Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2013-09-17TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Tuesday. September 17. 2013 AGENDA 7:00 P.M. Persons to be heard (no more than five minutes). 7:05 P.M. SEQR Determination: Y.M.C.A. 2-Lot Subdivision, Mecklenburg Road. 7:05 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 2-lot subdivision on Mecklenburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 28- 1-20.2, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves subdividing the 109 +/- acre property into a 108 +/- acre parcel which will be retained by Y.M.C.A. and a 0.969 +/- acre parcel which will be consolidated with Tax Parcel No. 28-1-23.1 (1345 Mecklenburg Road). Y.M.C.A. of Ithaca and Tompkins County, Owner; Frank S. Towner and Peter Trowbridge, Applicants; Peter Trowbridge, Agent. 7:10 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a recommendation to the Town of Ithaca Town Board regarding the proposed rezoning of a portion of land between Mecklenburg Road and Bostwick Road (called Southwest Glens and Creeks area) from Low Density /•ts, Residential, Medium Density Residential, and Agriculture Zones to Conservation Zone. 5. Approval of Minutes: September 3, 2013. 6. Other Business 7. Adjoumment 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, September 17, 2013 215 N. Tioga Street, Ithaca, NY 14850 Board Members Present: Fred Wilcox(Chair),John Beach, Yvonne Fogarty, Paula Wedemeyer,Jon Bosak, Hollis Erb,Joseph Haefeli(Alternate) Staff Present: Chris Balestra, Planner; Mike Smith, Planner; Susan Brock,Attorney for the Town; Deb DeAugistine, Deputy Town Clerk Call to Order Mr. Wilcox called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. and accepted the secretary's posting of the public hearing notices. AGENDA ITEM Persons to be heard Sophie Zapala, resident of West Hill. Following is a prepared statement: "Tonight, I would like to express my concerns about the Biggs Property project that the County is currently pursuing.At first glance, this affordable housing project may seem appealing because of its mixed income charter and sustainable living principles. However, once one takes into consideration the existing needs and challenges of the West Hill community it becomes unavoidably clear that this project poses unacceptable risks to an already strained community.To add insult to injury, these risks come with `benefits' that are just too few to count. As you know, Ed Marx held two informational meetings with the residents of West Hill this summer. Sadly, both meetings had a pro-forma and post- factum character and did not provide a venue for any meaningful discussion. Many of the questions asked then still remain unanswered today.After the meetings, two separate written requests were sent out to Ed Marx for additional information. To date, we have not been able to obtain any of the re- quested information, e.g. environmental impact analysis, affordable housing statistics, crime statistics, plans to improve the infrastructure including funding. The West Hill community has the worst infrastructure of any other community in Ithaca.We have no elementary school that would provide a natural hub for integration and community building activ- ities, no vibrant and growing economic base of our own, and no park or sport field - not even a single playground.And yet we have several large, low income cluster housing complexes that are responsible for a multitude of quality of life issues; mainly a significant increase of crime. The Biggs property is a prime piece of real estate that if utilized creatively could solve many existing problems on the hill. Its location next to the Cayuga Medical Center is in fact, first and foremost, the characteristic that indicates its highest and best use. It should not be used for typical affordable hous- ing and/or woods preservation. Ideally, this land would host assisted living facilities for those who need medical support or require frequent medical attention example: seniors, physically challenged, highly functioning mentally chal- lenged, autistic adults,vision-impaired and so on. It makes perfect sense to cluster such facilities on a nice lot and near the only hospital in town. These facilities could be mixed income and follow sus- Planning Board Minutes 09-17-2013 Page 2 of 10 tainable principles as well. On top of providing much needed housing for those most deserving and needing care they would also provide local employment opportunities to West Hillers, including the residents of the Overlook,who could even walk to work.There is enough acreage there to have a sports field, a park, a nice playground and maybe even some occupant owned housing for employees. The lot could house additional facilities such as the affordable long term care, hospice and post- hospital recovery and a day care facility. Maybe even West Hill's very first small convenience