Planning Board - public_hearing

I'd like to bring this meeting to order for the Town of Brunswick Planning Board for August 6, 2026. If everyone would please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you. Okay, our agenda this evening is as follows. Third number one, Fisher, minor subdivision. Applicant seeks minor subdivision approval to subdivide an 82.17 acre parcel into three new lots of property located at 842 Tamarack Road. A public hearing to commence at 7 p.m. Rebecca Fisher is the applicant. Just as a footnote, we are moving this public hearing to the second public hearing, which I will mention now. Number two is the Mavis 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 motor vehicle repair shop on property located At 721 Hoosick Road, public hearing to commence at 7.15 p.m. Richard Valverde is the applicant. Like I said, we're going to switch these around because the Mavis Tire is a joint public hearing with the ZBA. And number three on the agenda, SILIS, major subdivision, which is tentative Applicant proposes a major subdivision on approximately 16.2 acre parcel of land on property located on the east side of Coal Lane. Jim Sillis is the applicant. This particular item has been withdrawn from the agenda by request of the applicant and rescheduled for the first meeting in September, which I believe is the third. So like I said, we're going to switch these two around. We are gonna have a slight delay because we did post the Mavis tire for 7-15. However, I'm going to officially open up the planning board meeting to just take care of a few business items, and hopefully we'll be able to commence the public hearing at 7-15. So with that being said, our first usual item of business is to review the minutes of a prior meeting. In this case, it would be May 21, 2026. Has everybody on the planning board had an opportunity to look at that? Is there any... questions, concerns, amendments, changes?

Make a motion to accept the minutes.

Okay, there's been a motion to accept the minutes as they've been submitted. Do I have a second?

I'll second.

Okay, all those in favor?

Aye.

Okay. Unfortunately, only the people that were at the meeting should be voting. So there's abstentions of Mike and I believe Emil, is that correct? You were not at that meeting? So the vote would be four approved, two abstentions. And they are approved. Okay. Just as a other point of business, we all received A current copy of the comprehensive plan. Just like to refresh our memory on this. That's why it's been submitted. Just to review it at your leisure. And at a later date, we may be asked if we thought there's any changes or amendments that might be considered.

Mark, can you speak?

Mark, would you like to say anything or did I say enough?

You've got a few minutes to heal.

Okay.

So yes, as the chairman said in front of you is a copy of the current comprehensive plan. Town board is entertaining the idea of addressing any frustrations or challenges that either of you boards or the building department AND LEGAL DEPARTMENTS MAY HAVE WITH IT, AND THEN WITH POSSIBLY AN EYE TOWARDS UPDATING ZONING AS WELL. SO LOOKING FOR EXPERT INPUT FROM BOTH BOARDS AND THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT AND THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT. TAKE SOME TIME, LOOK IT OVER, YOU KNOW, AND WE'RE JUST LOOKING FOR INPUT, AS I SAY, FOR ANY RECURRING FRUSTRATIONS OR CHALLENGES THAT YOU FEEL, YOU KNOW, RISE AS A RESULT OF THAT, AND WE'LL GET BACK TO YOU IN THE NEXT MONTH OR TWO AND COLLECT ALL THAT DATA. THANK YOU.

that pretty much uh concludes any business uh that we could fit in here so uh what i would do now is just temporarily uh stop the meeting i have a recess for eight minute recess and then reconvene around 7 15. and at which point i'll have the zoning board call their meeting to order and then we'll call the public hearing to order

Is there going to make a motion to go into a recess?

Yes. There's a motion to go into a recess.

I'll second.

All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Thank you. So we're officially recessed for eight minutes.

Thank you. Did you hear that?

Peace out. Thank you.

I hope so. Thank you. Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, I'd like to reconvene the meeting of the planning board.

Just as a point of order, I think it would be a motion to return from recess. Okay.

Do I have a second?

All those in favor? Aye. Thank you.

Okay, moving forward, I'm now going to turn the floor over to and Clemente, who is the chairman of the ZBA, to open up their portion of the meeting so we can open up the public hearing.

Thank you. The zoning board appeals to open the session meeting to join the planning board and join the public hearing.

Thank you. At this time, I would like to read the procedures for our public hearing. The purpose of the public hearing is to hear concerns, comments, and views from the general public regarding a particular proposal or application. While public hearings are electronically recorded and a written record of the proceedings is generated, the applicant will be required to respond to all concerns and comments made at the public hearing. And subsequently the planning board and the zoning board of appeals will consider all concerns and comments when evaluating the application to ensure that the application has addressed all the issues in question the public hearing will be conducted as follows the notice of public hearing will be read by the planning board and the zba attorney next the applicant will give a brief presentation on the proposal and will provide any updates on the application upon completion of the applicant's remarks persons from the public will be recognized and these individuals be allowed to speak and offer their comments, concerns, and views. Since the proceedings of the public hearing are electronically recorded, it is requested that all speakers step forward and use the microphone at the podium. All speakers will give their name, address, and for the record, excuse me. So at this time, I would like to officially open up the public hearing for the planning board. Ann, would you like to officially open up the plan?

Zoning Board of Appeals open the public hearing of the Zoning Board of Appeals. On the application for the area variances, there were two of them submitted by .

Thank you. At this time, I'll have the official notice of public hearing read.

The following notice of joint public hearing was duly published in the newspaper, posted to the town clerk's signboard and posted to the town website in accordance with law. Notice is hereby given that a joint public hearing will be held by the planning board and zoning board of appeals of the town of Brunswick at 7.15 PM or as soon thereafter as may be heard on Thursday, August 6th, 2026 at the Brunswick town hall 336 Town Office Road, Brunswick, New York to review the site plan application submitted to the Planning Board and the application for two area variances submitted to the Zoning Board of Appeals by Richard Valverde concerning the demolition of an existing structure and construction of a new building to serve as a Mavis Tire Motor Vehicle Repair Shop on property located at 721 Cusick Road. The application materials are on file at the Town of Brunswick offices located at 336 Town Office Road, Brunswick, New York, and are available for inspection during regular business hours. All interested persons will be heard at the public hearing.

Thank you. Okay, at this time, I'll have the applicant come forward and give a presentation. And please address the public on this.

GOOD EVENING, FOR THE RECORD, KEVIN HICKSON WITH B.L. COMPANIES, 355 RESEARCH PARKWAY, MERRITT IN CONNECTICUT. AND TONIGHT.

EXCUSE ME, COULD YOU JUST TURN THAT AROUND SO THE PUBLIC CAN SEE THAT?

YES.

WELL, WHATEVER WAY YOU THINK IS.

So tonight, uh, 721 Hoosick Avenue, um, We're here before ZBA and also planning, but for ZBA for area variances of the real rear building setback of 30 feet, which is abutting a residential zone to the north of the property. And we are at 25.2 feet. So that's a 4.8 foot difference between the required 30 foot. And we are also asking for an area variance for a dumpster enclosure, uh, uh, rear yard setback of 20 feet. And we're at 14.77 feet, which is at the Northeast corner, uh, of the Mavis tire, uh, building. Uh, so that's 14.77 feet, which is a Delta of 5. Uh, two, three, uh, feet. Um, So the Mavis tire is on 0.647 acres of land. It's in the B15 zone, commercial pyrite. We are at this time, we have shifted, we have coordinated with Bill Bradley, the water superintendent, and Kevin Minello, where we performed some test bits on an existing water meter vault, which is at the south side OF THE PROPERTY, IT'S ACTUALLY LOCATED ON THE PROPERTY, ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. AND THE PURPOSE OF THE WATER VOLT IS TO REGULATE FIRE FLOWS. IF THERE'S A FIRE ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE SITE AND A FIRE ON THE EAST SIDE, IT'S ABLE TO GIVE EQUAL FLOWS IN CASE THERE'S AN EMERGENCY HAPPENING ON EITHER SIDE, EAST OR WEST, ALONG HUSUK. So what we have done and why we're requesting this area variance is that we have shifted the parking lot, the building to the north, and we've provided this notch out that you can see along the frontage of Hoosick and that notch is to keep it away from the existing structure. And like I said, we actually GPS field located the actual water meter vault structure. What we had included before previously was just the cover. So it has, it's a, I think a 14 by 8 structure that's there now. And so we're accommodating, avoiding that structure or moving it because we've looked at other options as well. and so with that it has reduced the parking from 23 spaces required to 20 which i that waiver request would go through the planning board is my understanding on that and um The 6,085 square foot Mavericks Tire will have seven bays on the south side. There will be four lights for the parking lot. We provide a photometric plan that was provided for that. And there will be one access point off of Mohawk Avenue. which is on the northeast corner of the property. It'll be 24-foot wide access, two-way access point. And we're also providing a sliver widening on the west side of Mohawk Avenue to increase the width from 20 feet to 24 feet. It's our understanding in our pre-application meeting, I believe it was last year, that... trying to increase that to help with school buses and any traffic that comes through there just makes it a better way of means of egress at that intersection of Hoosick and Mohawk Avenue. We have also provided a vehicle turning for the dumpster enclosure. No tires will be stored in the dumpster enclosure, and we provided that turning movements. And the difference between what was originally submitted is that there's no longer a space on the north side of the dumpster enclosure. It is just the enclosure, and to the north of it is a transformer that has the electrical power that feeds the building. IN TERMS OF DRAINAGE, WE STILL HAVE THE SAME DRAINAGE DESIGN. WE HAVE NOT REDUCED ANYTHING IN TERMS OF STORAGE OR UNDERGROUND STORAGE. WE'VE KEPT IT THE SAME, ALBEIT THE IMPROVIOUS AREA HAS REDUCED. WE ARE ULTIMATE OUR OUTFLOW WHERE THE The grade of Mohawk Avenue is at actually 10 percent grade existing as it goes up to the north. And the watershed that comes through from the upland area through our property is now being captured with a more or less of a bioswale at the back. There's also the roof drains discharge to that and get collected around the west side of the building.

