The regular meeting of the Planning Board, Town of Moreau, County of Saratoga and State of New York was held in the Town Office Building, 61 Hudson Street, South Glens Falls, New York on October 16, 2006. 

Planning Board members in attendance were Chairman Peter Jensen, Ronald Zimmerman, James Edwards, Thomas Field, Kenneth Dixon, Gary Dickinson and Ronald Caulin.

The meeting was called to order by Chairman Jensen at 7:00 p.m.

Chairman Jensen: Any additions deletions or corrections with regard to the minutes of the September 18 meeting?

Mr. Caulin motioned to approve the minutes with one amendment. Mr. Geary’s comment on Page 906 should read "with no vacant land left." Mr. Dixon seconded. No discussion, all in favor.

Mr. Dave Michaels, representing Woodscape Phase II: The preliminary approval was granted in April, and in May final approval was not sought because the Town Board has some inquiries about the Phase I retention basins. The builder wanted to explore how that would affect Phase Two, monitoring the groundwater in both Phases and Jim Mitchell with Environmental Design Partnership was also involved representing the Town. Hydrology analysis was conducted. We believe the Phase II basins are considerably above the highest measurements of ground water. Phase I basins were re-graded and designs were changed to alleviate standing water problems. They plan to monitor the basins for a few months before the final improvements are undertaken. The Michaels Group submitted a letter of credit to the Town to insure that the work would be one in the Spring of 2007.

Currently, ground water in the basins is several inches below the basin. Last year was a very wet year and raised water tables everywhere.

Chairman Jensen: For clarification Mr. Michaels, you said you worked with Mr. Mitchell, but doesn’t he work with the Town Board as a consultant?

Dave Michaels: Yes, we had Mr. Mitchell and our own engineers.

Ivan Zdrahal, engineer for the Michaels Group, presented the final site plan for Phase II: The bottom of the basin is considerably higher than the highest recorded water level, full engineer plans with the Town Engineer and Highway Department comments have been submitted. All those comments have been incorporated.

Chairman Jensen: The number of lots is the same as we had initially granted preliminary approval on, there are no substantial changes?

Mr. Michaels: Correct

Chairman Jensen: Mr. Mitchell, you have reviewed the changes?

Mr. Mitchell: It looks like a reasonable plan to me.

Chairman Jensen: Mr. Michaels has stated that a letter of credit will be submitted with a dollar amount that should be appropriate for this work. If that is acceptable with counsel, we will move forward. But I think that the dollar amount of any letter of credit should be established by the Town Board, because they have the ultimate responsibility for reviewing it after it is completed. Is that satisfactory?

Atty. Auffredou: They have submitted both an estimate and a draft letter which I think the Town Board will have to review, with regard to both the dollar amount and the time period for which it will be effective, and you should make that a condition for whatever you approve.

Chairman Jensen: I believe we have concluded public comment, SEQR, and granted preliminary approval before we came to the concern regarding the water basins in Phase I. Normally,, we would move on to the final approval, which the applicant would like to see. If we do that, it would be subject to the Town Board’s approval of the letter of credit, which would be irrevocable.

Atty. Auffredou: Yes.

Mr. Edwards: What’s the status of the units in the existing basins, are you monitoring them?

Mr. Zdrahal: The problem is the depth of the standing water, so that will be monitored for over a year, they have been observed at 8 and 15 inches.

Mr. Edwards: With your changes, you are hiding the water table but it is draining.

Mr. Zdrahal: We will monitor it for a year before we make changes.

Mr. Edwards: The concern from the Town Board was about standing water in terms of mosquitoes or what?

Mr. Zdrahal: The Town has language about ponds. Generally there should not be a wet pond.

Mr. Edwards: And we’re not sure if you will be required to do the work?

Mr. Zdrahal: No, we are pretty sure we will have to install the changes, but we are monitoring it to make sure that the change is adequate.

Mr. Patricke: They want to make sure their design has enough capacity.

Chairman Jensen: These units will be within the basis?

Mr. Zdrahal: Yes.

