Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2015-08-18TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD Shirley A. Raffensperger Board Room, Town Hall 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Tuesday. August 18. 2015 AGENDA 7:00 P.M. Continuation of SEQR Determination: College Crossings Development, Danby Road and Bast King Road intersection. This project involves the College Crossing development, located on the northeast corner of the Danby Road (NYS Route 96B) and East King Road intersection, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 43-1-3.23, Neighborhood Commercial (NC) Zone. The proposal includes increasing the floor area of the previously-approved building to 32,000+/- square feet (from 19,000+/- square feet) to accommodate residential units on two upper floors and increasing the height of the building to 54+/- feet tall (from 40+/- feet tall) to accommodate a third story. The proposal will also include changes to previously- approved stormwater management facilities, new parking layout, change in the number of parking spaces, new landscaping and other site modifications. Due to the increase in the size and residential component of the project, the project will require use and area variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals and site plan and special permit approval from the Planning Board. College Crossings, LLC, Owner/Applicant; Evan N. Monkemeyer, Agent. 2. Nomination and Election of Vice Chairperson 3. Persons to be heard 4. Approval of Minutes: July 21, 2015 and August 4, 2015 5. Other Business 6. 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 or SPOLCE@T()WN.n HACA.NY.US. (A quorum of four (4) members is necessary to conduct Planning Board business.) Accessing Meeting Materials Online Site Plan and Subdivision applications and associated project materials are accessible electronically on the Town's website under "Planning Board" on the "Meeting Agendas" page fhttD;//www.town.itliaca.nv.u.s/mceting-agendas). TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD MEETING Tuesday, August 18, 2015 215 N. Tioga Street, Ithaca, NY 14850 Town Planning Board Members Present: Fred Wilcox(Chair), Linda Collins,John Beach, Yvonne Fogarty, Liebe Meier Swain,Jon Bosak Town Staff Present: Susan Ritter, Director of Planning; Chris Balestra, Planner; Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement; Dan Thaete, Town Engineer; Lorraine Moynihan-Schmitt, 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 Continuation of SEQR Determination: College Crossings Development, Danby Road and East King Road intersection. This project involves the College Crossing development, located on the northeast corner of the Danby Road (NYS Route 96B) and East King Road intersection, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 43-1- 3.23, Neighborhood Commercial(NC) Zone. The proposal includes increasing the floor area of the previously-approved building to 32,000+/-square feet(from 19,000+/-square feet) to accommodate residential units on two upper floors and increasing the height of the building to 54+/-feet tall (from 40+/-feet tall) to accommodate a third story. The proposal will also include changes to previously- approved stormwater management facilities, new parking layout, change in the number of parking spaces, new landscaping and other site modifications. Due to the increase in the size and residential component of the project, the project will require use and area variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals and site plan and special permit approval from the Planning Board. College Crossings, LLC, Owner/Applicant; Evan N. Monkemeyer, Agent. Mr. Monkemeyer stated that since the last meeting, they made modifications to the plan.Aside from adding landscaping, they've modified the roofline to create a smoother looking building and have added some awnings to first-floor retail section. Mr. Thaete said that engineering is happy with the stormwater plan at this point; they have only a few minor issues to sort out. Mr. Wilcox stated that he didn't particularly like the plan we had before, but neither did it meet the threshold of creating a significant environmental impact. He thinks he could have created a better looking plan, but we're not here to decide who could produce a better plan. He said he's here to judge whether what they've provided creates a significant adverse environmental impact. Given the additional material provided in the mail, the attempt is being made to mitigate some of the impacts, whether you consider them substantial or not. He hadn't had an opportunity to look at the eleva- tions, but a quick look shows they've some added arch details,which was one of the things the planning board liked about the previous plan. Is it perfect? No, but it doesn't rise to the level of significant impact. Planning Board Minutes 08-18.2015 Page 2 of 10 Ms. Collins said that she disagreed. She thinks it has a significant environmental impact because it's not in compliance with the 2014 Comprehensive Plan, and this is a focus area of interest in the plan. Folks in the community came together with Form Ithaca to look at this new Smart Growth zoning approach and looked at this area in detail. The comp plan is supposed to guide development for the next ten to 20 years. She read excerpts from the comprehensive plan: "This Plan also serves as a tool to inform and guide Town staff, boards, and elected officials