Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/12/1991APPROVED PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS 26379 FREMONT ROAD LOS ALTOS HILLS, CALIFORNIA WEDNESDAY, JUNE 12TH, 1991 cc: Cassettes #10-91(1) and #10-91(2) 1. ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Present: Chairman Jones and Commissioners Carico, Noel, Pahl Absent: Commissioners Comiso, Ellinger, Stutz Staff: Bill Ekern, Director of Public Works; Margaret Netto, Planning Consultant; Laura Johnson, Planning Secretary 2. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR There were no presentations from the Floor. 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3.1 LANDS OF PIERCE, 14380 Manuella Road: A request for an amendment to Final Map Tract 1286 Bill Ekern introduced this item, noting there was no description in the final map regarding the purpose for the line but in other subdivisions done in that era it was a request from the Health Department to reserve area for potential leach lines. He noted Staff's recommendation that connection to sewer or (posting) of a surety bond be required prior to recordation of the amendment. The Public Hearing was opened. William Downey, 14330 De Bell Drive, representing Mr. Pierce, referred to a letter from Mr. Pierce outlining the history of the site and noting the applicant's intent to dismantle the septic system and connect to sewer. The Public Hearing was closed. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APPROVED June 12, 1991 t Page 2 ` MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Noel, seconded by Pahl and passed to recommend approval of the negative declaration and removal of the building setback line. AYES: Chairman Jones and Commissioners Carico, Noel, Pahl NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Comiso, Ellinger, Stutz 3.2 LANDS OF RENEAU, 13149 Byrd Lane: A request for a Site Development permit for a Major Addition Margaret Netto introduced this item, noting the proposal conforms to the provisions of the zoning and site development ordinances, and is consistent with both the existing residence and the surrounding neighborhood. Chairman Jones noted the rear setback was shown as 40 feet on the site plan. Ms. Netto clarified that a 30 foot setback was required. The Public Hearing was opened. ` Paul Reneau, applicant, noted concern with the Staff Recommended Condition #6 Wv as it was costly and time consuming. He noted he had original maps and questioned whether they would suffice. Bill Ekem noted the project was proposed to be constructed right against the setback line. He noted the Town had problems in the past with projects being constructed within the setback. Dot Schreiner, 14301 Saddle Mountain Drive, Pathways Committee Chair, referred to a pathway easement on Byrd Lane, on the northern boundary of the property. Clarifying that all easements lay on adjacent properties, she asked the Reneaus not to plant shrubbery closer to the property line than 5 feet, and requested construction materials not be stored in the area of the path. The Public Hearing was closed. The Commission discussed including provisions for protection of the pathway in the conditions of approval. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APPROVED June 12, 1991 Page 3 MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Pahl, seconded by Noel and passed to approve the Site Development permit for a major addition with Staff Recommended Conditions 1 - 6. AYES: Chairman Jones and Commissioners Carico, Noel, Pahl NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Comiso, Ettinger, Stutz 3.3 LANDS OF MOORING, 13791 La Paloma Road: A request for a Site Development permit for Demolition and Reconstruction of an Existing Residence. Margaret Netto introduced this item, noting that at their meeting of April 10, 1991 the Planning Commission's denied without prejudice the applicant's request for a Site Development permit for a new residence and second unit. She noted the applicant proposed to decrease the existing nonconforming setback from 7 feet to 16 feet, and to decrease the existing 1,160 square foot unit to 999 square feet. The Public Hearing was opened. David Mooring, applicant, noted he had obtained a building permit to remodel the �. existing structure. The drawings submitted included removal of everything but the wall framing, floor, and foundation. Manual removal of the house proceeded. The Town building inspector inspected the job, recommending removal of the walls. At a later site visit, he noted the foundation was in poor condition and the floor damaged by termites. Consequently, removal of everything proceeded until a stop work order was placed on the project. Mr. Mooring noted his frustration with requirement of a Site Development permit after obtaining a building permit, especially as he understood the ordinances allowed for a Staff level review. He requested the Commission not require him to go through any more approval processes and to allow him to rebuild the structure as it was. Bill Ekern clarified that all Planning