Planning Board - Regular Meeting

I'd like to bring this meeting to order for the Town of Wenswick Planning Board for July 2nd, 2026. If everybody would please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. Okay, our agenda this evening includes a public hearing. This was posted on the town website and the town board. The agenda is as follows. Number one, Burger King site plan amendment. Applicant seeks an amendment to a previously approved site plan, including changes to a drive-thru park, parking lot, landscaping, and signage at the Burger King Fast Food Restaurant and property located at 747 Music Road. Public hearing to commence at 7 p.m. Carol's LLC is the applicant. Number two, Fisher minor subdivision applicant seeks minor subdivision approval to subdivide an 82.17 acre parcel into three new lots on property located at 842 Tamarack Road where Becca Fisher is the applicant. Number three, Mavis Tire Site Plan. Applicant seeks site plan approval to demolish an existing residential structure and construct a new building to serve as a Mavis Tire Motor Vehicle Repair Shop on property located at 721 Hoosier Croad. Richard Barberti is the applicant. Number 4. Sillis, major subdivision. Applicant proposes a major subdivision on approximately 16.2 acre parcel of land on property located on the east side of Coral Rain. Jim Sillis is the applicant. And number five, Brunswick Acres, major subdivision. Applicant proposes a major subdivision with regard to the Brunswick Acres planned development district and approximately 44 acre parcel land located around the north side of Brunswick Road, New York State Route 2, just west of the Heather Ridge Road. And the Brunswick Road Development LLC is the applicant. As I stated before, there is a public hearing. And this is a public hearing for Burger King. This is a site plan amendment. The procedure for a public hearing is as follows. The purpose of a public hearing is to hear concerns, comments, and views from the general public regarding the particular proposal or application. All public hearings are electronically recorded and your written record and proceedings is generated. In most cases, this written record is included with the minutes of the planning board regular meeting, which is usually conducted immediately after the public hearing. The applicant will be required to respond to all concerns and comments made at the public hearing. Subsequently, the planning board will consider all concerns and comments in evaluating the application to ensure that the applicant has addressed all the issues in question. The public hearing will be conducted as follows. The notice of public hearing will be read by the planning board attorney. Next, the applicant will give a brief presentation on the proposal and will provide any updates on the application. Upon completion of the applicant's remarks, the Chairman of the Planning Board will recognize persons from the public, and these individuals will be allowed to speak and offer their concerns, comments, and views. Since the proceedings of the public hearing are electronically recorded, it is requested that all speakers step forward and use the microphone at the podium. All speakers will give their name and address for the record. This time I'll have the notice of public hearing read by Chris.

The following notice of public hearing was duly published in the newspaper, posted to the town clerk sign board, and posted to the town website in accordance with law. The notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held by the Planning Board of the Town of Brunswick at 7 p.m. on Thursday, July 2nd, 2026 at the Brunswick Town Hall, 336 Town Office Road, Brunswick, New York, 12180 to review an application submitted by Kells, LLC and Joshua Bazas to amend a previously approved site plan application including changes to the drive-thru, parking lot, landscaping, and signage at the Burger King Fast Food Restaurant on property located at 747 Hoosick Road. Copies of the application are available at the Brunswick Town Hall and are available for public inspection during regular business hours. All interested persons will be heard at the public hearing.

Thank you. At this time, I'll have the applicant come up and give a brief presentation. Please address your remarks to the audience. If you would. Sure.

Good evening. My name is Craig Tripp with Berman Peterson.

We're the site civil engineers in the project. So just to give, like you said, a brief overview of what the purpose of the project is.

Thank you.

Start again. So good evening. My name is Craig Tripp. I'm a landscape architect with Greenwood Peterson. We're the site civil engineers for the project. I'll give just a kind of a quick overview and give you an update on kind of what has transpired since the last video we had. So I'm just going to take this out. There we go. So basically the purpose of the project in general is just branding upgrades and some improvements to the site in general for pedestrian and vehicle circulation and access throughout the site. The most significant of the improvements is going to be the addition of a second drive-through lane. And the purpose of that is just to help funnel the customers through more efficiently. In order to do that, we are relocating one existing light pole that would be in the middle of one of the drive lanes had we not done that in the design. So the existing drive-through goes through here. Now we're not changing any overall parameters of the site. We're just modifying this area here in general to allow this lane to be constructed. We'll take the existing menu board and put it on a new foundation and the rest of the equipment for both that lane as well as the entirely new lane up here will all be new. So height bars, menu boards, order boards. Utility-wise, it's an existing functioning Burger King, so we don't need any utility improvements. Everything we need is already there and functional. The light pole being relocated is the sum total of utility improvements necessary for the project. From there, the rest is just related to reconstructing sidewalks, rebuilding portions of the parking, mostly to kind of collect, to the extent practical, some grade issues and things like that for ADA accessibility. And on the drive-through pickup window side, at the request of the board at one of the previous meetings where we had originally had perpendicular straight-in parking spaces, we have angled those on the side here just to allow a bit easier flow for the pulling and the back out for the cars coming around that side. All the other circulation patterns, exits, entries, all those are staying the same. We're not doing anything out within the DOT right away. And then from there, the rest of the improvements are really related to, once all the reconstruction of sidewalks and radio accessibility is complete, just doing the landscaping to dress up the rest of the site work. From a building standpoint, a similar approach with a lot of branding upgrades. You'll see the facade. You'll see the sign panels within the existing panel out here on the main sign location up near Route 7. Really, that's the main gist of it. In order to make this possible for the drive-through with the addition of the second lane, we are relocating the dumpster, which currently sits in this location. We're building a new one in this location at the back of the site. And then this location right here is just an allocation for a future button freezer, should they need that. So all we're doing for that is spreading a blank conduit out to it for the electrical connection it would need, should they end up building that. So that's kind of a quick summary of what the project is. And then since the last meeting, I think the main comment that came from the last meeting was just to see if we could add some additional landscaping out in room seven, which has been done. We have some additional landscaping here and we're reworking the landscaping around the signage here. There's somewhat limited space in here just because of the drainage outlet that comes in there and the existing riprap that has to remain. Same thing over here. And we have avoided putting trees in there strictly from a visibility and view standpoint coming out of the exit as well as seeing into the site for cars that are approaching. And that's, I think, the main things that have transpired since the last meeting. We did submit a whole new set of the plans, three full-size, 10, 11 by 17s. And I know that Josh Bezos reached out to us in the building department. I had a good conversation with them. At their request, he agreed that we'll do a pre-construction meeting for the project when the time comes. And that's kind of a quick notes version.

