A motion is made by Tom Jenne and seconded by Grant Gentner to accept the December 16, 2010 minutes as complete.

Transcription

1 Minutes of the Town of Lake George Zoning Board of Appeals held on Thursday, February 17, 2011 at 6:00 p.m., at the Town Center, 20 Old Post Road, Lake George, NY. Present: Absent: Also Present: John Santiago, Chairman Grant Gentner Janie Green Tom Jenne Peter Keating John Carr Ed LaFerriere Patty McKinney, Clerk Robb Hickey, Planning & Zoning Enforcement Officer Jon Lapper, Esq., Jim Grey, Dana M. Seguljic, Mike Seguljic, Ken Collette, Jeff Holden, Steven Drino, Kathy Bozony, Dan Ryan, Howard Nadler, Jennifer Nadler, Connor Nadler, Tina Soprano, Jim Barber, Gary Zervas, Zack Monroe, Ed Rechak Chairman Santiago called the meeting to order at 6:10 p.m. A motion is made by Tom Jenne and seconded by Grant Gentner to accept the December 16, 2010 minutes as complete. ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING A motion is made by Grant Gentner and seconded by Peter Keating to nominate Patty McKinney as the Clerk. A motion is made by Grant Gentner and seconded by Tom Jenne to elect Janie Green as the Zoning Board of Appeals Vice Chairman. A motion is made by Peter Keating and seconded by Janie Green to accept the 2011 Meeting Calendar. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. Area Variance Application # submitted by Howard and Jennifer Nadler to construct a gate house. The applicant is requesting a variance to place an accessory building in the front yard where this is not allowed per Section A(1), for property located on Truesdale Hill Road ( ). Attorney Jon Lapper representing the applicant. 1

2 Janie Green reads the application into the record. A motion is made by Tom Jenne and seconded by Janie Green to accept the application as complete. As an introduction, Howard Nadler built the Adirondack Dream Homes as an office building on Route 9 south of Lake George Village. The property on the application has been in Jennifer Nadler s family for 30 years in the name of Sweet Toney and owned by her parents. A cluster subdivision was approved over the course of the last two years by the Planning Board for a total of 11 building lots and one lot for the road. The subdivision did not require any variances. This parcel is approximately 144 acres and it is the largest parcel in the subdivision in addition to being the first to be developed. It has access from two roads, Diamond Point Road and Truesdale Hill Road and it has always been designated as an estate lot. The house will have a driveway about 1800 ft long from Truesdale Hill Road and because it is so secluded, the applicants would like to have a gatehouse for security and privacy. The provision of the Code for accessory structures is sensible under normal circumstances however in this case the requested variance is for a structure which is over 600 ft. This structure is accessed from Truesdale Hill Road with a good distance from any other property lines and it will not be visible from anyone driving by. It looks like a nice plan however her only concern is that it is located right where Truesdale Hill Road turns which means that it is right on a curve. Is this where the entrance is going to be? He comments that the reason for this location is the fact that it is the only part with access. It may not be the greatest location but in terms of traffic, there will not be but a couple of cars since it is a single family residence. Robb Hickey shows the Board Members on a map how this location is the only access to Truesdale Hill Road. She is concerned about the fact that she knows of at least three accidents that have occurred at this location. She is concerned with the safety aspect of this access and not traffic and congestion. Will there be any stone pillars at the entrance of the driveway? His reply is that the applicant is not planning on putting anything at the entrance of the driveway. In terms of visibility, when pulling out of this driveway the applicant would have visibility both ways. Grant Gentner: He asks if there will be power and water and the gatehouse. The answer to his question is to power and no to water. He then asks how the left side of the gatehouse will be used. The answer to this question is that it will be used as storage. Mike Seguljic: He has a few comments on this project. He believes the Board knows his position on clustering and it seems as though the Town is using a loophole to allow maximum density on lands that are being identified as lands that are not suitable for development. He wants to voice his opinion and make the Board aware that although approved essentially a maximum number of lots was shifted to the steep slopes over on Diamond Point Road contrary to the Planning Board request; not one lot was lost due to the steep slopes. No attempts are being made 2

