25.(48,30(17(7&72$92,',17(5)(5(1&(:,7+7+(23(5$7,21$1'6(59,&,1*2)$//1(:$1'(;,67,1*(48,30(17,1*(1(5$/'2127,167$//$1<7+,1*$%29(25:,7+,1)7,1
)52172)(/(&75,&$/3$1(/6$1'*($5
:+(5('(9,&(02817,1*2&&856,1%5,&.7,/(25%/2&.:$//67+(<6+$//%(02817('$7$9(57,&$/0$6215<-2,17 ,1(,7+(57+(72325%27720+25,=217$/-2,17&/26(67727+(02817,1*+(,*+7
$//(/(&75,&$/0$7(5,$/6'(9,&(6$33/,$1&(6$1'(48,30(176+$//%(/$%(/('$1'/,67('%<$&(57,),('7(67,1*/$%25$725<25$*(1&<
7+(&2175$&7256,65(63216,%/()25&225',1$7,212):25.:,7+27+(5&2175$&7256%()25(3(5)250,1*$1<:25.
(;&(37$663(&,),&$//<127('$//0$7(5,$/6$1'(48,30(17)257+,66&23(2):25.6+$//%(1(:$1',1&21)250$1&(:,7+7+(63(&,),&$7,216
3529,'($//0$7(5,$//$%25$1'(48,30(17723(5)250&203/(7(6&23(2):25.5(68/7,1*,123(5$%/(0(&+$1,&$/3/80%,1*$1'),5(3527(&7,216<67(06$6,1',&$7(',17+('2&80(1767+(63(&,),&$7,216
$1'$33/,&$%/(/2&$/&2'(6
&2175$&725,65(63216,%/()253(5)250,1*35(/,0,1$5<$1'),1$/7(67,1*2)$//6&23(,7(0672,1&/8'(%87127%(/,0,7('72+<'5$8/,&7(67,1*/($.7(67,1*)81&7,21$/7(67,1*$1'6<67(0&200,66,21,1*
3(5,17(51$7,21$/(1(5*<&216(59$7,21&2'(2:1(572%(127,),(',1$'9$1&(2))81&7,21$/7(67,1*$1'6<67(0&200,66,21,1*
&2175$&7250867)851,6+(48,30(17$1'0$7(5,$/68%0,77$/6)25$33529$/35,2572$1<,167$//$7,21
0$.(),1$/3,3(&211(&7,21672$1<(48,30(17,16&23(:,7+,62/$7,219$/9(6$1'81,21625)/$1*(672(1$%/(6(59,&,1*255(3/$&(0(17
:+(5(9(53266,%/(3,3,1*$1''8&7:25.6+$//%(,167$//('(,7+(53$5$//(/253(53(1',&8/$572%8,/',1*6758&785$/$1'$5&+,7(&785$/(/(0(176
'8&7:25.$1'253,3(63(1(75$7,1*),5(:$//6$1')/22566+$//%(),5(67233('$65(48,5(')257+(5$7,1*2)7+(:$//5()(572&2175$&7'2&80(176)25),5(:$//$1')/225/2&$7,216
7+(&2175$&7256+$//3529,'($6%8,/7'2&80(17$7,21)25$//:25.3(5)250(''85,1*7+,6352-(&7$6287/,1(',163(&,),&$7,216(&7,21%$6,&0(&+$1,&$/5(48,5(0(176
7+(2:1(55(6(59(67+(5,*+72)),5675()86$/2)$//(48,30(176&+('8/(')25'(02/,7,217+(&2175$&7256+$//'(/,9(568&+(48,30(17$&&(37('%<7+(2:1(572$/2&$7,21,1$6725$*(63$&(,17+(
68%-(&7%8,/',1*25$1$5($'(6,*1$7('%<7+(2:1(5(48,30(175(-(&7('%<7+(2:1(56+$//%(',6326('2),1$&&25'$1&(:,7+$//$33/,&$%/(/(*$/&21675$,176
6LJQDWXUH 6HDO
0(&+$1,&$/'(02/,7,210$7(5,$/6$1'(48,30(17,1:$//6&(,/,1*6(7&72%('(02/,6+('0(&+$1,&$/&2175$&7256+$//5(029(0$7(5,$/6$1'(48,30(1712&877,1*253$7&+,1*0$7(5,$/6$1'(48,30(17
,1:$//6&(,/,1*(7&,6725(0$,10(&+$1,&$/&2175$&7256+$//5(029(0$7(5,$/6$1'(48,30(170(&+$1,&$/&2175$&7256+$//3(5)250$//&877,1*$1'3$7&+,1*
5()(572$5&+,7(&785$/(/(&75,&$/$1'0(&+$1,&$/'5$:,1*6)25'(02/,7,21:25.%<5(63(&7,9(&2175$&7256($&+&2175$&725,65(63216,%/()25$//'(02/,7,21$662&,$7(':,7+7+(,5&2175$&7$1'6&23(
2):25.($&+&2175$&725,65(63216,%/(723$7&+$1'255(3$,5$1<$1'$//&216758&7,21$))(&7('%<7+(,5'(02/,7,217+((;7(172)3$7&+$1'5(3$,56+$//%($65(48,5('725(&(,9(7+(6&+('8/('1(:
:25.
'8*2870(&+$1,&$/3/$1

3529,'()$&725<02817('1(0$/2&.$%/(
[$/80,1800(6+ ',6&211(&702817('21(;7(5,252))$1
%,5'6&5((1 :$51,1*$/7(5$7,216727+,6
(;+$867)$16&+('8/( '2&80(17127&21)250,1*72
6(&7,2125%67$7(
3/$1 +286,1* :+((/ ('8&$7,21/$:$5(352+,%,7('
6(59,&( /2&$7,21 7<3( '5,9( &)0 63 621(6 %+3 +3 530 93++= &85% '$03(5 522)23(1,1* 0$.( 02'(/ 127(6 12738%/,6+('$//5,*+765(6(59('
&2'( 0$7(5,$/ 0$7(5,$/ $'+(6,9(%$&.('&/26('&(//
)2$0*$6.(7$33/,('72723
() '8*287/2&.(56 522) '2:1%/$67 ',5(&7 $/80,180 $/80,180 <(6*$/9$1,=(' *5$9,7< [ *5((1+(&. *9*
('*(2)&85% *$/9$1,=('67((/,168/$7('&85%:,7+
&2817(5)/$6+,1*)255,'*('522)
127(6
3529,'()$&725<02817('1(0$',6&211(&76:,7&+21)$1+286,1* 5()(572$5&+,7(&785$/'5$:,1*6)25
&OLHQW &$1,6,86+,*+
3529,'(522)&85%)255,'*('522),167$//$7,215()(572$5&+,7(&785$/'5$:,1*6)25522)3,7&+
3529,'(+,1*('&85%&$3:,7+5(675$,17&$%/(6
3529,'(+,1*('&85%&$3
522)6/23($1')/$6+,1*'(7$,/6
6&+22/
:,7+&$%/(6
3529,'(&85%:,7+'$03(575$< &225',1$7()$1/2&$7,21
)/2:
3529,'(/2:/($.*5$9,7<'$03(5 :,7+522)-2,676$1'*&
$,5
3529,'($/80,180%,5'6&5((1
3529,'(:,7+(&02725
*$/9$1,=('/,1(521,16,'(2) 3URMHFW $7+/(7,&),(/'6
&85%12(;326(',168/$7,21 ),1,6+('522)
3529,'(:,7+)$&725<02817('63(('&21752/
(/(&75,&$/&2175$&725723529,'(:,5,1*5(48,5('72&211(&77232:(5$1'2&&83$1&<6(1625)$172581&217,18286/<$7&)0$'-867$%/(:+,/(63$&(,6812&&83,('$1'&)0$'-867$%/(:+(12&&83,('$1'+$9($5812))7,0(52)0,187(6$'-867$%/(6($621$/
7<3,&$/ 3+$6(
250$,17(1$1&(6+87'2:172%($&&203/,6+('7+528*+',6&211(&76:,7&+25&,5&8,7%5($.(5
'$03(575$<
127(
5(*,67(5',))86(56&+('8/( 75$16,7,21'8&7:25.$6 ,7,67+(&2175$&72565(63216,%,/,7<729(5,)<7+$7$//522)

3(1(75$7,216$5(,1$&&25'$1&(:,7+7+(522)6<67(0:$55$17<
5(48,5('$1'5287(
3/$1 02817,1* &216758&7,21 7+28*+522)-2,67
6(59,&( &25(7<3( )$&( '$03(5 0$.( 02'(/ 6,=( 127(6 (;,67,1*522)
&2'( '8&7 685)$&( /$<,1&/1* )5$0( &25( ),1,6+ 23(1,1*'2127&8725
127&+-2,676 522)23(1,1* )5$0,1*%<+&
'()/(&7,21$1' :+,7(32:'(5 $6127('21 522))/$6+ &2817(5)/$6+%<2:1(56:$55$17(('522)522)
(5 '8*287/2&.(56 0$1'5(/78%( <(6 ; $/80,180 $/80,180 35,&( &2175$&725$668%72+&
%/$'(63$&,1* &2$7 3/$16
127(6 '8&7:25.5()(5723/$16)256,=(6 1(:522) 3URMHFW$GGUHVV 52%(57-675$16.<0(025,$/&203/(;

3529,'(:,7+&2817(5681.6&5(:)$67(1,1* 522)23(1,1* )5$0,1*%<*& &/,1721675((7
522))/$6+ &2817(5)/$6+%<*& :(676(1(&$1(:<25.
)5217%/$'(63$5$//(/72/21*',0(16,21
'$03(56+$//%(23(5$%/()5205(*,67(5)$&(

522)02817(''2:1%/$67(;+$867)$1

3URMHFW6WDWXV )25&216758&7,21
'DWH
3URMHFW1XPEHU
6KHHW7LWOH '8*2870(&+$1,&$/
3/$1
7XHVGD\0D\$0
6KHHW1XPEHU
524
*(1(5$/32:(5 6<67(06127(6
$ 3529,'(%5$1&+&,5&8,7,1*)25$//'(9,&(66+2:1%5$1&+&,5&8,7,1*,6,1
*(1(5$/1276+2:1:,7+7+()2//2:,1*81'(567$1',1*7+(&2175$&725
6+$//&,5&8,783$//'(9,&(66+2:1,17+(0267())(&7,9(5287,1*%$6('
21&216758&7,21&21',7,216$1'255(675,&7,216
% 7+(&2175$&7256+$//3(5)250$//:25.727+((',7,212)7+(1(&
& 7+(&2175$&7256+$//&225',1$7($//:25.%(7:((175$'(6$1'6+$//
5(9,(:$//75$'('5$:,1*6)25&225',1$7,21385326(6
' 81/(6627+(5:,6(127('$//%5$1&+&,5&8,7:,5,1*6+$//%($:*
7++17+:1&233(50,1,080
( %5$1&+&,5&8,7:,5,1*6+$//%(&21&($/('727+(*5($7(67(;7(17
35$&7,&$%/(:+(5(%5$1&+&,5&8,7:,5,1*0867%((;326(':,5,1*0(7+2'
6+$//%(,1',9,'8$/&21'8&7256,15$&(:$<7<3(0&6+$//6+$//21/<%(
3(50,77(':+(5(&21&($/(':,7+,1%8,/',1*&216758&7,21
) &,5&8,7180%(56217+,6'5$:,1*$5()257+(62/(385326(2)
&/$5,),&$7,21$1'$5(127,17(1'('72,1',&$7(32/(326,7,21,17+(
3$1(/%2$5'81/(6627+(5:,6(127('7+(&2175$&7256+$//&211(&7
'(9,&(672,1',&$7('&,5&8,76,1'(6,*1$7('3$1(/%2$5'6&2175$&725
6+$//,1',&$7(7+(&255(&7&,5&8,7'(6,*1$7,21621$7<3('3$1(/%2$5'
6&+('8/($1'21$6%8,/75(&25''5$:,1*6 &RQVXOWDQWV
*(1(5$//,*+7,1*127(6
$ 3529,'(%5$1&+&,5&8,7,1*)25$///,*+7,6$1''(9,&(66+2:1%5$1&+
&,5&8,7,1*,6,1*(1(5$/1276+2:1:,7+7+()2//2:,1*81'(567$1',1*7+(
&2175$&7256+$//&,5&8,783$//'(9,&(66+2:1,17+(0267())(&7,9(
5287,1*%$6('21&216758&7,21&21',7,216$1'255(675,&7,216
:3 % 7+(86(2)(;326('5$&(:$<625685)$&(5$&(:$<6,1),1,6+('$5($6,6127
.
E $&&(37$%/(81/(66$//27+(50(7+2'62)5$&(:$<&21&($/0(17+$9(%((1
(;+$867('$//&21'8,7:,5(&$%/,1*6+$//%(581:,7+,17+(&(,/,1*$1'
/3 / /3 / /3 / :$//63$&(6
& 7+(&2175$&7256+$//3(5)250$//:25.727+((',7,212)7+(1(&
' 7+(&2175$&7256+$//&225',1$7($//:25.%(7:((175$'(6$1'6+$//
E / '7 E / E / 5(9,(:$//75$'('5$:,1*6)25&225',1$7,21385326(6
26

/3 /3 ( 81/(6627+(5:,6(127('$//%5$1&+&,5&8,7:,5,1*6+$//%($:*
/3
E 7++17+:1&233(50,1,080
F F F
) &,5&8,7180%(56217+,6'5$:,1*$5()257+(62/(385326(2)
&/$5,),&$7,21$1'$5(127,17(1'('72,1',&$7(32/(326,7,21,17+(
3$1(/%2$5'81/(6627+(5:,6(127('7+(&2175$&7256+$//&211(&7
'(9,&(672$9$,/$%/(&,5&8,76,1'(6,*1$7('3$1(/%2$5'6&2175$&725
6+$//%$/$1&($///2$'6,17+(3$1(/$1'6+$//,1',&$7(7+(&255(&7
&,5&8,7'(6,*1$7,21621$7<3('3$1(/%2$5'6&+('8/($1'21$6%8,/7
D :3 5(&25''5$:,1*6
.

D / D / D / D / D / D / F /
:5
/3 /3 /3 /3
*),
/3
:3 '7 F
(/(&75,&$/'5$:,1*127(6

.
D 26
$//32:(5$1'/,*+7,1*72%()(')520/2$'&(17(5/2&$7(',135(66%2;
3529,'(9&211(&7,217+528*+2&&83$1&<6(162572(;+$867)$1)25
7:263(('&21752/
6LJQDWXUH 6HDO
'8*287(1/$5*('32:(5$1'/,*+7,1*3/$1 '8*287(1/$5*('/,*+7,1*3/$1

:$51,1*$/7(5$7,216727+,6
'2&80(17127&21)250,1*72
6(&7,2125%67$7(
*), *), ('8&$7,21/$:$5(352+,%,7('
12738%/,6+('$//5,*+765(6(59('
:5 :5
/3

&OLHQW &$1,6,86+,*+
()

6&+22/

3URMHFW $7+/(7,&),(/'6
:5 3+$6(
*),
:5 :5

*), *),

3URMHFW$GGUHVV 52%(57-675$16.<0(025,$/&203/(;
&/,1721675((7
:(676(1(&$1(:<25.
'8*287(1/$5*('32:(53/$1

3URMHFW6WDWXV )25&216758&7,21
'DWH
3URMHFW1XPEHU
6KHHW7LWOH '8*28732:(5$1'
/,*+7,1*3/$1
0RQGD\-XQH30
6KHHW1XPEHU
525
*(1(5$/(/(&75,&$/127(6 (/(&75,&$/'5$:,1*127(6

$ 3529,'(%5$1&+&,5&8,7,1*)25$//'(9,&(66+2:1%5$1&+&,5&8,7,1*,6,1 3529,'(1(:32/<0(5&21&5(7((/(&75,&$/+$1'+2/(/[:['

*(1(5$/1276+2:1:,7+7+()2//2:,1*81'(567$1',1*7+(&2175$&725 0,1,080
6+$//&,5&8,783$//'(9,&(66+2:1,17+(0267())(&7,9(5287,1*%$6(' &211(&732:(57296,1*/(3+$6((/(&75,&$/',675,%87,21/2$'
21&216758&7,21&21',7,216$1'255(675,&7,216 &(17(5,135(66%2;
% 7+(&2175$&725,65(63216,%/(72),(/'9(5,)<(;,67,1*&21',7,216 3529,'(;&233(5*5281'52'6$735(66%2;(;7(1'$:*&8
& 7+(&2175$&7256+$//3(5)250$//:25.727+((',7,212)7+(1(& *5281':,5(,139&&21'8,77275$16)250(57$1'3$1(//3
' 7+('(37+2)(;,67,1*87,/,7,(6,6127.12:17+(&2175$&725,6
5(63216,%/(72127,)<87,/,7<&203$1,(6$1'81'(5*5281'87,/,7</2&$7,1*
6(59,&(6$&78$//2&$7,216$5(72%('(7(50,1(',17+(),(/'%<7+(
&2175$&7257+(&2175$&7256+$//86($//0($163266,%/(,1&/8',1*
0(7$/'(7(&7256(/(&7521,&6(16256352'',1*$1'+$1'(;&$9$7,2172
$92,'',6785%,1*(;,67,1*%85,('87,/,7,(6(;&$9$7,21,1&/26(352;,0,7<72
(;,67,1*87,/,7,(66+$//%(3(5)250(':,7+&$87,21$1'(03/2<
+$1'',**,1*
( 7+(&2175$&7256+$//&225',1$7($//:25.%(7:((175$'(6$1'6+$//
5(9,(:$//75$'('5$:,1*6)25&225',1$7,21385326(6
) 81/(6627+(5:,6(127('$//%5$1&+&,5&8,7:,5,1*6+$//%($:*
7++17+:1&233(50,1
&RQVXOWDQWV
* &,5&8,7180%(56217+,6'5$:,1*$5()257+(62/(385326(2)
&/$5,),&$7,21$1'$5(127,17(1'('72,1',&$7(32/(326,7,21,17+(
3$1(/%2$5'81/(6627+(5:,6(127('7+(&2175$&7256+$//&211(&71(:
'(9,&(672$9$,/$%/(&,5&8,76,17+((;,67,1*3$1(/%2$5'6&2175$&725
6+$//,1',&$7(7+(&255(&7&,5&8,7'(6,*1$7,21621$7<3('3$1(/%2$5'
.(<0$3 +
6&+('8/($1'21$6%8,/75(&25''5$:,1*6
$//6,7(/,*+7,1*6+$//&203/<:,7+,(&&',00,1*$1'&21752/
176
5(48,5(0(176
, &2175$&7256+$//3529,'($6%8,/7'5$:,1*68321&203/(7,212)7+(
352-(&7
3529,'(5*6678%83$1' &21'8,772%(5287('81'(56,'(:$/.
&21'8,7%2'<
&87$1'5(3$,5&21&5(7(72
0$7&+(;,67,1*&21',7,216
7
6&+39& 6LJQDWXUH 6HDO
+3 &21'8,7
7
9 0'3
.9$
67(383
75$16)250(5
3529,'(63$5(&21'8,7
:$51,1*$/7(5$7,216727+,6
'2&80(17127&21)250,1*72
6(&7,2125%67$7(
('8&$7,21/$:$5(352+,%,7('
12738%/,6+('$//5,*+765(6(59('
&21'8,772%(%25('81'(56,'(:$/. &OLHQW &$1,6,86+,*+

6&+22/
/3 $6
3URMHFW $7+/(7,&),(/'6
1)
3+$6(
3529,'(63$5(&21'8,7
3URMHFW$GGUHVV 52%(57-675$16.<0(025,$/&203/(;
&/,1721675((7
:(676(1(&$1(:<25.

(
$:**1',16&+39&
&21'8,772/2$'&(17(5

6&+39&
&21'8,7
3529,'(63$5(&21'8,7
/3

:3
9 *),
$6
/3

3URMHFW6WDWXV )25&216758&7,21
7

6&+39&
&21'8,7 9
.9$ *

(1&$368/$7(' 'DWH
(
67(3'2:1 6&+39& 3URMHFW1XPEHU
75$16)250(5 &21'8,772+$1'+2/(
6KHHW7LWOH 3$57,$/(/(&75,&$/
$:**1',16&+39&
$:**1',16&+39&
&21'8,772/2$'&(17(5
&21'8,772/2$'&(17(5$1'6&25(%2$5' 6,7(3/$1
0RQGD\-XQH30
6KHHW1XPEHU
3$57,$/(/(&75,&$/6,7(3/$1

526
*(1(5$/(/(&75,&$/127(6 (/(&75,&$/'5$:,1*127(6

$ 3529,'(%5$1&+&,5&8,7,1*)25$//'(9,&(66+2:1%5$1&+&,5&8,7,1*,6,1 3529,'(1(:32/<0(5&21&5(7((/(&75,&$/+$1'+2/(/[:['

*(1(5$/1276+2:1:,7+7+()2//2:,1*81'(567$1',1*7+(&2175$&725 0,1,080
6+$//&,5&8,783$//'(9,&(66+2:1,17+(0267())(&7,9(5287,1*%$6(' 3529,'(1(:.9$9975$16)250(5:,7+,17(*5$/63$&(/2$'
21&216758&7,21&21',7,216$1'255(675,&7,216 &(17(5$1'3$0$,1&,5&8,7%5($.(5648$5('0,1,32:(5=21(25
% 7+(&2175$&725,65(63216,%/(72),(/'9(5,)<(;,67,1*&21',7,216 $33529('(48$/
& 7+(&2175$&7256+$//3(5)250$//:25.727+((',7,212)7+(1(& 3529,'(;&233(5*5281'52'6$775$16)250(5(;7(1'$:*
' 7+('(37+2)(;,67,1*87,/,7,(6,6127.12:17+(&2175$&725,6 &8*5281':,5(,139&&21'8,77275$16)250(57
5(63216,%/(72127,)<87,/,7<&203$1,(6$1'81'(5*5281'87,/,7</2&$7,1*
6(59,&(6$&78$//2&$7,216$5(72%('(7(50,1(',17+(),(/'%<7+(
&2175$&7257+(&2175$&7256+$//86($//0($163266,%/(,1&/8',1*
0(7$/'(7(&7256(/(&7521,&6(16256352'',1*$1'+$1'(;&$9$7,2172
$92,'',6785%,1*(;,67,1*%85,('87,/,7,(6(;&$9$7,21,1&/26(352;,0,7<72
(;,67,1*87,/,7,(66+$//%(3(5)250(':,7+&$87,21$1'(03/2<
+$1'',**,1*
( 7+(&2175$&7256+$//&225',1$7($//:25.%(7:((175$'(6$1'6+$//
5(9,(:$//75$'('5$:,1*6)25&225',1$7,21385326(6
) 81/(6627+(5:,6(127('$//%5$1&+&,5&8,7:,5,1*6+$//%($:*
7++17+:1&233(50,1
&RQVXOWDQWV
* &,5&8,7180%(56217+,6'5$:,1*$5()257+(62/(385326(2)
&/$5,),&$7,21$1'$5(127,17(1'('72,1',&$7(32/(326,7,21,17+(
3$1(/%2$5'81/(6627+(5:,6(127('7+(&2175$&7256+$//&211(&71(:
'(9,&(672$9$,/$%/(&,5&8,76,17+((;,67,1*3$1(/%2$5'6&2175$&725
6+$//,1',&$7(7+(&255(&7&,5&8,7'(6,*1$7,21621$7<3('3$1(/%2$5'
.(<0$3 +
6&+('8/($1'21$6%8,/75(&25''5$:,1*6
$//6,7(/,*+7,1*6+$//&203/<:,7+,(&&',00,1*$1'&21752/
176
5(48,5(0(176
, &2175$&7256+$//3529,'($6%8,/7'5$:,1*68321&203/(7,212)7+(
352-(&7
6LJQDWXUH 6HDO
:$51,1*$/7(5$7,216727+,6
'2&80(17127&21)250,1*72
6(&7,2125%67$7(
('8&$7,21/$:$5(352+,%,7('
12738%/,6+('$//5,*+765(6(59('

$6
&OLHQW &$1,6,86+,*+
7
7
9
1)
6&+22/
.9$;)50: *
7
/2$'&(17(5
3URMHFW $7+/(7,&),(/'6
3+$6(
&8$:**1'
,16&+39&
&21'8,7
3URMHFW$GGUHVV 52%(57-675$16.<0(025,$/&203/(;
&/,1721675((7
:(676(1(&$1(:<25.

7

:3
*),
&8$:**1'
,16&+39&
&21'8,7 :3
*),
7
3URMHFW6WDWXV )25&216758&7,21
&8$:**1'
,16&+39&
&21'8,7
'DWH
3URMHFW1XPEHU
6KHHW7LWOH 3$57,$/(/(&75,&$/
6,7(3/$1&217
0RQGD\-XQH30
6KHHW1XPEHU
3$57,$/(/(&75,&$/6,7(3/$1

527
)(('(56&+('8/(
9
92/76BBBBBBBBBBBBBBB 0'3(75
3$1(/BBBBBBBB ,&5$7,1*BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB 9
92/76BBBBBBBBBBBBBBB +3
3$1(/BBBBBBBB .$
,&5$7,1*BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
$
%865$7,1*BBBBBBBBBB $
%865$7,1*BBBBBBBBBB &233(5&21'8&7256 $/80,180&21'8&7256
$
0$,1%.5BBBBBBBBBBBBB (/(& 5220
/2&$7,21BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB 685)$&(
07*BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB $
0$,1%.5BBBBBBBBBBBBB (/(&5220
/2&$7,21BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB 685)$&(
07*BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB 3+$6( 1(875$/ (48,3 &21'8,7 3+$6( 1(875$/ (48,3 &21'8,7
*1' *1'
'(6,*1$7,21
'(6,*1$7,21
2&3'$036
2&3'$036
&.75$7,1*
&.75$7,1*
:$77$*( :$77$*( :$77$*( :$77$*(
$:*.&0,/
$:*.&0,/
$:*.&0,/
$:*.&0,/
$:*.&0,/
$:*.&0,/
/2&$7,21 &,5 %.5 %.5 &,5 /2&$7,21 /2&$7,21 &,5 %.5 %.5 &,5 /2&$7,21
48$17,7<
48$17,7<
48$17,7<
48$17,7<
48$17,7<
48$17,7<
48$17,7<
48$17,7<
$ɐ %ɐ $ɐ %ɐ $ɐ %ɐ $ɐ %ɐ
,1&+(6
,1&+(6
75$&.32:(5)25%/($&+(56
6,=(
6,=(
6,=(
6,=(
6,=(
6,=(
6,=(
6,=(
)(('3'3 7 7
*),)$5%/($&+(56
&21&(66,215(&3 75$&.32:(5 $ ô
&21&(66,215(&3 75$&.32:(5 % ô

&21&(66,215(&3 75$&.32:(5
& ô
:$7(5&22/(5 :$7(5+($7(5
' ô

(
,&(0$&+,1( &RQVXOWDQWV
)851$&( 0$&+,1(52203/8*6 ) ó
&/$6652205(&3 62),7/,*+76 * ó
&/$6652205(&3 + ó
,16,'(/,*+76 ó
32/(/,*+76 -
6(&85,7<
. ò $. ò
&21&(66,21
32/(/,*+76 / ò $/
&21&(66,21
68%727$/6 68%727$/6
0 ò $0

35(66%2;
35(66%2; 727$/ 1 $1 ò
3 $3 ò
4 ò $4
71(:

5 ò $5

6 $6
68%727$/6 68%727$/6
7 $7 ò
727$/ 8 ò $8 ò

9 $9
: $:
; $;
< $<
/3 .$ 7 .$
9
92/76BBBBBBBBBBBBBBB 3$1(/BBBBBBBB ,&5$7,1*BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB 9
92/76BBBBBBBBBBBBBBB 3$1(/BBBBBBBB ,&5$7,1*BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
= $=
$
%865$7,1*BBBBBBBBBB $
%865$7,1*BBBBBBBBBB
35(66%2; -96&25(%2$5' $$ $$$
$
0$,1%.5BBBBBBBBBBBBB /2&$7,21BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB 685)$&(
07*BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB $
0$,1%.5BBBBBBBBBBBBB /2&$7,21BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB 685)$&(
07*BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
%% $%%
:$77$*( :$77$*( :$77$*( :$77$*( && $&&
/2&$7,21 &,5 %.5 %.5 &,5 /2&$7,21 /2&$7,21 &,5 %.5 %.5 &,5 /2&$7,21
$ɐ %ɐ $ɐ %ɐ $ɐ %ɐ $ɐ %ɐ
$/7(51$7(&21),*85$7,21 $/7(51$7(&21),*85$7,21
'8*287 '8*287 '8*287 '8*287
8 $7
63$5( '8*287/,*+76 6&25(%2$5'
35(66%2;5(&3 35(66%2;/7* <
6&25(%2$5' 3,7&+,1*0$&+,1( $$ $=
)8785(6725$*(63$&(5(&3 )8785(6725$*(63$&(/7* $%%
6LJQDWXUH 6HDO
%%
&& $&&
68%727$/6 68%727$/6
68%727$/6 68%727$/6 127(6
727$/ $//&21'8,7),//&$3$&,7,(6$5(%$6('217++1,168/$7,21
727$/ $//&21'8,7),//&$3$&,7,(6$5(%$6('21(07&21'8,7,)$/7(51$7(&21'8,7,686('&2175$&7256+$//$'-867
&21'8,76,=($&&25',1*721(&
*(1(5$/127(6
$ /6,/6,*,1',&$7(6&,5&8,7%5($.(5:,7+$'-867$%/((/(&7521,&75,381,7
% $//1250$/%5$1&+6:,7&+%2$5'6$1'',675,%87,213$1(/%2$5'6$ :$51,1*$/7(5$7,216727+,6
'2&80(17127&21)250,1*72
6+$//%()8//<5$7(' 6(&7,2125%67$7(
('8&$7,21/$:$5(352+,%,7('
& $//1250$/%5$1&+3$1(/%2$5'66+$//%(6(5,(65$7(' 12738%/,6+('$//5,*+765(6(59('
&OLHQW &$1,6,86+,*+
/3 6&+22/
9
$:*&8*1',1
39&&21'8,7
3URMHFW $7+/(7,&),(/'6
0'3(75 +3
9 9 3$
72'8*2876 3+$6(
6&25(%2$5'$1'
$:**1',1 3$ 3,7&+,1*0$&+,1(
(07&21'8,7 0&%
3$ 3$
3$ 7
3$ .9$
91(0$5 67(3'2:1
0&% 0&% $:*&8*1',1
3$ 3$ $ (07&21'8,7
7
.9$
67(383
$:*&8*1',1 3URMHFW$GGUHVV 52%(57-675$16.<0(025,$/&203/(;
&/,1721675((7
5*6&21'8,7 :(676(1(&$1(:<25.
7
9 $:*;++:$/*1'
$:**1',1 .9$1(0$; ,16&+39&
$:*&8*1',1
(07&21'8,7 ;)50: &21'8,76 'UDZLQJ+LVWRU\ 'DWH 'HVFULSWLRQ
(07&21'8,7
/2$'&(17(5
$:*;++:$/*1'
,16&+39&
&21'8,76 3$
72'8*2876
3$
3$57,$/21(/,1(',$*5$0
176
3URMHFW6WDWXV )25&216758&7,21
'DWH
3URMHFW1XPEHU
6KHHW7LWOH 3$57,$/21(/,1(
',$*5$0$1'3$1(/
6&+('8/(6
7XHVGD\-XQH$0
6KHHW1XPEHU
528
Exhibit “3” - Copy of Army Corp_No Permit needed_11-30-21.pdf

Exhibit “3”
529
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

BUFFALO DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
1776 NIAGARA STREET
BUFFALO, NEW YORK 14207-3199
November 30, 2021
Regulatory Branch
SUBJECT: Determination of No Permit Required for Department of the Army Processing No.
LRB-2021-001394
Matthew Carver
Dear Mr. Carver:
I have reviewed your request for a determination of “no permit required” for the parcel
located adjacent to the Robert J. Stransky Memorial Complex located at 2885 Clinton Street,
Town of West Seneca, Erie County, New York.
I have determined that the review area as depicted on Figure 3 of 4 is comprised entirely of
dry land and contains no potential aquatic resources regulated under Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. Therefore, a Department of the
Army permit is not required for any activities occurring within the review area.
Enclosed is an approved JD. This approved JD will remain valid for a period of five (5)
years from the date of this correspondence unless new information warrants revision of the
approved JD before the expiration date. At the end of this period, a new aquatic resource
delineation will be required to support any request for a new JD.
Further, the delineation included herein has been conducted to identify the location and
extent of the aquatic resource boundaries and/or the jurisdictional status of aquatic resources for
purposes of the Clean Water Act for the particular review area identified in this request. This
delineation and/or jurisdictional determination may not be valid for the Wetland Conservation
Provisions of the Food Security Act of 1985, as amended. If you or your tenant are United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA) program participants, or anticipate participation in USDA
programs, you should discuss the applicability of a certified wetland determination with the local
USDA service center, prior to starting work.
If you object to this determination, you may request an administrative appeal under Corps
regulations at 33 CFR Part 331. Enclosed you will find a Notification of Appeal Process (NAP)
fact sheet and Request for Appeal (RFA) form. If you request to appeal the above JD, you must
submit a completed RFA form within 60 days of the date on this letter to the Great Lakes/Ohio
River Division Office at the following address:
530
-2-
Regulatory Branch
SUBJECT: Approved Jurisdictional Determination for Department of the Army Processing No.
LRB-2021-01394
Suzanne Chubb
Regulatory Appeals Review Officer
US Army Corps of Engineers
Great Lakes and Ohio River Division
550 Main Street, Room 10524
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202-3222
Phone: 513-684-2699 Fax: 513-684-2460
In order for an RFA to be accepted, the Corps must determine that it is complete; that it
meets the criteria for appeal under 33 CFR Part 331.5, and that it has been received by the
Division Office within 60 days of the date of the NAP. Should you decide to submit an RFA
form, it must be received at the above address by January 29, 2022.
It is not necessary to submit an RFA to the Division office if you do not object to the
determination in this letter.
Questions pertaining to this matter should be directed to me at 716-879-4279, email:

joseph.m.rowley@usace.army.mil or by writing to Joseph Rowley, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, 1776 Niagara Street, Buffalo, New York 14207.
Sincerely,
Joseph Rowley
Physical Scientist
Enclosures
531
NOTIFICATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL OPTIONS AND PROCESS AND

REQUEST FOR APPEAL
Applicant: Canisius High School File Number: 2021-01394 Date: 11/30/2021

Attached is: See Section below
INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of permission) A
PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of permission) B
PERMIT DENIAL C
X APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION D
PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION E
SECTION I - The following identifies your rights and options regarding an administrative appeal of the above decision. Additional
information may be found at http://www.usace.army.mil/CECW/Pages/reg_materials.aspx or Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 331.
A: INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or object to the permit.
zACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
zOBJECT: If you object to the permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you may request that the
permit be modified accordingly. You must complete Section II of this form and return the form to the district engineer. Your
objections must be received by the district engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice, or you will forfeit your right to
appeal the permit in the future. Upon receipt of your letter, the district engineer will evaluate your objections and may: (a)
modify the permit to address all of your concerns, (b) modify the permit to address some of your objections, or (c) not modify
the permit having determined that the permit should be issued as previously written. After evaluating your objections, the
district engineer will send you a proffered permit for your reconsideration, as indicated in Section B below.
B: PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or appeal the permit
zACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
zAPPEAL: If you choose to decline the proffered permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you
may appeal the declined permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this
form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the
date of this notice.
C: PERMIT DENIAL: You may appeal the denial of a permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by
completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division
engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.
D: APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You may accept or appeal the approved JD or provide new
information.
zACCEPT: You do not need to notify the Corps to accept an approved JD. Failure to notify the Corps within 60 days of the date
of this notice, means that you accept the approved JD in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the approved JD.
zAPPEAL: If you disagree with the approved JD, you may appeal the approved JD under the Corps of Engineers Administrative
Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received
by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.
E: PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You do not need to respond to the Corps regarding the
preliminary JD. The Preliminary JD is not appealable. If you wish, you may request an approved JD (which may be appealed), by
contacting the Corps district for further instruction. Also you may provide new information for further consideration by the Corps to
reevaluate the JD.
532
SECTION II - REQUEST FOR APPEAL or OBJECTIONS TO AN INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT
REASONS FOR APPEAL OR OBJECTIONS: (Describe your reasons for appealing the decision or your objections to an initial
proffered permit in clear concise statements. You may attach additional information to this form to clarify where your reasons or
objections are addressed in the administrative record.)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The appeal is limited to a review of the administrative record, the Corps memorandum for the
record of the appeal conference or meeting, and any supplemental information that the review officer has determined is needed to
clarify the administrative record. Neither the appellant nor the Corps may add new information or analyses to the record. However,
you may provide additional information to clarify the location of information that is already in the administrative record.
POINT OF CONTACT FOR QUESTIONS OR INFORMATION:
If you have questions regarding this decision and/or the appeal If you only have questions regarding the appeal process you may
process you may contact: also contact:
Joseph Rowley Suzanne Chubb

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Appeals Review Officer
Buffalo District US Army Corps of Engineers
1776 Niagara Street Great Lakes and Ohio River Division
Buffalo, New York 14207 550 Main Street, Room 10524
716-879-4279 Cincinnati, Ohio 45202-3222
Joseph.m.rowley@usace.army.mil Phone: 513-684-2699 Fax: 513-684-2460
RIGHT OF ENTRY: Your signature below grants the right of entry to Corps of Engineers personnel, and any government
consultants, to conduct investigations of the project site during the course of the appeal process. You will be provided a 15-day
notice of any site investigation and will have the opportunity to participate in all site investigations.
Date: Telephone number:
_______________________________________________
Signature of appellant or agent.
533
DRY LAND APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM 1
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section IV of the JD Form Instructional Guidebook.
SECTION I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION

A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD): 11/30/2021
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: LRB 2021-01394 Canisius High School
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
State: New York County: Erie City: West Seneca
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Latitude: 42.8659 Longitude: -78.7730
Name of nearest waterbody: Buffalo Creek
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 0412010302
Check if map/diagram of review area is available upon request.
Check if other sites (e.g., offsite mitigation sites, disposal sites, etc…) are associated with this action and are recorded on
a different JD form.
D. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
Office (Desk) Determination. Date: Nov 24, 2021
Field Determination Date:
SECTION II: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There are no “navigable waters of the U.S.” within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in
the review area.
B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There are no “waters of the U.S.” within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area.
SECTION III: DATA SOURCES.
A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for JD (check all that apply - checked items shall be included in case file and, where
checked and requested, appropriately reference sources below):
Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant.
Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant.
Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report.
Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
USGS NHD data.
USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: 24000k; Buffalo SE, New York Quad
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: USDA/NRCS Web Soil Survey
National wetlands inventory maps: USFWS Wetland Mapper
State/Local wetland inventory maps: NYSDEC Environmental Resource Mapper
FEMA/FIRM maps:
100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
Photographs: Aerial (Name & Date): Google Earth; HistoricAerials.com
or Other (Name & Date):
Previous determination(s). File No. and date of response letter:
Applicable/supporting case law:
Applicable/supporting scientific literature:
1
This form is for use only in recording approved JDs involving dry land. It extracts the relevant elements of the longer approved JD form in use
since 2007 for aquatic areas and adds no new fields.
534
B. REQUIRED ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD. EXPLAIN RATIONALE FOR DETERMINATION
THAT THE REVIEW AREA ONLY INCLUDES DRY LAND
A review of the available historic topographic maps and aerial imagery depict Buffalo Creek and an oxbow formation to the South
and West of the parcel. Also, the aerial imagery depicts wetlands to the West and South of the parcel. Finally, the aerial imagery
indicts the parcel that is under review is regularly maintained.
The NWI and NYSDEC Environmental Resource Mapper depicts a mapped wetland, BU-17, adjacent to the parcel under review.
Also, a portion of the parcel is located within the 100-foot adjacent area of the DEC wetland. Finally, the DEC reviewed the project
and confirmed the boundary of Wetland BU-17.
Determination: USACE confirmed that the review area is located within the 100-foot adjacent area and is comprised entirely of dry
land. There are no waters or water features, including wetlands, of any kind in the entire review area.
535
&DQLVLXV+LJK6FKRRO
/5%
6KHHWRI
Dryland JD Location
536
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 72 &DQLVLXV+LJK6FKRRO RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/09/2022
/5%
6KHHWRI
537
&DQLVLXV+LJK6FKRRO
/5%
6KHHWRI
538
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 72
&DQLVLXV+LJK6FKRRO RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/09/2022
/5%
6KHHWRI
539
Archeological Revisions
11-09-2021
#1
540
11-09-2021
#1
541
11-09-2021
#1
542
Exhibit “4” - Copy of Canisius High School - Flood Report_2021-04-28.pdf

([KLELW³4´
543
^ŝƚĞĞƐŝŐŶͲ&ůŽŽĚ/ŵƉĂĐƚŶĂůǇƐŝƐ;Z&dͿ
ĨŽƌ
E/^/h^,/',^,KK>d,>d/&/>^
Ăƚ
ZŽďĞƌƚ:͘^ƚƌĂŶƐŬǇDĞŵŽƌŝĂůŽŵƉůĞǆ
ϮϴϴϱůŝŶƚŽŶ^ƚƌĞĞƚ
tĞƐƚ^ĞŶĞĐĂ͕EĞǁzŽƌŬϭϰϮϮϰ

ĂƚĞ͗
ƉƌŝůϮϬϮϭ

WƌĞƉĂƌĞĚĨŽƌ͗
ĂŶŝƐŝƵƐ,ŝŐŚ^ĐŚŽŽů
ϭϭϴϬĞůĂǁĂƌĞǀĞŶƵĞ
ƵĨĨĂůŽ͕EĞǁzŽƌŬϭϰϮϬϵ

WƌĞƉĂƌĞĚďǇ͗
ƉƉĞůKƐďŽƌŶĞ>ĂŶĚƐĐĂƉĞƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚƵƌĞ dƌĂƵƚŵĂŶƐƐŽĐŝĂƚĞƐ
ϱϬůŬ^ƚƌĞĞƚ͕^ƵŝƚĞϰϬϬ ϯϳ&ƌĂŶŬůŝŶ^ƚƌĞĞƚ͕^ƵŝƚĞϭϬϬ
ƵĨĨĂůŽ͕EzϭϰϮϭϬ ƵĨĨĂůŽ͕EzϭϰϮϬϮ
;dͿϯϭϱͲϰϳϲͲϭϬϮϮ ;dͿϳϭϲͲϴϴϯͲϰϰϬϬ

ĂŶŝƐŝƵƐ,^ʹƚŚůĞƚŝĐ&ŝĞůĚƐ&ůŽŽĚŶĂůǇƐŝƐ
544

͘ WZK:d^hDDZz

dŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚƐŝƚĞŝƐĂƉƉƌŽǆŝŵĂƚĞůǇϮϲ͘ϱĂĐƌĞƐĂŶĚŚĂƐĂůƌĞĂĚǇďĞĞŶĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞĚďǇƚŚĞKǁŶĞƌ͕
ĂŶŝƐŝƵƐ,ŝŐŚ^ĐŚŽŽů͕ĂƐĂŶŽƵƚĚŽŽƌĂƚŚůĞƚŝĐƐĐŽŵƉůĞǆ͘dŚĞƐŝƚĞĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůǇĨĞĂƚƵƌĞƐĂƐǇŶƚŚĞƚŝĐ
ƌƵŶŶŝŶŐƚƌĂĐŬĂƌŽƵŶĚĂŶĂƌƚŝĨŝĐŝĂůƚƵƌĨĨŽŽƚďĂůůĨŝĞůĚ͕ƉĂƌŬŝŶŐůŽƚ͕ďƵŝůĚŝŶŐƐĨŽƌĐŽŶĐĞƐƐŝŽŶƐ͕ůŽĐŬĞƌ
ƌŽŽŵƐ͕ĂŶĚƐƚŽƌĂŐĞĂŶĚĂůĂƌŐĞƐĞƚŽĨďůĞĂĐŚĞƌƐ͘/ŶƚŚĞƉƌĞƐĞŶƚƉŚĂƐĞŽĨƚŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚƚŚĞŽǁŶĞƌ
ŝƐƐĞĞŬŝŶŐƚŽĂĚĚƚǁŽďĂƐĞďĂůůĨŝĞůĚƐ;ŽŶĞĞŶƚŝƌĞůǇĂƌƚŝĨŝĐŝĂůƚƵƌĨĂŶĚĂƐĞĐŽŶĚƚŚĂƚŚĂƐĂŶ
ĂƌƚŝĨŝĐŝĂůŝŶĨŝĞůĚǁŝƚŚĂŶĂƚƵƌĂůŐƌĂƐƐŽƵƚĨŝĞůĚͿ͕ƉƌĂĐƚŝĐĞĨŝĞůĚ͕ƌĞůŽĐĂƚŝŶŐĚŝƐĐƵƐĂŶĚƐŚŽƚƉƵƚ͕ĂŶĚ
ŐƌĂĚŝŶŐĨŽƌƉŽƐƐŝďůĞĨƵƚƵƌĞƚĞŶŶŝƐĐŽƵƌƚƐ͘dŚĞƐĞĞůĞŵĞŶƚƐĂƌĞƚŽďĞƐŝƚƵĂƚĞĚďĞƚǁĞĞŶƚŚĞ
ĞǆŝƐƚŝŶŐĂŵĞŶŝƚŝĞƐĂŶĚƚŚĞƵĨĨĂůŽƌĞĞŬǁŚŝĐŚďŽƌĚĞƌƐƚŚĞ^ŽƵƚŚǁĞƐƚĞĚŐĞŽĨƚŚĞƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇ͘/Ŷ
ŽƌĚĞƌƚŽĂĐĐŽŵŵŽĚĂƚĞƚŚĞƐĞĞůĞŵĞŶƚƐ͕ŝƚŝƐŶĞĐĞƐƐĂƌǇƚŽĂĚũƵƐƚŐƌĂĚĞƐǁŝƚŚŝŶƚŚĞĨůŽŽĚƉůĂŝŶ͘
dŚŝƐĂŶĂůǇƐŝƐĂŝŵƐƚŽĚĞƚĞƌŵŝŶĞƚŚĞŝŵƉĂĐƚŽĨƚŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚŽŶƚŚĞĂďŝůŝƚǇŽĨƚŚĞ
ƐŝƚĞƚŽƌĞĐĞŝǀĞĨůŽŽĚǁĂƚĞƌĨƌŽŵƵĨĨĂůŽƌĞĞŬ͘

͘ ^KhZ^K&d

^ŝƚĞ^ƵƌǀĞǇ͗
d/d>Η^hZszK&WZdK&>Kd^Ͳϯϵ͕ϰϬΘϰϭ͕EZ>E^͕dtW͘ͲϭϬ͕Z͘Ͳϳ͕dKtEK&t^d
Ê͕Z/KhEdz͕^ddK&EtzKZ<͘
WZWZzDĐ/EdK^,ΘDĐ/EdK^,͕W͘͘KE^h>d/E'E'/EZ^͕>E^hZszKZ^͕
W>EEZ^
dDzϰ͕ϮϬϮϬ͘

&ůŽŽĚĂƚĂ͗
&DEĂƚŝŽŶĂů&ůŽŽĚ/ŶƐƵƌĂŶĐĞWƌŽŐƌĂŵ
&ůŽŽĚ/ŶƐƵƌĂŶĐĞZĂƚĞDĂƉ;&/ZDͿĨŽƌƌŝĞŽƵŶƚǇ͕EĞǁzŽƌŬ͕WE>ϬϯϯϮ,
DĂƉEƵŵďĞƌϯϲϬϮϵϬϯϯϮ,
ĨĨĞĐƚŝǀĞ:ƵŶĞϳ͕ϮϬϭϵ

EKd͗dŚĞĨůŽŽĚůŝŶĞƐŚŽǁŶŽŶƚŚĞ͞ǆŝƐƚŝŶŐ&ůŽŽĚƉůĂŝŶŽƵŶĚĂƌǇ͟ĚƌĂǁŝŶŐŝƐƐŽƵƌĐĞĚ
ĨƌŽŵ&DĚĂƚĂĂŶĚŝƐƐŚŽǁŶĨŽƌƌĞĨĞƌĞŶĐĞ͘EŽƚĞƚŚĂƚƚŚŝƐůŝŶĞĚŽĞƐŶŽƚĂůŝŐŶƚŽƚŚĞďŽƵŶĚĂƌǇ
ŽĨƚŚĞůŝŐŚƚĞƐƚďůƵĞǁŚĞƌĞŝƚǁŽƵůĚďĞĞǆƉĞĐƚĞĚ͘dŚŝƐŝƐůŝŬĞůǇĚƵĞƚŽƚŚĞĨĂĐƚƚŚĂƚƚŚĞ
ƚŽƉŽŐƌĂƉŚǇ&DŝƐƵƐŝŶŐŝƐƐŽƵƌĐĞĚĨƌŽŵ>ŝĚĂƌĂŶĚŝƐůĞƐƐĂĐĐƵƌĂƚĞƚŚĂŶĞůĞǀĂƚŝŽŶĚĂƚĂƐŚŽƚďǇ
ƚŚĞƐƵƌǀĞǇŽƌŽŶƐŝƚĞ͘

tĂƚĞƌdĂďůĞĂƚĂ͗
'ĞŽƚĞĐŚŶŝĐĂůƚĞƐƚŝŶŐŽĨƚŚĞƐŝƚĞŚĂƐŶŽƚǇĞƚďĞĞŶĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞĚ͘&ŽƌƚŚĞƉƵƌƉŽƐĞŽĨƚŚŝƐƉƌĞůŝŵŝŶĂƌǇ
ĨůŽŽĚĂŶĂůǇƐŝƐ͕ŝƚŝƐĂƐƐƵŵĞĚƚŚĂƚǁĂƚĞƌƚĂďůĞĞůĞǀĂƚŝŽŶŝƐĂƚϱϵϭ͘dŚĞƐƵƌǀĞǇƐŚŽǁƐƐƚĂŶĚŝŶŐ
ǁĂƚĞƌŝŶƚŚĞĚĞƚĞŶƚŝŽŶďĂƐŝŶĂƌŽƵŶĚϱϵϭĐŽŶƚŽƵƌĂŶĚƚŚŝƐĐŽŶĨŽƌŵƐƚŽǁŚĂƚƚŚĞůĂŶĚƐĐĂƉĞ
ĂƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚŚĂƐŽďƐĞƌǀĞĚŽŶƐŝƚĞĂŶĚŝŶǀĂƌŝŽƵƐĂĞƌŝĂůƉŚŽƚŽŐƌĂƉŚƐ͘


545

͘ Dd,K

hƐŝŶŐƵƚŽĚĞƐŬŝǀŝůϯϮϬϮϭ͕Ă^ƚƵĚǇƌĞĂďŽƵŶĚĂƌǇǁĂƐĚĞĨŝŶĞĚƚŚĂƚĨƵůůǇĐŝƌĐƵŵƐĐƌŝďĞƐƚŚĞ
ĂƐĞ&ůŽŽĚĂƌĞĂǁŝƚŚŝŶƚŚĞƐŝƚĞƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇďŽƵŶĚĂƌǇĂƐƐŚŽǁŶŝŶƚŚĞĂƚƚĂĐŚĞĚ&D&ůŽŽĚ
/ŶƐƵƌĂŶĐĞZĂƚĞDĂƉ;&/ZDͿ΀^ĞĞƚƚĂĐŚŵĞŶƚ΁͘dŚŝƐƐƚƵĚǇĂƌĞĂǁĂƐĨƵƌƚŚĞƌĞǆƉĂŶĚĞĚƚŽ
ŝŶĐŽƌƉŽƌĂƚĞƚŚĞĂŶƚŝĐŝƉĂƚĞĚŶĞǁĂƐĞ&ůŽŽĚƌĞĂĐƌĞĂƚĞĚďǇƚŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚƚŽƉŽŐƌĂƉŚǇ͘

tŝƚŚŝŶƚŚŝƐ^ƚƵĚǇƌĞĂ͕ƚŚƌĞĞĚŝĨĨĞƌĞŶƚd/E;dƌŝĂŶŐƵůĂƚĞĚ/ƌƌĞŐƵůĂƌEĞƚǁŽƌŬͿ^ƵƌĨĂĐĞƐǁĞƌĞ
ŐĞŶĞƌĂƚĞĚ͘dŚĞƐĞŝŶĐůƵĚĞĚ͗

ϭ͘ ^ƵƌĨĂĐĞϭͲƚŽƉŽŐƌĂƉŚŝĐĂůƐƵƌĨĂĐĞƌĞƉƌĞƐĞŶƚŝŶŐƚŚĞĨŝŶŝƐŚĞĚŐƌĂĚĞƐŽĨƚŚĞĞǆŝƐƚŝŶŐ
ĐŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶ͘EŽƚĞƚŚĞĞǆŝƐƚŝŶŐďĂƐŝŶŝƐƌĞƉƌĞƐĞŶƚĞĚĂƐďĞŝŶŐĨƵůůĚƵƌŝŶŐĂϭϬϬǇĞĂƌĨůŽŽĚ
ĞǀĞŶƚĂŶĚŶŽƚĂĐĐŽƵŶƚĞĚĨŽƌŝŶĞǆŝƐƚŝŶŐĨůŽŽĚƐƚŽƌĂŐĞĂƌĞĂ͘
Ϯ͘ ^ƵƌĨĂĐĞϮͲƚŽƉŽŐƌĂƉŚŝĐĂůƐƵƌĨĂĐĞƌĞƉƌĞƐĞŶƚŝŶŐƚŚĞĨŝŶŝƐŚĞĚŐƌĂĚĞƐŽĨƚŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ
ĐŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶ͘
ϯ͘ ^ƵƌĨĂĐĞϯͲĨůŽŽĚǁĂƚĞƌĞůĞǀĂƚŝŽŶƐƵƌĨĂĐĞĂƐĞ&ůŽŽĚůĞǀĂƚŝŽŶ>ŝŶĞƐĨƌŽŵƚŚĞ&/ZD͘

EĞǆƚ͕ƚǁŽŐƌĂƉŚŝĐƐǁĞƌĞŐĞŶĞƌĂƚĞĚƵƐŝŶŐƵƚŽĚĞƐŬŝǀŝůϯ͞sŽůƵŵĞƐĂƐŚďŽĂƌĚ͘͟

dŚĞĨŝƌƐƚ΀^ĞĞƚƚĂĐŚŵĞŶƚ΁ƌĞƉƌĞƐĞŶƚƐƚŚĞǀŽůƵŵĞŽĨƐƉĂĐĞďĞƚǁĞĞŶd/E^ƵƌĨĂĐĞƐϭĂŶĚϯ
ĂďŽǀĞĂŶĚƋƵĂŶƚŝĨŝĞƐƚŚĞǀŽůƵŵĞŽĨĨůŽŽĚǁĂƚĞƌƚĂŬĞŶŝŶƚŽƚŚĞƐŝƚĞŝŶŝƚƐĞǆŝƐƚŝŶŐĐŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶ͘

dŚĞƐĞĐŽŶĚ΀^ĞĞƚƚĂĐŚŵĞŶƚ&΁ƌĞƉƌĞƐĞŶƚƐƚŚĞƐƉĂĐĞďĞƚǁĞĞŶd/E^ƵƌĨĂĐĞƐϮĂŶĚϯĂďŽǀĞĂŶĚ
ƋƵĂŶƚŝĨŝĞƐƚŚĞǀŽůƵŵĞŽĨĨůŽŽĚǁĂƚĞƌĂďůĞƚŽďĞƚĂŬĞŶŝŶƚŽƚŚĞƐŝŐŚƚƵŶĚĞƌƚŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ
ĐŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶƐ͘

dŚĞƐĞǀŽůƵŵĞƐĂƌĞƐŚŽǁŶŝŶdĂďůĞϭďĞůŽǁ͗

dĂďůĞϭʹǆŝƐƚŝŶŐĂŶĚWƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ^ŝƚĞEĞƚ&ůŽŽĚƉůĂŝŶsŽůƵŵĞĂƉĂĐŝƚǇ
ǆŝƐƚŝŶŐŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶ ϭϲ͕ϮϲϬz;ϰϯϵ͕ϬϮϬ&Ϳ
WƌŽƉŽƐĞĚŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶ Ϯϭ͕ϲϱϳz;ϱϴϰ͕ϳϯϵ&Ϳ

KE>h^/KE͗dŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚĐŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶŽĨĨĞƌƐĂŶĞƚŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞŝŶƚŚĞĂǀĂŝůĂďůĞĨůŽŽĚǁĂƚĞƌ
ƐƚŽƌĂŐĞǀŽůƵŵĞŽĨϱ͕ϯϵϳzŽƌϭϰϱ͕ϳϭϵ&;нϯϯйͿ͘

546

͘ >/^dK&dd,DEd^͗

͘ ^ŝƚĞ^ƵƌǀĞǇ
͘ &D&ůŽŽĚ/ŶƐƵƌĂŶĐĞZĂƚĞDĂƉ
͘ ^ƚƵĚǇƌĞĂʹǆŝƐƚŝŶŐŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶ
͘ ^ƚƵĚǇƌĞĂʹǆŝƐƚŝŶŐ&ůŽŽĚƉůĂŝŶŽƵŶĚĂƌǇ
͘ ^ƚƵĚǇƌĞĂʹWƌŽƉŽƐĞĚŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶ
&͘ ^ƚƵĚǇƌĞĂʹWƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ&ůŽŽĚƉůĂŝŶŽƵŶĚĂƌǇ
547
FLOOD LINE FROM

FEMA DATA
548
78°46'52.94"W 42°52'36.62"N
ATTACHMENT B -
FEMA FLOOD NSURANCE RATE MAP
NNUA CHANCE FLOOD AZARD LOCATION OF

PROJECT SITE
*
-a.
TOWN OF WEST SENECA
FAVEST SENE
USGS The National Map: Orthoimagery. Data refreshed October, 2020.
78°44'59.58"W 42°50'30.94"h
FLOOD HAZARD INFORMATION NOTES TO USERS SCALE

SEE FIS REPORT FOR DETAILED LEGEND AND INDEX MAP NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM
For information and questions about this Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), available products associated with Map Projection:
FOR DRAFT FIRM PANEL LAYOUT
this FIRM, including historic versions, the current map date for each FIRM panel, how to order products, GCS, Geodetic Reference System 1980;
Vertical Datum: NAVD88
FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP
or the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) in general, please call the FEMA Map Information eXchange at
1-877-FEMA-MAP (1-877-336-2627) or visit the FEMA Flood Map Service Center website at https://msc.fema.gov· For Information about the specIfIc vertical datum for elevation datum
features,
Without Base Flood Elevation (BFE) Available products may include previously issued Letters of Map Change, a Flood Insurance Study Report'
conversions, or Vertical monuments used to create this map, please see the Flood ERIE COUNTY, NEW YORK
Zone A,V, A99 and/or digital versions of this map. Many of these products can be ordered or obtained directly from the website.
Wittt.BFEor Depth Zone AE, AO, AV V5 AR
Communities annexing land on adjacent FIRM panels must obtain a current copy of the adjacent panel as well
Insurance Study (FIS) Report for your community at https://msc.fema.gov
o ALL JURISDICTIONS
abonent FIRM Index. These may be ordered directly from the Flood Map Service Center at the number
AR ted 1inch = 500 feet 1:6,000 PANEL 332 oF 807
u A Regulat0ry Roodway
-
For community and countywide map dates, refer to the Flood Insurance Study Report for this jurisdiction. 0 250 500 1,000 1,500 2,000
0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard, Areas m = Feet Q
To determine if flood insurance is available in this community, contact your Insurance agent or call the National
of 1% annual chance flood with average
Flood Insurance Program at 1-800-638-6620.
- - Meters
depth less than one foot or with drainage
0 50 100 200 300 400
areas of less than one square mile Zone x Basemap information shown on this FIRM was provided in digital format by USDA, Farm Service Agency (FSA).
This information was derived from NAIP, dated April 11, 2018.
Future Conditions 1% Annual Panelcontains:
Chance Flood Hazard Zone X This map was exported from FEMA's National Flood Hazard Layer (NFHL) on 11/11/2020 2:20 PM and does
not reflect changes or amendments subsequent to this date and time. The NFHL and effective information may COMMUNITY NUMBER PANEL
Area with Reduced Flood Risk due to Levee
change or become superseded by new data over time. For additional information, please see the Flood Hazard TOWN OF 360231 0332
See Notes Zone X Mapping Updates Overview Fact Sheet at https://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/118418 CHEEKTOWAGA
OTHER AREAS OF TOWN OF WEST 360262 0332
Area with Flood Risk due to Levee Zone D This map complies with FEMA's standards for the use of digital flood maps if it is not void as described below.
SENECA
The basemap shown complies with FEMA's basemap accuracy standards. This map image is void if the one
or more of the following map elements do not appear: basemap imagery, flood zone labels, legend, scale bar,
NO SCREEN Area of Minimal Flood Hazard map creation date, community identifiers, FIRM panel number, and FIRM effective date.
Effective LOMRs .
OTHER AREAS Area of Undetermined Flood Hazard zone D

O
-------- or Storm Sewer
GENERAL Channel, Culvert,
STRUCTURES I a I a I a I a I a Levee, Dike, or Floodwall
242
Cross Sections with 1% Annual Chance
17.5
Water Surface Elevation
- - - - - Coastal Transect
(
·-- --- ------
-
Coastal T ansect Baseline
- -- Profile Baseline
Hydrographic Feature
- m- Base Flood Elevation Line (BFE)
OTHER
Limit of Study
FEATURES
Jurisdiction Boundary
MAP NUMBER
36029CO332H
EFFECTIVE DATE
June 07, 2019
549
550
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 73 ATTACHMENT
RECEIVED NYSCEF: D
09/09/2022
z
"
O
'
O
O
551
ATTACHMENT E
I -
I I
I I
>
/ I
"
|| |
552
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 73 C
RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/09/2022
or
'\
i'
|
L
Ik
* I
\
\
II
553
Exhibit “5” - Copy of Canisius HS_Engineering Report_3-17-2021.pdf

Exhibit “5”
554
ƌĂĨƚ^ŝƚĞWůĂŶŶŐŝŶĞĞƌŝŶŐZĞƉŽƌƚ
ĨŽƌ
ĂŶŝƐŝƵƐ,ŝŐŚ^ĐŚŽŽůʹZŽďĞƌƚ:͘^ƚƌĂŶƐŬǇDĞŵŽƌŝĂůƚŚůĞƚŝĐŽŵƉůĞǆ
WŚĂƐĞdŚƌĞĞĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚWƌŽũĞĐƚ
Ăƚ
ϮϴϴϱůŝŶƚŽŶ^ƚƌĞĞƚඵtĞƐƚ^ĞŶĞĐĂ͕EzϭϰϮϮϰඵƌŝĞŽƵŶƚǇඵEz^ZĞŐŝŽŶηϵ

ĂƚĞ͗
DĂƌĐŚϮϬϮϭ

ƵĨĨĂůŽ͕EzϭϰϮϬϵ
;dͿϳϭϲͲϴϴϮͲϬϰϲϲ


ĂŶŝƐŝƵƐ,ŝŐŚ^ĐŚŽŽůʹZŽďĞƌƚ:͘^ƚƌĂŶƐŬǇDĞŵŽƌŝĂůƚŚůĞƚŝĐŽŵƉůĞǆʹWŚĂƐĞdŚƌĞĞĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚWƌŽũĞĐƚ
555
d>K&KEdEd^

^ĞĐƚŝŽŶϭʹWƌŽũĞĐƚĞƐĐƌŝƉƚŝŽŶ

• KǀĞƌĂůůWƌŽũĞĐƚĞƐĐƌŝƉƚŝŽŶ
• ǆŝƐƚŝŶŐ'ƌĂĚŝŶŐĂŶĚ^ƚŽƌŵǁĂƚĞƌĞƐĐƌŝƉƚŝŽŶ
• WƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ'ƌĂĚŝŶŐĂŶĚ^ƚŽƌŵǁĂƚĞƌĞƐĐƌŝƉƚŝŽŶ
• ƐƐƵŵƉƚŝŽŶƐ

