Planning Board - Regular Meeting

They were they were waiting for propane this morning when I was there. But I mean the ground everything looks good. Now you're done. [clears throat] [laughter] Changed department. Somebody asked me for construction is I used to be with D. [clears throat]

But I I never saw any running through the concrete footing. Yes.

Then I saw it on this unit. You know, they were waiting they told me they went for I walked in the other day with the project engineer and project manager. I got walking. I'm taking pictures. You know, the snow's pretty deep. Wait, my right foot [laughter]

Facebook that for heating something must be costing them a circulate fast especially in this cold too. Yeah. We got maybe one in the size. Well, especially

I decided this week they're just starting today. I don't know if they think of Mondays. What I'm seeing is they got to bring it up before they got to bring that up.

Yeah. All that of course in the snow. We're supposed to get some snow tomorrow and Saturday 2 to 4. I think this tomorrow night

my uh my tractor had the same snow in the hub since I plowed in the garage. It's in the garage. It didn't melt off. I took my my car wash. Okay. I'd like to bring this meeting to order for the town of Brunswick Planning Board for February 5th, 2026. 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. Our agenda this evening is as follows. This was posted on the town website and the town board. Uh number one, Paramont Building Group major subdivision. Applicant proposes a major subdivision on 31.92 acre parcel of land as well as construct a new road with a culde-sac and a waterline extension on property located on the northeast corner of Spring Avenue and Creek Road. There would be a public hearing to commence at 700 p.m. Paramont uh building group of New York is the applicant. Number two, Tranquility Bookshop site plan and special use permit. Applicant seeks site plan approval and a special use permit to modify an existing residential structure into a bookstore on property located at 902 Husk Road Tranquility Bookshop LLC is the applicant. Number three, Monaco waiver of subdivision. Applicant seeks to divide 1.18 acres of land from a 19.5 acre parcel to create a new lot on property located at 19 Miller Lane. Robert Monikop is the applicant. Number four, Kyle Smith. Site plan and special use permit. Applicants seek site plan approval and a special use permit to complete construction on a two-story building on property located at 1691 New York State Route 7. Kyle Smith is the applicant. Number five, National Grid site plan and special use permit. Applicants seek site plan approval and a special use permit for the construction

and operation of an energy transfer station on property located at 1278 Spring Avenue. National Grid is the applicant. We received a email today from National Grid and they wish to be uh taken off the agenda tonight. uh they are working on uh the response to the engineers comments and the associated uh plan revisions but also taking some time to consider slashre the feedback that they have received on the project to date. So they are no longer on our agenda tonight. They will be placed on a future agenda with no tenative date at this point. And finally, number six, Fiser Minor Subdivision. Applicant seeks minor subdivision approval on subdivision on a to subdivide an 82.17 acre parcel into three new lots on property located at 842 Tamarak Road. Rebecca Fiser is the applicant. Uh just as a a note uh we establish our agendas as of the end of working hours on Friday. Any new applications are put on our agenda under new business for the next meeting and that's when we uh on Monday morning we publish the agenda. So any changes to the agenda after uh Monday, unfortunately uh we could I guess put a a a second notice on the uh town website, but I would suggest that uh if you have

a particular project in mind, in this case possibly national grid, that you check with the building department uh the day before or the day of our meeting to make sure that they're on the agenda. Okay, with that being said, we do have a public hearing to start with and this is the public hearing for the Paramont Building Group. This is a major subdivision. I'll read the procedure for the public hearing. The purpose of the public hearing is to hear concerns, comments, and views from the general public regarding a particular pro proposal or application. All public hearings are electronically recorded in a written record of the 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, comments made at the public hearing and subsequently the planning board will consider all these 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 should give their name and address for the record. Before we start, I would like to say that we have received before the public hearing uh a series of letters, comments, uh presentations, so to speak. on this project and uh I would like to make sure that those are uh placed uh on the record for the public hearing. I believe the the applicant has received copies of these. Uh I briefly will go through I I think we also received several tonight. Okay. Uh these would include the ones I had prior uh dated uh 121825 from Tim Gilchrist of 160 or 186 Creek Road to January 15, 2026. once again from uh Tim Gilchrist. I believe this was a supplement to that. Uh one also dated January 15th. That's the same one. Sorry. Apologize for that. dated the 30th of January from uh Judy and Chuck Rancor at one uh 313 Carol Grove Road

one day to 20 uh January 20th, 2026 from George and Mary Reed of 27 Creek Road and one dated February 3rd, 2026 from Patty Vera Serega located at 9 Oak Tree Lane. And these will all be submitted for the record of the public hearing. Those individuals can come up and speak if they wish once they're here. And then today we received uh which two did we receive today, Wendy? Okay, there was one from

from uh yes, Sarah Nitel. And then this one is a I believe a Katherine the recap of all the I'm not sure if it's a recap or if it's just another one.

At any rate, these will all be submitted to the applicant for for his review and comment. When we receive letters before the public hearing, uh they are basically addressed to the planning board. They're shared by members of the planning board to review and uh uh take from those letters information that would be vital in asking questions to the applicant at the time. Uh we do not share these with the applicant before this the uh uh public hearing. However, I believe they could foil them if they wish. Okay. So with that being said, I will now turn the floor over to uh the attorney, our attorney, and he will read the public notes. A notice of public hearing hearing public newspaper posted to school board as follows. Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held by the planning board of the town of Brunswick at 7 PM on Thursday, February 5th, 2026, Brunswick Town Hall, 336 Town Office Road, Brunswick, New York, 12180 to review the major subdivision applications submitted by Paramount Building Group of New York for the Colton Bridge subdivision located at the northeast corner of Spring Avenue and Creek Road. Tax map number 13-6-29 consisting of 18 residential lots on a 31.92 acre parcel. Copies of the application are available at the town of the call and are available for public inspection during regular business hours. All interested persons will be heard at the public hearing.

Thank you. Okay, I'll have the applicant come up and uh give a presentation. You have it flipped towards the audience, I assume. Yes. [clears throat]

Okay. Good evening everyone. Matt B with our engineering here on behalf of Paramount Building Group. Um we're here to present a proposed 18 lot subdivision in the town of Brunswick. So, this is a 32 acre parcel that is located at the intersections of Spring Road and Creek Road. This is north. Just for those of you looking at the map here, there's a 5acre parcel on the west side of Creek Road and the remaining section of the parcel is on the east side of the road. What we are proposing, as I said, is a 18 lot subdivision, 17 lots on the east side of the road, one lot on the west side of the road. proposing a new town roadway to be dedicated to the town. Meets all town code requirements. 17 lots will be serviced from that road. This lot will have an individual driveway. Uh there is public water available here at the intersection of creek and spring. So we're proposing a water main extension here where the drive the new road will connect and that will follow down the road with fire hydrants for fire protection. As there's no sanitary sewers available in this area, they will be on-site septic systems for each of these lots. Um, storm water management is designed in accordance with New York State Department, Department of Environmental Conservation requirements. It meets all uh requirements of uh New York State. Here's a storm water management area that's going to handle the bulk of the storm water from this project. Um, there are wetlands indicated on this site. We're not proposing any impacts to those wetlands and um there's there's really no other public utilities been extended here. So that's pretty much uh that's pretty much the project. Thank you. Okay.

Okay. Now I'll open up the floor to the public who would like to come up and make some comments. I'm Tim Gilchrist and seeing my name has been mentioned several times, thought I'd start. Um, I'm Tim Gilchrist, 186 Creek Road. Uh, I want to thank you for the opportunity to provide comment on the Colton. There used to be a ridge here subdivision on Creek and Spring Avenue. Um, as mentioned earlier, my wife Kathy and I have uh se uh submitted detailed comments um detailing our concerns with the board's environmental documents. Um, and is in addition to my prior written comments because it's based on a review of the documents and the accompanying attachments. Um, so I'll be very quick tonight about why this I believe this has a major environmental impact and that's what should be the finding of the board. Um, something the consultant didn't mention was that this proposal include requires the removal of 420,000 cubic yards of material. And that's hard to conceptualize how much that material is, but their transportation analysis helps you when you do the math because they never use the total number of trucks. It'll take 21,000 large dump trucks fully loaded with 20 yards of material to move all of that material. An equal number will be required to return to the site. Um that is adding 42,000 trucks over one or two years to spring to Creek Road and Spring Avenue extension. And that is proposed over one to two years with the one year being 304 days a year for nine hours a day. somewhere between 18 trucks per and eight and 18 trucks per hour. The project removes 1,235 truckloads of soil for every house on the culdeac. What other project in

