Planning Board - Regular Meeting

I'd like to bring this meeting to order for the Town of Brunswick Planning Board for September 3rd, 2026. If everybody 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. Before I read the agenda, is Mr. Lawfield here? OK, thank you. OK, the agenda tonight, we're going to just change it up a little. Number one on our agenda tonight is going to be the Lawfield special use permit. Applicant seeks a special use permit to install a 13.35 kilowatt ground mounted solar array on property located at 276 Bolson Road. Bjorn Loffield is the applicant. Number two is going to be Fisher Minor Subdivision. Applicant seeks minor subdivision approval to subdivide 82.17 acre parcel into three new lots on property located at 842 Tamarack Road. Rebecca Fisher is the applicant. Number three, Brunswick Acres, major subdivision. Applicant proposes a major subdivision with regard to the Brunswick Acres Plan Development District on approximately 44 acre parcel located along the north side of Brunswick Road, New York State Route 2, just west of Heather Ridge Road. Brunswick Road Development LLC is the applicant. Number four, Mavis Tire Site Plan. Applicant seeks site plan approval to demolish an existing residential structure and construct a new building to serve as a Mavis Tire Motor Vehicle Repair Shop on property located at 721 Hoosick Road. Richard Valverde is the applicant. Number five, Sillis Major Subdivision applicant proposes a major subdivision on property on approximately 16.2 acre parcel on property located on the east side of Coal Lane. Jim Sillis is the applicant. We have been notified by the applicant that they wish to be rescheduled for our meeting on October 15th. So that means number six is 810 Hoosick Road site plan. Applicants seek site plan approval to convert an existing building used for motor vehicle sales into a motor vehicle repair shop, including making minor exterior improvements on the property located at 810 Hoosick Road 810 Hoosick Road, LLC is the applicant. And finally, number seven, Hanson, waiver of subdivision. Applicants seek to subdivide 5.48 acres on approximately 66-acre parcel of property located at 1144 Tamarack Road. Craig Hanson and Pauline Hanson are the applicants. Our first order of business is to review... the minutes of July 16th. Everybody had an opportunity to review those. They were sent out via email. Is there any corrections, additions to those minutes? Okay, apparently everybody was in attendance, so everybody can vote on a proposal to approve the minutes as they have been submitted. There's a motion. Do I have a second?

I'll second.

Is there any further discussion on the minutes? All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? First on our agenda is going to be the Loftfield special use permit, if that applicant would come up.

Bjorn Loftfield. I reside at 276 Folsom Road. And I'm hoping to install a solar array to compensate for the power I use every year.

Great. And could you just describe where this is?

It's in the side yard of the house on the north side of the house. And It's 275 feet from Bolson Road to the nearest part of what will be the planned array. And it's heavily wooded area between that and the road. So it shouldn't be really a visual disturbance to anybody except possibly my wife.

That's number one.

Well, she didn't show up to .

Okay, we did receive, you know, drawings of it. Wayne, have you had an opportunity to take a look at those?

I have. I don't really see anything that is objectionable.

Okay. Does anybody have any questions for the applicant? John, are you here for consulting?

Consulting, exactly. The same system that I installed.

OK. John Deberly had one installed on Cranston Road, remember? All right. There's no questions. Engineering is satisfied with it. We're required to schedule a public hearing. OUR PUBLIC HEARING AFTER THIS WOULD BE SCHEDULED ON THE FIRST MEETING IN OCTOBER, WHICH IS THE FIRST OR SECOND?

FIRST.

FIRST. I HAVE A QUESTION.

WHICH IS YOUR CLOSEST NEIGHBORHOOD? DO YOU SEE THIS?

THE ONLY NEIGHBOR WHO COULD POSSIBLY SEE THE UNDERSIDE WOULD BE MY NEXT NUMBER TO THE NORTH. I DON'T REMEMBER.

IS THAT MARK'S PROPERTY?

NO. YOU CAN'T EVEN SEE HIS HOUSE. yeah i mean i've got two neighbors i've got larry cronow up behind me and then i've got this fellow mark donahue don that's right yeah right he's the next house up on bolton road same side of the road he may be i mean occasionally i see his lights especially in the winter when the leaves are off the tree so he may be able to see the back side of the array well he may be able to see it POSSIBLY BUT HE'S GOT A RATHER LARGE GARAGE BUILDING IN BETWEEN HIS HOUSE AND SO HE WOULD PROBABLY HAVE TO GO TO THE SECOND FLOOR TO SEE IT.

THE PUBLIC HEARING WOULD BE NOTIFIED OF THE PUBLIC HEARING SO HE WOULD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE COMMENTS ON IT. SO WE USUALLY SCHEDULE OUR public hearings for the first part of our meeting. So at seven o'clock, public hearing will start. And this would be on October 1st. Is that correct?

Yes. All right. I'll be back then.

All right. And you will, if there are any comments, you will be required to submit a written response to each one of those comments.

Okay.

All right. Then we're all set. We will see you on the first.

All right. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Okay, next on our agenda is the Fisher Miner Subdivision.

Good evening. My name is Paul Engster. I'm here on behalf of Rebecca Fisher, the applicant.

Rebecca has previously submitted a response to the planning earlier this week, and I just want to make sure

Mr. BOLSON GOT HIS COPY.

MY RESPONSE WAS PASSED OUT TO EVERYBODY THIS EVENING HERE, AND I ONLY HAVE ONE OTHER COPY, SO I'LL MAKE SURE WE GET A COPY BY TOMORROW MORNING.

THIS IS AN EFFORT TO ADDRESS THE VARIOUS CONCERNS RAISED BY THE MIRANDA BOLSON LETTERS IN OPPOSITION beginning in, starting on May 7th, again on August the 6th, and finally on August the 20th, along with a opposition letter delivered dated August 16th from neighbors that I believe are right at the turn of the access road off of Tamarack Road, Parker and LaPorte. AND TO THE EXTENT THAT REBECCA HAS PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED HER OUTLINE OF THE VARIOUS CONCERNS THAT WERE RAISED IN OUR PRIOR RESPONSES, I THINK IT WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR EVERYONE TO REVIEW THAT FIRST AND THEREAFTER GO INTO MY RESPONSES. MY RESPONSE IS A LITTLE BIT MORE TACTICAL AND I'M GOING TO ASK MR. DANSKIN TO HELP ME WITH THAT IN A FEW MINUTES. But essentially, there are three major areas. And then at the end of part of the August 6th letter of opposition and to a great extent in the August 20th opposition, there was a claim that I had a conflict of interest and I should be disqualified from representing Rebecca. So I'll address that briefly. But essentially, the first issue that was raised were there are two ponds on either side of the roadway. And I apologize again, because we've gone through this at length back in July the 2nd. But this is a roadway that has existed as a access road since we understand the 1980s. And it comes off of Tamarack Road. It's a 60 foot wide strip of land until it enters the major ACREAGE, WHICH IS THE BALANCE OF 82 ACRES ALL TOGETHER. AND THE PROPOSAL, AS YOU KNOW, IS TO SUBMIT OR TO HAVE TWO RESIDENCES CONSTRUCTED WITHIN THAT 82 ACRE PROCESS. AND THAT THOSE RESIDENCES WILL USE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TOWN OF BRUNSWICK'S DRIVEWAY, PRIVATE ROADWAY CODE, A COMMON ROADWAY PURSUANT TO A PRIVATE ROADWAY MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT, WHICH HAS PREVIOUSLY BEEN ACCEPTED, REVIEWED BY LANG LOY, MR. LANG LOY, AND TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE IS ACCEPTABLE TO THE BOARD. THE INITIAL ISSUE THAT WAS RAISED BY MR. WATERS AND Mr. Bolson back in the very first public hearing, which is in March of 2026, was that there was a power line going through the roadway into the residence of Indian Creek Road. We addressed that on several occasions. It was found out that there was an easement that was not illegal enforceable easement, but it doesn't matter. Our position is we're going to identify, locate, and protect the power line since we are going to draw off of that very same power line. We're going to draw off of a load that comes off of the water's property. National Grid has been there and has inspected it and has given us permission to do that. So the next issue that comes up is there between these two ponds, this roadway is going to pass up to the residences and that somehow there is a waterway, a water causeway or a water connection of some kind between the two ponds on adjacent properties. And in response to that, we have submitted a wetlands delineation report. from the North Country Ecological Services. And we have reviewed extensively the stormwater pollution prevention plan submitted by Steven Dean, the engineer who drew that up. Both of those documents prepared by engineers, qualified people, clearly state that there's no hydrologic connection between these two ponds. And the embarrassing thing was, is that I remember in the very first public hearing, Mr. Bolson was saying, oh, there's water there. And I was saying it's uphill and, you know, water doesn't go uphill. And then I realized neither one of us are qualified. Neither one of us know what the hell we're doing. And it's up to the wetlands report and the SWPS report to clarify this. And I believe Mr. Bonesteel, excuse me, has had a chance to review those and that they are acceptable and they confirm that there's no hydrologic connection between the two and that this planned driveway private roadway will not interfere with these two ponds. The next issue that comes up is the buffer zone. This is a statutory interpretation. This is the ordinance of the town of Brunswick. 60-31D regarding agricultural, and it specifically states that there's supposed to be a buffer when agricultural property is adjacent to residential property. But the interpretation, statutory interpretation, that Mr. Bolson and Miranda have submitted is incorrect. They essentially argue that it's a matter of... It's a required buffer that must be applied. In this case, they argue that because there is a private roadway that goes near the Bolson property, that Mr. Bolson is entitled to a 100-foot buffer protecting him, protecting the farmer from the private roadway. Now, if you read the statute, and I refer to all the sections in my paper submitted tonight, that's not what the statute says. The statute says that when you have these two adjacent conflicting parties, there should be a buffer for the purpose of protecting the farmer from nuisance lawsuits. Nuisance lawsuits are you're spreading manure near my driveway, manure is running off. There's a contamination of a stream. There's pesticides drifting on my property, et cetera. There's a number of ways that a farmer can get sued for nuisance while he's trying to operate his farm. That's what the statute is designed to protect. Bolson Moranis submit that He's entitled to a hundred foot buffer because we have a residential roadway going near his property. That's just turning the statutory language upside down is incorrect. The next issue that's raised is the private roadway is really a street. And therefore we have to have a major subdivision application. We have to comply with all of the requirements of a major subdivision. Again, This is a attempt to incorrectly interpret the statutory language that's involved. Mr. Moranis submits that, and this is correct, a street means and includes streets, roads, avenues, lanes, and other traffic ways between right of way lines. That's the language that defeats their whole objective. Right-of-way lines are commonly found in any kind of public highway where you have a right-of-way on each side, and in the middle of that is the road and the infrastructure, power lines, sewer, septic, all to be maintained within that right-of-way. On our property, we have a 60 foot strip of land that's owned by the applicant. We have no right of way on either side. It's just the boundary line. And we intend to have a common driveway, 16 feet in width, three foot shoulders going down through this strip of 60 feet into the main property. which will not change the contours of the existing lay of the land as it is now in any kind of substantial way. And I'd like to have Mr. Danskin comment about that now.

