YATES COUNTY PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DECEMBER 15, 2005 PRESENT: Kevin North, Cubby Graves, Lane Clute, Chuck Mitchell, and Paul Estro. Others in Attendance: Members from the public in reference to GML 239 referral # 2005-90: Ann Gunn; Elizabeth Armstrong; Daniel Doyle; Craig Wager; Jill Wager; William Allison; and Ed Brockman, Attorney and Counselor At Law. Dale Hullings; Taylor Fitch, Yates County Legislator; Sarah Purdy, County Administrator; Barbara Johnston, Interim County Planner; Chris Wilson, County Planner; and Karen Phillips, Recording Secretary. Members Excused: Jim Ritter, Pidge Bower, and Loretta Henrie. Members Absent: Mike Christensen, Jerry Stape, Marilyn Scharf and David Healy. The meeting was called to order at 7:04 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Mr. Wilson reported that on the first paragraph of page two, at the end of the line it states tragic difficulty, and it should read practical difficulty. Mr. Clute made a motion to approve the minutes as amended. Mr. Graves seconded the motion. All in favor. CONSIDER GML 239 REFERRALS: 2005-90 – Village of Penn Yan Local Law amending the Code of the Village of Penn Yan to permit operation of snowmobiles on the Outlet Trail and Elm Street Sports Complex within the Village of Penn Yan. Mr. North asked Mr. Brockman (attorney for the Village of Penn Yan) to speak on his referral. Mr. Brockman introduced himself as the Attorney for the Village of Penn Yan and stated that this action is proposed by the Board of Trustees of the Village and it pertains to the Outlet Trail and the Elm Street Sports Complex. He noted that the Outlet Trail was originally a railroad right-of-way which was abandoned and owned by the County at one time. A portion of the railroad right-of-way within the Village of Penn Yan is now owned by the Village as part of their park system. The balance of the right-of-way of the railroad extended east to Dresden and that was also owned by the County at one time and is now maintained by the Friends of the Outlet Trail. The Outlet Trail within the Village was developed some years ago and funds were used from a grant. That grant application of which we have been able to obtain from the State
of New York included a provision that it would be used by snowmobiles. For a number of years, it was used by the snowmobiles through the Village. Mr. Brockman indicated that a problem developed about a year and a half ago, where it was pointed out that there was a provision in the Village Code in the Parks and Playground chapter that prohibited motorized vehicles, other than on parking areas of roadways within the Parks. This provision had been on the books long before the Outlet Trail became part of the Village Parks System, therefore the Village Board of Trustees determined to act on this issue. Initially, the Yates County Planning Board had a referral on this same issue about a year ago and sent it back to the Village due to an inadequate SEQR document. The Village retained an engineering firm and they have prepared Part One of the SEQR, which the County now has and the Village Board of Trustees acted on Part Two. Mr. Brockman noted that additionally, around a year ago, the Village Board of Trustees identified twelve issues that they felt needed to be looked at in more detail. The matter was then referred to the Village Parks and Recreation Committee and that Committee spent a large amount of time studying those issues. The County Planning Board now has the documentation and reports and in the body of the documentation are the answers for all of those issues that were developed. Mr. Brockman said that he has been doing this kind of work for about 30 years and has never seen as much time and detail put in on an issue of this magnitude before. A lot of work has been done on this and, in his view, they have answered all of the issues, but there are obviously those who feel the answers aren’t to their liking. He noted that the action before the Board has only to do with the Parks and the Outlet Trail within the Village and also the Elm Street Sports Complex. If you look at the law, you will see a section in there of regulations and the regulations refer to a possible connection with the cemetery. The only reason that is in there is so that if a portion of the cemetery on Route 54A is used to conduct snowmobiles out of the Village that there will be regulations in the books detailing how snowmobiles may or may not be operated. There is a lot of material that the Board has received. He noted that there have been some allegations