OK. This time, I'd like to open up the floor for any comments. Does anybody wish to make any comments regarding the protocol? Once again, this is an amendment to a previously approved site plan. Good evening. Jim Tachik, 387 Brunswick Road. Is that my question about the sign on the highway?

Is that going to be approximately the same size as the existing one, or what's the difference? panel that goes in it itself.

So the side, they're not taking the fold down or anything like that.

They're just painting it and they're going to put a new upgraded railing side in it. Okay, thanks. Okay, Jim. Anyone else wish to make any comments? Anybody wish to make any, have any questions on the application? Okay, a final time. This is a public hearing for an amendment to an existing site plan for Burger King on Hoosick Street. Is there anyone who wishes to make any comments or have any questions? Okay, hearing none, I will make a motion to close the public hearing. Do I have a second? Is there any further discussion on that? All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Now we're going to go to our regular meeting, which will be first on the agenda. But first we have a little bit of normal business to take care of, and that is we have received, this is, we didn't have our meeting, obviously, on the 19th, was it? 18th of June. And these minutes were available then. This is for the April 16th meeting. This is a very detailed set of minutes because of the nature of the material on there. So that's why I took a little bit more time. I hope everybody has an opportunity to review those. Is there any corrections, amendments? Questions on the minutes? Okay. Hearing none, I will make a motion to approve the minutes as they have been submitted. I would ask that the people that did not attend that meeting would recuse themselves from the vote. So that would mean that, I don't believe there was anybody absent at that meeting, so. but I'm obligated to mention that.

So, there is a motion to a second motion.

Okay, is there any further questions on the minutes? Okay, all those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Okay. Now to move on to our agenda. First item on the agenda is Burger King. We've had the public hearing. Normally we would require the applicant to submit a written response to all comments, concerns at the meeting. However, this was more or less a question on signage. I think it could be probably addressed and you addressed the answer already. So I would be willing to waiver that requirement to submit anything in writing. It would be reflected in the minutes. And I would assume, Jim, that you would be satisfied with that answer. All right, moving forward. You basically went through a pretty good extensive presentation for the public hearing. Does anybody have any questions on those items that were discussed that were added to the site plans? We did get an updated set of site plans since that last that meeting, which was a month ago. Does anybody have any questions on it? Wayne, are you satisfied with everything?

Can you just describe to me what you're planting in the front there?

Just low level shrubs and ground covers. We're keeping everything down so we don't want to mess with it.

Salt resistant? Right, right. I'm not a landscape architect, so I couldn't tell anyway.

It should be noted, just for the record, that we did receive a response back when we notified of a zoning review action to Rensselaer County Bureau of Economic Development and Planning. Basically, they had determined that the proposal does not have any major impact. on the county plans that local consideration shall prevail. Did you get a copy of that?

I don't know that I did, but I remember that.

Did you make sure you get the copy of that?

We'll make sure the copy is forwarded to you. Okay. Any questions? Concerns? Anything from the legal end of this? No. Okay. Does the building department have any comments or anything at this point?

No, I think everything is on the site.

Okay. We can move forward with an approval on this. Does there have to be a secret determination on the amendment?

It can't hurt. In a single termination. Okay.

And I'll entertain a secret. Okay. Okay, there's a negative declaration.

I'll second.

There's a second. Any further discussion on the secret? Okay, all those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Now on the approval of the site plan amendment, is there any conditions that have to be

None that I can think of. It's obviously up to you folks.

Okay. Does anyone have any conditions? Wayne, do you have anything? I can't think of any. Okay. Do I have a motion to?

I have a motion to approve the site plan as submitted.

Okay. Second. There's a second. Is there any further discussion on that? All those in favor? Any opposed? You're all set. Excellent. Thank you very much.

You're welcome.

Do you want any of this back? You got it? It must be always taken in the cycle.

