Planning Board - Regular Meeting

If everybody please rise for the pledge of

allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. Okay, tonight's agenda is as follows. This was posted on the town website and the town board. Uh number one is AT&T amendments to site plans and special use permits. Uh applicant seeks amendments to two previously approved site plan and special use permit applications concerning wireless communication facilities located at 226 Bald Mountain Road and 88 to 90 Pish Road public hearing to uh commence at 700 p.m. AT&T is the applicant number three or two I should say jumping ahead there. Sorry. Uh this is the Fiser minor subdivision. Applicant seeks minor subdivision approval to subdivide 82.17 acre parcel into three new lots on property located at 842 Tamarak Road. Rebecca Fiser is the applicant. The applicant has requested to be taken off the agenda tonight and placed on the agenda for May 7th. So, they will not be uh on our agenda tonight. Number three, Paramont Building Group major subdivision. Applicant proposes a major subdivision on 31.92 acre parcel

of land as well as construction of a new road with a culde-sac and a water line extension on property located at the northeast corner of Spring Avenue and Creek Road Paramont Building of New York is the applicant. And number four, Brunswick Acres Major Subdivision approval extension. Applicant seeks an extension on a previously approved major subdivision application on property located at New York State Route 2, Brunswick Road Development LLC is the applicant. Okay. As I previously stated, the number one agenda item, AT&T, is going to have a public hearing tonight. So, at this time, I will uh review the procedures for our public hearing. The public purpose of a public hearing is to hear concerns, comments, and views from the general public regarding a particular proposal or application. All public hearings are electronically recorded and a written record of the proceedings is generated. In most cases, this written record is included in 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 and subsequently the planning board will consider all concerns and comments when 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 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. Okay. The notice of public hearing will be now read by our planning board attorney. The following notice of public hearing was duly published in the town's official newspaper, posted to the town sign board, and posted to the town website in accordance with law as follows. 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, April 16th, 2026, at the Brunswick Town Hall, 336 Town Office Road, Brunswick, New York 12180, to review an application to modify two previously approved site plans and special use permits submitted by AT&T concerning two wireless communication facilities on property located at 227 Ball Mountain Road and 88 88 to 90 Halish 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. Okay. Uh the applicant, would you step forward and and give us a brief presentation and please uh name your remarks should be directed towards the audience. So

Okay. Uh my name is Brenda Blas Lewis. Um I'm with Centerline Communications. I'm filling in for Martha Grady. Um she was the one that submitted the application on behalf of AT&T. Um regarding the two projects, we'll start with 227 Bald Mountain Road. Um the scope of work consists of removing nine antennas, 18 radios in all the tower mount amplifiers and diplexers. And then they're going to install nine antennas and six radios. Um for the Cropsyville site, that's the AT&T site name. I don't want to butcher this the property address name. Pal palish. Palish.

Okay. Um for that the scope of work is removing three radios, three tower mount antennas, one surge artor, one coax cable and and then they will install three antennas, three radios, one surge arresttor, one power cable and two twoinch or one twoinch conduit. and that that the these proposed changes will not increase the height of the tower and they will not increase the the ground space that they're currently occupying. Okay. Right. And that's uh that's it.

That's it. Okay. Okay. At this time, I'll open up the floor to anyone who wishes to come up and make uh any comments or have any questions. And this is this is for both sites. reviewing both simultaneously. Anybody? Once again, is anybody here to make any comments at a public hearing for the AT&T wireless uh antenna facilities at uh Bald Mountain Road and Pellish Road? Anybody here? Okay, this is not unusual.

So, uh, at this time I will make a motion to close the public hearing. Second. There's a second. Is there any further discussion on the public hearing? Is there any requirement to uh need to extend it for a written comment period? Okay. Then then the motion stands as is. Uh, all those in favor? I. Any opposed? Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much. And you can stay there if you want because you're going to be first on our agenda. Oh, okay. Okay. I thought I was done. No, no, you're not done yet. Wal thinking. You got to uh basically approve the the amendments to the uh

Okay. Okay. First on our agenda is the AT&T amendments to the site plans and special use permits. Does anybody have any questions on those? We've done this before just as a review uh on both those antennas to be exact. Um so is there any questions for the applicant? If there is now will we do these uh simultaneously or separately? I'm sorry. Are we going to do I I would I would do each application for each address separately just so we have a standalone resolution for each site. Okay.

Okay. Then on the first application which is the Bald Mountain Road uh do we have on the Bald Mountain Road? That's a secret secret determination. Okay. Do I have a second? Second. Okay. Is there any further discussion on the secret determination? All those in favor of a negative declaration? Any opposed? Okay. Now, on the amendments to that particular site, do we're going to do the site plan and the special use permits together.

Correct. So, this is Any questions on the site plan? or the special use permit. Okay. Then I'll entertain a motion to pass the amendments. Approve the amendments for these motion. I have a second. Any further discussion on this is the bald mountain. Okay. All those in favor? I.

Any opposed? Now on the second site, uh, 88 90 Pelish Road. Uh, do I have a secret determination on that? I'll for a negative declaration, Mr. Seeker. Do I have a second? Second. Is there any further discussion on that? All those in favor? Any opposed? Okay. Now on the approval of the amendment for the site plan and the special use permit. Is there any further? Okay. Do I have a second?

Okay. Is there any further discussion on that? All those in favor? I. Any opposed? You're all set now. I'm done. Okay. Okay. Thank you so much. Appreciate it.

Okay. Thank you. Okay. Now, uh, I previously stated, number two on our agenda was Fiser Minor Subdivision. They have been asked to be placed on our next agenda on May 7th. Okay. Number three on our agenda is the Paramont Building Group Major Subdivision. Thank you. No, it's a different Evening board uh project uh attorney and uh Matt Bond from part engineering project engineer.

Okay. Um, we received your re well there was a response to the proposed approval resolution with conditions. We received this on the 14th which was I believe Tuesday. Uh, would you like to go through that briefly with us? Sure. Um, you know, first I'd like to thank the planning board for the opportunity to provide the comment. Um, we're happy to go through each of those comments with the board. Uh, we also understand obviously the board is under a deadline to render a decision. Um, so we can go through the comments and see if there's any changes the planning board would uh consider in the approval resolution.

Okay.

Can I jump in before you start real quick? Yeah. Just to bring everybody up to speed, uh, planning board held a public hearing on this application, I think on February 5th and then closed that public hearing. That started a 45day clock for the board to act on the application. That's in the subdivision regulations. That initial 45day period was previously extended with the consent of the applicant to tonight, April 16, 2026. Uh so unless the applicant agreed to extend that deadline tonight, the board is required to act on the application and if it were to fail to act, the application would be deemed to be approved without any conditions. Okay. In anticipation of the board taking action tonight, I have prepared a resolution which has been previously circulated to all of you and I believe there's a copy in front of you tonight. The resolution is drafted to grant conditional final subdivision approval for the application. The resolution of conditional approval contains 27 separate conditions attached to the approval. Uh a couple weeks ago, um I shared a draft of that resolution and the conditions with the applicant's attorney to invite any feedback that the applicant might want to submit for board consideration. That is the letter that the chair was referring to having been received this Tuesday, uh, April 14th. Okay. Um, of the 27 conditions by my count, I think

I c I counted 13 of no objection or no comment. So just a so here here's what I had. The applicant obviously went through each one of them in their letter. On some of them they offered comment. On others they indicated no comment. Of the 27 conditions by my count 14 there was no comment offered. Okay. So that leaves 13 different conditions where the applicant had some input something to say that they would like the board to consider. And I think Mr. Did I not do that right? The numbers are all right. There is a population of conditions where no comment was issued.

