Planning Board - Regular Meeting

for the Town of Brunswick Planning Board for May 7th, 2026. If everybody please rise for the pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, to the republic for it stands nationy and justice for all.

Thank you. Okay, our agenda this evening is as follows. This is posted on the town website and the town board. Uh number one, Fiser minor subdivision. Applicant seeks minor subdivision approval to subdivide an 88.17 acre parcel into three new lots on property located at 842 Tamarak Road. Rebecca Fiser is the applicant. Number two, Mavis Tire site plan. Applicant seeks a site plan approval to demolish an existing residential structure and construct a new building to serve as a Mavis Tire Supply motor vehicle repair shop on property located at 721 Husk Road. Uh Richard Berei, am I pronouncing that right? Okay. Is the applicant number three uh Silus major subdivision applicant proposes a major subdivision on approximately 16.2 acre parcel of land on property located on the east side of Cole Lane. Jim Sillis is the applicant. Number four, uh Brunswick acres major subdivision approval extension. Applicant seeks an extension on a previously approved major subdivision application on property located on New York State Route 2. Brunswick Road Development LLC is the applicant. In addition to that, we have received two uh applications for to be considered under new business. Uh, our first order of business would normally be the approval of the minutes of the prior meeting. However, I don't

think we received those. So, we'll have to refer that to our next meeting. Okay. First on our agenda, the Fiser Minor Subdivision. Is the applicant here? I don't know. I don't see anyone that's representing that. I tried to reach out. I tried to reach out to Paul and he said they did not complete the what ls delineation delineation. Okay.

So before you move on um gentleman here in the the suit is Mr. Martin Miranda. He's an attorney representing Mr. Bolson. Um I believe he has uh submitted a letter uh that he would like the planning board members to have. I I think that's been distributed to each of you. Yep.

So I just wanted to acknowledge that that has been received. It's been distributed to the members. Um, so I I think uh we'll probably have Wendy uh send a copy to the applicants, assuming the board chooses to accept it. I have a question on this though. Uh this is in regards to the public hearing, I would assume. So I I've skimmed the letter. I have not read it very carefully.

Okay. Um my understanding is part of it is a request that the planning board consider reopening the public hearing and then I believe the balance of it um are Mr. Bolson's issues and objections with the application. Are these objections uh based on his comments? I have not had a chance to review the letter very carefully. So, I I don't know how much of it is uh consistent with what Mr. Bolson has already expressed at the public hearings versus what might be new or different.

Well, the issue here is that this is received after the public hearing was closed. Uh normally on circumstances like this if we do receive after the public hearing is closed and if there is a extension of the written comments to be received a week after or whatever uh we will cut that off at the date of seven days. So technically, uh, if this is in response to the public hearing, where do we stand with this?

So, I haven't been your planning board attorney very long. It's getting longer, but still relatively recent. Um, I don't know what the board's practice has been. Um, I would expect you to be consistent across different applications. If the board's practice has been to reject correspondence, letters, emails that come in from folks after the public hearing period has been closed, then you should be consistent with that here. On the other hand, if the planning board's practice has been to accept into the record correspondence, letters, followup after the public hearing has already been closed for the file, then you do that in this case.

Well, normally we will acknowledge receipt of these. However, they're not part of the record, but they are uh put on put with the application for possible future um consideration. For example, if for some reason the public hearing is reopened. So, that's that's I think our position. I can open the floor. Does anyone feel that uh at this point based on our prior history of public hearings that we should accept this as part part of the public record at this time? Does anybody have any comments on it?

I agree with your recommendation that it be entered into the file but not as part of a public hearing record since the public hearing was closed. Okay. I don't think that we ever open reopen the public hearings that I can rec I don't either

not in my 20s some years on I mean we've extended obviously the public hearings we've extended into a period of uh receiving written comment which are and that's usually by a uh whether we close the public hearing and then we allow for written response is up to seven days. So, I will acknowledge that we have received this. It's put with the application, but it's not going to be distributed as far as uh uh having to address any comments on this. Do you think we should give this to the applicant?

I think as a matter of courtesy because it regards it's concerning the application, I think the applicant should get a copy. Okay. Would you be okay with that? I mean, who are you asking? I'm asking uh Mr. Miranda. Mr. Miranda. I I think the chair is just asking, are you okay with the board sharing a copy of your letter with the applicant? Uh yes, absolutely. White. Um the reason for the request is based upon forthcoming information from the Okay.

So, what I'll say is this. I I know you've a couple members have noted that in your experience, the board has not in the past chosen to reopen a public hearing. That being said, none of you have had a chance to review the letter yet, right? You just got it. Um, maybe there is something in there that you're going to read that will persuade you one way or the other, but so I I don't know that you need to make any decision on that question now, having not yet read the letter. Um, but at some point, um, after you've had a chance to review the letter, mull it over, um, you'll have to decide, are you going to stand as it is with the public hearing closed, or would you opt to reopen it? All right, then I think we're we're all set then. Thank you.

Second on our agenda tonight is the Mavis Tire site plan. Okay, we got a large packet of material. So, And I know the cover letter says that you started to address some of the comments we made at a previous meeting. So turn the floor over to you and

Okay. Uh you mind if I hand these out? This these are additional renderings. Sure. Uh this is uh renderings looking uh eastbound uh actually westbound. Sorry. Perfect. Thank you.

Thank you. Uh for the record, uh Kevin Hixon with BL Companies, uh located at 355 Research Parkway, Meridan, Connecticut on behalf of 721 Husk Road for Mavis Tire. Uh Rick Valverde um is the applicant. Um, I've provided um some additional uh renderings uh that I can get to, but uh just want to also say that I got some aerial imagery uh that was actually from April. So, you can see some of the construction um to the east of us still under construction for the uh the approved food store with f uh fuel cells uh that also has uh an entrance that's north of ours uh under construction. Um tonight, uh we also have uh Gordon Stanbury from GTS uh the traffic engineer that performed a traffic study for this report. So I'll uh hand over uh some of that so he can give a an overview uh of the traffic study that was performed uh for this proposed development. Um so on um April 2nd uh we the last meeting we attended uh the applicant attended uh we incorporated some changes and and some comments that uh the planning board had brought up and we sent those revisions back on April 29th. Uh the following modifications included a tree identification and tree inventory report that I can kind of walk through um tonight. uh some site lighting revisions um reduce the light poles from 24 feet to 15 feet which is what's required. Um vehicle turning uh plan has also been provided with a box truck and a refuge a garbage truck uh also uh shown on two separate planes C110

and C1.11. A cuts and fills uh report was also provided uh that shows 3,000 cubic yards of fill. um that would be uh for the site as far as the balance. And then we provided some additional screening at the back of the property for a 6- foot high uh vinyl um privacy fence in addition to uh the 24 evergreen and one deciduous tree that'll be at the north property uh northern section of the property. Um and we provided that for some additional screening um uh for the the residential uh land owner to the north. And we've also provided a uh statement of operations uh for the Mavis Tire uh which was also requested by the the planning board. So I can get uh started here. Just uh just come out just to give the planning board um a perspective here. Uh this is a a superimposed um overlay of our proposed development. So it kind of gives you a perspective of the 0.647 647 acre uh parcel that we're developing with the 25 parking spaces. This is a more of a close-up view. Um to the north was the uh proposed signal for the uh development. Um actually Gordon had worked on the the traffic study for this development. Um and then Mohawk uh

Avenue um actually is just to the east of our development with our driveway uh located uh at the south west corner of Mohawk and Husk. So this uh the handout that I provided to you um shows the existing view uh looking east uh eastbound on on Husk uh road. Um this is an existing conditions. Uh this is the abuing property with a uh uh to the west of us. Um that has a uh a driveway curb opening. You can see uh a little bit of an existing retaining wall there. And there's a sidewalk that runs along parallel to Husk Avenue. And this is the uh the dentist the former uh dentist office um that's on the subject property at 721 Husk Road. Uh down the road you can see uh the retaining wall that is in the in the site that is under construction um to the east of us across Mohawk Avenue.

Quick question. Yeah. Uh there is no other curb cuts except except that existing driveway to the west of you. Is that correct? Correct. That is correct. All the way down back down to uh to the signal would be the other well no obviously Mohawk Avenue, right? Mohawk Avenue. Yeah. And then further down for this development with the with the uh proposed signal that that is operating.

So this is the uh superimposed view. Uh we have the retaining wall that's uh six foot high and then we have the uh 4 foot high u fencing that has the the slats in it for um for uh privacy and also headlight glare. Um, and as you can see here, we can, you know, from a visibility standpoint, you can see the store, uh, the signs, and also there's, uh, the 31 square foot, um, pylon sign that is at the corner of the site. Any questions on the the rendering that was done? Uh, the the Mavis Tire building is 22 feet 4 in tall to the top of the parapit. the proposed um block that you're going to use for your retaining wall, is that similar to the one that's on that's existing there now on

Yes, it'll be this the smaller uh modular block. Okay. Uh CMU uh wall. Um this the the wall that was done at the adjacent um development was using the larger block systems. Well, there is some debate right now about uh in the uh quick check wall of whether we want that to be painted. Originally was not specified to be white. It was supposed to be some type of neutral color similar to the smaller I would say the smaller brick that you have there. So, uh,

we can I mean the applicant is amendable to colors in terms of but you would you would you would have block that's that color. You're not going to paint it. No. No. It will actually be the the pigment would be built into the wall. I get a little concerned about painting walls now because right you know after a while you're going to have to repaint them again because they wear whatever. I'd much rather have a natural color there. Okay, got you.

I do know on these types of walls, the the stone strong, you know, larger block walls, they do uh like a staining on it to make it look like stone. I have seen it on, you know, sometimes you'll see it on bridge abutments for for bridges and stuff. Correct. Okay.