Good evening. I got road versus driveway section. So, I don't understand why Mr. Miranda keeps insisting that this is a roadway, because the characteristics are not that of a roadway.

You can see the cross section is 16 feet wide, and actually, I have one here.

There's a town road, 30 feet wide of pavement, As my colleague said, a 60-foot right-of-way infrastructure throughout. It's not what we're building. We're building a 16-foot-wide travel way. Another aspect of the driveway that proves it's a driveway, we have fire truck turnouts. THROUGHOUT EVERY, LESS THAN EVERY 500 FEET AS REQUIRED FOR A DRIVEWAY THAT EXCEEDS 500 FEET. A DRIVEWAY, NOT A ROADWAY. WE HAVE A PRIVATE ROADWAY AGREEMENT AS MENTIONED BEFORE. THE LENGTH OF THE ROAD IS LIKE 3,600 FEET LONG, THE LENGTH OF THE DRIVEWAY. And I don't think that's acceptable to town standards to have a dead end road constructed right now at this time over that length. I think over 800 feet or 1200 feet is about as far as you can go in the town. And we also are proposing a gravel surface, crushed stone, not a paved road. So if anybody wants the cross sections. I need you to talk about the slope. Yeah, I'm getting there. If anybody wants a copy of the cross sections, I have them here. Also up on the board, if anybody wants a closer look at them. Before I get to that, Mr. Miranda talked in the comments that we didn't provide slopes throughout the driveway. And if you look at sheet two of the presentation, there are grade lines on the driveway. The first line is 8%, and it goes to a 2%, I think, and a 6%.

And this was in December of 2025 that we discussed this.

There's a 6% grade line, a 2%, an 8%. I said this little hump is about 11% that can easily be graded out. My requirement to meet the town's code is 12%. And nothing on this board comes close except for that little spot at 12%. no slope lines as on the other sheet on this sheet. And I can remember telling the board that for clarity purposes, and again, it's 12% I got a hit and there's nothing steeper than 5% on this whole section. So I don't think there's an issue with the grade. I don't think there's an issue calling it a driveway over a roadway. Everything we presented has been a driveway. So while I'm on that, I might as well go into the fire trucks, because a couple people talked about fire truck access and the lack of. There's no set standard for a fire truck because there's different factors affecting the turning radius. wheelbase length, the track width between the tires, the front wheel steering angle, and the vertical length and the overhangs. I'm sorry, the horizontal length and the overhangs. Most of the standards or the guides are for very large fire trucks. They recommend a minimum radius of 25 feet, inside turning radius at the inside curb or edge travel way. For really large fire trucks, they suggest a outside turning radius of 50 feet and a typical minimum travel way of 20 feet wide. I also have the illustration to hand out if you'd like to see it better. Well, what we do is we start with a 40 foot center line, make a 40 foot radius. You can see we don't have even a 90 degree angle here, it's less than 90 degrees. That means my radius lines are gonna be longer than my tangent lines. So when I pull a 40 foot tangent, do my curve, I end up with an inside radius of 34.7 feet, 10 feet. greater than 25 foot minimum that was suggested. And I ended up with an outside radius of 55 feet, which is 10 feet, five to 10 feet greater than was suggested. I took this information to Shane Large, the chief at Brunswick One. down in sick away. They got the largest fire truck. Their fire trucks, 45 feet long. And when asked if his fire truck could get around a radius inside radius of 25 feet, he said, yes, quite not a problem at a 25 foot radius, any shorter, it gets a little sketchy. He said the 50 foot radius or 55 foot radius that I, uh, shown is more than acceptable and a 20 foot travel width is more than acceptable for him to get his fire truck around. The corner that I use is the first one is you come up the slope and you make your first turn because that's the sharpest corner. As you go down and you get near the pond and you do that I have an 84-degree delta here. I got a 78-degree delta here. That means when I do my 40-foot tangent, my radius is going to be even bigger, which allows for a smoother curve. So I really don't see an issue, nor did the fire chief see an issue of fire truck access. Excuse me. I just got one thing not to be the dead horse, but 1995, 96, there was an illegal easement drawn. I just first started doing surveying work in that area in 2007, the power pole. Power pole shown right here. Power pole we always talk about on our property coming from Bolson. That's a real power pole. I mean, that's a big power pole. Got a big transformer on the top. They didn't put it in with a post hole digger. I mean, Nymo had to get a pole truck up there. They had to get a line truck up there to pull the line. If they accessed from Tamarack Road, they went around both these turns without any improvement at all with very big trucks. And I think that also proves that navigating this driveway is possible and very easily achieved. Thank you. I'll answer any questions you have or give you any of these handouts. if you want him when he finishes.

A quick note. I mentioned the ponds issue in my presentation tonight, and I forgot to advise that I have shared the letters of objections with both the engineers that prepared the stormwater pollution prevention plan, as well as the north country ecological wetlands report and they've all re they've reviewed that and that those comments are attached to my exhibits tonight we're here to review they again confirm that there's no hydrologic connection between these two ponds and that all of the concerns raised about major subdivision plans and requirements are not applicable to this particular private road. Finally, as far as the conflict of interest goes, it's true that I represented Mr. Bolson prior to, I'm not sure of the year, but before 2013, I represented a family, the Henry Breed family. They owned 140 acres off of Indian Creek Road. It's mostly forest and mountain. And they sold that to Mr. Bolson's Corporation, Cooper's Trails Corporation, somewhere prior to 2013. That was when I first met him. After that, I outlined in my RESPONSE TONIGHT THAT BETWEEN 2013 AND 2016, I REPRESENTED THEM IN SEVERAL OTHER MATTERS, NONE OF WHICH HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH MY REPRESENTATION OF THE APPLICANT TONIGHT, WHICH IS FOR A MINOR SUBDIVISION. THERE SEEMS TO BE SOME DESIRE BY BOLSON TO CONNECT THE FACT THAT I REPRESENTED THEM IN 2017 BEFORE THIS PLANNING BOARD, SOME OF YOU MAY REMEMBER. asking for approval of a bed and breakfast weekend retreat. That's not the application that's before you tonight. The application before you is for two residences on 82 acres of land. So there's no connection between those prior representations and my present representation tonight. There's an allegation in the letters of conflict that I somehow obtained confidential information from Mr. Bolson about his farm operation that I shared that or used that in my comments about his farming operation previously in the prior public hearings. It's correct. I misrepresented his farm operations in the prior public hearing, but it was not based on any information I had from Mr. Bolson. To the best of my knowledge, I NEVER KNEW HE HAD ANY INTEREST OR DESIRE OR INVOLVEMENT WITH ANY KIND OF FARMING OTHER THAN TIMBER HARVESTING BECAUSE I DEALT WITH A REQUEST TO THE TOWN OF BRUNSRICH TO MODIFY THEIR NEW ORDINANCE THAT WENT IN IN 2017 TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE ISSUES HE HAD CONCERNS WITH REGARDING TIMBER HARVESTING. BUT WE NEVER DISCUSSED, I HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE of any of his intentions to do any farming. And to the best of my knowledge, back in 2017, there was no farming activity going on. I at least did not know about it. So there is no conflict of interest. I guess that's the best way to put it. I don't have anything other to say other than it's an unfortunate turn of events. WHEN A PERFECTLY NORMAL MINOR SUBDIVISION APPLICATION IS SUBMITTED BACK IN 2025, IT'S NOW SEPTEMBER OF 2026, AND WE STILL HAVEN'T HAD THE CHANCE TO GET APPROVAL. AND IT'S ALL BECAUSE MR. BOLSON AND MR. MIRANDA HAVE SUBMITTED ONE CONCERN AFTER THE NEXT, ALL OF WHICH HAVE NO SUBSTANCE, NO BASIS OR ANY MERIT. THANK YOU.

NEW SPEAKER I THINK THAT COVERS MOST OF THE COMMENTS EXCEPT FOR A COUPLE SCATTERED ABOUT RUNNING A BUSINESS OUT OF THERE. THERE'S NO INTENTION TO RUN A BUSINESS OUT OF THERE. What was the other one? Trespass. People are complaining about trespass. I mean, if you let us live there, there won't be any trespass. We'll have the right to enjoy our land. You know, there'll be somebody there. The four wheelers won't be going up and down it because it's vacant, unoccupied. And IF THERE'S ANY OTHER THAT I MISSED, I'D GLADLY ANSWER THEM, BUT I THINK THAT WAS THE LAST ONE I THOUGHT OF. THANKS.

DOES REBECCA FISHER WANT TO ADD ANYTHING? BECAUSE SHE DID SEND We did receive your comments.