The exact number of which is in dispute. Um and I think what Mr. Wayne intends to do now is to highlight some or all of the conditions where the applicant did have a comment. When he's done with that, we can have a conversation about what the board's next steps are tonight. Okay. about getting comments. I can't see you. Can't see me on the internet. Where's the move? I didn't know where the camera was. Probably see the top of your shoulder. Oh, okay. Um, thank you.

Sure. Uh, so uh like Mr. Langwa said, the comments generally fall into three categories. So there were conditions that we objected to, uh conditions that we were proposed some language change or just some clarification if the planning board um would consider it. Um and then those for which uh we didn't provide a comment on um you know conditioned on the them being included in otherwise lawfully uh issued permit. So I can start with those that we had an objection to. Um those include uh conditions number one and two. Um, condition number one, the real issue there is, you know, without a statutory obligation for the department to provide what the planning board's asking them to provide, it's really unfair to put that obligation on the applicant um to seek something the department doesn't have an obligation to to provide. um two condition two um I think was focusing on limiting the uses of the property to their current uses. Um we didn't really see a purpose in doing so. I mean the the property is is currently zoned is AR40. Um right

A40 A it's currently zoned agriculture

um and we would have to seek or anybody would have to seek a variance to deviate from that. So you know I I didn't see a reason why that would have to be in our subdivision approval. Um we would have to come back to the town board. Um you know what districts provide what uses and the variances there from is really in the purview of the town board and the zoning board of appeals. Condition number seven requires the applicant to self-report to the planning board um truck traffic numbers and excavation volume numbers. Um we simply object to this just as the you know we're not aware of any other project in the town of Brunswick that's had to do this. Uh the record is clear that there are no traffic impacts. Um, we've estimated the amount of material that's been that's going to need to be excavated here. The town has reviewed the excavation plan, has reviewed the grading plan. Um, so we just don't see a reason why we would put this burden on the applicant to collect these numbers.

So, you just want to tell us what you're doing. Is that the idea? Well, we just don't understand why we would be required to collect all of this information. To what end? May maybe we can just let him get through his comments and then if the board has questions or wants to engage in a dialogue as opposed to

Y um the county truck permits I believe condition number 12 requires the applicant to apply and receive from county overweight vehicle permits. Um, so on this project, the applicant's not doing any of the work. It would be the contractors or the contractors would be applying to Rener County Department of Highway Department to get their overweight permits and I understand they would be, you know, providing them the information getting those permits. Um, so that that condition isn't applicable to the applicant. Um, condition 13, uh, requires a reclamation bond. The, you know, we reviewed the the town law and, you know, the permissible authority of the town of or the planning board. Um, we just do not see any authority for or any precedent for the town for the planning board to require a reclamation permit um, you know, for a project. That's that's that's that's not a mine. Um I don't even know if we'd be able to obtain one. Um so we object to that. Um condition 15 requires the applicant to pay or escrow an amount to play a full-time inspector. Um I mean that's just simply not allowed. The planning board can't require an applicant to escrow funds to pay the salary of someone to inspect and enforce the property. Um, and it would be seemingly unfair unless there's a precedent in the town that this has happened in the past.

Condition 27. Did you want to comment on 14? Sorry. Do you want to comment on condition 14? I think 14 was 14 was fine. That's the bond for constructing the infrastructure, the utilities. You had a revision.

We just had a a small revision that it would we would put in financial assurance pursuant to town loss. Town law provides that you can post financial assurance either an assurity bond or letter of credit or escrow it. We just wanted to make sure that we weren't creating a new obligation on them on the applicant that we just referenced the town law that requires it. Just to be clear, um the last one was condition 27. Sorry, could we go back to Are you um finished with You're finished with 15. Uh no, you could go ahead. Sorry.

Probably easier for you to just ask ask the questions now than for me to trail on with 10 other conditions. I just wanted to make sure you were done with 15. your explanation of 50. Yes. Okay. Thank you. And then I was moving on to condition 27 which is the last condition. Um or also not aware of any requirement that the applicant obtain or use work waterworks materials that are manufactured in in North America. When we apply for a sewer extension, the map plan and report and specifications and everything will be approved by the town board. Um, I don't see any reasoning why equipment where it's manufactured makes any difference.

So, you're not in favor of buying America. Is that what you're saying?

Yeah, I'm not responding to that comment. Um, that completes the list of conditions that we objected to. Um then there's only four conditions that we had comments on. Um condition six requires uh the applicant shall faithfully implement all impact mitigation measures identified in the SWIP the excavation plan and the applicant's response to comments. um a condition like this raises compliance and enforcement concerns because it's it's not really clear what faithfully comply means or what a impact mitigation measure is. Um so what we suggested was um the applicant shall comply with the SWIP and the excavation plan submitted to and approved by the town planning board. The one thing that that cuts out too is I think the proposed condition talks about we would be in compliance with our response to comments. Our response to comments was just us reciting the SWIP and the excavation plan. So I don't think there was anything in the response to comments that sat outside those two. Um so it doesn't matter if we reference the letter because it's redundant. Well, I mean, it's redundant and

I'm not putting you on the spot. I was just fra

our position is that we feel it's redundant is what I was to say. Um, condition eight, um, we request that instead of the phrase state and federal holidays that we would just enumerate what those holidays are so that there's no question moving forward as to the permitted days of operation and excavation. Um, condition 10, our only request would be that because Creek Road and Spring Avenue or county roads that anything requiring traffic control measures would be just be at the direction of the county. So, if the county wants us to put in something, we would just we would just do it. Um, rather than describing what the control measures in here are, I don't know if the county is going to be okay with these or if they're going to come up with other measures and now we're stuck between trying to satisfy the town and the county on a county road. We'd rather just do what the county tells us to do and comply with that. Um, and then finally, conditions.

I have a question on that. That would that be a condition more directed at the contractor? Well, I guess if it was in the permit, if it was in the approval as a condition, it would be a condition on the applicant. So then we would have to I would interpret that as we would have to ensure we would have an obligation under the approval to ensure that the contractors were using the appropriate traffic. Okay. And you're okay with that? Yes. Okay. Was that the last one?

Uh 14 was uh Mr. Tarbox brought up before. We just um it suggested a bond security agreement bond. Um the town law obviously requires that. It happens all the time. Rather, the language say submission of financial insur assurance uh pursuant to 277. Town law offers a couple of other options besides a shity bond. You can escrow the amount. You can do a letter of credit. Um it just gives the applicant more flexibility with um getting this stuff secured. Uh that's it. Happy to answer any questions anybody has. U number seven to uh following paperwork regarding the number of trucks.

Correct. You have a two-year window to do this. How is the town to gauge the progress of the project within that two-year window unless we have some reporting of of your progress. But how would truck traffic numbers indicate progress? 420 some odd thousand cubic yards. Sure.

The truck traffic is the only way you're getting it out of there and there's x amount of yards that go in a truck. So the town would be able to say, "Yes, you're on schedule if you can maintain this pace or you're falling way behind and this isn't going to happen in two years." And now we have a whole different cat of fish where you're exceeding the limit of the number of trucks trips that would constitute a different assessment.

So and and I think to your point, you know, the the NEG deck that the the board issued was based on reliance on the excavation plan that was submitted, the traffic impact story that was submitted and that assumed a certain level of things. So, you know, there's a concern if you're falling behind, right? You said you were going to have this done, and I don't quote me, a year, year and a half. If six months out, you're only 5% of the way through, it raises a question of how you're going to be able to get it done within the excavation plan. The opposite is also true. And I can't remember what the truck count per day was. is I know we had a per hour per day, but if let's say that number was 80 trucks, I'm making it up. And it turns out that you're really running 150 trucks, that would be an issue, too, because that's outside of the parameters of what the board relied on and deciding there'd be no impact. So part of the goal of that condition was just to allow the building department to keep track of compliance with truck counts and progress toward excavation to make sure that we're sticking with the excavation plan and the traffic impact study. We had talked as a group earlier about an environmental monitor. This was really in lie of that. Okay. So instead of us having somebody on site counting trucks, this allows the applicant and its contractors to do that, but to provide a report on a monthly basis to the town. So that whether you like it or don't like it, that was the purpose of that condition. Thank you.