Versus just like paint where, you know, it would peel, but just my two cents on that. Um this was actually uh provided this view uh looking westbound on Husk Avenue across the street. Um this view was provided is the existing conditions that was taken um last month. And you can see the the abuing residential uh house to the north of our property. You can also see the the dentist office here. And then we taken that and superimposed the uh Mavis Tire. Here it does show the the widening uh from the 20 foot width of Mohawk Avenue. We're now widening that with our proposed development to 24 feet um based on a pre-application meeting we had with the town last year uh to increase that that width along there. And I can talk about um again we've we've we've shown um you know a number of uh evergreen trees at the back uh that'll be six foot in height. Um the fence will be immediate screening um for the development and that's at the back of the property. And then we would be adding in uh the additional evergreen trees. Uh there's one deciduous up at the northeast corner um which kind of flanks uh the other deciduous trees as you run south ab budding uh Mohawk Avenue and then a deciduous tree at the southwest uh corner of of the building. Uh the retaining wall uh that's proposed would run on the eastern southeastern side of the property and running south and uh coming back up on the the western

side. Uh it's just the nature of the elevations of Mohawk Avenue where we're tying into. We're about 75 feet to 80 feet away from um you know the the the stop sign uh that exists there today on Mohawk Avenue. That's usually like a um four to a fourc car queuing uh that would be provided here uh from our proposed driveway. Um again, we're adding some additional landscaping on the lower portion of the wall with some shrubs and ornamental grasses uh that would go along the entire way in uh parallel to uh the sidewalk that that is there today. Um, and the the number of light poles hasn't changed from previously. We're still at the the the 15t um uh for the for the for the site. And then the seven bays would be located on the south side of the building. And that hasn't changed either from our last uh meeting on April 2nd. Have you evaluated the um geo grid required for the retaining wall in relation to the light poles and the storm drainage system? Yeah, we've uh we've done this in the past where when you have a light pole base uh they'll there are provisions from the the the wall manufacturer to have that um you know because it'll be a a concrete base that would go through that but that hasn't been an issue with the past where they provide that that function functionality when they install the light poles. We are providing uh more of a crush stone uh from the face of the curb to the wall um just because of maintenance of maintaining that. Um you know when you have cars when you have the stone there it's a it's a lower maintenance uh item uh to maintain. Um,

plus we'll also have the the 4ft fence that'll be there for uh for fall protection um uh for the for the site and also the storm chambers.

Yeah, the storm chambers are further in and um actually I can get to that. So, the storm chambers um are about another, you know, 15 feet away. We don't suspect that that's going to be an issue. Uh but we'll run the run the check on that. Uh just to make sure. Uh but we have again with any type of underground utility piping uh we would work around uh the geog grid for the wall. And again the the walls at maximum is 6 foot high. Um so it's not like we're going at a uh more than 10 foot or 15 foot high wall. Uh the storm drainage as we talked about uh we have some disconnects from from the roof at the the north of the north of the building at the back of the building to uh provide some water quality treatment and disconnected. Uh that's why there's a separate uh line that comes in. Um and all the rest of the parking lot with the three uh catch basins shown here actually go to a hydrodnamic uh separator um to treat the the storm water before going into the underground. The underground detention system will be a lined uh system. Um there will be some um we do understand that uh I think it was boring B7 did have some groundwater uh 3 to four feet below existing grade. We are picking the site up uh but we are lining that uh that system at this point in time.

Have a quick question backtracking a little bit. You have your wall going along there and your your show uh you know these small bushes or shrubs along along the front. Um go back to here. This sidewalk along here is maintained by the town and is that correct Kevin? Yes.

And my concern is where is the snow removal going to go? Is there enough space to handle the snow without pushing it up against the wall and virtually destroying any of that landscaping? uh the space that you have there now like including the uh from the I think I show a 15 foot 15 foot to the uh actually from you see the the monuments or the the pylon sign right here. Yeah,

it's 15 feet from this point uh to the I guess it' be the uh back of or front of walk at that point. Um, so I just I just thought I'd bring that up. There's a space between property line, right between the property line and the back of sidewalk, there's another verge of grass. Is that correct? What was that? What was the question? Between the property line and the back of the existing sidewalk, there's a verge of grass. Correct. Yep. Like it's shown here. it. Yeah, you can see it in the simulation. Yeah.

Okay. Um, do you want me to go through the uh we can go through the uh in terms of uh state statement of operations? Um, yeah, I had some concerns when uh I reviewed the EAF, your hours of operation. Yeah. Um, you're basically going to be operating on Sundays also. That is correct. 9:00 am to to 5:00 pm.

And then that gets me into the noise levels of that site when it's in operation with impact wrenches and so forth and so on. Is there going to be an issue on especially the weekends for your neighbors

as far as noise generated? We can provide the planning board with um I think Navis Tire has a uh based on their store and operations they do have a uh report that I can provide to the to the planning board. Um we haven't provided it yet but I can provide that. Um we are providing the the seven bays uh at the south side um essentially facing away from uh the residential uh neighborhood that's uh at the back of uh or up the street on Mohawk Avenue. Um

is the back of that building have any um windows or No, does not. So any exits strictly solid steel doors. Correct. And it's only it's only um I think egress store that would be at the back. But that would that would be it. Yeah. Because their their entrance would be located at the the southeast corner uh of the of the building. That's uh 6,000. Okay. Yeah. Do you have any other sites where you're required to only operate with the doors closed?

I don't know. I can ask that question. You're talking about when a car comes in, they close the door and they operate. I can ask that question. When the door is closed? Yep. I mean, we we realize that there's certain amount of noise that's always generated on Route 7. Mhm. truck traffic, so forth and so on. Yep. I can ask that question. So, we don't need to add to that or make it more than that.

Right. Uh anything else about the the operations in terms of uh this terms of what uh you had all received or just the uh lighting? Yep. Just the lighting that I brought up in previous meetings. You said you were going to check with the client. Yep. Oh, the lighting about shutting off the lights. Yeah. One hour after closing. They were amendable to doing that. Uh shutting the the the lights off.

Great. Thank you. I just have one other thing. Wayne, do we have any concerns about the uh pitch of the property behind this building with water runoff and things like that? They've incorporated all that into their SWIP and their stormwater design. They've actually gone beyond the property to do the storm water. So, we're good with that. They they've accounted for that. Okay.

It's like 1.67 acres of drainage area that comes down, you know, through through our site. So, does the additional area up the slope that we've uh we've accounted for in our our drainage. If we had a severe thunderstorm, if water would run off that hill and then somehow end up on Mohawk Avenue coming down onto who's road.

No, we've keep kept everything uh contained when we're not grading out uh to Mohawk Avenue. Overland flow that comes from the abuing um uphill area will come through the site overland. Um it would get in it would be actually coming into in terms of the drainage area uh would be intercepted. Uh there is a uh an area here that would would intercept that and bring that around in addition to um the roof drains would actually be piped directly. Okay. So we wouldn't be uh going overland with with the building foot. Thank you.

Yep. And one final question with the uh the operations the hours of operations on holidays would there's no you know uh operations on those on that but what are your standard holidays for navis holidays state holidays combination of both what are they I'll have to ask navis tire u what their because I remember an application not too recently we actually had a specified by what what the holidays were that we were talking about. Yeah. So, we can do that, you know, as a condition. So,

I'll follow up with uh with the planning board on that.

Okay. Um, if we're good with the the operations, uh, I can move to the the tree inventory report that was done on April 18th, 2026, um, by our landscape architect. Um, and it require it includes a uh review and inventory of the trees proposed to be removed at 721. I believe there's 21 trees uh uh that would be removed. I believe two that are on the site are deadfalls, meaning they're uprooted. Um I think on the western side of the property. Um so those are being moved and I think there was a deadfall from the western property that came into into 721k uh road subject property. Uh that also would be um uh removed uh as well. Um the the species we we uh we took we took into account 8 inch in diameter uh DBH uh in a few cases they were multi- stem smaller trees that were on the site. Um, and they ranged uh from uh you know healthy fair condition uh trees. Um some were invasive uh I think it was the Norway maples that have that invasive uh uh tied to it. Um but Dom Seltruda, he's our landscape architect uh actually did the the site visit. Um and he had just pointed out that uh all the inventory and that actually shows up on our uh on our demo plan that's been updated as well uh uh with that's tied to this report. Uh the evergreen species. Yeah. Go. No.

No.

Uh the evergreen species at the beginning um uh are kind of crowding each other out and I think that's over by the the the retaining wall at the back. Um and then we've he also noted that the deciduous trees have not received any thinning or cross branching or dead limbs. And then a few smaller uh deciduous trees are on site are invasive. I believe it's the burning bushes uh that were on the um I guess the mohawk side of the of the property uh that were also noted. Um and then all the foundation plantings around the dentist office are are either unckempt uh stressed or or dead or dying uh overgrown with invasive in some of those areas as well. Any questions on the tree report? like to turn it over to Gordon if I may to talk about uh the traffic study that was done.

So we in regards going back to the wall again. Yep. There was a letter that we got from Mr. Bradley about the vault. Did you get that? He didn't get it. He didn't get it yet. He doesn't know yet. He doesn't know about that. Yeah. Sorry about that. We're going to tell him. You want to bring it up then? Well, I wanted to hear the traffic study first. Okay. All right. I'll turn it over to uh Gordon. Is there a particular map that you want? Uh just an overall set.

