The Town of Rochester Public Hearing re: amendments to the Town of Rochester Comprehensive Plan was held on March 23, 2021 at 6:30pm via Livestream Broadcast on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCg7ykop50cWmqPFUpgDjRSQ
Listening Dial in Number+1 929 205 6099 Meeting ID: 827 3544 2888 Password: 182836

PRESENT:

Councilwoman Erin Enouen Councilwoman Bea Haugen-Depuy
Councilman Chris Hewitt Councilman Adam Paddock
Supervisor Michael Baden Town Clerk Kathleen Gundberg
Attorney Marylou Christiana

Supervisor Baden opened the public hearing and led in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.

Councilwoman Enouen gave a presentation.

OPEN TO THE PUBLIC:

Laura Finestone: Fully supports all of this, I do question why the policy section isn’t included and the Comp plan discusses nothing about water quality and this is something that should be included as one of the major pillars.

Todd Anderson: In favor of the amendments but mainly here to observe.

Arnold Restivo: I have concerns when labels are on certain structures comes regulations. Regulations on housing will affect housing in general and the affordability of housing in the Town of Rochester and a large population can’t afford such regulations.

Lawrence Dewitt: Councilwoman Enouen did a wonderful job with the presentation regarding the process and documents, I feel strongly that these documents will help the community maintain strongest assets.

Michael Coleman: Feel strongly in favor of changes. There are good reasons why they should be added to the Comp plan. This document describes what the Town wants to be in the future, its not codes or laws but a guideline that can help future Planning Boards. A lot of work goes into building a document as they were attended.

Madeline Russo: The Natural Heritage Plan document tackles water quality issues; ground water in the Town of Rochester. We take our need for well water replenishments for development and focus more on the future. The Rondout Creek, wetland protection and ground water lay good ground water protection.

WRITTEN COMMENTS:

Lisa Dokken:
I am writing in support of the Comprehensive Plan being discussed this evening.

I support the proposed additions for a few reasons, but primarily I think updating comprehensive plans is a smart thing to do on a periodic basis, I always think more information and more context for stakeholders is a great thing. Plus the additions don’t change any of our currently adopted land use plans and the primary and overall effect will be ensuring the information and documentation is more accessible.

Ralph Schimmenti
Comments to the proposed addition of the NHP to the Town of Rochester Comprehensive Plan I am against the addition for adding the NHP to the Town of Rochester Comprehensive Plan for the following reasons:
1.The Town is asking to amend Comprehensive Town Plans and therefore Zoning Laws during the Covid-19 Crisis. May people have no access to the internet or technology during at this time. There is not a public place for the taxpayers to congregate and discuss the implication of said laws.
2.There are no identifying markers in the field or on the maps labeling which taxpayer parcels this may affect.
3.There are no specific details as to how this may affect taxpayer parcels.
4.The proposed amendments are considered conservational zoning and therefore will exceed the recommended zoning laws set forth by NYS Guidelines under the SEQRA and NYSDEC regulations. There are no amendments that increase the safety of the taxpayers. This will place unnecessary restrictions on property owners that have a negative effect on property values. This has already been achieved in the Towns of Gardiner and New Paltz with negative results on the taxpayer where those affected lost 3/4 of their property value and the right to freely use their property.
5.Constitutional Violations: 5th &14th Amendment
.“Fifth Amendment, amendment (1791) to the Constitution of the United States, part of the Bill of Rights, that articulates procedural safeguards designed to protect the rights of the criminally accused and to secure life, liberty, and property.”
“Fourteenth Amendment; The Due Process Clause prohibits state and local governments from depriving persons of life, liberty, or property without a fair procedure. The Supreme Court has ruled this clause makes most of the Bill of Rights as applicable to the states as it is to the federal government, as well as to recognize substantive and procedural requirements that state laws must satisfy. The Equal Protection Clause requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all people, including all non-citizens, within its jurisdiction. This clause has been the basis for many decisions rejecting
irrational or unnecessary discrimination against people belonging to various groups.
6. Zoom meetings are inappropriate for a discussion that will affect all of the taxpayers in the Town and discriminates against those who are not computer literate.
7. Everyone I spoken to about this has no idea this is even happening.

