Planning Board - Regular Meeting

meeting to order for the Town of Brunswick Planning Board for November 20th, 2025. If everybody please rise for the pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands nationy and justice for all.

Thank you. Okay, our agenda this evening as it was posted on the town website and the town board is as follows. There's only one on our agenda. Number one is the Parammont building group major subdivision. Applicant proposes a major subdivision on approximately 33 acre parcel of land as well as construct construction of a new road with a cul-de-sac and a water uh line extension on property located on the northeast corner, a Spring Avenue extension and Crick Road. Paramount Building Group of New York is the applicant. In addition to those that agenda item, we have several uh applications to become introduced under new business. So uh start the meeting with um the review and approval of uh the minutes of November 6th. Has everybody had an opportunity to review those? Are there any corrections? changes.

There was just one on the first page. I don't know what line it is. Okay.

Uh it said wither. That should be weather. W I T Okay, there was a minor uh [Music] While uh Linda is reviewing those, is there any other changes that uh anybody has uh picked up on? No amendments. Oh. 12th line down.

Page two. Page two. The sixth sixth word from the end. Yeah. Now you can see. Okay. All right. Uh I will make a motion to approve the minutes with the correction. Do I have a Second. Second. Okay. Any further discussion on the minutes? All those in favor? I. Any opposed? Thank you.

Moving along to uh Paramont Building Group. Good evening everybody. How are you tonight? Very well. How's it? I'm good. Sure.

Okay. While you're getting set up, we uh at our last meeting, we uh reviewed a draft presented by uh Wayne in regards to part two. There was some uh suggestion on some changes and so forth and so on. Uh I believe now you you had to make some changes on part one.

Uh you know uh one of the board members in the last meeting pointed out um there was a correction that needed to be made to section D two um to change the duration of the excavation. Okay. I think it said three plus years and we changed that uh based on the reports and discussions we've had. Um currently the applicant anticipates that it'd be about one year vaccination. Okay. So we made that just to reflect that.

Is that what you have? Uh do you recall that? I recall the discussion. Yeah. Okay. At this time, do you want to uh uh discuss any changes that you made to part two with from the original draft?

Um sure. Based on uh discuss discussion last time of the part two was recommended from the board to change two items. Uh one was uh on page 11 onee instead of notice small impact it was recommended to change that to moderate to large impact. So that's one E. I changed to uh moderate to large. Okay.

And on page five, item number eight, um 8D was recommended by the board to change that from no to small impact to moderate to large impact. That's the um irreversibly convert egg land to non- eggland use us is either more than two and a half acres in an egg district or more than 10 acres not within an egg district. So, it was recommended from the board to change that to moderate to large. The rest of it stayed the same.

All right. And you concur with those changes if you recall. I think it's I think it's worth further discussion honestly. Yeah. After going through the part three. Yeah. where you actually go through and discuss those items.

So, um I had some technical technical difficulties today getting something over the board, so I apologize, but I did bring it in copy and hard copy. Obviously, don't expect you to read it live here in front of us, but it was just some additional thoughts and considerations on the three items on the part two that were marked as moderate to large impacts. Um just some more discussion points. Um you know in in looking to DEC's secret workbook um we took a close look at those and and as Wayne said you know they are largely subjective and saying well what is small what is large but the secret workbook does provide some guidance. Um you know for example with the excavation of more than a thousand uh tons of natural material clearly we are over that mark. Um but you know according to DEEC if that excavation is in furtherance of a construction project and it's limited our material being excavated is limited because we are not endlessly excavating for commercial purposes. We're only excavating the minimum amount required to meet that road grade that we're trying to get that safe road grade u but actually be a small impact according to DEEC um in the

let's uh let's take that one sure

um I think he makes a valid point. I think the intent of of this question on the part two is geared towards a commercial mining endeavor. Um, and that if the removal of material is part of the grading of the subdivision for infrastructure, that that is um kind of all part of the project. I mean, we've had projects here before that have removed a lot of material. Okay. Any comments from the board?

So, when does the clock start? If they're actively selling gravel off of there now, is the two-year clock started? No. The the two-year clock for DEC jurisdiction for a mining permit, like the window for the construction exemption, right? I think that would start when excavation for purposes of developing the site would would begin. Well, it starts I believe it starts when construction starts. Yeah.

Yeah. When you when you take that first scoop of dirt out of there offsite in order to get the grades that you need to be on. The clock starts then. Well, there's been some excavation already. There has been no removal of any material from there. Um I believe there has. Um every property owner can remove up to thousand yards um or 750 yards thousand tons or a little

from their property without a mining permit. So I think over the years Tom has removed within that window from the property I believe. So I just as a clarification I I gonna go with Dave's question. So exactly when would it the the clock start? When they excavate the first load after the approval or Yeah. When he mobilizes to the site and starts removing material is when the clock would start.

Okay. All right. Can I can I give the board just a couple of thoughts? I don't disagree. You can take off the thousand ton or 750 cubic yardage, but what you can't do is start your project before the project approvals. I don't know what material came off when, but if it was in connection with this proposed project, you can't start the project. And if we're viewing as a planning board the project as including the excavation, that cannot legally start until the board acts and all your project approvals are in place. So, I don't know what material came off or when. That's a fact question. I don't know the answer to, but you can't start your project.

Once the project started, Dave, then that period of time for DEC's clock starts, right? But they can't move material until we decide one way or the other. Well, the question is, are they moving material to start the project or are they simply moving material in a manner that a property owner can do that? And I don't know the fact answer to that. That would need to be investigated. I don't know the answer to that. Not our job or what, but I don't believe that to be the case.

Okay. Is there any other questions on uh discussion on that particular item? I would assume that the board, if there is no response, concurs with the applicant on that. Okay. Well, let's go to your second point then. Um, our next point.