You have 16 trucks per hour. Is that leaving the site? Um, I can I can check on that. And do you know which um one year or the two year condition seven? Yeah. Is that the two project will result in about 16 trucks per hour is a given on a given workday. Is that leaving the site? Sorry, sir. Where were you reading that from? the stuff you comments. Oh, yes. Yep.

That would be both ways. Yes. Yeah. So that's total number of trips. So that's that would be eight entering and eight leaving. Okay, that's what I wanted to be paral

just as a side comment. I'm sure that we are not going to be alone counting trucks. I'm sure there's residents going to be out there counting trucks, too. So this is If we can, you know, establish some type of reporting, I think we can address the resident's comments on, well, we think there's too much traffic going on here right now. And I I I think it would be to your advantage to be able to report this information, but that's just a a side comment.

Thank you. I also felt that in your or maybe you want to respond. I'll let you respond. No, I didn't have any. Um, go ahead. I I believe in your response or your explanation of comment seven was also that the applicant didn't have the authority to tell the contractor what to do. Was that where you made that comment? That was under item 12, right? That was item 12. Yeah. 12. Yeah. Brie said that it should be on the truck for the Yes. for the for the overweight vehicle permits. Overweight permit. Yeah. Gota. Okay. Thank you.

But you also mentioned that I think it was for item 11. The applicant would ensure that would happen, right? Uh item 11 is the marshalling parking, right? And that's up to who? Well, as it's you said that would be on the applicant. Well, as it's drafted, it would be. Yeah. But would it also be on the to ensure that the trucking company that they hire has the specific permits that are promised? That's what I'm saying. It's kind of a little contradictory with item 12. Well, it says I

my objection was that sorry it wasn't um it was more that the language says applicant will apply for and obtain and but we wouldn't be applying for it if the condition said you know shall ensure that the trucking companies or contractors have their permits or require shel different. It was just that it said that we will apply for and obtain and I was just making it clear we don't own any trucks that will be hauling material so we can't apply for but you will be responsible to see if they have permits

if that's a condition of the per of the of the subdivision application. the condition could be rewritten to indicate that the applicants shall ensure or or I think I'm guessing but I think the objection would be satisfied if it simply said all trucks shall obtain and you know so the difference between 10 and 12 is 12 is specific to the applicant 10 is not. So, if that was just phrased as all trucks shall be required to obtain any necessary permits, that would probably, I think, satisfy the objection. Thank you.

Not to speak for the applicant, but that's my sense of what that concern is.

Got a question back on on on condition one you said on number one. Yep. Um so if I sell more than 750 yards of gravel off my property, I have to go see DEEC or DEC will come see me. If you sell more than 750 yards off of your property, does DEEC come to you?

So, I think what the applicant would probably clarify is it depends. And are you excavating in connection with a construction project? Because the applicant's view would be if that's what you're doing, that's not considered mining and therefore correct, we would not go to DEEC. If it was not in connection with the construction project and it fell within the mining thresholds, then yes, DEEC might come to visit you, right? And I my personal experience is completely irrelevant to the planning board, but yes, is a sub.

I'm just trying to figure out at what point somebody's going to come knocking on the door when there's as much activity as you're um lost my train of thought for a second there. Um I was under the in understanding and not which is I get told I'm I got the wrong idea. um the DEC would not look at this until final approval was granted and that that was when they they don't want to be chasing around projects that are never going to get done.

That's that's also my that's our shared understanding. That's my understanding. So you're probably not done with DEC. I would think that the now if this gets approved BC is gonna come look at you. Is that a fair assumption? I wouldn't be able I I have no idea. You have any idea, Chris, or

I mean I can't speculate as to what might happen tomorrow. Um you'll the board will remember that this issue of mining or not mining came up in February when the town received the letter from DEEC, the regional director, indicating that DEEC was going to be looking into this project and presumably reviewing to determine whether or not it is or is not subject to mining permit jurisdiction. Um I have not heard that that DEEC process has been closed out. Um so what DEEC ultimately will do or ultimately may require is to be seen. The reason why this condition was written as such is because we don't know what's going to happen tomorrow. All right. What we don't want is to approve a subdivision that DEEC decides later is a mine subject to different permitting requirements and hurdles. So the way this condition is written is the project will not be able to go forward in terms of groundbreaking until one of two things happens. either we receive written confirmation from DEEC that they are not asserting article 23 Meland reclamation jurisdiction over this project at this time or um we receive confirmation that the applicant has applied for and obtained a mining permit which then segus into condition number two. Okay. um which is well what if DEEC does decide that this is a mine and does require a permit and they do get a permit. The issue there is mining is not a permitted use in the A40 zoning

district. So the point of condition number two was to emphasize that should the planning board adopt this conditional approval, it's not an approval to engage in any use, which is not either permitted under the zoning district, the A40, or as might be permitted if the zoning board of appeals were to grant a variance, right? Because that could happen. Uh and certainly what we're not saying is that we're giving permission to engage in mining activity. That's what that is. Because again, the concern is you don't want somebody to look back and go, "Well, you approve this, you approve the excavation, it's allowed." We're not saying it is. Uh what we know, again, the the allowed use is residential. That's what we are approving with the subdivision. If it turns out later on that it's determined that this is essentially mining, then there's going to be a use issue that we're going to have to deal. So that's a very good segue to explain conditions one and two and why they're there.

I'd like I'd like to add something to that. And just to reinforce it, in February we were approached by DEEC and we had a a a large meeting like a Zoom meeting. Um and uh they were concerned about uh this project and they wanted to go through all the particulars of how we got to where we were with them. And there was discussion with our engineer there representatives that did a site visit back in the summer before June June. June

June and u that is why they indicated to us in terms that they were going to look at this and let us know what their comment was going to be on it. So that's why one of the reasons why I think that this has to stay in here. We haven't heard anything. Have you heard anything from DEC?

So just to your point, um the DEC indicating that it was going to take any further action is inconsistent with what we understand. Um when we were at the site visit, I think DEC was fairly clear that they don't issue construction exemptions um and that they would not. So that's what that's the understanding that we're operating under. Okay. Does anybody have any other questions on one or two or anything else or anything else for that matter?

Uh, I got one. So, you're not against bonding or some kind of financial security for the excavation and the infrastructure. So there so there's two I'll just talk about those separately. is two separate issues. The infrastructure is that's completely fine. Um that's authorized under town law. Um there's no authority to require a subdivision developer to post a reclamation bond. Okay. I'll tell you a little history in the town of Brunswick. In the 70s, a developer came in and still did exactly what you proposed to do.

Probably not exactly. Okay. Within He went in Sure.

and removed the gravel to the property line. He had a $20,000 bond and left. They cashed the bond and they didn't have enough money to fix the project and he had taken so much gravel out they had to buy adjoining properties to grade them off so they were safe. So the town took a real beating from a previous developer who's doing similar to what you're proposing. So I think a reclamation bond is well within especially when a project as big existence

and it wasn't two miles from where you are. Any other questions or any other uh comments on the uh the proposal? Whereas board the estimated 400,000 yards of material. And we have there item seven 425,000 estimate that the same.

So I see where you're looking on page three that first full whereas clause where it does say 400,000 cubic yards. What's the second reference you're looking at

on the attorney letter? Yeah item seven. So just for everybody's edification, we haven't talked about the front half of this very long resolution which I put together. When I put that together, it was based on the meeting minutes of all the meetings you've held on this and the numbers have changed over the course of the meetings. I can tell you that at that meeting on May 1st, the number that was being used was 400,000. I I believe that's since been updated. So now the operating number is I think 425. So you're right. They're not the same number, but that was the number as of May 2025.

