Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-08-16-BZA-FINALTOWN OF ULYSSES BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES Wednesday, August 16, 2017 Approved: September 20, 2017 Present: Chair George Tselekis, and board members Andy Hillman, Bob Howarth, Steve Morreale, and Cheryl Thompson; Environmental Planner Darby Kiley. Mr. Means was excused. Ms. Thompson was made a voting member in place of Mr. Means. Public in Attendance: Dan Clement, Jim Holtkamp, Carol and Mack Travis, Tony DiRusso, Sally Yates, Durga Bor, Holly Austin, Carl Mazzocone, Brian Davis, Noy Davis, Jamie Swinnerton. Call to order: 7:04 p.m. Continuation of Public Hearing and SEOR Determination: Appeal by TFI Landco, LLC for area variances under Section 212-122 Standards for Signs for the B1 -Business District and for area variances under Section 212-92 D, 212-92 E, and 212-92 G of the Town of Ulysses Zoning Law. The property is located at 2030 Gorge Rd, Town of Ulysses, Tax Parcel Numbers are 14.- 1-11, 14.-3-18.1, and 14.-3-18.2. Signs — For the purpose of installing new and replacing existing signs on the three parcels of the Inn at Taughannock, the applicant is pursuing the following area variances: On Tax Parcel Number 14.-1-11 on the north side of Gorge Rd, the proposal includes three (3) business directional signs and two (2) freestanding signs. The zoning law allows for no more than two (2) business directional signs per parcel, and business directional signs are limited to six (6) feet in height and six (6) square feet. Sign #1, a business directional sign on the northern boundary with Taughannock Falls State Park, is proposed to be 14.3 feet tall with a surface area of 35.7 square feet. Sign #4, the second business directional sign to be located on the western Inn entrance on Gorge Rd, would have a height of 7.4 feet and surface area of 20.5 square feet. Sign #5, the third business directional sign to be located at the eastern Inn entrance on Gorge Rd, would have a height of 12.8 feet and surface area of 35.8 square feet. The zoning law allows for one freestanding sign with a height limit of 15 feet and area of 24 square feet. The applicant is proposing two (2) freestanding signs. Sign #2 would be parallel to Trumansburg Rd with a height of six (6) feet and a surface area of 133.5 square feet. Sign #3 would replace the existing sign at the corner of Taughannock Blvd and Gorge Rd. The sign is proposed to be 14.9 feet tall with a surface area of 104.4 square feet. Board of Zoning Appeals 2 August 16, 2017 On Tax Parcel Number 14.-3-18.2 on the south side of Gorge Rd, eastern parcel, the proposal includes one business directional sign and one freestanding sign. Sign #6, a business directional sign at the driveway entrance for the Lakeview building, would have a height of 9.0 feet and surface area of 24.8 square feet, exceeding both the height and surface area requirements. Sign #10, a freestanding sign to be located along Taughannock Blvd south of Gorge Rd, would have a height of 8.1 feet and surface area of 23.8 square feet and meets the zoning requirements. Setbacks — For the purpose of constructing a new building between Gorge Rd and the existing main inn building, the proposed building, referred to as the gatehouse and stables, would not meet the required 30 foot front yard setback at the Gorge Rd right of way. The proposed building would be located as close as 1.4 feet to the right of way and 1.7 feet to a side yard that borders New York State Parks parcel at the corner of Taughannock Blvd and Gorge Rd. The required side yard setback is 15 feet. Height — The maximum building height in the B1 -Business District is 32 feet, and building height is defined as the distance from the average grade level to the highest point of a building. The proposed building would have a height of 46.1 feet so a variance for the additional 14.1 feet is needed. A cupola is proposed for the top of the existing Inn. This will increase the existing building height by 6.75 feet from 57.8 feet inches to 64.6 feet. In light of Mr. Mazzocone's decision to withdraw the variance request for noise, Ms. Bor asked if Inn neighbors can still contact Mr. Mazzocone if they hear loud music coming from the Inn after 11 p.m. Mr. Mazzocone had previously said neighbors could call him on his cellphone. Ms. Bor found information on accidents around Gorge Road and Route 89 and said the intersection is in the top 20 of motor vehicle accidents in Tompkins County from 2009 through 2013. It is also in the top 10 of severity of accidents in the County. Mr. Holtkamp asked how this project fits into the Town's Comprehensive Plan, since the Inn is surrounded by park land. The park was created to give communities a respite from our everyday lives. People come to the park to escape; they do not