Plan Commission & Task Force Minutes

Town of Washburn

Town Hall

Tuesday, December 3, 2024

Commission members present: Kim Bro (chair), Jim Park (town board representative ‑ via Google Meet), Tim Schwenzfeier (vice chair), Caroline Twombly.

Commission members absent: Cyndi Belanger (secretary).

Planning Task Force members present: Terri Bahe, Tom Cogger, Phil Kraus, Charmaine Swan, Dennis Weibel (via Google Meet).

Planning Task Force members absent: Ryan Padrutt, Alex Prediger.

Others present: none.

1. Chairman Bro called the meeting of the commission to order at 7:04 P.M. and verified its legal notification (posted on town website on November 30 and at town hall and Tetzner Dairy on November 27).

2. The minutes of the November 14, 2024 meeting were approved (Tim moves, Caroline seconds).

3. Emily Nelson, a planning consultant with the Northwest Regional Planning Commission (NWRPC) has shared a GoggleDocs link to draft chapters of the plan to all members of the commission and the task force. She has updated the required background data in the chapters. All present said that they have been able to access the documents. Several members have begun the process of updating the Goals, Objectives, and Implementation Steps for their selected chapters. Emily said that, if members want additional background information or maps to be included in the plan, they should let her know.

4. Jim has posted the updated schedule of meetings on the Plan Commission page of the town website. Kim asked if the group would agree to hold two public meetings in January 2025. If we are going to post an updated draft plan at least 30 days prior to a public hearing on March 6, 2025, the draft needs to be posted on February 4, 2025, the same night as our February meeting. Emily will need time to prepare a PDF copy of the draft plan to be posted on the town website. The group agreed to schedule an additional meeting on Tuesday, January 28, 2025 at 7:00 P.M. to give Emily all of the information to compile a “penultimate final draft” that will be posted by the February 4 deadline. Kim will prepare a public hearing notice that needs to appear in the Ashland Daily Press at least the week prior to the February meeting. At the February meeting, the group can plan the March 6^th community presentation to introduce the updated plan prior to accepting public comments.
5. The group discussed progress in updating chapters. We recommended that additions to the GoogleDocs chapters be in a colored font and deletions be in strikeout font so that our group can identify changes that are made in the editing process. The Agriculture & Natural Resources group asked Emily to recommend good examples of this chapter in other town plans, and she made some recommendations. Caroline asked Emily to post a copy of the Bayfield County Comprehensive Plan “Implementation” chapter so that the group could use it as a starting point for preparing goals, objectives, and action steps. Emily asked if the group would like a map and table of the latest PACER data on town roads for the transportation chapter. There was some discussion of adding information about the cost of road improvement and maintenance in order to make a case for keeping concentrated, new development near existing paved roads. In discussing “Cultural Resources,” Terri mentioned that some former one-room schoolhouses remain on private property in the town. We discussed adding a map of cultural resources. Tim said that some revisions are still needed in the updated “Existing Land Use” map. Potters Farm should probably be in the “institutional” category, and the town sand pit should probably be in the “extraction” category. Kim will check the definitions of categories that were used in the county plan because the county asked all towns to use a common set of colors and definitions for their land use maps.

6. The group reviewed the graphic that Charmaine had prepared for announcing a “photo challenge” to be posted on the town’s Facebook page. The concept is to encourage more input from the community about what they love about our town as we update the plan in December and January. Jim will post the photo challenge on the town Facebook page, and all members will work to encourage photo submissions.
7. Because of his expertise in media communications, Phil has agreed to serve as a “plan editor.” He will read the updated plan chapters to assure that the text reads smoothly, succinctly, and understandably and that it does not descend into vague acronyms and wordiness.
8. Because Emily is contracted for only three in-person meetings with the plan commission, we will have to decide which of the January meetings is most important for her to attend in person.

9. The meeting adjourned at 8:35 P.M. (Tim moves, Caroline seconds).

Draft submitted by: Kenneth Bro, Chair, Town of Washburn Plan Commission (December 10, 2024).

Approved January 7, 2025.

‘

Plan Commission Report

The commission recommends that the town board spread the word about the Facebook “Photo Challenge.”

Town of Washburn

Plan Commission Meeting

Date &Time: Thursday, November 14, 2024, 7:00 P.M.

