The Town of Rochester Town Board held the Regular Town Board meeting on August 1, 2024, at 6:30 pm at the Harold Lipton Community Center, 15 Tobacco Road Accord, NY 12404
To View the Meeting
Livestream Broadcast on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCg7ykop50cWmqPFUpgDjRSQ

PRESENT:

Councilman Michael Coleman Councilwoman Charlotte Smiseth
Town Supervisor Erin Enouen Deputy Town Clerk Christina Ferrara
Town Attorney Marylou Christiana

ABSENT:
Councilwoman Renee Ciardi Councilwoman Emily Dindial
Town Clerk Kathleen Gundberg

Supervisor Enouen called the meeting to order and led in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.

RESOLUTIONS:
Resolution # 237-2024:

Motion: Councilwoman Enouen
Second: Councilman Coleman motion: carried

The Town Board accepts the agenda, as prepared by the Town Supervisor as amended: The board tabled department updates & liaison reports, removed letter J (time and attendance), and table submission of the financials.
Aye: 3 nay: 0 abstain: 0 Ciardi, Dindial-absent

SUPERVISOR’S CORRESPONDENCE REPORT:

The ribbon cutting for the O & W Rail Trail was on August 2, 2024. We are excited to see the improvements to our rail trail; our Summer Youth program joined us!

GRANTS:
– NY Rising – Alligerville Firehouse: Plan to close tomorrow.
– BridgeNY – Boice Mill Road Bridge: We anticipate bringing the final design to bring to the board next month.
Additionally, there are two other funded projects: culverts on Project 32 and Sundown Rd
– County ARPA Parks – All clear for the septic site.
– JCAP – Bid is still open.
– Ecode 360-
Supervisor Enouen demonstrated how to navigate Ecode360 online.
Councilman Coleman would like to have the map labeled “revised”.

TOWN BOARD UPCOMING AGENDAS:

August Workshop Meeting – August 8, 2024

Information Session – Wednesday, August 21, 2024, @ 6:30 held at the Harold Lipton Community Center 15 Tobacco Rd Accord, To review map changes

Information Session – Saturday, August 24, 2024, @10:00 held at the Harold Lipton Community Center 15 Tobacco Rd Accord, To review map changes
Both Information sessions will be streamed online, and the public will be able to join the meeting via Zoom

August Audit Meeting – August 29, 2024

ATTORNEY FOR THE TOWN REPORT:

Town Attorney Marylou Christiana:
Currently working on a Code Enforcement matter with Jerry Davis and Mike Banach. The Town Board was considering changing Scenic Rd from a two-way to a one-way street.
The DeJager subdivision was approved by the planning board in the Spring and is subject to certain conservation things, their attorney sent documents for review for changes. Hoping to get a final copy to the board by next week.

PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD:

Marilyn Acquafredda
Our homestead barn is a rental we are always on-site. We are here for information and are interested in how this will affect us in any negative way. We agree there are too many houses being sold strictly for Air BnB limiting some local people. Some people do this as an accessory to their home. We aren’t taking housing from anyone and hoping the fees will stay reasonable so it would still be worth doing especially for those just doing this seasonally, it would be a big help.

