Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2013-11-19TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Tuesday. November 19. 2013 AGENDA 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Final Site Plan Approval and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed Cayuga Meadows Senior Housing development (formerly Conifer Senior Living on West Hill) located to the south of West Hill Drive near the Overlook Apartments, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 24-4-5.2, Multiple Residence Zone. The proposal involves developing approximately 5.697 +/- acres of the property for a new 3-story, 68 unit senior housing facility (19,520 +/- square foot footprint) on a new road off of West Hill Drive. The project will also include new sidewalks around the facility with a connection to the existing bus shelter on West Hill Drive, new stormwater facilities, parking, a community garden, signage, outdoor lighting, and landscaping. Cornell University, Property Owner; Conifer Realty, LLC, Applicant; Jess D. Sudol, PE, Passero Associates, Agent. 2. Persons to be heard 3. Approval of Minutes: November 5, 2013. 4. Other Business - Report from Town Engineer on approved lot line adjustment. 5. Adjournment Susan Ritter Director of Planning 273-1747 NOTE: IF ANY MEMBER OF THE PLANNING BOARD IS UNABLE TO ATTEND, PLEASE NOTIFY SANDY POLCE AT 273-1747. (A quorum of four (4) members is necessary to conduct Planning Board business.) TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD MEETING Tuesday, November 19, 2013 215 N. Tioga Street, Ithaca, NY 14850 Board Members Present: Fred Wilcox(Chair), Linda Collins,Joseph Haefeli,John Beach,Yvonne Fogarty, Paula Wedemeyer,Jon Bosak, Hollis Erb Staff Present: Sue Ritter, Director of Planning; Dan Tasman, Senior Planner; Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement; Dan Thaete, Civil Engineer; Susan Brock,Attorney for the Town; Deb DeAugistine, Deputy Town Clerk Call to Order Mr. Wilcox called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. AGENDA ITEM Public Hearing: Consideration of Final Site Plan Approval and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed Cayuga Meadows Senior Housing development(formerly Conifer Senior Living on West Hill) located to the south of West Hill Drive near the Overlook Apartments, Town of Ithaca Tax Par- cel No. 24-4-5.2, Multiple Residence Zone. The proposal involves developing approximately 5.697 +/- acres of the property for a new 3-story, 68 unit senior housing facility(19,520 +/-square foot foot- print) on a new road off of West Hill Drive. The project will also include new sidewalks around the facility with a connection to the existing bus shelter on West Hill Drive, new stormwater facilities, parking, a community garden, signage, outdoor lighting, and landscaping. Cornell University, Prop- erty Owner; Conifer Realty, LLC, Applicant;Jess D. Sudol, PE, Passero Associates,Agent. Mr. Wilcox opened the public hearing at 7:06 p.m. Brian Donato, Conifer Realty, gave a brief overview of the project. They're going to submit their plan for funding to the State on Dec. 5.The change in the project since preliminary site plan approval is that it went from 72 to 68 units to better fit the State's program. John Caruso, Engineer, Passero Associates, stated that the plan hasn't changed other than the num- ber of units and the things the Planning Board requested at preliminary site plan approval.This pro- ject will compete with other projects for tax credits. Getting final approval from the Board will let the project rank higher because they'll be ready to go to construction. Mr.Wilcox reminded everyone that on April 3, 2012, the applicant was granted preliminary site plan and subdivision approval. He pointed out that on certain pages of the plan, it says 62 units. Mr. Bosak stated that the main issue is the lighting, and asked how they plan to address the list of concerns in Mr. Tasman's memo. Mr. Caruso said the lighting is shown on the floor plan drawing.They adjusted it to LED from the original plan. Mr.Tasman said that one concern is that some of the building-mounted lighting is shown on interior floor plans, but the Planning Board doesn't approve building plans.There is lighting proposed for Planning Board Minutes 11.19-2013 Page 2 of 11 under the soffits, but it is not shown on the elevation drawings. Mr. Sudol did submit details on what's planned.There is a lighting law in the Town that regulates light output and shielding. Lighting above a certain output(1000 lumens) has to be shielded. So lighting was made a condition of approv- al. Mr. Erb said that the patio lights weren't shown on any drawing. She wanted to know how a person would control their own patio lighting. She asked about other objects on the drawing. Mr. Donato explained that the patio light will be controlled by a switch inside the unit. He said that everyone has a maintenance closet.The free-standing square is a condenser. Ms. Collins stated that handrails were discussed at preliminary site plan approval, and it looks like they were added. She pointed out that the sidewalk to the front entrance is 30 to 40 feet long and wondered whether they had considered lighting it, because it's a long way to go from the building. Ms. Erb suggested