Brunswick has ever moved that amount of soil for that number of houses. It might be a short-term project, but it's a long-term impact and it's not a small impact. Despite the project was considered logical by the town's planning engineer, it doesn't make it a small impact and there'll be a lasting impact because Creek Road and Spring Avenue Extension are postposted for trucks with no trucks over 10 tons. These trucks will weigh up to 40 tons and a permit will be required. Ask a pavement engineer. The impact of this many trucks can be devastating to the pavement resulting in the shoulder failure, ruting, cracking, and potholes. And I should tell you, I worked for DOT for over 30 years and was in charge of asset management, understanding the impact on the highways. The county taxpayers, which are all of us, are going to pay the bill. The county recently repaved Creek Road and they will need to rebuild it again. On spring, there's a blind curb approaching Creek Road. Can you imagine a carload of kids coming around that curb and coming upon a fully loaded truck trying to make a left turn, shifting gears? A detailed analysis is proved needed to prove that the 42,000 trucks do not create a safety safety hazard. There's not a high accident rate there because there's not 42,000 trucks going through that intersection. And at the end of the two years, what will be on the site? The knob on the hill will be down and the ridge will be lowered and there'll be a road water road and on water line but no houses. How long until the houses are built? The pro proposal does not include that information, but go around the corner to Sharp Road and take a look and see what's going on there. This is a gravel mine hiding behind a culde-sac. The town board approved the 17 home culde-sac above the normal limits of 12 home before the amount of soil to be removed was revealed by the applicant. They should resend that approval without an analysis of the impact and we request they do that action. The planning board

should find this project to have a major impact in the areas of impact in land and the impact on transportation. Say goodbye to one of the rolling hills of Brunswick if this project goes forward. Thank you. Thank you.

Uh good evening. My name is Sarah Nitel. I live at the intersection of Creek and Spring Avenue, 1423 Spring Avenue. Thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight. I am a lifelong resident of the town of Brunswick, and I am here on behalf of my family, including my one-year-old daughter and three-year-old son and elderly father, all of whom have 7 p.m. bedtimes, so they couldn't come with me. Um, to strongly object to the Colton Ridge proposal by the Paramount Building Group of New York. My comments tonight are an outline of my objections, which are further detailed in my written comments. One, this project is a mine, not a subdivision. The project is being inaccurately described as a subdivision when the proposed activity is in fact a mine by both the by both the New York State Department of Conservation and the Town of Brunswick's definitions of a mine. The applicant is attempting to circumvent the requirement of a DEEC mining permit by calling this mining quote incidental to a construction project. There is nothing incidental about the removal of more than 400,000 cubic yards of material over two years. The DEC's definition of an incidental removal is capped at 750 cubic yards of material per year. This proposal exceeds the DEEC's definition of incidental removal by 199,250 cubic yards, which is 266.6 times the DEC's definition of incidental. Per the town of Brunswick's own definitions in its zoning in its zoning law, this proposal is also a minor. The town defines quote excavation as part of site preparation as extraction or removal of material that is clearly incidental to the approved building construction and or both integral to the implementation of an approved site development plan or subdivision flat and necessary for improving the property for use permitted in the zoning district in

which the property is located. The proposed mining activity far exceeds any clearly incidental excavation as the activity exceeds DEC's definition of permitted incidental incidental removal again by 266.6 times. Further, while the site does indeed have an incline, there is no reasonable conclusion that this level of mining is required for feature use of the site as a permitted use per zoning law. Two, Spring Avenue and Creek Road will experience extreme wear and tear, and the cost of the inevitable and necessary repairs will fall squarely on the taxpayers's shoulders. The applicant's traffic study reveals that between 7 a.m. and 400 p.m., 8 to 10 trucks per hour will come and go from this site for two years. This increases to 16 to 18 trucks per hour if the applicant follows a one-year mining schedule. This volume further supports the fact that this mining is clearly not incidental, but rather an unprevented use. Additionally, such heavy use of Brunswick's roads by trucks loaded with 27 tons of gravel will inevitably result in damage to those roads. 27 tons or 54,000 lbs of gravel plus the weight of the truck equates to a total weight exceeding 80,000 lbs or 40 tons traveling on Spring Avenue and Creek Road between 8 and 18 times per hour for 1 to two years. These trips will occur 6 days per week and will only stop for eight days a year. Creek Road has a maximum weight limit of 10 tons. Such heavy use of these roads will undoubtedly result in severe wear and tear. But there has been no discussion by this board or the applicant of responsibility to repair such damage and no discretion of an escrow of funding for this purpose. Such damage should be the responsibility of the applicant and should not fall on the the shoulders of the taxpayers. Three, the town's environmental consideration was incorrect. At the

planning board meeting on November 20th, 2025, there was extensive discussion about the mod moderate to large impact of this project, including the extent of the excavation, the irreversible conversion of more than 2.5 acres of agricultural land in an agricultural district, and the duration of the project. Despite these concerns, the planning board issued a negative declaration under SRA at their January 15th, 2026 meeting. The serious concerns raised at the November meeting were ignored and others were never considered. Neither an air quality analysis nor community air monitoring were conducted or even mentioned by the applicant. In addition, the noise sampling submitted by the applicant was done on subpar unccalibrated and nonregulatory compliant equipment, a Google Pixel 8 smartphone. It is of further note that despite water being called m mining's most common casualty, there has been no study of the impact on the property's state and federal wetlands and no study of the impact to show that my well and my neighbors wells will not be impacted by the mining. The possible loss and contamination of groundwater threatens the safety of my family and of my neighbors. I would hate for the children, elderly, and others in the neighboring areas to end up with airborne illnesses or water contamination as a result of this negligence. Exposing [clears throat] residents to potential unknown airborne risks and water contamination creates a health risk to the community and a liability to this town. We do want we do not want to be poisoned. Our neighbors in Falls are all too familiar with that reality. Four. This project will permanently alter the agricultural and lowdensity residential status of the town of Brunswick. This area is a zone A40 district which allows for lowdensity residential and agricultural development. The town's zoning law requires that quote development within this district should seek to protect open space, the town's rural character, and agricultural resources from the

negative impacts in accordance with the town's comprehensive plan. Furthering this point, the town's comprehensive plan states that lowdensity residential and agricultural area development should be guided by the overall desire to preserve and protect the town's rural character as well as its various natural resources and that the town should consider environmental impacts. The level of mining activity and development proposed is not in the spirit of these goals and the town will no longer have any measure of rural character if this is allowed to proceed. The A40 and agricultural overlay zones erroneously exclude minimum lot size, but the next zone [snorts] to require moderate density residential development specifically states that the minimum lot size is 25,000 square feet or approximately 0.57 acres. It can therefore be assumed that the lots of 25,000 square feet or close there too are considered to be moderate density. The proposed lots in this subdivision vary in size from 0.9 acres to over 2.719 acres of the vast majority of the proposed lots are approximately 1 acre. By moving forward with this with this proposal, the board is determining that the proposed 1acre lot size would be the standard and precedent for future development in low density districts. This is surprising as the next lot size defined lot size in the Brunswick zoning law is for moderate density residential [clears throat] districts at 0.57 acres per lot. The proposed subdivision which should be considered second and apart from the mining proposal has proposed lot has proposed lots for low density district that are not even double a moderate density lot size per the town's own zoning law. Apparently, the town does not believe there is any difference between a moderate, a low to moderate, and a low density development. And this sets a terrible precedent for future proposals. If allowed to proceed, all of the town's agricultural zones could be developed into approximately 1acre lots after they are aggressively mined for

years. I have called Runzip my home for over 30 years, and my family has lived here for generations. I grew up on this land and loved the town so much that I decided to raise my children here. I never thought I would be standing here because I never thought that my beloved town would let this get so far. My family and I strenuously object to this proposal and the town's consideration of it. Thank you for your time and consideration. Thank you.

Anyone else wish to come up? Hi, Mary Ellen Adams, 18 Cooper Avenue, Troy, Brunswick. Um, I don't live adjacent or on that side of Brunswick, but I've been at enough planning board meetings and I've listened to a lot about this project. And two things really strike me and I respect so much that these folks before me had the actual numbers because I heard all different numbers and because I don't live there, I guess I don't pay that much attention. But one that I brought up was that I want to bring up was the concern about the truck traffic. I've heard varying numbers and I'm guessing the ones that um [clears throat] people before me presented are the most accurate ones and it just seems to me that I've not heard any mechanism within the plans where the developers are do have an escrow account or something to repair the damage that is going to happen because it's inevitable. It's common sense that when you have a weight limit of 10 g or 10 tons and you're putting this amount of tonnage this number of days a week, this many times an hour that the roads are going to be destroyed and it's going to be repetitively destroyed. There's no way over 18 months or two years that the roads can sustain it. So if this project were to move forward, I think for the protection of the residents that drive those roads, the commuters that drive those roads, and the town financially, there has to be some mechanism that the developer puts money aside for the repair and not a one-time repair. But I would expect with that kind of wear and tear, you're going to be repairing it multiple times over a year because I don't know how the road can sustain that. I think of what our roads sustain just from normal road car traffic. Um the second is the phenomenal amount of um gravel, dirt, whatever that's being removed. I guess I don't understand how

that's not mining. Um when you talk about that large of numbers and it doesn't have a major environmental impact. Um I defer to the experts that know more statistics about that, but to me it's pretty obvious that there has to be an environmental impact from that. And then you put new septics in there, the water, the wetlands. It just seems I don't understand how you cannot call that a mining thing. I mean, you can [clears throat] rephrase things different ways that it's to the benefit of a development, but when you take that much dirt out of a limited area, I think that's mining in many, many ways, as the woman before me explained. So, thank you. Thank you.