There's a pile of soil that comes around

And then that gets captured separate from the parking lot drainage, which the parking lot drainage will have catch basins and deep sumps to trap any sediment. And then there's also an oil grid separator that captures everything, treats it before it goes into the underground detention system where it's ultimate outfall discharge is to the south to the New York State DOT catch basin that is just off of our property. So it'd be a connection point on our property to the backside of that catch basin. We have submitted these plans and calculations to the New York State DOT. Our understanding is that once we go through this process, they have, I believe they started, may have started their initial review, but at this time we don't have any comments yet from DOT for that. We have provided an erosion control plan, which will have a anti-tracking pad. So when the site is under demolition and construction, making sure we're not tracking out any sediment from any of the disturbances that occur on the site. Again, we're below an acre of disturbance and we'll be providing soil stockpiles at the southwest corner of the site. And we'll also be providing erosion control as shown on the E&S control plan with a sequence set. In terms of landscaping, we've talked with the neighbor to the north. We've been cognizant of a couple of things on aesthetics, visibility. So what we've provided is a six foot decorative vinyl fence at the back of the property or to the north. We've also provided evergreen trees on the front side of the fence. And I think there's 26 trees that are located there. They range from spruces to firs to pines. And maple, I think, is on one of the sections. And then on the west side of the building, we'll have evergreens planted there. And then the retaining wall, which is at five to six feet at its tallest point, which would be directly in the center That has plantings above and below. Yeah, the plantings above the wall and below the wall where the existing sidewalk that's along Hoosick running from east to west, we've provided some plantings on top and bottom of wall to soften the retaining wall. And the retaining wall would be more of the smaller block retaining wall, which is actually similar to the adjacent property to the west. that provides a, they have a modular block there now. So we would be matching more of an earth tone color that would be provided for that retaining wall. And we've also provided plantings around the pylon sign, again, to soften that aspect of it. And I think in terms of, I think one of the questions that had come up, in terms of elevations, the building FFE is at 486. The building height is at 22 feet, four inches. So that gives you an elevation of 508, four inches. And then the proposed trees are at elevation, at the starting elevation of 489, plus the six foot will be at 495 elevation for those trees when they're first planted. And then the fence is a solid vinyl fence, a six foot high at elevation 495. So the trees and the fence will be at the same height. And then over time, the trees grown at two to three feet a year will overtake that vinyl fence at the back, giving a taller screen over time, which would be evergreen screen. That's why we planted the evergreens at the back of the site by our landscape architect. Does the commission have any questions so far?

Well, once your presentation is done, then I'm going to open it up to the public. I would like to just state one thing we did receive from Rensselaer County Bureau of Economic Development and Planning, their review action. And after carefully reviewing the information submitted as part of the subject referral, the Bureau of Economic Development and Planning has determined that the proposal does not have any major impact on county plans and that local consideration shall prevail. Did you get a copy of this?

I do not, but I can get one from, oh, okay.

So just for the record.

Thank you.

Okay, now at this time, I will open up the floor to the public. Are you done, officially done?

Yeah, I just want to say, you know, we did do a tree inventory on this site. I think that was something that was asked. And, you know, we went through, you know, some of the trees had some We're not actually living anymore, but we did go through to make an assessment of that and with our landscape architect who's registered in the state of New York. So we did look at what we could save, what is there now and then how to blend that in with the proposed development. Again, adding that evergreen element, which there's existing evergreens at the back that actually are on the neighboring property. So we're trying to build that screen to be cognizant of the residential that's to the north of our property. And I think we spoke about the traffic as well, that it has no impact in terms of our traffic generation for this site. And so I can certainly field any questions when it comes to the traffic as well. And that's it.

All right. Okay, I will officially open up the floor to anyone who wishes to come up and make any comments.

hi um we're victoria and tim galvin we live at 5 mohawk avenue so we are the neighbors that will be right behind the property um first i just wanted to say quick thank you to mr henderson um spoke up on our behalf multiple times as the project was first introduced and thank you to kevin hickson for already taking um many of our concerns into consideration. It means a lot, Mr. Henderson, that you have put yourself in our shoes as the neighbors for some of these changes. And Mr. Hickson, we really appreciate that you are listening to us and taking our CONCERNS INTO CONSIDERATION. THAT BEING SAID, WE JUST HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS. AS FAR AS THE WORK HOURS AND PARKING, I KNOW THAT WILL COME UP IN SOME MORE DISCUSSIONS TO COME. BUT AFTER, AS MOST OF YOU KNOW, WE JUST ENDURED A LONG YEAR AND A HALF OF CONSTRUCTION OF QUICK CHECK AND CHIPOLE. We had a lot of issues with them. Thank you to Kevin for doing what you can. They started work on a lot of days off. almost an hour before they were supposed to. They showed up to work on numerous holidays. I was calling poor Kevin like on days that he should not have had to hear from me. But I mean, sometimes it's like, oh, they're there at 5.30 a.m. by the time Anything can be done. All right. Well, now we're there. We're in their hours. But that didn't help me on Saturday morning. And I'm also so I kind of was wondering from all of you, are there any repercussions to any of these? I don't know if it's the business that's sending the workers saying, like, oh, we need to get this done, so get there whatever time, or if it's the construction company that's sending them. But who is held to task for not following, like, the rules that you all set up? Yeah. And also another major concern that we have is the parking for all of the workers. There is a constant fight between Judith Purcell and everyone because they used her parking lot a lot to take worker vehicles home. And she did not like that. So then they would all park up and down the street. Lots of times it was just vehicles being parked on the side of our lawn, but also lots of times it was giant flatbed trucks and things like that. And I would be... sending kevin messages five minutes before the school bus was supposed to come and be able to pull up our street and like i couldn't even fit my own car past them there was no way the school bus was going past now there's going to be no vacant lot no nothing unless it's the the empty field that's next door but i just please don't expect all of those vehicles to be able to park up mohawk avenue it is not nearly big enough it's hard enough for two cars to pass driving um And then again, like the I know that there's certain expectations of the business coming in, but the hours of operation, I was just very disappointed to hear that we have another business that's coming that's going to be open for seven days a week. Thank God it's not 24-7 like QuickCheck is, but now that that's been allowed to happen, I just feel like that's going to become the new expectation. This has shorter hours, but it still means that we will have no reprieve any day of the week from this. the sound of those industrial compressed air guns or the high-pressure air ratchets, things like that. I looked up. It says that they typically generate 90 to 105 decibels. And to compare, normal traffic creates 70 decibels. Motorcycles create 100. And a rock concert is rated at 105. So I'm just saying... I've been told multiple times already that it's facing Hoosick Street. So like the sound of traffic will eat it up or it's not going to be directed at your house. But it's still there. We love being outside. We have girls that play outside. We have family over like we're going to hear it. So I would just like to point that out. It would have been nice if we had like one day to know that we don't have to listen to any of that. Do you want to talk about the traffic that we were thinking?

You know, as was mentioned before by Tori, we have seen increased amount of traffic on our little street over just like the past month and a half since QuickCheck has opened. As Tori also said, it has been very nice to engage with Kevin Hickson. He's been very open and cooperative and seems to listen to us, which is a far different story compared to what we've dealt with with QuickCheck. Even altering his plans so that his applicant is widening the road on our behalf or our neighbor's behalf because of not only just the school buses, but also QuickCheck has all these tractor trailers coming up our little street. Like today, Coca-Cola truck came up to go on behind it. So just the fact that he was willing to help widen the road to help make it less congestion on our little street there. And we did have a question about signage, but even Kevin said that, you know, he's going to try and put in like a no through traffic, you know, residents only sign there. So again, it's been very nice to, you know, have an applicant that's been willing to listen to the residents in our neighborhood.

um we were worried though uh as tim said cars use mohawk avenue very frequently to turn in already now to quick check um they use it to access it and i mean a lot of them still will leave out mohawk so we have a lot more traffic at the bottom of mohawk already i understand that um Mavis won't be adding a lot more traffic, but it'll still be some more. And between that increased traffic, our usual residential traffic, the people that cut into the turning lane and ride it down really early to go to Price Chopper because they don't want to wait in traffic. And then, God forbid, if somebody is trying to pull out across Hoosick from the Goodwill turn and we're both going the same direction, It's just a very scary intersection. And I don't know what to even ask you to do about it. Because I understand we have a light at Roosevelt and we have a light at McChesney. So it's not like we're going to put in another one or no one will ever move.