I can give him my copy of the . Here's a copy of the . We just need one copy on file for you. Okay, second on our agenda is Fisher. Minor subdivision. There was a bunch of things that we've received. I'm going to turn the floor over to you.

Paul Langster here on behalf of Rebecca Fisher, the applicant for this minor subdivision. I think the last time we were here was the first meeting in June, and at that time we were still waiting on the wetlands report. I received that prior to the second meeting on the 18th and submitted it to your engineer and uh kevin and wendy i believe and uh tonight we passed out paper versions of that um that essentially reports on an inspection made on the 10th of june that is i'm not qualified to you guys can read this the same way i can it's uh wetlands person that says that there are no wetlands on the properties belonging to the applicant and there's no other wetland connection between the uh the pond that's on mr boston's property and on the other adjacent property was it two separate there is uh showing on on this report I think a photograph, an aerial photograph, it kind of explains it best on, I believe, page three, or excuse me, shows you best. The red lines show the applicant's property lines. The yellow dots are where they did excavation to determine the hydrology of the property. And then in the lower section is what is delineated as wetland two. The green part is the wetland and that is on the properties of Mr. Bilson. And that is the one that's the furthest away from the property line of the applicant. The second wetland, uh one is the uh the other adjacent property owner and that does show an encroachment of that wetland onto the corner the set what we call a second term in that property um but it does say what i think i said and i would refer you to your engineer for a definitive analysis of this report i believe that's what it says Suddenly, in discussing this with Mark Danskin, we realized that we had previously submitted the erosion and sediment control site plan of Steven Dean, I believe it is, an engineer that prepared this. And this shows that same location and how the roadway is to be laid out. And as you can see, if you take a look at that, there is room there to relocate that roadway if it's somehow deemed necessary to avoid these encroaching weapons. But I would refer everybody to this survey of the roadway to get the final analysis of where it's going to be located. And then the only other thing I've got to report is that Mr. Danskin amended all of his maps. It was formerly the Elteen property. That is the Bolson property that's designated on his new map. And he's shown, with respect to the issue on buffer zone, that there are The distance between the perimeter of where the first lot is going to go on this 80 acres of woods is 1,000 feet from the Belsen property line and the Morgan Waters property lies in between the property line of Belsen and the So there's a whole other property line in between. So we suggest that that is more than sufficient buffer under these circumstances. KEN HOWARD JR.: Olsen's in blue.

Waters is in white. Olsen's Homestead is 1,000 feet across Waters property. And it should be noted that most of that property is also wooded, right? It's all wood. It's all wood. There's a dirt roadway that goes through it. OK. Now, for what?

Did we discuss the responses ?

I tried to go through that in detail last time, to a fairly well, I believe. That's right. And I'll be glad to address any of those issues again,

with the interpretation of that 1,000 foot. I think your response was a little bit different, referring to I do have it here. I think the response should reflect the conversation that we just had. 1,000 feet and so forth and so on, which it does as you go into a little bit different avenue on your response to that.

That's property by the property.

So if that comes up again at the next public hearing.

Then I'll submit a revised response to it. Is that sufficient with council? You're okay with deferring the supplement until after the next public hearing?

Yeah, I suppose, yeah. That would make the most sense for me. We may hear the same comments, in which case there's not a lot to be changed. You might get new comments that you'll address. As part of that final response to public comments, you can modify whatever you... That makes better sense.

And we're reopening the public hearing to respond to the lack of wetlands that were found on the property.

We're reopening the public hearing because this board agreed to do so.

But to further on that question, there was answers to, there wasn't sufficient evidence for reporting to satisfy some of the remarks. And it was requested that the public hearing, it was discussion about keeping the public hearing open again. in order to kind of smooth off all those type of things. We're going to open it up again. OK. All right. I guess we could probably, if there's no other questions on this, I just want to just get into a very limited discussion on the driveway's accessibility to the three parcels. There's a 60 foot. parcel strip that goes through there. It is now on this blueprint that it's divided three ways to 20 foot right of ways, which gives access to a public highway to each one of those pieces of property by itself. And in order to not make a multi-lane highway through there, The applicants are going to put one driveway to service two properties. And if the request is that this be a private road agreement. Correct. I think there should be some agreement. I'm not so sure that the title of a private road, more or less a multi-use driveway agreement of some sort. This private road definition and stuff is a little bit cloudy. It's not cloudy to me, but it seems to be cloudy to some other people as far as.

As you know, I submitted a private road agreement, a proposed one that we are satisfied with amongst the property owners. Right. And I believe. council for the town court it was acceptable right um and that does refer to it as even though i it's a it's a private driveway that we are referring to in this agreement as a private roadway agreement i'm not sure why but that's what we're doing i could clear that up the uh the towns

the town's private roadway ordinance is a driveway longer than 150 feet. So if your driveway is longer than 150 feet, although it is still a driveway, they chose to call it a private roadway to distinguish.

Unfortunately, that definition now spills over on the requirements in a major city. minor subdivision, any type of subdivision as far as, you know, road construction. And if it's over, if it does not, if it doesn't access, there's something about the number of houses I'm not. Fire is less than five. Yeah, that this would qualify for a major subdivision. And that's what I'm trying to avoid. And I think the applicant is trying to avoid that. But we have done this numerous times over the course of I've been on this board, where there are situations where, yes, there's maybe one, two, three lots, and they share a driveway. And they do it strictly for convenience, and they don't want a parallel driveway. They couldn't reach an agreement, and there was one, where they actually had two driveways, like 500 feet right next to each other.

