HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-2012-04-10Approved at the June 26, 2012
Planning and Development Board Meeting
Special Planning and Development Board Meeting
Minutes
April 10, 2012
Board Members Attending: Govind Acharya, Chair; Bob Boothroyd;
McKenzie Jones-Rounds; Jane Marcham;
Tessa Rudan; John Schroeder; Meghan Thoreau
Other City Board & Steven Beer, Chair, Board of Zoning Appeals;
Council Members Graham Kerslick, Fourth Ward Alderperson;
Attending: Ellen McCollister, Third Ward Alderperson;
Chris Proulx, Fifth Ward Alderperson
Staff Attending: JoAnn Cornish, Director of Planning and Development;
Lisa Nicholas, Senior Planner,
Department of Planning and Development;
Aaron Lavine, City Attorney;
Phyllis Radke, Building Commissioner
Applicants Attending: Collegetown Crossing Apartments (307 College Avenue)
Jagat Sharma, Project Architect;
Rob Morache, Project Consultant;
Rick Manning, Landscape Architect;
Doug Swarts, TCAT;
Brandon Kane, GreenStar General Manager;
Josh Lower, Owner
Chair Acharya called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m.
1. Agenda Review
No changes were made to the agenda.
2. Site Plan Review
A. Collegetown Terrace Apartments ― Conditions Regarding 901 E. State Street
Rehabilitation
The Board considered applicant’s fulfillment of condition vii. as listed under the heading
“Additional Conditions Identified During Site Plan Review” of the March 22, 2011 final
site plan approval resolution for Phase 1 of the Collegetown Terrace Apartments project.
This condition reads:
1
Approved at the June 26, 2012
Planning and Development Board Meeting
vii. Submission to and approval by the Planning Board of (1) final rehabilitation drawings for
the Williams House at 901 East State Street, (2) final drawings for the addition planned to
the south of the historic portions of the Williams House and (3) final design of landscape
elements and plantings in the vicinity of the Williams House, and
Rehabilitation of the Williams House is also a required mitigation per the Findings
Statement of the project’s Environmental Impact Statement. The Board discussed the
contents of an e-mail in which project architect Alan Chimacoff responded to Board
questions concerning the proposed rehabilitation plans and the proposed addition.
Adopted Resolution Regarding Satisfaction of Site Plan Approval Condition
On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Jones-Rounds:
The Board votes to accept the responses (recorded below) and determines that condition
vii. — as listed under the heading “Additional Conditions Identified During Site Plan
Review” of the March 22, 2011 final site plan approval resolution for Phase 1 of the
Collegetown Terrace Apartments project — has been satisfied.
APRIL 4, 2012
901 E. STATE STREET / B 4.4
RESPONSES TO JOHN SCHROEDER COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS
ALL QUESTIONS ARE RESPONDED TO IN UPPERCASE ITALICS (TO DIFFERENTIATE)
WITHIN THE BODY OF JOHN SCHROEDERS MESSAGE.
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: John Schroeder
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2012 11:09 AM
To: Kathryn Wolf
Cc: Govind Acharya; Bob Boothroyd; Tessa Rudan; Meghan Thoreau; McKenzie;
Jones‐Rounds; JoAnn Cornish; Lisa Nicholas; Charles Pyott
Subject: questions & comments regarding 901 E. State St.
All ―
Here are the questions & comments concerning 901 E. State St. and its Building 4.4 addition that
I promised to provide the applicant prior to next week's Planning Board meeting:
COLOR ELEVATIONS
(1) The color north elevation shows two chimneys projecting above the roof ridge line, but the
other drawings show only one such chimney. Am I correct in assuming that the second chimney
(the one on the right) on the color north elevation will not actually exist?
THAT IS CORRECT. THE CHIMNEY IN THAT DRAWING IS “LEFT OVER” FROM EARLIER.
2
Approved at the June 26, 2012
Planning and Development Board Meeting
(2) Also on the color elevations, the stippling indicating stucco is much darker at the lower right
of the East Elevation, at the projecting porch on the right of the South Elevation, and at the lower
left of the West Elevation (which is incorrectly labeled as the "East Elevation"). Is this darker
stippling just an anomaly, or does it indicate an intention to treat these areas differently?
YES. THAT IS A GRAPHIC ANOMALY.