that the original grant did not indicate any reference to the use of snowmobiles. That is inaccurate. There is documentation in the packet of computer printouts from NYS Parks and Recreation Historic Preservation which indicates that. There are numerous people who say there is no documentation to that effect and he has offered to show this documentation to them; however, they have not come forward to look at it and the only conclusion he can draw from that is that they would rather remain uninformed to be able to make the right decisions. Mr. North reported that we will open the meeting up for public comment at this time. He noted that the Planning Board certainly wants to give the public a chance to speak and said he would give them approximately three minutes to do so. Ann Gunn stated that she believes in the packet in front of the Planning Board there is a resolution from the Village Board #32-2005 which was passed on November 8, 2005. This resolution claims that the Village has 12 items of concern identified by the Village Board. The 12th item on that list refers to obtaining an agreement between the Yates County Sheriff’s Department for enforcement of regulations as they pertain to snowmobiling along the Outlet Trail. Ms. Gunn noted that she had an e-mail exchange
with Sheriff Spike, in which she will provide a copy of to the members of the Planning Board. She then read the correspondence to the Board. Ms. Gunn indicated she also asked Mr. Spike if he had a verbal agreement with the Village. His response back to her was there was no verbal or written agreement. There will be some individuals who will be choosing to consume alcohol at nearby bars that will be driving along the trail. Ms. Gunn then read an article from the Ontario/Utica paper with regards to snowmobile users consuming alcohol and the importance of law enforcement; however it is very costly. Ms. Gunn noted that her second point of concern would be what Mr. Brockman was saying about the original grant application. She noted that what the Village has is a print screen from NYS Parks. She said Mr. Brockman said that the Village code currently contains a provision excluding motorized vehicles. She said it contains a provision exclusively prohibiting snowmobiles. Elizabeth Armstrong stated she wanted to bring to the Planning Board’s attention that when this was presented to the Penn Yan Planning Board, they voted unanimously, with one member abstaining, that they do not allow snowmobiles on the Outlet Trail. Craig Wager reported that although Ms. Gunn said it would be very costly for Yates County or the Penn Yan Village to provide law enforcement on the trail, Yates County or the Village of Penn Yan has funds from the Parks grant for that purpose. Mr. Wager noted they have used the trail for years and have never had any problems. They have a lot of friends and would like to get to their area and get out of their area. They like to get gas in town, as there are no gas stations out of town anymore. There are a lot of good places to eat and it would bring good business to the town and at the same time they would be able to ride some decent trails and secondary trails. Mr. Wager said the State is behind them on this to get more trails around here. Mr. Estro asked Mr. Wager if he represents a group or organization. Mr. Wager said yes, the NYS Snowmobiler’s Association. Mr. Estro then asked him if they are affiliated with the Sheriff’s Department or any law enforcement agencies at all. Mr. Wager said he was not. James Farmer stated he has been a resident for 8 years now. He noted he has grown to love Penn Yan and the entire area. He lives on the lake. They took up snowmobiling five years ago and they met a lot of wonderful people in the snowmobiling club. He noted he is the current President. This whole thing has become very upsetting to him to see the community divided into two different sides. The loop holes a few certain individuals go through to respond to the law and the reason they did this was to take care of some old personal vengeance and it’s a very sad situation. This is one of the saddest things that can happen to this community and he is obviously in support of this. When he and his wife first started snowmobiling, they had access to the trail going up along the cemetery, definitely not through it, and there was never an issue until the loop hole started. Mr. Farmer said he can’t say how many times he’s been to village and town meetings about this and it is very sad. He just wants this over and done with and stated again that obviously he supports snowmobiles.