And I think that's... We're not planning anything like that. Just one curb cut for the driveway. We'll find a spec and a better turnaround requirement. Pullovers.

Exactly. Is there any further questions on this? Then I would like to reopen the public hearing just to satisfy some of the questions that came up after the fact. So this public hearing at this point is probably going to be on August 6. 7 o'clock. Wayne, do we have all, everything's complete as far as you're concerned, as far as reports, everything like this? Yes. Okay. So this will be available to the public as it is. Legally, are we all set?

We have a map that indicates the actual... shared driveway agreement? I'm not sure if that shows the agreement. Oh, no, the actual driveway. The actual driveway.

Well, yeah, I mean, the current driveway is right there, that dashed line.

So we're going to widen that and basically, you know. Right, so I guess where's the, because of the length, where's the pull-offs, you know, for these?

They're on that.

So I'm going to be utilizing the center driveway.

What do you mean?

No, each slot has to have a plate for a fire truck to turn off and back. So you'll have to have one for every slot as well. You can't turn around here. Well, the fire's not there.

Do you want to enlighten us on what the termination was there? Do you have to make a modification of the drawing?

Hold on.

I thought that one turnaround in this close proximity to each lot, fire truck turnaround, needs a turn around. Okay. Even though it's centrally located, you may say, I'm going to have to add a turn around right there. Okay. That's it. It'll be very similar to that one right there. It'll most likely, what Kevin's saying that the truck's coming in here, it'll probably be right over there.

Okay.

Is this something that has to be done before we have the?

As long as we have it in before the public hearing? So it's available and we can talk about it?

I don't think it's a big concept change or anything.

Well, I don't want people, you know, to look at the drawings and say, well, he doesn't have a turn in there, and then all of a sudden.

Mark, you can get them in by the eighth, before the eighth? Absolutely. Okay.

Okay. However, can I ask Kevin a question while I'm here?

Sure.

Hey, Kevin, you see this turnout right here for the tire truck to get people to? I can turn that into the turnaround for the fire truck. Yeah, it could be one or two. Very good.

Okay.

Thank you for that time.

All right. So are we all set then? We're going to open the public hearing on August 6th, 7 o'clock. You'll be first on the agenda.

August 6th. Very good. If you can dimension those turnouts, I'd appreciate it. They have to be a certain length. You're on the...

Page two.

We have another meeting on 16th of July. You don't have to be here for that, I don't believe. Unless you have some new information.

I'll come and give you the maps of the new ones before that or that.

Okay. Yep. Thank you. And a nice holiday weekend. Okay, next on our agenda is Navis Tyre.

Good evening, Ken Mixon with BL Companies. Senior project manager, 355 Research Parkway. So tonight, presenting to you is a water regulator fault that we had. Last meeting, we're gonna get the actual location identified. So we hired an excavator, local excavator, contracting company, and we found the limits of the vault, because the survey just shows the hatch, and the hatch is like a three by three cover. So right down here in the south, We've actually now identified the entire structure as requested and working with Kevin and Bill Bradley, the water superintendent, and we've updated that. and sent plans to you, planning board, and the town, and Bill Bradley to make an adjustment because of that water vault. It cannot move. We have to keep it where it is at its existing grade, and that's why there is a bump out in a landscaped island with where there used to be parking spaces. So we've had some additional landscaping there. We're asking for a waiver on the parking. 23 spaces are required based on the parking in the 6,086 square foot Mavis Tire. And we're providing 20 because of that hardship of the retaining wall moving everything in where you can't physically put parking spaces and have a drive out with accordingly. We did submit to zoning an application for VARIANCE ON THE REAR BUILDING SETBACK. BECAUSE ESSENTIALLY EVERYTHING SHIFTED BACK FIVE FEET TO THE NORTH. AND SO WE'RE AT THAT NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE BUILDING IS 25.2 FEET TO THE REAR BUILDING SETBACK. AND THE REAR BUILDING SETBACK ABUTTING A RESIDENTIAL ZONE IS 30 FEET. AND SO WE PUSH THAT BACK. THE RETAINING WALL HAS GOTTEN A LITTLE BIT SMALLER, ALBEIT LIKE FIVE AND A HALF FEET WORST. height or highest, tallest height. And again, we've reduced that parking here, requesting that waiver of the parking.

Does the waiver of parking, that goes before the ZBA also, doesn't it? No.

No, that's in your preview. Oh, that's us?

Yeah. How many are you required and how many have we got?

23 spaces are required. We have 20. You mean three short? What's that? You mean three short?

Yeah, three short.

It's essentially because of the hardship of the water meter, water regulator being actually on their property.

Right, and we would work out, right now there's not a easement, but we would work out an easement between the town and Davis Tire to get that situated.

Did you do a car park sideways in that area there?