Rebecca Collins and Barton S. Brooks:
Good afternoon – I am writing on behalf of myself and my husband. We are in opposition to the plan by the town of Rochester to insert the outdated Heritage Plan report into the Comprehensive plan. This particular report pertains directly to us, as farmers of the Rondout Valley. My husband has been farming the land on which our farm sits for his entire life, and purchased it from his grandfather when he was 18 years old; in total he has been a farmer in the Rondout Valley for more than 50 years, and I have been farming by his side for 15 of those years. The outdated Heritage Plan makes many incorrect assumptions about farmers, in spite of stating that RVGA member growers were consulted in its writing. We are Grower Members and we had no idea this document was prepared, or that those speaking on behalf of the Growers were representing all – nothing could be further from the truth. The Heritage Plan proposes that farmers will be “educated” by members of the Environmental Commission on best practices. This is unacceptable, given that farmers (including us) are already regulated by the USDA, Soil and Water, and other governmental agencies. We are already required by the State and Federal government to follow specific protocols regarding run-off, water quality, and other pertinent environmental issues. Adding something like this into the Town Comprehensive Plan only places further burdens on the farmer, when the stated goal of the Town is to encourage and support farmers, and farming as a local industry. This report does nothing more than add a way for the Town to control us. Farming is already hard work – why is our local township wishing to make it even more so?

I refer to the Heritage Plan as being outdated because it is. Much has changed in our town since 2015, which is obvious to anyone with eyes and ears. If I were to apply to any of the town boards for a review of any project on our property, I already know that if I presented 6 year old data I would be sent packing. No matter how well researched and thought out, the date on the report makes it obsolete, and hence it should not be included in the Comprehensive Plan. Additionally, this makes absolute anything therein. The process by which this is happening sets a precedent for how rules are set in the future. What this means is that retroactively a Comprehensive Plan becomes a fluid document, not a static one. That is an incorrect process, and truly sets a worrisome precedent for leadership in the future.

We are adamantly opposed to the report being added to the Comprehensive Plan. It is especially concerning that there has been little to no notification of town residents that this was happening. In a day when the word “transparency” is being heralded from every political corner, it’s shameful that this small town and tightly-knit community can’t see fit to notify its residents in a proper and transparent way.

Stephanie Bludau Tor:
If possible, could you take into consideration doing something in conjunction with our Veterans. Perhaps similar to the farm setup that Malcom Mance has done across the river at the Veterans’ Warriors Haven Farm.

I hope you’ll look into it and perhaps look at some of the land/unoccupied buildings that are in our town and turn that into something beneficial for Veterans as well as for the town in general.

Thank you for taking the time to read this.

Paul and Andrea Kortright:
We are writing to oppose the adoption of the Natural Heritage Plan into the Town’s Comprehensive Plan. First, it is irresponsible to make changes of this nature without having an in person public hearing. To assume that all people in the Town are comfortable on zoom or using any other technology is presumptuous. Many people are unable to access online meetings as there are places in Town that do not have internet service, or have unstable service, thus cutting them off from participating. It is often difficult to speak over zoom hear other people, or just use the app. This is not an emergency situation. There is no reason to push forward any new resolutions during a pandemic.
Second, we vehemently oppose any proposal that allows the Town to further restrict the rights of the property owners. The NHP has been adopted as a Town document which is available as a reference. There is no need to add it to the Comprehensive Plan. In the Town minutes from June 7, 2018, Mr. Baden says that, “ the comprehensive plan is not a law, it’s a guideline”. However once the NHP is in the Comprehensive plan, it makes it that much easier to enact laws that will be more restrictive of property owner’s rights. There has already been a public hearing on June 7, 2018 in which the proposal to include the NHP into the Comprehensive plan was defeated. Why is this matter coming up again? Again, we are opposed to adding the NHP to the Comprehensive Plan.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION COMMISSION:

The members of the Town of Rochester Environmental Conservation Commission (TORECC) commend the Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Code Review Committee for proposing to adopt both the Natural Heritage Plan (NHP) and Open Space Inventory (OSI) into the Town of Rochester Comprehensive Plan. The TORECC is in support of the adoption of the Natural Heritage Plan and the Open Space Inventory for many reasons, including that the Plan was completed as a joint effort between the Town of Rochester and the Town of Wawarsing. Creating this partnership is instrumental to the conservation of the shared environmental, historical, and cultural resources that extend beyond just the borders of the Town of Rochester. In light of recent events and trends, more and more people are seeking a rural lifestyle, putting development pressure on the Rondout Valley and the larger region. The NHP and OSI are catalogs of our existing resources and they lay out clear recommended actions to help the Town navigate toa future that is environmentally, culturally, and economically prosperous, but still maintains its rural character. The members of the TORECC believe that the ranked priorities listed in both NHP and the OSI are the most important and vulnerable resources that we have in Rochester. These priorities are: Historic & Cultural Resources. The Town of Rochester has a rich cultural history dating back generations; hamlets, historic homes, landmarks, farmsteads, estates, and the Town’s rural character are a direct result of our shared history and a draw for tourists. Agriculture & Agro-related Cultural Resources. The Town of Rochester’s agricultural industries are vital to its economic viability and are becoming more so with the advent of agri-tourism. The Town’s farming history is a large part of its cultural heritage as well.
Ecological Resources\Terrestrial Habitats. These plans show that the Town of Rochester is rich in ecological resources, including forests, meadowlands, valleys, farmland and ridges .These resources are important habitats for flora and fauna. Hydrological Resources\Aquatic Habitats. Protecting our drinking water supply and the viability of aquatic habitats is a huge priority for the TORECC. Clean and viable surface waters, riparian corridors ,ground waters, wetlands, watershed basins, and other aquatic systems are vital to thriving ecosystems and human habitation. Recreational Resources .Our recreational resources attract people to this region and are an important asset to residents and visitors alike. As visitation increases, comprehensive knowledge of our existing outdoor recreation network is critical to identifying areas where this network can be expanded and improved in order to alleviate pressure on overused areas. Scenic Resources . The Town of Rochester has some of the most breath-taking views heds in the Rondout Valley. These views and the outdoor recreation that accompany them are a large driver in tourism and the main source of the Town’s scenic character. Adopting both the NHP and the OSI into the Town Comprehensive Plan sends a clear message to our community and neighbors, that we are serious about the conservation of our Town’s natural and cultural resources. It is the belief of the TORECC that adoption of these plans is the first step in the conservation of our waterways, forests, meadows, agricultural and agro-related industries, outdoor recreation and the conservation of the rural character of both the Towns of Rochester and Wawarsing. The TORECC is a willing and collaborative partner and ready to work with the Town Board to navigate any actions that come from the adoption of these plans into the Town of Rochester Comprehensive Plan.
Sincerely, The Members of the Town of Rochester Environmental Conservation Commission

TOWN OF ROCHESTER PLANNING BOARD:

Per your request, at our December 1stth, 2020 Workshop Meeting the TOR Planning Board discussed and reviewed the proposed amendment of the 2006 Town of Rochester Comprehensive Plan with the adoption of(a) the 2018 Natural Heritage Plan; (b) the 2015 Open Space Inventory; and (c) the 2008 Historic Resources Reconnaissance Survey. The consensus opinion of the Planning Board of the Town of Rochester was for adoption and amendment of the TOR Comprehensive plan of the three aforementioned documents. The Planning Board voted unanimously to support the Plan and urges the Town Board of Rochester to amend and adopt the Comprehensive Plan with the Natural Heritage Plan, Open Space Inventory and Historic Resources Reconnaissance Survey We are especially excited by and support the following items in the Natural Heritage Plan:
1.That the Plan is a joint effort with Wawarsing, thus it represents a consensus of purpose with respect to our two town’s shared Natural Heritage.
2.That the Plan strongly encourages that the six primary components of the Town of Rochester’s character be enhanced and preserved; and that actions be taken to ensure that those that follow in our footsteps enjoy the fruits of these components as we have. The components include:
a. The Agricultural and Agro-Related Cultural Resources of the area.
b. The Ecological Resources of the Town.
c. The Hydrological Resources and Aquatic Habitats of the Town.
d. The Recreational Resources and the need to enhance our Recreational Resources, particularly the Rondout River as a Recreational Resource.
e. The Scenic Resources as an economic engine as well as an aesthetic opportunity,

ULSTER COUNTY PLANNING BOARD:
Re: Rochester Comprehensive Plan Update

Summary
The Town of Rochester is proposing to amend and update its existing plan by formally adopting three existing documents to become an official part of that plan and for the information found in them to guide the Town’s policy and zoning into the future.