Location: Town Hall*

Agenda

1. Call meeting to order and verify legal notification.

2. Introduce Alex Prediger and Ryan Padrutt, new volunteers on Planning Task Force

3. Approve minutes of meeting of October 1, 2024.

4. Sixth meeting of Comprehensive Plan Update Task Force.
   ● Introduce Emily Nelson, planner with Northwest Regional Planning Commission.

● Finalize meeting dates through February allowing 30 day review eriod of the final draft
prior to the public hearing in early March.

● Review and approve a “Public Participation Plan,” which will summarize the measures
adopted to encourage public engagement.

● Review chapter drafts that Emily and members prepared.

● Schedule chapter editorial people or subgroups to edit text and draft updated goals,
objectives, action steps, and timelines.

5. Set date and time for next meeting (propose Tuesday, December 3, 2024, 2024, 7:00 P.M.).

6. Other announcements

7. Adjournment.

Submitted by:

Kenneth Bro, chair

Washburn Town Plan Commission

E-mail: plan@townofwashburn.wi.gov

* Video conference access is available via GoogleMeet: meet.google.com/vzn-qfeq-dkc or

by phone (US) +1 814-822-4840‬ PIN: 803 631 892‬#

Plan Commission & Task Force Minutes

Town of Washburn

Town Hall

Thursday, November 14, 2024

Commission members present: Kim Bro (chair), Jim Park (town board representative ‑ via Google Meet), Tim Schwenzfeier (vice chair), Caroline Twombly.

Commission members absent: Cyndi Belanger (secretary).

Planning Task Force members present: Terri Bahe, Ryan Padrutt, Alex Prediger, Charmaine Swan, Dennis Weibel (via Google Meet).

Planning Task Force members absent: Tom Cogger, Phil Kraus.

Others present: none.

1. Chairman Bro called the meeting of the commission to order at 7:03 P.M. and verified its legal notification (posted on town website and at town hall and Tetzner Dairy on November 13).

2. The minutes of the October 1, 2024 meeting were approved (Tim moves, Caroline seconds).

3. Alex Prediger and Ryan Padrutt joined the Planning Task Force and introduced themselves to the group. They are new to the planning process and will familiarize themselves with the 2007 plan to identify how they wish to contribute to preparing the updated plan.

4. Emily Nelson, a planning consultant with the Northwest Regional Planning Commission (NWRPC) introduced herself and distributed a map of “Existing Land Use” and a copy of updated demography tables for the “Issues and Opportunities” chapter. She has converted the 2007 PDF plan to WORD.docx format that can be edited by the group, and she will update the background data required for individual chapters. Kim shared materials that the group reviewed previously on land fragmentation and on fiber-optic broadband expansion for the town.

5. The group reviewed the schedule for remaining meetings up to the public presentation and hearing on a draft updated comprehensive plan. If the March town board meeting is on the 11^th (2^nd Tuesday), a public hearing could be held on Thursday, March 6, 2025 and a posting of a draft plan on February 4^th would allow the required 30‑day review period. The Plan Commission could meet on February 4^th to approve any final revisions. Because the Ashland Daily Press is printed only once per week, the public hearing notice will need to be published on the last week of January. The bulk of text preparation needs to occur in December, and the Implementation steps and Future Land Use Plan will need to be set in January. Subgroups with no more than two Plan Commission members can meet separately to work on draft chapters without needing to post a public meeting notice. The group agreed to meeting December 3^rd, January 7^th, and February 4^th at 7:00 P.M. at the town hall.
6. The group recommended (Caroline moves, Tim seconds) that the Town Board adopt the draft Public Participation Plan that was distributed prior to the meeting.
7. Emily asked the group about reporting the results of the 2006 community survey to identify issues and opportunities. The group felt that, while the issues identified in 2006 remain relevant, the specific, numerical results of the survey are no longer useful. The group is now using feedback that it receives in the process of preparing the updated plan. Kim reminded the group that the City of Ashland used a “Photo Challenge” to encourage community members to submit photos of the characteristics that they value in the community. Sharing photos online is more popular and more common now than it was in 2006, and the town’s Facebook page could be used to advertise the challenge. Jim mentioned that photos cannot be posted by the public on the town’s page, but they could be sent to the Plan Commission email address and, depending on the response, a representative sample could be posted. Kim will re-send information about the Ashland “Photo Challenge” to Charmaine and Phil to see if the process can be adapted to encourage community input as the plan is updated in December and January.
8. Emily told the group that she will post editable chapters of the 2007 plan on a Google Docs site that she can share with the group. As with the “Issues and Opportunities” chapter that she shared, Emily highlighted those portions of the text that the Task Force needs to update. She and Clem (NWRPC mapping specialist) will update factual information, but the Task Force needs to provide information on goals, objectives, and action steps. If access through Google Docs is problematic, NWRPC has another way to provide access to editable chapters.
9. The group identified individual chapters of the plan on which they will begin updating:
   Housing: Kim
   Utilities & Community Facilities ?
   Transportation Caroline & Charmaine
   Economic Development Tim (adapting relevant parts of county plan)
   Agriculture & Natural Resources Tom & Dennis
   Cultural Resources Terri
   Land Use Kim & Terri
   Intergovernmental Cooperation ?
   Implementation Action steps developed by individual chapter subgroups.