And it's a state road too. So we've been told so many times that there's nothing the town can do about it.

But I mean, like it's been dangerous. I woke up, I don't know, a week or two ago to a car accident at like five o'clock in the morning. So just something else to take into account. Any more additional traffic there is going to really make things more difficult.

Could I interrupt you for a second just for a clarification? is there traffic increase that uses Mohawk to go over to the light at price chopper? Have you noticed an increase in that traffic?

Um, we have watched a few, um, ignore the, the no rate sign more than when the dental office was there. Uh, it's, it's really hard for me to remember cause I, it's been closed for quite a while now. Um, But you're, you're, you're basically talking about, I think the worst part is the bot. Yeah. Just that bottom section. Yeah. Thank you.

Um,

And I guess my last concern is just to kind of clarify for us, if and when there's some property damage to the lawn, to the street, which is fully expected, they're doing demolition and construction, when can we expect things to be repaired? We had... um issues from quick check of like ruts in the lawn um the street like ripped up and our parts of our lawn ripped up due to the water issues that they needed to check um i lost bushes that i had planned to try to make a um living fence myself to give us some extra privacy um And, you know, like Kevin has been working hard to try to get it done for me, but it was going to get done before they were allowed to open. And then they were going to be allowed to open with like a small window of getting it done. And now they've been open for almost two months and it's still like that. Yeah. I just, I want to make sure that we don't have this problem again because it's really frustrating that, you know, they can't even uphold. Like, it's not a major fix. I could do it myself, but it's the point of it. Like, return things to as they were. And also, our poor little Mohawk Avenue is... pretty wild after all of the construction. The big cut that was made did get patched, but I mean, we were told that QuickCheck was going to be responsible for that. And now we're being told that it won't be repaired until after Mavis finishes theirs. I understand the idea behind that like why repair it when it's just going to get ripped up again but you don't have to drive up and down it uh multiple times a day every day so that's something that i still wish could have been fixed and to please keep that in mind as this moves on anything else think of okay um we're definitely not trying to stop the project again um mr hickson has been lovely to work with i will be very happy when um judith purcell's lot is finally maintained and taken care of um we just want to hopefully please learn from quick check missteps and just to make things go a little more smoothly thanks thank you thank you thank you

Jim?

Yeah, Jim Tachyk, 387 Brunswick Road. I think this is just a part of something that I want to protest here. I'm protesting the continuing deterioration of the character of Hoosick Street. And it's been that area that the Galvins live in was your typical Brunswick neighborhood. You had houses, you had lawns, you had nice trees there. And then this has become a barren wasteland. The quick check people project demolished existing houses, cut down just about every tree and eliminated about all the vegetation, right? On an area of about one and a half football fields, this was covered with the Irish buildings, asphalt and concrete. It was assisted by extremely generous setbacks and sign variances. And because of this, we have a particularly egregious development. And it's completely out of the character of that street. And then the architectural coup de grace was the Great Wall of Brunswick. This is about a 250-foot wall, right, going from, I don't know what the lowest, the shortest height, up to 10 feet tall. It's an imposing fortress-like structure. fortress-like structure. It's a 10-foot stone wall with a four-foot iron fence on top of it. It reminds me of Dannemora Prison. It's like going, I don't know if you've ever been to Dannemora. That's what it looks like, right? And then the irony is that the public and the planning board were unaware of this monstrosity of a wall, right? And then for the chronology of this, the public hearing was on the 6th of March, 2025. The approval was on 15th of May, 2025. The first rendering showing that wall is dated 29th of August. Who approved that wall? Who anticipated what it was going to look like? Who did the design and engineering? Nobody. I don't know who did this. But my point here is that the Mavis tire shop is spreading this sort of blight. I'm sorry, that's what I have to call it. They have adjacent properties. They have to settle for a minor title for their wall. They're going to have a retaining wall also. The Great Wall of Brunswick's taken. We're going to have to call this the Minor Wall of Brunswick. It's only about 190 feet long, and it's only six feet tall with a topping, another four-foot chain link fence on top of that. This is another imposing monolithic structure along there. That's certainly setting the tone as you go down the street. And once again, the public is in the dark about this, the appearance. There is no rendering of this wall in the building department. I don't know what it's going to look like relative to, for example, the height of the building or anything. And likewise, there's no rendering of the pylon advertising sign. you know, any requests for variances which are coming here are likely to be judged, well, we're not asking for anything that other people haven't gotten, right? And this is one of my point here is that every variance of the building and zoning codes diminish the effectiveness of the codes. It's a race to the bottom for aesthetic standards. But unfortunately, the race is also to the bottom that drags down the character of the adjacent neighborhoods. And other practical considerations for the auto shop running on the edge of a neighborhood. There's no town of Brunswick that has no noise ordinance, right? How do you eliminate the nuisance of shop noises as the Galvans had brought up? These pneumatic tools are very loud, all right? The shop will be open seven days a week. Will there be no quiet daylight hours for the people in this neighborhood? That's what's going to happen. There's no daylight. Everything all the time is going to be taken up with the noise, especially in the summertime where they're going to have the garage doors open. They're not going to keep the garage doors shut during the summertime. And then between Mavis and QuickCheck, there's gonna be significant traffic, which the galvanism notice occurred already, right? I'm concerned about pedestrian safety. For example, are there sidewalks going up Mohawk, right? Are there school bus stops in the area? These are things that have to be considered, right? And then generally, I have a general message to the planning and zoning boards, since there's no open form, for citizens to bring things to the ports, right? You have to do this at public hearings. So you may not consider this absolutely germane, but I think the major projects should require what I call a street view, right? A rendering of what the buildings and what other major features are gonna be like. For example, advertising signs, retaining walls, right? other sort of features, you know, for example, maybe a garbage enclosure, all right? And I think this is necessary for any major projects. The town of Brunswick also needs a thorough review and tightening of signage codes. The town also needs some sort of architectural standards for commercial buildings. We have to minimize this spreading visual blight. And I was going to say this, even though Mark brought it up, Town of Brunswick also needs an updated comprehensive plan. The current one is 13 years old. Try to find some guidance for modern problems such as commercial solar fields, right? Battery energy storage systems, right? This needs an update. I think both these boards should lobby for this because this is something that would make your life a lot easier, okay? Now, I have something specific about the, quote, landscaping plan, okay? I don't know what the green space requirement for this is and what they claim they're gonna have versus what's necessary, okay? But my notion of green space is that something to soften the appearance of a project, something that's soften the appearance of commercial buildings and concrete structures and the like, okay? There is no grid, all the green space, all the vegetation is out of view. It's behind the building. It doesn't soften the features of this at all. And then also, can you imagine anything surviving in front of that wall? First off, it's gonna be either buried or torn up by the snow clouds, okay? And if it's not, who's going to keep that up? Is Mavis Tire going to have a gardener come in and take care of that?

I don't know.

This doesn't seem reasonable. It's not going to happen. Those are my comments. Thank you.

Thank you, Jim. Anyone else wish to come up, make any comments? Once again, anyone else wish to make any comments? Ann, would you like to make any pleas for any comments regarding the variances or anything like that? OK. All right. That being said, on behalf of the planning board, I move that we close the public hearing.

Second. Second.

Is there any further comments or any consideration for extending written comments?

OK, hearing none, we will just close the public hearing.

All those in favor?

Aye. Any opposed?

Ann, I turn the floor over to you.

Yeah, thanks. I just have a question for you, Russ. Historically, we've allowed the applicant to respond to the comments needed at public hearing.

That would be a requirement for us, yes.

Thank you. At this point, do you wish to, we will,

now have Mavis Tire in front of us for our normal business review. Are you going to take the public hearing and then go to your next meeting for your action?

SO I BELIEVE THE ZONING BOARD MEETS AGAIN ON THE 17th. RIGHT, A WEEK FROM MONDAY. SO IF THERE'S NOTHING ELSE THAT THE ZONING BOARD INTENDS TO DO TONIGHT, THEN THE ZONING BOARD CAN CLOSE ITS MEETING. THE ZVA MEMBERS CAN EXCUSE THEMSELVES. POTENTIALLY WE'LL PICK UP MAVIS AGAIN AT YOUR MEETING ON THE 17th FOR ANY FURTHER ACTION DISCUSSION. and then the planning board can continue with its meeting and presumably moving on to the next public hearing.

Okay.

Okay. Thank you, Ann. Okay.

We should go now to the next public hearing?

Unless there's something else you wanted to do.

No, I didn't know whether you wanted to forego that and then take care of the normal business with Mavis, indicating them that they should now have to respond to all these in writing.

so if all you're planning on doing to kind of close out the mavis portion is to ask the applicant to submit written responses to the public comments that were received and we'll see you at the next meeting you can do that now and then we can let the mavis folks go i think i would prefer to do that i can't imagine i'll take more than a minute so why don't we yeah so we're going to have uh at this point

not open the next public hearing, but have Mavis Tire come up for our normal business. Okay, we've had the public hearing. You've gotten a copy of the zoning review for your records. You've heard the comments. We're requiring that these be a response in writing to us. And then we would review those. whether we're satisfied with your responses. At that point, we could possibly move forward with some type of action. However, I would schedule you for our next meeting, which is on August 20th. WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO HAVE THOSE WRITTEN RESPONSES TO US BEFORE THAT MEETING? NEW SPEAKER ABSOLUTELY.