small bollard lighting. Mr. Haefeli asked about the bus stop. Ms. Erb commented that it's not on their property. Ms. Fogarty wondered whether there was room for the bus to come around and pick people up at the building. Mr. Caruso responded that they were willing to build a park and ride, but TCAT did not want to maintain the facility. Mr.Wilcox added that TCAT won't back up and they prefer to use public property for their stops. He didn't think they would agree to go through the Conifer property. Mr. Bosak pointed out that the Board had this discussion for Holochuck, and TCAT would not go on Holochuck's property. Considering their financial situation, he said he could understand why they would not want to maintain a park and ride. Mr. Tasman made a correction to the staff report because he had made an incorrect interpretation of the sign code.The Zoning Board has made an interpretation that says that if the supports are outside the face area of the sign, the supports are included in the sign area. Based on that interpretation, the sign would not conform to the sign code. The Board agreed to make that a condition. Ms. Erb thanked them for the deer fencing and the scattering of benches. Ms. Collins pointed out that the door adjacent to the big door from the east porch looks like the door to nowhere.All the other doors exit onto a sidewalk that connects to the main sidewalk, but that door just leads onto the lawn. Mr. Caruso responded that that's an emergency access door. Ms. Fogarty asked whether the applicant had satisfied the section of Local Law No. 7 of 2012 that deals with the maintenance of stormwater management facilities. Planning Board Minutes 11-19-2013 Page 3 of 11 Ms. Brock responded that that's a condition prior to being granted a building permit. It's standard for all the bigger developments. The easement allows the Town, under an emergency situation, to go in and do work. The Town can then charge the property owner and put a lien on the property if they don't pay. Because part of the stormwater is not on the applicant's property, the Town will also need an agreement with Cornell. She pointed out the conditions in the resolution. Ms. Brock agreed to email Board members samples of the newest agreements. Ms. Fogarty asked whether the details called for in the landscaping section of Local Law No. 7 of 2012 are incorporated into this plan. Mr. Caruso responded that, yes, there's a significant bio-swale shown on drawing C103 at the south- east corner; it looks like a swimming pool. It collects water from the parking lot and the building roofs. Ms. Brock added that it goes onto the Cornell property, as shown on Sheet C 105 and labeled as "temporary." There was discussion regarding use of the word "temporary." Mr.Thaete said that if there's no development below this property, nothing will need to be changed. Mr. Caruso stated that the design solution is permanent. Ms. Brock said that it will remain in place if and until the Town signs a new easement. Mr. Thaete stated that the stormwater management meets all State requirements, including the new green infrastructure practices requirement. Ms. Fogarty said her concern is the condition of the roads in the County; after the rains of this sum- mer, some roads were destroyed. If the water is running under Route 96, she hopes it will be taken care of. Mr.Thaete explained how he makes a determination on whether the stormwater plan is sufficient. The State puts out standards as to what the applicant has to meet. They've met the requirements.We have been through the lengthy process with them. We asked for that long swale with the dissipation pool. This dissipation pool will help to alleviate the big `slug' of water exiting the proposed site. Mr. Caruso said that the damage you see on the roads is erosion. These pools slow down the speed of the water. Ms. Ritter said we can only plan for so much; the culverts are only so big. Mr.Thaete said that there's been an increase in the intensity of rainfall, not the amount of rainfall. We try to model it the best we can using the engineering practices we've learned throughout the years. Applicants are required to build to the 100-year-storm model. Planning Board Minutes 11-19-2013 Page 4 of 11 Mr. Bosak said that he lives a mile from this location, and on August 8, he got 2.6 inches of rain in one hour. In the space of 24 hours, he got 4 3/4 inches of rain. He asked whether this setup, as de- signed, will handle that amount or whether that is beyond the design parameters. Mr.Thaete said he couldn't give an exact answer as they would have to model the storm to see if it would work. The applicant is only required to meet the current runoff standards/intensities provided by the State,which are based upon historical averages. These averages change very slowly over time. The applicant has met the current runoff criteria provided by the State. Mr. Caruso said it should be pretty close since they're modeling for 4 inches of rain. He thinks the 100-year storm is about 4 inches over 24 hours. Mr. Bates was asked why the road does not have a name yet. He said that for the proposed Holochuck project, all the names are in the County system and will remain there forever even though the project is not going to be built. For this reason, it's