Uh, this was the very next question. Uh, question one. If you are following along on the on the part two, the proposed action may involve construction that continues for more than one year or in multiple phases. Um this project is going to last it could last more than a year. Um you know the project being for the subdivision creation of the road utilities drainage swailes will start I believe while excavation is going on. So there will be an overlap period which will cut down on the overall buildout of the subdivision. Um but the client anticipates with a year for removal um that the buildout should probably be about there's anticipated to be about six months. And so if there's overlap we're thinking a year to a year and a half for

okay

for excavation and then build out of the the subdivision. not the individual homes themselves will go up as the market permits with with selling those. Um, and so my my point being that looking further into DEC guidance, you know, this is kind of distinguishable, I believe, from something that would be considered modern to large, which would be a multi-phase residential project that would have, you know, a condominium building, then um, apartments and then another phase of single family homes or something that would last three to four years. Um so again um you know it is a little subjective but I I think that in reviewing the seeker guidance um to me it's it's fairly clear that this is more akin to something that would be a no a small nose a limited impact rather than a moderate to large impact. Wayne. Um, all I will say is that most subdivisions in town take more than a year to build out. Some of them take a significant amount of time. Like Sharp Road, they're still building out that. And how long ago did we approve that project? Um,

three years ago. What's that? Has it been that long? Three years ago, maybe.

Yeah. Um I think you have to look at the scale of the project and um the number of lots and to kind of determine whether that's a small impact or moderate impact. With 18 lots, 16 or 17 of which are all on that same parcel on that side of the road. Um it's not unusual to take a year or more to to have full buildout. Not not that there's no impact. I'm not saying that. But um you have to kind of look at um the magnitude I guess as a result of how long it's going to take to build out is when you decide what the uh level of impact is. Any comments from the board? So we'll have a um we may have a moderate impact during construction, but for the life of the project itself, it's considered small.

Correct.

I think if you take the project as a whole where they're moving 20,000 truckloads of gravel out, it was just a matter of going in there and putting a road in and putting houses up. That's probably no or small impact. But if you're going in there and removing as much product as we want to remove project as a whole is moderate to large. I would think just double day was pretty much work with what you had. put a put a road in and put his houses in. And this is going to have a big impact on the neighborhood for two or three years just with the film removal.

Well, again, just one point that the film rule was anticipated just to take the one year and it couldn't go to three years anyway. Um but this question specifically and I understand your points but this question specifically is only with respect to the length of time. So is the length of time a large impact and from what I understand from from what I read from DEC guidance um DEEC says a moderate to large impact for this question would be construction that occurs over multiple phases over many years. So while another area of the part two may be a moderate to large, this specific question I was just adding to that is small to know.

Any other comments? Does the change? We had a report written by provided to us by a traffic engineer about the number of trips that could be generated to remove that material. Does that affect something now that they're because that report, as I recall, indicated it would take two years to remove all that material. If they're going to condense it into one year, the trips go up. They did revise it to show what it would the impact would be at one year. Yeah. And it didn't meet the threshold for

additional studies for the amount of traffic at the intersection. Yeah. If this project was to start and you're approaching one year and You only have three quarters of the material removed. What is the process? Do you have to come before the board to get an extension of some sort or how does that work? Can you repeat your question, Chris?

Okay. Everybody's gone this one year uh timeline and what happens uh there's uh weather conditions don't permit you know for an extended period of time to do any excavation and all of a sudden at the end of the one-year period which you know the the permit allows for you find that yeah I need another couple months How does that process does that have to come before us to get an extension on that timeline or how does that work?

Well, there's a couple of parts to that I think. Um it it depends on whether the project is in fact limited to one year of excavation. There's been some technical information in the record on a year and a half and two years. Um, so that's one thing that still needs to be determined by the board. Um, then there's the DEEC time frame and if for some reason project issues, site conditions, it takes longer than DEEC's time frame, it's going to be a DEEC issue because at that point, the department would weigh in and determine whether there's been any violation uh in terms of site activity without a mining permit.

Okay.

Right. So there's a couple of parts to that. One will be for this board, what in fact is the allowable duration for the material excavation and trucking? And Wayne will assist you on on that because again, the record does include technical information on a year, year and a half, and two years. And you have to weigh the impacts associated with those time frames. It's always a conundrum in these cases. The shorter the duration, the larger potentially are the impacts because there's more truck trips and more equipment operation. The longer the duration, potentially smaller impacts, but it extends the length of the project. So, you have to balance those things and Wayne will assist you doing it.

Yeah. And completely agree, Mr. Gilchrist. And um you know to be clear we had the one and a half years with the traffic report because that's what we thought and we know that for us at least technically we could go over and work it out with DEC but this is subdivision development. There's no interest in dealing with DEC with a mining permit. So that we consider our other book end. So you know at first we said all right well let's give ourselves some wiggle room. we'll just do it a year and a half. In talking to some of the parties that could be doing the excavation, I think there was a lot of discussion of yeah, we could do it in in a lot shorter period of time. So that's why I wanted to provide Wayne or maybe Wayne had requested why don't we update the traffic study to see how significant those impacts would be if we did cram it within a year. So we're saying anticipating a year based on what contractors are saying, but yes, it could go over a year. I would say that it almost certainly wouldn't go over in two years unless there was some drastic issue and then we would have to deal with DEC and that would be another nightmare for another day. But it it's anticipated for a year, but it it could go over that time.

Okay. I think based on the conversation we had I and some of the comments that Dave made and Linda made, I think a moderate impact would occur. So I I I would be in favor of keeping that at that point, but we also have to have the ability to um analyze that and discuss what that moderate impact is in the part three as part of the decision making. Okay. Okay. Under seeker, um, is the moderate impact just the fact that they're removing that much material? Is it the fact that it's going to take them a year and a half to two years? Is it um are you looking at the cumulative impact of the number of trucks that's going to take to take that offsite? I mean there's it's kind of a I'll say interesting. So what are you suggesting? I'm suggesting I'm not quite sure.

You know what I mean? Yeah, I I I do know what you mean, but you know, you know, I mean, you're talking about the impact on one section's impact on land, you know what I mean? and uh to move 400,000 yards plus on on 33 ac 33 acres. I I think yeah you you have to consider somewhere along the line that that's not a small impact. I'm not saying it's a large or not but it's not a small it's a significant number for sure.

