Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021 03 16 Planning Board Minutes1 PLANNING BOARD DRAFT MINUTES Town of Danby Planning Board Minutes of Regular Meeting March 16, 2021 DRAFT PRESENT: Ed Bergman Scott Davis Kathy Jett Kelly Maher Elana Maragni Bruce Richards Jody Scriber (Chair) OTHER ATTENDEES: Town Planner David West Town Board Liaison Leslie Connors (Town Board member) Recording Secretary Alyssa de Villiers Public Ben Altman, Dana Berger, Marc Berger, Cynthia Bowman, Hayden Brainard, Nora Brown, Sarah Brylinsky, Ted Crane, Theo Dean, Toby Dean, Annette Feeney, Kevin Feeney, Joel Gagnon (Town Supervisor), Jeremy Holmes, Katharine Hunter, Tamara Ingram, Arthur James, Nancy Medsker, Ted Melchen, Matt Namer, Michael Nelson, Kim Nitchman, Russ Nitchman, Ronda Roaring, Barbara Romano, Pete Romano, Ivan Ross, Corinne Rutzke, Linda Santos, Connie Sczepanski, Adriel Shea, Mark Tucker, Chris W., Bill, Jenni, Anon1 This meeting was conducted virtually on the Zoom platform. The meeting was opened at 7:05pm. (1) CALL TO ORDER/AGENDA REVIEW Planner West said he would report on the Town Board’s moratorium proposal and the open development area (ODA) proposal during the “Planner’s Report.” (2) PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR 2 PLANNING BOARD DRAFT MINUTES Ronda Roaring said that NY State Town Law, Section 263, states that a town board’s “regulations shall be made in accordance with a comprehensive plan,” and the NYS Department of State says, “the comprehensive plan should provide the backbone for the local zoning law. The comprehensive plan is the culmination of a planning process that establishes the official land use policy of a community and presents goals and a vision for the future that guides official decision -making.” She cited Udell v. Hass (1968). She said it is a permitted use of the zoning regulations to build in Danby, but they should also be following the Comprehensive Plan, which says they should be preserving the rural character of the Town. In her opinion, the recent subdivisions do not preserve the rural character, and the Planning Boa rd must follow the Comprehensive Plan, even though the zoning regulations do not comply with it. Ivan Ross said he and his partner are moving to Danby and planning to purchase the property at 88 E. Miller Rd. (third case under “Development Review”). He explained they are requesting to take the current parcel of about 102 acres and subdivide off the small portion that has the house and outbuildings on it, which would allow them to seek a mortgage. Then they plan to purchase the remaining parcel in conjunction with friends who own a neighboring property on Fieldstone Circle. He said they look forward to continuing the existing collaboration with the Szcepanskis, who own the neighboring farm, and they are excited to grow additional food crops in the greenhouses and high tunnel. They hope to continue the legacy of working the land in a productive agricultural capacity as well as serve as stewards of the fields and forests on the property. Russ Nitchman responded to Ms. Roaring, saying that he wished the town would update its Comprehensive Plan rather than taking people’s rights away to do what they want with their land within reason. He said he wished the Town Board would do likewise rather than doing a moratorium and then changing the rules of the game. If Roaring is right and the Comprehensive Plan takes precedent, maybe they need to change some of the wording and adapt it. He added that large landowners are paying huge taxes and paying for the view. He felt that small landowners did not have the right to tell large landowners what to do. He made some personal comments to Ms. Roaring. He added that he thought the Town had done the right thing with the tax proposal where people can put their land in a temporary conservation easement (in exchange for a sliding scale of tax relief), which he thought would help. Ted Crane said a planning board exists to make sure the zoning code is followed, and the zoning code exists to strike a balance between individual property rights and the good of the community around it. He thought it was important for new owners or people dividing their property to consider what the neighbor’s needs are. Also, in regard to the proposal of making an open development area (ODA), he said the Town should be considering whether it will benefit the Town and does the Town want development in a particular area; that is the purpose of that section of law. He hoped the Planning Board would keep that in mind . Hayden Brainard said the Zoning Ordinance is part of the Comprehensive Plan, even if they may be disjointed. He disagreed with Mr. Crane about the ODA, s aying that it is specific to a particular piece of property and is not a decision by the Town to have development widely in a particular area or the Town more generally. 