better to wait until the project is going to be built. He said the number of the building will be 108 no matter what they name the road. The applicant generally suggests three names,which Mr. Bates checks against the County system, and then they agree on a name. The problem with this road is that it will eventually go on, so Cornell will need to be involved in the naming. They are a property owner adjacent to this project.At this time, the name of the road is not important because there's nothing there. Mr. Bates inquired about the tentative start date. Mr. Caruso responded that they will start within three months. They'll submit the names once they know the project is funded. Ms. Erb asked whether they brought building material swatches. The applicant team did a show-and-tell of the swatches. The architect explained that they were using 35 year architectural shingles and real brick. The Board was pleased. Ms. Collins asked about the styling of the lights. She said she liked the craftsman-style wall sconces and asked why there are the two types of lights that don't match. The architect responded that they could tweak the porch lights to a more craftsman or colonial style. Ms. Fogarty commented that there is only one laundry room located in the three-story building with 68 units. The architect responded that there's a laundry room on the second floor. It's in the middle of the building to centralize the laundry room.They like to get people on each floor, so they don't all go to the first floor. Putting the laundry on the second floor makes it so no one has to go two levels down. One is enough for the number of people in the building. New York State Homes and Community Renewal has strict guidelines on how many washers and dryers they will allow: the ratio of residents to washers and dryers is 10 to 1. This is on a list of design requirements needed for the funding. Mr. Donato said there's a similar number of washers and dryers at Conifer Village, and they haven't run into any issues. Mr. Wilcox closed the public hearing at 8 p.m. Planning Board Minutes 11.19-2013 Page 5 of 11 Ms. Brock said that the numbers for acreage of the road and the remaining land of Cornell are incon- sistent between the site plan packet and the subdivision map. The subdivision map shows the road parcel as 0.961 acres; the site plan shows it as 0.902 acres. The remaining lands of Cornell are shown as 28.965 versus 28.900. Even when added up, they don't come out the same amount of acreage. Mr. Caruso said he believed the subdivision map to be the correct document and that he would check to make sure. Ms. Brock said she checked the minutes of last February and April to remind herself of all the issues that were talked about. In February, there was a discussion about where all the construction activity would take place. The minutes say that Mr. Caruso "agreed to indicate on the final site plan map that all construction activity would take place on site and interior to the site." She doesn't see a note about that on the drawings. Mr. Caruso responded that it is their intent to have all the construction equipment on site. He point- ed out that the road they're building will be a good place to park while the workers are paving the parking lot. PB Resolution No. 2013.046:Cayuga Meadows (formerly Conifer Senior Living on West Hill), Final subdivision and final site approval, Tax parcel 24.4.5.2, Town of Ithaca Planning Board, November 19, 2013 Moved by Hollis Erb; seconded by Linda Collins WHEREAS: 1. This action is consideration of final subdivision and final site plan approval for the proposed Ca- yuga Meadows Senior Housing Development located off West Hill Drive, Town of Ithaca tax par- cel 24-4-5.2, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves: Subdivision of a ±4.8 acre lot and ±1 acre right-of-way from an existing ±34.7 acre lot(tax parcel 24-4-5.2). A new three story, 68 unit independent living facility(±19,520 square foot footprint) on the new ±4.8 acre lot, fronting a new road (±1 acre right-of-way) off of West Hill Drive. The project will al- so include new sidewalks around the building and connecting to the existing bus shelter on West Hill Drive, new stormwater facilities, parking, a community garden, signage, outdoor lighting, and landscaping. Cornell University, owner; Conifer Realty, LLC, applicant; Passero Associates, agent; and 2. This is an Type 1 action, for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as lead agency in a coordinated environmental review for this project, on April 3, 2012 (preliminary subdivision and site plan approval), made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having re- viewed and accepted as adequate a Full Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the Planning Board Minutes 11.19-2013 Page 6 of 11 applicant, a Part II prepared by Town Planning staff, and other application materials; and 3. On April 3, 2012, at a public meeting, the Town of Ithaca Planning Board granted preliminary subdivision approval and preliminary site plan approval for the proposed project,with conditions; and 4. On May 7, 2012, at a public meeting, the Town of Ithaca Town Board adopted Local Law 7 of 2012, amending Chapter 270 of the Code of the Town of Ithaca to rezone the site from Medium Density