What's that? Did you turn a car? We could but I just don't know with

Having every space, you know, I guess going north to south and then putting one space. We could consider that, but it would be up to the planning if you want us to show that. Me, personally, I think it's better to have it how we show it just because we're able to add some additional landscaping. We're actually able to reduce the impervious area by 480 square feet or so. We're not changing the drainage other than what the shift test has become. So it's a little bit better in terms of that aspect of stormwater.

seven stalls seven seven yeah seven days yeah will there be cars parked in there overnight no were there any other variances requested uh the dumpster enclosure uh is 14.7 feet to the rear property line and again that's uh that's

consider the dumpster enclosure to be a structure that's part of that 30-foot residential zone, right?

It's 25 feet.

That's an accessory structure.

Oh, accessory structure. Sorry. Where are we with the zoning board?

July 20th, they're going to accept it.

And then I think it was July 20th, are they going to have the public hearing for it?

No, not the scheduled public hearing. He just wanted his new business. Okay. And then in August, we would- We talked about possibly doing a public hearing. Right. To save some time. Okay.

Yeah, I had a note that possibly the public hearing would be on the 20th. That's why I asked that.

Nothing scheduled. They just did the investigation last week.

Okay.

I see that the adjacent, they have their wall newly stained and they're using a picket style fence.

Yes.

And I was wondering if there was any opportunity to reconsider the fencing style. slats, which may appear a little bit .

So they're using like a picket? Yeah. You certainly could do that to match. I know our block for our retaining wall would be more the smaller block, which actually would match the retaining wall that's to the west. And ours won't be as, our wall won't be as tall.

similar yeah yep i did i did notice uh just a side note that they have quite a bit of like advertising banners on that fence a quick check i would assume that that is temporary, but they're not going to do that on an ongoing basis. I see you're taking a shot. Because we'll have the same situation, the opportunity to put banners on the front, too.

Yeah, it's considered a grand opening, so we will allow some discretion for a short period of time to have some additional signage.

So it's duly noted that any pencil on there is considered signage and is probably not going to be allowed. Correct. You know, on an ongoing basis. Right. Grand opening signs, yeah, we can understand that. Okay. So you understand that. Yep. Okay. It was just an informational thing. Wow. Sensitive tonight. Anybody else have any questions?

Have you gotten any response from the company about my lighting question?

About shutting off the lights? Yes. Yeah. They would shut off the lights, I think it's an hour after. One hour, yeah. Yeah.

They're good with that?

Yeah.

Okay. I don't have any other questions.

absolutely how's that going it's it's going uh so this month we'll be working with bill bradley and the dot to move things along so now that i just want to make sure sure bill is good with what we have here uh work through that and then hopefully by august 6th uh be done with that and then DFT, I'll keep my fingers crossed.

Good luck. Yeah, thank you. The IMX meeting is on the 16th. You won't be before the ZBA before that.

So the next ZBA meeting is the 20th of this month. Right. So at that meeting, the ZBA can schedule a public hearing on their variance application there was some talk about coordinating that hearing with the public hearing you need to hold on the site plan so if between now and July 20th the two boards decided on a mutually convenient date to hold their joint public hearing at the meeting on the 20th the ZBA could go ahead and on their end, notice that meeting, that public hearing.

Well, I'm just trying to determine when the applicant will be before us. He doesn't need to be on the 16th then.

Except if, so right now you don't know a date that you hold a public hearing. After the 20th. with some coordination with the ZBA, you might now know what that date is. Oh, the 16th, you're right. It's before the ZBA. Just on time, yeah.

So we probably should reschedule him to be on our August 6th meeting.

Well, here's what I'm going to suggest. If there is an interest in doing a joint public hearing, you can leave the meeting tonight. between now and your next meeting on the 16th, coordinate with the ZBA and pick a date for the joint public hearing. Okay. We can come back on the 16th just to set the public hearing date because we'll now know what it's going to be. Okay. And then on the 20th, the ZBA can do the same thing, set the public hearing date, and then we'll do the public hearing.

Okay. So the applicant should be at our meeting on the 16th.

Correct. It sounds like that would be... just for the purposes of confirming the public hearing.

All right.

Can they do that in the first meeting in August? So because it's going to be, it's going to be a special meeting for somebody, right? Either one of you, either you, the ZBA, or both of you. If you do it on planning board meeting night, it's a special meeting for the ZBA. They will come here. YOU DON'T HAVE TO HAVE IT BE A REGULAR MEETING NIGHT. YOU COULD DO IT ON TUESDAY BECAUSE NOBODY'S MEETING NIGHT. WE HAVE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE 6th NOW FOR FISHER, RIGHT? YES. SO IT'S JUST A QUESTION OF WHAT'S GOING TO BE MOST CONVENIENT FOR THE MEMBERS OF BOTH BOARDS.

WELL, WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO SCHEDULE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE 16th OR THE 6th OF AUGUST.

That might actually not be a problem. I know we typically don't do that, but because there's 20, let's see, 14, 15, 21, right, 21 days between meetings, you can probably do it.

All right. And we'll put you on our agenda for our next meeting, and hopefully we'll be able to determine when the public hearing will be. Well, no, how are we going to do that? They don't meet until the 20th.

The ZBA.

Yeah.