10. The meeting adjourned at 8:51 P.M. (Tim moves, Caroline seconds).

Draft submitted by: Kenneth Bro, Chair, Town of Washburn Plan Commission (November 28, 2024).

‘

Plan Commission Report

The Town Board is required by state statute to adopt a Public Participation Plan for a comprehensive plan and to post a Class 1 notice of a 30‑day review of the updated draft comprehensive plan prior to a public hearing on the plan. The commission recommends that the Town Board adopt the commission’s Public Participation Plan.

Plan Commission & Task Force Minutes

Town of Washburn

Town Hall

Tuesday, October 1, 2024

Commission members present: Kim Bro (chair), Jim Park (town board representative), Tim Schwenzfeier (vice chair) , Caroline Twombly, Cyndi Belanger (secretary – via Google Meet).

Commission members absent: none.

Planning Task Force members present: Terri Bahe, Phil Kraus, Charmaine Swan.

Planning Task Force members absent: Tom Cogger, Dennis Weibel.

Others present: none.

1. Chairman Bro called the meeting of the commission to order at 7:05 P.M. and verified its legal notification (posted on town website and at town hall and Tetzner Dairy on September 30).

2. The minutes of the September 9, 2024 meeting were approved (Tim moves, Caroline seconds).

3. The group reviewed the “Land Use” section of Chapter 8 of the current (2007) plan. Kim had copied the “Existing Land Use” map from the updated county comprehensive plan, added existing buildings, and marked some corrections that were not included in the county map. Kim also copied the current county zoning district map. What stands out from these maps is that there is much less actively farmed agricultural land in the town than what was proposed in the town’s “Future Land Use” map from 2007. The group agreed that active farming is a significant element of what gives the town its “rural character” that most residents consider a key attraction of living in the town as opposed to a “rural residential” landscape that features only a low density residential landscape without farms and unfragmented forestlands. In some parts of the town, agricultural fields have been replaced by rural residential developments. The current zoning districts are considerably different from the existing land use. Areas that are now rural residential areas are in agricultural zoning districts. Many of the areas that previously were farms are now forestland.

   The group discussed what steps might be implemented to retain large areas of agricultural lands. In the Town of Bayfield several orchards placed permanent conservation easements on their agricultural land in order to prevent higher levels of taxation that occurs on land s that could be converted to residential subdivisions and to benefit from state tax incentives for protecting prime agricultural lands. Some counties (such as Dunn County) have adopted prime agricultural land zoning districts under the state prime agricultural land preservation program. This program limits the extent to which residential development can occur on an agricultural parcel to a maximum of 5% of the original parcel. The program encourages communities to permit creation of smaller lots (smaller than the current 4.5-acre minimum lot size) so that residential development can be clustered and most of the good agricultural land can be retained. Kim mentioned that this approach to zoning is called “performance zoning.”