(3) Only one area of exterior wall on Building 4.4 (the addition to 901) is completely devoid of
windows. The area in question is the southernmost portion of the West Elevation (incorrectly
labeled as the "East Elevation"), south of Building 4.4's projecting cross wing. Could at least one
small window be added here (maybe a round one like on the southernmost portion of the East
Elevation) to add a little more visual interest here?
YES. TWO ROUND WINDOWS WILL BE ADDED IN CORRESPONDING LOCATION TO THE
EAST ELEVATION. (THE INCORRECT LABEL WAS CHANGED FOR PUBLIC
PRESENTATION)
(4) Did consultant Bero do actual scrapings of the various exterior wall surfaces to determine the
original exterior colors?
PAINT ANALYSIS WAS DONE BY STEVE JORDAN OF ROCHESTER, N.Y., A SUB-
CONSULTANT TO BERO ARCHITECTURE. HERE IS A TRANSCRIPTION OF HIS METHOD
OF PAINT ANALYSIS:
• REVIEW HISTORICAL DATA OR PHOTOGRAPHS
• REMOVE SMALL PAINT CHIP SAMPLES FROM VARIOUS AREAS WHERE
DIFFERENT COLORS MIGHT BE USED
• VIEW AND COMPARE PAINT CHIPS ON SITE WITH A 10X JEWELER’S LOUPE
• VIEW AND COMPARE CHIPS IN MY OFFICE AT 30X AND 100X MAGNIFICATION
• IDENTIFY ORIGINAL COLOR SCHEME AND MATCH TO MODERN COLOR CHIPS
LANDSCAPE PLAN
(5) This looks beautiful. The small grove of tall trees west of 901, adjacent to the Mitchell Street
plaza, is very welcome, and will help screen Building 3.4 behind. However, to improve the
visibility of 901's octagonal tower as seen from the E. State St. / Mitchell Street intersection
(where it serves as a prominent landmark), could the northeastern‐most Freeman Maple (the one
just northwest of the octagonal tower) be replaced with a lower‐growing ornamental tree?
(Again, the concern is just with this ONE tree.)
YES. THIS WILL BE FINE. IAN WILL REPLACE THE FREEMAN MAPLE WITH A REDBUD.
BLACK AND WHITE DRAWING SET
(6) The notes on drawing A4.44A seem to indicate that ― except for the stained glass windows
― the existing 901 E. State St. windows will be replaced with new windows designed to look like
the original windows. However, during the presentation at the March Planning Board meeting, I
believe Alan said that the existing 901 E. State St. windows would be refurbished and reused.
Please clarify this.
3
Approved at the June 26, 2012
Planning and Development Board Meeting
BLACK AND WHITE DRAWING SET IS CORRECT. 901 WINDOWS WILL BE REPLACED
WITH REPLICAS OF THE ORIGINALS, INCLUDING MUNTIN PATTERNS WHERE THEY
OCCUR. STAINED GLASS WINDOWS WILL BE REPAIRED AND REUSED. APOLOGY FOR
THE MISSTATEMENT AT THE PUBLIC MEETING.
(7) What is the proposed flooring material on the restored Level B front porch?
FRONT PORCH DECK IS TONGUE AND GROOVE WOOD DECKING — BATTLESHIP GRAY
(WHICH IS DARK GRAY AS SHOWN ON COLOR ELEVATION).
(8) Just for the record: The exposure (apparent width) of the clapboard on the Building 4.4
addition to 901 will be wider than the exposure of the clapboard on 901, correct? (This would be
the desirable condition.)
YES. THE EXPOSURE OF THE SIDING ON 4.4 IS 8” AS COMPARED TO THE ORIGINAL
WHICH IS 4” OR 5.” N.B. 901 SIDING WILL BE REPLACED TO MATCH ORIGINAL.
(9) Special praise department: The details of the front stairs restoration — especially the curved
stone kneewall cap and the brass railing — are particularly elegant.
ALL PRAISE GRATEFULLY ACCEPTED (ESPECIALLY FROM THE S.P.D.).
(10) This is just a general interest question, as the Planning Board has no jurisdiction over the
interior of 901, but am I correct in understanding that ― to the degree feasible ― the existing
woodwork will be retained in the two proposed public rooms on Level B, in the stair hall
connecting Level B and Level C, and in the octagonal bedroom on Level D?