3 PLANNING BOARD DRAFT MINUTES (3) APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: Approve the February 16th minutes Moved by Richards, seconded by Bergman The motion passed. In favor: Bergman, Davis, Jett, Maher, Maragni, Richards, Scriber (4) TOWN BOARD LIAISON REPORT Leslie Connors (Town Board member) shared the following information: • There would be three public hearings at the Town Board meeting the following day: one on changing the residency requirement for the Deputy Highway Superintendent, one on approving the West Danby water district operation policy, and one on a land use moratorium in the Low Density Residential (LDR) zone. • Regarding the Town’s agricultural districts, two properties have indicated they would like to be included in an ag district: the Howland Rd. hemp farm and a cidery on 96B. The Town Board has suggested not including the Howland Rd. hemp farm but would support the decision to include the cidery on 96B. She cited the uncooperativeness of the hemp farm property owners and that residents in their neighborhood do not know what is going on in that case as opposed to the cidery where the neighboring property is in the ag district and the owners have been very cooperative in figuring out what they are doing with the property. (5) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SUB-2021-01 Hornbrook Rd. Subdivision Parcel: 6.-1- 18.25 Applicant: Edward Melchen Anticipated Board action(s) this month: Application review, Public Hearing, SEQR Classification & Determination, Preliminary Plat Approval Proposal: Subdivide parcel into 3 pieces approximately 14, 4, and 11 acres in size Planner West said Linda Santos was acting as a representative for the applicant in case the Board had any questions. He explained that the subdivision is for three lots, which are already separated by Hornbrook Rd. This makes it a little different than most subdivision reviews as many towns have an administrative process for moving de facto subdivisions forward; Danby, however, does not. Because it is three lots, it is considered a standard subdivision, which comes with some significant process in terms of mapping resources and evaluating how the lots are drawn. In this case, the lots are already separate, so the Board is not considering the location of lots. He noted it has been difficult for applicants and consu ltants to provide the full suite of documents that the Town asks for in its Ordinance; he thought some of this had been waived in the past and said the process is quite complicated once you get into a standard subdivision. He 4 PLANNING BOARD DRAFT MINUTES said the applicant has provided a lot of maps to try to get to all the requirements , and he reviewed the anticipated actions on the project. Board Member Davis pointed out that on the main subdivision plat, the 50’ front yard setback is measured from the center of the road. He said that while usually this would not matter, in this case it is crucial because they are trying to squeeze the house in between the wetlands and the road. He said he thought the setback was from the road boundary rather than the center. Linda Santos, speaking on behalf of Mr. Melchen, said that for at least one of the lots, the 14 -acre lot, they would like to be approved as a future building lot. She said the potential buyer for that lot was present and she believed he would be sensitive to the ecological features of the lot ; as it happens, he is a professional in wastewater management and would know how to smartly approach design. She said they have tried to put together a demonstration of the available space for a home, a driveway, a septic field, and a replacement septic field. One of the other two lots has a buyer, but no requirements that it is a buildable lot, and the other lot is not on the market. Board Member Richards said he appreciated all the maps and information. He said the Board had had some serious concerns, but he thought they had been addressed. He said they were deci ding whether to allow a subdivision, not approving a building or a site plan. He felt it was a challenging lot, but he had seen enough information showing where a proposed house could go. He said there are other regulations that protect the wetlands and environment there, and in order to build, they will have to be in compliance with them, so he did not think the Planning Board had to double regulate. He thought it was well-researched and he was satisfied. Davis clarified that they Board was only okaying the subdivision. He said he would like to specifically know how the potential house plays into their deliberations, if at all. He felt these were two things going on that were continually being conflated. He wanted to look at the house site issue separately if it was in their purview. He would not want the buyer to infer that approving the subdivision was tantamount to approving his plans for the house site. Ms. Santos said they anticipated the Board would want separation on these two topics, and the seller and buyer have amended the purchase agreement so that after the subdivision, the buyer will have sufficient time to apply for a septic design permit and building permit. Davis thought this contingency was good for everybody. Public Hearing The public hearing was opened at 7:38 p.m. Town Supervisor Gagnon said that it might be helpful for the Board if Planner West explained what kind of discretion the Board has for subdivision approval. Unless there was some discretion, there would be no need for it to be before the Board, so it is not only acting in an administrative capacity. West said he would address this after the public hearing. Ted Crane commended Mr. Melchen and Ms. Santos for getting out front something that often gets lost — the fact that there is no bar on the subdivision, but there is consideration about where a home might be sighted. He thought that was wonderful to see. The public hearing was opened at 7:40 p.m. 5 PLANNING BOARD DRAFT MINUTES Regarding Board discretion, Planner West said