Planning and Zoning Commission — June 15, 2026

Discussion covered remote/phone members, seating of alternates, and need to maintain quorum rules for continued public hearings.

Margaret Brewer seated for all items; Arianna Larson observing; eight full members seated.

Key points included 0.26 acres of regulated-area disturbance (no direct wetland impact), silt fence/erosion controls, roof infiltration system, and absence of utilities on the plan; questions focused on possible future electrical conduit and need for any off-site lines.

Both the Inland Wetlands Permit 30-2026 and Special Exception Modification 48-2026 approved 9-0; approvals based on no significant wetland impact and consistency with special-exception criteria.

Any future utility work reviewed administratively by staff or returned to commission as a modification.

Applicant argued uniform RR zoning eliminates split-zone nonconformity, aligns with POCD reserved-conservation designation, and enables future agricultural/firewood special-exception review; neighbors and prior 2012 denial history cited as reasons for opposition; staff noted other split-zone parcels exist in town. Residents detailed noise from chainsaws and equipment (including audio evidence), chickens/dogs escaping, wetlands citations, tree removal, and property-value harm; applicant attorney argued the split-zone line was arbitrary, the change aligns with RR across the street and existing horse use, and 2012 denial was unrelated to firewood. Reichelt suggested drawing the line from the notch to the tri-point corner of 571/599/Hickory Lane to reduce side-yard exposure; attorney Rizer stated the client is open to reasonable modifications.

Hearing opened and public comment begun; board voted to close the public hearing on the AA-to-RR zone change (item 0062026) by 7-2 roll call. No decision reached on the zone change itself.

Public hearing to continue; commission will consider full record and POCD consistency before vote. Any line adjustment would be considered during deliberations after the hearing closes.

Attorney Rizer explained the shift enables individualized conditions on hours, buffers, and screening; commissioners questioned consistency with POCD, benefit to entire town versus one property, and distinction from agriculture/forestry. a speaker argued the use is similar to agriculture but not squarely covered because wood is imported; a speaker and a speaker questioned the distinction from industrial sawmill operations. Review of proposed limits including 25% lot area cap on processing, 30-mile wood sourcing radius, farm stand sales, and hours of operation. Commissioners raised issues with measuring the 25% area, defining processing vs. storage/driveways, enforcement of hours/noise, farm stand conflicts with existing definitions, and state invasive species rules. Public opposition cited incompatibility with residential character, enforcement issues, parking/vehicle regulations, environmental concerns, and conflict with POCD. Multiple speakers argued the use fails farm/forestry/agriculture definitions, risks applying industrial activity town-wide in 40% rural residential land, and that industrial zones already exist for such operations.

Hearing opened; no consensus reached on specific language. Commission expressed discomfort with shoehorning the use without broader regulation review. Multiple motions to continue or close failed until a successful motion passed 6-3 to continue amendment 27-2026.

Applicant attorney offered to submit revised draft incorporating feedback; commission indicated need for further discussion before any vote. Hearing continued to July 6 regular meeting for applicant revisions and responses.

Applicant explained need for medical/outpatient uses not allowed in B5; noted adjacency to existing CUD and upcoming town-wide zoning changes that may achieve similar result; commission confirmed no overnight beds intended.

Public hearing closed unanimously.

To be voted on later in meeting or at future business session.

Staff presented changes to create distinct residential (Family Mansion) and mixed commercial/industrial (Silk Mill) districts, update purpose statements, move uses to appropriate tables, and address PA 25-1 concerns; Cheney Commission recommended removing dormitory use from Family Mansion. a speaker read an email from longtime Cheney Historic District Commission member Lynn Ferigno expressing concerns that new use tables promote commercial/mixed uses in family mansions contrary to preservation goals since 1978; compared 2018 limited uses vs. current expanded list including inns and group childcare; noted dormitories are currently accessory only to educational facilities permitted solely in Silk Mill. Board confirmed intent was joint hearing.

Board acknowledged concerns and agreed to modify the proposal by striking dormitory as a permitted use from family mansion area; confirmed no substantive use changes had been made since June of prior year. Public hearing closed unanimously.

Item advanced to formal vote later in meeting. Hearing to continue with remaining items.

Easements have blocked private development; town seeks to purchase rights outright or use eminent domain if needed so parcel can become open space and allow Silk City Commons to proceed.

Favorable report issued unanimously (9-0).

Board of Directors to act on July 6, 2026.