store? The possibilities are endless and development plan focused on highest and best use, could prove transformational for the entire West Hill community. However, nothing will happen unless the town planning board steps in and takes a leading role on this initiative. The county slated this project of 60 residential units for execution partly because it needs to sell the land and partly to satisfy some vague- ly defined needs for affordable housing. The tax credit programs to be used to finance the develop- ment will benefit the investors and the developers, which aren't even local.The real estate taxes, for the first 15 years will be based on the operating income which only means they will be negligible. There are many other negative factors but I just don't have time to address them now. Just a few weeks ago,West Hill residents met with Sheriff Lansing and the D.A. to discuss the burgla- ries, larcenies and other crimes on the hill. One of the options presented to the residents was that we as a community could hire private policing services to protect ourselves from the criminals.Well, I personally find this option unacceptable. The real-estate tax payers should not be asked to hire private police to deal with crime as if there is no accountability for the branches of local government that have made poor development decisions.We all should learn from past mistakes and apply the lessons learned for the future decisions.This is exactly why we cannot allow the proposed Biggs property pro- ject to be implemented without in-depth analysis and truly good planning. Let's figure out what the West Hill community needs first, and then in this light, let's try to figure out the best and highest use of the Biggs property. This is how we can determine what kind of development should take place there.The West Hill Community is ready to participate in the process. I would like to encourage the town planning board to give my suggestions due consideration. It will benefit us all. Thank you for your time." Ms. Zapata said they tried to engage Mr. Marx in discussions, but for all practical purposes, they were rebuffed. She has seen how the process works by attending a meeting in the City, and she doesn't think that regular meetings provide the right venue, because in order to accomplish anything, they need to leave the premise of the project as it was defined and open it up for discussion, and come up with other ideas.There are a lot of West Hill residents who are willing to participate, provide ideas, and work with the Town to do something about West Hill. She said we need to think about the big picture, because even an 8th grader with a building lot can decide to put a housing development on it.We need to move beyond that, and think about how we can build a community. Ms. Erb stated that this Board may not be the correct venue because they can't react to a project until it is formally in front of them. Ms. Balestra suggested that the best venue would be the Town Board. Right now, this property is not zoned for the use the County wants to use it for. They would have to seek a use variance, a PDZ, or a rezoning, and in order to do that, they'd have to go to the Town Board. Ms. Zapata asked how the community could get involved to arrest this project in progress - to ask that it be put on hold so it could be revisited with community involvement. Planning Board Minutes 09-17-2013 Page 3 of 10 Mr. Wilcox said that the Town Board would be responsible for a potential rezoning, whereas the Planning Board will react when and if the County comes before them with a plan.At that time, they will have to have done an environmental review. Ms. Zapata stated that she wanted the Board to understand the community perspective should the project come before them: residents are terrified because the quality of life is going down and they want to make sure they are building community instead of pushing it further down. Mr. Wilcox stated that the community is working together to do what's best for West Hill, whereas the County wants a developer to develop that piece of land - they want to get rid of it because their agreement was to sell the land in order to finance the move of the Health Department up near the airport. He said the key would be for the community to find a developer to do something different. Ms. Fogarty stated that the project is in the Legislature, and the Legislature has said that it's a good idea to sell this piece of property.A developer came forward and presented a plan based on the ideas put forward. Ms. Fogarty said she doesn't think that they're looking for another developer, but that they're pretty set with who they've found. She's not sure there's a lot of wiggle room, unless a differ- ent developer were to come forward with some plans for consideration. The property itself is not that expensive. Ms. Erb suggested contacting an elected