on actions and decisions about land use, transportation, the natural environment, and economic development." "The future land use plan establishes the framework for development as a general, conceptual guide. It designates desired development patterns based on the aspirations of this Plan." Ms. Collins pointed out that this plan took years to put together. It was put together not just by professional staff, but by people who live in this community through community meetings, focus groups, and surveys. A lot of data came from the community regarding what we want for our town and, specifically, for this area of the town. She feels very strongly that at least one aspect of this proposal does not meet environmental standards, and that is in not being in line with our comp plan. For commercial, there should be sidewalks with parking at the rear of the building. She was glad to see that there are trees, but fails to see how they will make a significant difference in the masking of this building, particularly as you drive past the school toward the intersection. That calls into question:why do we want a building we have to hide. She pointed out that the hotel was turned down for being a three-story building because it wouldn't fit the character of the neighborhood. She feels very strongly that her role on the board is to look at the comp plan, interpret it, and to guard it. This proposal is part of the past. Reading from the comp plan, she said, "Existing vehicle-oriented strip commercial development should be redeveloped or retrofitted into a more pedestrian friendly form over time." When do we say no?When do we say this is not part of the vision for this community? She will vote no. Mr. Beach asked if there is anything new on the walkway between this piece of land and Ithaca College. Ms. Balestra responded that it's one of the requirements of the approval of the College Circle apartments. Mr. Monkemeyer said that in their prior approvals from the planning board, he was limited as to the amount of square footage they could offer any one tenant to 5000 square feet. That rules out a lot of larger facilities, like a grocery store. That's the current zoning. There are eight apartments and 36 beds in the current proposal. He pointed out that the footprint of the proposed building is about equiva- lent to Sam Peter and smaller than the hotel. Ms. Meier Swain said she has no problem with the third story - someone has to be first. It seems really limited in the use: a doughnut shop and a liquor store.As a resident of that area, she wouldn't get much use. Tying into the comp plan, she doesn't see it as something that elevates the environment of the neighborhood. Mr. Monkemeyer stated that the three tenants he mentioned were prior prospective tenants that agreed to come on in letters of intent, and they never went any farther than that, and that only represents 50 percent of the retail floor area, so there are still three or four spaces of retail or office area. Planning Board Minutes 08-18.2015 Page 3 of 10 Ms. Moynihan Schmitt said it appears that some board members said are wrestling with the potential that this project may be inconsistent with the community plans as set forth in the 2014 Comprehen- sive Plan, specifically as to parking and density and indicated use. The conundrum is the current zoning ordinance has not been amended to catch up with the comp plan's goals. This board has to take a look at what is permitted under the current zoning.When they do their assessment of significance, she directed them to 617.7(c) Criteria for determining significance,which includes (1)(iv): "the creation of a material conflict with a community's current plans or goals as officially approved or adopted." Current zoning is adopted and controlling, and yet the comp plan has goals, which the board seems to want to implement, that may be in excess of what the current zoning permits. The determination of significance requires a reasoned elaboration of the magnitude of the impact and importance of the impact, and the board has the discretion to determine significance. She spoke about what significance means. The DEC promulgated the SEQR regulations, and as guidance to municipalities and agencies, it states that"two key characteristics of possible impacts that should be considered in determining significance are magnitude and importance. Magnitude assesses factors such as severity, size or extent of an impact. Importance relates to how many people are going to be impacted or affected by the project; the geographic scope of the project; duration and probability of occurrence of each impact; and any additional social or environmental consequences if the project proceeds (or doesn't proceed). Each impact of an action must be judged by these two characteristics. Generally, bigger impact(larger"magnitude") projects are more likely to need more detailed analysis. The characteristic of"importance" requires us to look at an impact in relation to the whole action. The short or long term or cumulative nature of the impacts also need to be considered... For example, a two hundred unit apartment project which may be environmentally significant in a small town, may be insignificant if it were to be built in a large urban center. Similarly, traffic, sewer,water and waste disposal issues may be of little concern in a city, but may be major problems in a small town." The overarching principle in SEQR is reasonableness. The