   The group also discussed what steps might be implemented to retain unfragmented blocks of private forestland. 1) The state’s Managed Forest Law provides tax incentives for owners to retain a minimum of 20 acres of contiguous forest of which at least 80% is dedicated to growing commercial timber products. There is a penalty for removing property from the program, but there is no guarantee of retaining the land as unfragmented forest. 2) The state’s prime agricultural land preservation zoning (mentioned above) could also apply to forestlands. 3) Bayfield County could acquire the large block of industrial forestland at the headwaters of the Sioux River. The county recently acquired a block of land at the headwaters of Whittlesey Creek that is near the national forest but not adjacent to existing county land. 4) The town could recommend that lands currently enrolled in the state’s Managed Forest Law program be zoned as Forestry‑2, which requires a minimum lot size of 35 acres. The only county lands currently in F‑2 districts are publicly owned lands. 5) The county could place forest establish a zoning “overlay district” for the areas shown in the town’s 2007 “Future Land Use” map as “sensitive areas.” These are highly erodible, steep slopes and floodplain areas critical to the health of trout streams. The overlay district could specify a larger minimum lot size for parcels in sensitive areas.

4. The announcement “Your Voice, Our Future” promoting community engagement in updating the town’s comprehensive plan was included in the town’s September mailing to all town residents. It laid out several ways for people to keep informed and become involved in the planning process. It also highlighted the new plan commission tabs on the town website.
5. Kim asked group members to select which chapter of the plan for which they would take responsibility to update the goals, objectives, and implementation steps. He mentioned that a key aspect of the updated plan is to identify specific steps and a timetable for implementation. The implementation section of the 2007 plan listed “ongoing” for many implementation steps. The lack of specific actions and a timeline for implementation limits the usefulness of a plan. There were no volunteers for writing updated drafts. Rather, members said they could review and revise drafts of updated chapters,
6. Kim mentioned that he had not yet received a contract for planning services from the Northwest Regional Plan Commission. He will follow up to get a contract to the town board so that the group can get plan assistance in November. He emphasized the importance of having the draft plan available for a public hearing and consideration by the town board by March 2025.

7. The meeting adjourned at 8:30 P.M. (Tim moves, Caroline seconds).

Draft submitted by: Kenneth Bro, Chair, Town of Washburn Plan Commission (October 14, 2024).

‘

Plan Commission Report

If a contract for planning services to update the comprehensive plan is available prior to the October town board meeting, the board will need to act on it in order to update the plan this winter.

Plan Commission & Task Force Minutes

Town of Washburn

Town Hall

Monday, September 9, 2024

Commission members present: Kim Bro (chair), Jim Park (town board representative), Tim Schwenzfeier (vice chair).

Commission members absent: Cyndi Belanger (secretary), Caroline Twombly.

Planning Task Force members present: Terri Bahe, Tom Cogger, Dennis Weibel.

Planning Task Force members absent: Phil Kraus, Charmaine Swan.

Others present: none.

1. Chairman Bro called the meeting of the commission to order at 7:03 P.M. and verified its legal notification (posted at town hall and Tetzner Dairy on September 5 and on town website on September 6).

2. The minutes of the August 5, 2024 meeting were approved (Tim moves, Jim seconds).

3. The group reviewed the “Utilities” section of Chapter 4 of the current (2007) plan. The group agreed that the rapid changes in communications infrastructure will continue in the foreseeable future such that reliable, high-speed, broadband internet will become essential to people of all ages for such services as education, research, instruction; telehealth services; governmental services, “smart home” appliances, and emergency response services. There currently are several people in the town who work remotely from their homes. Working remotely from home is a growing occupation of residents. Lumen provides DSL service throughout the town with download speeds that depend on a home’s distance from a “node.” There is broadband service throughout the town via satellite networks, and some parts of the town can receive service through cell towers. Cell towers in our area are in the range of 100 to 300 feet tall, compared to the 554-foot tall radio antenna on Maple Hill. The town previously provided cost-sharing with Bayfield Wireless and Norvado on grants to extend broadband internet service to most of the residences in the town. Norvado (Chequamegon Communications Cooperative) is extending fiber optic cables to most residences (see attached two Norvado PDF maps).The nature of electrical utility service also is changing rapidly as more residences are generating electricity with solar panels, and the town hall is the first location in the town to establish a micro-grid with a combination of solar generation, back-up battery storage, and an electric vehicle charging station (see WashburnTnMicrogrid.PDF). As battery technology improves, combining solar generation with battery storage will become more economical. Solar panel farms combined with battery storage and electrical substations are likely to be built at nodes along the “Bayfield Loop” transmission line so that the town will not rely simply on electricity provided from a large power plant dependent on fossil fuel or a nuclear reactor (see Electric Grid Future PDF).