Right. But we can talk with them and see if we can do a poll of everybody, figure out what would be a mutually convenient joint public hearing date, find that out before we come back on the 16th. come back on the 16th, identify that date as the public hearing date, and then on the 20th, ZBA will do the same thing.

Okay. This was discussed. It was. They're aware.

Correct. So the concept is out there.

It's not going to be a show. And they have times to, they're meeting on the 6th of August.

Correct. So that would be 16 days. If it ended up being August 6th, that would be 16 days.

Okay. Can you read that back to us?

So I'm coming back here for the 16th?

Yes.

I'm just wondering if he could come for the 20th meeting and the ZBA schedules the joint public hearing with our meeting on the 6th. Because we should be scheduled a public hearing if we don't know the ZBA. We can schedule our public hearing.

They can

I don't see why he has to come on the 16th. He's going to the meeting on the 20th to determine.

It's fine. You're right. Well, let me know. We can set the public hearing.

Well, we can't do that because we don't know what the VA wants.

Correct. So the whole idea of the joint meeting was to do it once, be done. But we could have ours on the 6th of August. The EVA could have theirs on the 17th of August. Separately, both public hearings would be on the outside. We could set it tonight.

If they want to join us on the 6th, fine.

If they don't. How are we doing? Better? Yeah.

Clearing up that mud? Okay. All right then. We were scheduled on the public hearing.

Well, the 6th, you'll be the second public hearing, so you'll be technically at 7-15, if you want to know a date. I think it's going to be a little bit longer than that. And you do not have to come on the 16th. Okay. Because we have already set our public hearing.

Right.

And then it would be up to the... The ZBA meeting on the 20th, whether they want to join us as a joint meeting on the 6th. We've had more joint meetings. We've chaired more joint meetings than the ZBA, us going to the ZBA. So that's not uncommon.

All right? Sounds good. Thank you very much.

All right.

Have a nice holiday weekend.

You too. You too.

All right. Take care.

Okay, next on our agenda is Syllis. Okay, we've got something that corresponds from. I believe it would have been EDC.

Yes.

We also got one for parks and recreationists. This has to do that there was no impact on any New York State park land that may be involved in or near your project. We got that. And then we got... We got a copy of your site or your project narrative. I thought there was something from DOT. What was that?

DOT? DEC. All right.

There was something about the wetlands. We got a... I'm guessing that there's no, that DC does not have jurisdiction. That was the JD. Aaron? Yeah. OK.

I believe so. Yeah.

OK.

All right, I'll turn the floor back over to you. Good evening, Aaron Vera with Verity Engineering here tonight representing Sillis Brokers. I think we last appeared in front of you guys back in March. We're here this evening seeking the, not to complicate things for August, but seeking the scheduling of a public hearing on this project. Last time we were here, we discussed the potential wetland on the site. In the interim, we've mapped that wetland. We had it flagged by a wetland biologist. The wetland's about 3,900 square feet, so under a tenth of an acre. It's jurisdictional to Army Corps. And so it will require a nationwide permit in order for us to locate our stormwater practice in that location. And then I believe the letter that you received from State Parks SHPO was from 28-22. We had that determination, so no archaeological impacts for this site. Right. The only coordination that remains on this project at this point is DOH, county DOH approval. for the subdivision itself, the individual septic systems. And I believe we also need to modify the approval for the water line extension due to the location of the stormwater practices, the water line, the route that the water line takes through the site had to change from previous plans. And so we will be seeking DOH's sign off on that extension.

Wayne, do you have any comments on this?

We've started our review. A lot of our comments are on the stormwater and the erosion control plan. I don't know if you want to go through them here tonight, but I started drafting up a response letter.

I think we'd prefer to take that offline if possible.

That's fine. I mean, yeah, I'll complete my review letter and send it to you. Perfect. Copy the board, of course. As far as the septics, I typically don't comment on those much because you've got to go through the county health department. I mean, the way they're drawn now, I see some issues, but I'm sure they're not where they're going to be. That's correct. Yes.

Yeah.

We've got some offset kind of issues. Yes. Yes. And something that might tie in to when you complete your septic system design is the swales and how they kind of tie into your drainage patterns, right? So it'd be nice to see where those swales for your septic are. So just so we can kind of take that into consideration when we look at the drainage. Something else to keep in mind, and we don't typically like cross-lot drainage, if you can avoid that at all costs. Some other things to think about, like that bioretention area, I think it's, I don't know what lot it is, the one on the cul-de-sac? Yeah, this one. Yeah. We're just going to need... probably in the O&M plan, how that's going to be maintained, who's responsible. We also have to think about who's going to maintain the post-construction facilities, whether it's going to be a drainage district or homeowners association. We've got to start discussing that as well because it's not ON THE PLANS, NOR IS IT IN THE ENGINEER'S REPORT. SO WE'RE IN A SWIFT. SO JUST SOME THINGS TO THINK ABOUT BEFORE I FINISH OUR REVIEW.

OKAY. HOW LONG IS IT GOING TO BE BEFORE YOU FINISH THE REVIEW?

WE'RE PRETTY FAR ALONG. I can have comments back to Aaron for the next meeting. Okay. We're on vacation next week, and I'm out of town.

So I think we're scheduling a public hearing at this point, right?