Yeah, it's a significant number and I think I think that's what you know basically Dave was implying that, you know, this this will have but when it's all done, what what is the environmental impact on us when when the project's complete? Is is it a long-term impact? Is it a short-term impact? Is it's a short-term impact to consider. All right. So now that disqualifies is there mitigation measures that can be put in place to to um mitigate that impact.

I don't know. I don't think so either. just that point on on on mitigation. You know, originally there was a different grade for the road, but um and as far as

right the the amount of material the amount of material removed was adjusted. So the goal is to remove the minimum amount required so that we can still keep a safe grade on that road. So, that's something that we did look at, did revise. Um, with the traffic studies showing that even with even if they were going to complete it in a year, we'd still be well below what they would consider a traffic impact. Um, you know, I I just don't know. You know, construction is always an impact, but it's it's a temporary impact. Like, the project itself is the subdivision which went built out. what we have uh is it 17 18 total 17 houses onto onto Creek Road. It's it's you know a minimal to no impact long term. Um so and and what I was trying to add is is is this question I I believe focuses on just the duration of the time and for a construction project of this type you know I don't believe a year a year and a half um given the the noise information we provided in truck impacts is a a moderate to large impact.

Can I give a couple of thoughts to the board? Absolutely. So correct me if I'm wrong. Wayne, is this a type one action? It is type one, correct? Yeah. Yeah.

So, under seeker for type one actions, you you cannot have what's called a conditioned neg deck. Okay. A conditioned negative declaration imposing mitigation measures. As a practical matter, what often happens between planning boards and applicants is there are discussions concerning what mitigation measures would reduce those potential impacts to a point where they are small. And applicants generally then will incorporate those into their project plan which then would allow the board to consider that as part of the project and would no longer be a condition they deck. In these types of cases, there are many mitigation measures that can address even short-term construction impacts. It's no ongoing noise monitoring, limiting the number of trucks, limiting the hours of operation, knowing how that impacts duration. These are things that I think Wayne can work on together with Matt and and TJ and come up with what amounts to appropriate mitigation measures for the short-term construction impacts which could be potentially large to moderate but when mitigated could be reduced in terms of scope and impact and those could then be incorporated into an overall uh excavation plan for the project. In many cases like these, there is something akin to it's not a mine, but it is a mining plan. You want to call it an excavation plan. Where are you starting? How is the material being removed from the site? How's it getting on? And what's the the uh truck routes? Uh it's important to know how the material is being removed from the site because that'll impact sound. It'll potentially impact how steep the slopes are, how the material gets removed, how things are stabilized on site. These are things that Wayne and Matt in particular can

work on. And I think it might be appropriate for the applicant to consider putting that together and in front of the board with review by Wayne. Then these shorter term what could be viewed as potentially moderate to large impacts could be appropriately reduced in scale so that the board could consider them as a smaller impact because that would be incorporated into into the project rather than a conditioned negative declaration. anything to add, Wayne? [Music]

Um, [Music] I guess when I when I said that, um, we could discuss mitigation, you know, to potentially reduce the impacts. There are a number of things, some of which Andy mentioned, that could be done. um even changing, you know, the grading so that instead of 400,000 it's something less than that. I mean that's that's a possibility that I think it needs to be discussed. Um as far as I'm aware that that has been discussed. I mean, I think in the project we changed the grade of the road.

Yeah. And now we're at a point where I think that's the minimum amount.

Yeah. We looked at originally flattening the road out um even more because in discussions with the highway department, basically the goal was to have it as flat as possible um while still providing drainage. Um you know, so in theory could probably grade it down into the lot. Um whereas now we only grade down off of uh Creek Road as requested to provide uh drainage away from Creek Road. So we're not having water running out of the subdivision onto Creek and causing icing concerns and things of that nature. That's the only spot where the road grades down and then it quickly um we've got a a vertical curve where the road grades up to 5%. there seem to be an agreed upon amount a safe grade uh passable grade especially in the winter time you know

safe by food standards because there's lots of roads in the town of Brunswick that are much steeper than 5% so um you know yeah 5% is safe but I drive up a road that's probably 10% maybe 12 off New York State Route 7 okay and So yeah, I'm certainly 5% is three driveways off of it.

And I'm certainly not going to argue, you know, my my driveway I still live out almost a steam in town and my driveway was probably well over 15% right 20. Um but that's, you know, during the winter time, ing concerns, things of that nature, maintenance of that road. Um, we're proposing roadside swailes here for as a part of our stormwater treatment practice for the site. Swailes once you exceed 5% you're also at a significant erosion risk there. So this being turned over Indian town road it would be if you were 10% on this road. Um there's some other roads in the town where they are at 8 to 10% I think some divisions that were taken over in the neighboring towns where it's a it's a constant erosion issue. Um they're having to maintain the ditches yearly um multiple times a year whereas 5% is kind of right on that that um balance that's allowable by DC. It's right at you know the people that they want to allow for for roadside swailes. So there's a lot of factors, you know, taken in here, but realistically with the with the the site and the way it could have been graded, that could have been the road could have been flattened out significantly and probably double it would have been double the volume of export, I would estimate. Um, so that was reduced significantly by bringing the road up to to 5% rate and constantly climbing in. Once you once we achieve the negative pitch off the creek, the rest of the road through its entirety to the termination to focus on is a constant pretty. So just to add that, you know, bring up a good point. You know, obviously we want to take care of anything we can that you guys think is appropriate mitigation. Uh, you know, we'd be happy to look at. Um, you know, we provided the hours of proposed

operation um in the plan. it's already in the materials. Um, you know, the traffic report again, even at this amount of of, you know, I don't know. I'd be curious as to what impact, uh, reducing the amount of material off the site would have. Um, you know, even at the current proposal, um, you know, the traffic consultant development was well below, uh, what they would consider traffic impacts on the road that would need to even be studied further, let alone be an issue. Um so but um if you wanna we can further have a conversation about what else could possibly can do to address these concerns. Um how how does this affect the process of the uh seeker review at this point? Well, procedurally, you're at the point of reviewing part two, and those discussions continue that would then lead to preparation of a proposed part three. Not there yet, but part three would be the actual determination, the positive declaration or negative declaration. And that would need to have a proper record basis for your determination. So procedurally, you're at the point of still determining um responses to the questions in part two and determining what significance you're placing on those. And that's that's where you are. There's no particular time frame associated with this, but that's your current procedural job is considering those impacts to make your neg. Well, let's uh

let's review your uh your final question.