Good evening. Thank you for the opportunity to share comments at this hearing. My name is Jeremy Hurst. My wife and I own property at 82 Creek Road, the property immediately adjoining uh this proposed subdevelopment. Uh we share the largest contiguous boundary with this property and the wetland that's on the northwest corner of this property contiguous with ours and continues across our property. Um while I generally bemoone the loss permanent loss of our open space to major subdivisions, I don't begrudge Mr. Wendell the opportunity to use his land according to the law and as long as the wetland that we share is protected. as he was developing this site plan, we discussed the potential for him to to reserve some space that could provide an access off the new proposed road to our property. And so I would have liked to see this site map include that. Um, as you can tell, it does not. And so, um, I would just ask consideration that lots 4 through 7 be modified to include perhaps a quarter acre access point for our, um, potential use into our property. Inclusion of this lot would not impact Mr. proposal but would uh would allow us to have access dry access to the upland portion of our Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi. My name is Sue by Tolins 10 Miller Road. Sue, could you kind of [clears throat] move that up and see if Can you hear me better now? Well, I I think it the video was probably

doesn't seem to want to stay. I'll just hold it. Um 10 Miller Road, Suai Tlins. So, I live around the corner from this and my concern is I mean everything that people have said I wholeheartedly agree with. The amount they're taking out, the truck traffic, the roads, the environmental impact, but so what's the recourse two years from now? They take all this gravel out and things happen. Now we're not going to develop it. So then what's what happens? So the developers have a plan to put these 18 lot houses up, but what if they change their mind and now we're left with a big gravel pit on the corner of Spring and Creek Road? Hi, my name is Ruth Paige. I live at 47 Creek Road. So, my house is here. And this is a view I see from my front door. And my well is only 60 ft deep. And I'm pretty sure it's going to pollute it. The amount of water alone, just the runoff from the road, will flood my lawn. My house will probably flood every single time it rains. Um, we have dogs. We are We've lived there 13 years. We just got married a year ago. We plan to have children. I am absolutely terrified [laughter] of this project. And I'm not as smart as these people, but we're hardworking people and we just really are scared.

Thank you. Hi, my name is Kate Mons. I live at 35 Creek Road and I appreciate the opportunity here. I want to echo all of what my neighbors and community members have already said about their concerns about this. It was really well said, researched, and I really appreciate their time um to try to make right for our community. Um, what I wanted to add is that um, from my understanding of what I've uh, reviewed and and and my home, which is right across the street from there, is that this project doesn't align with Brunswick's comprehensive plan, Scenic Beauty and Rural Lifestyle, were what brought me and my family to this [clears throat] area. We've relocated here with our parents who are aging and want to um, enjoy this time with them. And that seemed to be my understanding from reading that comprehensive plan what was reported as the most important aspect of people who live in Brunswick. And so flattening that corner parcel of land, mining that area and making that entrance way to our community is just the antithesis of what was reported in that plan and what drew me and my family and what I'm hearing my neighbors wanting to see in their homes. Um, again, contrary to what the application states and what some other people have said, there will be a substantial increase to traffic during the construction and afterwards should they decide to actually build on that land. That proposed road is just after the bend on Creek Road. People excel rather quickly on that. And now you're going to have a potential of 17 additional cars minimum entering and exiting that on a regular basis as

people are turning onto Creek Road and accelerating on that speed on that road and and it's just going to be a a foreseeable problem that concerns me. Um the application always said also said that that land was not used for any agricultural purposes within the last three years and that's just factually inaccurate. the land was used for hay in in the time in that last three years. So again, it's just when I see factually inaccurate things with the application, that's a red flag. And I'm not saying that that's the only one, but that is one that I'm I'm bringing up. I'm also concerned about the additional light pollution in the water that other neighbors have said, what is that going to do to our well? this proposed land is going to be tapped into the town water, but we all have wells and what is the impact of the groundwater on our homes and our families and our needs to to live a healthy lifestyle in our own homes. Um, additional like I don't know if my math is correct. There was a lot of talk about the traffic and the impact of that, but if my math is correct, based on what I understand, every seven and a half minutes, there will be a truck coming or going from that property for nine hours a day, six days a week for two years. That is incredible. Seven and a half minutes. Every seven and a half minutes there is going to be a truck coming or going from that site just to flatten out a beautiful rolling hillside that is the character of Brunswick. And I also want to just add that what there what people have already noted about the the the weight limit of of Creek Road in the application. And it said that they don't know actually there to my knowledge anyways maybe they can be spoken to but there is no destination

for all of this earth in this land that is going to be removed from there. So nobody actually knows where it's going. Nobody knows what direction it's going to be going in. I believe I read in the application that sharp road is not an option. So that leaves Creek which has a weight limit along the post and kill. What is going to be not only the impact on the integrity of that road, but what is that going to do to the river? What is that going to do to our lands that are accompanying that? That is a significant concern. And I also just want to echo the apparent what looked to me to be the the calculated avoidance of responsibility by of avoiding the permit by the DEC for the for the mining. It is a mining land reclamation and it and I do believe from what I read that the application is intentionally trying to avoid the responsibility for public health related to that. And that is what this is under the guise of a of a development. And I do urge the planning board not to accept this proposal for all of the reasons that are stated here today. I believe uh Brunswick is a better place without this development. And I thank you for your time. [clears throat]

Hello. Uh my name is Ellen Montiel, MC Chznney Avenue Extension. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments. Um I've heard discussions about this project for the meetings since May 2025. During that time, the planning board board brought up many environmental concerns, and although the applicant had a response for all of them, I was surprised to hear the adoption of the negative declaration. In my opinion, many of the planning board's concerns remain valid and were not shown to be unfounded. This includes environmental assessment form part two, item 1D, impacts on land, which asked if the proposed action involves the excavation and removal of more than 1,000 tons of natural material. It's marked as no or small impact instead of moderate to large impact. This item is cited in the letter received by the board from the applicant in December. The letter explains as per New York State DC, projects that have small impacts excavate small quantities of natural material on an infrequent seasonal basis or result in limited excavation in support of site construction. That's small quantities, limited excavation. Projects that are moderate to large impacts affect nearby water wells and large excavations that have potential impacts such as noise, air pollution, and visual impacts. That's large excavations, noise, air, pollution impacts. The applicant's letter explains how the project can has to be considered to have a small impact. That's what the applicant is saying, but I disagree. Um, first, the amount of material cited by DDC as a cutoff is 1,000 tons. I couldn't find the estimate of tonnage for the project in the in the project records. And as a side note, I think regardless the applicant should be provided um should have to provide the the volume in tons since that is deemed by DEC a critical figure. A conservative estimate um come up with by one of one of our neighbors is [clears throat]

525,000 tons. Over five times what DEEC is considering a significant cut off of 100,000 tons. five times that. How can five times over that be be considered a small to no impact? Um, also of course the mining project will certainly create noise and air pollution and contamination to wells. The fact that proposed excavation is limited, which the applicant calls it, um, to what is necessary. They're saying it's limited because they're only excavating what is necessary to construct safe and passable roads and safe building sites. does not make it a limited excavation. That's not a limited amount of excavation. Again, I don't see how a quantity five times the amount DEEC considers as a cutoff can be anything other than moderate to large impact. And finally, I understand the project includes both mining and construction of a subdivision. I'd like to suggest that if this project proceeds that the applicant be required to return the parcel to a state as close as possible to its current condition in the event that after the mining is complete the subdivision is in fact not constructed. Thank you very much. Nora Vitalins's ruler, 653 Church Street. This is my first town planning board that I've been to, even though I've been a lifelong Brunswick resident. The location that I currently live at is the location that I was born in. I inherited my parents' home and I continue to live there. I just wanted to share something from some personal experience that I recall from when I was a small child. I'm not sure if anyone here knows or remembers, but the property where the Spring Landing subdivision, currently on Spring

Avenue Extension, where that exists, used to be a gravel mine. I remember as a small child when they were mining [clears throat] actively in this location, the constant cloud of dust and the continual noise that came from the excavation process. Now, we we've talked about some of the DEC requirements, but I don't think there's been enough focus that's been placed on the quality [clears throat] of life that results during the nine hours a day, six days a week where things are being actively mined. True about the trucks. Spring Avenue is a dangerous road. That is a concern as well as Creek Road. However, for the people who live in that area, all right, the amount of dust and exposure to the constant noise 9 hours a day, six days a week, can be unbearable. I live in a location that's probably about a mile away from where that Spring Avenue landing site was. I can't imagine what the people who were going to be experiencing this if it does get approved will have to endure for 2 years making it an unbearable experience to continue to live here. Thank you.

