Design Review Board

DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES FINAL WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 29, 2025 6:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL ROOM CALL TO ORDER: Tammy Ehinger, Chair called the meeting of the Design Review Board to order at 6:00 P.M. PRESENT: Tamie Ehinger, Chair, Rob DuBoff, Co-Chair, Leslie DiCarlo, Geoff Wood, Allie Dockum, Jeff Gritsavage, Karen Cavotta ABSENT: Chris Bennett STAFF: Susan, Barden, City Planner, Julia Destino. A. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES: Rob DuBoff made a motion to approve the minutes from September 10 and September 24, 2025. The motion was seconded by Geoff Wood. Vote: T. Ehinger-Y, L. DiCarlo-A, G. Wood-Y, A. Dockum-Y, K. Cavotta-A, J. Gritsavage-A, Rob Duboff-Y. 4-Yes 3- Abstain. B. POSSIBLE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS: NOTE: The intent of a consent agenda is to identify any "approvable" applications without the need for further evaluation or discussion. If anyone wishes to further discuss any proposed consent agenda item, that item would then be pulled from the Consent Agenda and considered individually. 1. #20250946 110 Excelsior Ave. Verizon Utility Pole. Architectural Review of colocation of a utility pole and wireless equipment in the right-of-way within the Neighborhood Center (NC) District. 2. #20250947 217 Caroline St. Verizon Utility Pole. Architectural Review of colocation of a utility pole and wireless equipment in the right-of-way within the Urban Residential - 3 (UR-3) District. 3. #20250948 147 East Ave. Verizon Utility Pole. Architectural Review of colocation of a utility pole and wireless equipment in the right-of-way within the Urban Residential - 2 (UR-2) District. 4. #20250951 700 N. Broadway. Verizon Utility Pole. Architectural Review of colocation of a utility pole and wireless equipment in the right-of-way within the Urban Residential - 1 (UR-1) District. 5. #20250952 200 Regent St. Verizon Utility Pole. Architectural Review of colocation of a utility pole and wireless equipment in the right-of-way within the Urban Residential - 3 (UR-3) District. 6. #20250953 135 Lake Ave. Verizon Utility Pole. Architectural Review of colocation of a utility pole and wireless equipment in the right-of-way within the Institutional - Education INST-ED District. 7. #20250954 44 Fifth Ave. Verizon Utility Pole. Architectural Review of colocation of a utility pole and wireless equipment in the right-of-way within the Urban Residential - 1 (UR-1) District. 8. #20250955 78 Mitchell St. Verizon Utility Pole. Architectural Review of colocation of a utility pole and wireless equipment in the right-of-way within the Urban Residential - 3 (UR-3) District. 9. #20250936 282 Ballston Ave. Modification. Architectural Review of a modification to an approved application for exterior changes to an existing structure within the Urban Neighborhood (UN) District. 10. #20250937 2 Van Rensselaer St. Accessory Structure. Architectural Review of installation of a backyard shed within the Office Medical Business (OMB) District. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there were any concerns or comments from the Board or audience regarding the consent agenda items. There were none. Tamie Ehinger made a motion to approve the applications for colocation of Verizon utility poles at 110 Excelsior Ave., 217 Caroline St., 147 East Ave., 200 Regent St.,135 Lake Ave., 44 Fifth Ave., 78 Mitchell St. and modification to an approved application at 282 Ballston Ave., and Accessory Structure at 2 Van Rensselaer St., all within the City of Saratoga Springs, NY. The motion was seconded by Leslie DiCarlo. Vote: T. Ehinger-Y, L. DiCarlo-Y, G. Wood-Y, A. Dockum-Y, K. Cavotta-Y, J. Gritsavage-Y, Rob Duboff-Y. 7-0 in favor. Motion carried. Rob DuBoff made a motion to approve the application for colocation of a Verizon Utility Pole at 700 N. Broadway, Saratoga Springs, NY. The motion was seconded by Leslie DiCarlo. Vote: T. Ehinger-A, L. DiCarlo-Y, G. Wood-Y, A. Dockum-Y, K. Cavotta-Y, J. Gritsavage-Y, Rob Duboff-Y. 6-Yes, 1-Abstain/Recuse. Motion carried. D. DRB APPLICATIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION: Note: agenda item discussion will not begin past 10:00 p.m. 11. #20250950 144 Spring St. Verizon Utility Pole. Architectural Review of colocation of a utility pole and wireless equipment in the right-of-way within the Urban Residential - 3 (UR-3) District. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – October 29, 2025 - Page 2 of 10 Julia Monihan, Attorney with Young, Summer, and Sara Colman and Rick Andras, Verizon Consultants represented the application. They are proposing a cellular antenna to be located on a replacement utility pole adjacent to 144 Spring St. The replacement pole will be 38.5 ft. and the antenna on top brings the total height to 41.5 ft., well above the structures in the area. There will be an equipment shroud at the base of the utility pole which is required to house the electric equipment. Julia said there’s a need for this pole in the area due to lack of cell coverage, particularly during times of increased usage of Verizon Wireless Network. This will serve to eliminate any safety concerns when making an emergency call. This proposal is similar to other proposals in the historic district that were before the board in the past. They will be using the same equipment with the same antenna. Tamie noted that there is a concerned citizen who would like to comment. Geoff asked if they will be removing the existing pole once they install the taller replacement pole because that’s been an issue. Julia said the pole is owned by National Grid and they will remove the pole. Rob asked why the pole needs to be located so close to a residence and not near a corner like other poles are located. Julia said it has to serve the coverage needs of Verizon. Sara Colman said there are transformers east and west on Spring St. and in front of 122 Spring St. There’s also a pole with primary disconnects on it; National Grid will not allow them to use any of those poles. Rob said he’s aware of the controversary regarding potential radiation or cell waves affecting health and is concerned about the noise making capabilities of the electrical housing where the fan generates a lot of noise. Julia said the Verizon equipment shrouds don’t have fans inside and suggested the one Rob is talking about is an AT&T pole. Verizon doesn’t have any cooling apparatus, only vents on the side. Allie asked if a pole could be located on another street that’s not in front of someone’s house. Sara said the radio frequency engineer designates an area of where they need to be and the locations are strategically placed. Allie said there’s an old school building across the street that’s office space and seems like a possible location. Rick Andras is the person who located the antenna near Spring St. Deli and said if they move the antenna too far away in any direction they would infringe on others. Leslie asked if an antenna could be placed on top of the old school building instead of in front of an historic home with a porch that’s frequently used. Rick said the antenna will be well above the height of the house and the equipment enclosure will be located on the pole at a height between the first and second story of the house. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there were any comments from the audience. Eric Tepper, 144 Spring St. urged the Board to reject the proposal. He said the pole will be located only a few feet from their house and right outside their bedroom which has four windows. There are three residential homes directly across the street. His house is in the middle of the block, three structures down from the Spring St. Deli. They got DRB approval to restore their historic porch which they reconstructed and for which received an award from the Preservation Foundation. The installation of this antenna would be directly in front of that porch. He noted that there are two poles near the Spring St. Deli and one in front of the old school. Any one of those locations would be City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – October 29, 2025 - Page 3 of 10 better than in front of residential homes and bedrooms. He finds the equipment and tower on top unsightly for the historic district. Spring St. is very vibrant, and they are concerned about the noise and possible health effects from cell phone radiation. There are better locations. He and his wife have been Verizon cell phone users for 18 years and keep it because they have incredible service. This is not a black-out area; it’s completely covered for cell phone service. Tamie Ehinger, Chair said she’s sympathetic to Mr. Tepper’s valid points but the DRB’s role is to look at the proposal from a design perspective and determine if it’s appropriate. Location is not really within the DRB’s purview and not the best platform for this particular step in the application process. She suggested that the application could be tabled and the property owner affected could work something out with Verizon. Rob noted that the DRB does discuss and decide appropriate location of conduits with solar panel installation as well as the location of HVAC equipment. Why is this different? Julia Destino said it’s different because it’s not attached to a historic structure, even though it’s in a historic neighborhood. Jeff said planning law from a federal standpoint under freedom of speech does not allow the board to outlaw or spot zone certain things, including antennas. There are existing poles, a cobra light (not historic) and communication and electrical cables everywhere. This is a poor case for aesthetic detriment. Karen asked why the applicant had to come before DRB if the board can’t ultimately decide about the location in a historic district in front of a historic home. In her opinion it’s not appropriate to the context of this historic neighborhood. Jeff – in response to Karen said that the 8 others that came before the board tonight should be rigorously evaluated for their aesthetic merits. They are also in historic and architectural districts. Typically, the DRB decides paint colors, height, etc. to minimize the aesthetic impacts. Rob said section F. subsection 1…d. of the UDO, “Installation