Commission actions are placed on the City Council's consent calendar for their concurrence or to be scheduled for public hearing, unless the action is for denial. He noted the ordinance currently allows reconstruction of nonconforming structures to their original nonconformity or with reduction of the nonconformity and clarified that a Site Development permit is required for demolition and reconstruction of the structure. Dot Schreiner, noted the Pathways Committee requested a Type II -B pathway in the road right-of-way on La Paloma Road to continue the pathway coming up from Fremont Road. Ida Mary Hoover, 13820 La Paloma Road, noted concern for the neighbor bordering the property in the area of the nonconforming setback of the structure. She wished PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APPROVED June 12, 1991 Page 4 the Commission to think ahead to the new residence to be built on the property presently. Chairman Jones clarified that the new residence was not a part of the request before the Commission. John Treichler, 15692 Roble Veneno, noted he had observed the house being taken down piece by piece, as if it was being examined, which suggested to him that Mr. Mooring's intent was to utilize existing walls, foundation, etc. Carol Seeds, 13801 La Paloma Road, noted that while the house had been removed, a patio and trellis up against the property line bordering her house still existed, so the living area was in effect 30 feet from her home. She suggested that with the demolition of the existing residence, the whole project of the new residence and second unit should be considered together. She also noted concern that the second unit might be rented out. Mr. Mooring clarified that he did not intend to rent the second unit. He also noted that he had not submitted a plan for the large house yet as he is continuing to try to work with the neighbors to develop an acceptable proposal. In the meantime, he k� and his family need a home to live in. Lalla Carsten, 13761 La Paloma Road, noted she understood Mr. Mooring's frustration. She suggested that since the existing structure has been demolished, perhaps a new residence and second unit could be better situated on the property. The Public Hearing was closed. Commissioner Noel questioned whether the Town had considered construction of the second unit first. Bill Ekern noted he could think of one example on Stirrup Way where the second unit was built first, then the primary residence built around it. Commissioner Carico noted that if the applicant had been able to remodel the existing structure, there would have been no recourse, but under the circumstances, whereby the applicant had demolished the existing residence, she could see no reason not to require the structure to conform to the 30 foot setback. Commissioner Pahl noted he agreed intellectually with Commissioner Carico, but questioned the legality under the current ordinances of requiring the structure to conform to the setback. Mr. Ekern read Section 10-1.401 of the Municipal Code of Los Altos Hills. ` PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APPROVED June 12, 1991 Page 5 Commissioner Pahl wished to prevail upon Mr. Mooring to move the structure 14 feet to conform to the setbacks, as it is a benefit to the neighbors and to the Town. He suggested that approval could only be granted because the situation is one that the ordinance doesn't cover. Chairman Jones asked Mr. Mooring what his position was with respect to moving the structure to conform. Mr. Mooring noted he had given it a great deal of thought, but considerations for not moving the structure included the expense of property development, the location of the utilities, that the pad is relatively level, that it is positioned within the trees. MOTION SECONDED AND FAILED: Motion by Pahl, seconded by Carico and failed to recommend approval of the Site Development permit for demolition and reconstruction of an existing residence with Staff Recommended Conditions I - 6, and the following conditions 7 and 8. 7. A Type II -B path within the road right-of-way shall be constructed prior to building permit final inspection. 8. At least a 16 foot setback is required from the property line for the primary structure, and written verification from a registered Civil Engineer or licensed Land Surveyor shall be submitted to the Town. AYES: Chairman Jones and Commissioner Pahl NOES: Commissioners Carico, Noel ABSENT: Commissioners Comiso, Ettinger, Stutz Commissioner Carico noted the ordinances allow the Planning Commission to be more restrictive if it is for the good of the development. Commissioner Pahl noted the Commission did not have the right to violate an ordinance in considering this application. He noted the ordinance says the applicant is allowed to rebuild the nonconforming structure, and as a compromise, this applicant is proposing to lessen the nonconformity. MOTION SECONDED AND FAILED: Motion by Carico, seconded by Noel and failed to deny the requested Site Development permit. AYES: Commissioners Carico, Noel NOES: Chairman Jones and Commissioner Pahl ABSENT: Commissioners Comiso, Ettinger, Stutz PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APPROVED June 12, 1991 Page 6 MOTION FAILED: Motion by Carico and failed due to lack of a second, inasmuch as this is a primary dwelling and the original structure has been demolished, the applicant shall be allowed to re -build in conformance with the 30 foot setback requirement. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Pahl, seconded by Jones and passed that a verbatim transcript of all the comments after the close of the public hearing be typewritten and forwarded to the City Council, noting that the Commission could not make either a finding or could not even recommend not to recommend forwarding to the Council. AYES: Chairman Jones and Commissioners Carico, Noel, Pahl NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Comiso, Ellinger, Stutz Bill Ekern clarified that a structure cannot be rebuilt until a Site Development permit is obtained. The Commission took a brief recess 3.4 LANDS OF HARRINGTON, 12100 Hilltop Drive, APN's 336-19-015 and 336-19-044: A request for a lot line adjustment Bill Ekern introduced this item, noting the map creating the Wang's property (Parcel 2) shows a future 10 foot right-of-way along Hilltop Drive. In accord with the provision of the Subdivision Map Act, Parcel 2 does not currently conform to the Town Zoning Ordinance, or the Site Development Ordinance. In order to accommodate the dedication of the right-of-way and make the Wang's property conform to the Town's ordinances, approximately 400 square feet is required to bring the Lot Unit Factor (LUF) to 1.0. Mr. Ekern noted the City Attorney also advised that an additional condition should be included, requiring recordation of deeds and approval by the Town, or requiring a final parcel map. Commissioner Pahl disclosed he had spoken with Mr. Harrington the previous day and would disclose any information not presented in this hearing. He referred to Section 10-2.1202 of the Municipal Code, noting the ordinance allowed requirement of dedication on lots created prior to 1973. Mr. Ekern noted Parcel 2 was created in 1977. He clarified that lots created prior to 1973 were created prior to the subdivision ordinance, and the section does not address what happens in subsequent years. He clarified Staff's position that the subdivider was meeting the intent of the code at the time. In 1977, the future right- of-way was clearly marked to be dedicated at the behest of the Town. It is Staff's `, position that now is that time. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APPROVED June 12, 1991 Page 7 In response to a question from Commissioner Pahl, Mr. Ekern clarified that the net acreage of Parcel 2 excluding the right-of-way is 1.00. The Public Hearing was opened. Terry Szewczyk, project engineer, noted disagreement with Staff's recommendation for dedication of the right-of-way. The State recently stated that lot line adjustment are not intended to be a subdivision, but to create more logical lots. The subdivision ordinance is not intended to be used as an authority to take right-of-way as lot line adjustments are specifically exempt from those requirements. The Site Development Ordinance is not specifically applicable as this parcel was created in 1977. He noted there is nothing that can be done with that area in terms of development. The existing pavement is adequately wide, there is no embankment or vegetation inhibiting the site distance. He noted the Town did not have the authority to require dedication of a right-of-way at this time; when the house comes in for future development, the right-of-way should be requested. Commissioner Pahl noted that when Parcel #2 comes in for future development, it will have a LUF of less than 1.0, so it would be a nonconforming lot. Mr. Szewczyk agreed. V Tom Harrington, applicant, noted he owns the area in the Wang's front yard, and they own the panhandle along his back yard. He noted both lots are relatively flat, and that he would lose a marginal amount of development ability. Mr. Harrington felt it was a simple, logical swap of land. The lot line adjustment law says there shouldn't be any exactions. He noted he would agree to recordation of a map. He felt that he should not be required to give away any land. Dot Schreiner, requesting the Commission inform her if it was not appropriate at this time, noted the pathway required at the time of Site Development permit review has no header boards, so the gravel has been pushed out and weeds have grown up, eroding the path. She noted the Pathways Committee had been requested to bring a recommendation back to the Planning Commission, and they wished to recommend requirement of a Type II -B path to Town standards for purposes of longevity. Mr. Harrington clarified that he understood the Type II -B pathway was a requirement and it would be addressed. The Public Hearing was closed. Commissioner Pahl noted the future dedication is in the parcel map and the Subdivision Map Act does say conditions or exactions shall be imposed to conform to local zoning and building ordinances. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APPROVED June 12, 1991 Page 8 kw Mr. Szewczyk requested re -opening of the public hearing. The Commission declined. Chairman Jones noted that whether the dedication is made now or not, it is not responsible to allow the property to be put in a position where future dedication would put the property below a 1.0 LUF. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Pahl, seconded by Carico and passed to recommend approval of the lot line adjustment with Staff Recommended Conditions 1, and 2,and the following Condition 3: 3. A final parcel map shall be recorded. AYES: Chairman Jones and Commissioners Carico, Noel, Pahl NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Comiso, Ellinger, Stutz 3.5 LANDS OF JAIN, 27860 Fawn Creek Court: A request for a Site Development permit for a New Residence and Tennis Court Bill Ekern introduced this item, noting the project had been reviewed at the �W Planning Commission Site Development level, and subsequently the amount of grading on the site has been substantially reduced. It conforms to the ordinance, requiring less than 12 feet of grade differential. The tennis court has been reoriented parallel to the contour lines. The circular driveway and the level of grading and impact of development associated with it continue to be of concern. The Public Hearing was opened. Kurt Anderson, project architect, thanked Staff for their efforts. He presented a plan showing the reduction in grading between the current and past proposals: 22% of the cut and fill and 26.5% of the area originally proposed to be graded has been eliminated. The tennis court is a priority for the property owner. He noted their willingness to decrease the size of the circular driveway to allow for additional development area for walkways and outdoor areas, and his understanding of the concern for utilizing all development area. Mr Anderson referred to Staff Recommended Condition #3 regarding site drainage, suggesting inclusion of elimination of site drainage to the adjacent lower parcel. Regarding Condition #4, landscaping, he suggested making it more restrictive to reflect their interest in working with the neighbor to the west to minimize the impact of the tennis court. In response to a question from Commissioner Carico, Mr. Anderson noted the redesign of the circular driveway had not been completed yet, but he estimated �r between 300 and 500 square feet of development area could be freed for other uses. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APPROVED June 12, 1991 Page 9 Jim Noghrey, 27870 Fawn Creek Court (to the west of the subject property), noted he had approval from Los Altos Hills to construct a new residence. He presented a comparison of his site plan and the Jain site plan. He expressed concern with the elevation of the proposed driveway and the possibility of rollover of cars onto his property, noting concern for the safety of his family and property. Commissioner Carico noted concern with the design of the parking and driveway area. Kurt Anderson clarified their intention to create a physical barrier so a car couldn't roll off the hill, possibly a 6 - 8 inch curb. He also noted with the amount of landscaping intended to be placed in that area, he did not see it as a potential problem. Martha Noghrey, 27870 Fawn Creek Court, also expressed concern with parking and safety. She noted a small curb would not be enough, requesting construction of a retaining wall in the parking area. She also noted the tennis court, once fenced, would look like a cage. Commissioner Noel asked if the Noghreys would consider landscaping, trees and substantial bushes, to hold a car from coming down the hill. The Public Hearing was closed. Commissioner Carico encouraged the applicant to reduce the circular driveway. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Pahl, seconded by Noel to approve the Site Development permit for a new residence and tennis court with Staff Recommended Conditions 1 - 3 and 5 - 8, and with the following Conditions 4 and 9: 4. A landscape planting plan which shall additionally address safety concerns relating to the lot shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and submitted to and approved by the Town prior to final occupancy permits. Drought tolerant and native plantings are recommended, as are low flow and drip irrigation systems. Black or green vinyl fencing shall be required around the perimeter of the tennis court. 