^ĞĐƚŝŽŶϮʹ^ƵƉƉŽƌƚŝŶŐ/ŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶ

• >ŽĐĂƚŝŽŶDĂƉ
• tĞƚůĂŶĚDĂƉƉŝŶŐͲEz^
• tĞƚůĂŶĚDĂƉƉŝŶŐͲ&ĞĚĞƌĂů
• &ůŽŽĚƉůĂŝŶDĂƉʹǆŝƐƚŝŶŐ
• ^Žŝů/ŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶ
• ,ǇĚƌŽůŽŐŝĐ^Žŝů/ŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶ
• ZĂŝŶĨĂůů&ƌĞƋƵĞŶĐŝĞƐ

^ĞĐƚŝŽŶϯʹWůĂŶƐ

• ǆŝƐƚŝŶŐtĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚƐ
• WƌŽƉŽƐĞĚtĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚƐ

^ĞĐƚŝŽŶϰʹĂůĐƵůĂƚŝŽŶƐĂŶĚDŽĚĞůŝŶŐĂƚĂ

• ,ǇĚƌĂĨůŽǁ,ǇĚƌŽŐƌĂƉŚƐZĞƉŽƌƚƐͲǆŝƐƚŝŶŐ
• ,ǇĚƌĂĨůŽǁ,ǇĚƌŽŐƌĂƉŚƐZĞƉŽƌƚƐʹWƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ


556

W Ă Ő Ğ ͮϮ

^d/KEϭʹWƌŽũĞĐƚĞƐĐƌŝƉƚŝŽŶ

KǀĞƌĂůůWƌŽũĞĐƚĞƐĐƌŝƉƚŝŽŶ

ĂŶŝƐŝƵƐ,ŝŐŚ^ĐŚŽŽůŝƐƵŶĚĞƌƚĂŬŝŶŐƚŚŝƐĐĂƉŝƚĂůŝŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚƉƌŽũĞĐƚƚŽĂĚĚƚǁŽďĂƐĞďĂůů
ĚŝĂŵŽŶĚƐƚŽƚŚĞĞǆŝƐƚŝŶŐĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚŽŶƚŚĞƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇǁŚŝĐŚĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůǇŝŶĐůƵĚĞƐĂŶĞǆŝƐƚŝŶŐ
ĂƌƚŝĨŝĐŝĂůƚƵƌĨĨŽŽƚďĂůůĨŝĞůĚ͕ƚƌĂĐŬ͕ĨŝĞůĚĞǀĞŶƚĨĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐ͕ůŽĐŬĞƌƌŽŽŵĂŶĚĐŽŶĐĞƐƐŝŽŶƐďƵŝůĚŝŶŐƐ͕
ĂŶĚƉĂƌŬŝŶŐůŽƚ͘dŚĞƉůĂŶŶĞĚǀĂƌƐŝƚǇďĂƐĞďĂůůĨŝĞůĚǁŝůůďĞĞŶƚŝƌĞůǇĂƌƚŝĨŝĐŝĂůƚƵƌĨǁŚŝůĞƚŚĞũƵŶŝŽƌ
ǀĂƌƐŝƚǇĨŝĞůĚǁŝůůŚĂǀĞĂŶĂƌƚŝĨŝĐŝĂůƚƵƌĨŝŶĨŝĞůĚǁŝƚŚĂŶĂƚƵƌĂůŐƌĂƐƐŽƵƚĨŝĞůĚ͘dŚĞǀĂƌƐŝƚǇĨŝĞůĚǁŝůů
ŚĂǀĞƚǁŽDhĚƵŐŽƵƚƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞƐǁŝƚŚƐƚŽƌĂŐĞŝŶƚĞŐƌĂůƚŽƚŚĞŚŽŵĞĚƵŐŽƵƚƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞ͘dŚĞ
ǀĂƌƐŝƚǇĨŝĞůĚǁŝůůĂůƐŽŚĂǀĞĂŶĞůĞǀĂƚĞĚƉƌĞƐƐďŽǆƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞ͕ƚǁŽƐĞƚƐŽĨďůĞĂĐŚĞƌƐǁŝƚŚƐĞĂƚŝŶŐ
ĨŽƌĂƚŽƚĂůŽĨƚǁŽŚƵŶĚƌĞĚƐƉĞĐƚĂƚŽƌƐ͕ĂƐĐŽƌĞďŽĂƌĚ͕ĂŶĚŽŶĞďĂƚƚŝŶŐƚƵŶŶĞů͘dŚĞũƵŶŝŽƌǀĂƌƐŝƚǇ
ĨŝĞůĚǁŝůůŚĂǀĞƚǁŽĐŚĂŝŶůŝŶŬĚƵŐŽƵƚƐĂŶĚĂƐĐŽƌĞďŽĂƌĚ͘ŝƐĐƵƐĂŶĚ^ŚŽƚƉƵƚĨĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐǁŝůůďĞ
ƌĞůŽĐĂƚĞĚ͘EĞǁĂƐƉŚĂůƚǁĂůŬŝŶŐƉĂƚŚƐǁŝůůďĞĂĚĚĞĚƚŽĐŽŶŶĞĐƚƚŚĞŶĞǁƐŝƚĞĂŵĞŶŝƚŝĞƐǁŝƚŚ
ĞǆŝƐƚŝŶŐĨĞĂƚƵƌĞƐ͘dŚĞƐŝƚĞǁŝůůďĞƌĞĐŽŶƚŽƵƌĞĚƚŽŵĞĞƚƚŚĞƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐŽĨƚŚĞŶĞǁĨŝĞůĚƐĂƐ
ǁĞůůĂƐĂŶĂƚƵƌĂůŐƌĂƐƐƉƌĂĐƚŝĐĞĨŝĞůĚĂŶĚĂŶŽƚŚĞƌĨůĂƚĂƌĞĂƐƵŝƚĂďůĞƚŽƌĞĐĞŝǀĞƚĞŶŶŝƐĐŽƵƌƚƐĂƐ
ƉĂƌƚŽĨĂƉŽƚĞŶƚŝĂůĨƵƚƵƌĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚ͘

dŚĞƐŝƚĞŝƐůŽĐĂƚĞĚǁŝƚŚŝŶƚŚĞdŽǁŶŽĨtĞƐƚ^ĞŶĞĐĂ͕ƌŝĞŽƵŶƚǇ͕EĞǁzŽƌŬ͕ϮϴϴϱůŝŶƚŽŶ^ƚƌĞĞƚ
;ƌĞĨĞƌƚŽ^ƵƉƉŽƌƚŝŶŐ/ŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶ͗>ŽĐĂƚŝŽŶDĂƉͿ͘dŚĞƚŽƚĂůƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇƐŝǌĞŝƐĂƉƉƌŽǆŝŵĂƚĞůǇϮϲ͘ϱĂĐƌĞƐ͘
dŚĞĚŝƐƚƵƌďĞĚƉŽƌƚŝŽŶŝƐĂƉƉƌŽǆŝŵĂƚĞůǇϭϲ͘ϲĂĐƌĞƐŝŶƌĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ͘dŚĞƐŝƚĞŝƐĂĚũĂĐĞŶƚƚŽ
ŝŶĚƵƐƚƌŝĂůĂŶĚƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůƵƐĞƚŽƚŚĞEŽƌƚŚ͕ĂƵƚŝůŝƚǇŝŶĨƌĂƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞĐŽƌƌŝĚŽƌƚŽƚŚĞĂƐƚ͕ĂǀĂĐĂŶƚ
ƉĂƌĐĞůƚŽƚŚĞ^ŽƵƚŚ͕ĂŶĚdŚĞƵĨĨĂůŽƌĞĞŬĂůŽŶŐƚŚĞǁĞƐƚ͘ĂŶŝƐŝƵƐ,ŝŐŚ^ĐŚŽŽůĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůǇŽǁŶƐ
ƚŚĞĞŶƚŝƌĞƐŝƚĞ͘ůůƐůŽƉĞƐĂƌĞƉƌĞƐĞŶƚůǇƐƚĂďůĞŝŶƚŚĞĂƌĞĂƐƚŽďĞƵƚŝůŝǌĞĚďǇƚŚĞŽǁŶĞƌ͕dŚĞƌĞŝƐ
ŶŽĞǀŝĚĞŶĐĞŽĨƐŝŐŶŝĨŝĐĂŶƚĞƌŽƐŝŽŶƵŶĚĞƌƉƌĞƐĞŶƚĐŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶƐ͘ůůǀĞŐĞƚĂƚŝŽŶŶŽƚǁŝƚŚŝŶƚŚĞůŝŵŝƚƐ
ŽĨŐƌĂĚŝŶŐǁŝůůďĞƉƌŽƚĞĐƚĞĚƚŚƌŽƵŐŚŽƵƚƚŚĞĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶƉƌŽĐĞƐƐ͘

dŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚŝƐŶŽƚůŽĐĂƚĞĚǁŝƚŚŝŶĂdD>ǁĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚ͘EŽƌƵŶͲŽĨĨǁŝůůďĞĚŝƌĞĐƚůǇĚŝƐĐŚĂƌŐĞĚŝŶƚŽ
ĂϯϬϯ;ĚͿůŝƐƚĞĚƐĞŐŵĞŶƚ͖ŚŽǁĞǀĞƌ͕ƵĨĨĂůŽƌĞĞŬƵůƚŝŵĂƚĞůǇĚŝƐĐŚĂƌŐĞƐƚŽƵĨĨĂůŽZŝǀĞƌǁŚŝĐŚŝƐ
ĂϯϬϯΎĚͿůŝƐƚĞĚƐĞŐŵĞŶƚ͘dŚĞdŽǁŶŽĨtĞƐƚ^ĞŶĞĐĂŝƐƚŚĞƌĞŐƵůĂƚĞĚD^ϰ͘

ƉŽƌƚŝŽŶŽĨƚŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚŐƌĂĚŝŶŐŽĨƚŚĞƐŝƚĞůŝĞƐǁŝƚŚŝŶƚŚĞ&DϭϬϬͲǇĞĂƌĨůŽŽĚƉůĂŝŶ͘dŚĞĨŝůů
ŶĞĐĞƐƐĂƌǇƚŽĐƌĞĂƚĞƚŚĞƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚŐĞŽŵĞƚƌǇĨŽƌƚŚĞďĂƐĞďĂůůĨŝĞůĚƐǁŝůůďĞŵŽƌĞƚŚĂŶŽĨĨƐĞƚďǇ
ƚŚĞŽǀĞƌĂůůƌĞĐŽŶƚŽƵƌŝŶŐǁŝƚŚŝŶƚŚĞĨůŽŽĚƉůĂŝŶ͘ŶĂůǇƐŝƐŽĨƚŚĞǀŽůƵŵĞŽĨĨůŽŽĚǁĂƚĞƌƚŚĞƐŝƚĞŝƐ
ĂďůĞƚŽƌĞĐĞŝǀĞ;ďĂƐĞĚŽŶ&DďĂƐĞĨůŽŽĚĞůĞǀĂƚŝŽŶůŝŶĞƐͿƌĞƐƵůƚƐŝŶĂŶĞƚŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞŽĨ
ĂƉƉƌŽǆŝŵĂƚĞůǇϮϬйŵŽƌĞǀŽůƵŵĞƚŚĂŶŝƐĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůǇĂĐĐŽŵŵŽĚĂƚĞĚǁŝƚŚŝŶƚŚĞƐŝƚĞƵŶĚĞƌĐƵƌƌĞŶƚ
ĐŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶƐ͘;ƌĞĨĞƌƚŽ^ƵƉƉŽƌƚŝŶŐ/ŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶ͗&ůŽŽĚWůĂŝŶDĂƉͲǆŝƐƚŝŶŐͿ͘

dŚĞƌĞŝƐĂEz^ĂŶĚ&ĞĚĞƌĂůůǇZĞŐƵůĂƚĞĚǁĞƚůĂŶĚŽŶƚŚĞĂĚũĂĐĞŶƚƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇŶĞĂƌƚŚĞ
ǁĞƐƚĞƌŶŵŽƐƚĐŽƌŶĞƌŽĨƚŚĞƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇ͘ƉŽƌƚŝŽŶŽĨƚŚĞƌĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ͕ŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐŵŝŶŽƌŐƌĂĚŝŶŐ
ĂƐǁĞůůĂƐĂŶĂƉƉƌŽǆŝŵĂƚĞůǇϭϯϬϬ^&ƉŽƌƚŝŽŶŽĨĂƐƉŚĂůƚǁĂůŬŝƐůŽĐĂƚĞĚǁŝƚŚŝŶƚŚĞϭϬϬ&dďƵĨĨĞƌ
ŽĨƚŚĞǁĞƚůĂŶĚ͘dŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚĚĞƐŝŐŶƌĞƐƵůƚƐŝŶĂƐŝŐŶŝĨŝĐĂŶƚƌĞĚƵĐƚŝŽŶŝŶƚŚĞĨŽŽƚƉƌŝŶƚŽĨƚŚĞ
557

W Ă Ő Ğ ͮϯ

ǁĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚƚŚĂƚŝƐƐŚĞĞƚŝŶŐĂĐƌŽƐƐƚŚĞƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇůŝŶĞƚŽǁĂƌĚƚŚŝƐǁĞƚůĂŶĚĂƌĞĂ͘;ƌĞĨĞƌƚŽ^ƵƉƉŽƌƚŝŶŐ
/ŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶ͗tĞƚůĂŶĚDĂƉƉŝŶŐͿ͘

ƌŽƐŝŽŶĂŶĚƐĞĚŝŵĞŶƚĐŽŶƚƌŽůƉƌĂĐƚŝĐĞƐǁŝůůďĞƵƚŝůŝǌĞĚƚŽƉƌĞǀĞŶƚĚĂŵĂŐĞƚŽĂĚũĂĐĞŶƚ
ƉƌŽƉĞƌƚŝĞƐ͕ǁĂƚĞƌďŽĚŝĞƐ͕ĐŝƌĐƵůĂƚŝŽŶƌŽƵƚĞƐ͕ĂŶĚǀĞŐĞƚĂƚŝŽŶ͘ƵƌĂƚŝŽŶŽĨĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶĂĐƚŝǀŝƚǇŝƐ
ĂŶƚŝĐŝƉĂƚĞĚƚŽďĞŝŶ^ƵŵŵĞƌͬ&ĂůůŽĨϮϬϮϭĂŶĚďĞϭϬϬйƐƚĂďŝůŝǌĞĚďǇĞĐĞŵďĞƌŽĨϮϬϮϭ͘

ǆŝƐƚŝŶŐ'ƌĂĚŝŶŐĂŶĚ^ƚŽƌŵǁĂƚĞƌĞƐĐƌŝƉƚŝŽŶ

;ƌĞĨĞƌƚŽWůĂŶƐ͗ǆŝƐƚŝŶŐtĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚƐͿ͘

tĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚŝƐƌĞůĂƚŝǀĞůǇƐŵĂůůĂƌĞĂĂƚƚŚĞĞŶƚƌĂŶĐĞĂůŽŶŐůŝŶƚŽŶ^ƚƌĞĞƚ͘/ƚĨůŽǁƐǀŝĂƐǁĂůĞŝŶƚŽ
ĂƐŵĂůůƐƚƌĞĂŵƚŚĂƚƵůƚŝŵĂƚĞůǇĨůŽǁƐŽĨĨƚŚĞƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇƚŽƚŚĞǁĞƐƚ͘

tĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚĐŽŵƉƌŝƐĞƐƚŚĞŵĂũŽƌŝƚǇŽĨƚŚĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞĚĂƌĞĂŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐƚŚĞĞǆŝƐƚŝŶŐƚƌĂĐŬ͕ĨŽŽƚďĂůů
ĨŝĞůĚ͕ĂŶĚƉĂƌŬŝŶŐůŽƚƐ͘dŚĞƐĞĂƌĞĚƌĂŝŶĞĚƚŽĂŶĞǆŝƐƚŝŶŐŝŶĨŝůƚƌĂƚŝŽŶďĂƐŝŶĂƚƚŚĞĐĞŶƚĞƌŽĨƚŚĞƐŝƚĞ
ǁŚŝĐŚƵůƚŝŵĂƚĞůǇŽƵƚůĞƚƐƚŽƵĨĨĂůŽƌĞĞŬ͘

tĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚŚƵŐƐƚŚĞŶŽƌƚŚĞĚŐĞŽĨƚŚĞƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇ͕ƐŚĞĞƚĨůŽǁŝŶŐŶŽƌƚŚǁĂƌĚĂĐƌŽƐƐƚŚĞƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇ
ůŝŶĞĂŶĚĐŽŶƚƌŝďƵƚŝŶŐƚŽƚŚĞEz^ĂŶĚ&ĞĚĞƌĂůůǇƌĞŐƵůĂƚĞĚǁĞƚůĂŶĚŽŶƚŚĞĂĚũĂĐĞŶƚƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇ͘

tĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚĂĐĐŽƵŶƚƐĨŽƌƚŚĞŵĂũŽƌŝƚǇŽĨƚŚĞƵŶĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞĚƉŽƌƚŝŽŶŽĨƚŚĞƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇ͘/ƚƐŚĞĞƚ
ĨůŽǁƐǁĞƐƚǁĂƌĚŝŶƚŽƚŚĞƵĨĨĂůŽƌĞĞŬ͘

tĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚŝƐĂƌĞůĂƚŝǀĞůǇƐŵĂůůĂƌĞĂĂƚƚŚĞĞĂƐƚĐŽƌŶĞƌŽĨƚŚĞƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇƚŚĂƚƐŚĞĞƚĨůŽǁƐŽǀĞƌ
ƚŚĞƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇůŝŶĞƚŽƚŚĞĂĚũĂĐĞŶƚƉĂƌĐĞů͘

WƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ'ƌĂĚŝŶŐĂŶĚ^ƚŽƌŵǁĂƚĞƌĞƐĐƌŝƉƚŝŽŶ

;ƌĞĨĞƌƚŽWůĂŶƐ͗WƌŽƉŽƐĞĚtĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚƐͿ͘

tĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚƌĞŵĂŝŶƐƵŶĐŚĂŶŐĞĚĨƌŽŵŝƚƐĞǆŝƐƚŝŶŐĐŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶ͘

tĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚĐĂƉƚƵƌĞƐĂŶŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞĚĂƌĞĂŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐďŽƚŚŶĞǁĂƌƚŝĨŝĐŝĂůƚƵƌĨĂƌĞĂƐŽĨƚŚĞďĂƐĞďĂůů
ĨŝĞůĚƐĂƐǁĞůůĂƐƚŚĞŵĂũŽƌŝƚǇŽĨƚŚĞŶĂƚƵƌĂůŐƌĂƐƐŽƵƚĨŝĞůĚŽĨƚŚĞũƵŶŝŽƌǀĂƌƐŝƚǇĨŝĞůĚ͘dŚŝƐĚƌĂŝŶƐ
ƚŽĂŶƵƉƐŝǌĞĚŝŶĨŝůƚƌĂƚŝŽŶďĂƐŝŶǁŚŝĐŚŽƵƚůĞƚƐǀŝĂƚŚĞĞǆŝƐƚŝŶŐϭϱ͟ƉŝƉĞƚŽƵĨĨĂůŽƌĞĞŬ͘

tĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚŚĂƐďĞĞŶƐŝŐŶŝĨŝĐĂŶƚůǇƌĞĚƵĐĞĚŝŶĂƌĞĂůĞĂĚŝŶŐƚŽĂŶĞƚƌĞĚƵĐƚŝŽŶŝŶƚŚĞǀŽůƵŵĞŽĨ
ƐƚŽƌŵǁĂƚĞƌĨůŽǁŝŶŐĂĐƌŽƐƐƚŚĞƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇůŝŶĞƚŽǁĂƌĚƚŚĞƌĞŐƵůĂƚĞĚǁĞƚůĂŶĚ͘

tĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚŚĂƐďĞĞŶƐŝŐŶŝĨŝĐĂŶƚůǇƌĞĚƵĐĞĚŝŶĂƌĞĂůĞĂĚŝŶŐƚŽĂŶĞƚƌĞĚƵĐƚŝŽŶŝŶƚŚĞǀŽůƵŵĞŽĨ
ƐƚŽƌŵǁĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĞƚĨůŽǁŝŶŐƚŽƚŚĞƵĨĨĂůŽƌĞĞŬ͘
558

W Ă Ő Ğ ͮϰ

tĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚŚĂƐďĞĞŶĨƵůůǇĂďƐŽƌďĞĚŝŶƚŽtĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚĞůŝŵŝŶĂƚĞĂůůƐƚŽƌŵǁĂƚĞƌƚŚĂƚƉƌĞǀŝŽƵƐůǇ
ĚƌĂŝŶĞĚĂĐƌŽƐƐƚŚĞƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇůŝŶĞŝŶƚŚŝƐůŽĐĂƚŝŽŶ͘

ƐƐƵŵƉƚŝŽŶƐ

EŽƚĞƚŚĞĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐĂƐƐƵŵƉƚŝŽŶƐƌĞŐĂƌĚŝŶŐƚŚŝƐƐƚŽƌŵǁĂƚĞƌŵĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚ͗

ϭ͘Ϳ DĂŶŶŝŶŐ͛ƐƋƵĂƚŝŽŶǁĂƐƵƐĞĚǁŝƚŚĂϭϬͲǇĞĂƌƐƚŽƌŵĨƌĞƋƵĞŶĐǇƚŽƐŝǌĞƚŚĞĨƵůůĨůŽǁƌĂƚĞ
ĐĂƌƌǇŝŶŐĐĂƉĂĐŝƚŝĞƐŽĨƚŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚƐƚŽƌŵƐĞǁĞƌƐǇƐƚĞŵ͘dŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚŽŶͲƐŝƚĞĚƌĂŝŶĂŐĞ
ŶĞƚǁŽƌŬŚĂƐďĞĞŶĚĞƐŝŐŶĞĚƚŽƵƚŝůŝǌĞŚŝŐŚĚĞŶƐŝƚǇƐŵŽŽƚŚŝŶƚĞƌŝŽƌĐŽƌƌƵŐĂƚĞĚƉŽůǇĞƚŚǇůĞŶĞ
ƉŝƉĞ;,WͿǁŝƚŚĂDĂŶŶŝŶŐ͛ƐƌŽƵŐŚŶĞƐƐĐŽĞĨĨŝĐŝĞŶƚŽĨϬ͘ϬϭϮ͕ĂŶĚĂŵŝŶŝŵƵŵƉŝƉĞĚŝĂŵĞƚĞƌ
ŽĨϭϮ͘͟

Ϯ͘Ϳ dŚĞĞǆŝƐƚŝŶŐŽŶƐŝƚĞƐƚŽƌŵƐǇƐƚĞŵĂŶĚǁĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚǁĂƐƐƚƵĚŝĞĚĨŽƌĐĂƉĂĐŝƚǇŽĨƐƚŽƌŵǁĂƚĞƌ
ďĂƐĞĚŽŶϭ͕ϭϬĂŶĚϭϬϬǇĞĂƌƐƚŽƌŵĞǀĞŶƚƐƵƐŝŶŐĂƐƚŽƌŵǁĂƚĞƌŵŽĚĞůŝŶŐƉƌŽŐƌĂŵ,ǇĚƌĂĨůŽǁ
,ǇĚƌŽŐƌĂƉŚƐǆƚĞŶƐŝŽŶĨŽƌƵƚŽŝǀŝůϯϮϬϮϭ͘

ϯ͘Ϳ dŚĞ^^ƐŽŝůƐƐƵƌǀĞǇƐŚŽǁƐƐŽŝůƐǁŝƚŚŝŶƚŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚĂƌĞĂƚŽďĞ,ĂŵŝůƚŽŶ^ŝůƚ>ŽĂŵ;,ŵͿ͕dĞĞů
^ŝůƚ>ŽĂŵ;dĞͿ͕dŝŽŐĂ^ŝůƚ>ŽĂŵ;dŽͿ͕ĂŶĚtĂǇůĂŶĚ^ŽŝůƐŽŵƉůĞǆ;tĚͿ͘;ƌĞĨĞƌƚŽ^ƵƉƉŽƌƚŝŶŐ
/ŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶ͗^Žŝů/ŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶͿ͘&ŽƌƚŚĞƵƐĞŝŶdZͲϱϱĐĂůĐƵůĂƚŝŽŶƐ͕Ă͚͛ƐŽŝůƐƌƵŶͲŽĨĨĐŽĞĨĨŝĐŝĞŶƚŝƐ
ďĞŝŶŐƵƐĞĚ;ƌĞĨĞƌƚŽ^ƵƉƉŽƌƚŝŶŐ/ŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶ͗,ǇĚƌŽůŽŐŝĐ^Žŝů/ŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶͿ͘

ϰ͘Ϳ dŚĞŐĞŽƚĞĐŚŶŝĐĂůƌĞƉŽƌƚŝƐƉĞŶĚŝŶŐĂŶĚǁŝůůŝŶĐůƵĚĞƐŽŝůďŽƌŝŶŐƐ͕ŝŶĨŝůƚƌĂƚŝŽŶƚĞƐƚƐ͕ĂŶĚƚŽƉƐŽŝů
ĚĞƉƚŚƐ͘/ŶŝƚƐĂďƐĞŶĐĞƚŚĞĚĞƐŝŐŶŽĨƚŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚƐƚŽƌŵǁĂƚĞƌďĂƐŝŶŚĂƐďĞĞŶďĂƐĞĚƉĂƌƚůǇ
ŽŶƚŚĞĂƉƉĞĂƌĂŶĐĞƚŚĂƚƚŚĞĞǆŝƐƚŝŶŐďĂƐŝŶŝƐĚĞƐŝŐŶĞĚĨŽƌŝŶĨŝůƚƌĂƚŝŽŶĂƐǁĞůůĂƐŚǇĚƌŽůŽŐŝĐĂů
ƐŽŝůƚǇƉĞĚĂƚĂŝŶĚŝĐĂƚŝŶŐƚŚĂƚƚŚĞƐŝƚĞƐŽŝůƐĂƌĞdǇƉĞ͕ĂůůŽǁŝŶŐĨŽƌŵŽĚĞƌĂƚĞŝŶĨŝůƚƌĂƚŝŽŶ͘
EĞǀĞƌƚŚĞůĞƐƐ͕ƚŚĞĚĞƐŝŐŶĂŶĚĐĂůĐƵůĂƚŝŽŶƐŚĂǀĞďĞĞŶĐŽŶĚƵĐƚĞĚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞĂƐƐƵŵƉƚŝŽŶƚŚĂƚ
ƚŚĞƌĞŝƐǌĞƌŽŝŶĨŝůƚƌĂƚŝŽŶĂƐĂǁŽƌƐƚͲĐĂƐĞƐĐĞŶĂƌŝŽ͘KŶĐĞŐĞŽƚĞĐŚŶŝĐĂůĚĂƚĂďĞĐŽŵĞƐĂǀĂŝůĂďůĞ
ŝƚŵĂǇďĞŶĞĐĞƐƐĂƌǇƚŽƌĞǀŝĞǁĂŶĚĂĚũƵƐƚƚŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚďĂƐŝŶƐŝǌŝŶŐĂŶĚĚĞƐŝŐŶĂƐǁĞůůĂƐƚŚŝƐ
ƌĞƉŽƌƚ͘

ϱ͘Ϳ ǆŝƐƚŝŶŐĚŝƐĐŚĂƌŐĞƉŽŝŶƚƐĨƌŽŵƚŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚƐŝƚĞǁĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚƐĂƌĞǁŽƌŬŝŶŐƐĂƚŝƐĨĂĐƚŽƌŝůǇĂŶĚǁŝůů
ŶŽƚďĞŵŽĚŝĨŝĞĚ͘

ϲ͘Ϳ ^ŝǌĞŽĨĚŝƐĐŚĂƌŐĞƉŝƉĞƐĨƌŽŵƚŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚƐŝƚĞǁŝůůŶŽƚďĞŵŽĚŝĨŝĞĚ͘

ϳ͘Ϳ ZĞĨĞƌƚŽZ/^DĂƉƉŝŶŐŝŶ^YZ>ŽŶŐ&ŽƌŵĨŽƌ^,WKDĂƉƉŝŶŐ͘

559

W Ă Ő Ğ ͮϱ

^d/KEϮʹ^hWWKZd/E'/E&KZDd/KE

>ŽĐĂƚŝŽŶDĂƉ

560

W Ă Ő Ğ ͮϲ

tĞƚůĂŶĚDĂƉƉŝŶŐʹEz^

561

W Ă Ő Ğ ͮϳ

tĞƚůĂŶĚDĂƉƉŝŶŐʹ&ĞĚĞƌĂů
562

W Ă Ő Ğ ͮϴ

&ůŽŽĚƉůĂŝŶDĂƉʹ&D;ǆŝƐƚŝŶŐͿ

563

W Ă Ő Ğ ͮϵ

^ŽŝůDĂƉ

564

W Ă Ő Ğ ͮϭϬ

^ŽŝůDĂƉ>ĞŐĞŶĚ
565

W Ă Ő Ğ ͮϭϭ

,ǇĚƌŽůŽŐŝĐ^Žŝů'ƌŽƵƉ

566

W Ă Ő Ğ ͮϭϮ

,ǇĚƌŽůŽŐŝĐ^Žŝů'ƌŽƵƉ>ĞŐĞŶĚ

567

W Ă Ő Ğ ͮϭϯ

ZĂŝŶĨĂůů&ƌĞƋƵĞŶĐŝĞƐ
568

^d/KEϯʹW>E^

ǆŝƐƚŝŶŐtĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚ
WƌŽƉŽƐĞĚtĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚ

569
570
571

^d/KEϰʹ>h>d/KE^ĂŶĚDK>/E'd

,ǇĚƌĂĨůŽǁ,ǇĚƌŽŐƌĂƉŚƐZĞƉŽƌƚƐͲǆŝƐƚŝŶŐ
,ǇĚƌĂĨůŽǁ,ǇĚƌŽŐƌĂƉŚƐZĞƉŽƌƚƐͲWƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ
572
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 74
+\GURJUDSK5HWXUQ3HULRG5HFDS
+\GUDIORZ+\GURJUDSKV([WHQVLRQIRU$XWRGHVN&LYLO'E\$XWRGHVN,QFY
+\G +\GURJUDSK ,QIORZ 3HDN2XWIORZFIV +\GURJUDSK

1R W\SH K\GV 'HVFULSWLRQ
RULJLQ \U \U \U \U \U \U \U \U
6&65XQRII ([B:6$
6&65XQRII ([B:6%
6&65XQRII ([B:6&
6&65XQRII ([B:6'
6&65XQRII ([B:6(
3URMILOH([LVWLQJ&DQLVLXV+6JSZ 7XHVGD\
573
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 74
+\GURJUDSK5HSRUW
+\GUDIORZ+\GURJUDSKV([WHQVLRQIRU$XWRGHVN&LYLO'E\$XWRGHVN,QFY 7XHVGD\
+\G1R
([B:6$
+\GURJUDSKW\SH 6&65XQRII 3HDNGLVFKDUJH FIV
6WRUPIUHTXHQF\ \UV 7LPHWRSHDN PLQ
7LPHLQWHUYDO PLQ +\GYROXPH FXIW
'UDLQDJHDUHD DF &XUYHQXPEHU
%DVLQ6ORSH +\GUDXOLFOHQJWK IW
7FPHWKRG 8VHU 7LPHRIFRQF7F PLQ
7RWDOSUHFLS LQ 'LVWULEXWLRQ 7\SH,,
6WRUPGXUDWLRQ KUV 6KDSHIDFWRU
&RPSRVLWH$UHD&1 >[[[@
([B:6$
4FIV 4FIV
+\G1R<HDU

7LPHPLQ
+\G1R
574
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 74
+\GURJUDSK5HSRUW
+\G1R
([B:6%
7FPHWKRG 75 7LPHRIFRQF7F PLQ
&RPSRVLWH$UHD&1 >[[[[@
([B:6%
4FIV 4FIV
+\G1R<HDU

7LPHPLQ
+\G1R
575
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 74
757F:RUNVKHHW
+\G1R
([B:6%
'HVFULSWLRQ $ % & 7RWDOV
6KHHW)ORZ
0DQQLQJ
VQYDOXH
)ORZOHQJWKIW
7ZR\HDUKUSUHFLSLQ
/DQGVORSH
7UDYHO7LPHPLQ
6KDOORZ&RQFHQWUDWHG)ORZ
)ORZOHQJWKIW
:DWHUFRXUVHVORSH
6XUIDFHGHVFULSWLRQ 8QSDYHG 8QSDYHG 3DYHG
$YHUDJHYHORFLW\IWV
7UDYHO7LPHPLQ
&KDQQHO)ORZ
;VHFWLRQDOIORZDUHDVTIW
:HWWHGSHULPHWHUIW
&KDQQHOVORSH
0DQQLQJ
VQYDOXH
9HORFLW\IWV

)ORZOHQJWKIW ^`
7UDYHO7LPHPLQ
7RWDO7UDYHO7LPH7F PLQ
576
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 74
+\GURJUDSK5HSRUW
+\G1R
([B:6&
([B:6&
4FIV 4FIV
+\G1R<HDU

7LPHPLQ
+\G1R
577
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 74
757F:RUNVKHHW
+\G1R
([B:6&
6KHHW)ORZ
0DQQLQJ
VQYDOXH
)ORZOHQJWKIW
7ZR\HDUKUSUHFLSLQ
/DQGVORSH
7UDYHO7LPHPLQ
)ORZOHQJWKIW
:DWHUFRXUVHVORSH
$YHUDJHYHORFLW\IWV
7UDYHO7LPHPLQ
&KDQQHO)ORZ
:HWWHGSHULPHWHUIW
&KDQQHOVORSH
0DQQLQJ
VQYDOXH
9HORFLW\IWV

)ORZOHQJWKIW ^`
7UDYHO7LPHPLQ
578
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 74
+\GURJUDSK5HSRUW
+\G1R
([B:6'
&RPSRVLWH$UHD&1 >[[@
([B:6'
4FIV 4FIV
+\G1R<HDU

7LPHPLQ
+\G1R
579
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 74
757F:RUNVKHHW
+\G1R
([B:6'
6KHHW)ORZ
0DQQLQJ
VQYDOXH
)ORZOHQJWKIW
7ZR\HDUKUSUHFLSLQ
/DQGVORSH
7UDYHO7LPHPLQ
)ORZOHQJWKIW
:DWHUFRXUVHVORSH
6XUIDFHGHVFULSWLRQ 8QSDYHG 3DYHG 3DYHG
$YHUDJHYHORFLW\IWV
7UDYHO7LPHPLQ
&KDQQHO)ORZ
:HWWHGSHULPHWHUIW
&KDQQHOVORSH
0DQQLQJ
VQYDOXH
9HORFLW\IWV

)ORZOHQJWKIW ^`
7UDYHO7LPHPLQ
580
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 74
+\GURJUDSK5HSRUW
+\G1R
([B:6(
&RPSRVLWH$UHD&1 >[@
([B:6(
4FIV 4FIV
+\G1R<HDU

7LPHPLQ
+\G1R
581
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 74
757F:RUNVKHHW
+\G1R
([B:6(
6KHHW)ORZ
0DQQLQJ
VQYDOXH
)ORZOHQJWKIW
7ZR\HDUKUSUHFLSLQ
/DQGVORSH
7UDYHO7LPHPLQ
)ORZOHQJWKIW
:DWHUFRXUVHVORSH
$YHUDJHYHORFLW\IWV
7UDYHO7LPHPLQ
&KDQQHO)ORZ
:HWWHGSHULPHWHUIW
&KDQQHOVORSH
0DQQLQJ
VQYDOXH
9HORFLW\IWV

)ORZOHQJWKIW ^`
7UDYHO7LPHPLQ
582
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 74
+\GURJUDSK5HSRUW
+\G1R
([B:6$
([B:6$
4FIV 4FIV
+\G1R<HDU

7LPHPLQ
+\G1R
583
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 74
+\GURJUDSK5HSRUW
+\G1R
([B:6%
([B:6%
4FIV 4FIV
+\G1R<HDU

7LPHPLQ
+\G1R
584
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 74
+\GURJUDSK5HSRUW
+\G1R
([B:6&
([B:6&
4FIV 4FIV
+\G1R<HDU

7LPHPLQ
+\G1R
585
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 74
+\GURJUDSK5HSRUW
+\G1R
([B:6'
([B:6'
4FIV 4FIV
+\G1R<HDU

7LPHPLQ
+\G1R
586
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 74
+\GURJUDSK5HSRUW
+\G1R
([B:6(
&RPSRVLWH$UHD&1 >[@
([B:6(
4FIV 4FIV
+\G1R<HDU

7LPHPLQ
+\G1R
587
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 74
+\GURJUDSK5HSRUW
+\G1R
([B:6$
([B:6$
4FIV 4FIV
+\G1R<HDU

7LPHPLQ
+\G1R
588
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 74
+\GURJUDSK5HSRUW
+\G1R
([B:6%
([B:6%
4FIV 4FIV
+\G1R<HDU

7LPHPLQ
+\G1R
589
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 74
+\GURJUDSK5HSRUW
+\G1R
([B:6&
([B:6&
4FIV 4FIV
+\G1R<HDU

7LPHPLQ
+\G1R
590
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 74
+\GURJUDSK5HSRUW
+\G1R
([B:6'
([B:6'
4FIV 4FIV
+\G1R<HDU

7LPHPLQ
+\G1R
591
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 74
+\GURJUDSK5HSRUW
+\G1R
([B:6(
&RPSRVLWH$UHD&1 >[@
([B:6(
4FIV 4FIV
+\G1R<HDU

7LPHPLQ
+\G1R
592
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 74
+\GURJUDSK5HWXUQ3HULRG5HFDS
+\G +\GURJUDSK ,QIORZ 3HDN2XWIORZFIV +\GURJUDSK

1R W\SH K\GV 'HVFULSWLRQ
RULJLQ \U \U \U \U \U \U \U \U
6&65XQRII 35:DWHUVKHG$
6&65XQRII 35:DWHUVKHG%
6&65XQRII 35:DWHUVKHG&
6&65XQRII 35:DWHUVKHG'
5HVHUYRLU 2XWOHWV%DVLQ
3URMILOH3URSRVHG&DQLVLXV+6JSZ 7XHVGD\
593
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 74
+\GURJUDSK5HSRUW
+\G1R
35:DWHUVKHG$
35:DWHUVKHG$
4FIV 4FIV
+\G1R<HDU

7LPHPLQ
+\G1R
594
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 74
+\GURJUDSK5HSRUW
+\G1R
35:DWHUVKHG%
35:DWHUVKHG%
4FIV 4FIV
+\G1R<HDU

7LPHPLQ
+\G1R
595
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 74
757F:RUNVKHHW
+\G1R
35:DWHUVKHG%
6KHHW)ORZ
0DQQLQJ
VQYDOXH
)ORZOHQJWKIW
7ZR\HDUKUSUHFLSLQ
/DQGVORSH
7UDYHO7LPHPLQ
)ORZOHQJWKIW
:DWHUFRXUVHVORSH
$YHUDJHYHORFLW\IWV
7UDYHO7LPHPLQ
&KDQQHO)ORZ
:HWWHGSHULPHWHUIW
&KDQQHOVORSH
0DQQLQJ
VQYDOXH
9HORFLW\IWV

)ORZOHQJWKIW ^`
7UDYHO7LPHPLQ
596
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 74
+\GURJUDSK5HSRUW
+\G1R
35:DWHUVKHG&
35:DWHUVKHG&
4FIV 4FIV
+\G1R<HDU

7LPHPLQ
+\G1R
597
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 74
757F:RUNVKHHW
+\G1R
35:DWHUVKHG&
6KHHW)ORZ
0DQQLQJ
VQYDOXH
)ORZOHQJWKIW
7ZR\HDUKUSUHFLSLQ
/DQGVORSH
7UDYHO7LPHPLQ
)ORZOHQJWKIW
:DWHUFRXUVHVORSH
$YHUDJHYHORFLW\IWV
7UDYHO7LPHPLQ
&KDQQHO)ORZ
:HWWHGSHULPHWHUIW
&KDQQHOVORSH
0DQQLQJ
VQYDOXH
9HORFLW\IWV

)ORZOHQJWKIW ^`
7UDYHO7LPHPLQ
598
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 74
+\GURJUDSK5HSRUW
+\G1R
35:DWHUVKHG'
35:DWHUVKHG'
4FIV 4FIV
+\G1R<HDU

7LPHPLQ
+\G1R
599
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 74
757F:RUNVKHHW
+\G1R
35:DWHUVKHG'
6KHHW)ORZ
0DQQLQJ
VQYDOXH
)ORZOHQJWKIW
7ZR\HDUKUSUHFLSLQ
/DQGVORSH
7UDYHO7LPHPLQ
)ORZOHQJWKIW
:DWHUFRXUVHVORSH
$YHUDJHYHORFLW\IWV
7UDYHO7LPHPLQ
&KDQQHO)ORZ
:HWWHGSHULPHWHUIW
&KDQQHOVORSH
0DQQLQJ
VQYDOXH
9HORFLW\IWV

)ORZOHQJWKIW ^`
7UDYHO7LPHPLQ
600
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 74
+\GURJUDSK5HSRUW
+\G1R
2XWOHWV%DVLQ
+\GURJUDSKW\SH 5HVHUYRLU 3HDNGLVFKDUJH FIV
6WRUPIUHTXHQF\ \UV 7LPHWRSHDN QD
,QIORZK\G1R 35:DWHUVKHG% 0D[(OHYDWLRQ IW
5HVHUYRLUQDPH 0RGLILHG%DVLQ 0D[6WRUDJH FXIW
6WRUDJH,QGLFDWLRQPHWKRGXVHG
2XWOHWV%DVLQ
4FIV 4FIV
+\G1R<HDU

7LPHPLQ
+\G1R +\G1R 7RWDOVWRUDJHXVHG FXIW
601

3RQG5HSRUW
3RQG1R0RGLILHG%DVLQ
3RQG'DWD
&RQWRXUV8VHUGHILQHGFRQWRXUDUHDV$YHUDJHHQGDUHDPHWKRGXVHGIRUYROXPHFDOFXODWLRQ%HJLQLQJ(OHYDWLRQ IW
6WDJH6WRUDJH7DEOH
6WDJHIW (OHYDWLRQIW &RQWRXUDUHDVTIW ,QFU6WRUDJHFXIW 7RWDOVWRUDJHFXIW

&XOYHUW2ULILFH6WUXFWXUHV :HLU6WUXFWXUHV
>$@ >%@ >&@ >3UI5VU@ >$@ >%@ >&@ >'@
5LVHLQ ,QDFWLYH &UHVW/HQIW ,QDFWLYH
6SDQLQ &UHVW(OIW
1R%DUUHOV :HLU&RHII
,QYHUW(OIW :HLU7\SH
/HQJWKIW 0XOWL6WDJH <HV 1R 1R 1R
6ORSH QD
19DOXH QD
2ULILFH&RHII ([ILOLQKU E\:HWDUHD
0XOWL6WDJH QD 1R 1R 1R 7:(OHYIW
1RWH&XOYHUW2ULILFHRXWIORZVDUHDQDO\]HGXQGHULQOHWLFDQGRXWOHWRFFRQWURO:HLUULVHUVFKHFNHGIRURULILFHFRQGLWLRQVLFDQGVXEPHUJHQFHV

6WDJH6WRUDJH'LVFKDUJH7DEOH
6WDJH 6WRUDJH (OHYDWLRQ &OY$ &OY% &OY& 3UI5VU :U$ :U% :U& :U' ([ILO 8VHU 7RWDO
IW FXIW IW FIV FIV FIV FIV FIV FIV FIV FIV FIV FIV FIV

LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
&RQWLQXHVRQQH[WSDJH
602
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 74
0RGLILHG%DVLQ
6WDJH6WRUDJH'LVFKDUJH7DEOH
6WDJH 6WRUDJH (OHYDWLRQ &OY$ &OY% &OY& 3UI5VU :U$ :U% :U& :U' ([ILO 8VHU 7RWDO
IW FXIW IW FIV FIV FIV FIV FIV FIV FIV FIV FIV FIV FIV
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
RF
RF
RF
RF
RF
RF
RF
RF
RF
RF
RF
RF
RF
(QG
603
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 74
+\GURJUDSK5HSRUW
+\G1R
35:DWHUVKHG$
35:DWHUVKHG$
4FIV 4FIV
+\G1R<HDU

7LPHPLQ
+\G1R
604
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 74
+\GURJUDSK5HSRUW
+\G1R
35:DWHUVKHG%
35:DWHUVKHG%
4FIV 4FIV
+\G1R<HDU

7LPHPLQ
+\G1R
605
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 74
+\GURJUDSK5HSRUW
+\G1R
35:DWHUVKHG&
35:DWHUVKHG&
4FIV 4FIV
+\G1R<HDU

7LPHPLQ
+\G1R
606
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 74
+\GURJUDSK5HSRUW
+\G1R
35:DWHUVKHG'
35:DWHUVKHG'
4FIV 4FIV
+\G1R<HDU

7LPHPLQ
+\G1R
607
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 74
+\GURJUDSK5HSRUW
+\G1R
2XWOHWV%DVLQ
2XWOHWV%DVLQ
4FIV 4FIV
+\G1R<HDU

7LPHPLQ
608
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 74
+\GURJUDSK5HSRUW
+\G1R
35:DWHUVKHG$
35:DWHUVKHG$
4FIV 4FIV
+\G1R<HDU

7LPHPLQ
+\G1R
609
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 74
+\GURJUDSK5HSRUW
+\G1R
35:DWHUVKHG%
35:DWHUVKHG%
4FIV 4FIV
+\G1R<HDU

7LPHPLQ
+\G1R
610
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 74
+\GURJUDSK5HSRUW
+\G1R
35:DWHUVKHG&
35:DWHUVKHG&
4FIV 4FIV
+\G1R<HDU

7LPHPLQ
+\G1R
611
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 74
+\GURJUDSK5HSRUW
+\G1R
35:DWHUVKHG'
35:DWHUVKHG'
4FIV 4FIV
+\G1R<HDU

7LPHPLQ
+\G1R
612
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 74
+\GURJUDSK5HSRUW
+\G1R
2XWOHWV%DVLQ
2XWOHWV%DVLQ
4FIV 4FIV
+\G1R<HDU

7LPHPLQ
613
Exhibit “6” - Copy of Canisius Mtr - TA Owner Representative.pdf

Exhibit “6”
614
CANISIUS HIGH SCHOOL

JESUITPREPARATION
forCOLLEGE...FORLIFE
February 24, 2021
Town of West Seneca

Town Hall
1250 Union Road
CANISIUS HIGH SCHOOL

ROBERT J. STRANSKY MEMORIAL ATHLETIC COMPLEX PHASE THREE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
2885 CLINTON STREET
WEST SENECA, NEW YORK 14224
TA PROJECT 20020
LETTER OF AUTHORIZATION
Please accept this letter authorizing Mr. Brad Vaillancourt, Trautman Associates, to represent
Canisius High School in submitting the application for site plan review.
Sincerely,
Ma ew J. Carver
Vice President for Finance
1180DELAWARE AVENUE | BUFFALO, NY 14209 | 716.882.0466 | F 716.883.1870 | www.canisiushigh.org
615
Exhibit “7” - Copy of Canisius_monitoring plan_042922.pdf

Exhibit ³7´
616
April 29, 2022
Josalyn Ferguson, Ph.D.

Scientist Archaeology
New York State Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation
Peebles Island State Park, P.O. Box 189
Waterford, NY 12188
Re: OPRHP 21PR02923

Robert J. Stansky Memorial Complex Project – Development of 2 New Baseball Fields,
2885 Clinton Street, Town of West Seneca, Erie County, New York
Construction Monitoring Plan for Locus 3 (USN 02925.000562)
Dear Dr. Ferguson:
Tetra Tech, Inc. (Tetra Tech) has recently been contracted by Canisius High School (Canisius) to provide
archaeological monitoring while construction activities take place within Locus 3 of USN 02925.000562
(Canisius Site). Construction activities are part of the proposed Robert J. Stansky Memorial Complex
Project – Development of 2 New Baseball Fields (Project). The Project is located at 2885 Clinton Street,
Town of West Seneca, Erie County. Archaeological monitoring at Locus 3 is the culmination of Phase I
archaeological survey, Phase II archaeological site evaluations, and subsequent selected mechanical
stripping that took place across the portion of Locus 3 / USN 02925.000562 (Canisius Site) located
outside the Avoidance Area. The Avoidance Area, as determined by Phase II site evaluations, is a 13,552
ft2 area within Locus 3 that will continue to be avoided. Short and long-term avoidance/protection plans for
the Avoidance Area will be submitted under separate file. Attachment A includes Project location maps
and a Locus 3 site map showing the Avoidance Area.
In consultation with the New York State Historic Preservation Office (NY SHPO) of the Office of Parks,
Recreation, and Historic Preservation (OPRHP), the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation
(DEC), Seneca Nation of Indians, and Tonawanda Seneca Nation archaeological monitoring was
requested while construction activities are carried out within Locus 3 (USN 02925.000562). Tetra Tech’s
work plan for performance of the requested archaeological monitoring is described below.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL MONITORING DURING CONSTRUCTION
Tetra Tech has assembled a team for this Project with the professional capabilities and expertise to
design and implement any required archaeological investigations. The Project team includes Robert
Peltier, M.A. (Project Manager) and Robert Hanley, M.A. (Principal Investigator). Both archaeologists
meet OPRHP standards for consulting archaeologists as well as the Secretary of Interior’s Professional
Qualifications Standards (48 FR 44738-9). Archaeological investigations carried out for the Project have
been, and will continue to be, conducted in compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act of
1966, as amended; Executive Order 11593; the regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation (36 Code of Federal Regulations 800); Section 14.09 of the New York State Parks,
Recreation and Historic Preservation Law of 1980; and the New York Archaeological Council’s Standards
for Cultural Resource Investigations and Curation of Collections (1994).
7HWUD7HFK %XIIDOR
(OOLFRWW6WUHHW%XIIDOR1<
7HO )D[ ZZZWHWUDWHFKFRP
617
Archaeological monitoring is done in an archaeologically sensitive area or in a location with known

archaeological deposits to prevent disturbance of unkown archaeological features during construction.
Tetra Tech will perform archaeological monitoring during all soil disturbing activities carried out for the
Project within Locus 3 (USN 02925.000562 / Canisius Site). All findings of the archaeological monitoring
will be reported to the OPRHP, DEC, the Seneca Nation of Indians, and the Tonawanda Seneca Nation.
Fencing will be established and remain around the Avoidance Area until construction is completed. The
Avoided Area will be labeled “ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE – NO ACCESS” on all construction
plans.
Tetra Tech archaeologists will closely observe all excavation/construction activities in Locus 3. Tetra Tech
archaeologists will coordinate with Canisius and will be present on the Project site according to an agreed
upon schedule until it is determined that construction activities are completed within Locus 3. The
involved Indigenous Nations are invited to observe the archaeological construction monitoring and will be
given at minimum one (1) week notice and be provided with a daily/weekly schedule as appropriate.
The archaeologist will advise all project contractors to be on the alert for evidence of the presence of the
potential archaeological resources, of how to identify the evidence of the potential archaeological
resources, and of the appropriate protocol in the event of apparent discovery of an archaeological
resource. Tetra Tech archaeologists and contractors will be aware that potential archaeological resources
may include subsurface indigenous features such as post molds, hearths, storage pits, burial shafts,
human remains, foundations associated with the Buffalo Creek Reservation, etc. Prior to construction,
Tetra Tech archaeologists will discuss with construction personnel the overall archaeological sensitivity of
Locus 3, the potential for construction activities to impact Indigenous burials and significant cultural
features, and the goals of the archaeological monitoring at Locus 3. Should a work stoppage be required,
Tetra Tech archaeologists will guide the excavator-operator using standard hand signals for construction
sites (Attachment B).
If a subsurface archaeological feature is encountered, the Tetra Tech archaeologist will stop all
excavation/construction activity in the vicinity of the find until the feature is evaluated.
FEATURE ANALYSIS
It can be expected that subsurface features may contain dateable organic materials, as well as additional
diagnostic artifacts. If subsurface cultural features exist, Tetra Tech will determine the function of these
features and the activities they reflect (i.e., food processing and consumption, storage, structures, etc.).
The recovery of faunal and floral remains will be essential for the interpretation of subsistence practices
and seasonality. Therefore, flotation samples and, when possible, radiocarbon samples will be taken from
the feature. Faunal analysis will be directed toward addressing questions related to subsistence patterns,
site seasonality, and activity areas for the indigenous component, as well as identifying foodways and
how they relate to changes in landscape, lifeways, and consumption habits at the site. Counts and
weights of identified faunal remains can be used to calculate the minimum number of individuals and
reconstruct the diet. Analysis of botanical remains recovered from feature contexts should reveal the
utilization of specific plant resources. Analysis of this data be extrapolated into further understanding and
refining models of indigenous settlement and subsistence in western New York and the Niagara frontier
region.
Identified subsurface cultural features may also require indigenous pottery and/or lithic analyses. As with
previous investigations carried out at the site, the analysis of lithic debitage and tools recovered from
potential features will focus primarily on two variabilities – lithic reduction technology and raw material
management and procurement strategies. Lithic reduction analysis will focus on stone tool manufacturing
technologies through debitage and tool analyses as it relates to overall site function. Additionally, the type
of raw materials present within the assemblage, the presence of specific tool forms, and the proximity of

618
the raw material source can suggest models of mobility and lithic management. The analysis of these
strategies can contribute to interpretation of site function and subsistence strategies within the region. If
identified, analysis of indigenous ceramics will include descriptions in terms of sherd attributes, including
metric variables (sherd length, width, and thickness) and qualitative characteristics (location on the vessel
[i.e., rim sherd vs. body sherd]; type of temper; and a description of decoration and/or surface treatment).
Some attributes of pottery, such as method of decoration, vessel form, and surface treatments can
provide information concerning the general age of a vessel. Lithic and ceramic analysis will be conducted
following principals, techniques, and goals such as those presented in Andrefsky (2001; 2005),
Engelbrecht (1980), and Rice (1987).
All subsurface cultural features encountered during monitoring will be plotted with a GPS (sub-meter
accuracy) and mapped according to their location in relation to the site grid. Features will be bisected and
half the feature will be collected for flotation, while the other half will be excavated by strata inherent to
the feature or, if un-stratified, in arbitrary 5.0-cm levels and screened through 1/4-inch hardware screen.
The profile will be mapped and photographed. Upon consultation with the OPRHP, soil samples will be
forwarded to Tetra Tech’s archaeobotanical consultant Justine McKnight for flotation and analysis of plant
macro-remains and taxonomic identification of all recovered botanical and carbon samples. Floral
analysis will be directed toward defining the floristic environment, subsistence patterns, site seasonality,
and activity areas at the site. Floral analysis will include the distribution, counts and weights or relative
densities (as appropriate), and the ubiquity of the recovered floral remains.
If present, charcoal or other organic samples will be collected for radiocarbon dating. Once obtained, the
appropriate number and locations of such samples will be determined in consultation with the OPRHP for
submittal for radiocarbon analysis. Carbon samples will be sent to Beta-Analytic, Inc. (Coral Gables,
Florida) for radiometric dating. Samples too small for standard C-14 methods will be submitted for
accelerator mass spectrometry dating. Radiocarbon dating results will refine the site’s chronology.
In the event that human remains are encountered during monitoring, Tetra Tech will follow the OPRHP’s
Human Remains Discovery Protocol as well as the Haudenosaunee Human Remains Discovery Protocol,
both included in Attachment C (Human Remains Discovery Protocol). Tetra Tech will also contact
subconsultant bioarchaeologist Elizabeth Smith, M.S. (SUNY UB) in the event faunal or human remains
are discovered. Resumes of key personnel are included in Attachment D.
ANALYSIS AND REPORTING
Results of the archaeological monitoring will be submitted to the OPRHP within three (3) months of the
completion of construction and monitoring. Should feature analysis be required, these results will be
included, along with the results of the recent mechanical stripping, in the revised/finalized Phase II
Archaeological Site Evaluations report. As previously determined by agency review, the final Phase II
Archaeological Site Evaluations report will be submitted to the OPRHP no later than six (6) months
(October 2022).
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me by telephone 716-510-9115 or by e-mail at
rob.peltier@tetratech.com. We are looking forward to working with everyone on this project.
Sincerely,
Tetra Tech, Inc.
Robert J. Peltier

619
Cultural Resources Project Manager
Attachment A: Project Location on USGS Topographic Map and on Recent Aerial

Attachment B: Protocols for Consultation and Communication in the Field
Attachment C: OPRHP and Haudenosaunee Human Remains Discovery Protocol
Attachment D: Resumes of Key Personnel
REFERENCES
Andrefsky, William Jr.

2001 Lithic Debitage: Context, Form, Meaning, Second Edition. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake
City.
2005 Lithics: Macroscopic Approaches to Analysis, Second Edition. Cambridge University Press,
New York.
Engelbrecht, William
1980 “Methods and Aims of Ceramic Description.” In Proceedings of the 1979 Iroquois Pottery
Conference, edited by Charles F. Hayes, pp. 27-29. Research Records No. 13. Rochester
Museum and Science Center, Rochester, NY.
New York Archaeological Council (NYAC)

1994 Standards for Cultural Resource Investigations and Curation of Collections.
Rice, Prudence M.
1987 Pottery Analysis: A Sourcebook. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

620
ATTACHMENT A
Project Location Maps

621
Legend

Previous

OPRHP Project No. Project Location

05PR05151
03'97
ERIE NY
03'97
03'97 PA
NJ

G:\GIS_files\Camp_Lejeune\GeoData\TT_Wet\MXD\Report\FP_Area_1\Figure5-8x11.mxd
0 500 1,000
Feet
Figure
*MKYVI 4VSNIGX 1. 'ERMWMYW 7MXI
ERH
Site Location
0SGM 972
Canisius Athletic Field
)VMI 'SYRX] 2=
Erie County, NY
Prepared By: Date:

06/10/2021
Base Map;
ESRI USA Topo Maps
Buffalo SE USGS Quad Buffalo SE, NY
Coordinate System: NY State Plane Feet West
622
Legend

Previous

346,44VSNIGX2S
46
Project Location
03'97
ERIE NY
PA
NJ
03'97
03'97
G:\GIS_files\Camp_Lejeune\GeoData\TT_Wet\MXD\Report\FP_Area_1\Figure5-8x11.mxd

0 250 500
Feet
*MKYVI %IVMEP :MI[

Figure 2. SJ XLI 4VSNIGX
ERH
XLI 'ERMWMYW
Aerial
7MXI 0SGM

Canisius Athletic
972 Field

Erie County,
)VMI 'SYRX] NY2=
Prepared By: Date:

06/10/2021
Base Map;
ESRI USA World Imagery
Imagery date: 11/08/2020
Coordinate System: NY State Plane Feet West
623
- o 'O o o o "
\ \
'
O
.
'
Mech
-75
O 6 o o Stripp
Loca
(STRIP
-90m
I \ \ \ traw mp Ing Feature 4 - rock cluster; no ch
Feature 5 - thermal feature
% Feature 6 - post mold
Feature 7 - post mold
Feature 8 - possible post mol
-105m
* Note- Features
1-3wereidentified
wi
ons ruction Pla
Legend Phase I Shovel Test (ST) Phase I & II

Ca
Project Area
" osi i e Ind genous ST
Locus 3 Boundary " Positive Historic ST
-
Prepared
A Site datum (0N OE) Phase II ST
For:
Phase II Test Unit O Negative ST o 7.5 15
(#) Prepared
" Positive Indigenous ST Meters
" Post Mold Thermal Feature 0---4-20 By:
O Positive Historic ST Feet
624
ATTACHMENT B
Protocols for Consultation and Communication in the Field

625
STANDARD HAND SIGNALS
u nEu ) (Thum down (R4a o moBost)
m I e p s down (Pa Ide d Pa m sid

use pincMng motion Use pinching m
TRAVEL- HORIZONTAL MOVEMENTS STOP " TRAVEL

FORWARD
(R so - site (Hands high over head)
p
1. These Standard Hand Signals will apply to most operations where signals may be required.
2. Hand Signals win be given by One Man to avoid confusion of the operator.
3. When two or utore operators are Involved, point to the operator for whom the signal is intended.
626
ATTACHMENT C
OPRHP and Haudenosaunee Human Remains Discovery Protocol

627
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 76
Haudenosaunee Policies Human Remains RECEIVED
Page 1 of NYSCEF:
4 09/09/2022
Note:
. From Kanatiyosh. The policies

contain statements that are
important to insure cultural
sensitivity towards the
Haudenosaunce. The
The Haudenosaunee Policies on this statements are evidence of
page are the official word of the why some school projects,
museums, private collections,

Haudenosaunee as
Confederacy
seHers, governments, and
promulgated by the Grand Council of
etc., are not being culturally
Chiefs concerning cultural patrimony & sensitive or respectful to the
repatriation. Haudenosaunce.
Aaudenosaunee Policy on Human Remains
Haudenosaunee Beliefs
We have been taught that we bury our dead into the ground so that their
bodies can become part of the scared Earth. We believe that we come from
the Mother Earth and that the human remains that rest within the Earth
are an important spiritual connection to the spirit of the Earth. The Earth is
enriched the dead as our flesh becomes part of the soil.

by
The souls of the dead have a path of destiny that they must follow. We
refer to this as their journey after life. In this way, we feel that the dead
arearound usand hoveroverusas
we hold ceremonies or dances. We believe that the dead have power and it is
dangerous to neglect the spiritual needs of the dead.
The protection of the human remains and associated graves, sacred burial
sites and rel¬ted objects fronrthe graves of the Haudendsduñëë ore the
responsibility of each generation of chiefs, clan mothers, and faithkeepers.
We believe that the remains, the associated burial objectsand the actual
soil in which they rest is sacred. There is no acceptable excuses to justify

the desecration of this sacred burial.
Violation of Our Spiritual Rights
http://www.peace4turtleisland.org/pages/humanremains.htm 1/9/2009
628
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 76
Page 2 of NYSCEF:
4 09/09/2022
Removing the remains from their eternal resting place is a great desecration
to both the dead and the living. The disturbance, destruction, and theft of
the dead is a violation of the religious and spiritual welfare of the
Haudenosaunee.
As long as the human remains are disturbed, there will be spiritual
consequences to our people. The desecration of the graves of our ancestors,
no matter what the age of the burial, is a violation of our religious freedom.
Permits issued by the State of New York or any other local government, to
allow anyone
to violate the of the graves of our ancestors can no longer be

sanctity
tolerated. In the past, our ancestors buried objects with the
many along
body with the belief that in the afterlife,
you will need all of those things that you need in this life.
All types of objects have been associated with burials, including decorated
clothing,glass beads, shell beads,silver combs, tools and weapons ceramic
and metal cooking pots, wampum belts, strings of wampum,and a variety of
personal items. The removal of these objects from the grave is a theft from
the dead.
Violation of Our Human Rights .
resources"
The remains of our dead are not "archaeological that are
subjects of study. are human beings who once lived on this land.
They They
had real lives and feelings. had
They
spiritual expectations about their final resting places. To look at Native
Peoples as objects rather than people is a gross violation of our human
rights.
All graves and burial sites, Native or not, deserve respect. our dead
relatives deserve the basic human right to a dignified burial. We do not
believe in the use of permanent headstones-to mark graves of our ancestors
and state law makes a difference between cemeteries and unmarked burials.
Our burial sites deserve to be considered hallowed ground, whether they are
629
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 76
Page 3 of NYSCEF:
4 09/09/2022
marked or not. There has been a double standard in dealing with our people
and non-Native remains. Non-Native grave sites are often afforded more
protection than Native burials.
Despite the efforts of state agencies to identify Native grave locations,
construction permits are issued nonetheless. Our dead deserve the same
right to an eternal resting place as all other races and religions.
Violation of Our Treaty Rights
The unearthing of the remains of our ancestors from their eternal resting
place is also a violation of the promises made to the Haudenosaunee under
the terms of the Canandaigua
Treaty of 1794. By that treaty, the United States, including the State of
"disturb"
New York, promised not to the Haudenosaunee in the free use and
enjoyment of their lands.
We have been on record protesting the desecration of our graves. The
continual destruction of Native graves, the stealing of the Native remains
and the looting of burial objects causes us serious mental, emotional, and
spiritual harm.
Our people are continually upset by these events and we have been forced to
adjust our spiritual traditions to accommodate outside developments. The
desecration of our dead violates the mutual respect promised the United
by
States as pledged a firm and permanent friendship between our
they
peoples.
The treaty also promised to remove the cause of complaint that upsets our
peace. We therefore make it clear that the desecration of the graves of our
ancestors causes great harm to our people and the United States and State
of New York have an obligation to protect the general welfare of our people
as promised in the binding treaties.

legally
630
.4.7 Protocol for Handling Discovery of Human Remains
Known Burials Unidentified Burials
When to contact?. Intentional excavation Inadvertent Discovery .