Good morning. Um, my name is Patricia Olyaga. I live at 16 Pleasant View Avenue in Brunswick. Um, I have concerns about this um, proposed development. I don't think that it is being planned in a logical manner. Um, I have to commend my neighbor on Manmia who recently sold several parcels of land and transformed our area a little bit, but just a little bit. Not not like this. And I if this was going in without the mining, I don't think you'd be hearing all this craziness. But this mining that's that has to happen, this this what they're proposing, taking out all of this [cough and clears throat] soil, gravel, whatever it is that they're going to be doing. To think that it's not going to affect the environment is ludicrous. It it has to affect the environment. I the woman that just spoke before me about the Spring Avenue extension or the Spring Landing area. Those folks have well problems because of it. I note that this proposal is going in with a water extension. They want to run the I guess the pipe that goes out to to Posting Kill over into this development for these folks eventually, which means that there's going to have to be a water uh management area created or something like that because we don't have that. I mean, I don't have the the the privilege of tapping into town water right now. I bet you none of the folks behind me do either. We've all got wells. Um and wells are okay, but they're not great. They do go dry sometimes. Um, so you know, I I I really hope you think about all this stuff. I think [snorts] our, you know, my neighbors have talked about a lot of things a lot more eloquently than I have, but I really do think that the whole mining part of this is really

atrocious and um needs to be reconsidered and, you know, rethink these plans for development. This this is not what Brunswick is supposed to be uh looking like and changing. This is not a good way to change. You know, change is change is positive. It's great. We can grow. That's fine. But let's do it in a logical, sensible, environmentally um positive way. [clears throat] Thank you. Thank you.

Welcome, Jim.

Good evening. Uh Jim Tachic, 387 Brunswick Road. Uh I was wondering whether the uh applicant has offered uh continuation of the public water to the neighbors in this area. And the reason I asked that is that you know you're you're going to have I I'm not a geologist. I'm not a hydraologist. But if the the amount of of uh the topographical changes going to happen here, there's going to be vast changes in the hydraology. All right. And in addition to that, you've got what 17 18 houses, posh houses with nice lawns, lawn chemicals. There's a road going through their salt and all this is going to be put into the groundwater, right? So, if they haven't offered to do this ahead of time, maybe they have to set up a contingency for, you know, within five years or so after the completion of the project if there's contamination of the of these wells. And that's that's the I I made the same point um with with the sharp road extension uh project when they extended the water line there and uh they they they gave water to the new residents that were in Brunswick and also into North Greenbush, but they wouldn't give any water to the neighbors. And I I think that's that's a that's a a major fault. I think we should develop a principle if if something's coming in in into the neighborhood like this that's going to create if not hardship at least some trouble right you should at least reward the neighbors with something okay give them the option to tap into the water system right now the other thing is um you talk about the gravel trucks going on creek road where are they going to go where where what's the what's the path of these I've been coming to the

planning board meetings and they talk about several options and it hasn't been defined yet. For example, are those trucks going to go to Brun out to Route Two? Uh I don't know. I don't know if if a path's been determined or not. Uh I live on route two and I don't want another another um how many how many a day? I can't I can't remember what what the calculation was, but there's enough gravel trucks now on on Route Two. We don't need any more, right? And it's once again it's just going to rip up the roads. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you, J.

Okay. We've covered uh quite a

Sure. [clears throat] Kenneth Voland uh Voland organization. I own property uh just adjacent to this. I'd like to uh give the board inspection of my map. I'm going to cut it I'm cutting in a uh I'm cutting in a road to pardon me, sir. For residents, for myself, and I thought that I'd like it on the record. I thought if this does get approved, it would be beneficial uh for emergency vehicles for both of our roads to link up. I wanted to I wanted to put it on the record to show you. That's fine. If you want to uh you know give the building department some copies of this.

I think you're talking about a different uh uh situation. It's in Posting Hill. I'm coming in from Posting Hill, but the lot my lot for my residents will be in Brunswick. Okay. I thought it would benefit uh you know both parties and the town emergency vehicles would have more than one way in and out if it does get approved. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Okay, we've covered uh quite a bit of material here as far as uh uh the issues at at hand. Uh we've talked about quite a bit about the gravel removal and uh truck loads, traffic. Uh we've covered a lot of uh things regarding wells uh like uh possibly bonding for road uh reconstruction uh and numerous other things. Is there anything that anybody has that they wish to bring up uh in addition to these topics that have been brought up? I think they've been brought up in quite a bit of detail. Uh I think they cover a lot of people's concerns. Uh but is there anything else that anybody wishes to make mention? Um the floor is still open to the to the public. Okay. There's no one else who wishes to come up. All right. Then I will now close this public hearing. Uh, I will have a motion to to close it. Is there any second on that? Do I have a second?

I' I'd like to allow for continuation of the written comments. Okay. That could be a condition of the Does everybody agree with that? that there be an extended period of say another seven days to 10 days to receive written comment just to clarify you're proposing seven days 10 days I would say a week to seven days we just need to be specific so whatever yeah sign

I would say with the motion an extension of seven days motion to close the public hearing but allow the submission of additional written comment correct.

Do I have a second on that? I'll second. Okay. Is there any further discussion on that? Does everybody agree that the we should close the public hearing with that condition? Okay. Then I'll take a vote. All those in favor? I. Any opposed?

Okay. So, we've now concluded the public hearing. We are now going to start on our agenda. And our first item on the agenda is Paramont. Okay. may have heard quite a bit of uh detailed comments as far as the in particular the mining aspect of this whole project. Um I'm going to turn the floor over to you guys. Sure. So um evening board TJ Ruain uh law firm of Whiteman Oman and Hannah. I'm the uh project attorney here with Matt Bond is spoke earlier. Um I imagine that it's going to be the board's intent to have us respond in writing to all of the comments.

Absolutely.

Okay. And we will do that and we'll wait for the comment period to end of seven days. We can reach out to Kathy get all of those comments and we will respond in writing to all the comments. Um just a few points that I wanted to cover um this evening. I know there was a lot of discussion. Um, you know, a lot of the points that were raised [clears throat] mirror some of the points and initial concerns that the board had. Um, so a lot of the stuff we we have been able to address and work with the town's engineer to address uh discuss sort of in detail with the town. Um, one of the things that I wanted to make clear to the public is, you know, there's a lot of discussion tonight about whether this is a mine or um, you know, essentially the purpose of it is a mine and then it's just a subdivision to cover up the mine. It's just simply factually and legally just not true. Um, this doesn't meet the definition of a mine under the town code, nor does it meet the definition of a mine under New York State law. So DEEC permits, any mine needs a DEC permit. So anybody who has property can remove up to 750 cubic yards from their property for whatever reason you want to do. Either you're leveling or you're putting up a structure or anything like that. Everybody has that right. Anything over that requires a permit unless you are doing the excavation for purposes of construction project which is what's happening here. This was one of the initial concerns of the board. Um, we talked about it in detail. We reached out to DEEC multiple times. We had DEEC and the town come out to the site. We walked the entire site, walked them through our entire plan, walked them through um the phasing of the project, the removal of the materials, storm water, wetlands. Um, and DEEC agreed that this does not require this is not a mine. This is simply site excavation for purposes of building residences in the town of Brunswick. All of which the

people who spoke here tonight have the benefit of owning houses in Brunswick. All of those houses have to be built. These houses have to be built as well. Um the second issue is traffic. Um the town had some concerns initially about how much traffic is going to be generated by this project. So we instead of estimating it, we hired professional consultants who worked with and prepared a report which we submitted to the town. Uh town's engineer reviewed that report. We had it updated to go over different timelines. So if this took two years, what would it look like? If it took a year and a half, what it would look like? If it took a year, what it would look like? And what the traffic engineers found is that both Creek Road and Spring Road right now are subject to almost 2,000 vehicles per day. And at peak hour, those roads are rated to hold a thousand vehicles in a peak hour. Right now, they're at about 200. So adding 16 vehicles to those roads is virtually no impact at all. Um I'd like to remind everybody that they I know there's concerns about um the roads being kept up and who's going to maintain those roads. These are county roads, so the county governs that by putting a weight limit on the road. If you exceed that weight limit, you have to go to the county to get a permit. Those permit fees pay essentially for the program. This is the county has already determined, they've already looked at this. So when they issue permits for overweight trucks, the county is already considering that into their map on maintaining roads. So you know, every aspect of this project is going to be permitted. Um, another thing that came up, and we can talk about this in more detail in our response to written comments, is contamination. I don't understand the references to the PAS contamination that occurred in other municipalities. This is or any other type of contamination, air, water

