MARCH12, 2019











Themeeting was called to order at 6:03 p.m.


MOTION: Toapprove the minutes to the February 19, 2019


MADE BY: Richard Goebel

SECONDED: Tony Ambrosino

VOTE: 4in favor, 0 opposed



Jeffreyand Laura Lehner would like to purchase a piece of property at 104 Van Road inthe Town of Johnstown (Tax Map Parcel No. 149.-1-44). The property is currently owned by Van RoadCorporation and is approximately 2+/- acres in size with an existing 12,000 sq.ft. building. The Lehners would like torelocate their two (2) NAPA Auto Parts store locations to this newlocation. Approximately 2,500 sq. ft. ofthe building will be used for retail space, while the remaining 9,500 sq. used for stock and inventory.

February 19, 2019 Meeting:

Duringits February 19, 2019 meeting, the Town of Johnstown Planning Board beganreviewing Jeffrey and Laura Lehner’s Site Plan for their NAPA Auto Parts Storeat 104 Van Road in the Town of Johnstown. At that time, the Planning Board asked that the following information beprovided on the final Site Plan drawing prior to the public hearing:

1. The dimensions for alldriveways and parking areas on the project site should be identified.

STATUS: The front façade of the building is shown as16’ from the property line, while the north side of the building is shown as58’ from the property line.

DISCUSSION: The Planning Board had no commentsregarding the distances identified on the revised Site Plan.

(NOTE: Planning Board Chairman Eric VanAlsltynearrived at the meeting.)

2. The distance between thehydrant and the light pole along Van Road should be identified so that thePlanning Board can ascertain if there is adequate space for tractor trailermaneuvers.

STATUS: The distance between the hydrant and thelight pole is identified as 45’. A truckturning radius of 47’ has also been provided at the end of the access driveway.

DISCUSSION: The Planning Board was comfortable withthe usage of the driveway for truck traffic.

3. Parking spaces on the frontside of the building cannot extend into the right-of-way of Van Road. Under the Town’s Zoning Law, the 2,500 sq.ft. of retail space will require 10 off-street parking spaces for customers.

STATUS: Ten (10) parking spaces, alongwith a handicap space, have been identified for the retail portion of thebusiness. However, there is a notationon the drawing indicating that there are six (6) customer parking spaces. This appears to be a clerical error. Once more, the three (3) customer parkingspaces shown on the south side of the building cannot be accessed directly froma public road. In fact, the drivewayleading to those parking spaces is not on the applicant’s property.

DISCUSSION: Planning Board Chairman Eric VanAlstyneasked if the parking spaces in front of the building were paved?

Mr.Ackerbauer indicated that the entire front area is paved.

Mr.VanAlstyne expressed some concern that the spaces in front of the building arenot really channeled through a specific entrance.

Therewere several minutes of discussion amongst Board members and the applicantconcerning the alignment of the three (3) parking spaces in front of thebuilding which included the handicap space. Several realignment suggestions were talked about.

PlanningBoard Member Ernie Niforos pointed out that the applicant’s proposed reuse ofthe building on Van Road has unfortunately created an odd parkingsituation. The Board also discussed theability to expand the parking area on the north side of the building. Board members asked if that parking areawould be paved?

Mr.Lehner indicated that eventually he would like to pave that area.

Mr.Geraghty pointed out that there doesn’t appear to be a specific access pointoff of the driveway for customers entering those parking spaces.

Mr.Niforos eventually indicated that he didn’t want to have the Planning Boardoverthink the potential customer parking problems that could occur as a resultof Mr. Lehner’s reuse of the building along Van Road. Eventually, it was agreed that, once snow isoff of the site, the Code Enforcement Office can determine where ten (10)customer spaces can be provided along with a handicap space.

(PlanningBoard Member Mike McGrail arrived at the meeting.)

4. The location and proposedscreening of any outdoor storage areas must be identified.

STATUS: A 10’ x 10’ fenced-in dumpster enclosure hasbeen shown on the backside of the building. However, the specifications for the fencing have not been identified.

DISCUSSION: Mr. Lehner indicated that he would mostlikely use a chain link fence with slats for screening. Several Planning Board members pointed outthat the dumpster location on the backside of the building will probably not bevisible from any streets.

5. While there is a Water Districtand municipal water service available to the property, there is yet to be aSewer District created along Hales Mills Road. The Planning Board asked that the final drawings verify that theexisting septic system shown on the southwest corner of the property is stillfunctioning and can serve the building.