official of the County, such as a member of the Legislature, to have new discussions. Ms. Fogarty responded that she thinks that's happening. Ms. Zapata said she wasn't aware of any discussions and that their attempts at reaching out to Ed Marx and Better Housing were not successful. Ms. Erb said she was thinking of an elected official of the County, such as the Legislators. Ms. Zapata responded that she was contacted by an official from the Legislature, who tried to con- vince her that it was a good project. So she's trying to reach other venues. She said that this is exactly the problem.When the initiative came out, it was an internal County initiative.When the proposal went out to find a developer, it was prepackaged for the 60 units, so the idea of what it is for was al- ready formed. Nobody opened a discussion framed like:We have a lot; what is the best and highest use for the community? Maybe the Town and County could come up with a deal to co-sponsor some- thing.There was none of that. In a way, it's a wasted opportunity. Ms. Balestra stated that the County planning staff met with Town staff, who indicated that the Town would soon have a draft comprehensive plan. She said that Town staff was much more in line with what Ms. Zapata is recommending. They had numerous conversations with County planning staff, and there is a difference of opinion. She doesn't think the door is completely closed on the conversa- tion. The County staff seemed a bit set on how they want to do things, but they still have to go through the Town process. AGENDA ITEM SEQR determination:Y.M.C.A. 2-Lot Subdivision, Mecklenburg Road Planning Board Minutes 09-17-2013 Page 4 of 10 Peter Trowbridge was present. He stated that the land is currently owned by the YMCA and Tomp- kins County. It was subdivided in 1966.The thought was there would be a radio tower installed on that site. That rumor has been floating around since as recently as last week. At the time he purchased his land in the mid 1980s, the owners were unwilling to sell the one-acre parcel. Subsequently, they gave the land to the YMCA. The then-CEO was also unwilling to sell the parcel. The parcel is rather idiosyncratic: It sits in the middle of Mr. Trowbridge's property. The current YMCA CEO and Mr. Trowbridge began discussions about a year ago when the Y proposed building a camp on their prop- erty. Mr. Trowbridge said he would be glad to buy the parcel as a fundraising effort for the camp. They were very keen on doing that. It would regularize the westerly property boundary.They have no intention of making any improvements to it.The Y has very little current use for the land since it juts out into Mr. Trowbridge's property. He would continue to maintain it as a meadow. It's in the West Hill agricultural district. He's been managing his own property as a meadow for the last 30 years; oth- erwise, it would be a woodland. He is not aware of any environmental impacts. The property has pri- vate septic and water. PB Resolution No. 2013-039: SEAR, Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, Y.M.C.A. 2- Lot Subdivision, Mecklenburg Road, Tax Parcel No. 28.4-20.2 Moved by John Beach; seconded by Hollis Erb WHEREAS: 1. This is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 24ot subdi- vision on Mecklenburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 28.1-20.2, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves subdividing the 109+/- acre property into a 108+/-acre parcel, which will be retained by the Y.M.C.A. and a 0.969+/- acre parcel which will be consolidated with the adjacent property at Tax Parcel No. 28.4-23.1 (1345 Mecklenburg Road).Y.M.C.A. of Ithaca and Tompkins County, Owner; Frank S.Towner and Peter Trowbridge,Applicants; Peter Trow- bridge, Agent, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is acting as lead agency with respect to Subdivision Approval, and 3. The Planning Board on September 17, 2013, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short En- vironmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and Part II prepared by the Town Planning staff, a survey map entitled "Subdivision Map, No. 1345 Mecklenburg Road, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York," prepared by T.G. Miller, P.C., dated 6/18/2013, and other application materials, and 4. Town planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed Subdivision Approval; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance for the reasons set forth in the Environmental Assessment Form Part II referenced above, Planning Board Minutes 09-17-2013 Page 5 of 10 in accordance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act for the above referenced action as proposed, and, therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. Vote Ayes:Wilcox, Haefeli, Fogarty, Beach, Wedemeyer, Bosak, Erb AGENDA ITEM Public Hearing: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 