The following materials were received for review:
Referral Form
Historic Resources Report Reconnaissance Survey – 2008
Open Space Inventory – 2016 Natural Heritage Plan – 2018
Full EAF part One
Recommendations – Approve
The Ulster County Planning Board (UCPB) would like to commend the Town of Rochester on the adoption of these well-thought out and designed documents to be recognized as official long-term guidance plans for the Town. These studies and reports will act as an additional check and balance on the Town’s future zoning decision to make sure the Town’s actions and plans remain consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.

John Messerschmidt: upon hearing the comments nothing can make everybody happy. Tourists will come regardless, with these documents we have more control and it would be better.

Troy Dunn:

The Town of Rochester Open Space Inventory (dated January 2016) and Town of Rochester Natural Heritage Plan (Dated April 2, 2018), should not be adopted into the town comprehensive plan. The Open Space Inventory (OSI) and Natural Heritage Plan (NHP) are both incomplete as they fail to consider the cost of the recommended actions. There is a direct monetary cost incurred for the report’s authors recommended actions. Cost to taxpayers and cost to landowners in potential revenue loss due to additional restrictions. These proposals in their present form lack fiscal transparency and committing to their adoption is akin to committing to purchase a new vehicle without ever knowing the price. No one would do that and no one should support doing the same with public tax dollars while impacting privately held lands. Furthermore, the boundaries of the referenced Critical Environmental Area (CEA) as referenced in NHP map, pg. 70, is arbitrary and lacks peer reviewed scientific data supporting the authors recommendations.
At present there are conservation and forestry programs in place with the state that meet the objective of preserving open space and forest management. These programs are voluntary to the landowner. The recommendations of the OSI and NHP as presented strip effected landowners of that voluntary option in an attempt to force compliance to the present town board land use philosophy through regulation. This is a very dangerous precedent to set and one that sets the stage for expensive litigation that shall further burden town taxpayers. As proof of this, I refer to NHP, pg. 23, Focus on Rochester Resources-Forests, “urge us to err in favor of proactive and conservative approaches to protection”. NHP, pg. 33, Catskill-Shawangunk Greenway Corridor,
“Preserve the integrity of the lands falling within the corridor that lie outside of already protected land”. OSI, “steer development away from parcels within and adjacent to this connectivity feature can contribute enormously to regional ecological resilience”. Since there is no follow-up, an educated reader must deduce this to mean more regulatory oversight is required and recommended by these proposals. This reinforces my main point of lack of fiscal transparency of these documents; what is the fiscal cost to the taxpayer and more important, the net effect on the landowner. Typically, the largest personal financial investment is land. These proposed amendments to our comprehensive plan are an attempt to change the rules on landowners who hold tracts of land resulting in loss of value to privately held lands.
In reference to the proposed CEA (NHP map. Pg. 70) there is no scientific justification supporting the authors views. If this area were indeed “critical”, the entire Town of Rochester as well as the bulk of Ulster County should be identified as “critical” if scientifically proven and warranted. The small size and boundaries of the proposed CEA makes it both arbitrary and ecologically insignificant.
In addition to the aforementioned flaws and omissions in these proposals, they both fail to address human population densities. If it were scientifically justified that we truly have “critical environmental areas”, it is proven through research that the greatest threat to biodiversity is human presence. Any complete report requires impacts and density limit study’s on not only human habitation in such designated areas but human visitation as well. There must be density limits placed on human recreational activity in designated areas. One only has to visit the Shawangunk’s to be reminded of the effects of human overcrowding on both wildlife and fauna.
The irony should be apparent that as the town celebrates the Mohonk Mountain House (a structure which drastically disrupts the natural ridge view), the Cliff House, and building at Minnewaska, the chances of the Smiley and Phillips families of successfully embarking on those endeavors today would most likely never get out of committee under the regulation that is sure to arise from adopting these incomplete proposals. The result is the possibility of irreparable financial harm to large tract landowners due to unreasonable regulatory restrictions. By definition, if these proposals were complete, we would know what regulatory oversight shall be enacted with cost analysis.
These proposals to amend the town comprehensive plan are incomplete due to the authors lack of supporting scientific data and financial transparency. The documents are replete with unsubstantiated opinion masquerading as scientific fact due to their lack of supporting research data. The very foundation of science is fact supported by peer reviewed research data. The lack of this information in the NHP and OSI in present form renders them merely expensive opinion pieces that have no place in public policy. For these reasons and many more not addressed here for brevity, these proposals in their present form should not be adopted into the Town of Rochester Comprehensive Plan.