DO YOU WANT TO HAVE IT A WEEK BEFORE OR A COUPLE DAYS BEFORE?

NEW SPEAKER A COUPLE DAYS A WEEK, PREFERABLY AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.

NEW SPEAKER OKAY. WILL DO. NOT A PROBLEM.

NEW SPEAKER WE WOULD LIKE TO REVIEW IT BEFORE THE MEETING.

NEW SPEAKER YEAH, ABSOLUTELY. IN TERMS OF DO I GET THOSE COMMENTS FROM THE TOWN AS FAR AS THE RECORD? I MEAN, I'VE NOTED EVERYTHING IN HERE, BUT I JUST WANT TO CROSS-CHECK THAT. IS THERE?

NEW SPEAKER, THE MEETING MESSAGE WOULD BE THE ONLY DOCUMENT. WHEN DOES THE VIDEO GO ONLINE?

When does our video go online, do you know?

I CAN EMAIL THEM TO YOU.

THAT WOULD BE GREAT.

SO WE CAN GET TO IT RIGHT AWAY.

IT WON'T BE THE OFFICIAL MINUTES. YOU CAN GO BACK TO THE VIDEO AND LISTEN TO IT AGAIN.

AND THEN WE CAN PUT THOSE COMMENTS IN THERE AND ADD OUR RESPONSES AND PROVIDE ANY ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION THAT'S NEEDED FOR THOSE RESPONSES.

DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT AT THIS POINT?

Just one quick time. So the zoning board has also asked for a response to comment. Yes. Are you envisioning one document? Yes, one document. It's going to go to vote? Yep. So the next DBA meeting is the 17th? Yep. So if you were targeting trying to get that done, probably maybe the Friday before?

Yes.

Maybe a week from tomorrow, if possible.

Yep.

That way we'd certainly have it well in advance of our meeting on the 20th and the DBA would also have it.

Okay.

Wayne, do you have any questions?

Not at this time. Okay. I do.

Do you have a question?

I have several questions.

Okay.

One of my questions concerns a comment that I heard about contractors for quick stop starting early. What are the hours of your construction going to be?

I can go back to Mavis to confirm, but typically it's 8 a.m. is the start.

8?

8 a.m., yep. Okay, so... And I think, so a couple other things. 8 a.m. start, and then typically it's like, well, I know it's daylight hours and everything, and it depends on when they start construction, right? Typically they want to start it after the winter, right? So I would... envision that they would start in March of next year?

Well, if you're going to say 8 a.m., it's going to be 8 a.m. Okay, I don't want to run into any more of these. We'll start at 7 and they show up at 5. Correct. Start all those rackets. If it's going to be 8, make it 8.

Right, and what we can do is... and right and what we can do is add it to the plans for our construction sequence we can add those hours in so that they're stamped and signed they're to the board as far as the final plans and that's what they all have to adhere to right that also goes along with parking on hoosick road which to me is you should be right on mohawk which YOU SHOULD BE PARKING ON YOUR OWN PROPERTY DOING THE CONSTRUCTION, RIGHT?

IT'S INCUMBENT ON THE CONTRACTOR TO SUPPLY A PARKING AREA FOR THEIR WORKERS, NOT ON THE STREET. I MEAN, IT'S A NARROW ENOUGH STREET IF WE HAVE MULTIPLE CONTRACTORS PARKING ON BOTH SIDES Now you've turned it into a driveway, narrow road.

Right. So like pre-construction meetings before they even start construction, we can go over the set of conditions, right, of the approval that are also be in the plans. that'll be starting from number one all the way through and saying, you have to meet these requirements during construction. Obviously there's the maintaining the construction site as it is to make sure it's stabilized and E&S controls and all that, that's related to it, but we can add to the plans so that the contractor has those plans, he's got to adhere to those. And that's a way of enforcement by the town to say you're not following the set of plans here.

Another thing is the repair of the landscape. I mean, obviously things are going to get torn up.

Yep.

I don't want, I really, I feel bad for people coming around 60 days later and saying our lawn is still torn up. I want to be sure that your company is aware that that's not going to fly this time.

Yep.

Okay.

Right.

Can we stipulate a time on that? Ten days? Two weeks? For completion of post-construction repair. If they did not do that by that time? Good. THE OTHER THING I'D LIKE TO BRING UP IS THE PARKING ON MOHONK. I'M GOING TO TRY TO FIND OUT IF THE TOWN CAN PUT TEMPORARY SIGNS FOR NO STREET PARKING OR INSTRUCTION. RIGHT. AND IF THEY DO PARK, THEN THE SHERIFFS AT THAT POINT, IF THERE'S NO PARKING SIGNS, THEY CAN ISSUE THEM A TICKET.

RIGHT.

THAT'S ONE WAY TO STOP IT.

YEAH, ABSOLUTELY. AND THEN WE TALKED ABOUT ADDING SIGNAGE IN OPERATION, RIGHT? LOCAL USE THROUGH TRAFFIC FOR LOCAL USE ONLY, RIGHT? SO IT'S MORE OF A SIGNAGE DETERRENT FROM IF SOMEBODY'S TAKING A LEFT OUT OF MAVIS, RIGHT, TO GO TO QUICK CHECK, THAT THEY SEE THE SIGNAGE, RIGHT? THE SIGNAGE IS THERE. SO IT'S ONLY LOCAL THROUGH TRAFFIC ONLY. our client is open to provide that to accommodate as needed. Because I understand that point. You got a 10% grade on Mohawk Avenue, right? It's not the... It's unusual to have a 10% grade on a secondary road, but this is how this road is. But I'm all for installing some signage on this application. And it'll be something that we'll go back through the minutes and we'll capture not only the comments that the neighbors made, but also the board made as well.

just too bad that you're bearing the brunt of all of the bad stuff that happened what's that quick stop came along you know all of their bad habits are now your responsibility right right but i i'm encouraged by your presentation i think you're cognizant of all of these things and willing to work so yep absolutely that's great thank you yep

I CAN TAKE THAT BACK TO THE CLIENT, RIGHT? IT'S UPKEEP AND MAINTENANCE, RIGHT? AND TO THE POINT OF IF THIS DOES GET APPROVED AND MAVIS DOES COME IN, THERE'S MAINTENANCE THAT YOU HAVE TO DO ON THE LANDSCAPING, It's upkeep that you have to do, but I'll certainly talk to Mavis to see if we can get that cleaned up in the meantime.

One other thing. I just want to be sure that your contractor is paying attention to the litter, like coffee cups and water bottles and sandwich wrappers and things like that that can get blown around in the wind. Nobody wants to see that anywhere.

Right. Understood.

okay thank you very much i appreciate it thanks thank you appreciate it we'll see you on the 20th okay now i'm going to open up the public hearing for Do I need to go through the procedural thing at this point, or do you think?

I think everybody probably heard them. The same ground rules will apply for this public hearing as applied to the prior one, I'm assuming?

Yes. Okay, at this time, I'll have you read the notice of public hearing.

The following notice of public hearing was published in the newspaper, posted to the town clerk's signboard, and posted to the town's website. in accordance with all legal requirements. Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held by the Planning Board of the Town of Brunswick at 7 p.m. on Thursday, August 6th, 2026 at the Brunswick Town Hall, 336 Town Office Road, Brunswick, New York 12180 to review the minor subdivision application submitted by Rebecca Fischer for property located at 842 Tamarack Road Copies of the application are available at the Brunswick Town Hall and are available for public inspection during regular business hours. All interested persons will be heard at the public hearing.

Okay, thank you. Now I'll have the applicant come up and do a brief presentation to give any updates, please.

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen.

Sorry. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Mark Danskin. I'm a local land surveyor. I'm here with local attorney Paul Engster representing Rebecca Fisher, the applicant of a minor subdivision for the premises known as 842 Tamarack Road. The property is located on the easterly side of Tamarack Road. The applicant proposes to subdivide the 82 acre parcel into two building lots and a remaining lot. The two building lots are plus five acres. The remaining lands is just under 70, I believe, 70 acres. All three are accessed from Tamarack Road. Currently there's an existing driveway that feeds the building sites, which are approximately 3,500 feet off the road. That driveway will be utilized for access. It will be upgraded to the Town of Brunswick standards. Fire turnouts have been provided. Fire turnarounds have been provided. Cross-section is on the plan of the private roadway. which is the classification of the driveway in the town of Brunswick, which is greater than 150 feet. The clients will enter into a, what's the agreement? A private roadway agreement, which they'll be bound to over the common driveway. They each receive 20 feet of road frontage, which is adequate road frontage. And both properties, both building lots have been conditioned upon Town of Brunswick Planning Board approval, approved by Renssel County Health Department.

Thank you. At this time, I'll open up the floor for public comment. Anyone wish to come up and make any comments?

Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. My name is Mark Miranda of the Miranda Law Office in Albany, and I represent Charles Bolson, who owns the property at 63 Indian Creek Lane, directly adjoining the Fisher property. And tonight I've submitted an additional supplemental letter in opposition to the application, which asked to be made part of the record. And I will not read that letter to you tonight. I'm just going to simply walk through some of the main points and ask that the Board review the letter in full before taking any action.

And .

Firstly, I'd like to appreciate the planning board for reopening the public hearing in light of additional information that was provided by the applicant since May of this year. Our opposition essentially comes down to four points. First, the application proposes a new private road, not a driveway, according to town regulations. And under those regulations, that makes this a major subdivision application, not a minor subdivision. The record also shows that the road being labeled a quote unquote driveway for the stated purpose of avoiding review as a major subdivision application is not permitted under the law. Second, the road is a residential non-agricultural use and the application provides none of the required 100 foot minimum agricultural buffer. that the code requires alongside Mr. Bolson's agricultural use on his property. Third, the applicant's council has a disqualifying conflict of interest in this matter, having previously represented Mr. Bolson roughly nine years ago before this planning board. And fourth, the wetland and stormwater information is not complete to support approval. With respect to point one, this is a road and that makes it a major subdivision. The town subdivision regulations say that a minor subdivision is one, quote, not involving any new street or road and a major subdivision is any subdivision requiring any new street of any size. The town's recommended standards for residential roads and driveways, as previously mentioned by the applicant's surveyor, says that a residential driveway is 30 to 100 feet long, and anything longer than that is a private road. This roadway is approximately 3,600 feet, roughly 24 times the maximum length of a driveway. It is 60 feet wide, which is precisely the minimum street width under chapter 131 of the town code. Further, the environmental assessment form from the applicant describes this as quote, a private road, permanent easement, 60 feet greater in width, 60 feet or greater in width. And the recorded maintenance instrument is titled quote, private road maintenance agreement. The stormwater plan says, quote, the site shall require new access roads, which will be suitable for use by heavy equipment. And the road design contains street engineering in the form of emergency vehicle pullouts, staging areas, and fire apparatus turnarounds. New York case law states that where an access way is built to town, Road standards, it is not a driveway. This is a road and the application must be processed as a major subdivision application. The applicant has not provided any additional facts or guiding regulations or law to this board to support that this road should be considered a driveway. The board should also consider what this road may ultimately serve in the future. The applicant has never told the board her intentions for this third lot, which is the remaining 70 plus acres. And her hearing responses expressly, quote, reserve all rights to future development. There's a public website, A2Z and Co. which is a company connected to the applicant's immediate family whose domain name appears on emails with the town regarding this very application. And it appears to indicate a plan for a short-term rental enterprise on the Fisher property. And this information can be found in Exhibit A of the supplementary letter. There are other commercial non-agricultural, there's other commercial non-agricultural activity being proposed on the two lots of five acres, but that has not been specified to any great detail either. If the realistic scenario is that the applicant's immediate family is planning to develop a short-term rental enterprise on this property, then this roadway is not a quiet driveway serving two homes, it's a roadway with apparently guest traffic that could be coming in and out at all hours. At the May 21st Planning Board meeting, the Planning Board's attorney asked the applicant whether it made sense to reapply as a major subdivision. And the applicant's council answered that quote, we do not want to go to a major subdivision. We do not want to put that burden on our client. On July 2nd, the chair suggested retitling the record road agreement as a quote, multi-use driveway agreement, explaining, and this is a quote that a private, road would qualify for a major subdivision and that's what I'm trying to avoid. And I think the applicant is trying to avoid that as well. And I say this respectfully, but classification turns on what the improvement is and not what anyone agrees to call it. Renaming the instrument will not shorten the road, will not narrow the 60 foot roadway or remove the fire turnarounds. A classification adopted to avoid the Board's own regulations is arbitrary decision-making and will not withstand judicial review. Regarding the second point, with respect to the 100 foot agricultural buffer required by the code, section 16031D of the zoning code applies whenever agricultural uses and proposed non-agricultural uses adjoin and it requires the applicant for the non-agricultural use to provide a buffer of no less than 100 feet up to 300 feet Mr. Bolson's silver pasture is an active equip enrolled agricultural operation. The proposed road is a residential non-agricultural use. By the applicant's own recorded covenant, the road is dedicated quote, residential only ingress and egress in perpetuity. The applicant's color coded exhibit that was provided at the recent planning board meeting measures a buffer from the proposed houses, not the road. And that is the wrong measurement in this case. The buffer must run between the agricultural use on Mr. Bolson's property and the non-agricultural use, which is the road on the Fisher property and the applicant's residential roadway runs immediately along Mr. Bolson's agricultural fields without any buffer. as currently proposed. There's a case that the town may be familiar with, it's called Oakwood, which was decided in this very town where the appellate division in Albany agreed with the town's determination that a road takes its character from the use that it serves. The application provides no buffer at all between the road and Mr. Bolson's solar pasture. And the applicant has not provided any information to suggest that this road would be agricultural and therefore exempt from the requirements in 16031D. Point three, there is a problem with how this application is being advanced through the applicant's council. who previously represented Mr. Bolson in 2017 before this planning board on a proposed bed and breakfast on this exact adjoining property. Under the rules of professional conduct, when a lawyer's former client shows their prior representation on a substantially related matter and where it is material adverse to the client's interests, disqualification is automatic. These elements are present in this case, and we ask the Board to not accept further submissions through disqualified counsel of the applicant. Point four, the wetlands records are incomplete. The wetlands and stormwater record cannot support approval At the April 2nd meeting, the town's engineer directed the applicant to have a wetland specialist confirm that there are no wetlands on the property. And when asked whether he meant just the roadway, he said, quote, I'm talking about everything inside of the property. That includes the roadway and the rest of the property. And the report that the applicant recently provided reviewed only 10 acres of the 82 acres. Yet the applicant presented to this Board at the last meeting that there were no wetlands on the property. The report shows that the adjoining wetlands, additionally, the report shows that the adjoining wetlands were mapped remotely and never visited physically. And a site visit of the applicant's property occurred on June 10th in the summer dry down period that the Army Corps manual specifically warns against. In addition, there's no topographic data for the adjoining lands between the two connected ponds and the stormwater plan expressly excludes post-construction stormwater analysis. So respectfully, I asked the Board four things. First, I asked the Board to keep the public hearing open because the wetland and stormwater record is incomplete. And because the town itself has recently advised Mr. Bolson that his FOIA request for the complete application file and that request was submitted on July 7th will not be fulfilled until August 13th, which is a week after tonight. Secondly, Mr. Bolson respectfully asks that the Board reclassify this application as a major subdivision because it entails a road and not a driveway, according to the town's regulations. Third, before any approval, Mr. Bolson asks that the Board require the 100-foot agricultural buffer that the town code demands. with a compliant stormwater plan, a full parcel wetland delineation, an adequate topographic and drainage analysis, and last but not least, to decline further submissions through conflicted counsel of the applicant. Mr. Bolson does not oppose this development. As he stated many times, he just wants the applicant to follow the town's rules and that the Board apply its regulations as written. Thank you. I'm happy to answer any questions that the Board may have at this time. Otherwise, I have no further comments at this time.

We're not at that point. This is the public hearing. When we adjourn to the actual dialogue for the regular meeting, we'll ask those questions.

Thank you.

Do you wish to respond to any of these or wait?

Do we want to, I'm sorry. We're still in the public hearing. So we've heard from the applicant, we've heard from Mr. Miranda on behalf of one of the neighbors. Maybe before we go back to the applicant, we see if there's anybody else present who would like to make a comment, just to get everybody out before we go back to the applicant.

Good suggestion. Sir? Yes.

I'm 880 Tamarack Road. on the majority probably right next to this property. My concern is fire. The access road from Tamarack Road to this property has a 90 degree turn and a 60 foot right of way and previously the fire department said they couldn't get a fire truck in there. If there's a fire in that back where these houses are, there's no way to get a fire truck there. And if the woods catch on fire, My house is on the other side of the woods, my property. So if they burn, I burn. That's my concern. The 90 degree turn for the fire department. Previously, they wanted to build houses back there. The fire department would not give an okay. I mean, I'm not sure the fire department has been asked about this or not.

Okay. All right. Thank you. Anyone else wish to have any comments or have any views, concerns? Okay, hearing none. Now I'm going to ask council, there has been a request to keep this public hearing open.

I'm not sure what you're asking me about. I think you have three options. The Board has three options that I can think of. One is you can close the public hearing. And again, this is the second public hearing that you folks have held on this application. Two, you could leave the public hearing open to continue it at the next meeting or a future meeting. Or three, if the request is being driven by Mr. Bolson's desire to get a complete FOIL response. So we can see what that information has to say and maybe address the Board about it. The third option would be to close the public hearing, but leave it open for the submission of additional written comment up to a certain date so that would allow mr bolson or anybody else to send a letter whatever correspondence they wanted to that would be part of the record without having an in-person public hearing again so those i see those as the three options which option is appropriate is up to you folks to decide okay i'll open up the floor the other question So after, first of all, did we close the public hearing? Did I miss it? Still open. Okay. So once the public hearing is closed, the applicant usually comes up and the board continues to have a dialogue. Typically that's between the planning board members and the applicants. I don't know that there was going to be a back and forth with anybody other than the applicants. Okay, typically the public hearing is not a dialogue, right? The applicant, you know, the people with comments don't get to have questions answered by the Board members. The Board members typically don't ask very many questions of the commentators. If for some reason you or other Board members wanted to ask a question to Mr. Miranda, I suppose you could do that as part of the public hearing. I would do that in the public.