Claire Wasser / Ken Stevens
On behalf of the housing committee-

July 31, 2024- Housing Advisory Committee Recommendations to Town Board Re: Short-Term Rentals (“STRs”) On behalf of the Housing Advisory Committee, we make the following recommendations regarding the issuance of permits for short-term rental units for 2025. 1. The Town should reissue permits for all current permit-holders who have complied with all legal requirements during the past year. 2. The Town should conduct a serious review of the local STR law and compliance mechanisms in light of questions that have been raised as to the impact STRs have on long-term rentals and housing stock more broadly, as well as issues involving STRs that are operating without an STR permit issued by the Town of Rochester. 3. For the coming year (2025), permits should be limited to these current permit holders. and any others that may be required to be reissued under local law. No new permits should be issued this year. However, the Town should maintain a waitlist of property owners who have expressed interest in obtaining a permit, should one or more become available in the future. Context: A. The Lack of Affordable Housing Impacts Residents and Local Businesses. In the last year, the housing availability crisis has not improved, and it remains nearly impossible for recent college graduates returning home, local employees, and job hunters seeking opportunities in our town to find long-term rentals. Due to the market-driven increases in property values, fewer and fewer town residents who are local earners or work in the Town can afford to buy a house. The estimated 340 STRs in the Town (see paragraph B below) are limiting the number of homes available for long-term rentals and drive completion on properties available for sale which increases costs. Local businesses are having difficulty retaining employees because long-term housing is so limited. The modest income of small business employees, and agriculture and service industry workers are not sufficient enough to be able to afford rent for the few available units in the town. B. Too many STR operators are flouting local law and not registering with the Town. According to the most recent Town data, there are 135 STRs registered with the Town; 70 are non-owner occupied and 65 are classified as owner-occupied. However, data from the county Department of Finance suggests there are many STRs in Rochester operating without a local STR permit. There are 340 “hosts” with properties situated in the Town of Rochester that Ulster County has identified through a data mining contract with a private vendor. Of these 340, only 196 possess a Certificate of Authority to collect County sales tax. Thus there could be over 205 STR units that have not applied for or been granted a Town permit (340 – 135 = 205), and a substantial number (340-196 = 144), that have not registered with either the County or Town. Failing to register STRs with the Town is of serious concern for several reasons. First, it undermines the spirit of the law, which is to (a) ensure that our residential zones remain places where our neighbors can peacefully reside, rather than zones where business, in this case, hospitality, predominates and encroaches on that amenity; and (b) to ensure that our supply of housing is not significantly reduced by these competing, often more lucrative uses, which often drive up pricing throughout the community. Second, it creates an uneven playing field, disadvantaging those who do play by the rules and pay the legislated fees and taxes that are established by the law. Third, it undermines the ability of the Town to monitor the health and safety of such unregistered units. Fourth, it hampers the ability of the Town to obtain critical information in order to gauge the quantity, type, and ownership status of STRs in the Town. Some increased levels of enforcement may be necessary to meet the goals of the 2021 law. C. How Many and What Types of STRs are appropriate for the Town of Rochester? According to the most recent data we have obtained from the 2024 Assessor’s Roll, there are 3,321 households in the Town. Using only the County data on the number of hosted STRs in the Town (340), this means that as much as 10% of the available housing stock in the Town is devoted to STRs. This is without even considering anecdotal evidence that the number of unregistered STRS may be even higher than what the County has already documented. The Ulster County Smart Housing Initiative has determined that regulating the number and type of STRs can be an important tool to address housing availability and costs. See generally, hps://hsci.ulstercountyny.gov/housing-smart-acons/adopt-short-term-rental-regulaons/ . The Town has already endorsed being part of the Smart Housing Initiative for a number of reasons, including being beer able to meet the community’s needs and increasing access to, support, grants and funding for local housing initiatives. The County’s position shifts on is supported by numerous studies, some of which are collected on their website. The County currently recommends 1 -2% cap on non-owner-occupied units and generally recommends liming the number of units to 1 per applicant for both types of units. Using the 3,321 number for total households, the Town of Rochester would meet the 1% threshold with 33 non-owner occupied STRs and 66 permits would meet the 2% threshold. With a total of 70 non-owner-occupied permits currently, the Town is already above the County’s 2% maximum recommendation for non-owner-occupied units. D. A Careful Review of the Current Local Law is Appropriate. We would also like to recommend that the Town review Local Law 3 of 2021(STR) (§140-26A of the Town code) to assess whether any changes are needed in light of the experiences from the past several years. The local STR law was passed in the midst of the pandemic when people were flocking to our town to enjoy the space and fresh air, and with it came an increase in the number of STRs. This brought both new opportunities for tourism along with concerns over the health and safety of these new accommodations and the extent to which the shifts in use comported with the Town’s Comprehensive Plan.
In the ensuing years, home prices have risen far faster than local wages and the availability of full me /long term rental housing has diminished. At the same me, some local residents may have legitimate concerns at having lost an opportunity to participate in the economic benefits of the STR boom while non-resident speculators may be holding not just one but two permits. It is not our intention to recommend specific changes in the local law at this me, but there are some areas which we strongly recommend that the Town Board explore further this year in a carefully considered manner with input from the community.
1. In some nearby municipalities, loeries have been introduced to provide some measure of fairness in allocating STR permits when the demand outstrips the availability.
2. In other towns, the local governments have endorsed multi-year phase outs of some or all STRs, thereby providing some measure of relief for those with a vested interest in an existing STR.
3. Other localities have outright banned STRs to those who do not live locally.
4. Some research suggests that certain types of STRs most impact the availability of housing for full me rentals. For example, there may be much less need to limit permits involving the rental of part of a resident’s home as opposed to a full house rental as that is less likely to displace an available full me rental. Intuitively it would seem that such partial In-home rentals with shared facilities are less likely to adversely impact overall housing costs.
5. The Town may also want to consider liming permits to one per property owner consistent with the County’s recommendation
6. The Town may also want to explore mechanisms to limit the number of days in a given year that any permitted STR could operate, in order to limit purely speculative use of our Town’s housing stock. Finally, as noted above, there are legitimate concerns over the extent of enforcement of any local law that must be considered. We recognize that tourism has traditionally been important to our local economy and remains important. But a Town policy that would encourage long-term rentals would in turn help alleviate the shortage of employees able to work in the Town. A limited pause in the issuance of new STR permits this coming year is a reasonable step while the Town determines the best balance of STRs to LTR’s for our Town’s unique local economy.
Thank you for your consideration,
Town of Rochester Housing Advisory Committee.
Elizabeth Zeldin, Claire Wasser, Ken Stephens, Martha Roberge, Alana Blum