Uh good evening. It's been a little while since I've seen you guys. Um so I just wanted to uh introduce myself again. Gordon Stanbury, GTS Consulting. Uh I'm out of the Syracuse area. I am a licensed professional engineer and a certified professional traffic operations engineer. Um the traffic study for this development, we uh we looked at it and we chose to build it off of the study that was done for the 737 Husk Road uh because that development is not complete yet. So it didn't really make sense to collect new traffic counts when these this data was so recent. Um, so what we did is we took the uh the 2024 build condition from the 737 Husk Road study with the mitigation that is currently under construction out there and uh use that as our base condition. Um we then uh reviewed historical volumes and grew those traffic volumes up to a 2027 uh base year uh background year for this study. Um the uh based on historical growth, we added a 1.5% growth in traffic uh uh from 2024 to 2027. Redid the capacity analysis again with the mitigation that's currently being built for 737. Um the change in operations from the previous build condition were relatively minor. Uh two movements uh had a drop in level of service with increases in delay of uh 1 and 3 seconds of average delay. Um trip generation estimate for the uh Mavis was completed using the IT trip generation uh land use 848 tire store. So they have a specific use for this. Um for the overall development uh this is what I would call a minor traffic generator. Um we're projecting during the morning peak hour a total of 15 trips generated, 10 entering, five exiting. Uh the extra

entering is the employees. uh midday 12 trips entering 11 exiting evening uh 10 entering 14 exiting and on a Saturday during the peak hour nine in and 10 out um so it's generally going to generate less than less than 15 cars entering or exiting during peak hours which uh I don't think would be overly surprising. This isn't a a fast food restaurant where you have a ton of traffic going through drive line up with other locations. Um, surprisingly, uh, when I was first brought on to do the project, they told me what their typical traffic generation was, and it matched up almost identically with the IT numbers. Uh, so when I ran the trip generation, it agreed with what what I was told a typical Mavis operation is. Um, so we uh we distributed the traffic on the uh on the study area. Again, the study area went from uh Lords uh up uh through the uh Brunswick uh road uh intersection. Same as what was done for the larger development uh in the past. Uh with the additional traffic, we assumed all traffic was entering and exiting on Mohawk. Uh we didn't uh send any traffic up through the neighborhood or anything. Uh the overall operations impact from this uh minor traffic uh was minimal on Husk Road. We had uh two drops in level of service. Um the overall McZnney intersection uh dropped from a level service B to a C during the morning peak with an increase of 1 second um per vehicle. And the Husk Road Lord Avenue intersection dropped from level service C to D again with a plus one second. So it's just the intersections are right on the threshold. Uh so it's uh anywhere between a half a second to a second increase in delay. Um the analysis of the Mohawk Avenue approach to Huzzac Road showed that the additional traffic would have a very nominal impact on

operations uh with an increased average delay of 2 seconds per vehicle uh coming off of Mohawk Avenue. If you if you think about the amount of traffic uh exiting the site, it's uh generally one car every uh 4 to 12 minutes exiting on Mohawk. So it's you're not going to see a stack of cars coming out of Mavis. Um generally be one additional car once in a while. Uh so the delay is slightly increased but uh projected to operate an overall level of service C. So Mohawk Avenue is not a controlled intersection. It's stop sign controlled. Yeah. Yes.

Uh so you think there's access out of road from Mohawk Avenue every how often? Uh a a car coming out of the site. Yeah.

Every uh 4 to 12 minutes. So, one car every three cycles of the adjacent signals. So, it's it's rare. It's not a you know, it's not a consistent flow of traffic. Uh the majority of traffic coming off of Mohawk Avenue turns right. Um I believe it's about a uh it's about a 3:1 ratio. the bulk of traffic turns right versus turning left because obviously the right turn movement is much easier to do. Is there any consideration of putting this sign a right turn only instead of having everybody go up mohawk and down Roosevelt? Um again our study assumed see a lot of people going around to the light.

Yeah. Again our study assumed that nobody does that. So we want to see the worst case impact at the stop sign. um to put in a no left turn sign. Um, I don't think that would be an issue if uh you want to send people right toward who's a road. There was a discussion about having a directional curb to make them kind of direct them to turn right, I believe.

Yeah. At this time, I think we're adding just signage right now because the to try to put in a uh island in between it. we're going to be pushing uh further north uh to to accommodate uh a turn like that uh where you know if if somebody is leaving Mavis Tire and wants to go to the shopping center. Well, that was that was a point I was going to make to say yes, we don't want traffic to go up Mohawk, right? Uh, even though Miss Pel made that comment in the zoning board once that she made her customers go out that way, but to go out to the controlled intersection through quick check would be better. I see it all the time with Cumberland Farms,

right? Uh, and they go right through the Planet Fitness and come out by the lake. All you have to do is get one person that wants to take a left. That's going to block the three or four cars that want to take a right and they're going to keep on stacking up. So how we mitigate that, but I think we need to have a deep discussion about it, try to figure out how to fix it somehow.

Yeah, I mean we can take another look at that. Um, I just I feel like restricting movements and forcing people to go out to Husk uh versus going through the development to access the light should be the shortest distance uh for could you signal they're going to go to much closer. That's what I was talking about. Yeah. And if we if we direct them like we originally were talking about a direct director curve that would make them go to the right, they wouldn't be able to go to Quick Check. Right. Which might be for more people an optimal solution to get into Quick Check's property walk by the signal. Right. Right. Right. If they're going to take a left.

Yep. To go east. Could you flip to that aerial? I'm sorry that you had Sure. quick check and and again I would note that if if people chose that route to cut through quick check it's not going to impact operations at the signal with it being one additional car every three or four signals of cycles of signal I thought there was a directional curbing out of uh quick check there is signal will that allow them from quick check over down in this area well so the I I think only going out of quick check. Only going out, not going out.

Yeah, the quick check exit is uh being guided to the south to avoid people cutting up through the neighborhood. But if we're to the south of that driveway, it wouldn't impact our ability to use that further up. Quick checks is further up. Yep. They're right here. So even if there was a little bit go on Mohawk and make a right turn into Quick. Yeah. I think even if there was a little bit of direction, there's nothing to restrict curving to go in. I think the the entrances are so far apart from each other. I think they would have room to come up and get around that curve to come into. Yeah, I don't think it would be any issue to for them to enter into that development. Yeah, I think we measured it was like 60 or 70 ft further.

Yeah. So, and if you look at the proximity of the the Roosevelt signal, uh it wouldn't make any sense for people to go to that signal versus uh especially if they want to turn left, why would they go Well, I as a traffic engineer, I don't pretend to understand all drivers because they do some crazy things. Want to avoid the traffic at quick check. That's why they might go around to roads.

There's also that the the issue of going to the west to go to the east. people tend to try to avoid that. Um they don't like to go out of their way. Um i.e. people will wait 40 minutes in a Starbucks drive-thru, which still blows my mind, but um people are very finicky about wasting about going out of their way. So I I I would I would be willing to bet that people will use the quick check signal versus sign where they turn into quick check in seven east or What's that? You might put a sign where they pull in the quick check saying

seven east or seven I don't know what northeast whatever seven east and an arrow pointed towards into quick check over to is quick check also going to want all this additional traffic.

Well again um you have to remember the volume of traffic we're talking about. Um, we're looking at the the gas station or the um the other development there. They're generating a typical gas station uh I guess off top my head somewhere in the neighborhood of 100 cars an hour entering and exiting. Um we're going to be adding one car every four minutes. You wouldn't even notice the additional traffic. Um this is again this is not a fast food restaurant that's generating 80 cars or 100 cars an hour. We're talking about five to 10 cars entering and exiting per hour.

Chris, I have a question for you. Is it in the town's perview if they wanted to add signs like right about where quick check is to say local traffic only or no crew traffic or can it be added somewhere in that location? I I'd have to look at that. Okay. In terms of the authority to put signage out, I would tend to think so if it's on Mohawk. Um, yeah, if it's a local road, it would be town purview, right?

Any other questions on the traffic study? So, are you going to discuss the Bradley email? Yeah, if we're done with traffic, I have one one more question about traffic. Okay. As a traffic engineer, do you see any benefit with having um the undeveloped property to the west access may tire in the future?

Yes. Um I mean given the the overall space that you have having this develop you know this development would be able to access to a signal I I don't see a real huge benefit. Typically cross accesses when you have multiple developments where there's a trapped development in the middle but uh if you have access out to a road on either side uh it's not as necessary.

Thank you. And again, this development wouldn't be a real big cross traffic generator. So I assume the Bradley email does not is not traffic related traffic. No. If there's no more questions, I will turn it back over. Thank you. Thank you. Bradley. Well, we got a uh an email from Bill Bradley who's in charge of the Thank you.

So, I'm going to turn the floor over to Wayne. Yeah. Bill's the superintendent of water for the town. Okay. Um and he reviewed these plans uh mostly in regard how it affects his uh infrastructure.

Uh uh that uh water pit in front of the building has to stay essentially that's a regulator pit. uh in the event that he has to change flows, push water somewhere else, he needs to keep that. That is an operating um um regulator and it's an integral part of his water system. So that has to stay. So Okay. Yep. All right. And that's it in a nutshell. There was a question on an easement there too.

Yeah, you have a bigger overlay of where that affects your wall. Uh you have a couple the original I think packet we got was a little small but kind of referenced but it's hard to tell in relation to your wall where that would be on the one drawing where it says scheduled for removal. So, I'm just wondering if that's going to change the design of the wall a little bit and what it will look like.

It's close. Yeah, it's about couple feet away from the back of the wall. I can see here, but we'll we'll have to take a look at that to provide an assessment and we'll coordinate with Bill as well to meet with him. the the other issue there that he doesn't think a an easement was ever granted. Yep. Previous owner. So, yeah, we have to consider it. You'd have to consider an easement to the town. Yep.