instructions for Part 2 directs the lead agency to answer questions respecting impacts in a reasonable manner considering the scale and context of the project. There has to be a reasoned elaboration finding significance. Ms. Collins asked if the board votes for a negative declaration on the SEQR, what flexibility or authority that will leave them for the site plan to make any significant changes to this proposal. Ms. Moynihan Schmitt responded that the nice thing about a negative declaration is that you can include mitigations. There is no conditional neg dec on a Type I action and there's no such thing as a conditional pos dec.A neg dec can include mitigations; in fact, the board is charged with mitigating impacts. What you can do in the future hinges on whether they will get their variances for use and height from the ZBA. SEQR can be reopened in certain situations if there's a change of circumstances or if there were assumptions made at the time of the original determination that change. Mr. Wilcox said that procedurally, we would see a site plan and approve it conditioned on the ZBA granting variances.This one is different because we agreed to do the environmental review,when maybe it should have been the ZBA because they're involved with the potential for a use and height variance. If the applicant gets the variances, we're boxed in by what the ZBA grants. Ms. Collins said she was uncomfortable that the board might lose ability to tweak this once they say yes on the SEQR. Planning Board Minutes 08-18.2015 Page 4 of 10 Mr. Bosak stated that his feelings on this project aren't just based on gut reactions, but on a careful two-week study of the language that Ms. Brock forwarded to us. He doesn't see a conundrum. There is a reason subclause (iv) exists in SEQR. If we weren't intended to take this into consideration now - separate from and in advance of and independent of any enabling zoning legislation that may or may not ever come out of the town board - this wouldn't be in here. The fact that this exists as a consid- eration for us means that it exists as a consideration completely independent of what the town board may or may not ever do with the zoning. He thinks there is confusion about saying,You have to consider the extent of this. No.We are not here to decide if this is a big or little impact; that's not the stage we're at. We're being asked to consider whether something "may" have a significant negative impact, not whether it does. "... the impacts ... must be compared against the criteria in the subdivi- sion." "These criteria are considered indicators of significant adverse impacts on the environment." It doesn't say they"might" be indicators. He pointed to two of them: "(iv) the creation of a material conflict with a community's current plans or goals as officially approved or adopted." Clearly, this goes beyond simply the zoning. So, a material conflict with our comprehensive plan is considered an indicator of a significant adverse impact on the environment. "(v) the impairment of the character or quality ... or neighborhood character." We already have our professional staff on record as saying that this plan conflicts with neighborhood character. He agrees. In the EAF, staff stated, "The proposed bulk and height, particularly in the middle of the structure, coupled with the sparse landscaping, will be out of character with the predominant architectural scale in the area." Ms. Balestra said that he read from the August 4th version rather than the August 18th version, and that the staff position has been amended based on more information. Mr. Bosak said he had not read that. He still feels that it is out of scale with the architectural scale in the area. There's also the proposition that we all know that this doesn't fit our new comp plan, but at what point do we phase it in?At what point do we start paying attention to subsection iv of SEQR, which is conflict with the community's current plan?As a matter of practical fact, if we say, No,we're not going to look at that this time, then we're never going to look at it because the next applicant that comes in with a proposal in one of these focus areas that is not consistent with our current comp plan,will be able to say justifiably:You let it go six months ago. Why us?What has changed? It appears to Mr. Bosak that until such a time as the town board bakes some more specific requirements into the zoning, this is the end of the planning our ability to consider the comp plan in anything having to do with us because by the time we get to site plan, an applicant can claim there's no law against what they're doing. The time for comp plan application is in SEQR. That's where we are given the ability to take cognizance of it. To sum up and to second what Ms. Collins said, he is more than uncomfortable. This is a straight up application of the intent of SEQR, and he will vote no for that reason. Ms. Collins pointed out that in the current version, staff said, "Conventional suburban-style building design and site layout is inconsistent with the Town Comprehensive Plan." "The mixed-use aspect is also consistent with the Town Comprehensive Plan, although the proposed building and parking design are inconsistent with the plan." Ms. Balestra responded that staff is saying that we've got a conundrum. Our comp plan wants to see dense, mixed-use commercial and residential development there. Our comp plan also wants to see buildings of