Emily Tillery: I’ve been a property owner in Kerhonkson since 2015 and renting since 2017. It was purchased for my weekend use. I think a tremendous number of properties are purchased in that way and it’s a big part of the housing market in our area. I understand affordable housing is an issue, but I also strongly feel that a large number of homes that currently Airbnb have a permit but may not be presently renting. Going off the number of permits that have been issued may not be the best way to gauge the active STRs that way have. When I purchased my property, it was to be a three-season home, after improvements, that increased my assessment. I contribute a lot to the community via Airbnb. My property is only 350 sq. ft, there’s a lot of people who think we are shorting affordable housing, but it’s not something that’s meant to be long-term or affordable housing. Some homes were purchased by people who don’t necessarily need an extra income although appreciate it when the money comes in, they’ve opened their weekend homes they’re going to hold onto anyway, to bring tourists and tourism to our area which also supports the local businesses. It is a catch-22, I’m not here to tell you how to fix it but, not only do we need homes for workers who are running these businesses, but they also need the business coming in from tourism, and if we suddenly limit the Airbnb, say the number of days, for instance, would be detrimental, say like only being able to list 180, my property typically books out at 90 to 95% occupancy; so by limiting the number of days would not make it feasible for me to continue to operate. I screen professional management companies, screen their guests
coming in. I think that it is very important to continue to enforce the permitting process I think we should all be doing it legally. It’s also important to have enforcement on people with maybe repeated noise complaints. No one needs a host that’s not responsible for owning a house or operating a short-term rental in that area however, there are lots of hosts that are doing it properly and that does bring a tremendous benefit to our community with the tourism dollars that it provides. I support a lot of local residents as well, I’ve got my handyman, and my cleaning team who’s local as well and I pay them over $50,000 a year for my property to keep it running. I believe that my team sent in comments at least that they intended to. It’s limiting the number of days or limiting the current number of short-term rentals that we have that are already in compliance that are operating would harm them and their income and their way of living. I think those who are operating properly need to be able to continue. I was part of the original 2021 ”grandfathered in”, I think that a lot of the things that you’re proposing most likely wouldn’t apply to me however, professionally I’m segway Ing into me being an interior designer and a large portion of my business, even though I’m now located over in Dutchess County, a large portion of my business is helping either weekend homeowners or short-term rental hopefuls; properly set up their homes which is why I’ve been so involved in trying to communicate the different aspects of our current code. I want to be involved in helping people do it correctly and there is a huge difference between willing to put that time and energy in making sure they’re providing a great and welcoming environment for guests.
The level of homes in Kerhonkson is typically not something that is affordable housing. There are a lot of high-end homes that are bringing high-end tourism dollars to the area. They’re supporting businesses but someone might typically not be able to afford to go down to, for instance, Arrowwood, West Wind, or Kelder Farms. Without tourism that we bring to the area, the businesses wouldn’t survive. Overall, I’m invested in seeing our short-term rental properties being run correctly. There’s a huge disconnect between the previous Town Supervisor. There’s been a huge disconnect in communication between the law and its interpretation with code enforcement. Owner occupied has been misconstrued and needs to be clarified, like the cap; I was told at one point last year when I
reapplied that the cap was actually “Oh no, like our 66-unit cap doesn’t include the grandfathered unit.” It was so many different things being said that the Town Supervisor was under the impression that notices had been sent out, to current permittees that had applied in 2021. He thought that there had been a notice that had been sent out for people to work on renewing their permit. None of this was done and so there was a huge scramble and confusion on what was going on, there’s just a lot of disconnect. Regardless of how we move forward, I would strongly advise that very clear communication happens with the implementation of this law. Let owners
know, that you have our information let us know if there is a Cap discussion coming up and let us know if our permit is going to expire. I
know that this all takes more time and effort but ideally, some of that could be auto notification set up versus man hours going into it, overall, this is just me a concerned owner wanting to do things correctly. I’ve spent so much time trying to figure out how to do that. I think the majority of STR owners out there are not people buying up multiple properties. It’s people who have a weekend home because they love and care about the area and they want to share that and open that up to other people as well. I can’t say that I occupy my home for part of the year because I love the area so much, I bought right across the river, but I shouldn’t be penalized just
because I still own the home that originally brought me to the area. I should be able to continue to rent and bring tourism and tourism dollars.