I would agree with that. It sounds like we are premature, given that – the addition of a turnaround on a previous application could have, you know, this could have larger changes as a potential, you know.

Yeah, and there's some plans we're looking for a little more detail on, so it probably is better that we get all that worked out before we schedule a public hearing.

there'll be distribution of your review to the to the planning board before our next meeting yes it might be like the tuesday before no no no our next meeting is on the 16th of So we can schedule for the 16th?

I think I'd like a chance to review the letter and an opportunity to respond to the letter before we would appear in front of you again. The hope would be that the next appearance we make, we've addressed the engineer's comments and we would be ready to schedule that public hearing. And I don't think that we would be ready in time for your next meeting.

Okay. And our meeting after that is on the 6th of August? First meeting? That might be possible. Okay.

Yeah, we could tentatively schedule ourselves for that.

We'll put you on for tentatively if you have not been able to, you know, do the public response. Yes, yeah. We can bump you to the next meeting.

Yeah, if Wendy hears from me on the 5th, I would expect we'd be booted from that meeting, yeah.

Okay, so we'll tentatively put you on for the 6th. If you need more time... please notify the building department to modify our agenda.

Are copies of these plans, Aaron, the same ones I got digitally?

Yes, the paper set is the same. Does anybody have any questions for the applicant at this point? All right, then. I think we're all set for the saving room. Excellent. Thank you. Okay. Number five on our agenda is Brunswick Acres.

Hi, good evening. Andy Brick on behalf of the applicant of This is the Brunswick Acres PDD. You've seen it before. The PDD was really improved in 2019. This board approved subdivision approval, conditional subdivision approval in 2024. We struggled with National Grid to get one of the conditions met. We had gotten a number of extensions of time for the approval. Eventually, the approval lapsed. We had asked if you would consider retroactive approval and you said no so that we are starting the process over again to seek re-approval. The plans have been submitted. They are the same plans that were previously approved. There are no changes to the plans. the only major changes that have occurred since this project was approved is that we've actually complied with some of the conditions that were conditions of approval the water district extension was approved by the town board the drainage district extension was approved by the town board we obtained the necessary easements from some of the neighbors and we also got national goods sign off on the easement we need from them to put with the water line underneath their power lines. However, they can't sign it until they have public service commission, New York Public Service Commission. And Anthony Casale, the client who's here this evening with me, just let me know that we're scheduled for the public service commission on July 29th. So we hope they authorize National Grid to sign that evening. And then we will have, actually complied with all of the prior conditions while we're going through the re-approval of the process. It's a 25-lot major subdivision, 24 building lots, one stormwater lot. It's located off of Brunswick Road just west of Heather Ridge Lane. I think a number of you are familiar with when the board meeting was originally approved. As I said, the only difference that changes, we've knocked out some of the conditions. It's otherwise the same exact project in compliance with the PDD. No variances were ever required. And we have resubmitted and started the process over again. And we believe we submitted the complete application, but we're here to see if we can answer any questions you may have and also hear from staff on whether or not they want any additional information or could we possibly schedule for a public hearing. So thank you for the opportunity.

Okay. uh regarding the uh there was uh i think it's requested to have an engineering review of the whole thing and i believe uh wes ruse was going to be doing that so i'm going to let him take the floor right now yes mr chairman uh in the uh

Billing Department, we reviewed the applicant's engineering drawings. And we determined that he has, in fact, completed all the requirements outlined by the Planning Board and the Town Board shown on the drawings. In communication with Commissioner Braley of the Water Department, He had requested that the applicant simply furnish a joint application between the US Army Corps of Engineers and the planning board, or the New York State DEC, for jurisdictional confirmation. The existing wetlands are most likely U.S. Army Corps of Engineer wetlands, and Commissioner Bradley simply requested a confirmation of that from both DEC and the Corps. That would be a joint application that the applicant's engineer would file. in light of that i believe it's uh both commissioner bradley and the building department's recommendation if the board wishes they may wish to schedule a public hearing for the project the applicant has has fulfilled

Does anybody have any questions for Mr. Reeves? OK. Wayne, you don't want to be involved in this, is that correct? Well, I know that you didn't review the first one and the burners. Did all the engineering review on that?

Burns did it because they reviewed the PDD and then reviewed the subject.

And since this, you know, I understand your position. Okay. Anything legally that was not that satisfying?

Not for purposes of scheduling a public hearing that I can think of. Okay.

I just had one question for the engineer. We have a idea of how long it might take to get this GED confirmation?

I can't answer that at this time. We can have that conversation with the applicant's consultant when they plan on submitting that, and we can contact the DEC and have a sense of that. We can report back to the board at the next meeting.

Okay. Is that necessary to proceed with the scheduling of the public hearing at this point?

So, Mr. Rees, maybe just make sure we all understand it correctly. There was a prior... stormwater pollution prevention plan, prior wetlands delineation. And what you're suggesting is that the applicant confirm that nothing has changed since their prior approval. That's correct. And part of the reason why is in the interim couple of years, some of the standards and regulations may have changed. That's correct. 2025. regulations were updated correct so the request might come back one of two ways nothing's changed your prior pools are fine or it might come back and say no things have changed and we are now recognizing these areas as being wetlands what impact would that have on the design potential it's unlikely to have uh

any significant impact because the wetlands have been delineated already. Right now, we perceive that it is, it has been under US Army Corps of Engineers jurisdiction. We perceive that to be confirmed. It's just, we were requested just to get that confirmation in writing from both DEC and the Corps as a formality.