STATUS: Originally, there was a well shown on thenortheast side of the building, which is no longer shown. A hydrant location is shown along Van Road,but no waterline tap. Furthermore, theseptic system has been moved from the southwest side of the building to thenortheast side of the building. There isstill no indication that the septic system is actually functional.

DISCUSSION: Charlie Ackerbauer, P.E., representingthe applicant, indicated that a waterline service has been installed to thebuilding. However, he did not know ifmunicipal water was currently being received from the City ofGloversville. Mr. Geraghty pointed outthat the Planning Board will need a verification as to whether or not the buildingis being served by municipal water or the well that was shown on the previousdrawing.

Mr.Geraghty reminded Board members that the well location was on the north side ofthe building which is apparently very close to where the septic system is nowbeing shown. Mr. Geraghty then pointedout that the Town Code Enforcement Office will need to see a verification thatthe septic system is in working order.

Mr.Ackerbauer indicated that he would most likely recommend hiring AdirondackSeptic to test the system and see if it is in working order or needs to berepaired and/or expanded.

6. The location of the gas lineservicing the building must be identified.

STATUS: A gas service line is shown on the northwestside of the building.

7. The location, size and designof any new signage on the property must be identified.

STATUS: Provided.

DISCUSSION: Planning Board members held a briefdiscussion concerning the size of the proposed sign.

TownCode Enforcement Officer Todd Unislawski indicated that, according to theTown’s Zoning Regulations, the sign must be under 200 sq. ft. in size.

PlanningBoard members asked if the sign advertising the current property owner’sinsurance business will be removed from the site?

BothMr. Ackerbauer and Mr. Lehner were very vague about answering the question.

Mr.Geraghty pointed out that once the current property owner sells the business,he can no longer advertise his business from a property he doesn’t own, so thesign will need to come down.

8. Any additional landscaping mustbe shown on the final drawing along with the planting schedule.

STATUS: A notation has been added to the drawingsindicating that the owners are proposing to renovate the front façade of thebuilding by removing existing material and replacing it with new windows andsiding materials. At the conclusion ofconstruction, the applicants have indicated that they will replace the existingplanter on the front side of the building with curbing and small shrubs.

DISCUSSION: The Planning Board had no commentsregarding the curbing and landscaping to be provided in front of the building.

9. The location and design of anynew exterior lighting must be shown.

STATUS: Notations are made on the drawing indicatingthat LED wall packs will be located around the upper peripheral of the buildingat intervals of 25’.

10. Alongwith the ten (10) off-street parking spaces that are required for the retailspace in the building, the Planning Board would like to see an additional 20spaces delineated on the property for delivery vehicles and employee parking.

STATUS: There are 20 employee parking spaces and five(5) delivery vehicle spaces delineated on the south side of the property.

DISCUSSION: Mr. Goebel pointed out that the surfaceof the parking area behind the building should be pretty sturdy. He indicated that the property owner iscurrently storing boats behind the building.

11. Anestimated project construction schedule must be included with the revisedsubmittal.

STATUS: A notation has been added to the finaldrawing indicating that the construction is expected to take 4 to 6 weeks tocomplete.

State Environmental Quality Review:

During itsFebruary 19, 2019 meeting, the Town of Johnstown Planning Board authorized thefiling of a negative declaration under SEQR for this proposed action. Consequently, unless new additionalinformation has been provided, no further SEQR action is necessary.

Public Hearing:

1. The public hearing was openedat 6:24 P.M.

2. Speakers:

PlanningBoard Member Mike McGrail pointed out that, although the applicant’s propertyis not part of the Hales Mills Development District, he felt it was a good signto have another business locating along that road. He indicated that he hoped the project wouldspur more interest in Hales Mills Road and get development going in theDevelopment Area.

3. The public hearing was closedat 6:26 P.M.

Planning Board Action:

Inaccordance with Article 11 of the Town of Johnstown Zoning Regulations, thePlanning Board must issue its final decision on a Site Plan application withinsixty-two (62) days of the close of the public hearing.

DISCUSSION: ThePlanning Board spent several minutes discussing issues they would like to seeresolved before granting an approval of the application.

MOTION: Toconditionally approve Jeff and Laura Lehner’s Site Plan application for an autoparts store at 104 Van Road with the following stipulations:

1. The final Site Plan drawingmust verify the water source for the building and the location of that watersource.

2. The septic system must beinspected to make sure that it is functioning properly and can service theproposed business. A notation must beadded to the final drawing to this verifying that the system is in workingorder.