that usually the Planning Board would have discretion for pushing the lot lines around, for example putting lots in one corner to avoid environmental impacts. The second tool when talking about standard subdivisions is reviewing the area of disturbance, or where construction is allowed. This includes the building as well as any clearing for septic. But frequently the Board is in the situation where the applicant does not know. In that instance, the Board could approve subdivision but require somebody to come back and amend the subdivision with a construction area delineation before anything is built. The resource map is used to decide how to minimize the impacts. He added that the Planning Board cannot reduce the amount of development or lots that can happen on the site as that is set by the zoning. Board Member Maragni clarified that they have the option to require that someone come back before the Board when construction is proposed, at which time they could use the resource map to weigh in, and she asked if that was the same as creating a no-build zone or restricted build area. West said the no-build areas are where there is not supposed to be construction, and in the restricted build areas, there could be construction, but the Board should work to minimize it; these guide the Board about analyzing the area for construction disturbance. Davis asked if the Board could vote to approve the subdivision boundaries and then vote again on the house siting. West said this was a preliminary plat, and he explained the process of sketch plan review, preliminary plat approval, and final plat approval. He said that in this case, the applicant does not know what will happen for two of the three lots. He said the Board could require the applicant include limits of construction areas on the final plat, based on the no-build and restricted-build parameters, or they could approve a final plat with the condition that an application to amend the subdivision would be required before a building permit could be granted. He added that that is the process for a normal lot, but this is a de facto subdivision, which would mean him signing off on it if the Town had a process for that. Ms. Santos said they would try to fulfill any further requirements the Board had of them. She explained some of the difficulties that T.G. Miller had with making the maps and said there are hurdles in the process that are challenging for applicants to meet. SEQR Determination Chair Scriber read aloud Part Two of the Short Environmental Assessment Form as per the State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) Act. It was agreed that the answer was “no or small impact may occur” to all questions. MOTION: Make a negative determination of environmental significance Moved by Maher, seconded by Richards The motion passed. In favor: Bergman, Davis, Jett, Maher, Maragni, Richards, Scriber Preliminary Plat Approval Kelly Maher noted that it should be today’s date for the public hearing under “whereas” number three. Secretary de Villiers noted that the numbering of the “wherea s” clauses was incorrect. Planner West noted that it should be preliminary rather than final plat approval under both “whereas” number tens. MOTION: Pass Res. 2 of 2021 granting preliminary plat approval with suggested edits Moved by Richards, seconded by Bergman 6 PLANNING BOARD DRAFT MINUTES The motion passed. In favor: Bergman, Davis, Jett, Maher, Maragni, Richards, Scriber SUB-2021-02 319 Bald Hill Rd. Subdivision Parcel: 15.-1- 15.22 Applicant: Debbra Davis Anticipated Board action(s) this month: Public hearing, SEQR Classification & Determination, Final Plat Approval Decision Proposal: Subdivide parcel into 2 pieces approximately 38 and 88 acres. Parcel is split by Bald Hill Rd. Hayden Brainard, representing the applicant, said this parcel is already divided by Bald Hill Rd. They are looking to formally subdivide it as there is no mechanism for de facto subdivision. There are two parcels, one on the east and one on the west, and they intend to sell the parcel between Bald Hill Rd. and Comfort Rd. Public Hearing The public hearing was opened at 8:04 p.m. Cynthia Bowman spoke for her and her husband, Ben Altman. She said they were the prospective purchasers of the property, which runs adjacent to the property where their residence is. She said they were purchasing it to preserve the forest and prevent logging and development. The public hearing was opened at 8:05 p.m. SEQR Determination Chair Scriber read aloud Part Two of the Short Environmental Assessment Form as per the State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) Act. It was agreed that the answer was “no or small impact may occur” to all questions. MOTION: Make a negative determination of environmental significance Moved by Bergman, seconded by Richards The motion passed. In favor: Bergman, Davis, Jett, Maher, Maragni, Richards, Scriber Preliminary and Final Plat Approval MOTION: Pass Res. 3 of 2021 granting preliminary and final plat approval Moved by Richards, seconded by Maher The motion passed. In favor: Bergman, Davis, Jett, Maher, Maragni, Richards, Scriber SUB-2021-04 88 E. Miller Rd. Subdivision Parcel: 7.