Mr. BOLSON'S CLAIMING THAT HE'S AN AEROPLASTICAL OPERATION. THERE ARE CERTAIN STANDARDS STATEWIDE IN WHAT AN AEROPLASTICAL OPERATION IS. AND I'M NOT, I DON'T KNOW HOW TO FIND OUT THE ANSWERS FOR THAT.

NEW SPEAKER NOPE. USUALLY BY ASKING A QUESTION. SO IF THAT'S SOMETHING YOU WANTED TO ASK ABOUT, YOU CAN DO THAT DURING THE PUBLIC MEETING.

NEW SPEAKER SO I DO IT NOW BEFORE WE CLOSE. SO COUNSEL, What's the nature of the airport operation?

Yes, the nature is he's enrolled in a USDA land conservation program, and there's a copy of correspondence related to that in the letter that was submitted today as exhibit B. There's a number of contracts that he has with the USDA that are confidential that he just preferred not to disclose at this time. But that falls squarely within the ag and markets definition of agricultural use. And that's spelled out in the letter in greater detail. Specifically, it's silvopasturing, which is a form of... grazing and pasturing, sort of beyond my technical knowledge, but it's something that's, yeah, been approved by the USDA and that he's bound to abide by as part of this land conservation program. Um, I'm not sure. Is that a requirement under the code?

Yeah, that's something we've looked at.

quite a bit in another separate matter that Mr. Bolson has with the town and our position is in that separate matter and in this matter, there is not any kind of financial requirement in order for him to be deemed as an agricultural use under the town's code. I would say, please refer to, please refer, I understand your concern, but I would just say, please refer to the letter that was submitted on May 7th and the supplemental letter, which provides the definition of agricultural lands under the Ag and Markets Law. And he fits within that definition.

So we have the applicant's position through your letters.

Yes, and supported with an exhibit in this most recent submission. And I think also it should be mentioned that at the recent meeting, I believe the applicant agreed that there was an agricultural use, and that's implied by their own maps, which were measuring a buffer between the residents and Mr. Bolson's property, our position is that's the wrong points to be measuring from. The measurement should be coming from the road, not from the residences. So I'm not sure that there's any dispute at this time as to whether or not Mr. Bolson has an agricultural use on the property. But if the Board does require further information, we're happy to provide that.

Anything else, Mr. Chabot?

I'm going to poll the board here. My suggestion would be to close the public hearing, but extend out an additional written comment for a certain period of time out of the three options that Chris alluded to.

I agree with you.

I THINK THAT'S A GOOD SUGGESTION.

I THINK A WEEK WOULD BE LONG ENOUGH.

WELL, JUST BEAR IN MIND, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, MR. MIRANDA IS WAITING FOR SOME PAPERWORK IN RESPONSE TO A FORWARD REQUEST FROM THE TOWN. I'LL TAKE YOU AT YOUR WORD. THEY SAID THE 13TH, WHICH IS A WEEK FROM TODAY. SO HE MIGHT NOT EVEN HAVE THAT PAPERWORK FOR THE FIRST WEEK. I'M ASSUMING HE'LL WANT AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW IT, DECIDE WHETHER HE NEEDS TO SUPPLEMENT ANYTHING BASED ON WHAT HE'S GOTTEN. I would imagine probably at least two weeks, maybe a little bit longer to some fudge times. They don't come on the 13th. It ends up being the 14th and he's lost a day. So at your convenience, but I think maybe a week would be too short. If that's the reason why we're holding this open to let him get the documents and submit anything he wants to submit, we should at least give him a fair opportunity.

Yes, thank you, Chris, for that. I would just say one other additional point and basis for keeping the hearing open would be if the applicant intends to submit additional information with respect to wetlands and the additional information that was requested by the engineer, which has not been provided. Mr. Bolts would like an opportunity to review any additional new information that is submitted to the Board so that he can respond to that information.

I'll go back to our board. Two weeks.

Two weeks. Alright.

Point basically at our next meeting.

But.

If the scenario comes up at our next meeting. that can we extend that period out?

You could.

You understand what I'm saying? We would extend out a written response to our next meeting on the 20th, which is two weeks. At that time, we could discuss extending that written period if, in fact, information was not available for you.

So what I think the chair is proposing is a motion to close the public hearing, but to keep it open for the submission of additional written comment through August 20th, with the caveat that if we get to the 20th and you come in and you say, hey guys, I just got this paperwork yesterday, I would like more time, the board would entertain further extending out the date for written submissions.

Yeah, that seems reasonable. If we're all operating under the assumption that the town will be able to complete the FOIA request by August 13th, I think that's a reasonable amount of time to provide an additional response based upon that new information. But I would just reiterate, if there's additional information, new information that the applicant provides to the board, it's only fair that the adjoining neighbors, including Mr. Bolson, has an opportunity to review that additional information and to be heard regarding that new information.

I don't disagree with that.

So I think we have a plan for tonight.

I should ask the applicant that. Do you have a problem with that?

Yes. I do.

Which part?

Well, this public hearing was a continuation of our former public hearing. And it was... provided for the express purpose of allowing Mr. Bolson and his council to respond to all of the materials that we have submitted. And we have completed all of our submissions at the last appearance that we've made. And what has been presented this evening is a rehash of all of the same issues that Mr. Bolson has previously brought. all of which are faceless, without merit, and frivolous. So we object to any additional time other than deceiving, which was their opportunity to present, and they have. And now we have to respond. And once we have our responses, then I think it goes to the board.

comments from us we reopen this public area was closed at the request of the average so they asked if they are waiting on foil stuff it's not available for a week

so i think we're down to two choices right we i think we've all we were closing the public hearing the question is are you going to keep it open for the receipt of additional written submissions there was a suggestion made to do that through august 20th the applicant has an objection to that i understand that um but you guys have to decide are you we just done tonight? Or are you going to hold it open for written submissions to the 20th? I think those are the two choices that we are deciding.

Comments? I don't have a, considering there's a FOIL in place, I don't have a problem with extending written comments. That's my personal opinion. I'm not trying to sway anybody anyway. If everybody is in favor of closing the public hearing. So be it. So I'm going to put a motion on the floor to close the public hearing. and for comments if we wish to extend it out comments to the client okay right closing the public hearing we're going to extend the comments for how long to to our next meeting on the 20th basically two weeks is that emotional well i i i I put a motion on the floor to close the public hearing. At this point, we discuss it, whether we want to extend a written comment period.

So I think the way to frame that is as a single motion. So the motion you would make would be a motion to close the public hearing subject to allowing the receipt of additional written submissions through August 20th, 2026. And if there's a second to that motion, you guys can take a vote. And if enough of you are in favor of it, that will be the outcome. If for some reason you can't get a majority to vote for that, then the alternative would be just to close the public hearing on a separate motion with no provision for additional written submission.

Okay. Then I'll put the motion on the floor to accept written comments up to the 20th, basically a two-week period.

So just to restate it, make sure we're clear, motion to close the public hearing. but to allow the receipt of additional written submissions through August 20th, 2026.

That's the motion. Okay. Is there any further discussion on that? All those in favor of that? All right. All right. Public hearing is closed. However, we will receive additional comments up to the 20th. of August, 2026. All right. Moving on to the public hearing, is there any other comments that wish to be made? Anybody wish to come up and speak?

You're not talking about the public hearing, right?

That's right. Sorry, I apologize for that.

I have a question. Do we get the comments on the 20th or do we get them before the review?

The way we framed it is any written comment received up to and including August 20th will be timely. I understand that if you get it at five o'clock on the 20th, then the Board members may have time to review it prior to the meeting, but it will be part of the record. You can consider it as part of your deliberation.

Okay. We're going to move on to the regular agenda, which is the Fisher minor subdivision at this point.

We're going to do our written comments and submit them.

Okay.

The only question legally I have is there was a, one of the comments was that you basically would be cruising yourself. Is that, where do we stand with that?

So that issue is one that was first raised tonight. I heard Mr. Miranda speak about it. I did skim the letter that we received just prior to the meeting. I don't know what to do about that. Part of that is I don't know that this Board has the ability to make a decision about whether a particular attorney may or may not appear on behalf of an applicant, whether an attorney does or does not have a conflict, whether an attorney does or does not have some need to be disqualified. I've never seen that rate in the context of a planning board application before. You do this long enough, something new comes up. So I don't know how that gets addressed or decided. I'm assuming that Mr. Engster may take a different view of the situation than Mr. Miranda presented. I think it would benefit to potentially hear from him and I'm assuming some response to the public comments. Like I said, I don't know that the end of this is going to be this board telling this applicant that they cannot appear by Mr. Engstrom. I don't know that we have that power or authority.

I have a comment on that.

I'm sure you do.

Would you like to hear it?

I would love to. We'd love to hear this.