That was built in the 1990s, right? That regulator pit according to Bill. Yes. Yeah. Okay. So, we'll meet with uh set up a time to meet with Bill uh do a further assessment of that and the proximity of the retaining wall. I think one of the previous walls that was there, there was a jog around something. It did buffer in for some reason. I don't in a different spot for one of the current walls that's there, but I don't know why they did it. Just you might be able to see something. Yeah, you might be able to see some previous like Google Street Views that might show that might be something.

There was another wall in front of not there, but it was either further down or the one that was taken down by Ace Hall's house. I think there was there was a jog in one of the walls for some reason. Okay. Yeah, we'll uh we'll I'll provide further assessment. Come back to the plan board for that. Have you contacted DOT yet about storm water? Yes. Uh we're in the process of doing that. Okay.

So, yes. Uh because we're tying into their system. Um at the at the south end of the property, uh there's an existing catch basin that we're tying in on the back side of that. Um, I think the think the existing dentist office actually has a pipe that comes and ties into that drainage system as well. I think it's a doesn't care. Yeah. Right. So, um, any other questions from the planning board at this time? I've taken some notes here. Our goal is to come back to to the planning board and

address some of these issues. Okay. Can Can you send me the plans digitally, please? Yeah. Yeah, absolutely. I'll get your uh business I not sure if I have your business card. I have I can give you my card and then you can just uh email me. Okay. Was the parking resolved about the inside Bay Area used as parking parking spaces? That is a good question. from my notes that I have still uh I've reached out to uh Andy Brick. Uh have not heard back if there's been a confirmation on that.

There's no confirmation. That's not that's not count.

Okay. All right. Thank you, K. Any other questions from the board? Wayne, do you have any questions? projecting, you know, a timeline on this. What things do you have to uh uh review at this point before we deem this application complete enough? Um the difference in the plans now were not significant. It was mostly landscaping and lighting. Um, but this I'm thinking this thing with the regulator pit might need to be resolved and get put on the plans.

Yep. Prior to consider complete. All right. So, we'll schedule for our meeting in the next meeting which is on the 21st. Yes. Yep. For a update. Yes. progress report. Yes, absolutely. Okay, thank you very much. Thank you, gentlemen.

Next on our agenda is the Sillis Major Subdivision. Okay. Do they want to be tenatively put on our next?

Okay. So, it's adjourned without date at this point. Okay. Number four on our agenda is Brunswick Acres. Okay, we received a very large uh pamphlet of documents. I think it was 80 or some pages that uh Andy Brick outlined the progress of where we were. And the question came up obviously is is the 90 days extension had expired the last one and there was a question two questions whether we could retroactive you know backdate uh extensions. Uh there was some concerns about uh when the actual last 90-day period expired. uh going through some of the literature, there was a letter that was sent to the planning or to the uh I think it was addressed to me, but it was sent to the building department and it was that you were requesting I believe in September of last year to be put on the agenda to be considered for a this would have and a third second.

So just maybe to review that's okay. Um I'm just going to throw out dates. Okay. So my understanding is that the um resolution granting the conditional subdivision approval that we're talking about was uh August 15, 2024. Okay. Yeah,

that started a 180day clock for the applicant to satisfy the conditions. The both the state law and the town code authorized the planning board to grant 90-day extensions. Uh on February 6th, 2025, as we were getting close to the end of that initial 180day extension, the planning board granted a 90-day extension that went through May 20th, 2025. on May 15th. All right. Again, shortly prior to the new expiration date, the planning were granted another 90-day extension that would have taken the applicant through August 18th, 2025. And that's the last extension that this board acted to grant. What you're referring to in the material we received from Andy Brick is what appears to be an August 15, 2025 letter. So 3 days before the last period was going to expire. It was addressed to you as chair but was sent by email as I understand it to Kevin Minnelo and Wendy. Um, what I have not been able to determine is what happened in response to that letter. And that letter was a request from Mr. Brick that he be that the uh, Brunswick acres be placed on the next planning board agenda for consideration of what he characterized as a final 90-day extension. Okay. So, that letter request was made and received. I don't see that the planning board ever acted on that.

So, the last official board approved deadline was August 18, 2025, but as you referenced, there was a letter request that came in shortly prior to that asking for one final 90 day. And that's that brings us up today. But this also corresponds with about the same time that Andy Brick claims that he talked to several individuals and they did not need an extension.

So in his letter, uh, Mr. Brick references conversations that he says he had with some people that Mr. Cassell had with some people. He does not in Mr. Brick does not indicate when those conversations took place. So I don't know if they were in this neighborhood of August 2025, if they were before that, if they were after that. I don't know. Can you kind of uh pinpoint some dates on that for us? As far as them dates go, probably I couldn't put my thumb in. Okay. I I've been in touch with Kevin. Yeah.

I've been in touch with the town supervisor. I've been in touch with, you know, anybody I can reach out and talk to. I, you know, you know me. I talked to people and I bothered Kevin in reality I have to say I've seen him every week then I skipped a period because I was away then I see him every week every week every week and we were under the understanding as long as you're working diligent on this project and that doesn't mean shovels in the ground that means getting paperwork Right. And we've been going for two and a half years with Niagara mobile back and forth, back and forth, back and forth. You need this, you need this, you need this, you need this, you need this. And every time the lawyer says, this isn't good enough. This isn't good enough. Niagara says, here's here, use this. You can work on that property whatever you want. But we have paperwork we have to do. Okay? We can't control that. totally out of Arkansas. I have on my phone. I can show it to you. I spoke to Niagara Mohawk. They got one girl signs off. Another girl signs off. Another girl signs off and then they get the guy to sign off. The ma the main person. Well, when that happened, I said, "That's your easement. We're all set to go." Got all the paperwork. No, that's not the final easement for watership. Your lawyer. Okay. I called Niagara Mohawk back again. And as you know, it takes three, four days to contact somebody. I finally get in touch with the girl. Well, no, you you still have to have PSC

sign off. Now, Public Service Commission New York State is going to work. Now, I didn't even know they were in the loop. Nobody told me that at the end of the day when Niagara Mohawk is all done signing off on everything, they have to hand it to the PSC because they're a publicly traded company. The PSC has to prove that they're getting paid the right amount of money for the easement. I called her the other day to see where we were. It was supposed to have gone to the PSA. She said, "Oh my god, luckily called me." She said, "It's still on. We have a new attorney in here and it's on his desk." I said, "You keep pushing me out. Push me out." She gave me a number. It's been submitted. The PSC will be finished with it July 29th, right? I mean, it's it's ongoing and ongoing. And I have friends at the PSC, so I call them to see if this thing can be pushed ahead of this 90day wait. It's mandatory. has to it has to has to sit there for 90 days. Nobody can do anything about it. It's not like you could go to the head of the PSC and move it along. They can't do anything. So finally the girl from Niagara Mohawk after she spoke to the PSC

Rachel up in National Turns around she sends me this right the 90-day period is up on the on July 29th according to our records. You see the number now it's it done. Okay. Okay. Now it's done. Once they've issued that number, the floor show's over. That easement when that 90 days is up. Like the guy from the PSC said to me, your your your easement is granted.

Is there is there a fee for this? We paid the 19,000 for a $460 piece of property. What they do is they deduct from the 19,000 their attorney fee their paperwork fee. You know, like they got a million fees in there. They got to knock out the 19,000. Have $460 for the property. And what's left? And this this was received today. April 30th. April 30th. April 30th.

April 30th. She sent this to me April 30th because it has been sitting on their new lawyer's desk in which to chase these people. It it's it's nuts. You know what I mean? It's just totally nuts. And we're simply looking for an extension. Okay. an ext grand grant an extension grant an extension grant an extension but here you we got a final that these are all these are all things never seen these before I mean we we issued you guys an ement on a piece of property you had a water line running through our property out on group two gave you an ement sign of paper was done we figured that's what you could do here well you couldn't. So, we got easements that are going to set water from McCord Lane through our subdivision, which is just single family homes. I mean, we're not doing nothing extravagant here. This is simply single family homes. It's going to come down. It's going to tie in to Kevin subdivision and make a big loop for the water. It It improves the water. You know what I mean? It's a It's got an improvement to it,

right? So, and and this is what we're up to. So, I'm trying to explain it to you as a regular person, not as an attorney, not as a, you know, an engineer. It's just as a regular guy fighting to get this stuff done. It's not as easy. You know, the girl, she strung me along. Like all she had to do is get her sign off. Then she had to get another sign off. Well, I just need my boss to sign off. Oh, finally I got this. You can't go no further than this. So, we will have this easement.

Does uh Kevin have that information? No, you don't have this this I just got home. When I came home from Florida, I got this. Okay. back to August 2025 though submitted that letter to go on the board and address instead of coming back for extension after extension why don't you get this complete and we can retroactively the extensions

attorney attorney

yeah it was at not to come back I mean, if you come back for extensions, why don't you get this national drinking handled first and then come back? We just didn't know it was going to take this long because in August we had the license from them to complete the work. We didn't know it was going to be such a long process afterwards. We had a hang up that we had to re redo the appraisal on the property. It came back $10 difference. Their original appraisal came back at $450. The second appraisal came back at 460. So they're like, I know it's a small dollar amount, but because u they have to go through the PSC, it has to be perfect. So they had to redo all the paperwork again for that difference, which hung it up another couple months. So it's just been bottom line, looking for you to give us an extension. See the date that I just showed you? We'll have the easement.

Well, we got this uh this packet from from Andy Brick and he went through quite extensively emails and so forth and so on. And I know you reviewed it, meaning I'm interested, Chris. Uh, was there any acknowledgment in that thing from Andy Gilchrist that he had this conversation and told them to just get the things done?