Uh sure. Uh the final question was about um disturbing more than 2.5 or converting irreversibly more than 2.5 acres in agricultural district. We are in a New York State Agon Markets agricultural district. Um the you know DEEC isn't clear on what is constitutes the irreversible converting irreversibly. Is it just the physical impermeable surfaces or is it that the site will not be used as a farm reproductive commercial viable agricultural business. Um but from what we can understand from the soil borings and from our understanding of the site, you know, even though it's in an agricultural district, um you know, besides the small amount of hay that Tom had let grow on the property, you know, it's not really a commercially commercially viable agricultural land. Um I think the soils indicate that they would be severely limited in what could be grown there. Um I think topography would also be an issue with putting infrastructure for either livestock or or any other type of farming. Um so while it is zoned agricultural now um I just wanted to add that point in from our investigation this isn't taking flat you know prosperous agricultural land that can grow and above your crops and turning it into you know parking lot. This is you know very different than that. Dave, you were the one that brought that point up.

You don't know what the soil type is there. Yeah. The land soil classification. No, the type Bernston. So, you don't know what. One more time. Bernston. the type, not the question. Oh, um I believe it was uh it's in the it's in the the I think it's um one of the better soils

for the um basically it's kind of referenced here box is the in the soil survey. So every time we do a slip, we'll pull a custom soil survey where we put the the property lines into the soil report generator and generate a soil report. So the bulk for the excavation on the site is in that that soil. Um these these ones come up when you look at the in the farming section the land capability classification. One section is rated as a 3D. I think it was this section was rated as a 4E which the National Resources Conservation Service um says class three and four have very severe limitations with respect to agriculture viability. And then the E on that indicates a hazard for erosion further impacting commercial agriculture viability. I

think E is topography. Okay. Well, that would make sense if they're referencing erosion. So, right. So, that's from the soil survey from the USDA RCS. I know there's farmers that would farm it if it wasn't going to be houses once it I mean, if even if you put it in solar, you can rip the solar out, go back and farm it. But if you put 18 houses driveways and you're not gonna it's not going to go back. It's going to be what's the word? Irrevers. Irreversible. Converted.

Converted. So if you know if we don't speak up, there goes another 13 acres. There's farmers that would in that neighborhood that would farm it, but farmer doesn't own it. So that's problem. I don't know what I don't know where you where you stop. I mean, if you don't highlight it, you know, I don't think it stops your project, but I think if you don't speak up next way, you know, we're doing three, you know, who's with a C se C slope is okay to [Music] I know we got we worked ground steeper than that. [Music] Wayne, do you have any additional comments on that particular

question? I just think the things to consider are scale, magnitude, usable property there. You do have significant amount of wetland on portion of that. um that others portion where lot 18 is is probably not usable for anything but putting the house on a small portion of it. Um you got to look you do have to look at drainage um you know and erosive soils too. When's the last time that was planted with corn or anything?

Probably when John Rey works it. Well, so basically it's just a hay field, right? Now it's just a hay field. Yeah. I don't know where.

Is it going to stop farming in Rener Brunswick? No, it's not going to stop farming in Brunswick. But you know, another 13 acres that's not going to be farmed, but it's not owned by a farmer now. So, that's the problem down Columbia County is a lot of city people bought the farmland and they don't farm it. So, let me let me see how that works. So, you're going to have a small impact on farming in a neighborhood.

Yes. Is it going to have a moderate or large impact on that piece of ground? Yes. I don't know. You read all the We just got this little snippet here. The thing is is what it says, you know, is is the proposed action and irreversible convert irreversible convert uh agricultural land to non-aggricultural uses. I would have to say have to say yes. I I don't I don't know how you would not not say it's a

I don't know what Emma thinks. I know. You're not going to put it back, you know. So it's it's more of a moderate to large as well. Okay. I I I I agree with that. I think that ought to stay the way it is.

So just one final thought. Um I know it is all you get is the one little question without much more explanation on the part two but you know and I looked at this I can't even tell you a number of times but um to even answer this question you have to be in a situation where you're irreversibly converted. So so whether it's you know 100 acres or or it's it's 2.2 acres of imperial service or 13 acres 10 acres. So that's what gets you to the next which is okay yes we are irreversibly converting more than two and a half acres located in that district is that small or large and so I think that just because we're irreversibly converting it can still be a small impact and I think you know from what I understand from DEC's guidance it's not just is it going to irreversibly convert that land that's a given it's that's why we're here at this question um the question of impact and magnitude scope is going to have an effect on the agricultural district. Um, you know, is it putting uh I don't want to use something. So bas basically you're saying if this was like two or 300 acres that you were doing

or something that was drastically different than and would deter other farmers away from it if it was an industrial manufacturing site but there was constant noise or that those are the types of things that I think would be more akin to a moderate to large um because you can irreversibly convert the egg land and still be considered a notice to small impact. All right, just uh polling the board here. Who thinks that this is a moderate to large impact? We got one.

That's our opinion. Thank you. You know, I I I have no other response to this all day, you know. Okay. No. Okay. So now as far as the part two, um, are we considering changing the first two items to to small or what's the process? Sounds like based on our discussion.