Actually, it says cubic yards in one spot. Tons should be consistent. All right. Well, yeah, that that should be changed. Where's that? That's in the letter. Oh, well, I'm not changing that then. It's not mine.

Item seven. Yes. under comments is second paragraph from the bottom. So yeah, in and amongst our I think we can agree to read that as if it says cubic yards. What what if they exceed uh any objections or any sort of factual inconsistencies? We would just uh amongst the whereas clauses um that's inconsistent with the record. Um then we would just overall object to any of that. Um

nothing in particular that you're prepared to point to. I mean, we can go through each paragraph of the warehouse clause. Um, that number just stuck out to me. I saw the difference depending on the charact. What happens if you exceed 420 yard 420,000 yards? They are pushing 500,000 yards. Based on our calculations and the grading plan, excavation plan, it should be about 420,000 yards. So when you hit 420, yeah, we don't anticipate

what's that? Yeah. Yeah. generally. So with the analysis that was performed from existing uh contours versus proposed contours, that's that's the estimate that that would determine was 425,000. Okay, that wasn't the question. And I assume that would be information the contractor would give you say, okay, we've we've now taken 20,000 truckloads out of here. This is the extent of our contract, right? Because we'd be paying for that. Okay? So say say you were short by 75,000 yards. Would you come back with a new grading plan and add bills in there?

Well, and redistribute it on the property. Well, the grading plan would it change? Um, oh, if is is the question if during the week it because you reached your max, okay, was mentioned and you had say another 75,000 that you thought had to be removed and didn't want to pay to remove it or whatever. Would you redistribute on the property plan? Yeah. I don't I don't think I understand the question. Reach what max? So I contract,000 yards. Yeah,

if that is your estimated max. But then you come to find out that we need to estimate another 300 feet of property and it's going to need another 75,000 to be removed. Well, total 500,000. Well, any changes to the site plan we would have to come back or changes to the I think that's the question that they're asking. It's an estimate. So, right, where's the number? Well, that that's that's is what it is. It's an estimate. So, so maybe the better question is or at least a different way to phrase the question is we're all using this 425,000 cubic yards. We get it. It's an estimate. Yeah.

Let's say that in the field you get there and you realize at some point, well, it's really 450,000. What happens at that point? Do you just keep going to the 450? Do you I think the suggestion was, well, we're not going to take it off site, but we'll redistribute it somehow on the property. That's what I think they're curious about. If you hit that magic number and you still have more to do, what happens? How does that work with the site, with the excavation contractors, with this board's approvals? I I don't know. I don't have an answer. I can perfectly acceptable. Well, yeah, that answer.

I understand. I understand what you're asking. I use it all the time, but

I'd like to talk about number 27. Sure.

I don't know what your objection is. Uh just simply that the planning board doesn't have authority to require applicants to purchase equipment for construction projects that are of a certain origin. It's simple as that. And this isn't like a public works project. Why would we limit the equipment if there's good equipment out there that's going to meet the specifications map plan and report? They're just going to buy that equipment like every other project in the town. Why would this project be any different? Can I can I interject on that? Um, they still have to go submit a map plan and report for the water line and water district extension. The town has certain requirements as far as what can be used fores and the in the water line. Um and those conditions would be placed on the review of the map plan report which is submitted to the town board and approved by the uh director of utilities.

So are you employ it's really not the planning board's um authority to make that distinction. And that would come when they approved the uh the MAT plan and report. Correct. So are you implying that 27 could be eliminated? Yes. I mean I I I I understand what you're saying and I also understand and we've never included that on any Yeah, we've never included that before requiring it. That would be a precedent. Okay. Yeah,

I I wouldn't be opposed to deleting that under those circumstances. They have to comply with the requirements of Yeah. of the state. Yeah. I mean, they require certain you have to put the right valves in. You have to put the right Yeah. hydrants. It's mule or whatever the manufacturer is. Whatever the rest of the town has, that's what you have to put in because they have to keep all the materials the same. Okay. Anybody have any other comments on 27? Any So, can we amend the comment the condition?

So, we're getting into the Let's talk about process. Okay. So, as I mentioned, the board needs to act tonight. The board has I think three options. maybe more but these are the three I can think of. Okay. Option number one is to adopt the resolution as drafted without any changes. Okay. That's an option. Option number two is to go through the resolution and decide what changes if any you would like to make and then adopt that version of the resolution. and a conformed copy would then be prepared and become part of the official minutes. Okay. So, for example, with the example of striking 27, the board could certainly as a group decide to strike that from the final resolution. When the final version of the resolution is adopted and presented, it would not have item 27. Okay. The third option would be potentially to adopt the resolution as drafted without any changes, but the board would always have the ability at a future meeting to adopt an amendment to the resolution. Okay? So again, it's entirely up to you how you wish to proceed. If they are relatively modest amendments to the resolution, take out 27, change the one about overweight vehicle permits to say all trucks instead of applicant. Those are relatively simple. We could probably do that if they're more substantive. So, for example, there was questions raised about bond security obligations. All right. I would probably myself want to take a look at that before I advise the board

one way or the other and I probably would not be comfortable words smithing that tonight as a group. So I will leave it entirely up to you in terms of a process. I think Mr. Ruain has highlighted the conditions as to which an objection was raised or a comment was raised. The board could walk through each one of them and decide, do we want to change anything? Nope. You want to change anything? Yep. Let's change it to say trucks instead of applicant, for example. And then once you've worked your way through, you would potentially have a resolution that a member could offer on motion and take a vote. But it's entirely up to you. And just to backtrack a little here, there's also the option where the applicant can extend the timeline for 30 days. Is that correct? Or 90 days or our next meeting so we have a adequate time to review this. Is that something that you would entertain or do not wish to enter?

Uh we'd rather the board or collectively do this. We're here tonight. We'd rather do it tonight. Um have the board render a decision. So, so you're not going to grant an extension? That's a hard no.

That's correct. That's a hard no. Yeah. All right. Okay. Then, uh I would be uh interested in moving forward with making some of these little superficial changes like possibly striking, you know, condition 27, some of the wording that we discussed. Again, just for organizational purposes, why don't we just go through each of the ones that Mr. Ruain highlighted, the board can indicate whether or not it's willing to make any changes and if so, what those changes are. There's only so many of them. Um, and that way we can just work through instead of jumping around out of order. Let's just work through it.

I agree. There was there was only four. Well, so for example, number one, okay, the applicant has raised an objection to that one. Oh, right. I was just saying the ones that we just uh proposed alternate language was only for. That's what I meant. Okay. Um I'm sorry. What? I didn't hear what you said. There's only a handful of conditions where the applicant was proposing alternative language. Correct. As opposed to raising a wholesale objection. Correct. That's exactly

is what he was saying. So, why don't we just go down real quick each of the ones he's mentioned tonight? Um, and the board can indicate its pleasure of either it stays as it is or let's talk about changing language or whatever. Is that a reasonable process? Reasonable. Yes. Okay. Um, so we're just going to go right in order. I'm going to go highlight the ones that were raised tonight. Okay. So the first one is condition number one. I say remain as is. Anybody think otherwise?

Okay, moving on. Condition number two. Anybody inclined to either strike it or modify it? Once again I will say as is

condition number six. This was the condition about the applicant complying with and faithfully implementing all impact mitigation measures in the SWIP the excavation plan in the applicant's response to comments. Is any member inclined to change any of the wording on that? Don't I don't understand your response to number six where it's you said vague. I'm not getting vague from what it says. Seems pretty clear. Is that the one you wanted the contractor shell versus the applicant? No, I just we objected to it as vague um because the use of the language faithfully implement and impact mitigation measures. We just didn't

there's just no definition of what an impact mitigation measures is. Is it just comply with the SWIP and the excavation plan or are there certain particular parts of the SWIP and the excavation plan that are have to be complied with and others that are not? So that's why just for enforcement clarity or compliance clarity, we just said why don't we just comply with the SWIP and the excavation plan. I think if it says if it complies with the SWIP and excavation plan, then that covers it. Okay. Aren't these aren't these covered in the storm water pollution? What? Where are you? If if he's complying with the SWIP, then

he's complying with the SWIP. And there's no language in the SWIP that says faith faithfully implemented. We can take that out. It's just it's just the wording.

