Loading...
9-11-18 BPB MinutesCITY OF BEVERLY PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES Board: Planning Board Meeting Date: September 11, 2018 Location: Beverly City Hall, City Council Chambers Members Present Chair Ellen Hutchinson, William Boesch, Zane Craft, Ellen Flannery, Allison Kilcoyne, David Mack, James Matz Members Absent: Vice Chair Ned Barrett, Wayne Miller Others Present: Assistant Planning Director Darlene Wynne Recorder: Samantha Johanson, Recording Secretary Chair Ellen Hutchinson calls the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. Hutchinson asks for a moment of silence for the anniversary of 9/11. Subdivision Approval Not Required Plans a. None. Approval of Minutes Hutchinson asks for any comments on the July 5, 2018 minutes. After discussion of minor corrections or edits, Ellen Flannery gave recommended changes to Darlene Wynne. James Matz submits some small typos. Flannery: Motion to approve minutes for July 5, 2018, as amended. William Boesch seconds the motion. The motion is approved (5 -0 -2, Matz and Allison Kilcoyne abstain). Recess for Public Hearings Flannery: Motion to recess to Public Hearing. Zane Craft seconds the motion. The motion is approved (7 -0). Public Hearing on Yield Plan and Public Comment Period on Concepts: Open Space Residential Design (OSRD) Initial Review Application #11 -18 — Create a new private way for 4 residential lots /units — Off Thaxton Road and Grover Street — Hickory Street Realty Trust Materials provided into the record: • OSRD Initial Review Application for 6 -acre Parcel off Thaxton Road and Grover Street from Hickory Street Realty Trust • OSRD Initial Plans for Off Thaxton Road and Grover Street from Griffin Engineering Group • Planning Department Staff Report # 1 for Off Thaxton Road and Grover Street • Beverly Police Department Letter (T. DiRuzza; 8/27/18) • Beverly Conservation Commission Letter (A. Maxner; 9/7/18) • Beverly Open Space & Recreation Committee Letter (C. Mann; 9/7/18) • Salem Beverly Water Supply Board (Meridian Engineering; 9/10/18) • Beverly Fire Department (C. Halloran; 9/10/18) • Beverly Engineering Department (L. Chandler; 9/11/18) Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes September 11, 2018 The applicant is looking to divide a nearly 6 -acre property into 4 single - family building lots. The applicant has submitted a Yield Plan and three conceptual plans for an OSRD subdivision for the Board to consider. Wynne reads the Public Notice. Hutchinson reminds the Board that the first step in an OSRD Plan process is the establishment of the Yield Plan. She explains that the Yield Plan is to establish the maximum number of housing units that can be built on the property. Hutchinson then tells them once a Yield Plan has been determined and a maximum number of lots that can be placed on the site has been determined, that they can then look at the Concept Plans. After a discussion, the Board can then decide on their preferred concept. Robert Griffin of Griffin Engineering Group, LLC for the client Hickory Street Realty Trust, orients the Board to the area and describes the Existing Conditions plan. He tells them they went to the Conservation Commission to establish where the wetlands are located, including a small stream and vegetation. He tells them that the site is about 450 feet from the reservoir at its closest point. Griffin shows the wetland boundaries and where the bordering vegetative wetland (BVW) is on the southwest corner of the site. In the middle of the BVW is the intermittent stream that eventually reaches the reservoir. He points out that there are no perennial streams within 200 feet of the property, no certified vernal pools, or flood zones. Griffin tells the Board that the Conservation Commission has a 25 -foot no disturb zone, a 50 -foot no build zone, then a 100 -foot buffer zone. He tells them that regarding the drinking regulations they require a constrained development within 200 feet of intermittent streams that are tributary to drinking water reservoirs which is the case. They are not allowed under those regulations to put stormwater management between the 200 feet offset and the stream itself. However, they are allowed to put single family residences in there and gravel driveways. He also points out the 20% slope areas for the OSRD calculations and shows the different elevations throughout the site. He tells the Board that with the Town of Wenham, there is a plan to connect Angus Circle with Thaxton Road for emergency purposes only, with an emergency crash gate just beyond Thaxton Road within the Wenham property. They do not want traffic cutting through, so that is why they proposed the crash gate. Griffin then describes the Yield Plan, which is 250 feet in length, has a 105 -foot diameter cul -de -sac, 6% maximum slope and thus conforms to the Beverly Subdivision regulations. They will have three R -22 conforming house lots off of the cul -de -sac, with 22,000 s.f. of lot area, 150 -feet of frontage, 30 -foot front yard setback, and 15 -foot side and rear yard setback. He explains that a 4t' lot, the largest, has the gravel driveway