Mr. North reported that if anyone wants to now make a second set of comments they are more than welcome for up to three minutes. Ann Gunn stated that she knows that she is not supposed to address this, but local law H does seem to reference the connected trail through the cemetery – believes it is 132-11. If that proposal were to become a law it would replace what is in the current code. She noted that in her opinion it would legalize snowmobiles in the cemetery; however if you look at the EAF under the listed action, it is for the Outlet Trail and through the Elm Street Sports Complex, so if this local law were to be passed, snowmobiles would be legalized in the cemetery without there ever having been SEQR or an environmental review done examining that route. Mr. North thanked Ms. Gunn and asked if anyone else would like to speak. William Allison, a Village Trustee and owner of the Valley Inn Restaurant in Branchport said he has been running this trail for a number of years without knowing it was illegal. This is a trail that was built in 1986 that they have been running and there have been no problems known through the police of any incidences taking place. Snowmobilers are responsible. They have come along way since the 1960’s and 70’s on emissions, noise and they cost a lot to be insured and registered. He noted that they enjoy the sport; it’s a family sport for his family. There have been issues in the paper where he is supporting this for his business. Mr. Allison noted that his business is 7 or 9 miles away from the Outlet Trail in the Village of Penn Yan. He admitted that he has made comments about the boost in New York State economy concerning snowmobiles. It has come a long way in the past ten years. More and more snowmobiles are registered. He noted he has done a majority of riding in the Adirondack Mountains, in Canada, and locally here throughout our county and Ontario County. It is a fun sport and no one is out to hurt anyone. They try to look at a safe way to avoid residents and they are trying to be responsible. No one noticed it for so many years and, as was stated earlier, when someone found a loop hole or a law that stated that it was possibly illegal, then it became an issue. If this hadn’t come up, it would never have been a problem. Mr. Allison noted he appreciated the Board’s time. Mr. Brockman asked for a moment of rebuttal. He stated that Ms. Gunn referred to point 12 and actually identified it as such. Point 12 was the identification of the issue of the policy and method of a portion of regulations should be developed and as a result of the identification of that issue, that was referred to Chief Stephen Hill of the Penn Yan Police Department and there is a copy of his letter in the documentation provided to the Planning Board. He is the one who recommended the various regulations that we are proposing to adopt as part of the law. Point 12 does not state that there already is an agreement with the County of Yates for enforcement. It states that an agreement must be made. Naturally, there would not be an agreement until after the law is changed that snowmobiles are allowed on the Outlet Trail. If that occurs, then there will be an agreement and we will attempt to create an agreement with them. A year and a half ago when this whole issue started, the Sheriff’s Department put out a memo to its officers that it would enforce the rules on pertaining to the trail. If they were to enforce that, we are
assuming they would enforce the rules and regulations; however, for the sake of argument that they don’t, Chief Hill has already indicated that the Police Department of the Village, even though they don’t have snowmobiles, is prepared to enforce these rules by setting up check points along the trail, which they could do at a number of spots within the village limits. Mr. Brockman indicated he also would like to point out that it came to his mind the other night when someone suggested rather than using the Outlet Trail for snowmobiles in the Village, that we use the village streets. The Outlet Trail is the safest way to get snowmobiles through the Village of Penn Yan. The only place that it may cross village streets would be on Cherry Street, and they’ve been crossing there for years, and also on 54A out near the Village Barns. There is a letter from the State of New York DOT which addresses that issue and allows snowmobiles to cross state highways, and in particular Route 54A at that location. Mr. Mitchell noted that Mr. Brockman said he was separating the cemetery as not a part of this discussion and he understands that. He asked how the snowmobiles would get on the Outlet Trail if they don’t come across Route 54. Mr. Brockman said they are still examining exactly how that will happen. Most ownership of property goes to the centerline of the road, but they are looking at the possibility that the cemetery property goes to the middle of 54A. If that is the case, then they need to have regulations to deal with any operations of snowmobiles on that side of the road. They have got to get to the other side of 54A to get up over the hill. Mr. Mitchell asked how they plan to do that. Mr. Brockman said that is not identified yet. Mr. Mitchell said he understands that he is only doing half the thing. Mr. Brockman said he disagrees with him. Mr. Mitchell then asked how the snowmobiles will get on the trail from Route 54A. Mr. Brockman said they can go along the shoulder of the road, or they could go just inside the sidewalk, which is technically cemetery property, but is not developed with grave sites, and go along the sidewalk and then out. Mr. Mitchell asked how we would make sure that they don’t go in the cemetery. Mr. Brockman said there would be a snow fence. Mr. Mitchell asked who would enforce that. Mr. Brockman said that would be part of the regulations and that is why they put in there that the regulations pertain to any part of the trail. Mr. Mitchell noted that his other concern is with the enforcement. How are we going to enforce this with a police department that can’t enforce parking regulations? Mr. Brockman said that we could discuss all night long to the extent that any law enforcement agency enforces any law and said he is sure there are speeders at any time of the day that you could stand on the Village Street and watch; however, if you’re talking about 100% enforcement, they will never have that. Mr. Brockman said that as he indicated earlier, the Village PD department has already indicated that they would be willing to set up checkpoints. If we are talking about the cemetery, that would be much simpler for the Police Department to enforce because they have access along 54A, which is in the Village. Mr. Mitchell said he is not convinced. Mr. Brockman said some people can never be convinced and that is certainly an issue. Mr. Mitchell said that the cemetery is an issue. Mr. Brockman agreed that is true and said that the change in the law is not including the allowance of snowmobiles in the cemetery. Mr. Mitchell noted he believes it is kind of blind to look at one part and not the other. Mr. Brockman said they are looking at this.