Comply with just comply with the SWIP and excavation plan, which are documents. Obviously, we're required to have the SWIP on site, the excavation plan. We can also, it's a document we can easily reference with contractors and we can refer to it. Also, then bringing our response to comments out to the site seems redundant and to to us it seems unreasonable. Um, so we suggested just applicant shall comply with the SWIP and the excavation plan

or should it be all impact mitigation measures identified? Well, if you're complying with the SWIP, you're implying that you're complying with any mitigation measures that Yeah, I didn't remember if there were any other mitigation measures. Well, there were some in the excavation plan. I'm okay with striking those words.

So, I'm just going to I'm trying to mark this up as we go so that we'll remember these things. I'm understanding that the board is prepared to modify condition six to provide that applicant shall comply with the SWIP and the excavation plan as approved by the plan as approved by the planning board. Do we want to put that in there? I mean that's what we suggested. Well, that all kind of comes with the whole approval thing.

Okay. So, I mean there's the problem is there's other things this that we have to do with the SWIP even after this notice of intent has to be filed. There's other work to be done. So, we're not really approving it. The SWIP the filed filed SWIP. The SWIP is the SWIP. Yeah. Right. The excavation plan is the excavation plan. So the proposal is to modify condition six to read, the applicant shall comply with the SWIP and the excavation plan. Period. Period. I agree.

Is there support for that? Yes. Okay. Uh that brings us to number seven, which was the monthly reporting of excavation activities and truck numbers. Is there any board inclination to modify that condition?

They would think the contractor coming in and going paying somebody to do something. Does any member wish to uh consider a modification to condition seven? Well, if you remember Hansen, there's a lot of discussion about whether they were going to be going over in particular the number of loads the contractor was doing, not the applicant, but the the contractor was maybe instead of, you know, eight trucks an hour, he was increasing to 1215 or something like that, which uh was contrary to the excavation plan of what they were proposing. also if they're in two weeks, a month into it, let you know if they're behind schedule or ahead of schedule or on schedule.

The other problem I have is the planning board is expecting my office to monitor the quantity or the volume. How am I to do that? So, the only question if nobody is inclined to entertain a change to that as written, that's fine. That's your prerogative. I'm just trying to figure out where the board's head is. Are you okay with that condition as written or do you want to talk about changing anything?

Well, as I said before, uh how are we to keep track of their progress? So whether they're ahead of schedule or behind to Kevin's point, I don't have an answer. So you're not inclined personally to change that link in Is anybody inclined?

We're not holding them to eight trips an hour. They may have good days where they do 12 or 15 where they got a bunch of trucks. They may have a bad day where they do four, but um weather dependent, etc., etc., etc. And I I travel quick road and spring three or four times a week. And in the morning and in the evening, there's a lot of traffic out there. People coming and going to work. In the middle of the day, there's probably

less, you know, you might get a few more trucks in because there's less, you know, commuter traffic. Your contractor is going to be able to supply you with that number because that's how he's going to generate bill. So, I don't see that it's an extra load on your part on your part. All we want is done over.

So is is any planning board member inclined to change condition seven? Hearing none, we'll move on to condition eight. I believe the applicant's only change and Mr. Mr. Rain will correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the only change they were proposing was instead of the clause at the end that says or on any national state national or state holidays, in other words, no work on state or national holidays. They suggested specifying specifically the day the holidays on which no work would be performed. And they listed New Year's Day, Martin Luther King Day, President's Day, Memorial Day, Junth, Independence Day, Labor Day, Columbus Day, Veterans Day, Thanksgiving, and Christmas,

which I believe are all the federal bank holidays. just allows us more. It's just easier for us to monitor the days we're not supposed to be working with contracts and stuff. We can just tell them what days they're not to be working. I don't have a problem with with with specifying those holidays. What about the other board members? Anybody have any other comments on that? What about St. Patrick's Day?

Well, and that I think is exactly applicant's concern, right? If you're not specific, you could have somebody saying, "Well, I consider Patrick St. Patrick's Day a holiday. Why do I see trucks?" And now we were arguing about Yeah. And what may seem trivial now, it's not trivial when you get a notice of violation and you thought you were in compliance. Yeah. All right. So the planning board is agreeing to change condition 8 at the end to remove the language or on any national or state holidays to include the specific list of holidays suggested by the applicant. Okay.

Is there anything in that we should put in? I mean may maybe the contractor says we we don't go on these particular days and they are not listed on that. Well, that's something that we have to be additional days we're not operating. Okay. So, at the very least, they will not be working on those days. If there's additional days that for whatever reason they're not working, that's up to them with the contractor. Okay. Should it be cons? Right now, it reads excavation activity. Should it read construction activity?

So, that that's an interesting point. Okay. I believe I should know because I wrote it, but I believe the condition was drafted with the excavation phase in mind as opposed to the building of the residential homes as part of what I'll call the post excavation subdivision phase of the project. I hadn't considered whether or not we wanted work limitations on similar work limitations for the for the building. So that could be modifi it could stay as is which is right now you're right specifically excavation activity but that could be modified to excavation andor construction activity.

Don't we uh like uh like at site plans and so forth and so on uh have hours of construction hours. We do and and we do typically not allow uh work on the site during holidays. What about the uh the hours 7 a.m. to 5:00 p p.m. Monday through Friday and then 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p p.m. on Saturdays. Um that clearly by this condition would apply to the excavation. Would you have anything different for the construction portion? Is that specified in the EAF? I can't remember.

Um I think it was just I actually have the EAF. I mean some of that you might be working internally to to a new home, right? You might be sanding, taping, things of that nature. That's not really it wouldn't apply. I'm just speaking from from my office. It wouldn't apply to interior work inside the building. Exterior work. I'm in favor of construction, exterior construction and excavation as clarification. I

mean, there's going to be times when they're building out the infrastructure. You're going to have trucks in and out. You're going to have equipment operating, build the road, put the water line in. So I think it should be included. So I'm going to suggest that we change that beginning of condition 8 to say excavation and construction activity. I don't think anybody would consider interior sanding to be construction activity. Uh but that would cover infrastructure and non-exavation related work that you're doing on the site. you' be subject to the same hour, same holiday limitation. I'm not saying

you have an issue with that. Would there I mean do you know um waterline connection would that require an overnight work? Uh it could. Okay. I think that's one of the just one main ones that pops in my head. So we can add a without prior approval of the building department some unless otherwise approved by I guess the building department would be the Okay. And that construction activity should be added to the last line of that number eight. Yes.

I'm sorry. I didn't hear what you said. Construction activity should be added to the last line. Yes. Of condition number eight. Yes.

All right. So condition 8 will now read, "Excavation and construction activity shall be limited to between the hours of 7 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p. p.m. on Saturdays. No excavation or construction activity shall be undertaken on Sundays or on New Year's Day, MLK. The whole list that we just went over unless otherwise approved by the building department. Is everybody okay with that? Fine. All right. We're getting we're getting through it.