Yeah. I hope you guys all get a chance to look at that because as Paul stated, like we've been going through a very normal subdivision process since December of last year. And I feel like that's an extensive amount of time for all we're asking for is to build two houses. It was stated in that meeting that the rest of that land was going to be agricultural as it is today. So all the allegations that are coming up about our home businesses and Airbnb's like we're all entrepreneurs, but that isn't the application. So all these like fictional claims that are coming up about Airbnb's and Just to note, Mr. Bolson and his wife and I had an okay relationship going into all of this. They used to bring me eggs from their chickens that they had. They said they loved what I was doing with the dogs. If you go back and read or listen to some of the public hearings or the meetings that originated to where we are today, he stated that he supported everything that I did. If he was the owner of this land, he would be doing the same exact thing that we are. We're trying to build houses three quarters of a mile in the middle of the land away from everybody. Our intention is and has never been to put Airbnbs on the land, nor is that the application. So all these claims and then now everything that's come up since all this is just one delay after another that, in my opinion, and I think You know, a lot of people could probably agree with the sole intention of delaying our project. and it's unfortunate that we're here. We've been more than compliant with everything that's been asked, everything that the board has asked us to do, as far as specialists for wetlands, stormwater prevention plans, reopening the public hearing, we had no opposition to, but every single time that we've been compliant, we're now dealing with like fictional claims, other neighbors getting riled up about stuff that never existed. And just for the record, Mr. Bolson had given me permission to have my dogs on the land. So I know that was one of his most recent exhibits of pictures of my dogs in the creek. But I just want to say for the record, that was permission that was given. Obviously at this point, that relationship is dissolved and there's no dogs on his land. But at that time, that was not the relationship that we had had.

All right. Thank you. Everybody did receive Rebecca Fisher's responses, which were mentioned at the beginning of the presentation by Paul Langster. I had an opportunity to read them. They're very well done. Thank you for your responses. And at this point, we are going to make a decision as whether these responses are acceptable. I'm first going to ask Wayne from a technical point of view of some of the responses to the comments at the public hearing.

So I did read Rebecca Fisher's letter and her response. I just got Paul's tonight, but I've kind of been going through it and he eloquently kind of described most of what's in the contents of his letter. From a technical standpoint, the applicant has addressed all the comments that I had. adequately and sufficiently. So from an engineering and technical standpoint, I think they've crossed all the T's and dotted the I's.

Thank you. Now addressing the board. Does the board have any comments? Do they have any issues with any of the responses? Is there information?

Please.

Okay, hearing none, we can move forward.

I would like to suggest that in moving forward, if we were to move forward with an approval on this project, that we put a resolution together because of the obviously complexity of what has happened here. Is that something that you would recommend?

yeah so maybe a couple things okay one is uh within the last week or so week and a half the board members have received a lot of information uh mr miranda's august 20th letter with his second supplemental objection to the application uh the written response to the public hearing comments submitted by ms fisher and then tonight mr engster's comments It's a fairly significant pack of information. And although they did walk through the points, I think it would be good for the planning board members to take some time to review those for themselves outside of the meeting. In the meantime, I can begin drafting a proposed resolution for the planning board members consideration at a future meeting.

Would you like some input on any type of things that we would like to edit for conditions or anything like that?

I always like input. OK.

Does anybody have any input?

At some juncture in the application, THE POWER LINE THAT CROSSES YOUR PROPERTY INTO WATERS THAT THE APPLICANTS WOULD USE FOR POWER AND THAT NATIONAL BRID MIGHT BE INVOLVED IN A FORMAL EASEMENT. IS THAT CORRECT? NEW SPEAKER I'M NOT FOLLOWING. NEW SPEAKER IT WAS BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION THAT THE EASEMENT THAT EXISTS IN THE RECORDS IS NOT

Yeah, there are two easements of record. There's one that was presented at the first public hearing. Morgan Waters granted an easement to National Grid, which proposes a power line from Tamarack Road down the access road that we've been talking about, and then traverses over to the Waters property. the problem with it is is that mr waters didn't own the property when he granted it and whether it's voidable or not we don't care the power first of all the power line was never extended from jamarack road in so it just doesn't exist power line comes across harrington farm property into indian creek and then off of that line somewhere they We wanted up to what is now the applicant's land and put a pole there, which is what Mr. Danskin was talking about. Through Bolson. Through Bolson's problem. And then off of that pole, Waters took his power line. And from my understanding with Rebecca's meeting with National Grid, they're now going to pull from Powers' drop up to where their homes are going to be.

I have the easement. It's in the cards. It's not finalized. It's not notarized fully.

So you're in the process of getting the easement?

Yeah. The easement's already written. It just has to be finalized.

Thank you. I have one question just to verify something for Mr. Ganskin. When we did this project, there was a 60-foot piece of land that goes on to Tamarack Road. And when you design this, according to the drawings, there is room for individual driveway for each one of those properties, correct? If they chose to.

There's 20 feet.

And they could put a driveway to each one of those lots.

So, yeah. Okay, I think I got it, but for my benefit. You're proposing a 20 foot wide or 16 foot wide, three foot shoulders each side access road. It's within a 60 foot ease.

What I'm proposing is one driveway. What Mr. Oster is asking me is if for some reason this agreement fell apart, would THE PEOPLE HAVE ENOUGH ROOM TO HAVE THREE CURB CUTS AT TAMARAC ROAD AND THREE INDIVIDUAL DRIVEWAYS, CORRECT? AND THE ANSWER IS NO. IN ORDER TO DO THAT, YOU NEED A 30-FOOT STRIP BECAUSE THE CROSS SECTION ON THE TOWN DRIVEWAY private road over 150 feet is a 16 foot travel way with two, three foot shoulders and two, three foot ditches, which adds up to 28 feet. And that's why we used to always give them 30 feet. But then the driveway agreement came into existence and the state required only 20 feet of road frontage. And with the driveway agreement in place, they would always have to have that one driveway. Did that answer your question?

That answered my question. Does anybody have any questions? Is everybody comfortable with reviewing Mr. Angsters and Ms. Fisher's remarks a little bit more thoroughly before we approve this or move forward and have Chris do a draft at this point, a draft resolution for approval. Is that correct?

If that's the consensus of the Board's thinking, that's how I'll draft it. Obviously, until you actually adopt it, you're more than welcome to reconsider, but I will draft it with an aye toward approval. Timing wise, I don't know that I'm going to have that document ready for your next meeting on the 18th. So we'll probably be looking at the October meeting.

How's that timetable for you?

Can I just ask something? Like nothing today is new. So there's like nothing that you're going to read in either mine or Paul's responses that has been not mulled over like since December of last year. So I guess my request is that we've been up to this point, like through all of this so many times, is there any reason why the board can't just approve it tonight?

So my recommendation to the planning board is that on some applications, they simply take a vote and it's in the minutes and that's their decision. On this application with the amount of attention that it's received, my recommendation to the planning board is going to be to adopt a formal resolution that I will draft, which will go through the application, the issues, the planning board's rationale, and their thinking for why they've decided the way they've decided. So while I understand the applicant's desire to see this process come to a conclusion, my recommendation to the planning board is going to be to have me draft a resolution, and that is just going to take a little bit of time.

And they need the resolution before they can agree to make a decision?

The resolution is their decision.

Do you have any comment on that, Paul?

Okay. Okay. So before you brought up the whole draft, you said given this new information, how is it not abundantly obvious that just the week of the new meeting, he submits more new information, which is at the end of every time, it's just more false claims. So what's stopping him from doing that next time?

So just to be clear for the record, when we closed the public hearing, the planning board decided to keep the record open for any additional written submissions through August 20th. That was the opportunity for Mr. Bolson through his attorney to submit final comments. That is now closed. There'll be no more comments accepted by the board at this point. Didn't we already reopen a public hearing once after it was closed?

We're not reopening it again.

I got your word on that?

There's no need to.

What was the need to open it? I'm sorry. You've got to understand we're a little frustrated here, right? We've been at this a long time.

And we are equally as frustrated. I'm just giving you that insight. I mean, we have tried to accommodate... I've got to be careful on what I say here.

I think this protects everybody, though.

This is a protective mode if this goes beyond, goes into another legal thing. We have put a resolution together with a timetable with decisions that were made, why they were made, and that way we have it on record that this is what we decided.

Okay, so when's the October date? The first. The first. All right. And we're, once it's closed, it's closed. We're not reopening it again.

It's closed. It's closed. The public hearing is closed. There's no reason for us to reopen it.

It's closed. Okay. We're just taking time to review what we submitted without making a decision.

So are we all right with a... Resolution by October 1st, is that correct? That's the plan. That's the plan. And you're okay with that?

I am. All right. I can help you with that.

Is everybody okay with that?

Yes.

Okay. Then we will see you on the 1st for some type of decision.

I understand.

Thank you, Mark. OK, next on our agenda is the Brunswick Acres Major Subdivision. I wasn't at the last meeting.

So you submitted a response. We did. Staff had let us know that they probably wouldn't have been able to get us a list of questions from reviewing the video, but they did send us the video. So both Anthony and I sat down and watched it, and we tried to figure out every question that was asked and provide an answer, which you should have. Hopefully you find it sufficient. If you think we missed something, we're happy to address it in a subsequent follow-up writing. Okay, the is a quick overview, Mr. Chair, because I know you weren't here. A lot of the concerns were about impacts to the surrounding subdivisions. And we pointed out that the project is the exact same project, which still has the conserved open space on both sides of the project between the neighboring subdivisions. And there were also questions about is the access to Riccardi Lane going to be for vehicular traffic? and we confirmed in our answers that both the utility access easement to McCarty Lane, as well as the utility access easement that comes in from Brunswick Hills are utility only. They're not for vehicular traffic. There's no intention of ever utilizing them for vehicular traffic, nor do we believe they could be. The one to Brunswick Hills was for a future water connection. That was there on the property when Anthony acquired it. And the Access over to Riccardi Lane was for the water line and we retain those easements, but it will never be for vehicular traffic. That was a concern raised by the neighbors. There's also a number of concerns about Route 2. We're not proposing any changes to the speed limit or anything on Route 2, nor do we have the ability to do so. Neighbors had expressed some concerns about the speeds in that area, and we have no objection if they look to reduce the speeds, but that's really a state issue. It's really not an issue we can impact one way or the other.