Chairman Jensen: And they are owned and maintained by the HOA- the piping that gets the water to the basin owned and maintained by the Town, but the maintenance of the basin belongs to the HOA?

Mr. Zdrahal: Yes.

Mr. Field: Motion for final approval contingent upon the Town receiving a satisfactory letter of credit from the Michaels Group regarding the improvements to the drainage basins.

Mr. Dixon: Second

Mr. Patricke: We have an outstanding letter from the Health Department that the motion should include. It addresses storm water.

Mr. Field: I motion that the approval include approval by the Department of Health to include the changes to storm water management issues.

Mr. Edwards- Yes Mr. Zimmerman-Yes Mr. Dixon-Yes Mr. Dickinson-Yes

Mr. Field- Yes Mr. Caulin- Yes Chairman Jensen- Yes

Chairman Jensen: You need DOH Approval and I assume you would like it approved as soon as the DOH Mylars are received?

Mr. Dixon: Motion for the chair and one other member to sign the Mylars when they are approved by the Department of Health.

Mr. Field: Second.

Chairman Jensen: To the motion that the chair and one other person sign the mylars, any comments?

Mr. Edwards- Yes Mr. Zimmerman-Yes Mr. Dixon-Yes Mr. Dickinson-Yes

Mr. Field- Yes Mr. Caulin- Yes Chairman Jensen- Yes

Tom Nace, Nace Engineering, representing Al Cerrone: We are presenting the landscape entry plan for the easternmost entrance beside the storm water basins. There will be mirror type landscaping on the other side with no sign. We are also requesting a waiver from a portion of your code that requires a plan for the projection of streets which are not planned, into adjoining properties not yet subdivided. The only parcel that this applies to is the northeast, as there is a National Grid easement on the west and Reservoir Road on the South. We are asking for a waiver because we feel that if this parcel were ever developed, it would best be designed with a circular entrance from Rt. 32. If we planned a through road, it might be used as a shortcut from Reservoir Road to Gansevoort Road.

Chairman Jensen: Is there access to that parcel now?

Mr. Nace: Just a little piece here. To develop it would require acquisition of additional land.

Chairman Jensen: So you are land-locking a piece of land.

Mr. Nace: It’s already landlocked.

Mr. Patricke: Even if it was developed, introduction of more traffic onto Reservoir Road would not be desirable.

Chairman Jensen: Was the site previously deeded in a landlocked way, or was it created by the acquisition of this parcel?

Mr. Patricke: NO, it was already a separate piece of farmland.

Mr. Field: What’s the width of the frontage of that parcel on Rt. 32?

Mr. Nace: About 70 feet. If I wanted to develop it, I would look to acquire some other land here.

Mike O’Connor: I think it’s owned by the same person who owns the other side of the easement, Jacobie. There are some paper streets for access into this part of the parcel.

Chairman Jensen: Board, any further questions? If not, what do you want to do?

Mr. Edwards, on the entrance layout, who will maintain that?

Mr. O’Connor: There is an HOA for the retention areas.

Mr. Nace: There are two ground mounted lights on it I would point out.

Mr. Dixon: Did you want something tonight?

Mr. Field: If we were not to give you the approval on the waiver, where would you propose the stub street?

Mr. Nace: We would lose a lot off the rear of the subdivision and leave a right of way to the parcel line.

Mr. Field: I’m not happy with the waiver, because there are too many unknowns about the development of that other parcel. It presumes that they can obtain other lots, or want to deal with the power company on the right of way. I would prefer to see the option left to the owner of that other parcel.

Mr. O’Connor: We object because we think it changes the character of our subdivision. I am fearful that a shortcut will be created and it doesn’t make public safety sense. Anything like an emergency vehicle would choose Rt. 32 over our subdivision.

Mr. Field: We don’t know what they will have for access should they choose to develop it.

Mr. O’Connor: But you will be able to guide that owner on what access they will have. There are ways to make adequate access to the parcel.