3. The Town Code EnforcementOffice will be responsible for deciding where the ten (10) mandatory off-streetparking spaces for the retail portion of the business must be located. This will include the location of a handicapspace.

4. The sign on the propertyadvertising the current owner’s insurance business must be removed.

MADEBY: Mike McGrail

SECONDED: Garth Bruce

VOTE: 6 in favor, 0 opposed



HalesMills Solar, LLC (NEXAMP) received an approval of its Special Permitapplication for a Solar Farm along Hales Mills Road on November 13, 2018. Originally, Hales Mills Solar proposed theconstruction of a 4.53 megawatt DC Solar Farm on property along the east sideof Hales Mills Road between County Highway 107 and NYS Route 29 (Tax Map ParcelNo. 163.-1-52.1). The property is ownedby Larry and Bonnie Hollenbeck. Theapplicants are now proposing to amend that Special Permit approval by addingadditional panels and increasing the size of the system to a 5.71 megawatt DCsystem. Additionally, the applicantswould now like to also install four (4) new battery- storage units on theproperty. The expansion area for theproject will increase by approximately 4 acres.

DISCUSSION: Nicole Patti, representing the applicant,pointed out that New York Sun has changed its initiative and added a batterycomponent for Solar Farm projects. Shepointed out that Hales Mills Solar’s Special Permit amendment, which include abattery storage component as well as additional solar panels and posts, willinvolve expanding the project area by approximately 2.3 acres. She indicated that the applicant hasattempted to mimic the screening that was provided as part of the original SpecialPermit approval. She showed Boardmembers a line-of-sight drawing from Hales Mills Road in an effort to givePlanning Board members an idea of how visible the battery storage units will befrom Hales Mills Road.

Mr.Goebel asked how tall the battery storage units will be?

Ms.Patti indicated that the storage units will be 16’ in height, because of the ACunits on top of the containers.

Mr.VanAlstyne questioned the appearance of the storage units. He stated that the units look very much likea Conex box.

MikeCucchiara (NEXAMP) confirmed that the batter storage units will be located in aConex box type structure.

Mr.Cucchiara introduced Rob Richie to Board members. He indicated that Mr. Richie is an expert onbattery storage units and can answer any of the Board’s questions concerningthe battery storage component of the project.

Mr.Richie pointed out that New York State originally had a goal of creating 1,500megawatts of battery storage throughout the State by the year 2025. He indicated that the State is now pushing toget 3,000 megawatts of storage by 2030.

Mr.Cucchiara pointed out that New York State’s effort to develop more batterystorage will strengthen the grid and allow power companies to optimize use ofthe power generated by the Solar Farms.

Mr.Geraghty pointed out that he has received calls from other Solar Farmdevelopers who are also looking at adding a battery storage component to theirrespective projects. He indicated thatit was his understanding that New York State would like to create this supplyof battery-stored energy throughout the State so that it can reach into thatsupply during times of high power usage such as during the middle of the summerwhen everyone has their air conditioning units on. He pointed out that, otherwise, much of thepower generated by a Solar Farm during low demand times goes unused if it can’tbe stored.

County Planning Department Review:

Inaccordance with Article 10 of the Town of Johnstown Zoning Law, any enlargementor alteration of a project subject to a valid Special Use Permit shall requirea Special Use Permit amendment. Theterms and conditions of any Special Use Permit may be amended in the samemanner as required to grant a Special Use Permit. The following issues need to be addressed aspart of the review of this Special Permit Amendment:

1. The number of additional panelsto be installed as part of the Special Permit amendment must beidentified. The number of panelsoriginally proposed compared to the number of panels that are now proposedshould be clearly outlined in the proposed amendment.

DISCUSSION: Nicole Patti indicated to Board membersthat the original project called for the installation of 12,864 panels using536 posts. She indicated that theexpanded project calls for the installation of 15,864 panels and 661posts. She pointed out that the amountof disturbance on the property, resulting from the increased number of posts,will go from .04 acres to .05 acres.

2. The landscaping and plantingschedule for the original proposal called for the installation of 157 6’ highDark American arborvitaes. The plan nowcalls for the installation of 211 6’ tall Dark American Arborvitaes. The additional 54 trees are shown along theeastern and northeastern border of the property. There are no additional trees shown along thewestern boundary of the property which fronts Hales Mills Road.

DISCUSSION: Planning Board Member Dick Goebel pointedout that the ravine on the south side of the project site consists of mostlydeciduous trees that are now bare during the winter months. He indicated that he didn’t believe thosetrees would provide sufficient screening for individuals traveling along HalesMills Road during the winter months.