coming off of Grover Street. Hutchinson asks if there is a problem that the applicant will need waivers from Conservation Committee in order to build the 4t' lot (Lot 41). Griffin answers that the Conservation Commission has some concerns about this and he thinks Lot 41 meets the requirements of the Wetland Protection Act of Beverly. Griffin mentions that the applicant is looking to expedite the permitting process and believes that Lot 41 is buildable; but they have decided to focus on a 3 -lot Yield Plan. Hutchinson asks Griffin if the 3 -lot yield plan will look similar to what he currently shows on the Yield Plan. He answers yes. Hutchinson asks Wynne if the Planning Department thinks the 3 -lot Yield Plan as presented meets all the requirements. Wynne comments that the lot lines would have to move and they would have to submit a new Yield Plan. Griffin comments that Lot 41 would be marked not buildable. David Mack comments that Lot 45 doesn't meet the zoning requirements. 2 Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes September 11, 2018 Hutchinson comments that Conservation Commission thinks that Lot 41 doesn't meet the requirements for a waiver less yield plan. She explains that in order to expedite the process they are willing to relinquish that lot and have a 3 -lot yield plan, and under OSRD they can only put up 3 houses. Mack asks if they made that decision then there wouldn't be a driveway up from Grover Street. Griffin says that is correct. Wynne spoke with Amy Maxner, staff to the Conservation Commission who believes the Commission would welcome this solution, but she didn't get a chance to ask about any specifics. Wynne explains that they would still have to go back to the Conservation Commission to do some of the grading. Hutchinson asks if Griffin would like to present the Concept Plans. Wynne explains that the Public Hearing tonight is on the Yield Plan and that the Concept Plan is Public Comment period. Hutchinson asks for comments on the Yield Plan. John Galin at 2 Thaxton Road asks about the elevations and will the other 3 houses have stone or paved driveways. Griffin shows the Yield Plan which shows the paved driveway. Galin then asks where the drainage is going for the cul -de -sac. Griffin says there will be an underground infiltration basin under the cul -de -sac area and then points out where the run -off will flow and then down towards the reservoir. Galin asks if that grade is large enough to take that kind of water. Griffin explains that with any of the alternatives, including the Yield Plan or the development schemes, they have to meet the storm water management standards. That means that they have to make sure that the run off is no greater after development than it is today. They do that by putting water into the ground into the infiltration basins and sometimes they use the above ground retention basins; the water is treated before it goes into those devices, so the devices will last a long time. Hutchinson explains to the public that this plan is a theoretical plan which means it is only offered to show the maximum number of lots they can attain on the parcel if no waivers are required. She explains that they will decide on whether or not to accept the newly proposed 3 -lot Yield Plan and then move on to discuss the Conceptual Plans. Wynne comments that this is Phase I, and if the Board selects a preferred plan, then they will have to go back to add the engineering aspect for a future submission. Matz asks if those lots on the Yield Plan are subject to a restriction and how are they going to preserve the Open Space. He asks if the Open Space is on Lot 1 that is not buildable, should it be separated as a separate lot or should it be part of the existing buildable lots? Griffin comments that the boundaries on the Yield Plan don't need to be reflected in any of the alternatives. Wynne says that they can vote on a maximum number of lots, but they will need a clean Yield Plan with the correct number of lots. Tina Buchs of 4 Thaxton Road asks about the 2nd house and if there will be moving of land with the changing of grade. Griffin shows Buchs that there is some grading around the house and they wanted to provide some level area for the driveway and he also points out some storm water management behind the house. Chyllene McDonald of 8 Thaxton Road asks about how the residents will get into that road. Griffin explains there will be an emergency gate road, but there will be no other gate on Thaxton. McDonald asks what the point of the gate is and Griffin tells her to provide emergency egress between Angus Circle and Thaxton Road. Hutchinson asks if there are any other questions from the Public or Board. 