Mr. Field: But we don’t know how that is, so I would like to make the suggestion that you have a lot available as a stub street, and in the event that the other parcel is developed using other access, you could develop it. Does that work?

Mr. Patricke: No, because they will have to deed that over to us as soon as it’s finished.

Mr. Edwards: I don’t think that’s a safe place for an intersection, on a horseshoe curve.

Mr. Field: Don’t you think that would be a deterrent? We might prefer to have one street with the alternate exit there.

Mr. Nace: There is no good point on the curve for that intersection.

Mr. Field: You might have to pick another point.

Mr. Nace: That’s the only point that fronts on that parcel. The only plan that makes sense for developing that property is the same type of U configuration that we have done here.

Mr. Edwards: How is a waiver request handled?

Chairman Jensen: A separate motion. We would need one for the signage landscape plan.

Mr. Zimmerman: I make a motion that we approve the proposed landscape entrance plan for Pinewood Estates.

Mr. Edwards: Second.

Mr. Edwards- Yes Mr. Zimmerman-Yes Mr. Dixon-Yes Mr. Dickinson-Yes

Mr. Field- Yes Mr. Caulin- Yes Chairman Jensen- Yes

Atty. Auffredou: With regard to the waiver, there is a provision in the code for granting a waiver where the lay of the land makes the projection requirement unfavorable.

Mr. Caulin: I motion that the request for relief from requirement that a street project into adjacent undeveloped parcels, be approved.

Mr. Dixon: Second.

Mr. Edwards-Yes Mr. Zimmerman-Yes Mr. Dixon –Yes Mr. Field –No

Mr. Dickinson-Yes Mr. Caulin- Yes Chairman Jensen- reluctantly, Aye.

Chairman Jensen: The Pinewood Estates subdivision was already granted final approval, but we did not request a signature because of the outstanding landscape sign plans.

Mr. Field: Motion for the chairman and one other member to sign the Mylars for Pinewood Estates when they become available

Mr. Dixon: Second.

Chairman Jensen: It should be noted that public hearing and SEQR review, preliminary and final approval had been granted so the hold was only on the sign.

Mr. Edwards- Yes Mr. Zimmerman-Yes Mr. Dixon-Yes Mr. Dickinson-Yes

Mr. Field- Yes Mr. Caulin- Yes Chairman Jensen- Yes

Mr. Nace: We have information that the water project is moving along well, so we are somewhat certain that water will be available and we now plan to omit the well provision in our submission to the Health Department. This simplifies things for them so that we don’t have to drill test wells.

Atty. Auffredou: You are making a business decision to wait for municipal water.

Mr. O’Connor: We used language that Atty. Auffredou helped draft, stating that no structures would be built until Town water was available. Would you be satisfied with saying that nothing would be built until Town water would be available?

Atty. Auffredou: If that’s what they need for the Department of Health process, they can do what they want.

Travis Mitchell of Environmental Design Partnership: After the last meeting we prepared a letter to the Town Board and a letter to Jim Patricke addressing the concerns raised at the public hearing.

Regarding the eastern hognose snake, it is designated only as a species of concern, but there are no development restrictions associated with that. The septic on a lot that was questioned is greater than 150 feet from the well on Lot 26, and the septic exceeds health and safety requirements. All septic and well requirements will be reviewed by the DOH.

The hydrology is designed to handled 100 year flood flow, even in frozen conditions. Two dry wells are proposed at the bottom of the drainage basins, to provide outflow in case of freeze.

Chairman Jensen: You have provided a letter with regard to the status of the snake. Board, do I have a motion to reopen the public hearing for the Preserve at Old Saratoga?

Mr. Field: So moved.

Mr. Dickinson: Second.

Unanimously approved.

Chairman Jensen: Anyone wishing to make a comment is invited to do so….(none) Board, please take a moment for the environmental assessment.

The EAF was reviewed

Mr. Field: Water surface are is 12.09 on the first page, and the pond is listed as 5.86 acres in section A question 16 b.

Mr. Mitchell: The most recent survey shows 14.377 acres. It changes.