2-lot subdivision on Mecklenburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 28-1-20.2, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves subdividing the 109 +/-acre property into a 108 +/-acre parcel which will be retained by Y.M.C.A. and a 0.969 +/- acre parcel which will be consolidated with Tax Parcel No. 284-23.1 (1345 Mecklenburg Road). Y.M.C.A. of Ithaca and Tompkins County, Owner; Frank S. Towner and Peter Trowbridge,Applicants; Peter Trowbridge,Agent Mr. Wilcox opened the public hearing at 7:28 p.m. and closed the public hearing at 7:30 p.m. PB Resolution No. 2013.040: Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, Y.M.C.A. 2-Lot Subdivision, Mecklenburg Road, Tax Parcel No. 28.4-20.2 Moved by Yvonne Fogarty; seconded by Hollis Erb WHEREAS: 1. This is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 24ot subdi- vision on Mecklenburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 28.4-20.2, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves subdividing the 109+/- acre property into a 108+/-acre parcel, which will be retained by the Y.M.C.A. and a 0.969+/-acre parcel which will be consolidated with the adjacent property at Tax Parcel No. 28.4-23.1 (1345 Mecklenburg Road).Y.M.C.A. of Ithaca and Tompkins County, Owner; Frank S.Towner and Peter Trowbridge, Applicants; Peter Trow- bridge, Agent, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as lead agency with respect to Subdivision Approval, has on September 17, 2013, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environ- mental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and Part II prepared by the Town Planning staff, and 3. The Planning Board on September 17, 2013, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a survey map entitled "Subdivision Map, No. 1345 Mecklenburg Road, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York," prepared by T.G. Miller, P.C., dated 6/18/2013, and other application materials; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Subdivision Checklists, hav- ing determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a significant Planning Board Minutes 09-17-2013 Page 6 of 10 alteration of the purpose of site plan control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and 2. That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 2-lot subdivision located on Mecklenburg Road, as shown on the survey map entitled "Subdivision Map, No. 1345 Mecklenburg Road, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York," subject to the following conditions: a. signing by the Chairperson of the Planning Board of the submitted original and three dark lined prints of the final subdivision plat, prior to filing with the Tompkins County Clerk's Office, and submission of a receipt of filing to the Town of Ithaca Planning Department, and b. within six months of this approval, consolidation of the 0.969 +/- acre parcel(Parcel "B")with Tax Parcel No. 28.-1-23.1 ("Parcel A"), and submission of a copy of the consolidation request to the Town of Ithaca Planning Department. Vote Ayes:Wilcox, Haefeli, Fogarty, Beach, Wedemeyer, Bosak, Erb AGENDA ITEM Public Hearing: Consideration of a recommendation to the Town of Ithaca Town Board regarding the proposed rezoning of a portion of land between Mecklenburg Road and Bostwick Road (called Southwest Glens and Creeks area) from Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, and Agriculture Zones to Conservation Zone Mr.Wilcox opened the public hearing at 7:32 p.m. Ellie Stewart from the Conservation Board provided some background. For many years, the Town has been trying to set this area up as a conservation zone. It's in the last comp plan. In the 1870s, the Coy Glen area was referenced as an area to be preserved because of its beauty. The purpose of a conserva- tion zone is to preserve areas of the Town with rare or unusual environmental features. Many have already disappeared, and creating these zones is an attempt to conserve what's left. It will still be owned as private property. The County put together a Unique Natural Area Inventory. The Conser- vation Board used that as the basis to put these three contiguous areas (Culver Creek, Coy Glen, and Hackberry Woods) together as an area. The Conservation Board members compiled all the work that had been done before into the document.They reached out to property owners who would be affect- ed, held an informational meeting in the spring, then met individually with landowners to iron out particular concerns.At this point, everyone is okay with the project. It doesn't affect the property taxes. It means that in the future, you can't subdivide in less than seven acre lots, you have to cluster housing,you can do wood lots, but can't clear cut. It affects how the land is preserved. Mr. Bosak asked whether the agricultural use of any land currently zoned agricultural will