of Telecommunication Facilities within Historic District Overlay” – the DRB has purview over that. Geoff said it’s his understanding that the DRB considers the aesthetics and asked if the equipment housing will be painted like the other ones. Julia said Verizon has implemented comments they’ve received from the DRB in the past regarding the visual impacts and the shroud will be painted and at a height deemed appropriate in the past. Geoff asked the width of the box versus the width of the pole and the position of the box relative to the street. Julia said the shroud is the necessary size to house the equipment so there’s no room to change the size of the pole and that is the reason it’s painted to match. The height of the pole is 12 ft. above ground level, and the box unit is parallel to the sidewalk, facing the home. Julia said the applicant is willing to table the application if the board would like to continue to review and return to the workshop in a few weeks. Tamie Ehinger, Chair suggested tabling because there were a lot of unanswered questions and the board members agreed. She suggested as a neighborly gesture Verizon could connect with homeowners and discuss further. 12. #20250872 127 George St. Addition. Historic Review of a second-floor addition to an existing single-family structure within the Urban Residential – 3 (UR-3) District. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – October 29, 2025 - Page 4 of 10 Andrew Masters, owner represented the application. They propose adding a master room closet above the existing structure, along with a small balcony. They came before the DRB in 2023 for an addition and are aware of the materials required. Tamie said the design is not inappropriate. While it is in the historic district, it’s at the very back of the house and there’s minimal visibility. The cedar siding and wood railings are appropriate materials. The fiberglass door is appropriate for new construction. She has no concerns moving the project forward. Geoff had no questions or objections to the application. Tamie asked what material would be used for the floor of the porch. Andrew said it will be wood on the floor and siding. Rob questioned the proposed windows. Tamie said an Andersen 400 windows have a composite exterior and wood interior and have been approved for new construction in the past. The Andersen E series is an aluminum clad with wood interior. Rob said the applicant is open to wood or aluminum clad (Andersen E series) and either would be more compatible with the historic district. Jeff requested solid open glass in the windows instead of simulated light dividers. The applicant is agreeable to that change. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there were any concerns or comments from the audience and there were none. Karen Cavotta made a motion to approve the second-floor addition at 127 George St., Saratoga Springs, NY. with the following conditions: 1. the use of all natural wood materials including the floor; 2. the use of an aluminum clad window to be submitted for administrative approval; 3. removal of the dividers in the glass on the door. The motion was seconded by Rob DuBoff. Discussion: have the applicant submit the final specifications for the door. Vote: T. Ehinger-Y, L. DiCarlo-Y, R. DuBoff-Y, G. Wood-Y, A. Dockum-Y, K. Cavotta-Y, J. Gritsavage-Y, Rob Duboff-Y. 7-0 in favor. Motion carried. 13. #20250934167 Spring St. Exterior Modifications. Historic Review of exterior modifications to an existing two-car garage within the Urban Residential – 3 (UR-3) District. Matthew Hurff, Hurff Frost Architecture represented the applicant who is proposing to replace an existing roof on the garage with a standing seam copper roof to match the porch roof on the main residence, and to remove two overhead doors. They are requesting to remove only the door slats on the overhead doors and infill them with glazed and wood panels. All of the existing casings, jams and trims will remain. The existing slab of the garage will be taken up and replaced, and they will be installing a small powder room. The design goal is to make the structure easily convertible back into a garage if they chose to in the future. Tamie said it’s a cool look and feel but it’s totally inappropriate for a historic building. The city’s guidelines on doors state: “doors and frames are critically important decorative elements of a historic home. Historically, door designs (all types) include double wood doors, single doors, wood panels, wood doors with glass lights, etc. Every effort should be made to preserve original or historic doors as well as associated City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – October 29, 2025 - Page 5 of 10 functional and decorative features including door frames, sills, heads, jams and moldings. Do not alter or enclose important architectural features such as sidelights or transoms. Deteriorated or missing pieces should be replicated with materials that match the original. Relocating or altering an original door opening is discouraged, particularly on a primary façade”. This is a historic carriage house, and the garage doors are a character