want to hear Smashmouth. The proposal dumps noise pollution in a place where we should not be putting any pollution. Mr. Clement said zoning laws are enacted for a reason, and existing laws are adequate for signage. He cautioned against granting the setback variance for the Stables building, calling it a safety hazard. Gorge Road gets slippery in the winter, and if a drunk driver hits the building, there will be questions. There have to be exceptional circumstances in order to grant a variance, and he is not seeing them with the Inn project. At this time, the BZA reviewed the Short Environmental Assessment Form. Board members made the following changes: Question 4 ("Check all land uses that occur on, adjoining and near the proposed action") — Board members added "Forest", "Rural (Non-ag)" and "Other — Camping" along with "Parkland", "Aquatic", "Commercial" and "Residential (suburban). Board of Zoning Appeals 3 August 16, 2017 Question 5, note b ("Is the Proposed action consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan?) — Mr. Howarth suggested and consensus was reached to check "No" since preserving views, viewsheds and the surrounding rural character are charges put forth by the Comprehensive Plan. Variance requests for additional and larger signage and setbacks are not consistent with the Plan, Mr. Howarth said. Question 6 ("Is the proposed action consistent with the predominant character of the existing built or natural landscape"?) — Mr. Howarth proposed and consensus was reached to check "No" since there are not many signs in the area, nor a building that infringes into the road right-of- way. It is antithetical to the Comprehensive Plan. Question 14 ("Identify the typical habitat types that occur on, or are likely to be found on the project site. Check all that apply:" — the Board reached consensus to check "Forest" along with "Agricultural/grasslands". Mr. Morreale MADE the MOTION to accept the changes to Part I, and Mr. Hillman SECONDED the MOTION. The motion was unanimously carried, 5-0. In reviewing Part II (Impact Assessment) of the Short Environmental Assessment Form, the BZA made the following changes. Where noted, the BZA also proposed language to include within Part III (Determination of Significance): Question I ("Will the proposed action create a material conflict with an adopted land use plan or zoning regulation?") — Ms. Thompson thought the variance requests to be conflicts, and Mr. Howarth, too, felt the impact should be "Moderate to large". Further, both Ms. Thompson and Mr. Howarth suggested the following language to add to Part III: "All of these variances together add at least moderate conflict with zoning, the Town Comprehensive Plan and the designation of a scenic byway on Route 89, which calls for careful consideration of any signs in signs along the byway." Question 3 ("Will the proposed action impair the character or quality of the existing community?") — The Board agreed that the action will have a moderate to large impact. Further, they offered additional language to include within Part III, noting that the proposed Stables building is within two feet of the right of way and that "The closer the building is to the roadway, the more it impairs views for people walking or driving down Gorge Road." Question 8 ("Will the proposed action impair the character or quality of important historic, archaeological, architectural or aesthetic resources?") — Mr. Howarth noted that the explanation within Part III does not include reference to the Inn being a historic building in the community nor does it note viewsheds. Mr. Howarth MADE the MOTION to accept the changes in Part II and additional language in Part III, and Mr. Morreale SECONDED the MOTION. The motion was unanimously carried. Resolution for SEAR Determination Board of Zoning Appeals 4 August 16, 2017 WHEREAS: 1. This is consideration of the Inn at Taughannock proposed Gatehouse and Stables and proposed signs, Tax Parcel Numbers 14.4-11, 14.-3-18.1 and 14.-3-18.2; B1 -Business District. The proposed project includes a central check-in, five hotel suites, ice cream parlor/grill, patio with reflecting pools, seasonal tent area for 125 guests, and the replacement and installation of eight regulated signs. TFI Landco, LLC, owner; Carl Mazzocone, agent; and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ulysses Board of Zoning Appeals is acting in an uncoordinated environmental review with respect to the project; and 3. The Board of Zoning Appeals, on August 16, 2017, reviewed, revised and accepted, with revisions, the Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Parts 2 and 3 prepared by Town staff; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ulysses Board of Zoning Appeals hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance for the