Ruth Bendelius:
As of 12:23PM on 3/22/2021 the “Latest News” on the Town of Rochester website listed the following: Notice: ZBA Meeting cancelled – 3118/21
Notice: Public Hearing Local Law 3 – 2021 -4/8/2021 6:30PM
Notice: Planning Board Public Hearing – 318/21 6:30 PM
Notice: Planning Board Meeting Dates
NO “Latest News” for the Town Board Public Hearing – Comprehensive Plan 3?23?21 6:30 PM Supervisor Baden and Rich Miller seem not to be keeping the “Latest News” column up to date.
I would also like to know in what newspapers was this Public Hearing announced? ( Not in the Blue Stone 3/191 21 and not in the Shawangunk Journal 3/18/21) Because the last Public Hearing – December 10, 2020 – on this proposed amendment to the 2006
Comprehensive Plan wås cancelled as it was erroneously scheduled for the eve of an important religious holiday, my original tetter was not made public. Although, I know, the Town Board read all the letters that meant to be read at the Public Hearing. (And, incidentally, for whatever it is worth, I was a member of the 2006 Comprehensive Plan committee.) I still have the same questions, and even more now, concerning this Public Hearing and how information has been handled.
At the September 1, 2020 Town Board meeting, I submitted comments concerning a C.E.A map that was displayed at the August meeting that had property owners names on it. The property owners had never been notified. As a result, Supervisor Baden “apologized for placing names on the map” and said they discovered the map wasn’t completed. Baden then stated: plan to send letters to every bounding owner explaining what it means.” My question this evening: Were letters sent to property owners? believe, this has NOT been done. Would it have let the cat out of the bag?
I am still concerned about the nebulous Conservation Open Area and Critical Environmental Area maps.
When I recently called the Town Hall about the maps an appointment was made with the Town Assessor. When I met with him, he looked at the maps in the studies and said that he could not delineate the properties on a Town lot and block number map. If the Assessor cannot identify and outline the parcels contained in the proposed Amendment, how can individual property owners become aware of their possible long term property rights losses that might be affected by possible changes in zoning and subdivision laws and building codes due to conservation concerns?
Another concern is the inclusion of some properties in Wawarsing to help form the Catskill Shawangunk Greenway Corridor. Colony Farm is being heavily relied upon to be an important part. However, there is no promise that the land will be available. The Corrections Department apparently has made no commitment to be a part of this program. Look what happened to the farmland across from Walmart. How will this affect the Town of Rochester?
I don’t think that there has been enough work by the Town to present this huge package to the whole community and more especially to the affected property owners to hold a legitimate Public Hearing at this time. Transparency has really been lacking.
Mark & Maria Greene:
My wife Maria and I are resubmitting our comments dated, December 9th , 2020 to you and The Town of Rochester (“TOR”) or “The Board” for consideration. We are not redacting any of our previous remarks but adding a recent experience which occurred one week ago today.
On March 16th. 2021 two individuals were arrested in an incident on our historic property, “The Dewitt-Benedict House” on state route 209 in Napanoch, New York. The two men who were from The Bronx, New York were charged with criminal trespass and other infractions. Our property was clearly posted with “No Trespassing” signs. The two individuals told police: “We wanted to “Baha” and explore the property.”
We are not alone in dealing with criminal trespassers •y— it is not uncommon. These two individuals happened to get caught. We are including this story, which occurred near the proposed “Colony Farm Tourism Hub” to send a message to taxpayers and property owners. The proposed “Town of Rochester Natural Heritage Plan” will invite this same conduct to occur on surrounding lands, not limited to the documented trail systems of the proposed plan.
If we are unsuccessful in stopping or limiting this project in its scope, and halting the actions of The Board, we are planning on taking the appropriate legal action to recover the losses of the use of our property and enjoyment of our lands.
Our Comments as submitted on December 9 th 2020 were as follows:
I appreciate the time we spent recently discussing the proposed Town of Rochester Natural Heritage Plan (“Heritage Plan”). My wife Maria and I are now writing you to formerly go on record to state our objections with certain aspects of the project.
