Hamlin planning board denies topsoil‑processing permit application without prejudice, cites missing documentation

The Hamlin Planning Board voted to deny without prejudice an application to screen and process topsoil on a vacant parcel at 1327 Northland Road, saying the submission was incomplete and the proposed ongoing commercial activity did not clearly fit in the town’s residential very‑low‑density (RBL) zoning district.

Applicant Andrew (introduced to the board as Andrew Cow) said material would be brought to the site, screened, and then hauled away in dump trailers or trucks. Neighbors and board members pressed for documentation showing where the soil would originate, whether testing had been done to rule out contamination, whether the operation would be a one‑time event versus an ongoing business, and how truck traffic and hours would be managed.

Board members and staff said the application did not include sufficient documentation to determine compatibility with the RBL district. The town attorney and planning staff noted that while one‑off soil removals tied to a construction project can be treated differently, a perpetual topsoil‑processing business raises distinct regulatory questions, including whether the town code allows a commercial materials‑processing use at that site and what environmental review would be required. One board member observed that the town’s landscaping/topsoil subsection seemed written for temporary, one‑time sales tied to construction rather than a continuous processing enterprise.

The board moved to deny the application without prejudice because the applicant had not cited a specific code provision permitting the use, had not provided a site plan or source documentation for incoming material, and had not submitted the environmental information staff said will be required. The board suggested steps the applicant could take to reapply: provide a clear code citation or law that would allow the use, submit a formal site plan and materials‑source documentation, and include any required soil testing and the new environmental assessment form the town now requires.

The board also flagged public‑safety and environmental checks the applicant should expect on re‑submission, including soil sampling, hours limits, and traffic mitigation. The motion to deny without prejudice passed in voice vote.

Next steps: the applicant may revise and resubmit with the requested documentation; the board recommended consultation with counsel and the zoning officer before re‑filing.