Okay. believe it or not. Uh the next one I had was number 10 which is about the truck traffic. Um, as I recall, the primary issue was toward the end where it talked about hazard mitigation, and I think the applicant's suggestion was that that's really up to the highway, the county highway department, and we will certainly do whatever they tell us to do, but we shouldn't specify in this condition things like construction signs, cones, and barrels, and use of flaggers. I have a couple of comments here. Um, you seem to uh have an objection to us specifying the trucks traveling south on Creek Road to Spring Avenue. Our concern on Creek Road is a safety concern. That road is narrow, windy, hilly. Uh it's tough enough driving it in a car with a 40tonon triaxual trailer. I I just it's a recipe for disaster in my estimation. Now, I don't know where you're going with this, Phil, but I think a reasonable safety mounted minded person would agree that the only logical route, these trucks, is south on Creek

Road to Spring Avenue. Now, which way you go on Spring Avenue, that's out of my hands. Well, just understand that right now it says nor west on Spring Avenue. I'm sorry. So, the condition currently, right, has two parts to it, right? No south on Creek Road. I'm sorry. Only south on Creek Road and only east on Spring Avenue extension, not north on Creek Road, and not west on Spring Avenue. Okay.

Okay. So now my second point is these trucks are probably 40 tons. When they pull out on the Spring Avenue, it's going to take them a quarter of a mile anyway to get up to reasonable speed because they weigh so much. Meanwhile, traffic's coming down Spring Avenue in both directions doing at least 40 miles an hour. Again, I think a reasonable safe approach is to have adequate signage, possibly flaggers. Um, I mean I, you know, I just, uh, I I I would like condition 10. I can tell you this, the county isn't going to show up and give you flaggers and pylons and signs and all that. That's going to be on you or the contractors, whoever you decide. Um, so I think that condition right where it is. I agree.

Does anybody think differently? Okay. Uh, number 12. I think the issue here was the specification of the applicant as being the party who needed to apply for and receive permits from the county for overweight trucks. I think in our prior conversation there was a suggestion to change that to simply say all trucks shall receive from Reno County any required overweight vehicle permits. I thought we were going to word it where it was the contractor's responsibility.

Yeah, my recollection was I may have suggested I thought somebody suggested applicants shall require contractors to have all Yeah. required permits. I'm okay with that. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. So, I already forgot what you said. applicant shall require all contractors to apply for and receive from county etc. Yes. Does that have support of the board? Yes.

Very good. Uh all right. 13 and 14 were specific to um financial security. Okay. 13 was about financial security for reclamation which the applicant expressed objection to in concept not necessarily the wording but the concept. Uh 14 was about financial security for the completion of the public infrastructure, water, storm water, road improvements. Applicant did not have, as I recall, a conceptual issue with that, but did not like the specification of a bond security agreement. Um I would suggest that for tonight it be left as is. If the board is inclined to look at that language, I would want to do a little research before we we start changing things, the board could always come back and adopt an amended resolution that changes the language of one or both of those conditions, but I would not be comfortable changing the language at tonight's meeting. I mean, again, that's just me. you can do whatever you want, but that that's my my thought.

No, I I I think uh that's should require a little bit more research into this. And I don't read the word ex reclamation anywhere in 13 as it's written. Correct. So, we didn't use the phrase reclamation, but the cost of restoring the parcels in the event that they start fail to complete excavation, the concept there is reclamation.

Okay. Uh which brings us to number 15. This was the requiring the applicant to fund an escro account um to cover full-time inspection of all construction related to water main installation, storm water and roadways. Again, I I believe the issue here was not necessarily language but concept. Correct. That's correct. Yeah. Yeah, that's correct. So, I'm not sure there's any word changing that would be appropriate for that. So, the choice would be either to strike it or to leave it as is.

You get to leave it. Well, during the the process, we the building department does visit the site when there's uh different issues being addressed at a particular time. Is that correct? Uh we do require a security bond or something equal to it for all infrastructure that's going to be turned over to the town. So the project goes belly up town can finish the infrastructure. Yeah, I understand that. But we're talking about to cover a full-time inspection. We also we also do that as well. It's not uncommon for us to require that. This this board has this board has required that on other projects.

Okay. We do it, not the town board. Correct. Leave that,

which brings us that is with with possible research, a little bit more research into it. I mean, you can always leave that door slightly a jar, but based on what what Kevin's suggesting in terms of how this board has traditionally done that, what the building department has historically required, you know, um I'll be happy to look at anything that you asked me to, but um you know, again, I think it's either I'm not getting the sense that any of the board members want to take that out at this moment.

Okay, that's fine. Which brings us to I think the last condition that was discussed is number 27. That was the um made manufactured in North America requirement. We've had that discussion. I think there was a consensus to strike that condition entirely. Yes, I believe you're right. Is that correct? Everybody have on board with that? Okay. So with those edits as just reviewed and discussed with the members, we would have our modified resolution granting conditional final approval.

Yes. And just to be clear, there there could be changes to the resolution, amendments to the resolution. So, as as things move along here,

well, you you need a final document. Okay. And when I suggested you could come back and amend, that was really assuming you didn't do what we just did, which is kind of go through it condition by condition, make changes tonight. Um, we've left the door open, I think, on only one item, two conditions, but the same concept, which is the bond security agreement, the forms. I'd be happy to take a look at that. If I decide that there should be a language change, I can come back next meeting with a proposed amended resolution that you could adopt. But this is not going to be a living document that we're going to continue to play with. Okay.

Largely after tonight. All right. Okay, then. Uh I'm not going to ask you to review all those, but uh I think everybody has a feel for what has been changed, what has been deleted, and so forth and so on. So I would entertain a motion to um to adopt the resolution as modified. As modified. That would be the motion. That would be the motion. I'll make a motion. Second. Okay. Okay. Is there any further discussion on this motion? All those in favor? Shouldn't it be a roll call?

Oh, that's right. There's a roll call. There is a roll call. We'll do a roll call. Do you have that handy? You know what? I Let me I'll I can do the roll call. Okay, that would be okay. Um I hope I got everybody's names right. I'm reading from my resolution. Uh I'm just going to go in order. Chairman Auster, how do you vote? Yay. Member Henderson. Hi. Member Kriger. Kger. Kger. Yay. Member Stancliffe. Yay. Member Tarbox. Member Zornage. Yay. How'd I do? Pretty good. All right. Member Minnella.

Very good. Uh, so I have that as six in favor, one opposed. Was there an oppos? Okay, then the uh motion carries. Okay, I think you're all set then. Thank you very much. Okay, that uh concludes the number three item, the Paramont building group. Fourth on our agenda is the Brunswick acres major subdivision approval extensions.

Good evening um Mr. Chairman board uh Andy Brick Brick Law Firm on behalf of of the applicant. You approved Brunswick Acres subdivision in August of 2024. It's 25 acre 25 lot subdivision next to Heather the Heather Ridge subdivision off of Route Two. Um, we had come in a number of times seeking a 90-day extension because there were a number of items we needed to complete to comply with your conditions. Primarily, we needed a water district extension from the town. We needed a drainage district created by the town. We needed national grids approval for an easement because the water line is going underneath the national grid uh high tension wires crossing the property and underneath their property. And um the when the third time came around in I believe it was April when we needed to come back in in May to request another 90 days. Um it was decided um that uh these things should be accomplished rather than us coming back every 90 days and and you know tying up your agenda and coming in again and again and again. We we were told from staff that, hey, go get these things settled and then come back and and you know, if you still need an extension, we'll give it to you. So, we didn't appear last summer and the 90-day extension that we had lapsed. Um, in the meantime, however, though, we did accomplish everything that we were required to accomplish. We received a drainage district approval and a water district extension approval in July of 2025. We have national grids authorization um to and they've signed the easement, but we're waiting that paperwork because it has to go through the public service commission. So, we still it's it's completed. They're on board. It's just a paperwork process now. We're waiting for it. Um, and also what came up is a question came up on whether or not