Not that I saw. So, remember Andy Gilchrist was zoning board attorney through the end of 2025, right? Um, there are emails in there from 2025. Andy Gilchrist is on some of those emails. I didn't see any content referencing confirming the fact that the applicant could come to get a retroactive extension. I just didn't see it. I I don't think it's See, that's the problem we have. In order for us to basically retroactive 90 days, I think we would have to do we figured what four.

So under the statute, the planning board is allowed to grant extensions in 90-day blocks, right? So if we go back to August 18th, just using rough months in my head, that'd be from August to November 18th would be one. November to February 18th would be two. February 18th would get you to May 18th would be three. And then anything beyond that would be a fourth extension from August 18th, 2025. Yes, we would need four. Are we allowed to do a backdated?

So, you know,

I looked all right. So, one of the things is we when Mr. Brick was here last time. I did suggest if he could do some research, if he could find some authority, legal authority that tells this board that has the power to do a retroactive um he said he would look. I didn't see anything in his um correspondence that directly provided that authority. I looked myself. Um, there is a uh New York Town Law Section 276 which allows for these 90-day extensions. There's nothing in that statute that says you can do it after the period's already expired. In other words, retroactively. I did legal research trying to find a court decision where a court said, "Yep, you can do that." I was unable to find it.

See, that's the level we have. Yeah. Listen. doesn't say you can't do it. It does not say you can. So, to be fair, the statute doesn't say you can. Statute doesn't say you can't. Um, I didn't find a case that says you can, but I didn't find a case that says you can't. So, I'm going to open up the floor here. We have a a dilemma here. We have never never done that. I

and you know it's 25 years I've been on this board. I've never run across where the situation would be where I can see sometimes maybe a time where they missed it by a couple days and we fit him in right meeting. But uh you know you're talking at least nine months at least. Yeah.

And somehow I think that's beyond our realistic expectation to be able to do that. I'd like to hear what board members have to say about it. Let before we get into that discussion, let me ask you one thing. Is there any other conditions of the condition approval that you have not satisfied? I I can't see a thing. Just the bond. Just the bond. Or the bond. You can't have a bond until you have a job. Okay.

So, you got to have a job. Kevin, can you uh Well, I did dust this off a little bit today. And they're right. They they did not do the bond for the infrastructure.

So, there's there's two there's two um approvals. One was the PDD with the town board. The other one was the uh subdivision approval with this board. You guys approved that twice under the town uh PDD. There's two outstanding I think uh we can we can chat with Mr. Cassell. two outstanding requirements that the number 11 on the town PDD required financial security for providing all public infrastructure a bond security agreement public for for storm water infrastructure subdivision road that's the one we've asked for and you kept telling me that I got to define what infrastructure is

that's the right we're talking about the same

that's number 11 number 23 is in compliance with this Brunswick zoning law 160-101 applicant must submit the estimated projected infrastructure cost including water public roads that that is is for the inspection portion of building the infrastructure. We've not gotten that from you yet. So you've got the infrastructure cost in case you go out of business, we can finish the infrastructure. This number 23 is to cover the inspection cost for us to witness the building of the infrastructure. I don't think that was provided yet, was it?

We didn't get a bill for it yet. You didn't get a bill for it yet. Yeah. So you have to tell us how much you want. Yeah. That's that's so you tell us that it says here it says here the applicant must submit an estimated cost for the project infrastructure including water sewer that's not the town the way I read it that's we're not talking about the town we're talking about the inspection yeah I've given the town I gave to a gren So they come up with I don't think we have that in the file that I'm that I'm aware of.

But either way, I could send something. I als I I pretty sure I gave a budget before and then the other two the other two are the uh under the subdivision approval which is number two um in compliance with zoning law 16101 the applicant must submit an estimated projected cost for grading together with an estimated schedule for all grading activities. So th this escrow is for us to establish the cost for inspection for the grading part of your project. I don't believe that I don't believe that's done either.

I gave that three years ago when we got the conditional approval when they were going to give us the approval to create the site before final uh because the department of health was having issue with the separate systems uh with the approval of that. So when we got our first conditional approval, part of that was I gave merge an estimate to create the entire site. All right. I'll have to get a hold of Ron for for that. We do not have that in our file. Yeah, I can I can I can tomorrow I can go back my emails. I can forward stuff. And then of course the last one is the easement for the national grid. So those four

the last time we spoke the only thing that was stopping us was the easement. That was that was the last time we spoke with was the eman. The bond comes into place when we can get something on a town letterhead saying the easemen we're we're going to we're going to bond the work in the road. All right. Because you're not going to get bonding company's not going to bond the house that's being built. I don't think anybody's asking I don't think anybody's asking to bond the house. We're asking for what? infrastructure. Okay, just write that down.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure I sent you something over August. If not, like I said, I put back my emails to resend it. Uh it was just a a letter, a scope because my bonding company said I got to have something either on the town letter head or a signature from somebody from the town saying this is what we want. Uh, I'll I'll I'll simply send you what's in the conditions, which you probably should have that that should certainly satisfy that certainly shows what infrastructure is. Talks about roads, talks about inlets, talks about water structures. I'll send I'll send you that. Yeah, but the bonding I'm not going to define what infrastructure is. That's not That's not my job.

It's Yes, but the bonding company just wants something from the town. Well, and I'll give you I'll give you what's in the conditions. But didn't you just didn't you just state that the that figure is supposed to be determined by the applicant? Well, he claims that they gave it to Ron. So, I'll have to check with Ron. You know, I Yes, I did. I also I'll check with Ron. I thought Andy gave it back in the email. Sure. Um,

do you think there's some confusion here with the requirement the conditions of the PDD and the conditions of the conditional approval of the There's 24 conditions. I think there's 24 conditions with the PDD alone. So, as I understand it, the PDD came first from the town board, then this conditional subdivision approval. And I think the first condition of your approval was you have to comply with everything in the PDD. So that kind of incorporates the PDD conditions into your final subdivision approval. Okay. So that's how they get roped in. So is it

there's 28 there's 28 conditions. So it may be fair to assume that Lege has some of this information that was submitted and it wasn't passed back down to the town. It's certainly possible. Sure. I mean, I I don't think we can assume that. It's possible. When he sends you the emails that are dating, then you're going to unassume and you're going to see it's a fact. I just haven't seen him yet. Okay. Okay. Well, so make sure you have his I think we've got it right there. It's not even a question. It's like I don't I don't have it.

That's your what Burge works for you. You know what I mean? That's we we're instructed to send it to Ronald Le Burch. Ronald Burch keeps it this project has gone on since 2019. But here you go. Here. So here you go. Here's a letter. No, I I fully understand that. But you know, part of my job is to make sure all the conditions are met, you know, for the subdivision. So I'm just crossing the tees and dotting the eyes. That's that's my job. I mean,

yeah. I'm just letting I got the email right here. Uh it's actually from Ron to the town on 92822 with a copy of my estimate along with his estimate to match my contingency and stuff like that. So So it also went to the town. Yes. So who did it go to win the town? When did you start in 2022? Is that what he said? 2022. Was that the date? 92822. Okay. The Well, I mean the problem.

Can we get an extension here? That's is what we need to know. This is that that is the question. We don't know. It seems to me that I don't know if we can, you know, legitimately give you those extensions. That's that's the issue right now because of the time period has elapsed.

Chris, what's the procedure if we can't does the applicant go back to the town board for another PDD and then back to us?

No. So, the PDD is separate. Okay. That has a different standard to it. Um, and I'm paraphrasing here, but in order to keep the PVD in effect, the applicant has to show that they have commenced and are diligently pursuing the project. That I think is the language that you may have referenced when you spoke. So, my understanding is that I don't want to overstate it, but as far as the town is concerned, my understanding is the town acknowledges that they have commenced and are diligently pursuing. It's different with the subdivision approval that has a clock attached to it that's subject to extension. If the period if the clock expires without a further extension, then the conditional approval is essentially void and the applicant, if they chose to pursue the project, would have to recommence the subdivision review again. Okay.

Have any underlying um regulations pertaining to the property been changed since August 2025? The original date, the conditional approval was in August of August 15 of 24, but they got extensions up up to August of 2025.

That's correct. So between August 2025 and present day at regulations on the on the land changed has anything changed in the application pretty much the approval? I don't know. We can't determine that. Can we Well, I think DC did change some regulations, but I believe a port order null nullified them relating to wetlands. Right. Right.

So, I I don't know the answer to that question. And and that, by the way, is why they have the time frames in place for the subdivision approval. At a certain point, when too much time passes, circumstances may be different, things may change. it's a good idea to have them come either do it or come back and we'll do it again. I don't know that anything has changed materially to this project or this property or the law, but that's why they have the time frame. Well, we could do this two different stages. We could pull the board and say who wants to, you know, is it a extension of maybe up to four 90day periods? Something that you feel you want to approve? If it goes that the board chooses not to approve the 90 days, then the alternative would be to resubmit the application and just go through the process and and you could submit the same plans. It could resume the same way and uh but it would require another public hearing on it

just like we just like the first time just like the first time. So I think the first step we're going to do is I'm going to take a a poll the board with the all the circumstances involved with what you've heard about the ability to extend the inability to retroactive possibly and everything considering uh I would make A should I make like a motion to

So I I don't know. I think what you're looking for is some member discussion. Yes. Right. Where where are you? What do you think? You're not I don't think you're calling for a vote at this moment. I think you're trying to take the temperature of the board.

Okay. And that once you think people have spoken their minds and they've shared their views, if at some point somebody wants to make a a motion either to approve the extension, so um you know I guess I would calendar it for 90 days from today, right? Um, so that would it would be retroactive to August 18th through today plus 90 days to August 7th. Yeah. 20 26, right? Got that date right? Yeah. July July 29th.