3 to increase density on the flatter portion of the site over and beyond that approved by the Planning Board on January 4, 2011 however, he realizes that it is a small structure. He asked the Planning Board to hold a public hearing for this project and his request was denied. He would like to know the plans beyond the 7 year restriction for this property since it appears it was never utilized to justify the density on the steep slopes on Diamond Point Rd. He adds that Mr. Lapper indicated that this parcel was to be an estate lot yet he remembers that prior to the APA jurisdictional issue, which came up a few months ago, this 144 acre lot was to be sold to someone else to do as they see fit. He believed that the intent of the Planning Board was to have no further density on this lot by restricting any further subdivisions for 7 years although there is a restriction for further density on this lot which is designed to keep the density down. The current application proposes another unit on this lot which will increase the density. He is still uncertain about having a 7 year restriction on future subdivisions. As the Board stated before, the Planning Board s approval is segmented. This project is still evolving beyond what was approved by the Planning Board which he feels is segmentation. He also believes that 7 years from this date there will be even further segmentation. At some point the ZBA must recognize that their decisions will significantly change areas of this Town. As he mentioned numerous times this is contrary to the mission of the ZBA. He clarifies for the Board that this structure does not change the density of the parcel. It is strictly an accessory structure. He states that Mike Seguljic s comments are simply embarrassing because they are incorrect. This has nothing to do with clustering. The Planning Board approved it with an APA non jurisdictional letter and on approximately 240 acres to have ten lots is less than what the density allows. Clustering is a way to use the more suitable portion of the parcel for development and away from the mountain side. In reference to this lot, 144 acres for one home does not present a density issue. This is an accessory structure and not living quarters and it has nothing to do with density. As for segmentation he does not know what Mr. Seguljic is talking about. The SEQR review had an added provision that this lot would be sold as an estate lot and instead it was sold within the family and they decided to build their home with no intention of subdividing it. A motion is made by Grant Gentner and seconded by Janie Green to close the public hearing. Grant Gentner reads the criteria into the record. A motion is made by Grant Gentner and seconded by Janie Green to approve the application. Janie - Grant - Tom - Peter - John - 2. Modification to Area Variance Application # submitted by Cohold, LLC to modify previously approved 24 unit townhouse development to 19 units. The applicant is requesting a 12 unit density variance, for property located at Route 9L and Bloody Pond Road ( ). 3

4 Attorney Jon Lapper is representing the applicant. He gives a brief summary on what has been going on with this project. After much deliberation, last year the Zoning Board approved a variance to allow 24 townhouse units on this property owned by Ken Collette and Jeff Holden called Cohold and a parcel behind the East Cove. 5 units were intended to be on the property behind the East Cove and 19 units on the property in question. Unfortunately, after the variance was approved, a disagreement ensued between the applicant and the neighbor for the purchase of the property to the north therefore the applicant is forced to seek a modification. The contract to purchase the property to the north for the 5 units has expired and they were not able to renegotiate. The modification would be to build 19 units on the land owned by the applicants. The units will be exactly the same in the same location as previously approved by the Zoning Board. In fact it will be a little greener because the pavement area which would have gone to the East Cove property is no longer necessary. The density calculation will be a little worse but everything has been taken into consideration as far as the storm water plan is concerned. A letter from the Town s engineer states that as a result of this modification the storm water will remain adequate and there will be less vehicle traffic. There is also a letter from the Lake George Water Keeper concerning the increase in density. The argument all along has been that the property has been there for decades with no storm water controls resulting in untreated storm water running into Lake George. Bringing this site to current regulations has proved to be costly and a lot of work. Currently the applicant is asking for a modification to eliminate the 5 lots on the north of the East Cove property and allow the development which was previously approved to go forward with no changes. The applicant still has to go to the Planning Board for their review. He comments that as mentioned above, the storm water controls are identical to the previously approved ones as well as the 12 the rain gardens and 5 ponds. This project will meet all the Town Codes and State Regulation to decrease run off as a result of the development. The permeability on this site is still 70% therefore there is only 30% cover. The Town s engineer, Tom Jarrett, has reviewed the revised plans and after several discussions, he did not identify any concerns or issues. The impervious cover has been reduced by 3% and as indicated on the documentation submitted this change will result in 1.45 acres less which explains the changes with some of the numbers. Grant Gentner: He states that he thought the letter from Tom Jarrett indicated that he needed some more information or something else done but he does not remember what it was. He replies that could it have been with the sewer flow or revised sewer calculation due to the changes in units. He does not have any questions. The way he sees it, the 5 units on top of the property will no longer be there. He shows the Board where the 5 units would have been on a map. He brings up some topics that he discussed with Tom Jarrett. This project has two separate water sheds because of the lay of the land which separated them. He concurs that the storm water design initially separated the two parcels and as a result they were able to maintain everything as proposed. 4