   The group recommended that transmission lines should remain in the existing corridor rather than having more transmission line corridors in the future and that utilities should be encouraged to bury distribution lines to reduce the likelihood of power losses in storms and to improve scenic views along roadsides.

4. The group also reviewed Chapter 6 “Economic Development” of the 2007 plan. The community survey done for the plan indicated strongest importance (76% of respondents) for agriculture-based businesses. Since that time, two new town residents have joined the Bayfield Foods Farmers Cooperative: Seasonally Sourced Foods and Yoman Farm. Tom Cogger said that the best way that the town can assure the wellbeing of agricultural enterprises in the town is to encourage more residents to buy from local farms. A question was raised about the value of having larger minimum lot sizes for agricultural lands so that they will not be divided into lots too small for economic agricultural production. The group recommended assembling a group of local farmers to discuss steps that the town can take to assure the long-term future of agricultural business in the town.The 2007 plan called for encouraging “eco-tourism and other tourism opportunities” but did not discuss the growth of short-term rental houses in the town. There currently are only a few short-term rentals but there is a potential for homeowners who move away to retain their houses as short-term rentals. The plan also encourages home-based businesses. There are an increasing number of residents who telecommute from their homes for work. Good quality, high-speed, broadband access will likely increase the attraction of rural living and remote work.
5. The group also reviewed the “Cultural Resources” section of Chapter 7 of the 2007 plan. The group agreed that the town hall (the former McKinley one-room schoolhouse) is the most significant historical resource in the town, and however future space needs for the town develop, the old school building and its historic character should be preserved. Jim mentioned that the town has improved the building in ways that retain its character. He also noted that there now is a fairly extensive history of the town on the town website. There was some discussion about doing more interpretation of the town’s history, perhaps, with a poster that says what attending the McKinley School was like for students and a teacher who taught multiple grade levels at the same time. With the creation of the new microgrid, there may be further explanation that the former Westling dam on Four Mile Creek provided energy for a sawmill and in 1897 and in 1918 provided electricity for lights in the Westling house 30 years before electricity was extended to the town.
6. The group reviewed the ⅓-page announcement Phil prepared about the Task Force’s work to be included with a September mailing to all town residents. The group recommended some word corrections and recommended that residents should understand that they do not need to join the Task Force in order to offer suggestions. Phil prepared a revised version. Kim will talk to Lynn Adams about the announcement before she prints the mailing.

7. The meeting adjourned at 8:55 P.M. (Tim moves, Jim seconds).

Draft submitted by: Kenneth Bro, Chair, Town of Washburn Plan Commission (September 30, 2024).

‘

Plan Commission Report

There are not town board actions required at this time other than including the announcement about updating the comprehensive plan in the September mailing. The town board approved this action in August.

Plan Commission & Task Force Minutes

Town of Washburn

Town Hall

Monday, August 5, 2024

Commission members present: Kim Bro (chair), Cyndi Belanger (secretary), Jim Park (town board representative) , Tim Schwenzfeier (vice chair), Caroline Twombly.

Commission members absent: none.

Planning Task Force members present: Terri Bahe, Tom Cogger, Phil Kraus, Dennis Weibel.

Planning Task Force members absent: Charmaine Swan, Marieke Van Donkersgoed.

Others present: none.

1. Chairman Bro called the meeting of the commission to order at 7:05 P.M. and verified its legal notification (posted at town hall and Tetzner Dairy) and on town website on July 31.