At the earliest tilIe in Upon discovery.
decisipn-making process.
Which Nation to contact? If find is wi.thin existing Nation boundary, contact that Nation's Cultural .
Resource relpresentatives
If the find is within the traditional Jand use area (fifty mile radius from the .
current nation territory, contact the closest Nation's Cultural Resource

Representative.
If the fiild is within the aboriginal territory of eachIation, as shown on the
. attached map, contact the Nation within that territory. For finds located within
fifty miles on either side of the boundary lines shown on the map, contact the
Cultural Resource Representatives of both Nations.
'
Who to contaet? Haudenosaunee Cultural Haudenosaunee Cultural
. Resource Representatives Resoui·ce kepresentatives
HSCBRR. HSCBRR
How to contact? Contact list is provided.
.Information Required Brief description of the find or potential find; site map and any information on
the known cultural history of the area and summary of nearby archaeological .
findings.
Nation will send a representative Company must hire.a Native American.
to review the site. on-site observer.
Next steps'. Non-disturbance of burials is preferred.
. If after proper consultation, the remains must be removed, we 15refer to have

theiti reburied close to their original location as possible, provided the future
sanctity of the grave can be assured. No remains should be.removed withòut

proper citltural protocols.
If no safe local burial ground can be offered, the Haudenosaunee will reclaim
the remains for reburial at an undisclosed location. The local government /state
agency/developer must pay all of the costs for such reburial.
All objects associated with the original burial must be reburied as well. All of
the soil in the immediate area of the burial should also be placed in the new
grave.
Tiine Fraine . 30 to 45 days As soon as possible

.._________....-..._.....___________.........____________-..--...........-----..._________.....--............______________.............______.....---.._L_______-...
2002 © Intellectual Rights of the Grand Council of the Haudenosaunee - Text cannot
Property
be used without the written consent of the Grand Council of the Haudeilosaunee.
631
6WDWH+LVWRULF3UHVHUYDWLRQ2IILFH
1HZ<RUN6WDWH2IILFHRI3DUNV5HFUHDWLRQDQG+LVWRULF3UHVHUYDWLRQ
+XPDQ5HPDLQV'LVFRYHU\3URWRFRO
-DQXDU\

,IKXPDQUHPDLQVDUHHQFRXQWHUHGGXULQJFRQVWUXFWLRQRUDUFKDHRORJLFDOLQYHVWLJDWLRQVWKH1HZ
<RUN6WDWH+LVWRULF3UHVHUYDWLRQ2IILFH6+32UHFRPPHQGVWKDWWKHIROORZLQJSURWRFROLV
LPSOHPHQWHG

x +XPDQUHPDLQVVKDOOEHWUHDWHGZLWKGLJQLW\DQGUHVSHFW6KRXOGKXPDQUHPDLQVRUVXVSHFWHG
KXPDQUHPDLQVEHHQFRXQWHUHGZRUNLQWKHJHQHUDODUHDRIWKHGLVFRYHU\VKDOOVWRS
LPPHGLDWHO\DQGWKHORFDWLRQVKDOOEHVHFXUHGDQGSURWHFWHGIURPGDPDJHDQGGLVWXUEDQFH

x ,IVNHOHWDOUHPDLQVDUHLGHQWLILHGDQGWKHDUFKDHRORJLVWLVQRWDEOHWRFRQFOXVLYHO\GHWHUPLQHLI
WKH\DUHKXPDQWKHUHPDLQVDQGDQ\DVVRFLDWHGPDWHULDOVVKDOOEHOHIWLQSODFH$TXDOLILHG
IRUHQVLFDQWKURSRORJLVWELRDUFKDHRORJLVWRUSK\VLFDODQWKURSRORJLVWVKDOODVVHVVWKHUHPDLQVLQ
VLWXWRKHOSGHWHUPLQHLIWKH\DUHKXPDQ

x ,IWKHUHPDLQVDUHGHWHUPLQHGWREHKXPDQODZHQIRUFHPHQWWKH6+32WKHDSSURSULDWH,QGLDQ
1DWLRQVDQGWKHLQYROYHGVWDWHDQGIHGHUDODJHQFLHVVKDOOEHQRWLILHGLPPHGLDWHO\,IODZ
HQIRUFHPHQWGHWHUPLQHVWKDWWKHEXULDOVLWHLVQRWDFULPLQDOPDWWHUQRVNHOHWDOUHPDLQVRU
DVVRFLDWHGPDWHULDOVVKDOOEHUHPRYHGXQWLODSSURSULDWHFRQVXOWDWLRQWDNHVSODFH

x ,IKXPDQUHPDLQVDUHGHWHUPLQHGWREH1DWLYH$PHULFDQWKH\VKDOOEHOHIWLQSODFHDQG
SURWHFWHGIURPIXUWKHUGLVWXUEDQFHXQWLODSODQIRUWKHLUDYRLGDQFHRUUHPRYDOLVGHYHORSHG
3OHDVHQRWHWKDWDYRLGDQFHLVWKHSUHIHUUHGRSWLRQRIWKH6+32DQGWKH,QGLDQ1DWLRQV7KH
LQYROYHGDJHQF\VKDOOFRQVXOW6+32DQGWKHDSSURSULDWH,QGLDQ1DWLRQVWRGHYHORSDSODQRI
DFWLRQ3KRWRJUDSKVRI1DWLYH$PHULFDQKXPDQUHPDLQVDQGDVVRFLDWHGPDWHULDOVVKRXOGQRWEH
WDNHQZLWKRXWFRQVXOWLQJZLWKWKHLQYROYHG,QGLDQ1DWLRQV

x ,IKXPDQUHPDLQVDUHGHWHUPLQHGWREHQRQ1DWLYH$PHULFDQWKHUHPDLQVVKDOOEHOHIWLQSODFH
DQGSURWHFWHGIURPIXUWKHUGLVWXUEDQFHXQWLODSODQIRUWKHLUDYRLGDQFHRUUHPRYDOLVGHYHORSHG
3OHDVHQRWHWKDWDYRLGDQFHLVWKHSUHIHUUHGRSWLRQRIWKH6+327KHLQYROYHGDJHQF\VKDOO
FRQVXOW6+32DQGRWKHUDSSURSULDWHSDUWLHVWRGHYHORSDSODQRIDFWLRQ

x 7KH6+32UHFRPPHQGVWKDWEXULDOLQIRUPDWLRQLVQRWUHOHDVHGWRWKHSXEOLFWRSURWHFWEXULDO
VLWHVIURPSRVVLEOHORRWLQJ

'LYLVLRQIRU+LVWRULF3UHVHUYDWLRQ

32%R[:DWHUIRUG1HZ<RUNZZZQ\VSDUNVFRP

632
ATTACHMENT D
Resumes of Key Personnel

633
Robert Peltier, RPA

Principal Investigator/Project Manager
EXPERIENCE SUMMARY EDUCATION
Mr. Peltier meets the Secretary of Interior qualifications for consulting archaeologist and 0$+LVWRULF3UHVHUYDWLRQ
architectural historian. He is a Registered Professional Archaeologist and is fully *RXFKHU&ROOHJH7RZVRQ0'
qualified to conduct Phase I-III review and compliance/contracting projects, reporting,
and site monitoring for local, state, and Federal agencies and industrial and commercial %$$QWKURSRORJ\$UFKDHRORJ\
businesses. He has served as Project Manager/Principal Investigator on numerous PLQRU$PHULFDQ6WXGLHV6WDWH
archaeological investigations, either for NHPA Section 106 historic preservation 8QLYHUVLW\RI1HZ<RUN%XIIDOR
compliance, NEPA, or conducting academic research and has authored numerous 1<
cultural resource reports. Mr. Peltier has also served as Principal Investigator for
numerous historic resources studies, involving architectural and historic property AREA OF EXPERTISE
inventory evaluations, viewshed analysis, NRHP eligibility assessments, and
HABS/HAER recordation. With over 19 years of experience performing cultural $UFKDHRORJ\
resources studies throughout the Northeast, Great Lakes, and Southern Plains, Mr. +LVWRULF3UHVHUYDWLRQ
Peltier’s research interests and specialties include Iroquoian studies, pre-contact $UFKLWHFWXUDO+LVWRU\
settlement patterning and subsistence studies, and early 19th century Mennonite
architecture and settlement patterning throughout western New York. REGISTRATIONS/
AFFILIATIONS
RELEVANT EXPERIENCE
5HJLVWHURI3URIHVVLRQDO
Pennsylvania Pipeline Project and Ohio Pipeline Project, Sunoco Logistics, L.P. $UFKDHRORJLVWV
(2016-present). Cultural Resources Project Manager for 54-mile and 306-mile natural
gas liquids pipelines from Scio, Harrison County, OH to Houston, Washington County, TRAINING/CERTIFICATIONS
PA and from Houston, PA to Sunoco Logistics, L.P. Marcus Hook facility in Delaware
County, Pennsylvania. Served as Co-Principal Investigator of a multi-disciplinary team
KRXU+$=:23(5
of cultural resource specialists included archaeologists, architectural historians,
anthropologists, and geomorphologists. KRXU26+$&RQVWUXFWLRQ
Proposed Hecate Green Solar Facility, Hecate LLC. (2017-present). Principal 6HFWLRQ1(3$&RPSOLDQFH
Investigator for cultural resource survey (Phase I) and historic sites inventory for a for a 7UDLQLQJ
proposed 900+ acre solar facility development, in the Town of Coxsackie, Greene
County, NY, permitted under Article 10 process. Cultural resources assessment %XVLQHVVRI&50&RQWUDFWLQJDQG
included archival research on previous land use in the form of written and oral histories, 3URMHFW0DQDJHPHQW
aerial photographs, property tax files, USGS topographic maps, historic maps and the +HDOWK 6DIHW\IRU&50
archives and records at various agencies and depositories, surface and subsurface
3URIHVVLRQDOV
archaeological investigations, the processing and analysis of prehistoric and historic
artifacts, and historic properties evaluations.
OFFICE
Proposed Hecate Coeymans Solar Facility, Hecate LLC. (2017-present). Principal
Investigator for cultural resource survey (Phase I) and historic sites inventory for a for a
%XIIDOR1HZ<RUN
proposed 700+ acre solar facility development, in the Town of Coeymans, Albany
YEARS OF EXPERIENCE
County, NY, permitted under Article 10 process. Cultural resources assessment
included archival research on previous land use in the form of written and oral histories,
aerial photographs, property tax files, USGS topographic maps, historic maps and the \HDUV&50
archives and records at various agencies and depositories, surface and subsurface
archaeological investigations, the processing and analysis of prehistoric and historic YEARS WITHIN FIRM
7HWUD7HFKVWDUWGDWH
Lockridge Extension 30-inch Pipeline Project, Natural Gas Pipeline Company of
America, LLC. (2019). Principal Investigator for 20.6 miles of pipeline looping and CONTACT
associated above ground facilities in Reeves, Ward, and Pecos Counties, Texas.
Project involved cultural resources assessment, Resource Report No. 4 and FERC URESHOWLHU#WHWUDWHFKFRP
filing. Cultural resources assessments included archival research on previous land use RIILFH
in the form of written and oral histories, aerial photographs, property tax files, USGS
topographic maps, historic maps and the archives and records at various agencies and FHOO
1
634
Robert Peltier, RPA
depositories, surface and subsurface archaeological investigations, and the processing and analysis of prehistoric and historic
artifacts. The Project also involved a historic properties evaluation and viewshed analysis.
Texas Gulf Coast Header Pipeline 48-inch Pipeline Project, Texas Gulf Coast Header, LLC. (2019-2020). Principal
Investigator for 44 miles of intrastate natural gas pipeline and associated above ground facilities in Nueces and San Patricio
counties, Texas. Project involved USACE-Galveston District, Texas Historical Commission, and Tribal Historic Preservation
Office(s) consultation and coordination. Cultural resources assessments included archival research on previous land use in the
form of written and oral histories, aerial photographs, property tax files, USGS topographic maps, historic maps and the archives
and records at various agencies and depositories, surface and subsurface archaeological investigations, and the processing
and analysis of prehistoric and historic artifacts. The Project also involved a historic properties evaluation and viewshed analysis.
Sweden Valley FERC Filing Project, Dominion Transmission, Inc. (2017). Authored Resource Report 6 (Geological
Resources) for the Sweden Valley Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) 7 (c) Filing Project. The Project was located
in Ohio and Pennsylvania with multiple pieces of pipeline and associated facility work. The Project consisted of the placement
of new pipeline and upgrades at existing facilities.
Proposed Dryden Road Solar Photovoltaic Plant Project, SUN8 PDC LLC. (2017). Principal Investigator for cultural resource
survey (Phase I) and historic sites inventory for a for a proposed 157-acre solar facility development, in the Town of Dryden,
Tompkins County, NY. Cultural resources assessment included archival research on previous land use in the form of written
and oral histories, aerial photographs, property tax files, USGS topographic maps, historic maps and the archives and records
at various agencies and depositories, surface and subsurface archaeological investigations, the processing and analysis of
prehistoric and historic artifacts, and historic properties evaluations.
Proposed Ellis Tract Solar Photovoltaic Plant Project, SUN8 PDC LLC. (2017). Principal Investigator for cultural resource
survey (Phase I) and historic sites inventory for a for a proposed 168-acre solar facility development, in the Town of Dryden,
Tompkins County, NY. Cultural resources assessment included archival research on previous land use in the form of written
FCC Communications Tower Project, Chevron (2018) Principal Investigator for cultural resource survey, including
archaeological assessment and historic property evaluation and sites inventory for two proposed FCC communication towers –
HHTX Russel Trust Tower (Loving County, TX) and Loving Tower (Eddy County, NM). Cultural resources assessment included
archival research on previous land use in the form of written and oral histories, aerial photographs, property tax files, USGS
topographic maps, historic maps and the archives and records at various agencies and depositories, surface and subsurface
archaeological investigations, and historic properties evaluations. Consulted and coordinated with the FCC, TX and NM
SHPO, and Tribal Historic Preservation Office involvement.
Multiple Proposed Solar Photovoltaic Plant Projects, ForeFront Power, LLC. (2017-2019). Principal Investigator for cultural
resource surveys (Phase I) and historic sites inventories for multiple ForeFront solar facilities across western and central NY.
Cultural resources assessment included archival research on previous land use in the form of written and oral histories, aerial
photographs, property tax files, USGS topographic maps, historic maps and the archives and records at various agencies and
depositories, surface and subsurface archaeological investigations, the processing and analysis of prehistoric and historic
Multiple Proposed Solar Photovoltaic Plant Projects, NextEra Energy Resources, LLC. (2018-present). Principal
Investigator for cultural resource surveys (Phase I and phase II) and historic sites inventories for multiple NextEra Energy solar
facilities across western and central NY. Cultural resources assessment included archival research on previous land use in the
form of written and oral histories, aerial photographs, property tax files, USGS topographic maps, historic maps and the archives
and records at various agencies and depositories, surface and subsurface archaeological investigations, the processing and
analysis of prehistoric and historic artifacts, and historic properties evaluations.
Orion Extension 36-inch Pipeline Project, Kinder Morgan (2016-2018). Principal Investigator for 12.93 miles of pipeline
looping and modifications to three compressor stations in Wayne and Pike Counties, Pennsylvania. Project involved cultural
resources assessment, Resource Report No. 4 and FERC filing. Cultural resources assessments included archival research on
previous land use in the form of written and oral histories, aerial photographs, property tax files, USGS topographic maps, historic
maps and the archives and records at various agencies and depositories, surface and subsurface archaeological investigations,
and the processing and analysis of prehistoric and historic artifacts. The Project also involved a historic properties evaluation
and viewshed analysis.
Susquehanna West 36-inch Pipeline Project, Kinder Morgan (2016-2019). Principal Investigator for 8.1 miles of pipeline
looping and modifications to three compressor stations in Bradford and Tioga Counties, Pennsylvania. Project involved cultural
635
Robert Peltier, RPA
included archival research on previous land use in the form of written and oral histories, aerial photographs, property tax files,
USGS topographic maps, historic maps and the archives and records at various agencies and depositories, surface and
subsurface archaeological investigations, the processing and analysis of prehistoric and historic artifacts, and historic properties
evaluations.
Reinecke Pipeline, Kinder Morgan (2015). Principal Investigator for an approximately 14.8-mile long pipeline in Borden and
Scurry Counties, Texas. Cultural resources assessments included archival research on previous land use in the form of written
Bobcat Pipeline Project, Western Pipeline (2015). Principal Investigator for an approximately 37-mile long pipeline in Loving
and Winkler Counties, Texas. Cultural resources assessments included archival research on previous land use in the form of
written and oral histories, aerial photographs, property tax files, USGS topographic maps, historic maps and the archives and
records at various agencies and depositories, surface and subsurface archaeological investigations, the processing and analysis
of prehistoric and historic artifacts, and historic properties evaluations.
SUNVIT Midland to Garden City 20-inch Pipeline Project, Sunoco Logistics, L.P (2015). Principal Investigator for an
extension and reroutes for an approximately 59-mile long pipeline in Midland and Glasscock Counties, Texas. Cultural resources
assessments included archival research on previous land use in the form of written and oral histories, aerial photographs,
property tax files, USGS topographic maps, historic maps and the archives and records at various agencies and depositories,
surface and subsurface archaeological investigations, the processing and analysis of prehistoric and historic artifacts, and
historic properties evaluations.
636
* -/ѵ )' 4Ѷ

)$*--# *'*"$./ҝ-$)$+'
)1 ./$"/*-

0/$*)
5REHUW+DQOH\KDVVHUYHGDVD6HQLRU$UFKDHRORJLVWDQG3ULQFLSDO,QYHVWLJDWRU 0$$UFKDHRORJ\6WDWH
IRU RYHU \HDUV DQG KDV \HDUV RI H[SHULHQFH LQ SUHFRQWDFW 1DWLYH 8QLYHUVLW\RI1HZ<RUN$OEDQ\
$PHULFDQ DQG KLVWRULF SHULRG DUFKDHRORJ\ +H KDV EHHQ D 5HJLVWHUHG 1<
3URIHVVLRQDO $UFKDHRORJLVW VLQFH DQG KDV SDUWLFLSDWHG LQ FXOWXUDO
%$$QWKURSRORJ\$UFKDHRORJ\
UHVRXUFHVLQYHVWLJDWLRQVWKURXJKRXWWKH1RUWKHDVWHUQ8QLWHG6WDWHVLQFOXGLQJ
PLQRU*HRORJ\6WDWH8QLYHUVLW\
WKH 6WDWHV RI 1HZ <RUN 3HQQV\OYDQLD 1HZ -HUVH\ 9LUJLQLD 0DU\ODQG
RI1HZ<RUN&ROOHJHDW%XIIDOR
&RQQHFWLFXWDQG5KRGH,VODQG+H¶VDOVRFRQGXFWHGILHOGZRUNLQRWKHUSDUWVRI
1<
WKH 8QLWHG 6WDWHV LQFOXGLQJ ,RZD ,OOLQRLV DQG 7H[DV DV ZHOO DV WKH 86
7HUULWRULHVRI3XHUWR5LFRDQG6W&URL[RIWKH869, - *!3+ -/$.
0U +DQOH\ KDV DXWKRUHG RU FRDXWKRUHG PRUH WKDQ FXOWXUDO UHVRXUFHV - *)//-# *'*"4
PDQDJHPHQW UHSRUWV 3KDVH ,,,,,, IRU YDULRXV FOLHQWV LQFOXGLQJ WKH (PSLUH 0'/0-' .*0- )" ( )/
6WDWH 3LSHOLQH &RPSDQ\ :LOOLDPV *DV 3LSHOLQH 1DWLRQDO )XHO 86 $UP\
&RUSVRI(QJLQHHUV1HZ<RUN6WDWH'HSDUWPHQWRI7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ,QYHQHUJ\ "$./-/$*).ҝ
6WDQWHFDPRQJRWKHUVDVZHOODVQXPHURXVPXQLFLSDOLWLHVDQGSULYDWHVHFWRU !!$'$/$*).
RUJDQL]DWLRQV +H KDV VHUYHG DV WKH DUFKDHRORJLFDO SULQFLSDO LQYHVWLJDWRU RQ
ODUJHVFDOH SURMHFWV LQFOXGLQJ SLSHOLQHFRUULGRU DQG KLJKZD\ SURMHFWV ZLQG 5HJLVWHURI3URIHVVLRQDO
HQHUJ\ GHYHORSPHQW SURMHFWV VRODU SRZHU GHYHORSPHQW SURMHFWV ZDWHUIURQW $UFKDHRORJLVWV53$
GHYHORSPHQWPLOLWDU\LQVWDOODWLRQVPXQLFLSDOSURMHFWVHJZDWHUDQGVDQLWDU\ 1HZ<RUN6WDWH$UFKDHRORJLFDO
VHZHUDQGFRPPHUFLDODQGSULYDWHGHYHORSPHQWSURMHFWV $VVRFLDWLRQ+RXJKWRQ&KDSWHU
+H DOVR KDV H[WHQVLYH H[SHULHQFH GLUHFWLQJ DQG LPSOHPHQWLQJ D 6RFLHW\IRU$PHULFDQ$UFKDHRORJ\

FRPSUHKHQVLYH DUUD\ RI ILHOG PHWKRGRORJLHV SHUWLQHQW WR FXOWXUDO UHVRXUFH
-$)$)"ҝ -/$!$/$*).
LQYHVWLJDWLRQV LQFOXGLQJ GHYHORSLQJ UHVHDUFK VHQVLWLYLW\ GHVLJQVSUHGLFWLYH
PRGHOLQJ GLUHFWLQJ ILHOG LQYHVWLJDWLRQV DQG SUHSDULQJ GHWDLOHG ZULWWHQ җсппрҊ+- . )/Ҙ
GLVFXVVLRQV RI ILHOGZRUN VLWH LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ DQG DVVHVVPHQWV RI FXOWXUDO
VLJQLILFDQFH упҊ *0-*)/($)/ $/
'/#о! /4-$)$)"*0-.

җспптҘ
-# *'*"4$ '#**'ѷ/*)
) -"4җ 2*-&Ҙ $/ Ѷ ./ ) Ѷ 2*-&
җршччҘ
,QYHQHUJ\//&
!!$
x *-. .#* *'-җспсрҘ
Ȉ -$)$+'
)1 ./$"/*- 0!!'*Ѷ 2*-&
Ȉ *)0/ #.
0'/0-' .*0- .
)1 ./$"/$*)!*-/# - -.*!3+ -$ )
$1 -$)-(-*% /$) $1$)"./*))*)-* *0)/$ .Ѷѵ
тп4 -.*!
1H[W(UD(QHUJ\7UDQVPLVVLRQ1HZ<RUN,QF
*)//
x (+$- // $) җспспҘ
*ѵ#)' 4ҽ/ /-/ #ѵ*(
Ȉ -$)$+'
)1 ./$"/*-
җцрхҘфурҊшсрсҗ*!!$ Ҙ
Ȉ *)0/ #.
0'/0-' .*0- .
)1 ./$"/$*)!*-/#
(+$- // $) -*% /2#$#$)'0 .спҊ($' туф& җцрхҘтпчҊсфхпҗ ''Ҙ
/-).($..$*)'$) -*..$)"/#-*0"#!$1 /*2).$)-$ )$"-
*0)/$ .ѵ
р /- #Ѷ
)ѵ
тпр''$*///- /
0!!'*Ѷруспт
637
/- # * -/ѵ )' 4Ѷ
)$*--# *'*"$./ҝ-$)$+'
)1 ./$"/*-
6XQ(DVW'HYHORSPHQW//&
x $( ./*) *'-җспспҘ
Ȉ -$)$+'
)1 ./$"/*-
Ȉ *)0/ #.
0'/0-' .*0- .
)1 ./$"/$*)!*-/# 0)./ $( ./*) *'--*% /$)0'/*)
*0)/4Ѷѵ
,QYHQHUJ\//&
x -$1 -$)-(җспршҘ
Ȉ -$)$+'
)1 ./$"/*-
Ȉ *)0/ #.
0'/0-' .*0- .
)1 ./$"/$*)!*-/# -$1 -$)-(-*% /$) 2$.
*0)/4Ѷѵ
,QYHQHUJ\//&
x '' Ҋ//$)-(җспрчҘ
Ȉ -$)$+'
)1 ./$"/*-
Ȉ *)0/ #.
0'/0-' .*0- .
)1 ./$"/$*)!*-/# -$1 -$)-(-*% /$)'' ")4
)//-0"0.*0)/$ .Ѷѵ
,QYHQHUJ\//&
x )$./ *$)) -"4 )/ -җспрчҘ

Ȉ -$)$+'
)1 ./$"/*-
Ȉ *)0/ #.
0'/0-' .*0- .
)1 ./$"/$*)!*-)$./ *$)) -"4 )/ --*% /$)/ 0 )
*0)/4Ѷѵ
1DWLRQDO)XHO*DV6XSSO\&RUSRUDWLRQ
x тс/0-'.$+ '$) +' ( )/-*% /җспрцҘ

Ȉ -$)$+'
)1 ./$"/*-
Ȉ *)0/ #.
0'/0-' .*0- .
)1 ./$"/$*)!*-+-*+*. +$+ '$) $)/# //-0"0.
)$)
. -1/$*))#0/0,0*0)/4Ѷѵ
,QYHQHUJ\//&
x 1) -"4*'--*% /җспрцҘ

Ȉ -$)$+'
)1 ./$"/*-
Ȉ *)0/ #.
0'/0-' .*0- .
)1 ./$"/$*)!*-/# 1) -"4*'--*% /$)4*($)"
*0)/4Ѷѵ
(QHUJ\3HQQV\OYDQLD
&RPSHWLWLYH3RZHU9HQWXUHV
x $-1$ 2) -"4 )/ -җспрцҘ

Ȉ -$)$+'
)1 ./$"/*-
Ȉ *)0/ #.
0'/0-' .*0- .
)1 ./$"/$*)!*-+')) +*2 -" ) -/$*)!$'$/4$)(-$
*0)/4Ѷѵ

с
638
/- # * -/ѵ )' 4Ѷ
)$*--# *'*"$./ҝ-$)$+'
)1 ./$"/*-
x ' -/0-'.*(+- ..*-//$*)җспрцҘ

Ȉ -$)$+'
)1 ./$"/*-
Ȉ *)0/ #.
0'/0-' .*0- .
)1 ./$"/$*)!*-+-*+*. /"$)"- $) )*0)/4Ѷѵ
x /$*)'0 ' $) -).($..$*)$+ '$) +' ( )/))*)( )/җспрхҘ

Ȉ -$)$+'
)1 ./$"/*-
Ȉ *)0/ #.
0'/0-' .*0- .
)1 ./$"/$*)!*-+-*+*. +$+ '$) $)-- ))*-- ./
*0)/$ .Ѷѵ
0R[LH(QHUJ\//&
x *3$ - *($'$/4җспрфҘ

Ȉ -$)$+'
)1 ./$"/*-
Ȉ *)0/ #.
0'/0-' .*0- .
)1 ./$"/$*)!*-/# *3$ - *($'$/4$) 05 -) *0)/4Ѷ
ѵ
(PSLUH3LSHOLQH&RUSRUDWLRQ
x 0.-*- / -'-*% /җспруҘ

Ȉ -$)$+'
)1 ./$"/*-
Ȉ *)0/ #.
0'/0-' .*0- .
)1 ./$"/$*)!*-/# 0.-*- / -'$+ '$) $)$*"*0)/4Ѷ
ѵ

-*! ..$*)'+ -.
x -/$!/$./-$0/$*)$")/0- .*! .*0- -*0- ( )/- .җцр./))0' /$)"Ѷ)0)0 -/*$*Ѷ

сппхҘ
x 0'/0-' .*0- .)" ( )/'))$)")- $/$1 * '$)"/$/$))4-. )'Ѷ 2 -. 4җхф/#
))0' /$)"Ѷ#$' '+#$ѶѶспппҘ

т
639

ȀʹͲʹʹ
ǤǤ
̷ǤͶͳͲͷͲ͹Ǧ͵ͷͺʹǣʹͺͻ ǡǡʹͲ͹͹ͺ
ǣ͵ͷǡ ǣʹͷ

ȋʹͲʹͳȌǤ ǦǦ
ȋͳͺͶͷͳȌȋͳͺͺͻͳȌǡǤǯǡ

ȋʹͲͳͻȌǤǡǤǤ
ǦǦǤǡǤ

ȋʹͲͳ͹ȌǤ

ȋͶͶͲͲͲ͹ȌǤǡǤ
ȋʹͲͳ͸ȌǤǡǤǤǦǦ
ͳ͸ͺͲǯȀ Ǥ
ȋʹͲͳ͸ȌǤǤǦ
ǤǯǡǡǤ
ȋʹͲͳͷȌǤ ǡǡǤ

ǤǤ
ȋʹͲͳͷȌǤǡǤǤ ǡǡ

ͳ͵ͻͶ͹Ǥ
ȋʹͲͳͶȌǤǡǡ ǤǤ

ǦǦǡǦǤ
ȋʹͲͳͷȌǤǡǤǤ ǦǦ

Ͷȋͳ͵ͻͳͶȌǤ ǡǡǡǤ
ȋʹͲͳͶȌǤǤ ǡǤǤ
ǦǤ
ȋʹͲͳ͵ȌǤ Ǥ ǡǤǤ

Ǥ

ǯǡǯȋʹͲͳʹȌǤ
Ǥ
ǡǤ Ǧ

ǡͶͶ ͹͸ʹȀͳ͹Ǥ
ȋʹͲͳʹȌǤ Ǥ ǡ

ǤǤ Ǥ
ƬȋʹͲͳͳȌǤ
ǤǡǤǤ
ǡǡȋͶͶ
͵ʹȌǤ
640
ǡǤȋʹͲͳͲȌǤǤǡǤǤ
Ǥ
ǡǤȋʹͲͳͲȌǤͳ͸͹ǤǡǤǤ
Ǧ
ͳ͸͹Ǥ
ǡȋʹͲͳͲǦʹͲͳͷȌǤ
ǤǡǤǤ
ǤǤȀȀǦ
Ǥ
ȋʹͲͲͻȌǤȋͳͺ͵ȌǤǤǤǤ
ǡǤ
ȋʹͲͲ͸ȌǤȋ͵͸ͳͳͲͲȌǤǡ

ǤǤǤ
ȋʹͲͲͳȌǤ ǤǡǤǤ

ǡ Ǥ

ǡǡǤǡǤ
ǦǡǤǡ ǤȋʹͲʹͲȌǤ
ǣ Ǥ
ͷͶǡ͵ͲͷǦ͵͵͵Ǥ

ǡ ǤȋʹͲͳͺȌǤǤ
ǡͳͷǤ

ǡ ǤȋʹͲͳ͸ȌǤǦǣ
͵ͲͳǤǡ ͻǤ

ǡ ǤȋʹͲͳͷȌǤ Ǥ
ǯǤͳͶǤ

ǡ ǤǡǤ
ǡǤǡǤȋʹͲͳʹȌǲ ǡ
ǥǳǣ ǣ

Ǥǡǡ
ǡ ͸Ǥ
ǡ ǤȋʹͲͳʹȌǤȋͶͶͲͲʹͷȌǡǡǤ

Ǥ͸͹ǡͳǡǤ
ǡ ǤȋʹͲͳͲȌ Ǧ

ȋͳͺ ʹͷȌǡ ǡǤǣͶ͸ǡͳƬʹǤ͵ͺǦͶ͸Ǥ
ǡǤ ǤȋʹͲͲͻȌǣ

ǯǤǡʹ͸ǡʹǤǤͳʹǦͳ͵Ǥ
ǡ ǤǤǤ
ȋʹͲͲ͹Ȍǣ
ǤǤ͸ʹǡͶǡǤͳͺͳǦͳͺͻǤ
641
&XUULFXOXP9LWDH
(OL]DEHWK16PLWK
&RQWDFW,QIRUPDWLRQ
$GGUHVV +HGJH&RXUW$SW
6Q\GHU1<
3KRQH
(PDLOHQVPLWK#EXIIDORHGX
(GXFDWLRQ
3UHVHQW
*UDGXDWH6WXGHQW'HSDUWPHQWRI$QWKURSRORJ\6WDWH8QLYHUVLW\RI1HZ<RUN
8QLYHUVLW\DW%XIIDOR%XIIDOR1HZ<RUN

06FLQ3DOHRSDWKRORJ\'HSDUWPHQWRI$UFKDHRORJ\'XUKDP8QLYHUVLW\'XUKDP
(QJODQG

%$'HSDUWPHQWRI$QWKURSRORJ\,QGLDQD8QLYHUVLW\%ORRPLQJWRQ,QGLDQD
0DMRU$QWKURSRORJ\ZLWK$UFKDHRORJ\&RQFHQWUDWLRQ0LQRU0HGLHYDO6WXGLHV

0$LQ&XOWXUDO+LVWRU\'HSDUWPHQWRI&XOWXUDO+LVWRU\8QLYHUVLW\RI$EHUGHHQ
6FRWODQG
642
3URIHVVLRQDO([SHULHQFH
,5/$%$GYDQFHG)LHOG([SHULHQFHLQ%LRDUFKDHRORJ\³)DOO
3ULPDU\,QYHVWLJDWRU*LXVHSSH9HUFHOORWWL,QGHSHQGHQW6FKRODU
$UFKDHRORJLFDO([FDYDWLRQ7DPV:HVW9LUJLQLD³6XPPHU
3ULPDU\,QYHVWLJDWRU&DUO'H0XWK,QGLDQD8QLYHUVLW\
*OHQQ%ODFN/DERUDWRU\RI$UFKDHRORJ\LQWHUQVKLS³6XPPHU
6XSHUYLVRU$SULO6LHYHUW,QGLDQD8QLYHUVLW\
:LOOLDP5$GDPV=RRDUFKDHRORJ\/DERUDWRU\,QGLDQD8QLYHUVLW\³9ROXQWHHU0D\
0D\/DERUDWRU\SUDFWLFXP$XJXVW'HFHPEHU
6XSHUYLVRU5\DQ.HQQHG\8QLYHUVLW\RI1HZ2UOHDQV
3LQWLD)LHOG6FKRRO3DGLOODGH'XHUR6SDLQ³6XPPHU
3ULPDU\,QYHVWLJDWRU&DUORV6DQ]0tQJXH]8QLYHUVLW\RI9DOODGROLG
3UHVHQWDWLRQV
(XURSHDQ$VVRFLDWLRQRI$UFKDHRORJLVWV$QQXDO0HHWLQJ6HSWHPEHU³RUDO
SUHVHQWDWLRQ
´(PSKDVL]LQJWKH%RXQGDULHV³$UFKDHRORJ\YV%LRDQWKURSRORJ\µ
(XURSHDQ$VVRFLDWLRQRI$UFKDHRORJLVWV$QQXDO0HHWLQJ6HSWHPEHU³RUDO
SUHVHQWDWLRQ
´7D\ORUDQG6SDXOGLQJ4XDQWLI\LQJWKH3DVWµ6PLWKDQG=XEURZ
643
6WDWH8QLYHUVLW\RI1HZ<RUN8QLYHUVLW\DW%XIIDOR$QWKURSRORJ\*UDGXDWH6WXGHQW
$VVRFLDWLRQ&RQYHUJHQFH6\PSRVLXP$SULO³SRVWHUSUHVHQWDWLRQ
´¶2XUGHDGDUHQHYHUGHDGWRXVXQWLOZHKDYHIRUJRWWHQWKHP·$Q
$UFKDHRWKDQDWRORJLFDO$QDO\VLVRIDWK&HQWXU\$QJOR6D[RQ&HPHWHU\LQ2DNLQJWRQ
&DPEULGJHVKLUHµ
,QGLDQD8QLYHUVLW\$QWKURSRORJ\*UDGXDWH6WXGHQW$VVRFLDWLRQ6\PSRVLXP)HEUXDU\
³SRVWHUSUHVHQWDWLRQ
´7KH6WRU\RI%HQMDPLQD/DPEGRLG&UDQLRV\QRVWRVLVLQD\HDUROGMXYHQLOH
+RPRKHLGHOEHUJHQVLVFUDQLXPµ
+RQRUVDQG$ZDUGV
+XWWRQ+RQRUV&ROOHJH3UH3URIHVVLRQDO([SHULHQFH,QWHUQVKLS*UDQW³6XPPHU
'HDQ·V/LVW,QGLDQD8QLYHUVLW\³)DOO6SULQJ
´%URNHQ%RQH$ZDUGµ:LOOLDP5$GDPV=RRDUFKDHRORJ\/DERUDWRU\9ROXQWHHU
$ZDUG³6SULQJ
5HIHUHQFHV
'U(]UD=XEURZ
'HSDUWPHQWRI$QWKURSRORJ\8QLYHUVLW\DW%XIIDOR
)LOOPRUH$FDGHPLF&HQWHU
(OOLFRWW&RPSOH[1RUWK&DPSXV
%XIIDOR1<
]XEURZ#EXIIDORHGX
644
'U'HOOD&RRN
'HSDUWPHQWRI$QWKURSRORJ\,QGLDQD8QLYHUVLW\
6WXGHQW%XLOGLQJ(.LUNZRRG$YHQXH
%ORRPLQJWRQ,1
FRRN#LQGLDQDHGX
'U$SULO6LHYHUW
*OHQQ$%ODFN/DERUDWRU\RI$UFKDHRORJ\
1)HVV6WUHHW
%ORRPLQJWRQ,1
DVLHYHUW#LQGLDQDHGX
3URIHVVLRQDO$IILOLDWLRQV
3DOHRSDWKRORJ\$VVRFLDWLRQPHPEHU
0HGLHYDO$FDGHP\RI$PHULFDPHPEHU
$PHULFDQ$VVRFLDWLRQRI3K\VLFDO$QWKURSRORJLVWVPHPEHU
(XURSHDQ$VVRFLDWLRQRI$UFKDHRORJLVWVPHPEHU
$GGLWLRQDO([SHULHQFH
*,66RFLDO6\VWHPV/DERUDWRU\8QGHUJUDGXDWH:RUNVWXG\6XSHUYLVRU
1($$$UFKLYH3URMHFW
$%'6WXGHQW-RXUQDO(GLWRULQ&KLHI
$QWKURSRORJ\*UDGXDWH6WXGHQW$VVRFLDWLRQ9LFH3UHVLGHQW8QLYHUVLW\DW%XIIDOR

&KURQLND6WXGHQW-RXUQDOSHHUUHYLHZHU
$%'MXQLRUHGLWRU
645
(1*ZULWLQJVHVVLRQVXSHUYLVRU)DOO
$QWKURSRORJ\*UDGXDWH6WXGHQW$VVRFLDWLRQ$OWHUQDWH6HQDWRU8QLYHUVLW\DW%XIIDOR

8QGHUJUDGXDWH$QWKURSRORJ\$VVRFLDWLRQ,QGLDQD8QLYHUVLW\³$GYHUWLVLQJ&RPPLWWHH
2IILFHU6RFLDO0HGLD&RRUGLQDWRU
/DQJXDJHV
(QJOLVK1DWLYH6SHDNHU
)UHQFK$GYDQFHG
6SDQLVK%DVLF,QWHUPHGLDWH
*HUPDQ%DVLF
646
Exhibit “8” - Copy of CanisiusHS_EAF_2-24-2021 - FINAL.pdf

Exhibit “8”
647
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 77 Full Environmental Assessment Form RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/09/2022
Part 1 - Project and Setting
Instructions for Completing Part 1
Part 1 is to be completed by the applicant or project sponsor. Responses become part of the application for approval or funding,
are subject to public review, and may be subject to further verification.
Complete Part 1 based on information currently available. If additional research or investigation would be needed to fully respond to
any item, please answer as thoroughly as possible based on current information; indicate whether missing information does not exist,
or is not reasonably available to the sponsor; and, when possible, generally describe work or studies which would be necessary to
update or fully develop that information.
Applicants/sponsors must complete all items in Sections A & B. In Sections C, D & E, most items contain an initial question that
must be answered either “Yes” or “No”. If the answer to the initial question is “Yes”, complete the sub-questions that follow. If the
answer to the initial question is “No”, proceed to the next question. Section F allows the project sponsor to identify and attach any
additional information. Section G requires the name and signature of the DSSOLFDQWRUproject sponsor to verify that the information
contained in Part 1is accurate and complete.
A. Project and $SSOLFDQWSponsor Information.

Name of Action or Project:
Canisius High School Athletic Fields
Project Location (describe, and attach a general location map):
2885 Clinton Street, West Seneca, NY 14224
Brief Description of Proposed Action (include purpose or need):

Construct one artificial turf varsity baseball field and one junior varsity baseball field with an artificial turf infield and natural grass outfield. Grade the site to
accommodate the two baseball fields as well as a practice field and a suitable area for possible future tennis courts. Erect a total of four dugouts, two
score boards, two sets of bleachers totaling 200 seats, one batting cage, and one press box. Asphalt pedestrian paths will be added to connect the above
features. The total area of disturbance will be approximately 16.6 acres. A portion of the construction will occur within the one hundred year flood plain of
the adjacent Buffalo Creek but the proposed grading of the site will result in a net increase in the amount of flood water volume the site is able to
accomodate.
Name of Applicant/Sponsor: Telephone: 716-200-0256

Matthew J. Carver, Canisius High School E-Mail: carver@canisiushigh.org
Address: 1189 Delaware Avenue
City/PO: Buffalo State: NY Zip Code: 14209
Project Contact (if not same as sponsor; give name and title/role): Telephone: 315-254-2260
Daniel Seiders, Project Manager, Appel Osborne Landscape Architecture E-Mail: dseiders@appelosborne.com
Address:
50 Elk Street, Suite 400

Buffalo NY 14210
Property Owner (if not same as sponsor): Telephone:
E-Mail:
Address:
Page 1 of 13
648
B. Government Approvals
B. Government Approvals Funding, or Sponsorship. (“Funding” includes grants, loans, tax relief, and any other forms of financial
assistance.)
Government Entity If Yes: Identify Agency and Approval(s) Application Date
Required (Actual or projected)
a. City&RXQVHOTown%RDUG, Yes No
or Village Board of Trustees
b. City, Town or Village ✔
Yes No Planning Board: Site Plan Approval February 26, 2021
Planning Board or Commission
c. City Town or Yes No
Village Zoning Board of Appeals
d. Other local agencies Yes No
e. County agencies Yes No
f. Regional agencies Yes No
g. State agencies ✔
Yes No NYSDEC: SWPPP TBD
h. Federal agencies ✔
Yes No DEC, FEMA, Army Corp of Engineers TBD
i. Coastal Resources.
i. Is the project site within a Coastal Area, or the waterfront area of a Designated Inland Waterway? Yes ✔
No
ii. Is the project site located in a community with an approved Local Waterfront Revitalization Program? Yes ✔
No
iii. Is the project site within a Coastal Erosion Hazard Area? Yes No
C. Planning and Zoning
C.1. Planning and zoning actions.

Will administrative or legislative adoption, or amendment of a plan, local law, ordinance, rule or regulation be the Yes No
only approval(s) which must be granted to enable the proposed action to proceed?
x If Yes, complete sections C, F and G.
x If No, proceed to question C.2 and complete all remaining sections and questions in Part 1
C.2. Adopted land use plans.
a. Do any municipally- adopted (city, town, village or county) comprehensive land use plan(s) include the site ✔
Yes No
where the proposed action would be located?
If Yes, does the comprehensive plan include specific recommendations for the site where the proposed action ✔
Yes No
would be located?
b.Is the site of the proposed action within any local or regional special planning district (for example: Greenway ✔
Yes No
Brownfield Opportunity Area (BOA); designated State or Federal heritage area; watershed management plan;
or other?)
NYS Heritage Areas:West Erie Canal Corridor
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
c. Is the proposed action located wholly or partially within an area listed in an adopted municipal open space plan, ✔ Yes No
or an adopted municipal farmland protection plan?
In the ________________________________________________________________________________________________________
2016 Comprehensive Plan, portions of the site are shown as part of an extensive Greenway / Preservation Area and the plan recommends limiting
development along the creeks to protect the floodways and to preserve them for implementation of a trail system.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Page 2 of 13
649
NYSCEF
C.3. DOC.
ZoningNO. 77 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/09/2022
a. Is the site of the proposed action located in a municipality with an adopted zoning law or ordinance. ✔
Yes No
If Yes, what is the zoning classification(s) including any applicable overlay district?
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
R-100 A Residential
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
b. Is the use permitted or allowed by a special or conditional use permit? Yes No

c. Is a zoning change requested as part of the proposed action? Yes No
If Yes,
i. What is the proposed new zoning for the site? ___________________________________________________________________
C.4. Existing community services.

a. In what school district is the project site located? West
________________________________________________________________
Seneca Central School District
b. What police or other public protection forces serve the project site?
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
West Seneca Town Police Department
c. Which fire protection and emergency medical services serve the project site?
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Union Hose (Fire Department Code No. 14-93)
d. What parks serve the project site?

The__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
closest Park is Switzer Park located .6 miles Southeast on the other side of Buffalo Creek.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
D. Project Details
D.1. Proposed and Potential Development
a. What is the general nature of the proposed action (e.g., residential, industrial, commercial, recreational; if mixed, include all
components)? Recreational, School
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
b. a. Total acreage of the site of the proposed action? _____________
26.5 acres
b. Total acreage to be physically disturbed? _____________
16.6 acres
c. Total acreage (project site and any contiguous properties) owned
or controlled by the applicant or project sponsor? _____________
26.5 acres
c. Is the proposed action an expansion of an existing project or use? ✔

Yes No
i. If Yes, what is the approximate percentage of the proposed expansion and identify the units (e.g., acres, miles, housing units,
square feet)? % ____________________
73% Units: ____________________
acres
d. Is the proposed action a subdivision, or does it include a subdivision? Yes No

If Yes,
i. Purpose or type of subdivision? (e.g., residential, industrial, commercial; if mixed, specify types)
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ii. Is a cluster/conservation layout proposed? Yes No
iii. Number of lots proposed? ________
iv. Minimum and maximum proposed lot sizes? Minimum __________ Maximum __________
H Will WKHproposed action be constructed in multiple phases? Yes No
L If No, anticipated period of construction: _____3 months
LL If Yes:
x Total number of phases anticipated _____
x Anticipated commencement date of phase 1 (including demolition) _____ month _____ year
x Anticipated completion date of final phase _____ month _____year
x Generally describe connections or relationships among phases, including any contingencies where progress of one phase may
determine timing or duration of future phases: _______________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Page 3 of 13
650
NYSCEF DOC.
f. Does NO. 77
the project include new residential uses? RECEIVED NYSCEF:
Yes 09/09/2022
No
If Yes, show numbers of units proposed.
One Family Two Family Three Family Multiple Family (four or more)
Initial Phase ___________ ___________ ____________ ________________________
At completion
of all phases ___________ ___________ ____________ ________________________
g. Does the proposed action include new non-residential construction (including expansions)? Yes No
✔
If Yes,
i. Total number of structures ___________ 5
ii. Dimensions (in feet) of largest proposed structure: ________height;
16' 4" ________width;
9' 9-1/2" and _______
20 '7" length
iii. Approximate extent of building space to be heated or cooled: ______________________ 0 square feet
h. Does the proposed action include construction or other activities that will result in the impoundment of any ✔
Yes No
liquids, such as creation of a water supply, reservoir, pond, lake, waste lagoon or other storage?
If Yes,
i. Purpose of the impoundment: stormwater
________________________________________________________________________________
management
ii. If a water impoundment, the principal source of the water: Ground water Surface water streams ✔ Other specify:
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
stormwater runoff
iii. If other than water, identify the type of impounded/contained liquids and their source.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
iv. Approximate size of the proposed impoundment. Volume: ____________1.17 million gallons; surface area: ____________
.86 acres
v. Dimensions of the proposed dam or impounding structure: ________ height; _______ length
vi. Construction method/materials for the proposed dam or impounding structure (e.g., earth fill, rock, wood, concrete):
earth ________________________________________________________________________________________________________
excavation
D.2. Project Operations

a. Does the proposed action include any excavation, mining, or dredging, during construction, operations, or both? Yes No
(Not including general site preparation, grading or installation of utilities or foundations where all excavated
materials will remain onsite)
If Yes:
i .What is the purpose of the excavation or dredging? _______________________________________________________________
ii. How much material (including rock, earth, sediments, etc.) is proposed to be removed from the site?
x Volume (specify tons or cubic yards): ____________________________________________
x Over what duration of time? ____________________________________________________
iii. Describe nature and characteristics of materials to be excavated or dredged, and plans to use, manage or dispose of them.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
iv. Will there be onsite dewatering or processing of excavated materials? Yes No
If yes, describe. ___________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
v. What is the total area to be dredged or excavated? _____________________________________acres
vi. What is the maximum area to be worked at any one time? _______________________________ acres
vii. What would be the maximum depth of excavation or dredging? __________________________ feet
viii. Will the excavation require blasting? Yes No
ix. Summarize site reclamation goals and plan: _____________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
b. Would the proposed action cause or result in alteration of, increase or decrease in size of, or encroachment ✔
Yes No
into any existing wetland, waterbody, shoreline, beach or adjacent area?
If Yes:
i. Identify the wetland or waterbody which would be affected (by name, water index number, wetland map number or geographic
description): Buffalo
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Creek Floodplain
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Page 4 of 13
651
NYSCEF DOC. NO.
ii. Describe how 77 RECEIVED
the proposed action would affect that waterbody or wetland, e.g. excavation, fill, placement NYSCEF: or
of structures, 09/09/2022
alteration of channels, banks and shorelines. Indicate extent of activities, alterations and additions in square feet or acres:
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The project will require reshaping of the existing flood plain resulting in an approximate 20% net increase in the volume of flood water that
the site is able to accommodate.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
iii. Will WKHproposed action cause or result in disturbance to bottom sediments? Yes No
If Yes, describe: __________________________________________________________________________________________
iv. Will WKHproposed action cause or result in the destruction or removal of aquatic vegetation? Yes No
If Yes:
x aFUHV of DTXDWLFvegetation proposed to be removed ___________________________________________________________
x H[SHFWHG acreage of aquatic vegetation remaining after project completion________________________________________
x purpose of proposed removal (e.g. beach clearing, invasive species control, boat access): ____________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
x proposed method of plant removal: ________________________________________________________________________
x if chemical/herbicide treatment will be used, specify product(s): _________________________________________________
v. Describe any proposed reclamation/mitigation following disturbance: _________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
c. Will the proposed action use, or create a new demand for water? Yes No
If Yes:
i. Total anticipated water usage/demand per day: __________________________ gallons/day
ii. Will the proposed action obtain water from an existing public water supply? Yes No
If Yes:
x Name of district or service area: _________________________________________________________________________
x Does the existing public water supply have capacity to serve the proposal? Yes No
x Is the project site in the existing district? Yes No
x Is expansion of the district needed? Yes No
x Do existing lines serve the project site? Yes No
iii. Will line extension within an existing district be necessary to supply the project? Yes No
If Yes:
x Describe extensions or capacity expansions proposed to serve this project: ________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
x Source(s) of supply for the district: ________________________________________________________________________
iv. Is a new water supply district or service area proposed to be formed to serve the project site? Yes No
If, Yes:
x Applicant/sponsor for new district: ________________________________________________________________________
x Date application submitted or anticipated: __________________________________________________________________
x Proposed source(s) of supply for new district: _______________________________________________________________
v. If a public water supply will not be used, describe plans to provide water supply for the project: ___________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
vi. If water supply will be from wells (public or private), ZKDWLVWKHmaximum pumping capacity: _______ gallons/minute.
d. Will the proposed action generate liquid wastes? Yes No
If Yes:
i. Total anticipated liquid waste generation per day: _______________ gallons/day
ii. Nature of liquid wastes to be generated (e.g., sanitary wastewater, industrial; if combination, describe all components and
approximate volumes or proportions of each): __________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
iii. Will the proposed action use any existing public wastewater treatment facilities? Yes No
If Yes:
x Name of wastewater treatment plant to be used: _____________________________________________________________
x Name of district: ______________________________________________________________________________________
x Does the existing wastewater treatment plant have capacity to serve the project? Yes No
x Is the project site in the existing district? Yes No
x Is expansion of the district needed? Yes No
Page 5 of 13
652
NYSCEF xDOC. DoNO. 77 sewer lines serve the project site?
existing RECEIVED NYSCEF: Yes 09/09/2022
✔ No
x Will Dline extension within an existing district be necessary to serve the project? Yes ✔ No
If Yes:
x Describe extensions or capacity expansions proposed to serve this project: ____________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
iv. Will a new wastewater (sewage) treatment district be formed to serve the project site? Yes No
If Yes:
x Applicant/sponsor for new district: ____________________________________________________________________
x Date application submitted or anticipated: _______________________________________________________________
x What is the receiving water for the wastewater discharge? __________________________________________________
v. If public facilities will not be used, describe plans to provide wastewater treatment for the project, including specifying proposed
receiving water (name and classification if surface discharge or describe subsurface disposal plans):
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
vi. Describe any plans or designs to capture, recycle or reuse liquid waste: _______________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
e. Will the proposed action disturb more than one acre and create stormwater runoff, either from new point ✔
Yes No
sources (i.e. ditches, pipes, swales, curbs, gutters or other concentrated flows of stormwater) or non-point
source (i.e. sheet flow) during construction or post construction?
If Yes:
i. How much impervious surface will the project create in relation to total size of project parcel?
_____ Square feet or _____ 0.5 acres (impervious surface)
_____ Square feet or _____ 26.5 acres (parcel size)
ii. Describe types of new point sources.Outlet pipes from proposed sports fields
__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
iii. Where will the stormwater runoff be directed (i.e. on-site stormwater management facility/structures, adjacent properties,
groundwater, on-site surface water or off-site surface waters)?
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Onsite_Detention Basin
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
x If to surface waters, identify receiving water bodies or wetlands: ________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Detension basin outlet daylights to Buffalo Creek
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
x Will stormwater runoff flow to adjacent properties? ✔
Yes No
iv. Does WKHproposed plan minimize impervious surfaces, use pervious materials or collect and re-use stormwater? ✔ Yes No
f. Does the proposed action include, or will it use on-site, one or more sources of air emissions, including fuel Yes No
combustion, waste incineration, or other processes or operations?
If Yes, identify:
i. Mobile sources during project operations (e.g., heavy equipment, fleet or delivery vehicles)
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ii. Stationary sources during construction (e.g., power generation, structural heating, batch plant, crushers)
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
iii. Stationary sources during operations (e.g., process emissions, large boilers, electric generation)
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
g. Will any air emission sources named in D.2.f (above), require a NY State Air Registration, Air Facility Permit, Yes No
or Federal Clean Air Act Title IV or Title V Permit?
If Yes:
i. Is the project site located in an Air quality non-attainment area? (Area routinely or periodically fails to meet Yes No
ambient air quality standards for all or some parts of the year)
ii. In addition to emissions as calculated in the application, the project will generate:
x ___________Tons/year (VKRUWWRQV) of Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
x ___________Tons/year (VKRUWWRQV) of Nitrous Oxide (N22)
x ___________Tons/year (VKRUWWRQV) of Perfluorocarbons (PFCs)
x ___________Tons/year (VKRUWWRQV) of Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6)
x ___________Tons/year (VKRUWWRQV) of Carbon Dioxide equivalent of HydrofloXrocarbons (H)&V)
x ___________Tons/year (VKRUWWRQV) of Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs)
Page 6 of 13
653
NYSCEF DOC.
h. Will NO. 77action generate or emit methane (including, but not limited to, sewage treatmentRECEIVED
the proposed plants, NYSCEF:
Yes 09/09/2022
No
landfills, composting facilities)?
If Yes:
i. Estimate methane generation in tons/year (metric): ________________________________________________________________
ii. Describe any methane capture, control or elimination measures included in project design (e.g., combustion to generate heat or
electricity, flaring): ________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
i. Will the proposed action result in the release of air pollutants from open-air operations or processes, such as Yes No
quarry or landfill operations?
If Yes: Describe operations and nature of emissions (e.g., diesel exhaust, rock particulates/dust):
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
j. Will the proposed action result in a substantial increase in traffic above present levels or generate substantial Yes No
new demand for transportation facilities or services?
If Yes:
i. When is the peak traffic expected (Check all that apply): Morning Evening Weekend
Randomly between hours of __________ to ________.
ii. For commercial activities only, projected number of truck trips/dayDQGW\SHHJVHPLWUDLOHUVDQGGXPSWUXFNVBBBBBBBBBBBBB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
LLL Parking spaces: Existing _____________BBBBBB
143 Proposed ___________
143 Net increase/decrease _____________BBBBBBBB 0
LY 'RHVWKHSURSRVHGDFWLRQLQFOXGHDQ\VKDUHGXVHSDUNLQJ"<HV1R
v. ,IWKHSURSRVHGDFWLRQLQFOXGHVDQ\PRGLILFDWLRQRIH[LVWLQJURDGVFUHDWLRQRIQHZURDGVRUFKDQJHLQH[LVWLQJDFFHVVGHVFULEH
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
vi. Are public/private transportation service(s) or facilities available within ½ mile of the proposed site? Yes No
vii Will the proposed action include access to public transportation or accommodations for use of hybrid, electric Yes No
or other alternative fueled vehicles?
viii. Will the proposed action include plans for pedestrian or bicycle accommodations for connections to existing Yes No
pedestrian or bicycle routes?
k. Will the proposed action (for commercial or industrial projects only) generate new or additional demand Yes No
for energy?
If Yes:
i. Estimate annual electricity demand during operation of the proposed action: ____________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ii. Anticipated sources/suppliers of electricity for the project (e.g., on-site combustion, on-site renewable, via grid/local utility, or
other):
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
iii. Will the proposed action require a new, or an upgrade to an existing substation? Yes No
l. Hours of operation. Answer all items which apply.

i. During Construction: ii. During Operations:
x Monday - Friday: _________________________
0700-1800 x Monday - Friday: ____________________________
0800-2100
x Saturday: ________________________________ x Saturday: ___________________________________
0800-2100
x Sunday: _________________________________ x Sunday: ____________________________________
0800-2100
x Holidays: ________________________________ x Holidays: ___________________________________
0800-2100
Page 7 of 13
654
NYSCEF DOC.
m. Will NO. 77 action produce noise that will exceed existing ambient noise levels during construction,
the proposed RECEIVED NYSCEF:
✔ Yes 09/09/2022
No
operation, or both?
If yes:
i. Provide details including sources, time of day and duration:
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Earth moving equipment during construction only, mowing and maintenance during operation.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
ii. Will WKHproposed action remove existing natural barriers that could act as a noise barrier or screen? Yes No
Describe: _________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
n.Will the proposed action haveoutdoor lighting? Yes No
If yes:
i. Describe source(s), location(s), height of fixture(s), direction/aim, and proximity to nearest occupied structures:
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ii. Will proposed action remove existing natural barriers that could act as a light barrier or screen? ✔
Yes No
Describe: A_________________________________________________________________________________________________
few small clusters of trees will be removed which currently contribute to visual screening. Creek bank vegetation which provides the
majority of visual screening for residents across the creek shall remain.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
o. Does the proposed action have the potential to produce odors for more than one hour per day? Yes No
If Yes, describe possible sources, potential frequency and duration of odor emissions, and proximity to nearest
occupied structures: ______________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
p. Will the proposed action include any bulk storage of petroleum (FRPELQHGFDSDFLW\RIover 1,100 gallons) Yes No
or chemical productsJDOORQVLQDERYHJURXQGVWRUDJHRUDQ\DPRXQWLQXQGHUJURXQGVWRUDJH?
If Yes:
L Product(s) to be stored ______________________________________________________________________________________
LL Volume(s) ______ per unit time ___________ (e.g., month, year)
LLL Generally describe WKHproposed storage facilities________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
q. Will the proposed action (commercial, industrial and recreational projects only) use pesticides (i.e., herbicides, ✔ Yes No

insecticides) during construction or operation?
If Yes:
i. Describe proposed treatment(s):
Common ________________________________________________________________________________________________________
pesticides are expected to be used in the course of maintaining the natural turf areas of the sports fields.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ii. Will the proposed action use Integrated Pest Management Practices? Yes No
r. Will the proposed action (commercial or industrial projects only) involve or require the management or disposal Yes No
of solid waste (excluding hazardous materials)?
If Yes:
i. Describe any solid waste(s) to be generated during construction or operation of the facility:
x Construction: ____________________ tons per ________________ (unit of time)
x Operation : ____________________ tons per ________________ (unit of time)
ii. Describe any proposals for on-site minimization, recycling or reuse of materials to avoid disposal as solid waste:
x Construction: ________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
x Operation: __________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
iii. Proposed disposal methods/facilities for solid waste generated on-site:
x Construction: ________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
x Operation: __________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Page 8 of 13
655
NYSCEF
s. DoesDOC. NO. 77 action include construction or modification of a solid waste management facility?
the proposed RECEIVED NYSCEF: Yes 09/09/2022
No
If Yes:
i. Type of management or handling of waste proposed for the site (e.g., recycling or transfer station, composting, landfill, or
other disposal activities): ___________________________________________________________________________________
ii. Anticipated rate of disposal/processing:
x ________ Tons/month, if transfer or other non-combustion/thermal treatment, or
x ________ Tons/hour, if combustion or thermal treatment
iii. If landfill, anticipated site life: ________________________________ years
t.Will WKHproposed action at the site involve the commercial generation, treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous Yes No
waste?
If Yes:
i. Name(s) of all hazardous wastes or constituents to be generated, handled or managed at facility: ___________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ii. Generally describe processes or activities involving hazardous wastes or constituents: ___________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
iii. Specify amount to be handled or generated _____ tons/month
iv. Describe any proposals for on-site minimization, recycling or reuse of hazardous constituents: ____________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
v. Will any hazardous wastes be disposed at an existing offsite hazardous waste facility? Yes No
If Yes: provide name and location of facility: _______________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
If No: describe proposed management of any hazardous wastes which will not be sent to a hazardous waste facility:
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
E. Site and Setting of Proposed Action
E.1. Land uses on and surrounding the project site

a. Existing land uses.
i. Check all uses that occur on, adjoining and near the project site.
Urban ✔ Industrial Commercial ✔ Residential (suburban) Rural (non-farm)
Forest Agriculture Aquatic ✔
Other (specify): Recreation,
____________________________________
Utilities Infrastructure
ii. If mix of uses, generally describe:
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
b. Land uses and covertypes on the project site.
Land use or Current Acreage After Change
Covertype Acreage Project Completion (Acres +/-)
x Roads, buildings, and other paved or impervious
7.2 7.7 +0.5
surfaces
x Forested 1 0.44 -0.56
x Meadows, grasslands or brushlands (non- 10.3 2 -8.3
agricultural, including abandoned agricultural)
x Agricultural 0 0 0
(includes active orchards, field, greenhouse etc.)
x Surface water features
0.18 0.44 +0.26
(lakes, ponds, streams, rivers, etc.)
x Wetlands (freshwater or tidal) 0 0 0
x Non-vegetated (bare rock, earth or fill) 0 0 0
x Other
Describe: Artificial
_______________________________
Turf 1.8 5.65 +3.85
________________________________________
Page 9 of 13
656
NYSCEF
c. IsDOC. NO.site
the project 77presently used by members of the community for public recreation? RECEIVED NYSCEF:
Yes 09/09/2022
✔ No
i. If Yes: explain: There
__________________________________________________________________________________________
is an informal dirt trail along Buffalo Creek that meanders over the property line.
d. Are there any facilities serving children, the elderly, people with disabilities (e.g., schools, hospitals, licensed ✔
Yes No
day care centers, or group homes) within 1500 feet of the project site?
If Yes,
i. Identify Facilities:
Eden________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Heights of West Seneca Assisted Living. The project site itself serves students of Canisius High School as a sports facility.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
e. Does the project site contain an existing dam? Yes No
If Yes:
i. Dimensions of the dam and impoundment:
x Dam height: _________________________________ feet
x Dam length: _________________________________ feet
x Surface area: _________________________________ acres
x Volume impounded: _______________________________ gallons OR acre-feet
ii. Dam=s existing hazard classification: _________________________________________________________________________
iii. Provide date and summarize results of last inspection:
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
f. Has the project site ever been used as a municipal, commercial or industrial solid waste management facility, Yes No
or does the project site adjoin property which is now, or was at one time, used as a solid waste management facility?
If Yes:
i. Has the facility been formally closed? Yes No
x If yes, cite sources/documentation: _______________________________________________________________________
ii. Describe the location of the project site relative to the boundaries of the solid waste management facility:
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
iii. Describe any development constraints due to the prior solid waste activities: __________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
g. Have hazardous wastes been generated, treated and/or disposed of at the site, or does the project site adjoin Yes No
property which is now or was at one time used to commercially treat, store and/or dispose of hazardous waste?
If Yes:
i. Describe waste(s) handled and waste management activities, including approximate time when activities occurred:
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
h. Potential contamination history. Has there been a reported spill at the proposed project site, or have any Yes No
remedial actions been conducted at or adjacent to the proposed site?
If Yes:
i. Is any portion of the site listed on the NYSDEC Spills Incidents database or Environmental Site Yes No
Remediation database? Check all that apply:
Yes – Spills Incidents database Provide DEC ID number(s): ________________________________
Yes – Environmental Site Remediation database Provide DEC ID number(s): ________________________________
Neither database
ii. If site has been subject of RCRA corrective activities, describe control measures:_______________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
iii. Is the project within 2000 feet of any site in the NYSDEC Environmental Site Remediation database? ✔
Yes No
If yes, provide DEC ID number(s): C915339
______________________________________________________________________________
iv. If yes to (i), (ii) or (iii) above, describe current status of site(s):
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Brownfield Cleanup Program, Classification C, 3100 Clinton Street Site, Status: Complete 12/22/2020
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Page 10 of 13
657
NYSCEF DOC.
v. Is NO. site
the project 77 subject to an institutional control limiting property uses? RECEIVED NYSCEF:
Yes 09/09/2022
No
x If yes, DEC site ID number: ____________________________________________________________________________
x Describe the type of institutional control (e.g., deed restriction or easement): ____________________________________
x Describe any use limitations: ___________________________________________________________________________
x Describe any engineering controls: _______________________________________________________________________
x Will the project affect the institutional or engineering controls in place? Yes No
x Explain: ____________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
E.2. Natural Resources On or Near Project Site

a. What is the average depth to bedrock on the project site? ________________
>6.56 feet
b. Are there bedrock outcroppings on the project site? Yes No