5 He asks if the furthest western part of the parcel where the old pool was, is this the main storm water management basin? He shows the Board Members that each unit will have its own rain garden. The rain gardens will be between the units and will be collected between driveways. These are pretreatment and filtering devices to improve water quality discharging from the property and will promote infiltration. These devices will overflow to 5 ponds on the site which will ultimately discharge into the clean up pond. Chairman Santiago opens the public hearings: Kathy Bozony: She states that there are a couple of issues that jump out. The first one is increased density; a 240% variance was granted whereas this one is a 270% variance. 7 units are allowed on this parcel but 19 are being proposed. She will highlight a couple of the issues that Chris Navitsky put in writing; a copy of this letter was distributed to the Board Members. One is the increase in density and the increase in percentage disturbance. No one knows what will happen to the other parcel as far as green space is concerned. The critical items in the Zoning Board of Appeals in October 10, 2010 were that the Zoning Board announced that the Town s engineer had found the latest revisions of the storm water plan acceptable when in fact in March 2010 the engineer stated to the ZBA that the project should be further improved by reducing impervious coverage in the amount of steep slopes. The ZBA previously stated that the applicant had designed the storm water management to handle 100 year storm water events. This fact is a requirement of the storm water ordinance and not a justification for granting excessive variances. The ZBA previously stated the added cost of required storm water management features could not be recouped by selling the number of units allowed under the Town Zoning Code. This is a misleading statement because the added cost of storm water management is directly related to the amount of impervious cover which increases with the amount of units. The other issue which needs to be address is that since currently there is no storm water management on the property, it runs directly into the lake untreated. However, if this is a justification and criteria for a variance for this increased density then the majority of properties in the Town of Lake George would be eligible for a variance. Town Code E3 states no owner of real property shall maintain a condition which due to human disturbance of land, vegetative cover or soil results into erosion of soil into any body of water. This is in the resolution and it has been discussed many times. This project will have a significant adverse affect in the neighborhood in fact if one looks at the plan it is evident that the entire lot will be cleared and the storm water from the final pond will ultimately run into West Brook and the lake. Basically she wants to reiterate the fact that currently there is no storm water management on the property but this fact does not preclude or give a reason to grant a variance and storm water management would be a lot less costly if all the trees were not to be cleared and change the grading on the site. Mike Seguljic: He comments that his comments have no reflection on the owners of the property. He wants to see if he can embarrass himself for Mr. Lapper. Chairman Santiago: He asks Mike Seguljic to direct his comments only on this project. Mike Seguljic: He recollects previously that Mr. Tom Jarrett expressed concern over the amount of impervious surfaces; he would like to know if currently the Board is satisfied with the overall density and the % coverage of impervious surfaces. The presence of old buildings and lack of storm water control on a property do not constitute any part of the criteria for the Zoning Board to make a decision. The granting of this variance does not just enable more 5

6 density on the site but it will also increase vehicular traffic and the use of our precious water and sewer services. Several sites at this intersection have been granted variances which have significantly changed the character of the neighborhood which is against the mission of this Board and he would like to remind them of this. Grant Gentner: He is confirming that Tom Jarrett s last statement on his letter states that he is comfortable with the change. The Board Members reply. He adds that in the March memo, Tom Jarrett requested some impervious surface changes, however between March and the approval the applicant made a submission with changes that were going in the right direction. When the Board approved the project, Tom knew that the project s engineer was going in the right direction with his recommendations. He adds that when they received the March memo they made some changes which gained 3% or 4% impermeability and as a result they made another submission to the Board. Another 3% was gained with tonight s particular proposal as well. He restates that the existing condition compared to the original proposed condition is a reduction in imperious cover. He would like the Lake George Water Keeper and anyone else who thinks that they are increasing impervious cover to be aware of this. In addition, they are not increasing run off but in fact they are reducing it. In answer to the water quality concern, the fact of the matter is that currently there is no water protection, there is erosion and installing measures that will filter the water and treat it before it is discharged will make for better water quality. He would like to address the character of the neighborhood concern. Currently the character of the site is horrible and his clients intent is to improve it by redeveloping it. Since the East Cove property will no longer be included, the number of units has been decreased. In terms of traffic, townhouses are not huge traffic generators and he believes that it is only through redevelopment that problems can be cleared up on a site on a slope with storm water controls. He believes that this is a good project for the Town as acknowledged by the approval except for the fact that now it is a smaller project. She is looking for clarification. The current map shows tree line on some parts of the property line adjacent to Mockingbird Hill and in her opinion how it will be in other spots. Will it be clear cut? He states that the buffer is still staying. He explains that the limits of disturbance are identified on the map and everything beyond these limits will be left as is. She confirms that there is an outline for where building and disturbance is going to be and it does not go past the tree line. He confirms that Janie Green s statement is correct. 6