because this is a PDD, whether or not we needed to seek a PDD extension uh last summer from the town board. Uh, we were able to successfully convince Dave Gruenberg uh the town attorney that we didn't need a extension because the PDD language says that um unless a PDD is commenced and diligently pursued then it would expire. Um, so by the reading of that language in your PDD code, if it has been commenced and diligently pursued, it doesn't expire. So we were able to demonstrate to the satisfaction of town that it had been commenced. Um, I I think my client commenced it a little too quickly and did some clearing and got ahead of himself, but it was definitely commenced. Um, and we were diligently pursuing it. We were just held up from getting it signed because of National Grid. So, in effect, we were diligently pursuing National Grid, but we finally got them where we need to be. Um, we were able to convince the town that no extension of the PDD was required. It's still in effect. Um, so about a month, a month and a half ago, I finally got authorization from Mr. Groomberg to contact Mr. Langlo about getting on the agenda uh to seek a retro what would now be a retroactive extension of the subdivision. Nothing's changed. It's the same exact plan. We now have our district approvals. National Grid paperwork is forthcoming, but we'd request uh an extens a retroactive extension of our approval so we don't have to start the process from square one. And and that's why we're here this evening seeking another 90-day extension of the original approval. Uh you are authorized under state statute to grant as many 90-day extensions as you believe the circumstances warrant. We hope we hope you agree with us that the circumstances warrant another extension. Hopefully, we can wrap it up this time.

Uh the only technicality question is whether we are authorized to retroactive the you know grant a uh a 90day or multiple 90 days at this point. Uh I would have to refer to our attorney on that.

Put me on the spotlight on So, I don't know the answer to that. Here's what I can tell you. Your subdivision regulations very clearly authorize you to grant 90-day extensions and multiple 90-day extensions. What it does not say one way or the other is whether you have the authority to grant an extension to a time period which has already expired. which is what you're pointing out. The technicality of this last extension expired as of August 18th, 2025. Here it is, April 16th, 2026. Do you have the authority to grant a retroactive a going backwards extension to cover from August 18, 25 to today and then a further extension 90 days into the future? I don't know the answer to that. I know that your subdivision regulations do not specify one way. It doesn't say it can, but it doesn't say it can't either. Um, so it's an open question. Uh, Mr. Rick, is that anything you've looked at research- wise in terms of

I I I have and and the local code is uh virtually identical to the state statute, which is town law 276 sub7. And and what that says is that the planning board may extend for periods of 90 days each if in the planning board's opinion such extensions are warranted by the particular circumstances. So it doesn't say perspective retroactive that the key is 90 days and if warranted by the particular circumstances we would submit that we wanted to come back and we wanted to keep getting on 90 days. We it was suggested to us by the town, don't bother coming back when you get everything straightened out, then you can come back and we'll give you a retroactive one. And not to speak for Andy Gilchrist, but it was my understanding and speaking with M Mr. Gilchrist, he believed that the authority was there. I'm perfectly comfortable having a further discussion with Mr. Langlo regarding this. Um, I would also add that the state statute, um, I was tangentially involved in an amendment to it a few years back. The statute used to be limited to two 90-day extensions and then Senator George Amador at the time um had it changed because George was a home builder by trade. his family's in the home building and they had run into circumstances and they knew in the industry there would be instances where circumstances beyond the applicant's control like national grid which takes forever would run up those 180 days and the applicant would have to start all over even though they've done everything possible they're held up by somebody else so he sponsored legislation and I had a small part in crafting it with him back in the day um to eliminate that maximum of do and make it clear that the state statute, the enabling statute authorizes as many of these as necessary. never got into the

prospective versus retroactive, but the intent was to allow these extensions so an applicant doesn't have to go back and start at square one when they can't get their conditions complied with through no fault of their own, which in our circumstance um we were able to get everything except national grid uh in place in time except for the district extensions did fall outside of the 90-day window, but we did get them. So, we've we've wrapped up everything there. There are two open items we owe um Mr. Manelo which is um setting the parameters of the performance bond that he's agreed to as well as a development schedule that that is satisfactory to him. Um so we know we owe those to him. Um and we think we we'll de we can definitely have those to him and the national grid. We think we'll have the final paperwork with them and I'll be able to file it in the county court and put that to bed with one more 90-day extension. So that's that's

how many extensions have you had here? Two. We we came in twice and both times if you recall uh it was we're awaiting national grid and we need the district extensions and now I was here on one of them. Yeah, that's why.

So we have requested two. Um in order to bring us current, we've missed three 90day extension requests since since we were here last. So, if you were willing to grant three retroactive extensions and one future extension, putting us through it would actually, if you followed the original schedule, it would be through uh August of uh 2026 would be it would actually be four extensions. Technically, four extensions,

correct? but only because we wanted to appear and keep to the schedule and the town said, "No, go get everything else wrapped up first and then come back for the extension." Andy, can you can you just be clear and specific about who it was who from the town who said that? Right. That was my next question.

Yes. I believe my my discussions were with Andy Gilchrist, um the attorney for this board. Um, I believe my client had discussions with uh I believe it was a supervisor and then I ended up I got switched over because the PD PDD became the issue rather than the planning board. So I got switched over to working with Mr. Bloomberg on it. So that was the chronology of Mr. It was enacted. The current statute has taken away that two maximum and now it says it it it's unlimited. So, so there's something that he's approved.

Yeah. Well, as as of about a month ago now because I kept bugging him. I I kept calling say, "Dave, when can I get back? We got I want to get back to plan." And finally, he said, "You are authorized to coordinate with Mr. Langley, and if he agrees, we can bring you back in to present to the board."

So, I I there's a a different question, I think, is maybe what you were getting at. So if you went straight by the last extension, it expired as of August 18th. So presumably by August 17th, the applicant would have come back in front of you and said, "We need 90 more days." But they didn't come in. And Andy is suggesting that the reason why they didn't come in and haven't come in until now is because the town advised them not to come back in front of you guys. and he's mentioned Andy Gilchrist. He's mentioned the supervisor. Um Dave Bloomberg's name has come up.

It might be helpful for this board. Maybe a couple things would be helpful. One would be maybe a memo outlining why you believe this board has authority to grant a retroactive extension. Um you know, obviously you've mentioned town law 276, which I don't think specifically addresses it. if there's case law authority or something you can point to that would be helpful. And I think the second piece is if in that submission if you can clarify who it was who advised the applicant when that advice was given you know the more information you can the better.

Sure. So you know this is this may take some time to sort through. I'm prepared to treat the applicant as having asked for this as of tonight. Right? So, if it takes us another month to figure this out, we're not going to say it's now been nine months. It's all right. You you've applied. Okay. Um and again, I'll take direction from you folks in terms of what you think would be helpful. But I think that would go a long way to helping you guys decide what you can do, right, and what you want to do in terms of an extension. behind already. So around a little bit won't hurt. It will not. But again, my my vision, Andy, this isn't you can certainly submit it through me, but this is something addressed to the board.

Sure. You're not you're not persuading me. You're persuading me. Understood. I I have uh one question and this is more or less to the building department. Uh Mr. Rick, he uh indicated that all these things were uh conditions were satisfied. Um I know you've had conversations with the applicant over the last few months. We talked about the bond, construction bond, all this kind of stuff. Is there any other items that have not been discussed?

I don't have my notes in front of me. Mr. Rick is correct. The two that come to mind is the schedule and and the bond. I I don't know without looking at my notes if there's third or fourth, but I think that's that that's the primary.

Yeah. And Wendy and I spent some time today and we're back to a very large file project dating back to 2019. And I am just going to rattle off some key dates that we found through our investigations that PDD was approved by the town board on 121219. The subdivision was approved by this planning board on 818 2022. The subdivision expired on 21823, the initial subdivision. The PDD was extended by the town board on 8824 for an additional 12 months. A second subdivision was approved by this board on 81524. The first or the second subdivision was requested an extension a 90-day extension on 2625. It was granted. A second subdivision extension was requested on 51525 for 90 days. And that as in as Chris has mentioned expired on 81825. The original PDD expired on 8825 but as the attorney has mentioned Dave Groomberg may have I don't have anything in writing on that but Dave Groom may have you know agreed it has not expired but I do not have my office has nothing in writing on that. I know there's discussions on I wonder what you pursue that was an issue.