higher height than is already there.We also want to see the form-based aspect. The zoning code currently allows buildings to be 36 feet tall; there are a good number of homes in the Planning Board Minutes 08-18.2015 Page 5 of 10 Southwoods subdivision that are 43 feet tall. In that aspect, this project is consistent with the comp plan but inconsistent with the zoning code.At the same time, the layout and building design are inconsistent with the comp plan, but it meets the basic tenants of the zoning code. That's what she was trying to convey in the Part 3 of the SEQR. In staff's opinion, the proposed landscaping and architectural changes soften some of the visual impacts of the building in a way that we no longer see it as inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. Ms. Ritter spoke to Mr. Bosak's comment about the mass and height of the building being not in character with the surrounding neighborhood. It is potentially consistent with what we anticipate in the new zoning from the new comprehensive plan. She would expect to see taller buildings and a massing that we don't have currently. Mr. Bosak said he's uncomfortable talking about whether something fits some future plan that doesn't exist. He's here to look at plans that do exist. Ms. Ritter said she's clarifying for the record that if we're talking about the future and different layouts we hope to see in the future, our hope is to make this more dense. Mr. Bosak said an essential question is:What, exactly, are we doing here?We are not here judging whether or not this will have a significant environmental impact, but whether or not we can certify that it doesn't have a significant impact.And we cannot certify that this will not have an impact because we are told by the law that two of these criteria are indicators that it will. But what he's saying by voting no is that to determine whether or not this conforms with the comp plan and its intent, to determine whether it's in line with our future plan, to determine whether it fits what the town board has in mind,we're going to have to go through a more deliberate process of looking at this.We're not voting tonight to approve or deny the project, but to determine whether or not it needs a better look. A conditioned neg dec,which is not available,would be perfect.We could come up with conditions that would push this in the direction past our comfort level,we would have public hearings so the public could tell us whether they think it fits the neighborhood character. The only way we get the mechanism to a more formal process to see what the case is here is an EIS. That's what a negative vote forces. Ms. Moynihan Schmitt said that the action before the board is to determine significance;whether there is the potential for at least one significant adverse environmental impact. Ms. Balestra added that it is also to determine whether the inconsistencies with the comp plan are small, moderate, or large. Mr. Bosak agreed and stated that there's an infinite difference between determining whether something has a significant environmental impact and whether it has the potential for one. He would not feel comfortable saying at this time that it has a significant impact. He's being asked to state a finding that we're 100 percent sure that there's no potential for a significant environmental impact. Ms. Moynihan Schmitt said that the issue before the board is to identify whether there is the potential. Mr. Bosak disagreed, saying that the board is being asked to certify that there is not. Planning Board Minutes 08-18.2015 Page 6 of 10 Mr. Monkemeyer said that the only thing he's done since the previous three approvals is to come back with housing as an element. He noted that the peak of the Montessori clock tower is probably 50 or 60 feet high. There's an elevation that already exists. Mr. Bosak said we should require an EIS. "To require an EIS for a proposed action, the lead agency must determine that the action may include the potential for at least one significant adverse environ- mental impact." Ms. Moynihan Schmitt responded that if the board were to do that, they would have to make reasoned elaboration as to the magnitude and importance of that impact. Mr. Bosak said that what we are asked to do in the resolution is say we find no significant impact. Ms. Moynihan Schmitt said that in Part 3 of the EAF, if the board identifies any potential impacts, they can talk to the applicant to achieve consensus as to mitigation measures such that adverse impacts are mitigated and no longer considered significant.A negative declaration can look at impacts and mitigate them. Mr. Bosak said that he is not clear on the difference between a neg dec with a bunch of mitigations specified and a conditioned neg dec. They sound like conditions; if they're not conditions, they can't be enforced later. Ms. Moynihan Schmitt said that they are mitigations. The applicant and the board agree together to mitigate them, so that's consensus: the applicant has agreed to those things;whereas with the conditional neg dec, this board would say it's a neg dec, but it's conditioned on x,y, and z: the applicant has not yet agreed. Ms. Balestra said that to mitigate visual impacts on the mass and height of the building and the cars, they're proposing shrubs and trees along the Danby Road frontage to soften the aesthetic impacts. Mr. Bosak said that if we agreed that some landscaping would mitigate that,we're still