7 A motion is made by Grant Gentner and seconded by Peter Keating to close the public hearing. Chairman Santiago asks the Board Members if they have any other questions. Chairman Santiago: He reviewed this project extensively and has come up with some concerns. Some of them have been discussed and address in tonight s meeting however another concern which came up in prior meetings is the water pressure. The fact that there will be fewer units should help the water pressure issue as well as the statement by Dan Ryan who mentioned that the development will have its own pump station. He adds that as the site is developed, testing will be done as the lines are installed however their plan is to install a pump station in order to isolate so that pressure is not increased in other areas such as Mockingbird Hill. He says that another project not far from Cohold, Boswell Engineering is proposing to put in a pump station on (he shows the location on the map) which will service any other projects up the road including theirs as well. Boswell can put in their private one also; however the one they are proposing will be part of the Village water system. He then confirms that if the timing works out with the Boswell project, they will be able to use the new design numbers which will probably alleviate the need for a pump on their parcel. He reaffirms that they provided sewer flows to Tom Jarrett but there will be a reduction based on the reduction in units being built. To answer Chairman Santiago s question, the impacts will be reduced because it is now a smaller project. Chairman Santiago: He believes that the water pressure was one of the main concerns with the neighbors initially. In keeping with the character of the neighborhood even though this project will change the entire look of the property it will also bring improvements. He also feels that with the reduction some of the concerns with traffic patterns, which was brought up to the Board, will be reduced as well. As for storm water by having 5 less units it is keeping with some of the recommendations that the Board originally recommended when the project was first presented. The applicant has brought enough information and correspondence to the Board where he does not have a problem with this project. Patty McKinney: She reminds the Board that a motion needs to be made that no SEQR needs to be done for the proposed changes. A motion is made by Grant Gentner and seconded by Janie Green that the proposed modifications do not involve any new or significantly different potential environmental impacts than the project as originally approved. Therefore, the previously issued SEQRA Negative Declaration is re-affirmed and no further SEQRA review is required. 7

8 A motion is made by Grant Gentner and seconded by Tom Jenne to approve modification to area variance # by Cohold as submitted with the previous conditions of the previous approval applicable. Janie - Grant - Tom - Peter - John - 3. Area Variance Application # submitted by Adirondack Mountain Ridge Estates to construct a single family residence. The applicant is requesting a 21 foot variance from a driveway infiltration device 79 feet to a wetland, a 25 foot variance from a well 75 feet to a driveway infiltration device and 37 foot variance from well to a driveway infiltration device 63 feet where 100 feet is required per Section G(2)(C), for property located at 58 Sunny West Lane ( ). Grant Gentner reads the application into the record. A motion is made by Tom Jenne and seconded by Peter Keating to accept the application as complete. Ed Rechak: He is with Adirondack Mountain Ridge Estates. This is an originally approved subdivision called Victoria s Landing and what they are looking to do is to build a home on one of the lots with Gary Zervas who is the owner of Adirondack Mountain Estates. They were hoping that Don Pigeon, their surveyor, could be at tonight s meeting but he was not able to attend. In 2007 the Board approved the building of a single family home on this lot. Subsequently some issues came up with the community septic system which is a single system with each lot having a septic tank which is then pumped into a common leach field. At that time the Board got involved with the Homeowners Association and the association would not sign off on the variance. He did not submit copies of the previously approved plans but has one with him and will share it with the Board if they wish. The original approved home was larger than the proposed one but in an effort to minimize the effect on the streams, the wet lands and to better protect and preserve the lot itself, they redesigned a new home which is smaller. This new design puts the new home away from the stream even though this stream generally dries up during the summer. Their wish is to build this home and he is not sure whether it is grandfathered since it has bee previously approved. This community has been plotted and homes have been built for a number of years, this request is not for a new lot. He understands that certain codes and rules have changed over the years to protect Lake George and the environment; however this home would have been built if it were not for the community septic issues which were beyond their control. He addresses the Board Members. If they look at the old map approved by the Planning Board it did not show the extra leg of the stream however, when it was re-plotted it shows the stream closer which results in the storm water basin being affected now. The applicant will have to appear in front of the Planning Board as well because the house plans were modified. 8