quality or otherwise is just simply not true. This is just a removal of soil and and excavation. So I I don't see how just simply saying there's going to be contamination really it's just it's just simply not true. It's not grounded in any fact or reality. Um the excavation here is not going to impact anybody's water wells. They're hooking up to municipal water. Um if other residents want municipal water, then they're well within their rights to request that from the town. It's not something we have the authority to do. Um we're certainly not designing the project to prevent that. Um I think that covers everything um that I wanted to just point out today. Um, you know, there was discussions of, you know, adding this subdivision will cause contamination because of salt. The roads are salted everywhere and not only just this subdivision. And pesticides used on lawns is a ridiculous statement because they're used on everyone's lawn. And if this was an agricultural,

it's so then how do you know that they're used? It's everybody. It's just these are things that occur at every residential property or can occur at every residential property is what I should have said. So to to say that they're going to happen here, I it's it's not a reasonable comment. Um so we will

there the the public hearing is over. I I I hate to say this.

Okay. I mean uh the applicant is required to respond to all these comments in writing. Uh and then those are reviewed by this board, by our engineer, so forth and so on. And uh and they would be available for public, you know, uh inspection after they've been submitted. They're part of the public record. So uh uh I urge you if you have some additional comments to use the written period before uh for the seven days after the the closing of this public hearing. Uh if and if you wish to counter on some of the remarks that were said, that's fine. But uh that's the way we're going to have to do it at this point. All right. Thank you for your your patience. I appreciate it. Do we have an opportunity to uh bring up some issues if they're not right now? Does anybody have any comments that they wish to make to to the uh the applicant at this point? I mean, you've heard all the uh um comments from the public, heard the response here a little bit. Um there is a couple things that uh I just want to clarify. You made a comment about traffic on Spring Avenue and Creek Road. Those comments were directed at the traffic generated by the development, not by the construction. And what I'm saying is the traffic studies that you said with the 16 additional vehicles was based on 16 new houses. It doesn't in Is that correct?

No. Um so it's just a sorry [clears throat] it's just a coincidence that the numbers work out like that. So the traffic studies were focused solely on construction. Okay. And it was 16 if under the most aggressive schedule that the site could be excavated one year. So we did one year, one and a half years, two years. I believe the math in the the study was 16 or 18 trucks per hour for during the hours of excavation. It's just a coincidence that there's also 16 houses. I see.

I thought you were you you were to be honest with you, I thought you were uh confusing me at least as far as the traffic generated by the new development. And I and I apologize if I did confuse you, but the traffic study and the traffic impacts we were discussing were from excavation, not the resulting subdivision.

That's fine. I've been known to be confused a few times, so don't don't take it to heart. Um now, um there was one other question I had. I would have to assume there was there was a question I believe uh brought up about there hasn't really been any determination on the route that these trucks would travel during this excavation. Has there been any progress as far as reaching out to contractors to find out where this material will be going?

Yeah, there there have been there have been preliminary discussions on the topic. Um nothing set in stone yet, but as we discussed uh previously, the the most reasonable routes still appears to be basically to come off Spreak on a spring. So nothing's been set in stone yet with a particular location. You say go down spring, right? And go down towards the city of Troy or out towards Posting Hill. Uh either would be an option, but most reasonable route would be to shoot out Spring Avenue to the east. Yeah. To 355.

I mean, we obviously have agreed that Sharp Road is not an option no matter what. I believe I believe we also agreed that Creek Road is not an option. Correct.

Yeah, we did we did discuss um specifically Sharp uh due to the nature of the road. [clears throat] Um you know, they did analyze when the when the traffic consultant looked at the plans, they did look at Creek Road as well to evaluate if that could handle the traffic if need be. And basically, it was uh mathematically drop in the bucket compared to the capacity of Creek Road. But um with with the likely routes now it does appear that spring a would be would be the route.

There was a u a a a comment made about damage to the road bonding the road. uh the damage to Creek Road for that short section that goes from your entrance way, whether it be a construction entrance way, would enter onto Creek Road and then go up to Spring Avenue. Uh I would expect that there would probably be some talk about placing a bond on that road for to if there was damage to it. That is a town road I believe, isn't it? Or is did we determine that? Both county. Yeah. So,

has anything been given to the county maps or anything that they can review which route or anything like that? Yeah, I believe it was sent to the county um back when the application was deemed complete. Yeah, I think it was sent to the county when the application was deemed complete. So that would have been over a year ago at this point in time I believe. We can we can follow up. Uh no no we have not. So um but we can certainly follow up with the county highway on the specifically on on the questions that have been brought up tonight. So we're we're happy to do that and report back to the board.

All right. Okay. I have no other questions. Does uh Chris, do you have any uh comments that you'd like to make here? Nothing. Okay. Wayne, do you wish to make any comments at this point? Change the plan since the last time.

That's correct. Nope. It's exactly as uh was presented. Um I have to look at the revision date on the plan set, but nothing's nothing's been changed. So, still the 18 lots meet zoning. Um, I know there's some discussion earlier about zoning and size of lots. So, the parcel splits on the west side of the road here. It is A25 zoning. I'm sorry, R25, which is 25,000 foot lots. On the east side is A40, which is 40,000 foot lots. All the lots are compliant with the A40, the more restrictive zoning. So, every lot is over 40,000 square feet. Um, just thought that was worth noting as well. Do

you have an estimate on the excavation for each building that's being built or is that built into your number? So, for every house that's built, the excavation required for that and the property itself, the parcel, is that built into this number or is that will be in addition to Yes, I believe we provided that at a prior meeting. I don't have the number off the top of my head, but I want to say it was it was between two and 400 yards per foundation, but um we can we can certainly circle back for that.

I have one more question, please. Um since we haven't seen any of the Well, I haven't anyways the water lines in that how far they extend on Creek Road. Mhm. Is there a possibility that it could be extended a ways to at least pick up the closer neighbors? So, or they can tap in. If I can rotate this to show you. Is that okay?

So, on the the full plan sets, this is this is, you know, a presentation drawing. On the full plan set, we show the water line extends up here on Creek. So, it would hit it would hit a handful of neighbors. Um and then it it makes a right and it follows up the proposed road with fire hydrants um in locations requested by the the local fire department. Um so I think it is within reason. We're proposing a tee there. So someone could always extend that if if the need arose. Um you know again with wells um I would think we're proposing a water district extension for this parcel. Um, so each each other property owner would have to request to get into the water district. That's again that's a town a town process. Um, but it's certainly possible for people to tap in and extend as they saw a fit to that water line. Without a doubt, you know, these these homes being provided public water, they're not they're not drawing wells from the groundwater, right? So, it shouldn't really be affecting um any of the surrounding wells as far as water

use at the end of the line. There will be. Yep. For flushing purposes, but yes. [cough] Thank you.

Anyone else? Ross, we did get a comment from the fire department. They're they're requesting a STOs fitting installed on the fired hydrants if this project moves forward. I just just give you a copy of that, please. Thank you.

There were two um adjacent owners discussed access to parcels beyond this project. Have you considered any of those previous to this discussion here tonight? um myself? No. But that's certainly something that we're we're happy to um have the applicant discuss with the adjacent partial owners. Would you consider extending the water line to the end of your property through the wetlands up to Creek Road as part of the development up? Oh, up Yeah.

in this location. um that's something we can discuss with the applicant if that's okay and and report back to the board. So, are you are you thinking um Well, yes. I mean, obviously the people right across the street and maybe the one a little bit further up uh Creek Road would be able to tap into that line,

but I think from what I'm saying is there's a lot of people that are concerned about when you excavate all this property that it may change their wells. And I was going to suggest if you could extend that line all the way to the end of your property into that wetlands area on Creek Road all the way up to there and have that available for anybody that wishes to tap in further up Creek Road. Okay. Do you know what that distance is from your entrance to that tip? Um it I to here

I'm going to approximate. Yeah, there's 180 ft. So 180 180. You're you're probably 700 ft in that neighborhood. It's not calibrated, but it's close. I mean, would you think that's a reasonable request? Yeah, we're happy to discuss that with the applicant. All right.