TheBoard spent several minutes talking about additional plantings that could beprovided along the southern border of the property. Eventually, the Planning Board agreed thatadditional 6’ high Dark American Arborvitaes should be planted along thesouthern border of the property in clusters of three (3) similar to those alongHales Mills Road. The Planning Boardasked that the clusters of trees be extended from Hales Mills Road along thesouthern boundary to a point where additional landscaping has already beenproposed just outside the southeast corner of the project site.

Mr.VanAlstyne talked about the need for additional screening for the batterystorage units. He indicated that hedidn’t want to see the Conex boxes turn into an eyesore and simply look likeold storage units on the property.

TownCode Enforcement Officer Todd Unislawski suggested moving two (2) of thebattery storage units on the east side of the access road a little bit furthertowards the north of the site. Hepointed out that this would probably reduce the visibility of those unitslooking down the access driveway from Hales Mills Road.

Mr.VanAlstyne suggested that the applicants consider moving the storage units tothe north side of the property where additional landscaping could be provided.

However,after several minutes of discussion, Mr. Richie pointed out that the batterystorage units need to be in close proximity to the inverters and this may notlogistically be a feasible solution.

3. The Decommissioning Plan forthe proposed project has went from $270,282 to $282,031. Based on the amount of additional panels andracks, as well as the storage units that will need to be removed as part of theDecommissioning Plan, this number appears to be low.

DISCUSSION: Mr. Cucchiara indicated that he would reworkthe numbers on the Decommissioning Plan. He pointed out that there is an economy of scale involved with theremoval of the additional solar panels and posts. He also indicated that the battery storageunits will hopefully be removed by simply loading the containers onto atruck. He indicated that those unitsdid not need to be disassembled.

Mr.Unislawski pointed out that, given the height of the units, the A/C units willneed to be removed from the storage units.

Again,Mr. Cucchiara stated that he would look at the Decommissioning Plan and providerevised numbers for the Planning Board at next month’s meeting.

4. Each of the four (4)battery-storage units that are proposed for the site are 53’ in length by 16’in height and 8’ in width. The batteryunits each contain HVAC units to keep the containers from overheating. The total capacity of the battery units is 14megawatt hours with a power of 3.5 megawatts.

DISCUSSION: Mr. VanAlstyne asked if there were anychemicals involved with the battery storage that could pose a problem during afire?

Mr.Richie explained that the batteries are lithium ion and do not contain anychemicals. He indicated that each of thecontainers will have its own suppression system that is monitored 24 hours aday, 7 days a week. He indicated that,if an issue occurs with one of the storage units, the owners will immediatelycontact the local fire department. Heindicated that the applicant is willing to provide training sessions for localfire companies.

Mr.Niforos and Mr. Unislawski pointed out that the training sessions will have tobe provided for all of the local volunteer fire companies since they usuallywork in unison with each other during emergency situations. Mr. Unislawski explained that there is ashortage of fire company members throughout the Town which usually results inmultiple companies responding to fires.

Mr.Cucchiara indicated that the training could be provided for all of the Town’sfire companies.

Itwas eventually decided that the applicants will go through Town CodeEnforcement Officer Todd Unislawski to make arrangements for the trainingsession.

Mr.VanAlstyne asked if there will be some type of liner beneath the batterystorage units?

Mr.Richie explained that there are no liquid components in the battery storageunits so no liner system is required.

Mr.VanAlstyne had a question regarding the type of suppression system being used?

Mr.Richie pointed out that the type of system is identified in the applicationmanual that was submitted to the Board.

Mr.VanAlstyne asked that any signage to be provided on the battery storage unitsbe identified on the revised drawings.

NicolePatti indicated that the specifications for that signage will be included onthe final drawings.

State Environmental Quality Review:

Duringits October 9, 2018 meeting, the Town of Johnstown Planning Board authorizedthe filing of a negative declaration under SEQR for this proposed action. Given the proposed amendments to the SpecialPermit application, does the Planning Board wish to reopen the StateEnvironmental Quality Review process and offer other Involved Agencies anopportunity to comment on the expanded project?

DISCUSSION: Nicole Patti again pointed out that the areaof disturbance on the property will only increase from .04 acres to .05acres. She indicated that the onlyadditional impervious surface will be the posts and pads that go beneath thebattery storage units.

Mr.VanAlstyne asked if any soil borings had been conducted on the site in order todetermine if the weight of the battery storage units can be handled in theproposed locations?