reasons set forth in the Environmental Assessment Form Parts 2 and 3 referenced above, 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. The vote was as follows: Mr. Tselekis AYE Mr. Hillman AYE Mr. Howarth AYE Mr. Morreale AYE Ms. Thompson AYE Result: Resolution passed At this time, the BZA began consideration of individual resolutions for each of the variance requests, beginning with the front and side yard setback variance. Resolution for setbacks on new Stables building Mr. Morreale felt the variance was substantial when considering both the height of the proposed building and the right-of-way encroachment. It's a significant blocking of viewsheds in particularly important scenic areas frequented by many people. Mr. Howarth noted that the nearby Park's Rim Trail detours down Gorge Road in the winter. The Stables building would impact views. Ms. Thompson thought the encroachment was too close; the Stables' overhang will be directly on the right-of-way line, and she is not comfortable with the building footprint being 1.5 feet from the right of way. A 15 -foot setback would have been more favorable. Board of Zoning Appeals 5 August 16, 2017 Mr. Morreale said the applicant's statements of hardship were not convincing; the variance requests have more to do with aesthetics and preference. The architect has previously said the Stables would lose one or two suites if the building were constructed within zoning parameters. Mr. Morreale thought the Stables could be pushed further back on the property and within zoning. Mr. Howarth said he agreed with some of the comments from the floor, particularly the building being a safety hazard if built so close to the right of way. Safety and viewsheds are the two main reasons for setbacks. Mr. Morreale MADE the MOTION to deny the variance requests, and Mr. Hillman SECONDED the MOTION as follows: The BZA reviewed the record and weighed the benefits to the Applicant against the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood if the variances are granted by considering the five statutory factors. Benefit sought by applicant is to construct a new building that would not meet the required 30 -foot front yard setback at the Gorge Rd right of way, nor the required 15 foot side yard setback where the property borders a New York State Parks parcel at the corner of Taughannock Blvd and Gorge Rd. The proposed building would be located as close as 1.4 feet tc the Gorge Rd right of way and 1.7 feet to the side yard property line. 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area variances. The proposed building is an addition to the existing Inn at Taughannock, which is an allowed use in the B1 -Business District. The other buildings of the Inn properties are about 100 feet or more from the adjacent roadways. Adding a building 1.4 feet from the road right of way will change the character of the neighborhood because other buildings in the vicinity are more than 100 feet from the road. The property to the south is part of the Inn, and the variance would not have a detrimental impact on that property. In addition, the proximity to the road will have a negative impact on the view from Gorge Road for vehicle traffic and, because Gorge Road is the winter detour for the South Rim Trail, the building obstructs views for hikers. In addition, the building obstructs the view from the scenic byway. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some other method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than area variances. The applicant has shown perspective images that the same size building can fit in the same area without a variance. In order to meet the front and side yard setbacks, the proposed building would be closer to the existing Inn. The applicant has stated that this location is preferred for aesthetic reasons, and while the desire to preserve the aesthetics of the original Inn building is appreciated, the encroachment on the setback is excessive and the applicant has provided no economic justification, nor other compelling justification for the setback request. The applicant has other options to site the building. 3. Whether the requested area variances are substantial. Board of Zoning Appeals 6 August 16, 2017 The front yard setback variance request — 1.4 feet versus 30 feet required — is substantial. The side yard setback variance request — 1.7 feet versus 15 feet required — is also substantial. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Stormwater and other environmental issues will need to be addressed regardless of the location of the proposed building. The physical conditions to consider are the impacts on the public right of way. In addition, there is a potential safety hazard to vehicle and pedestrian traffic created by the proximity to the road. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty is self-created because the applicant has shown that a building of the same size could be located on the property without the setback variances. 6. Considering all of the statutory factors set forth above, the Board of Zoning Appeals concludes as follows, the addition will create an undesirable change, could be achieved by other methods, the encroachment is excessive, the addition will cause physical environmental impacts to the neighborhood, and the difficulty is self-created, therefore the benefits to the applicant do not outweigh the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood. For the reasons set forth above, and upon the evidence, law and facts, the BZA hereby denies area variances for front and side yard setbacks for the proposed building as requested by the applicant. The vote was as follows: Mr. Tselekis AYE Mr. Hillman AYE Mr. Howarth AYE Mr. Morreale AYE Ms. Thompson AYE Result: Resolution passed; variance denied. Resolution for height variance on existing Inn Mr. Howarth said this variance — unlike the setbacks request — would not substantially obstruct views of the Inn or views from Gorge Road. Mr. Morreale agreed, adding that the Inn and cupola are positioned in front of a steep hill. Ms. Thompson MADE the MOTION to grant the variance request, and Mr. Hillman SECONDED the MOTION as follows: Board of Zoning Appeals 7 August 16, 2017 The BZA reviewed the record and weighed the benefits to the Applicant against the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood if the variance is granted by considering the five statutory factors. Benefit sought by applicant is to add a 6'9" tall cupola on the existing Inn, increasing the building height from 57'10" to 647". 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area variances. The addition of the roof on the cupola to the top of the existing Inn will not produce an undesirable change in the neighborhood nor be a detriment to nearby properties. The building was built over 140 years ago, and the addition of the roof on the cupola will not impact the views of any neighbors nor the public. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some other method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than area variances. No. Because the existing building exceeds the height limit, any addition to the top of the building will require an area variance. 3. Whether the requested area variances are substantial. The existing height of the Inn at the highest ridge is 46'10", exceeding the height limit by almost 15 feet. The Inn has an existing cupola that is 11 feet higher, and the proposal is to add a roof of 6'9" for a total height of 647". This height is substantially higher than the allowed 32 feet, but is not substantially higher than the existing height. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The proposed height variance will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty is self-created because the applicant is adding more height to a building that already exceeds the height limit and it's not necessary. 6. Considering all of the statutory factors set forth above, the Board of Zoning Appeals concludes as follows, the addition of the cupola will not produce an undesirable change in the neighborhood or nearby properties, cannot be sought by another method, the change is substantial, and though the difficulty is self-created and the overall building height is much higher than what is allowed, the addition of a roof on the cupola will not impact any views, and will not cause an adverse impact on the environmental conditions, therefore the benefits to the applicant outweigh the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood. Board of Zoning Appeals 8 August 16, 2017 For the reasons set forth above, and upon the evidence, law and facts, the BZA hereby grants the area variance for the height of the existing Inn as requested by the applicant. Mr. Howarth offered a friendly amendment that Ms. Thompson accepted. The vote was as follows: Mr. Tselekis AYE Mr. Hillman AYE Mr. Howarth AYE Mr. Morreale AYE Ms. Thompson AYE Result: Resolution passed; variance granted. The BZA took a brief recess. Resolution for height variance on new Stables building Ms. Thompson felt the change was detrimental, citing the proposed building height as not in character with the surrounding neighborhood; the existing Inn is the important exception. She would prefer to abide by current zoning on this request. Mr. Hillman leaned toward denying the request on account of the five statutory factors outlined in the resolution. Ms. Thompson MADE the MOTION to deny the variance request, and Mr. Howarth SECONDED the MOTION as follows: The BZA reviewed the record and weighed the benefits to the Applicant against the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood if the variance is granted by considering the five statutory factors. Benefit sought by applicant is to build a new building that will exceed the height limit of 32 feet. The exceedances include the ridgeline of the gatehouse and stables building that would be 357"; the two small roofed cupolas on the stables that would be 42'9"; the tower on the gatehouse that would be 46'1 ". 