defining feature. Tamie said she could not support those changes to the doors. In a letter submitted by the Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation they noted that they would not support replacement of the garage roof with copper. Tamie said the existing garage roof is standing seam metal and she is fine with replacing it with a copper standing seam roof. Allie agreed with the roof replacement of standing seam copper but not the garage doors because they are historic. Rob asked if the applicant is required to submit a door schedule. No, not required. He said the overhead doors look to be original and date back to the 30’s; they could be the oldest in town. Matthew said Overhead Door did patent designs in the 1920’s and they were an original company in Detroit Michigan. Most of the doors in the 1930’s were in that area. Widespread use of overhead doors doesn’t happen until after WWII. Statistically speaking these were probably not the first doors to be put on the building. They were likely put in between 1945 and 1955. Rob said he observed the doors up close and noticed that the plywood was separating and he’s not sure how they would be fixed. Matthew said they considered putting a wall up behind the overhead doors, but they would need to put a door somewhere else. Rob asked if the chimney is functional. Matthew said it’s not functional and the heating will be electric. Rob’s okay with the copper roof, it’s compatible. He’s not 100% on the rest of what’s been presented and is concerned about the loss of the doors even though they’re deteriorated and have been compromised. Leslie agrees with Rob. The design is lovely and attractive, but it would no longer look like a two car garage/carriage house. If replaced it should continue to look like a two-car garage. Putting a door on the side would not alter it. Karen agreed that the design is wonderful and the existing doors are quite beautiful. She would like to get a closer look at the doors before deciding about replacing them. Jeff said this is not a carriage house. It’s a mid-century two-car garage. The applicant is willing to preserve the doors and it’s reversible. He’s good with the application and it’s a really good readapted re-use of the garage. Geoff said the Foundation made it clear that it’s a garage and an important character defining feature of the neighborhood. In his opinion it’s important to keep the existing look especially because it can be clearly seen from the street. If the doors are determined not to be original it would make a difference to him. He’s okay with the copper roof. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there were any concerns or comments from the audience and there were none. Tamie suggested that because the board is mixed on their opinion about the garage doors, that the board visit the site prior to the next workshop and only vote on the roof at this time. Matthew asked if the historic guideline section on doors which states City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – October 29, 2025 - Page 6 of 10 “entrance doors and frames” applies to doors that are not an entrance and not a house. Tamie said the sentiment is the same if it’s a character defining feature of the structure. Geoff Wood made a motion to approve the copper, standing seam garage roof at 167 Spring St., Saratoga Springs, NY. The motion was seconded by Jeff Gritsavage. Vote: T. Ehinger-Y, L. DiCarlo-Y, R. DuBoff-Y, G. Wood-Y, A. Dockum-Y, K. Cavotta-Y, J. Gritsavage-Y, Rob Duboff-Y. 7-0 in favor. Motion carried. The board discussed considering the possibility of allowing the applicant to relocate the entry door to the side façade of the garage. Matthew said he would discuss that possibility with the owners. 14. #20250591 24 Fifth Ave. Façade Change. Historic Review of exterior modifications to an existing carriage house structure within the Urban Residential – 1 (UR-1) District. Dennis McGowen, Balzar and Tuck represented the applicants who were approved for a Special Use Permit in September 2025 to convert the second floor of their carriage house into a secondary dwelling unit. The carriage house is located on Tifton Lane (behind the Fifth Ave. property) but the two parcels were combined in 2021 making it part of the Fifth Ave. parcel. They are not proposing any changes to the footprint; the modifications will be within the carriage house. It’s a 3-bay garage/carriage house with an existing swinging door on the east side that would be walled off and become part the primary entrance for the second-floor unit. They are proposing to remove the hayloft door (made of wood and beadboard) on the north elevation, keeping its width, extending the height and replacing it with French doors with a railing and Juliet balcony to allow for more light and for egress for the second floor sleeping area. There are two wood windows on the south façade, a casement and double hung; both of which have deterioration and rotting wood that they are proposing to replace with metal clad wood windows (photos supplied). The remainder of the windows on the carriage house were replaced with metal-clad wood and vinyl windows by a previous