Yeah. Um for uh we heard the the concerns about the neighbors again. Um, from the the soil testing that was done on the site and the deep hole test done on the site, water level seems to be basically the wetlands are there for a reason. That appears to be the groundwater level on the site. So, um, not foreseeing any any changes to wells and whatnot, but we're we're certainly happy to discuss that extension with the applicant. Is there going to be any uh change to those wetlands if you take that hill out of there? No, there's there's going to be no disturbance to the wetlands.

Okay. No, we're not proposing any any wetland disturbance. In fact, there's a 100 foot buffer here um for disturbance. So, there's no disturbance within 100 feet of the edge of the wetland. Actually, that's a DEC report. That is DEC, correct? That's not core of engineers. Okay. Yes, sir. Is there a composition of the soil you're removing? Have you have you done any studies to see of the majority of all the soil you're removing? What what is it? There's a difference between, you know, dirt and gravel and stone and shale. Yes. What's what's in there?

Yeah. So, everyone's everyone's description seems to be a little bit different. Um, but it's going to be a mix of loms uh lom silt lom. There's some sand and there's some um like a a well-graded gravel in the area. So, um there's a pretty good mix of soils on. We don't anticipate shale or you might have to bring in heavier equipment or No, we don't anticipate shale. Yeah. Yeah. The deep testing. Yeah. All right. I think we've uh kind of exhausted the Okay. [laughter]

the topic tonight. Um obviously uh you're going to be required to do a full written uh response to uh the comments. Uh when do you think you'll have that ready? Um well, it's it seems to me like there's extended for seven days, right? Yeah. So, um, next meeting is in two weeks. Two weeks is going to be on the, uh, 19th. Okay.

I would suggest that maybe we put you on the agenda for the following meeting because I, if you have written comments, you only have about a week to prepare all these. And I think we'd want a little bit more time to review. If you want to bring them to the meeting, you be on the meeting on the on the 19th, you can present them. Okay. Uh but uh that's up to you which where where do you want to be? Do you mind putting us tenatively for the 19th and if we can follow up with the board um reach out to the building department um earlier in the week if that's okay? Sure. Okay. Absolutely. So you're tenatively on for the 19th. Thank you. All right. Do you have any questions for us at this point?

You're all set, Wayne? Okay. And I think we're done for tonight. Okay. Thank you. Thank you for your time. Okay. Okay. Second on our agenda is the Quint Tranquility Bookshop. And as you're coming up here, I believe we got a new drawing, site plan drawing.

I know there was some changes, Jacob, that had to be made this from the last meeting, some additions. If you could just go through those, if you would, please. Yeah, absolutely. Um Jacob Keysby here with Gil Chris represent Bookshop. Um plan hasn't changed very much since the last submission. Um we did that design as requested from the engineer as well as we added some residential style lamp post um to cut down on or to rather not to cut down but to increase or keep the residential style of the area. Um, and that's just the light the uh parking area.

Those are the two major changes that we made. Andy also submitted uh comments from our our public hearing. Yep. And that's that's about all I have as far as site management concerns. Okay. Uh Andy, you want to just kind of go through those? Sure.

Those comments or responses? So reviewing the comments received at the public hearing, we did submit written responses on four topics on traffic generation and safety, on noise generation, the county's comment on adding the walkway from the existing sidewalk up to the front entrance and lighting. Uh regarding traffic generation, uh we indicate there is the existing curb cut. Uh fortunately for the site, there is center turn lane opposite the existing curb cut that will not result in any backup on seven getting in and out of the site. Um we have uh eight parking spots plus the handicap spot adequate uh parking on site for the proposed use compliant with the town parking requirements. There are comments received about parking on the shoulder of Husk or across the street on Wyman. Uh but we think the uh proposal does provide adequate off- streetet parking to alleviate those concerns. Given the size and scope of the project, there was a comment about a traffic um report being undertaken. We submit that given again the size and scope of the project um and the location not in the the B15 but rather up in the business slate area that a full traffic study wasn't warranted on this application and hope that the board concurs. Uh there was a comment on noise generation. Uh we've addressed that in terms of the anticipated construction impacts. Uh obviously we will be grading and putting in the parking lot. There will be a new front porch constructed. Uh the only other exterior work is in the rear of the property. Um the construction noise to the extent there is any off-site

noise impacts uh will be limited to we hope that the full u renovation is 6 to9 months. Obviously the end use as a bookstore is not anticipated to generate any significant noise. Um, we talked extensively about the additional walkway uh from the sidewalk up to the front entrance. There are some sight constraints including location of the septic tank in the front. We will have the additional uh new walkway up to the front porch. As Jake said, we did add a residential style lamp post here that will light up the front walkway. We'll have a length underneath the new front porch. So if folks are going to be walking in the sidewalk and want to come in as we discussed there is an adequate spot here. Don't suggest striking that but there is area to walk here as the customers will be walking from their cars through this area as well to get to the front sidewalk. So um we're not proposing that additional walkway for those reasons. And lastly on lighting, as Jake said, um we have continued to have a wall mounted light on the east side of the building, hoping that that lighting within the three or four spots located on the south side of the parking lot. We've added two residential style lamposts uh for lighting of the four spots on the northern side of the parking lot. Uh they all are on site. The two additional lamp posts are adjacent directly adjacent to the parking lot and the one we add here is adjacent to the walkway. And we're proposing that that does adequately light the parking area as

well as the front walkway without creating any offsite lights. And the wall mounted would be a standard wall mounted light for those parking spots. and hope that that addresses fully the public. Okay. And you will have landscaping in front of the parking lot to shield any headlight wash across the

show. refresh my memory on this uh distance on this corner here to the lot line uh the corner of the parking lot. Remember we had some discussion about that. This this corner here. Yeah. Depending on how it's laid there. Okay.

All right. Does anyone have any questions? And if [clears throat] I could add for the record, I did receive a call from Lori Schindler this week. I spoke to her this week. It was a very pleasant call. She's very happy to have a bookshop next to her. We did talk about the parking lot and quite frankly, we're going to coordinate as I will coordinate with the neighbor on um on the west side as well. Um but it was very nice to hear from her and she's looking forward to our bookshop next to her realtor office. and sensor regards to everyone on the board. Okay. [laughter] All right. Um Wayne,

do you have any uh questions? Okay.

I'd like to make a couple comments about the sidewalk uh number three here. what I've witnessed. I also walk sidewalk with my wife and during the winter there are only two females that walk that all winter that lived in Springbook area and we are friends. uh their daughters went to school with my daughters, so I know who they are and they're the only ones that walk during the winter there with their dog, of course. And um far as uh I know last meeting it was brought up about people parking in the road and on Wineman. The only reason they park, they did park there is because this house here probably twice a month during the summer would have garage sales. Um, I feel this is the best use. I have lived from Roosevelt Lav to Arming Hall for 50 plus years and I feel this is the best use that we can possibly get for this area of the town.

We appreciate that. All right, then we can move forward. Uh Russ, I do have one comment from the fire department as well. They're requesting a Knox box installed. Okay.

All right. Okay. With that being said, um I will uh Make a negative. Okay, there's a uh negative declaration under seeker first order of business to issue a secret. Yeah. Second. Okay, we're we're in the seeker determination. Okay, we have a second. Is there any further discussion on that? All those in favor?

Any opposed? Now, we have actually two things we have to have a motion for. One is for the site plan. uh review acceptance and the u special use permit. What should we do first? Okay. Do we do we have to do that uh parking lot corner also with that? So I think built into your approval of the site plan if you're exercising the discretion to I just want to make sure requirement. So, it's a good point, but no, you don't have to separately vote on your approval of the site.

Okay. Are you going to make a motion to approve the site plan to approve the site plan with that uh that contingency or whatever with the understanding that the board recognizes that parking I think the number was seven. Correct. It was less than the seven. Correct. that it's less than and by approving that you're essentially exercising your discretion to modify that. So the motion is to approve the site plan as presented.

Okay. And uh do we need to also include um in the approval the recommendation by the fire company for a Knox box? I think we should I think we should condition upon the applicant providing enough. Okay. Is there any other conditions that anybody wishes to entertain at this point? Okay. Do I have a second on that motion? Recall. I'll second. A second. Okay. Is there any further discussion on the site plan motion? Okay. All those in favor? I.

Any opposed? Now on the special use permit, who would like to make a motion to accept this? I'll make a motion to accept that special use. Okay. Is there any contingencies [clears throat] or things that should be added to that? Should we stipulate the hours of operation or I think those were part of the site plan, weren't they? Or not? They're not hours of operation were included in the site plan application.