9 He asks Mr. Rechak if he knows the footprint of the old proposed house. Ed Rechak: He replies it was 52x56 with an 18x18 wood deck. He confirms that new dimensions of the new proposed house are 42x44. He asks if anyone has a calculator to determine the total reduction in square footage for the new proposed house. The Board Members advise him that it would be a 1152 sq. ft reduction. He then asks Mr. Rechack to expand on the shared septic issue since he is not familiar with what went on. He knows that the septic system is in the center with a pump station but what was the problem with septic pertaining to this lot. He adds that there were no issues with the septic pertaining to this lot. The community septic system was changed and they had to get variances which were finally approved. Tom Jenne and Ed Rachak both agree that there is no problem with the septic as far as this lot is concerned. She is asking for clarification on what happened in 2007 with the Homeowners Association. Ed Rachak replies that he was not involved with Adirondack Mountain Ridge Estates at that time and asks Gary Zervas to expand on this. Gary Zervas: He explains that the community septic system had a failure which the community had to correct. This resulted in everything being put on hold for two years. During this time the Association was involved on getting variances. In reply to the Board Members he explains that the problem with the septic system was that field one failed and then he turns to Robb Hickey for further details. He explains that there are two fields which act as alternates. The pump failed to alternate the fields and when field one became overfilled, field two began to be used. The Associations had to get a new SPDES permit and totally redesign the system. In addition there were some legal issues as well. Since then permits have been obtained by the Consolidated Board of Health, DEC and SPDES for the entire system. The Homeowners Association, the old builder and the developers were fined due to the septic system failure. In answering Janie Green s question, none of this pertains to this lot. The proposed home was part of the new SPDES permit and there should be no issues building it. He confirms that when the problem was corrected the empty lots were considered as well. Ed Rachak: He adds that the one provision is that any new home cannot exceed three bedrooms. Kathy Bozony: She asks if this application will be going to site plan review to which Robb Hickey replies. Some suggestions that she has for site plan review are to possibly increase the 10ft clearing to create an additional 9

10 buffer between the house and the wet lands area. She is wondering if some of the stone swales could be vegetative swales and permeable pavement on the driveway might be an option as well. She has no objections to this project she would like to see everything kept further away from the stream and wet lands. He adds that although the permeable pavement has an infiltration device underneath it, it still requires a variance. Mike Seguljic: He does not have much to say about the project because he is not against building a home however he is wondering why there are codes when so many variances are granted. A motion is made by Tom Jenne and seconded by Peter Keating to close the public hearing. Ed Rachak: In response to the Lake George Water Keeper, the reason they reduced the square footage of the home was to be further away from the water stream. If they try to further reduce the size of the home, the applicant will not have a marketable property in the community. However they are willing to re-think the stone swales as far as infiltration is concerned and possibly look at rain guards if the end result is better. In response to Mike Seguljic s comments, Gary Zervas and his partners own 4 lots in this community and purchased them in good faith having no idea that the septic system would be a problem. In addition when they first purchased these lots the set backs were different. He believes that the distance from a well to the septic tank at that time was 50 feet and currently Lake George Codes require 100 feet even though the applicant received a variance for this from the Consolidated Board of Health. They invested their money in this community and are trying to work out some of the issues; however he does not understand how they can be told that they cannot recuperate on their investments. In essence should this variance not be approved, it would mean that these lots are not buildable lots when two years ago they were. Grant Gentner: He confirms they the applicant is 102 ft. from the septic to the well and 30 ft. from the back corner of the house to the wetlands in the back to which Ed responds. He drove to the site and he believes that the stream is just a seasonal one which dries up in the summer. He is confused because the distances between the septic and the cased wells are 90 ft. and 70 ft. from the neighbor s well. He states that the required distance was never 50 ft. for the Town of Lake George and this project should have received a variance from the Consolidated Board of Health but it never went as far as building a home because of the septic issue. Chairman Santiago asks the Board Members if they have any questions and are they ready to make a decision. No one replies. A motion is made by Grant Gentner seconded by Tom Jenne to table this project for one more month for further review. 10