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area variances. The variance would not be detrimental to the nearby property, but there is an undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood in that neighborhood is an important landmark building. The Town's Comprehensive Plan stresses the importance of maintaining the rural character of the Town. Creating an undesirable change to the neighborhood is a detriment to the rural character. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some other method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than area variances. Board of Zoning Appeals 9 August 16, 2017 The applicant could modify the building so that the ridgeline does not exceed the height limit, and the cupolas and tower are added features that could be removed from the proposal. 3. Whether the requested area variances are substantial. The ridgeline of the proposed building of 357' is not a substantial variance from the 32 -ft height limit. The cupolas and tower heights are more substantial, adding 10'9" and 14'1 " feet beyond the 32 -foot limit. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. No, we do not believe it will. The proposed height variance for the new building will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood, as it would not block views. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty is self-created because the applicant could propose a shorter building and remove the cupolas and tower. 6. Considering all of the statutory factors set forth above, the Board of Zoning Appeals concludes as follows: the difficulty is self-created, and the proposed building height is higher than what is allowed. It seems that the applicant can achieve the benefits that he is pursuing and stay within the 32 -foot limit. Therefore, the benefits to the applicant do not outweigh the detriment to the health, safety, welfare, and character of the neighborhood. For the reasons set forth above, and upon the evidence, law and facts, the BZA hereby denies the area variances requested by the applicant for the height of the proposed building. The vote was as follows: Mr. Tselekis AYE Mr. Hillman AYE Mr. Howarth AYE Mr. Morreale AYE Ms. Thompson AYE Result: Resolution passed; variance denied. Resolution for variances concerning Signs 1, 4 and 5 A discussion ensued on whether or not to review signage individually or in sets, rather than collectively. Mr. Howarth felt it somewhat difficult to review them in parts. He cited the Town Comprehensive Plan and its language regarding signage and sign sizes. The zoning, as written, accurately reflects the feeling of the Town Comprehensive Plan: as a Town, we do not want a lot Board of Zoning Appeals 10 August 16, 2017 of large signs. Ms. Thompson found Signs 1 and 5 attractive and inoffensive; she would vote yes to both. Mr. Hillman asked if the Parks Office had weighed in on the sign proposed near the Taughannock Falls trail. Ms. Austin said Fred Bonn of the Parks Office had approved it. Ms. Thompson MADE the MOTION to grant the variance requests for signs 1 and 5, and Mr. Hillman SECONDED the MOTION. However, a lengthy conversation then ensued among Board members to include Sign 4 within the proposed resolution. Mr. Howarth and Mr. Morreale both felt a decision on Signs 1 and 5 would ultimately impact their decision on Sign 4, since only two of the directional signs would be permitted among the three. The resolution for Signs I and 5 was ultimately edited to include Sign 4 as well. Mr. Tselekis amended the MOTION as follows: The BZA reviewed the record and weighed the benefits to the Applicant against the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood if the variances are granted by considering the five statutory factors. Benefit sought by applicant is to install signs #1, #4 and #5, three business directional signs, on Tax Parcel Number 14.-1-11 (Parcel 1), where two are allowed. All three signs would exceed the height limit of 6 feet and the area limit of 6 square feet. For sign #1, the proposed height is 14.3 feet and area is 35.7 square feet; for sign #5, the proposed height is 12.8 feet and area is 35.8 square feet, and for sign #4, the proposed height is 7.4 feet and area is 20.5 square feet. 