Residential (MDR) to Multiple Residence (MR), and accepted the concept and location of a public road and public utilities proposed to be dedicated to the Town; and 5. On June 18, 2012, at a public meeting, the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board approved variances from the conditions of Zoning Code sections §270.104 (minimum area per dwelling unit in an MR zone), §270.105 (building height), §270.106 (building setback) and §270.111 B (additional special requirements/recreation) for the proposed independent living facility; and 6. The Planning Board, at this public hearing, has reviewed and accepted as adequate application materials, including S-1 subdivision map (December 8, 2009, revised November 4, 2013), C 100 final overall plan(December 2011, revised October 18, 2013), C 101 final site plan, C 102 final utility plan, C 103 final grading and erosion control, C 104 final landscaping and lighting plan, C 105 final profiles, C 200/C 201/C 202 final details (December 2011, revised October 15, 2013), prepared by Passero Associates;A4/A5: elevations (December 12, 2012), prepared by Harris A Sanders Architects; sign details (received October 16, 2013), Cayuga Meadows exterior colors (re- ceived November 6, 2013), and other application materials; IT IS RESOLVED: 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board grants final subdivision approval for the proposed Cayuga Meadows Senior Housing Development subdivision, as described in the materials referenced above, subject to the following conditions: a. Submission for signing by the Chairperson of the Planning Board of an original or mylar copy and three dark-lined prints of the final subdivision plat, revised, if necessary, to show accurate acreage figures for the road parcel and for Lot 2, before filing with the Tompkins County Clerk's Office, and submission of a receipt of filing to the Town of Ithaca Planning Department; and b. Evidence of any necessary approval by the Tompkins County Health Department, before the plat is signed by the Planning Board Chair. IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED: 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board grants final site plan approval for the proposed Cayuga Meadows Senior Housing Development, as described in the materials referenced above, subject to the following conditions: Planning Board Minutes 11-19-2013 Page 7of11 a. Submission of one original set of final site plan drawings revised, if necessary, to show accurate acreage figures for the road parcel and for the remaining lands of Cornell University, signed and sealed by the registered land surveyor, engineer, architect or landscape architect who prepared the site plan materials, before application for any building permits; and b. Submission of revised final site plan drawings showing the following, before application for any building permits. • Correct number of dwelling units (68),where the number of dwelling units is indicated. • Revised planting schedule that indicates all flowering ornamental trees to be planted will have a diameter at breast height of at least 2.5 inches. • Revised location and size of the proposed freestanding sign, conforming to Town sign regulations, or receipt of any necessary sign variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals. • Elevations of the dumpster enclosure, the design of which must conform to Local Law 7 of 2012 (rezoning from MDR to MR, development standards for the site). • Location, type, and specifications of all freestanding and building-mounted light fixtures (including the addition of lighting illuminating the east walkway and stairs), which must conform to the Town lighting law. • A note stating all construction activity will be contained on site; and c. Submission of documentation of all necessary approvals from county and state agencies before application for any building permits; and d. Submission of and entry into a stormwater "Operation, Maintenance, and Reporting Agreement" between Conifer Realty and the Town of Ithaca, to include easements or other mechanisms to assure the Town of Ithaca access to all stormwater facilities, satisfactory to the Attorney for the Town and the Town of Ithaca Public Works Department, before application for any building permits; and e. Submission of and entry into a stormwater "Operation, Maintenance, and Reporting Agreement" between Cornell University and the Town of Ithaca, to include easements or other mechanisms to assure the Town of Ithaca access to all stormwater facilities, satisfactory to the Attorney for the Town and the Town of Ithaca Public Works Department, before application for any building permits; and f. Submission of final sanitary sewer and water main easements for review and approval by the Attorney for the Town and the Town of Ithaca Public Works Department, and filing of those approved easements with the Tompkins County Clerk's Office, before application for any building permits; and g. Submission of a truck hauling plan detailing the removal of excavated and waste material, including the delivery route during construction, showing use of State highways to the greatest extent practicable, and with no truck convoys traveling into the City of Ithaca on weekdays from 7:30 AM to 9:00 AM and 3:30 PM to 5:00 