Seth Samowitz: I am here to express my strong opposition to the proposal to ban short-term rental permits for non-owner-occupied properties in the Town of Rochester, as well as the proposed 180-day maximum rental limit for non-owner-occupied permits. Maintaining and enforcing the current restrictions are essential to the well-being and economic growth of our community.

I purchased a home in Kerhonkson in 2022 and have operated under the permit issued by the town since then. Short-term rentals have allowed me to afford my dream home, something I never thought possible. Given my job, I travel for work most of the year, and renting out my house during these periods has made this possible. I love introducing people to Kerhonkson, with its picturesque landscapes, charming small-town feel, and proximity to the breathtaking Minnewaska State Park, which offers miles of hiking trails, waterfalls, and stunning vistas.

I am deeply invested in the local community, and through my guidebook and personal recommendations, I encourage my guests to support local businesses. This not only benefits the local economy but also helps visitors experience the unique charm and offerings of our town. Additionally, I employ a team of residents from the Town of Rochester, paying them over $50K a year for part-time work, which further contributes to the local economy.

Rather than prohibiting short-term rentals, I recommend enforcing the current cap that allows those already permitted and in compliance to operate. Short-term rentals fill a gap that hotels and inns cannot, providing housing for families and extended groups who want to stay together instead of being separated into multiple rooms across a hotel or inn. This meets a critical need for housing for families and groups who want to stay together while visiting our town.

To address housing affordability, I suggest the town consider providing incentives for building affordable housing and lodging. This approach would help solve the housing situation without undermining the benefits that short-term rentals bring to our community.

Moreover, banning STRs or imposing restrictive limits would likely lead to an increase in illegal rentals. If the town were able to police short-term rentals as rigorously as New York City, the only beneficiaries would be hotels, making it nearly impossible for many visitors to afford accommodation. This shift would hurt the local economy and reduce the number of visitors who can enjoy all that Kerhonkson has to offer.

In conclusion, I urge the Town Board to reject the proposal to eliminate the cap on short-term rental permits and the 180-day maximum rental limit for non-owner-occupied permits. Preserving the current restrictions will help ensure Kerhonkson continues to thrive as a community where both residents and visitors can enjoy its unique charm and amazing nature.
Thank you for your attention to this matter and I look forward to seeing you next week.

TOWN BOARD MEMBER TIME:

Supervisor Enouen wants to clarify the understanding of setting the cap on our agenda. We received a lot of public comments about the cap. There was some misunderstanding, I know the housing advisory committee’s letter from last year got circulated. A lot of people responded to that letter, some people thought we were updating the law or trying to stop short-term rentals tonight, but that is not on our agenda. We have a local law that regulates short-term rentals, in that law, the town board sets the cap for permits of non-owner-occupied units in August of every year for new permits. Anyone with an existing permit, that is up for renewal, is not subject to the cap. That is in the law there’s no proposal to change the law. Anyone that has an existing permit, as long as they’re compliant, your renewal permit is not subject to any cap. Some of the confusion is, that that’s how the grandfathering works as well. In that sense, the grandfathering unit sort of got lumped into that. It could be next year, it could be last year, but anyone who’s up for renewal and has a new application which is outlined in our code, are not subject to any cap that the town board sets. That is the intent of the law, what I wanted to say is, that if there is some confusion or misapplication or communication breakdown with how that is being handled is something that I am working on with code enforcement. I’m very committed to making sure that communications are very clear around the permitting process. The law itself outlines when permits can be
applied for every year, what is and is not subject to the cap, and what the board should be using to think about the cap, it outlines all of that. As a town board, as the legislative board, we’re also using the assessment role, plus the numbers we’re seeing, that’s what we’re using, a data-driven approach to think about setting this cap which would be for new applications. If someone had an application then didn’t reapply, they’re considered a new application. You’re not considered a new application if you are renewing within the renewal window every year. There’s no call to end non-owner-occupied units. Our current law doesn’t even allow us to do that. If you have a permit for a non-owner-occupied unit you are not subject to the cap, I just wanted to clarify.
The board is not doing a local law it is just something that is given in the local law we do through resolution in August of every year.
Councilwoman Smiseth –
During public comment, I heard was this doesn’t affect affordable housing. I have never stated specifically that affordable housing is the issue in this town that drives my arguments for the short-term rental cap. It’s any form of long-term housing. It doesn’t have to specifically be affordable that’s a very specific form of housing
that’s rented to someone who makes less than 80% of the median income of the area. The suggestion to think of the best determination for active Airbnb, for the board, if we’re not going to base it off of our internal numbers of permits, we go with the 250 with data in mind then is the active ones that are actively posting if we’re going to try to base our number off of that comment.

RESOLUTIONS:

ACTION ON MINUTES:
Resolution #238 -2024:

Motion: Supervisor Enouen
Second: Councilwoman Smiseth motion: carried

The Town of Rochester Town Board accepts the minutes of the July 2, 2024, regular business meeting, the July 11, 2024, public hearing and workshop meeting, the July 16, 2024, public hearing, and the July 25, 2024, Audit meeting, as presented.
Aye: 3 nay: 0 abstain: 0 Ciardi, Dindial-absent

ACCEPTANCE OF DONATIONS:
Resolution # 239-2024:

Motion: Councilwoman Smiseth
Second: Councilman Coleman motion: carried

The Town of Rochester Town Board accepts donations of $2,349.97. $30 t-shirts for summer program,
$40 C. Schoonmaker for the summer program, $1,142.10 Rondout Valley Education Foundation, $1,000 Mohonk Preserve, Inc., and $137.87 St Pauly Textile.
Aye: 3 nay: 0 abstain: 0 Ciardi, Dindial-absent

APPOINTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION COMMISSION MEMBER:
Resolution # 240-2024:

Motion: Supervisor Enouen
Second: Councilman Coleman motion: carried

The Town of Rochester Town Board appoints Matthew Dell to serve a term through December 31, 2025.
Aye: 3 nay: 0 abstain: 0 Ciardi, Dindial-absent

AUTHORIZING AN INCREASE IN SCHEDULED HOURS:
Resolution # 241-2024:

Motion: Supervisor Enouen
Second: Councilman Coleman motion: carried

The Town of Rochester Town Board authorizes the position of Assessor’s Aide to increase from 35 hours per week to 40 hours per week effective immediately until September 13, 2024.
Aye: 3 nay: 0 abstain: 0 Ciardi, Dindial-absent

SHORT-TERM RENTAL NON-OWNER-OCCUPIED CAP:
Resolution # 242-2024:

Motion: Councilman Coleman
Second: Councilwoman Smiseth motion: carried

After a lengthy discussion, the board decided to table, the board wants a clearer conversation with the code enforcement.
Aye: 3 nay: 0 abstain: 0 Ciardi, Dindial-absent

RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF DECLARING LUCAS AVENUE IN THE TOWN OF ROCHESTER “ULSTER COUNTY VIETNAM WAR VETERANS MEMORIAL HIGHWAY”:

Motion: Councilwoman Smiseth
Second: Councilman Coleman motion: carried

Resolution # 243 -2024:

Whereas, Ulster County Veteran Services, a department of the Ulster County Government, and the Ulster County Disabled American Veterans Organization, have formally requested the Town of Rochester’s support for the placement of a sign on County Route 1 a/k/a Lucas Avenue in the Town of Rochester. The sign would state as follows: Ulster County Vietnam War Veterans Memorial Highway; and