2. The minutes of the July 8, 2024 meeting were approved (Tim moves, Cyndi seconds).

3. Phil Kraus is a new member of the Plan Update Task Force, and he and the group introduced themselves.

4. The members of the commission and Plan Update Task Force discussed steps to encourage public awareness and participation in the process of updating the comprehensive plan. Jim Park will lead the development of a “Plan Update” tab on the town’s plan commission webpage that, in addition to meeting minutes, will provide background information that the group is reviewing to update the plan. Phil Kraus will design a ⅓-page insert to be included with a September mailing to all town residents. Our plan is to have these efforts ready for approval by the next meeting on September 9.
5. The group reviewed the “Agricultural and Natural Resources” elements of the current (2007) plan. The plan asserts that a significant amount of existing agricultural lands classified as “prime,” “statewide importance,” locally unique,” and “locally important” needs to be preserved to insure the existence of viable farms in the town. Even so, none of the town’s agricultural lands are enrolled in the county’s farmland preservation program, and there are no disincentives to converting agricultural lands to rural residential lots. The number of parcels 20 acres or less in Range 5 West of the town have increase from 5% of the land area to 12% from 1985 to present. While the plan calls for concentrating rural residential development on the east side of the town (closer to transportation corridors), there is no such pattern in the fragmentation of parcels that has occurred.The group agreed that specific measures toassure preservation of larger parcels (>20 acres) are needed in the updated plan. These measures may include voluntary easements or zoning for larger minimum lot sizes.
6. The group also reviewed lands identified in the “Future Land Use Map” as “Sensitive Areas.” The “General Soils Map” in the plan shows these steep ravines, floodplains, and wetlands that are critical to the health of trout streams in the town. The plan says “these areas are subject to erosion problems and are generally unsuited for development.” However, except for state land acquisition largely prior to 2007, no steps have been implemented to prevent the fragmentation and development of these lands. The county no longer seeks town board input regarding the granting of residential building permits on agricultural and forested lands. In general, the county grants building permits for structures more than 75 feet from the edge of a stream, and the only notice provided to towns is after a permit is granted. At best the town can provide guidance on the construction of a driveway. In the town driveway permitting process, the town informs land owners of the sensitive characteristics of the land they wish to develop. No measures are in place to inform owners in advance of their acquiring land in sensitive areas about the uses for which the property is best suited.The group agreed that the plan should identify specific steps toretain large, forested parcels in “Sensitive Areas” and to prevent fragmentation and rural residential development.The amount of industrial forestland at the headwaters of the Sioux River has decreased from 15% of Range 5 West in 1985 to 12% currently. Each time a new company takes ownership to total industrial forest area decreases. If more individual 40-acre parcels were put up for sale, large, contiguous blocks of forest habitat at the headwaters of the Sioux River and Thompson Creek would be lost. The group recommended that the town ask to county Forest & Parks Department to work with the forest owner to

   assure that the remaining blocks of forest remain whole, either through continued enrollment in the state Managed Forest Law or through county acquisition.

7. The group reviewed the “Transportation” chapter. Terri noted that the Bay Area Rural Transportation (BART) system now is available for requested pickups of “shut-in” residents who need transportation to places on the bus routes (hospital, clinics, and shops). However, transportation is dominated by residents using personal cars and trucks. The current plan says little about future town investment in road development. Jim noted that the town’s five-year road plan calls only for maintaining existing paved roads and not for increasing the amount of paved roads. Because of the increasingly high cost of road maintenance, the group proposed making such a policy explicit. Because expansion of paved roads is expensive. New rural residential development is best located near existing paved roads.The group discussed the increase in bicycling as a positive development. Engoe, Nevers, Wannebo, Ondossagon, Wannebo, Church Corner, and Paulson roads are all marked as bicycle routes on the Ashland-Bayfield County Bicycle Map (2014). Part of the attraction of these roads for bicyclists is the “scenic, rural road” experience as opposed to the experience on state and county highways. There is a hazard posed by increasing both motor vehicle use and bicycle use in a single lane with no paved shoulder. The group encouraged taking steps to make paved town roads safer for bicycles without having to make major investments in expanding the width of the roads. Rather the group encouragedreducing the speed limit on these roads to 45 mph and posting “Share the Road” with bikes and pedestrians signs. The group recommends promoting non-motorized use of town roads in the future at the same time as it recognizes the financial and aesthetic limits to expanding the amount of pavement.The group also encouraged a policy to

   discourage increasing the mileage of town roads. If multiple residences are built on a shared driveway, the town should be clear that the driveway will remain a private expense, and the town road network will not be expanded. The town driveway ordinance should be enforced to assure adequate access for emergency vehicles.

8. Kim mentioned that the City of Washburn tested clay being excavated from the Bayfield Street project and determined that an adequate amount of suitable material is available to repair the clay cap of the closed landfill. The group said that the importance of perpetual protection of groundwater recharge areas should be made more prominent in the updated plan.

9. The meeting adjourned at 8:43 P.M. (Cyndi moves, Tim seconds).

Draft submitted by: Kenneth Bro, Chair, Town of Washburn Plan Commission (August 6, 2024).

‘

Plan Commission Report

The commission recommends including a ⅓-page insert in the town’s September mailing to make residents aware of the process to update the plan and to encourage community engagement in updating the plan.