I don't think the board has the authority to make a decision about my qualifications. It would be the equivalent of our argument that the Bolson concerns are frivolous. You have no authority to issue sanctions, which a court of law can do when frivolous claims are brought. So you are without authority to entertain my opinion about the insincerity of the Bolson concerns. and you're without authority to decide on my qualifications. That's all the venue of what you want.

I agree with you 100%. Thank you. You do have the floor. You are on our agenda. Is there anything?

I would like to address one thing that came up in the public hearing. OK. Is that OK? As I look out on the board members, you've been here as long as I've been here. You've approved a lot of subdivisions. And you know the difference between a private roadway and a road. If I'm designing a road in the town of Brunswick, it is 30 feet wide, curb to curb, edge of pavement, edge of pavement. It's paved. This road, private roadway, is a gravel surface, and it's 16 feet wide. My experience in the town of Brunswick also tells me that no way is a road getting approved in the town of Brunswick that's over 1,000 feet with a cul-de-sac because of fire issues, because it's a road, and there's going to be houses on both sides of the road and all around the cul-de-sac. So you got to limit the depth because it could be an act. Even 30 feet of pavement can get blocked. So you don't want a road. The boards have decided that you want them too deep, you know. So the characteristics of this driveway do not match the characteristics of a road. It is not 30 feet wide. It just happens to be accessed through a 60 foot strip. which will allow wide turns for the fire apparatus. It's still a private roadway, which is nothing more than a long driveway. It can never be turned into a road in the future. It is too long. The town would never allow a dead end road at that length at this time. in this design age. Perhaps, you know, Coal Lane, Checkerberry, designed in the 60s and 70s. They're pretty deep, but they don't do it anymore. And the road has to be paved. And it has to be turned over to the town of Brunswick. It has to be dedicated. None of that, none of these characteristics exist in this submission. So I just wanted to say that.

Thanks.

Do you wish to make any comments at this time?

No, I think because of the detail of the original, excuse me, because of the detail of the original Miranda letter, which we did review here at our last meeting, and I now have a supplemental comment from Mr. Miranda, I think I have to address it in detail in writing, submit it to council and the board. I think that'd be appropriate.

Okay, I agree. Well, it's required by us that you do in writing address all the comments. Now, the question I have is, do you wanna submit a written comments on the public hearing as they stated? or do you want to wait until the 20th when all comments are received to submit your...

I think when I receive all comments, I mean, I can do it piecemeal.

No, I prefer you not, to be honest with you. I prefer, you know, to... wait the two weeks, get the additional comments that are gonna be presented and address them all in one document. All right. So if that's the case, when do you want to possibly come on to our next agenda to move forward with this or whatever we have So our next meeting, first meeting in September is the 3rd. The next meeting after that is the 17th, I believe.

That's correct.

Well, it depends on when the, what's the date of the point?

20th? 20th. That's the day of our next meeting.

I guess the 3rd.

Okay. And as requested, if you have new materials, please submit it to the town office.

Well, part of my response will try to, in an organized fashion, summarize what has been submitted on behalf of the applicant and then tie that in with the responses to Okay.

Anyone have any additional questions? Wayne, do you have anything?

No, I'll wait until the applicant responds.

Chris, do you have any comments that you wish to make at this time?

I do not.

Okay, then I guess we will see you on the third tentatively.

Yes.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. Thanks for your time.

All right.

Okay, as I previously stated, the number three item on our agenda, CILIS, the major subdivision, David are asked to be rescheduled for the third off. Okay, under new business, do we have any new business?

We do. Mark.

Okay, we do have new business. This is... Go ahead.

I'll be back. Okay. Don't wait for me.

All right. We have before us Burger King.

Deja vu all over again, right?

I'm dying to hear this. Believe me. They are under new business. There's no, at this point, action going to be taken. So this presentation is all yours. Is this an amendment to amendment?

Yes.

So I'll make this kind of quick. So good evening. My name is Craig Tripp. I'm with GPI here on behalf of Burger King for the project that we very recently got approved. So the reason that we're here tonight is numbers have started coming in for the project in general, but also the... in substance for what we're here for, for the site related work. And we've been asked to do some VE exercises to bring things a little bit more into check with what they are looking to do. So, what we're looking at is essentially a small reduction in site scope compared to what you already approved. And what it really is in a nutshell is a reversion a little bit to some of the stuff that currently exists and was originally proposed to be modified. So in the summary, and I understand you guys are just getting this, so I'll give you a chance to get through it. But in a nutshell, what we're looking to do, is if you were to basically strike a line more or less at the back of the building, everything from there forward towards Hoosick unchanged, exactly the same thing as what you've already approved from their back. Yep.

Good question. Already approved in the amendment or the original already approved in the recent site plan amendment approval.

Um, So as part of the most recently approved plans, what we had proposed and are still proposing is to add a second drive-through lane. Also part of that was removing the existing, I apologize for the intense brightness of this pointer, but removing the existing dumpster enclosure and reconstruct or constructing a new one in the Northwest corner of the site. So again, this is all coming down to VE exercises to bring the site costs down and get them more into check with what they're looking for. So what we're proposing to do is not rebuild a new dumpster enclosure, but renovate the enclosure in the existing location. leave the existing drive-thru where it currently sits and still add the second drive-thru lane, which would, you know, with the island and associated, you know, menu board and order box and everything, height bar, but that would now be constructed just about 8 1⁄2 feet further north, which also means that we would stripe out and lose this furthest north bank of parking, the 15 spaces that are at the back of the site. That allows us to add four additional spaces on the angled spaces that are on the west side of the building. and it basically just allows us to leave more of the site alone and in its existing condition the drainage improvements that we were going to be having to do in this kind of back corner we won't have to do anymore because that curved island is no longer going to be getting pulled tighter to the building which is what the catalyst was for doing those drainage improvements And the overall net result of total parking spaces does come down because of losing this bank here. We lose those. We gain a few here. We no longer have to build this kind of nose on the end of this parking island that's here existing. So we get back the two spaces that we were going to lose that are there now. So the net end result from a parking standpoint is we're at 43 spaces proposed, but that's still well in excess of what the code requires anyway. So we're not looking at any kind of variances or anything that's even getting down as low as what the code requires to have anyway. So honestly, what we're kind of hoping, and this is all on there and there's notes that describe a little bit of what I've just talked about. What we're kind of hoping for is that we've been before you, we've gone through the site plan review process, we've done the planning board meetings, we've done the public hearing, we've done SEEKER, we've done all of those things, and all of the changes that we're talking about are actually a reduction in the intensity of the site work. So kind of what we're hoping to be able to do is that this can continue its site plan process, by the submission of the full detailed plans to the building department, knowing that we are reducing parking spaces, but the count is still in excess of the required code amount. And all the things that we went through previously still apply and still hold. The only comment we got during public hearing was a question about the existing sign out here that we are modifying as part of the project, but that isn't changing. All the substantive changes that we already got approved are still in the project. We're just reducing the amount of site scope. So the building renovations, exterior and interior, exactly the same. Signage improvements, all exactly the same. The way finding signage, we're still changing out what's there currently and putting in the new signage that's in the DOT standards. So we're not changing anything that, ties into what we had to go through for the original path through the site plan review process, if you follow what I'm saying. So there's a, what I've summarized in the narrative letter is everything that you approved previously, and then what we're changing, which is kind of what I've gone through, that we're not, the things that we're changing are not things that would typically trigger A need for another public hearing or having to go back through seeker or anything like that because we're not if anything we're less of an impact because we're leaving more of what's existing alone.

The existing dumpster. Is that.

So that portion of it is, again, back to what I was mentioning before, where that now will be unchanged from its existing condition because we are no longer pulling that first drive-through lane closer to the building. It's going to stay right where it is. currently, which also means that this minor improvement we were proposing over here to line everything up is no longer necessary. So this island stays just like it is as well. And all of those turning movements that are there now remain the same. And if anything, honestly, with the stripe out of these 15 spaces right here, you're giving a little bit more swing room for anybody that is going into that bypass lane. It ties back into the reason for this, for why I'm here again in front of you guys, which is all about the site cost and trying to find ways to bring that down. And what's also in that letter too is on the landscaping side. Again, we did quite a bit of improvements from a landscaping standpoint, and I think you were the one that had a couple of comments about some of the landscaping out in Route 7. All that stays the same. Really, the only thing that will change from a landscaping standpoint is what was proposed back here and what was going to be an extension of an island area. We'll obviously scale back to, you know, stay within the footprint of what's currently green space, but we also will no longer need this walkway extension that was for going out to the dumpster that was, you know, when it was proposed out here. So we'll have more space to work with. All the things that were going to be in this new island that separates the two drive-through lanes will be exactly the same. It'll just be eight and a half feet further north.

And the proposed future freezer?

same same thing yep so that'll that'll that is unchanged as well they're saying there's most of what was originally proposed is still proposed it's just on the back side of the building it's all really tied to avoiding the construction of a new dumpster enclosure just doing some renovations where it currently lives and the associated islands you know reconstruction

It would be nice if the light went on a little bit sooner, don't you think?

Really.

I think what you explained is fine. I think I would like to see a finished drawing. without all the red lines and stuff like this, which I assume you're probably going to progress along too.