Ms. Johnston asked if there has to be a separate law to address the cemetery. Mr. Brockman said there is a cemetery chapter in the code and there is a possibility of looking at that. The cemetery is not part of the Parks and Playgrounds. There is a map of the Village Parks and Playgrounds, but the cemetery is not in that. Mr. Allison stated that it is not illegal for snowmobiles to cross a state highway to 90 degrees and run down 500 ft. He also pointed out that he’s sure there are isolated incidents where snowmobiles that have gone into the cemetery, but the riders that have been riding for years don’t go in the cemetery. It was then asked how many members are required for a quorum. Mr. North reported that we do not have a quorum tonight. Mr. Wilson stated we don’t have a quorum; the product of the deliberation of whatever the board is voting on tonight will be advisory only. Mr. Clute noted that the Sheriff’s Department did what they were asked to do. Personally he feels that the noise studies should have been done in someone’s back yard from the trail. There is a big difference between one snowmobile going by at 20 miles per hour versus 50 snowmobiles going by at 20 miles per hour. In all of this documentation, there is no mention of how close any of this is to residents. There’s a lot of documentation on both sides, but there is no documentation as to how close to the residents this trail is, or to what the noise issue would be. Mr. Clute noted that as far as the cemetery goes, he is looking at this as it not being addressed yet. His concern also is that in all this documentation, the trail is outlined coming up to Route 54 and crossing 54. He noted he is sure that if it goes any further than that, the Village has to come up with an amendment. It is not being mentioned or addressed yet, so as of right now it is a nonissue. Personally, there are concerns of snowmobiles running through the cemetery, but on the other hand, this has been going on for several years and apparently there is no documentation showing that there is an issue or that there has been an issue. He then noted that as far as he’s concerned, we should recommend approval. Mr. Clute then made a motion to approve the amendment to the local law as presented. Mr. Estro seconded the motion. Mr. Wilson reiterated what he had said initially – we are only reviewing the application as presented. The proposed law amendment pertains only to the Outlet Trail from the 14A bridge through the sports complex. We also heard Mr. Brockman on two separate occasion’s state into the record that we are only looking at the Local Law that is presented and the cemetery issue is something that is not under consideration at this time. Mr. Estro stated that obviously there are issues on both sides and unfortunately there are a percentage of snowmobilers that don’t follow the rules anyway. There is a curfew of 11:00 pm and if enforced, is a good thing and you’re weighing recreational use of a rural area which is something that has been going on for a long time. It is not a black and white issue. It is weighing one side against the other.
Mr. Mitchell stated that he doesn’t have a problem with snowmobiles on the trail; he just doesn’t see how you can get to the other side of the road without going through the cemetery. Mr. Graves noted he can see Mr. Mitchell’s point of view. They have a bottleneck at one point and to try to get the two trails together will, until the other agenda item comes up, you’re just creating the bottleneck in a different point right now. It says that they can cross Route 54 by 500 yards and that is one way of getting there, but as far as going through the cemetery, he is with Mr. Mitchell on that. He just doesn’t like that idea. He then noted he knows that there are good members in these snowmobiling clubs, but there are just those one or two outsiders that spoil it for the rest of them. Four members were in favor of this motion. One member was opposed. 2005-91 – David Garman, 294 Route 14A, Penn Yan, Town of Benton. Special Use Permit to allow an existing greenhouse to be utilized for retail sales of produce and plants. The current seasonal stand is to be removed. Mr. Wilson showed an aerial view of the proposed area. Ms. Johnston indicated that it looks like there are a few more buildings. She stated that on the site plan it shows a driveway and parking areas. Mr. Wilson reported that the only reason this was referred to us was because it is within 500’ from a State Route. Ms. Johnston said that it is a permitted use and the site plan does show access and parking, and they are existing buildings. Mr. Graves made a motion that the Yates County Planning Board has determined that this proposed action only has considerations which are of significance to the Town of Benton. This action appears to have no significant countywide or inter-community impact. Mr. Mitchell seconded the motion. All in favor. 2005-92 - Jonas Burkholder, 5 West Swamp Road, Stanley, Town of Potter. Area Variance for a proposed building that is 52 feet from center of roadway (75 feet required). A variance of 23 feet is requested. Mr. North stated that as they looked at this before the meeting, they were having a hard time figuring out whether this applicant was building a building or talking about a building that was already in existence. Mr. Graves said he believes the building is already in existence, because on the application it states that the measurement from the center of the roadway was miscalculated by the applicant. Ms. Johnston stated that this is technically exempt from referral. The exemption agreement that the Town of Potter signed with the Planning Board says that if it is in an Ag District and if it doesn’t meet any of the other criteria for referral, it is exempt. If they send it to us anyway, they are asking for our opinion. Mr. Wilson noted that the first of the year he’s going to send a formal letter to all the Towns just as a reminder of the exemption agreement, in hopes that it will cut down the number of agenda items. Ms. Johnston said that there’s kind of a narrow group of