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area variances. Two of the proposed signs would be rusted plate steel arches installed on stone pillars, are decorative in nature, and do not produce an undesirable change in the neighborhood character and would not be a detriment to nearby properties. Sign 4 would also not produce an undesirable change to the neighbor nor nearby properties. There is an existing sign in approximately the same location. Individually, the signs are not undesirable, but a total of three signs is an excessive proliferation of signs and is counter to the goals of the Town Comprehensive Plan. The proposed design for signs 1 and 5 matches the rustic and natural environment of the surrounding area. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some other method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than area variances. For signs 1 and 5, in order to install the signs on top of the stone pillars, the signs would have to exceed the height limit of 6 feet. The distance between the pillars, and therefore the width of the signs, needs to be wide enough for the path and driveway. For sign 4, the applicant could reduce the size of the sign by eliminating the Inn name and symbols. The directional information on the sign accounts for less than 4 square feet. 3. Whether the requested area variances are substantial. Board of Zoning Appeals 11 August 16, 2017 For signs 1 and 5, the height and area variances for both signs are substantial. Both signs would exceed the height limit of 6 feet and the area limit of 6 square feet. For sign 1, the proposed height is 14.3 feet and area is 35.7 square feet — more than twice the allowed height and almost 6 times the allowed area. For sign 5, the proposed height is 12.8 feet and area is 35.8 square feet - more than twice the allowed height and almost 6 times the allowed area. For sign 4, the height and area variances for the signs are substantial. Both signs would exceed the height limit of 6 feet and the area limit of 6 square feet. The height variance of 7.4 feet versus the allowed 6 feet is not substantial. However, the sign area of 20.5 feet versus the allowed 6 square feet is substantial. Allowing a third business directional sign is also substantial because sign 5 is proposed to be approximately 60 feet east of sign 4. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. No, there is no significant adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty is self-created. For sign 1, the applicant installed the pillars prior to proposing the sign, and for sign 5, the sign would be over the entrance and adjacent to sign 4, another business directional sign, so sign 5 would not be necessary to direct the guests to the property. The applicant is asking for a total of three business direction signs where only two are allowed. The directional information on sign 4 could be accomplished within the allowed height and area requirements. 6. Considering all of the statutory factors set forth above, the Board of Zoning Appeals approves any two of the three proposed signs and concludes as follows: two signs as designed would not produce an undesirable change, whereas three are excessive; two signs can achieve the benefit sought by the applicant; the requests are substantial but as long as they are limited to two signs, they are acceptable; the potential adverse impact will be limited as long as there are two signs allowed and not three; the difficulty is self-created. Therefore, the benefits to the applicant outweigh the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood if only two signs are allowed. For the reasons set forth above, and upon the evidence, law and facts, the BZA hereby grants the area variances for two out of the three signs — signs 1, 4, and 5 — requested by the applicant for height and square footage for business directional signs, leaving the choice to the applicant as to which two to construct. Mr. Tselekis MADE the MOTION to formally accept the edited resolution as stated, and Mr. Hillman SECONDED the MOTION. The motion was unanimously carried, 5-0. As for Ms. Thompson's initial MOTION to grant the variance requests, the vote was as follows: The vote was as follows: Board of Zoning Appeals 12 August 16, 2017 Mr. Tselekis AYE Mr. Hillman AYE Mr. Howarth AYE Mr. Morreale AYE Ms. Thompson AYE Result: Resolution passed; variances granted. At this time, the Board discussed adjourning the meeting and continuing on August 22. A brief discussion ensued regarding sign 3 and the issue of Mr. Mazzocone securing ownership of the parcel from the State Department of Transportation to put up a new sign. A vote on the July 19, 2017 meeting minutes was delayed until the August 22 meeting. Mr. Hillman MADE the MOTION to adjourn the meeting, and Mr. Morreale SECONDED the MOTION. The motion was unanimously carried. Meeting adjourned at 10:08 p.m. Respectfully submitted by Louis A. DiPietro II on September 6, 2017.