9. A deed restriction indicating that substantially all development area has been utilized shall be recorded with the Santa Clara County Recorder, noting any further development is not permitted under the current Site Development ordinances. AYES: Chairman Jones and Commissioners Carico, Noel, Pahl NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Comiso, Ettinger, Stutz PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APPROVED June 12, 1991 Page 10 3.6 LANDS OF OWEN, 13300 Simon Lane: A request for a Site Development permit for a New Residence, Swimming Pool, and Tennis Court Margaret Netto introduced this item, outlining the quantitative information and noting the residence is proposed to be constructed in approximately the same location as the existing residence proposed to be demolished. The Public Hearing was opened. Commissioner Pahl noted there appeared to be a grove of trees at the back of the existing house. Bob Owen, applicant, clarified that most of the trees are within the 30 foot setback and it will be necessary to remove very few, if any. Commissioner Pahl noted the proposed development was within a few feet of the maximum development area for the site, questioning whether Mr. Owen would mind a deed restriction. Mr. Owen clarified that he did have a prospective buyer for the house who was interested in constructing the tennis court. Construction would likely be dependent on finances near the completion of the house construction. He noted he had no concerns with the Staff Recommended Conditions of Approval. The Public Hearing was closed. MOTION SECONDED: Motion by Carico, seconded by Noel to approve the Site Development permit for a new residence, tennis court, and swimming pool with Staff Recommended Conditions 1 - 8: MOTION AMENDED, SECONDED, AND PASSED: Motion by Pahl, seconded by Noel and passed to amend the motion above to also include the following Condition 9: 9. To be recorded only if and when a building application for the tennis court is received by the Town, a deed restriction indicating that substantially all development area has been utilized shall be recorded with the Santa Clara County Recorder, noting any further development is not permitted under the current Site Development ordinances. AYES: Chairman Jones and Commissioners Carico, Noel, Pahl NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Comiso, Ellinger, Stutz PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APPROVED June 12, 1991 Page 11 3.7 LANDS OF BECKER, 14290 Saddle Mountain Drive: A request for a Site Development permit for a New Residence Margaret Netto introduced this item, noting the development area proposed was near the maximum allowed on the site. She clarified the swimming pool was not a part of this application. She outlined the quantitative information, and noted two additional Los Altos Fire Department recommended conditions of approval to be added to those recommended by Staff: 1. Install a fire hydrant on Moon Lane near the proposed driveway access. The hydrant shall be connected to a Purissima Hills County Water District water main and shall be installed and ready for use prior to the release of a building permit. 2. Install a Town and Fire Department approved back around/ turn around at the intersection of the new driveway and Moon Lane. Bill Ekern noted neighbors on Saddle Mountain Drive, Stirrup Way, and Moon Lane had concerns with access to the site. He noted Moon Lane is no more than a driveway and is privately owned and maintained. If the project is approved, provisions should be included for the repair of Moon Lane. He requested the Commission consider the level of work entailed in repairing the landslides and grading to develop the site. He noted Staff's recommendation that the project be required to connect to sanitary sewer, either pumping up to Saddle Mountain or extending to Saddle Mountain Drive. In response to a question from Commissioner Carico, Bill Ekern clarified the property has legal access up Page Mill Road along Moon Lane up into Saddle Mountain Drive. In response to a question from Commissioner Noel, Mr. Ekern noted the Fire Department's preference was for access off Saddle Mountain Drive as it is a wider public road. Commissioner Pahl noted this was an exceptionally sensitive piece of property and he was uncomfortable addressing the proposal with less than a full Planning Commission. He suggested a continuation of the item. Lewis Becker, 12845 La Vida Real, noted his willingness to continue the item if the Commission considered it more appropriate or more judicious, requesting that it be rescheduled for the next possible meeting. Nancy Bavor, 13816 Page Mill Road, noted it was unfair to not allow neighbors to speak at this time. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APPROVED June 12, 1991 Page 12 Commissioner Pahl clarified that the commissioners give as much consideration to letters from citizens as to personal presentations at a public hearing. Commissioner Noel noted they received a number of letters from individuals who were unable to attend this meeting. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Pahl, seconded by Noel and passed to continue this item to the Planning Commission Meeting of June 26th, 1991. AYES: Chairman Jones and Commissioners Carico, Noel, Pahl NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Comiso, Ellinger, Stutz 4. NEW BUSINESS 4.1 Selection of Chair and Vice -Chair for 1991-92 Chairman Jones suggested, and the Commission agreed by consensus, to defer this item until the City Council makes the appointment of two commissioners. 