YES. THAT IS THE INTENTION.
― J.S.
COMMENTS IN RESPONSE BY AC
In Favor: Acharya, Boothroyd, Jones-Rounds, Marcham, Rudan, Schroeder, Thoreau
Opposed: None
Absent: None
B. Collegetown Crossing, 307 College Avenue. Discussion of Environmental Review
Materials.
Discussion took place on the floor regarding Part 2 of the Full Environmental Assessment
Form (FEAF).
The Board agreed by consensus to amend question #10 under “Impacts on Aesthetic
Resources,” “Other Impacts,” to read: “All four elevations will be visible from public
rights of way,” and to designate it as a potential large impact that could be reduced by a
project change.
4
Approved at the June 26, 2012
Planning and Development Board Meeting
The Board then discussed question #14 under “Impact on Transportation.”
Proposed Resolution to Amend Draft Full Environmental Assessment Form, Part 2
On a motion by Boothroyd, seconded by Jones-Rounds:
The Board votes to amend “Other Impacts: See Part 3 of the FEAF” under “Impact on
Transportation” from a potential large impact to a small to moderate impact.
In Favor: Boothroyd, Jones-Rounds
Opposed: Acharya, Marcham, Rudan, Schroeder, Thoreau
Absent: None
The proposed motion failed.
The Board then discussed question #18 under “Impact on Growth and Character of
Community or Neighborhood.”
There was consensus to add the parenthetical phrase “(conflicts with zoning for parking
and rear yard setback) after “Proposed action will conflict with officially adopted plans or
goals.”
Adopted Resolution to Amend Draft Full Environmental Assessment Form, Part 2
On a motion by Boothroyd, seconded by Marcham:
The Board votes to include “Proposed action will cause a change in the density of land
use” under “Impact on Growth and Character of Community or Neighborhood” as a
potential impact.
In Favor: Boothroyd, Marcham, Rudan, Schroeder, Thoreau
Opposed: Acharya, Jones-Rounds
Absent: None
Adopted Resolution to Amend Draft Full Environmental Assessment Form, Part 2
On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Jones-Rounds:
The Board votes to characterize “Proposed action will cause a change in the density of
land use” under “Impact on Growth and Character of Community or Neighborhood” as a
small to moderate but positive impact.
In Favor: Acharya, Boothroyd, Jones-Rounds, Marcham, Rudan, Schroeder, Thoreau
Opposed: None
Absent: None
5
Approved at the June 26, 2012
Planning and Development Board Meeting
Adopted Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), Part 2:
On a motion by Boothroyd, seconded by Schroeder:
City of Ithaca Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF)
Part 2 – Project Impacts
Project Name: Collegetown Crossing (307 College Avenue), Mixed-Use Project
Date Created: February 8, 2012
Date Revised: April 4, 2012
Further Revised by Planning and Development Board: April 10, 2012
Small to
Moderate
Impact
Potential
Large
Impact
Can Impact be
Reduced by
Project Change?
IMPACT ON LAND
1. Will there be an effect as a result of a physical change to project site? Yes X No
Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater (15 foot rise
per 100 foot of length), or where the general slope in the
project exceeds 10%.
Yes No
Construction on land where the depth to the water table is
less than 3 feet. Yes No
Construction of parking facility/area for 50 or more
vehicles. Yes No
Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or
generally within 3 feet of existing ground surface. Yes No
Construction that will continue for more than 1 year or
involve more than one phase or stage. Yes No
Evacuation for mining purposes that would remove more
than 1,000 tons of natural material (i.e., rock or soil) per
year.
Yes No
Construction of any new sanitary landfill. Yes No
Construction in a designated floodway. Yes No
Other impacts: Yes No
2. Will there be an effect on any unique landforms found on the site? (i.e., cliffs, gorges, geological
formations, etc.) Yes X No
Specific land forms: Yes No
IMPACT ON WATER
3. Will project affect any water body designated as protected? (Under article 15 or 24 of the
Environmental Conservation Law, E.C.L.) Yes X No
Developable area of site contains a protected water body Yes No
Dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from
channel of a protected stream. Yes No
Extension of utility distribution facilities through a Yes No
6
Approved at the June 26, 2012
Planning and Development Board Meeting
Small to
Moderate
Impact
Potential
Large
Impact
Can Impact be
Reduced by
Project Change?
protected water body.