Wonderful.

Correct. At the last public hearing, what we heard when I watched the video, I believe it's correct, they were concerned about the speeds on that particular section of Route 2. Correct. The people that spoke at the public hearing.

Residents. And they live where?

Not sure.

One lives on Route 2, one lives on Route 3.

Well, the issue is that they have no control over the speed of Route 2. That's a state highway.

I think what was, and I mentioned it, was I brought up SEND SOMETHING TO THE STATE. EVEN THOUGH IT WOULD BE IN THE TOWN'S PURVIEW, IT WOULD LOOK BETTER IN EVERYBODY'S EYES IF THE APPLICANT DID

And our engineer has submitted the design package to DOT and it included a site distance analysis, which we included in our response to the board. So we have coordinated with DOT. We haven't gotten any response back from them one way or the other. We haven't ignored them though.

When you did the site distance for the entrance way to this project, Did that include the speed limit? Did that calculate on the speed limit of the existing road?

Yeah, because it was the speed limit at the time we did it. And I believe it was conducted the first time we got this approved, but the speed limit hasn't changed to my knowledge.

I believe the speed limit is 55 through there, isn't it? Yeah. So there is statistically adequate sight distance from that driveway.

Yeah, I think the bigger issue is that passing lane. There's plenty of sight distances to see pulling out, but if somebody's passing and you're looking the other way, it could be potentially a... And there's a DOT permit for the work that's going to occur within the DOT, right?

Yeah, yeah.

Correct. Yeah.

Yes, we are subject to DOT permitting for all of our work at the right of way.

Did anybody have an opportunity to look at the responses or the comments made at the first public hearing or the last public

TO BE THE THIRD PUBLIC HEARING, RIGHT?

AS FAR AS ANYTHING DIFFERENT?

I DID NOT LOOK AT THE PREVIOUS COMMENTS. I ACTUALLY, MOST OF THOSE COMMENTS, I JUST COPY AND PASTE IT FROM OUR LAST PUBLIC HEARING. OKAY.

AND FOR THE RECORD, I WASN'T AT THE FIRST ONE. I WASN'T INVOLVED AT THE TIME, BUT ANTHONY WAS. AND HE HAD INDICATED TO ME WHEN WE LEFT LAST MONTH, HE SAID THEY WERE PRETTY MUCH THE SAME COMMENTS FROM THE LAST TIME.

CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, THIS WOULD BE THE THIRD PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS PROJECT, WOULDN'T IT?

THEN WE READ THE PDD, PDD, SUBDIVISION THE FIRST TIME, THEN WE CAME IN FOR A NUMBER OF EXTENSIONS. I DON'T RECALL IF THE EXTENSIONS WERE PUBLIC HEARINGS, BUT YOU DID ALLOW PUBLIC COMMENT DURING THAT.

So what I think you're thinking of is this is our third subdivision application on this. I think there was a prior one in 2022. So there would have been a public hearing on that. There was a second one in 2024. So there would have been another public hearing on that. And then this current application, which is now had a public hearing. Yes.

And it's the same design every time the design has never changed.

Well, my opinion is that you're satisfied that the responses are adequate to satisfy the comment. But I think at this point, we'd like to move forward with, you know, and I would suggest that there be condition, we review all the conditions, of course. May have to add some or delete some. and put together a resolution based on that. but referencing the previous resolution.

Correct. So it's going to build on itself. Okay. So, you know, this is the 2024 approval document and it references the 2022 approval. So this one's going to reference 22, 24. So as a starting point, okay, I'm going to use this document, right? Why reinvent the wheel? This document has 15 conditions that were included. I can draft them to have the same 15 conditions. Okay. Some of those conditions may have been satisfied already, but I think it's still important to have them in the documents because they were conditions of approval. I don't know if the planning board is of a mind to either modify some of the conditions or add conditions, but this would be the time for you guys to think about that and give me some direction. I don't mean this is the time tonight, but at some point to get to a final document, I need to know the planning board members thinking on the condition.

My personal opinion at this point is there has been no changes to the site plan or anything like that. So all the conditions should stand as far as I'm concerned. Even though some are satisfied, you've already satisfied.

Yeah, yeah.

But I don't know of anything that I would add right now, to be honest with you.

I didn't review this.

You did not review that.

Mr. Reeves is here.

Is he?

Yeah, he's behind the sign.

Mr. Reeves, would you be... Reviewing these conditions just to ensure.

I had reviewed the conditions, yes.

OK, and you have any at this point. Any comments to make?

I do not. I found what was prepared to be acceptable.

OK, yeah. Now how long would you think this would take to?

I can have this resolution ready for the next planning board meeting on the 17th. Right, 17th.

I could make a suggestion. I wanted the opportunity to review that with Mr. Bonello, the response that were made, and we could have our comments before that and provide it to Mr. Langley.

Okay. Say that again, Russ, what are you going to read?

Mr. Minello and I will review the responses that were made, have our comments to you before as part of that resolution. Okay.

All right.

So I guess what I'll say is subject to hearing from Mr. Rhees and Mr. Minello on whatever they want to add to the conversation based on the review, depending on when I get that, if I get it the next week or so, I should be able to have that resolution ready for the meeting on the 17th. If for some reason there's a delay on that, then there's a delay. All right.

We will have it. Thank you.

Great.

Thank you.

All right. We will see you on the 17th. As you're setting up here, there was the joint public hearing and you submitted the responses to that.

YES, AUGUST 6TH WAS THE JOINT PUBLIC HEARING OF ZBA AND PLANNING. WE GOT ALL THE COMMENTS. WE RECORDED THEM FROM THE VIDEO. WE PROVIDED THE AUGUST 12TH RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM THE GALVANS AND JIM, I THINK IS WHAT HIS LAST NAME IS. GOT ALL THE COMMENTS. WE PROVIDED THOSE RESPONSES. I READ THROUGH THOSE RESPONSES. the last meeting on, I think it was the 20th of August. Subsequent, on August 17th, we received our approval from ZBA for the rear building setback of the 30 feet of budding of residential zone to 25.2 feet. And then we also got the approval from ZBA on the the dumpster enclosure, building setback abutting a residential zone of 20 feet, requesting a 14.7 feet. So we received that on the 17th of August. And we read through the responses to comments to the CBA, and I also read through that on August 20th, the response to comments. So I can give you a summary of that. SOME OF THE, WOULD IT BE OKAY, I KNOW, CHAIRMAN, YOU WEREN'T AT THE MEETING ON AUGUST 20th, I BELIEVE.

NEW SPEAKER NO. NEW SPEAKER I WAS AFTER.

NEW SPEAKER I CAN READ THROUGH THE RESPONSES OR I CAN GIVE YOU A HIGH LEVEL SUMMARY.

NEW SPEAKER JUST GIVE US A SUMMARY.

So the summary, the Gavlins had some concerns about during construction. We've added notes to the plans about construction time of Monday through Saturday, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. We've also provided general notes that are added to the plans. And so these plans would be the final plans that can be enforced during construction, litter and construction, and any damages or repairs due to construction would be repaired in five days. And we've also added that local traffic-only sign on Mohawk Avenue as you take a left out of the driveway.

The sign would be located on the east side of Mohawk Avenue.

This side, right?

It would be within the right-of-way of Mohawk Avenue.

And it's a... NEW SPEAKER.

NEW SPEAKER. NEW SPEAKER. NEW SPEAKER. NEW SPEAKER. NEW SPEAKER. NEW SPEAKER. NEW SPEAKER. NEW SPEAKER. NEW SPEAKER. NEW SPEAKER. NEW SPEAKER. NEW SPEAKER. NEW SPEAKER. AND NO CONCRETE BASE. IT'LL JUST BE THE STANDARD MUTCD SIGN. AS YOU KNOW, THE BAYS FACE THE HUSSEK AVENUE, THE SOUTH SIDE, BE THE SEVEN BAYS OF THE 6,035 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING. AND WE ALSO TALKED ABOUT JIM TACHIK TALKED ABOUT THE AESTHETICS WE PROVIDED UPDATED RENDERINGS ON THOSE AESTHETICS BECAUSE OF THE WATER METER VAULT EVERYTHING SLID BACK THE WALL GOT A LITTLE BIT SMALLER BUT ALSO IT SHOWS ON THESE RENDERINGS BOTH EASTBOUND AND WESTBOUND IT SHOWS THAT BUMP OUT TO LEAVE THE WATER VAULT IN ITS CURRENT LOCATION but enough space away from the construction of the retaining wall. That water vault serves the fire flows eastbound and westbound along Hoosick. If there's a fire in both locations, it actually will kick on to provide that pressure needed for emergency uses. SO WE PROVIDED THAT TO ADDRESS JIM'S COMMENT. SO IN BOTH DIRECTIONS, WE PROVIDED THOSE RENDERINGS. WE ALSO TALKED ABOUT THE PROPOSAL OF THE 39 TREES IN OUR LANDSCAPE PLAN, 149 SHRUBS, 15 ORNAMENTAL GRASSES, 31 PERENNIALS. AND AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE RENDERING, WE ARE PROVIDING LANDSCAPING IN FRONT OF THE and it will be a smaller modular block wall that kind of matches that is similar to the property that it is to the west. The sidewalk will still run along the frontage of Precinct Avenue abutting our property.