exemptions, but this one is because it is an Ag District and doesn’t meet any other criteria. We’re happy to take a look at them, but they don’t have to send them. In any case, this is not that big of a variance and it’s on a back road. Mr. North made a motion that the Yates County Planning Board has determined that this proposed action only has considerations which are of significance to the Town of Potter. This action appears to have no significant countywide or intercommunity impact. Mr. Clute seconded the motion. All in favor. COMMUNICATIONS Ms. Johnston reported that we did receive a final environmental impact statement on the wind farm. As everyone may recall, we did do a review of the draft environmental impact statement and this is the final environmental impact statement which addresses all the comments that were made or proposed. We did, as a Board, comment on it. There were a lot of comments from the Town of Italy and some other organizations. The DEC had some comments about the bats as well. The lead agency is the Steuben County Industrial Development Agency and they are the ones that will make the determination whether the SEQR document adequately addresses the comments and whether they are going to accept it as the final environmental document. If they accept it, they will issue a finding statement. The next document should be a copy of the finding statement. Ms. Johnston stated that Monroe County Planning Department has an annual training session coming up. People will be there to talk about SEQR reviews, land use laws, transportation impacts and reviewing site plans if anyone is interested. There are usually very good speakers there. At some point, Mr. Wilson would like to have Ms. Bower, Ms. Henrie and himself report on items that they learned about in Mt. Morris, because they looked at open records, ZBA process and the SEQR process, as well as water quality. If some members go to training sessions they can report back and share the information. Mr. Wilson then reported that three of our members were reappointed – Jerry Stape, Chuck Mitchell and Pidge Bower. OLD BUSINESS Mr. Wilson reported that he met with the Genesee Transportation Council a week ago last Friday and they had a conference call with Lou Engineering, Rich Perrin (Director of GTC) and also the Department of Transportation. They received all of the staff comments and came to a conclusion. Mr. Wilson noted he hopes that will be done by the beginning of the year. After that point, once the staff participants review the final draft, they will then set a date for a public meeting which will include the Route 14A Committee, which is a very large group of about 15 people and includes Jerry Stape and Cubby Graves who represent this Planning Board. This is on a very fast track and
hopefully by the first quarter of next year they will have their first public meeting completed. MEMBER REPORTS None. NEW BUSINESS Mr. Wilson introduced Dale Hallings who was in attendance from the Yates County Agricultural and Farmland Protection Board. Mr. Wilson then distributed a copy of the Agricultural Development and Farmland Enhancement Plan that was developed in 2004. He noted that Dale is a local landowner working with the Cornell Cooperative Extension and they have come up with an innovative concept called the Model Farm Viability and Neighbor Relation Policy. That was also distributed. Mr. Wilson showed photos over the power point as Mr. Hallings went through the policy. Mr. Hallings stated that he is a farmer in the Town of Milo and farms are very dear to his heart. He noted that this is some work that he started several years ago. He was on the Town Board and had this idea that he would like to see an advisory committee established through the Town Board which could relate to farm issues brought up to the Town. He provided an example from three or four years ago when a hog barn was built. The farmer that operated the hog operation is a good farmer, and it was not a bad operation. If he was doing something illegal or didn’t have a good practice he would be the first one to stand in line and say it wasn’t right. Mr. Hallings noted that about a year ago he had a conversation with their Town Attorney and told him that he’d like to start a committee and they both did a little research. They found a Town law from the Town of Eden, which is in Western New York. They have established a committee that has been going for several years which worked real well. They also found out that the Yates County Farmland Protection Board had been working with the Cooperative Extension on this model law and neighbor relation law. Mr. Hallings indicated that he’d like to go one more step and add some additional paragraphs. He would like to add a committee that would be a standing committee of around 4 or 5 farmers in the Town that would meet on an annual basis. These farmers would be appointed by the Town of Milo and their job would be to discuss any issues that come up, anything that they have heard or anything that is being built. A hog farm or chicken