11 Janie - Grant - Tom - Peter - John - no 4. Area Variance Application # submitted by Letizia Petruzzo to obtain permits/approvals for existing 94 campsites. The applicant is requesting variances from Section E (1) the minimum area of individual campsites, (2) campsites will be no closer than 50 feet to property line, (4) number of toilet facilities for males per campsite and (5) number of toilets facilities for females per campsite, for property located at 3652 State Route 9 ( and ). Peter Keating reads the application into the record. A motion is made by Tom Jenne and seconded by Peter Keating to accept the application as complete. She has a question on the application. The classifications and uses on the other directions need to be filled in. They need to indicate north, south, east and west as stated on the application. He provides the directions as follows: the Schroon River is north, Lincoln Logs is west, McDonald s is south and Schroon River is east as well as north. She recalls that this property was in front of the Board previously within the last two years. Zack Monroe from Delaware Operations is representing the applicant. Zack Monroe: He explains that the campsite has been in existence for 40 or 50 years and after some research, the Town s records do not indicate what is currently there in terms of number of campsites. The Health Department and the APA s records indicate 100 sites whereas the Town had no real firm number on campsites. The applicant is looking to get an approval for what is there now. They previously submitted an application for 264 sites since then they decided to eliminate a number of sites and are trying to get approvals for 94 sites He recalls that approximately 5 years ago the Consolidated Board of Health gave an approval for 100 sites, subsequently they submitted and got approval from CBH for 260 sites but the applicant never went ahead with this request. The CBH approved the existing systems and flow rates on the property as they presently exist. The applicant is in front of the Board now to avoid building another bathroom since our Codes state that a campground has to have a certain number of toilets per site; this campsite never had it since they are sewered sites. 11

12 He confirms that the applicant is here to legitimize what has been grandfathered and the CBH and the APA has them at 100 sites. Zack Monroe: He agrees and clarifies that the APA, and the NYS Board of Health has them at 100 sites as for the CBH they were approved for 100 sites but has them at 94 since this is the number of sites the applicant is requesting. Chairman Santiago: He asks if this application is approved will the APA automatically have the number of sites at 94? He replies, in fact he spoke to the APA and they get to review this application and he expects a letter from stating that they have no issues with this request. She states that it all sounds very familiar. It just seems to her that the same thing has been done on this property before. Zack Monroe: He replies that Mike O Connor represented the applicant 5 years ago with a request to add 164 sites to the existing 100 with a lot of history as well. He comments that previously another family member added sites with no permits however these sites were removed and this family member is no longer involved with the campground. A discussion ensues among the Board Members. She would like to know the location of the removed sites. Zack Monroe: He replies that these sites have an X on the map. To be exact sites #3, 5, 7, 9, 11 and 13 have been removed. Chairman Santiago: He asks why the applicant is requesting a variance for 94 sites when they have been approved for 100 sites. She asks if the Board needs to overturn anything that has already been approved. He replies that the previous application was never acted on. They received site plan approval for it but it expired. She confirms that since the site plan approval expired then this application is to start over. He is confused as to how the previous application was approved without the variances. 12

13 She replies that the variances had been approved but nothing was done with it. Mike Seguljic: He wants to commend the applicants because they are actually requesting to reduce density. A motion is made by Grant Gentner and seconded by Peter Keating to close the public hearing. Chairman Santiago: He does not have any questions for the applicant. They are reducing what is there, they are legitimizing it, and the Board has granted these variances to other campsites. He also understands why the applicant would have to know exactly what is there before they proceed with another project whether it would be selling the property or developing it. A motion is made by Peter Keating and seconded by Tom Jenne to approve the application. Peter Keating reads the criteria. Janie - Grant - Tom - Peter - John - A motion is made by Grant Gentner and seconded by Peter Keating to adjourn the meeting at 7:30 p.m. Patty McKinney announces that next month s meeting will begin at 5:30 p.m. Minutes typed by Adele Behrmann. Respectfully submitted, Patty McKinney Clerk 13