Yeah, exactly. We'll basically update the entire drawing set, which will include the drainage and the new structures and stuff that we were proposing. Like I was saying before, they won't be necessary anymore because that's all the same flow patterns and curb locations that are out there currently. Grading on the backside will show new spot grading and stuff for the back over here for the shift in that separator island. Get the landscaping shifted for that accommodation as well. Lighting, everything stays the same with the lighting. The only exception to that is that one more thing literally stays the same because With the shift, we were going to have to relocate one light pole to make sure it didn't end up in the middle of the driveline, and now the one that we were going to have to relocate can stay where it is as well. And we're still going to do the same upgrades as far as the cleaning and the painting of the poles that are out there. They're all still already existing LED fixtures, so there's no updates needed for any of that. Stormwater, we're even more or less than an acre of disturbance than we were before, so there's still no need for a SWPPP. But yeah, to answer your question, we'll be updating the full set. And like I said, on our end, the hope from Burger King Corporate is that we can get through the process with you guys tonight for an approval with the understanding that we'll come into the building department with a full set of updated plans for the whole thing. That's not just a red line for you guys to understand the intent of what we're doing.

So you're adding four?

Well, it's a net reduction. The four that we're adding are in this spot where the dumpster was previously proposed and approved. We're losing the bank back here. We're adding two. It gets a little confusing when you're talking about existing versus previously approved versus now proposed. So the two that are out there now that we're going to go away out here are back in the game, basically. Net result is we'd have a total of 43 spaces.

I was trying to figure out this. As previously approved in 15 and proposed.

Yeah, the previous. 19. The current, what's out there right now today from a parking standpoint is a total of 72 spaces. What was recently, most recently approved is a total of 62. Some of that reduction came from when we accommodated what you, somebody had a comment about switching to angled spaces on the drive-through exit side. Okay. So we lost a few because that's just what happens when you go to angled spaces. And then some of the improvements in here associated with the dumpster, you know, those are all what resulted in a net loss of 10 at that point over what's currently existing. This will reduce it another 19, but again, still well in excess of what code says we have to have.

It says proposed total 43.

Correct.

Here that they include a 63. Yes.

Oh, no, that's just a chart showing you what those what that symbology means on the site plan. So what's in the circles over here on the site plan is showing you what was most recently approved for number of spaces in any particular parking bank. Right, that's just a legend indicating that that's what that symbology means. So as an example up here, you know, we had 15 originally was what was part of the previously approved project. That's where we're losing that whole bank. So that's, you know, proposed to be zero over here was originally approved. Well, not originally, most recently approved that 15 with those four that we gained, we're now proposing 19. So that's just to show you what that, you know, what those mean at any given location on the site.

Now are we gonna be required to have a public hearing on that?

So what your code provides is that a public hearing on a site plan may be held by the planning board. So it's discretionary, it's not required every time. So you as a board could decide that since you've already seen this application, you already had a public hearing, um taking into consideration as i recall there were not a lot of comments that were made about this site plan it was one and the fact that what is being proposed as essentially an amendment to that approved site plan is not materially different than what was already reviewed it seems to me the board could reasonably decide to not have a public hearing on this essential request for an amendment Same thing with seeker, okay? You've previously issued a neg dec on this proposed project. What's being presented to you now as a modification is not materially different or certainly not more intensive of a use than what you've already said would not have a significant adverse impact. So I think we could stand on the prior seeker that was adopted by the planning board as well. But again, whether they have the public hearing or not is entirely up to you. I just want to make sure you understood that it was discretionary.

I'm kind of gun shy on public hearing. So I will take that under consideration. I think you're right. Now give us a timeline here. as far as the final plans that we can take a look at and review and approve.

So, well, like I said, so timeline, our hope is that we can walk away tonight with, from the board standpoint, approval to move forward with this, knowing that we'll then come in with the final updated plans to the building department. for everything related to what we're seeing here, all the grading updates and getting the landscaping shift. So from a timeline standpoint, we can probably get these things turned around within a couple of weeks. Like I said, just given the, Well, I guess what I'm asking and hoping for is that you guys are able to approve what we're looking at tonight. And we, you know, with the understanding that we'll be coming into the building department with those finalized plans that reflect these changes in their entirety. I don't know if you can or not, it's just an ask.

The Chair would probably explain this better than I will, but you're here tonight as new business. So the Board does not typically act on new business. You need to be added to a regular agenda. That next meeting is August 20th, correct? So you could be on the agenda for that meeting. I think you're hearing the Board they haven't decided yet, but they're entertaining the idea of not having a public hearing on this. If you had a site plan finalized and ready to go for the 20th, it would be up to the Board, but I think at that meeting, they could choose to act on approval if they were so inclined. But I don't think they can do that for you tonight.

And the only aspect of this that I can't speak to would be the landscaping, because we are not the landscape architects on it. That's a different firm. my guess though just with how they've been previously because this is one of 10 sites that we're working on with them they're very fast to react so if we if we understand from tonight that as long as we provide you updated plans you know say by the end of next week that you can you know intend to make take action at the next meeting i think we can turn around the full plan set for you guys in time to be able to have more than 10 minutes to look at it okay we have uh

At our next meeting, we have Mavis Dyer. We also have a public hearing for Brunswick Capers. That's all I know of. Does anybody have any others on that? I think, reasonably, we could include you on that agenda.

And just if I recall correctly, Mr. Chairman, you're not going to be at that meeting, correct?

Did I steal your thunder?

And as you'll recall, neither am I. So you will be blessed with another attorney from my firm. So you'll have an attorney here, but it won't be me. I don't know that makes a difference to any of it. I just wanted to remind everybody that.

Yeah, I was going to make that point.

Before I did.

It's imperative on you to get plans to us.

Understood.

Are you okay with the agenda?

Bring him on. You know what, maybe we'll just put Fisher on there.

Let's see if Paul wants to come back in. All right.

Then we'll put you on the agenda for the 20th.

Excellent.

Hopefully, if everything goes right, we can move forward with an approval.

Excellent.

All right.

Thank you very much for your time. I appreciate it.

Thank you. All right. okay the only other thing i had under new business was this uh special use permit for lawfield okay there's no word on that okay just reviewing there's no old businesses

bike place next to the 95.

Okay. That's going to be at our new business, though. That's going to be on the 20th? Bring it on.

Okay.

All right. Let's review the agenda right now. For the 20th, we have Mavis Tire coming back in. We have a public hearing first, though, at 7 o'clock for Brunswick Acres. Uh, I don't think that's going to be an active one, but who knows? And then we. Then we have the Burger King. And we have. The. Oh, the new business we have the. He 10. Okay. For the third right now, we have Fisher, and we have Silas. They request you come in. I don't have anything on further agendas after that. I will be here for the third. Will you be here for the third?

I will.

Okay.

I don't see a second. You made this on the 20th, so we'll call it the 20th.

Do you think Mavis is tentative?

I think they're here for the 20th. I think they might be on the 30th. I don't think we're going to do conditions.

I don't envision, again, it's always up to you guys, but I don't envision you guys issuing an approval on Mavis on the 20th. I think the applicant will come in with their response to the public comments, depending on how soon in advance of the meeting, maybe there's a discussion on that, but I would defer taking any action at that time. And I think you're right, the Board's going to want to digest the response to the public comment, determine whether there's any conditions that they want to entertain adding to the approval. So again, I would lean toward not taking action that night and revisiting another third.

Would that require a formal resolution, do you think?

For the Mavis site plan approval?

Mavis site.

I think it depends on how extensive your conditions are getting, if there's one or two. I've heard talk about hours of construction and remediating the property promptly after construction is done. If it's two or three conditions that can be read into minutes, that's probably sufficient. If it's going to get more extensive than that, we might want to consider writing something up. That will require two things. One, us to get a consensus on what those conditions are going to be. And two, giving me some time to prepare that written document.

Speaking of resolutions, we would need an updated resolution for Brunswick Acres to move forward, I would assume.

So we're doing the public hearing on the 20th. Again, same thing. I don't think the board is acting to approve anything.

No, I'm just kind of foresee what you think is we need at least a draft resolution on some of these.

Correct. And pivoting to Brunswick Acre. We've raised over the last couple of meetings, the idea of looking at the past conditions from the prior approval, seeing whether some of those can be taken off because they've been satisfied, deciding whether any need to be added. So we just need to start that process, I think, of starting with the prior approval, looking at those conditions and getting set up to where you guys have a pretty good idea of what you want to see in your resolution. But you're right, that would be a document that I would prepare, subdivision approval.

Okay.

I have not heard either way. So that would have been last week, just a week ago. I haven't heard one way or another from the applicant. Nor was I expecting to, but I don't know.

Okay. Okay. I don't have anything else. Kevin, do you have anything else you want to expound on?

I would make a suggestion that you guys limit them to an eight-hour day and have them apply to the building department for any hours beyond that because quick check, I think you guys approved 6 o'clock in the morning to, I want to say, 6 o'clock at night. It was a long day, Monday through Friday, and then you gave them long hours on Saturday.

I know there was some hassles with it. Okay. Anyone else? I'll entertain a motion to adjourn.