If Yes, what proportion of the site is comprised of bedrock outcroppings? __________________%
c. Predominant soil type(s) present on project site: ___________________________
Hamlin Silt Loam __________%
41.7
___________________________
Teel Silt Loam __________%
41.9
____________________________
Wayland Soils Complex __________%
9.8
d. What is the average depth to the water table on the project site? Average: _________
2.96 feet
e. Drainage status of project site soils: ✔

Well Drained: _____%
46.3 of Vite
✔
Moderately Well Drained: _____%
41.9 of site
✔
Poorly Drained _____%
9.8 of Vite
f. Approximate proportion of proposed action site with slopes: ✔
0-10%: _____%
94.5 of site
✔
10-15%: _____%
1.1 of site
✔
15% or greater: _____%
4.4 of site
g. Are there any unique geologic features on the project site? Yes ✔
No
If Yes, describe: _____________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
h. Surface water features.
i. Does any portion of the project site contain wetlands or other waterbodies (including streams, rivers, ✔
Yes No
ponds or lakes)?
ii. Do any wetlands or other waterbodies adjoin the project site? ✔
Yes No
If Yes to either i or ii, continue. If No, skip to E.2.i.
iii. Are any of the wetlands or waterbodies within or adjoining the project site regulated by any federal, ✔
Yes No
state or local agency?
iv. For each identified UHJXODWHGwetland and waterbody on the project site, provide the following information
x Streams: Name ____________________________________________
Buffalo Creek (Creek is on adjacent property) Classification _______________________
B
Lakes or Ponds: Name ____________________________________________ Classification _______________________
t Wetlands: Name ____________________________________________
Federal Waters Approximate Size ___________________
14.78 acres
Wetland No. (if regulated by DEC) _____________________________
BU-17
v. Are any of the above water bodies listed in the most recent compilation of NYS water quality-impaired ✔ No
Yes
waterbodies?
If yes, name of impaired water body/bodies and basis for listing as impaired: _____________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
i. Is the project site in a designatedFloodway? ✔
Yes No
j. Is the project site in the 100year Floodplain? ✔
Yes No
k. Is the project site in the 500year Floodplain? ✔
Yes No
l. Is the project site located over, or immediately adjoining, a primary, principal or sole source aquifer? Yes ✔
No
If Yes:
i. Name of aquifer: _________________________________________________________________________________________
Page 11 of 13
658
NYSCEF DOC. NO.
m. Identify 77
the predominant wildlife species that occupy or use the project site: RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/09/2022
______________________________
______________________________
Freshwater Mussels (In Buffalo Creek) _______________________________ ______________________________
______________________________
Whitetail Deer _______________________________ ______________________________
n. Does the project site contain a designated significant natural community? Yes ✔
No
If Yes:
i. Describe the habitat/community (composition, function, and basis for designation): _____________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ii. Source(s) of description or evaluation: ________________________________________________________________________
iii. Extent of community/habitat:
x Currently: ______________________ acres
x Following completion of project as proposed: _____________________ acres
x Gain or loss (indicate + or -): ______________________ acres
o. Does project site contain any species of plant or animal that is listed by the federal government or NYS as Yes ✔
No
endangered or threatened, or does it contain any areas identified as habitat for an endangered or threatened species?
,I<HV
L 6SHFLHVDQGOLVWLQJHQGDQJHUHGRUWKUHDWHQHGBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
p. Does the project site contain any species of plant or animal that is listed by NYS as rare, or as a species of Yes ✔
No
special concern?
,I<HV
L 6SHFLHVDQGOLVWLQJBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
q. Is the project site or adjoining area currently used for hunting, trapping, fishing or shell fishing? ✔
Yes No
If yes, give a brief description of how the proposed action may affect that use: ___________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
No hunting is permitted. Fishing may occur in Buffalo Creek. Proposed action will not effect any fishing use.
E.3. Designated Public Resources On or Near Project Site

a. Is the project site, or any portion of it, located in a designated agricultural district certified pursuant to Yes ✔
No
Agriculture and Markets Law, Article 25-AA, Section 303 and 304?
If Yes, provide county plus district name/number: _________________________________________________________________
b. Are agricultural lands consisting of highly productive soils present? Yes No
✔
i. If Yes: acreage(s) on project site? ___________________________________________________________________________
ii. Source(s) of soil rating(s): Erie
_________________________________________________________________________________
County Mapping indicates lower rated soil but 2003 Town mapping indicating the site has Prime Farmland.
c. Does the project site contain all or part of, or is it substantially contiguous to, a registered National Yes ✔
No
Natural Landmark?
If Yes:
i. Nature of the natural landmark: Biological Community Geological Feature
ii. Provide brief description of landmark, including values behind designation and approximate size/extent: ___________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
d. Is the project site located in or does it adjoin a state listed Critical Environmental Area? Yes ✔
No
If Yes:
i. CEA name: _____________________________________________________________________________________________
ii. Basis for designation: _____________________________________________________________________________________
iii. Designating agency and date: ______________________________________________________________________________
Page 12 of 13
659
NYSCEF DOC.
e. Does the NO.
project77site contain, or is it substantially contiguous to, a building, archaeological site, orRECEIVED
district NYSCEF:
Yes 09/09/2022
No
which is listed onWKH1DWLRQDORU6WDWH5HJLVWHUof Historic PODFHVRUWKDWKDVEHHQ GHWHUPLQHGE\WKH&RPPLVVLRQHURIWKH1<6
2IILFHRI3DUNV5HFUHDWLRQDQG+LVWRULF3UHVHUYDWLRQWREHHOLJLEOHIRUOLVWLQJRQWKH6WDWH5HJLVWHU of Historic Places?
If Yes:
i. Nature of historic/archaeological resource: Archaeological Site Historic Building or District
ii. Name: _________________________________________________________________________________________________
iii. Brief description of attributes on which listing is based:
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
f. Is the project site, or any portion of it, located in or adjacent to an area designated as sensitive for ✔
Yes No
archaeological sites on the NY State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) archaeological site inventory?
g. Have additional archaeological or historic site(s) or resources been identified on the project site? Yes No
If Yes:
i. Describe possible resource(s): _______________________________________________________________________________
ii. Basis for identification: ___________________________________________________________________________________
h. ,Vthe project site ZLWKLQILYHVPLOHVRI any officially designated and publicly accessible federal, state, or local ✔
Yes No
scenic or aesthetic resource?
If Yes:
i. Identify resource: _________________________________________________________________________________________
Local Resource: Gardenville Area
ii. Nature of, or basis for, designation (e.g., established highway overlook, state or local park, state historic trail or scenic byway,
etc.): Historic
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Nieghborhood
iii. Distance between project and resource: _____________________ 1.1 miles.
i. Is the project site located within a designated river corridor under the Wild, Scenic and Recreational Rivers Yes ✔
No
Program 6 NYCRR 666?
If Yes:
i. Identify the name of the river and its designation: ________________________________________________________________
ii. Is the activity consistent with development restrictions contained in 6NYCRR Part 666? Yes No
F. Additional Information
Attach any additional information which may be needed to clarify your project.
If you have identified any adverse impacts which could be associated with your proposal, please describe those impacts plus any
measures which you propose to avoid or minimize them.
G. Verification
I certify that the information provided is true to the best of my knowledge.
Applicant/Sponsor Name ___________________________________ Date_______________________________________
Signature________________________________________________ Title_______________________________________
PRINT FORM Page 13 of 13

660
EAF Mapper Summary Report Monday, February 22, 2021 10:30 AM
Disclaimer: The EAF Mapper is a screening tool intended to assist

project sponsors and reviewing agencies in preparing an environmental
assessment form (EAF). Not all questions asked in the EAF are
answered by the EAF Mapper. Additional information on any EAF
question can be obtained by consulting the EAF Workbooks. Although
the EAF Mapper provides the most up-to-date digital data available to
DEC, you may also need to contact local or other data sources in order
to obtain data not provided by the Mapper. Digital data is not a
substitute for agency determinations.
B.i.i [Coastal or Waterfront Area] No

B.i.ii [Local Waterfront Revitalization Area] No
C.2.b. [Special Planning District] Yes - Digital mapping data are not available for all Special Planning Districts.
Refer to EAF Workbook.
C.2.b. [Special Planning District - Name] NYS Heritage Areas:West Erie Canal Corridor
E.1.h [DEC Spills or Remediation Site - Digital mapping data are not available or are incomplete. Refer to EAF
Potential Contamination History] Workbook.
E.1.h.i [DEC Spills or Remediation Site - Digital mapping data are not available or are incomplete. Refer to EAF
Listed] Workbook.
E.1.h.i [DEC Spills or Remediation Site - Digital mapping data are not available or are incomplete. Refer to EAF
Environmental Site Remediation Database] Workbook.
E.1.h.iii [Within 2,000' of DEC Remediation Yes
Site]
E.1.h.iii [Within 2,000' of DEC Remediation C915339
Site - DEC ID]
E.2.g [Unique Geologic Features] No
E.2.h.i [Surface Water Features] Yes
E.2.h.ii [Surface Water Features] Yes
E.2.h.iii [Surface Water Features] Yes - Digital mapping information on local and federal wetlands and
waterbodies is known to be incomplete. Refer to EAF Workbook.
E.2.h.iv [Surface Water Features - Wetlands Federal Waters
Name]
E.2.h.v [Impaired Water Bodies] No
E.2.i. [Floodway] Yes
E.2.j. [100 Year Floodplain] Yes
E.2.k. [500 Year Floodplain] Yes
Full Environmental Assessment Form - EAF Mapper Summary Report 1

661
FILED: ERIE COUNTY CLERK 09/09/2022
E.2.l. [Aquifers] No 11:48 AM INDEX NO. 808016/2022
E.2.n. [Natural Communities] No
E.2.o. [Endangered or Threatened Species] No
E.2.p. [Rare Plants or Animals] No
E.3.a. [Agricultural District] No
E.3.c. [National Natural Landmark] No
E.3.d [Critical Environmental Area] No
E.3.e. [National or State Register of Historic Digital mapping data are not available or are incomplete. Refer to EAF
Places or State Eligible Sites] Workbook.
E.3.f. [Archeological Sites] Yes
E.3.i. [Designated River Corridor] No
Full Environmental Assessment Form - EAF Mapper Summary Report 2

662
Exhibit “9” - Copy of Cansisius Revision appvl ltr 2-8-22.pdf

Exhibit “9”
663
TOWN OF WEST SENECA
TOWN SUPERVISOR
GARY A. DICKSON
TOWN COUNCIL
SUSAN K. KIMS
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT JEFFREY A. PIEKAREC
JOSEPH CANTAFIO
ROBERT BREIDENSTEIN
February 8, 2022
Town of West Seneca Planning Board

c/o Mr. Jeffrey Schieber, CEO
Town of West Seneca Code Enforcement
Re: Canisius School

Field expansion
Dear Members of the Planning Board,
Our office has reviewed the revised plans and reports that were recently resubmitted due to
comments from agencies. Our original approval still stands as their revision provides even more
stormwater storage than the original design.
Therefore, it is the recommendation of this department that the Board accept this project pending
any approvals from any outside agencies
Please contact me should you have any questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
David H. Johnson, CPESC, CPSWQ
TOWN HALL 1250 UNION ROAD· WEST SENECA. NEW YORK 14224 • (716) 558-3220 • FAX (716) 677-5448
www.westseneca.net
664
Exhibit “10” - Copy of DEC_Buffalo.9-1402-00596.CanisiusHighSchool.PermitUpdateLtr.pdf

Exhibit “10”
665
SENT VIA EMAIL

January 13, 2022
ATTN: Matthew Carver

Dear Matthew Carver:

Permit Review Status
Robert J. Stransky Memorial Complex
2885 Clinton Street
Town of West Seneca, Erie County
This letter serves as an update on the permit review status of the above-
mentioned project. The Department received the Joint Application Form and project
plans on May 11, 2021. During our review period we have also received other
application materials including updated project plans and wetland delineation
requirements. The Department is also in receipt of the United States Army Corps of
Engineers “no permit required” approval letter. All application materials have been
reviewed and DEC does not anticipate requiring any further application materials at this
time.
Please be advised, this project is considered major under the Uniform

Procedures Act. Projects deemed major require public notice and a 15-day public
comment period. The Department plans to issue a Notice of Complete Application once
we have received an approval letter from NYS Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic
Preservation regarding their concerns as reviewed under the State Historic Preservation
Act. We are aware your submission to SHPO is currently in the 30-day review window
for Indian Nations final comments.
If you have any other questions, please feel free to contact me at kerri.pickard-
depriest@dec.ny.gov or at 716/851-7165.
Sincerely,
Kerri Pickard-DePriest
Environmental Analyst
cmn
666
667
Exhibit “11” - Copy of DEED 11098-2759_Written property Description.pdf

Exhibit “11”
668
ERIE COUNTY CLERKS OFFICE

County Clerk's Recording Page
Index DEED LIBER

Return To:
Book 11098 Page 2759
BOX 16
No. Pages 0008
Instrument DEED-VACANT$165
Date : 7/20/2005
Time : 9:56:44
Control # 200507200094
MECCA
PETER L
MECCA2 TT# TT 2004 029116
LOUIS W EX
MECCA Employee ID LRL
LE P
MECCA
VITO TR
COUNT $ 51.00
COE S ATE $ 4.75
COE C4UNTY $ 1.00
TRANSFER $ 2,356.00
NFTA TT $ 2,945.00
STATE E&A $ 156.00
COUNTY E&A $ 9.00
COE ST GEN $ 14.25
$ .00
Total: $ 5,537.00
STATE OF NEW YORK TRANSFER TAX

ERIE COUNTY CLERKS OFFICE
WARNING - THIS SHEET CONSTITUTES THE CLERK'S CONSIDERATN 588,905.00

$
ENDORSEMENT, REQUIRED BY SECTIONS 319&316-a
(5) OF THE REAL PROPERTY LAW OF THE STATE OF
NEW YORK. DO NOT DETACH. THIS IS NOT A BILL TRANSFER TAX $ 5,301.00
DAVID J SWARTS
COUNTY CLERK
D110982759
669
Warranty Deed
This Indenture, made the day of , 2005
Between Peter L. Mecca Estate of Louis W. Mecca Leonarxt P. Mecca

2050 Langford Road by Concetta Mecca, Executrix 2050 Langford Road
North Collins NY 141I1 10820 Main Stmet North Collins NY 1411 I
North Collins NY 14111
Leonard V. Mecca, as trustee of the Trust under the Will of Vito Mecca
7324 Edisto Drive
Lake Worth FL 33467
parties of the first part, and

Buffalo NY 14209
party of the second part,
Witnesseth, that the said parties of the first part, in consideration of $1.00 and more lawful money of the
United States, to them in hand paid by the party of the second part, hemby grant and release unto the parties of
the se ond part, its successors and assigns forever,
SEE SCHEDULE A ATTACHED.
Subject to easements and rights of way of record; and
Subject to the Right of L. Catalano to harvest his 2005 strawberry crop on or before July 31, 2005.
Together with the appurtenances and all the estate and rights of the parties of the first part in and to said
premises,
To Have and To Hold, the above granted premises unto the said parties of the second part, their heirs,
distributees, legal representatives and assigns forever.
And, said parties of the first part, covenants as follows:
First, that the parties of the second part shall quietly enjoy the said premises;
Second, that said parties of the first part will forever Warrant the title to said premises;
Third, that this conveyance is subject to the trust fund provisions of the Lien Law §13.
670
In Witness Whereof, the parties of the first part have hereunto set their hands the day and year first
above written.
PETÈR L. MECCA LEONARD P. CCA
ESTATE OF LOUIS W. MECCA
By: ff.(..-rowit....-
CONCETTA MECCA, Executirx L ONARD V. MECCA, rustee for Trust under
the Will of Vito M. Mecca
State )
Coun o as.:
On the y day of , 2005 before me, the undersigned, personally appeared PETER
L. MÇCCA. personally known to m or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the individual whose
name ts subscribed to the within instrument and he acknowledged to me that he executed the same in his capacity, and
that by his signature on the instrument, the individ , the perso upon beha f which the individual acted, executed
the in ument.
Stephanie Winston
Û
Commission # DD381110
* 15,2009
,lanuary
9
,,,.--.--m"
State )
County of ss.:
On the V() day of , 2005 before me, the undersigned,

personally appeared
LEONARD P. MECCA, ersonall me or proved to me on the basis
of satisfactory evidence to be the
individual whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and he acknowledged to me that he executed the same in
-
his capacity, and that by his signature on the instrument, the individual, or upo half of which the individual
acted, executed the instrument.
hange Winston
See
"----
ssion # DD381110
808'8858888
gun,edtarNhi-ammunanhe
671
State of blew-¥ork
County of ss.:
On the Y// day of , 2005 before me, the undersigned, personally appeared
CONCETTA MECCA, personally wn to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the individual
whose name is subscribed to the withm mstrument and she acknowledged to me that she executed the same in her
capacity, and that by her signatun: on the instrument, the individual, or the person upon behalf of which the individual
acted, executed the instrument.
Winston
hanie
Ste
asion # DD38mo
-----
2009
Expires January 15,
State Florida )
Coun of ) ss.:
On the / day of . 2005 before me, the undersigned, personally appeared

3f
LEONARD V. MECCA, rsonally known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the
indivi cal whose name is subscrib to t e wit m mstrument and he acknowledged to me that he executed the same in
his cal city, and that by his signature on the instrument, the individual, or the person upon behalf of which the individual
acted, executed the instrument, and made such appearance before the undersigned in
1 . (Insert the City or other political subdivision and the State or Country or other place the
ackno ledgment was taken).
N TARY PUBLIC above

8R10 W158108 Print Name:
$ DD381110 Qualified In:
County
Commission Expiration Date: r
Affix Stamp or Seal
672
SCHEDULE A
All that tract or parcel of land situate in the Town of West Seneca, County of Erie
and State of New York, part of Lots 25, 26 and 27 of Middle Ebenezer filed under
being
Cover 102 and part of Lots 47 and 48 of Ebenezer Lands filed under Map Cover 58,
Map
more fully described as:
at a point on the south line of Clinton Street which point is 508.50 feet
Beginning
southeast (as measured the south line of Clinton Street) of the intersection of the
along
south line of Clinton Street and the northwest line of Lot 47;
45° 50' 31"

Thence South East 558.23 feet to a point;
22° 27' 41"

Thence South West 498.92 feet to a point on the High Bank of
Û Buffalo Creek;
Thence the courses and distances the High Bank of Buffalo Creek
following along
to the point of intersection of the High Bank of Buffalo Creek with an extension
of the northwest line of Lot 47

southwesterly
84° 12' 14"
South West 232.75 feet
81° 04' 51"

89° 06' 03"

North West 132.56 feet
84° 21' 04"

81° 06' 25"

89° 17' 35"

84° 27' 28"

81° 05' 46"

74° 07' 42"

60° 15' 18"

61° 39' 33"

82° 43' 35"

88° 31' 22"

86° 10' 28"

73° 55' 33"

58° 10' 45"

North West 87.25 feet;
673
43° 58' 17"

Thence North East, along the northwest line of Lot 47 and an
extension southwesterly of the northwest line of Lot 47, 1940.69 feet to a point which
point is the point of intersection of the northwest line of Lot 47 and the southwest line of
lands conveyed to The Terminal Raihoad of Buffalo by deed recorded in Liber 1278 of
Deeds at Page 42;
50° 38' 47"

Thence South East, along the southwest line of said lands conveyed
to The Terminal Railroad of Buffalo, 209.18 feet to a point;
43° 58' 17"

Thence South West, on a line parallel to the northwest line of Lot 47,
300.00 feet to a point;
45° 50' 31"

Thence South East, on a line parallel to the centerline of Clinton
Street, 300.00 feet to a point;
43° 58' 17"

Thence North East 300.00 feet to the point or place of beginning.
Excepting therefrom those premises conveyed to New York State Electric and
Gas Corporation by deed recorded in Liber 7227 of Deeds at Page 428 but conveying all
5 rights of the parties of the first part under an agreement with New York State Electric and
Gas Corporation recorded in Liber 8261 of Deeds at Page 373.
Intending to describe and convey those prernises conveyed to Peter L Mecca,
Louis W. Mecca, Leonard Mecca, and Vito Mecca by Alice C. Pfeiffer by deed recorded
in Liber 8556 of Deeds at Page 433 and by William Pfeiffer and Elizabeth Pfeiffer by
deed recorded in Liber 8261 of Deeds at Page 345, excepting those portions thereof taken
by Notices of Appropriation recorded in Liber 9071 of Deeds at Pages 442 and 444.
Also all that tract or parcel of land situate in the Town of West Seneca, County of
Erie and State of New York, being part of Lots 39, 40 and 41 of Ebenezer Lands filed
under Map Cover 58, more fully described as:
Beginning at a point in the center line of Clinton Street, which center line is the
north line of said Lot 39, 430.00 feet southeast (as measured along said center line) of the
northwest corner of said Lot 39, said point of beginning also being the northeast corner of
lands conveyed to Health Research, Inc. by deed recorded in Liber 6649 of Deeds at Page
257;
-·2..
674
43° 50' 10"

Thence south West, the southeast line of said lands conveyed to
along
Health Research, Inc., 250.00 feet to a point;
46° 10' 51"

Thence South East, on a line parallel to the center line of Clinton
Street and the northeast line of lands conveyed to Health Research, Inc. by deed
along
recorded in Liber 8542 of Deeds at Page 473, 141.24 feet to the northeast corner of said
lands conveyed to Health Inc. deed recorded in Liber 8542 of Deeds at Page
Research, by
473;
43° 58' 56"
Thence South West, on a line parallel to the east line of said Lot 39
and the southeast line of said lands conveyed to Health Research, Inc. by deed
along
recorded in Liber 8542 of Deeds at Page 473; 982.06 feet to the north line of lands
conveyed to the of Erie deed recorded in Liber 6113 of Deeds at Page 232;
County by
Thence the north line of said lands conveyed to the County of

southeasterly along
Erie 72.44 feet to a set rebar and cap;
159° 10' 00"

Thence at an exterior angle of and continuing along the
southerly
north iine of said iands conveyed to the County of Erie, 346.00 feet to a set rebar and cap;
5
149° 20' 00"
Thence at an interior angle of and still continuing
southeasterly
the north line of said lands conveyed to the County of Erie, 115.00 feet to the east
along
line of said Lot 40;

3 43° 58' 35" line Buffalo
Thence South West 82.28 feet to a point on the water of
Creek;
Thence the courses and distances the water line of Buffalo Creek
following along
to the easterly line of said Lot 41
16° 12' 11"

South East 94.92 feet
10° 06' 34"

04° 05' 44"

29° 00' 10"

11° 03' 05"

14° 55' 59"

South East 53.29 feet;
43° 58' 56"

Thence North the east line of said Lot 41, 846.04 feet to a
East, along
point;
-3-
675
04° 55' 36"

Thence North East 1330.10 feet to a point on the southwest line of
lands conveyed to the of Erie deed recorded in Liber 2392 of Deeds at Page
County by
276;
Thence the southwest line of lands conveyed to the County

northwesterly, along
of Erie, 64 feet more or less to a point on the southeast line of lands conveyed to LaRita
B. deed recorded in Liber 8138 of Deeds at Page 44;

Galley by
Thence the southeast line of said lands conveyed to Galley,

southwesterly along
80 feet more or less to a point;
the south line of said lands conveyed to Galley, 75.82 feet

Thence westerly along
to a point;
46° 05' 25" Clinton Street and

Thence North parallel to the center line of
West,
southwest line of said land conveyed to Galley and the southwest line of lands
along the
conveyed to Peter Jr. by deed recorded in Liber 11047 of Deeds at Page 9633,
Durant,
170 feet more or less to the southwest corner of said lands conveyed to Durant;
5 Thence the northwest line of said lands conveyed to Durant

northeasterly along
173 feet more or less to a point on the center line

and an extension northeasterly thereof,
of Clinton Street;
46° 05' 25" 60 feet

Thence North the center line of Clinton Street,
West, along
more or less to the point or place of beginning.
to describe and those premises conveyed to Peter L. Mecca,

Intending convey
and Leonard Mecca E.W. Dann Stevens and Marine

Vito M. Mecca, Louis W. Mecca, by
Midland as trustees under the Last Will and Testament of J. Clarence Galley
Bank, N.A.,
Deed recorded in Liber 9399 of Deeds at Page 198 and by George D.

by Trustee's
Roesch and Marjorie E. Roesch deed recorded in Liber 9422 of Deeds at Page 438,
by
that portion thereof conveyed to Peter Durant, Jr. by deed recorded in Liber
excepting
11047 of Deeds at Page 9633.
-4-
676
Exhibit “12” - Copy of Original Application.pdf

Exhibit “12”
677
TOWN OF WEST SENECA
APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
DATE 2-25-21 FILE #
PROJECT NAME Robert J. Stransky Memorial Athletic Complex Phase 3 Development Project ...._
PROJECT LOCATION (Include address and distance to nearest intersection)

2885 Clinton Street, West Seneca, 14224 / 1,500 ft southeast of the intersection at French Road and Clinton Street
APPLICANT Brad Vaillancourt PH/FAX P: (716)883-4400 F: (716)883-4268
ADDRESS 37 Franklin Street - Suite 100, Buffalo, New York 14202 _
PROPERTYOWNER Canisius High School PH/FAX P: (716)882-0466 F: (716)883-1870
ADDRESS 1180 Delaware Avenue, Buffalo, New York 14224 ..............__..._
ENGINEER/ARCHITECT Trautman Associates PH/FAX P: (716)883-4400 F: (716)883-4268
ADDRESS 37 Franklin Street - Suite 100, Buffalo, New York 14202 ......_
SBL # 124.10-2-17.1 & 124.14-5-1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION(Include all uses and any required construction)

The project involves
a new varsity baseball diamond with a synthetic turf infield and outfield, batting/pitching tunnel visitor's
dugout, home dugout with locker room, an elevated press box, scoreboard, and bleacher seating; new junior varsity.haseball diamond
with synthetic turf infield and natural grass outfield, visitor and home dugouts; natural grass practice field for soccer,Jugby and
lacrosse; expanded storm water detention system, and walkways from the existing parking area to the new fields
SIZEOF LOT(acres) 26.5 ACREAGE TO BE REZONED Zero
ADJACENT ROAD NAMES AND AMOUNT OF FRONTAGE ON EACH
68 feet front on Clinton Street
............._______
EXISTING ZONING R-100A PROPOSEDZONING NA
EXISTING USE(S)ON PROPERTY Recreation/School
PROPOSED USE(S) ON PROPERTY Recreation/School
EXISTING USE(S) AND ZONING ON ALL PROPERTY WITHIN 500 FEET
Zoning R-100A: Uses-Industrial, Vacant and Single Family Residential ..._..........
Zoning M-1: Uses-Commercial, Multi Family Residential and Single Family Residential
Zoning-65: Use-Single Family Residential .................
PUBLIC SEWER YES X NO PUBLIC WATER YES X NO
VARIANCES AND OTHER APPROVALS OR PERMITS

REQUIRED
No Variances required
678
Exhibit “13” - Copy of Original cover letter.pdf

Exhibit “13”
679
TOWN OF WEST SENECA

TOWN SUPERVISOR
GARY A. DICKSON
TOWN COUNCIL
WILLIAM BAUER
CODE ENFORCEMENT JOSEPH J. CANTAFIO
OFFICE
"BUILDING SAFETY IS NO ACCIDENT" WILLIAM P. HANLEY JR.
JEFF PIEKAREC
February 26, 2021
Town of West Seneca
Building Dept.
1250 Union Rd
Re: 2885 Clinton Street - Canisius Highschool
Please find enclosed a submittal for the proposed construction of new Athletic Fields at
the above location. The scheduled planning board meeting is set for April 8, 2021.
Pursuant to Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation law, State Environmental
Quality Review Act (SEQRA):
The Town of West Seneca Board is seeking lead agency designation in this
Planning
matter. The Town of West Seneca Planning Board will make a determination of its
significance. All submitted materials will be posted on Town web site from review and
comment. Please return any comments or concerns within 30 days of the date of
notification.
Ifyou have any questions, please call our office @ 716-558-3242.
Yours truly,
Jeffrey A Schieber
jschieber@twsny.org
JAS:st
TOWN HALL " 1250 UNION ROAD " WEST SENECA, NEWYORK 14224 " (716) 558-3242 " FAX (716) 677-4488
www.westseneca.net
680
Exhibit “14” - Copy of Original EC SEQRA form.pdf

Exhibit “14”
681
SITE PLAN OR ZONING REFERRAL TO COUNTY OF ERIE, N.Y.

AND REPLY TO MUNICIPALITY
DONOTWRITEIN THIS SPACE
Note: Please complete in triplicate. Send original and one copy (with attachments) to
Case No.:
Erie County Division of Planning, Room 1053, 95 Franklin Street, Buffalo, N.Y. 14202.
Retain last copy for your files·
Postmark/Delivery Date:
The proposed action described herein is referred in accordance with the provisions of the General Municipal Law, which provides that if no
reply is received in 30 days after receipt of full information including a SEQR EAF if applicable, the municipal agency may take final action
without considering such reply. If, however, replay is received at any time prior to municipal Action, such reply must be considered.
Description of Proposed Action
1. Name of Municipality:
2. Hearing Schedule: Date 62 Time \ Location d\ f
3. Action is before: O Legislative Body ¡ Board of Appeals Planning Board
4. Action consists of: O New Ordinance ¡ Rezone/Map Change ¡ Ordinance Amendment
Site Plan ¡ Variance ¡ Special Use Permit O Other
5. Location of Property: O Entire Municipality ¡ Specific as follows
6. Referral required as ¡ State or County O Municipal Boundary ¡ Farm Opera ion located in
Site is within 500'of: Property/Institution an Agricultural District
O Expressway ¡ County Road State Highway O Proposed State or County

Road, Property, Building/
Institution, Drainageway
7. Proposed change or use: (be specific) MEm hT44?Æ\L B ELE
8. Other remarks: (SBL#, etc.)
9. Submitted by: 6 TANW r¶-

W ST 56N gafe
Reply to Municipality by Erie County Division of Planning
Receipt of the above-described proposed action is acknowledged on . The Division herewith

submits its review and reply under the provisions of applicable state and local law, based on the information
submitted with this referral.
1. ¡ The proposed action is not subject to review under the law.
2. O Comment on Proposed action is attached hereto.
3. ¡ The proposed action is subject to review; Recommendation on Proposed Action is attached hereto.
4. ¡ No recommendation; proposed action has been reviewed and determined to be of local concern
By the Division of Planning: Date:
Revised 4/16
682
Exhibit “15” - Copy of SWPPP Report-CanisiusHS_2021-05-25.pdf

([KLELW³´
683
^ƚŽƌŵǁĂƚĞƌDĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚZĞƉŽƌƚ
ĂŶĚ
^ƚŽƌŵǁĂƚĞƌWŽůůƵƚŝŽŶWƌĞǀĞŶƚŝŽŶWůĂŶ
ĨŽƌ
ĂŶŝƐŝƵƐ,ŝŐŚ^ĐŚŽŽůʹZŽďĞƌƚ:͘^ƚƌĂŶƐŬǇDĞŵŽƌŝĂůƚŚůĞƚŝĐŽŵƉůĞǆ
WŚĂƐĞdŚƌĞĞĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚWƌŽũĞĐƚ
Ăƚ
ϮϴϴϱůŝŶƚŽŶ^ƚƌĞĞƚඵtĞƐƚ^ĞŶĞĐĂ͕EzϭϰϮϮϰඵƌŝĞŽƵŶƚǇඵEz^ZĞŐŝŽŶηϵ

ĂƚĞ͗
ƉƌŝůϮϬϮϭʹZĞǀŝƐĞĚDĂǇϮϬϮϭ


684
d>K&KEdEd^

^ĞĐƚŝŽŶϭͲ^KW
͘ WƵƌƉŽƐĞ
͘ ^tWWWWĞƌŵŝƚƚŝŶŐWƌŽĐĞƐƐDĂƉ
͘ WƌŽũĞĐƚ/ŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶ
͘ ŽŶƚƌĂĐƚŽƌƐZĞƐƉŽŶƐŝďŝůŝƚŝĞƐ
͘ ŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶŽŵƉůŝĂŶĐĞ
͘ &ŝŶĂů^ƚĂďŝůŝǌĂƚŝŽŶ
&͘ KǁŶĞƌƐEĂŵĞĂŶĚĚĚƌĞƐƐ
^ĞĐƚŝŽŶϮʹ^dKZDtdZE>z^/^
͘ ŽŶĐĞƉƚWƌŽƉŽƐĂů
͘ ^ƚŽƌŵǁĂƚĞƌDĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚDĞƚŚŽĚŽůŽŐǇ
͘ ƐƐƵŵƉƚŝŽŶƐ
͘ ,ǇĚƌŽůŽŐŝĐŶĂůǇƐŝƐDĞƚŚŽĚŽůŽŐǇ
͘ tĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚŶĂůǇƐŝƐ
&͘ ŽŶĐůƵƐŝŽŶƐ
'͘ tĂƚĞƌYƵĂŶƚŝƚǇŽŶƚƌŽůƐ͗^ƚŽƌŵǁĂƚĞƌ^ƚŽƌĂŐĞ
,͘ tĂƚĞƌYƵĂůŝƚǇŽŶƚƌŽůƐ
/͘ ZĞĨĞƌĞŶĐĞƐ
^ĞĐƚŝŽŶϯʹZK^/KEKEdZK>͕/E^Wd/KE^͕ED/EdEE
͘ ƌŽƐŝŽŶŽŶƚƌŽůDĞĂƐƵƌĞƐĂŶĚ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐĂƚŝŽŶƐ
͘ ^ƉŝůůWƌĞǀĞŶƚŝŽŶĂŶĚZĞƉŽƌƚŝŶŐ
͘ ŽŶƚƌĂĐƚŽƌĞƌƚŝĨŝĐĂƚŝŽŶ^ƚĂƚĞŵĞŶƚ
͘ /ŶƐƉĞĐƚŝŽŶĂŶĚ&ŽƌŵƐ
͘ ŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶ^ĞƋƵĞŶĐŝŶŐ
&͘ ŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞ
'͘ >ŽŶŐdĞƌŵDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞ
,͘ /ŶƐƉĞĐƚŝŽŶ&ŽƌŵƐ;tĞĞŬůǇ͕ŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶ͕ĂŶĚDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞͿ
^ĞĐƚŝŽŶϰʹ^hWWKZd/E'/E&KZDd/KE
• >ŽĐĂƚŝŽŶDĂƉ
• ZĞŐƵůĂƚĞĚD^ϰ͕dD>tĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚĂŶĚϯϬϯ;ĚͿ>ŽĐĂƚŝŽŶDĂƉ
• tĞƚůĂŶĚDĂƉƉŝŶŐ
• &ůŽŽĚƉůĂŝŶDĂƉ
• ^Žŝů/ŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶ
• ,ǇĚƌŽůŽŐŝĐ^Žŝů/ŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶ
• ^ƚĂƚĞ,ŝƐƚŽƌŝĐĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚDĂƉƉŝŶŐĂŶĚ>ĞƚƚĞƌ
• ZĂŝŶĨĂůů&ƌĞƋƵĞŶĐŝĞƐ
• 'ĞŽƚĞĐŚŶŝĐĂůZĞƉŽƌƚ;ǁŚĞŶĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞĚͿ
^ĞĐƚŝŽŶϱʹW>E^
͘ ǆŝƐƚŝŶŐtĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚƐ
͘ WƌŽƉŽƐĞĚtĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚƐ
͘ ^tWWWʹ^ƚŽƌŵǁĂƚĞƌWŽůůƵƚŝŽŶWƌĞǀĞŶƚŝŽŶWůĂŶ
͘ 'ƌĂĚŝŶŐͬhƚŝůŝƚǇĂŶĚ>ĂǇŽƵƚWůĂŶƐ
^ĞĐƚŝŽŶϲʹ>h>d/KEÊDK>/E'd
• WƌŽƉŽƐĞĚtĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚWǀĂůĐƵůĂƚŝŽŶƐ
• WƌŽƉŽƐĞĚtĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚtYǀĂůĐƵůĂƚŝŽŶ
• ,ǇĚƌĂĨůŽǁ,ǇĚƌŽŐƌĂƉŚƐZĞƉŽƌƚƐͲǆŝƐƚŝŶŐ
• ,ǇĚƌĂĨůŽǁ,ǇĚƌŽŐƌĂƉŚƐZĞƉŽƌƚƐʹWƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ
• WƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ^ƚŽƌŵǁĂƚĞƌĂƐŝŶ^ƚĂŐĞ^ƚŽƌĂŐĞƵƌǀĞƐĂŶĚKƵƚůĞƚ^ƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞ
^ĞĐƚŝŽŶϳʹEz^KDW>/E
• 'WͲϬͲϮϬͲϬϬϭ^W^WZD/d
• EŽƚŝĐĞŽĨ/ŶƚĞŶƚ
• D^ϰƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĚĐĐĞƉƚĂŶĐĞ>ĞƚƚĞƌ
• EK/ĐŬŶŽǁůĞĚŐĞŵĞŶƚ>ĞƚƚĞƌ
• EŽƚŝĐĞŽĨdĞƌŵŝŶĂƚŝŽŶ;tŚĞŶWƌŽũĞĐƚŝƐŽŵƉůĞƚĞͿ
685

W Ă Ő Ğ ͮϮ

^d/KEϭͲ^KW

͘ WhZWK^

dŚŝƐ^ƚŽƌŵtĂƚĞƌWŽůůƵƚŝŽŶWƌĞǀĞŶƚŝŽŶWůĂŶ;^tWWWͿƉƌĞƐĞŶƚƐǁƌŝƚƚĞŶĂŶĚŐƌĂƉŚŝĐĂůƌĞƐƵůƚƐŽĨ
ŽƵƌĂŶĂůǇƐŝƐĨŽƌĂĚĚƌĞƐƐŝŶŐƌŽƐŝŽŶĂŶĚ^ĞĚŝŵĞŶƚŽŶƚƌŽů͕^ƚŽƌŵtĂƚĞƌYƵĂŶƚŝƚǇĂŶĚ^ƚŽƌŵ
tĂƚĞƌYƵĂůŝƚǇĂƐƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚďǇƚŚĞEĞǁzŽƌŬ^ƚĂƚĞĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚŽĨŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂůŽŶƐĞƌǀĂƚŝŽŶ
ƌĞŐĂƌĚŝŶŐĐŽŵƉůŝĂŶĐĞƚŽƚŚĞ^ƚŽƌŵǁĂƚĞƌŝƐĐŚĂƌŐĞƐƐƐŽĐŝĂƚĞĚǁŝƚŚŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶĐƚŝǀŝƚǇ
ƵŶĚĞƌ^ƚĂƚĞWŽůůƵƚĂŶƚŝƐĐŚĂƌŐĞůŝŵŝŶĂƚŝŽŶ^ǇƐƚĞŵ'ĞŶĞƌĂůWĞƌŵŝƚEŽ͘'WͲϬͲϭϱͲϬϬϮ͘dŚŝƐ
^tWWWŝƐƉƌĞƉĂƌĞĚŝŶĂĐĐŽƌĚĂŶĐĞǁŝƚŚƚŚĞƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐŽĨƌƚŝĐůĞϭϳ͕dŝƚůĞƐϳ͕ϴĂŶĚƌƚŝĐůĞϳϬ
ŽĨƚŚĞEĞǁzŽƌŬ^ƚĂƚĞŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂůŽŶƐĞƌǀĂƚŝŽŶ>Ăǁ͘

dŚĞĚĞƐŝŐŶƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚƐĂŶĚƉƌĂĐƚŝĐĞƐŽƵƚůŝŶĞĚŚĞƌĞŝŶĂƌĞŝŶĂĐĐŽƌĚĂŶĐĞǁŝƚŚƚŚĞEz^^ƚĂŶĚĂƌĚƐ
ĂŶĚ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐĂƚŝŽŶƐĨŽƌƌŽƐŝŽŶĂŶĚ^ĞĚŝŵĞŶƚŽŶƚƌŽůĂŶĚƚŚĞEz^^ƚŽƌŵǁĂƚĞƌDĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚ
ĞƐŝŐŶDĂŶƵĂů͘dŚĞƐĞŵĂŶƵĂůƐƉƌŽǀŝĚĞƚŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚĚĞƐŝŐŶĞƌĂŐĞŶĞƌĂůŽǀĞƌǀŝĞǁŽŶƚŚĞƐŝǌŝŶŐ͕
ĚĞƐŝŐŶ͕ƐĞůĞĐƚŝŽŶĂŶĚůŽĐĂƚŝŽŶŽĨƐƚŽƌŵǁĂƚĞƌŵĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚƉƌĂĐƚŝĐĞƐ͘

dŚĞEz^ƌĞƋƵŝƌĞƐƚŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚƚŽĂĚĚƌĞƐƐĨŝǀĞ;ϱͿƉĂƌĂŵĞƚĞƌƐĂƐƐŽĐŝĂƚĞĚǁŝƚŚƐƚŽƌŵǁĂƚĞƌ͖
tĂƚĞƌYƵĂůŝƚǇsŽůƵŵĞ;tYǀͿ͕ZƵŶŽĨĨZĞĚƵĐƚŝŽŶsŽůƵŵĞ;ZZǀͿ͕ŚĂŶŶĞůWƌŽƚĞĐƚŝŽŶsŽůƵŵĞ
;WǀͿ͕KǀĞƌͲĂŶŬ&ůŽŽĚWƌŽƚĞĐƚŝŽŶsŽůƵŵĞ;YϭϬͿĂŶĚǆƚƌĞŵĞ&ůŽŽĚWƌŽƚĞĐƚŝŽŶsŽůƵŵĞ;YϭϬϬͿ͘
dŚĞ^tWWWĨƵŶĐƚŝŽŶƐĂƐĂƉůĂŶĨŽƌĐŽŶƚƌŽůůŝŶŐƌƵŶŽĨĨĂŶĚƉŽůůƵƚĂŶƚƐĨƌŽŵĂƐŝƚĞĚƵƌŝŶŐĂŶĚĂĨƚĞƌ
ĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶĂĐƚŝǀŝƚŝĞƐ͕ƚŽƉƌŽƚĞĐƚǁĂƚĞƌƌĞƐŽƵƌĐĞƐĨƌŽŵƐƚŽƌŵǁĂƚĞƌŝŵƉĂĐƚƐ͘

tĂƚĞƌYƵĂůŝƚǇsŽůƵŵĞ;tYǀͿ͗dŚĞEz^͛ƐƌĞƋƵŝƌĞƐƚŚĞĐŽůůĞĐƚŝŽŶĂŶĚƚƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚŽĨϵϬ
ƉĞƌĐĞŶƚŽĨƚŚĞĂǀĞƌĂŐĞĂŶŶƵĂůƐƚŽƌŵǁĂƚĞƌƌƵŶŽĨĨǀŽůƵŵĞŽƌƚŚĞĞŶŚĂŶĐĞĚƉŚŽƐƉŚŽƌƵƐ
ƌĞŵŽǀĂůƌĂƚĞĚĞƉĞŶĚŝŶŐŽŶƚŚĞůŽĐĂƚŝŽŶ;tYǀͿŝŶŽƌĚĞƌƚŽƌĞĚƵĐĞƚŚĞĂŵŽƵŶƚŽĨ
ƉŽůůƵƚĂŶƚƐĨŽƵŶĚŝŶƚŚĞǁĂƚĞƌƐŝĨEĞǁzŽƌŬ^ƚĂƚĞ͘

ZƵŶŽĨĨZĞĚƵĐƚŝŽŶsŽůƵŵĞ;ZZǀͿ͗dŚĞEz^͛ƐƌĞƋƵŝƌĞƐƌĞĚƵĐƚŝŽŶŽĨƚŚĞƚŽƚĂůtĂƚĞƌ
YƵĂůŝƚǇsŽůƵŵĞ;tYǀͿďǇĂƉƉůŝĞĚŐƌĞĞŶŝŶĨƌĂƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞƚĞĐŚŶŝƋƵĞƐĂŶĚƐƚŽƌŵǁĂƚĞƌ
ŵĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚƉƌĂĐƚŝĐĞƐƚŽƌĞƉůŝĐĂƚĞƉƌĞͲĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚŚǇĚƌŽůŽŐǇ͘;ZZǀͿĐĂŶďĞĂĐŚŝĞǀĞĚ
ďǇŝŶĨŝůƚƌĂƚŝŽŶ͕ŐƌŽƵŶĚǁĂƚĞƌƌĞĐŚĂƌŐĞ͕ƌĞƵƐĞ͕ƌĞĐǇĐůĞ͕ĞǀĂƉŽƌĂƚŝŽŶͬĞǀĂƉŽƚƌĂŶƐƉŝƌĂƚŝŽŶŽĨ
ϭϬϬƉĞƌĐĞŶƚŽĨƚŚĞƉŽƐƚĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞĚǁĂƚĞƌƋƵĂůŝƚǇǀŽůƵŵĞƐ͘

ŚĂŶŶĞůWƌŽƚĞĐƚŝŽŶsŽůƵŵĞ;WǀͿ͗tĂƚĞƌĐŽƵƌƐĞƐ͕ŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐƌŝǀĞƌƐ͕ƐƚƌĞĂŵƐĂŶĚƐǁĂůĞƐ
ĐĂŶďĞĂĚǀĞƌƐĞůǇĂĨĨĞĐƚĞĚďǇĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĂĐƚŝǀŝƚŝĞƐŝŶƵƉƐƚƌĞĂŵĂƌĞĂƐ͘ŶŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞŝŶ
ƚŚĞĂŵŽƵŶƚŽĨƌƵŶŽĨĨĚƵƌŝŶŐĨƌĞƋƵĞŶƚƐƚŽƌŵƐĐĂŶƌĞƐƵůƚŝŶĞƌŽƐŝŽŶ͘/ŶŽƌĚĞƌƚŽƉƌŽƚĞĐƚ
ƐƚƌĞĂŵĐŚĂŶŶĞůƐĨƌŽŵĞƌŽƐŝŽŶ͕ƚŚĞ^ƚƌĞĂŵŚĂŶŶĞůWƌŽƚĞĐƚŝŽŶsŽůƵŵĞ;WǀͿ͕ŝƐĚĞƚĂŝŶĞĚ
ĂŶĚƌĞůĞĂƐĞĚŽǀĞƌĂƉĞƌŝŽĚŽĨϮϰŚŽƵƌƐ͘dŚŝƐŝƐƌĞĨĞƌƌĞĚƚŽĂƐĞǆƚĞŶĚĞĚĚĞƚĞŶƚŝŽŶ͘dŚĞ
ĐŚĂŶŶĞůƉƌŽƚĞĐƚŝŽŶǀŽůƵŵĞŝƐĚĞĨŝŶĞĚĂƐƉŽƐƚͲĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƐƚŽƌŵǁĂƚĞƌƌƵŶŽĨĨ
ŐĞŶĞƌĂƚĞĚĚƵƌŝŶŐƚŚĞϭͲǇĞĂƌ͕ϮϰͲŚŽƵƌƐƚŽƌŵĞǀĞŶƚ͘

686

W Ă Ő Ğ ͮϯ

KǀĞƌͲĂŶŬ&ůŽŽĚWƌŽƚĞĐƚŝŽŶsŽůƵŵĞ;YϭϬͿ͗ĞƐŝŐŶĂĐƚŝǀŝƚŝĞƐĐĂŶĂůƚĞƌĨůŽǁĐƌŝƚĞƌŝĂůĞĂĚŝŶŐ
ƚŽĐŚĂŶŶĞůƐǁŝƚŚŽƵƚĂĚĞƋƵĂƚĞĐĂƉĂĐŝƚǇ͘/ŶŽƌĚĞƌƚŽƉƌĞǀĞŶƚƚŚĞŽǀĞƌͲďĂŶŬĨůŽŽĚŝŶŐĂĨƚĞƌ
ĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚŽĐĐƵƌƐ͕Ez^ŐƵŝĚĞůŝŶĞƐƌĞƋƵŝƌĞƚŚĂƚƐƚŽƌŵǁĂƚĞƌŵĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚƉƌĂĐƚŝĐĞƐ
ďĞĚĞƐŝŐŶĞĚƚŽĂƚƚĞŶƵĂƚĞƉĞĂŬĚŝƐĐŚĂƌŐĞƌĂƚĞƐƐƵĐŚƚŚĂƚƚŚĞƉŽƐƚͲĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƌĂƚĞƐĚŽ
ŶŽƚĞǆĐĞĞĚƚŚĞƉƌĞͲĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƌĂƚĞƐĚƵƌŝŶŐƚŚĞϭϬͲǇĞĂƌ͕ϮϰŚŽƵƌƐƚŽƌŵĞǀĞŶƚ͘

ǆƚƌĞŵĞ&ůŽŽĚWƌŽƚĞĐƚŝŽŶsŽůƵŵĞ;YϭϬϬͿ͗dŚĞEz^ƌĞƋƵŝƌĞƐƚŚĂƚĂƐƚŽƌŵǁĂƚĞƌ
ŵĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚƐǇƐƚĞŵĐĂƉƚƵƌĞƚŚĞƌƵŶŽĨĨĨƌŽŵĂƉƌŽũĞĐƚƐŝƚĞĂŶĚĂƚƚĞŶƵĂƚĞƚŚĞĨůŽǁƐƐŽ
ƚŚĂƚƚŚĞƉŽƐƚͲĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƉĞĂŬƌĂƚĞƐŽĨƌƵŶŽĨĨĚƵƌŝŶŐƚŚĞϭϬϬͲǇĞĂƌ͕ϮϰŚŽƵƌƐƚŽƌŵ
ĞǀĞŶƚĚŽŶŽƚĞǆĐĞĞĚƚŚĞƉƌĞͲĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƉĞĂŬƌĂƚĞƐŽĨƌƵŶŽĨĨ͘^ǇƐƚĞŵƐƚŚĂƚŵŝƚŝŐĂƚĞ
ƚŚĞϭϬϬͲǇĞĂƌĞǀĞŶƚƉƌĞǀĞŶƚƚŚĞŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞĚƌŝƐŬŽĨĨůŽŽĚĚĂŵĂŐĞĨƌŽŵůĂƌŐĞƐƚŽƌŵĞǀĞŶƚƐ
ĂŶĚŵĂŝŶƚĂŝŶƚŚĞďŽƵŶĚĂƌŝĞƐŽĨƚŚĞƉƌĞͲĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚϭϬϬͲǇĞĂƌĨůŽŽĚƉůĂŝŶ͘

dŚĞƐĞƉĂƌĂŵĞƚĞƌƐĂƌĞĂƉƉƌŽĂĐŚĞĚŝŶĂĨŝǀĞ;ϱͿƐƚĞƉƉƌŽĐĞƐƐ͕ĂƐĚĞƐĐƌŝďĞĚďǇƚŚĞEz^͕ǁŚŝĐŚ
ŝŶǀŽůǀĞƐƐŝƚĞƉůĂŶŶŝŶŐĂŶĚƐƚŽƌŵǁĂƚĞƌŵĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚƉƌĂĐƚŝĐĞƐĞůĞĐƚŝŽŶ;ƐĞĞ&ŝŐƵƌĞϯ͘ϭͿ͘
ϭ͘ ^ŝƚĞƉůĂŶŶŝŶŐƚŽƉƌĞƐĞƌǀĞŶĂƚƵƌĂůĨĞĂƚƵƌĞƐĂŶĚƌĞĚƵĐĞŝŵƉĞƌǀŝŽƵƐĐŽǀĞƌ͘
Ϯ͘ ĂůĐƵůĂƚŝŽŶŽĨǁĂƚĞƌƋƵĂůŝƚǇǀŽůƵŵĞ;tYǀͿĨŽƌƚŚĞƐŝƚĞ͘
ϯ͘ /ŶĐŽƌƉŽƌĂƚŝŽŶŽĨŐƌĞĞŶŝŶĨƌĂƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞƚĞĐŚŶŝƋƵĞƐĂŶĚƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚƐƚŽƌŵǁĂƚĞƌŵĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚ
ƉƌĂĐƚŝĐĞƐǁŝƚŚZZǀĐĂƉĂĐŝƚǇ͘
ϰ͘ hƐĞŽĨƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚƐƚŽƌŵǁĂƚĞƌŵĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚƉƌĂĐƚŝĐĞƐ͕ǁŚĞƌĞĂƉƉůŝĐĂďůĞ͕ƚŽƚƌĞĂƚƚŚĞ
ƉŽƌƚŝŽŶŽĨtYǀŶŽƚĂĚĚƌĞƐƐĞĚďǇŐƌĞĞŶŝŶĨƌĂƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞƚĞĐŚŶŝƋƵĞƐĂŶĚƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚ
ƐƚŽƌŵǁĂƚĞƌŵĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚƉƌĂĐƚŝĐĞƐǁŝƚŚZZǀĐĂƉĂĐŝƚǇ͘
ϱ͘ ĞƐŝŐŶŽĨǀŽůƵŵĞĂŶĚƉĞĂŬƌĂƚĞĐŽŶƚƌŽůƉƌĂĐƚŝĐĞƐǁŚĞƌĞƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚ͘

EĞǁĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƉƌŽũĞĐƚƐƌĞƋƵŝƌĞǀŽůƵŵĞĂŶĚƉĞĂŬƌĂƚĞĐŽŶƚƌŽůƉƌĂĐƚŝĐĞƐƚŽĐŽŶƚƌŽůƚŚĞϭϬ
ĂŶĚϭϬϬǇĞĂƌƐƚŽƌŵƉĞĂŬĚŝƐĐŚĂƌŐĞƌĂƚĞƐƚŽƉƌĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƌĂƚĞƐ͘dŚŝƐƌĞƋƵŝƌĞƐƐƚŽƌĂŐĞǁŝƚŚ
ĐŽŶƚƌŽůůĞĚŽƵƚůĞƚƐƚŽŵĞĞƚƚŚĞĚĞƐŝŐŶĐƌŝƚĞƌŝĂ͘dŚĞƐĞĐŽŶƚƌŽůƉƌĂĐƚŝĐĞƐĂƌĞŝŶĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶƚŽWǀ͕
ZZǀ͕ĂŶĚtYǀƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐ͘'ƌĞĞŶŝŶĨƌĂƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞƉƌĂĐƚŝĐĞƐĂƌĞŝŶĐŽƌƉŽƌĂƚĞĚƚŽŵĞĞƚZZǀ
ƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐĂƐǁĞůůĂƐĐŽŶƚƌŝďƵƚŝŶŐƚŽtYǀƚŽƌĞĚƵĐĞƚŚĞĂŵŽƵŶƚŽĨƉŽůůƵƚĂŶƚƐƌĞůĞĂƐĞĚŽĨĨ
ƐŝƚĞ͘

ZĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƉƌŽũĞĐƚƐĂƌĞƚŽĨŽůůŽǁĂŶĂƉƉƌŽĂĐŚďĞƚǁĞĞŶŵĂǆŝŵŝǌŝŶŐŝŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚƐŝŶƐŝƚĞ
ĚĞƐŝŐŶƚŚĂƚĐĂŶƌĞĚƵĐĞƚŚĞŝŵƉĂĐƚƐŽĨƐƚŽƌŵǁĂƚĞƌƌƵŶŽĨĨĂŶĚƉƌŽǀŝĚŝŶŐĂŵĂǆŝŵƵŵůĞǀĞůŽĨŽŶͲ
ƐŝƚĞƚƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚƚŚĂƚŝƐĨĞĂƐŝďůĞŐŝǀĞŶƚŚĞƌĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƉƌŽũĞĐƚƐŝƚĞĐŽŶƐƚƌĂŝŶƚƐ͘/Ĩ
ƌĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĚŽĞƐŶŽƚƌĞƐƵůƚŝŶĂŶŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞŝŶŝŵƉĞƌǀŝŽƵƐĂƌĞĂŽƌĐŚĂŶŐĞƐƚŽŚǇĚƌŽůŽŐǇƚŚĂƚ
ŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞƐƚŚĞĚŝƐĐŚĂƌŐĞƌĂƚĞĨƌŽŵƚŚĞƐŝƚĞ͕ƚŚĞƚĞŶĂŶĚŚƵŶĚƌĞĚǇĞĂƌĐƌŝƚĞƌŝĂĚŽŶŽƚĂƉƉůǇ
;Ez^^ƚŽƌŵǁĂƚĞƌDĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚDĂŶƵĂů^ĞĐƚŝŽŶϵ͘ϯ͘ϮͿ͘/ĨƌĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƌĞƐƵůƚƐŝŶĂŶ
ŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞŝŶƚŚĞƚŽƚĂůŝŵƉĞƌǀŝŽƵƐĂƌĞĂĂŶĚƐƵďƐĞƋƵĞŶƚůǇŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞĚƚŚĞĚŝƐĐŚĂƌŐĞƌĂƚĞ͕ƋƵĂŶƚŝƚǇ
ĐŽŶƚƌŽůƐĂƉƉůǇ͘dŚĞϭǇĞĂƌϮϰŚŽƵƌĚĞƚĞŶƚŝŽŶƚŽŵĞĞƚĐŚĂŶŶĞůƉƌŽƚĞĐƚŝŽŶŝƐŶŽƚƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚŝĨƚŚĞ
ƉŽƐƚͲĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶϭǇĞĂƌϮϰŚŽƵƌĚŝƐĐŚĂƌŐĞƌĂƚĞĂŶĚǀĞůŽĐŝƚǇŝƐůĞƐƐƚŚĂŶŽƌĞƋƵĂůƚŽƚŚĞĞǆŝƐƚŝŶŐ
ĚŝƐĐŚĂƌŐĞƌĂƚĞ͘

687

W Ă Ő Ğ ͮϰ

688

W Ă Ő Ğ ͮϱ

͘ WZK:d/E&KZDd/KE

ĂŶŝƐŝƵƐ,ŝŐŚ^ĐŚŽŽůŝƐƵŶĚĞƌƚĂŬŝŶŐƚŚŝƐĐĂƉŝƚĂůŝŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚƉƌŽũĞĐƚƚŽĂĚĚƚǁŽďĂƐĞďĂůů
ĚŝĂŵŽŶĚƐƚŽƚŚĞĞǆŝƐƚŝŶŐĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚŽŶƚŚĞƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇǁŚŝĐŚĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůǇŝŶĐůƵĚĞƐĂŶĞǆŝƐƚŝŶŐ
ĂƌƚŝĨŝĐŝĂůƚƵƌĨĨŽŽƚďĂůůĨŝĞůĚ͕ƚƌĂĐŬ͕ĨŝĞůĚĞǀĞŶƚĨĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐ͕ůŽĐŬĞƌƌŽŽŵĂŶĚĐŽŶĐĞƐƐŝŽŶƐďƵŝůĚŝŶŐƐ͕
ĂŶĚƉĂƌŬŝŶŐůŽƚ͘dŚĞƉůĂŶŶĞĚǀĂƌƐŝƚǇďĂƐĞďĂůůĨŝĞůĚǁŝůůďĞĞŶƚŝƌĞůǇĂƌƚŝĨŝĐŝĂůƚƵƌĨǁŚŝůĞƚŚĞũƵŶŝŽƌ
ǀĂƌƐŝƚǇĨŝĞůĚǁŝůůŚĂǀĞĂŶĂƌƚŝĨŝĐŝĂůƚƵƌĨŝŶĨŝĞůĚǁŝƚŚĂŶĂƚƵƌĂůŐƌĂƐƐŽƵƚĨŝĞůĚ͘dŚĞǀĂƌƐŝƚǇĨŝĞůĚǁŝůů
ŚĂǀĞƚǁŽDhĚƵŐŽƵƚƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞƐǁŝƚŚƐƚŽƌĂŐĞŝŶƚĞŐƌĂůƚŽƚŚĞŚŽŵĞĚƵŐŽƵƚƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞ͘dŚĞ
ǀĂƌƐŝƚǇĨŝĞůĚǁŝůůĂůƐŽŚĂǀĞĂŶĞůĞǀĂƚĞĚƉƌĞƐƐďŽǆƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞ͕ƚǁŽƐĞƚƐŽĨďůĞĂĐŚĞƌƐǁŝƚŚƐĞĂƚŝŶŐ
ĨŽƌĂƚŽƚĂůŽĨƚǁŽŚƵŶĚƌĞĚƐƉĞĐƚĂƚŽƌƐ͕ĂƐĐŽƌĞďŽĂƌĚ͕ĂŶĚŽŶĞďĂƚƚŝŶŐƚƵŶŶĞů͘dŚĞũƵŶŝŽƌǀĂƌƐŝƚǇ
ĨŝĞůĚǁŝůůŚĂǀĞƚǁŽĐŚĂŝŶůŝŶŬĚƵŐŽƵƚƐĂŶĚĂƐĐŽƌĞďŽĂƌĚ͘ŝƐĐƵƐĂŶĚ^ŚŽƚƉƵƚĨĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐǁŝůůďĞ
ƌĞůŽĐĂƚĞĚ͘EĞǁĂƐƉŚĂůƚǁĂůŬŝŶŐƉĂƚŚƐǁŝůůďĞĂĚĚĞĚƚŽĐŽŶŶĞĐƚƚŚĞŶĞǁƐŝƚĞĂŵĞŶŝƚŝĞƐǁŝƚŚ
ĞǆŝƐƚŝŶŐĨĞĂƚƵƌĞƐ͘dŚĞƐŝƚĞǁŝůůďĞƌĞĐŽŶƚŽƵƌĞĚƚŽŵĞĞƚƚŚĞƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐŽĨƚŚĞŶĞǁĨŝĞůĚƐĂƐ
ǁĞůůĂƐĂŶĂƚƵƌĂůŐƌĂƐƐƉƌĂĐƚŝĐĞĨŝĞůĚĂŶĚĂŶŽƚŚĞƌĨůĂƚĂƌĞĂƐƵŝƚĂďůĞƚŽƌĞĐĞŝǀĞƚĞŶŶŝƐĐŽƵƌƚƐĂƐ
ƉĂƌƚŽĨĂƉŽƚĞŶƚŝĂůĨƵƚƵƌĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚ͘

dŚĞƐŝƚĞŝƐůŽĐĂƚĞĚǁŝƚŚŝŶƚŚĞdŽǁŶŽĨtĞƐƚ^ĞŶĞĐĂ͕ƌŝĞŽƵŶƚǇ͕EĞǁzŽƌŬ͕ϮϴϴϱůŝŶƚŽŶ^ƚƌĞĞƚ
;ƌĞĨĞƌƚŽ^ƵƉƉŽƌƚŝŶŐ/ŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶ͗>ŽĐĂƚŝŽŶDĂƉͿ͘dŚĞƚŽƚĂůƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇƐŝǌĞŝƐĂƉƉƌŽǆŝŵĂƚĞůǇϮϲ͘ϱĂĐƌĞƐ͘
dŚĞĚŝƐƚƵƌďĞĚƉŽƌƚŝŽŶŝƐĂƉƉƌŽǆŝŵĂƚĞůǇϭϲ͘ϲĂĐƌĞƐŝŶƌĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ͘dŚĞƐŝƚĞŝƐĂĚũĂĐĞŶƚƚŽ
ŝŶĚƵƐƚƌŝĂůĂŶĚƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůƵƐĞƚŽƚŚĞEŽƌƚŚ͕ĂƵƚŝůŝƚǇŝŶĨƌĂƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞĐŽƌƌŝĚŽƌƚŽƚŚĞĂƐƚ͕ĂǀĂĐĂŶƚ
ƉĂƌĐĞůƚŽƚŚĞ^ŽƵƚŚ͕ĂŶĚdŚĞƵĨĨĂůŽƌĞĞŬĂůŽŶŐƚŚĞǁĞƐƚ͘ĂŶŝƐŝƵƐ,ŝŐŚ^ĐŚŽŽůĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůǇŽǁŶƐ
ƚŚĞĞŶƚŝƌĞƐŝƚĞ͘ůůƐůŽƉĞƐĂƌĞƉƌĞƐĞŶƚůǇƐƚĂďůĞŝŶƚŚĞĂƌĞĂƐƚŽďĞƵƚŝůŝǌĞĚďǇƚŚĞŽǁŶĞƌ͕dŚĞƌĞŝƐ
ŶŽĞǀŝĚĞŶĐĞŽĨƐŝŐŶŝĨŝĐĂŶƚĞƌŽƐŝŽŶƵŶĚĞƌƉƌĞƐĞŶƚĐŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶƐ͘ůůǀĞŐĞƚĂƚŝŽŶŶŽƚǁŝƚŚŝŶƚŚĞůŝŵŝƚƐ
ŽĨŐƌĂĚŝŶŐǁŝůůďĞƉƌŽƚĞĐƚĞĚƚŚƌŽƵŐŚŽƵƚƚŚĞĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶƉƌŽĐĞƐƐ͘

dŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚŝƐŶŽƚůŽĐĂƚĞĚǁŝƚŚŝŶĂdD>ǁĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚ͘EŽƌƵŶͲŽĨĨǁŝůůďĞĚŝƌĞĐƚůǇĚŝƐĐŚĂƌŐĞĚŝŶƚŽ
ĂϯϬϯ;ĚͿůŝƐƚĞĚƐĞŐŵĞŶƚ͖ŚŽǁĞǀĞƌ͕ƵĨĨĂůŽƌĞĞŬƵůƚŝŵĂƚĞůǇĚŝƐĐŚĂƌŐĞƐƚŽƵĨĨĂůŽZŝǀĞƌǁŚŝĐŚŝƐ
ĂϯϬϯΎĚͿůŝƐƚĞĚƐĞŐŵĞŶƚ͘dŚĞdŽǁŶŽĨtĞƐƚ^ĞŶĞĐĂŝƐƚŚĞƌĞŐƵůĂƚĞĚD^ϰ͘