It's kind of a board decision. Okay, let's go back to the first one. I'm not I think it's a a moderate to large but that's the remove excavation removal of more than thousand tons. Then the next one is this time frame for continuous involve construction that continues for more than one year multiple phases. I personally think that they ought to remain as they been checked off initially by by uh Wayne. I think both of those are moderate to large impacts in this particular case. That's my opinion.

Well, we also had a discussion on mitigation. um mitigation mitigation. So where where does this mitigation come into this? I mean do we do they have to present do you we have to get into discussion before we even move forward on on part two.

So so proced I'll give you some thoughts on that. So procedurally, if if you determine in part two that there are potentially moderate to significant large adverse environmental impacts that lead you in a certain direction in terms of your seeker determination. If there's continued discussion between a board and an applicant on here are our concerns regarding those moderate to large impacts and are they able to be addressed in this case given that they tend to align with short-term construction impacts. Are there a way that those can be addressed so that even during the construction period they can be reduced from a moderate to large to a potentially smaller impact? Are there ways to mitigate or address that? And could those then be incorporated into the project proposal? That's generally what happens at this point during project reviews. And that's a it starts with a technical discussion and then Wayne can review that with the board. Ultimately, it comes from the applicant. The applicant wants to come up with proposals, that's fine. if they want to sit down and coordinate with Wayne on some of those things, that's fine, too. This happens in a lot of different ways in a lot of different municipalities. But the end product would be we're incorporating some things as an applicant into our project that will address what the board has identified as potentially moderate to large impacts. And by doing that, we're reducing those impacts. And we'd like you to consider them to be small impacts. Now, if impacts are determined to be small, that leads you to potentially another secret determination. So, procedurally, that that's where you're at in terms of how projects get reviewed and ultimately acted upon. So, there's a period of time, I think, for the technical

consultants, both Matt and Wayne for the board, Matt for the applicant, to start addressing some of those issues. You've identified Russ what at least you've identified your concerns and I think they're common amongst the board which is the potential issues associated with just the excavation and then the duration. You've heard some presentation by the applicant that we've already reduced the amount of material to get a safe and passable road in coordination with the town and we've had a lot of traffic uh analysis done so that even at this amount there's no trigger that requires further you know traffic mitigation analysis. But is there a way that these issues associated with what the board sees as potentially moderate to large associated with with excavation able to be addressed in a way mitigated in a way that would give the board a level of comfort to say well now we view those impacts as being small. That's generally a technical discussion between board consultant and applicant consultant. Okay.

Any other thoughts, Wayne? Uh, no. I think you described it accurately. Um, I can I can meet with Matt and we can talk about. There are some things you've already talked about that maybe if you memorialize it into a document uh for the board to discuss. Correct. I think that'd be Well, well, let me ask you something, Wayne. Maybe provide additional details of how you're going to remove all that. What's that?

Grading limits. Like, you know, there they're not going to grade beyond the power line in the back. And they're not going to grade the backs of lots, eight, nine. Not on this plan, right? There is a grading plan. that let me ask you a question. I mean, you could you could mitigate shortterm impacts and create long-term impacts. You know what I mean? You could end up with a 10% grade on the road in order to mitigate a short-term impact. I mean, right. You had to consider all of that. Well, well, one thing I want one thing I want to address first,

we had this discussion. You prepared the part two of all th those three items you were you said were moderate to large impact based on that's not exactly true. I weren't changed on me right the board the board well the board discussed it and that's what they decided.

I'm going to ask you a question. Okay. During the conversation we had responses from the applicant so forth and so on. Did you through this conversation feel that possibly yeah maybe it shouldn't be a moderate it should be a small impact on any of those three items regardless of what the board you know on a straw vote said. Well I'm here for technical assistance. Well, you're but but but yeah, but you're you're you're you're going to offer us I I think we need input on on

I kept saying we need to look at the scale of the project, the magnitude, the duration, all those things when you come up with what the impact is going to be. Honestly, an 18 lot subdivision is not that big as far as a magnitude. It's not a 100 houses. It's not a thousand houses. It's 18. Um, so you got to look at the scale. You got to look at um what else this property could be used for. Um, it's it it fits into the community. It's it's residential housing. Um, you got you got to look at everything. So, um

I I think a lot of a lot of what is in the code of rules and regulations from DEC um is is there to prevent um we'll say poorly planned poorly planned development. Um, and you got to look at what the We got to look at the environmental impacts. That's really well what we're looking at. I I think you got to look at scale. You got to look at Yeah. But the problem here's here's the problem. All of that.

I think this this project is the first project we've had here that all of a sudden we're going to move 400,000 yards of material. And that automatically for me triggers, well, wait a second. This this this has got to have some type of uh right that's why we didn't just Yeah. pass it through, you know, but that's why we're going through the I I agreemental review.

I agree with you. You know, this, you know, an 18, you know, lot subdivision, you know, is peanuts in some neighborhoods. And I mean uh but I think the fact that this involves removing the whole a whole hill and everything like that that's going to obviously change the landscape. It's going to change the use of that property, future use of that property and so forth. So that's what triggered my opinion to say, "Yeah, that that's a moderate to large impact." And you said many times DC that those are just guidelines,

correct? They're not rules. They're not regulations. They're not, you know, set in stone. They're guidelines. So, so I think at this point, you know, you guys have to get together and see what kind of mitigating circumstances with the idea, I'm sure that you want to if you can provide mitigating circumstances on each one of these or an argument with above what you've already said in an effort to get all these items put down to a small impact. Is that correct?