Okay. Certainly these these these sources uh Andy Gilrest and Newberg and uh Phil and Phil uh we're going to have to approach these individually and find out wait a second.

Sure. because obviously they were there was things going on here that were not you know including that was not they were excluding the the building or the planning board. So, um I don't I don't know of any conversations. I had numerous conversations with Andy regarding uh multiple things when we were working together, you know, at the end, you know, last year and so forth and so on. I don't recall any conversation about Brunswick acres not having to come back to us for any extensions or anything like that. And just to be clear, it's not the responsibility of the planning board or the building department to, you know, ring a little bell at the end of 90 days. This is the responsibility the applicant

I agree to uh to come here. So my impression right now is when I first saw this was, you know, this is this is done. You're going to have to come back with a new application and so forth and so on. That's my initial reaction. And because there's no provisions for retroactive 90 days that I know of. So, okay. I board have any other comments on that? There's also previous attorneys conversations as well. One of the You're contacting everybody.

Yeah. and and I I didn't have any contacts with Tom to my recollection, but one of the when that transition was taking place, it was one of the reasons why some of these questions it took a little while to get them worked through because it was a tradition from Tom over to Dave. So, that was also part of the the time extension. So, uh, Chris, are you suggesting that we take some time for Mr. Brick to get some information together? We do some investigative uh, work ourselves from our end. So, again, subject to the board's preference, my suggestion might be that we offer Mr. break the opportunity to submit a memo something in writing which outlines the two issues we talked about.

What's the authority to do a retroactive extension and to the extent the applicant relied on advice given to it by different folks associated with the town? What was that advice? Where did you get it from? How did you get it? When did you get it? When that comes in and it's up to Mr. in terms of timing on that. Um we could probably then bring them back in um review it, discuss it and take it from there is my my sense

but as as of right now for all practical purposes that project is has expired. So, I think the one thing everybody would agree on is that the final subdivision approval expired as of August 18th, 2025. Okay. So, as of right now, is expired. The question is whether or not this board can and if so, whether this board is inclined to grant both a retroactive and then a prospective extension of that now expired approval. Okay.

And and that's more than fair. That's um would you be uh we have a 3-week period until our next meeting. It might be adequate time to you think to get this information to us. I I think so. Yes. And so we can put you on the the and I think that would three weeks would give us time to check some of our uh check with Bill and Andy. You might want to think about waiting until you've actually received Andy's information officially. Okay.

Just, you know, you might learn different information. It might be modified. So maybe wait till that comes in and All right. That's fair. That's fine. and you would be prepared to present something at our next meeting on May 7th. Sure. If if you'd have me and and you have what you need from me, absolutely. And I will try and get it to you. But your meeting isn't for three weeks, but more more importantly is what's what's the deadline to get it to to Kevin and Wendy? We need some time. Correct. Yeah. And the important deadline from my perspective is is when do I need to get it to Kevin and Wendy to be on for the next agenda? So, you're right. Submit it through the building department. Yep. Okay. They'll make sure I get a copy. They'll make sure these guys get a copy. Don't send it to me, send it to them.

Yep. Um, you know, the sooner the better. I would suggest if you want the board members to be able to look at it and consider it before the May 7th meeting, probably not later than April 30th, ideally. If you end up getting it to us on May 6, that's fine. But it may just be that we're not in a position to really do much with it on May 7th. Understood. We can we can we can do this. We can tenatively put you on for the provided you get my information by April 30th. Get the information in a timely manner. If not, we can just extend you out to the next meeting which would be on the 21st. Can't ask for anything more than that. Okay. It's appreciated. Thank you.

One other question. Sure. Were your communications with the town officials done over the phone, email, texts? Do you have some sort of paper trail? I got to check my emails. It was a combination of phone calls and emails. Definitely not text. I'm not a texter. Um but I I to the extent I have paperwork, it will be my emails that I can pull.

Okay, I think we're all set then. Great. Thank you all. Appreciate it. Thank you. Okay, that concludes our our formal agenda. Um is there any new business? No, I believe so. Is there any old business?

Okay. And reviewing our upcoming agenda for the seventh, we have Fiser. That's a minor subdivision off Tamarak Road. We have Mavis Tire. I believe that might be tenative at this point, isn't it? Or is that far? Okay, then that's firm. Uh, we have I believe Sillis. Is that correct? Russ, you want to come in on the seven?

Oh, okay. All right. That is correct. And which one? That is correct. Yes. Yes. and uh Brunswick Cers. Okay.

So, Russ, I would bring up one thing. The retaining wall for quick check came and installed what I would say is white. What's approved by you folks on the site plan was an earth tone retail. So they provided us with a color chart with various colors to correct color of the stone wall and uh I circled some pictures what I thought were tone some samples and uh gave it to Phil and asked him to look at it and u I think you know everybody's inclined to maybe have the planning board decide the color being that you guys So

you guys, you know, you guys called for an earth tone wall. U I did ask for them to provide samples on a product rather than off a chart because I think it's much more difficult to pick something off a chart. Yeah. But I'm just throwing it out there. I mean, is that something the board would be willing to to do? Is that something would that would that be within their realm being that they had approved an earth tone retaining wall and it came white? I don't know if there's any

I don't know there's any official board action that would be taken. You're not going to adopt a motion to pick tan or brown or whatever if you wanted to create a small committee of members to review the samples and you know provide their feedback. I mean the what they adopted is what they adopted. They they set a a color palette. Um, can I ask the board what tone is in? You can try. I can tell you my department's not going to pick a color because we have one we have one shot at that.

But but if it had gone in in anything remotely falling within the realm of earth tone, we wouldn't be having this conversation, right? So, it just it came out white. They got to change it. Um, are they painted? What if they actually put something? I haven't filled a little wall on that. I think we How about a mural? Planning board me 50th anniversary. Davis has said that they want to match that wall but the type of stone.

It's going to look like the Great Wall of China. I'm just It could be multiple historical society similar. Are we going to ask them to put something in front of it or whatever? Now, we have an architectural review uh committee, don't we? Well, not yet. Not yet. Well, you know, I got my answer. I think you got my answer. You got as good as an answer as you're going to get. Okay. You could do a a group whoever shows up. if you want to pass some around and you know maybe uh get some opinions get some opinions uh you know business group or something

I mean I I don't know I mean dragging them in here for a you know paint pallet discussion is yeah it's just you know that that wall has a lot of um wall I mean impact in all fairness is Is there something that would look a lot better than the white that they presenting? Well, we the intent, I think, was to match the wall that was there. You know, that was brownish earth tone color. It's not not as loud, so to speak. Well, there's one still up there. So, well, that's we that's what we asked them to provide color samples matching, you know, that. Yeah.

You know, but it's it's very subjective. Very subjective. So that's why we ask for at least some color samples on a concrete product so we can try to zero in on something close to that if we can. But like I said, we have one shot at this. I mean, once it's once it's done, it's done. And God bless Facebook, but you know, it's it's going to be the talk of the town if it's not an appealing color in my mind, but it's got to be maintained. You mean there may be impeachment process going on and all this? Well, it won't be my will be my problem. Uh, well, I I think we've hammered this around. We'll Yeah, we'll stop we'll stop by the office. I will.

I appreciate that. And give you my opinion. Maybe I'll drag my wife with me. Then, Daniel, there you go. On her. That's right. All right. Is there any other old business you wish to discuss, I think. Okay. Is there any else anything else? Then I will entertain a motion to adjurnn. I'll make that motion. Second. All those in favor? Any opposed? Thank you all. part of