4.2 LANDS OF OSHIMA, 25891 Fremont Road: A request for clarification of final building height Bill Ekern introduced this item, noting a condition of the subdivision map requires structures on this site to be limited to 23 feet in height. The project architect would like some clarification as to whether the intent of the Town in the way this height is to be measured is to not exceed the highest point on the lot by 23 feet or if the actual definition of height of structure is what is to be required. Peter Duxbury, project architect, clarified that the property was now the Lands of Fong. He presented an overhead projection of the site plan, noting the subdivision was somewhat controversial as it is a long narrow site that couldn't contain a 160 foot building circle. He noted it was indicated in the subdivision that the house should be located as far back on the site as possible, and that a comprehensive landscape plan should be submitted. Commissioner Pahl questioned the proposed level of development on the site. Mr. Duxbury clarified that it was close to the maximum allowed on the site. Mr. Duxbury noted the problem they encountered with the site was that even though it appears flat, the elevation varies by about 9 feet. By locating the house at the rear of property, it is actually on the greatest slope of the land. With the way the Town measures the height from natural grade, the design is penalized in the use of space by between 1 and 2 feet. He noted the proposed development was appropriate kmr for the site, respectful of the neighbors. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APPROVED June 12,1991 Page 13 kw Bill Ekern clarified that the definition of height is relatively rigidly laid out. In question is whether it is acceptable to take 23 feet and add it to a specific elevation. Commissioner Pahl noted other cities take the average slope of the area of the house as it is unfair to require measuring a building's height from the lowest portion of the house. Bill Ekern noted projects seem to work better if an elevational level is established, rather than a height. Chairman Jones noted the project could be approved through Site Development review and go to the City Council only to be denied. Mr. Ekern suggested Council be asked to consider the request as it is to clarify the intent, not change it. Commissioner Carico questioned why the height limit was taken from 19 feet to 23 feet. Bill Ekern responded that Council wanted to allow for construction of two stories and because there was concern that a 19 foot limitation would preclude some architectural features that would work. `, MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Pahl, seconded by Jones and passed that it is our reading of paragraph 11 of the Conditions of Approval of this tentative map that the intent of the Council was that the height of the structure not exceed 23'. It is our understanding that Council thought this was a perfectly flat lot and so it didn't need to make variations over the run of the property. As the house is placed in the Site Analysis which Mr. Duxbury has provided, it looks as if the center of the house is at approximately elevation 213. And thus, so long as the height of the house does not exceed elevation 236, that would meet, in our interpretation, Condition #11. AYES: Chairman Jones and Commissioners Carico, Noel, Pahl NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Comiso, Ellinger, Stutz 4.3 Appointment of one Planning Commissioner to participate on an ad hoc committee to review materials included in calculation of development area Chairman Jones volunteered and was appointed to the ad hoc committee. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APPROVED June 12, 1991 Page 14 5. OLD BUSINESS 6. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF MAY 22ND. 1991 Commissioner Carico wished to amend the minutes of May 22nd, 1991 to clarify under Item 4.6, that she did not intend to vote in favor of the motion, specifically the requested consideration of requirement of a Conditional Development Permit rather than a Variance. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Noel, seconded by Pahl and passed, with Chairman Jones abstaining, to approve the minutes of May 22nd, 1991. 7. REPORT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 5TH, 1991 Commissioner Carico reported the LANDS OF CIRCLE and the LANDS OF MALEK subdivisions were continued. She noted the LANDS OF CHOO was continued for re -design, and is to return to the City Council for review. LANDS OF OWEN was discussed at great length and Council required that the tennis court not be built until the home buyer requests its construction. Bill Ekern noted the Council discussed the Town's budget. 8. REPORT FROM THE SITE DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE 9. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 10:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Laura Johnson Planning Secretary low