Construction in a designated freshwater wetland. Yes No
Other impacts: Yes No
4. Will project affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? Yes X No
A 10% increase or decrease in the surface area of any body
of water or more than a 10,000 sq. ft. of surface area. Yes No
Construction, alteration, or conversion of a body of water
that exceeds 10,000 sq. ft. of surface area. Yes No
Fall Creek, Six Mile Creek, Cascadilla Creek, Silver
Creek, Cayuga Lake, or the Cayuga Inlet?
Yes No
Other impacts: Yes No
5. Will project affect surface or groundwater quality? Yes X No
Project will require a discharge permit. Yes No
Project requires use of a source of water that does not have
approval to serve proposed project. Yes No
Construction or operation causing any contamination of a
public water supply system. Yes No
Project will adversely affect groundwater. Yes No
Liquid effluent will be conveyed off the site to facilities
which presently do not exist or have inadequate capacity. Yes No
Project requiring a facility that would use water in excess
of 20,000 gallons per day or 500 gallons per minute. Yes No
Project will likely cause siltation or other discharge into an
existing body of water to the extent that there will be an
obvious visual contrast to natural conditions.
Yes No
Proposed Action will require the storage of petroleum or
chemical products greater than 1,100 gallons. Yes No
Other impacts: Yes No
6. Will project alter drainage flow, drainage patterns, or surface water runoff? Yes X No
Project would impede floodwater flows. Yes No
Project is likely to cause substantial erosion. Yes No
Project is incompatible with existing drainage patterns. Yes No
Other impacts: Yes No
IMPACT ON AIR
7. Will project affect air quality? Yes X No
Project will induce 500 or more vehicle trips in any 8-hour
period per day. Yes No
Project will result in the incineration of more than 2.5 tons
of refuse per 24-hour day. Yes No
Project emission rate of all contaminants will exceed 5 lbs.
per hour or a heat source producing more than 10 million Yes No
7
Approved at the June 26, 2012
Planning and Development Board Meeting
Small to
Moderate
Impact
Potential
Large
Impact
Can Impact be
Reduced by
Project Change?
BTUs per hour.
Other impacts: Yes No
IMPACTS ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS
8. Will project affect any threatened or endangered species? Yes X No
Reduction of any species listed on the New York or
Federal list, using the site, found over, on, or near site. Yes No
Removal of any portion of a critical or significant wildlife
habitat. Yes No
Application of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a
year other than for agricultural purposes. Yes No
Other impacts: Yes No
9. Will proposed action substantially affect non-threatened or non-endangered species?
Yes X No
Proposed action would substantially interfere with any
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species. Yes No
Proposed action requires the removal or more than 1/2 acre
of mature woods or other locally important vegetation. Yes No
Other impacts:
Yes No
IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES
10. Will the proposed action affect views, vistas, or the visual character of the neighborhood or
community? X Yes No
Proposed land uses or proposed action components
obviously different from, or in sharp contrast to, current
surrounding land use patterns, whether man-made or
natural.
Yes No
Proposed land use or proposed action components visible
to users of aesthetic resources which will eliminate or
significantly reduce their enjoyment of aesthetic qualities
of that resource.
Yes No
Proposed action will result in the elimination or major
screening of scenic views known to be important to the
area.
Yes No
Other impacts: All four elevations will be visible from
public rights of way. X X Yes No
IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
11. Will proposed action impact any site or structure of historic, prehistoric, or paleontological
importance? Yes X No
Proposed action occurring wholly or partially within or
contiguous to any facility or site listed on or eligible for the
National or State Register of Historic Places.
Yes No
8
Approved at the June 26, 2012
Planning and Development Board Meeting
Small to
Moderate
Impact
Potential
Large
Impact
Can Impact be
Reduced by
Project Change?
Any impact to an archaeological site or fossil bed located
within the project site. Yes No
Proposed action occurring wholly or partially within or
contiguous to any site designated as a local landmark or in
a landmark district.