only talking about the business of community character, not the business of fitting the comp plan, which is looking at a different philosophy of how these things are laid out. Wouldn't our mitigations amount to redesigning this? Mr. Wilcox wanted to make it clear that language is important. Is this in line with the comp plan? No. But the criteria is whether there's a material conflict with the plan.And he doesn't agree with that. He thinks things can be consistent without reaching the level of material. Mr. Bosak cannot see the distinction. He said that we have to hold tight on this particular subset: significance is the significant conflict with the plan, not the significant environmental impact of the way it looks.What concerns him is, absent specific enabling legislation and a change to the zoning, which might never happen, this is the only place our comp plan can actually be applied.And if we don't apply it tonight, we would have de facto adopted a policy that we're never going to apply it because any future applicant can say, What's changed now?Why me? Planning Board Minutes 08-18.2015 Page 7 of 10 Ms. Fogarty said that listening to this conundrum, it's really clear that some members of the board are very uncomfortable being asked to vote on this. She agreed with Ms. Collins and Mr. Bosak in that this is a turning stone for the comp plan and if we go ahead and say there are no significant impacts, we are opening the door for anyone in the future. She understands that it's his property, he's wanted to developed it for a long time, he's changed the plan in many ways to try to get the financing. She gets that. She hopes he understands that it's a key piece of property in this town. She wants to see it done in a manner that is in line with the comp plan because that's what we want our town to look like. She wondered whether this could be put off, possibly through a moratorium because she doesn't feel like she has what she needs to make a fair ruling on this property. Mr. Beach shared the concerns of the other three board members.We're between a rock and a hard spot because the zoning isn't running parallel to the comp plan. He's uncomfortable and he agrees with Ms. Fogarty's comments that it would be nice if there were a way to step back from this to see what the zoning does. Ms. Balestra pointed out that if the applicant wanted to go forward with the 2012 plan that was approved, it would look just like this proposal, but it would be two stories tall - the same convention- al suburban-style development.A moratorium wouldn't legally be able to stop that. Mr. Bosak said that it was in accordance with the comp plan that was in effect. It has to do with the fact that it was in compliance. Mr. Monkemeyer wondered why adding housing to the development violates the comp plan. As he understands it, you can have 30 units per acre in the new plan, which would be over 110 housing units on 3.5 acres, five or six stories. He'll never put a plan forward that looks like that. Ms. Meier Swain said she has no problem with the height of the building and is in favor of increased density. What she hears fellow board members say is that the problem lies in the amount of blacktop that surrounds the facility. She doesn't feel it supports neighborhood development. Ms. Collins said that when we talk about SEAR,we generally think about water quality, stormwater, toxic waste, etc, yet the state in their wisdom recognized that when you're building something that people will interact with, it has an effect on people at some visceral level, and we are allowed to take that into consideration. The comp plan clearly talks about neighborhood,which means different things to different people. But when you look at how the form-based, smart growth planning really embodies that concept of neighborhood, it's clear to her that this proposal isn't that. The comp plan shows pictures of what other communities have done,which are three stories tall,which she wouldn't mind if it wasn't a big block of a building with a giant parking lot around it. It could be multiple buildings with housing above that. It doesn't mean 30 single-family houses with garages and a garden in the back; it means housing units. This property could have that with commercial development underneath the housing, but it would have sidewalks, etc. The time to look to the comp plan is now. Ms. Moynihan Schmitt read from the SEQR workbook: "When an adopted plan and zoning, or some combination exists, the proposed project needs to be evaluated to see if it is consistent with them." "There may be instances where the proposed action is inconsistent with a plan and not zoning, or vice versa. In that case, some impact may occur and the reviewing agency should evaluate whether this is a small or moderate to large impact." Planning Board Minutes 08-18.2015 Page 8 of 10 Mr. Bosak said that we're being asked to determine that an EIS will not be required and whether there is no significant conflict with the comp plan. Ms. Moynihan Schmitt said there are a few questions that might assist in the analysis: • Is the project consistent with the vision and goals established in the plans and zoning laws? • Is it likely that the proposed project will prevent the municipality from attaining those visions and goals? • Do any strategies, recommendations, maps, or other actions in the plans address the proposed land use or location? If so, how, and is the project consistent with