So his response was particularly dealing with landscaping in front of the building.

yeah his response was the the street view aesthetics um and in our case he made a lot of comparisons to the adjacent the quick serve uh retaining wall my question really is what are you doing behind there Behind the wall is going to be. Oh, behind the building. We have a six foot vinyl fence, decorative fence, plus the additional trees that will be there, a series of evergreen trees that will be planted. They're six feet tall. And as you know, the grade goes up. So that'll help with the screening over time. And I estimated that within five years, the Galvans would not be able to see the top of the building. So it is going to take some time at two feet a year. It's all evergreen trees that are at the back of the building, plus the six foot fence. So the six foot fence would be immediate screening. AND THEN THE ADDED EVERGREENS WILL BE OVER TIME ADDING THAT ADDITIONAL SCREENING AND THE TREES WILL BE ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE FENCE. OTHER ITEMS THAT WERE IN HERE ABOUT THE VISUALS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND WE JUST TALKED ABOUT VISUALLY SOFTENING THE WALL WITH THE ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING. JIM ALSO MENTIONED ABOUT The sidewalk, there is a sidewalk on the east side of Mohawk Avenue that goes up. We are proposing to widen Mohawk Avenue along our frontage of Mohawk Avenue from 20 feet wide to 24 feet wide to help with the turning movements of the school buses that come into and out of Hoosick Avenue with queuing traffic at that stop sign. And we also... THE CONSTRUCTION TIME THAT WE SAID, WE NOTED THAT IN THE PLANS, 8 A.M. TO 5 P.M. MONDAY THROUGH SATURDAY, AND THEN THE CONSTRUCTION WOULD BEGIN, THE APPLICANT WOULD BEGIN THE CONSTRUCTION ONCE THE ISSUE, SO THE PERMITS FROM THE TOWN AND ALSO THE DOT ARE ISSUED. WE DID GET AN E-MAIL TODAY FROM JIM MCNALLY FROM THE NEW YORK STATE DOT. HE'S GOING TO START REVIEWING THE PLANS NEXT WEEK. SO WE'RE IN THE PROCESS OF GETTING EVERYTHING LINED UP TO TARGET APPROVALS. NEW SPEAKER There are estimated times since they'll be starting more in the tail end of the season. THEY WOULD LIKE TO BE, I THINK IT WAS MAY OF NEXT YEAR, MAY OR JUNE OF NEXT YEAR, TO BE DONE AND OPEN. WHAT'S THAT? ABOUT EIGHT MONTHS, YEAH. Yeah, and I think there was a comment that was brought up about maintenance. I brought that to Mavis Tire. They don't own the property yet, right? So they did bring that to the landowner about maintaining it. But again, timing-wise, if we're within hopefully a month or two, that they would start construction so that they can THE DEMOLITION WOULD OBVIOUSLY HAPPEN FIRST, AND THEN SEASON OF THE WINTER WOULD KIND OF PREDICATE HOW MUCH THEY CAN ACTUALLY DO DURING THE WINTERTIME. ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS?

IS EVERYONE SATISFIED THAT THE APPLICANT HAS

addressed all the different uh comments at the public hearing one hour after yes they shut off it's in the plans so and you stated before you have all the zba uh approvals for the area variances correct and uh we would be requesting the planning board for a uh waiver of the parking spaces because because of that shift 23 parking spaces are required, but because of the shift of the water vault, we can only provide 20 parking spaces, so there is a reduction in parking.

This space right back here, they used to be a parking space over here.

This was eliminated. And then these spaces here shrunk down. And actually, this is where the water vault is. And you see how now we have a larger landscape diagram here. We will put landscaping on top. SPACES OVER HERE. SO A TOTAL OF THREE SPACES WERE REDUCED.

NEW SPEAKER P. CHRIS, DO WE GRANT THAT VARIANCE?

NEW SPEAKER P. TECHNICALLY. NEW SPEAKER P. WHAT'S THE QUESTION?

NEW SPEAKER P. IT'S THE WAIVER OF THE PARKING.

NEW SPEAKER P. WE CAN WAIVER THAT.

SO JUST SO WE'RE CLEAR ON WHAT'S BEING ASKED, THE REQUIRED MINIMUM IS 23? CORRECT. AND THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSING 20? CORRECT.

IT'S ONLY GOING TO HURT THE APPLICANT. SO WE WOULD WAIVER THAT IN THE APPROVAL PROCESS.

IT'S ONLY GOING TO HURT THE APPLICANT BECAUSE HE CAN'T ADD THOSE THREE CARS. SO HE CAN'T PARK ON MOBA. RIGHT.

just going to limit your business a little bit all right and one of your responses you indicated an ornamental fence on the top of the retaining wall yes that's uh provided in the rendering uh we provided it right here i thought i saw on the last set of plans that it's still a chain one fence no it's ornamental okay yep

Now, once again, we get into the question of a need for a resolution.

So I'm comfortable with the planning board considering and potentially approving this site plan application the same way you typically do it. So you would do a secret determination first. I don't think you've done that yet. and then a motion to approve subject to any conditions that you might attach to the approval. That being said, a lot of the things that you would sometimes consider as conditions have been added to the site plan documents or the construction hours, no off-site parking for the construction workers. THOSE TYPES OF THINGS ARE ALREADY INCORPORATED IN THE PLAN. SO THOSE WOULD NOT NEED TO BE THINGS YOU WOULD NEED TO SEPARATELY INCLUDE AS A CONDITION.

NEW SPEAKER ONE OF THE CONDITIONS WOULD BE THE WAIVER ON THE NUMBER OF PARKING PLANS.

NEW SPEAKER THAT'S NOT A CONDITION. THAT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU'RE GIVING THEM. YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE PARKING SPACES? NEW SPEAKER YEAH.

WHICH WE HAVE LISTED IN THE TABLE ON THE SITE PLAN THAT A WAIVER, IT IS STATING THERE ABOUT THE WAIVER WOULD HAVE TO COME FROM THE PLANNING BOARD.

so it is in the plans i guess you would do the secret resolution first right we get that behind us if there was a motion made to approve the site plan i would frame it as motion to approve the site plan as presented including a waiver so as to permit 20 parking spaces versus the 23 required by the code okay that way it's all part of the record that you actually did that

TO GIVE A LITTLE BIT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT IS MOHAWKEA AVENUE, IF YOUR COLLEAGUE HAD A QUICK CHECK DO A SURVEY OF MOHAG AVENUE PRIOR TO INSTRUCTION. WELL, THAT GOT DAMAGED BY THEM.

IT NEEDS TO BE REPAIRED.

BUT WE HAVE NOT ACCIDENTALLY REPAIRED THAT UNTIL AFTER THIS PROJECT. SO I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S GOING TO GET FURTHER DAMAGED, YOU KNOW, BY THIS APPLICATION. YOU KNOW, I DON'T WANT TO SEE IT TURN INTO AN ARGUMENT BETWEEN MAVIS AND I'LL SAY MAURICE NEW IS NOT QUICK CHECKED FOR THE REPAIR OF MOHAG. MOHAG IS GOING TO HAVE TO BE REPAIRED. Certainly now, but we've kind of asked them to hold off until this project is done. So I just don't want to be a war between you and Marie's views on the extended repairs. Are you going to share in some of the cost of repairs? Because you are obviously going to use heavy trucks. Your only access is through Mohawk.

And they're going to adjust Mohawk's width.

How are you going to determine proportionally whose damage is what?

We don't want to repair that now and have him drive over from the blacktop. That just doesn't make any sense.

And essentially, we wouldn't be doing the widening until the springtime, right? Because there would be certain things on construction that they would be able to perform. But once the asphalt plants close, you don't want to be opening up a road.

Yeah, you've got to cut.

correct it's in the plans yep yeah i have a question about the waiver chris we do that together with the approval yeah if there's a change and this business goes out another one comes in does that parking space allotment stay with only mavis or does it go to any new business that comes into that property

So if somebody moves in and uses exactly the same building, the exact same layout, they don't need to come back in front of you for anything, then they'll get the benefit of that waiver. Correct, but my sense is that the reason why the waiver is required in the first place is because of this site plan configuration. So that's not changing no matter who owns it. is my thinking. Now, if somebody comes in and they're doing what Mavis is doing, which is demolishing what's there and proposing a new build out, then all bets are off and we'll adjust parking on whatever plan they submit.

Okay. Do you have anything else to add, Wayne?

No, we took one last look at the plans and I made my comments and we seem to be on board with them.

So I'm good. Then we can move forward with a secret determination. Make a NAEDEC. If there's a NAEDEC, do I have a second?

Second.

Any further discussion on that? All those in favor? Any opposed? Now on a proposal to approve.

So the motion would be to approve the site plan as submitted with a waiver of the parking requirements so as to allow 23 parking spaces, I'm sorry, 20 parking spaces instead of the required 23.

Okay. Somebody like to make that motion? Is there a second?

Second.

Okay. Any further discussion on that?

NEW SPEAKERS. NEW SPEAKERS. NEW SPEAKERS. NEW SPEAKERS.

NEW SPEAKERS.

NEW SPEAKERS. NEW SPEAKERS. NEW SPEAKERS. I don't know if they need a work permit for that or not. It's usually driveways they need permit. We can make them get a work permit.

Well, it connects to the DOT.

Well, he's working. Some of that widening is in the DOT right-of-way. Is that correct?

No.

So that's all part of his DOT permit to work in.

WITHIN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY WITH THE DRAINAGE CONNECTION THAT WE'RE DOING, BUT THE WIDENING IS ON THE RIGHT-OF-WAY WITHIN MOHAWK.

NEW SPEAKER AND THEN THE CONDITION FOR THE ORNAMENTAL FENCE ON TOP OF THE WALL?

NEW SPEAKER YEP.

NEW SPEAKER ARE YOU DOING AN EASEMENT? NEW SPEAKER DOES SOMEBODY CARE TO REVIEW ALL THOSE CONDITIONS?

NEW SPEAKER AN EASEMENT?

NEW SPEAKER YEAH, IT WOULD HAVE TO BE AN EASEMENT FOR THE WATER VAULT BECAUSE THE WATER VAULT IS LOCATED ON OUR PROPERTY. There never was an easement before, so we're receptive to, as part of a condition, to provide an easement for that waterfall to maintain it.

Did you get all those conditions?