PM, for review and approval by the Town of Ithaca Public Works Department, before any work begins on the site; and h. Compliance with all conditions listed in the Engineering Memorandum from Daniel Thaete, PE, dated 11/18/2013. Planning Board Minutes 11.19-2013 Page 8 of 11 Vote Ayes:Wilcox, Collins, Wedemeyer, Beach, Fogarty, Bosak, Erb AGENDA ITEM Persons to be heard - Nobody came forward to address the Board. AGENDA ITEM Approval of Minutes PB Resolution No. 2013.047: Minutes of November 5, 2013 Moved by Fred Wilcox; seconded by Hollis Erb WHEREAS, the Town of Ithaca Planning Board has reviewed the draft minutes from the meeting on November 5; now therefore be it RESOLVED, the Town of Ithaca Planning Board approves the minutes, as amended, to be the final minutes of the meeting on November 5. Vote: Ayes: Wilcox, Collins, Fogarty, Beach,Wedemeyer, Bosak, Erb AGENDA ITEM Other Business Ms.Wedemeyer had a question about building material samples. She asked what would happen if someone showed up with hot pink and bright orange samples, and whether the Planning Board has the ability to object to the applicant's color choices. Beauty is subjective. Mr.Wilcox responded that the Planning Board has the right for certain site plans and subdivisions. Ms. Ritter added that the Town has no regulations or standards right now, but she thinks we will eventually. It's tricky because one person may like pink, but someone else may not. In the past, there was an issue when one Planning Board member didn't like blue roofs, but other members did. If there was an issue in terms of scenic resources, and this was an important scenic area, it would be appropriate for the Planning Board members to say they'd want something that blends in and that doesn't stand out. Ms. Erb asked about preserving the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Tasman responded that it might be an issue if it was a historic neighborhood. The character of the neighborhood isn't necessarily static or frozen in time, so Ithaca is a town where neighborhoods are constantly growing and changing, and he doesn't think anyone expects them to be frozen in time at x point. With the rise of contemporary architecture,you might expect a building to come along Planning Board Minutes 11.19-2013 Page 9 of 11 that has somewhat different colors than your typical ranch or colonial-style house that's been painted in muted tones. It can be a value judgment because some communities decide they don't want garish colors,whereas other communities value individuality or creativity. Ultimately, when we come up with architectural regulations,which is something that is recommended by the Comp Plan, these questions are going to be answered in the form of regulations. Mr. Bosak stated that the question that has been on his mind for five years, but which he's never had occasion to ask, is about the place in the Planning Board's procedure where these issues are raised. These are SEQR issues.They deal with aesthetics. We don't ask about these colors until we're way past SEQR and into site plan.The laying on of hands doesn't happen until the very end. Mr. Wilcox said he doesn't think anyone is going to argue over the shade of green, because that's aes- thetic. The question is: are the colors reasonable? Mr. Bosak said that his question is about authority. If we say at that end of the process,when we're long past SEQR and we've done everything else under site plan review, that that's an ugly shade of green,what is our authority for making this applicant do it?And if we have no authority, why are we asking? Mr. Tasman responded that as part of the SEQR process, we did look at scenic resources because it's viewable from across the lake. Not every project is going to be like that. Mr. Bosak said he understands that.What he's talking about is the point at which they're actually bringing in samples. Ms. Ritter said that we don't have architectural review as part of site plan review process. It appears in our checklist; it's in the Town code for what the Planning Board should see. Mr. Bosak asked what would happen if the Planning Board said,we're now at the point where we'd like to see your samples, and the applicant said forget it. Ms. Ritter said that she thinks it's a good question as to whether the Planning Board should be seeing samples and what they're expecting. Mr. Bosak asked what gives the Planning Board the authority to even bring this up. If it's a scenic resource issue, it's a SEQR issue, not a site plan issue. Ms. Ritter agreed and said that for Holochuck, she thought the Board looked at colors during SEQR. Mr. Bosak asked, since we didn't ask them to bring samples in during SEQR, what authority do we have to bring them in afterwards? Mr. Tasman said that we won't do a scenic assessment of every project during SEQR because not eve- ry project is going to be in a strategic or highly visible location.A building in a very run-of-the-mill location in the middle of nowhere - if they decide to paint the building lime green, we can't stop them right now. Then again, it might become a scenic resources issue.Why? Because it's lime green. Planning Board Minutes 11-19-2013 Page 10 of 11 Mr. Bosak said that's not the question he was asking - that's subjective. His issue is: how does it