ƉŽƌƚŝŽŶŽĨƚŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚŐƌĂĚŝŶŐŽĨƚŚĞƐŝƚĞůŝĞƐǁŝƚŚŝŶƚŚĞ&DϭϬϬͲǇĞĂƌĨůŽŽĚƉůĂŝŶ͘dŚĞĨŝůů
ŶĞĐĞƐƐĂƌǇƚŽĐƌĞĂƚĞƚŚĞƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚŐĞŽŵĞƚƌǇĨŽƌƚŚĞďĂƐĞďĂůůĨŝĞůĚƐǁŝůůďĞŵŽƌĞƚŚĂŶŽĨĨƐĞƚďǇ
ƚŚĞŽǀĞƌĂůůƌĞĐŽŶƚŽƵƌŝŶŐǁŝƚŚŝŶƚŚĞĨůŽŽĚƉůĂŝŶ͘ŶĂůǇƐŝƐŽĨƚŚĞǀŽůƵŵĞŽĨĨůŽŽĚǁĂƚĞƌƚŚĞƐŝƚĞŝƐ
ĂďůĞƚŽƌĞĐĞŝǀĞ;ďĂƐĞĚŽŶ&DďĂƐĞĨůŽŽĚĞůĞǀĂƚŝŽŶůŝŶĞƐͿƌĞƐƵůƚƐŝŶĂŶĞƚŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞŽĨ
ĂƉƉƌŽǆŝŵĂƚĞůǇϰϬйŵŽƌĞǀŽůƵŵĞƚŚĂŶŝƐĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůǇĂĐĐŽŵŵŽĚĂƚĞĚǁŝƚŚŝŶƚŚĞƐŝƚĞƵŶĚĞƌĐƵƌƌĞŶƚ
ĐŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶƐ͘;ƌĞĨĞƌƚŽ^ƵƉƉŽƌƚŝŶŐ/ŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶ͗&ůŽŽĚWůĂŝŶDĂƉͲǆŝƐƚŝŶŐͿ͘

dŚĞƌĞŝƐĂEz^ĂŶĚ&ĞĚĞƌĂůůǇZĞŐƵůĂƚĞĚǁĞƚůĂŶĚŽŶƚŚĞĂĚũĂĐĞŶƚƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇŶĞĂƌƚŚĞ
ǁĞƐƚĞƌŶŵŽƐƚĐŽƌŶĞƌŽĨƚŚĞƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇ͘ƉŽƌƚŝŽŶŽĨƚŚĞƌĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ͕ŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐŵŝŶŽƌŐƌĂĚŝŶŐ
ĂƐǁĞůůĂƐĂŶĂƉƉƌŽǆŝŵĂƚĞůǇϭϯϬϬ^&ƉŽƌƚŝŽŶŽĨĂƐƉŚĂůƚǁĂůŬŝƐůŽĐĂƚĞĚǁŝƚŚŝŶƚŚĞϭϬϬ&dďƵĨĨĞƌ
ŽĨƚŚĞǁĞƚůĂŶĚ͘dŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚĚĞƐŝŐŶƌĞƐƵůƚƐŝŶĂƐŝŐŶŝĨŝĐĂŶƚƌĞĚƵĐƚŝŽŶŝŶƚŚĞĨŽŽƚƉƌŝŶƚŽĨƚŚĞ
ǁĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚƚŚĂƚŝƐƐŚĞĞƚŝŶŐĂĐƌŽƐƐƚŚĞƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇůŝŶĞƚŽǁĂƌĚƚŚŝƐǁĞƚůĂŶĚĂƌĞĂ͘;ƌĞĨĞƌƚŽ^ƵƉƉŽƌƚŝŶŐ
/ŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶ͗tĞƚůĂŶĚDĂƉƉŝŶŐͿ͘

689

W Ă Ő Ğ ͮϲ

ƌŽƐŝŽŶĂŶĚƐĞĚŝŵĞŶƚĐŽŶƚƌŽůƉƌĂĐƚŝĐĞƐǁŝůůďĞƵƚŝůŝǌĞĚƚŽƉƌĞǀĞŶƚĚĂŵĂŐĞƚŽĂĚũĂĐĞŶƚ
ƉƌŽƉĞƌƚŝĞƐ͕ǁĂƚĞƌďŽĚŝĞƐ͕ĐŝƌĐƵůĂƚŝŽŶƌŽƵƚĞƐ͕ĂŶĚǀĞŐĞƚĂƚŝŽŶ͘ƵƌĂƚŝŽŶŽĨĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶĂĐƚŝǀŝƚǇŝƐ
ĂŶƚŝĐŝƉĂƚĞĚƚŽďĞŝŶ^ƵŵŵĞƌͬ&ĂůůŽĨϮϬϮϭĂŶĚďĞϭϬϬйƐƚĂďŝůŝǌĞĚďǇĞĐĞŵďĞƌŽĨϮϬϮϭ͘

͘ KEdZdKZZ^WKE^//>/d/^

dŚĞŽŶƚƌĂĐƚŽƌƐŚĂůůŵĂŶĂŐĞƚŚĞĚŝƐĐŚĂƌŐĞŽĨƐƚŽƌŵǁĂƚĞƌĨƌŽŵƚŚĞƐŝƚĞŝŶĂĐĐŽƌĚĂŶĐĞǁŝƚŚƚŚĞ
^tWWWƌĞƉŽƌƚĂŶĚƚŚĞĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶĚŽĐƵŵĞŶƚƐ;^ĞĞ^tWWWĚƌĂǁŝŶŐĂŶĚŶŽƚĞƐͿ͘

͘ KE^dZhd/KEKDW>/E

^ĞĞ^ĞĐƚŝŽŶϯ͗ƌŽƐŝŽŶŽŶƚƌŽůDĞĂƐƵƌĞƐĂŶĚ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐĂƚŝŽŶƐ͘

͘ &/E>^d/>/d/KE

dŚĞƐŝƚĞĐĂŶďĞĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĞĚƐƚĂďŝůŝǌĞĚǁŚĞŶĂůůƐŽŝůĚŝƐƚƵƌďŝŶŐĂĐƚŝǀŝƚŝĞƐŚĂǀĞďĞĞŶĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞĚ
ĂŶĚĂƵŶŝĨŽƌŵƉĞƌĞŶŶŝĂůǀĞŐĞƚĂƚŝǀĞĐŽǀĞƌǁŝƚŚĂĚĞŶƐŝƚǇŽĨϴϬйŝŶĂƌĞĂƐŶŽƚĐŽǀĞƌĞĚďǇ
ƉĞƌŵĂŶĞŶƚƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞƐŚĂƐďĞĞŶĞƐƚĂďůŝƐŚĞĚĂŶĚƚŚĞĨĂĐŝůŝƚǇŶŽůŽŶŐĞƌĚŝƐĐŚĂƌŐĞƐƐƚŽƌŵǁĂƚĞƌ
ĂƐƐŽĐŝĂƚĞĚǁŝƚŚĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶĂĐƚŝǀŝƚŝĞƐ͘

&͘ KWZdKZÊDEZ^^


690

W Ă Ő Ğ ͮϳ

^d/KEϮʹ^dKZDtdZE>z^/^

͘ KEWdWZKWK^>

ůůƐƚŽƌŵǁĂƚĞƌĞŶƚĞƌŝŶŐǁŝƚŚŝŶƚŚĞĐŽŶƚƌĂĐƚůŝŵŝƚůŝŶĞǁŝůůďĞĐŽůůĞĐƚĞĚŝŶƚŽƐƵďƐƵƌĨĂĐĞĚƌĂŝŶĂŐĞ
ƉƌĂĐƚŝĐĞƐǁŚĞƌĞŝƚǁŝůůďĞƚĞŵƉŽƌĂƌŝůǇƐƚŽƌĞĚĂŶĚƚƌĞĂƚĞĚƉƌŝŽƌƚŽƌĞůĞĂƐĞŽĨĨƐŝƚĞ͘dƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚ
ĂŶĚƉƌĞͲƚƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚǁŝůůďĞŚĂŶĚůĞĚƚŚƌŽƵŐŚĂƐĞƌŝĞƐŽĨEz^ĂƉƉƌŽǀĞĚƉƌĂĐƚŝĐĞƐ͘

dŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚƐŝƚĞĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůǇĐŽůůĞĐƚƐĂůůƐƚŽƌŵǁĂƚĞƌŝŶƚŽĂƐĞƌŝĞƐŽĨƐƚŽƌŵƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞƐƚŚĂƚĂƌĞ
ĐŽůůĞĐƚĞĚŝŶƚŽŽŶĞďĂƐŝŶůŽĐĂƚĞĚŽŶƐŝƚĞƚŚĂƚĚŝƌĞĐƚůǇŽƵƚůĞƚƐƚŽƵĨĨĂůŽƌĞĞŬ͘dŚĞĞǆŝƐƚŝŶŐďĂƐŝŶ
ŝƐůŽĐĂƚĞĚǁŝƚŚŝŶƚŚĞϭϬϬǇĞĂƌĨůŽŽĚƉůĂŝŶĂŶĚĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůǇŚĂƐŶŽďĂĐŬĨůŽǁƉƌĞǀĞŶƚŝŽŶŽŶƚŚĞ
ŽƵƚůĞƚƉŝƉĞĨƌŽŵƚŚĞďĂƐŝŶ͘

dŚĞĚĞƐŝŐŶŝŶƚĞŶƚĨŽƌƚŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚƉƌŽũĞĐƚŝƐƚŽŝŵƉĂĐƚƚŚĞĞǆŝƐƚŝŶŐŚǇĚƌŽůŽŐǇŽĨƚŚĞƐŝƚĞďǇ
ƵƐŝŶŐĂƉŽŶĚƐƚŽƌĞǁĂƚĞƌĂŶĚƌĞůĞĂƐĞĂƚĂĐŽŶƚƌŽůůĞĚƌĂƚĞ͘dŚĞƐŝƚĞŚĂƐďĞĞŶĂĚũƵƐƚĞĚƚŽƉƵƚƚŚĞ
ƉŽŶĚŽƵƚŽĨƚŚĞϭϬϬǇĞĂƌĨůŽŽĚƉůĂŝŶĂŶĚĂďĂĐŬĨůŽǁƉƌĞǀĞŶƚŝŽŶǀĂůǀĞŝŶƐƚĂůůĞĚŽŶƚŚĞĞǆŝƐƚŝŶŐ
ƉŝƉĞŽƵƚůĞƚƚŚĂƚǁŝůůďĞƵƚŝůŝǌĞĚĨŽƌƚŚĞƉŽŶĚŽƵƚůĞƚ͘

dŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚƵƚŝůŝǌĞƐĂĐŽŵďŝŶĂƚŝŽŶŽĨƚŚĞĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐƚŽĞŶŚĂŶĐĞƚŚĞƋƵĂůŝƚǇŽĨƚŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚ͛Ɛ
ƐƚŽƌŵǁĂƚĞƌƌƵŶŽĨĨ͗
ϭ͘ WƌĞƐĞƌǀĂƚŝŽŶŽĨƐŽŵĞĞǆŝƐƚŝŶŐǀĞŐĞƚĂƚĞĚĂƌĞĂƐ͘
Ϯ͘ tĞƚWŽŶĚ

/ŶĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶ͕ƚŚŝƐƉƌŽũĞĐƚĐŽŶƐŝƐƚƐŽĨƚŚĞƌĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚŽĨĂƉƌĞǀŝŽƵƐůǇĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞĚƐŝƚĞ͕ǁŚŝĐŚŝƐ
ĞŶĐŽƵƌĂŐĞĚďǇƚŚĞEz^ďĞĐĂƵƐĞ͗
ϭ͘ ZĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƉƌŽǀŝĚĞƐĂŶŽƉƉŽƌƚƵŶŝƚǇƚŽĐŽŶƐĞƌǀĞŶĂƚƵƌĂůƌĞƐŽƵƌĐĞƐŝŶůĞƐƐŝŵƉĂĐƚĞĚ
ĂƌĞĂƐďǇƚĂƌŐĞƚŝŶŐĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƚŽĂƌĞĂƐǁŝƚŚĞǆŝƐƚŝŶŐƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐĂŶĚŝŶĨƌĂƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞ͘
Ϯ͘ ZĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƉƌŽǀŝĚĞƐĂŶŽƉƉŽƌƚƵŶŝƚǇƚŽĐŽƌƌĞĐƚĞǆŝƐƚŝŶŐƉƌŽďůĞŵƐĂŶĚƌĞĚƵĐĞ
ƉŽůůƵƚĂŶƚĚŝƐĐŚĂƌŐĞƐĨƌŽŵŽůĚĞƌĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞĚƐŝƚĞƐƚŚĂƚǁĞƌĞĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚĞĚǁŝƚŚŽƵƚĞĨĨĞĐƚŝǀĞ
ƐƚŽƌŵǁĂƚĞƌƉŽůůƵƚŝŽŶĐŽŶƚƌŽůƐ͘

͘ ^dKZDtdZDE'DEdDd,KK>K'z

^ƚŽƌŵǁĂƚĞƌYƵĂůŝƚǇ͗tĂƚĞƌƋƵĂůŝƚǇŝƐƐƵĞƐĐĂŶďĞĚŝǀŝĚĞĚŝŶƚŽƚǁŽĐĂƚĞŐŽƌŝĞƐ͕ĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶ
ƉŚĂƐĞĂŶĚŽƉĞƌĂƚŝŽŶĂůƉŚĂƐĞ͘dŚĞŵĂũŽƌƉŽůůƵƚĂŶƚƐĚƵƌŝŶŐƚŚĞƚǁŽƉŚĂƐĞƐĂŶĚƚŚĞƐƚƌĂƚĞŐŝĞƐƚŽ
ŵŝŶŝŵŝǌĞƚŚĞŝŵƉĂĐƚƐŽĨƚŚĞƐĞƉŽůůƵƚĂŶƚƐĂƌĞĚŝĨĨĞƌĞŶƚ͘dŚĞEĞǁzŽƌŬ^ƚĂƚĞ^ƚĂŶĚĂƌĚƐĂŶĚ
^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐĂƚŝŽŶƐĨŽƌƌŽƐŝŽŶĂŶĚ^ĞĚŝŵĞŶƚŽŶƚƌŽů͕ĚĂƚĞĚ:ƵůǇϮϬϭϲ͕ǁĞƌĞƵƐĞĚƚŽĚĞƚĞƌŵŝŶĞƚŚĞ
ďĞƐƚƉƌĞǀĞŶƚĂƚŝǀĞŵĞĂƐƵƌĞƐĚƵƌŝŶŐĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶ͘tŝƚŚƚŚĞƐĞŐƵŝĚĞůŝŶĞƐĂŶĚĂŶƵŶĚĞƌƐƚĂŶĚŝŶŐŽĨ
ƚŚĞǁĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚĐŚĂƌĂĐƚĞƌŝƐƚŝĐƐ͕ƚŚĞƐŚŽƌƚƚĞƌŵǁĂƚĞƌƋƵĂůŝƚǇŝŵƉĂĐƚƐĐĂŶďĞŵŝŶŝŵŝǌĞĚ͘dŚĞ
ŝŵƉĂĐƚƐĚƵƌŝŶŐƚŚĞŽƉĞƌĂƚŝŽŶĂůƉŚĂƐĞǁĞƌĞĂŶĂůǇǌĞĚƵƐŝŶŐƚŚĞĐƌŝƚĞƌŝĂĞƐƚĂďůŝƐŚĞĚŝŶƚŚĞEĞǁ
zŽƌŬ^ƚĂƚĞ^ƚŽƌŵǁĂƚĞƌDĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚĞƐŝŐŶDĂŶƵĂů͕ĚĂƚĞĚ:ĂŶƵĂƌǇϮϬϭϱ͕ƚŽƌĞĚƵĐĞƚŚĞůŽŶŐ
691

W Ă Ő Ğ ͮϴ

ƚĞƌŵǁĂƚĞƌƋƵĂůŝƚǇŝƐƐƵĞƐ͘dŚĞǁĂƚĞƌƋƵĂůŝƚǇǀŽůƵŵĞŝƐƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚƚŽďĞĐŽůůĞĐƚĞĚ͕ƐƚŽƌĞĚĂŶĚ
ƌĞůĞĂƐĞĚŝŶĂĐĐŽƌĚĂŶĐĞǁŝƚŚƚŚĞĚĞƐŝŐŶŵĂŶƵĂů͘

^ƚŽƌŵǁĂƚĞƌYƵĂŶƚŝƚǇ͗/ŶŽƌĚĞƌƚŽĞƐƚŝŵĂƚĞƚŚĞƌƵŶŽĨĨǀŽůƵŵĞĂŶĚƚŚĞƉĞĂŬƌƵŶŽĨĨƌĂƚĞƐĨƌŽŵ
ƚŚĞǁĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚƵŶĚĞƌďŽƚŚĞǆŝƐƚŝŶŐĂŶĚƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚĐŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶƐ͕ĂŵĂƚŚĞŵĂƚŝĐĂůŵŽĚĞůŽĨƚŚĞ
ǁĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚǁĂƐƉƌĞƉĂƌĞĚ͘dŚŝƐŵŽĚĞůƵƚŝůŝǌĞƐƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚĞŶŐŝŶĞĞƌŝŶŐƉƌĂĐƚŝĐĞƐďĂƐĞĚŽŶƚŚĞ
hŶŝƚĞĚ^ƚĂƚĞƐĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚŽĨŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ͛Ɛ^ŽŝůŽŶƐĞƌǀĂƚŝŽŶ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞ;^^ͿdĞĐŚŶŝĐĂůZĞůĞĂƐĞϱϱ
;dZͲϱϱͿhƌďĂŶ,ǇĚƌŽůŽŐǇĨŽƌ^ŵĂůůtĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚƐ͘

͘ ^^hDWd/KE^

EŽƚĞƚŚĞĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐĂƐƐƵŵƉƚŝŽŶƐƌĞŐĂƌĚŝŶŐƚŚŝƐƐƚŽƌŵǁĂƚĞƌŵĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚĂŶĚƉŽůůƵƚŝŽŶ
ƉƌĞǀĞŶƚŝŽŶƉůĂŶ͗

ϭ͘Ϳ DĂŶŶŝŶŐ͛ƐƋƵĂƚŝŽŶǁĂƐƵƐĞĚǁŝƚŚĂϭϬͲǇĞĂƌƐƚŽƌŵĨƌĞƋƵĞŶĐǇƚŽƐŝǌĞƚŚĞĨƵůůĨůŽǁƌĂƚĞ
ĐĂƌƌǇŝŶŐĐĂƉĂĐŝƚŝĞƐŽĨƚŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚƐƚŽƌŵƐĞǁĞƌƐǇƐƚĞŵ͘dŚĞŽŶͲƐŝƚĞĚƌĂŝŶĂŐĞŶĞƚǁŽƌŬŚĂƐ
ďĞĞŶĚĞƐŝŐŶĞĚƚŽƵƚŝůŝǌĞŚŝŐŚĚĞŶƐŝƚǇƐŵŽŽƚŚŝŶƚĞƌŝŽƌĐŽƌƌƵŐĂƚĞĚƉŽůǇĞƚŚǇůĞŶĞƉŝƉĞ;,WͿ
ǁŝƚŚĂDĂŶŶŝŶŐ͛ƐƌŽƵŐŚŶĞƐƐĐŽĞĨĨŝĐŝĞŶƚŽĨϬ͘ϬϭϮ͕ĂŵŝŶŝŵƵŵƉŝƉĞĚŝĂŵĞƚĞƌŽĨϰ͕͟Ă
ŵŝŶŝŵƵŵƐůŽƉĞŽĨϬ͘ϱйĂŶĚĂϯϬϬ͛ŵĂǆŝŵƵŵĚŝƐƚĂŶĐĞďĞƚǁĞĞŶƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞƐ͘

Ϯ͘Ϳ dŚĞĞǆŝƐƚŝŶŐŽŶƐŝƚĞƐƚŽƌŵƐǇƐƚĞŵĂŶĚǁĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚǁĂƐƐƚƵĚŝĞĚĨŽƌĐĂƉĂĐŝƚǇŽĨƐƚŽƌŵǁĂƚĞƌ
ďĂƐĞĚŽŶϭ͕ϭϬĂŶĚϭϬϬǇĞĂƌƐƚŽƌŵĞǀĞŶƚƐƵƐŝŶŐĂƐƚŽƌŵǁĂƚĞƌŵŽĚĞůŝŶŐƉƌŽŐƌĂŵ,ǇĚƌŽĨůŽǁ
,ǇĚƌŽŐƌĂƉŚƐǆƚĞŶƐŝŽŶĨŽƌƵƚŽŝǀŝůϯϮϬϮϭ͘

ϯ͘Ϳ dŚĞ^^ƐŽŝůƐƐƵƌǀĞǇƐŚŽǁƐƐŽŝůƐǁŝƚŚŝŶƚŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚĂƌĞĂƚŽďĞ,ĂŵŝůƚŽŶ^ŝůƚ>ŽĂŵ;,ŵͿ͕dĞĞů
^ŝůƚ>ŽĂŵ;dĞͿ͕dŝŽŐĂ^ŝůƚ>ŽĂŵ;dŽͿ͕ĂŶĚtĂǇůĂŶĚ^ŽŝůƐŽŵƉůĞǆ;tĚͿ͘;ƌĞĨĞƌƚŽ^ƵƉƉŽƌƚŝŶŐ
/ŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶ͗^Žŝů/ŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶͿ͘&ŽƌƚŚĞƵƐĞŝŶdZͲϱϱĐĂůĐƵůĂƚŝŽŶƐ͕Ă͚͛ƐŽŝůƐƌƵŶͲŽĨĨĐŽĞĨĨŝĐŝĞŶƚŝƐ
ďĞŝŶŐƵƐĞĚ;ƌĞĨĞƌƚŽ^ƵƉƉŽƌƚŝŶŐ/ŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶ͗,ǇĚƌŽůŽŐŝĐ^Žŝů/ŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶͿ͘

ϰ͘Ϳ ǆŝƐƚŝŶŐĚŝƐĐŚĂƌŐĞƉŽŝŶƚƐĨƌŽŵƚŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚƐŝƚĞǁĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚƐĂƌĞǁŽƌŬŝŶŐƐĂƚŝƐĨĂĐƚŽƌŝůǇĂŶĚǁŝůů
ŶŽƚďĞŵŽĚŝĨŝĞĚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞĞǆĐĞƉƚŝŽŶŽĨƚŚĞďĂĐŬĨůŽǁƉƌĞǀĞŶƚŝŽŶǀĂůǀĞŽŶƚŚĞƉŽŶĚŽƵƚůĞƚ͘

ϱ͘Ϳ ^ŝǌĞŽĨĚŝƐĐŚĂƌŐĞƉŝƉĞƐĨƌŽŵƚŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚƐŝƚĞǁŝůůŶŽƚďĞŵŽĚŝĨŝĞĚ͘

ϲ͘Ϳ dŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚƐŝƚĞĚŽĞƐůŝĞŝŶĂ&DϭϬϬͲǇĞĂƌĨůŽŽĚƉůĂŝŶĂŶĚŝƐǁŝƚŚŝŶĂEz^ǁĞƚůĂŶĚ
ĐŚĞĐŬǌŽŶĞ;ƌĞĨĞƌƚŽ^ƵƉƉŽƌƚŝŶŐ/ŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶ͗&ůŽŽĚWůĂŝŶDĂƉͿ͘

ϳ͘Ϳ ZĞĨĞƌƚŽZ/^DĂƉƉŝŶŐŝŶ^YZ>ŽŶŐ&Žƌŵ͘;ƌĞĨĞƌƚŽ^ƵƉƉŽƌƚŝŶŐ/ŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶ͗^ƚĂƚĞ,ŝƐƚŽƌŝĐDĂƉƉŝŶŐͿ͘

692

W Ă Ő Ğ ͮϵ

͘ ,zZK>K'/E>z^/^Dd,KK>K'z

^ƚŽƌŵǁĂƚĞƌƌƵŶŽĨĨƌĂƚĞƐĚŝƐĐŚĂƌŐĞĚĨƌŽŵƚŚĞƐŝƚĞƵŶĚĞƌĞǆŝƐƚŝŶŐĐŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶƐƉƌŽǀŝĚĞƚŚĞďĂƐŝƐ
ĨŽƌĞǀĂůƵĂƚŝŽŶŽĨƚŚĞŝŵƉĂĐƚƐŽĨƚŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚƐŝƚĞŝŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚƐ͘ĞƐŝŐŶƉŽŝŶƚƐŽĨŝŶƚĞƌĞƐƚ
ǁĞƌĞĞƐƚĂďůŝƐŚĞĚǁŚĞƌĞƌƵŶŽĨĨĨƌŽŵƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞƐĂŶĚƐƵƌĨĂĐĞƐĚĞƐŝŐŶĂƚĞĚĨŽƌƐƚŽƌŵǁĂƚĞƌ
ŵĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚĞǆŝƚƐŽĨĨƐŝƚĞ͘dŚĞƐĞĚĞƐŝŐŶƉŽŝŶƚƐƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĨŝǆĞĚůŽĐĂƚŝŽŶƐĂƚǁŚŝĐŚĞǆŝƐƚŝŶŐĂŶĚ
ƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚƐƚŽƌŵǁĂƚĞƌƋƵĂŶƚŝƚŝĞƐĐĂŶďĞĐŽŵƉĂƌĞĚ͘dŚĞĂƌĞĂƐĚƌĂŝŶŝŶŐƚŽƚŚĞƐĞĂŶĂůǇƐŝƐƉŽŝŶƚƐ
ǁĞƌĞĚĞůŝŶĞĂƚĞĚƵƐŝŶŐůĂŶĚƐƵƌǀĞǇŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶ͕h^'^YƵĂĚƌĂŶŐůĞDĂƉƐ͕ĂŶĚƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚŐƌĂĚŝŶŐ
ƉůĂŶƐ͘ĨƚĞƌƚŚĞǁĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚďŽƵŶĚĂƌŝĞƐĂƌĞĚĞůŝŶĞĂƚĞĚ͕ƚŚĞůĂŶĚƵƐĞƐĂŶĚŚǇĚƌŽůŽŐŝĐƐŽŝůŐƌŽƵƉƐ
ĨŽƌƚŚĞĂƌĞĂĂƌĞĚĞƚĞƌŵŝŶĞĚ͘

dŚĞůĂŶĚƵƐĞƐǁŝƚŚŝŶƚŚĞǁĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚƵŶĚĞƌĞǆŝƐƚŝŶŐĐŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶƐǁĞƌĞĚĞƚĞƌŵŝŶĞĚĨƌŽŵĨŝĞůĚ
ŽďƐĞƌǀĂƚŝŽŶƐĂŶĚĂǀĂŝůĂďůĞĂĞƌŝĂůƉŚŽƚŽŐƌĂƉŚǇ͘&ŽƌƚŚĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞĚĐŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶƐ͕ƚŚĞůĂŶĚƵƐĞƐ
ǁĞƌĞƚĂŬĞŶĨƌŽŵƚŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚƉůĂŶƐŽĨƚŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚ͘dŚĞŚǇĚƌŽůŽŐŝĐƐŽŝůŐƌŽƵƉƐĨŽƌƚŚĞ
ǁĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚǁĞƌĞŝĚĞŶƚŝĨŝĞĚƵƐŝŶŐƚŚĞ^Žŝů^ƵƌǀĞǇĐŽŵƉŝůĞĚďǇƚŚĞh^^^͘^ŽŝůƐĂƌĞĐůĂƐƐŝĨŝĞĚ
ŝŶƚŽŚǇĚƌŽůŽŐŝĐƐŽŝůŐƌŽƵƉƐƚŽŝŶĚŝĐĂƚĞƚŚĞŵŝŶŝŵƵŵƌĂƚĞǁĂƚĞƌĞŶƚĞƌƐďĂƌĞƐŽŝůĂĨƚĞƌƉƌŽůŽŶŐĞĚ
ǁĞƚƚŝŶŐ͘dŚĞŚǇĚƌŽůŽŐŝĐƐŽŝůŐƌŽƵƉƐĂƌĞĂĨĂĐƚŽƌŝŶĚĞƚĞƌŵŝŶŝŶŐƚŚĞƌƵŶŽĨĨĐƵƌǀĞŶƵŵďĞƌĨŽƌĂ
ǁĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚ͘

dŚĞƌƵŶŽĨĨĐƵƌǀĞŶƵŵďĞƌ;EͿŝƐďĂƐĞĚŽŶĂǁĞŝŐŚƚĞĚĂǀĞƌĂŐĞŽĨŐƌŽƵŶĚĐŽǀĞƌĂŶĚƐŽŝůƚǇƉĞ͘
dŝŵĞŽĨĐŽŶĐĞŶƚƌĂƚŝŽŶ;dĐͿƌĞƉƌĞƐĞŶƚƐƚŚĞƚŝŵĞŝƚƚĂŬĞƐĨŽƌƚŚĞƐƵƌĨĂĐĞƌƵŶŽĨĨƚŽƚƌĂǀĞůĨƌŽŵƚŚĞ
ŚǇĚƌĂƵůŝĐĂůůǇŵŽƐƚĚŝƐƚĂŶƚƉŽŝŶƚǁŝƚŚŝŶƚŚĞǁĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚƚŽƚŚĞƉŽŝŶƚŽĨĂŶĂůǇƐŝƐ͘/ƚĚĞĨŝŶĞƐƚŚĞ
ƚŝŵĞƚŚĂƚƚŚĞĞŶƚŝƌĞǁĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚŝƐĐŽŶƚƌŝďƵƚŝŶŐƌƵŶŽĨĨƚŽƚŚĞĚĞƐŝŐŶƉŽŝŶƚ͘^ĞǀĞƌĂůĨůŽǁƉĂƚŚƐ
ǁĞƌĞĚĞůŝŶĞĂƚĞĚĂŶĚƚƌĂǀĞůƚŝŵĞƐĨŽƌĞĂĐŚƉĂƚŚǁĞƌĞĐĂůĐƵůĂƚĞĚ͘dŚĞƉĂƚŚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞůŽŶŐĞƐƚ
ƚƌĂǀĞůƚŝŵĞǁĂƐĚĞƚĞƌŵŝŶĞĚƚŽďĞƚŚĞƉĂƚŚĨŽƌƚŚĞƚŝŵĞŽĨĐŽŶĐĞŶƚƌĂƚŝŽŶ͘^ƵƌĨĂĐĞƐůŽƉĞ͕
ƌŽƵŐŚŶĞƐƐ͕ĐŚĂŶŶĞůƐůŽƉĞĂŶĚƐŚĂƉĞ͕ĨůŽǁƉĂƚƚĞƌŶƐĂŶĚƌƵŶŽĨĨǀĞůŽĐŝƚŝĞƐĂƌĞĨĂĐƚŽƌƐƚŚĂƚĂůů
ĚŝƌĞĐƚůǇĂĨĨĞĐƚƚŚĞƚŝŵĞŽĨĐŽŶĐĞŶƚƌĂƚŝŽŶ͘

ZƵŶŽĨĨǀĞůŽĐŝƚŝĞƐĂƌĞďĂƐĞĚŽŶŐƌŽƵŶĚĐŚĂƌĂĐƚĞƌŝƐƚŝĐƐĂŶĚĨůŽǁƚǇƉĞ͘^ƚŽƌŵǁĂƚĞƌƌƵŶŽĨĨĨůŽǁƐ
ƚŚƌŽƵŐŚĚƌĂŝŶĂŐĞĂƌĞĂƐĂƐƐŚĞĞƚĨůŽǁ͕ƐŚĂůůŽǁĐŽŶĐĞŶƚƌĂƚĞĚĨůŽǁ͕ŽƉĞŶĐŚĂŶŶĞůĨůŽǁŽƌĨůŽǁŝŶ
ƐƚŽƌŵƐĞǁĞƌƐ͘ZƵŶŽĨĨďĞŐŝŶƐĂƐƐŚĞĞƚĨůŽǁŝŶƚŚĞƵƉƉĞƌůŝŵŝƚƐŽĨƚŚĞǁĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚĂŶĚĐĂŶďĞ
ĐŚĂƌĂĐƚĞƌŝǌĞĚĂƐĨůŽǁŽǀĞƌĂďƌŽĂĚƐƵƌĨĂĐĞĂƌĞĂƐƵĐŚĂƐƐŚŽƌƚƐƚƌĞƚĐŚĞƐŽĨŐƌĂƐƐĂŶĚͬŽƌ
ƉĂǀĞŵĞŶƚ͘^ŚĞĞƚĨůŽǁƚŚĞŶŐƌĂĚƵĂůůǇĚĞǀĞůŽƉƐŝŶƚŽƐŚĂůůŽǁĐŽŶĐĞŶƚƌĂƚĞĚĨůŽǁ͘dŚĞŵĂǆŝŵƵŵ
ĚŝƐƚĂŶĐĞĨŽƌƐŚĞĞƚĨůŽǁŝƐϭϱϬĨĞĞƚŝŶĞǆŝƐƚŝŶŐĐŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶƐĂŶĚϭϬϬĨĞĞƚŝŶƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚĐŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶƐ͘
KŶĐĞƚŚŽƐĞůŝŵŝƚƐĂƌĞŵĞƚƚŚĞĨůŽǁŝƐƚŚĞŶĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĞĚƐŚĂůůŽǁĐŽŶĐĞŶƚƌĂƚĞĚ͘KƉĞŶĐŚĂŶŶĞůĨůŽǁ
ŽƌĐŽŶĐĞŶƚƌĂƚĞĚĨůŽǁŽĐĐƵƌƐǁŚĞŶƐŚĂůůŽǁĐŽŶĐĞŶƚƌĂƚĞĚĨůŽǁĐŽŶǀĞƌŐĞƐŝŶƚŽǁĞůůĚĞĨŝŶĞĚ
ĚŝƚĐŚĞƐŽƌƐƚŽƌŵƐĞǁĞƌƐ͘^ƚŽƌŵǁĂƚĞƌĨůŽǁƉĂƚƚĞƌŶƐǁĞƌĞŽďƐĞƌǀĞĚĚƵƌŝŶŐĨŝĞůĚŝŶǀĞƐƚŝŐĂƚŝŽŶŝĨ
ƉŽƐƐŝďůĞ͘dŚĞƐĞĨůŽǁƉĂƚƚĞƌŶƐĂƐƐŝƐƚĞĚŝŶƚŚĞĐůĂƐƐŝĨŝĐĂƚŝŽŶŽĨƚŚĞĨůŽǁƉĂƚŚĨŽƌƚŚĞƚŝŵĞŽĨ
ĐŽŶĐĞŶƚƌĂƚŝŽŶ͘dŚĞŽďƐĞƌǀĞĚĨůŽǁƐŐŝǀĞĂŐĞŶĞƌĂůŝĚĞĂŽĨǁŚĞƌĞƐŚĞĞƚĨůŽǁĞŶĚƐĂŶĚƐŚĂůůŽǁ
ĐŽŶĐĞŶƚƌĂƚĞĚĨůŽǁďĞŐŝŶƐ͕ĂŶĚǁŚĞƌĞĞǆŝƐƚŝŶŐĐŚĂŶŶĞůƐĂƌĞůŽĐĂƚĞĚ͘dŚĞƚŝŵĞŽĨĐŽŶĐĞŶƚƌĂƚŝŽŶ
ĨůŽǁƉĂƚŚĨŽƌƚŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚĐŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶǁĂƐĐĂůĐƵůĂƚĞĚƵƐŝŶŐh^'^ŵĂƉƉŝŶŐ͕ƐƵƌǀĞǇ͕ĂƐǁĞůůĂƐƚŚĞ
ƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚƉůĂŶƐĨŽƌƚŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚ͘

693

W Ă Ő Ğ ͮϭϬ

dŚĞŚǇĚƌŽůŽŐŝĐŵŽĚĞůƐƵƐĞƐǇŶƚŚĞƚŝĐƐƚŽƌŵĞǀĞŶƚƐǁŚĞŶĐĂůĐƵůĂƚŝŶŐƌƵŶŽĨĨŚǇĚƌŽŐƌĂƉŚƐ͘dŚĞƐĞ
ƐǇŶƚŚĞƚŝĐƐƚŽƌŵĞǀĞŶƚƐĂƌĞďĂƐĞĚŽŶƐƚĂƚŝƐƚŝĐĂůĂŶĂůǇƐŝƐŽĨĂĐƚƵĂůƐƚŽƌŵĞǀĞŶƚƐĨŽƌĚŝĨĨĞƌĞŶƚ
ĚƵƌĂƚŝŽŶƐŽǀĞƌĂďƌŽĂĚŐĞŽŐƌĂƉŚŝĐĂůĂƌĞĂ͘dŚĞ^^ĐĂƚĞŐŽƌŝǌĞƐƌĂŝŶĨĂůůďǇĚŝƐƚƌŝďƵƚŝŽŶƚǇƉĞ
ĂƐƐŽĐŝĂƚĞĚƚŽŐĞŽŐƌĂƉŚŝĐĂůĂƌĞĂ͕ĂŶĚďǇƚŚĞƚŽƚĂůŶƵŵďĞƌŽĨŝŶĐŚĞƐŽƌƉƌĞĐŝƉŝƚĂƚŝŽŶƚŚĂƚŝƐ
ĂƐƐƵŵĞĚƚŽŽĐĐƵƌŽǀĞƌĂϮϰͲŚŽƵƌĚƵƌĂƚŝŽŶ͘

dŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚƉƌŽũĞĐƚůŝĞƐǁŝƚŚŝŶƚŚĞŐĞŽŐƌĂƉŚŝĐĂůďŽƵŶĚĂƌǇŽĨƚŚĞdǇƉĞ//ƌĂŝŶĨĂůůĚŝƐƚƌŝďƵƚŝŽŶ
ĂƌĞĂ͘ZĂŝŶĨĂůůǀĂůƵĞƐĨŽƌƚŚĞϭ͕Ϯ͕ϭϬĂŶĚϭϬϬͲǇĞĂƌƐƚŽƌŵĞǀĞŶƚƐǁĞƌĞŐĂƚŚĞƌĞĚĨƌŽŵƚŚĞŽƌŶĞůů
EŽƌƚŚĞĂƐƚZĞŐŝŽŶĂůůŝŵĂƚĞĞŶƚĞƌ;ŚƚƚƉ͗ͬͬƉƌĞĐŝƉ͘ĞĂƐ͘ĐŽƌŶĞůů͘ĞĚƵͿĨŽƌĂŵŽƌĞĂĐĐƵƌĂƚĞ
ƌĞƉƌĞƐĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶŽĨƌĂŝŶĨĂůůǁŝƚŚŝŶƚŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚĂƌĞĂƵƐĞĚĨŽƌƚŚĞƐƚŽƌŵǁĂƚĞƌĐĂůĐƵůĂƚŝŽŶƐ;ƌĞĨĞƌƚŽ
^ƵƉƉŽƌƚŝŶŐ/ŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶ'͗ZĂŝŶĨĂůů&ƌĞƋƵĞŶĐŝĞƐͿ͘

,ǇĚƌĂĨůŽǁ,ǇĚƌŽŐƌĂƉŚƐǆƚĞŶƐŝŽŶĨŽƌƵƚŽŝǀŝůϯϮϬϮϭƐŽĨƚǁĂƌĞǁĂƐƵƐĞĚƚŽƉĞƌĨŽƌŵ^^
;ŶŽǁĐĂůůĞĚEĂƚƵƌĂůZĞƐŽƵƌĐĞƐŽŶƐĞƌǀĂƚŝŽŶ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞ͕EZ^ͿEZ^dZͲϮϬŚǇĚƌŽůŽŐŝĐĂůĂŶĂůǇƐŝƐŽĨ
ĞĂĐŚŽĨƚŚĞǁĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚƐĂŶĚŵŽĚĞůƚŚĞŝƌĚŝƐĐŚĂƌŐĞƐ͘&ŽƌƚŚĞƉƌĞͲĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞĚĂŶĚĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞĚ
ĐŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶƐŚǇĚƌŽůŽŐŝĐŵŽĚĞůƐǁĞƌĞĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞĚĨŽƌƚŚĞϭ͕Ϯ͕ϭϬ͕ĂŶĚϭϬϬǇĞĂƌƐƚŽƌŵĞǀĞŶƚƐ͘

͘ tdZ^,E>z^/^
dŚĞĞǆŝƐƚŝŶŐĂŶĚƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚĐŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶƐĨŽƌƚŚĞǁĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚƐŝŶƚŚŝƐĂŶĂůǇƐŝƐǁĞƌĞĚĞůŝŶĞĂƚĞĚĨƌŽŵ
ĂǀĂŝůĂďůĞhŶŝƚĞĚ^ƚĂƚĞƐ'ĞŽůŽŐŝĐĂů^ƵƌǀĞǇ;h^'^ͿYƵĂĚƌĂŶŐůĞDĂƉƐ͕ƚŽƉŽŐƌĂƉŚŝĐƐƵƌǀĞǇŵĂƉƐŽĨ
ƚŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚƐŝƚĞĂŶĚĨŝĞůĚĐŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶƌĞǀŝĞǁƐ͘dŚĞƐŝƚĞŝƐƐƚƵĚŝĞĚƚŚƌŽƵŐŚĂŶĞǆŝƐƚŝŶŐĂŶĚ
ƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚǁĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚƐ;ƌĞĨĞƌƚŽ^ĞĐƚŝŽŶϱ͗ǆŝƐƚŝŶŐĂŶĚWƌŽƉŽƐĞĚtĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚƐͿƚŽĞǀĂůƵĂƚĞƚŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚ
ŝŵƉĂĐƚŽŶƐƚŽƌŵǁĂƚĞƌ͘

dŚĞƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚĨŽƌƚŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚĂƌĞĂŝŶĐůƵĚĞƐĂƉƉƌŽǆŝŵĂƚĞůǇϮϲ͘ϱϱнͬͲĂĐƌĞƐ͕ĚŝǀŝĚĞĚŝŶƚŽ
ƐƵďǁĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚƐ͘ǆŝƐƚŝŶŐƚŚĞƌĞĂƌĞϱǁĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚƐŽŶƚŚĞƐŝƚĞ͘tĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚĂůŽŶŐƚŚĞŶŽƌƚŚĞŶĚ
ŽĨƚŚĞƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇĂŶĚĂƚůŝŶƚŽŶ^ƚƌĞĞƚ͕ƐŚĞĞƚĨůŽǁƐŝŶƚŽĂǀĞŐĞƚĂƚĞĚƐǁĂůĞďĞĨŽƌĞĚŝƐĐŚĂƌŐŝŶŐŽĨĨ
ƚŚĞƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇ͘tĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚŝŶĐůƵĚĞƐŵĂũŽƌŝƚǇŽĨƚŚĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞĚĂƌĞĂƐ͕ƚƌĂĐŬ͕ƉĂƌŬŝŶŐůŽƚĂŶĚ
ĂƚŚůĞƚŝĐĨŝĞůĚƐĂŶĚĚƌĂŝŶƐŝŶƚŽĂŶĞǆŝƐƚŝŶŐďĂƐŝŶƚŚĂƚŽƵƚůĞƚƐƚŽƵĨĨĂůŽƌĞĞŬ͘ƵƌƌĞŶƚůǇƚŚĞƌĞĂƌĞ
ŶŽďĂĐŬƵƉƉƌĞǀĞŶƚŝŽŶŵĞĂƐƵƌĞƐŽŶƚŚĂƚƉŝƉĞĂŶĚƚŚĞďĂƐŝŶŝƐůŽĐĂƚĞĚǁŝƚŚŝŶƚŚĞϭϬϬǇĞĂƌĨůŽŽĚ
ƉůĂŝŶ͘tĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚŝƐĂůŽŶŐƚŚĞtĞƐƚĞŶĚŽĨƚŚĞƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇƐŚĞĞƚĨůŽǁƐŽĨĨƚŚĞƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇ͘
tĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚŝƐůŽĐĂƚĞĚĂůŽŶŐƵĨĨĂůŽƌĞĞŬĂŶĚĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůǇƐŚĞĞƚĨůŽǁƐƚŽƚŚĞĐƌĞĞŬ͘tĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚ
ŝƐĂůƐŽǁŝƚŚŝŶƚŚĞϭϬϬǇĞĂƌĨůŽŽĚƉůĂŝŶ͘

dŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚƐŝƚĞŝƐďƌŽŬĞŶĚŽǁŶŝŶƚŽϰǁĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚƐ͘tĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚƌĞŵĂŝŶƐƚŚĞƐĂŵĞĂƐ
ĞǆŝƐƚŝŶŐ͘tĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚŚĂƐŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞĚƚŽĞŶĐŽŵƉĂƐƐƚŚĞƌĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞĚĂƚŚůĞƚŝĐĨĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐ͘dŚĞ
ĞŶƚŝƌĞƚǇŽĨtĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚŝƐĐĂƉƚƵƌĞĚŝŶƚŽĂƐĞƌŝĞƐŽĨƐƚŽƌŵǁĂƚĞƌƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞƐĂŶĚƉŝƉĞĚƚŽĂŶĞǁ
ǁĞƚƉŽŶĚƚŚĂƚŝƐŶŽǁůŽĐĂƚĞĚŽƵƚŽĨƚŚĞϭϬϬǇĞĂƌĨůŽŽĚƉůĂŝŶůŝŶĞ͘dŚĞǁĞƚƉŽŶĚƵƚŝůŝǌĞƐƚŚĞ
ĞǆŝƐƚŝŶŐďĂƐŝŶ͛ƐŽƵƚůĞƚƉŝƉĞŚŽǁĞǀĞƌĂďĂĐŬĨůŽǁƉƌĞǀĞŶƚŝŽŶǀĂůǀĞŝƐƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚŽŶƚŚĞĞǆŝƐƚŝŶŐ
ƉŝƉĞƚŽĞŶƐƵƌĞĨůŽŽĚǁĂƚĞƌƐĚŽŶŽƚĞŶƚĞƌƚŚĞƉŽŶĚ͘dŚĞƉŽŶĚĂůƐŽŝƐĚĞƐŝŐŶĞĚƚŽŚŽůĚƚŚĞϭϬϬ
ǇĞĂƌƐƚŽƌŵǁŝƚŚŽƵƚƵƚŝůŝǌŝŶŐƚŚĞĞǆŝƐƚŝŶŐŽƵƚůĞƚƉŝƉĞƚŽƵĨĨĂůŽƌĞĞŬ͘tĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚƐĂŶĚĂƌĞ
ƌĞĚƵĐĞĚŝŶƚŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚĂŶĚƌĞƚĂŝŶƚŚĞŝƌĞǆŝƐƚŝŶŐƐŚĞĞƚĨůŽǁŽƵƚůĞƚƐĂƚƚŚĞƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇůŝŶĞƐ͘
694

W Ă Ő Ğ ͮϭϭ

&͘ W<&>Kt^hDDZzd>^

WĞĂŬ&ůŽǁ^ƵŵŵĂƌǇdĂďůĞʹǆŝƐƚŝŶŐŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶƐ;&ŝŐƵƌĞϭͿ

ǆŝƐƚŝŶŐ WĞĂŬ&ůŽǁƐ;&^Ϳ
tĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚƐ ϭzĞĂƌ ϭϬzĞĂƌ ϮϱzĞĂƌ ϭϬϬzĞĂƌ KƵƚůĞƚŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶ <ŶŽǁŶ&ůŽŽĚŝŶŐͬ/ƐƐƵĞƐ
;&^Ϳ ;&^Ϳ ;&^Ϳ ;&^Ϳ
Ϭ͘ϬϰϮ Ϭ͘ϳϱϬ ϭ͘Ϯϳϱ Ϯ͘ϰϲϮ sĞŐĞƚĂƚĞĚ^ǁĂůĞ ŶŽŶĞ
ϭϱ͟/WĂƚƵĨĨĂůŽ
ϱ͘ϭϰϲ ϭϲ͘ϳϵ Ϯϯ͘ϵϱ ϯϴ͘ϵϬ tŝƚŚŝŶϭϬϬǇƌĨůŽŽĚ
ƌĞĞŬ
Ϭ͘Ϭϭϭ ϭ͘ϮϯϮ Ϯ͘ϳϲϴ ϲ͘ϰϳϯ ^ŚĞĞƚ&ůŽǁ tŝƚŚŝŶϭϬϬǇƌĨůŽŽĚ
^ŚĞĞƚ&ůŽǁĂƚ
Ϭ͘ϬϱϬ Ϯ͘ϴϴϵ ϲ͘Ϯϲϴ ϭϱ͘ϭϬ tŝƚŚŝŶϭϬϬǇƌĨůŽŽĚ
ƵĨĨĂůŽƌĞĞŬ
Ϭ͘ϬϬϰ Ϭ͘Ϯϱϳ Ϭ͘ϱϱϵ ϭ͘ϯϮϴ ^ŚĞĞƚ&ůŽǁ tŝƚŚŝŶϭϬϬǇƌĨůŽŽĚ
dŽƚĂů ϱ͘Ϯϱϯ Ϯϭ͘ϵϭϴ ϯϰ͘ϴϮ ϲϰ͘Ϯϲϯ

WĞĂŬ&ůŽǁ^ƵŵŵĂƌǇdĂďůĞʹWƌŽƉŽƐĞĚŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶƐ;&ŝŐƵƌĞϮͿ
WĞĂŬ&ůŽǁƐ;&^Ϳ
WƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ
tĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚƐ ϭzĞĂƌ ϭϬzĞĂƌ ϮϱzĞĂƌ ϭϬϬzĞĂƌ KƵƚůĞƚŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶ <ŶŽǁ&ůŽŽĚŝŶŐͬ/ƐƐƵĞƐ
;&^Ϳ ;&^Ϳ ;&^Ϳ ;&^Ϳ
Ϭ͘ϬϰϮ Ϭ͘ϳϱϬ ϭ͘Ϯϳϱ Ϯ͘ϰϲϮ sĞŐĞƚĂƚĞĚ^ǁĂůĞ ŶŽŶĞ
ϭϱ͟/WǁŝƚŚ
Ϭ͘ϴϱϭ ϰ͘ϲϭϬ ϲ͘Ϯϭϯ ϭ͘ϭϰϭ tŝƚŚŝŶϭϬϬǇƌĨůŽŽĚ
ĂĐŬĨůŽǁsĂůǀĞ
Ϭ͘ϬϬϲ Ϭ͘ϲϱϭ ϭ͘ϯϳϰ ϯ͘Ϭϵϲ ^ŚĞĞƚ&ůŽǁ tŝƚŚŝŶϭϬϬǇƌĨůŽŽĚ
^ŚĞĞƚ&ůŽǁĂƚ
Ϭ͘ϬϮϳ Ϯ͘Ϭϰϰ ϰ͘ϰϯϱ ϭϬ͘ϯϰ tŝƚŚŝŶϭϬϬǇƌĨůŽŽĚ
ƵĨĨĂůŽƌĞĞŬ

dŽƚĂů Ϭ͘Ϭϳϱ ϰ͘ϱϰϲ ϭϯ͘Ϯϵϳ ϭϳ͘Ϭϯϵ

695

W Ă Ő Ğ ͮϭϮ

ŽŶĐůƵƐŝŽŶ͗^ƚŽƌŵǁĂƚĞƌĞǆŝƐƚŝŶŐƚŚĞƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇŝŶƚŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚĐŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶŝƐůĞƐƐƚŚĂŶĞǆŝƐƚŝŶŐ͘
tĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚƵƐĞƐĂďĂĐŬĨůŽǁǀĂůǀĞƚŽďůŽĐŬŽĨĨƚŚĞϭ͕ϭϬĂŶĚϮϱǇĞĂƌŽƵƚůĞƚŽĨƚŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ
ǁĞƚƉŽŶĚ͘dŚĞϮϱǇĞĂƌƐƚŽƌŵƚŽƚĂůŝŶƚŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚŝƐůĞƐƐƚŚĞŶƚŚĞϭϬǇĞĂƌƐƚŽƌŵƚŽƚĂůŝŶƚŚĞ
ĞǆŝƐƚŝŶŐ͘dŚĞƐĞŶƵŵďĞƌƐƌĞƉƌĞƐĞŶƚƚŚĞƉŽŶĚƐƚŽƌĂŐĞĂďŽǀĞƚŚĞƉĞƌŵĂŶĞŶƚƉŽŽůĞůĞǀĂƚŝŽŶ͘

* ^dKZ'ͬdZdDEdd>E^hDDZz

Wǀ tYǀ ZZǀ

tĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚ

ZĞƋƵŝƌĞĚ WƌŽǀŝĚĞĚ
ZĞƋƵŝƌĞĚ WƌŽǀŝĚĞĚ ZĞƋƵŝƌĞĚ WƌŽǀŝĚĞĚ dǇƉĞ dǇƉĞ
dǇƉĞ Ͳ&d Ͳ&d
Ͳ&d Ͳ&d Ͳ&d Ͳ&d
;&^Ϳ ;&^Ϳ

/ŶĨŝůƚƌĂƚŝŽŶ
Ϭ͘ϰϲϬϱ Ϭ͘ϰϳϴϲ WŽŶĚ Ϭ͘Ϭϰϵ Ϭ͘ϱϬϴ WŽŶĚ Ϭ͘Ϭϭϯ Ϭ͘Ϭϰϭ
dƌĞŶĐŚ

ŽŶĐůƵƐŝŽŶ͗dŚĞĚĞƐŝŐŶĞĚƉŽŶĚŚĂƐĂǁĂƚĞƌƋƵĂůŝƚǇǀŽůƵŵĞŽĨϭϵ͕ϵϳϱ&ǁŚŝĐŚŝƐůĂƌŐĞĞŶŽƵŐŚ
ƚŽƚƌĞĂƚƚŚĞĞǆŝƐƚŝŶŐƉĂƌŬŝŶŐůŽƚĂŶĚƚƌĂĐŬƚŚĂƚĂƌĞŶŽƚďĞŝŶŐĚŝƐƚƵƌďĞĚŝŶƚŚŝƐƉƌŽũĞĐƚ͕ĂƐǁĞůůĂƐ
ƚŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚŝŵƉĞƌǀŝŽƵƐĂƌĞĂƐ͘/ŶĨŝůƚƌĂƚŝŽŶƚƌĞŶĐŚĞƐĂƌĞƵƐĞĚĨŽƌƚŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚŝŵƉĞƌǀŝŽƵƐ
ĂƌĞĂƐĂƐƉƌĞƚƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚďƵƚĂůƐŽĨŽƌZZǀ͘dŚĞƌĞŝƐĂĨŽƌĞďĂǇĨŽƌƉƌĞƚƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚƚŚĂƚŝƐƐŝǌĞĚĂƚ
ϰ͕ϰϳϯĐĨŽĨƐƚŽƌĂŐĞ͘
tĞƚWŽŶĚ͗
ŽƚƚŽŵŽĨWŽŶĚ ĞůĞǀ͘ϱϴϴ͘ϱϬ
tYǀ ĞůĞǀ͘ϱϵϬ͘ϱϬ
WĞƌŵĂŶĞŶƚWŽŽů ĞůĞǀ͘ϱϵϮ͘ϵϯ
ϭǇĞĂƌ^ƚŽƌŵWǀ ĞůĞǀ͘ϱϵϯ͘ϲϬ
YϭϬ ĞůĞǀ͘ϱϵϰ͘ϭϲ
YϭϬϬ ĞůĞǀ͘ϱϵϳ͘Ϯϱ

696

W Ă Ő Ğ ͮϭϯ

,͘ Z&ZE^

ϭ͘ h^͕^ŽŝůŽŶƐĞƌǀĂƚŝŽŶ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞ͕hƌďĂŶ,ǇĚƌŽůŽŐǇĨŽƌ^ŵĂůůtĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚƐ͘dĞĐŚŶŝĐĂů
ZĞůĞĂƐĞϱϱ͕^ĞĐŽŶĚĚŝƚŝŽŶ͘h͘^͘'ŽǀĞƌŶŵĞŶƚWƌŝŶƚŝŶŐKĨĨŝĐĞ͕tĂƐŚŝŶŐƚŽŶ͕͕͘͘:ƵŶĞ
ϭϵϴϲ͕hƉĚĂƚĞĚ:ĂŶƵĂƌǇϭϵϵϴ͘

Ϯ͘ Ez^͕ĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚŽĨŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂůŽŶƐĞƌǀĂƚŝŽŶ͕^ƚŽƌŵǁĂƚĞƌDĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚĞƐŝŐŶ
DĂŶƵĂů͘:ĂŶƵĂƌǇϮϬϭϱ͘

ϯ͘ h^W͕ŚĞƐĂƉĞĂŬĞZĞƐĞĂƌĐŚŽŶƐŽƌƚŝƵŵ͕/ŶĐ͕͘ĞƐŝŐŶŽĨ^ƚŽƌŵǁĂƚĞƌ&ŝůƚĞƌŝŶŐ
^ǇƐƚĞŵƐ͘ĞĐĞŵďĞƌϭϵϵϲ͘

ϰ͘ Ez^͕ĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚŽĨŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂůŽŶƐĞƌǀĂƚŝŽŶ͕EĞǁzŽƌŬ^ƚĂŶĚĂƌĚĂŶĚ
^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐĂƚŝŽŶƐĨŽƌƌŽƐŝŽŶĂŶĚ^ĞĚŝŵĞŶƚŽŶƚƌŽů͘:ƵůǇϮϬϭϲ͘

ϱ͘ ƵƚŽĚĞƐŬ͕ƵƚŽŝǀŝůϯ,ǇĚƌĂĨůŽǁ,ǇĚƌŽŐƌĂƉŚƐǆƚĞŶƐŝŽŶhƐĞƌ͛Ɛ'ƵŝĚĞ͕Ɖƌŝů
ϮϬϭϲ͘

697

W Ă Ő Ğ ͮϭϰ

^d/KEϯʹZK^/KEKEdZK>͕/E^Wd/KE^͕ĂŶĚD/EdEE

͘ZK^/KEKEdZK>D^hZÊ^W/&/d/KE^

WZdϭͲ'EZ>

ϭ͘ϭ ^Z/Wd/KEK&tKZ<

͘ WƌŽǀŝĚĞĞƌŽƐŝŽŶ͕ƐĞĚŝŵĞŶƚĂŶĚƉŽůůƵƚŝŽŶĐŽŶƚƌŽůƐĂƐƐŚŽǁŶŽŶƚŚĞĚƌĂǁŝŶŐƐĂŶĚ
ĂƐĚŝƌĞĐƚĞĚďǇƚŚĞƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚƚŽƐŝŐŶŝĨŝĐĂŶƚůǇƌĞĚƵĐĞƌƵŶŽĨĨŽŶĚŽǁŶƐƚƌĞĂŵĂŶĚ
ŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŝŶŐƉƌŽƉĞƌƚŝĞƐ͘dŚŝƐŝŶĐůƵĚĞƐƚĞŵƉŽƌĂƌǇĐŽŶƚƌŽůŵĞĂƐƵƌĞƐƚŽŵŝƚŝŐĂƚĞ
ůĂŶĚĚŝƐƌƵƉƚŝŽŶďǇŽƚŚĞƌŽŶƚƌĂĐƚŽƌƐĚƵƌŝŶŐĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶŽĨƚŚŝƐƉƌŽũĞĐƚ͘

͘ ƌŽƐŝŽŶ͕ƐĞĚŝŵĞŶƚĂŶĚƉŽůůƵƚŝŽŶĐŽŶƚƌŽůŝŶĐůƵĚĞƐ͕ďƵƚŝƐŶŽƚůŝŵŝƚĞĚƚŽ͕ƚŚĞ
ĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐ͗
ϭ͘ ^ƚŽƌŵƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞƉƌŽƚĞĐƚŝŽŶ
Ϯ͘ ^ŝůƚĨĞŶĐĞ
ϯ͘ ZŝƉƌĂƉ
ϰ͘ KĨĨƐŝƚĞƐĞĚŝŵĞŶƚƚƌĂĐŬŝŶŐĐŽŶƚƌŽůƐ
ϳ͘ dĞŵƉŽƌĂƌǇĐŽŶĐƌĞƚĞǁĂƐŚŽƵƚĨĂĐŝůŝƚǇ
ϴ͘ dĞŵƉŽƌĂƌǇƐĞĞĚŝŶŐ
ϵ͘ WĞƌŵĂŶĞŶƚƐĞĞĚŝŶŐĂŶĚƐŽĚĚŝŶŐ
ϭϬ͘^ƚƌĂǁŵĂƚ
ϭϭ͘dĞŵƉŽƌĂƌǇďĂƐŝŶŽƵƚůĞƚƐĞĚŝŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶƚƌĂƉ
ϭϮ͘dĞŵƉŽƌĂƌǇƐĞĚŝŵĞŶƚĨŝůƚĞƌďĂŐĨŽƌƉƵŵƉĞĚǁĂƚĞƌ
ϭϱ͘ŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶƐŝƚĞĚƵƐƚĐŽŶƚƌŽů
ϭϲ͘^ƉŝůůƉƌĞǀĞŶƚŝŽŶ͕ƌĞƉŽƌƚŝŶŐĂŶĚĚŽĐƵŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶ
ϭϳ͘ůĞĂŶƵƉ