those? • Is the proposed project a land use that was anticipated and encouraged in the plan? • Does the proposed project meet all zoning and other land use regulations? • Are any variances or zoning changes required? • Are they area variances or use variances? Both types of variances may mean that the project is not consistent with local regulations. Mr. Bates said they need a use variances because the residential use will be greater than the commer- cial, making the residential the primary use. Mr. Bosak said that the workbook leaves everything up to the municipality's judgement. If you look at the law: "The significance of a likely consequence .... should be assessed in connection with its setting, its probability of occurring [100 percent], its duration [forever], its irreversibility [complete] ..." So in several criteria the law gives us for determining whether something is in material conflict, it's obvious that it's in material conflict. Ms. Collins said that, regarding the need for a use variance, if we're trying to say that it's in line with the zoning, Mr. Monkemeyer wants to break that zoning and get a variance that makes it not the kind of development the town wants there even under the existing neighborhood commercial zone,which is commercial with auxiliary housing. So for those who feel there's a conundrum, maybe this will help dispel that. Mr. Wilcox asked board members to think about what measures could be imposed to mitigate the impacts. To a question from Ms. Meier Swain, Mr. Monkemeyer said that the intended residential population will be students and that the current need for student housing is 100 percent - there's no new housing for students planned on South Hill. Ms. Balestra added that the Ithaca College 2015 Comprehensive Plan talks about their vision for increasing housing on campus for projected and existing student need.A few years ago, when Country Inn and Suites was built, IC put their entire freshman class in there because they didn't have enough student housing on campus. Cornell has different figures for student housing need. Mr. Wilcox pointed out that a developer wants to put 620 beds at the triangle downtown at the base of State Street hill. He pointed out that we can work with the applicant to change the site plans, like we did the hotel.We can work with them to improve it. Planning Board Minutes 08-18.2015 Page 9 of 10 Mr. Bosak said that Mr.Wilcox touched the core of his concern.At site plan review, we can jaw bone the applicant half to death, but in the final analysis, if the applicant conforms to the letter of the zoning, that's the end of the story - we can't require anything beyond that. The charrette offered examples of what the comp plan is looking for.What mitigations would put this in conformance with our current comp plan? He cannot see anything other than a radical redesign. It's not just the color and siding. Mr. Monkemeyer said he was never invited to the charrette. Now the board is trying to get him to conform to something that was hidden behind his back. He thinks the plan is reasonable, that adding housing makes it economically feasible. If he puts it on the market, there's the risk of someone coming in with 120 units on the site, and there's the density you're looking for. Ms. Collins clarified that the charrette was open to anyone in the community. It was well publicized. And the fact that this particular piece of land was focused on probably has to do with the fact that in the comp plan, this is considered one of two areas of focus that are of importance to the town. It had nothing to do with Mr. Monkemeyer personally. Mr. Bosak added that we're not just talking about number of units.You can't compare putting all those housing units in one gigantic building with a completely different philosophy of neighborhood design. If you had a different design,you could put in a lot more units, and people who lived there would feel much differently about living there. Ms. Moynihan Schmitt explained the board's next steps. The board needs to look through SEQR Part 2 and 3 and make changes they deem necessary, and if they choose, they can move to declare a positive declaration and declare an EIS. In Part 3, they need to make specific, reasoned elaboration as to the magnitude and importance of the impact. Mr. Monkemeyer stated that he was withdrawing his application. Nomination of vice chair Ms. Meier Swain nominated Mr. Bosak. Mr. Bosak declined, saying he thought the vice chair should be a person who wanted to be chair someday. He would accept the nomination if no one stepped up. The decision was deferred until a future meeting. Ms. Meier Swain announced that she had sent an email to the town board expressing her interest in being a full member of the planning board. AGENDA ITEM Persons to be heard - Nobody came forward to address the board. AGENDA ITEM PB Resolution No. 2015-035: Minutes of July 21, 2015 Moved by Fred Wilcox; seconded by John Beach Planning Board Minutes 08-18-2015 Page 10 of 10 RESOLVED, the Planning Board approves the minutes of July 21, 2015, as submitted. Vote Ayes: Wilcox, Collins, Beach, Fogarty, Meier Swain Abstentions: Bosak AGENDA ITEM Other Business On a motion by Mr. "Wilcox, seconded by Ms. Meier Swain, the board voted to cancel the meeting of September 1, 2015. AGENDA ITEM Adjournment Upon a motion by Jon Bosak, the meeting adjourned at 9:23 p.m. Respectfully submitted. Dbhra DeAugistin^^~^puty To^^n^^erk rs