farm would be good examples of potential conflicts. The Committee would be there to discuss this freely amongst themselves and be recorded into a written record (minutes). Mr. Hallings said his plan is to merge these two committees together from the Town of Eden and the County to have one committee. This 4 or 5 person committee would stand on an annual meeting type basis until or if there was a complaint from an individual resident or landowner in the Town. At that point, they would pull one person from that standing committee, one town board member and a person mutually agreed upon by whoever was making the complaint and the Town Board. For example, if we were talking about the Cooperative Extension, it might be the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation or Soil and Water, depending on what the issue was they would pull in an expert from
that field, mutually agreed upon and to resolve the complaint. There will be a time from when the complaint was received and there would be so many days they would have this sub-committee enacted. They would meet with the landowner and try to resolve it in a reasonable manner. He said they should have all the expertise they need there and if they don’t they can pull him/her in and hopefully resolve any problem before it is blown out of proportion. He said the standing committee of 4 or 5 people would meet yearly or more often if there were more issues. The minutes from those meetings would be distributed in the Town and would be available to Town Boards as an advisory capacity only. They could also be available for a Planning Board or Zoning Boards. Also, his plans would be to forward the minutes to the Yates County Farmland Protection Board and the Yates County Farm Bureau. Mr. Hallings indicated that if this works out, and if the attorneys can get this worked out so it’s legal, maybe some other Towns in the County would want to adopt something similar. He said he thinks this could go an awful long ways for public relations could act as a liaison between the farms and the Towns. The farms are a very big part of the County and the biggest share of income in the County comes from farms. They are very important. A line of communication would be great to have. It is something we don’t have now, but would be great to have in the future. If we have other Towns interested, once this resolution is made into a law, then maybe other Towns could adopt it and all come together. Mr. Hallings noted that this idea went from the Town Planning Board and it was approved and now it is with the Town Attorney, who is trying to make a formal resolution out of this. The next process would be for us to adopt it. This is more informational with the hope that other Towns might pick up on this concept. Mr. Wilson stated that he felt it was important for Mr. Hallings to come tonight as his issues relate to planning. He noted that Mr. Hallings was at the last Ag and Farmland Protection meeting and this issue was presented. Mr. Wilson said this looks like a best practice and once they get their law instituted, we can have Mr. Hallings come back and distribute copies of the law and put that into public record. Mr. North said that it sounds like Mr. Hallings would be able to share his knowledge with other towns on what worked well. Mr. Hallings said he would be glad to share anything he has learned and noted he has had discussions with Peter Landre from the Cooperative Extension and Farmland Protection Board and they are very supportive. Mr. Wilson asked Mr. Hallings if it would be possible sometime in the future if a local town or village was looking into refining or adopting subdivision regulations to take something like this and work with a developer of a proposed multi-unit property. Ms. Johnston stated that the agriculture district law doesn’t present a hardship. What is nice about having a local board is people can turn to them for reassurance. Ag and Markets will come and protect the farmer, but it might be too late by then. She then noted that this is a great idea and it is promising to hear that Mr. Hallings is taking the initiative. Mr. Hallings noted that the Ag Committee would be appointed by the Town. The Committee members would serve three year terms and they will be staggered so they can’t all be changed at one time. He said he actually has four farmers that are willing to
serve on this now. If someone sees something and wants to make a complaint about it, this is a formal way to get some reassurance to the public. Soil and Water could do a lot for them, as well as the Cooperative Extension. They could also go to the DEC. Ms. Johnston stated that this goes beyond Ag and Markets. A lot of the same protections are in the Ag and Markets, but a lot can be done with peer pressure and conversation. If a neighbor has a problem, they can bring it to them on a personal basis. Mr. Hallings stated that if he gets something more formal he will get it to Mr. Wilson. He indicated that the information he presented tonight was still rather vague. Mr. Clute reported that he would like to offer a resolution recognizing Barbara Johnston’s help, guidance, and expertise over the last two years with the Planning Board. Her efforts have been greatly appreciated. Mr. Mitchell seconded the motion. All in favor. Ms. Johnston stated it has been a pleasure and she feels that the Planning Board is in good hands with Mr. Wilson. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Graves made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:30 p.m. Mr. Mitchell seconded the motion. All in favor.