Whereas, the installation of said sign would be a way to honor those who fought for our freedom during the Vietnam War era. Vietnam War Veterans have been historically overlooked and underappreciated, and this is an opportunity to show them that their sacrifices are and will continue to be remembered; and

Whereas, Lucas Ave in the Town of Rochester is an Ulster County maintained road; now, therefore, be it resolved, that the Town Board of the Town of Rochester hereby supports the installation of a sign by the County of Ulster on Lucas Ave in the Town of Rochester stating, “Ulster County Vietnam War Memorial Highway,” and be it further Resolved, that the Town Clerk send a certified copy of this resolution to the Ulster County Executive, Jen Metzger, Ulster County Planning Director, Dennis Doyle, and the Ulster County Veterans Service Director, Mark A. Cozzupoli.
Aye: 3 nay: 0 abstain: 0 Ciardi, Dindial-absent

HIGHWAY ROOF REPAIR CONTRACT:
Resolution # 244-2024:

Motion: Supervisor Enouen
Second: Councilwoman Smiseth motion: carried

The Town of Rochester Town Board authorizes the Town Supervisor to sign the contract with J&A Roofing to repair the Town Highway Garage roof and to pay the deposit in the amount of one-third of the total cost upon signing.
Aye: 3 nay: 0 abstain: 0 Ciardi, Dindial-absent

SCHEDULING PUBLIC HEARINGS:

LOCAL LAW G OF 2024 – ESTABLISHING A COMMUNITY PRESERVATION FUND AND CREATING A COMMUNITY PRESERVATION FUND ADVISORY BOARD.
Resolution # 245-2024:

Motion: Supervisor Enouen
Second: Councilman Coleman motion: carried

The Town of Rochester Town Board reopens the public hearing for LL G-2024 on September 5, 2024, at 6:30 at The Harold Lipton Community Center 15 Tobacco Rd Accord, NY 12404, and to request the Town Clerk to circulate the notice.
Aye: 3 nay: 0 abstain: 0 Ciardi, Dindial-absent

LOCAL LAW J OF 2024, AMENDING CHAPTER 140, ZONING
Resolution # 246-2024:

Motion: Supervisor Enouen
Second: Councilwoman Smiseth motion: carried

The Town of Rochester Town Board schedules a public hearing for LL J-2024 amending Chapter 140 Zoning for August 29, 2024, at The Harold Lipton Community Center 15 Tobacco Rd Accord, NY 12404, immediately following the public hearing on LL-G of 2024 and to request the Town Clerk to circulate the notice.
Aye: 3 nay: 0 abstain: 0 Ciardi, Dindial-absent

LOCAL LAW 12-2023: AMENDING CHAPTER 125, SUBDIVISION:
Resolution # 247-2024:

Motion: Councilwoman Smiseth
Second: Councilman Coleman motion: carried

The Town of Rochester Town Board has scheduled the public hearing for LL 12-2023 on August 29, 2024, immediately following the public hearing for LL J-2024 at the Harold Lipton Community Center 15 Tobacco Rd Accord, NY 12404 and to request the Town Clerk to circulate the notice.

Discussion: *Public hearing for LL 12-2023- Subdivision is still open (no changes).
Aye: 3 nay: 0 abstain: 0 Ciardi, Dindial-absent

DISCUSSION/ REVIEW:

WORKSHOP AGENDA REVIEW:
Tabled: Liaison reports, Department updates, supervisor financials time and attendance
Next: STR Cap, DeJager Subdivision, Scenic Rd / Main St traffic pattern.
Outstanding: Communications Policy, Community Center backyard cleanup,
Footnote: The pavilion and benches are getting a fresh coat of paint, looks good!

Councilwoman Smiseth requested an attorney’s meeting

ADJOURNMENT

A Motion was made by Councilwoman Smiseth to adjourn the meeting at 8:45 p.m. in memory of :
Barbara Parete
Karen Nicols
Ryan Ebert
Marjorie “Marls” Dubley
Sean Lawrence Carey
Olga Sawchuk – (former owner of the Log Cabin)
Melanie Pavlik
George Rosado
Kenneth Blair Sr.
Chester” Skippy” Shultis III
Barbara Gordon

Second: Councilman Coleman motion carried

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

CHRISTINA FERRARA
DEPUTY TOWN CLERK