I mean, that's certainly one way to do it. I think overall, as Mr. Gilchrist said, you know, this is the time where if you guys, the board does have impacts that you're concerned about. I for us, the best thing to do is to identify what those are. Is it you know because a lot of these questions it can be a moderate to large impact but when we go to part three that doesn't necessarily mean that the project goes one way or the other with the determination of significance. You know the next step is is there significant adverse impact and a positive declaration or negative declaration and the positive declaration only sets us back to look at further the impacts that you guys have already identified and come up with mitigating measures. So we can do that now and avoid that. That would be the goal because that lends us down another, you know, year and a half of and six figures of extra expenses and and everything scoping with you guys. I mean,

yeah, you'll get sickless. Okay. Um, so if there are impacts that you guys can identify,

but if we get to a part three and and there's several moderate to large impacts identified, uh, in the part three, you have to go through and write um why it's moderate to large, right? and go through a discussion uh in the decision- making process in order to move forward. So there has to be some discussion on that in the part three and if you can't discuss it away then it goes to an environmental impact statement and right

and you have to go through and talk about all those things. Right? Okay,

Russ, if I could give one more thought which I think would assist the board is allow the technical folks to have that discussion. What would probably be very helpful on the record is pulling together a lot of the technical information which seems to be in disparit reports and pull it together in what might be deemed an excavation plan because if I've listened to the board correctly really the concerns aside from irreversible conversion of a land all are focused on short-term construction impacts and specifically the short-term excavation. So if you are able to pull together a lot of the existing technical information in the record and put it together in terms of an excavation plan, potentially a map showing how you're getting that material off and when, what the grades will be, what the limits of excavation are, when you're going to meet final grades. You can pull together time frames, maybe not limiting yourself to a year, but you've got technical information on a year, a year and a half, and two years. and then review that with Wayne and say, "Well, we're addressing traffic through this. We're addressing sound or noise impacts through that. We're addressing storm run storm water runoff during the excavation by this method." That's think I think would be very helpful the board to have that specifically put together and I think it would help in terms of the seeker determination too.

Okay. Be happy to put that together. All right. [Music] So, uh, is there any other questions from from the board for the applicant at this point? Wayne, do you want to make any closing comments? Well, I think I'm going to struggle on the on the impacts on the a resources, describing what those moderate to large impacts are. All right. So maybe some input from the board to tell me what

well as what that moderate to large impact is if we looked at it as the whole project you know perhaps it's a identification of how much land was currently viable for agriculture because there's wetlands that section that whole area west of Creek is not agricultural. No, but you could plant corn in a buffer zone. No. Yeah, I'm talking.

Oh, over there. Yeah, that's you can't do anything with that. And then you've got the the wetland that's part of a larger wetland, but the buffer zone and the other field area, you know, maybe that's identified as 8 acres out of the 33 acres or I'm not sure. But and just to add to that, if you remember from uh the site, the tree line about so portion is in the woods. I mean, and that's fairly mature wood lot there that comes down into the [Music] I'm just offering a suggestion.

No, I get it. When you look at that plan, but the way you just described, it's no longer a moderate impact. It's a small. If the record supports that and if there's an identification of what realistically are viable a lands currently on the site given wetland conditions and slopes and maybe soil types and things like that at least that information that evidence would be in the record so you could support a determination on that issue.

I think that's a good approach. We can do that. Try to build out more information. Try to get the board more perspective on this hour. Okay. All right. That's all for me. That's all for you. Thank you for your input. Appreciate it. Uh with that being said, I guess uh uh we have a game plan here. Uh, our next meeting is on uh December 4th. Do you wish to be on that? There's probably going to be a lot of stuff on that. Uh,

if we're getting closer to the meeting and we need additional time, we'll just reach out and ask that we get Okay, that's fair enough. Appreciate that. All right. So, we'll tenatively put you on the agenda for our next meeting on December 4th. The meeting after that is on the 18th, just for your reference. Okay. And uh nobody has anything else. I guess we're done for this evening. All right. Thank you. Thank you for your time. Okay. Have a nice Thanksgiving.

Thank you. Okay, that concludes our agenda. Uh we have uh several items under new business we'd like to review. Uh is there any order on these? Uh [Music]

okay, then I'll take the let's see by dates here. I think the first one would be what the 689 691 who's road. Okay. And that is the that was submitted by uh Paul Angster. He's not here. Paul's not here. He's not feeling well.

Okay. So, um we'll table that for now. Okay. The next one on the agenda would be the tranquility. Let's do that one last if we do that one last. Okay. The next one would that came in would have been. It's just [Applause] I hate to say anything, but I didn't understand a word you said. 30 stone Arabia.

Okay. All right. The 30 stone Arabia. Okay. And this is a waiver of subdivision. Okay. Good evening. Nick Costa from Advanced Engineering and uh to present the uh proposed subdivision parcel.

Okay. This is a parcel that a few hours ago uh we discovered that this uh the zoning map and the uh file map for the north 40 subdivision uh complex where they don't agree. So what we had done is we we presented we submitted a plan that showed this parcel being [Music] the original subdivision. the file something that's trying to clarify that you know what you're looking at on the drawing is what's shown on the zoning map which is in the right so this is a parcel u And in the BBD, uh the minimum lot sizes are 15,000 square ft and the setbacks that are presented in that file map which was provided for us uh are all less than what we've shown on here. But we obviously have to uh go back and correct this map to reflect the uh the file information. The file map information.

Just to to back up a little bit, originally this whole parcel was three lots, four four lots and it has been combined. Yeah, it was combined into one which 2.3 acres in size. Okay. And we were proposing to subdivide it into two lots. One lot that would have 82 acres and the house lot the lot that's developed with the house would be 1.48 acres.

So survey wise this is this is obviously accurate. That's correct. Okay. and it won't shake. So, what how does this Andy, how would this affect um anything we do as far as a subdividing a lot versus the PDD? Uh I don't know the answer as we sit here. Um we're going to have to take the North 40 was a PDD. Is that correct?

That's right. Right. So I think we would need to take a look at that PDD approval to answer that question. Okay. Generally with PDDDs the terms of the or conditions of the approval are what govern that project. So not suggesting there'd be a problem with this. We just have to take a look at that and see if there was anything about these were originally four approved lots within the PDD approval and then those four were merged into one.

Interesting. Five.

And uh we just need to check on any further and it wouldn't be necessarily applicable, but if there were any provision about no further subdivision of lots, we'd have to determine what that means in this context because you took certain lots and merge them together. And this is all on public water and public sewer.

Yes, that's correct. One, two, three. Oh, I see. I see. I see.