Mr.Cucchiara indicated that a geotechnical evaluation of the site wasconducted. He indicated that he couldprovide that information to the Planning Board.

Mr.VanAlstyne stated that he felt the Planning Board should know that the soilconditions will support the units. Hepointed out that each of the units is identified as 40,000 pounds.

Mr.Unislawski pointed out that the installation of the storage units will alsofall under NYS Building and Fire Code jurisdictions.

Mr.Geraghty pointed out that the Board, at a minimum, will need to have a revisedFull Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) provided for the proposed expansion.

NicolePatti pointed out that the revised Full EAF is included in the Planning Board’spackets.

Mr.Geraghty noted that, as the Lead Agency, the Planning Board has the authorityto reopen SEQR if it feels that there will be thresholds that are surpassed asa result of the expansion of the project and that different comments will bereceived from other Involved Agencies.

Afterseveral minutes of discussion, the Planning Board felt that reopening SEQR inorder to coordinate with Involved Agencies would not result in any differentfeedback from other Involved Agencies and would not result in any differentfiling of a determination of significance. Consequently, the Planning Board chose not to reopen SEQR at thistime.

Mr.Geraghty stated that, eventually, the Board will need to offer some type ofmotion recognizing that the expanded project will not require any further SEQRaction.

General Municipal Law Section 239-m:

Duringits September 18, 2018 meeting, the Fulton County Planning Board, in accordancewith Section 239-m of the General Municipal Law, reviewed Hales Mills Solar’sSpecial Permit application for a Solar Farm along Hales Mills Road. At that time, the County Planning Board feltthat the proposed action would result in no regional implications and decidedto offer no recommendation to the Town of Johnstown Planning Board regardingthis application. Does the PlanningBoard feel that the proposed Special Permit amendment should be referred backto the County Planning Board under Section 239-m given the magnitude of theexpanded project?

DISCUSSION: The initial sentiment amongstPlanning Board members was that the project should not be forwarded back to theCounty Planning Board, since the expanded project was unlikely to have anyregional implications that were not already considered by the County PlanningBoard. Board members asked Mr. Geraghtyif he felt the project should be referred back to the County Planning Board fora second recommendation?

Mr.Geraghty pointed out that the sentiment with regards to Solar Farm projects isstarting to sour the County because of one (1) particular project that has notbeen developed as proposed. He indicatedthat recent Solar Farm projects that have went before the Board have notreceived favorable recommendations under Section 239-m. Mr. Geraghty stated that the Fulton CountyAgricultural and Farmland Protection Board will be meeting next month and oneof the items on its Agenda will be a discussion on the proliferation of SolarFarms throughout the County. Mr.Geraghty stated that the general sentiment amongst farmers seems to be changingrapidly. He reminded Board members that,early on, the farming community was very much in support of the development ofSolar Farms. However, he noted thatthere seems to be a changing mindset locally and he explained that he did notwant to see this particular project looked at any differently by the CountyPlanning Board than it was the first time it was referred to that Board. On the other hand, Mr. Geraghty pointed outthat, if the Town Planning Board feels that the magnitude of the expansion issignificant enough and the addition of a battery component to the projectchanges the complexity of the project enough to warrant a referral back to theCounty Planning Board, then he would encourage the Board to do so.

Afterseveral more minutes of discussion, there was a general consensus among Boardmembers that, even though the project has been increased in size and there is anew component in the form of battery storage that has been added to the overallproject, they did not feel the County Planning Board needed to reexamine thepotential regional implications of the project. Board members felt that the additional solar panels will be screened withadditional landscaping and that the battery storage component of the project canbe managed locally through training and inspection by the Town’s CodeEnforcement Office.

Planning Board Action:

Giventhe fact that a Special Use Permit may be amended in the same manner asrequired to grant the original Special Use Permit, in accordance with Section84-54(D)(7)(a) of the Town of Johnstown Zoning Regulations, the Planning Boardshall hold a public hearing on a Special Permit application within sixty-two(62) days from the determination of the Planning Board that the application iscomplete.

MOTION: Toschedule a public hearing on Hales Mills Solar’s Special Permit Amendment for6:00 p.m., Tuesday, April 9, 2019.

MADEBY: Mike McGrail

SECONDED: Garth Bruce

VOTE: 6in favor, 0 opposed

FURTHERDISCUSSION: Planning Board Member GarthBruce asked Mr. Unislawski if Code Enforcement Officers are receiving anytraining for solar projects?