91 Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes September 11, 2018 Wynne tells the Board they received letters from Open Space & Rec Committee (dated 9/7/18), Police Department (dated 8/27/18), Engineering Department (dated 9/11/18), Beverly Water Supply Board (dated 9/10/18), Fire Department (dated 9/10/18), and the Conservation Commission (dated 9/7/18) and summarizes any comments for the record. Boesch asks if it is fair to say that none of the comments, including those of the Conservation Committee, contradict the idea that the property permits a 3 -lot subdivision. Wynne says yes, and explains that the comments they have received don't really relate to the Yield Plan and have mostly been about the conceptual plans. Mack: Motion to close the Public Hearing. Flannery seconds the motion. The motion is approved (7 -0). Mack: Motion to approve the Yield Plan, as presented, and by doing so establish the basic maximum number of lots as 3 lots, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Yield Plan be revised to reflect that both Lot 1 and Lot 5 are not buildable lots, resulting in 3 buildable lots. 2. That the Yield Plan will be revised accordingly and submitted to the Planning Department for the record. Flannery seconds the motion. The motion is approved (7 -0). Griffin shows the Board the Concept Plans. He says that under the OSRD regulations they are required to provide 50% of the parcel as a no disturb area, which is 2.93 acres of no disturb land, and 50% of the buildable portion of the site as Open Space. He comments that if they take 5.86 -acre parcel and remove 1.6 acres of the Wetlands, the no disturb area, and the slope areas they are left with 3.22 acres of buildable area, requiring 1.62 acres of Open Space. Griffin shows them Option A which is the preferred option, and at 3.25 acres the Open Space exceeds the 1.61 required by double. There is a roadway connecting to existing stub at Thaxton Road and extends 400 feet providing a hammerhead for turn round, which is large enough for a fire truck to turn around. This plan shows Lots 1, 2, 3, 4 from the Yield Plan, but they wouldn't want to build one of them because it is the smallest house. So they would build lots 2, 3, and 4. Griffin then points out the grade is a maximum of 8% and they are maintaining 25 -foot buffer on the Wenham town line for the no disturb area and they will also be maintaining a no disturb area behind house at 4 and 6 Thaxton Road. He also points out the stormwater retention pond. Griffin shows the Board Option B which has a connection between Thaxton Road and the emergency egress accessing 2 houses and 2 houses further back with a wetland crossing. It meets the minimum requirement of 1.61 for Open Space, and no disturb area of 2.9 acres. He then shows them Option C which has access off of Thaxton Road, but the Open Space area is not as large as it is in Option A; it is 3.15 acres, which is above the minimum Open Space Requirements of 1.6 acres and well above the no disturb area at 2.9 acres. Griffin shows them that there is a shorter hammerhead area with a house coming down to a low flat area. He mentions that if they put a short stub connected to the 3 houses closer together, and that would leave an area for the storm water retention basin. Zane Craft asks that if they take out the left hand side house, how will that affect the house to the right side. Griffin says that under OSRD regulation they are allowed to get relief on the lot area, frontage, side and rear setbacks. Griffin explains that they would probably be looking for relief on the lot lines. He mentions that on the plan it shows a 20,000 s.f. lot and under the OSRD regulations they can be as low as 4 Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes September 11, 2018 6,000 s.f. with a lot. Both lot 2 and 3 are about 18,000 s.f. and they could make the lots significantly larger without having the other house in the back. Griffin then explains that Option C would be a different layout than other houses on Thaxton Road. Griffin tells the Board that the applicant prefers Option A because it doesn't change the character of the neighborhood. Hutchinson asks Griffin if there are any benefits of Option C versus Option A. Griffin comments that Option C is further away from the Wetlands, the cluster of 3 houses are more compact but could be spread out a bit more in a 3 lot scenario, and it has a shorter driveway than Option A. Griffin tells Hutchinson that Option A will look more like a driveway than a roadway. Flannery asks for clarification about Lot 44 in Option C. Griffin tells Flannery they may be able to spread out the houses a little bit. Griffin comments that the one benefit for Option C is there is a short stub with three driveways coming out of it, whereas Option A is a bit more spread out. Griffin explains that they both access Thaxton Road at the same point, but you will have more vegetation with Option A than you would with Option C. Flannery then asks if Option C takes out Lot 44. Griffin answers yes. Matz asks for clarification about the Yield Plan stating that they have 4 houses on it. Griffin tells him they have to remove that from the plans. Hutchinson comments that Option C seems to keep the 25 foot no disturb zone more intact. Griffin answers that they are looking to do some landscaping in the 25 foot no disturb zone and the corners of the house are at the property line. Hutchinson then asks if they are taking out a house and Lot 44 on Option C could they shift the house further left. Griffin says that they