All right. I guess uh we got to do a little research on this. Uh, obviously this is under new business. Just kind of introduced the project. Sorry you had to wait this long. Um, is this something that we can address at our next meeting? Would that be enough time to decipher that? Are we able to pull out the picture? Yes. press.

Okay. Then we can put you on the agenda for our next meeting and that would be on December 4th.

All right. Do you have any other questions for us? We I I obviously we don't have any questions at this point because we don't know what the the whole thing is. So, uh we will see you on the uh on the board, I guess. Thank you. Thank you. [Music] Well, dropping back to Mr. Ingster's uh submission. I'm hoping that you know that could be submitted today as new business even in his absence. if the board would allow that so that the next meeting you would not have to be new business. Okay. Well, that's uh what I was going with. Well, you were.

Yeah. Oh, I'm sorry. No, you know, when you said Okay, he isn't here. So, when you when you tabled it, it made me Yeah. Okay, we're going to untab it. is um Mark Danskin isn't here, is it? No. Okay. All right.

So, essentially the u the Miselli property is being sold and in the process of doing that, they found out that his sign is not on his property. So they're adjusting the lot line to incorporate this sign onto that property. So it's a it's a small lot outline adjustment to shift to incorporate the sign. Okay. So this is where the the package shipping place is in the right

and then it's got a second floor selling that parcel and retaining the the old body shop body where it's on the edge of the propert. So, what is it? Just how much is it? Seven foot. Seven foot. Yeah. Just going to How does this impact the the garage on the other side where they have these parking places? They're getting this land added.

Correct. Right now. [Music] Okay. But it doesn't impact the the parking on the is it the silver griffin, right? Okay. All right. The wall line would be be between the wall and the existing, right?

You don't have to worry about setbacks. Well, I I have no problem, you know, like now that we've been introduced to put them on the agenda, forego the putting them on new business here. Um, does anybody have a problem with that? Okay, we will put Mr. Angster on the uh this is strictly a lot line adjustment, right? Yes. That's got to go to county. No, I don't think so. Okay, then we'll put him on our agenda also for December 4th site specialist permits avail.

Okay, where are we now? We got two on

I heard something there. Okay, this is uh Okay, Jacob, what do we got going here?

Good evening. Thank you for your time. Try and make it as quickly as possible. I got three of them under under new business tonight. First one here is on Deep Hill Road. This is previously approved subdivision. One is a Sean Gallivan. Uh they're simply looking to adjust uh the line between lots lot one and lot two by about 07 acres. Started construction on a driveway on lot one and realized they needed a little bit more room to make the curve for driveway to lot two. So rather than having two angle points, we put curve in the property line. So they would have enough room to when they do start construction on the driveway for lot that curve.

Okay. So we're seeking a waiver subdivision for the lot line adjustment. So you're not creating a new lot. It's just just so clarification. Strictly a lot line adjustment. Correct. Okay. Because if you're creating a new lot, it's just an adjustment between lot one and two. Yeah. I mean, we've done this before, right, Andy? As far as correct. Okay. Does anybody have any questions on that?

Is this way map updated to the new houses that are there? Um, the only new house that is under construction still, I don't know if it has a CO yet, is on lot three. There is no new construction on either lot one. Oh, sorry. This is on the This is on the west side. Across the street. Anybody else have any questions? Wayne, I know you've had the floor a lot tonight. probably don't want to get involved in this. Looks pretty straightforward to me.

Yeah. Okay. Since these are, I would assume very limited discussion items, I don't mind putting these on for uh December 4th. Probably put them at the beginning of the uh agenda. Sure. I think we got National Grid coming in. So, and we got Paramont coming back. [Music]

I would not mind being at the end of the gym at the end of the agenda because I have to be in Berlin at six o'clock for another planning board meeting on December 4th. Um, but I could see if the old boss man would come represent the project if you guys would like to at the beginning of the meeting. angle for one meeting. Um, we we we can put you at the back back. Okay. I mean, you said you have several projects coming. I have three tonight for new business. No, no, we don't. The other two, we're not ready to present to the board. Wendy and I are still reviewing them. We're not presenting your project.

Oh, I'm sorry. He's representing you. I'm sorry. Yes. I'm sorry. The other one is you and I are still working on, right? Okay. You don't want to present that or ask any questions on that tonight? Not yet. No. Okay. Not yet. Sorry. It's okay. Okay. We'll put you on the agenda for the fourth and when we go through the agenda at the end of this meeting, we'll we'll put the batting order. Wherever I end up is fine. I can I can make a I mean, if uh Andy, would you be coming back formally? I the next meeting? Not on the 4th. We're gonna request to be put on the 18th. Okay. So, we can put you at the end of the meeting. Okay. That would work. Thank you.

Okay. All right. So, we will uh put you on for the fourth for this is for the Deepkill Road project. And now you are the 920 who's road, right? Yep. Is that 902? Okay, Russ will note for the record that I'm going to formally recuse myself as this is my wife and my project and Jake's representing us as our surveyor. Okay,

Wayne, you want to step over into the attorney? Nope. All right, let's uh let's uh proceed along here.

All right. Uh I'm here to represent Andy and his wife in their next endeavor tranquility bookshop. We're seeking a site plan special use permit for the property at 902 road. some minor exterior improvements including parking, a proposed sign, a walkway, a patio, and some fronts in the back for privacy as well as interior modifications to the existing building to turn it into a bookshop. Seek any major changes other than the increase in the parking. And I would like to ask the board to present any questions they might have at this time.

