Planning board frustration with the town board's handling of site plans—and a threatened legal challenge tied to Gunn Creek—dominated part of the workshop.

Speaker 3 summarized concerns that planning board members feel their input is not returned in a timely or substantive way and said the planning board 'wants to sue us over Gunn Creek.' Speaker 3 described a discrepancy between earlier concept plans (which included a gazebo and certain paths) and later detailed plans that omitted those items, creating the impression for planning board members that negotiated amenities were taken away.

Speaker 1 acknowledged residents had petitioned against a rear‑yard path and noted constituent opposition but emphasized that negotiated plan elements are part of the development process. 'It was part of the plan when they built their houses,' Speaker 3 said, describing the board's position that negotiated items should not be removed without clear explanations. Board members debated whether to return plans to the planning board for additional review; Speaker 1 said the town would discuss legal strategy in executive session regarding the Article 78 matter.

No final resolution was recorded in the workshop; the town indicated the topic would be discussed in executive session and in future meetings with the planning board.