Mr. Caulin: The ambient noise, is that construction equipment?

Mr. Mitchell: Yes.

Mr. Zimmerman on question 25, please include wells with the septic system.

Part II- Mr. Field. Construction will continue for more than one year. I would say there’s a small impact to that. There are slopes in excess of 10%. Are you building on any of those?

Mr. Mitchell: Those slopes will be graded to 2-3 % home construction will avoid the 10-15% grade.

Chairman Jensen: So the impact is small.

Mr. Field: Is any road runoff going into the ponds?

Mr. Mitchell: No.

Mr. Mitchell: We have avoided construction in the areas of the culturally significant areas They will not be disturbed.

Chairman Jensen: Are they within building lots?

Mr. Mitchell: They are on building lots.

Mr. Zimmerman: Didn’t you say you were going to use construction fencing to protect those areas?

Mr. Mitchell: I don’t think we did, but we can do that.

Atty. Auffredou: Was there a Phase I and a SHIPO Letter?

Mr. Edwards: Is it acceptable to have those on a building site?

Mr. Mitchell: The mitigation is avoidance.

Mr. Zimmerman: Afterwards the homeowners can do as they want with it?

Mr. Mitchell: Right.

Atty. Auffredou: What did the SHIPO Letter say?

Chairman Jensen: We will come back to Question 12. Section 17 there will be small to moderate noise during construction only.

Mr. Field: I’m still fine with a no.

Chairman Jensen: Consensus for no.

Section 19: Mr. Caulin: There will be small to moderate impact on the character of the neighborhood with additional demand on schools and public services.

Chairman Jensen: Back to No 12.

Mr. Mitchell: We did Phase I at the start of the project, which recommended Phase II. You have a copy of it. We had 400 shovel tests and a geomorphologist on the site. Prehistoric sites showed chirts (rock chips). There are no other sites on this property or adjacent. SHIPO signoff is required for wetlands permits but we did not look for one, because we chose to avoid the areas and wanted to avoid the delay of a SHIPO signoff.

Chairman Jensen: Opinion of Counsel?

Atty. Auffredou: My initial reaction is that we have three sites and in previous instances there has been SHIPO review regarding mitigation. I’m a little concerned that there hasn’t been a process here.

Jerry Magoolaghan: We have run into this instance, and they have wanted to get Dr. VanNess from the state museum involved. We did have her present when we did deep test pits with her on site, as they would have requested.

Mr. Mitchell: Her report is probably included on the Phase II letter. Would you be more comfortable if we proposed deed restrictions?

Mr. Field: I need more information someone other than the builder telling us what the significance is of the finding.

Mr. Edwards: I just went through this and the end result of the SHIPO process was just to cordon off and avoid. That is probably what would happen.

Mr. Magoolaghan: There are already deed restrictions about clear cutting. We can protect them that way even with permanent fencing.

Mr. Dixon are all three on different building lots?

Mr. Mitchell: One is along the road. We could do split rail fence or something pleasing. We have been through the SHIPO process before, and the end result is avoidance.

Atty. Auffredou: Dr. VanNess visited on July 11, 2006 and found three small lithic scatters located consistent with stone tool fabrication. As cumbersome as the SHIPO process is, my sense is that it should not be skipped over. This is the way it works and it does take an inordinate amount of time. But you are a municipality and you are constrained to follow procedures.

Mr. Dixon: Can we use deed restrictions?

Atty. Auffredou: I suppose there can but why not use the Agency that is responsible for determining significance?

Mr. Mitchell: Who sends a project to SHIPO?

Atty. Auffredou: Not usually the Planning Board, but we have this information and SHIPO is involved in Moreau’s process when there are sites.

Mr. Dixon: Did you say that they will take this Dr.’s recommendations?

Atty. Auffredou: Two out of the three sites may be National Registry eligible per the Dr.’s report.

Mr. Edwards: Did our consultant have recommendations on this?

Mr. Patricke: No.

Dorothy Lechmanski: My concern from the beginning is that this should be properly vetted, so I would be hesitant to dismiss it because it takes time.