be- come a scenic resources issue when the time for raising scenic resource issues has already passed? Ms. Erb said she didn't remember what the SEQR was at the time, but she reread the preliminary site plan approval, which said that they would have to bring in swatches, which made her think that the Board did have a discussion during SEQR. Mr. Bosak asked under what authority the Board made that a condition. Ms. Brock stated that under §270-188 of Town code,which is the site plan section, "the Planning Board's review of a site plan shall include, as appropriate, the following considerations ... protection of adjacent properties and the general public against unsightliness or other objectionable features." Mr. Bosak was satisfied with that answer. Ms.Wedemeyer asked what would happen if someone came in with samples that were obviously of low quality. Mr. Bates responded that if it meets the minimum standard in the code, there's nothing he can do. Mr.Tasman added that even before the site plan process,when the Planning Committee was talking about rezoning and architectural regulations, people on the committee were concerned about vinyl siding. One of the concessions we made was that the vinyl siding would be architectural grade. Ms. Ritter added that the law itself calls for architectural vinyl,which is a heavier duty material than you'll find on many houses,where it fades more quickly. So it's vinyl siding, but it's a higher grade than you'll see on some single-family homes. Ms. Tasman said there are debates on whether or not we should allow vinyl, but right now we do. For commercial projects or fairly large-scale projects like this where you're looking at a large building, he is going to look at the vinyl, and if it looks like they're using a low grade, he would note it in his staff report or try to have them resolve it at an early stage in the review process. Those are things we're increasingly looking at: the quality of the materials on a building, that it's four-sided design where the details on the front are duplicated on the back and sides.This is all a lead-up to adopting architectur- al regulations that would be part of the new zoning and development code. Recycling vinyl siding is a bit more complicated because it's made of different composites of vinyl and you can't just take all vinyl and recycle it together. So that is a concern. Ms. Fogarty asked whether the Town is any closer to developing these standards and whether they will include some environmental or energy-efficiency standards. Ms. Ritter responded that there's a whole section in the Comp Plan dealing with energy and climate change and we have a sustainability planner, Nick Goldsmith, who is looking at sustainability issues and looking at our code in terms of energy efficiency.We're waiting for the Comp Plan to get done and then we'll go full force on all kinds of things dealing with land use and design standards. Planning Board Minutes 11-19-2013 Page 11 of 11 Mr. Bates stated that the building code is constantly updated and a new energy code is going to go up to the 2014 standard of the international code. New York State has never been up with the interna tional standard; right now we're using the 2010 version of the New York State code, which is the 2007 version of the international code. The State is saying they're going to bring us up to the 2012 version of the international code and the 2014 version of the energy code. This will be for all new construction. Ms. Fogarty said that solar panels would be easy on this project, but didn't know if they were part of the initial conversation. It's amazing to her that it's not part of the code at this point. Mr. Tasman said that when the code is adopted, we need to strike a balance between energy efficiency and allowing houses to be built affordably. Construction in Ithaca tends to cost more per square foot than in the rest of Upstate New York and things like solar panels drive up the cost even more. So the new zoning code might be incentive based; for example, giving the applicant x-number of housing units if they meet LEED platinum or silver standards. Ms. Fogarty said that people can lease solar panels for their houses for nothing more than what they're currently paying for their electric utilities. Mr. Tasman said that as the technology becomes more prevalent, the price will drop. But in the meantime, we have to maintain that balance between affordability and green technology and requir ing everyone to come on board. AGENDA ITEM Report from Town Engineer on approved lot line adjustment Sue Ritter said the properties are on Forest Home Drive. They're both rather small lots; the smaller one was a nonconforming lot in terms of area. The neighbors with the bigger lot gave a small (about a 10-foot-wide) swath of land to their neighbors. This does not make the larger lot nonconforming and it made the smaller lot less nonconforming. If it's a small and minor lot-line adjustment, the engineer can make a determination without the issue coming before the Planning Board. He first consults with planning staff, who check with Mr. Bates to see if a variance is needed. AGENDA ITEM Adjournment Upon a motion by Hollis Erb, the meeting adjourned at 8:39 p.m. Respectfully submitted, a DcAiigistlne. Deputy Town Clerk