I think, but you guys will tell me. So I think I heard three. I'm going to go in reverse order. ONE IS THAT THE APPLICANT WILL PROVIDE AN EASEMENT TO THE TOWN OF BRUNSWICK FOR THE WATER VAULT AREA OF THE WATER VAULT. IT'S NUMBER ONE. NUMBER TWO, APPLICANT SHALL INSTALL ORNAMENTAL FENCING ON TOP OF THE RETAINING WALL. CORRECT. IT'S TWO. THREE, APPLICANT TO OBTAIN ALL REQUIRED DOT PERMITS. CORRECT.

SORRY, ONE MORE. I DIDN'T MISS IT, THOUGH, RIGHT?

NO, YOU DIDN'T MISS IT. OKAY. I FELT PRETTY GOOD.

I COULDN'T RECALL WHETHER THE KNOXBOX GOT IN. The what? Knox box. The fire department requires a Knox box.

Oh yeah, yeah, we can provide that, yeah.

Did the fire department review this?

This plan sent to them? They get the minutes every meeting. That's a good question. I don't know if they were spending, were they sending another one?

I think we have sent them in the past, but I can send them updated plans. I mean, but, and we'll work with the fire marshal.

We usually do that. Yeah, we usually do, yeah.

And we're not sure that we didn't.

Is that?

But we don't, we might have done that, but we just don't know.

I don't think you sent them a bundle of money, Kevin.

I'd have to look.

Usually they send.

We did talk about it, but I don't think we, I don't think you actually ended up sending them anything.

Right.

I think we got a little preoccupied with the vault.

Yeah, I think that's what it was.

So we have now, should we hold off on approval?

so you got two options right you could hold off for approval pending review by and comment by fire department or potentially you could add that as a condition applicant to submit site plan for review by fire department and incorporate all recommendations received right did their satisfaction okay then i i i i'm not opposed to

MAKING THAT A CONDITION THAT THEY ARE SENT A COPY OF THE PLANS TO REVIEW. DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY STRONG OPINIONS ON THAT? And then that's a, what, fourth or fifth condition now?

That's the fourth, I think. So easement, ornamental fencing, DOT permit, and then fire department knocks box plus review and incorporate any comments from the fire department.

Condition to coordinate any repairs to Mohawk Avenue with the building department.

Okay. Prior to issuing any CO for the project, maybe.

Okay.

Any other conditions that anybody wishes to consider?

Is there anywhere on the plans where it says that the retaining wall needs to be reviewed?

PE stamp.

PE stamp and then reviewed by the town engineer? We can add that.

So that wall will have to be, it's over four foot, so it will need to be designed and reviewed by.

Yeah, but we can add the note in there so that, yeah, because we're going to see those shot points come in so we can review and approve those. But yeah, we can add that.

Okay. So with all those conditions, IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE THAT HAS TO BE DISCUSSED IN REGARD TO THE MOTION? DO WE NEED TO MODIFY THE ORIGINAL MOTION? I THINK IT WOULD BE

GOOD IDEA, LET'S JUST START OVER, RIGHT? WE'LL JUST REFRAME THE MOTION AND WE'LL JUST LIST OUT THE CONDITIONS SO THAT WE'RE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE ONE LAST TIME, OKAY?

OKAY.

SO IT'S A MOTION TO IMPROVE THE SITE PLAN AS SUBMITTED, INCLUDING A WAIVER OF THE MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENTS SO AS TO ALLOW 20 PARKING SPACES INSTEAD OF 23, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS. applicant to provide an easement to the town of brunswick for the water vault applicant to obtain all required new york state dot permits applicant to install ornamental fencing on the top of the retaining wall applicant to install a knock box into submit site plan for review by the fire department and incorporate all recommendations received number five applicant to coordinate repairs to mohawk avenue with the building department and when were we adding as a sixth condition the engineering review of the retaining wall uh we can do it as a condition and you wouldn't have to put it on the plans yeah okay and then sixth and finally APPLICANT TO OBTAIN ENGINEERING REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF RETAINING WALL.

NEW SPEAKER P. WOULD THE PERSON WHO ORIGINALLY MADE THE MOTION WANT TO REINTRODUCE THAT MOTION?

NEW SPEAKER P. I CAN MOTION IT. NEW SPEAKER P. I DIDN'T DO IT. NEW SPEAKER P. I DON'T THINK ANYBODY ACTUALLY DID IT.

NEW SPEAKER P. I'LL MAKE THE MOTION. OK, who is it?

I think you did that.

Does anybody want to second that motion?

I'll second it.

OK. Is there any further discussion on that? OK, all those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? I think you're all set.

All right, I'm just writing all the... I can watch the video, I know. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. I grew up in a family of seven, so you had to be tolerant.

All right, thank you very much. Okay. CILIS was postponed until the 15th. Next is A-10 Hoosick Road.

All right, good evening. Sam Burden with Bowler Engineering. Here on behalf of the applicant, 810 Hoosick Road, LLC. With me tonight is Rich Tanchak and Vartan Jerian, owner applicant representatives, Tom Spain, counsel for the project. Here tonight to talk about 810 Hoosick Road, the former Troy City Garage. Site's currently developed with a 20,000-ish square foot building. THE SITE IS PRETTY TYPICAL PARKING LAYOUT, ONE-WAY CURB CUT, I'M SORRY, ONE TWO-WAY CURB CUT. OUR PROJECT, PRETTY SIMPLE BECAUSE THE BUILDING IS ALREADY THERE. Changed the primary use of the facility from what's defined as motor vehicle sales, the dirt bikes that were being sold there, to motor vehicle repair. So that was a determination that was based, and that's why we're here for the site plan review application. Exterior improvements are very minor to the application. that you can see. So we're gonna reuse the building in its entirety, the bays that are already there. We're gonna maintain the parking that's there that's already sufficient for the site. We are gonna spruce up the landscaping around the foundation and the beds that are out there. Everything's gonna for the most part stay the same on the site just mill and overlay so very basic exterior improvements There will be rebranding of the facility. You can see although it's upside down the Branding that's going to be changed for the facility. It's all going to operate with the existing confines of the building Just the vibe collision brand The interior improvements are what are gonna change the facility. They're gonna add two paint bays and have auto repair bays in the actual facility as well. The front corner will be more of your commercial retail walk-in office space, somebody to greet you at the door when you drop your vehicle off. So we had originally introduced the project as a sketch plan on August 20th, received feedback. Since then, we've reached out to the town engineer to receive comment, but now that we're on as new business on the agenda as a formal application, happy to answer any new questions. about the operations or any questions that you may have. Applicants excited to get into the building. You know, it's good to see a building that's recently closed for one business to have another move right in. So obviously they're eager to get in there. So whatever we can do to help streamline that process or answer any questions, happy to do that. Yeah.

You're going to repair your collision repair?

Correct.

You have room to...

inside the building?

Yeah. Where are you going to put those companies?

Yeah, so there's two bays existing. Let me show you. This is a floor plan.

So wait, wait, wait. Just from what you said, you're telling me you're going to keep them inside?

To the extent possible, yes.

Well, I don't think we want to see them out on the street.

Yeah, so, yep, absolutely. So there is a lot of space behind the building as well. So this is the pavement area. There is a section taken out of this building. There's two bays here. Majority of the building would be used for working on cars. So the extent of which we can keep vehicles inside the building, we will to as much as possible.

It always seems to be a lot of wrecked cars on the property. My big concern is I don't want to see it. If you've got room to keep them behind the property, that's fine. But I don't want to see it.

Absolutely. It was discussed as part of this. This isn't a junkyard. We're not going to have majority of the business are people who can still drive their vehicles to the facility to have it worked on. These aren't totaled cars. I believe what the percentage of, yeah.

evening everybody i'm barton journey and i'm the ceo of body closure uh we started this business about five years ago on the local person we had collision repair facilities around here so i i definitely agree with you no one wants to see vehicles that are wrecked i think outside of any facility we have a number of these locations uh they have one location in the city of It's a CRF car, but today the collision repair industry has evolved extensively. Vehicles right now are typically totaled at a lower dollar amount because collisions now, collision severity typically will exceed the cost of repairing a vehicle. The insurance companies do a very good job of moving those vehicles back to their facilities where they salvage those vehicles and get them out of the facility. Right now, I think the stat is that one in every four vehicles that is in a collision is a total loss, and we don't see those vehicles. Mostly what we do is we repair vehicles that are, we have relationships with the OEMs, so the original equipment manufacturers. So for Toyota, we do a lot of work with those lines, Mercedes-Benz, Tesla. So they will typically send us vehicles or a customer will bring in those vehicles for the collision repair work and or we are fixing fleet vehicles. So to Sam's point there is a lot of the vehicles that are brought in are driven in. One other point that you brought up is can we fit everything inside? Our typical collision repair footprint is only 10,000 square feet. This is double the size. of square footage that we would typically use so to answer your other question can we fit oh we can probably fit the overwhelming majority of the vehicles that we're going to be repairing inside the vehicle we don't like to store anything outside because a window could be out or whatever which would create you know problems for us you know in that that particular customer so just to be clear I would never say that there would never be a wrecked vehicle that got dropped off and then immediately brought in. I'd be lying to you if I said that. Could there be a chance where our car is outside for an hour or two and then it comes in? Yes. But we are not in the business of storing a vehicle with bumpers and parts off of the vehicle outside.

So are you going to have a roll-off for... We don't do anything.

With scrap, typically what we do is we put them in, we'll have a dumpster that contains those vehicles, or contains those parts for sheet metal, and then it's disposed of in that manner. Okay.

And so you're going to maintain the paint facility as well? We are. So you have a safety plan for your fly moments?

We use water-based paints, so they can be flammable, but we do follow all DEC and OSHA regulations. So you have a safety plan?

Absolutely. And we're familiar with putting knock boxes and anything like that on our buildings to provide access to the fire department. Have you spoken to the fire department?

We have not yet. but happy to do so.

These painting facilities, do they have restrictions on admissions and so forth and so on?