Or alternatively, somebody could make a motion to deny um the extension. The other consideration is um you know are you leaving the door open for the applicant to come back for a further extension in August or are you communicating that this is the final extension. I think it's important for the applicant to know whether that door is going to be open again or whether this is it just for their own planning purposes. Um so that would be another alternative which is say you know if we choose to grant this this is the last one we'll be granting you know if you come to us again in August we're telling you now what the answer is going to be that would be an option or you could leave the door open because who knows what's going to happen maybe there'll be some legitimate reasons why they couldn't get something done and you'll want to keep that opportunity open if you're so inclined. This this is the only thing.

Well, I got it. You know what I mean? There there's there's a few other issues we need to get together on, right? About the bond, the estimates. There's stuff I know the bond will probably the last thing that gets done because I have to pay. So, yeah, I get you want to make that last, but I know you've referenced some communications with Ron Le. We got to catch up on that. All right, I'm gonna uh start the discussion with uh with Mike. Oh, thanks.

I wasn't here for all this. I'm a new member, of course. Um I would like to see some of the emails that went out. You stated to the supervisor, the town attorney Andy Gilchrist. Uh, I'm not comfortable voting on that tonight without seeing that somehow in writing. You stated that you had sent emails out to the supervisor Andy Gilchrist and the town attorney uh just before the extension was expired, I think.

Oh, no. that I said that the conversation which that's in that file is where Andy sent an email to Andy Gillress and I'm saying in conversation Andy Gilrest said I didn't say it was a guess to confirm anything that Andy would say would be a call and just to clarify who was it who had this conversation with Andy Gilchrist Andy Brick okay I wasn't sure if it was you or Andy Brick or Mr. So, so you had the conversation with the town attorney and and Andy Wilkers.

I I would like to get something from them. They did have this conversation. Andy was not the Andy. Too many Andies, but Andy Gilchrist to my knowledge has never been a town attorney. He's he was a zoning board attorney and he was a planning board attorney. Okay. just makes your run same page. I was saying I had emails with he sent me the estimates for the work to complete stuff like that. I never got so I just

I kind of agree with Mike. I think we're in little here anyway. I don't think they're on the clock to do anything, but I I think the most important thing I'd like to see is the information that went back and forth between Ron and the town and they can review that and make sure that all those obligations are met if we were to do that. So, was the I just want to clarify too because I have some notes. So, was the extension granted on August 18th, 2025? No, that was the end of the last That's when it expired. That's when it expired. So that was that. So it's I mean I would just like to see the information from Ron and because he should have some information about his determinations in there as well. Well that to come up with his information that you need,

right? Because he's going to see the infrastructure. Yeah. And come up with that information inspection piece. So he can't give you that unless he knows in depth what he's inspecting. So you know and and I'll I'll be honest. You had a town engineer. You had you had Lebert here. Well, I understand that. But here's here's the here's the stuff to Lebert. The other issue is we haven't seen it. We got a stack of papers this week today that we can't review. I know. So, we're going to get it. Don't send it to us on the day of the meeting either. We look at that. So, I when he said he had a pile of paperwork, this is why I said let's cut to the chase.

Right. Just want to know that that's been communicated back if if the Burge can confirm that to us. That's what we're looking to see. We're looking to see all this data you're talking about. Just John, just to clarify, um Mr. Brick's letter was emailed to the building department on April 30th. You haven't seen it before tonight, right? But it was sent in on the 30th. They didn't just hand it in today. Just point of clarification. Okay. a ton of stuff. I mean, it's a lot of stuff. I was going around in a circle trying to read through it because it seemed to be repetitive. I mean, there's, you know, it's email chain. So, you start seeing the same emails.

From what I understand on whatever he gave me and I understand very little I just in conversation was he was just showing how we were communicating with everybody. Now, when I say we, I don't mean me. I mean me and Kevin sit down and talk like two human beings. Everybody else wants to play on their computer and send in email and send this thing and send that thing. That ain't my game. I'm a talk guy. But he's just trying to get all this paperwork that he had to you. You know what I mean? He just wants you to see it. And um because he want to know when did I talk to? I said I talked to him. Well, how I said, "Where my mouth?" How do you talk? I guess send an email is talking. I don't I don't think in today's legal world I don't I don't think in today's legal world having a conversation is something you can look at as legally binding. It's

not. I uh I understand what you're saying. I would like to hear from Andy about clarify Andy Gilchrist. Andy Gilchrist. I'd like some clarification from him as to what he remembers this conversation to be. Uh and as I said, this word of mouth stuff, it it just doesn't fly.

No, it don't. No, it don't. During a during a, you know, nobody nobody can be a man and just talk like men because everybody forgets. Everybody I just got done talking to him about everybody totally forgets. You know what I mean? Luckily, this gets recorded.

I'm not get into that conversation with uh I think that uh I think the board needs documentation before they do anything. And one would be a hard copy of this thing they got from National Grid. The other might be uh Andy Gilchrist's interpretation of what went on. I just I don't see how I can support this time. National Grid is offering me anything the town wants except the piece of paper they give you after the PSC signs off at, you know, you have to wait for the PSC to sign off. There's no way around. I mean, no matter what it

No matter what, at the end of the day, we're going to have a water line coming down through there because we're going to have an Easter. You know what I mean? at the end of the day because we already put our money up. Your what? We already put our money up. So, we will have accessibility through there to bring water down into that property. So, that's that's a mute issue. You know what I mean? Is it going to be into a subdivision for the town? That's the different part. I think the town has everything from except for that last

Well, you given a teach you stated on several occasions that officials of the town told you that don't worry about it, you can come back and get retroactive extensions. I haven't seen any paperwork where somebody from the town Andy Kilpris uh Supervisor Harrington um Kevin I haven't seen any paperwork on that. Yeah. I just said that we did have a different measure except for that last email that we just showed last week. That's my that's my position.

Well, I'll we'll reach out to Andy and see if he can show us an email something clarifying. That would be good. Which Andy are you referring to? I'm saying we'll reach out to Andy Gilress and see if he can clarify the stuff from August. So just again, my understanding is Andy is has not not only left his planning board role, but I believe he's no longer practicing. So you might have to track him down. That the old email address you had for his firm probably will not work is my guess. I don't know. Great.

I I have a couple issues. Uh, first of all, I really find it hard to believe in all my experience on this planning board, in particular working with Andy Gilchrist that he would uh tell somebody that they did not have, don't worry about any extensions, just do your work. Uh, get everything done. and it'll all work out, so to speak. I just find it hard to believe that he would even uh concur with that type of decision. The second thing is is I do not want to get into a situation as a as a planning board member to retroactive any extensions. I think that's the responsibility of the applicant and certain extent to uh uh the town to monitor these and in a timely manner ask for these extensions. And with that, I find it hard to believe that they would waiver a 90-day, you know, kind of discount a 90-day extension in August and then not even think that there was multiple 90 days that well, wait a second, we're it just it just doesn't seem in my logical thinking that this would go much more beyond the end of the year and somebody would have

to say, "Okay, we got a waiver on that 90 days. We need another we need another deletion of the 90 days or another reprieve from the 90 days." I just found it hard to believe that Andy Brick would just assume that I don't have to come back anymore, right? I it just I find that mindboggling. And um of course he had you know he's he claims that he's gotten an okay to do this from conversations between you know Phil Harrington, Andy Gilchrist and uh Dave Gruinberg

and Kevin Minnella's name was also

of which I haven't heard anybody come up with any you know verification or collaboration of this this decision to to just, you know, discount the the 90 days. I there's there's nothing that I've heard from anybody that says this. So that all being said, I would be interested in finding out that information that John, you know, and uh Don had concurred with as far as who said what and uh uh get some type of letters in place to satisfy all the other things with uh Ron Leurge and so forth and so on that he has yes received this or he has said this or something like that regarding the other conditions that have to be met. Um I don't think I'm prepared right now to sit there and say yay or nay. So uh just based on those reasons I I just there's too much information out there that has to be clarified. But if it came down to be honest with you that we have to grant an extension, I don't see how I could do that under the circumstances. Grant an extension. I would suggest that the be uh sent under a new uh subdivision application and just we'll go through it real quick and and have the record straight. That's that's my opinion. I agree with that. Um I have in my notes from back in 51525

that we granted an extension to Brunswick Gres for an additional 90 days, but I have in my notes that the 180 days the PDD will end on August 23rd. So that's not our document. So I would want to look and check. But my understanding is that the town code relating to PDDs has that shall commence and diligently pursue within 180 days which is different than specifically getting us the easement getting us the bond you know those things. So my understanding is again the view has been that the applicant has commenced and diligently pursued

not construction right no shovels in the ground but they've been pursuing it but that's a different standard than the subdivision time. Thank you for that. Can I clarify something? Can I clarify something? Linda, your notes say that we did grant a 90-day extension on August. No, May 15. May to August. Yes, that that

and in my notes it says waterline district extension easements and national grid signed. And that that's all I have in my notes. So, and I'll I'll say this. Over that summer, uh they did uh get a petition into the town board for the creation of the water district extension, the drainage district. I think that was it, which did get approved by the town board. So, there was okay

stuff going on over that summertime period that got you into August. And I would ask um we have another meeting on May 21st. Your uh national grid information you indicated comes in on July 29th. July 29th. I think that gives us some time to review the documents that came to us shortly before this meeting. And I'd like to um table this conversation to the next planning board meeting. Dave,

I guess I'm looking for somebody to tell me that we can do retroactive or whatever. U don't want to set a precedent and open Pandora's box and wherever that will go.