Chairman Jensen: I believe we would be remiss if we did not have some SHIPO documentation with regard to these sites as we have required from previous projects. I would be reluctant to move forward on anything other than SHIPO’s recommendation. We have always maintained that it has to be done just as with an endangered species. Get us a letter.

Mr. Mitchell: So the SEQR process will be in limbo until we come back?

Chairman Jensen: Yes

Mr. Edwards: And we will table the public hearing.

Mr. Zimmerman: Before we do that- on Section 16-19, won’t the sites have propane tanks and how big will they be?

Mr. Magoolaghan: I am not sure, but we’ll stay under the number that you need to obtain a permit.

Mr. Patricke: You don’t get controlled til they are 660 on each site.

Mr. Zimmerman: But the SEQR asks if the total is more than 1100 gallons stored on site.

Chairman Jensen: This applies only in the construction of the actual subdivision, not for personal use tanks.

Mr. Patricke: What page and number?

Mr. Zimmerman: Page 13, regarding groundwater protection.

Chairman Jensen: Do I have a motion to table public hearing and SEQR review?

Mr. Dixon: motioned.

Mr. Field: Second.

Atty. Auffredou: The Department of Health has adopted it’s own classifications. We are bound by them.

This is a Type 1 action for DOH and we are bound by it. My belief is that you have sent out your notices, etc. There is a possibility of needing EIS, and Staff will have to be directed to create a Type 1 negative declaration. We don’t do this for unclassified actions, but we will have to do more paperwork for Department of Health for these Type I applications.

Chairman Jensen: We can do that, but I have a request. As the Dept. Of Health is different from DEC List of actions, I would like a copy of the list.

Mr. Edwards- Yes Mr. Zimmerman-Yes Mr. Dixon-Yes Mr. Dickinson-Yes

Mr. Field- Yes Mr. Caulin- Yes Chairman Jensen- Yes

Chairman Jensen: Mr. Robertson is visiting to provide an update, but we have not received adequate information to reopen the public hearing.

Mr. Garry Robinson: We have not yet done the archeological review, but we have done test holes at 50 foot intervals and they found old garbage, but nothing of significance. We also included land off of Sisson Road, and both spots were cleared. I wanted to bring you up to speed because we will have a submission next month, on some of our response to concerns. We talked about the roadways and access and we changed the configuration so that you can drive straight through. We also checked the turning radiuses for the emergency vehicles. One spot does not work but it was considered insignificant because there is an alternative route.

Chairman Jensen: Is emergency services comfortable with it?

Mr. Robinson: They have not seen it, I thought that they were when we talked about it.

Mr. Dixon: They deal in seconds, you know?

Mr. Robinson: I do think it’s accessible and it can also be reached from Harrison Ave. for fire.

Mr. Patricke:. You need send it to the fire company and call it to their attention, see how they respond to us.

Mr. Robinson: We need to put landscaping across the front. We have trees every 50 -60 feet.

Mr. Patricke: We want to see that detailed on a drawing.

Mr. Robinson: We do have that on a detail. We also have a detail of each building type which shows the landscaping that we have planned. We show walkways, garages and driveways.

Mr. Zimmerman: Structure heights?

Mr. Robinson: All about the same, two story buildings with garages under, the garages don’t take up the whole first floor, there are some apartments. We have talked to other owners about dumpsters, and no one uses them anymore. They have a local service come through, one day a week just like a village. Dumpsters are considered unsightly and smelly.

Mr. Patricke: Will there be screening or fencing at each building? We had concern for street light and porch light and the cans kept outside.

Mr. Robinson: We added detail on the lighting similar to what we used in Saratoga. There is one at each intersection and some dotted in between. They are not a floodlight. Sidewalk runs from one end to the end of this property on Harrison Ave. Ours is on our property and we need to discuss with the neighbor that it wants to go on his property. The intention is to go to the end of the school driveway. Regarding mailboxes, we talked to the post office and we have put them in the community building, a post office accepted back that are key locked.