-1- 29 Applicant: Mathew Namer on behalf of Corinne Rutske 7 PLANNING BOARD DRAFT MINUTES Anticipated Board action(s) this month: Public hearing, SEQR Classification, Preliminary and Final Approval Proposal: Subdivide existing farmhouse to create conforming lot for house separate from the remaining lands. Sarah Brylinsky said she and Matthew Namer were the other family who, along with Ivan Ross, are interested in purchasing the parcel. She said they are not proposing any new development. They want to segment off the house so their good friends could move there and join the Danby community. They intend to keep the rest of the property as agricultural use and preserve the forest. She said her family owns the property directly behind this parcel and have an existing 26 acres of woods that is conservation protected. Her job is as a sustainability manager, so their intent over time is to see the land used to its maximum biodiversity and conservation potential. Corinne Rutske said she is the current owner. She said she specifically wanted to work with this group because they were interested in maintaining the land as agriculture and forest . Bruce Richards asked if it was their intention to put a conservation easement on the property. M r. Namer said they had not looked into it enough to commit yes or no , and Ms. Brylinsky said they were early in their strategic planning. Public Hearing The public hearing was opened at 8:15 p.m. Supervisor Gagnon commended the intention to steward the property and put in a plug for the ease by which it can be protected by a conservation easement in Danby. Ms. Brylinski said they were thrilled by the warm welcome in Danby. Jeremy Holmes said he lives on E. Miller and he welcomed Sarah, Matt, and Ivan to the road and area. He said he strongly encouraged a conservation easement on the land as it is a really beautiful place. The public hearing was opened at 8:17 p.m. SEQR Determination Chair Scriber read aloud Part Two of the Short Environmental Assessment Form as per the State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) Act. It was agreed that the answer was “no or small impact may occur” to all questions. MOTION: Make a negative determination of environmental significance Moved by Richards, seconded by Maragni The motion passed. In favor: Bergman, Davis, Jett, Maher, Maragni, Richards, Scriber 8 PLANNING BOARD DRAFT MINUTES Preliminary and Final Plat Approval Gagnon noted that it should be today’s date for the public hearing under “whereas” number three . Crane said that in “whereas” number two it should be Section 804 rather than 904; West suggested striking “Town of Danby Zoning Ordinance, Section 904” and replacing it with “Town of Danby subdivision regulations, Section 211.” Secretary de Villiers noted that this same issue was on the last two resolutions. MOTION: Pass Res. 4 of 2021 granting preliminary and final plat approval with suggested edits Moved by Davis, seconded by Bergman The motion passed. In favor: Bergman, Davis, Jett, Maher, Maragni, Richards, Scriber (6 & 7) PLANNING GROUP UPDATE & PLANNER’S REPORT Open Development Area (ODA) Planner West said Supervisor Gagnon had asked him to draft a proposal for an ODA to the Town Board. An ODA allows property owners to develop a parcel without having frontage on a road, i.e., it allows development to happen with an easement. He said, in consideration of the proposal at 250 Marsh Rd., the applicant has a variety of options. To move forward, he thought the simplest way was to do an ODA, which would allow the use of the existing, abandoned portion of Deputron Hollow Rd. as a driveway, requiring minimal if any adjustment to the road and minimizing impact. To get an ODA, the Town Board is required to ask the Planning Board to review the ODA proposal and write a report about what requirements and parameters should be used in evaluating an application for an ODA. The Town Board has asked the Planning Board to include public outreach, even though no public hearing is required, to ensure there is a venue for discussion. West said the phrase ODA sounds like you are throwing the doors open, but in this case that is really not what is happening. The applicant has proposed a permanent conservation easement allowing one house to be developed on 90 acres. West asked the Planning Board how they would like to go about doing a review and whether they would like to schedule a special meeting. Davis clarified that the applicant is proposing one house and the rest of the 90 acres will be a permanent conservation easement. West said that is correct; there already two houses (on Parcel B), and there would be one more (on Parcel C). He said the current owner would put the whole property under easement and then approximately 40 acres would go with the proposed house (Parcel C), approximately 20 acres to sell to a neighbor (Parcel A), and the remainder for the applicant to hold (Parcel B). Ted Crane added that the proposal allows for two houses—a full house and one smaller accessory house. Supervisor Gagnon said the allowance here would be for a principal and an accessory dwelling, which would have to be attached in some way. Board Member Jett asked if the ODA would be applied throughout Danby or just on this particular property, and West confirmed it was just for this property. Maragni said that after seeing so many options at their last meeting, it was hard for her to visualize. She thought the Planning Board needed to consider the idea of setting a precedent, and it did not seem like something that happens very often. She said she thought they 9 PLANNING BOARD DRAFT MINUTES would benefit from a special meeting, and Board Member Maher agreed. Maher asked if