Yes No
Other impacts: Yes No
IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION
12. Will the proposed action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or
recreational opportunities? Yes X No
The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational
opportunity. Yes No
A major reduction of an open space important to the
community. Yes No
Other impacts: Yes No
IMPACT ON UNIQUE NATURAL AREAS AND CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREAS
13. Will the proposed action impact the exceptional or unique characteristics of a site designated
as a unique natural area (UNA) or a critical environmental area (CEA) by a local or state agency?
Yes X No
Proposed Action to locate within a UNA or CEA? Yes No
Proposed Action will result in a reduction in the quality of
the resource. Yes No
Proposed Action will impact the use, function, or
enjoyment of the resource. Yes No
Other impacts: Yes No
IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION
14. Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? X Yes No
Alteration of present patterns of movement of people
and/or goods. Yes No
Proposed action will result in major traffic problems. Yes No
Other impacts: See Part 3 of the FEAF. X X Yes No
IMPACT ON ENERGY
15. Will proposed action affect the community's sources of fuel or energy supply? Yes
X No
Proposed action causing greater than 5% increase in any
form of energy used in municipality. Yes No
Proposed action requiring the creation or extension of an
energy transmission or supply system to serve more than
50 single- or two-family residences.
Yes No
Other impacts: Yes No
IMPACT ON NOISE AND ODORS
16. Will there be objectionable odors, noise, glare, vibration, or electrical disturbance during
9
Approved at the June 26, 2012
Planning and Development Board Meeting
Small to
Moderate
Impact
Potential
Large
Impact
Can Impact be
Reduced by
Project Change?
construction of or after completion of this proposed action? X Yes No
Blasting within 1,500 feet of a hospital, school, or other
sensitive facility? Yes No
Odors will occur routinely (more than one hour per day). Yes No
Proposed action will produce operating noise exceeding
the local ambient noise levels for noise outside of structure. Yes No
Proposed action will remove natural barriers that would act
as a noise screen. Yes No
Other impacts: See Part 3 of the FEAF. X Yes X No
IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH
17. Will proposed action affect public health and safety? Yes X No
Proposed action will cause a risk of explosion or release of
hazardous substances (i.e., oil, pesticides, chemicals,
radiation, etc.) in the event of accident or upset conditions,
or there will be a chronic low-level discharge or emission.
Yes No
Proposed action may result in the burial of “hazardous
wastes” in any form (i.e., toxic, poisonous, highly reactive,
radioactive, irritating, infectious, etc.)
Yes No
Proposed action may result in the excavation or other
disturbance within 2,000 feet of a site used for the disposal
of solid or hazardous wastes.
Yes No
Proposed action will result in the handling or disposal or
hazardous wastes (i.e., toxic, poisonous, highly reactive,
radioactive, irritating, infectious, etc., including wastes that
are solid, semi-solid, liquid, or contain gases).
Yes No
Storage facilities for 50,000 or more gallons of any liquid
fuel. Yes No
Use of any chemical for de-icing, soil stabilization, or the
control of vegetation, insects, or animal life on the
premises of any residential, commercial or industrial
property in excess of 30,000 square feet.
Yes No
IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD
18. Will proposed action affect the character of the existing community? X Yes No
The population of the city in which the proposed action is
located is likely to grow by more than 5% of resident
human population.
Yes No
The municipal budgets for capital expenditures or
operating services will increase by more than 5% per year
as a result of this proposed action.
Yes No
Proposed action will conflict with officially adopted
plans or goals (conflicts with zoning for parking and
X
X Yes No
10
Approved at the June 26, 2012
Planning and Development Board Meeting
Small to
Moderate
Impact
Potential
Large
Impact
Can Impact be
Reduced by
Project Change?
rear yard setback).
Proposed action will cause a change in the density of
land use (positive impact).
X
Yes No
The proposed action will replace or eliminate existing
facilities, structures, or areas of historic importance to the
community.
Yes No
Development will create a demand for additional
community services (e.g., schools, police, and fire, etc.).
Yes No
Proposed action will set an important precedent for
future actions. X X Yes No
Proposed action will relocate 15 or more employees in one
or more businesses.
Yes No
Other impacts: Will induce an influx of a particular
age group with special needs.