could. Hutchinson asks the Public if they would like to comment on the Concept Plans. Galin asks to see Option C and then asks if there will still be the drainage for the storm water basin. Galin asks Griffin if the retention basin would be in the same location as Option A. Griffin answers that it may move around a little bit. Griffin points out the firetruck turn - around. Galui then asks if the catch basin seeps away from the houses. Griffin tells Galin that they are trying to get the run -off from the driveways, and from the roof tops to the dry wells in each driveway, and then allow water to silt into the ground at the location of the retention pond which will be released to the wetlands at a controlled rate. Justin Galin of 2 Thaxton Road comments that the idea of Option C which has the houses more spread out would be more of what the neighbors would like to see happen. Buchs comments that Option C seems to have less of a driveway and thinner presence. Buchs comments that if they could control the direction of the release of the runoff to help move that away from the existing properties into the wetlands. Matz suggests that a revised Option C should be submitted to the Open Space and Conservation Commission. Wynne tells Matz that the Open Space Committee preferred Option A or Option C. Matz comments that Conservation Commission prefers Option A for a number of reasons. He says because the houses are kept outside the 100 -foot buffer zone and all activities kept outside the 50 foot no build zone, Option A provides the most square footage of Open Space creating undisturbed woodlands surrounding the wetlands and the 200 -foot Zone A. Matz thinks that if Option C is modified they should have the Open Space Committee and Conservation Commission review it again. Griffin comments that he will speak with the applicant about Option A and Option C and come back with more realized concepts. Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes September 11, 2018 Boesch asks when they will know about the locations of the houses on the Wenham side. Griffin comments that they know where they are going to go, it is under construction and have the building envelopes and some of the lots are sold. Wynne asks if there is an Open Space buffer adjacent to the Wenham /Beverly line on the Wenham side. Griffin tells Wynne he can get more information on that. Flannery: Motion to continue hearing to the September 25, 2018 meeting. Mack seconds the motion. The motion is approved (7 -0). Hutchinson tells the public that Griffin will discuss the proposed changes with his applicant for the 3 lot Yield Plan and he will redraw the 3 Concept Plans and take out the 4t' house and they will come back on September 25t' to further discuss the Concept Plans. Wynne comments that the public can go to the Planning Department office during open hours to view the plans and that they are also available online at the City's website. Minor Modification Request: Site Plan Review #134 -18 and Inclusionary Housing Permit Application #15 -18 — 268B Cabot Street — Add 2 units, increasing the total from 9 to 11 new dwelling units and change affordability rate of the affordable unit from 80% to 60% AMI — Overlook Cabot, LLC Materials provided into the record: • Cover letter dated August 13, 2018 (M. Gooding) • Modified Plan Set (new sheets only): Sheet A -1.1 First Floor Plan and Sheet A -2.1 Elevations; and previously approved versions of same sheets • Draft Parking and Access Easement Agreement for 275 Cabot Street • Planning Department Staff Reports for 268B Cabot Street • Email from E. Hutchings (8/14/18) • Parking & Traffic Commission letter (R. Benevento; 8/14/18) • Director of Municipal Inspections letter (S. Frederickson; 8/24/18) • Board of Health letter (W. Burke; 9/6/18) • Beverly Fire Department letter (C. Halloran; 9/7/18) • Agreement between owners of 268B Cabot Street and condominium owners at 266 Cabot Street. At the previous meeting the applicant proposed two modifications which included changing the total dwelling units from 9 to 11 by adding 2 units at ground -floor level, which would be 1- bedroom dwelling units. The second modification was to change the affordability of the inclusionary housing unit from 1 unit @ 80% AMI to 60% AML The Board approved it as a minor modification and also requested that the Parking and Traffic Commission review it. Miranda Gooding of Glovsky and Glovsky for the applicant Overlook Cabot, LLC tells the Board that at the last meeting they submitted a minor modification request. The Board determined it to be a minor modification and the applicant was asked to speak with the Parking and Traffic Commission to review the parking plan which was proposed to have an off -site parking arrangement at 275 Cabot Street. She then tells the Board that Peter Lutts, the applicant, would be coordinating information with the abutting owners at 266 Cabot Street, which is the commercial condominium. They wanted them to have the opportunity to review the plans to comment on them. Gooding says that Steve Ozahowski is present representing the owners from the commercial condominium. She notes that the owners have worked out an arrangement and Ozahowski is there to express that the Association is in support of the project as proposed. 