͘ WƌŽǀŝĚĞŵĂƚĞƌŝĂůƐ͕ůĂďŽƌ͕ĞƋƵŝƉŵĞŶƚĂŶĚƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚƚŽĂĐĐŽŵƉůŝƐŚƌĞůĂƚĞĚ
ǁŽƌŬŝŶĂĐĐŽƌĚĂŶĐĞǁŝƚŚƚŚĞĚƌĂǁŝŶŐƐĂŶĚƐƉĞĐŝĨŝĐĂƚŝŽŶƐ͘

͘ ŽĚĞŽŵƉůŝĂŶĐĞ͗dŚĞEĞǁzŽƌŬ^ƚĂƚĞĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚŽĨŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂů
ŽŶƐĞƌǀĂƚŝŽŶƌĞƋƵŝƌĞƐĂ^W^'ĞŶĞƌĂůWĞƌŵŝƚĨŽƌ^ƚŽƌŵtĂƚĞƌŝƐĐŚĂƌŐĞƐĨƌŽŵ
ŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶĐƚŝǀŝƚǇ͘dŚŝƐWĞƌŵŝƚ'WͲϬͲϭϱͲϬϬϮŝƐƉƵƌƐƵĂŶƚƚŽƚŚĞŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂů
ŽŶƐĞƌǀĂƚŝŽŶ>ĂǁĂŶĚŚĂƐƉĞŶĂůƚŝĞƐĂŶĚĨŝŶĞƐƌĞůĂƚĞĚƚŽǀŝŽůĂƚŝŽŶƐ͘

ϭ͘Ϯ Z>dtKZ<^W/&/>^t,Z

͘ ^ĞĐƚŝŽŶϯϭϭϮϬϭͲ^ŝƚĞWƌĞƉĂƌĂƚŝŽŶ

͘ ^ĞĐƚŝŽŶϯϭϮϮϬϭͲ^ŝƚĞĂƌƚŚǁŽƌŬ
698

W Ă Ő Ğ ͮϭϱ

͘ ^ĞĐƚŝŽŶϯϮϵϮϬϭͲ>ĂǁŶƐ

͘ ^ĞĐƚŝŽŶϯϯϰϬϬϭͲ^ƚŽƌŵƌĂŝŶĂŐĞ

ϭ͘ϯ Z&ZE^

͘ ^Ɖŝůů'ƵŝĚĞůŝŶĞƐDĂŶƵĂů;^'DͿEĞǁzŽƌŬ^ƚĂƚĞĞƉƚ͘ŽĨŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂů
ŽŶƐĞƌǀĂƚŝŽŶ͘

͘ EĞǁzŽƌŬ^ƚĂƚĞ^ƚĂŶĚĂƌĚƐĂŶĚ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐĂƚŝŽŶƐĨŽƌƌŽƐŝŽŶĂŶĚ^ĞĚŝŵĞŶƚŽŶƚƌŽů͕
ĚĂƚĞĚƵŐƵƐƚϮϬϬϱŽƌůĂƚĞƐƚĞĚŝƚŝŽŶ͘

ϭ͘ϰ ^hD/dd>^͗;^ĞĞ^ĞĐƚŝŽŶϯϭϭϮϬϭ͕ϭ͘ϱͿ

͘ DĂŶƵĨĂĐƚƵƌĞƌΖƐĂƚĂ;DWͿĂƌĞƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚĨŽƌ͗

ϭ͘ &ŝůƚĞƌ&ĂďƌŝĐĨŽƌ^ƚŽƌŵ^ƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞWƌŽƚĞĐƚŝŽŶ
Ϯ͘ ^ŝůƚ&ĞŶĐĞǁŝƚŚEĞƚĂĐŬŝŶŐ
ϯ͘ ^Žŝů^ĞƉĂƌĂƚŝŽŶ&ĂďƌŝĐĨŽƌKĨĨ^ŝƚĞ^ĞĚŝŵĞŶƚdƌĂĐŬŝŶŐŽŶƚƌŽů
ϰ͘ ^ĞĚŝŵĞŶƚ&ŝůƚĞƌĂŐ
ϱ͘ ^ƚƌĂǁDĂƚ
ϲ͘ ^ƉŝůůZĞƐƉŽŶƐĞƋƵŝƉŵĞŶƚ

͘ DĂƚĞƌŝĂůĞƌƚŝĨŝĐĂƚĞƐ;DͿƐŚŽǁŝŶŐĐŽŶƚĞŶƚͬŵĞĐŚĂŶŝĐĂůĂŶĂůǇƐŝƐĂŶĚ^ĂŵƉůĞƐĂƌĞ
ƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚĨŽƌ͗

ϭ͘ ZŝƉZĂƉ
Ϯ͘ EŽ͘ϯ^ƚŽŶĞĨŽƌKĨĨ^ŝƚĞ^ĞĚŝŵĞŶƚdƌĂĐŬŝŶŐŽŶƚƌŽů
ϯ͘ dĞŵƉŽƌĂƌǇ^ĞĞĚŝŶŐ͗^ƵďŵŝƚƐĞĞĚŵŝǆƐƉĞĐŝĞƐĂŶĚƐŽƵƌĐĞ
ϰ͘ WĞƌŵĂŶĞŶƚ^ĞĞĚŝŶŐΘ^ŽĚĚŝŶŐ͗;^ĞĞ^ĞĐƚŝŽŶϯϮϵϮϬϭͿ

͘ ĞƌƚŝĨŝĐĂƚŝŽŶ^ƚĂƚĞŵĞŶƚ͗^ƵďŵŝƚƉŚŽƚŽĐŽƉǇŽĨ^ĞĐƚŝŽŶϯϭϮϱϬϭ͕ϭ͘ϳ͕ĨŝůůĞĚŽƵƚ
ĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞůǇĂŶĚĂĐĐƵƌĂƚĞůǇƚŽƚŚĞ>ĂŶĚƐĐĂƉĞƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚĂƚƚŚĞƉƌĞͲĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶ
ŵĞĞƚŝŶŐ͘

͘ >ŝƐƚŝŶŐŽĨĞŵĞƌŐĞŶĐǇĐŽŶƚƌĂĐƚŶƵŵďĞƌƐ͘dŚŝƐůŝƐƚƐŚĂůůŝŶĐůƵĚĞƚŚĞŶĂŵĞŽĨĂŶ
ŵĞƌŐĞŶĐǇZĞƐƉŽŶƐĞŽŶƚƌĂĐƚŽƌƚŚĂƚŵĂǇďĞƵƐĞĚŝŶĐĞƌƚĂŝŶƐŝƚƵĂƚŝŽŶƐ͘

͘ WĞƌEz^^W^ZĞŐƵůĂƚŝŽŶƐ͕ĂůůŽŶƐŝƚĞĐŽŶƚƌĂĐƚŽƌƐƉĞƌĨŽƌŵŝŶŐĞĂƌƚŚ
ĚŝƐƚƵƌďŝŶŐĂĐƚŝǀŝƚŝĞƐŶĞĞĚƚŽŚĂǀĞĐƵƌƌĞŶƚEz^ĞŶĚŽƌƐĞĚϰͲŚŽƵƌĞƌŽƐŝŽŶĂŶĚ
ƐĞĚŝŵĞŶƚ;Θ^ͿƚƌĂŝŶŝŶŐ͘WƌŽǀŝĚĞĐŽƉŝĞƐŽĨĂůůŽŶƐŝƚĞƉĞƌƐŽŶŶĞůĐĞƌƚŝĨŝĐĂƚŝŽŶ
699

W Ă Ő Ğ ͮϭϲ

ĐĂƌĚƐ͕ƉƌŝŽƌƚŽĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶ͘dŚĞĚŽĐƵŵĞŶƚƐŚĂůůďĞŬĞƉƚŽŶĨŝůĞ;ďǇƚŚĞ
ŽŶƚƌĂĐƚŽƌͿǁŝƚŚŝŶƚŚĞŽŶƐŝƚĞ^tWWWůŽŐďŽŽŬ͘

ϭ͘ϱ Yh>/dz^^hZE

͘ WĞƌĨŽƌŵĞƌŽƐŝŽŶ͕ƐĞĚŝŵĞŶƚĂŶĚƉŽůůƵƚŝŽŶĐŽŶƚƌŽůŝŶĐŽŵƉůŝĂŶĐĞǁŝƚŚĂƉƉůŝĐĂďůĞ
ƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐŽĨƚŚĞEĞǁzŽƌŬ^ƚĂŶĚĂƌĚƐĂŶĚ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐĂƚŝŽŶƐƌŽƐŝŽŶĂŶĚ
^ĞĚŝŵĞŶƚŽŶƚƌŽůDĂŶƵĂů͕ĚĂƚĞĚ:ƵůǇϮϬϭϲ;ŽƌůĂƚĞƐƚĞĚŝƚŝŽŶͿŽƌŽƚŚĞƌŐŽǀĞƌŶŝŶŐ
ĂƵƚŚŽƌŝƚŝĞƐŚĂǀŝŶŐũƵƌŝƐĚŝĐƚŝŽŶ͘

͘ /ƚŝƐƚŚŝƐŽŶƚƌĂĐƚŽƌΖƐƌĞƐƉŽŶƐŝďŝůŝƚǇƚŽƉƌĞǀĞŶƚƐƚŽƌŵǁĂƚĞƌƉŽůůƵƚŝŽŶĨƌŽŵƌƵŶŶŝŶŐ
ŽĨĨƐŝƚĞ͘ůůƉŽůůƵƚŝŽŶĐŽŶƚƌŽůǁŽƌŬƌĞůĂƚĞĚƚŽƚŚĞƐŝƚĞĐŽŶƚƌĂĐƚƐŚĂůůďĞŝŶĐůƵĚĞĚŝŶ
ƚŚĞĂƐĞŝĚ͘ůůƉŽůůƵƚŝŽŶĐŽŶƚƌŽůǁŽƌŬƌĞůĂƚĞĚƚŽŽƚŚĞƌĐŽŶƚƌĂĐƚƐƐŚĂůůďĞŽŶĂ
ƚŝŵĞĂŶĚŵĂƚĞƌŝĂůďĂƐŝƐĂŶĚďĂĐŬͲĐŚĂƌŐĞĚƚŽƚŚĞƌĞƐƉŽŶƐŝďůĞƉĂƌƚǇ͘

͘ /ŶƚŚĞĞǀĞŶƚŽĨĂĐŚĞŵŝĐĂůŽƌŚĂǌĂƌĚŽƵƐƐƉŝůůŽƌƌĞůĞĂƐĞ͕ƚŚĞŝŶĚŝǀŝĚƵĂů;ƐͿǁŚŽ
ĐĂƵƐĞĚƚŚĞƐƉŝůůŝƐƌĞƐƉŽŶƐŝďůĞĨŽƌƉƌŽŵƉƚĂŶĚƉƌŽƉĞƌĐůĞĂŶͲƵƉ͘/ĨƚŚĞƐƉŝůů
ƌĞƋƵŝƌĞƐĐůĞĂŶƵƉƉƌŽĐĞĚƵƌĞƐďĞǇŽŶĚƚŚĞŵĞĂŶƐŽĨƚŚĞŽŶƚƌĂĐƚŽƌ͕ĂŶĞŵĞƌŐĞŶĐǇ
ƐƉŝůůĐůĞĂŶƵƉ^ƵďĐŽŶƚƌĂĐƚŽƌƐŚĂůůďĞŚŝƌĞĚďǇƚŚĞŽŶƚƌĂĐƚŽƌ͘dŚĞǇƐŚĂůůďĞ
ƵƚŝůŝǌĞĚǁŚĞŶƚŚĞŽŶƚƌĂĐƚŽƌĚŽĞƐŶŽƚŚĂǀĞƚŚĞĂƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƚĞƚƌĂŝŶŝŶŐ͕ĞƋƵŝƉŵĞŶƚ
ŽƌŵĂƚĞƌŝĂůƐƚŽĐůĞĂŶƵƉƚŚĞĂƌĞĂƐĂĨĞůǇĂŶĚĞĨĨĞĐƚŝǀĞůǇ͘dŚŝƐƐŚĂůůďĞĚŽŶĞĂƚŶŽ
ĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂůĐŽƐƚƚŽƚŚĞKǁŶĞƌ͘ŶǇƚĞƐƚŝŶŐĂŶĚĐůĞĂŶƵƉƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚƉŽƐƚĐůĞĂŶƵƉ
ƐŚĂůůďĞƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĚďǇƚŚĞŽŶƚƌĂĐƚŽƌĂƚŶŽĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂůĐŽƐƚƚŽƚŚĞKǁŶĞƌ͘

ϭ͘ϲ :KKE/d/KE^

͘ :ŽďĐŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶƐŝŶ^ĞĐƚŝŽŶƐϯϭϭϮϬϭ͕ϯϭϮϮϬϭ͕ϯϮϵϮϬϭĂŶĚϯϯϰϬϬϭĂƉƉůǇ͘

͘ ŽŶƚƌĂĐƚŽƌǁŝůůƚĂŬĞĂůůŶĞĐĞƐƐĂƌǇƉƌĞĐĂƵƚŝŽŶƐƚŽĂǀŽŝĚĂůůŽǁŝŶŐĚƵƐƚŐĞŶĞƌĂƚŝŽŶ
ƚŚĂƚǀŝŽůĂƚĞƐEz^ƌĞŐƵůĂƚŝŽŶƐĂŶĚĐŽŵƉƌŽŵŝƐĞƐĐŽŵƉůŝĂŶĐĞǁŝƚŚŐŽǀĞƌŶŝŶŐ
ĂƵƚŚŽƌŝƚŝĞƐĂŝƌŵŽŶŝƚŽƌŝŶŐƉůĂŶ͘

ϭ͘ϳ Zd/&/d/KE^

͘ ƵƚŚŽƌŝǌĞĚ͕ůĞŐĂůůǇƌĞƐƉŽŶƐŝďůĞƐŝŐŶĂƚƵƌĞƐĨŽƌƚŚĞ'ĞŶĞƌĂůŽŶƚƌĂĐƚŽƌ͕^ŝƚĞ
ĂƌƚŚǁŽƌŬ͕>ĂŶĚƐĐĂƉŝŶŐ^ƵďĐŽŶƚƌĂĐƚŽƌ;ƐͿĂŶĚĂŶǇŽƚŚĞƌƐŽŝůĚŝƐƚƵƌďŝŶŐ
ŽŶƚƌĂĐƚŽƌƐŚĂůůƐŝŐŶĂŶĚƉƌŽŵŝŶĞŶƚůǇĚŝƐƉůĂǇƚŚĞĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐĐĞƌƚŝĨŝĐĂƚŝŽŶ
ƐƚĂƚĞŵĞŶƚĂƚƚŚĞũŽďƚƌĂŝůĞƌŽƌŽĨĨŝĐĞĚƵƌŝŶŐƚŚĞůŝĨĞŽĨƚŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚ͗

Η/ŚĞƌĞďǇĐĞƌƚŝĨǇƚŚĂƚ/ƵŶĚĞƌƐƚĂŶĚĂŶĚĂŐƌĞĞƚŽĐŽŵƉůǇǁŝƚŚƚŚĞƚĞƌŵƐĂŶĚ
ĐŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶƐŽĨƚŚĞ^ƚŽƌŵtĂƚĞƌWŽůůƵƚŝŽŶWƌĞǀĞŶƚŝŽŶWůĂŶ;^tWWWͿĂŶĚĂŐƌĞĞƚŽ
ŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂŶǇĐŽƌƌĞĐƚŝǀĞĂĐƚŝŽŶƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĨŝĞĚďǇƚŚĞƋƵĂůŝĨŝĞĚŝŶƐƉĞĐƚŽƌĚƵƌŝŶŐƚŚĞ
ƐŝƚĞŝŶƐƉĞĐƚŝŽŶ͘/ĂůƐŽƵŶĚĞƌƐƚĂŶĚƚŚĂƚƚŚĞŽǁŶĞƌͬŽƉĞƌĂƚŽƌŵƵƐƚĐŽŵƉůǇǁŝƚŚƚŚĞ
700

W Ă Ő Ğ ͮϭϳ

ƚĞƌŵƐĂŶĚĐŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶƐŽĨƚŚĞŵŽƐƚĐƵƌƌĞŶƚǀĞƌƐŝŽŶŽĨƚŚĞEĞǁzŽƌŬ^ƚĂƚĞWŽůůƵƚĂŶƚ
ŝƐĐŚĂƌŐĞůŝŵŝŶĂƚŝŽŶ^ǇƐƚĞŵ;Η^W^ΗͿŐĞŶĞƌĂůƉĞƌŵŝƚĨŽƌƐƚŽƌŵǁĂƚĞƌ
ĚŝƐĐŚĂƌŐĞƐĨƌŽŵĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶĂĐƚŝǀŝƚŝĞƐĂŶĚƚŚĂƚŝƚŝƐƵŶůĂǁĨƵůĨŽƌĂŶǇƉĞƌƐŽŶƚŽ
ĐĂƵƐĞŽƌĐŽŶƚƌŝďƵƚĞƚŽĂǀŝŽůĂƚŝŽŶŽĨǁĂƚĞƌƋƵĂůŝƚǇƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚƐ͘&ƵƌƚŚĞƌŵŽƌĞ͕/
ƵŶĚĞƌƐƚĂŶĚƚŚĂƚĐĞƌƚŝĨǇŝŶŐĨĂůƐĞ͕ŝŶĐŽƌƌĞĐƚŽƌŝŶĂĐĐƵƌĂƚĞŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶŝƐĂǀŝŽůĂƚŝŽŶ
ŽĨƚŚĞƌĞĨĞƌĞŶĐĞĚƉĞƌŵŝƚĂŶĚƚŚĞůĂǁƐŽĨƚŚĞ^ƚĂƚĞŽĨEĞǁzŽƌŬĂŶĚĐŽƵůĚƐƵďũĞĐƚ
ŽŶĞƚŽĐƌŝŵŝŶĂů͕ĐŝǀŝůĂŶĚͬŽƌĂĚŵŝŶŝƐƚƌĂƚŝǀĞƉƌŽĐĞĞĚŝŶŐƐ͘Η

ϭ͘ 'ĞŶĞƌĂůŽŶƚƌĂĐƚŽƌ
^ŝŐŶĂƚƵƌĞ͗ ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ

EĂŵĞ͗ ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ

dŝƚůĞ͗ ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ

ĚĚƌĞƐƐ͗ ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ

ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ

WŚŽŶĞEŽ͗͘ ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ

ŵĂŝů͗ ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ

Ϯ͘ ^ŝƚĞĂƌƚŚǁŽƌŬŽŶƚƌĂĐƚŽƌ







ϯ͘ ^ŝƚĞ>ĂŶĚƐĐĂƉŝŶŐŽŶƚƌĂĐƚŽƌ
701

W Ă Ő Ğ ͮϭϴ







ϰ͘ KƚŚĞƌ^ƵďŽŶƚƌĂĐƚŽƌƐ







ϭ͘ϴ EKd/^

͘ dŚĞKƉĞƌĂƚŽƌ;KǁŶĞƌͿƐŚĂůůĨŝůĞǁŝƚŚƚŚĞEĞǁzŽƌŬ^ƚĂƚĞĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚŽĨ
ŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂůŽŶƐĞƌǀĂƚŝŽŶ;Ez^ͿĂEŽƚŝĐĞŽĨ/ŶƚĞŶƚ;EK/ͿĂŵŝŶŝŵƵŵŽĨƚĞŶ
;ϭϬͿĚĂǇƐƉƌŝŽƌƚŽƐƚĂƌƚŽĨĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶ͘hŶůĞƐƐŶŽƚŝĨŝĞĚďǇƚŚĞEz^ƚŽƚŚĞ
ĐŽŶƚƌĂƌǇǁŝƚŚŝŶƚĞŶ;ϭϬͿĚĂǇƐ͕ĂŐĞŶĞƌĂů^W^ƉĞƌŵŝƚŝƐĂƵƚŽŵĂƚŝĐĂůůǇŝƐƐƵĞĚ
ǁŚŝĐŚĂƵƚŚŽƌŝǌĞƐĚŝƐĐŚĂƌŐĞŽĨƐƚŽƌŵǁĂƚĞƌŽŶƚŚĞĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶƐŝƚĞ͘

͘ tŚĞŶƚŚĞƐŝƚĞŚĂƐďĞĞŶĨŝŶĂůůǇƐƚĂďŝůŝǌĞĚ͕ƚŚĞKƉĞƌĂƚŽƌ;KǁŶĞƌͿƐŚĂůůĨŝůĞǁŝƚŚƚŚĞ
Ez^ĂEŽƚŝĐĞŽĨdĞƌŵŝŶĂƚŝŽŶ;EKdͿ͘

702

W Ă Ő Ğ ͮϭϵ

͘ dŚĞKƉĞƌĂƚŽƌ;KǁŶĞƌͿŝƐƌĞƐƉŽŶƐŝďůĞĨŽƌƉĂǇŵĞŶƚŽĨĂŶŶƵĂůĨĞĞƐƌĞůĂƚĞĚƚŽƚŚĞ
^W^ƉĞƌŵŝƚ͘&ŝůŝŶŐŽĨĂEKdƐŚĂůůƚǇƉŝĐĂůůǇƚĞƌŵŝŶĂƚĞƚŚĞKƉĞƌĂƚŽƌΖƐĨĞĞ
ƌĞƐƉŽŶƐŝďŝůŝƚǇ͘

ϭ͘ϵ /E^Wd/KEÊD/EdEE

͘ dŚĞƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚŽƌƋƵĂůŝĨŝĞĚƉĞƌƐŽŶŶĞůŽĨƚŚĞKƉĞƌĂƚŽƌƐŚĂůůŝŶƐƉĞĐƚĚŝƐƚƵƌďĞĚĂƌĞĂƐ
ŽĨƚŚĞĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶƐŝƚĞĂƚůĞĂƐƚŽŶĐĞƉĞƌǁĞĞŬ͘^ƉĞĐŝĂůĂƚƚĞŶƚŝŽŶǁŝůůďĞĨŽĐƵƐĞĚ
ŽŶĂƌĞĂƐŶŽƚĨŝŶĂůůǇƐƚĂďŝůŝǌĞĚ͕ƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĂůĐŽŶƚƌŽůŵĞĂƐƵƌĞƐ͕ƉŽŝŶƚĚŝƐĐŚĂƌŐĞ
;ŽƵƚůĞƚƐͿĂŶĚůŽĐĂƚŝŽŶƐǁŚĞƌĞǀĞŚŝĐůĞƐĞŶƚĞƌŽƌĞǆŝƚƚŚĞƐŝƚĞ͘ŝƐƚƵƌďĞĚĂƌĞĂƐǁŝůů
ďĞŝŶƐƉĞĐƚĞĚĨŽƌƉŽůůƵƚĂŶƚƐĞŶƚĞƌŝŶŐƚŚĞĚƌĂŝŶĂŐĞƐǇƐƚĞŵ͘^ƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĂůĐŽŶƚƌŽů
ŵĞĂƐƵƌĞƐǁŝůůďĞƌĞǀŝĞǁĞĚĨŽƌĞĨĨĞĐƚŝǀĞŶĞƐƐŝŶƉƌĞǀĞŶƚŝŶŐƐŝŐŶŝĨŝĐĂŶƚŝŵƉĂĐƚƐƚŽ
ƌĞĐĞŝǀŝŶŐǁĂƚĞƌƐ͘>ŽĐĂƚŝŽŶƐǁŚĞƌĞǀĞŚŝĐůĞƐĞŶƚĞƌŽƌĞǆŝƚƚŚĞƐŝƚĞǁŝůůďĞ
ŝŶƐƉĞĐƚĞĚĨŽƌĞǀŝĚĞŶĐĞŽĨŽĨĨƐŝƚĞƐĞĚŝŵĞŶƚƚƌĂĐŬŝŶŐ͘ǁƌŝƚƚĞŶƌĞƉŽƌƚŽĨ
ŝŶƐƉĞĐƚŝŽŶƐƐŚĂůůďĞƉƌŽĚƵĐĞĚŝŶĂũŽƵƌŶĂůĚƵƌŝŶŐƚŚĞĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶŽƉĞƌĂƚŝŽŶƐ͘
dŚĞũŽƵƌŶĂůƐŚĂůůďĞŵĂĚĞĂǀĂŝůĂďůĞ;ďǇƚŚĞKƉĞƌĂƚŽƌͬKǁŶĞƌͿĨŽƌEz^ĂŶĚƚŚĞ
ŐĞŶĞƌĂůƉƵďůŝĐƚŽƌĞǀŝĞǁ͘

͘ dŚĞŽŶƚƌĂĐƚŽƌƐŚĂůůƉƌŽǀŝĚĞƚŝŵĞůǇŵĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞŽĨǀĞŐĞƚĂƚŝŽŶĞƌŽƐŝŽŶĂŶĚ
ƐĞĚŝŵĞŶƚĐŽŶƚƌŽůŵĞĂƐƵƌĞƐ͕ĂŶĚŽƚŚĞƌƉƌŽƚĞĐƚŝǀĞŵĞĂƐƵƌĞƐ͕ĚƵƌŝŶŐĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶ͘
ŽƌƌĞĐƚŝǀĞŵĞĂƐƵƌĞƐŵƵƐƚďĞƉĞƌĨŽƌŵĞĚǁŝƚŚŝŶŽŶĞ;ϭͿĐĂůĞŶĚĂƌĚĂǇŽĨƚŚĞ
ƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚΖƐŽƌKƉĞƌĂƚŽƌΖƐ;KǁŶĞƌΖƐͿƌĞƉŽƌƚ͘&ĂŝůƵƌĞďǇƚŚĞŽŶƚƌĂĐƚŽƌƚŽƉĞƌĨŽƌŵ
ĐŽƌƌĞĐƚŝǀĞǁŽƌŬǁŝƚŚŝŶƚŚŝƐƐĐŚĞĚƵůĞĂƵƚŽŵĂƚŝĐĂůůǇĂƵƚŚŽƌŝǌĞƐƚŚĞKƉĞƌĂƚŽƌƚŽ
ŚŝƌĞŽƚŚĞƌƐĂŶĚďĂĐŬĐŚĂƌŐĞƚŚŝƐŽŶƚƌĂĐƚŽƌ͘dŚĞƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚŽƌKƉĞƌĂƚŽƌǁŝůůƐĞŶĚ
ĂůĞƚƚĞƌŽƌĞŵĂŝůĐŽƌƌĞƐƉŽŶĚĞŶĐĞŽŶĞ;ϭͿĐĂůĞŶĚĂƌĚĂǇďĞĨŽƌĞŚŝƌŝŶŐŽƚŚĞƌƐĂŶĚ
ďĂĐŬĐŚĂƌŐŝŶŐƚŚŝƐŽŶƚƌĂĐƚŽƌ͘dŚĞŽŶƚƌĂĐƚŽƌƐŚĂůůŬĞĞƉĂǁƌŝƚƚĞŶƌĞĐŽƌĚŽĨ
ŵĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞĂŶĚĐŽƌƌĞĐƚŝǀĞǁŽƌŬŝŶĂũŽƵƌŶĂů͘dŚĞũŽƵƌŶĂůƐŚĂůůďĞŵĂĚĞ
ĂǀĂŝůĂďůĞĨŽƌƚŚĞKƉĞƌĂƚŽƌ͕ƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚ͕>ĂŶĚƐĐĂƉĞƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚ͕^ŽŝůĂŶĚtĂƚĞƌ
ŽŶƐĞƌǀĂƚŝŽŶŝƐƚƌŝĐƚ͕K͕ĂŶĚEz^ƵŶƚŝůƚŚĞƐŝƚĞŝƐĨŝŶĂůůǇƐƚĂďŝůŝǌĞĚ͘

͘ dŚĞŽŶƚƌĂĐƚŽƌƐŚĂůůĐŽŶĚƵĐƚĚĂŝůǇŝŶƐƉĞĐƚŝŽŶƐŽĨƚŚĞĞƋƵŝƉŵĞŶƚƐƚĂŐŝŶŐĂŶĚ
ŵĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞ͕ĨƵĞůŝŶŐ͕ŚĂǌĂƌĚŽƵƐǁĂƐƚĞƐƚĂŐŝŶŐĂŶĚǁĂƐƚĞƐƚŽƌĂŐĞĂƌĞĂƐƚŽ
ĞŶƐƵƌĞƚŚĂƚƐƉŝůůĐŽŶƚƌŽůŵĞĂƐƵƌĞƐĂƌĞŝŶƉůĂĐĞ͘^ƚŽĐŬĂƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƚĞĐůĞĂŶͲƵƉ
ŵĂƚĞƌŝĂůƐǁŚĞŶĞǀĞƌĐŚĂŶŐĞƐŽĐĐƵƌŝŶƚŚĞƚǇƉĞƐŽĨĐŚĞŵŝĐĂůƐƵƐĞĚŽƌƐƚŽƌĞĚŽŶ
ƐŝƚĞ͘

͘ dŚĞŽŶƚƌĂĐƚŽƌŝƐƌĞƐƉŽŶƐŝďůĞĨŽƌŚĂǀŝŶŐŵĂŶĚĂƚŽƌǇ͕ƵƉƚŽĚĂƚĞEz^
ĞŶĚŽƌƐĞĚϰͲŚŽƵƌĞƌŽƐŝŽŶĂŶĚƐĞĚŝŵĞŶƚĐŽŶƚƌŽů;Θ^ͿƚƌĂŝŶŝŶŐĂůůƉĞƌƐŽŶŶĞů
ǁŽƌŬŝŶŐŽŶƐŝƚĞŝŶĂĐĐŽƌĚĂŶĐĞǁŝƚŚƚŚĞ^W^ƉĞƌŵŝƚ͘

͘ dŚĞKƉĞƌĂƚŽƌ;KǁŶĞƌͿƐŚĂůůƉƌŽǀŝĚĞůŽŶŐƚĞƌŵŵĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞŽĨƚŚĞƐƚŽƌŵǁĂƚĞƌ
ĨĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐĂĨƚĞƌƚŚĞƐŝƚĞŝƐĨŝŶĂůůǇƐƚĂďŝůŝǌĞĚ͘dŚĞĚĞƐŝŐŶĂƚĞĚŵĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞ
ƉĞƌƐŽŶŶĞůƐŚĂůůŬĞĞƉǁƌŝƚƚĞŶƌĞĐŽƌĚƐĂŶĚƉŝĐƚƵƌĞƐŽĨŵĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞĂŶĚĐŽƌƌĞĐƚŝǀĞ
703

W Ă Ő Ğ ͮϮϬ

ǁŽƌŬŝŶĂũŽƵƌŶĂů͘ůůƐƚŽƌŵǁĂƚĞƌĚŝƐĐŚĂƌŐĞƉŽŝŶƚƐƐŚĂůůďĞŵĂŝŶƚĂŝŶĞĚ͕
ŝŶƐƉĞĐƚĞĚ͕ĂŶĚĚŽĐƵŵĞŶƚĞĚ͘dŚĞũŽƵƌŶĂůƐŚĂůůďĞŵĂĚĞĂǀĂŝůĂďůĞĨŽƌƌĞǀŝĞǁďǇ
ƚŚĞEz^ĨŽƌĂŵŝŶŝŵƵŵƉĞƌŝŽĚŽĨĨŝǀĞ;ϱͿǇĞĂƌƐĂĨƚĞƌƚŚĞEŽƚŝĐĞŽĨ
dĞƌŵŝŶĂƚŝŽŶ;EKdͿŚĂƐďĞĞŶĨŝůĞĚ͘

ϭ͘ϭϬ ^W/>>WZsEd/KE͕ZWKZd/E'EKhDEdd/KE

͘ dŽŵŝŶŝŵŝǌĞƚŚĞƉŽƚĞŶƚŝĂůĨŽƌĚŝƐĐŚĂƌŐĞƚŽƚŚĞĞŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚŽĨŽŝůƐ͕ƉĞƚƌŽůĞƵŵ͕Žƌ
ŽƚŚĞƌŚĂǌĂƌĚŽƵƐƐƵďƐƚĂŶĐĞƐ͕ƚŚĞĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐƐŚĂůůĂƉƉůǇ͗

ϭ͘ ůůŽŝů͕ƉĞƚƌŽůĞƵŵ͕ŽƌŚĂǌĂƌĚŽƵƐŵĂƚĞƌŝĂůƐƐƚŽƌĞĚŽƌƚĞŵƉŽƌĂƌŝůǇƌĞůŽĐĂƚĞĚ
ŽŶƐŝƚĞĚƵƌŝŶŐƚŚĞĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶƉƌŽĐĞƐƐƐŚĂůůďĞƐƚŽƌĞĚŝŶĂǁĂǇƚŽƉƌŽǀŝĚĞ
ƉƌŽƚĞĐƚŝŽŶĨƌŽŵǀĞŚŝĐƵůĂƌĚĂŵĂŐĞĂŶĚƚŽƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĐŽŶƚĂŝŶŵĞŶƚŽĨůĞĂŬƐŽƌ
ƐƉŝůůƐ͘dĞŵƉŽƌĂƌǇďĞƌŵƐ͕ĚŝŬĞƐ͕ƐƚŽƌĂŐĞďĂƐŝŶƐ͕ŽƌƐŝŵŝůĂƌŵĞƚŚŽĚƐƐŚĂůů
ďĞĞŵƉůŽǇĞĚĂƐĂƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƚĞŽŶƐŝƚĞ͘

Ϯ͘ ZĞĨĞƌƚŽ^ƚŽƌŵtĂƚĞƌWŽůůƵƚŝŽŶWƌĞǀĞŶƚŝŽŶWůĂŶEŽƚĞƐĨŽƌĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂůƐƉŝůů
ƉƌĞǀĞŶƚŝŽŶŐŽŽĚŚŽƵƐĞŬĞĞƉŝŶŐƉƌĂĐƚŝĐĞƐ͘

ϯ͘ DĂŝŶƚĂŝŶĨŝůĞŽĨDĂƚĞƌŝĂů^ĂĨĞƚǇĂƚĂ^ŚĞĞƚƐ;D^^ƐͿŽƌŽƚŚĞƌƌĞĨĞƌĞŶĐĞƐ
ĨŽƌƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĞĚƐƉŝůůĐůĞĂŶͲƵƉŵĞƚŚŽĚƐĂŶĚŵĂƚĞƌŝĂůƐ͘

ϰ͘ <ĞĞƉƐƉŝůůƌĞƐƉŽŶƐĞĞƋƵŝƉŵĞŶƚƌĞĂĚŝůǇĂĐĐĞƐƐŝďůĞ͘

͘ /ŶƚŚĞĞǀĞŶƚŽĨĂƐƉŝůůĐŽŶƚĂĐƚƚŚĞŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶDĂŶĂŐĞƌ͕KǁŶĞƌ;KƉĞƌĂƚŽƌͿ͕ĂŶĚ
ƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚ͘dŚĞŽŶƚƌĂĐƚŽƌƐŚĂůůĂůƐŽŶŽƚŝĨǇĂůůŽƚŚĞƌŽŶƚƌĂĐƚŽƌƐǁŽƌŬŝŶŐĂƌŽƵŶĚ
ƚŚĞĂƌĞĂŽĨƚŚĞƐƉŝůů͘

͘ /ĨƐƉŝůůĞĚŵĂƚĞƌŝĂůŚĂƐĞŶƚĞƌĞĚĂŶǇƐĂŶŝƚĂƌǇͬƐƚŽƌŵƐĞǁĞƌƐǇƐƚĞŵƚŚĞŶĐŽŶƚĂĐƚƚŚĞ
ŵƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůŝƚǇŽƌĂŐĞŶĐǇǁŝƚŚũƵƌŝƐĚŝĐƚŝŽŶŽǀĞƌƚŚĞƐǇƐƚĞŵ͕ŝŶĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶƚŽƚŚŽƐĞ
ůŝƐƚĞĚŝŶƚŚŝƐƐĞĐƚŝŽŶ͘

͘ dŚĞĐŽŶƚƌĂĐƚŽƌƐŚĂůůďĞƌĞƐƉŽŶƐŝďůĞĨŽƌƚŚĞŝŶŝƚŝĂƚŝŽŶŽĨƐƉŝůůƌĞƉŽƌƚŝŶŐĂŶĚ
ĚŽĐƵŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶƉƌŽĐĞĚƵƌĞƐ͘ůůƉĞƚƌŽůĞƵŵƐƉŝůůƐŵƵƐƚďĞƌĞƉŽƌƚĞĚƚŽEz^
^Ɖŝůů,ŽƚůŝŶĞĂƚϭͲϴϬϬͲϰϱϳͲϳϯϲϮ͕ůĞƐƐƚŚĂŶƚǁŽ;ϮͿŚŽƵƌƐĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐĚŝƐĐŽǀĞƌǇ͘ůů
ƉĞƚƌŽůĞƵŵƐƉŝůůƐŵƵƐƚďĞƌĞƉŽƌƚĞĚƚŽEz^ƵŶůĞƐƐĂůůŽĨƚŚĞĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐĂƉƉůǇ͗

ƌŝƚĞƌŝĂ ĞƐĐƌŝƉƚŝŽŶ
YƵĂŶƚŝƚǇ DƵƐƚďĞŬŶŽǁŶƚŽďĞůĞƐƐƚŚĂŶϱŐĂůůŽŶƐ͘
ŽŶƚĂŝŶŵĞŶƚ DƵƐƚďĞĐŽŶƚĂŝŶĞĚŽŶĂŶŝŵƉĞƌǀŝŽƵƐƐƵƌĨĂĐĞŽƌǁŝƚŚŝŶĂŶ
ŝŵƉĞƌǀŝŽƵƐƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞ͘EŽĂĐĐĞƐƐƚŽƚŚĞĞŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚ͘
ŽŶƚƌŽů DƵƐƚďĞƵŶĚĞƌĐŽŶƚƌŽůĂŶĚŶŽƚƌĞĂĐŚĂĚƌĂŝŶŽƌůĞĂǀĞƚŚĞ
ŝŵƉĞƌǀŝŽƵƐƐƵƌĨĂĐĞ͘
704

W Ă Ő Ğ ͮϮϭ

ůĞĂŶƵƉ DƵƐƚďĞĐůĞĂŶĞĚͲƵƉǁŝƚŚŝŶƚǁŽ;ϮͿŚŽƵƌƐŽĨŽĐĐƵƌƌĞŶĐĞ͘
ŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚ DƵƐƚŶŽƚŚĂǀĞĂůƌĞĂĚǇĞŶƚĞƌĞĚŝŶƚŽƐŽŝůŽƌŐƌŽƵŶĚǁĂƚĞƌŽƌŽŶƚŽ
ƐƵƌĨĂĐĞǁĂƚĞƌ͘

͘ ƌĞůĞĂƐĞŽĨĂ͞ƌĞƉŽƌƚĂďůĞƋƵĂŶƚŝƚǇ͟ϷŽƌƵŶŬŶŽǁŶĂŵŽƵŶƚŽĨĂŚĂǌĂƌĚŽƵƐ
ƐƵďƐƚĂŶĐĞŵƵƐƚĂůƐŽďĞŝŵŵĞĚŝĂƚĞůǇƌĞƉŽƌƚĞĚƚŽƚŚĞEz^^Ɖŝůů,ŽƚůŝŶĞ͘^ƉŝůůƐ
ŽĨƌĞƉŽƌƚĂďůĞƋƵĂŶƚŝƚŝĞƐŽĨĐŚĞŵŝĐĂůƐŽƌ͞ŚĂƌŵĨƵůƋƵĂŶƚŝƚŝĞƐ͟ϸŽĨŽŝůƚŽŶĂǀŝŐĂďůĞ
ǁĂƚĞƌƐŵƵƐƚďĞƌĞƉŽƌƚĞĚƚŽƚŚĞĨĞĚĞƌĂůEĂƚŝŽŶĂůZĞƐƉŽŶƐĞĞŶƚĞƌ͕ϭͲϴϬϬͲϰϮϰͲ
ϴϴϬϮŽƌϭͲϮϬϮͲϰϮϲͲϮϲϳϱ͘
Ϸ ZĞƉŽƌƚĂďůĞYƵĂŶƚŝƚǇ͗ZĞĨĞƌƐƚŽƚŚĞƋƵĂŶƚŝƚǇŽĨĂŚĂǌĂƌĚŽƵƐƐƵďƐƚĂŶĐĞŽƌŽŝů
ƚŚĂƚƚƌŝŐŐĞƌƐƌĞƉŽƌƚŝŶŐƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐƵŶĚĞƌƚŚĞŽŵƉƌĞŚĞŶƐŝǀĞŵĞƌŐĞŶĐǇ
ZĞƐƉŽŶƐĞ͕ŽŵƉĞŶƐĂƚŝŽŶ͕ĂŶĚ>ŝĂďŝůŝƚǇĐƚ;Z>Ϳ;h^W͕^ĞƉƚĞŵďĞƌ
ϭϵϵϮͿ͘

ϸ ,ĂƌŵĨƵůYƵĂŶƚŝƚǇ͗/ŶĐůƵĚĞƐĚŝƐĐŚĂƌŐĞƐƚŚĂƚǀŝŽůĂƚĞĂƉƉůŝĐĂďůĞǁĂƚĞƌƋƵĂůŝƚǇ
ƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚƐ͕ĐĂƵƐĞĂĨŝůŵ͕ƐŚĞĞŶ͕ŽƌĚŝƐĐŽůŽƌĂƚŝŽŶŽŶĂǁĂƚĞƌƐƵƌĨĂĐĞŽƌ
ĂĚũŽŝŶŝŶŐƐŚŽƌĞůŝŶĞ͖ŽƌĐĂƵƐĞĂƐůƵĚŐĞŽƌĞŵƵůƐŝŽŶƚŽďĞĚĞƉŽƐŝƚĞĚďĞŶĞĂƚŚ
ƚŚĞǁĂƚĞƌƐƵƌĨĂĐĞŽƌƐŚŽƌĞůŝŶĞ;ϰϬ&ZϭϭϬ͘ϯͿ͘

WZdϮͲWZKhd^

Ϯ͘ϭ ^dKZD^dZhdhZWZKdd/KE

͘ ^ŚĂůů ďĞ ĐŽŵŵĞƌĐŝĂůůǇ ŵĂŶƵĨĂĐƚƵƌĞĚ͕ ŶĞĞĚůĞͲƉƵŶĐŚĞĚ͕ ŶŽŶͲ ǁŽǀĞŶ
ŐĞŽƚĞǆƚŝůĞ͕ ĐŽŵƉƌŝƐĞĚ ŽĨ ƉŽůǇƉƌŽƉǇůĞŶĞ ĨŝďĞƌƐ͘ ^ƚĂŶĚĂƌĚ ŽĨ ƋƵĂůŝƚǇ ƐŚĂůů
ďĞ DŝƌĂĨŝ ϭϰϬE ĂƐ ŵĂŶƵĨĂĐƚƵƌĞĚ ďǇ dĞŶĐĂƚĞͬDŝƌĂĨŝ 'ƌŽƵƉ͕
ǁǁǁ͘ƚĞŶĐĂƚĞ͘ĐŽŵ͕ŽƌƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚĂƉƉƌŽǀĞĚĞƋƵĂů͘

͘ ^ƚĂŬĞƐ͗^ŚĂůůďĞƐƋƵĂƌĞ͕ŶŽŶƉƌĞƐƐƵƌĞƚƌĞĂƚĞĚŚĂƌĚǁŽŽĚ͘^ŝǌĞĂƐ
ĚĞƚĂŝůĞĚ͘

͘ ϭƐƚŽŶĞŵĞĞƚŝŶŐƚŚĞĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐ͗

^ƚĂŶĚĂƌĚ^ŝĞǀĞ^ŝǌĞ WĞƌĐĞŶƚWĂƐƐŝŶŐďǇtĞŝŐŚƚ

ϭͬϮΗ ϭϬϬ
ϭͬϰΗ ϵϬͲϭϬϬ
ϭͬϴΗ ϬͲϭϱ
EŽ͘ϮϬϬ^ŝĞǀĞ ϬͲϭϬ

705

W Ă Ő Ğ ͮϮϮ

Ϯ͘Ϯ ^/>d&E

͘ ^ŚĂůůďĞĂǁŽǀĞŶƉŽůǇƉƌŽƉǇůĞŶĞŐĞŽƚĞǆƚŝůĞĐŽŵƉƌŝƐĞĚŽĨhsƐƚĂďŝůŝǌĞĚ
ƉŽůǇƉƌŽƉǇůĞŶĞƐůŝƚĨŝůŵĂŶĚϭ͘ϮϱΗƐƋƵĂƌĞ͕ŶŽŶƉƌĞƐƐƵƌĞƚƌĞĂƚĞĚ͕ƉŽŝŶƚĞĚ͕
ŚĂƌĚǁŽŽĚƉŽƐƚƐĂŶĚŶĞƚŵĞƐŚďĂĐŬŝŶŐĨŽƌĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂůƐƵƉƉŽƌƚ͘^ƚĂŶĚĂƌĚŽĨ
ƋƵĂůŝƚǇĨŽƌƐŝůƚĨĞŶĐĞƐŚĂůůďĞ/s/ͲϯϲϭϭDtĂƐŵĂŶƵĨĂĐƚƵƌĞĚďǇ/ŶĚŝĂŶsĂůůĞǇ
/ŶĚƵƐƚƌŝĞƐ͕/ŶĐ͕͘ǁǁǁ͘ŝǀŝŝŶĚƵƐƚƌŝĞƐ͘ĐŽŵ͕;ϲϬϳͿϳϮϵͲϱϭϭϭ͕ŽƌƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚĂƉƉƌŽǀĞĚ
ĞƋƵĂů͘

Ϯ͘ϯ Z/WZW

͘ >ŝŐŚƚ͗^ŚĂůůďĞƉůĂĐĞĚƌŝƉƌĂƉ͘^ƚŽŶĞƐĐŽŶĨŽƌŵŝŶŐƚŽEz^KddĂďůĞϳϯϯͲϮϭĂŶĚ
ƚŚĞĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐŐƌĂĚĂƚŝŽŶƐ͗
WĞƌĐĞŶƚWĂƐƐŝŶŐ
^ƚĂŶĚĂƌĚ^ŝĞǀĞ^ŝǌĞ ďǇtĞŝŐŚƚ

>ŝŐŚƚĞƌƚŚĂŶϭϬϬůďƐ ϵϬͲϭϬϬ
>ĂƌŐĞƌƚŚĂŶϲΗ ϱϬͲϭϬϬ
^ŵĂůůĞƌƚŚĂŶЪΗ ϬͲϭϬ

ͲKZͲ

DĞĚŝƵŵ͗^ŚĂůůďĞƉůĂĐĞĚƌŝƉƌĂƉ͘^ƚŽŶĞƐĐŽŶĨŽƌŵŝŶŐƚŽEz^KddĂďůĞϳϯϯͲϮϭ͕
^ƚŽŶĞ&ŝůůŝŶŐ/ƚĞŵΗDĞĚŝƵŵΗ͘ϱϬйƚŽϭϬϬйƐŚĂůůďĞŚĞĂǀŝĞƌƚŚĂŶϭϬϬůďƐ͘ĂŶĚϬй
ƚŽϭϬйŵĂǇďĞƐŵĂůůĞƌƚŚĂŶϰΗ͘
ͲKZͲ

,ĞĂǀǇ͗^ŚĂůůďĞƉůĂĐĞĚƌŝƉƌĂƉ͘^ƚŽŶĞĐŽŶĨŽƌŵŝŶŐƚŽEz^KddĂďůĞϳϯϯͲϮϭ͕
^ƚŽŶĞ&ŝůůŝŶŐ/ƚĞŵΗ,ĞĂǀǇΗ͘ϱϬйƚŽϭϬϬйƐŚĂůůďĞŚĞĂǀŝĞƌƚŚĂŶϲϬϬůďƐ͘ĂŶĚϬйƚŽ
ϭϬйŵĂǇďĞƐŵĂůůĞƌƚŚĂŶϲΗ͘

͘ 'ƌĂĚĂƚŝŽŶŽĨƌŝƉƌĂƉƐŚĂůůďĞĂĐĐĞƉƚĞĚŽƌƌĞũĞĐƚĞĚďĂƐĞĚŽŶĂǀŝƐƵĂůĞǆĂŵŝŶĂƚŝŽŶ
ďǇƚŚĞƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚƉƌŝŽƌƚŽƉůĂĐŝŶŐƌŝƉƌĂƉ͘

͘ ^Žŝů^ĞƉĂƌĂƚŝŽŶ&ĂďƌŝĐ͗^ŚĂůůĐŽŵŵĞƌĐŝĂůůǇŵĂŶƵĨĂĐƚƵƌĞĚŶŽŶͲǁŽǀĞŶ
ƉŽůǇƉƌŽƉǇůĞŶĞĨŝůƚĞƌĨĂďƌŝĐ͘^ƚĂŶĚĂƌĚŽĨƋƵĂůŝƚǇƐŚĂůůďĞDŝƌĂĨŝϭϰϬEĂƐŵĂŶƵĨĂĐƚƵƌĞĚďǇ
E/K>KEͬD/Z&/'ZKhWŽƌƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚĂƉƉƌŽǀĞĚĞƋƵĂů͘

Ϯ͘ϰ K&&^/d^/DEddZ</E'KEdZK>^

͘ EŽ͘ϯƐƚŽŶĞƐŚĂůůŵĞĞƚƚŚĞĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐ͗

^ƚĂŶĚĂƌĚ^dD^ŝĞǀĞ^ŝǌĞ WĞƌĐĞŶƚWĂƐƐŝŶŐďǇtĞŝŐŚƚ
706

W Ă Ő Ğ ͮϮϯ

ϯΗ ϭϬϬ
ϮΗ ϬͲϭϱ
WĂƐƐŝŶŐEŽ͘ϱϬ ϱͲϭϬ
WĂƐƐŝŶŐEŽ͘ϭϬϬ ϮͲϱ

͘ ^Žŝů^ƚĂďŝůŝǌĂƚŝŽŶ&ĂďƌŝĐ͗^ŚĂůůďĞĂĐŽŵŵĞƌĐŝĂůůǇŵĂŶƵĨĂĐƚƵƌĞĚ͕hsƐƚĂďŝůŝǌĞĚ
ůŽǁĐůŽŐŐŝŶŐ͕ŚŝŐŚĨůŽǁ͕ǁŽǀĞŶŐĞŽƚĞǆƚŝůĞ͘^ƚĂŶĚĂƌĚŽĨƋƵĂůŝƚǇƐŚĂůůďĞDŝƌĂĨŝ
ϲϬϬy͕ĂƐŵĂŶƵĨĂĐƚƵƌĞĚďǇE/K>KEͬD/Z&/'ZKhW͕ϯϱϬϬWĂƌŬǁĂǇ>ĂŶĞ͕
EŽƌĐƌŽƐƐ͕'ĞŽƌŐŝĂ;dĞů͘ϭͲϴϬϬͲϮϯϰͲϬϰϴϰͿŽƌƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚĂƉƉƌŽǀĞĚĞƋƵĂů͘

͘ 'ƌĂŶƵůĂƌĂƐĞŽƵƌƐĞDĂƚĞƌŝĂů;ĨŽƌdǇƉĞϮŽŶůǇͿ͗^ŚĂůůďĞĂƐƐƉĞĐŝĨŝĞĚŝŶ^ĞĐƚŝŽŶ
ϯϭϮϮϬϭ͘

Ϯ͘ϱ dDWKZZz^/DEd&/>dZ'&KZWhDWtdZ

͘ WƌŽǀŝĚĞƉƌĞĨĂďƌŝĐĂƚĞĚďĂŐƐͬƉŽƵĐŚĞƐǁŝƚŚŶŽŶǁŽǀĞŶŐĞŽƚĞǆƚŝůĞĨĂďƌŝĐ͘dŚĞ
ƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚŽĨƋƵĂůŝƚǇƐŚĂůůďĞŝƌƚďĂŐĂƐŵĂŶƵĨĂĐƚƵƌĞĚďǇ&ŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂů͕ϴϬϬͲ
ϰϰϴͲϯϲϯϲŽƌƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚĂƉƉƌŽǀĞĚĞƋƵĂů͘

͘ WƌŽǀŝĚĞǁŽŽĚĞŶƉĂůůĞƚƚŽƐĞƚĨŝůƚĞƌďĂŐŽŶĨŽƌĞĂƐĞŽĨĚŝƐƉŽƐĂů͘

Ϯ͘ϲ dDWKZZzKEZdt^,Khd&/>/dz

͘ ŽŶĐƌĞƚĞǁĂƐŚŽƵƚĨĂĐŝůŝƚǇƚŽĨƵůůǇĐŽŶƚĂŝŶĂůůĐŽŶĐƌĞƚĞǁĂƐŚŽƵƚŶĞĞĚƐŽĨƚŚĞ
ĞŶƚŝƌĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚĂŶĚĂůůĐŽŶƚƌĂĐƚƐ͘

͘ ŽŶĐƌĞƚĞǁĂƐŚŽƵƚĨĂĐŝůŝƚǇƐŚĂůůďĞƚĞŵƉŽƌĂƌǇƐƚƌĂǁďĂůĞƐƚŚĂƚĂƌĞůŝŶĞĚǁŝƚŚĂ
ƐŝŶŐůĞƐŚĞĞƚŽĨĂŵŝŶŝŵƵŵŽĨϭϬŵŝůƉŽůǇĞƚŚǇůĞŶĞƐŚĞĞƚŝŶŐƚŚĂƚĞǆƚĞŶĚƐŽǀĞƌƚŚĞ
ĞŶƚŝƌĞďĂƐŝŶƚŽƉƌĞǀĞŶƚĞƐĐĂƉĞŽĨĚŝƐĐŚĂƌŐĞ͘WůĂĐĞĂƐĞĐƵƌĞ͕ŶŽŶͲĐŽůůĂƉƐŝŶŐ͕ŶŽŶͲ
ǁĂƚĞƌĐŽůůĞĐƚŝŶŐĐŽǀĞƌŽǀĞƌƚŚĞĐŽŶĐƌĞƚĞǁĂƐŚŽƵƚĨĂĐŝůŝƚǇƉƌŝŽƌƚŽŝŶĐůĞŵĞŶƚ
ǁĞĂƚŚĞƌƚŽƉƌĞǀĞŶƚĂĐĐƵŵƵůĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĚŽǀĞƌĨůŽǁŽĨƉƌĞĐŝƉŝƚĂƚŝŽŶ͘

͘ WƌŽǀŝĚĞĐŽŶĐƌĞƚĞǁĂƐŚŽƵƚƚŽƉƌĞǀĞŶƚĚŝƐĐŚĂƌŐĞĨƌŽŵĐŽŶĐƌĞƚĞƚƌƵĐŬƐŽƌ
ĞƋƵŝƉŵĞŶƚĐůĞĂŶŝŶŐƚŽŝŶůĞƚƐ͕ƐƵƌĨĂĐĞŽƌŐƌŽƵŶĚǁĂƚĞƌ͘

͘ ŽŶĐƌĞƚĞǁĂƐŚŽƵƚĨĂĐŝůŝƚǇƐŚĂůůďĞŶŽĐůŽƐĞƌƚŚĂŶϱϬĨĞĞƚĨƌŽŵĞŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂůůǇ
ƐĞŶƐŝƚŝǀĞĂƌĞĂƐƐƵĐŚĂƐǁĂƚĞƌďŽĚŝĞƐ͕ǁĞƚůĂŶĚƐ͕ĂŶĚŽƉĞŶĚƌĂŝŶĂŐĞĨĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐĂŶĚ
ǁĂƚĞƌĐŽƵƌƐĞƐ͘^ŝŐŶƐƐŚĂůůĚĞƐŝŐŶĂƚĞĐŽŶĐƌĞƚĞǁĂƐŚŽƵƚĨĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐ͘

͘ ŶƐƵƌĞƚŚĂƚƚŚĞĐŽŶĐƌĞƚĞǁĂƐŚŽƵƚĨĂĐŝůŝƚǇĐŽŵƉůŝĞƐǁŝƚŚĂůů&ĞĚĞƌĂů͕^ƚĂƚĞĂŶĚ
ůŽĐĂůůĂǁƐ͕ƌƵůĞƐ͕ĂŶĚƌĞŐƵůĂƚŝŽŶƐ͘ŶƐƵƌĞƚŚĂƚƚŚĞĐŽŶĐƌĞƚĞǁĂƐŚŽƵƚĨĂĐŝůŝƚǇŝƐŝŶ
ƉůĂĐĞďĞĨŽƌĞĚĞůŝǀĞƌǇŽĨĐŽŶĐƌĞƚĞƚŽƐŝƚĞ͘
707

W Ă Ő Ğ ͮϮϰ

&͘ WƌŽǀŝĚĞĂƐŝŐŶŝĚĞŶƚŝĨǇŝŶŐĂƌĞĂĂƐΗŽŶĐƌĞƚĞtĂƐŚŽƵƚΗĂĐĐĞƉƚĂďůĞƚŽƚŚĞ
ƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚ͘DĂŝŶƚĂŝŶƚŚƌŽƵŐŚŽƵƚƚŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚĚƵƌĂƚŝŽŶ͘

Ϯ͘ϳ dDWKZZz^/E'

͘ ^ĞĞĚŝŶŐƐŚĂůůďĞϭϬϬйWĞƌĞŶŶŝĂůZǇĞŐƌĂƐƐǁŝƚŚŶŽŵŽƌĞƚŚĂŶϯϬйŽĨĂŶǇŽŶĞ
ĐƵůƚŝǀĂƌĂŶĚĂůǁĂǇƐĂƚůĞĂƐƚϮĚŝĨĨĞƌĞŶƚĐƵůƚŝǀĂƌƐĂŶĚĂϵϬйŐĞƌŵŝŶĂƚŝŽŶƌĂƚĞŽƌ
ŵŽƌĞ͘

͘ ůůƐĞĞĚŵŝǆƚƵƌĞƐƚŽĐŽŶƚĂŝŶϬ͘ϱйǁĞĞĚƐĞĞĚŽƌůĞƐƐ͘

͘ ůůƐĞĞĚŵƵƐƚďĞĨƌĞƐŚƐĞĞĚ͕ŶŽƚƐĞĞĚƚŚĂƚŝƐůĞĨƚŽǀĞƌĨƌŽŵůĂƐƚǇĞĂƌĂŶĚďĞǇŽŶĚ
ƚŚĞƐĞůůďǇĚĂƚĞ͘

Ϯ͘ϴ WZDEEd^/E'E^K/E'

^ĞĞĚŝŶŐĂŶĚ^ŽĚĚŝŶŐƐŚĂůůďĞĂƐƐƉĞĐŝĨŝĞĚŝŶ^ĞĐƚŝŽŶϯϮϵϮϬϭ͘

Ϯ͘ϵ ^dZtDd

͘ ϭϬϬйďŝŽĚĞŐƌĂĚĂďůĞƚŚƌĞĂĚŽŶϭ͘ϱŝŶĐŚĐĞŶƚĞƌƐƐƚŝƚĐŚĞĚƚŽĂϭϬϬй
ďŝŽĚĞŐƌĂĚĂďůĞŶĂƚƵƌĂůĨŝďĞƌƚŽƉŶĞƚ͘ůĂŶŬĞƚƐŚĂůůďĞŵĂŶƵĨĂĐƚƵƌĞĚǁŝƚŚĂ
ĐŽůŽƌĞĚůŝŶĞŽƌƚŚƌĞĂĚƐƚŝƚĐŚĞĚϮͲϱŝŶĐŚĞƐĨƌŽŵĞĚŐĞƚŽĞŶƐƵƌĞƉƌŽƉĞƌŽǀĞƌůĂƉ͘
^ƚĂŶĚĂƌĚǁŝĚƚŚŝƐϰΖͲϬΗ͘

͘ ^ƚĂŶĚĂƌĚŽĨƋƵĂůŝƚǇƐŚĂůůďĞŝŽEĞƚůĂŶŬĞƚĂƐŵĂŶƵĨĂĐƚƵƌĞĚďǇEŽƌƚŚŵĞƌŝĐĂŶ
'ƌĞĞŶ͕ϭͲϴϬϬͲϳϳϮͲϮϬϰϬŽƌƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚĂƉƉƌŽǀĞĚĞƋƵĂůĨŽƌƚŚĞĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐƐůŽƉĞ
ĐŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶƐ͗

^ůŽƉĞŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶtĂƚĞƌ&ůŽǁŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶ WƌŽĚƵĐƚdǇƉĞ

ϰ͗ϭ;ŽƌĨůĂƚƚĞƌͿ>ŽǁĨůŽǁ;ϱĨƉƐͿ ^ϳϱE͗^ŝŶŐůĞEĞƚ^ƚƌĂǁ
ϯ͗ϭ DŽĚĞƌĂƚĞĨůŽǁ;ϲĨƉƐͿ^ϭϱϬE͗ŽƵďůĞEĞƚ^ƚƌĂǁ
Ϯ͗ϭ DĞĚŝƵŵĨůŽǁ;ϴĨƉƐͿ ^ϭϱϬE͗ŽƵďůĞEĞƚ^ƚƌĂǁͲ
ŽĐŽŶƵƚ ;ϳϬͬϯϬ
ďůĞŶĚͿ
ϭ͗ϭ;ĂŶĚŐƌĞĂƚĞƌͿ ,ŝŐŚ&ůŽǁ;ϭϬĨƉƐͿ ϭϮϱE͗ŽƵďůĞEĞƚŽĐŽŶƵƚ

͘ ^ƚĂŬĞƐ͗^ŝǆŝŶĐŚůĞŶŐƚŚƐŽĨϭϬϬйďŝŽĚĞŐƌĂĚĂďůĞΗdΗƐŚĂƉĞĚƉŝŶĚĞƐŝŐŶĞĚƚŽƐĂĨĞůǇ
ƐĞĐƵƌĞĞƌŽƐŝŽŶĐŽŶƚƌŽůďůĂŶŬĞƚ͘^ƚĂŶĚĂƌĚŽĨƋƵĂůŝƚǇƐŚĂůůďĞŝŽͲ^ƚĂŬĞĂƐ
ŵĂŶƵĨĂĐƚƵƌĞĚďǇEŽƌƚŚŵĞƌŝĐĂŶ'ƌĞĞŶŽƌƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚĂƉƉƌŽǀĞĚĞƋƵĂů͘

708

W Ă Ő Ğ ͮϮϱ

Ϯ͘ϭϬ dDWKZZz^/EKhd>d^/DEdd/KEdZW

͘ ĂƐŝŶKƵƚůĞƚ^ĞĚŝŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶdƌĂƉƐŚĂůůďĞĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚĞĚŽĨƉĞƌĨŽƌĂƚĞĚ
;,WͿƉŝƉĞĂŶĚĐůĞĂŶEŽ͘ϭƐƚŽŶĞ͘

͘ &ŝůƚĞƌ&ĂďƌŝĐ͗^ŚĂůůďĞĐŽŵŵĞƌĐŝĂůůǇŵĂŶƵĨĂĐƚƵƌĞĚ͕ŶĞĞĚůĞͲƉƵŶĐŚĞĚ͕ŶŽŶͲǁŽǀĞŶ
ŐĞŽƚĞǆƚŝůĞ͕ĐŽŵƉƌŝƐĞĚŽĨƉŽůǇƉƌŽƉǇůĞŶĞĨŝďĞƌƐ͘^ƚĂŶĚĂƌĚŽĨƋƵĂůŝƚǇƐŚĂůůďĞDŝƌĂĨŝ
ϭϰϬEĂƐŵĂŶƵĨĂĐƚƵƌĞĚďǇdĞŶĐĂƚĞͬDŝƌĂĨŝ'ƌŽƵƉ͕ǁǁǁ͘ƚĞŶĐĂƚĞ͘ĐŽŵ͕ŽƌƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚ
ĂƉƉƌŽǀĞĚĞƋƵĂů͘