owner. They were unable to open the casement window. Tamie thanked the applicant for showing the existing and future elevations next to each other making it very easy to review. She said an owner can only replace windows in a historic building if they are beyond repair, and they need to be replaced in kind. She read the guidelines for windows and doors highlighting that they are character defining features of the carriage house. Should they be replaced, original trim details and configuration – size, shape, location and proportion should be maintained. The hayloft door is a character defining feature of the carriage house and it would be a dramatic change to replace it. It changes the character of the building, and she would not support it. Dennis said they anticipated that response from the DRB given the letter from the Preservation Foundation. They offered an alternative to keep the opening and to use the hayloft door like a shutter with a window behind it. They need to have egress from this space and there are no other exterior walls to egress from. The door would swing out and give the appearance that it’s a shutter with an in-swinging French window. Tamie said if the board agrees that the windows are deteriorated beyond repair, then she would be okay with them being replaced in-kind. Dennis said the bottom sash is City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – October 29, 2025 - Page 7 of 10 soft to touch, not damp and just degraded. The muttons have rot in multiple places, and they would need to cut them out and replace it with new wood to get it back to good condition. Geoff said the original proposal to change the hayloft door was way too modern. It’s a character defining feature of the carriage house. He liked the second proposal that would be keeping it in the same location. If the windows can’t be repaired, they should be replaced in-kind with wooden windows. Jeff said he’s okay with the 2nd proposal for the hayloft door. The photos of the deteriorated windows don’t show enough for him to decide about repair versus replacement. Rob noted that one of the windows is in the attic space and not accessible. He is opposed to replacement of the windows. He went on to the property and looked at the windows, and they can be easily restored and should be retained. The windows may not be visible from Ludlow, but they are from Madison. The hayloft door solution is interesting, and he suggested having the door move on a track. The knob and tube should be kept and moved somewhere else on the building. Rob asked where the HVAC equipment will be located. Dennis said it would be located on the right side of the building, behind the shrubbery and points away from the closest neighbor. The DRB would need to see where the HVAC and venting will be located. Karen agreed with the hayloft door solution and that the windows should be repaired if possible, but noted they’re not on the prominent side of the building. Leslie would like to know more about the condition of the windows but agreed with Karen that they’re not very visible. The most important thing is hayloft door, and the slider seems like a good idea as long as the opening stays the same. Allie agreed with other board members’ comments and said the hayloft door is a special thing that should be saved. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there were any concerns or comments from the audience and there were none. Rob offered to go to the site to document the condition of the windows and report back to the board. They are proposing Marvin ultimate inswing French casement window, white aluminum clad wood (simulated divided light) which is the same as what was done to the rear addition of the main house. The applicant will return with finalized plans for the hayloft door and documentation noting whether the windows will be repaired or replaced as well as the location of the mechanicals. 15. #20250869 38 Beekman St. Modification. Architectural Review of a modification to an approved application within the Arts & Cultural (AC) District. Shawn Corp, Reveal Architecture Design represented the applicant. The applicant received architectural approval in June of 2024 and was asked to return showing that the 3 exterior doors on the front of the building are wood doors and details of the 2-story covered porch on the front of the building. They are also asking for approval for some City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – October 29, 2025 - Page 8 of 10 modifications that have been made to the design. They have moved windows around from what was previously approved and changed some of the proportions to more accurately reflect the proportions that were there originally. There’s a small, covered entry on the northeast corner that they are proposing to change the design slightly. They are asking for two emergency egress windows in the basement. Shawn showed sketches of the new placement of the windows and the house in context of the neighborhood. The new design shows 2-story porches with balusters and metal pipe railing and brick piers similar to what’s on the neighboring side porch. Several of the materials were previously