Mr. Dixon: This is inside under cover?

Mr. Robinson: It’s not inside but it is covered so that there is no snow and the ends are covered, it’s what’s been acceptable to the post office.

Mr. Field: The location of that?

Mr. Robinson: We have one extra building now are we are looking for which would be the best location towards the front so that it is central.

Mr. Dixon: You would have an office anyway, right?

Mr. Robinson: It may be recreational or something.

Mr. Dixon:: Will each apartment have washers and dryers?

Mr. Robinson: We haven’t really talked about that?

Mr. Caulin How may do you propose?

Mr. Robinson: Still 172. We have done grading of the roadway and we have an under drain system in that runs to the back to the stream. It’s meant to keep water from damaging the road. We have had a soil engineer come in and design that for us.

Mr. Dixon: Does that slope at all towards the back?

Mr. Robinson: The grade is only 4 feet over the entire site, but the stream gets deeper. What happens with an underdrain is that the water is chasing and drains quite rapidly, then eventually becomes a trickle.

Chairman Jensen: What does DEC say about highway discharge?

Mr. Robinson: It’s not road runoff, it’s road underdrain system. For groundwater. The stormwater system is the reason you didn’t get a submission today, we are still working on that.

Mr. Dixon: Some will be raised and some not?

Mr. Robinson: No, all will be 1-3 feet raised.

Mr. Field: What are the two unmarked buildings?

Mr. Robinson: A sewage pumping system, to pump it back to the main at the intersection. It is radio controlled to tie it into the facility. It is integrated to the pump station at the industrial park. The second one is a maintenance garage for lawnmowers, snow plow etc. It will have water and sewage.

Mr. Zimmerman: Won’t that go in at the beginning?

Mr. Robinson: This road and the utilities going right through to the back will be the first thing. There’s no other way to do it.

Mr. Zimmerman: What would be your conception for the phases?

Mr. Robinson: This (front section) would be the first. As demand goes, the next closest loop, and then the back ones on the bottom. I know traffic has been a concern we are thinking about having our traffic engineer here next time.

Chairman Jensen: Considering what we just went through, and with this letter from Ken Maguire, do we want a SHIPO letter concerning this project?

Atty. Auffredou: Yes.

Mr. Robinson: Do we need that for next time?

Chairman Jensen: You need it for SEQR

Mr. Field: Does the DOH new list affect these actions?

Mr. Robinson: It’s a Type 1.

Mr. Patricke: So are you stopping until you get SHIPO?

Mr. Robinson: I think that’s what you are telling me.

Mr. Patricke: OK

Atty. Auffredou: There was a question about the EAF submitted by a member of the public, so you should be careful that the SEQR is very accurate so that this Board is not caught up in finding facts during that phase.

Mr. Robinson: I think we provided some additional information.

Atty. Auffredou: Make sure that’s actually on your EAF.

Mr. Edwards: I still think this is a very dense development on this site.

Mr. Field: I agree.

Mr. Patricke: On what basis?

Mr. Edwards: Character of the neighborhood, I guess.

Mr. Patricke: We would have to change the zoning.

Mr. Edwards: Let’s see how stormwater and grading works out.

Mr. Robinson: This is 60 some lots on Fort Edward Road, a divided highway going to a parcel we are deeding to the town and is adjacent to the town park. We are here because the project is over a plume from a GE Waste site and the Health Department asked us to go back over the site. We wrote a letter telling you that we would put vent systems into each of the units, active ones with operation and maintenance instructions to take care of anything under the ground. That’s an added amenity to these homes, They also asked us to put notes on the plans indicating that information would be available on hazardous waste, at a repository, the Town hall. The deed would also state that it may be hazardous to their health to not operate the ventilation system, even though the sampling doesn’t indicate anything.

Atty. Auffedou: This results in a conditioned negative declaration, and I don’t think that can be. Joe Patricke and I putting together a findings statement to inform your SEQR declaration.

Chairman Jensen: This is acceptable to the applicant? The requirements.