So I worked on a number of projects with the Department of Environmental Conservation in New York State. So your question is, do they have any restrictions? So what they do is... Painting has changed and evolved over the past, especially over the past five years. We use water-based paints. Everybody wants to be environmentally friendly and safe. So they've also improved the transfer efficiency. So what that means is any of the paint that comes out of the gun, typically it's, Those volatile organic compounds are going out into the atmosphere because they either are going on the vehicle or they're trapped by a filtration system. We use downdraft scrapers, yes. But the other thing that we do in our business too is we've actually updated and we work on other projects with OEs and 3M is a manufacturer of the paint guns that we use. it's inefficient and it's a waste of material.

So there's no venting outside?

There are venting because we do have to bring fresh air into the box or the spray booth and we do have to have an exhaust because we do use heat to dry the paint. It is filtered. There's multiple filters on those.

The concern I have is I believe you're right next to a restaurant. We are. AND IS THERE ANY COMPLICATIONS WITH ANY TYPE OF FILMS THAT COME OFF EXHAUST OR ANYTHING?

NEW SPEAKER NO, I'VE HAD FACILITIES IN AREAS WHERE WE WERE CLOSE TO RESIDENTS, VERY CLOSE TO RESIDENTS, AND WE'VE NEVER HAD ANY IN THE 30 YEARS THAT I'VE BEEN HERE.

NEW SPEAKER SO NOBODY GETTING A PIZZA.

NEW SPEAKER WE WOULD PROBABLY ACTUALLY PULL IN THE

which which might you know create other contaminants issues one of the things that was raised at the last meeting was the glass front yes the possibility of because of where you have your office oriented that they aerated glass yeah there would be vehicles being worked on there and the potential for that being a distraction of drivers yeah whatever so Is that still going to be the same?

Yeah, typically what we do, and you're welcome to drive by our Albany facility, we use frosted logos in the front window so you can't actually see into the building. Not that we have anything to hide there because customers want to see it. vehicles and so on but it's not it's not a good one and typically in our facility all of our facilities the floors are painted you can eat off the floors they're very clean neat and organized so someone looking in would not see a mess they would see you know a very organized kind of similar to like a factory environment type of environment if they were looking but you wouldn't be able to see it unless you got really close you're probably not going to see it before you find out do you intend to fence the rear portion of the property to protect any outside vehicles we we did talk about that on a sandwich here yeah it's shown on there yeah and we typically screen that so if there is a vehicle that was stored outside that you wouldn't see we would typically do that

Or just it comes out it would start right across the main driveway. Yeah, I don't think you can see it And we're we're showing the existing tree line that's actually there with today as well as the additional Is the back of the property that that's green is that

AN AREA THAT COULD BE, IS IT LEVEL, THAT COULD BE?

NEW SPEAKER IT GOES STRAIGHT UP HILL TO MCCHESNEY'S ON THE OTHER SIDE AND YOU GET TO THE MOHAWK AMBULANCE AND IT GOES RIGHT UP THE HILL. require one space for three service bays so we're assuming three service bays so we have nine parking spaces required and we have more than adequate parking in 19 spaces that are existing out there we won't it's not high traffic our business the typical

11 days, then the average customer dropping off is maybe, I would say, anywhere in a typical day, three to six in a day. So it's not people driving in and out.

They were probably, it was probably higher traffic as it was before than it would be in regard. What do you do? Do you expect them to be in the building all the time?

Anywhere, typically, as many as we can, because that's how we calculate, right? I said as many as we can, because that's how we make our money, but typically a facility that size would be 20 to 25 units.

You know, cycling in and out. You'll have the two paint booths, and you're going to have a writing machine.

Yeah, believe it or not, frame work is not, if a car needs a frame machine these days, they're totaled. So they're very small and compact now than we typically would to measure the vehicles to make sure that they don't have any frame damage. But if they do, they're typically totaled.

How many employees do you anticipate?

I believe we had on here anywhere from 10 to 15 employees.

10 to 15, and where are they going to park? We have adequate parking, as you mentioned. How many spots were out there?

We have 19 shown on there right now. We added one for ADA accessibility, so we lost one there. So it was 20. We're at 19. So would that be 10 to 15 per shift?

Roughly, yeah. So we don't have everyone there every day. you know quality we need probably typically five spaces six pieces so when you say ship what are they working on eight to five eight to five oh we don't have like a bedroom chip no we don't work over what do you do on weekend If we are open at any facility, which most of them are not, we usually have the front office open for a customer to pick up and drop off at 8 to 12 usually. Saturdays? On Saturdays only. Up on Sunday? No, we don't work on Saturdays. We want people to be home.

It's a tough business. When you go around the back, is Crusher Run from the Blacktop out to the property line? Is that going to stay or are you going to blacktop it?

Yeah, there was conversation about that. I think we're open to whatever's the opinion of the board if it's, you know, there's a pretty significant grade change from here down. There's also a concrete slab out there with a dumpster right now, so.

And that's hidden in the back.

It's all hidden in the back, yeah.

And that's where you propose your new dumpster.

Yeah, we would keep it in the same spot. Right now you got a pass door around that, in that back. Back here. Yeah. Are you going to put an overhead door in for get cars in from there? Take that one down.

Yeah, on the existing. It looks like there's two posts there, but I don't know if that's for a door or is that just there? No, that's just there. There's just the one existing man door that's out there right now.

You're not planning on a door? No, because there's not enough. There wasn't a lot of room out there to really kind of drive through. It's not... Our business is a lot different than a tire change place where we're not moving cars in and out. Ours are stationary for a longer period of time. We don't need...

That we need enough doors, but not you got you got all you want So the idea would be based on the elevations that we have so it's existing the sidings existing metal panel siding That tannish color. I believe that's out there so painted it gray and then the existing Blue Stripe, which is the branding for Vive. Along the front would be the existing metal panel roofing system, which would remain. And then there's Ephus along the front. We're not proposing to change any of it, besides painting it gray to match the collision branding of the building. So trying to minimize the impacts to the overall building.

And lighting?

We are proposing site lighting, just mainly up towards the front. We've got it on here. We're showing, I believe, a pole or two here. So it will be all dark sky compliant. It will have a rear housing shield on it to screen Zottos that's there. And you have the vegetative buffer.

NEW SPEAKER PLEASE.

NEW SPEAKER PLEASE. NEW SPEAKER PLEASE. NEW SPEAKER PLEASE. NEW SPEAKER PLEASE.

NEW SPEAKER PLEASE. giant sign that you're going to put up?

No, you can drive by the one on Central Avenue in Albany. It's a light week. It's lit with LED lights. It's not overly...

Does that sign go off after that?

They all go off at whatever the code requirement is. Typically, I think ours shut off at 9 or 10 or something like that in the evening, but if we're required to turn it off sooner, it's not could be at closing when we're like a funeral home people aren't coming to us because we have a nice sign out there unfortunately right so they had a bad event they're coming in the sign well maybe this was very accommodating they were turning their lights off an hour after they closed yeah oh we could do the same that's not a problem i'm an accommodating kind of guy as well

Do we have that plan?

This plan? The colored version?

No, that plan in general. You got a gate shown across there?

Yeah, I believe that was... The gate is just a security fence to keep... Yeah, but do we have a plan that shows the light poles and the gate?

Yes, on the site. This is the plan that I have. Is that the current plan?

Yep, that's the current plan. I don't know if we had the gate on there when we submitted. That might have been added.

Or the light pole.

The light poles are shown on the left-hand side, area of light typical of two between the trees.

So one other question. Yes, sir.

You have lots of questions.

You're not planning on putting up a freestanding sign on a pole?

Would you try and work within the confines of the existing sign?

Yeah, that's typically our plan is if The sign that's there existing conforms to whatever the code is. We stick to that. We don't use it.

There is. Troy said he has a freestanding pole.

Actually, I drove by and they took them all.

They did take them down.

They took the signs.

We wouldn't consider doing away with that.

We still want people to come and be able to find us.

You have a lighted sign on the front of the building as well. Yeah.

on the building if it was, you know, just building somewhat set back. So I think it would be a little bit difficult to maybe see, but we can drive by it. There is a post sign.

Basically, it's just a frame now.

Yeah. What if we were to reduce the size of it modestly to make it conform to... Yeah. Yeah. It had a rather large size.

I used to do that very often.

Let's see what else.

What's the average turnover on a customer as far as you, from the point they drop it off, days, two days?

Average right now is about 10 to 11 days.

Is it?

Yes. How much? 10 to 11 days. I mean, there's jobs that take two days, but typically on average, it's about 10. truck beds things like that now we mostly our specialty is that we do a lot of higher line vehicles a lot of mercedes tesla and then the typical honda vehicles for a lot of the treats that we service you don't do these wraps and stuff like that i didn't say it was easy just asked if you did it

OUT OF QUESTIONS. SO WHERE DO YOU GUYS STAND IN THE PROCESS?

NEW BUSINESS ON THE AGENDA. We're hoping with the minor site improvements and the site plan review, a lot of this can be reviewed at the building department level. Hopefully, asking if we could circulate this to the county should it be necessary from 239 referral and schedule a public hearing if it's gonna be required. I'M NOT SURE IF THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO WAIVE THAT REQUIREMENT DUE TO THE FACT THAT THERE'S NO RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORS, BUT I FIGURED I COULD ASK.

YOU'VE BEEN SITTING AROUND AT THE MEETING FOR A WHILE. WE LEARNED A LOT ABOUT DRIVING.

BUT YEAH, THAT WOULD BE IT. AND THEN AT THE REQUEST, if we could get the town engineer involved to review this for the exterior questions that we know are coming. So happy to do that. Just want to continue to move it forward.

Well, we also should get a set of plans to the fire department.

Yes. Yep.

Are you going to go with the red ink dummies or are you going to do something different? It's really hard to read.

YEAH, WHATEVER IS EASIEST FOR YOU.

I DON'T PARTICULARLY, I LIKE BLACK AND WHITE.

WHAT'S THAT?

THEY ACTUALLY DON'T, BECAUSE IT'S WATER, YOU JUST AGITATE IT. YOU DON'T NEED TO, YOU SHAKE IT, IT CREATES BULB.