Mr.Unislawski indicated that there is some training available. He pointed out that the systems are alwaysenergized so he likes to avoid having panels on rooftops wheneverpossible. There was then several moreminutes of discussion concerning the potential hazards associated with solarpanels.



Johnstown2 Solar LLC (C2 Energy Capital) received a Special Permit approval for a SolarFarm Project along County Highway 122 on Town-owned property during the August21, 2018 meeting (Tax Map Parcel No. 148.-2-78). The property is approximately 21.3 acres insize. The Town’s Animal Shelter islocated on the property. Johnstown 2Solar is proposing to use a different panel and racking system that willincrease the height of the units from 8’ to 10’ which is still in compliancewith the Town’s Zoning Law. Given thedifferent dimensions of the panels and racking systems, the setbacks from adjacentproperty lines had to be updated. All ofthe mandatory setbacks are still being met.

Planning Department Review:

In accordance with Article 10 of the Town ofJohnstown Zoning Regulations, any change in an approved Special Use Permitwhich does not involve new construction, enlargement, exterior alteration ofexisting structures or changed use of outdoor areas can be given a certificateof compliance by the Town’s Code Enforcement Officer. Since the project does not involve anenlargement of the solar facility, does the Planning Board feel that the TownCode Enforcement Officer can still issue a certificate of compliance for theproject?

DISCUSSION: Mr. Geraghty showed Board members theSite Plans that were approved as part of the review of the original SpecialPermit application and compared the original layout with the revised layoutthat was provided by C2 Energy Capital. After a few minutes of discussion, Board members agreed that the newlayout actually looked more uniform and, given the fact that the applicant’sproposed amendment simply involves using different solar panels and a rackingsystem, the project did not require any further review by the PlanningBoard.

Planning Board Action:

MOTION: Authorizingthe Town Code Enforcement Officer to offer a Certificate of Compliance for theSolar Farm Project provided all other conditions of the Special Permit havebeen met.

MADEBY: Eric VanAlstyne

SECONDED: Ernie Niforos

VOTE: 6 in favor, 0 opposed


A. Code Enforcement Update:

(ToddUnislawski, Code Enforcement Officer)

1. Pete Vandenburg – Lot LineAmendment:

Mr.Unislawski explained that Pete Vandenburg owns a small piece of property alongthe east side of County Highway 142. Mr.Unislawski indicated that Mr. Vandenburg’s home is on the property. He explained that the surrounding property isthe Vandenburg’s farm. He indicated thatMr. Vandenburg would like to enlarge the parcel around the home to about 5acres.

ThePlanning Board quickly reviewed the survey drawing that was provided to Mr.Unislawski. Eventually, the PlanningBoard decided that Mr. Vandenburg’s property transaction is not subject to theTown’s Subdivision Regulations.

MOTION: Recognizingthat Pete Vandenburg’s property transaction along County Highway 142 is notsubject to the Town’s Subdivision Regulations and can be approved as a lot lineamendment.

MADE BY: GarthBruce

SECONDED: TonyAmbrosino

VOTE: 6in favor, 0 opposed

2. Solar Farm along NYS Route 67:

Mr.Unislawski indicated that a letter has been issued to the developers of theSolar Farm along NYS Route 67 notifying them that they are in violation of thePlanning Board’s Site Plan approval of the project and must rectify thisissue. Mr. Unislawski stated that thedevelopers have been told that all of the previous plantings must be removedand plantings that meet the specifications of the original approval must beinstalled. He indicated that he wouldkeep the Planning Board up to date on any progress that is made towardsrectifying this issue.

B. County Planning Department Update:

Mr.Geraghty pointed out that this year’s training sessions at FMCC were onlyattended by 41 individuals. Boardmembers speculated that the fact that the original date was snowed out, couldexplain the low attendance for the sessions.

C. Election of Officers:

TownCode Enforcement Officer Todd Unislawski pointed out that the Planning Boardhas not yet elected its Chairman and Vice Chairman for 2019.

PlanningBoard Member Mike McGrail stated that he felt the same slate of officers shouldserve in 2019.

MOTION: NominatingEric VanAlstyne to serve as Chairman and Dick Goebel to serve as Vice Chairmanfor 2019.

MADEBY: Mike McGrail

SECONDED: Tony Ambrosino

VOTE: 6 in favor, 0 opposed


MOTION: Toclose the meeting at 7:36 p.m.

MADEBY: Dick Goebel

SECONDED: Garth Bruce

VOTE: 6 in favor, 0 opposed