Mr. Robinson: We sent a letter indicating that it was acceptable, even though it makes no sense.

Mr. Patricke: Did each of the Board members get there packet on soil type and gasses?

Atty. Auffredou: The environmental concerns can be mitigated, and are being addressed with significant corrections to the process.

Mr. Field: If it’s not toxic, it’s not toxic.

Atty. Auffredou: I don’t see how to do it any other way, but sometimes the Health Department doesn’t like they way we handle it, and the applicant can’t get what they need.

Mr. Robinson: We have conditions all the time. It’s not part of the declaration. Erosion control or changes to sewage disposal, those are all mitigations with notes on the plans.

Atty. Auffedou: Was there a public hearing left open?

Chairman Jensen: Yes.

Mr. Patricke: Do we need to re-advertise?

Atty. Auffredou: Yes.

Mr. Patricke: I like to publicize it for the people living nearby the homes in question. Do you want to come to the Nov 20 meeting?

Mr. Robinson: Yes. What do we need to do?

Mr. Zimmerman: Have you updated your plans?

Mr. Robinson: You have your letter. We can present what we plan to do to handle the concerns.

Mr. Patricke: Have your stormwater plans been submitted to Burley?

Mr. Robinson: We talked about it, but I will make sure I did.

Mr. Patricke: Let’s have a letter from him for the meeting.

Atty. Auffredou: Poletti Stone subdivision in SEQR on March 29 2005, Part 1 of the EAF was distributed saying the town was taking lead agency on the project. The June 20, 2005 negative declaration was adopted assuming it was an unlisted action, but DOH has it as a Type 1 action and DOH will not approve the subdivision because the SEQR states that it was an unlisted action. I suggest that it is appropriate with the applicants’ consent to amend the negative declaration to indicate that it is a Type 1 action and not unlisted. That will be published

Mr. Field: Motion.

Mr. Dixon: Second.

Mr. Edwards- Yes Mr. Zimmerman-Yes Mr. Dixon-Yes Mr. Dickinson-Abstain

Mr. Field- Yes Mr. Caulin- Yes Chairman Jensen- Yes

Chairman Jensen: Motion to request counsel and code enforcement officer to make the appropriate distribution.

Mr. Field: Second.

Unanimously approved.

Mr. Patricke: Groundworks Utilities fencing, Ethan Hall had a drawing. I accepted his drawing and told him to start work.

Mr. Dixon: Are they lowering the fence?

Mr. Patricke: Yes, chain link with strips, and will go right where the existing fence was. When they submitted, it I thought they ought to get it in the ground this year rather than discuss it.

Chairman Jensen: This is here for the fence?

Mr. Patricke: Yes, and the landscaping.

Chairman Jensen: Motion to approve revised fencing and landscaping plan for Groundworks Utilities.

Mr. Field: Motioned

Mr. Caulin: Second

Mr. Edwards- Yes Mr. Zimmerman-Yes Mr. Dixon-Yes Mr. Dickinson-Yes

Mr. Field- Yes Mr. Caulin- Yes Chairman Jensen- Yes

Chairman Jensen: On the packet of slides you received, page 9. Seminar in Saratoga. I would draw your attention to the information and the idea that your motions clearly state any conditions, items you wished to have enforced at a later date. On mandatory training for Planning and ZBA Members, we must go to a minimum of 4 hours continuing education annually. Excess carries over. Question for counsel, your opinion of the visual EAF Addendum for Garcia. After seeing the level of participation this evening, do you think it’s advisable to do a visual?

Atty. Auffredou: Does the Board believe there might be visual impact?

Mr. Edwards: We said no tonight.

Atty. Auffredou: Then No.

Mr. Dixon motioned to adjourn the meeting at 10:13p.m. and Mr. Dickinson seconded.

The motion passed unanimously. Next meeting November 20, 2006.

Respectfully submitted,

Tricia Andrews

Recording Secretary

Cc: Zoning Board, Town Board, Town Clerk, Supt. of Highways, Building Inspector, Assessor, Saratoga County Planning Board