X X Yes No
19. Is there public controversy concerning the proposed action? X Yes No Unknown
In Favor: Acharya, Boothroyd, Jones Rounds, Marcham, Rudan, Schroeder, Thoreau
Opposed: None
Absent: None
The Board then discussed the draft Part 3 of the Full Environmental Assessment Form
(FEAF). The specific draft used during the following discussion was the staff draft of
February 22, 2012, as revised by staff on April 5, 2012, and as further revised on April 8,
2012 by Chair Acharya.
There was consensus to add “Impact on Aesthetic Resources” to the list of moderate-to-
large impacts under “Description of the Action.”
Adopted Resolution to Amend Draft Full Environmental Assessment Form, Part 3
On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Jones-Rounds:
The Board votes to add the following language under “Impact on Aesthetic Resources”:
“All four elevations will be very visible from public ways, so the quality and
contextuality of all facades should be an important consideration during site plan
review.”
In Favor: Acharya, Boothroyd, Jones-Rounds, Marcham, Rudan, Schroeder, Thoreau
Opposed: None
Absent: None
11
Approved at the June 26, 2012
Planning and Development Board Meeting
Schroeder remarked that “Impact on Transportation” should include a reference to the
increased demand on pedestrian, bike, and transit systems if no tenant parking is provided
on site. This might include bike facilities, sidewalks, and transit stops. He said the latter
two are especially inadequate in Collegetown (and, in particular, inadequate close to the
project site).
The Board discussed the survey numbers provided by the applicant in a document titled
“Collegetown Crossing — Project Narrative and Supporting Materials for Site Plan
Review,” dated January 31, 2012. Per this document, the survey pool consisted of student
renters “who came to J&W House offices in search of housing in Collegetown for the
2011-2012 academic year.” It was generally expressed that, since the applicant bases
proposed mitigations on these survey numbers, and since the methodology of applicant’s
survey is open to question, numbers for the same set of questions posed as part of
applicant’s informal survey in the above document should be provided by a professional
third-party study.
Further discussion took place on the floor regarding the proposed study’s contents and it
was agreed the third-party study would be needed to complete Part 3 of the FEAF.
At Board of Zoning Appeals Chair Steven Beer’s request, Lavine stated the City Code’s
criteria for evaluating zoning variances.
Subsequent discussion ensued regarding vehicular loading issues and proposed
mitigations.
It was agreed Part 3 should, under the “Impact on Transportation” heading, list all
proposed mitigations and describe how they would be enforced and how they would be
maintained over time (even if ownership of the property should change hands in the
future). The applicant was asked to provide a clear list of all proposed mitigations, along
with proposed methods of enforcement (which should be done in consultation with the
applicant’s attorney), to which the applicant agreed.
Building Commissioner Phyllis Radke stressed the Building Department would not be
able to enforce any lease provisions.
Adopted Resolution Regarding Draft Full Environmental Assessment Form, Part 3
On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Thoreau:
The Planning and Development Board votes to require a professional third-party study to
provide numbers for the same set of questions asked as part of an informal survey
described in the applicant’s “Collegetown Crossing — Project Narrative and Supporting
Materials for Site Plan Review” document.
In Favor: Acharya, Boothroyd, Marcham, Rudan, Schroeder, Thoreau
12
Approved at the June 26, 2012
Planning and Development Board Meeting
13
Opposed: None
Abstain: Jones-Rounds
Absent: None
Responding to a question from Thoreau, City Attorney Aaron Lavine clarified that Board
members may only abstain from a vote if they have a conflict of interest. Jones-Rounds
indicated she did not have a conflict of interest.
Adopted Motion to Rescind Prior Motion
On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Thoreau:
The Board votes to rescind the previous motion.
In Favor: Acharya, Boothroyd, Jones-Rounds, Marcham, Rudan, Schroeder, Thoreau
Opposed: None
Absent: None
Adopted Resolution Regarding Draft Full Environmental Assessment Form, Part 3
On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Thoreau:
The Planning and Development Board votes to require a professional third-party study to
provide numbers for the same set of questions asked as part of an informal survey
described in the applicant’s “Collegetown Crossing — Project Narrative and Supporting
Materials for Site Plan Review” document.
In Favor: Acharya, Boothroyd, Marcham, Rudan, Schroeder, Thoreau
Opposed: Jones-Rounds
Absent: None
3. Adjournment
On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Boothroyd, and unanimously approved, the meeting
was adjourned at 8:45 p.m.