Yeah, we've included that in the record. I mean, generally, I'm not sure they're fi finally set, but generally um 10 to 4, 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. with the exception of Fridays, maybe 6:00 to 7:00 p.m. No Sunday and right now probably no Monday. So, Tuesday through Saturday. Why don't we extend it to make it Monday through Saturday? Monday through Saturday. Yeah, generally 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 a.m. exception of Friday 4 p.m. exception of Fridays to 6:00 or 7 p.m. Does that sound okay? Thank you.

The other point real quick is the board does have the ability to require periodic renewal of the special use. You can have the applicant apply for award. You don't have to have a renewal. If I want to point that out, I'm not sure what the board practice has been in the past with special use permits. Did you always put in a every three years every five years for renewal or would you only do those in certain cases? I think the the purpose the reason why we needed a special use permit on this application is because of the excess of 100 square feet and I'm finding that to be minor and therefore I don't see

right it's not like we're extending something out I agree with that should use right all Do I have a second on that motion? I'll second it. Okay. Is there any further discussion? All those in favor? Any opposed? I think you're all set. Thank you. Good luck.

Here's this is the latest one. All right, we'll keep on going to our sign.

We take a break from the agenda to do some uh housekeeping here. I forgot to uh review the minutes of our last meeting. So everybody had an opportunity to review those and this is the meeting of January 18th I think it was 15. Okay. Is there anybody uh have any comments, additions, corrections? Okay. Hearing none, I'll make a motion that the minutes be accepted as they were submitted. Do I have a second? Second. Okay. Is there any further discussion on the motion?

All those in favor? Any opposed? Okay. Moving along. Uh Monica. Okay. This is a simple proposed subdivision here. 1.1 acres.

Yes. when you were here when you were here under new business, there was a few things when you were here under new business that last meeting. Uh I believe there was a few things that were missing on the drawings. Um yes, you know, potential proposed house location, that type of thing. I believe Wayne has had an opportunity to review those and uh found them acceptable to to move you know proceed. Yes.

Okay. So u they were including you know the proposed house proposed driveway where septic systems and wells were in relation to the adjacent properties. These are just standard things that were required on a basic drawing for a waiver. Uh it's been reviewed. We feel that everything is adequate to proceed along. Does anybody have any questions on on that? It's pretty straightforward waiver. Okay. If there is none, uh I will entertain a seeker determination. I'll make a negative.

There's a second. Okay. Any further discussion on the seeker. Okay. All those in favor? I. Any opposed? Okay. And now on the motion to accept the waiver. Uh, is there any RER County? Uh, that's a town road. Is it a town road? Yes. Wler County septic? Yeah, Rel County septic. Uh,

sewer and water approval before they build or issue a permit. I think there's a note referring to that that this just shows that the possibility to build there but they would have to get the necessary permits for building. Okay. Yes. Okay. Okay. A driveway from the town. They also require you know a driveway permit from the town. Okay. I think I just say whatever permits are necessary. So the person intends to sell it to you probably. Yeah.

Look into that before they make the transaction. Correct. The town of Brunswick could not issue a bill in permit if they do not get a permit from health department first. Okay. I don't know how much I may or may [clears throat]

correct. Yeah, we understand. Yep. Okay. Uh we're at the entertaining a motion to approve. Motion to approve. No contingencies on this. No contingencies at this point. Okay. Do I have a second? conditions in the driveway. Yeah, that's county approval before building permit is allowed. Correct. Anything else? Okay. All those in favor? I. Any opposed?

You're all set. Now we can collect these drawings and uh use these to be for for stamping. So anybody what is your usual receiver as far as picking up a signed copy that I could then file clerks done the same night today. Well, they have to sign first. Once they sign, we'll reach out to it probably won't be done tonight. Wednesday. I didn't know if it was possible to get it file county before I leave. It's not. It's not. You're you're leaving on Wednesday for a month to Arizona. I I think

if it's not I think we can do that. Yeah, we at least have probably ready by Monday. Okay. Tomorrow. Yeah. If they sign tonight, you can tomorrow. Very good. Thank you. Pass those on. Great. Thank you very much. You're welcome.

Okay. Okay. [sighs] Next on our agenda is Kyle Smith. Did I see uh Mark Danskin? No. Yeah, he was here. I thought I saw him. Was headed for minutes, but I mean he only [clears throat] drew up these maps. Not really, [laughter] you No, I mean if you want him standing up here I suppose he's floating around. Do we want him here? It's up to you. Is he charging you by the hour? That's not I don't want to charge. [laughter]

Well, I'm going to turn the floor over to Wayne because he uh he has reviewed some of these things and we had a conversation today and uh he's a got some questions and possible uh You want this one?

Would you like my copy? First comment I have is on

item number 13 on page two. It says any portion of the site proposed action proposed action federal, state,

item side of the proposed action or lands adjoining. I guess it's probably part I missed. I don't believe there's any wetlands on. There is the creek that runs through. Does the creek count as wetlands? No, lands adjoining. They've been part of this certainly 1685 and then yeah everything west everything west of there it's the headarters of the deep is it a creek count as wetlands or is that a creek

okay wetlands is wet not swamp wetlands could be anything okay soils and vegetation wetlands sure It's pretty sharp edges there. So, it's just creek. You know what? I could have been okay. So, I'll action does not physically.

Okay. Uh I went through the site plan rags and kind of took a look at the site plan we need to have on the site plan. Okay. Uh, one is a small scale location map location to show where the surrounding area. Yep.

Um, there are no contours on here. Notice the existing foundation and I drive by it every day. Mhm. It's It's graded. It's Yeah. Mark can just throw. You're not changing any of the grading. Correct. Can you get some um contours on here? Sure. Some elevation. Um I'd like to see where you're getting your power from. Okay. Is there power to that site already?

No. You going overhead? Overhead. Is it off of kill or off? I would imagine it's up. There's a there's an old line that went to the old hotel. Okay. That's already overhead. It crosses this site. This crosses 1691. This site. So, there's a pole like a like a service. There's a pole directly. There's a pole directly across deep uh in front of the small one. over there that it's a comes out. That's the only utility you're going to have. Yeah. So, you want to see where the power's coming in on the map, too. Yeah.

Um I was a little confused of what the circulation traffic is. is like everybody coming off of Route 7. Yes. So your ingress your egress is Route 7. You should probably show that on the map. Arrow in arrow out. Sure. Uh are you going to use the curve cut at all? Nope.

I don't know. I'm not going to use it at all. a little galley of it. I'd like to I wish it was a curb again. I would do that if I was allowed or if it was you're close to the Yeah.

Yeah. What's the concern there? Yeah. Yeah. I don't want to come in and out at all. closed off. I don't need Yeah, so close the curb cuts. There's another curb cut that I'm closing as well. Right where the parking is. You're not proposing to close that up. Exactly. Yeah. Uh,

it's already essentially abandoned. I mean, it's grass. It doesn't look like a gravel. It just happens to be a curve. Your parking is right up against the property line. You require 7 ft between the edge of the parking and the property line. Sure. So, if you want relief from that, the board's got board has the discretion has the discretion to give you relief. Yep. Um yeah, we you know the parking is about 12 meters away from the curve. [clears throat] Um you had some really nice verbiage I heard earlier regarding the board and their discretion with parking. Can't recall it exactly, but I liked it.

I liked it. [laughter] Um um how how far from the well that's got that your 10 foot shoulder from the edge of pavement to your parking that patch. It's about 12 feet. About 12 feet. Yeah. So technically you do have some green space there. Yeah. Yep. It's up to the board. Yeah. I mean, I know it, you know, what's been there previously really is no bearing on what we're doing now, but that's where it was before. Yeah. Yeah. Yes. [clears throat]

I mean, I don't I don't have a problem with it the way it is. You're on good side now, but Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Future. Okay. Change the maps. Anything else, Wayne? Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. Um, is this something that maybe uh I could put this all in writing. Well, what I'm thinking of just, you know, maybe get with um Mark Dansk. Oh, you walked snuck in on me. [laughter] Write it down, too.

Are you writing it all down? There you go. Okay, [clears throat] then disre disregard that comment. Nowhere on this map does it say what the size of the parc is what the setback requirements are even on those setbacks. table.

Are you proposing any lighting? Just on the building. Just on the building. Wall packs or something on the building? Yeah. Small residential tile, you know, something to shine. Just some people that park. Correct. Yeah. Somebody could buy Yeah.

Do you have an idea of what this building is going to look like? Yep. Uh previously, did I not submit that to you guys? It was the zoning board. Was it zoning? Yeah. Okay. I do. Yeah. Um I don't have mom on me tonight. Is it elevation? Yep. Yep. Yep. all sides. Um

that's all I have. Uh what type of uh business is this going to have? Um know something say at first, but I'll say no and then I'll address that. Um, again I addressed it at the last meeting. It said we had mentioned it as twotory. This is not two story. I want to clarify this. I corrected that last meeting, but it made it onto the agenda for the evening as a twotory again. Yeah, this is not two stories. Okay. Sends it right on the map here. One story. Yes. One says one story. Yes.