the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) would be involved at all, to which West said no. West said that the option to have an ODA is provided for in NYS law, similar to how the option to get a variance through a BZA is provided for in NYS law. The Town gets to evaluate pr oposals, but the ability to apply is a relief valve for 280-A, which requires that every parcel that gets a building permit has access; the ODA allows that access to be a driveway that crosses the parcel rather than access on the road. MOTION: Set a special meeting for March 31, 2021 at 7:00 p.m. Moved by Maher, seconded by Maragni The motion passed. In favor: Davis, Jett, Maher, Maragni, Richards, Scriber Abstain: Bergman Planning Group Planner West said the Planning Group has been working on evaluating zoning and recommending changes, and that group is open to everyone in the Town. He said members from all the Town’s boards are specifically invited; it is getting to the point of making specific recommendations and more participation from the Planning Board would be really useful in that process. He updated the Board as to when the working groups are meeting. Proposed Moratorium Planner West said that Supervisor Gagnon had put forth a proposal to the Town Board to have a moratorium that is a stop on all subdivisions in the Low Density Residential (LDR) zone through the end of the year; it does not affect building permits or construction projects. There is a process for anyone who is aggrieved by the limitation to appeal to the Town Board. The purpose would be to update the zoning to more closely match the Comprehensive Plan and what the community wants to see. West said he thought there was broad belief that the amount of de velopment allowed in some parts of the LDR is more than what the Town wants to see, and the Town Board hopes to fast-track a zoning update to address that. The moratorium would allow West more time to work on the update, more time for Planning Board member s to be involved in a process of review, and the Town Board will take on a third meeting every month to prevent it stretching into next year. He noted a lot has been needed for a long time, and all previous planners had made lists of things that needed to change. He said the idea is that, while the Town is considering the specifics of the zoning changes, it wants to pause subdivision s so there are not a bunch rushing in to get in under the old rules if it is acknowledged there is a problem with the old rules. The Town Board will vote on the moratorium at their meeting tomorrow after holding a public hearing. Maragni said the moratorium is a big thing, and yet she only saw it four minutes before tonight’s meeting when she looked at the Town’s calendar and saw the scheduled public hearing. She said she was caught off guard and more of a heads up would have been great, although she was not sure who was in charge of conveying that information. West addressed this saying that, while it is not his proposal, when towns are 10 PLANNING BOARD DRAFT MINUTES doing this kind of work, it does make sense to move quickly on enacting a moratorium; talking about doing one for three months defeats the purpose. He said this discussion happened at the last Town Board meeting and described the publicity they tried to do for the upcoming hearing. Maragni said she understood, but it would be great to have something like an email list for important things that happened at the last Town Board meeting. She said she has been feeling for a while that things sometimes d o not come to their attention, and she noted that the minutes usually do not get posted for some time afterwards. Gagnon apologized for not sharing the proposal with the Planning Board and said the sin was greater because he had not shared it with the Planning Group either. He said a year ago, when the Planning Group was first created, one of the first questions asked was whether the Town should do a moratorium, and the sense was no. What has changed in the last year is the sharp focus brought by the subdi vision at 250 Marsh Rd., which brought the Town Board up to speed about how vulnerable the Town is to development in places where people thought there was not potential, and how much development is enabled by right with the current zoning. This is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and they need to change the laws to bring them in line with what the vision for the Town is. He thought a pause in the action made a lot of sense. If you are going to do a moratorium, the proposal should be put forth and t he action should be swift, which is why it was proposed a little over a week ago and will be decided tomorrow. Jett clarified that this meant there would be a vote on whether to have a moratorium at tomorrow’s Town Board meeting. Russ Nitchman said Maragni is a fairly connected person and a leader in the community being on the Planning Board and she did not know about the moratorium; he did not think a lot of landowners knew about it. He said he was sorry it was being rammed through, and Gagnon and W est have revealed their cards by saying they do not want people having a right to do what the current law allows so they are going to stop them and then change the rules of the game. He reiterated his concern about those owning a few acres imposing on those owning many and said that the Comprehensive Plan should be looked at. He said they need to welcome people to Danby