So that could be a condition of approval also, right?

So the only thing about, there's two things about scheduling the public hearing, right? One is you want to make sure that you and the public have all the relevant information in front of you. You don't want to get new information if you've already had the public hearing. So that's consideration number one. Consideration number two is that when you close the public hearing, that starts the 45-day clock for you folks to issue final approval. okay so i get nervous about starting that 45 day clock if there's still pieces of information that are outstanding because it might affect things um so you know um i don't so now i'm thinking okay let's say we're at the point where we have to issue a decision but we're still waiting on something from the army corps of engineers could we address that as a condition I'm trying to think of what that condition would look like, because depending on what comes back, again, it might come back saying, it's fine, great. But if it comes back and says, no, you need to do something different, and they have to change the plan, they have to modify this, they have to move that, now that's a different plan than what was in front of you. So I don't know what the best path forward is. And I think maybe, and I'm just throwing this out here, maybe waiting until the next meeting when Russ suggested he might be able to update us on timing might not be that bad an idea. We're coming back in two weeks anyway, right?

And just a note, Silas was able to get a letter.

And the other thing is we already have two public hearings for the sixth. And these are not going to be easy public hearings, I'll tell you. I don't want to bog down us with a third public hearing. In fact, I discourage that. If we come back at the next meeting with this report, this information that we need, everything is complete. Sure, we can schedule the public hearing for the second meeting in August.

I think that's very reasonable.

Sorry, can I say that all of the lands on the site are in or off forever green. So the actual construction doesn't touch anything. They're not in the building. Yeah, they're all in the...

I have to refer to Mr. Reeves. Does that make a difference on this information?

It's an accurate statement. The only thing is we understand that it's most likely on the Corps of Engineers wetlands in which there's no 100-foot level. WITH DEC JURISDICTION, THERE IS A WHEELER FOOTBALL. SO I THINK WHAT WE PROPOSE IS THAT'S JUST GOING TO BE CONFIRMATION WITH CT MAIL, THE APPLICANT'S CONSULTANT. I DON'T SEE ANY ISSUE WITH HIM MOVING FORWARD TO GETTING THAT JURISDICTIONAL CONFIRMATION. SO I THINK THE BOARD would want to know either way.

All right. I agree with you. So we'll get that confirmation before our next meeting on the 16th of July. And then we'll schedule the public hearing if everything is fine. OK. So have it viewed by the 16th. When do we need to actually have it viewed by? I needed to be presented at the 16th meeting, so we have we can present it to 16. OK, OK, thank you. OK. Thank you. Thank you. So we will put you on the agenda for the 16th. And hopefully and then everything is fine. Then we schedule you for public hearing that would be on the 20th of August. Right.

All right.

I'm sorry.

Absolutely.

Absolutely. All right. I think that would do it. Is there any other questions for the applicant at this point? I guess we're finished with this evening. Okay. Have a nice holiday weekend, guys. Okay, that concludes our agenda. There is no new business. Is there any old business?

JUST THANK YOU FOR PICKING THE COLOR OF THE WALL THAT SEEMS APPROPRIATE. OKAY. ANY UPDATES ON ANYTHING THAT WE SHOULD KNOW?

My wife wants to know when the TJ Mass is going to open. All right. Just to review the agenda. We have approved the Burger King, so we have Fisher scheduled for a public hearing on the 8th.

at seven o'clock, Mavis Tire. Oh, yeah, August, yeah, 8-6, yeah. And then Mavis Tire is on August 6th also, and theirs is scheduled for 7-15. Silas is on the tentative agenda for the 6th also. The only one we have on our agenda right now for our next meeting on July 16th is Brunswick Acres. Brunswick Acres. Does that mean I don't have to come? What's that?

Does that mean I don't have to come?

It's up for you to decide.

We have two lot lines. But they're coming.

The only other one I have is this solar-mounted wall field. That has to go before the ZBA, right? Okay. So they'll probably come. They've never even appeared for new business yet.

That was a condition. So no, it'd be, we'll probably hear what the status of that is, but we don't need that before we schedule it.

I think what we ought to do though, at that meeting with Brunswick Acres is maybe review the conditions of the last meeting.

There's a ton of them. They did satisfy some of them.

Yeah, there was like 27 of them.

Yeah, most of them are outdated. They'll need to be, you know, they did some preliminary estimates. A lot of them need to be updated. You did get two conditions approved by the town board, which is correct on that, but there's several others that are still outstanding. Yeah, they're going to be in that interview. Russ and I started getting into that.

All right. Is there any progress on Paramount? It's still pending. It's going to be a slow burn. So papers aren't even on our side going to the court until the first week of August. And I think Paramount has until, say, September to respond to those. And then we'll be with the court for a period of time before we get a decision. So obviously I'll keep you guys informed as things progress, but it's going to be quiet for the summer. I noticed that the non-air hook will land when we cut the hay off.

All right. Okay. With no other business, I'll make a motion to adjourn. Do I have a second? Second. All those in favor?