͘ ŽŶĐƌĞƚĞƐŚĂůůďĞϰ͕ϬϬϬƉƐŝĂƐƐƉĞĐŝĨŝĞĚŝŶ^ĞĐƚŝŽŶϯϮϭϯϬϭ͘

Ϯ͘ϭϭ ^W/>>Z^WKE^Yh/WDEd

͘ dŚĞĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐŝƐĂůŝƐƚŽĨƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĞĚƐƉŝůůĐŽŶƚƌŽůŵĂƚĞƌŝĂů͘dŚĞĐŽŶƚƌĂĐƚŽƌŝƐ
ƌĞƐƉŽŶƐŝďůĞƚŽŚĂǀĞƐƉŝůůĐŽŶƚƌŽůĂŶĚƉĞƌƐŽŶŶĞůƉƌŽƚĞĐƚŝǀĞĞƋƵŝƉŵĞŶƚƌĞĂĚŝůǇ
ĂǀĂŝůĂďůĞĨŽƌƚŚĞŵĂƚĞƌŝĂůƐďĞŝŶŐƵƐĞĚ͘ĐƋƵŝƌĞƐƵĨĨŝĐŝĞŶƚƋƵĂŶƚŝƚŝĞƐĂŶĚƚǇƉĞƐŽĨ
ĂƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƚĞƐƉŝůůĐŽŶƚƌŽůŵĂƚĞƌŝĂůƐŶĞĞĚĞĚƚŽĐŽŶƚĂŝŶĂŶǇƐƉŝůůƐƚŚĂƚĐĂŶďĞ
ƌĞĂƐŽŶĂďůǇĂŶƚŝĐŝƉĂƚĞĚ͘dŚĞŶĞĞĚĨŽƌĞƋƵŝƉŵĞŶƚƚŽĚŝƐƉĞƌƐĞ͕ĐŽůůĞĐƚĂŶĚĐŽŶƚĂŝŶ
ƐƉŝůůĐŽŶƚƌŽůŵĂƚĞƌŝĂůƐƐŚŽƵůĚďĞŽŶƐŝƚĞĂƚĂůůƚŝŵĞƐ͘

ϭ͘ WĞƌƐŽŶĂůWƌŽƚĞĐƚŝǀĞƋƵŝƉŵĞŶƚ
Ă͘ ŚĞŵŝĐĂů^ƉůĂƐŚ'ŽŐŐůĞƐ
ď͘ 'ůŽǀĞƐ
Đ͘ ŽŽƚŽǀĞƌƐ
Ě͘ dǇǀĞŬƉƌŽŶƐŽƌ^ƵŝƚƐ

Ϯ͘ ďƐŽƌƉƚŝŽŶDĂƚĞƌŝĂůƐ
Ă͘ ^ƉŝůůWŝůůŽǁƐĂŶĚ^ŽĐŬƐ
ď͘ ďƐŽƌďĞŶƚŽŽŵƐĂŶĚWĂĚƐ
Đ͘ ŝŬĞƐĨŽƌƵƐĞŽŶƌŽƵŐŚƐƵƌĨĂĐĞƐ
Ě͘ ^ƚŽƌŵ^ƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞŽǀĞƌƐ
Ğ͘ ͞>ŽŽƐĞ͟ďƐŽƌďĞŶƚƐ

ϯ͘ dŽŽůƐ
Ă͘ ^ŚŽǀĞů͕ƌŽŽŵ͕ƌƵƐŚ
ď͘ ŝƐƉŽƐĂůĂŐƐ
Đ͘ ^ĞĂůŝŶŐdĂƉĞ
Ě͘ ,ĂǌĂƌĚŽƵƐtĂƐƚĞ^ƚŝĐŬĞƌƐ
Ğ͘ ͞ĂŶŐĞƌ͟ĂŶĚ͞<ĞĞƉǁĂǇ͟^ŝŐŶƐ
Ĩ͘ &ŝǀĞŐĂůůŽŶƉĂŝůƐŽƌϮϬŐĂůůŽŶĚƌƵŵƐǁŝƚŚƉŽůǇĞƚŚǇůĞŶĞůŝŶĞƌƐ

709

W Ă Ő Ğ ͮϮϲ

͘ ĂƐŝƐŽĨĞƐŝŐŶƐŚĂůůďĞƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĚďǇ͗ϯD͕ϴϴϴͲϯϲϰͲϯϱϳϳ͖EĞǁWŝŐŽƌƉŽƌĂƚŝŽŶ͕
ϴϬϬͲϰϲϴͲϰϲϰϳ͖^Ɖŝůů<ŝƚƐϵϭϭ͕ϴϬϬͲϰϳϰͲϱϵϭϭ͖ĂǁŐ͕/ŶĐ͕͘ϴϬϬͲϵϯϱͲϯϮϵϰ͖Žƌ
ƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚĂƉƉƌŽǀĞĚĞƋƵĂů͘

͘ WůĂĐĞƐƉŝůůƌĞƐƉŽŶƐĞĞƋƵŝƉŵĞŶƚŝŶĂƌĞĂĚŝůǇĂƐƐĞƐƐĂďůĞůŽĐĂƚŝŽŶǁŝƚŚŝŶŽƌ
ŝŵŵĞĚŝĂƚĞůǇĂĚũĂĐĞŶƚƚŽƚŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚƐŝƚĞ͘

WZdϯͲyhd/KE

ϯ͘ϭ ^/'EdhZZYh/ZDEd^

͘ ĞƚǁĞĞŶƚŚĞWƌĞͲŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶDĞĞƚŝŶŐĂŶĚƐƚĂƌƚŝŶŐƐŝƚĞǁŽƌŬ͕ƚŚĞŽŶƚƌĂĐƚŽƌ
ƐŚĂůů͗

ϭ͘ ^ŝŐŶƚŚĞĐĞƌƚŝĨŝĐĂƚŝŽŶƐƚĂƚĞŵĞŶƚƐ͘ŽŶƚƌĂĐƚŽƌƐŚĂůůƉƌŽŵŝŶĞŶƚůǇĚŝƐƉůĂǇ
ƚŚĞƐƚĂƚĞŵĞŶƚƐĂƚƚŚĞũŽďƐŝƚĞ͘

Ϯ͘ ZĞǀŝĞǁŝŶƐƉĞĐƚŝŽŶĂŶĚŵĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞƉƌŽĐĞĚƵƌĞƐ͘ĞĐŝĚĞǁŚĞƌĞũŽƵƌŶĂůƐ
ǁŝůůďĞƚĞŵƉŽƌĂƌŝůǇƐƚŽƌĞĚĨŽƌƌĞǀŝĞǁďǇEz^͕^Θt͕K͕KƉĞƌĂƚŽƌ
;KǁŶĞƌͿ͕ƚŚĞ>ĂŶĚƐĐĂƉĞƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚĂŶĚƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚ͘

ϯ͘ ĞƐŝŐŶĂƚĞƐƉĞĐŝĨŝĐKǁŶĞƌĂŶĚŽŶƚƌĂĐƚŽƌƉĞƌƐŽŶŶĞůƌĞƐƉŽŶƐŝďůĞĨŽƌĚĂŝůǇ
ŝŶƐƉĞĐƚŝŽŶĂŶĚŵĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞ͘WƌŽǀŝĚĞĐĞƌƚŝĨŝĐĂƚŝŽŶĐĂƌĚƐ͘

ϯ͘Ϯ 'EZ>ZK^/KEKEdZK>

͘ /ŶƐƚĂůůŝŶŝƚŝĂůĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶĞƌŽƐŝŽŶĐŽŶƚƌŽůĨĞĂƚƵƌĞƐ͕ĂƐŝŶĚŝĐĂƚĞĚŽŶĚƌĂǁŝŶŐƐĂŶĚ
ƐƉĞĐŝĨŝĐĂƚŝŽŶƐŽƌĂƐĚŝƌĞĐƚĞĚďǇƚŚĞƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚ͕ƉƌŝŽƌƚŽƚŽƉƐŽŝůƐƚƌŝƉƉŝŶŐ͕
ĞĂƌƚŚǁŽƌŬ͕ĂŶĚƌĞŵŽǀĂůŽĨĞǆŝƐƚŝŶŐǀĞŐĞƚĂƚŝŽŶ͘<ĞĞƉƚŚĞĚŝƐƚƵƌďĂŶĐĞƚŽĂ
ŵŝŶŝŵƵŵĂŶĚƐŚĂůůŶŽƚĞǆĐĞĞĚĨŝǀĞ;ϱͿĂĐƌĞƐ͕ƵŶůĞƐƐĚŝƌĞĐƚĞĚďǇƚŚĞƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚ͘
/ŶƐƚĂůůŽƚŚĞƌĨĞĂƚƵƌĞƐĂƐĚĞƐĐƌŝďĞĚŝŶƚŚĞƐĞƋƵĞŶĐĞŽĨĞƌŽƐŝŽŶ͕ƐĞĚŝŵĞŶƚĂŶĚ
ƉŽůůƵƚŝŽŶĐŽŶƚƌŽůŽŶƚŚĞĚƌĂǁŝŶŐƐ͘

͘ ^ƚĂƌƚƉĞƌŵĂŶĞŶƚƐĞĞĚŝŶŐǁŝƚŚŝŶƐĞǀĞŶ;ϳͿĐĂůĞŶĚĂƌĚĂǇƐŽĨƌŽƵŐŚŐƌĂĚŝŶŐ͘tŚĞŶ
ƚŚŝƐŝƐŶŽƚƉŽƐƐŝďůĞ͕ƉƌŽǀŝĚĞƚĞŵƉŽƌĂƌǇƐĞĞĚŝŶŐŽĨϭϬϬйƉĞƌĞŶŶŝĂůƌǇĞŐƌĂƐƐĂƚ
ƚŚĞƌĂƚĞŽĨƐŝǆƉŽƵŶĚƐ;ϲηͿƐĞĞĚƉĞƌŽŶĞƚŚŽƵƐĂŶĚ;ϭ͕ϬϬϬƐĨͿƐƋƵĂƌĞĨĞĞƚ͘WƌŽǀŝĚĞ
ƚĞŵƉŽƌĂƌǇƐĞĞĚŝŶŐǁŝƚŚŝŶƐĞǀĞŶ;ϳͿĚĂǇƐŽŶŶŽŶͲƌŽŽĨ͕ŶŽŶͲƉĂǀĞĚĂƌĞĂƐ͘tŚĞŶ
ĂĚǀĞƌƐĞǁĞĂƚŚĞƌĐŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶƐƉƌĞǀĞŶƚŐŽŽĚŐĞƌŵŝŶĂƚŝŽŶ͕ƌĞƉĞĂƚƐĞĞĚŝŶŐĂƐ
ĚŝƌĞĐƚĞĚďǇƚŚĞƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚƵŶƚŝůƚŚĞĂƌĞĂŝƐƐƚĂďŝůŝǌĞĚ͘dŝůůƵŶĚĞƌƚĞŵƉŽƌĂƌǇŐƌĂƐƐ
ĂŶĚĨŝŶĞŐƌĂĚĞǁŚĞŶƉƌĞƉĂƌŝŶŐĨŽƌĨŝŶĂůƉĞƌŵĂŶĞŶƚůĂǁŶƐƚĂďŝůŝǌĂƚŝŽŶ͘

͘ hŶƚŝůĂĚŝƐƚƵƌďĞĚĂƌĞĂŝƐƐƚĂďŝůŝǌĞĚ͕ƚƌĂƉƌƵŶŽĨĨƐĞĚŝŵĞŶƚďǇƚŚĞƵƐĞŽĨƐĞĚŝŵĞŶƚ
ĚĞďƌŝƐďĂƐŝŶƐ͕ĚŝǀĞƌƐŝŽŶƐǁĂůĞƐ͕ƐĞĚŝŵĞŶƚƌĂƉƐ͕ŽƌŽƚŚĞƌŵĞƚŚŽĚƐĂĐĐĞƉƚĂďůĞƚŽ
710

W Ă Ő Ğ ͮϮϳ

ƚŚĞƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚĂŶĚŐŽǀĞƌŶŝŶŐĂƵƚŚŽƌŝƚŝĞƐ͘WƌŽǀŝĚĞƚĞŵƉŽƌĂƌǇĚƌǇŵƵůĐŚ;ƐƚƌĂǁͿƚŽ
ƐƚĂďŝůŝǌĞĞǆƉŽƐĞĚƐŽŝůƐĂƐĚŝƌĞĐƚĞĚďǇƚŚĞƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚ͘

͘ WƌŽǀŝĚĞĞƌŽƐŝŽŶĐŽŶƚƌŽůƐŽŶƐůŽƉĞƐĂŶĚƐǁĂůĞƐƚƌĂǀĞƌƐŝŶŐ͕ďŽƌĚĞƌŝŶŐ͕ŽƌůĞĂǀŝŶŐ
ƚŚĞƐŝƚĞ͘>ŝŵŝƚƚŚĞǁĂƚĞƌĨůŽǁƚŽĂŶŽŶĞƌŽƐŝǀĞǀĞůŽĐŝƚǇ͘

͘ ŽŶŽƚƐƚŽƌĞĨŝůůŵĂƚĞƌŝĂůƐǁŝƚŚŝŶŽŶĞŚƵŶĚƌĞĚ;ϭϬϬΖͿĨĞĞƚŽĨƚŚĞďĂŶŬƐŽĨĂŶǇ
ƐƚƌĞĂŵƐŽƌǁĂƚĞƌďŽĚŝĞƐ͕ŝŶƚĞƌŵŝƚƚĞŶƚŽƌƉĞƌĞŶŶŝĂů͘

&͘ /ŶƐƉĞĐƚĞƌŽƐŝŽŶĂŶĚƐĞĚŝŵĞŶƚĐŽŶƚƌŽůŵĞĂƐƵƌĞƐŝŵŵĞĚŝĂƚĞůǇĂĨƚĞƌĞĂĐŚƌĂŝŶĨĂůů
ĂŶĚĂƚůĞĂƐƚĚĂŝůǇĚƵƌŝŶŐƉƌŽůŽŶŐĞĚƌĂŝŶĨĂůů͘DĂŬĞƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚƌĞƉĂŝƌƐŝŵŵĞĚŝĂƚĞůǇ͘

'͘ ZĞŵŽǀĞƐĞĚŝŵĞŶƚĚĞƉŽƐŝƚƐǁŚĞŶƚŚĞǇƌĞĂĐŚĂƉƉƌŽǆŝŵĂƚĞůǇŽŶĞͲŚĂůĨŽĨƚŚĞ
ŚĞŝŐŚƚŽĨƚŚĞďĂƌƌŝĞƌ͘ŝƐƉŽƐĞƐĞĚŝŵĞŶƚŝŶĂŵĂŶŶĞƌƚŚĂƚĚŽĞƐŶŽƚƌĞƐƵůƚŝŶ
ĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂůĞƌŽƐŝŽŶŽƌƉŽůůƵƚŝŽŶ͘

,͘ WƌŽǀŝĚĞƉƌŽŵƉƚ;ǁĞĞŬůǇͿƌĞŵŽǀĂůĂŶĚĚŝƐƉŽƐĂůŽĨƌƵďďŝƐŚĂŶĚĚĞďƌŝƐŝŶ
ĂĐĐŽƌĚĂŶĐĞǁŝƚŚƚŚĞŐŽǀĞƌŶŝŶŐĂƵƚŚŽƌŝƚŝĞƐ͕KǁŶĞƌƉŽůŝĐŝĞƐ͕ĂŶĚŐŽŽĚ
ŚŽƵƐĞŬĞĞƉŝŶŐŵĞĂƐƵƌĞƐ͘

ϯ͘ϯ DhE//W>^tZ͕^t>Êtd>EZK^/KEKEdZK>

ŽŶƚƌŽůĞƌŽƐŝŽŶ͕ƐŝůƚĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĚƉŽůůƵƚŝŽŶƚŽŵƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůƐĞǁĞƌƐ͕ƐǁĂůĞƐĂŶĚǁĞƚůĂŶĚƐďǇ
ƚĂŬŝŶŐĂƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƚĞŵĞĂƐƵƌĞƐƐƵĐŚĂƐ͕ďƵƚŶŽƚůŝŵŝƚĞĚƚŽ͕ƚŚĞĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐ͗

͘ ŽŶŽƚĚŝƐƚƵƌďƚŚĞďĞĚĂŶĚďĂŶŬƐŽĨǁĂƚĞƌďŽĚŝĞƐƵŶůĞƐƐƐƉĞĐŝĨŝĐĂůůǇƐŚŽǁŶŽŶ
ĚƌĂǁŝŶŐƐ͘tŚĞŶďĞĚĂŶĚďĂŶŬǁŽƌŬŝƐƐŚŽǁŶ͕ŽďƚĂŝŶƉĞƌŵŝƚƐĂŶĚƉƌŽĐĞĞĚǁŝƚŚ
ǁŽƌŬĐƌĞĂƚŝŶŐƚŚĞŵŝŶŝŵƵŵĚŝƐƚƵƌďĂŶĐĞŶĞĐĞƐƐĂƌǇƚŽĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞƚŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚ͘

͘ WƌĞǀĞŶƚƉĞƚƌŽůĞƵŵƉƌŽĚƵĐƚƐĂŶĚĞǆĐĞƐƐŝǀĞĂŵŽƵŶƚƐŽĨƐŝůƚ͕ĐůĂǇ͕ĂŶĚŵƵĐŬĨƌŽŵ
ĞŶƚĞƌŝŶŐŵƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůƐĞǁĞƌƐ͕ǁĂƚĞƌƐ͕ƐǁĂůĞƐŽƌǁĞƚůĂŶĚƐŽĨEĞǁzŽƌŬ^ƚĂƚĞĚƵƌŝŶŐ
ĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶ͘

͘ WƌĞǀĞŶƚĨƌĞƐŚĐŽŶĐƌĞƚĞ͕ĐŽŶĐƌĞƚĞůĞĂĐŚĂƚĞ͕ĂŶĚǁĂƐŚŝŶŐƐĨƌŽŵĞƋƵŝƉŵĞŶƚĂŶĚ
ƚƌƵĐŬƐ͕ĨƌŽŵĞŶƚĞƌŝŶŐŵƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůƐĞǁĞƌƐ͕ǁĂƚĞƌƐ͕ƐǁĂůĞƐŽƌǁĞƚůĂŶĚƐŽĨEĞǁzŽƌŬ
^ƚĂƚĞĚƵƌŝŶŐĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶ͘

͘ WůĂĐĞƐŝůƚĨĞŶĐĞƚŽĐŽŶƚƌŽůĞƌŽƐŝŽŶĂƚƚŚĞĚŽǁŶƐůŽƉĞĞĚŐĞŽĨĚŝƐƚƵƌďĞĚĂƌĞĂƐ͘
dŚŝƐďĂƌƌŝĞƌƚŽƐĞĚŝŵĞŶƚƐŝƐƚŽďĞƉƵƚŝŶƉůĂĐĞďĞĨŽƌĞĚŝƐƚƵƌďĂŶĐĞŽĨƚŚĞŐƌŽƵŶĚ
ŽĐĐƵƌƐĂŶĚŝƐƚŽďĞŵĂŝŶƚĂŝŶĞĚŝŶŐŽŽĚĐŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶƵŶƚŝůĚŝƐƚƵƌďĞĚůĂŶĚŝƐŚĞĂǀŝůǇ
ǀĞŐĞƚĂƚĞĚŽƌŽƚŚĞƌǁŝƐĞƉĞƌŵĂŶĞŶƚůǇƐƚĂďŝůŝǌĞĚ͘

711

W Ă Ő Ğ ͮϮϴ

͘ ^ĞĞĚĂƌĞĂƐŽĨƐŽŝůĚŝƐƚƵƌďĂŶĐĞƌĞƐƵůƚŝŶŐĨƌŽŵƚŚŝƐƉƌŽũĞĐƚǁŝƚŚĂƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƚĞ
ƉĞƌĞŶŶŝĂůŐƌĂƐƐƐĞĞĚĂŶĚŵƵůĐŚĞĚǁŝƚŚƐƚƌĂǁǁŝƚŚŝŶƐĞǀĞŶ;ϳͿĐĂůĞŶĚĂƌĚĂǇƐĂƐ
ĚĞƐĐƌŝďĞĚŝŶŐĞŶĞƌĂůĞƌŽƐŝŽŶĐŽŶƚƌŽů͘DƵůĐŚƐŚĂůůďĞŵĂŝŶƚĂŝŶĞĚƵŶƚŝůĂƐƵŝƚĂďůĞ
ǀĞŐĞƚĂƚŝǀĞŐƌŽƵŶĚĐŽǀĞƌŝƐĞƐƚĂďůŝƐŚĞĚĂŶĚĂƐĚŝƌĞĐƚĞĚďǇƚŚĞƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚ͘

ϯ͘ϰ KE^dZhd/KE^/dh^dKEdZK>

͘ dŚĞŽŶƚƌĂĐƚŽƌƐŚĂůůƉƌĞǀĞŶƚƐƵƌĨĂĐĞĂŶĚĂŝƌŵŽǀĞŵĞŶƚŽĨĚƵƐƚĨƌŽŵĚŝƐƚƵƌďĞĚ
ƐŽŝůƐƵƌĨĂĐĞƐƚŚĂƚŵĂǇĐĂƵƐĞŽĨĨͲƐŝƚĞĚĂŵĂŐĞ͕ŚĞĂůƚŚŚĂǌĂƌĚƐ͕ĂŶĚƚƌĂĨĨŝĐƐĂĨĞƚǇ
ŝƐƐƵĞƐ͘

͘ ƵƐƚĐŽŶƚƌŽůĂƉƉůŝĞƐƚŽĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶƌŽĂĚƐ͕ĂĐĐĞƐƐƉŽŝŶƚƐ͕ŽƚŚĞƌĚŝƐƚƵƌďĞĚĂƌĞĂƐ
ĂŶĚƐƚŽĐŬƉŝůĞƐƐƵďũĞĐƚƚŽƐƵƌĨĂĐĞĚƵƐƚŵŽǀĞŵĞŶƚĂŶĚĚƵƐƚďůŽǁŝŶŐ͘

͘ ŽŶƚƌĂĐƚŽƌŵĂǇƵƐĞĂŶǇŶƵŵďĞƌĂŶĚĐŽŵďŝŶĂƚŝŽŶŽĨĚƵƐƚĐŽŶƚƌŽůŵĞƚŚŽĚƐ͕ĂƐ
ĂƉƉƌŽǀĞĚďǇƚŚĞƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚ͘dŚĞǇŝŶĐůƵĚĞ͗

ϭ͘ ƉƉůǇŝŶŐǁĂƚĞƌƚŽŚĂƵůƌŽĂĚƐ
Ϯ͘ ZĞƐƚƌŝĐƚŝŶŐǀĞŚŝĐůĞƐƉĞĞĚƐƚŽϭϬŵƉŚ
ϯ͘ ,ĂƵůŝŶŐŵĂƚĞƌŝĂůƐŝŶƉƌŽƉĞƌůǇƚĂƌƉĞĚŽƌǁĂƚĞƌƚŝŐŚƚĐŽŶƚĂŝŶĞƌƐ͘
ϰ͘ ŽǀĞƌŝŶŐƐƚŽĐŬƉŝůĞƐĂŶĚŵĂƚĞƌŝĂůƐ
ϱ͘ tĞƚƚŝŶŐĞƋƵŝƉŵĞŶƚĂŶĚǁŽƌŬĂƌĞĂ
ϲ͘ DƵůĐŚŝŶŐ
ϳ͘ ^ƉƌĂǇĂĚŚĞƐŝǀĞƐĂŶĚƉŽůǇŵĞƌĂĚĚŝƚŝǀĞƐ;D^^ƐŚĞĞƚƐƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚͿ
ϴ͘ ĂƌƌŝĞƌƐĂŶĚǁŝŶĚďƌĞĂŬƐ

͘ ŽŶƚƌĂĐƚŽƌŝƐƌĞƐƉŽŶƐŝďůĞĨŽƌĂŶǇĐůĞĂŶƵƉĂŶĚƐŝƚĞƌĞƐƚŽƌĂƚŝŽŶĂƐƐŽĐŝĂƚĞĚǁŝƚŚ
ĚƵƐƚĐŽŶƚƌŽůŵĞĂƐƵƌĞƐ͕ĚƵƐƚƉŽůůƵƚŝŽŶŽŶŽƌŽĨĨƚŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚƐŝƚĞƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇĂƚŶŽ
ĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂůĐŽƐƚƚŽƚŚĞKǁŶĞƌ͘

ϯ͘ϱ ^dKZD^dZhdhZWZKdd/KE;/E>tEZ^Ϳ

͘ ƵƚĨĂďƌŝĐĨƌŽŵĂĐŽŶƚŝŶƵŽƵƐƌŽůůƚŽĞůŝŵŝŶĂƚĞũŽŝŶƚƐ͘/ĨũŽŝŶƚƐĂƌĞĂŶĞĞĚĞĚƚŚĞǇ
ǁŝůůďĞŽǀĞƌůĂƉƉĞĚƚŽƚŚĞŶĞǆƚƐƚĂŬĞ͘

͘ ^ƉĂĐĞƐƚĂŬĞƐĞǀĞŶůǇĂƌŽƵŶĚŝŶůĞƚϯĨĞĞƚĂƉĂƌƚĂŶĚĚƌŝǀĞĂŵŝŶŝŵƵŵϭϴŝŶĐŚĞƐ
ĚĞĞƉ͘^ƉĂŶƐŐƌĞĂƚĞƌƚŚĂŶϯĨĞĞƚŵĂǇďĞďƌŝĚŐĞĚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞƵƐĞŽĨǁŝƌĞŵĞƐŚ
ďĞŚŝŶĚƚŚĞĨŝůƚĞƌĨĂďƌŝĐĨŽƌƐƵƉƉŽƌƚ͘

͘ &ĂďƌŝĐƐŚĂůůďĞĞŵďĞĚĚĞĚϭĨŽŽƚŵŝŶŝŵƵŵďĞůŽǁƌŽƵŶĚĂŶĚďĂĐŬĨŝůůĞĚ͘/ƚƐŚĂůů
ďĞƐĞĐƵƌĞůǇĨĂƐƚĞŶĞĚƚŽƚŚĞƐƚĂŬĞƐĂŶĚĨƌĂŵĞ͘

712

W Ă Ő Ğ ͮϮϵ

͘ ϮΗǆϰΗǁŽŽĚĨƌĂŵĞƐŚĂůůďĞĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞĚĂƌŽƵŶĚƚŚĞĐƌĞƐƚŽĨƚŚĞĨĂďƌŝĐĨŽƌŽǀĞƌ
ĨůŽǁƐƚĂďŝůŝƚǇ͘

͘ tƌĂƉƉŝŶŐƚŚĞƐƚŽƌŵƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞŐƌĂƚĞǁŝƚŚĨĂďƌŝĐŝƐEKdĂĐĐĞƉƚĂďůĞ͕ŚŽǁĞǀĞƌ
ƐƚƌĂǁďĂůĞƐŵĂǇďĞƵƐĞĚŝŶůŝĞƵŽĨĨŝůƚĞƌĨĂďƌŝĐ͘

ϯ͘ϲ ^dKZD^dZhdhZWZKdd/KE;/E/^dhZWsZ^Ϳ

͘ ZĞĐĞƐƐƚŚĞĨŝƌƐƚĐŽƵƌƐĞŽĨďůŽĐŬƐĂƚůĞĂƐƚϮŝŶĐŚĞƐďĞůŽǁƚŚĞĐƌĞƐƚŽƉĞŶŝŶŐŽĨƚŚĞ
ƐƚŽƌŵĚƌĂŝŶĨŽƌůĂƚĞƌĂůƐƵƉƉŽƌƚ͘^ƵďƐĞƋƵĞŶƚĐŽƵƌƐĞƐĐĂŶďĞƐƵƉƉŽƌƚĞĚůĂƚĞƌĂůůǇŝĨ
ŶĞĞĚĞĚďǇƉůĂĐŝŶŐĂϮǆϰŝŶĐŚǁŽŽĚƐƚƵĚƚŚƌŽƵŐŚƚŚĞďůŽĐŬŽƉĞŶŝŶŐ
ƉĞƌƉĞŶĚŝĐƵůĂƌƚŽƚŚĞĐŽƵƌƐĞ͘dŚĞďŽƚƚŽŵƌŽǁƐŚŽƵůĚŚĂǀĞĂĨĞǁďůŽĐŬƐŽƌŝĞŶƚĞĚ
ƐŽĨůŽǁĐĂŶĚƌĂŝŶƚŚƌŽƵŐŚƚŚĞďůŽĐŬƚŽƐƚŽŶĞŝŶƉůĂĐĞ͘

͘ dŚĞƐƚŽŶĞƐŚŽƵůĚďĞƉůĂĐĞĚũƵƐƚďĞůŽǁƚŚĞƚŽƉŽĨƚŚĞďůŽĐŬƐŽŶƐůŽƉĞƐŽĨϮ͗ϭŽƌ
ĨůĂƚƚĞƌ͘WůĂĐĞŚĂƌĚǁĂƌĞĐůŽƚŚŽǀĞƌĂůůďůŽĐŬŽƉĞŶŝŶŐƐƚŽŚŽůĚƐƚŽŶĞŝŶƉůĂĐĞ͘

͘ ƐĂŶŽƉƚŝŽŶĂůĚĞƐŝŐŶ͕ƚŚĞĐŽŶĐƌĞƚĞďůŽĐŬƐŵĂǇďĞŽŵŝƚƚĞĚĂŶĚƚŚĞĞŶƚŝƌĞ
ƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚĞĚŽĨƐƚŽŶĞ͕ƌŝŶŐŝŶŐƚŚĞŽƵƚůĞƚ;ΗĚŽƵŐŚŶƵƚΗͿ͘dŚĞƐƚŽŶĞ
ƐŚŽƵůĚďĞŬĞƉƚĂƚĂϯ͗ϭƐůŽƉĞƚŽǁĂƌĚƚŚĞŝŶůĞƚƚŽŬĞĞƉŝƚĨƌŽŵďĞŝŶŐǁĂƐŚĞĚŝŶƚŽ
ƚŚĞŝŶůĞƚ͘

͘ ůĞǀĞůĂƌĞĂϭĨŽŽƚǁŝĚĞĂŶĚĨŽƵƌŝŶĐŚĞƐďĞůŽǁƚŚĞĐƌĞƐƚǁŝůůĨƵƌƚŚĞƌƉƌĞǀĞŶƚ
ǁĂƐŚ͘^ƚŽŶĞŽŶƚŚĞƐůŽƉĞƚŽǁĂƌĚƚŚĞŝŶůĞƚƐŚŽƵůĚďĞĂƚůĞĂƐƚϯŝŶĐŚĞƐŝŶƐŝǌĞĨŽƌ
ƐƚĂďŝůŝƚǇĂŶĚϭŝŶĐŚŽƌƐŵĂůůĞƌĂǁĂǇĨƌŽŵƚŚĞŝŶůĞƚƚŽĐŽŶƚƌŽůĨůŽǁƌĂƚĞ͘dŚĞ
ĞůĞǀĂƚŝŽŶŽĨƚŚĞƚŽƉŽĨƚŚĞƐƚŽŶĞĐƌĞƐƚŵƵƐƚďĞŵĂŝŶƚĂŝŶĞĚϲŝŶĐŚĞƐůŽǁĞƌƚŚĂŶ
ƚŚĞŐƌŽƵŶĚĞůĞǀĂƚŝŽŶĚŽǁŶƐůŽƉĞĨƌŽŵƚŚĞŝŶůĞƚƚŽĞŶƐƵƌĞƚŚĂƚĂůůƐƚŽƌŵĨůŽǁƐ
ƉĂƐƐŽǀĞƌƚŚĞƐƚŽŶĞŝŶƚŽƚŚĞƐƚŽƌŵĚƌĂŝŶĂŶĚŶŽƚƉĂƐƚƚŚĞƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞ͘dĞŵƉŽƌĂƌǇ
ĚŝŬŝŶŐƐŚŽƵůĚďĞŐƵŝƐĞĚĂƐŶĞĐĞƐƐĂƌǇƚŽƉƌĞǀĞŶƚďǇƉĂƐƐĨůŽǁ͘

ϯ͘ϳ ^/>d&E

͘ >ŽĐĂƚĞĂƐƐŚŽǁŶŽŶĚƌĂǁŝŶŐƐĂŶĚĂƐĚŝƌĞĐƚĞĚďǇƚŚĞƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚ͘ǆĐĂǀĂƚĞƚƌĞŶĐŚ
ĂůŽŶŐƚŚĞůŽǁĞƌƉĞƌŝŵĞƚĞƌ;ƐͿŽĨƐŝƚĞ͕ĂůŽŶŐƚŚĞĐŽŶƚƌĂĐƚůŝŵŝƚůŝŶĞ͕ĂŶĚĂƐ
ŝŶĚŝĐĂƚĞĚŽŶƚŚĞĚƌĂǁŝŶŐƐ͘WůĂĐĞĞǆĐĂǀĂƚĞĚŵĂƚĞƌŝĂůŽŶƵƉŚŝůůƐŝĚĞŽĨƚƌĞŶĐŚĨŽƌ
ďĂĐŬĨŝůůŝŶŐ͘

͘ ƌŝǀĞƐƚĂŬĞƐƐĞĐƵƌĞůǇŝŶƚŽƚŚĞĚŽǁŶŚŝůůƐŝĚĞŽĨƚŚĞƚƌĞŶĐŚ͘tŚĞŶƉƌĞĨĂďƌŝĐĂƚĞĚ
ƐŝůƚĨĞŶĐĞǁŝƚŚĨĂďƌŝĐĂƚƚĂĐŚĞĚƚŽƐƚĂŬĞƐŝƐƵƐĞĚ͕ĚƌŝǀĞƐƚĂŬĞƐƐŽƚŚĂƚĨĂďƌŝĐŝƐ
ďƵƌŝĞĚŝŶƚŚĞŐƌŽƵŶĚĂƐĚĞƚĂŝůĞĚ͘

͘ ĂĐŬĨŝůůƚƌĞŶĐŚǁŝƚŚĞǆĐĂǀĂƚĞĚŵĂƚĞƌŝĂů͕ƐŽƚŚĂƚĨĂďƌŝĐŝƐƐĞĐƵƌĞůǇďƵƌŝĞĚŝŶƚŚĞ
ŐƌŽƵŶĚƚŽƉƌĞǀĞŶƚƵŶĚĞƌŵŝŶŝŶŐ͘dĂŵƉƐŽŝů͘
713

W Ă Ő Ğ ͮϯϬ

͘ :ŽŝŶƐĞĐƚŝŽŶƐďǇŽǀĞƌůĂƉƉŝŶŐĨĂďƌŝĐďĞƚǁĞĞŶƚǁŽ;ϮͿƐƚĂŬĞƐ͘^ĞƚƐƚĂŬĞƐ
ƐŝŵƵůƚĂŶĞŽƵƐůǇ͘KǀĞƌůĂƉďǇŵŝŶŝŵƵŵƐŝǆ;ϲΗͿŝŶĐŚĞƐ͕ĨŽůĚ͕ĂŶĚƐƚĂƉůĞƚŽƉƌĞǀĞŶƚ
ƐĞĚŝŵĞŶƚďǇƉĂƐƐ͘

͘ ƚƚĂĐŚƐŝůƚĨĞŶĐĞƐĞĐƵƌĞůǇƚŽƐƚĂŬĞƐƐƉĂĐĞĚŶŽŵŽƌĞƚŚĂŶĞŝŐŚƚ;ϴΖŽ͘Đ͘ͿĨĞĞƚŽŶ
ĐĞŶƚĞƌ͘^ĞĐƵƌĞĨĞŶĐĞĨĂďƌŝĐƚŽƐƚĂŬĞǁŝƚŚŵŝŶŝŵƵŵƚŚƌĞĞŽŶĞ;ϭΗͿŝŶĐŚƐƚĂƉůĞƐ͘

&͘ dŽǁĂƌĚƚŚĞĞŶĚŽĨƚŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚ͕ǁŚĞŶƐŝƚĞŝƐƐƚĂďŝůŝǌĞĚĂŶĚĂƐĚŝƌĞĐƚĞĚďǇƚŚĞ
ƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚ͕ƌĞŵŽǀĞƐŝůƚĨĞŶĐĞĂŶĚĐŽƌƌĞĐƚůĂǁŶĂƌĞĂĂƌŽƵŶĚƌĞŵŽǀĂůƚŽĂƐŵŽŽƚŚ͕
ŶĞĂƚ͕ǁĞůůͲĚƌĂŝŶŝŶŐĐŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶ͘

ϯ͘ϴ Z/WZW

͘ WůĂĐĞĂŶĚŝŶƐƚĂůůƌŝƉƌĂƉǁŚĞƌĞƐŚŽǁŶŽŶĚƌĂǁŝŶŐƐ͘ŽŶŽƚůĞĂǀĞũĂŐŐĞĚ͕ƐŚĂƌƉ
ƉŝĞĐĞƐŽĨƐƚŽŶĞĨĂĐŝŶŐƵƉ͘

͘ >ĞǀĞůŽƵƚƐƚŽŶĞƚŽƉƌŽǀŝĚĞƐŵŽŽƚŚƚƌĂŶƐŝƚŝŽŶƚŽĂĚũĂĐĞŶƚĨŝŶŝƐŚŐƌĂĚĞƐ͘

ϯ͘ϵ K&&^/d^/DEddZ</E'KEdZK>^

͘ /ŶƐƚĂůůĂƐĚĞƚĂŝůĞĚĂŶĚƐŚŽǁŶŽŶĚƌĂǁŝŶŐƐƚŽĞůŝŵŝŶĂƚĞƚƌĂĐŬŝŶŐƐĞĚŝŵĞŶƚŽĨĨƐŝƚĞ͘
/ŶƐƉĞĐƚĂĨƚĞƌĞĂĐŚƌĂŝŶƐƚŽƌŵĂŶĚĂƚƚŚĞĞŶĚŽĨĞĂĐŚǁŽƌŬĚĂǇ͘

͘ tŚĞŶƐĞĚŝŵĞŶƚďĞŐŝŶƐƚƌĂĐŬŝŶŐŽĨĨƐŝƚĞ͕ƐǁĞĞƉĂŶĚĐůĞĂŶĂĨĨĞĐƚĞĚƌŽĂĚǁĂǇ
ŝŵŵĞĚŝĂƚĞůǇĂŶĚƌĞƉůĂĐĞƐƚŽŶĞǁŝƚŚĐůĞĂŶEŽ͘ϯƐƚŽŶĞƚŽƌĞƚĂŝŶƐĞĚŝŵĞŶƚŽŶƐŝƚĞ͘

͘ ZĞŵŽǀĞĨĂďƌŝĐĂŶĚƐƚŽŶĞĂƚƉƌŽũĞĐƚĐŽŵƉůĞƚŝŽŶ͘ŽŵƉůĞƚĞĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶŽĨ
ƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚĨŝŶĂůƐƵƌĨĂĐĞ;ƐͿ͘

ϯ͘ϭϬ dDWKZZz^/DEd&/>dZ'&KZWhDWtdZ

͘ /ŶƐƚĂůůƉƌĞĨĂďƌŝĐĂƚĞĚďĂŐƐͬƉŽƵĐŚĞƐŽŶƚŽƉŽĨƐƚƌĂǁďĂůĞďĂƐĞĂƐƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĞĚ
ďǇƚŚĞŵĂŶƵĨĂĐƚƵƌĞƌ͘ZĞƉůĂĐĞƐǇƐƚĞŵǁŚĞŶĨƵůů;ĚŝƐĐŚĂƌŐĞŝŶƚŽďĂŐͬƉŽƵĐŚŝƐ
ƐŝŐŶŝĨŝĐĂŶƚůǇƌĞĚƵĐĞĚͿ͘

͘ ^ŝůƚŵĂǇďĞƵƐĞĚĂƐŐĞŶĞƌĂůƐŝƚĞĨŝůůŽƌŚĂƵůĞĚŽĨĨƐŝƚĞ͘ZĞŵŽǀĞƐƚƌĂǁďĂůĞƐ͕ĨĂďƌŝĐ͕
ĂŶĚƉƌĞĨĂďƌŝĐĂƚĞĚďĂŐƐͬƉŽƵĐŚĞƐŽĨĨƐŝƚĞ͘ZĞŐƌĂĚĞĂƌĞĂĂŶĚƌĞƚƵƌŶƚŽůĂǁŶĂƐ
ƐƉĞĐŝĨŝĞĚ͘

714

W Ă Ő Ğ ͮϯϭ

ϯ͘ϭϭ dDWKZZzKEZdt^,Khd&/>/dz

͘ /ŶƐƚĂůůƉĞƌĚĞƚĂŝůŝŶĂůŽĐĂƚŝŽŶĂƐĂƉƉƌŽǀĞĚďǇƚŚĞKǁŶĞƌ͘WƌŽǀŝĚĞĂƐƚĂďůĞ
ƐƵƌĨĂĐĞ͕ĞĂƐŝůǇĂĐĐĞƐƐŝďůĞďǇĐŽŶĐƌĞƚĞƚƌƵĐŬƐ͘

͘ ƐŝŐŶƐŚĂůůďĞŝŶƐƚĂůůĞĚĂĚũĂĐĞŶƚƚŽĞĂĐŚǁĂƐŚŽƵƚĨĂĐŝůŝƚǇƚŽŝŶĨŽƌŵĐŽŶĐƌĞƚĞ
ĞƋƵŝƉŵĞŶƚŽƉĞƌĂƚŝŽŶƐƚŽƵƚŝůŝǌĞƚŚĞƉƌŽƉĞƌĨĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐ͘dŚĞƐŝŐŶƐŚĂůůďĞŝŶƐƚĂůůĞĚ
ĂƐĚĞƚĂŝůĞĚĂŶĚŵĂŝŶƚĂŝŶĞĚƚŚƌŽƵŐŚŽƵƚƚŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚ͘

͘ dĞŵƉŽƌĂƌǇĐŽŶĐƌĞƚĞǁĂƐŚŽƵƚĨĂĐŝůŝƚǇƐŚĂůůďĞĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚĞĚĂŶĚŵĂŝŶƚĂŝŶĞĚŝŶ
ƐƵĨĨŝĐŝĞŶƚƋƵĂŶƚŝƚǇĂŶĚƐŝǌĞƚŽĐŽŶƚĂŝŶĂůůůŝƋƵŝĚƐĂŶĚĐŽŶĐƌĞƚĞǁĂƐƚĞŐĞŶĞƌĂƚĞĚ
ďǇǁĂƐŚŽƵƚŽƉĞƌĂƚŝŽŶƐĨŽƌƚŚĞĞŶƚŝƌĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚĂŶĚďǇĂůůŽŶƚƌĂĐƚƐ͘

͘ WĞƌĨŽƌŵǁĂƐŚŽƵƚŽĨĐŽŶĐƌĞƚĞŵŝǆĞƌƐ͕ĚĞůŝǀĞƌǇƚƌƵĐŬƐ͕ĂŶĚŽƚŚĞƌĚĞůŝǀĞƌǇƐǇƐƚĞŵƐ
ŝŶĚĞƐŝŐŶĂƚĞĚĂƌĞĂƐŽŶůǇ͘

͘ tĂƐŚĐŽŶĐƌĞƚĞŽŶůǇĨƌŽŵŵŝǆĞƌĐŚƵƚĞƐŝŶƚŽĂƉƉƌŽǀĞĚĐŽŶĐƌĞƚĞǁĂƐŚŽƵƚĨĂĐŝůŝƚǇ͘

&͘ WůĂƐƚŝĐůŝŶŝŶŐŵĂƚĞƌŝĂůƐŚĂůůďĞĂŵŝŶŝŵƵŵŽĨϭϬͲŵŝůƉŽůǇĞƚŚǇůĞŶĞƐŚĞĞƚŝŶŐĂŶĚ
ƐŚĂůůďĞĨƌĞĞŽĨŚŽůĞƐ͕ƚĞĂƌƐŽƌŽƚŚĞƌĚĞĨĞĐƚƐƚŚĂƚĐŽŵƉƌŽŵŝƐĞƚŚĞŝŵƉĞƌŵĞĂďŝůŝƚǇ
ŽĨƚŚĞŵĂƚĞƌŝĂů͘>ŝŶĞƌƐĞĂŵƐƐŚĂůůďĞŝŶƐƚĂůůĞĚŝŶĂĐĐŽƌĚĂŶĐĞǁŝƚŚŵĂŶƵĨĂĐƚƵƌĞƌƐΖ
ƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĂƚŝŽŶƐ͘

'͘ ŽŶƚĞŶƚƐŽĨƚŚĞĐŽŶĐƌĞƚĞǁĂƐŚŽƵƚĨĂĐŝůŝƚǇƐŚĂůůŶŽƚĞǆĐĞĞĚϱϬйĐĂƉĂĐŝƚǇŽĨƚŚĞ
ĨĂĐŝůŝƚǇ͘ƚŽƌďĞĨŽƌĞϱϬйĐĂƉĂĐŝƚǇŝƐƌĞĂĐŚĞĚ͕ĚŝƐĐŽŶƚŝŶƵĞƉŽƵƌŝŶŐĐŽŶĐƌĞƚĞƵŶƚŝů
ƚŚĞĨĂĐŝůŝƚǇŝƐĐůĞĂŶĞĚŽƵƚ͘ZĞŵŽǀĞŚĂƌĚĞŶĞĚĐŽŶĐƌĞƚĞĂŶĚƉƌŽƉĞƌůǇĚŝƐƉŽƐĞŽĨĨ
ƐŝƚĞ͘ůůŽǁƐůƵƌƌǇƚŽĞǀĂƉŽƌĂƚĞŽƌƌĞŵŽǀĞĨƌŽŵƐŝƚĞĂŶĚĚŝƐƉŽƐĞŽĨĨƐŝƚĞ͘
/ŵŵĞĚŝĂƚĞůǇƌĞƉůĂĐĞƚŚĞůŝŶĞƌŝĨŝƚŐĞƚƐĚĂŵĂŐĞĚ͘

,͘ ZĞŵŽǀĞĐŽŶĐƌĞƚĞǁĂƐŚŽƵƚĨĂĐŝůŝƚǇǁŚĞŶŝƚŝƐŶŽůŽŶŐĞƌŶĞĞĚĞĚĂƐĚŝƌĞĐƚĞĚďǇƚŚĞ
ƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚ͘

ϯ͘ϭϮ dDWKZZz^/E'

͘ WƌŽǀŝĚĞƚĞŵƉŽƌĂƌǇƐĞĞĚŝŶŐŽĨƚŽƉƐŽŝůƐƚŽĐŬƉŝůĞŝŵŵĞĚŝĂƚĞůǇ͘

͘ tŚĞŶŶĞĐĞƐƐĂƌǇĂŶĚĂƐĚŝƌĞĐƚĞĚďǇƚŚĞƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚ͕ƉƌŽǀŝĚĞƚĞŵƉŽƌĂƌǇƐĞĞĚŝŶŐŽŶ
ĚŝƐƚƵƌďĞĚĂƌĞĂƐĂƚŶŽĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂůĐŽƐƚƚŽƚŚĞKǁŶĞƌ͘

ϯ͘ϭϯ WZDEEd^/E'E^K/E'

͘ /ŶƐƚĂůůĂƐĚĞƐĐƌŝďĞĚŝŶ^ĞĐƚŝŽŶϯϮϵϮϬϭ͘

715

W Ă Ő Ğ ͮϯϮ

ϯ͘ϭϰ ^dZtDd

͘ /ŶƐƚĂůůĂƐƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĞĚďǇƚŚĞŵĂŶƵĨĂĐƚƵƌĞƌĂŶĚĂƐĚŝƌĞĐƚĞĚďǇƚŚĞƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚĨŽƌ
ĚƌĂŝŶĂŐĞĐŚĂŶŶĞůƐĂŶĚƐůŽƉĞƐ͘

͘ ^ƚĂŬĞƐƉĂĐŝŶŐƐŚĂůůƌĞĨůĞĐƚƐůŽƉĞƚŽǁŚŝĐŚƚŚĞƐƚƌĂǁŝƐďĞŝŶŐĂƉƉůŝĞĚ͘

ϯ͘ϭϱ ^W/>>Z^WKE^Yh/WDEd

hƐĞƉĞƌŵĂŶƵĨĂĐƚƵƌĞƌ͛ƐƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĂƚŝŽŶƐĂŶĚĂƐĚŝƌĞĐƚĞĚďǇƚŚĞEz^͕ŽƌŽƚŚĞƌ
ŐŽǀĞƌŶŝŶŐĂŐĞŶĐŝĞƐ͘

ϯ͘ϭϲ >EhW

͘ ƵƌŝŶŐƚŚĞĐŽŶƚƌĂĐƚĂŶĚĂƚŝŶƚĞƌǀĂůƐĂƐĚŝƌĞĐƚĞĚďǇƚŚĞƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚĂŶĚĂƐĞƌŽƐŝŽŶ͕
ƐĞĚŝŵĞŶƚĂŶĚƉŽůůƵƚŝŽŶĐŽŶƚƌŽůƉƌŽĐĞĚƵƌĞƐĂƌĞĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞĚ͕ĐůĞĂƌƚŚĞƐŝƚĞŽĨ
ĞǆƚƌĂŶĞŽƵƐŵĂƚĞƌŝĂůƐ͕ƌƵďďŝƐŚ͕ĂŶĚĚĞďƌŝƐ͘>ĞĂǀĞƚŚĞƐŝƚĞŝŶĂĐůĞĂŶ͕ƐĂĨĞ͕ǁĞůů
ĚƌĂŝŶŝŶŐ͕ĂŶĚŶĞĂƚĐŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶ͘

͘ ůĞĂŶƐƚŽƌŵƉŽŶĚŝŶŐĂƌĞĂƐ͕ĐĂƚĐŚďĂƐŝŶƐĂŶĚĚĞƚĞŶƚŝŽŶďĂƐŝŶƐ͗ůĞĂŶŽƵƚ
ĐŽŶƚĂŵŝŶĂŶƚƐ͕ƐĞĚŝŵĞŶƚ͕ƌƵďďŝƐŚ͕ĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶĚĞďƌŝƐ͕ĨŽƌĞŝŐŶŽďũĞĐƚƐĂŶĚ
ĂĐĐƵŵƵůĂƚĞĚĨůŽĂƚĂďůĞƐĨƌŽŵĐŚĂŵďĞƌƐĂŶĚƉŽŶĚŝŶŐĂƌĞĂƐƚŚŽƌŽƵŐŚůǇ͕
ŝŵŵĞĚŝĂƚĞůǇƉƌŝŽƌƚŽĨŝŶĂůĂĐĐĞƉƚĂŶĐĞ͘

716

W Ă Ő Ğ ͮϯϯ

͘ KE^dZhd/KE^YhE/E'

dŚĞĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐƐĞƋƵĞŶĐĞŽĨĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶŵƵƐƚďĞƌĞǀŝĞǁĞĚĂŶĚƵƉĚĂƚĞĚŽŶĂǁĞĞŬůǇďĂƐŝƐďǇ
ƚŚĞŽŶƚƌĂĐƚŽƌͬKǁŶĞƌ͘

ϭ͘ KďƚĂŝŶĂůůĂƉƉůŝĐĂďůĞƉĞƌŵŝƚƐ͘
Ϯ͘ ,ŽůĚƉƌĞͲĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶŵĞĞƚŝŶŐ͘
ϯ͘ ĞƐŝŐŶĂƚĞƚƌĂŝŶĞĚĐŽŶƚƌĂĐƚŽƌƐ͕ƋƵĂůŝĨŝĞĚŝŶĚŝǀŝĚƵĂůƐ͕ĂŶĚƋƵĂůŝĨŝĞĚƉƌŽĨĞƐƐŝŽŶĂůƐ͘
ϰ͘ ŽŶƚƌĂĐƚŽƌƐĂŶĚƐƵďĐŽŶƚƌĂĐƚŽƌƐƐŝŐŶƚŚĞ^tWWWŽŶƚƌĂĐƚŽƌ͛ƐĞƌƚŝĨŝĐĂƚŝŽŶ͘
ϱ͘ /ŶƐƚĂůůǁŽƌŬǌŽŶĞƚƌĂĨĨŝĐĐŽŶƚƌŽůĚĞǀŝĐĞƐĂĐĐŽƌĚŝŶŐƚŽƚŚĞƉůĂŶĂƉƉƌŽǀĞĚďǇ
ŐŽǀĞƌŶŝŶŐĂƵƚŚŽƌŝƚǇ͘
ϲ͘ ĞůŝŶĞĂƚĞĚŝƐƚƵƌďĞĚĂŶĚƐĞŶƐŝƚŝǀĞĂƌĞĂƐŽŶƐŝƚĞ͘
ϳ͘ ^ƚŽĐŬƉŝůĞĞƌŽƐŝŽŶĐŽŶƚƌŽůŵĂƚĞƌŝĂůƐ͘
ϴ͘ /ŶƐƚĂůůĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶĨĞŶĐĞĂƌŽƵŶĚƚŚĞůŝŵŝƚƐŽĨŝŶƚĞŶƐĞĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶĂĐƚŝǀŝƚǇ͘
ϵ͘ /ŶƐƚĂůůǀĞŐĞƚĂƚŝŽŶƉƌŽƚĞĐƚŝŽŶ͘
ϭϬ͘/ŶƐƚĂůůƐƚĂďŝůŝǌĞĚĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶĞŶƚƌĂŶĐĞƐ͘
ϭϭ͘/ŶƐƚĂůůƐƚĂďŝůŝǌĞĚĞƋƵŝƉŵĞŶƚƐƚŽƌĂŐĞĂƌĞĂƐ͘
ϭϮ͘&ŽƌŵŽƚŽƌĨƵĞů͕ůƵďƌŝĐĂŶƚ͕ŚǇĚƌĂƵůŝĐĨůƵŝĚƐĂŶĚŽƚŚĞƌĐŚĞŵŝĐĂůƐŚĞůĚŽŶƐŝƚĞŝŶ
ĐŽŶƚĂŝŶĞƌƐŚŽůĚŝŶŐŵŽƌĞƚŚĂŶϱŐĂůůŽŶƐ͕ŝŶƐƚĂůůƐƚŽƌĂŐĞǁŝƚŚƐĞĐŽŶĚĂƌǇ
ĐŽŶƚĂŝŶŵĞŶƚŽŶĂƐƚĂďůĞ͕ůĞǀĞů͕ĂŶĚŝŵƉĞƌǀŝŽƵƐƐƵƌĨĂĐĞ͘
ϭϯ͘/ŶƐƚĂůůƐŝůƚĨĞŶĐĞƉĞƌŝŵĞƚĞƌĐŽŶƚƌŽůƐ͘
ϭϰ͘/ŶƐƚĂůůƐĞĚŝŵĞŶƚƚƌĂƉƐͬďĂƐŝŶƐĂŶĚƐƚĂďŝůŝǌĞǁŝƚŚƐĞĞĚͬŵƵůĐŚ͘
ϭϱ͘WĞƌĨŽƌŵĐůĞĂƌŝŶŐĂŶĚŐƌƵďďŝŶŐŽƉĞƌĂƚŝŽŶƐ͘
ϭϲ͘ZĞŵŽǀĞŽďƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶƐĂŶĚĞƐƚĂďůŝƐŚĚĞŵŽůŝƚŝŽŶƐ͘
ϭϳ͘^ƚƌŝƉĂŶĚƐƚŽĐŬƉŝůĞƚŽƉƐŽŝů͘^ƚĂďŝůŝǌĞǁŝƚŚƚĞŵƉŽƌĂƌǇƐĞĞĚĂŶĚƐŝůƚĨĞŶĐĞ͘
ϭϴ͘WĞƌĨŽƌŵƌŽƵŐŚŐƌĂĚŝŶŐĂŶĚĞĂƌƚŚǁŽƌŬ͘^ƚĂďŝůŝǌĞǁŝƚŚŝŶĨŽƵƌƚĞĞŶ;ϭϰͿĚĂǇƐĨƌŽŵůĂƐƚ
ĚŝƐƚƵƌďĂŶĐĞ͘
ϭϵ͘/ŶƐƚĂůůĐŽŶĐƌĞƚĞǁĂƐŚŽƵƚĨĂĐŝůŝƚǇ;t&Ϳ͘
ϮϬ͘/ŶƐƚĂůůĂůůƵƚŝůŝƚŝĞƐ;ƐĂŶŝƚĂƌǇ͕ǁĂƚĞƌ͕ŐĂƐ͕ĞƚĐ͘ͿŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐĂůůƐƚŽƌŵƐĞǁĞƌƐͬŵĂŶŚŽůĞƐ͘
Ϯϭ͘/ŶƐƚĂůůŝŶůĞƚƉƌŽƚĞĐƚŝŽŶĂƐŶĞĐĞƐƐĂƌǇƚŽƉƌŽƚĞĐƚĂůůĚƌĂŝŶĂŐĞƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞƐĂŶĚŝŶƐƚĂůů
ŽƵƚůĞƚƉƌŽƚĞĐƚŝŽŶƐ͘
ϮϮ͘ŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚďƵŝůĚŝŶŐƐ͕ƌŽĂĚƐ͕ƉĂƌŬŝŶŐĂƌĞĂƐ͕ĂŶĚƐŝĚĞǁĂůŬƐƚŽŶĞďĂƐĞ͘
Ϯϯ͘/ĨŶĞĐĞƐƐĂƌǇĞƐƚĂďůŝƐŚĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂůŵĞĂƐƵƌĞƐĂƐƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚďǇ^tWWWŝŶƐƉĞĐƚŝŽŶƐ͘
Ϯϰ͘>ĞĂǀĞƐůŽƉĞƐƵƌĨĂĐĞƐƐůŝŐŚƚůǇƌŽƵŐŚĞŶĞĚƚŽĂĚĞƉƚŚŽĨϮŝŶĐŚĞƐŵĂǆŝŵƵŵ͘ĨƚĞƌ
ŐƌĂĚŝŶŐƐůŽƉĞƐƵƌĨĂĐĞƐ͕ĚƌŝǀĞƚŚĞƚƌĂĐŬĞĚĞƋƵŝƉŵĞŶƚƵƉĂŶĚĚŽǁŶƚŚĞƐůŽƉĞƚŽ
ĚŝƐĐŽƵƌĂŐĞĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶŽĨƌŝůůƐ͘ƉƉůǇƚĞŵƉŽƌĂƌǇƐĞĞĚĂŶĚŵƵůĐŚŝŵŵĞĚŝĂƚĞůǇ͘
Ϯϱ͘ZĞƐƚŽƌĞƐŽŝůƐƉĞƌEz^ŐƵŝĚĞůŝŶĞƐ͘
Ϯϲ͘/ŶƐƚĂůůĨŝŶĂůŐƌĂĚŝŶŐ͕ƉĂǀŝŶŐ͕ĐŽŶĐƌĞƚĞǁĂůŬƐ͕ĞƚĐ͘͘
Ϯϳ͘ZĞŝŶƐƚĂůůƚŽƉƐŽŝůĂŶĚůĂŶĚƐĐĂƉŝŶŐ͘
Ϯϴ͘tŚĞƌĞƐŽŝůĚŝƐƚƵƌďĂŶĐĞĂĐƚŝǀŝƚǇŚĂƐƉĞƌŵĂŶĞŶƚůǇĐĞĂƐĞĚ͖ĨŝŶĞŐƌĂĚĞ͕ƉĞƌŵĂŶĞŶƚůǇ
ƐĞĞĚĂŶĚŵƵůĐŚŽƌƐŽĚĂƐĚĞƐĐƌŝďĞĚŝŶƚŚĞůĂǁŶƐƉĞĐŝĨŝĐĂƚŝŽŶ͘
Ϯϵ͘/ŶƐƚĂůůĂďŽǀĞĂŶĚƵŶĚĞƌŐƌŽƵŶĚĚĞƚĞŶƚŝŽŶĨĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐ͘
717

W Ă Ő Ğ ͮϯϰ

ϯϬ͘ZĞŵŽǀĞĂůůƚĞŵƉŽƌĂƌǇĞƌŽƐŝŽŶĐŽŶƚƌŽůƉƌĂĐƚŝĐĞƐǁŚĞŶƚŚĞƐŝƚĞŝƐƐƚĂďŝůŝǌĞĚƚŽƚŚĞ
ƐĂƚŝƐĨĂĐƚŝŽŶŽĨƚŚĞKǁŶĞƌ͛ƐZĞƉƌĞƐĞŶƚĂƚŝǀĞ͘

͘ KE^dZhd/KED/EdEE

ůůĞƌŽƐŝŽŶĂŶĚƐĞĚŝŵĞŶƚĐŽŶƚƌŽůƉƌĂĐƚŝĐĞƐǁŝůůďĞĐŚĞĐŬĞĚĨŽƌƐƚĂďŝůŝƚǇĂŶĚŽƉĞƌĂƚŝŽŶĚĂŝůǇďǇ
ƚŚĞĐŽŶƚƌĂĐƚŽƌĂŶĚǁĞĞŬůǇďǇƚŚĞĚĞƐŝŐŶƉƌŽĨĞƐƐŝŽŶĂů͘ŶǇŶĞĞĚĞĚƌĞƉĂŝƌƐǁŝůůďĞŵĂĚĞ
ŝŵŵĞĚŝĂƚĞůǇƚŽŵĂŝŶƚĂŝŶĂůůĚĞƐŝŐŶƉƌĂĐƚŝĐĞƐĂƐŝŶƐƚĂůůĞĚĨŽƌƚŚĞŝƌĂƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƚĞƉŚĂƐĞŽĨƚŚĞ
ƉƌŽũĞĐƚ͘^ĞĚŝŵĞŶƚǁŝůůďĞƌĞŵŽǀĞĚĨƌŽŵƚĞŵƉŽƌĂƌǇƉƌĂĐƚŝĐĞƐǁŚĞŶƐƚŽƌĂŐĞĐĂƉĂĐŝƚǇŝƐ
ĂƉƉƌŽǆŝŵĂƚĞůǇϱϬйĨƵůů͘^ƚŽŶĞǁŝůůďĞƌĞƉůĂĐĞĚŽƌĐůĞĂŶĞĚŽŶĐĞŝƚŝƐĂƉƉĂƌĞŶƚƚŚĂƚƚŚĞƋƵĂůŝƚǇŽĨ
ĐŽŶƚƌŽůŚĂƐĚĞĐƌĞĂƐĞĚ͘ůůƐĞĞĚĞĚĂƌĞĂƐǁŝůůďĞƌĞƐĞĞĚĞĚĂƐŶĞĐĞƐƐĂƌǇĂŶĚŵƵůĐŚĞĚĂĐĐŽƌĚŝŶŐ
ƚŽƚŚĞƐƉĞĐŝĨŝĐĂƚŝŽŶƐƚŽŵĂŝŶƚĂŝŶĂǀŝŐŽƌŽƵƐ͕ĚĞŶƐĞǀĞŐĞƚĂƚŝǀĞĐŽǀĞƌ͘ŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶǁĂƐƚĞ
ĚŝƐƉŽƐĂůĂŶĚƐƉŝůůƉƌĞǀĞŶƚŝŽŶƐŚĂůůďĞĂƐŽƵƚůŝŶĞĚŽŶƚŚĞ;^ƚŽƌŵtĂƚĞƌWŽůůƵƚŝŽŶWƌĞǀĞŶƚŝŽŶ
WůĂŶͿŽĨƚŚĞĐŽŶƚƌĂĐƚĚŽĐƵŵĞŶƚƐ͘

͘ >KE'dZDD/EdEE

Z^WKE^/>WZdz
ĂŶŝƐŝƵƐ,ŝŐŚ^ĐŚŽŽůŽǁŶƐƚŚĞƐƚŽƌŵǁĂƚĞƌŵĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚƉƌĂĐƚŝĐĞƐĂŶĚŝƐƌĞƐƉŽŶƐŝďůĞĨŽƌ
ŝŶƐƉĞĐƚŝŽŶĂŶĚŵĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞŽĨƚŚĞƐǇƐƚĞŵƐ͘
718