DO WE HAVE ANY CONTOURS WE CAN PUT ON THERE SO WE CAN WATCH THE DRAINAGE PATH?

WE DO HAVE THAT COMING. We can get that to you. We should have it after the holiday. The site drains to two catch basins in the rear, which enter an infiltration basin that go to a pipe connection to the DOT right away. No changes proposed to it. It's a little overgrown, it might be.

There's no sizes on here. There's nothing there.

Yep, that's all going to be a part of that other survey. Essentially, there's a ridgeline at the site I was there today. Everything pretty much from where the gates proposed back drains to two catch basins. Genter is a series of pipes that goes to the drainage basin. comes out that goes into the curved outlet everything else flows out of the driveway to the catch basin and the dot right away just like existing conditions no proposes to change no proposal to change any of that the area that you have that's this little bump out here yep

There's just like grass or something in there.

It's all pavement back there. And the dumpster's back there too. The dumpster's back there. It's kind of hidden back there.

Would you ever consider enclosing that in and putting it part of the floor plan if you needed to?

It's a rather large building. I don't know if we'd need the additional square footage at this point. So I don't.

It's a unique, definitely a unique building. Yeah.

All right, I don't have any other questions. I guess at this point we can schedule you for our next meeting. Give us an update on where you are. Wayne will have an opportunity to take a look at some things there.

Yeah, if you could get that additional information to me and Kevin as soon as you can.

Great, and then are we able to circulate that? Will this be circulated to the county and could we schedule a public hearing? i wouldn't circulate until we've deemed the site plan complete um for what additional like just the drainage paths for through the survey yeah yeah we get a complete site plan yeah there's no exterior modifications i'm just everything's going to be happening interior of the building i'm just We're not proposing to change any of the drainage patterns. We're not proposing to change, besides like a mill and overlay and maybe a new pavement. I just don't know what anything else is gonna, there's not gonna be anything else that changes. So the site plan in its entirety is complete as how we're looking at it.

Unless that drainage doesn't work, then you might have to make some changes.

In the existing, even though it's existing condition?

If it's not working, it needs to be working revised.

But we'll see. Okay. To get the county's feedback, though, we could circulate that. You know, we don't have to schedule a public hearing, but at least getting the county's feedback.

Well, as I said, typically we circulate that when we deem the site plan complete. But that's what we do in the past.

It might when it's complete.

COUNTY WANTS IT COMPLETED.

YEAH.

DO WE HAVE A LIST OF ITEMS THAT NEED TO BE ADDED TO THE SITE PLAN? I'VE HEARD DRAINAGE. CONTOURS. THAT'S DRAINAGE, RIGHT? DRAINAGE, YEAH.

AND THEN ELEVATIONS ON THE DIs AND THE PIPES. SIZES. Pipe sizes.

YEP, THAT WILL ALL BE INCLUDED AS THE SURVEY THAT WE'LL HAVE NEXT WEEK.

THAT SEEMS TO BE what we're looking for. There's not a whole lot else.

Does the gate still need to be added?

Yeah, where's the gate? The gate should be part of the site plan, sure. It's going to be, you know.

Are you going to change that cooker run, the blacktop?

Yeah, it sounds like that's kind of what's wanted. It sounds like that's what the board's looking for, so if we need to, no problem.

And do you need renderings on signage?

No, that would be...

So if you get that stuff to us at our next meeting, and we determine that the application is complete enough for a public hearing, then we can schedule a public hearing.

Great.

Now, the public hearing, in all fairness, is usually not the next meeting, but it's usually the meeting after that. So if you came back to us now on the 17th of September.

So we have a meeting on the 1st.

We have a meeting on the 1st, then the 15th.

It would probably... We'll have the survey back.

Just to give you a hypothetical timeline.

Yeah.

As soon as we could probably schedule that would be the 15th of October.

And then there's a... Is it a 30-day window or till the next meeting with the county referral that's going to need to come back? There's a 30-day.

They have a 30-day.

they have 30 days they usually get it back much worse yeah okay yeah i mean once on the 17th if you have a complete we can send that in that would probably be back to us before the public before the public hearing great all right yeah i'm just just trying to do what we can to move it forward i appreciate all the feedback it's

hopefully we're just able to get into the building that I know you guys are excited to get into it. So just whatever we could do to try and move it forward. I'm happy to provide whatever information and glad we got the survey going sooner rather than later now, so. Appreciate all the feedback and see you on the 17th.

Okay, you're welcome. Thank you. Okay, that brings us to That brings us to the final item on our agenda, which is the Hanson waiver of subdivision.

I MISSED THE EXCITEMENT AT THE BEGINNING OF THE MEETING, BUT I HEARD SOME ARGUMENTS OUT IN THE PARKING LOT, SO I'M SURE IT WAS EXCITING. I WILL TRY AND KEEP IT SHORT AND SWEET. THIS IS A WAIVER OF SUBDIVISION APPLICATION FOR CRAIG AND PAULINE HANSON FOR CREATING A 5.48-ACRE LOT. that they intend to deed to their daughter so she can build a house hopefully in the near future. Plenty of road frontage on Tamarack Road as well as Craig is going to grant her an easement, a 50-foot wide easement across the back of his property heading out to Logwoods because she's not sure if she wants to build her driveway out to Tamarack or have it go out to Logwoods. Other than that, we have done soils testing. We're working on preliminary septic plants for her, but as a waiver subdivision, that wouldn't be required as part of this approval.

Now this lot, this proposed lot, is entirely in the town of Brunswick. Correct.

So any easement would have to go through Town of Pittstown, right? Correct, but that could be a deed at easement. It wouldn't need approval by the Town of Pittstown.

Okay.

That's why I was late to the meeting. I have seven projects going on in the Town of Pittstown, so their meeting was earlier this evening. That's why I'm a little bit late.

Okay. Well, I looked at this earlier. I didn't see any red flags or anything about it. Seems like a simple waiver. Does anybody have any questions on this? Okay, if not, we can move forward. Can I ask someone to do a secret determination on it? Don't everybody jump here at once now.

I did.

Okay.

Second.

Okay, there's a second. Is there any further discussion on the secret determination? All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? Now on the approval of the waiver, the only condition is to file a copy of it with the county. I don't see any other conditions that have to be put on here. Do you?

Either drive away from the county or?

Wayne, do you see anything?

That's on the . Because that easement is in Pittstown, I'm not sure. I don't think that's kind of our. Well, I heard you, but you know that she's going to put her driveway in there because that is one not an easy spot to turn off of on Tamarack Road. That drops right off.

You know how much the drop is there?

Off of Tamarack, I would have to estimate it at probably 30 to 40 feet coming down off the edge of pavement down to the low area, which is probably 80 to 100 feet back off the road. It's significant.

It's a pretty steep drop. You need, what, 10% grade for a driveway or 12?

She'll be 100 feet into her property by the time she can get 10% grade.

That was my concern the last time. Pretty close, yeah.

They would have to put a lot of fill in there, and I doubt that is really what they're going to end up doing, but they do have frontage, so.

Couldn't do like a serpentine driveway up?

You could do anything if you want to spend money.

There's plenty of length on that property line for them to bring a driveway down in if they wanted to bring that amount of fill in.

Yeah.

Or they can use their easement out to log ones.

Yeah.

But they do have frontage, enough frontage, so. Okay.

I guess you need a county. Driveway permit, right?

If they choose to put a driveway there, yeah.

And if he goes along with that, it's down, correct? So I think you gotta. Put condition that get a county permit. If you come out on Tamarack Rd, you can.

I guess you could condition that sure.

Then you Lisa County knows what's coming.

Okay.

I'm thinking there's gravel in there.

When we dug the soils for the septic, we got about eight feet of pretty nice gravel.

There's a little gravel bank on the other side off of Logwoods.

Yeah. On Craig's other property there.

Yep. So, you know, you got to figure out what you want to do, but you got lots of frontage. I guess the county ought to know what's coming.

Okay. So we're at the motion. Motion has what condition?

Coming from the driveway.

If Tamarack Road.

If coming in off of Tamarack Road.

Okay.

And the deeds.

The deeds.

Okay.

Does anybody have any other conditions they want to put on that? Is everybody satisfied with the motion? You're going to make it?

Do I have a second?

There's a second over here. Any further discussion on the motion? All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? You're all set. Thank you. Do you want these drawings?

Yeah, I'll take those back and I'll drop off some drawings, some cleaner ones, next week after the holiday if I can't get here tomorrow.

All right. That concludes our agenda. Is there any new business? Okay, let me see here. Let's look at our agenda for the upcoming meetings. Okay. We didn't do too bad. We got two approvals out of the seven.

Chris is going to have some late nights.

Okay.

Or early mornings.

At our next meeting, that would be on the 17th of September, I have Brunswick Acres, and at which point we are going to have a And not anticipating good things, I think we can probably move that through. So that's the only thing I have on the 17th.

Is that correct?

That's right. So we have two things. We have 810 Hoosick Street and we have Brunswick Acres. On the 1st of October, we have the public hearing at 7 p.m. for Loft Field. And we have the Fisher Miner Subdivision.

Right?

Why did we get that out to them? Oh, that's right. You need time to put the resolution together.

Correct.

Okay. They realize that's to protect everybody.

I don't know if they realize that.

I don't think they did.

I think Mr. Engster understands that. Yes.

I hope he was arguing out in the parking lot.

Mr. Engster has a second public hearing. That's on them. He has to open it up again. which may have been good legal advice to them, but that wasn't our fault. The public hearing was closed.

So, Fisher, that's the only one thing I have on for the first. On the 15th, I have Sillis coming back. And maybe some other things that are, you know, involved there. So for next meeting, we just have two things. We have Brunswick Acres. And we have 810 Hoosink. Okay. Is there any old business? Any general conversation?

Quick check. The front of that by the sidewalk on 7th, that got to be landscape? Yes, it does.

They don't have their CO yet.

They have an extensive punch list. Okay.

I'll make a motion and we adjourn. All those in favor? Aye. Thank you.