approved – fiber cement siding and trim, asphalt shingles, aluminum clad wood windows, mahogany tongue and groove decking and wood porch posts and wood railings, balusters and newel posts. The Simpson Wood Doors will be on the front of the building as well as the side porch. They are asking to disassemble and rebuild the existing roof and presented a letter from the engineer stating why this is necessary. The existing roof rafters are 2” by 6” (24” on center). To meet today’s loads, it would require 2” by 12” rafters, 16” on center. Shawn showed photos of the current roof rafters that show signs of a fire and where the original decking has been replaced with plywood sheathing. As the roof is failing it’s pushing the walls out, particularly on the south wall and the stairs are out of plumb. They would like to remove the existing roof, plumb up the walls and reframe it with 2” by 12” rafters that meet code. Tamie reminded the board that some of the materials were approved. What is being proposed for the front façade is very appropriate and it will look great! The windows should not be altered – removing or covering an opening and they’re being changed everywhere. Adding one in is better and she’s not opposed to what’s being done on the front. On the north side entrance is great with all natural materials and pipe rail booster railing is great. Regarding the roof, the letter is good, and she is not against reframing the interior. With the exception of the rafter tails, it doesn’t really affect the exterior. Shawn said the same detail will be added back for the rafter tails. They’ll save one to use as a template. Rob said the board has already approved the addition and movement of windows on the north, south and east facades. He said it’s necessary that the proportions of the windows match the existing proportions. Rob suggested a metal roof over the front porch as opposed to asphalt to prevent snow buildup that would eventually rot the attic window. He asked if there would be a gutter system. Shawn said they would be putting a half round gutter on the covered porch with a leader coming down. Rob said he would like to see a drawing of exactly how the roof is going to be reconstructed. He would like to see a section delineating exactly how the contractor will construct the roof while maintaining the historic form and shape of the roof. Allie said she doesn’t have a problem with the windows or the doors; the natural light is great. She commended the applicant for restoring the building and giving a great “gift” back to the neighborhood. Leslie agreed with everything that’s been said. She’s happy with the proportion of the railings and the rod above it. Karen said it’s a great project and she’s happy that the rafter tails will be added back in. She noticed that most of the porches don’t have gutters and if water’s not a problem, she would almost rather not see it. Shawn said rainwater falling two stories on the steps would be a problem. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – October 29, 2025 - Page 9 of 10 Jeff said he has no problem with the change in fenestrations based on what’s being proposed. The roof is in bad shape and needs to be replaced. It will be stick built as opposed to a truss roof and that’s appropriate. He’s prepared to advance the project as proposed. Geoff said the proposed changes to the previous changes are an improvement. The fenestrations have changed over the years. The gutter and dripping of water and ice buildup on the sidewalk is not good so he’s in favor of the gutters. Another way to handle that would be a heated sidewalk. He likes this project; the house has been an eyesore in the neighborhood, and this will be a great improvement. He supports the project as proposed. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there were any concerns or comments from the audience and there were none. Shawn suggested a metal roof for the side porch as well as the front porch. Jeff clarified that it should not be corrugated metal. Shawn noted that their previous approval is set to expire in December of this year and asked if they needed to request an extension. Rob asked about venting and Shawn said it would all go out at the back of the building and would be painted to match the house. Rob DuBoff made a motion to approve modifications to an approved application for 38 Beekman St., Saratoga Springs, NY with the following conditions: 1. Standing seam or flat seam metal porch roofs, 2. Roof section showing construction of soffit, rafter tails and front gable exterior framing to be submitted administratively, 3. An additional 18 months is granted from original approval expiration date. The motion was seconded by Leslie DiCarlo. Vote: T. Ehinger-Y, L. DiCarlo-Y, R. DuBoff-Y, G. Wood-Y, A. Dockum- Y, K. Cavotta-Y, J. Gritsavage-Y, Rob Duboff-Y. 7-0 in favor. Motion carried. Jeff Gritsavage made a motion to adjourn the meeting. The motion was seconded by Geoff Wood. All in favor, motion carried. Respectfully submitted by Donna Gizzi, Recording Secretary MINUTES APPROVED ON DECEMBER 10, 2025. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – October 29, 2025 - Page 10 of 10