W Ă Ő Ğ ͮϯϱ

^dKZDtdZWZd/^

dŚĞĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐĂƌĞƚŚĞŝŶƐƚĂůůĞĚƉƌĂĐƚŝĐĞƐƚŚĂƚǁŝůůƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŝŶƐƉĞĐƚŝŽŶĂŶĚŵĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞ͗
ϭ͘ ĂƚĐŚĂƐŝŶ;ƐͿͬ^ƚŽƌŵ/ŶůĞƚƐ
Ϯ͘ ŽŶǀĞǇĂŶĐĞ^ƚŽƌŵǁĂƚĞƌWŝƉĞ
ϯ͘ ^ƚŽƌŵǁĂƚĞƌŝƐĐŚĂƌŐĞWŽŝŶƚƐ
ϰ͘ tĞƚWŽŶĚ
ϱ͘ /ŶĨŝůƚƌĂƚŝŽŶdƌĞŶĐŚ
ϲ͘ sĞŐĞƚĂƚŝŽŶDĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚ

^dKZDtdZWZd/D/EdEE

ϭ͘ͿĂƚĐŚĂƐŝŶͬ^ƚŽƌŵ/ŶůĞƚ͗
ƐƚŽƌŵŝŶůĞƚŝƐĂĐŽŶĐƌĞƚĞƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞĨŝƚƚĞĚǁŝƚŚĂƐůŽƚƚĞĚŐƌĂƚĞƚŽĐŽůůĞĐƚƐƚŽƌŵǁĂƚĞƌƌƵŶŽĨĨĂŶĚ
ƌŽƵƚĞŝƚƚŚƌŽƵŐŚƵŶĚĞƌŐƌŽƵŶĚƉŝƉĞƐ͘^ƚŽƌŵŝŶůĞƚƐƚǇƉŝĐĂůůǇƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĂƐƚŽƌĂŐĞǀŽůƵŵĞ;ƐƵŵƉͿ
ďĞůŽǁƚŚĞŽƵƚůĞƚƉŝƉĞƚŽĂůůŽǁƐĞĚŝŵĞŶƚƐĂŶĚĚĞďƌŝƐƚŽƐĞƚƚůĞŽƵƚŽĨƚŚĞƐƚŽƌŵǁĂƚĞƌƌƵŶŽĨĨ͘dŚĞ
ŵŽƐƚĐŽŵŵŽŶƚŽŽůĨŽƌĐůĞĂŶŝŶŐĨŝĞůĚŝŶůĞƚƐŝƐĂƚƌƵĐŬǁŝƚŚĂƚĂŶŬĂŶĚǀĂĐƵƵŵŚŽƐĞ;ǀĂĐƚŽƌƚƌƵĐŬͿ
ƚŽƌĞŵŽǀĞƐĞĚŝŵĞŶƚĂŶĚĚĞďƌŝƐĨƌŽŵƚŚĞƐƵŵƉ͘

&ĂĐŝůŝƚǇŽďũĞĐƚƐƚŚĂƚĂƌĞƚǇƉŝĐĂůůǇĂƐƐŽĐŝĂƚĞĚǁŝƚŚĂĨŝĞůĚŝŶůĞƚŝŶĐůƵĚĞ͗
• ĐĐĞƐƐƌŽĂĚŽƌĞĂƐĞŵĞŶƚ
• ŽŶƚƌŽůƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞͬĨůŽǁƌĞƐƚƌŝĐƚŽƌ
• ŝŽƐǁĂůĞ
• ĞƚĞŶƚŝŽŶƉŽŶĚ
• /ŶĨŝůƚƌĂƚŝŽŶďĂƐŝŶĐŽŶƚƌŽů
• /ŶĨŝůƚƌĂƚŝŽŶƚƌĞŶĐŚ

^ƚŽƌŵ/ŶůĞƚ WŽƚĞŶƚŝĂů ŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶƐtŚĞŶ &ƌĞƋƵĞŶĐǇ ĐƚŝŽŶZĞƋƵŝƌĞĚ
ƌĂŝŶĂŐĞ ĞĨĞĐƚ DĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞ/ƐEĞĞĚĞĚ
^ǇƐƚĞŵ
&ĞĂƚƵƌĞ
'ĞŶĞƌĂů dƌĂƐŚĂŶĚ ϭ͘ dƌĂƐŚŽƌĚĞďƌŝƐŝƐ ϯŵŽŶƚŚƐ ůĞĂƌƚƌĂƐŚĂŶĚ
ĞďƌŝƐ ůŽĐĂƚĞĚŝŵŵĞĚŝĂƚĞůǇŝŶ ĚĞďƌŝƐĨƌŽŵƐŝƚĞĂŶĚ
ĨƌŽŶƚŽĨƚŚĞďĂƐŝŶ ĨƌŽŵƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞƐ͘
ŽƉĞŶŝŶŐŽƌŝƐďůŽĐŬŝŶŐ DĂŝŶƚĂŝŶŝŶůĞƚĂŶĚ
ŝŶůĞƚƚŝŶŐďǇŵŽƌĞƚŚĂŶ ŽƵƚůĞƚƉŝƉĞƐĨƌĞĞŽĨ
ϭϬй͘ ƚƌĂƐŚĂŶĚĚĞďƌŝƐ͘
Ϯ͘ dƌĂƐŚŽƌĚĞďƌŝƐŝŶƚŚĞ
ďĂƐŝŶƚŚĂƚĞǆĐĞĞĚƐ
ϲϬйŽĨƚŚĞƐƵŵƉ
ĚĞƉƚŚĂƐŵĞĂƐƵƌĞĚ
ĨƌŽŵƚŚĞďŽƚƚŽŵŽĨ
ďĂƐŝŶƚŽŝŶǀĞƌƚŽĨƚŚĞ
719

W Ă Ő Ğ ͮϯϲ

ůŽǁĞƐƚƉŝƉĞŝŶƚŽŽƌŽƵƚ
ŽĨƚŚĞďĂƐŝŶ͕ďƵƚŝŶŶŽ
ĐĂƐĞůĞƐƐƚŚĂŶĂ
ŵŝŶŝŵƵŵŽĨϲŝŶĐŚĞƐ
ĐůĞĂƌĂŶĐĞĨƌŽŵƚŚĞ
ĚĞďƌŝƐƐƵƌĨĂĐĞƚŽƚŚĞ
ŝŶǀĞƌƚŽĨƚŚĞůŽǁĞƐƚ
ƉŝƉĞ͘
ϯ͘ dƌĂƐŚŽƌĚĞďƌŝƐŝŶĂŶǇ
ŝŶůĞƚŽƌŽƵƚůĞƚƉŝƉĞ
ďůŽĐŬŝŶŐŵŽƌĞƚŚĂŶ
ϭͬϯŽĨŝƚƐŚĞŝŐŚƚ͘
ϰ͘ ĞĂĚĂŶŝŵĂůƐŽƌ
ǀĞŐĞƚĂƚŝŽŶ

^ĞĚŝŵĞŶƚ dƌĂƐŚŽƌĚĞďƌŝƐƚŚĂƚ ϲŵŽŶƚŚƐ ZĞŵŽǀĞƐĞĚŝŵĞŶƚ͘
ĞǆĐĞĞĚƐϲϬйŽĨƚŚĞƐƵŵƉ
ĚĞƉƚŚĂƐŵĞĂƐƵƌĞĚĨƌŽŵ
ƚŚĞďŽƚƚŽŵŽĨďĂƐŝŶƚŽ
ŝŶǀĞƌƚŽĨƚŚĞůŽǁĞƐƚ͕͕ďƵƚŝŶ
ŶŽĐĂƐĞůĞƐƐƚŚĂŶĂŵŝŶ͘ŽĨ
ϲ͟ĐůĞĂƌĂŶĐĞĨƌŽŵƚŚĞ
ĚĞďƌŝƐƐƵƌĨĂĐĞƚŽƚŚĞŝŶǀĞƌƚ
ŽĨƚŚĞůŽǁĞƐƚƉŝƉĞ͘

^ƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞ &ƌĂŵĞŶŽƚƐŝƚƚŝŶŐĨůƵƐŚŽŶ ϲŵŽŶƚŚƐ ZĞƐĞƚĨƌĂŵĞƚŽ
ĂŵĂŐĞƚŽ ƚŽƉƐůĂď;ƐĞƉĂƌĂƚŝŽŶŽĨ ƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞƐŽƐŝƚƚŝŶŐ
&ƌĂŵĞĂŶĚͬŽƌ ŵŽƌĞƚŚĂŶвŝŶĐŚŽĨƚŚĞ ĨůƵƐŚŽŶƌŝƐĞƌƌŝŶŐƐŽƌ
dŽƉ^ůĂď ĨƌĂŵĞĨŽƌŵƚŚĞƚŽƉƐůĂď͘ ƚŽƉƐůĂď͘ZĞĂƚƚĂĐŚ
&ƌĂŵĞŶŽƚƐĞĐƵƌĞĚ͘ ƐĞĐƵƌĞůǇ͘

&ƌĂĐƚƵƌĞƐŽƌ ϭ͘ DĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞƉĞƌƐŽŶ ϲŵŽŶƚŚƐ ZĞƉůĂĐĞŽƌƌĞƉĂŝƌ
ƌĂĐŬƐŝŶ ũƵĚŐĞƐƚŚĂƚƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞ ďĂƐŝŶƚŽĚĞƐŝŐŶ
^ƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞ ŝƐƵŶƐŽƵŶĚ͘ ƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚƐ͘ZĞͲŐƌŽƵƚ
Ϯ͘ ǀŝĚĞŶĐĞŽĨƐŽŝů ƉŝƉĞĂŶĚƐĞĐƵƌĞĂƚ
ĞŶƚĞƌŝŶŐĐĂƚĐŚďĂƐŝŶ ďĂƐŝŶǁĂůůƐ͘
ƚŚƌŽƵŐŚĐƌĂĐŬƐ͘

^ĞƚƚůĞŵĞŶƚͬ /ĨĨĂŝůƵƌĞŽĨďĂƐŝŶŚĂƐ ϲŵŽŶƚŚƐ ZĞƉůĂĐĞŽƌƌĞƉĂŝƌ
DŝƐĂůŝŐŶŵĞŶƚ ĐƌĞĂƚĞĚĂƐĂĨĞƚǇ͕ĨƵŶĐƚŝŽŶ ďĂƐŝŶƚŽĚĞƐŝŐŶ
ŽƌĚĞƐŝŐŶƉƌŽďůĞŵ͘ ƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚƐ͘

sĞŐĞƚĂƚŝŽŶ ϭ͘ sĞŐĞƚĂƚŝŽŶŐƌŽǁŝŶŐ ϲŵŽŶƚŚƐ ZĞŵŽǀĞǀĞŐĞƚĂƚŝŽŶ͘
ĂĐƌŽƐƐĂŶĚďůŽĐŬŝŶŐ
ŵŽƌĞƚŚĂŶϭϬйŽĨƚŚĞ
ďĂƐŝŶŽƉĞŶŝŶŐ͘
720

W Ă Ő Ğ ͮϯϳ

Ϯ͘ sĞŐĞƚĂƚŝŽŶŐƌŽǁŝŶŐŝŶ
ƉŝƉĞũŽŝŶƚƐƚŚĂƚŝƐ
ŵŽƌĞƚŚĂŶϲŝŶĐŚĞƐ

ŽŶƚĂŵŝŶĂŶƚƐ ŶǇĞǀŝĚĞŶĐĞŽĨŽŝů͕ ϯŵŽŶƚŚƐ ZĞŵŽǀĞƵŶͲ
ĂŶĚWŽůůƵƚŝŽŶƐ ŐĂƐŽůŝŶĞ͕ĐŽŶƚĂŵŝŶĂŶƚƐŽƌ ĐŽŶƚĂŝŶĞĚƉŽůůƵƚĂŶƚƐ
ŽƚŚĞƌƉŽůůƵƚĂŶƚƐ͘ ŽƌĐŽŶƚĂŵŝŶĂŶƚƐ͘
ŽŽƌĚŝŶĂƚĞ
ƌĞŵŽǀĂůͬĐůĞĂŶƵƉĂĐĐŽƌĚŝŶŐ
ƚŽDĂƚĞƌŝĂů^ĂĨĞƚǇĂƚĂ
^ŚĞĞƚƐĂŶĚͬŽƌǁŝƚŚEz^
^ƉŝůůWƌĞǀĞŶƚŝŽŶdĞĂŵ

DĞƚĂů'ƌĂƚĞƐ 'ƌĂƚĞKƉĞŶŝŶŐƐ KƉĞŶŝŶŐƐǁŝĚĞƌƚŚĂŶϳͬϴ ϲŵŽŶƚŚƐ ZĞƉůĂĐĞŐƌĂƚĞ͘
ŝŶĐŚ͘

dƌĂƐŚĂŶĚ dƌĂƐŚĂŶĚĚĞďƌŝƐƚŚĂƚŝƐ ϲŵŽŶƚŚƐ ůĞĂŶƚƌĂƐŚĂŶĚ
ĞďƌŝƐ ďůŽĐŬŝŶŐŵŽƌĞƚŚĂŶϮϬйŽĨ ĚĞďƌŝƐĨƌŽŵŐƌĂƚĞ͘
ŐƌĂƚĞƐƵƌĨĂĐĞŝŶůĞƚƚŝŶŐ
ĐĂƉĂĐŝƚǇ͘

ĂŵĂŐĞĚŽƌ 'ƌĂƚĞŵŝƐƐŝŶŐŽƌƉŽƌƚŝŽŶƐ ϲŵŽŶƚŚƐ ZĞƉůĂĐĞŐƌĂƚĞ͘
DŝƐƐŝŶŐ ďƌŽŬĞŶ͘

Ϯ͘ͿŽŶǀĞǇĂŶĐĞ^ƚŽƌŵǁĂƚĞƌWŝƉĞ
/ŶůĞƚĂŶĚŽƵƚůĞƚƐƚŽƌŵǁĂƚĞƌƉŝƉĞƐĐŽŶǀĞǇƐƚŽƌŵǁĂƚĞƌŝŶ͕ƚŚƌŽƵŐŚ͕ĂŶĚŽƵƚŽĨƐƚŽƌŵǁĂƚĞƌ
ĨĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐ͘^ƚŽƌŵǁĂƚĞƌƉŝƉĞƐĂƌĞĐůĞĂŶĞĚƚŽƌĞŵŽǀĞƐĞĚŝŵĞŶƚŽƌďůŽĐŬĂŐĞƐǁŚĞŶƉƌŽďůĞŵƐĂƌĞ
ŝĚĞŶƚŝĨŝĞĚ͘^ƚŽƌŵǁĂƚĞƌƉŝƉĞƐŵƵƐƚďĞĐůĞĂƌŽĨŽďƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶƐĂŶĚďƌĞĂŬƐƚŽƉƌĞǀĞŶƚůŽĐĂůŝǌĞĚ
ĨůŽŽĚŝŶŐ͘ůůƐƚŽƌŵǁĂƚĞƌƉŝƉĞƐƐŚŽƵůĚďĞŝŶƉƌŽƉĞƌǁŽƌŬŝŶŐŽƌĚĞƌĂŶĚĨƌĞĞŽĨƚŚĞƉŽƐƐŝďůĞ
ĚĞĨĞĐƚƐůŝƐƚĞĚďĞůŽǁ͘ůŽĐŬĂŐĞƐĐĂŶƌĞƐƵůƚŝŶĂĚĞĐƌĞĂƐĞŽĨŚǇĚƌĂƵůŝĐĐĂƉĂĐŝƚǇĂŶĚĂůƐŽĐƌĞĂƚĞ
ƐƚĂŶĚŝŶŐǁĂƚĞƌ;ŶƵŝƐĂŶĐĞƐͿ͘DĂŶǇƚŝŵĞƐďůŽĐŬĂŐĞƚŽĐŽŶǀĞǇĂŶĐĞƉŝƉĞƐĐĂŶďĞĚŝĨĨŝĐƵůƚƚŽĂĐĐĞƐƐ
ĂŶĚͬŽƌĐůĞĂŶ͘^ƉĞĐŝĂůŝǌĞĚĞƋƵŝƉŵĞŶƚ;ũĞƚͬǀĂĐŵĂĐŚŝŶĞƐͿŵĂǇďĞŶĞĐĞƐƐĂƌǇƚŽĐůĞĂƌĚĞďƌŝƐĨƌŽŵ
ƚŚĞƐĞĚŝĨĨŝĐƵůƚĂƌĞĂƐ͘

ƌĂŝŶĂŐĞ WŽƚĞŶƚŝĂů ŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶƐtŚĞŶ &ƌĞƋƵĞŶĐǇ ĐƚŝŽŶZĞƋƵŝƌĞĚ
^ǇƐƚĞŵ ĞĨĞĐƚ DĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞ/ƐEĞĞĚĞĚ
&ĞĂƚƵƌĞ
'ĞŶĞƌĂů KďƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶƐ͕ ZŽŽƚĞŶƚĞƌƐŽƌĚĞĨŽƌŵƐ zĞĂƌůǇ ZĞŵŽǀĞƌŽŽƚƐ͘Ž
ŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐƌŽŽƚƐ͘ ƉŝƉĞ͕ƌĞĚƵĐŝŶŐĨůŽǁ͘ ŶŽƚƵƐĞƌŽŽƚͲ
ĚŝƐƐŽůǀŝŶŐĐŚĞŵŝĐĂůƐ
ŝŶƐƚŽƌŵƐĞǁĞƌ
ƉŝƉĞƐ͘/ĨŶĞĐĞƐƐĂƌǇ͕
ƌĞŵŽǀĞƚŚĞ
721

W Ă Ő Ğ ͮϯϴ

ǀĞŐĞƚĂƚŝŽŶŽǀĞƌƚŚĞ
ůŝŶĞ͘

WŝƉĞĞŶƚĞĚŽƌ WŝƉĞĚĂŵĂŐĞĚŽƌďƌŽŬĞŶ zĞĂƌůǇ ZĞƉĂŝƌĂŶĚͬŽƌ
ƌŽŬĞŶ ĂŶĚŝŶŶĞĞĚŽĨƌĞƉĂŝƌ͘ ƌĞƉůĂĐĞƉŝƉĞ͘

WŝƉĞZƵƐƚĞĚŽƌ WŝƉĞŝƐĐƌƵƐŚĞĚŽƌ zĞĂƌůǇ ZĞƉĂŝƌĂŶĚͬŽƌ
ĞƚĞƌŝŽƌĂƚĞĚ ĚĞĨŽƌŵĞĚŵŽƌĞƚŚĂŶϮϬй ƌĞƉůĂĐĞƉŝƉĞ͘
ŽƌĂŶǇŽƚŚĞƌĨĂŝůƵƌĞƚŽƚŚĞ
ƉŝƉĞ͘

^ĞĚŝŵĞŶƚĂŶĚ ^ĞĚŝŵĞŶƚĚĞƉƚŚŐƌĞĂƚĞƌ zĞĂƌůǇ ZĞŵŽǀĞƐĞĚŝŵĞŶƚ
ĞďƌŝƐ ƚŚĂŶϮϬйŽĨƉŝƉĞ ĂŶĚĚĞďƌŝƐ͘&ůƵƐŚ
ĚŝĂŵĞƚĞƌ͘ ƉŝƉĞ͘

ĞďƌŝƐĂƌƌŝĞƌ WŝƉĞƐŐƌĞĂƚĞƌƚŚĂŶϭϴ zĞĂƌůǇ /ŶƐƚĂůůŝĨŶĞĞĚĞĚ͘
ŽƌdƌĂƐŚZĂĐŬ ŝŶĐŚĞƐŶĞĞĚĚĞďƌŝƐ
DŝƐƐŝŶŐ ďĂƌƌŝĞƌ͘

ϯ͘Ϳ^ƚŽƌŵǁĂƚĞƌ&ĂĐŝůŝƚǇŝƐĐŚĂƌŐĞWŽŝŶƚƐ
^ƚŽƌŵǁĂƚĞƌĨĂĐŝůŝƚǇĚŝƐĐŚĂƌŐĞƉŽŝŶƚƐŵĂǇĐŽŶǀĞǇƐƚŽƌŵǁĂƚĞƌĨƌŽŵƚŚĞƐƚŽƌŵǁĂƚĞƌĨĂĐŝůŝƚǇŝŶƚŽ
ĚƌĂŝŶĂŐĞƚƌĞŶĐŚĞƐĂŶĚƌĞĐĞŝǀŝŶŐǁĂƚĞƌƐŽƌŽƚŚĞƌĚƌĂŝŶĂŐĞĂƌĞĂƐ͘^ƚŽƌŵǁĂƚĞƌĨĂĐŝůŝƚǇĚŝƐĐŚĂƌŐĞ
ƉŽŝŶƚƐŶĞĞĚƚŽďĞĂƐƐĞƐƐĞĚƚŽŵĂŬĞƐƵƌĞƐƚŽƌŵǁĂƚĞƌŝƐŶŽƚĐĂƵƐŝŶŐĂŶǇŶĞŐĂƚŝǀĞŝŵƉĂĐƚƐƚŽ
ƚŚĞƐĞĚƌĂŝŶĂŐĞĂƌĞĂƐ͘

ƌĂŝŶĂŐĞ WŽƚĞŶƚŝĂů ŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶƐtŚĞŶ &ƌĞƋƵĞŶĐǇ ĐƚŝŽŶZĞƋƵŝƌĞĚ
^ǇƐƚĞŵ ĞĨĞĐƚ DĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞ/ƐEĞĞĚĞĚ
&ĞĂƚƵƌĞ
DŽŶŝƚŽƌŝŶŐ /ŶƐƉĞĐƚŝŽŶƐŽĨ ^ŚĞĞŶ͕ŽďǀŝŽƵƐŽŝůŽƌ ϯŵŽŶƚŚƐ /ĚĞŶƚŝĨǇĂŶĚƌĞŵŽǀĞ
ŝƐĐŚĂƌŐĞ ŽƚŚĞƌĐŽŶƚĂŵŝŶĂƚŝŽŶƐ ƐŽƵƌĐĞ͘ĨĨůƵĞŶƚ
tĂƚĞƌĨŽƌ ƉƌĞƐĞŶƚ͘ ĚŝƐĐŚĂƌŐĞƐŚŽƵůĚďĞ
KďǀŝŽƵƐ^ŝŐŶƐ ĐůĞĂƌ͘
ŽĨWŽŽƌtĂƚĞƌ
YƵĂůŝƚǇ

KĨĨ^ŝƚĞ ƌŽƐŝŽŶ͕ƐĐŽƵƌŝŶŐŽƌŚĞĂĚ ϯŵŽŶƚŚƐ ^ƚĂďŝůŝǌĞƵƐŝŶŐ
ƐƐĞƐƐŵĞŶƚ ĐƵƚƐŝŶĚŝƚĐŚŽƌƐƚƌĞĂŵ Ez^Θ^
ďĂŶŬƐĚƵĞƚŽĨůŽǁ ĂƉƉƌŽǀĞĚ
ĐŚĂŶŶĞůŝǌĂƚŝŽŶ͕ŽƌŚŝŐŚ DĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚ
ĨůŽǁƐ͘ WƌĂĐƚŝĐĞ͘

'ĞŶĞƌĂů DŝƐƐŝŶŐŽƌ KŶůǇŽŶĞůĂǇĞƌŽĨƌŽĐŬ ϲŵŽŶƚŚƐ
DŽǀĞĚZŽĐŬ ĞǆŝƐƚƐĂďŽǀĞŶĂƚŝǀĞƐŽŝůŝŶ
ĂƌĞĂϱƐƋƵĂƌĞĨĞĞƚŽƌ
ůĂƌŐĞƌ͕ŽƌĂŶǇĞǆƉŽƐƵƌĞŽĨ
722

W Ă Ő Ğ ͮϯϵ

ŶĂƚŝǀĞƐŽŝů͘

ƌŽƐŝŽŶ ^ŽŝůĞƌŽƐŝŽŶŝŶŽƌĂĚũĂĐĞŶƚ ϯŵŽŶƚŚƐ
ƚŽƌŽĐŬƉĂĚ͘

KďƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶƐ͕ ZŽŽƚĞŶƚĞƌƐŽƌĚĞĨŽƌŵƐ zĞĂƌůǇ ZĞŵŽǀĞƌŽŽƚƐ͘Ž
ŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐƌŽŽƚƐ͘ ƉŝƉĞ͕ƌĞĚƵĐŝŶŐĨůŽǁ͘ ŶŽƚƵƐĞƌŽŽƚͲ
ĚŝƐƐŽůǀŝŶŐĐŚĞŵŝĐĂůƐ
ŝŶƐƚŽƌŵƐĞǁĞƌ
ƉŝƉĞƐ͘/ĨŶĞĐĞƐƐĂƌǇ͕
ƌĞŵŽǀĞƚŚĞ
ǀĞŐĞƚĂƚŝŽŶŽǀĞƌƚŚĞ
ůŝŶĞ͘

WŝƉĞZƵƐƚĞĚŽƌ WŝƉĞŝƐĐƌƵƐŚĞĚŽƌ zĞĂƌůǇ ZĞƉĂŝƌĂŶĚͬŽƌ
ĞƚĞƌŝŽƌĂƚĞĚ ĚĞĨŽƌŵĞĚŵŽƌĞƚŚĂŶϮϬй ƌĞƉůĂĐĞƉŝƉĞ͘
ŽƌĂŶǇŽƚŚĞƌĨĂŝůƵƌĞƚŽƚŚĞ
ƉŝƉĞ͘

ϰ͘ͿtĞƚWŽŶĚ
ǁĞƚƉŽŶĚŝƐĂŶŽƉĞŶďĂƐŝŶƚŚĂƚƌĞƚĂŝŶƐĂƉĞƌŵĂŶĞŶƚƉŽŽůŽĨǁĂƚĞƌ;ǁĞƚƉŽŽůͿǇĞĂƌƌŽƵŶĚŽƌ
ŽŶůǇĚƵƌŝŶŐƚŚĞǁĞƚƐĞĂƐŽŶ͘dŚĞǀŽůƵŵĞŽĨƚŚĞǁĞƚƉŽŶĚĂůůŽǁƐƐĞĚŝŵĞŶƚĂŶĚŽƚŚĞƌƉŽůůƵƚĂŶƚƐ
ƚŽƐĞƚƚůĞŽƵƚŽĨƚŚĞƌƵŶŽĨĨ͘tĞƚůĂŶĚǀĞŐĞƚĂƚŝŽŶŝƐƚǇƉŝĐĂůůǇƉůĂŶƚĞĚǁŝƚŚŝŶƚŚĞǁĞƚƉŽŶĚƚŽ
ƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂůƚƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚƚŚƌŽƵŐŚŶƵƚƌŝĞŶƚ;ŝ͘Ğ͘ŶŝƚƌŽŐĞŶͿƌĞŵŽǀĂů͘ĞƚĞŶƚŝŽŶƋƵĂŶƚŝƚǇ
ĐŽŶƚƌŽůĐĂŶďĞƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĚǁŝƚŚĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂůƚĞŵƉŽƌĂƌǇƐƚŽƌĂŐĞǀŽůƵŵĞĂďŽǀĞƚŚĞƉĞƌŵĂŶĞŶƚƉŽŽů
ĞůĞǀĂƚŝŽŶ͘

&ĂĐŝůŝƚǇŽďũĞĐƚƐƚŚĂƚĂƌĞƚǇƉŝĐĂůůǇĂƐƐŽĐŝĂƚĞĚǁŝƚŚĂǁĞƚƉŽŶĚŝŶĐůƵĚĞ͗
• &ĞŶĐĞ͕ŐĂƚĞ͕ĂŶĚǁĂƚĞƌƋƵĂůŝƚǇƐŝŐŶ
• ĞƚĞŶƚŝŽŶƉŽŶĚ
• ŽŶƚƌŽůƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞͬĨůŽǁƌĞƐƚƌŝĐƚŽƌ
• ŶĞƌŐǇĚŝƐƐŝƉĂƚĞƌƐ
• ĞďƌŝƐďĂƌƌŝĞƌ;Ğ͘Ő͘ƚƌĂƐŚƌĂĐŬͿ

tĞƚƉŽŶĚƐ WŽƚĞŶƚŝĂů ŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶƐtŚĞŶ &ƌĞƋƵĞŶĐǇ ĐƚŝŽŶZĞƋƵŝƌĞĚ
ƌĂŝŶĂŐĞ ĞĨĞĐƚ DĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞ/ƐEĞĞĚĞĚ
^ǇƐƚĞŵ
&ĞĂƚƵƌĞ
'ĞŶĞƌĂů tĂƚĞƌ>ĞǀĞů &ŝƌƐƚďĂǇŝƐĞŵƉƚǇ͕ ϲŵŽŶƚŚƐ >ŝŶĞĨŝƌƐƚďĂǇƚŽ
ĚŽĞƐŶ͛ƚŚŽůĚǁĂƚĞƌ͘ ŵĂŝŶƚĂŝŶĂƚůĞĂƐƚϰ
ĨĞĞƚŽĨǁĂƚĞƌ͘dŚŝƐŝƐ
ƵƐĞĚƚŽĐŽŶƚƌŽů
723

W Ă Ő Ğ ͮϰϬ

ƚƵƌďƵůĞŶĐĞŽĨƚŚĞ
ŝŶĐŽŵŝŶŐĨůŽǁĂŶĚ
ƌĞĚƵĐĞƐĞĚŝŵĞŶƚƌĞͲ
ƐƵƐƉĞŶƐŝŽŶ͘

dƌĂƐŚĂŶĚ ĐĐƵŵƵůĂƚŝŽŶƚŚĂƚ ϯŵŽŶƚŚƐ ZĞŵŽǀĞƚƌĂƐŚĂŶĚ
ĞďƌŝƐ ĞǆĐĞĞĚƐϭĐƵďŝĐĨĞĞƚƉĞƌ ĚĞďƌŝƐ͘
ϭϬϬϬƐƋƵĂƌĞĨĞĞƚŽĨƉŽŶĚ
ĂƌĞĂ͘

^ĞĚŝŵĞŶƚ ĐĐƵŵƵůĂƚŝŽŶŝŶƉŽŶĚ ϲŵŽŶƚŚƐ ZĞŵŽǀĞƐĞĚŝŵĞŶƚ
ĐĐƵŵƵůĂƚŝŽŶ ďŽƚƚŽŵƚŚĂƚĞǆĐĞĞĚƐ ĨƌŽŵƉŽŶĚďŽƚƚŽŵ͘
ŝŶWŽŶĚŽƚƚŽŵ ĚĞƉƚŚŽĨƐĞĚŝŵĞŶƚǌŽŶĞ
ƉůƵƐϲͲŝŶĐŚĞƐ͕ƵƐƵĂůůǇŝŶ
ƚŚĞĨŝƌƐƚďĂǇ͘

Kŝů^ŚĞĞŶŽŶ WƌĞǀĂůĞŶƚĂŶĚǀŝƐŝďůĞ͘ ϯŵŽŶƚŚƐ ZĞŵŽǀĞŽŝůƵƐŝŶŐŽŝůͲ
tĂƚĞƌ ĂďƐŽƌďĞŶƚƉĂĚƐŽƌ
ǀĂĐƚŽƌƚƌƵĐŬ͘>ŽĐĂƚĞ
ƐŽƵƌĐĞĂŶĚĐŽƌƌĞĐƚ͘/Ĩ
ĐŚƌŽŶŝĐůŽǁůĞǀĞůƐŽĨ
ŽŝůƉĞƌƐŝƐƚ͕ƉůĂŶƚ
ǁĞƚůĂŶĚƉůĂŶƚƐǁŚŝĐŚ
ĐĂŶƵƉƚĂŬĞƐŵĂůů
ĐŽŶĐĞŶƚƌĂƚŝŽŶƐŽĨŽŝů
;ŝ͘Ğ͘^ŽĨƚZƵƐŚͿ

ƌŽƐŝŽŶ ƌŽƐŝŽŶŽĨƐŝĚĞƐůŽƉĞƐ ϯŵŽŶƚŚƐ ^ƚĂďŝůŝǌĞƐůŽƉĞƐƵƐŝŶŐ
ĂŶĚͬŽƌƐĐŽƵƌŝŶŐŽĨƚŚĞ ĂƉƉƌŽǀĞĚEz^
ƉŽŶĚďŽƚƚŽŵ͕ƚŚĂƚ Θ^ƉƌĂĐƚŝĐĞƐ͘
ĞǆĐĞĞĚƐϲͲŝŶĐŚĞƐ͕Žƌ
ǁŚĞƌĞĐŽŶƚŝŶƵĞĚĞƌŽƐŝŽŶ
ŝƐƉƌĞǀĂůĞŶƚ͘

^ĞƚƚůĞŵĞŶƚŽĨ ŶǇƐĞƚƚůĞŵĞŶƚŽĨϰͲ ϲŵŽŶƚŚƐ ZĞƉĂŝƌƚŽĚĞƐŝŐŶ
WŽŶĚ ŝŶĐŚĞƐŽƌůŽǁĞƌƚŚĂŶƚŚĞ ƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚ͘
ŝŬĞͬĞƌŵ ĚĞƐŝŐŶĞůĞǀĂƚŝŽŶ͘

/ŶƚĞƌŶĂůĞƌŵ ĞƌŵĚŝǀŝĚŝŶŐďĂǇƐ ϲŵŽŶƚŚƐ >ĞǀĞůďĞƌŵƐƵƌĨĂĐĞƚŽ
ƐŚŽƵůĚďĞůĞǀĞů͘ ƚŚĂƚǁĂƚĞƌĨůŽǁƐ
ĞǀĞŶůǇŽǀĞƌĞŶƚŝƌĞ
ůĞŶŐƚŚŽĨďĞƌŵ͘
KǀĞƌĨůŽǁ ZŽĐŬŝƐŵŝƐƐŝŶŐĂŶĚƐŽŝůŝƐ ϲŵŽŶƚŚƐ ZĞƉůĂĐĞƌŽĐŬƚŽ
^ƉŝůůǁĂǇ ĞǆƉŽƐĞĚĂƚƚŽƉŽĨƐƉŝůůǁĂǇ ƐƉĞĐŝĨŝĐĂƚŝŽŶƐ͘
ŽƌŽƵƚƐŝĚĞƐůŽƉĞ͘

724

W Ă Ő Ğ ͮϰϭ

ϱ͘Ϳ/ŶĨŝůƚƌĂƚŝŽŶdƌĞŶĐŚ
ƐƚŽƌŵǁĂƚĞƌŝŶĨŝůƚƌĂƚŝŽŶƚƌĞŶĐŚŝƐĂĐůŽƐĞĚďĂƐŝŶďƵŝůƚďǇĞǆĐĂǀĂƚŝŶŐďĞůŽǁĞǆŝƐƚŝŶŐŐƌŽƵŶĚ͘
/ŶĨŝůƚƌĂƚŝŽŶƚƌĞŶĐŚĞƐƚĞŵƉŽƌĂƌŝůǇƐƚŽƌĞƐƚŽƌŵǁĂƚĞƌƌƵŶŽĨĨĚƵƌŝŶŐƌĂŝŶĞǀĞŶƚƐ͘/ŶĨŝůƚƌĂƚŝŽŶ
ƚƌĞŶĐŚĞƐĚŽŶŽƚĚŝƐĐŚĂƌŐĞƚŽĂĚŽǁŶƐƚƌĞĂŵĐŽŶǀĞǇĂŶĐĞƐǇƐƚĞŵŽƌŶĞĂƌďǇƐƵƌĨĂĐĞǁĂƚĞƌ͘
/ŶƐƚĞĂĚ͕ŝŶĨŝůƚƌĂƚŝŽŶƚƌĞŶĐŚĞƐƌĞůǇŽŶƚŚĞĂďŝůŝƚǇŽĨƚŚĞƐŝƚĞ͛ƐƐŽŝůƐƚŽŝŶĨŝůƚƌĂƚĞƚŚĞƐƚŽƌŵǁĂƚĞƌ
ŝŶƚŽƚŚĞŐƌŽƵŶĚ͘

&ĂĐŝůŝƚǇŽďũĞĐƚƐƚŚĂƚĂƌĞƚǇƉŝĐĂůůǇĂƐƐŽĐŝĂƚĞĚǁŝƚŚĂŶŝŶĨŝůƚƌĂƚŝŽŶƚƌĞŶĐŚŝŶĐůƵĚĞ͗

• &ĞŶĐĞ͕ŐĂƚĞ͕ĂŶĚǁĂƚĞƌƋƵĂůŝƚǇƐŝŐŶ
• ŝŽƐǁĂůĞ
• ^ƚŽƌŵŝŶůĞƚ

/ŶĨŝůƚƌĂƚŝŽŶ WŽƚĞŶƚŝĂů ŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶƐtŚĞŶ &ƌĞƋƵĞŶĐǇ ĐƚŝŽŶZĞƋƵŝƌĞĚ
dƌĞŶĐŚ ĞĨĞĐƚ DĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞ/ƐEĞĞĚĞĚ
ƌĂŝŶĂŐĞ
^ǇƐƚĞŵ
&ĞĂƚƵƌĞ
'ĞŶĞƌĂů ŽŶƚĂŵŝŶĂŶƚƐ ŶǇĞǀŝĚĞŶĐĞŽĨŽŝů͕ ϯŵŽŶƚŚƐ ŽŽƌĚŝŶĂƚĞ
ĂŶĚWŽůůƵƚŝŽŶ ŐĂƐŽůŝŶĞ͕ĐŽŶƚĂŵŝŶĂŶƚƐ ƌĞŵŽǀĂůͬĐůĞĂŶƵƉǁŝƚŚ
ŽƌŽƚŚĞƌƉŽůůƵƚĂŶƚƐ͘ Ez^͘

KďƐĞƌǀĂƚŝŽŶ ^ĞĚŝŵĞŶƚĚĞƉƚŚŐƌĞĂƚĞƌ ϲŵŽŶƚŚƐ ZĞŵŽǀĞƐĞĚŝŵĞŶƚ͘
tĞůů ƚŚĂŶŽŶĞĨŽŽƚĂďŽǀĞ
ƐƚŽŶĞĂŐŐƌĞŐĂƚĞŽƌƚŚĞ
ƐƵƌĨĂĐĞŝŶůĞƚ͘

ƌĂŝŶĂŐĞ^ůŽǁ ĞĐƌĞĂƐĞĚĐĂƉĂĐŝƚǇƚŚĂƚ ϲŵŽŶƚŚƐ ůĞĂŶƉĞƌĨŽƌĂƚĞĚ
ŝŶĚŝĐĂƚĞƐƐůŽǁĚƌĂŝŶĂŐĞ͘ ĚƌĂŝŶĂŐĞƉŝƉĞ͘ŽŶŽƚ
ĂůůŽǁƌĞŵŽǀĞĚ
ƐĞĚŝŵĞŶƚĂŶĚǁĂƚĞƌ
ƚŽĚŝƐĐŚĂƌŐĞďĂĐŬŝŶƚŽ
ƐƚŽƌŵƐĞǁĞƌ͘

ϲ͘ͿsĞŐĞƚĂƚŝŽŶDĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚ
ůůůĂŶĚƐĐĂƉĞŵĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚĚĞĐŝƐŝŽŶƐĨŽƌĐŽŶƚƌŽůůŝŶŐƵŶǁĂŶƚĞĚǀĞŐĞƚĂƚŝŽŶ͕ĚŝƐĞĂƐĞƐ͕ĂŶĚƉĞƐƚƐ
ƐŚŽƵůĚĨŽůůŽǁ/ŶƚĞŐƌĂƚĞĚWĞƐƚDĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚƉƌŝŶĐŝƉůĞƐĂŶĚĚĞĐŝƐŝŽŶͲŵĂŬŝŶŐƌĂƚŝŽŶĂůĞ͘dŚĞƐĞĂƌĞ͗
• WƌŽƉĞƌƉůĂŶŶŝŶŐĂŶĚŵĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚĚĞĐŝƐŝŽŶƐďĞŐŝŶƚŚĞ/WDƉƌŽĐĞƐƐ
• ƵůƚƵƌĂůŵĞƚŚŽĚƐŽĨǀĞŐĞƚĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĚƉĞƐƚĐŽŶƚƌŽůĂƌĞƉƌĞĨĞƌƌĞĚĂŶĚĂƌĞĨŝƌƐƚĞŵƉůŽǇĞĚ
• DĞĐŚĂŶŝĐĂůŵĞĂŶƐŽĨǀĞŐĞƚĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĚƉĞƐƚĐŽŶƚƌŽůĂƌĞŶĞǆƚŝŶůŝŶĞŽĨƉƌĞĨĞƌĞŶĐĞ͕ĂŶĚĂƌĞ
ƵƚŝůŝǌĞĚǁŚĞƌĞĨĞĂƐŝďůĞ
725

W Ă Ő Ğ ͮϰϮ

• ŝŽůŽŐŝĐĂůŵĞƚŚŽĚƐŽĨǀĞŐĞƚĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĚƉĞƐƚĐŽŶƚƌŽůĂƌĞĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĞĚďĞĨŽƌĞĐŚĞŵŝĐĂů
ŵĞĂŶƐ͕ǁŚĞƌĞƚŚĞǇĂƌĞĨĞĂƐŝďůĞ
• ŽƚĂŶŝĐĂůĂŶĚƐǇŶƚŚĞƚŝĐƉĞƐƚŝĐŝĚĞƐĂƌĞƵƐĞĚŽŶůǇǁŚĞŶŶŽŽƚŚĞƌĨĞĂƐŝďůĞŵĞƚŚŽĚƐĞǆŝƐƚ
sĞŐĞƚĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĚWĞƐƚDĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚŝŶ^ƚŽƌŵǁĂƚĞƌŽŶƚƌŽů&ĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐ͗
^ƚŽƌŵǁĂƚĞƌĐŽŶƚƌŽůĨĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐŝŶĐůƵĚĞďŝŽĨŝůƚƌĂƚŝŽŶƚƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚƐǁĂůĞƐ͕ƚƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚǁĞƚůĂŶĚƐ͕
ƚƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚƉŽŶĚƐ͕ĚĞƚĞŶƚŝŽŶƉŽŶĚƐ͕ŽƉĞŶĐŚĂŶŶĞůƐ͕ĂŶĚŝŶĨŝůƚƌĂƚŝŽŶďĂƐŝŶƐ͘^ƚŽƌŵǁĂƚĞƌĐŽŶƚƌŽů
ĨĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐĚŝƐĐŚĂƌŐĞƚŽƐƵƌĨĂĐĞǁĂƚĞƌŽƌŐƌŽƵŶĚǁĂƚĞƌĞŝƚŚĞƌĚŝƌĞĐƚůǇŽƌƚŚƌŽƵŐŚƉŝƉĞƐŽƌĚŝƚĐŚĞƐ͘
DĂŶǇĨĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐĂƌĞďƵŝůƚƚŽƌĞŵŽǀĞƉŽůůƵƚĂŶƚƐĨƌŽŵƐƚŽƌŵǁĂƚĞƌ͘'ĞŶĞƌĂůůǇ͕ǀĞŐĞƚĂƚŝŽŶƐŚŽƵůĚďĞ
ŵĂŝŶƚĂŝŶĞĚƚŽďůĞŶĚŝŶƚŽƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐĂƌĞĂƐ͘^ƚŽƌŵǁĂƚĞƌĨĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐĐĂŶƉƌŽǀŝĚĞŚĂďŝƚĂƚĨŽƌ
ĂƋƵĂƚŝĐůŝĨĞĂŶĚďŝƌĚƐ͘WƌŽŵŽƚŝŶŐŶĂƚƵƌĂůǀĞŐĞƚĂƚŝŽŶǁŚĞƌĞĨĞĂƐŝďůĞŝŵƉƌŽǀĞƐŚĂďŝƚĂƚ͘^ǁĂůĞƐ
ŽĨƚĞŶďůĞŶĚŝŶƚŽŝŶƚĞŶƐŝǀĞůǇŵĂŶĂŐĞĚůĂŶĚƐĐĂƉĞƐ͘WŽŶĚƉĞƌŝŵĞƚĞƌƐĐĂŶŝŶĐůƵĚĞŶĂƚƵƌĂů
ǀĞŐĞƚĂƚŝŽŶ͘dŚĞƵƐĞŽĨƉĞƐƚŝĐŝĚĞƐĂŶĚ͕ŝŶŵŽƐƚĐĂƐĞƐĨĞƌƚŝůŝǌĞƌ͕ŝƐŶŽƚĐŽŵƉĂƚŝďůĞǁŝƚŚƚŚĞƚĂƐŬŽĨ
ƉŽůůƵƚĂŶƚƌĞŵŽǀĂůŽƌƚŚĞĚŝƌĞĐƚĐŽŶŶĞĐƚŝŽŶŽĨƐƚŽƌŵǁĂƚĞƌĨĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐƚŽƐƚƌĞĂŵƐĂŶĚ
ŐƌŽƵŶĚǁĂƚĞƌ͘

sĞŐĞƚĂƚŝŽŶ,ĞĂůƚŚ͗
KǀĞƌƚŝŵĞ͕ƚŚĞƉůĂŶƚƐƉĞĐŝĞƐĚŝǀĞƌƐŝƚǇ͕ƉĞƌĐĞŶƚĂŐĞŵŝǆ͕ĂŶĚŶƵŵďĞƌƐǁŝůůǀĂƌǇƚŽƚŚĂƚƐƉĞĐŝĨŝĞĚ
ŽŶƚŚĞŽƌŝŐŝŶĂůůĂŶĚƐĐĂƉĞƉůĂŶ͘dŚŝƐŝƐƚŽďĞĞǆƉĞĐƚĞĚĂŶĚƚŚĞƉůĂŶƚƐƐŚŽƵůĚďĞůĞĨƚ͕ƚŽĂĐĞƌƚĂŝŶ
ĞǆƚĞŶƚ͕ƚŽĨŝŶĚƚŚĞŝƌŽǁŶŶĂƚƵƌĂůďĂůĂŶĐĞ

dŚĞŵĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚƚŚĞĞƐƚĂďůŝƐŚŵĞŶƚƉĞƌŝŽĚŝŶĐůƵĚĞƐ͗
• ^ƚĂŬŝŶŐ͕ǁŝƚŚĂŶĂƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƚĞůĞŶŐƚŚƐƚĂŬĞ͕ĂŶǇƉůĂŶƚƐƐƵĨĨĞƌŝŶŐƐƚƌĞƐƐĨƌŽŵĞǆĐĞƐƐŝǀĞ
ǁŝŶĚŵŽǀĞŵĞŶƚ͘^ƚĂŬĞƐƐŚŽƵůĚďĞƌĞŵŽǀĞĚĨƌŽŵĂƚƌĞĞŽŶĐĞĚĞƚĞƌŵŝŶĞĚƚŚĂƚƚŚĞǇǁŝůů
ďĞĂďůĞƚŽǁŝƚŚƐƚĂŶĚƚŚĞĞĨĨĞĐƚƐŽĨƚŚĞǁŝŶĚ͘
• tĂƚĞƌŝŶŐĂŶĚŶŝƚƌŽŐĞŶĂƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶĂƐƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚ͕ƉĂƌƚŝĐƵůĂƌůǇĚƵƌŝŶŐƐƵŵŵĞƌŵŽŶƚŚƐŽƌ
ĂŶǇŽƚŚĞƌĞǆƚĞŶĚĞĚĚƌǇƉĞƌŝŽĚƐ͘
• WĞƌŝŽĚŝĐŝŶƉƵƚƐǁŝůůĐŽŵƉƌŝƐĞƌĞƉůĂĐĞŵĞŶƚŽĨĂŶǇƵŶŚĞĂůƚŚǇƉůĂŶƚƐĂŶĚǁĂƚĞƌŝŶŐĚƵƌŝŶŐ
ĞǆƚƌĞŵĞůǇĚƌǇƉĞƌŝŽĚƐ͘

tĞĞĚƐĂŶĚWůĂŶƚŽŶƚƌŽů͗
/ŶƐŝƚƵĂƚŝŽŶƐǁŚĞƌĞǀĞŐĞƚĂƚŝŽŶŚĂƐďĞĞŶĞƐƚĂďůŝƐŚĞĚ͕ƵŶĚĞƐŝƌĂďůĞƉůĂŶƚƐĐĂŶďĞĞǆƉĞĐƚĞĚ͘dŚĞƐĞ
ƵŶĚĞƐŝƌĂďůĞƉůĂŶƚƐĐĂŶĂĚǀĞƌƐĞůǇŝŵƉĂĐƚƚŚĞĂĞƐƚŚĞƚŝĐǀĂůƵĞŽĨĂƚƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚƐǇƐƚĞŵ͘dŚŝƐĐĂŶ
ĂůƐŽĂƉƉůǇƚŽǁĞƚĚĞƚĞŶƚŝŽŶůŝƚƚŽƌĂůǌŽŶĞƐ͕ǁŚŝĐŚŵĂǇďĞŝŶǀĂĚĞĚďǇƵŶĚĞƐŝƌĂďůĞĂƋƵĂƚŝĐƉůĂŶƚ
ƐƉĞĐŝĞƐ͘dŚĞƌĞŐƵůĂƌŝƚǇĂŶĚƐĐŚĞĚƵůŝŶŐŽĨǁĞĞĚƌĞŵŽǀĂůĂŶĚƉůĂŶƚŝŶŐŵĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞĐĂŶďĞ
ĚĞƚĞƌŵŝŶĞĚĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐŝŶƐƉĞĐƚŝŽŶƐ͘ŶǇǁĞĞĚĐŽŶƚƌŽůƵŶĚĞƌƚĂŬĞŶƐŚŽƵůĚŬĞĞƉŝŶŵŝŶĚƚŚĂƚƚŽƚĂů
ĞƌĂĚŝĐĂƚŝŽŶŵĂǇďĞĐŽƵŶƚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀĞ͕ĂƐƚŚĞƐĞƉůĂŶƚƐŵĂǇďĞƉƌŽǀŝĚŝŶŐƚŚĞŶĞĐĞƐƐĂƌǇĐŽǀĞƌ
ĨŽƌƚŚĞĚĞƐŝƌĞĚƉůĂŶƚƐƚŽďĞĐŽŵĞĞƐƚĂďůŝƐŚĞĚ͘
• ůůǁĞĞĚĐŽŶƚƌŽůƐŚŽƵůĚďĞĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞĚŵĞĐŚĂŶŝĐĂůůǇ͕ďǇŚĂŶĚ;ĐƵƚƚŝŶŐ͕ƉƵůůŝŶŐŽƌĚŝŐŐŝŶŐ
ŽƵƚͿ͕ŽƌďǇƐƉŽƚƐƉƌĂǇŝŶŐǁŝƚŚƐƵŝƚĂďůĞŚĞƌďŝĐŝĚĞƐǁŚĞŶƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚ͘
• tŚĞŶƵƐŝŶŐŚĞƌďŝĐŝĚĞƐǁŝƚŚŝŶĂŶǇĂƌĞĂ͕ĐĂƌĞƐŚŽƵůĚĂůǁĂǇƐďĞƚĂŬĞŶƚŽƌĞĚƵĐĞƐƉƌĂǇ
ĚƌŝĨƚ͕ĐŽŶƚĂŵŝŶĂƚŝŽŶŽƌǁĂƚĞƌǁĂǇƐ͕ĂŶĚĞĨĨĞĐƚƐŽŶŶŽŶͲƚĂƌŐĞƚƉůĂŶƚƐ͘
726

W Ă Ő Ğ ͮϰϯ

• dŚĞƵƐĞŽĨŚĞƌďŝĐŝĚĞƐǁŝƚŚŝŶŽƌŶĞĂƌĂŶǇǁĂƚĞƌďŽĚǇŵĂǇƌĞƋƵŝƌĞƌĞƐŽƵƌĐĞĐŽŶƐĞŶƚ͘dŚĞ
ŽǁŶĞƌƐŚŽƵůĚĞŶƐƵƌĞĂůůŶĞĐĞƐƐĂƌǇĐŽŶƐĞŶƚƐĂƌĞŽďƚĂŝŶĞĚĂŶĚĂŶǇůĞĨƚŽǀĞƌĐŚĞŵŝĐĂůƐ
ĚŝƐƉŽƐĞĚŽĨƉƌŽƉĞƌůǇ͘
• ůůƐƉĞĐŝŵĞŶƚƌĞĞƐƐŚŽƵůĚďĞŵŽŶŝƚŽƌĞĚĂŶĚƉƌŽƚĞĐƚĞĚĨƌŽŵƐƵĨĨŽĐĂƚŝŽŶĨƌŽŵǁĞĞĚĂŶĚ
ŐƌĂƐƐƐƉĞĐŝĞƐ͘

&ĞĂƚƵƌĞƐŽĨ^ƚŽƌŵǁĂƚĞƌ&ĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐ͗
• dŚĞƌĞŝƐĂŵŝǆŽĨŶĂƚŝǀĞĂŶĚŶŽŶͲŶĂƚŝǀĞƉůĂŶƚƐ
• 'ĞŶĞƌĂůůǇŶŽƚƵƐĞĚďǇƚŚĞƉƵďůŝĐ
• /ŶĐůƵĚĞĂƌĞĂƐŵĂŶĂŐĞĚƚŽƉƌŽŵŽƚĞĚĞƐŝŐŶĨƵŶĐƚŝŽŶ͕ƐƵĐŚĂƐƚƵƌĨŝŶƐǁĂůĞƐ
• DĂŶĂŐĞĚůĂŶĚƐĐĂƉĞƐŵĂǇďĞŶĞĂƌďǇ
• DĂǇďĞƵƐĞĚďǇĨŝƐŚĂŶĚǁŝůĚůŝĨĞ

KďũĞĐƚŝǀĞƐĨŽƌ^ƚŽƌŵǁĂƚĞƌ&ĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐ͗
• DĂŝŶƚĂŝŶŚĞĂůƚŚǇƉůĂŶƚĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚŝĞƐ
• ǀŽŝĚŽƌŵŝŶŝŵŝǌĞŶĞĞĚĨŽƌĐŚĞŵŝĐĂůŝŶƚĞƌǀĞŶƚŝŽŶ
• ŽŶƚƌŽůŝŶǀĂƐŝǀĞƉůĂŶƚƐǁŚĞƌĞĨĞĂƐŝďůĞ
• EŽďĂƌĞƐŽŝůĂƌĞĂƐĂƌĞĂůůŽǁĞĚ
• dŽůĞƌĂŶĐĞĨŽƌŶĂƚƵƌĂůĂƉƉĞĂƌĂŶĐĞĂŶĚǁĞĞĚƐ

'ƌĂƐƐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞ͗
dƌŝŵŵŝŶŐŽĨŐƌĂƐƐĂƌŽƵŶĚĨĞŶĐĞƐ͕ĂŵĞŶŝƚǇĂŶĚŽƵƚůĞƚͬŝŶůĞƚƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞƐĂŶĚƉĂƚŚǁĂǇƐƐŚŽƵůĚďĞ
ƵŶĚĞƌƚĂŬĞŶƌĞŐƵůĂƌůǇƚŽƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĂŶĂƚƚƌĂĐƚŝǀĞĂŶĚǁĞůůŬĞƉƚĂƉƉĞĂƌĂŶĐĞ͘'ƌĂƐƐ͕ŽƌǀĞŐĞƚĂƚŝŽŶ
ĐƵƚƚŝŶŐƐŽƌĚĞďƌŝƐƐŚĂůůŶŽƚďĞĚƵŵƉĞĚĂůŽŶŐƐƚƌĞĂŵĞĚŐĞƐ͘ƵƚƚŝŶŐƐĐĂŶŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞŶƵƚƌŝĞŶƚ
ůŽĂĚŝŶŐƐ͕ƌĞƐƵůƚŝŶŐŝŶƉŽƚĞŶƚŝĂůĂůŐĂůďůŽŽŵƐ͘/ŶĨŝůƚƌĂƚŝŽŶƉƌĂĐƚŝĐĞƐƐŚŽƵůĚďĞŵŽǁĞĚŐƌĂƐƐƚŽĂ
ŚĞŝŐŚƚŽĨĨŽƵƌŝŶĐŚĞƐĂŶĚĐůŝƉƉŝŶŐƐŶĞĞĚƚŽďĞƌĞŵŽǀĞĚ͘

ĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂůŝŶƉƵƚƐŝŶĐůƵĚĞƉĞƌŝŽĚŝĐĨĞƌƚŝůŝǌŝŶŐĂŶĚƐŽŝůĐŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶŝŶŽƌĚĞƌƚŽŵĂŝŶƚĂŝŶŚĞĂůƚŚǇ
ŐƌŽǁƚŚ͘WƌŽǀŝƐŝŽŶƐŵĂǇŚĂǀĞƚŽďĞŵĂĚĞƚŽƌĞͲƐĞĞĚĂŶĚͬŽƌƌĞͲĞƐƚĂďůŝƐŚŐƌĂƐƐĐŽǀĞƌŝŶĂƌĞĂƐ
ĚĂŵĂŐĞĚďǇƐĞĚŝŵĞŶƚĂĐĐƵŵƵůĂƚŝŽŶ͕ƐƚŽƌŵǁĂƚĞƌĨůŽǁ͕ŽƌŽƚŚĞƌĐĂƵƐĞƐ͘

WƌĂĐƚŝĐĞƐ͗
dŚĞǀĞŐĞƚĂƚŝŽŶŵĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚĨŽĐƵƐŝƐĞƐƚĂďůŝƐŚŝŶŐĂŶĚŵĂŝŶƚĂŝŶŝŶŐŚĞĂůƚŚǇůŽǁͲŵĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞ
ŶĂƚŝǀĞƉůĂŶƚŝŶŐƐĂŶĚƐƵƐƚĂŝŶŝŶŐƚŚĞĚĞƐŝŐŶĨƵŶĐƚŝŽŶŽĨǀĞŐĞƚĂƚĞĚĨŝůƚĞƌƐ͘dŚŝƐŝŶĐůƵĚĞƐĐŽŶƚƌŽůůŝŶŐ
ŝŶǀĂƐŝǀĞƉůĂŶƚƐǁŚĞƌĞĨĞĂƐŝďůĞ͕ĂŶĚƉůĂŶƚŝŶŐĐŽǀĞƌŽŶďĂƌĞƐŽŝůƐ͘ŽŶƐŝĚĞƌƚŚĞƵƐĞŽĨƐŽŝů
ĂŵĞŶĚŵĞŶƚƐƐƵĐŚĂƐĐŽŵƉŽƐƚďĞĨŽƌĞƵƐŝŶŐĨĞƌƚŝůŝǌĞƌ͘>ŝŵŝƚŵƵůĐŚƵƐĞƚŽĐŽǀĞƌŝŶŐďĂƌĞƐŽŝů
ǁŚŝůĞĞƐƚĂďůŝƐŚŝŶŐƉůĂŶƚŝŶŐƐ͘ŚĞŵŝĐĂůƵƐĞƐŚŽƵůĚďĞĂǀŽŝĚĞĚǁŝƚŚŝŶϮϱĨĞĞƚŽĨĂŶǇĂƌĞĂƚŚĂƚ
ŚŽůĚƐŽƌĐŽŶǀĞǇƐƐƵƌĨĂĐĞǁĂƚĞƌŽƌƐƚŽƌŵǁĂƚĞƌ͘dŚŝƐŝŶĐůƵĚĞƐƚŚĞďĂƐĞŽĨĂďŝŽĨŝůƚƌĂƚŝŽŶƐǁĂůĞ͘

727

W Ă Ő Ğ ͮϰϰ

^/DEdZDKs>

ͲůůƌĞŵŽǀĞĚƐĞĚŝŵĞŶƚĂŶĚĚĞďƌŝƐǁŝůůďĞĚŝƐƉŽƐĞĚŽĨŝŶĂůŽĐĂƚŝŽŶĂƐĚĞƚĞƌŵŝŶĞĚďǇƚŚĞ
ĂŶŝƐŝƵƐ,ŝŐŚ^ĐŚŽŽů͘ZĞŵŽǀĂůǁŝůůďĞŝŶĐŽŶĨŽƌŵĂŶĐĞǁŝůůĂůůŵƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů͕ƐƚĂƚĞ͕ĂŶĚĨĞĚĞƌĂů
ƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐĨŽƌƉƌŽƉĞƌĚŝƐƉŽƐĂů͘

728

W Ă Ő Ğ ͮϰϱ

^d/KEϰʹ^hWWKZd/E'/E&KZDd/KE

>ŽĐĂƚŝŽŶDĂƉ

729

W Ă Ő Ğ ͮϰϲ

ZĞŐƵůĂƚĞĚD^ϰ

730

W Ă Ő Ğ ͮϰϳ

tĞƚůĂŶĚDĂƉƉŝŶŐͲEz^

731

W Ă Ő Ğ ͮϰϴ

tĞƚůĂŶĚDĂƉƉŝŶŐͲ&ĞĚĞƌĂů
732

W Ă Ő Ğ ͮϰϵ

&ůŽŽĚƉůĂŝŶDĂƉ

733

W Ă Ő Ğ ͮϱϬ

^ŽŝůDĂƉ

734

W Ă Ő Ğ ͮϱϭ

^Žŝů>ĞŐĞŶĚ

735

W Ă Ő Ğ ͮϱϮ

,ǇĚƌŽůŽŐŝĐ^Žŝů'ƌŽƵƉ

736

W Ă Ő Ğ ͮϱϯ

^Žŝů>ĞŐĞŶĚ

737

W Ă Ő Ğ ͮϱϰ

^ƚĂƚĞ,ŝƐƚŽƌŝĐWƌĞƐĞƌǀĂƚŝŽŶKĨĨŝĐĞDĂƉ
738

Record On Appeal - CA 22-01929 CA 23-00546 Vol 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Record On Appeal - CA 22-01929 CA 23-00546 Vol 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Supreme Court of the State of New York

Appellate Division, Fourth Department

1. The index number of the case in the Court below is 808016/2022.

3. The action was commenced in the Supreme Court, Erie County.

administrative proceedings filed.

Board of the Town of West Seneca.

of the Erie County Clerk on March 28, 2023.

DATED: July 4, 2023

CPLR § 5531 Statement i

Notice of Appeal dated March 29, 2023 49

Exhibit “4” - 2021 Canisius EAF 204

Exhibit “A” - Verified Petition/Complaint 378

Exhibit “A” – Maps 433

Exhibit “A” - May Board minutes 449

Exhibit “1” - Copy of 2022-04-08T13-04-

Exhibit “2” - Copy of 20020 Drawings_4-29-22.pdf 504

Exhibit “11” - Copy of DEED 11098-2759_Written property Description.pdf 668

Exhibit “23” - Report entitled Lexington Green P2#443918 1995

Exhibit “29” – Petitioner’s letter dated April 23, 2022 2217

Exhibit “35” - USACE FOIA Response 2320

Exhibit “A” - Exhibit to Vaillancourt Affidavit 2388

Exhibit “1” - Transcript of Oral Argument in prior proceeding 2424

Exhibit “A” - Order and Judgment 2464

Exhibit “H” - Memorandum of Law of Daniel T. Warren dated September 9,

Exhibit “I” - Notice to Admit 2477

Exhibit “N” - Notice of Rejection of NYSCEF #59-62 2532

Exhibit “A” - AD Order 2542

Exhibit “A” - Letter from Trapp 9-29-22 2550

Exhibit “A” - Proposed Order 2559

STATE OF NEW YORK : COUNTY OF ERIE

DATED: December 8, 2022

/S/ Daniel T. Warren

Documents Received on 12/08/2022 11:17 AM

Doc # Document Type

127 NOTICE OF APPEAL, Motion #001

JAMES M. LENNON - eccosgrove@cosgrovelawfirm.com

Michael P. Kearns, Erie County Clerk

NYSCEF Resource Center, nyscef@nycourts.gov

STATE OF NEW YORK : COUNTY OF ERIE

DATED: December 8, 2022

/S/ Daniel T. Warren

STATE OF NEW YORK : COUNTY OF ERIE

DATED: March 29, 2023

/S/ Daniel T. Warren

STATE OF NEW YORK : COUNTY OF ERIE

DATED: March 29, 2023

/S/ Daniel T. Warren

Documents Received on 03/29/2023 08:18 AM

Doc # Document Type

165 NOTICE OF APPEAL, Motion #006

EDWARD C. COSGROVE - eccosgrove@cosgrovelawfirm.com

Michael P. Kearns, Erie County Clerk

NYSCEF Resource Center, nyscef@nycourts.gov

STATE OF NEW YORK : SUPREME COURT

FOR A JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO CPLR ARTICLES

THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF WEST SENECA,

DANIEL T. WARREN, pro se,

CHRIS G. TRAPP, ESQ.,

J. MICHAEL LENNON, ESQ.,

1 THE COURT: There is the matter of Dan Warren,

2 Petitioner, against the Planning Board of the Town of West

3 Seneca, et al, Index Number 808016/2022. Dan, if you could