As I mentioned on our call, my family has lived and farmed in the Town of Rochester (TOR) since its founding. My direct decedents are the Schoonmaker’s who settled these lands in the late 1 7th century. We are passionate advocates of our town’s deep cultural history and have spent much time researching the town’s heritage and will continue to advance the tradition of farming, while at the same time promoting our cultural resources and open space.
Undoubtedly, some residents may have approached your office with concerns regarding the Critical Environmental Area (“CEA”) and possible new proposed zoning revisions which may affect property values. We absolutely share some of these concerns, but we will briefly highlight some serious issues with the project which extend well beyond land use restrictions.
My wife and I currently reside at 147 Cherrytown road, which is located in a historic hamlet, although not officially designated as such by the Town. In 2007 we purchased our historic farm property (“Jaffe Farm”), which was originally my family’s (Schoonmaker) homestead in c. 18351840. We have put hundreds of thousands of our hard-earned dollars into this property to stabilize the structures and restore the land. Our intent has always been to use the land and buildings to augment our income with agricultural revenue (currently Christmas trees). It is unclear how the proposed CEA could affect our land use, but we hope to get answers from your office soon.
Our position is that the CEA should not include our property and several others along Cherrytown road, and we are requesting a further remapping and study of the CEA based on information that I will provide. As I mentioned in our recent call, we were never notified that our property was being included (or discussed) to be included in the CEA area. This is wrong, and it is not right that the TOR board never reached out to us. Had they done so, I would have provided some critical information and guidance to the various committees and the TOR board.
Beyond our own property, there could be another potentially serious impact along the creek. The proposed CEA encroaches on sacred Native American Indian cultural resources. There is no mention of Native American or cultural impacts in the Heritage Plan. The Ka•hank•sen creek (which Kerhonkson is named after) is a well-documented historical location which was referenced in a recent 2020 Town of Rochester historical video published on YouTube describing the 1663 Captain Krieger expedition. A responsible town board and Catskill Shawangunk Greenway Corridor (CSGC) committee should not allow a proposed tourism hub and recreational area to encroach on these historic and protected settlements. I have reached out to the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) and the Indian Nations Affairs Coordinator, David Witt, Ph D. to discuss concerns with the project. David has been in contact with The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) to discuss this matter further.
In my discussions with David, we observe that various aquatic resources in New York State are being compromised with crowds of people, many who are escaping New York City. The include Minnewaska State Park, Vernooy Kill Falls, Kaaterskill Falls (in Greene County), and dozens of other local swimming holes and aquatic areas. It is becoming impossible as local residents to gain access to these sites, let alone enjoy them if you are lucky enough gain access. So even though the CEA proports to seek protection for the areas, the recreational and tourism component of the Heritage Plan will certainly ruin them based on what we are currently observing. Crowds of people will always seek out these aquatic areas, and a recreational plan will certainly invite overcrowding and compromise.
We conclude by saying that CEA designations and land conservancies can be a good thing to protect the resources mentioned, and we support open space. Unfortunately, The Heritage Plan does not hide the fact that Agri-tourism (and money) is the main driver of this project. That said, we feel that the CEA should be confined to lands ending on the southerly borders of Town of Rochester and Town of Wawarsing. We object to any recreational, tourism hub or hiking plan (as currently mapped out) since it will encroach on the personal enjoyment of our own land and harm the sensitive historical cultural resources mentioned herein. We look forward to future discussions with you on this project.
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING:
Resolution # 128-2021:

A Motion was made by Supervisor Baden to hold the public hearing open with a new date to be determined.
Second: Councilman Paddock
ROLL CALL:
Councilwoman Enouen aye
Councilwoman Haugen-Depuy aye
Councilman Hewitt aye
Councilman Paddock aye
Supervisor Baden aye 5-0, motion carried

ADJOURNMENT:

A Motion was made by Councilman Hewitt to adjourn the meeting at 7:49pm.
Second: Councilwoman Enouen motion carried

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

Kathleen A. Gundberg
Town Clerk