11 Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes September 11, 2018 Gooding then explains that the Parking and Traffic Commission did express some concern about the design proposed for the two spaces proposed at 275 Cabot Street. They are most concerned about the arrangement that would require limited periods of access for dumpster removal during day time hours. She tells them that the dumpster is in the interior of the 275 Cabot Street lot. The Parking and Traffic Commission recommended that the two spaces should be exclusively used and dedicated to the apartments that they are designated to. She tells the Board that the applicant is willing to accept that condition. There is a work around either by eliminating the dumpster in that location and making other arrangements for the tenant. Or they could also reconfigure the spaces where they could be piggy back spaces. Gooding tells the Board that she spoke with Aaron Clausen, Planning Director and he is comfortable for the Board moving forward with the condition and the Parking and Traffic recommendations because the Commission will be able to see the plans before the Building Permits are issued. Wynne comments that the Board can use what the Parking and Traffic Commission recommends and that they can reference the letter to create a condition. Wynne explains that with any off -site parking arrangement, it needs to be approved by the Director of Municipal Inspections at the time of the building permit. And they will need to provide evidence of the right to use those parking spaces to the Building Inspector. Matz comments that he read through the Parking and Traffic Commission letter and recommendations and that they seemed to deny the proposal of putting in the two spaces where they are proposed because they may be blocked by the dumpster or other people parking there. Wynne explains the applicant's proposed solution to that issue. Wynne tells Matz that they could reorganize that space, so that two cars are parked, one behind the other. Wynne then explains that the other solution would be to remove the dumpster and find another location for it. Matz asks if they have to send the applicant back to Parking and Traffic before they approve it. Wynne tells Matz that they would not have to if they made a condition for final approval. Mack asks if they use the piggyback option at 275 Cabot Street, would the residents at 275 Cabot not have access to those lots. Gooding tells Mack that currently there is no assigned tenants to those spots. Gooding then hands out a picture of where the two spots are located. Craft asks Gooding about the tandem parking and if it would be dedicated to one unit and she tells him that is correct. Hutchinson asks Gooding if there were issues on the egress. Gooding says that Wynne circulated comments to various departments regarding the egress. Gooding says that in the latest email the question was raised and answered by the Building Inspector that the plans currently conform to the egress requirements. However, it is subject to his final sign off of the building permit. Gooding comments that the project architect Dan Ricciarelli, of Seger Architects, is available for questions. Hutchinson asks if there is an egress within 125 feet of each unit door. Ricciarelli answers yes. Ricciarelli points out the egress on the plan and that they are only required to have one. Wynne asks if the prior egress was going through the retail space. Ricciarelli says he updated the plan to eliminate that and points out on the plan where the egress is located. Hutchinson comments that the Board of Health issued a comment letter about new regulations for what is required for basement units in regards to lighting. Ricciarelli tells Hutchinson that natural light and all that will be provided. 7 Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes September 11, 2018 Ozahowski, condo owner and representing the other abutting condo owners as a Trustee. He tells the Board that they have made some suggestions to the plans, and he has also circulated them to the other unit owners. He tells them that 6 of the 9 unit owners responded positively about the plans, 1 did not answer, and the other 2 are friends of Peter Lutts. The only thing they would ask for is the agreement they entered into be entered into the record. Hutchinson asks Ozahowski what the agreement is about and to summarize if possible. Ozahowski explains that they provide an easement in the alley to the 268 building for maintenance and they wanted an easement for the 266 building, which the applicant is giving them. They will also have the 4 -foot space that they asked for and the fence. Ozahowski tells Hutchinson that initially the applicant wanted to have stairs from Cabot Street and he told them they do not want stairs. The fence that is currently there, may get removed because of the excavation that is needed, but it will be replaced. Ozahowski then says there will be no public egress /pathway because there is