and he also does not like hodgepodge development, but maybe they can find a way to let landowners sell their land and still have it look more like Danby looks now. He did not think taking away owners’ rights was right and thought the Town should move slower on this—it came from nowhere. West said it is up to the Town Board if they want to do the moratorium, and everyone could come make comments at tomorrow’s meeting. He said it is very common for towns to institute a moratorium while doing both a comprehensive plan and zoning updates. The power to do a moratorium is limited by having a specific plan for what will be done and having it be limited; it is common for towns to do a three-year moratorium, but in this case the Town is looking at a very short timeline. He added that if someone is impacted, they can appeal to the Town Board for a waiver. Maher said she imagined that the Planning Board would have much less to review without subdivisions, and Gagnon said the Planning Board might decide to carve out part of the process to deal with. He added that both West and the Planning Board would have more time to address the frustrations around the amount of subdivision that is currently allowed and the fact that they do not have a lot of say about whether 11 PLANNING BOARD DRAFT MINUTES something happens or not. He thought it would be a process of discerning a balance between property rights and the community’s desire to limit development in the outlying parts of the Town. He added that the Comprehensive Plan says the Town should minimize development in the outlying areas and focus development in the hamlets, which are both important parts of the planning process. He said the Town neither can nor wants to completely take away people’s property rights. He talked about the process and said that, given the fast-tracking, it will be more proposal driven. Chair Scriber asked about openings on the Town Board, and Gagnon said there are two people who have decided not to run for reelection. He thought they would like to get this done while they are in office, which is part of the motivation. Scriber asked how Gagnon and West planned to involve and include people who live in the Town while they are coming up with ideas. She said she understood some of the issues, but on the other hand, it feels like a small group is going to decide. Gagnon said the small group is expandable and anyone with an interest can just show up at the Plann ing Group. West said that right now they do not have broad participation in the Planning Group, but there would now be a specific set of changes they would be evaluating, and there would be more outreach about what they are doing and how to join, as well as an additional Town Board meeting to get that feedback. Scriber said that personally she felt it would have been helpful if more people knew that a moratorium was coming; she did not think that was public knowledge. Leslie Connors, a Town Board member, sa id that it is a very recent thing. Katharine Hunter said no laws get changed without public hearings. This is a whole plan for pulling people together, which has been happening, and the fact that the word moratorium was not brought up does not mean that the goal of the planning has not been to look at everything that is going on in Danby. She thought there had been a fair amount of contact, and the normal flow of something like this is going towards how can we make these changes; it does not mean anyone is ramming anything down someone’s throat. She said it is a method to bring the ideas together, work up some firm proposals, and bring them to the people in the Town as it goes along. Jett said it is a matter of trust. If the moratorium is passed, if a landowner really needs to make a subdivision, will there be a clear protocol as to how they can bring forth their proposals? West said there would be. Anyone who is aggrieved and cannot wait nine months can appeal. He added that this is only a pause while the Town reassesses what they want to allow. Jett said it does appear the moratorium supports the concept of maintaining rural character, and West agreed that is the purpose. He said there may or not be a consensus on changing what is allowed, but pushing pause to focus on that is the intention. Ted Crane asked if they wanted to start from scratch or if could they follow a process of identifying the problems they know of and doing changes that close those loopholes and then removing the moratorium. West said that no one was proposing throwing out the zoning code, it would be revisions to known problems. Gagnon said that the revisions might be substantial however. 12 PLANNING BOARD DRAFT MINUTES Richards said the issue was how they define rural character, and whether people agreed with the definition would be decided when they vote for Town officials. Gagnon said they had spent almost a year talking about rural character, and Richards said they need it in writing and documents to look at. He felt they hear the same things in long meetings and need something in writing they can vote on. He added that he did not want to have to use social media to get his information about the Town. Chair Scriber said it was clear that those interested should attend the upcoming Town Board meeting. (8) ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:19 p.m. (moved by Jett, seconded by Maragni) ___________________________________________ Alyssa de Villiers – Recording Secretary