Yeah. I just, you know, uh, we're heading towards a public hearing, right, at some point and, uh, twotory and one story are a lot different. So, I want to make sure it's right on here. Proposed onetory frame office with carport. Yeah. But on the on the agenda on the town website said twotory. Okay. And it was also introduced as twotory at the last meeting, which you know, I just don't want anybody to get the wrong impression. Um, regarding the uh business, it is it's just a private office space for a construction manager. Okay. The one comment too that Bill Bradley had as the MS4 coordinator was if there if he's going to add that 10 foot

um carport, I guess you'd call it. Yep.

He wants me to get a DEC permit to that. Regarding that, I um I met with Bill Bradley. Um and you said you were going to kind of work through the building department about whether you thought DC was important. I got ahead of it. I had a contact with DEC uh Will But who will Bill Bradley had recommended to me um in the past and I have exchanged a few emails with him. Uh I don't want to speak out of turn, but he he kind indicated he didn't think it was going to be an issue. Um but he is waiting for um his um um analyst to get back to him. He was hoping to get back today. They didn't. I was hoping to be able to come and say, you know, no issue with DC, but I have reached out to DEC. So,

perfect. Um let us know. Yeah. He's going to provide me with a a letter from DC saying, you know, stating that they don't have an issue with it. Okay. There's not going to be anything parked in the yard like construction trailers or No, no big construction equipment or anything like that. Nope. Gravel. Yeah. Okay. I know issue. You know, in the past there had been a lot of stuff parked there. That was an issue. I figured it was all your stuff.

Wasn't my stuff. [laughter] That place is neat and orderly. You've seen it. Okay. Um, does anybody else have any uh questions or comments, possible additions to the drawing? Does this have to go to county? Has to go to county site plan. Yeah. Has that been done yet? Okay.

Okay. Okay, you're right about the public hearing. It's required. Obviously, we don't have the right enough information, correct information at this point. So, when can you get this uh information on these drawings? Mark the baby snow. [clears throat]

I think I'm trying to determine whether we should put Mr. Smith on the next agenda or I can answer that for you. Uh that's February vacation and I'll be out of town with the kids. Hey, works for us. [laughter] 30 days. So, we'll be uh when's our next meeting? It would be uh March 5th. Would you have that information available by March 5th, Mark? You could run over with your loaner and dig down to the ground. He could do his post. Sure. I could put the plow on my truck. Yeah. I was just trying not to plow it so that people won't park it, turn around.

Okay. We'll put you on the agenda for the 5th of March. of March. Now, if we decide at that point, just to give you a rough timeline uh that we have enough information to schedule the public hearing, the letter to the county will go out and the um the public hearing would probably not be scheduled to the first meeting in April, right? [cough and clears throat] We skipped one because of notification type uh procedures. Yeah, I had different zoning too. Nobody showed so Okay. All right. We will see you on the on the 5th.

Father department requesting a Knox box. Okay. Off the mailing list conflict of interest. Do you hear that? No, I'm sorry. the requirement. Knox box for that structure as well. Knox, so they can open it up through the fire. It's a It's a vault that's going to go on the building that'll have a key to the building. The fire department has one in their fire truck. Gotcha. That they can It's secure, but they can release it so they don't have to beat your door in if there's a [clears throat] breaker, windows, dust, and stuff like that. Okay. All right, then. We will see you on the third. Yeah, you never know. [laughter] We don't get to break in anymore. No problem. We're good. of March, right? You said the third. You mean fifth of March? Yes. Okay.

Thank you. Thanks.

Okay. As I previously stated, number five was National Grid. They have chosen to be uh placed on a future agenda. And now number six is Fiser. Is that you, Mark? This is a minor subdivision and I believe there was just a couple things that uh the private road maintenance agreement has already been reviewed and accepted. There [clears throat] was a couple things on the on the drawing, wasn't there?

I added the note to reference the uh agreement. [clears throat] That was one of the things. Okay. Uh the other thing was uh modified swift segment control. modified erosion control.

You said it one more time. Modified include erosion sediment control. We're going to put some details on there. show and plan.

Would you like it as a sheet four or would you like it as an like just a I'm definitely I'm giving it to the engineer

survey. Uh, so you think four sheets or is it just kind of a extra? No, I mean should I add it to the submission or is it just a part of the submission? So that be sheet four. [clears throat] So do we need uh we need that before we deem the application complete? I'd like to see that before. Okay.

Steve Dean, I'm sure, is pretty familiar with this.

Yeah. I mean you can use standard details.

Okay. Follow up for service. So you want to see that before the plans are complete? Yep. I would like to see that. Very good. Okay. And I assume you'll have that ready by our next meeting. I'm hoping so. Yeah, I can't honestly say because I am not doing the work. I don't know how busy Steve is, but I should I should think you could get that out. Okay. Our next meeting is scheduled for the 19th.

Can you refresh my memory? Did we get um enough information on the site distance on from the road at Tam site distance on Tam Road? site distance right is 960 and left is 600 and that's a 45 mph. Thank you. No, that's cleaning my office. Isn't that like 55 somewhere? No.

You might ride 55. be [laughter] from New Jersey and we're not saving time. Okay. And I think we're all set for tonight. Very good. See you on the 19th with the uh erosion control plan and then we will schedule we this is you know there's a public hearing required on this one. Yeah. But you wouldn't schedule that tonight. We can't see the whole plan. That's correct. [laughter] Have a good night. Thank you.

You're welcome.

Um, that concludes our agenda. We don't have anything under new business. Is that correct? Uh, a couple things under old business. Uh I know people are asking about CBE North America that remains an active site. We have we have heard from them recently and that remarks were they're still working on on the plans and uh they're also working on I assume the uh scoping for the pause but

yeah but the point I'm trying to make is this still remains an active application. Yeah, they they have not they [clears throat] have not said anything otherwise to us. Yes, I know there's there's things going around the town that uh this is they have pulled out. Uh we have heard nothing. Yeah. Keep in mind too that the AT&T and Mavis was pushed to the 19th. Yep. Keep that in mind for your next meeting.

Okay. So that's all I have to report on new business. Is there any other new business? Okay, let's review our agenda. On the 19th, we have Paramont coming back tenatively. We have well National Grid is is they're they haven't scheduled anything yet, so I'm not going to put them on the agenda. And then we have Fiser, which is the one that uh Mark just presented. And then we have Mabis and AT&T,

but they're new business. Haven't seen them yet. What's that? They're still under new business. Yes. Yeah. Well, yeah. Yes. AT&T was AT&T was actually We actually brought them in front of you to start the ball rolling. So they're they're technically old business, but so AT&T more information is new business. Mavis is new. Mavis. Yeah, that's new. So actually on the official agenda, there's only Paramont and Fisher and AT&T. And AT&T.

So one thing I want to discuss with the board too was um Golden Grain. They're going in front of the ZBA for extending the size of their side porch as you recall. Yeah. Um so it does modify their site plan. Does this board want to see that after the CBA rules or they rule in favor of the client? Does this board want to see that application back? Do they need to modify approve the site plan because they expanded the size of that? That's an approved site plan. Yeah. I think you want to come back. Okay. To approve the increased size in the

correct so that we have something that's been approved that reflects what is going that is there. Okay. Would that consequent would a a second public hearing on that be up to discretion of the board? What's the change in magnitude? increased the size by I want to say three feet. Wendy I can't remember what the size I think the foundation's 3 ft wide but the the other issue is the overhang of the structure is nearly or encroaching on the town property because they're very close to the uh right away.

So let's cross that when the application comes in and we get back on the agenda. It's a relatively dimminimous change to the site plan. I would probably suggest it doesn't require any public hearing, but we'll see what it is. All right. [laughter] Anything else, Mark or Kevin? No. I can Okay. All right, then. I think we're all set. They cancel. No, that was approved. That was already done already. D Yeah, the due check. Okay. Due Jack was that was approved at the last All right. Yeah, I had a circle for this one. For some reason, I knew they weren't on me. Sure.

That's fine. That's fine. Better to check it out. Other than that, I don't have anything else. So, I will make a motion that we adjourn. I'll second it. All those in favor? Any opposed? Thank you. So, you guys have some We want to do the uh Well, there's two things. [clears throat and cough] So, National was here, we'd still be here.

There was nobody that could have left when he said National Grid wasn't going to be here, though. That was the problem. And I'm like, "Oh, [laughter] I think we all Yeah, I noticed that, too." Or they were all just going to talk about both projects and really double double. Well, they Well, actually, there was a couple letters that referenced both projects. Yes.