I And if I could I'll first say for the record, my wife and I are happy to be in front of the board. Um a as the board is aware and will let the public know um I am retiring from the practice of law at the end of this year and this will be my wife and I next you know business venture. I did want to say for the record ultimately I still have a couple more meetings. I I do have to say it's been certainly an honor and and it's been my privilege to represent the board for a number of years. I'll be stepping down from that. Um actually representing this board has been one of the more pleasant parts of my professional life. Um it's been many many years and I'm I'm grateful for that. And now I'm going to be an applicant in front of the board. uh stepping you you through this. You're going to have separate counsel on this. Chris Langlloy will be taking over representing the board. I've known Chris for a while. I respect him personally and professionally. He's a very good lawyer. You're going to be in very good hands. So, he'll assist you on the review of this project to the extent any legal issues come up. This is in the business light zoning district at 902 Husk Road. It does allow retail. It allows retail up to 2,000 square feet with site plan review only. The structure is 2100 square feet including the garage which we uh plan on renovating and using as part of the retail space. So to be conservative, we included the entire 2100 square ft. that bumps this up to also require a special use permit under the Brunswick zoning

law for retail use within the business zoning district. We've submitted the site plan application and the special use permit application. I've attached to the special use permit application further responses to each of the questions, each of the standards. Uh really the intent here is to have what amounts to a fairly light commercial impact even though there are surrounding residences and you all know where this is right on the corner. Um I'm not sure who owns it now but was Lorie Schindler's retail shop retail office realy office will be right next door to the west. There is an existing residence still used for residential purposes. And across the street on the east side of Wyman is also used for residential. This spot on the corner had been kind of part residential, part commercial. Um, but nonetheless, this had been zoned by the town for business life. One of the good things about this lot is that the the lay of the lot allows parking in this location which would be closer to the existing commercial the real office and if cars do pull in. Obviously headlights if it's later in the evening will go over hours of operation in a subsequent meeting but they're shining in this direction. They tried to keep things away from the residential. It could be converted to commercial in the future because it's in that zoning district. Um, we've added the fence in the back to keep some privacy not only for that lot but for our guests that we anticipate having some landscaped areas and seating areas in the back fence over on this side as well. So, we ask you to take a look at that.

Look at the site plan. One of the things we are considering and I put it out there and I reviewed it in consultation with Kevin the building department is we had a handicap slot proposed in the front where the twocar garage would be. It may be more appropriate to relocate that to the back of the park. You'll note that on the side of the house, it's indicated to be a handicap ramp because we need to get with the existing garage slab. We need to elevate that floor off the slab. So, the floor finished floor elevation of that renovated current twocar garage is going to be above grade. We need to be able to get handicap in there. There'll be a ramp on the side. Given that we think the handicap may work back better back here and then there'll be two parking spots in the front. We're looking at that now and we may submit just a revised updated site plan on that. And if you'd review the special use permit um responses to if you have any questions we'll certainly update that and respond to it. It will require a public hearing. So what we would request is to be placed on the December 18th agenda where person would be available and can make that meeting and we'll be we would at that meeting ask if it is determined to be complete to schedule a public hearing for January.

Thank you. Just as a side comment, Andy, it's been a pleasure working with you at uh as uh attorney for the planning board and uh you will be missed. Um at this point, I you're not going to propose a traffic light there on Wyman. I might require one. We do a traffic study. Yeah. Turning lane, DOT permit.

There you go. Does anybody have any questions at this point? Do you have any additional comments you want to make on the No. Yeah. I know we had a discussion about this as far as the number of parking places required and I think you checked with Kevin you need uh how many eight

so the code here in this zoning district requires four spaces per thousand square feet retail. So at 2100 doing the math this is in the application documents computes to 8.4 four spaces. So we have eight regular spaces plus the hand space. So we have nine space.

All right. Any questions for Andy? [Music] Okay. I think we'll put you on the schedule for the 18th. And uh you said you're going to have a new going to change that parking around a little bit, right? We may just relo. It won't be any change to the layout. Just show different.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Is that it, Wendy? Or Okay. [Music] Is there any other Is there any old business that anybody wishes to bring up?

Okay. Uh, I'd like to review the agenda at this point for the fourth. Thanks, Jake. Uh, we have Paramont coming back and I believe isn't uh National Grid scheduled. Okay,

correct. So we have Paramount National Grid as the major ones and uh you also have let's see here we have 30 uh stone Arabia we have the deep kill and then we have the lot line adjustment uh for the sellers. Okay, for the 18th we have right now Andy and I think initially we had Paramont scheduled if we did this correctly to have if we had proved their uh their seeker determination to have their public hearings positively scheduled. So the only thing right now we have firm for the 18th is is Andy

Russ would like to come on the court also as old business to give an update on Jill site that's a sillus yes

but there he doesn't wish to be on the uh this is the fourth or the 18th? The fourth. Fourth. Okay. Yes, please. But he's he's content with being just on old business. Old business. Yeah. Once you get an

Should we put them on the agenda or just leave him at old business? Up to you. we can list them and just as an update or he can simply come in and at the end of the meeting you always ask is there any old business to review [Music] since it's just an update you know why don't we just put them on for let's put them on the agenda it'll be the last one on the agenda that way we keep everything on the Good.

Okay. All right. Is there any uh other [Music] items that I missed or anything? What is the story with CV? There is no story. No, I have not heard of a word. Okay. I would like to talk to the board briefly about meeting minutes. um in an effort to save some time and some money to the town, would the board be um agreeable to meeting minutes electronically via email rather than printed mailed copies? Is that is that something the board? I would prefer them emailed actually

would entertain. I don't have a problem mailed because I can always go back and go on the town website. Absolutely. They're they're always available on all our minutes are available on the town town website. I mean, as far as I'm concerned, you could just send an email that they've been posted on the town website and we'll just Well, we don't we don't have an issue with sending, you know, group email out with with attached meeting minutes electronically. Okay. Whatever is easiest for you, right? Yeah. Okay. So, then moving forward, that's we'll do. We'll probably just do them electronically. Planning and zoning.

Well, I haven't talked to the zoning yet, but um yes, that's our ultimate goal. I mean, I got I can always print them out. So, right. I can do that much. It's appreciated that I figured out how to turn it on. I can print. Okay. Okay. If there's nothing further, uh, I'll make a motion to adjurnn. Do I have a second? I'll second. All those in favor? I. Any opposed? Thank you.