And and and by the way, that is a good point, okay, about setting a precedent for the next guy who comes along. Um, I don't know that I'm going to be able to give you a definitive yes or no. You can or you can't. All I can tell you is what I found. And I have not found anything that says you absolutely can or anything that says you absolutely can't. What I can tell you is that the statute does not talk about retroactive. Your town subdivision regulations do not talk about retroactive one way or the other. Um, and and there is some suggestion. again. It's like Cinderella and the clock turning midnight. Once it's expired, it's expired. Never to be resurrected again. So, I'm not going to be able to sit here and tell you definitively this is the legal answer. Um, but but there is again that, you know, if you choose to do it here retroactive, what are the standards you're going to apply the next time you get a request from a different applicant who's missed a deadline and now want to retroact it? you know, um it's just something to think about.

I guess my only other comment would be if they were to resubmit say for our next meeting and we accept the application as complete and then we schedule a public hearing. That all could happen before July 29th as far as the calendar. Right. Right. then you have a longer clock overall because it's a brand new application. You still have conditions. You wouldn't have to worry about the 90day renewals which we're still going to have to do no matter what. So what I'm curious about and I'm going to try and find out while we're talking is because this was your second application, right? It is, right?

No, it would be their third. They No, no, no. But the one we have in front of us was the one was the second. Correct. So, I'm curious about, and I bet it's in the resolution, how long it took for that second application to go through the pipeline.

Here we go. Keep talking. But but that it it may not be as lightning quick as you think. Or it may be or or it may be all right but I I I wouldn't want you look at the downside.

Second subdivision was approved on 81524. We we had a lot of revisions on the plans over and over and over and over again which are done. So I I found what I was looking for. Go ahead. The second application, the approval we're talking about now according to the resolution was received on June 5th, 2024 and the final subdivision approval was August 15, 2024. Yeah. So that was about two and a half month turn. So that would be the same time.

Well, I I don't know that we would 100% commit to that, but that's a it's an example of how long it took. Well, I I'd like to, you know, just comment on on what Dave said. I don't feel comfortable even if we could retroacting, you know, predating a a a 90-day extension, let alone four of them or three of them anyway. Okay. So, you're more comfortable with the resubmission. I'm I would I would that would be my alternative. That would be my choice of what to make this

What about you, Mr. Anderson? You you you seem awful indecisive about how do you feel about that? Well, while he's thinking, I can tell you right now, if I don't see any documentation about everything we've been talking about, I don't feel comfortable with it. I'm comfortable with here. I think we're all kind of like in that boat, right? So, you got a longer clock with a resubmission. The resubmission, you think this the resubmission is the best? We're looking for your help. You have documentation, you have conditions, you come back and resubmit with all that. They've already gone through the process. I wasn't on the board at that time, but you know, mostly every member here was. So those conditions

quick review. We we get a uh can't see how it would expedite process. You know, you got to talk to Lege. It's not Wayne, it's Lege. Yeah. I don't know. Le did the review because they did the PDD for the town board. That's why Le Bridge did it. They did the uh they did the PDD review. The town board does that. Lever, right? But we did the subdivision. Correct. So we kept lever on to do the review of the subdivision because they did the PDD. That's why. Let me just say so if they resubmited they Let me just say I'm not against your development.

No, no, no. I'm not saying that. But I want it done right. I want the like Kevin said, I want the tees crossed and the eyes dotted. And I think that's pretty much where everybody is. And as far as I'm concerned, we have crossed twice as many tees and dotted twice as many eyes. Show me. Okay. And we have until the end of July what was already noted already. She already noted that. I mean, you're not going to get the documentation at the end of the day. So what we need for the July paperwork. So at the end of the day, we're looking at three months worth of the resubmission. There's three months of time for the resubmission. We can work on this and you get it done. Direct conditions be those last four that are outstanding.

I'll have to think I'll have to think about that. Basically starting over. So it's like we've already met all these. I'd have to think that out. Right. You might have conditions that are part of the document but that you've already satisfied. So no need to do it twice. I think the plan conditions are kind of copy and paste.

Yeah. Like said, I would have to look at that. So, I can't commit tonight to what that document would look like when we're done. So, maybe just to bring this to a head, I think the option for the applicant at this point is you could choose to withdraw your extension request and plan on resubmitting a new subdivision application, which this board would then move through the process. or if you're not inclined to do that for whatever reason, you can stand on your extension request. Um, I don't know if the board is prepared to act tonight. I've heard some people suggest that they're not. Uh, so we would come back, you have your extension request considered. If it's granted, you have an extension. If it's not, you still have the option of doing the resubmission.

I mean, I prefer you because after conversations, it gives us two weeks to make a decision. Maybe that's up to them. But yeah. Yeah. to say,

right? I think that I think that's the cleanest way. Cleanest way. And and when you're done, you get a whole new 180 days. Right. Right. Yeah. Oh, nobody's going to come in and go, "Hey, wait a second." You know, somebody with a No, they won't have a reason. You You'll have more time. Okay. And you got to get four yeses out of these six. said, "No, I don't know if you got it." So, we don't got it. And we know that. I mean, right. So, we just our first cumbers and it was approved August. Ah, you make me find it again. I got it. I got it right here. It was June and then it was approved on August

June 5th to August 15th. Write it down. Everybody's this month. Less than 90 days. You got it through with in probably 6 to 8 weeks. Yeah. And that pretty much coincides with your July 29th for um as a matter of what is July 29th? Is that a that's after that's after our second meeting in in uh 29th in July has to be right the August 6 would be the first meeting after that I won't be here

but the sooner you start this project then the sooner we can schedule the public hearing which is going to be the key because we take you don't get the public hearing at the next meeting you have to go two meetings after So if you we were going to schedule a public hearing uh for you, it would now have to be not in on May, it would be the first one in June. So you see what I mean? There's there's a two meeting gap because the the notice requirement. So we come back on the meeting on the 21st ask for a public hearing. No.

Or submit. You're going to submit your your your new subdivision application. We're going to review it, make sure everything is the same, there's been no changes. There doesn't have to be any changes and things like that, and then we'll have a a review of that. Wayne will review it. Yeah, probably. Leurge would have to review it. Is that correct? Just like we would any other application. Again, I know we have a leg up on this one. We've seen it before twice, but still go through the same motions. We also have to coordinate seeker. The other one sailed right through the second. The second one pretty much said I don't recall any hiccups. It's the cleanest.

It'll be the cleanest. Yes, we had the application before the next meeting so we can go through it. Yeah, the application. That'll help too before the next meeting. Our meeting is on the 21st. So, if if you can get it to us a week in advance, which is really a week from now, so we can review it instead of getting it the same day, the building department can get it to us. We can double check it all. Like I said, this it's newer to me because I I wasn't on the board when the first one came around. So, so that's all right. So, we'll put you on the agenda for our next meeting just to get this ball rolling.

All right. So, I just want to be clear. Are we agreeing, pardon me, the applicant is withdrawing its request for an extension? We are agreeing that the prior subdivision approval has expired and the applicant's intent is to submit a new subdivision application. Yes. Got it. Does the Does the applicant ask the town to contact Leurge You don't have to use Le Bridge. No, you can do it. See because the PD is done. It's got to be there was a benefit at the time I would imagine because

enough about this project because I sit here and listen this is just it has nothing to do with correct the question was who's going to be our reviewing engineer on this right thanks comfortable doing it you're comfortable doing it okay I I of the plan. Then we're all set. Everybody's in agreement with uh with this. There's no other questions. I agree. All right. Okay. Thank you for your time and your patience. Thank you. Take care.

I'm going to step out for a second. You guys can start with the new business and I'll catch up.

Okay. Okay, new business. See which one is first here. Okay, the first one I have is uh a waiver of subdivision for Jason Hogue. Okay. What we can do is we can just just This is the one that has the tricky sub. Okay. This is a waiver and the problem is is that the properties that he wants to convey and join into another one are separated by a cick. Is that correct? Do you have any insight on this, Kevin?

No, it's a very tricky. I think the overall thing was instead of doing a a wave with a subdivision was to do a lot line adjustment. Yeah. Okay. Uh, he wants to stream. I don't understand what the stream has to do with it. It's got because of the ingress and egress. that lands conveyed to

it has to do with the access to the road to the lot. See where Broadview Court comes in. There seems to be a little bit of a problem with this because he doesn't want to get in off of Liberty. He didn't want to merge the deeds was my understanding. He wanted to leave that as a separate lot. So that's his only ingress and egress is off of Broadview and and and the class A stream crosses right at that um 27.65 segment.

Gotcha. That fronts on Broadview Court. But he's now conveying it to Morano who has access to Liberty Road. Right. But he's not he didn't want to merge the lots, right? Where is Where's Where's Moran? For whatever reason, oh, okay. If he just merged the lots, that would solve the problem, right? Because he might want to split them up later on. Why didn't he give Well, then he wouldn't have frontage. Well, Morano, you're going to create a landmark.

Could take off of 15 foot thing off of the end of the Is it possible to cross that stream as broad as a quarter? Can put a bridge in. I don't know how big the stream is. I don't think it's very big. I got one I could step over, but I I'm not sure why it's a class A either. That's typically for drinking water. I don't know. seem creek at the end of Hill Road you can step across and I saw two 20 some inch trouts come out of there at the same day like every stream that runs into the Tomic Reservoir is a class A.

I don't know why this would be well we're kind of speculating here. Does anybody have any problem with putting it on the agenda for our next and then uh in the meantime we can study it a little bit more and be able to intelligently have a conversation with the

So we'll place them on our agenda for the next Okay, second on our new business is Burger King.

Sorry about the weight. No problem. I know how these go. Okay. Trying to move this. Everybody see that? All right. We'll manage.

I can move it up. You are you are under new business. We can't make any decisions or anything.