be affected by being put under the conservation zone. Mr. Smith responded that farming is a permitted use in a conservation zone. Planning Board Minutes 09-17-2013 Page 7of10 Ms. Stewart added that there are other uses permitted in a conservation zone; it doesn't preclude things, it just affects the way you preserve the land. Sharon Tregaskis, chair of the Town's Ag Committee, pointed out her farm on the map. She had a concern about the conservation zone possibly following land use. Mr. Smith showed her a more re- cent, topographical map, and she agreed that the zone actually follows the topography. She also won- dered why the two properties at the very top of Coy Glen are excluded from the map,while other small parcels are included. It was explained that the two parcels are existing residential structures and are too small to make a difference. Ms. Tregaskis stated that, while she's in favor of this proposal since she's a big proponent of conserva- tion, it's still private property, and she would hope that in communications with the public, "conser- vation zone" does not sound like "public park." Despite the unmistakable posting on their land, which is repeated every year, every year there are incidents where people - dressed in black leggings and white t-shirts during hunting season - run through their property and are then startled to be con- fronted and informed that their lives are in danger. Some of the discussions she's seen in public elec- tronic forums about this conservation zone creation have included people saying that they love hiking in that area. It's not a public park; it's private property. Ms. Stewart said that the area will not be posted conservation zone.There will be no signage. The only thing that is posted right now is the Town park. Mr. Bosak said he assumes that there will be similar coverage in the press for this conservation zone as there was when the last one was passed. He's heard that staff make it a point to ask people writing about it to mention that this is private property and not a park. The only part of the proposal he was not comfortable with is that the zone itself is not described in proper survey language. It's not tight enough to tell, in several cases, exactly where the line is. The Board agreed that metes and bounds should be spelled out. Ms. Brock agreed, since the lines for the zone don't always fall on property lines. Ms. Zapala stated that the value of the properties that are currently subdividable might change as a result of the zoning change, and that it's possible that some landowners will lose some equity in the land. She said there should be a process to reassess the properties.Although she's not a stakeholder in this, any kind of decisions over private land affect everyone because in the future a lot of areas in Ith- aca will be rezoned for other uses. Ms. Erb pointed out that since the density is the same for ag and conservation zones, only the resi- dential zones would be affected. Mr.Wilcox said he's heard the argument for both sides regarding whether more restrictions cause the value of the land to go up or down. H pointed out that this is some of the best farmland in the Town. Regarding a question from Ms.Wedemeyer, it was determined that this will change the Town zoning on these properties from agricultural to conservation, but will not change the County agricultural district designation. If the Town makes changes at some point relating to the use of agricultural land, these properties would not be subject to the changes. Planning Board Minutes 09-17-2013 Page 8 of 10 Regarding the potential change in the value of the land, Ms. Stewart pointed out that the Conserva- tion Committee sent letters and talked to landowners about any concerns, and she's convinced that the landowners are in acceptance of this zoning change. There's still another hearing for them to come forward, so she doesn't have a problem approving it on that basis. The committee worked very hard to make sure every landowner was aware of the changes and what it meant for them. Mr. Wilcox closed the public hearing at 7:55 p.m. PB Resolution No. 2013.041: Recommendation to the Town Board Regarding a Proposed Local Law to Amend the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 270 of the Town of Ithaca Code) and the Official Zoning Map to Rezone Certain Lands between Mecklenburg Road and Bostwick Road from Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, Agricultural, and Planned Development Zone No. 8 to Conservation Zone Moved by Hollis Erb; seconded by Paula Wedemeyer Whereas, the Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan(1993) recommends protection for environmental- ly sensitive and unique natural areas in the Town, and has indicated on a map entitled "Anticipated Land Use Patterns" that a portion of land between Mecklenburg Road and Bostwick Road should be considered for Conservation/ Open Space, and Whereas, the Town of Ithaca Park, Recreation &Open Space Plan (1997), recommends Conserva- tion Zoning as a means to protect lands with steep slopes, gorges and ravines, key stream corridors, and other significant natural areas, and the Plan includes a map entitled "Potential Zoning for Open Space and Purchase of Development Rights Target Areas," that identifies an area between Mecklen- burg Road and Bostwick Road, as "recommended for conservation zoning", and Whereas, the Unique Natural Area Inventory of Tompkins County(revised January 2000) conducted by the Tompkins County's Environmental Management Council, identifies the "Coy Glen Hackberry Woods" (UNA-138), "Coy Glen" (UNA 139), and "Culver Creek Ravine and Woods" (UNA-140) Unique Natural Areas, all located between Mecklenburg Road and Bostwick Road, and describes the areas as containing steep slopes, erodible soils, numerous watercourses and deep gorges, rare and scarce plant and animal species, and have a scenic/ aesthetic value, and Whereas, in 1979, the Town of Ithaca used the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act to designate the lower section of Coy Glen (between Elm Street Extension and Five Mile Drive) as a Critical Environmental Area, and Whereas, the Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan(December 2004) identifies the area to be re- zoned as part of"The Gorges" area, one of the "Natural Features Focus Areas", that the Comprehen- sive Plan recommends be considered for conservation efforts to insure protection, and Whereas, the Town of Ithaca Conservation Board and the Planning Committee of the Ithaca Town Board have examined the area in and adjacent to the Southwest Glens and Creeks area, have exam- ined the Conservation Board's report entitled "Southwest Glens and Creeks Conservation Zone" (Draft Report 11/05/2012), and based on that documentation, have recommended a delineated area Planning Board Minutes 09-17-2013 Page 9 of 10 to be rezoned to a Conservation Zone based on the need to protect the areas' rich ecological and sce- nic resources, and to minimize long-term impacts posed by development on the steep slopes (and erodible soils), and Whereas, the Town of Ithaca Town Board in Resolution No. 2013-120 has referred the request to rezone the above described property to the Town of Ithaca Planning Board for a recommendation, and Whereas, the Town of Ithaca Planning Board has held a public hearing on September 17, 2013 to consider comments from the public regarding this rezoning request, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, pursuant to Section 270-236(H) of the Town of Ithaca Code, hereby finds that: 1. There is a need for a Conservation Zone in the proposed area to protect valuable natural re- sources and environmentally sensitive lands, and 2. The existing and probable future character of the neighborhood will not be adversely affected by the proposed rezoning, and 3. The proposed rezoning is in accordance with a Comprehensive Plan of development of the Town, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby recommends that the Town Board adopt a local law to amend the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 270 of the Town of Ithaca Code) and the Official Zoning Map to Rezone Certain Lands between Mecklen- burg Road and Bostwick Road from Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential,Agricul- ture, and Planned Development Zone No. 8 to Conservation Zone, as denoted on the map (EXHIBIT A - Proposed Conservation Zone - Southwest Glens and Creeks Area) attached to the draft local law, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board recommends that the map attached to the local law more clearly describe the Conservation Zone boundaries and include,where appropriate, metes and bounds descriptions. Vote Ayes:Wilcox, Haefeli, Fogarty, Beach, Wedemeyer, Bosak, Erb AGENDA ITEM Approval of Minutes PB Resolution No. 2013-042: Minutes of September 3, 2013 Moved by Fred Wilcox; seconded by Hollis Erb Planning Board Minutes 09-17-2013 Page 10 of 10 WHEREAS, the Town of Ithaca Planning Board has reviewed the draft minutes from the meeting on September 3; now therefore be it RESOLVED, the Town of Ithaca Planning Board approves the minutes, as drafted, to be the final minutes of the meeting on September 3. Vote: Ayes: Wilcox, Haefeli, Fogarty, Beach, Wedemeyer, Bosak, Erb AGENDA ITEM Other Business Mr. Wilcox moved and Ms. Erb seconded canceling the October I meeting of the Planning Board. Tlie Board unanimously approved the motion. Ms. Brock noted that she meant to disclose earlier that she is a member of the YMCA and that it would not impact her ability to be fair and impartial in giving any advice. AGENDA ITEM Adjournment Upon a motion by Jon Bosak, the meeting adjourned at 8:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ra DeAugisttne, Deputy T^wn^lerk