a bend so it would possibly invite trouble. Ozahowski explains that if something happens during the excavation the applicant will take care of any issues. Hutchinson asked if the easement will be captured in the legal documents and recorded at the registry. Ozahowski says it will be. Matz: Motion to recess meeting at 8:17pm. Kilcoyne seconds the motion. The motion is approved (7 -0). Return to meeting at 8:19pm. Hutchinson comments that Ozahowski wants the information to be submitted into the record. Wynne comments that this will be one of the documents submitted as part of the project record, with the understanding there will be a legal decision between the two parties; but it won't be listed as a separate condition of the Planning Board's decision. Gooding comments that they already have a separate agreement. Matz started motion but then withdrew it, after recommendations from Wynne. Mack: Motion to approve the request for minor modification to Site Plan Review #134 -18 to add two units to the project, subject to conditions that (1) prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant submit to Parking and Traffic Commission, and the Parking & Traffic approve, a suitable arrangement for offsite parking at 275 Cabot Street; and (2) all the original conditions still stand. Craft seconds the motion. The motion is approved (6 -0- 1, Boesch abstains). Mack: Motion to approve the modification to Inclusionary Housing application 415 -18. Flannery seconds the motion. The motion is approved (6 -0 -1). Boesch abstains. Update of Table 1— Fee in Lieu of Affordable Housing Units Fiscal Year 2019 per Chapter 315 Inclusionary Housing Regulations Hutchinson explains the purpose of the table which is when an applicant instead of providing the affordable units on -site will request a special permit to pay a fee in lieu of providing the units. The fee is based upon the location of the project they are working on. The fee is set annually in the table which is based upon sales in that neighborhood for the past three years. The chart needs to be accepted by the Board. Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes September 11, 2018 Boesch asks if Hutchinson can explain the chart a bit further. Hutchinson tells Boesch that when the assessors evaluate a property in any city they define certain valuation neighborhoods. Those neighborhoods are provided to you. In order to calculate what the fee should be they look at the sales of the houses in that neighborhood for the prior three years and they take 35% of that average sales price, and that is the fee for that neighborhood. Boesch asks why if he wanted to avoid putting in affordable housing units in a more expensive neighborhood he would have to pay a higher fee. Hutchinson tells Boesch that it is because of the value of the neighborhood and unit. Wynne explains that it relates to the values in the neighborhood and what it would cost to build a comparable unit. Affordable units provided must be comparable. Kilcoyne then asks if an applicant applies for a waiver for the fee in lieu. Wynne tells Kilcoyne that it is a special permit that the Planning Board grants. Wynne explains they did the credit units recently and the other option would be the fee in lieu. Wynne gives an example of the Kelleher Pond OSRD which they collected a fee for two units of single family housing. Wynne says it was about $550,000 that the City collected. Kilcoyne asks where the money that is collected goes. Wynne answers they created an affordable housing trust, which has about $750,000 in it. Wynne then comments that if the Congress Street project is built they will have about $1,000,000. Wynne tells Kilcoyne that the trust is established and issued its first award for the Hardy Street Project being built by Harborlight. The trust has guidelines and is primarily focused on construction of affordable housing. Hutchinson comments that there is some reluctance to grant an applicant the fee in lieu instead of actually building the affordable housing. Hutchinson asks Wynne if they are in charge of accepting this new table. Wynne tells Hutchinson that they are. Boesch: Motion to accept the updated Table 1 — Fee in Lieu of Affordable Housing Units Fiscal Year 2019 per Chapter 315. Flannery seconds the motion. The motion is approved (7 -0). New /Other Business a. Marijuana Zoning - Flannery asks where they stand on the marijuana zoning amendment. Wynne tells her that a Public Meeting is coming up for retail marijuana, the City is drafting an ordinance, and they have a moratorium until the end of the year. b. Peer Review Letter - Hutchinson comments that Wynne included the Peer Review for Livingston in their packets and tells the Board that they should review the report prior to the September 25' meeting. She asks that any questions be submitted prior to the meeting so the peer reviewer can come prepared. Hutchinson asks Wynne when their deadline for that project is. Wynne answers the extended the review until September 30t Adjournment Matz: Motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:40pm passes (7 -0). Flannery seconds the motion. The motion E]