Um, so good evening. Uh, my name is Craig Trip. I'm a landscape architect with GPI. Um we're working on behalf of uh Carol's for the renovations that are proposed at the Burger King location just down the road. Um we submitted the uh the application package which I believe you all have in front of you. I figured I'll just give you kind of a real quick overview of what we're looking to do. And really everything we're looking to do is relatively straightforward. It's all related to uh Burger King's branding upgrades and site improvements related doesn't want to stay up. Um site related improvements for things like pedestrian and vehicle circulation. Um so just to quickly go through this uh the existing site has well in excess of the required number of parking spaces per code. We have 72 currently. We we are proposing a reduction in that down to 66. And that's all related to the uh upgrades for things like ADA accessibility as well as the the the biggest site improvement that we're proposing is to add a second um drive-through lane for another menu board and order box. And that's all just all all related to efficiently getting customers through the drive-through lane. So, um that's what's shown here. here. I mean, this is just a a rough quick hit on a splashing some color for you guys tonight, so it's a little bit easier to see what we're looking at. But essentially, everything on the site as it exists in the current condition is relatively staying the same. Two major exceptions are the fact that we're adding that secondary um drive-through lane. And to do that, we're taking the existing dumpster, which is located, you know, more or less adjacent to the building on the back side, and and uh proposing to move it to the back corner of the site. Um along with that, we are we currently have there's only two ADA um parking spaces currently. So, we're going to add one more because with the number of

spaces that we do have, that would be what it takes to meet code. Um really, that's kind of about it. The only other piece that we're proposing to to do to accomplish that is the current condition, this island that separates the parking lot from the shared access because Dunkin Donuts is on the other side over here. it just extends up and kind of ends at the last parking space. And to get the the access to swing in to the new drive-through location, we're going to cut that a little bit short and add another um landscape island on the end cap there. That's kind of about it from a storm water standpoint, utility standpoint. There's no new utility um connections proposed or necessary. Everything's already there and already functioning. Um, storm water is going to continue to be conveyed in the way it's conveyed currently. Um, there's two ways that storm water is coming through the site into two different discharge points. To accomplish the drive-thru, we do have to put a couple new catch basins in the back in the green space, which is where there already is a catch basin to begin with. So, we're keeping the split occurring in the same way it already does. Uh, no new water is going to get introduced to either of the two current discharge points. I think with that I mean if there's questions I'm happy to to go through them. Um and

and what you gave us do you have what's currently there? Is there a picture in here?

Yes. Yeah. It's a full set. So it's got the the alta survey for existing conditions. It's got the demolition plan layout landscaping everything's on. Another thing is you might consider on the west side of the property instead of having the parking perpendicular to the property line doing it at an angle because all the people going well nobody ever parks there but you're going to be coming down from the top. Probably easier to pull in at an angle than uh do a to a 90 degree thing. So in that respect, we can look at that, but that that that's just what's there. We're not proposing any changes back there. We're keeping everything that I

just think that when we approved it the first time, we should have put those at an angle. But I believe they were at an angle at one time. Okay. I don't because of backing out because of the drive up there. But I think if we look back, we might see that it was angled at one time and they didn't do it or we told them not to worry about it. Uh they went possibly when they restriped it, they didn't put it back on angles. You think an angle deal good idea? I think angle is a great idea.

Yeah, we can certainly look at that. It it it it would be a lot easier to back out on the angle so that you could pull out the donuts has that on the other side. But the problem with them is the drive lane blocks those parking spots. So you don't have that, but still backing up at an angle down is a good idea. Okay. Is there a plan to connect the uh site to set sidewalk?

So there was initially and we actually looked at that. We were getting into laying out a connection right down through here. we were going to come straight off of there because of the the grades that are out there. Um the whole site slopes from back to front towards seven. The main part of the site isn't too steep, but once you get down here, especially in this corner, it really dives off and then continues to dive off between the parking lot and the road. So, it just was not playing nice from a grading standpoint to get that through. We were going to end up having to do things like switch back ramping and all kinds of stuff in the green space. We've got utility poles and all kinds of things to contend with. So, it was just really fighting us to do that. Can you wrap around the sidewalk on the um entrance drive?

That's one of the discharge points for the storm water. So, again, that's kind of a a depression in there with an outlet pipe coming into that that area. Kevin, is this considered a an amendment to an existing site plan or is it all a new site plan? No, I would consider an amendment. Okay. Does do the amendments depending on the uh the you know what they're directing is it uh required to have a uh

you're asking a public hearing. Yeah. Yeah. Can I figure that out between now and the next meeting? Absolutely. County, I think all site plans, especially on Route 7, we would require a public hearing, but I don't know about some amendments. We did do some amendments. I think we have public hearing. Didn't we do an amendment to uh Honda their front? The last Honda thing was the back entrance. You know, they they had they had to redo the front, too. They did a canoe facade. The new facade and they put a new a blind in one driveway. Yep.

Stuff like that. As I said, I can't remember on the planning board if we had remember that. Is this is this going to uh stop your operations or they're going to continue operating? Oh, as far as the like having to shut down to do the work or um I don't believe so. I think it's all uh um I'd have I can get you that answer by the next meeting, but I don't think that's that's the way it works. What's the red box? I don't

that was just to so the red the red on here is just showing you where new uh you know order boxes, menu board locations, the height bars and this one here is because all that's actually going to be built now is just a a conduit with a pull string for a future button freezer location. Okay. You have any questions, Wayne? Are they repaving the whole parking lot once they make those changes or

not the entire lot we're going to repave the extent of where so what you can see in gray here and so it's a combination of concrete pads for the car locations and asphalt for the rest of the main you know the impacted areas where we've got to change grades to get the the new work that we're proposing. The rest will be seal coat and restraight. Okay. I there are there are people that try to walk and I've seen it. Yeah. Um to go down from there, try to go across the street and jaywalk across Suzuk Road to get to Walmart. Um especially for the bus.

So, you know, even though you don't really have one, I don't know if we want to promote that, but I know on the zoning board you talked about trying to have some guidance like in striping on the on the pavement to direct that, but since you don't have a sidewalk, probably can't do that, right? Yeah. You're not supposed to direct people into a place where give them a place there's no legitimate crossing. You can't or should there be signage saying that as well. Yeah.

Because you don't have it. It's just something to think about zoning. So, okay. Okay. All right. Well, obviously we just got this tonight, so uh give us a chance to take a look at it. You're under new business now. We can put you on the official agenda for our next meeting for the 21st. Yeah. Yep. Perfect. And uh I don't know if you want to consider, you know, doing the restriping of the the lot and so forth on a couple of things that I mentioned tonight, but we certainly would uh look at those.

Yep. Absolutely. Thank you very much. Okay, you're on our agenda for the 21st. Thank you.

Before you do the uh agenda review for the next meeting, I wanted to um address the board very briefly regarding the Fiser subdivision application was on our agenda earlier. The applicant was not here. Based on the date we held and closed the public hearing, the deadline for the board to act on that application was May 17th, which is coming up. Um, I have spoken with the applicant's attorney, Paul Angster, about extending that action date and he agreed to extend it on consent to the board's June 18th, 2026 meeting. So, that is the current deadline. doesn't mean it can't get extended again with consent, but that's what it currently is.

In conjunction with that, we still should review that letter that was received. Correct. So, I I reviewed it briefly. I have not reviewed it carefully. There is that specific request that the board reopen the public hearing, right?

Um, which may affect some of the timelines here if the board were to choose to do that. Uh and then there are I think three other issues that are raised in terms of the application, the process. You'll see it when you read it, but um the the one item that the board would need to make a decision on relatively soon would be the request to reopen the public hearing.

Okay. Um, one other thing with that, uh, there was a a problem with the the easement that Waters had with his electrical line. It was determined that was they didn't whether it was a legal easement. I think correct. I I think if I recall correctly, the person who signed it did not actually have title to the property. he was kind of doing it on behalf of somebody else. That that's is I I know what you're talking about. Is it something that can be easily corrected or not?

Uh I believe uh the applicant was going to be looking into getting that corrected. I think they acknowledged that it was an issue and that they were going to have to figure it out. How easy that is and how they're going to do that. I don't know who's responsible for that. I I don't know. Okay. All right. Something that I realized after we've been going through this for a few meetings that those driveways down to from just about where that power pole is down to Tamarak Road are all on an easement. They're not on land that's owned by Fiser.

No, they own it. What's that? I believe they own it. So, this is my fault for opening the door by bringing up Fiser. Uh, but we probably shouldn't engage in a substantive discussion about the application at the end of the meeting. Folks who may have tuned in to hear us talk about Fiser saw us, you know, basically defer it. Uh, basic, you know, we spoke with Mr. Yeah. Bolson's attorney, but so these are all good things. probably just not for tonight.

Okay. Then, uh, reviewing the, uh, agenda for our next meeting on May 21st, I have Fiser, I have Mavis, Silus was adjourned without date, so he's not on there. Brunswick Acres, Jason Hogue, and Burger King. So, there's one, two, three, four, five items on the list.

So, would and it doesn't much matter, but would Brunswick Acres be considered new business? So, you're anticipating a subdivision application between now and the next meeting. That's why it's on the agenda. It's not on the agenda for an extension anymore. Right. They agreed to Right. So, that that's a new application. Go to the bottom list for new business. So, it's new business. I think they ought to be known that. I think they I think they went away knowing that they were going to be on the agenda. But they didn't know if they were first or last. I mean, they can still come in as new business. You just tell them it's going to be

in the back. Since it's a new application, it has to be on the new business. I'd be glad to tell them that. Okay. Just say a technicality. So then we have four items with a a one new business. Is there any questions on the agenda? Okay. Does everybody have any old business? Okay. Hearing none, I will make a motion to adjurnn. All those in favor? Any opposed? I second it also.